Quartz CAN Form in a Melt!

Home Forums General Discussion Quartz CAN Form in a Melt!

This topic contains 7 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Barry 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30886

    Barry
    Participant

    One thing that disturbs me about reading the UM is how often Dean Sessions doesn’t seem to realize that he is giving contradictory information, or that he is withholding important information from the reader, or that there is far better evidence for ideas other than his. I came to the conclusion that he must be one of those people who just can’t process information that contradicts their ideas. Here’s an example. All through the book, an enormous number of arguments are based on the idea that quartz and other minerals cannot have formed from molten material. On p. 161, for instance, the UM says:

    In the Magma Pseudothcory chapter, we presented evidence showing why magma is a myth and why natural quartz did not come from a melt. It is important to realize that the science of geology has been unsuccessful, from the magma perspective, in producing most of Nature’s minerals. Granite is considered a plutonic rock (cooled magma-so urced rock made deep in the crust). It often exhibits large crystals of quartz and feldspar. For over a century, geologists have tried unsuccessfully to make granite from a melt:

    “Plutonic textures have not been duplicated in the laboratory, however. The complete crystallization of the interstitial liquid as large crystals has not been achieved in granitic melts.”

    The source of the quotation in the second paragraph is Paul Hess (1989) Origins of Igneous Rocks, p. 70. I imagine we can assume that Dean Sessions read the whole paragraph, can’t we? Because here are some other passages from the very same paragraph.

    Coarse-grained plutonic rocks are produced over several millions of years of slow cooling and crystallization. Nevertheless, experiments show that feldspars of the size and shape typical of plutonic rocks can be grown in a matter of days or weeks in the laboratory…. Peak growth rates of feldspar and quartz in hydrous granitic melts are in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-8 cm/sec, and growth rates of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine are even greater in more depolymerized melts. Even the slowest growth rates are capable of producing crystals several centimeters in diameter in a few years. The very slow cooling rates of deep-seated rocks are not necessary for the formation of large crystals.

    So really, you CAN make (and petrologists HAVE made) the minerals in granite from a hydrous granitic melt, but experimentalists don’t have time to make synthetic granites with crystals the same size as in natural granites.

    On the other side, we have Dean Sessions, who can grow quartz in a hydrothermal solution. This proves nothing, since geologists also think quartz sometimes forms naturally from hydrothermal solutions. (It can even form from vapor!) Can he form granite from a hydrothermal solution? Because quartz obviously doesn’t form by itself in granite, right? No, he can’t, and yet he’s making a big deal about how geologists CAN form synthetic granite from a melt, but they can’t crystals as big as natural ones from a granitic melt. (In fact, he never even makes clear that you CAN make quartz from a melt.)

    Does this bother you at all, UM Team?

    #30889

    Another great point, Barry. Hooray for open discussion!

    #30919
    Courtney Snell
    Courtney Snell
    Moderator

    Barry, you make claims in your first paragraph that are not supported in the text of your argument. This is especially true in regard to the author of the UM. Additionally, the evidence that you do provide, which you claimed that the UM withheld, only serves to support the UM model.

    Your premise is that modern science also claims that granite and other forms of quartz based rock can and has been created in the lab. Upon that we agree. But your suggestion is that they are made from a magmatic type (or heat only) melt as they would be found naturally in modern science’s paradigm. However, the source that you provide as proof for this idea is from a neighboring paragraph to one that the UM quotes as well, “experiments show that feldspars of the size and shape typical of plutonic rocks can be grown in a matter of days or weeks in the laboratory…. Peak growth rates of feldspar and quartz in hydrous granitic melts are in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-8 cm/sec, and growth rates of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine are even greater in more depolymerized melts.” You fail to point out that these laboratory tests are performed in hydrous (water) environments rather than magmatic (magma) environments which would be reflective of the natural environment championed by modern science.

    So, you are using a Universal Model style experiment which includes water, pressure and heat to try to disprove the Universal Model and then claim that crystals really do come from melted magma. The UM would call that the Mingle – mingling truth with error.

    #30932

    Barry
    Participant

    Hi Courtney,

    The experiments I was talking about take place with maybe a percent or two of water, so yes, they involve ACTUAL MELTED ROCK in an environment that includes a small amount of water vapor. (Why WOULDN’T natural magma have some water around? Water vapor comes out of volcanoes, after all.) This is FAR different than growing quartz in an autoclave, for heaven’s sake.

    So part your argument is called a “straw man”, which is an actual term people use in rhetoric and logic (as opposed to “the Mingle”). This means that you disprove something your opponent doesn’t actually claim, and pretend they do claim it. You say that in “modern science’s paradigm,” igneous rocks are made from a “magmatic type (or heat only) melt.” However, this is patently false. Here’s a challenge for you. Go dig out a bunch of igneous petrology books from a university library, and find me a single one of them that says magma isn’t supposed to have any water vapor present. I’m betting you can’t do it, except maybe if you go back over 100 years. In fact, why don’t you look in Paul Hess’s book Dean Sessions quoted from? He obviously thinks that book is a representative source for the field of igneous petrology.

    Another part of your argument is called “false equivalence.” Here’s how it’s explained on Wikipedia.

    A common way for this fallacy to be perpetrated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn’t bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

    For example, you say I am “using a Universal Model style experiment which includes water, pressure and heat to try to disprove the Universal Model and then claim that crystals really do come from melted magma.” Really? So growing crystals from a melt in the presence of a little water vapor is the same as growing them from aqueous solution in an autoclave? Please. And claiming minerals never come from a melt, when this is false, is equivalent to quoting a petrologist saying minerals come out of a hydrous melt, and then not bothering to specifically point out to readers that “hydrous” means there was water vapor present? I don’t think so.

    So back to the original question. Why do you think Dean Sessions repeatedly says you can’t grow quartz and the other minerals in granite from melted rock, when his sources say you can, as long as a little water vapor is present?

    I have a blog post up called “Quartz is Not Glass. So What?” if you want more info about this. I would link it here, but every time I try to link to my blog, the moderator here deletes the post.

    #31181
    UM Team
    UM Team
    Moderator

    Barry,

    Once again, we thank you for your “competent critiques” on the UM and as with any other human endeavor, we acknowledge that the UM is not perfect and we wish to correct any errors that may be found in it. The problem you are faced with, as we noted at the end of our previous reply on May 4th, is that you are decidedly in the scientific establishment black box, your arguments in its favor clearly demonstrate that fact. As such, you may have the majority of “consensus” on your side, but by no means can you claim exclusivity when it comes to a corner on logic, reason and truth. The public will ultimately decide the fate of the UM. Just as the public decided the fate of the Copernican, Newtonian and Chemical revolutions. Truth, once it is exposed  becomes self-evident in time and the old ways simply die-out. The scientific establishment of which you are a part is not used to dealing with revolutionary ideas in science because few have dared to question the “settled science” with an entirely new basis or foundation. It has not happened in any of our life times, and it is remarkable to see how many, when presented with the “Big Picture” of Modern Science (i.e. everything comes from nothing) for the first time, immediately see it as illogical and ill conceived.

    This Forum thread has been titled by you as “Quartz CAN Form in a Melt, which on its face is a false statement. Let’s see if we can clarify the falsity of this statement right up front. The UM has made quartz as seen in Fig 7.4.13 on page 266 of the UM. Have you done this or do you know anyone personally who has? If not, why not? With quartz being the most abundant mineral on the continental crust (p101 of UM), shouldn’t modern geology be interested in exactly how, and in what environment quartz formes? Most scientists including geologists we have spoken to have never even seen water inside a rock – they were never shown how common rocks that are quartz-based grow (precipitate) from water. The UM shows how most rocks originally came from water and demonstrates it by observing the weight of the rock with the water in the rock before and after heating above 100 C.

    Have you made quartz crystal comparable to natural quartz from a melted solution of silica? We can answer this question for you – you have not. Why? Because no one has and this is because quartz cannot form from only melted silica. The Hyprethermal environment from which natural quartz crystals grow can only be duplicated in a water environment. So you should have no problem with the fact that the UM has produced not only synthetic quartz, (see p266 of UM), on the next page under the title, “Indistinguishable” From Natural Quartz, we find the quartz that we have made indistinguishable from the real thing. The following quote from Gems Made by Man, by Kurt Nassau, which is the most authoritative book on this matter we were able to find, states:

    “No consistent identifying features are known a present for the reliable differentiation of synthetic from natural quartz and the two types are so far indistinguishable.” (p267 UM)

    This important statement supports the UM Identity Principle which states: Identical results come from duplicating processes found in Nature. This imperative statement of course relates to the HYPRETHERMAL environment in which quartz was made, which means being encompassed or grown from water under high pressure and relatively low temperature (350 C). It is similar to how we can literally watch salt grow out of water when a supersaturated solution is cooled. We will be explaining more about this in Volume III of the UM where we find water being the organizing crystalline factor of all natural minerals formed. Nevertheless, the mineral quartz is only formed under specific pressures, temperatures, in water and with some other factors, none of which involve a “melt”.

    See Fig 5.7.6 p103 and Fig 7.4.17 p268 (above diagram) that are found in the UM for details of the Silica Phase Diagram, which has been around for a long time and has been verified by many physicists and is empirical evidence, not theory. In this Diagram the pressures and temperatures wherein 99.999% of the natural silica or Quartz is grown or melted into a glass, are clearly delineated and show that if the pressure or temperature are too high, Coesite, Stishovite, Beta Quartz, Tridymite or glass are formed. We must keep in mind that these other types of silica, which are still SiO2 are NOT the same as natural (Alpha) quartz that make up almost all of the natural minerals found on the Earth. Natural quartz is only made under very specific low temperatures (typically about 325-400 degrees celsius), high pressures and in water, not from melted rock requiring at least 1,700 degrees celsius. Although the word melt is used loosely here and in most geology textbooks, to clarify, let’s define it as above 1700 C at atmospheric pressure, which many references can be found to show that this is the quartz melting point. Although pressures can change this melting point, in the Silica Phase Diagram we can see Natural quartz is formed nowhere near the liquid silica temperatures which turns into glass when it is cooled. Anyone can understand this by watching YouTube videos where natural quartz sand turns into glass when it is melted in a factory to make are panes of windows. What the geologists say happens deep inside the Earth, on the other hand, remains speculative, as we see in the following quote from the Understanding Earth geology textbook p83 (Bib 59 in UM):

    “How do Rocks Melt? Although we do not yet understand the exact mechanisms of melting and solidification…”

    Modern geology has had to admit they do not understand because the magmaplanet theory is false and doesn’t hold up. If the Earth were a sphere because it was a ball of melted rock in space, why wouldn’t all rocks we find on the surface today be glass from a melt? Although the geologists go on in their quote above, “How do Rocks Melt” by saying they have performed laboratory experiments which tell them how rocks melt, all we have to do is look at their best theory (from Bowen’s Theory of Magmatic Differentiation see page 122-123 in UM) and we find no answers. It is only a theory that has never worked and has produced no natural law from which the public can understand the simple formation of rocks and minerals. On the other hand, the Hydroplanet model clearly explains and demonstrates the Earth’s formative environment with water as all natural rocks and living things first formed from water.

    In fact, the Understanding Earth geology textbook states Bowen’s experiments and theory done in the early 1900s are “accepted today as the idealized progression of minerals produced by cooling magma” found on page 123 of UM, also states:

    “The biggest problem, however, was the source of granite. The first sticking point is that the great volume of granite found on Earth could not have been formed as Bowen’s reaction series suggests.

    “Bowen’s original theory of magmatic differentiation has been supplanted since he proposed it many decades ago.”

    What does “supplanted” mean? Well, from the same page in the textbook we find:

    “Nevertheless, as we noted earlier, most later work on the differentiation of igneous rocks was built upon the foundation of Bowen’s ideas.”

    What happens when we build new theories on false theories? This is exactly what has happened, not only in geology, but in every major field of science today where pseudotheories are present.

    Specifically addressing your statement from page 161 of the UM where you quote the UM:

    “In the Magma Pseudotheory chapter, we presented evidence showing why magma is a myth and why natural quartz did not come from a melt. It is important to realize that the science of geology has been unsuccessful, from the magma perspective, in producing most of Nature’s minerals. Granite is considered a plutonic rock (cooled magma-sourced rock made deep in the crust). It often exhibits large crystals of quartz and feldspar. For over a century, geologists have tried unsuccessfully to make granite from a melt.”

    You then commented on this quote found on the same page of the UM, made by by Paul Hess (1989) Origins of Igneous Rocks, p70:

    “Plutonic textures have not been duplicated in the laboratory, however. The complete crystallization of the interstitial liquid as large crystals has not been achieved in granitic melts.”

    This statement confirms what the authors of Understanding Earth geology textbook stated above concerning the failure of Bowman’s theory and his experiments with granitic melts. However, the other passages from the same Hess paragraph you claim that we overlooked are noted here:

    “Coarse-grained plutonic rocks are produced over several millions of years of slow cooling and crystallization. Nevertheless, experiments show that feldspars of the size and shape typical of plutonic rocks can be grown in a matter of days or weeks in the laboratory…. Peak growth rates of feldspar and quartz in hydrous granitic melts are in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-8 cm/sec, and growth rates of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine are even greater in more depolymerized melts. Even the slowest growth rates are capable of producing crystals several centimeters in diameter in a few years. The very slow cooling rates of deep-seated rocks are not necessary for the formation of large crystals.”

    Once again you have shown that as long as “peer reviewed” quotes cite actual observations, they have supported the UM position. In this case, every time we see “million of years” needed for anything we can ignore it is only theory because it is not demonstrable and thus not observable and therefore NOT science as noted in this first sentence. The next sentence, mentioned that the experiment was in water (hydrous) and only needed days to produce very small crystals, but no details on temperature, pressure, or the nature of the mineral is stated and Hess is simply talking about what he thinks other researchers have done. It is the last sentence that includes what is important; on p161 of the UM, where the “very slow cooling rates of deep-seated rocks are not necessary.” The millions of years that Hess mentioned in the first sentence appears to let other geologists know he still follows the geological time mantra and won’t get in trouble for saying that rocks can be made in days. How many people know of a rock they can hold in their hand after observing its formation in one day? How many? No one among thousands we talk to, until they hear about it in the UM. Thus, teachers are not teaching the simple fact that natural rocks can grow out of water just as synthetic, or man-made rocks do; and they can be made in days.

    Perhaps you could give the four pages that describe how Glass is NOT Quartz (p101-105 of the UM) to several people that have not had your geological training and see if they can’t see how simple it is to grasp. Then have them read pages 257-273, beginning with the Enhydro Evidence, and see if real water in rock examples do not make complete sense for the first time when we realize that ALL natural minerals were first formed from water. This is why the Earth is a sphere – it had to be a liquid in space when it formed, and the ONLY large amount of liquid in space is water! In fact, who has ever observed magma or a melt to take place in space? Answer: no one. But as subchapter 7.2 (p234) demonstrates, water is found all over our solar system and on every planet and even the Sun and in the Orion Nebula, “The birthplace of the Stars” (NASA) wherever we have taken the time to look. And this is just for starters. Wait until you read about all the water in the Universe in Volume III.

    Over the decades that the UM has been in development, it helps to understand that critical responses not unlike yours have already been taken into account many times. Experts in their fields of study have a very difficult time jettisoning their favorite pseudotheories they have been teaching for so many years. It has ever been thus, change is difficult even when the truth is so plain as to be obvious. Indeed a wise teacher once quipped after quoting a well-known adage: “Yes, the Truth will make you free, but it will make you really uncomfortable first!” The science language you use every day has been confounded by the UM and we understand this.

    With the UM now released to the public, you have a chance to be one of the first geologists to read Volume I and actually contemplate that what you are reading just might be real. No, it is not perfect, we certainly have never made any claim that it was and we expect that corrections will need to be made from time to time, but the overwhelming evidence must be considered by every truth-loving individual. We are assuming you believe that there is truth, right? Many scientists do not and we quote them throughout the UM stating as much. The UM is the first revolution in science in any of our lifetimes and has brought overwhelming excitement to literally thousands who have begun the UM journey and begun to see for the first time, the stunning body of empirical evidence that they can both observe and evaluate for themselves. This is causing many to completely change their previously held worldview. It is scientifically illogical to conclude that we originate from nothing – even though modern science says we did. And yes, the quotes of the modern scientists are there to read for yourself stating that each step of the Big Picture of Modern Science (that we come from nothing) is actually taught throughout the world.

    We find a good example of how modern geology is coming closer everyday to the new discoveries found in the UM as relating to glass melt as we look at an article at phys.org that came out recently on May 5, 2017 and titled, New theory on how Earth’s crust was created. Note that the article points out a fact in the opening sentence which helps explain why the UM makes such a big deal about quartz, because, “More than 90% of the Earth’s continental crust is made up of silica-rich minerals, such as feldspar and quartz.” Thus, the first step we must take as investigators of Nature is to find out what kind of environment quartz can grow in – and it is not from a melt as the UM has shown, supported by  all the research we have examined. It clearly is NOT demonstrated in the geology textbooks or classrooms. The UM demonstrates it further by taking the “most abundant volcanic rock basalt” (as stated in most geology textbooks and on Google), which is, in fact, a quartz based rock – and simply melts it. See Fig 8.7.4 p567 in UM for an image of basalt that has been melted by a torch. The smooth black glass area not only looks totally different from the quartz-based basalt sample that supposedly came from a melted lava flow. Glass is 1000 times less heat conductive than quartz and breaks when dropped on the ground, whereas quartz and basalt are very durable. How do you explain this, Barry? Also can you explain why no-one that we could find (after an exhaustive research) has ever observed basalt coming from a volcanic lava ‘melt’, even though basalt covers vast areas of continents? Afterall, lava (not basalt) is seen cooling all around the world. Neither the public nor the geologist has been aware of this simple observational fact that the UM has exposed.

    From what we have found, geologists must first acknowledge that in a laboratory, the only reproducible quartz ever grown of which you can hold in your hand, (several cm for instance), grew out of water in a hypretherm, indistinguishable from natural quartz. This process is actually observable in nature, growing right now in natural settings on the bottom of the ocean as seen at TAG Mound (see p608 and 651 in UM.) Please do your own research on this topic, but realize that if the science you talk about growing quartz from a melt is real (even if you use just 1% water), it has to be duplicatable and the quartz grown has to be shown to be “indistinguishable” from natural quartz.

    The phys.org article goes on to state geology’s standard theory of the formation of the Earth from an “ocean of magma” or magmaplanet as the UM calls it. This entire melted rock “theory” is the first problem; professors (maybe not yourself) and their textbooks are teaching this accretion theory as fact when they have no physical evidence to support the theory. The second problem, is that the melted rock is claimed to come from impact, which is also a pseudotheory as shown in the Hydroplanet subchapters 7.8-7.16. Much of this new information is new physics and may not be your area of expertise, but it has been presented and shown such that it is simple and clear for all to understand and comprehend why the accretion theory is a false idea. Neither you nor anyone else will grasp all this new information in a couple of days, which is why we ask you to reconsider your almost daily posting of critiques until you have taken the proper time to fully absorb and evaluate the entire content of Volume I. In addition, before passing judgement on just this Volume, please note that Volume II and III add hundreds more examples of new discovery and evidences that reinforces the information and models in Volume 1.

    The New theory on how Earth’s crust was created article in phys.org then goes on to discuss the possibility of the Earth’s crust being formed from a pressurized, heated water environment in the Earth’s atmosphere. Why would they even consider such a thing if modern geology had already figured out how all the crustal quartz was made? Obviously they haven’t, but at least this theory is better than what the current textbooks say because it involves water! The description used is “high temperature steam.” However, it is flawed for several reasons, which the UM discusses in detail in the Hydroplanet subchapters 7.8-7.16, summarized in part here. The two main problems deal with pressure and time, both requirements for crystal growth, which determine the hardness (and type) of crystal and the size of the crystal. In the article, Baker and Sofonio are actually correct in thinking that some of the sediment of the crust (actually a majority of it) “settled onto” the surface of the Earth, just not billions of years ago or out of an atmosphere. The Earth’s sediments were not made primarily from erosion as taught by modern geology, but from the waters of the Universal Flood as demonstrated in subchapters 8.4-8.6. In the UM we have reproduced sandstone, showing experimentally how the planet’s sandstone formed. This same environment existed on Earth just over four millennia ago.

    Baker and Sofonio’s theory does not explain how the melted silica in the upper atmosphere could be under high pressure? The pressure in the upper atmosphere naturally decreases as we rise in elevation, it does not increase. Suppose the high pressure lasted for a fraction of a second from the impact/explosion of meteoroids; this cannot work because the small amount of time is not sufficient for crystal grown sediment, even fine grain sand or silt. The researchers actually list in Table 1 that their two runs involved 48 and 168 hours of heating, which of course does not work if the pressure involved lasted only a fraction of a second. We discovered the time needed by actually growing quartz, which is why having that experience was so important, and why future geological discoveries will have to incorporate the hyprethermal grown process in their mineral making theories if they want them to match what happened in Nature.

    Moreover, as the Sand Mark of the UM (subchapter 8.5) elucidates with a large amount of evidence, much (at least 50%) of the Earth’s sediment came from microorganisms! In Fig 8.5.6 and 7 (p534-536 in UM) we find silt and sand sediments made of diatoms; organisms that lived in the seas that were fossilized in the Universal Flood. While this new discovery has been generally ignored by modern geology, the fossilized sediment could not have come from an explosion in the upper atmosphere (Baker and Sofonio’s theory) or from water from some other terrestrial body because this would have created glass – not authigenic (made in place) quartz diatoms or algal cysts as we actually find in Nature.  The actual article in phys.org (A metasomatic Mechanism for the formation of Earth’s earliest evolved crust, Baker, Sofonio, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 463, 2017, p48-55) states:

    “The quenched solute was dominated by glass with less than 1% anhedral quartz, iron oxide and plagioclase quench crystals.”

    So not only did the experiment produce over 99% GLASS, which is not found all over the surface of the Earth, where do we find glass stones (or sand/silt) all around the globe? We don’t. Sandstones made of primarily quartz this is what we find, not glass stones/sand/silt, and modern geology has no real origin for the vast majority of sand or sandstone that covers much of the surface of the Earth, which we explain in subchapters 6.3 and 8.5 of the UM. The researchers also did not explain what kind or how they knew the type of the small (less than 1%) quartz or mineral that was made. Anhedral quartz probably means it was not Alpha quartz, which is what is found almost exclusively in Nature.

    Jurgen Schieber of Indiana University who published in the journal of Nature on his discovery of the widespread existence of  authigenic (made in place) quartz sediment formed with microorganisms states (p535 in UM):

    “If authigenic/intrabasinal quartz silt is widespread, a large portion of the sedimentary record may have been misinterpreted, with important implications in a variety of research areas.” His comment that a “large portion of the sedimentary record may have been misinterpreted” is exactly what the UM sets out to correct. . Schieber personally informed us that he would not be surprised if “as much as 50% of the quartz ‘grains’ in the rock record” are from an authigenic origin, and were made in place, NOT from erosion. This quartz fossilized sediment found all over the surface of the Earth today is explained in the Sand Mark, and could only form in an ocean of pressurized, heated, water; an environment called The Universal Flood Hypretherm (p528-546 of the UM).

    Summarizing the Baker and Sofonio article, these researchers actually performed a hyprethermal experiment (this means in high temperature water steam) as noted in the phys.org article:

    “A mixture of bulk silicate earth materials and water was melted in air at 1,550 degrees Celsius, then ground to a powder. Small amounts of the powder, along with water, were then enclosed in gold palladium capsules, placed in a pressure vessel and heated to about 727 degrees Celsius and 100 times Earth’s surface pressure to simulate conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere about 1 million years after the moon-forming impact. After each experiment, samples were rapidly quenched and the material that had been dissolved in the high temperature steam analyzed.”

    Of course, the “1 million years” is not scientific because it cannot be observed or proven, and as we explain in the yet to publish Age Model chapter (first chapter of Volume II), all of the millions-of-years time frames are fabricated from false premises. Another point is that this real experiment produced over 99% glass. We note in the UM the uncontroversial fact that both the Moon and Earth are not celestial glass bodies. Thus, although the Baker and Sofonio article attempts to explain an alternate source for the continental sediment, their original premise begins from the modern science theory of accretion, and it fails to adequately explain the vast majority of the Earth’s sediments. And the UM explains in subchapter 5.13 why the so-called millions-of-years of subduction and uplift cannot explain that glass was somehow transformed into extant quartz based rocks.

    By the way, we should ask if you are in accord with the UM definition of Science found on page 40:

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

    If you agree with this definition, then we should have no trouble in being able to successfully arrive at a place of agreement since our focus is on “demonstrable truths and natural laws.” If you disagree with this definition of science, then we would be curious to know what your definition of ‘science’ is. If our readers observe that your definition is significantly different than the one above it will also serve to explain to our readers why we will likely never come to a place of unity or mutual understanding. Please also note the purpose of science as noted in the UM (p40):

    “To describe and explain Nature so that we can understand and comprehend it.”

    Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If you hadn’t noticed, we try to define every important or rarely-used term or new concept in the UM so that all readers know exactly what this textbook is talking about.

     

    As you can see from this research, there are hundreds of interrelated discoveries contained in the UM that correlate with many other discoveries, creating the mosaic we display as the New Millennial Science puzzle shown in Chapter 1 as seen above. This puzzle shows pieces fitting together in an orderly fashion, forming a better picture that for many actually makes sense. This connecting of new information can be overwhelming for anyone, but we encourage you to simply read the first Volume of the UM entirely to find answers to your questions. We believe the vast majority will be found there. We cannot reproduce the entirety of the UM text in this limited forum, yet that is, in effect, what you are asking us to do with your questions which are already answered in the book. It is not the purpose of this forum to dissect and reassemble the 27 years of research, study and experimentation that went into the UM.  All of which is already amply documented in the nearly 2,000 pages of the Universal Model Volumes I, II, III. Therefore, we earnestly admonish you, that if you truly wish to objectively evaluate the claims and evidences of the UM, that you dedicate the requisite time, effort and patience to actually read the claims, the logic, the research, the experiments, the evidences and the thousands of ‘peer-reviewed’ article quotations found in the UM.

    You asked at the end of your UM and Heat Flow post on May 6th if we could “actually recognize” the scientific black box? What other single authored book do you know of that has around 6,000 quotes from peer-reviewed journals, scientific textbooks and websites? We think this qualifies us for actually recognizing the scientific black box.

    Hopefully, you will have an uplifting experience as you contemplate your “First Law of the Box”, open the scientifically established box and let the light in.

    Barry’s First Law of the Box:

    Thinking outside the box’ requires being capable of recognizing “the box.”  

    We truly hope you will at some point in the future, help sharpen and perfect all of the new discoveries in this New Millennial Science as one of our esteemed peers and colleagues.

    Best wishes,
    The UM Team

    #31199

    Barry
    Participant

    Hi UM Team,

    Thank you for confirming that quartz can, in fact, form from a melt, contrary to what you say in your book (see p. 105, for instance). As you point out, it can also form from hydrothermal solutions and from the vapor phase. But since no geologist would dispute that, I fail to see how it addresses the problem I brought up.

    Anyway, I also want to thank you for clarifying a few other issues. Here are the points I got out of your reply above.

    1. You know full well that quartz and other minerals can form from a melt, but you are able to rationalize your explicit false statements to the contrary by noting that experimental petrologists haven’t been able to grow the crystals in synthetic granites as big as they occur in natural granites. And since crystal size is controlled by (among other things) cooling rate, and granites are thought to cool over long periods, you probably never have to worry about experimental petrologists ever producing evidence that meets your high standards.

    2. You are allowed to ignore your high standards of evidence whenever it’s convenient for you. For instance, you cite the UM Identity Principle, “Identical results come from duplicating processes found in Nature.” Then you point out that you can use your autoclave to grow gem-quality quartz crystals that are essentially identical to natural, gem-quality quartz crystals… you know… the kind that geologists think are made by a similar process. But what you haven’t done is simultaneously grow quartz, two types of feldspars, micas, and so on all together in one mass in your autoclave. Before you start claiming that you have demonstrated how quartz grows in granitic rocks, don’t you think you ought to be able to produce a synthetic granite that is indistinguishable from natural granite? And if geologists actually think that granites come from hydrous granitic melts, why are you so insistent that experiments with pure silica melts disprove what geologists think?

    3. You think that because you are able to string together “around 6,000 quotes from peer-reviewed journals, scientific textbooks and websites,” you are obviously able to understand the science explained there. Nope.

    4. I didn’t know about some of those discoveries of water in space. I actually think that’s pretty cool (although I think you take that information and extrapolate FAR beyond what anyone has ever demonstrated, or even argued for.)

    5. You have a ready-made excuse to dismiss almost any argument someone like me can make. That is, no single person has ever replicated every important experiment every scientist has ever done. So if you cite a scientific book to bolster your argument that quartz can’t form from a melt, and then I point out how the same book, in the same paragraph, explicitly talks about people forming quartz from a hydrous granitic MELT, you can just brush it off because I didn’t personally do those experiments, and neither did the author of the petrology textbook you cited. Of course, you don’t give me any reason I should think those scientists were lying about what they reported, and you cite plenty of experimental work you haven’t replicated yourself, but…. But nothing.

    6. When you read scientific literature, you are really just browsing for keywords, rather than trying to comprehend. If you find the word “hydrous” with the word “melt”, then obviously it must be talking about hydrothermal growth like in your autoclave, and they must be using the word “melt” loosely, to mean something like “not a melt”.

    7. You aren’t even willing to look up words you don’t know when you read scientific literature. You say, “Anhedral quartz probably means it was not Alpha quartz, which is what is found almost exclusively in Nature.” Um… no. Anhedral means it doesn’t have nice crystal faces, which often happens when crystal growth is diffusion limited, and occurs over a short time period. The crystal structure is still the same. Incidentally, you also don’t seem to understand that it’s impossible for beta-quartz to exist at Earth-surface conditions. You might have picked that up if you had read my article, “Quartz is not Glass. So What?”, on my blog. I tried posting a link to it on your forum, but you guys deleted it.

    8. Whenever geologists try to reconstruct something that happened in the distant past, or happens in a place (like deep inside the Earth) that can’t be directly observed, you take that to mean their conclusions are “not scientific because [they] cannot be observed or proven.” And yet, when you try to reconstruct something that happened in the distant past, or happens in a place that can’t be directly observed, it’s really, really scientific.

    9. When scientists look at the work of someone like Norman Bowen, figure out that it can’t explain all their observations, modify their theories to better encompass all their observations, but still hold on to some ideas from the previous work they think are still valuable… you take that to mean they are basing all their current theories on something that was proven false. Funny, I thought it showed that those guys were open-minded enough to recognize flaws in theories and try to correct them, but try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    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. If you really, really want to know exactly how I think science works, take a look at an essay I published in BYU Studies Quarterly, called “Science as Storytelling”. I hope you will not use the title of that essay to falsely claim that I think science is all a bunch of fiction. Even if I did believe in your definition of science, it’s clear that you don’t follow it yourself.

    #31258

    Barry
    Participant

    The Universal Model (UM) relies very heavily on the claim that the quartz found in nature cannot possibly have formed from molten material. In a recent post, “Quartz is Not Glass. So What?”, I debunked their assertion that only glass, and never minerals like quartz, can form from molten rock. I even provided an example where Dean Sessions had quoted a geology textbook to support his argument, but ignored part of the same paragraph that said experimental petrologists have grown quartz and other minerals from hydrous granitic melts.

    I brought this up in the discussion forum on the UM website, but to no avail. The UM Team insists that because it was a “hydrous” granitic melt, that means that it must be just like growing it in a hot, pressurized vat of water like they do in Dean Sessions’ garage. And plus the petrologist must not have really meant “melt” in a literal sense, and besides that the quartz they grew from the… some OTHER thing than a melt that they nevertheless called a melt… didn’t have as big crystals as natural granites. Oh, and there was a lot of stuff about how great the UM is, and how if I would just stop being so stubborn and open my mind to their glorious new vision of science, I could step with them into a triumphant future…. You get the idea.

    So anyway, the UM Team is still stuck on the whole “only glass can come from a melt” thing. Because I am a helpful sort of guy, however, I’m going to give their metaphorical pot another stir. That is, even if the UM Team were right that only glass could form from a melt, they would still have a problem. Quartz and other crystals can form from glass.

    Yep. It’s called “devitrification,” and I found a really great example for the UM Team to mull over. In 1997, a couple scientists from Stanford and the U.S. Geological Survey published a paper called, “Kinetics of the Coesite to Quartz Transformation” in Earth and Planetary Science Letters. First, they obtained some essentially pure silica glass from Corning, and baked it at 1000 °C and 3.6 GPa pressure for 24 hours. This produced coesite, which is a high-pressure polymorph (same chemical formula, different molecular-scale structure) of quartz. Then they adjusted the conditions to 700–1000°C at pressures of 190–410 MPa, which caused some of the coesite to transform into quartz. There was no water present, although the atoms in the original glass were about 0.1% hydrogen.

    Now let’s review a couple of the demonstrably false statements in the UM that this information contradicts.

    We know the physical properties of coesite and other high pressure. high temperature, silica-based minerals depicted in the Silica Phase Diagram, because of laboratory experiments conducted by scientists who were able to produce these minerals. After mineral formation, temperature and pressure return to normalized conditions and researchers observe and measure the physical properties of the minerals, such as density and crystal structure. Once heated, the minerals do not revert to natural quartz after they cool and/or with pressure reduction; the properties and crystalline structure of the minerals arc preserved, remaining as they were when formed. (UM, Vol. 1, pp. 102-103)
    FALSE. In the experiments I described, coesite was produced from glass, the temperature and pressure were reduced (just not all the way to Earth surface conditions) and quartz formed.

    The Moon and other planets, Mars and Mercury, must show the telltale signs of a glass-like crust if they originated from a magmatic melt. (UM, Vol. 1, p. 105)
    FALSE. Even if glass were the only possible product of a cooling melt (and it isn’t), the glass could still transform to a crystalline state under the right conditions.

    #31260

    Barry
    Participant

    Here’s the link to the Earth and Planetary Science Letters article I cited:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X97001593

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.