Reply To: The UM and Heat Flow

Home Forums General Discussion The UM and Heat Flow Reply To: The UM and Heat Flow

#31677
UM TeamUM Team
Moderator

Barry,

The more we read your “competent critiques” the more we are convinced that you are not interested in finding the scientific truth to any topic discussed here in the UM Forum. One reason may arise from your personal definition of what science is. On our May 10th post in your original thread Quartz CAN Form in a Melt, we stated the UM definition of Science found on page 40 of the UM:

“A study of demonstrated truths and natural laws that describe and explain Nature.”

However, you said you did not agree with this definition as you stated in your May 10th post:

“Also, I do not agree with your definition of science, but it’s not that I don’t think there’s such a thing as truth. Rather, I think it’s harder to prove you have the Absolute Truth than you seem to want to believe.”

Perhaps you have a better, more succinct definition of science? Certainly, a professor of science must know what science is in order that he or she might teach it, so please share Barry’s short definition of science. Because we found remarkably divergent views on what science is in the scientific world, we resolved that we must be clear about the UM definition of science. Apparently we were not clear enough because you draw an incorrect conclusion that the UM claims to have Absolute Truth.

So that we can clearly state to any who read these forums, the UM has never claimed to have the Absolute Truth. We clarify this on page 19 of the UM where it reads:

“Absolute Truth is knowledge of what is, was and what always will be.”

Regarding science, how can human beings know “what always will be?” The future has not happened yet, so this is why we define Scientific Truth as:

“Scientific Truth is knowledge of what is, was and, so far as is known, what will be.”

The UM clearly defines the difference between these two types of truth; one is scientific, and the other is not. Assertions that the UM tries to “prove [we] have the Absolute Truth” are baseless. The hundreds of new scientific truths found in the UM are scientific in nature, and you would do well in your “competent” critiquing to not make false claims you cannot back up as the readers of these posts are continually seeing. Moreover, you did not comment on finding new natural law that is used in the UM definition of science. Is this because you do not believe science should be looking for new natural laws? Are you aware of the fact that no new significant natural law has been discovered in the last century like that of what Newton or Kepler found hundreds of years ago. So please provide us with your definition of science and why you choose to leave the search for natural law out of your definition as almost every modern day scientific textbook has also done. And if you do decide to include the search for new natural law into your definition of truth, please explain what new geological laws you have been looking to confirm. This will give you a better perspective to see what the UM has been trying to do for several decades, and what you have been trying to condemn without reading all of the evidence.

Referring to your May 6th post on Heat Flow, you stated that our overall conclusions may be correct, but we may have some of our claims mistaken, which we acknowledge that possibility. However, while we expect to correct our mistakes, we know that some things pointed out to us as mistakes by those outside of the UM research influence are actually not properly understood by the person reporting the mistake. Correcting mistakes is a fundamental step in the UM’s goal towards making science easier to understand and more correct and we’ve been correcting and improving the research for several decades. And we don’t take this task lightly.

You then quote a long paragraph from our previous post which stated that science is for everyone, and meant to be understood by everyone, not just the professors. You did not answer the questions posted to you why hundreds of people could see the simple truths of the UM, but you have not acknowledged even one! We asked, “On one hand, we have conventional science, which has not discovered one new significant natural law in over one hundred years, and it tells us everything came from nothing; on the other hand this new Millennial Science sets forth dozens of new natural laws that everyone can easily understand and test for themselves.”  

You posed a question in your last post: “If none of said people understand the standard scientific theories, and you describe those theories incorrectly, how can they possibly make any informed decision about such a thing?” This shows that you seem to have missed an important point. We believe people are less interested in “understanding scientific theories” and would rather  know the truth.They want to be shown the facts, and they want to learn about natural laws that do not change because those laws are simply statements of truth. The UM sets out to introduce dozens of new natural laws that truthseekers can confirm for themselves; They no longer need to “just trust” the ‘smart’ theorists to explain unproven magmaplanet, geological time, evolution, or Big Bang theories that can never be proven. Instead, they can discover the truth using new natural law constructs outlined in the UM.

To continue with meaningful dialog in this subject, it is important to understand  the four Introduction chapters in Volume 1. For instance, on page 31 we point out the establishments’ claim that the “endpoints of science are theory” (According to the National Science Foundation (NSF)). By accepting this proclamation, the scientific establishment to which you belong effectively concedes that they cannot, and are not trying to discover natural law.

As to the level of detail touched on in the UM, you asked:

“Can you at least accept that someone like me might have significant insights about whether you are fairly describing MY paradigm?”

We certainly can accept that premise; you no doubt have “significant insights” about your field of inquiry, but all of it still falls within the modern scientific paradigm, which is the very reason we are having this discussion right now. So while we acknowledge your insights into your own theories, the UM challenges the modern geology paradigm in a legitimate attempt to restore modern science to its purpose of discovering new natural law. Which means  the UM covers a broader scope but not as much depth on some subjects. Many forum readers feel that you have unfairly cherry picked a few points from individual chapters, but you take them out of context. Simply put, you cannot fairly describe the new UM paradigm without reading it.

Your challenge is to break from consensus if you truly want to be a great scientist as Michael Crichton aptly stated:

Previously, we posed a question to you; “What if this subterranean water (which scientists themselves now acknowledge exists in quantities far beyond what is found in our oceans above the crust), was the same water which covered the Earth during a Universal Flood 4,362 years ago? What if this event actually happened? What would it mean to all of modern science and to every human being that, not one or two, but hundreds of empirical evidences of the Flood actually demonstrates its reality. You admitted to thinking about this but went on to say:

“For instance, when you talk about scientists acknowledging that vast quantities of water exist in, for example, the mantle, do you realize that they are not talking about liquid water, or even ice?”

You infer that the scientists are ONLY talking about “small amounts of the elements H and O in their crystal structures” – but this is NOT correct. Again, it is clear you have not read the Hydroplanet Model, especially subchapter 7.6 (p279 of UM) where you will find no less than 27 separate quotes from geologists from around the world, each taken from “peer reviewed” articles that state exactly the opposite of your claim that, “they are not talking about liquid water.” We are fully aware of yours and other geologist’s ‘theory’ that H and O elements exist in large quantity instead of water in the mantle and core of the Earth, but your adherence to this theory shows you must have missed what other researchers actually found, which is WHY we have repeatedly asked you to read the entire Volume I before you critique the new science, in part because you seem to be unaware of what other geologists have found! We will list just a few of these and ask the readers to read for themselves the Hydroplanet Model to discover how the Earth was formed from water:

“What’s the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometers inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.. These inner ‘oceans’ could help explain long-standing puzzles about Earth’s  formation.” (p281 UM)

Another researcher states after calculating for the “water content” (not H and O as you stated) in mid-ocean ridges:

“Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.” (p281 UM)

Another researcher states:

The total water content of the inner Earth could be less than 10% or as high as 100 times the water contained in the hydrosphere… “ (p281 UM)

Another researcher states:

“The presence of a significant amount of water at the core-mantle boundary could explain some seismic characteristics of the D layer.” (p281 UM)

None of these researchers and many others not listed mention the theoretical H and O elements you refer to, but, they ALL claim that a significant amount of WATER is present. It seems you are “misinterpreting scientific sources” in your commentary, and because you have  yet to read the rest of Volume I – you are only pretending to claim expertise about it.

Based on your own admission–“I [Barry] actually haven’t done a ‘review of Chapter 5.’”–you cannot offer what you refer to as  a “competent critique” on it or any further chapter. You must READ the chapter and the evidence we offer before making comments. We show repeatedly that many modern science claims are not supported by observable science, which is supported by quotes from many scientists in the UM chapter you supposedly read. This is the epitome of bias; Drawing a preconceived conclusion without even reading the material. You also conceded:

“I have absolutely no problem with the idea that magma (at least the stuff that is too deep in the Earth to drill into and observe directly) is “theoretical,” and that we have to “infer” the existence of things we can’t directly observe, and that “inference” always involves some degree of speculation.  The real question, for me, is why you think this is so significant.” (emphasis added)

One reason this is SO IMPORTANT is that academia routinely does NOT mention that magma is a speculation in their curriculum or textbooks. Furthermore, academia does not teach students that magma is only theoretical and a speculative construct, and THIS is the problem. Every geology professor we encountered teaches the Earth as a magmaplanet as a hard FACT – this is not only highly misleading – it is intellectually dishonest.

How does one such as yourself defend this glaring omission? By deflecting and accusing the author of claiming something he never said or did:

“Alternatively, please show me how Dean Sessions observed the Earth’s deep interior directly.”

Nowhere in the UM will you find the claim that “Dean Sessions observed the Earth’s deep interior directly.” The UM challenges the inferred notion of magma, which you admit is only “speculation” despite its being taught as fact in all mainstream geology departments. Because we do, the messenger who tells the true message is now the problem.

To your next point, you acknowledge that geologists can not use radioactivity as an excuse for the heat of magma as you state:

“… geologists do not, in fact, think that there are local concentrations of radioactivity in the Earth’s interior concentrated enough to melt the rock around it.”

But you completely ignore how you or any geologist ‘thinks’ magma is heated? This is a real example of what you continue to refer to as a “straw man”. So please answer the question:

How is magma heated?

You don’t disagree with the new UM frictional melting laws but you diminish it with the comment that if it “is a good argument” our ‘other’ “bad arguments” somehow take away from this new truth outlined in the Magma Pseudotheory chapter. However, you have not presented real scientific evidence for the so-called bad UM ‘arguments’, although you continue to restate the modern science inferences.

We addressed the Fig 5.4.5 issue in detail in a previous post, but you simply ignored it. We will let the readers determine if the difference between “heat flow” and “thermal gradients” significant to the discussion about the Earth’s inner magma or absence thereof. What we think the public wants to know is why are the vast majority of caves cooler as one descends into the crust? Why does the ocean get colder at depth when it is closer to the center of the Earth? Why do the deepest boreholes not show an increasing thermal gradient as we reach toward the so-called magma core? How could a melted core create the Earth’s energy field when a heated object destroys its magnetism? How does one justify an iron core’s existence if there are no observable large accumulations of any natural mineral with  a density even close to 5.5 g/cm3 inferred by geologists? Why are modern scientists unable to find simple, clear answers to these questions within the ‘established science’ paradigm? There are many other questions we might ask, which demonstrates major problems with the inferred, “speculation” of the magmaplanet Earth. This is further supported by discoveries related to all the other planets and moons, which astrogeology and NASA now confirm have more water in their interiors than the UM’s estimates about the Earth’s interior water.

We also agree on another area of geological import! We “get extra heat flow around mid-ocean ridges.” While there should be no point of disagreement when we look at the “Actual Heat Flow Map” Fig 5.4.5, you raise the question, “why you don’t get a bunch of volcanoes and extra heat flow around, for instance, the Himalayas or the San Andreas fault.” The simple answer is that the constant movement (where most of the heat is generated) is present  generally along the the mid-oceanic ridges and in areas like the Big Island of Hawaii where many small but constant earthquakes create heat that drives the lava flows observed there. This is why we can actually measure the horizontal movement of the continental plates’, but not their vertical movement (p117-122 in UM). This explains why uplift over geological time is only a theory without merit. Slow, constant, horizontal movement keeps the mid-oceanic ridges hot and the small “silent earthquakes” discussed on page 81 in the UM, wherein Hawaiian geologists recently found previously unmeasured small earthquakes occurring in great numbers such that within 36 hours the ground moved the equivalent of a 10 cm movement! This has  caused scientists to revisit long-held doctrines about all earthquakes” (p81 of UM).

Sadly you ignore the fact that the UM clearly states from many researchers’ quotes, that the Earth’s plates are “floating” but you do not tell us what the continents are floating on? Your description of the asthenosphere from Wikipedia is typical of modern geology, stating some parts “could be melted,” and that “The lower boundary of the asthenosphere is not well defined.” However, if we look at the physical evidence from the lower crust seen in Fig 7.7.5, and if one reads subchapters 7.6 and 7.7 to gain an up-to-date picture of what geologists know (but do not all realize) about the upper and lower crust. On page 293 of the UM we find:

“It is thus reasonable to suppose that much of the lower continental crust may be a saturated environment, with excess water in equilibrium with a hydrated mineralogy unfamiliar at the surface. This suggestion that wet granitic rocks in the lower crust could account for high electrical conductivity there is not new.”

Note that no one in these articles refers to hydrogen and/or oxygen elements within the rocks. For the UM, it is all about water. Notice the words the authors used, “excess water,” “saturated,” “hydrated mineralogy unfamiliar at the surface,” and “wet granitic rocks.” Furthermore, there are dozens and dozens of pages and diagrams from the “peer reviewed” journal articles on this one topic!

In your responses, you copy large paragraphs for the readers but you often throw out one-sentence non-answers that are both repetitive and tiring. You also  completely ignored the discussion on impact cratering, which returns to the unanswered question of why there is no glass in the so-called Arizona Meteor Crater, or the 165 pages of the most in depth analysis of impact and steam explosion craters. Your response: “Yawn.”

You also state, “Yep, we have a whole cabinet full of uranium ore downstairs at work” but you ignore the fact that none of your samples are hot! They are not even warm! So how do they melt rock? They don’t. Then you ask:  

“Are you suggesting that radioactive decay doesn’t release heat?  Because that’s how nuclear reactors work, you know.  And that’s all standard geological theory requires.”

This may be what “standard geology theory requires” but it is not the whole story, and the people want the whole story. The chemical process used to enrich radioactive fuel used in nuclear reactors does not happen naturally anywhere in or on the Earth. All nuclear reactors require man-made, highly processed, enriched radioactive fuel cells, which do not come from any naturally occurring process anywhere on this planet. Perhaps this is why modern science has made the big mistake in thinking that magmatic heat comes from radioactivity..But wait, you said two pages earlier:

“… geologists do not, in fact, think that there are local concentrations of radioactivity in the Earth’s interior concentrated enough to melt the rock around it.”

You can’t have it both ways.

We have taken the time to explain in extensive detail the answers to your questions regarding this topic. Of course, Volume I has many more details than we could include in any single forum thread. You will need to more fully read and evaluate the specific portions of the UM that have been referenced in our replies and all the additional scientific evidences provided which you have chosen to avoid. Please briefly answer the questions we address in this reply before we close this topic/thread. Thank you.