Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Begin Another Attempt To Drill Through the Earth's Crust

schwit1 writes: An expedition to the Indian Ocean is about to begin an effort to drill a core down through the Earth's crust and into its mantle. Geologists have been trying to drill through the contact between the crust and the mantle, called the Moho, since the 1960s, with no success. Either the projects have gone way over budget and been shut down, have failed due to engineering problems, or were stopped by the geology itself. This last issue is maybe the most interesting: "Expeditions have come close before. Between 2002 and 2011, four holes at a site in the eastern Pacific managed to reach fine-grained, brittle rock that geologists believe to be cooled magma sitting just above the Moho. But the drill could not punch through those tenacious layers. And in 2013, drillers at the nearby Hess Deep found themselves similarly limited by tough deep-crustal rocks." This new project hopes to learn from these past problems to obtain the first rock samples from below the Earth's crust. (Here's an eccentric introduction to the Hess Deep rift.)

116 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember the earlier attempt. The Doctor stopped it by going forward in time, or went to an alternate dimension or something. I can't remember, but I do remember it destroyed the world. With Nazis.

    1. Re:I remember by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

      >> Doctor stopped it...went to an alternate dimension or something

      Yep: 3rd Doctor in "Inferno" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - and just like Star Trek you knew it was an alternate dimension because character's facial hair was different.

    2. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And one of them had an eye patch. Yes, I am a nerd.

    3. Re:I remember by tarpitcod · · Score: 1

      They had that groovy computer too.

    4. Re:I remember by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I remember a different attempt. I believe they missed the left turn at Albuquerque.

    5. Re:I remember by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Of course not. They were using KY. That means they're coming in the back door!

      Anyhow, I sometimes wonder if scientists (of which I'm told I am one though I'd disagree) are hell bent on destroying life as we know it. Now, I have absolutely no idea what will happen if they manage to drill this hole. I admit this. However, do they? Let's just weaken the crust that keeps the warm gooey bits inside. Let's unleash an unholy gob of magma onto the crust 'cause we figure that pressing the unknown red button is a good idea. What can possibly go wrong?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. The National Enquirer by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...will probably be all over this one. Eons ago they published a cover story about a super-deep oil well that had drilled into Hell and let the Devil escape...there was a picture of billowing black smoke over an oil well fire that had been retouched to make a satanic face.

    1. Re:The National Enquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm Pretty sure that was real.

    2. Re:The National Enquirer by Snowgen · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was the Weekly World News , not the National Enquirer. They have completely different styles.

    3. Re:The National Enquirer by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      That story was published by the Weekly World News. Compared to the WWN, the National Enquirer is serious journalism.

    4. Re:The National Enquirer by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Biblically the devil is not in Hell yet. He has been cast out of heaven but will not be imprisoned in hell until after the Second Coming of Christ. I know in popular culture they like to speak of him ruling in Hell and tormenting the lost souls but that doesn't follow the scripture.

    5. Re:The National Enquirer by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Actually the Enquirer was pretty lurid in the old days too. As late as 1960, it used to publish graphic photography of accident victims that nobody else would touch; I remember one multipage feature of the bodies being recovered from a big airplane crash. Only newsstands that sold jerkoff magazines would carry the paper; they toned it down in the 60's to get it into supermarkets where they saw their future market going.

    6. Re:The National Enquirer by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those pictures were real, right? WWN wouldn't bother with anything like that, because they'd rather report about aliens, wolf-men, Satan coming out of an oil well, etc.

    7. Re:The National Enquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Boy, you jerks get major butthurt when someone references or quotes the Bible, don't you? Can't WAIT to pile on them!! Jerks.....

    8. Re:The National Enquirer by prunus.avium · · Score: 2

      And Bat Boy. Never forget Bat Boy.

    9. Re:The National Enquirer by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Your standard of "major butthurt" seems a rather low bar. And, dare I say it, a bit projective.

    10. Re:The National Enquirer by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think you are entitled to your opinion. Of course, we are entitled to ignore it.

    11. Re:The National Enquirer by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      That story was published by the Weekly World News. Compared to the WWN, the National Enquirer is serious journalism.

      Yeah. We used to refer to it as the "Wiggly World News".

      The National Enquirer occasionally threw in a real story for authenticity. (Also: When they did things like add a paragraph to a WhiteHouse memo to gin up a story, they'd sometimes use a different font for their addition. B-) )

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    12. Re:The National Enquirer by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well....I figure that whether you believe the Bible or not, the whole tale of the Devil originates from it so I'm just going back to the source.

    13. Re:The National Enquirer by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well hell, if they mention the devil I figure they must believe a little bit.

    14. Re:The National Enquirer by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Jewish people, of course, don't believe that Satan is an evil being, and properly refer to him as "the Satan" (since that's how the text is actually written), a being that works directly under God's supervision as something like a prosecuting attorney.

      I'm pretty sure the "attorney" part contradicts the "[not] an evil being" part.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:The National Enquirer by towermac · · Score: 1

      You'd need a vacuum.

      oh wait, we have one...

    16. Re:The National Enquirer by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Hasn't Major Butthurt been promoted to the rank of General yet? Certainly a lot or people have recommended the promotion by now!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    17. Re:The National Enquirer by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Biblically the devil is not in Hell yet. He has been cast out of heaven but will not be imprisoned in hell until after the Second Coming of Christ. I know in popular culture they like to speak of him ruling in Hell and tormenting the lost souls but that doesn't follow the scripture.

      Meh. It depends on what you mean by Hell. Do you mean Hades or Gehenna or Sheol or the Lake of Fire, or something else?

      See, the problem with your assertion is that it depends on centuries of theologians who conflated a bunch of these things (which are all distinct concepts, often from different traditions with different attributes), made assumptions about how they relate to each other, and tried to figure out consistency in a bunch of inconsistent passages.

      What you're really referring to is the passage in Revelation 20:10, which implies that the devil ("diabolos") won't be imprisoned in the "lake of fire" until after the coming of Christ. But what is your basis for declaring the "lake of fire" to be synonymous with the English word "Hell," instead of assuming that Hell could be equated with one of the other concepts already mentioned? And how do you know the "devil" isn't in any of the others? The Book of Job notes that Satan wanders about to all sorts of places and is even brought to talk to God. How do you know Satan doesn't wander into any of these other haunts?

      Some people also note that the greatest feature of Hell is "eternal torment," and the Bible identifies the most significant feature of eternal torment to be separation from God. Since most Christians agree that the "devil" (whatever that is -- word problems there too... are we talking Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub etc.? -- these guys were all different) has already been cast out of Heaven, he has already been separated from God and is thus already suffering the primary torment of "Hell," whether or not he is physically located in the "Lake of Fire."

      And how do we determine that the "diabolos" (devil) who is cast into the Lake of Fire (if that is indeed "Hell") is the same as Satan or the fallen angel or Lucifer or whoever?

      Basically, rather than saying what you did:

      Biblically the devil is not in Hell yet

      You should say:

      Biblically the Diabolos has not been cast into the Lake of Fire yet. But centuries of debates and random equivalencies created by Church dogma have led to a common interpretation that this "diabolos" is the same as what were likely understood in Biblical times to be distinct entities such as Satan and Lucifer, and the "Lake of Fire" is now equated with various conceptions of "Hell" which had different terms and would have been viewed as distinct in Biblical times. Thus, according to the Biblical text combined with a crapload of random church dogma, the traditional popular culture image "doesn't follow the scripture."

    18. Re:The National Enquirer by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Who could forget that? It lives forever in an obscure wrinkle of my neocortex.

    19. Re:The National Enquirer by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Insightful and succint

    20. Re:The National Enquirer by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Please, if people actually read their Bibles and understood them they would immediately cease reading the Bible."

      FTFY

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re:The National Enquirer by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No, you don't understand at all! The preacher handles all that "what you mean" stuff, and besides he has a direct line to God. If I was in trouble, and/or had a faulty perspective on God, I'm sure God would tell the Pope, would issue a press release.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    22. Re:The National Enquirer by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I once saw a TV interview of the WWN staff. They were all British ex-pats living in Florida. Most of them were retired before they came up with the idea of starting an American tabloid that was even more outrageous than British tabloids. They were a hilarious group of people, who seemed to thoroughly enjoy working together.

    23. Re:The National Enquirer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'd not heard of the Weekly World News before today. So I had a look. I mean there were a variety of pretty believable stories about a cookie monster mugging kids in Times Square, Aliens and Obama added to Mt. Rushmore.

      But then there was one about "NYC being the friendliest city on earth".

      That's where they lost me.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    24. Re:The National Enquirer by laejoh · · Score: 1

      You misspelled aeons, from a Lovecraft fan :)

    25. Re:The National Enquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right or wrong, here's how I understand it. I'm Catholic, btw, so hopefully what I say is pretty much in line with Catholic doctrine.

      After the introduction of original sin but prior to Jesus, all people had sinned and were subject to the penalty of death. The law was given to Moses, so the people were subject to the law and responsible for following it. But because everyone had broken the law, everyone went to Sheol. This is depicted in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which the righteous are in the Bosom of Abraham while the wicked are in torment. By the way, Sheol is a Hebrew word and the Greek equivalent is Hades.

      This changes with the death and resurrection of Jesus, who paid the suffered the penalty for everyone's sins. The righteous were then freed from Sheol and rose, which is described in the Gospels. However, the wicked are still subject to eternal torment.

      With respect to Satan, he was cast out of Heaven immediately, but ruled the world until the coming of Jesus. He was cast out of the Garden of Eden at the introduction of original sin. In John's Gospel, Jesus talks about driving out the ruler of the world, who is Satan. This is accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Satan no longer rules the world, but is still able to tempt people to sin. This corresponds with the description in Revelation where Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years. This isn't a literal thousand years, but just a long time. St. Peter addresses this in his second letter when he says that to God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. It was written to address the doubts of those who wondered why Jesus hadn't returned by that time, and not to support any kind of young Earth intelligent design nonsense.

      At the end of the thousand years, Satan wages one final battle against God, an ultimate battle between good and evil. God wins the battle in what could be considered anticlimactic fashion though the second coming of Jesus and the final judgement. Jesus talks about this in the Gospels when the sheep and the lambs are separated. There are two judgements, the particular judgement that each person experiences at the moment of death, and the general judgement that occurs at the same time as the second coming. At the second coming, Satan, his angels, and the wicked are cast into the lake of fire forever. The difference between the bottomless pit and the lake of fire is that the lake of fire is permanent and those in the lake of fire are no longer able to tempt the righteous to evil.

      Basically, there are three versions of Hell. Prior to original sin, there was no need for Hell at all. The first version exists between the introduction of original sin and the first coming of Jesus, in which both the wicked and the righteous go there. The second version exists between the first and second comings of Jesus, in which the wicked go there but Satan is still able to tempt the people on Earth. The third version exists after the second coming, in which the wicked go there permanently and Satan is no longer able to tempt the people outside of Hell.

      That's what I understand of Catholic teaching on the subject of Hell.

    26. Re:The National Enquirer by Coren22 · · Score: 1
      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    27. Re:The National Enquirer by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      The content of the most ancient passages of the OT is indistinguishable from the other religions of the Canaanites (elohim was the generic Canaanite word for a sort of pantheon). Abraham did not come from Ur, but likely from an area north of Palestine. The first ideas about a dichotomy between good and evil came from a Persian influence on the Hebrew religion(s). Before that Yahweh's basic message was "do as I say". The whole of the NT story is basically a crock as far as archeology is concerned, that supposed remark about Jesus in Justinian: I've heard that yarn before too, and it's not true. The story of Jesus is a hyped-up and way-overblown story about the zealots, specifically, a zealot who tried non-violent resistance. The idea of missionaries again came from a Persian religion, a later one called Mithraism. The only mention of Hell (other than as the end of life and fading from cultural memory), the only mention as an inhabited place, comes from Revelations. Many of the ideas that people associate with Christianity, are literally nowhere in the Bible, and a close reading reveals that the OT recounts a conglomerate of about 3 religions.

    28. Re:The National Enquirer by laejoh · · Score: 1

      I'm talking Lovecraft, not some kind of fantasy ;)

  3. Egon, remember that time you tried to drill a hole by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Egon, remember that time you tried to drill a hole through your head?

  4. Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This does not go well, I've seen the movie:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/

    1. Re:Bad Idea by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      This is old news--that happened in 1965.

      Where do you think our second moon came from?

      (And curse you for getting here with the movie reference first!)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  5. Re:Egon, remember that time you tried to drill a h by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2, Funny

    That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

  6. Adamantine by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    But the drill could not punch through those tenacious layers. And in 2013, drillers at the nearby Hess Deep found themselves similarly limited by tough deep-crustal rocks.

    That's the engine warning you not to dig into hell. They will damn us all.

    1. Re:Adamantine by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they ran into bedrock, only admins can remove that.

      http://minecraft.gamepedia.com...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. Western Science by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    At heart, these geologists are the kids who just had to unwrap a golf ball and ended up putting out an eye.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. We'll never break through by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    The Lizard Men living inside the hollow Earth won't allow it. They've already positioned plates of ultra-dense titanium right where we'll drill so we can't punch through...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:We'll never break through by sconeu · · Score: 2

      You laugh now, but when the Silurians come out of the well, you'll see...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:We'll never break through by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Wait, but they are known to be benevolent. Why would they wish to stop us?

    3. Re: We'll never break through by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      Not if you're about to drill right into one of their habitats..

    4. Re:We'll never break through by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Lizard men are NEVER benevolent. Think about snakes and komodo dragons - are THEY benevolent? The reptilian way is to kill and eat others. Clearly "Beforeitsnews.com" is a lizard man mouthpiece, the publisher hoping he'll be the last to be eaten!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  9. For the love of Yahweh, NOOO! by meeotch · · Score: 1

    These wicked, wicked "scientists". Is it not enough that they fill our children's heads in school with nonsense like "evolution"? Now they're drilling *straight down*?!?!

    THAT'S WHERE HELL IS!!!

  10. Fracking the Planet by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    turn the whole world into Oklahoma?

    1. Re:Fracking the Planet by tomhath · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to know the difference between drilling and hydraulic fracturing. But either way, this hole won't result in an earthquake cluster like the ones Oklahoma has experienced every 50 years or so.

  11. Re:Oh no! They'll let out all the helium by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Never mind that interstellar space (or medium) consist of helium.

    The interstellar medium is composed primarily by hydrogen followed by helium with trace amounts of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen comparatively to hydrogen.[

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

  12. Re:STOP This Now! by Immerman · · Score: 1

    The stupid, it hurts. That's pretty bad even by Hollywood standards.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  13. Re:Blow up the world! by Arashi256 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dude, do you even physics?

  14. Does the mantle even exist? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    Geology noob here, with a noob question. Has the mantle been definitively proven to exist? Browsing the summary, it looks to me like no one has ever seen or touched the earth's mantle, and that scientists are trying to drill through the crust and reach the mantle for the first time to do exactly that.

    It would be interesting if they they drill through the earth's crust completely, and instead of the mantle they find something else. Maybe more crust? Or....

    1. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by gtall · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, seismic waves travel differently between what we define to be the crust and the mantle. So yes, there is something else down there that is not crust, we call it the mantle. You might try wikipedia, this is the teens, honey.

    2. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Cheese. It's cheese.

    3. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      No, that's the moon.

    4. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      If it's graham cracker crust, I call dibs!

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    5. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by prunus.avium · · Score: 2

      We know there are different layers due to the way that seismic waves move through the planet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).

      Kinda like how light bends and reflects at the boundary of two dissimilar materials (eg water/air or glass/air) the waves from earthquakes show the boundaries in the layers below the crust.

    6. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting if they they drill through the earth's crust completely, and instead of the mantle they find something else. Maybe more crust? Or....

      My bet is on pie filling.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    7. Re: Does the mantle even exist? by jimmybuffet · · Score: 1

      I'm curious when they pop through the Canadian rockies and the Indian Ocean drains into Canada...

    8. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Crispy bacon perhaps?

    9. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by randm.ca · · Score: 1

      Isn't one theory that the moon is made up of debris from a massive Earth impact? If so, and if the moon is cheese, I guess maybe xevioso is correct!

    10. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 2

      Also a geology noob but I thought that lava pools in the base of volcanoes were places where the mantle was poking through the crust. So in that sense we have seen the mantle. Or at any rate I didn't know its existence was in question.

    11. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Has the mantle been definitively proven to exist?"

      Yes. "The Moho" sounds tad cool, but what they are talking here is about the Mohorovicic discontinuity which is, you almost can suspect it, a (seismic) discontinuity researched by some Croatian by that name.

      So there might be minor surprises about its exact nature or physical properties but, yes, we positively know the mantle is there just like you know the train is coming when you hear its whistle.

    12. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      No the moon is hollow and brought here by the Pleiadians, der!

    13. Re: Does the mantle even exist? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That could only improve things.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      we positively know the mantle is there just like you know the train is coming when you hear its whistle

      So, in other words, we can be tricked by a wooden train whistle?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:Does the mantle even exist? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Has the mantle been definitively proven to exist?

      Define "definitely." Define "proven."

      The front of my hard hat and the back of my coveralls say "geologist", and the FGS (Fellow of the Geological Society) sort of leans in the direction that other geologists consider me a geologist too. For me, "proven" means that the evidence of it;s existence is sufficiently strong that to believe otherwise than in it's existence would require perversely illogical special pleading.

      Others have mentioned the petrophysical characteristics - seismic velocity, density. The way that chemistry of melts of silicates and volatiles changes when held under top-of-mantle conditions of temperature and pressure matches the trends we see in individual crystals (olivines, cpxs) and the trends in eruptions of single and multiple volcanoes.

      But for me, the thing that counts is holding lumps in my hand. Which you can do quite easily. Go to a place where MORB (mid-ocean ridge basalt) or an alkaline basalt is being erupted (Iceland, Hawaii, the Azores, the Canaries, certain African Rift volcanoes, the ancient Deccan or Siberian traps ...) and nose around the pebbles of black basalt on a beach until you find one with a greenish-yellow blob in the black matrix. Pick it up, weigh it in your hand, and contemplate that it originated 30 or so km beneath your feet. Just 30km away.

      You can back this assertion up with lots of studies - the science is sound. But for me, the visceral experience of holding it in my hand makes it real to me.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  15. If they succeed... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    If they succeed, I hope the result is in no way similar to what happens when you squash a well fed tick.

    1. Re:If they succeed... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      nah.
      it is however how Atlantis sank.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:If they succeed... by jittles · · Score: 1

      They won't succeed. Everyone knows that the space between the earth's crust and mantle is filled with huge diamonds. Therefore the diamond industry will never let science get that far. Duh.

  16. I know because I saw the movie. by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    If they do break through they'll made a huge crack in the Earth, and a big chunk will fly up and make a second Moon. I know because I saw the movie.

  17. Mantle to drill bit: by burtosis · · Score: 1

    "You shall not pass!!"

    1. Re:Mantle to drill bit: by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

      "Too deep we delved there, and woke the nameless fear."

    2. Re:Mantle to drill bit: by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That's a pile of balrogs!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  18. Movie Science by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    In space, no-one can hear you fail.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  19. Re:sup :D... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    Do you even know what "interferometry" means?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  20. Re:Blow up the world! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    If all it takes to destabilize the earth is a 10cm borehole, we'd all have been doomed eons ago.

    Maybe you've watched too much 60's scifi.

  21. Re:Blow up the world! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Anybody can fly.

    So long as it's on a roughly parabolic trajectory.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Re:Blow up the world! by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

    ...but I also believe we shouldn't fuck with things with as much unknown

    What level of unknown are you comfortable with?

    How exactly is this going to "destabilize" the earth?

  23. Re:Blow up the world! by citylivin · · Score: 1

    S[o]me people that believe ... setting off a nuclear weapon would destroy the atmosphere and on and on.

    yes, some people like Edward Teller, Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe, hardly unscientific dullards. Then they actually ran the numbers and judged the fear to be unfounded, which you can read about below:

    https://www.metabunk.org/debun...

    That's called science. I know you don't really understand science or the scientific method, as you don't seem to realize that man made climate change is real. So what can anyone say to you at that point, but that's what happened. Scientists came up with a hypothesis and then tested it to the best of their abilities.

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  24. Re:Blow up the world! by Anguirel · · Score: 1

    Just move fast enough that you continually miss the ground.

    --
    ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
    QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  25. Re:Blow up the world! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    "Notice that they do not so much fly as... plummet." -- Monty Python

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  26. I wish them success by towermac · · Score: 1

    Because it's the only other answer than nuclear for our future. The longer we put off serious nuclear, the more we suffer, as we have seen. We need more power.

    On the Earth, there are three stores of power. Stored sunlight in carbon, and stored supernovas in uranium and thorium that are in the crust itself. Those two we can get to now.

    Of course the big enchilada is the stored heat from the formation of the solar system that is stored under the crust. Don't even have to build a machine to release the heat; don't have to burn or transmute anything; it's raw power itself; heat; that is there for the taking. I really can't imagine running out of that.

    It would allow us to bypass this nuclear power political war that must come, if we are to advance as a species. Doesn't matter where you're at on AGW, carbon is not cutting it anymore. Imagine that very soon 20 billion people will want 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, air conditioning, hot running water, one new car, one older...

    Where is that power coming from? Drill baby, drill.

    1. Re:I wish them success by burtosis · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the vast majority of the heat inside the earth is from radioactive decay and not latent heat left over from the formation of the solar system right?

    2. Re:I wish them success by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      So, it's man made nukes or natural nukes.

    3. Re:I wish them success by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Organic all natural nukes. The kind of nukes that you can feel good about.

    4. Re:I wish them success by towermac · · Score: 1

      Honestly, no, I had forgotten about that.

      Are they sure the majority is from decay now? As opposed to both leftover heat and the the Moon constantly cranking on it? Decay was a theory quite a few years ago.

      (They've changed science quite a few times in my lifetime.)

    5. Re:I wish them success by burtosis · · Score: 1

      The recent sources i have seen state the continuation of radiation heating is 50% or more of the total heat.

  27. Re:Blow up the world! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Funny

    That you have no imagination doesn't make it impossible. What's the weight of the crust? I would guess the pressure is about 100,000 psi (average) on the mantle. So what happens when you have a 10 cm hole in a balloon pressurized to 100,000 psi? does it matter if the filling in the balloon is molten rock?

    Note I'm not saying what I think will happen, or my opinion on the whole matter. I'm just stating you are an idiot because you can't think of a single catastrophic thing that could happen from this.

  28. Re:Blow up the world! by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Volcanos do this all of the time. This reminds me of people saying particle accelerators could create dangerous backholes, when much much higher energy particles slam our atmosphere all of the time.

  29. Re:Blow up the world! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "Can't wait for the same types that believe in man made global warming"

    I have to give you credit.. You posted some shit that makes you look like an uneducated moron, but at least you had the balls to do it without posting as an AC

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  30. Where is Jules Verne... by ccanucs · · Score: 1

    ... when you need him? :-)

  31. Re:Blow up the world! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "does it matter if the filling in the balloon is molten rock?"

    If you ever had a nerdy card it's your time to return it... But of course yes: viscosity makes all the difference.

  32. Re:Blow up the world! by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    You're right, a hole that small won't make the world blow up unless you drill it through the exact center of the Large Hadron Collider

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  33. Re:Blow up the world! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    I'm just stating you are an idiot because you can't think of a single catastrophic thing that could happen from this.

    Oh, I know, right? For example, the drill's high pressure oil system could spring a leak and cover you with black icky stuff from head to foot. Or you could drop a pipe wrench on your big toe.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  34. Re:Blow up the world! by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of people saying particle accelerators could create dangerous backholes, when much much higher energy particles slam our atmosphere all of the time.

    That's not the issue. The issue is that accelerators smash things together from two opposing beams so that the average velocity is approximately zero.

    High energy particles smash into the earth and create other high energy particles that have velocities that would still be just under the speed of light. It's possible that black holes from but just fly through the earth, never accumulating enough mass to slow down and just keep on going.

  35. Re:Blow up the world! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    "setting off a nuclear weapon would destroy the atmosphere " it actually would, giving a sufficiently powerful weapon lol. Starfish Prime was only 1.4 megatons and caused damage almost 900 miles away. It would probably take something far larger than even the Tsar bomb at 50MT, and is (hopefully) still outside our technical capabilities. But it IS possible...

  36. Re:Blow up the world! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That you have no imagination doesn't make it impossible.

    No, but knowing physics allows you to make informed guesses about things. I can imagine all sorts of wildly impossible things, like the earth being hollow and inhabited by lizard men. Just because I can imagine it, doesn't make it possible.

    So what happens when you have a 10 cm hole in a balloon pressurized to 100,000 psi?

    The earth isn't a balloon. The pressure in a balloon is caused by the skin. In the earth it's caused by the weight of stuff above.

    Imagine what happens---actually you do need a good imagination. The molten rock starts gushing up the hole at 100,000psi pressure (or whatever). As it goes higher and higher, the the weight of the molten rock starts increasing the pressure at the bottom, since the 100,000 psi has to support the weight of the column of molten rock, any excess pressure of course pushes more melt out of the hole. This will continue until the pressure reaches equilibrium. At that point, molten rock will stop gushing up the hole.

    Things might get a bit worse if there's a local excess of pressure due to convection currents, for example, but what you'll have there is a volcano with a very, very small chimney, and a pressure excess which isn't enough to push through the crust anyway. As the rock cools, it will plug the hole.

    I'm just stating you are an idiot because you can't think of a single catastrophic thing that could happen from this.

    Physics works. Just because I can imagine crazy outcomes like the earth popping like a balloon, an invasion of the lizard men released from their eternal prison or an unstoppable column of fire reaching half way to the moon, doesn't mean those imaginings are actually worth considering.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  37. So thats where the word Moho-Mine comes from... by sciengin · · Score: 1

    And it took me only 18 years to realize it. I should probably reinstall Total Annihilation now...

  38. Done by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1
    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
  39. Re:Blow up the world! by Talderas · · Score: 1

    Just because I can imagine crazy outcomes like the earth popping like a balloon, an invasion of the lizard men released from their eternal prison or an unstoppable column of fire reaching half way to the moon, doesn't mean those imaginings are actually worth considering.

    Just start writing fantasy, then they're worth considering.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  40. Re:Blow up the world! by dywolf · · Score: 1

    so you're trying to say that it's the scientists who research global warming, who belong with the flat earthers for denying science?
    what ever it is you're smoking, I think you've had enough.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  41. Re:Blow up the world! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Unless it is a left wing anti science nut, of which there are just as many.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  42. Re:Blow up the world! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you just buy a ticket on a passenger jet.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  43. You could do that, or.... by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

    just walk around Gros Morne National Park.

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

  44. Re:When you dig too greedily, too deep... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I thought that was how you released the Balrog?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  45. Re:Blow up the world! by Falos · · Score: 1

    Note that the surrounding material is also under pressure. It hasn't really been "released", there won't be really "new" sudden physical conditions as they inch down.

    It's hard to imagine a catalytic surprise here. Your point still has some validity, reality itself can't be Absolutely Certain on anything, and it probably wouldn't be the first experiment that overlooked dramatic-grade potentials (which, yes, can be entirely beyond predicting), but in practice we estimate risk-reward and make a decision. That's all we /can/ do.

  46. Isn't this by rochrist · · Score: 1

    the plot of Crack in the World?

  47. Re:Blow up the world! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, everyone here is sure that there will be no unintended consequences, like nobody has ever been wrong about unintended consequences. It's not about being certain before acing, but being able to assess risk. Low probability high impact risk events aren't gauged by humans well, nor are high probability low impact events.

  48. Re:sup :D... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    something to do with basketball?

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  49. reboot by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Just drop a "Heat bomb" in Antarctic ice sheets. You'll reboot the planet.

  50. Re:Blow up the world! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    So true, there are ignorant people all across the political spectrum. There is also a disturbingly large amount of fraud in science.

  51. Re:Blow up the world! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Nuke power maybe? But the right wing is all up on that too and they're just so much worse on every other energy group - not unreasonably because their short term jobs are more dependent on it in coal and oil dependent regions.

    States which depend on coal for a large part of their industry consistently vote democrat, the only exception has been when the democrat running for president was black, they do tend to be a bit racist around here.

  52. Re:Blow up the world! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    You are forgetting that people on all extremes of the political spectrum have been fabricating scientific studies as long as we have had scientific studies. Personally, on climate science, I don't trust either side. There are extremists in the midst of both crowds who would not hesitate to fabricate studies to convince the sheep of their view. However, knowing a little about the climate history of our planet, I doubt we are having anywhere near the effect that the extreme left is claiming, but we are certainly accelerating a trend that was going to happen anyway.