Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Find Huge Underground River Below Amazon
IBTimes ^ | 26 August 2011

Posted on 08/27/2011 6:55:20 AM PDT by Fractal Trader

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: Fractal Trader
NEWS FLASH: The headwaters of this newly discovered river has been pinpointed to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. since it was earlier discovered that the river consisted of bile and BS and scientists traced it back to its source.
21 posted on 08/27/2011 7:40:49 AM PDT by cashless (Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

The geology/physics of aquifers are so different from rivers it seems worthy of a different name. Calling them rivers obfuscates what’s going on rather than informing.


22 posted on 08/27/2011 7:41:33 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

I believe Professor Challenger discovered and charted this river in 1895, but lost all his data in a shipwreck. Everybody called his story a lie. The prof was used to that sort of thing.


23 posted on 08/27/2011 7:43:40 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage; All
One of the first things they teach you in engineering college (for those that didn’t learn it before Kindergarten) is: “Water runs down hill”. Stories of underground rivers, 3 miles below the surface, violate that rule. The author is misrepresenting the data, either through lack of understanding, or over simplification, in my opinion.

You are correct. However, it would be possible, because of the flow in the Amazon, that there would be sufficient pressure for the underground movement of the water toward the ocean.

The article doesn't say how much flow there is, only that there is flow. It only has to overcome the salinity gradient and the friction of movement through the porous rocks underground. If it moves very slowly, say in meters per year, this could be possible.

24 posted on 08/27/2011 7:47:27 AM PDT by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Dr. Phibes is interested...

25 posted on 08/27/2011 7:48:35 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Democrats: debt, dependence and derision)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DManA; All
The geology/physics of aquifers are so different from rivers it seems worthy of a different name. Calling them rivers obfuscates what’s going on rather than informing.

Bingo! We have a winner!

26 posted on 08/27/2011 7:49:05 AM PDT by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
so this means there is more fresh water on the planet than they thought... specially if other major rivers have the same underground twin
27 posted on 08/27/2011 7:50:13 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

I want to buy some of it bottled :P


28 posted on 08/27/2011 7:54:45 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Outstanding, one of my favorites!
BTW, I once saw a great special about the Oceans that actually feaured a lake beneath the ocean.
Somehow, the water at the bottom of the ocean was heavier and formed a lake on the bed of the sea.


29 posted on 08/27/2011 8:01:48 AM PDT by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
One of the first things they teach you in engineering college (for those that didn’t learn it before Kindergarten) is: “Water runs down hill”. Stories of underground rivers, 3 miles below the surface, violate that rule. The author is misrepresenting the data, either through lack of understanding, or over simplification, in my opinion.

I think the author of the story misinterpreted the data. What is really there is a massive aquifer that is moving tremendous amounts of water to the ocean and it will be released on the margins of the the continental shelf in the ocean.

30 posted on 08/27/2011 8:05:12 AM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Actually, water runs from high pressure to low pressure and this may or may not be downhill. This holds accurate for both non-compressable fluids such as water and for compressible fluids, ie. a gas.


31 posted on 08/27/2011 8:10:03 AM PDT by Hootowl99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

As I recall from that episode, that particular body of water was super salinated (really salty) and that was what made it heavier. I remember that it was ringed with muscles, wasn’t it?

It looked so cool, I wanted to visit... but you know, that psi issue and such. :-)


32 posted on 08/27/2011 8:17:16 AM PDT by RikaStrom (Pray for Obama - Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take his place of leadership.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
They've got one of those in Bikini Bottom. Sponge Bob and Patrick go there alot.

Somehow, the water at the bottom of the ocean was heavier and formed a lake on the bed of the sea.

33 posted on 08/27/2011 8:18:30 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
One of the first things they teach you in engineering college (for those that didn’t learn it before Kindergarten) is: “Water runs down hill”. Stories of underground rivers, 3 miles below the surface, violate that rule.

One of the first things they teach you in geology courses is that vast underground aquifers exist. When the strata where they're located tilts (as from the high Andes east to the Atlantic) they flow "downhill." I'm very familiar with one similar aquifer right here in the U.S.A. The author perhaps oversimplifies when he calls the aquifer a "river." It is, in a sense, but most of his readers probably don’t know what an aquifer is so he uses a familiar term instead.

34 posted on 08/27/2011 8:18:45 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther

Say hi to her for me....


35 posted on 08/27/2011 8:25:34 AM PDT by null and void (Day 945 of America's holiday from reality...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
I don't know if it's true or not, but,

Pittsburgh, PA Point Park Fountain,

"t draws its water supply not from the visible waters which pass by it, but from an unnamed fourth river, subterranean, passing from the north to the south 54 feet below the surface of the Pittsburgh Point."

36 posted on 08/27/2011 8:28:38 AM PDT by FroggyTheGremlim (Democrats: the Party of NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
better hurry, the treehuggers will prolly soon find some way to make it untouchable...
37 posted on 08/27/2011 8:53:24 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
One of the first things they teach you in engineering college (for those that didn’t learn it before Kindergarten) is: “Water runs down hill”.

Must have one heck of an hydraulic jump there.

My engineering education in fluid dynamics also causes me to believe that water flows from higher to lower elevations.

But I'm sure there's a computer model which shows the foolishness of our old-fashioned learning.

38 posted on 08/27/2011 9:03:50 AM PDT by Ole Okie (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

“The width of the Hamza is said to be 3,700 miles long”

Ahh, to be a science journalist ... neither literacy nor numeracy required.


39 posted on 08/27/2011 9:08:23 AM PDT by fnord (Republicans are just the right-wing of the left-wing of American politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx

Now, now.

Trying to crimp a naysayer’s rant with the truth only upsets them

. . . if they register the truth, at all.


40 posted on 08/27/2011 9:10:14 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson