Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
This conversation about the possibility of flora and fauna being petrified by an electrical process has been most interesting to think about. It really could answer a lot of the difficulties with fossilization such as the presence of soft tissue, the problems with decay, the beautiful cell replacement, etc.
Forgive me, I brought up the bismuth experiment because I needed to anchor the discussion about transmutation (of only very specific elements) in some kind of experimentation or labwork, and have some idea whether it can be tested. I did not think that example was very promising for the case for fossilization by transmutation, because it was not a fusion of two elements. I hoped someone had other examples at their fingertips of research that might be more promising. It might have helped the overall intelligibility of the thread if one or two details were allowed to be set out and agreed upon. But then, perhaps not! I absolutely see the point there.
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* Brigit said:
It might have helped the overall intelligibility of the thread if one or two details were allowed to be set out and agreed upon.
* Will you explain that? What sort of details are you talking about? * Have you looked at the Transmutation thread yet? How well do you understand chemistry? or what about atomic structure? * You, Allyn and others might enjoy these two posts there about Particle Accelerators in Plants that help explain transmutation. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=209&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&~ viewtopic.php?f=3&t=209&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&~ * I think plants' ability to accelerate protons so they can penetrate an atom's nucleus and transmute the atom is probably not the typical way in which living things and other conditions make transmutation happen, but it's a very interesting process. Unfortunately, it seems that increased electrical activity on Earth during catastrophes involving close approaches of celestial bodies, would probably destroy plants, along with their tiny particle accelerators, so I suppose that particular mechanism would not be involved in fossilization transmutation. But maybe other physical conditions could also accelerate protons and other subatomic particles. Lightning is a particle accelerator too; isn't it?
* I showed images of gold and quartz earlier in this thread and I thought they looked like lightning could have caused them to form "nests", which seem to have a lot of right-angle filaments. I found interesting images of Stalactites in a cave in France, which I recently posted on another thread about underground cities etc. Here are the relevant the images. Notice that they have branches shooting out at right angles, horizontally. How do geologists explain that? I explain it as electrical.
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* I just tried a google search for "mummified fossil", like this: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... ages&gbv=2 * It even has an image I copied on page one of this thread. * This is an interesting item that came up. See the caption below the image. http://windyharbor.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... e-update-1 Mummified Dinosaur Heads to Texas - Physorg.com A mummified dinosaur discovered on the Hi-Line [a Texas lake, I think] is heading to the Houston Museum of Natural Sciences, where it will be studied and displayed for more than a year.
seasmith
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Lloyd wrote:
...Stalactites in a cave in France, which I recently posted on another thread about underground cities etc. Here are the relevant the images. Notice that they have branches shooting out at right angles, horizontally. How do geologists explain that?
The right angle protuberances on stalactites result from the fact that the stalactites themselves form around a hollow core ( very skinney ones are referred to as 'straws' ). The right-angled doodads form from tiny pinholes in the sidewall of the stalactite. Calcite crystals, like any other, form along a 3D electro-magnetic matrix; so you are correct in proclaiming an electric basis to the 'hairs', as well as the 'straws' . Some electro-dynamic process may also be responsible for a hollow tube growing from a succession of liquid droplets ~
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
If we are seeking to find out if anything was fossilized by electrical transmutation, than we have to talk a little bit about transmutation. But always in persuit of fossils. So all I meant Lloyd is that some obligatory information should be admissable here on this thread, even if it has been discussed on another thread. I thought your list of possible routes from the elements in a living creature to the elements found in fossils was most helpful to the discussion. For me, it seems like the whole conversation led up to that. If there is any way to make a stronger case and verify C+O = Si, or if there is any research to back it up, then I think it would be a wonderful addition to this thread. All I found was transmutation by losing protons, which was not our line of inquiry.
Appologies for the other inane comments. Really, I am trying to cut back on those, lol.
MGmirkin
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
nick c wrote: I think it constitutes an overwhelming refutation. How could the tissue remain intact while the surrounding bone is undergoing the "slow" process of fossilization? It seems to me, the outer layers must have been rapidly fossilized enclosing the tissue. Even so, how long could soft tissue be preserved? Certainly, 63+ million years seems to be unreasonable.
Well, how does decomposition work? Does our body just naturally break down into its component building blocks once we die? Or does some other external process have to go on whereby some active agent acts upon our bodies to decomposed them (be it oxidation, bacterial action, plants growing off of and digesting nurse logs in the forest, etc.)?
Recall the PDF from earlier in the thread (first post)...
Dinosaur Mummies and Other Soft Tissue wrote: There are many misconceptions about fossils, including that fossils only represent bones and shells of extinct animals. Yet, scientists have long known that under certain conditions soft tissues (i.e., non-bone parts) of extinct vertebrates may be preserved. These conditions require that scavenging and bacterial decay did not occur because of freezing, mummification, and embalming. Minerals can also replace soft tissue thus producing a replica. Chemical and microbial causes are involved in making these replicas, sometimes in multiple-step processes. Soft tissue fossils chiefly include skin, internal organs, muscles, vessels, and blood cells. Most examples of dinosaur "skin" are impressions rather than the actual skin. The processes in replicating dinosaur skin are illustrated using the famous Sternberg dinosaur "mummy." The basic conditions require drying of the carcass, relatively rapid burial, and deposition of minerals on the skin by bacteria before it has decayed away. These minerals duplicate the coarser features of the skin, including scales, wrinkles and folds. In contrast, flexible dinosaur tissue preservation may have involved encapsulation by minerals, as well as chemical alteration of the cell membrane.
Fossilizing Bone wrote: Fossils are a physical record of the history of life. Although most people know what a fossil is, few have any idea how fossils form, or they have misconceptions about the process. In this first article, the processes involved in the fossilization of bone are presented, using a Stegosaurus skeleton as an example. This case study, based on an actual example, begins with the death of the Stegosaurus due to illness and stress brought on by a drought. It continues through the stages of decay, which sets the stage for eventual fossilization. Although some strictly chemical processes are involved, experimental work has shown that the vast majority of the fossilization is due to mineral precipitation by bacteria. Bacteria feed on the organic material contained within the bones and attach their metabolic waste on various atoms or molecules, such as iron or carbonate, dissolved in ground water. The result is the formation of minerals, such as iron carbonate (siderite) or calcium carbonate (calcite). It is the formation of these minerals that basically turns "bone to stone."
Regards, ~Michael Gmirkin
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
GREAT FLOOD EVIDENCE AT LA BREA * I just tried a google search under Images for 'tar pit" and "mummified" and found this interesting article http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... aBrea3.htm La Brea Tar Pits: Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood William Weston CRSQ Vol 40 No 1 pp 25-33 June 2003 Abstract According to the traditional view, the La Brea Tar Pits were pools of entrapment for unwary animals. This view fails to account for a variety of anomalies, including the disarticulation and intermingling of skeletal parts, the lack of teeth marks on herbivore bones, the absence of soft tissues, the inverse ratio of carnivores to herbivores, the numerical superiority of water beetles among insect species, and water saturation of wood debris. An alternative theory assuming a catastrophic flood is a better explanation of the data. This theory can apply to other late Pleistocene fossil sites, where similar anomalies occur. Fossil deposition by catastrophic flood seems to be global in scope. These considerations provide strong confirmation for the young Earth-Flood model of geologic history.
nick c
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Michael, The paper on how to fossilize a stegosaur, did nothing to convince me that fossilization is explainable by processes observed today. [I understand that was probably not your intent and that you were putting it out there as a point of reference.] It seems to me that, generally, fossilization is an indication of a catastrophic process. It is an interesting analysis of the role of microbes in fossil formation, but the microbe angle seems to me to be, at best, incomplete, in that the process should be observable today. The article does not consider how unfossilized soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years, but rather shows how soft tissue can be fossilized, or at least promises to demonstrate that in the next installment:
In my next article in this series I will discuss how soft tissue, such as the creatures from the Burgess Shale, get fossilized.
Although much less common than bone, soft tissue fossilization has been known for quite some time. The problems associated with recent discoveries of T-rex and hadrosaur soft tissue relate to their unfossilized state. I write 'problems' because the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur tissue was totally unexpected by paleontologists. It seems counterintuitive that soft tissue could survive unfossilized over such vast expanses of time, and I think most paleontologists would have agreed before the discovery. The irony is that this is going to be scientifically (peer reviewed) studied by those who consider the accepted time scales to be beyond question, except for maybe a fine tuning adjustment of million years here or there.
Such studies are examples of where the present is a key to understanding the past (e.g., Carpenter 1987). [...] We don't know how long it took for fossilization of the Stegosaurus skeleton to occur. Experimental work I have conducted has shown that the process does not necessarily take very long (Carpenter 2005). Under ideal situations, a dinosaur could be fossilized in only a few years. http://www.aaps-journal.org/submission% ... Fossil.pdf
On the African continent there are and have been elephants and other herding animals living and dying for thousands of years. Perhaps there have been cases of modern elephant carcasses that have been fossilized or are in the process of being fossilized? We should be able to point to examples; perhaps the remains of a modern elephant that is totally fossilized, and one that is 80% fossilized, and another one that is 10% fossilized, etc. Should there not be numerous examples of this? Should we not see this process at work in its' various stages today? If the same processes that created ancient fossils are at work today then this is not an unreasonable request. The fact is that unless rapidly covered in a catastrophic incident the carcass is quickly disposed of by scavengers. The stegosaurus in the article shows some evidence of being scavenged. That tells me that the animal was already dead and in the process of being scavenged when a catastrophe interrupted that routine activity and preserved the remains.
Dinosaur fossils are usually found in areas where we find dinosaur fossils! Some areas are devoid of dinosaur fossils, for instance here in Connecticut (afaik) they are never found, yet the state is a prime area for world class dinosaur [url2=http://www.dinosaurstatepark.org/page3.html]tracks[/url2]. The dinosaurs were here but only left their tracks. Any theory of fossilization has to adequately explain why there are rather large areas with plenty of fossils and other large areas that have none.
Often times fossils, if relatively complete, are found in tortured or contorted positions, as if the animal suffered an agonizing death. I have read various explanations for this ranging from poisoning to a rigor mortis induced contraction of the ligaments.
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* I agree with Nick's post. Could the Great Flood have left dinosaurs in their contorted positions? * Brigit said:
If there is any way to make a stronger case and verify C+O = Si, or if there is any research to back it up, then I think it would be a wonderful addition to this thread [... and] Apologies for the other inane comments.
* If, by inane, you mean hard to understand, we all have the right to speak imperfectly, unsophisticatedly, obscurely etc; right? You don't seem unsophisticated though. * I did a net search for "Kervran", "carbon", "oxygen" and "silicon" and found this: http://www.life-enthusiast.net/ormus/or ... ansmut.htm * It says: - Kervran also proposed a revolutionary theory about the genesis of coal and oil: Coal comes from schists, fabricated in situ, by high compression that produced the reactions: Si (=) C + O. If O could not escape, and was compressed as well, one would have O + O (=) S, from which one gets sulfurous coals. If there was no deformation, the coal remains mixed with argil to produce ampelite. - The presence of carbon in metamorphic and silicate rocks, formed long before there was any vegetation on Earth, is a clear demonstration: Graphite [a form of pure carbon] cannot be of vegetal origin, in which case another origin must be found for it, and I propose the silicium of these Archaean rocks. As for diamonds [also pure carbon]... here, too, one observes the presence of silicates, thus of silicon... [Remember that gold is usually found in silicates too, viz. quartz] In this way one can explain why all coal deposits contain silicon (up to 20%, or even 40%, and more) .... The great amounts of silicon might be an indication that the transmutation from Si to C + O was imperfect, incomplete. - Kervran claimed that petroleum was not formed from flesh or plants, but from the reaction Mg (=) C + C at great depth. If water is present, the hydrogen combines with carbon, and the oxygen forms sulfur (O + O (=) S), giving sulfurous oil. The Mg can come from a pocket of saline water when Na + H (=) Mg. Otherwise, Mg also can come from Ca or from adjacent layers of dolomitic rock [which contain Mg]. Oil deposits in the Sahara have been found in pre-Carboniferous rocks (Devonian and Cambrian-Ordovician) and in dolomite. * This suggests that Si can transmute into C + O, so the reverse may also be possible under other conditions. * In the Google book, The Ultimate Reality, by Joseph H. Cater, on page 504, it says "George Ohsawa ... transformed carbon into iron by 'plasmizing' carbon powder into incandescence and placing it in contact with atmospheric oxygen. The oxygen combined with the carbon to produce iron." * Kervran had already found in the 1960s that iron seems to transmute from silicon: Fe = Si+4Li. So, in order for carbon and oxygen to form iron, they must first form silicon, which must then combine with 4 lithium atoms to form iron. [[The lithium can come from carbon or oxygen breaking down into helium and combining to form neon, which can lose a proton [hydrogen] to make fluorine, which can lose a carbon or 3 helium components to yield lithium. Or it may be more probable that carbon or oxygen can break down into helium, which can combine with a proton and 2 neutrons to form lithium. Or, better yet, a pair of heliums, which is half of an oxygen atom, can lose a proton to form lithium.]] *
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Dr Tadahiko Mizuno describes evidence of transmutation taking place on his palladium cathode during the cold fusion process, page 7.
...it appears that the metal itself is as active as the hydrogen. The metal apparently fissions and fusions in complex reactions. Now the task is to think about the metal and not just the hydrogen. Theory must explain how palladium can turn part of itself into copper and other elements with peculiar isotopes.
One of the new "eureka" moments in this book is the moment when Mizuma and Ohmori saw the scanning electron microscope images of the beautiful lily-shaped eruptions on the surface of Ohmori's gold cathodes. This was visual proof that a violent reaction takes place under the surface of the metal, vaporizing the metal and spewing it out. Later these vaporized spots were found to be the locus of transmutation. Around them are gathered elements with an isotopic distribution that does not exist in nature. The only likely explanation is that these isotopes are the product of nuclear transmutation.
It's a long way to fossils from there, but at least it may not be a completely fanciful idea. Lloyd's post suggests as well that transmutation is working both directions...
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Lloyd wrote: Allyn, I discussed Dating of the Earth on the Transmutation thread at these links. If you'd like to discuss it more, you should probably start a thread on that. I don't know if there are any other threads already started on it.
I see that now, Lloyd, thanks. It took putting things in context, and having another Paradigm shift for it to sink in, but I get it.
You, Brigit, all of you guys are scaring the hell out of me.
When I stumbled onto all this stuff 17 months ago I was looking for new physics so that we could survive the next supervolcano eruption. I didn't bargain for what I've found so far.
Supervolcanoes, Ha!
"Now I become Death, the destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer.
Children playing with firecrackers.
I want more.
I wish there was someway to lay all this stuff out graphically, in an Idea chart. Talk about babbling, Ha! You ain't seen nothin' yet, Brigit. We're just getting started, babble on!
moses
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Dinosaur fossils are usually found in areas where we find dinosaur fossils! Some areas are devoid of dinosaur fossils, for instance here in Connecticut (afaik) they are never found, yet the state is a prime area for world class dinosaur tracks. The dinosaurs were here but only left their tracks. Any theory of fossilization has to adequately explain why there are rather large areas with plenty of fossils and other large areas that have none. nick
One starts to wonder - no flood then no dinosaur. How could this be ? If the dinos came from the sky then that would explain it. So I'm keeping my dinos from Mars theory. Mo
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* Mo, how dinos from Mars? * According to this map, one reason dinosaurs aren't found everywhere is that inland seas covered many areas, like the Midwest and the South. http://cascoly.com/maps/map-dinosaurs-1993.jpg * Here's an overview of dinosaur finds: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ology.html - Since 1992, the number of known dinosaur locations has increased considerably. Bones, footprints or eggs have been found at more than 1000 locations worldwide, up from about 650 in 1992 (see Tables). And in that time we have almost doubled the number of known genera of dinosaurs, from around 300 to more than 500. - Many of these new finds are in the traditional dinosaur heartlands - Yixian in China is a good example (see Dinotopia). But dinosaur palaeontology is an increasingly global discipline. In recent years important dinosaur deposits have been unearthed in almost every corner of the world, some in places that were previously off the map altogether - Ethiopia, Yemen, Ecuador, Uzbekistan and Siberia to name just a few. * Allyn, is this what you mean by an idea chart? http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/sc ... 6&lngWId=3 * Brigit, "beautiful lily-shaped eruptions on the surface of Ohmori's gold cathodes" sounds like those stalactites I posted above, as well as the gold filament nests found in gold veins. * And this "violent reaction takes place under the surface of the metal, vaporizing the metal and spewing it out" kind of makes me think of lightning explosions. Eh? Very tiny lightning.
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* I was searching the forum for kimberlite, since diamonds are found there and my recent post here mentions how silicon can transmute into diamond. * Wikipedia says: "Kimberlite occurs in the Earth's crust in vertical structures known as kimberlite pipes. Kimberlite pipes are the most important source of mined diamonds today."
* In the thread, Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics, at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1454&p=17180&hilit=kimberli~ Steve Smith said: - I would say that Kimberlite pipes, plutons, and salt domes are areas where smaller discharges drew ionized underground material together (magma could be considered solid plasma since it carries a charge), pulling it upward. When the discharge passed, the structures re-solidified. Obviously, halite [sodium chloride; salt] is another charged substance.
Would not such an addition of fresh water from Saturn[should say from the polar column]have disrupted the ecological balance necessary for ancient salt-sea life forms?
- It might have, thus contributing to the ecological and geographical reformation of our planet. As I mentioned in another thread, there are beds of fossil fish containing thousands of specimens. - It wasn't just the water. During the Event(s) of the recent past, the plasma discharges hoisted megatons of dust and debris into space, where it subsequently fell back, smothering large areas — including the oceans. [And it likely fell back quickly in an even layer by electrical attraction, kind of like the way paint is applied to new cars in factories electrically, rather than by mere gravity - also like the way dust forms a thin layer along the edges of lightning-carved trenches.]
* This thread, Electric Meteorites paper? Cool!, viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1069&p=10783&hilit=kimberli~ says as follows. - Kimberlite genesis is linked to disruptions in the Earth's electrical field caused by the approach of large meteoritic bodies, as well as their mechanical impact with the Earth. Previous work suggests that subterranean electrical discharges may not only cause earthquakes but also trigger the eruption of kimberlite. Here it is proposed that these disruptions of the Earth's internal electrical field are the result of external factors affecting the Earth's electric field, such as the close approach of a large meteoritic body. It is also suggested that cryptoring structures may have a similar genesis, as they appear to have a spatial association with kimberlite diatreme fields. - The proposed model of kimberlite genesis by near-Earth intruder interaction suggested by the author is based on four separate groups of data. Until recently, each particular group showed no logical connection with the other three, but when considered collectively all appear related. - Group 1. Subterranean electrical discharges - Group 2. Meteoritic bodies (MBs) as sources of electric fields - Group 3. Structural independence of diatreme zones and fields - Group 4. Spatial-temporal connections of ring explosive structures and diatreme fields and zones - Conclusion: Thus, the geological consequences of the interaction between large MBs with the Earth are not limited to mechanical impact, but may also result from electrical stresses in the atmosphere and the Earth's crust, producing seismicity, local partial melting of the mantle and the eruption of kimberlites to the Earth's surface.
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Lloyd wrote: Allyn, is this what you mean by an idea chart?
I'm thinking nonlinear thought bubbles like the various software programs listed on this site.
