Comment by PureTrust

Entered on: 6/18/2014 9:21:37 PM

Some scientists and sciences must be losing their credibility very rapidly. Or is it just the media? From the article:

Earth's most abundant mineral lies deep in the planet's interior, sealed off from human eyes.

So, how do they know the mineral is down there if they can't see it? Can they smell it? From the article:

Now, scientists for the first time have gotten a glimpse of the material in nature, enclosed inside a 4.5-billion-year-old meteorite.

Four and a half billion years? How do they know for sure that the universe is even that old? It's all just guesswork. And they want us to believe that the "guts" of a meteorite contain the same stuff that is in earth's mantle when they have never come close to digging that deep, to say nothing about determining how widespread inside the earth the stuff might be? From the article:

The new official name, bridgmanite, was approved for the mineral formerly known by its chemical components and crystal structure — silicate-perovskite.

Now they have renamed this mineral, but what is the reason? Are they trying to do the same thing that the medical constantly does, namely, change the symptoms for a known malady on the books, simply so that they can claim a cure? From the article:

The mineral likely resides beneath Earth's surface in an area called the lower mantle, between the transition zone in the mantle and the core-mantle boundary, or between the depths of 416 and 1,802 miles (670 and 2,900 kilometers), scientists said.

Ah, the truth starts to appear. They don't really have a clue about if or where the mineral might reside inside the earth. From the article:

Scientists have been searching for the mineral for a long time, because in order to identify a mineral one must know its chemical composition and crystal structure, Ma said.

Complete circular reference of the kind that Marc Stevens runs into with Government agents and agencies all the time. After all, how can you know what mineral you are looking for if you don't know what it is, and what its chemical composition is? From the article:

After five years of work, including multiple experiments, Ma and Tschauner sent their data for review to the International Mineralogical Association's Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC), according to the AGU blog. The commission approved the mineral and new name on June 2.

Five years of work? Who paid for their room and board, and their equipment all that time? And we need a CNMNC to approve a new mineral so the research scientists can get further grants or other funds to do more work?

More than likely this hogwash is being funded out of our tax dollars. And who knows what is REALLY going on behind the scenes that would prompt the stupidity being reported on in this article.

TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.