Session 16 September 2017

zak said:
zak said:
Laura said:
Data said:
You may have seen this illustration before, but this is allegedly the total volume of water on Earth if collected into a sphere. Looks like it is 'not much'.

That is undoubtedly ridiculous! Surely they only mean fresh water?

Quick, somebody calculate the volume of earth's water and the volume of Earth itself and put them side by side as cubes.

It's what i think, only represent the fresh water part.
It's somewhere in this LINK, but i don't remember exactly where !

Well, finally i found the where of the somewhere from the link, and it's not only the fresh part as i thought !
See by yourself here:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83456&cl=78993&tid=5122

Thanks zak. That is visually easy to understand. It certainly makes you realize how precious good drinking water is. I am not sure how they determine exactly where all that water is in some of those usually inaccessible places but then perhaps they have technology for which they don't want to give detailed analysis to the public. That's just my paranoid take on it I guess.
 
No sure what to make of this presentation.
Admittedly I lack the knowledge of the true reading's, and interpretations of biblical History.

September 23 Possibilities – Is This A Great Sign? (1:54:27)
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=s51-SJoJWTc
1200px-Revelation_12_Sign.gif
 
goyacobol said:
Thanks zak. That is visually easy to understand. It certainly makes you realize how precious good drinking water is.

Indeed... It's just one 'drop' of water compared to the large planetary scales!

goyacobol said:
I am not sure how they determine exactly where all that water is in some of those usually inaccessible places but then perhaps they have technology for which they don't want to give detailed analysis to the public. That's just my paranoid take on it I guess.

The volume of water given by Wikipedia is probably just the volume of the seas which is well known because we know the depth of the sea floors from satellite/echo scanning.
 
In this page there is an estimate of the known water distribution in volume (table at the end of the page).
There is still other sources that are still not accounted for in the mantle as shown here: https://www.sott.net/article/127858-Huge-Ocean-Discovered-Inside-Earth

Visually, we are not used to deal with volumes in spheres or cylinders (the confusion as to how much a glass of water can contain is well known) but a representation with cubes is more intuitive.
 
An interesting session. I'm currently reading the old transcripts from 1994 and interesting to see how the communication has developed since way back. Thank you all. :)
 
mkrnhr said:
In this page there is an estimate of the known water distribution in volume (table at the end of the page).
There is still other sources that are still not accounted for in the mantle as shown here: https://www.sott.net/article/127858-Huge-Ocean-Discovered-Inside-Earth

Visually, we are not used to deal with volumes in spheres or cylinders (the confusion as to how much a glass of water can contain is well known) but a representation with cubes is more intuitive.
In addition, I think we must take into consideration that the water that seems to disappear, may have simply transformed itself into all the elements. We are looking for the molecule of water to determine the volume of moisture, but if the molecule has been transformed to evolve the organisms. Water has mutated in all living and non-living organisms. Then it is
obvious that we can not find the volume of water that the Cassiopaeans mention.
 
mkrnhr said:
In this page there is an estimate of the known water distribution in volume (table at the end of the page).
There is still other sources that are still not accounted for in the mantle as shown here: https://www.sott.net/article/127858-Huge-Ocean-Discovered-Inside-Earth

Visually, we are not used to deal with volumes in spheres or cylinders (the confusion as to how much a glass of water can contain is well known) but a representation with cubes is more intuitive.

The underground ocean article was done in 2007 which is only 10 years ago but they may have better tools now to determine their estimates. Towards the end they said:

The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth's mantle in that part of the world is water, which works out to about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water.

"That's a real back of the envelope type calculation," Wysession said. "That's the best that we can do at this point."

I think this is an interesting subject that we probably take for granted. I feel less skeptical now that I see some of the techniques they have used to calculate the volumes. It is logical and impressive enough even if it is not perfect. It's more than I ever new before looking at it in more detail.

I thought this was a pretty picture graphically:

_https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Water/page2.php
water_cycle.jpg
 
Hello forum

Thanks for the new session, there is only one word to describe Vicente Fox: idiot, Prozac addict... i lived six years under his government.

Who is Vicente Fox Quesada? He is the man who was born 71 years ago; who studied at the Universidad Iberoamericana and took 35 years to earn a degree in Business Administration. He is the former Coca-Cola manager who entered politics inspired by the former National Action Party (PAN) and presidential candidate, Manuel J. Clouthier, "Maquio," and also because he was overwhelmed by his economic problems...

He was elected as Guanajuato governor in 1995, and from that public position he built his candidacy for the Presidency of the Mexican Republic. Years later seemed unrecognizable to some journalists, who knew it from the fraud of Guanajuato, he´s a ranchero, a macho-man. The journalists did not see him prepared to contend by the presidency....Basically V Fox took advantage of the Mexicans' hunger for change.

It is the President who provokes the mockery for it and because he believes, really, that he has been the best President in history, better than Benito Juarez...

www.sinembargo.mx/26-08-2013/717901
 
goyacobol said:
I think this is an interesting subject that we probably take for granted. I feel less skeptical now that I see some of the techniques they have used to calculate the volumes. It is logical and impressive enough even if it is not perfect. It's more than I ever new before looking at it in more detail.

Now if I only knew how to spell "new/knew" correctly I would be a genius. :P I admire all of the forum members who know other languages and still communicate here so well. I want to learn some other languages but it looks like I need more practice on English too. And it's easier proofreading someone else's mistakes than my own. That tells me something. :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom