© Developer

http://meetingwords.com/AO21VXSROJ

For reasons I don't fully understand, I'm having a hard time visualizing this process. I think that it's because the creative process doesn't like structure. So here's a thought — maybe we should consider swinging all of the way the other way, for a starting point. For the sake of the argument here, I'm going to call this the "I have an idea" method. So you announce that you have an idea on something that you want to discuss. You fire up an Etherpad session for it, and you start explaining your idea, identifying what it's about, and why you think that it's a good idea. There shouldn't be any rules for this stage in the process. Then, people can join in, asking questions, contributing supporting material, citing contrary arguments, etc. The advantage to using something like Etherpad is that material can be inserted precisely where it is relevant, instead of new material always going at the end, which fragments the logic, and forces people to read everything before understanding anything, which is usually too much for most people. So you never fully grasp the value of what is emerging. But if you can put new for/against material where it is relevant, people can follow the logic a lot easier. This is what we found with our Google Docs sessions — we could quickly get focused on the key issues, because of the dynamic editability.

Once the idea has been fleshed out in initial the Etherpad session, work can begin on formalizing the arguments, including the addition of citations, images, tables, etc. Once formalized, the idea becomes an article, that can be added to the relevant category in some sort of Encyclopedia, such as QDL.

So the idea here is to start off with a tabula rasa for the idea exploration, and to do all of the formalizing after the fact.

The idea I've been discussing today is that the Bible says the flood lasted 5 months and Gordon says matar, or meteors were raining down.

18:48Lloyd: So putting that with Saturn Theory, it sounds like Earth may have been going through the Asteroid belt at that time.

18:50Lloyd: I know images can't be posted here, so we could look for another Etherpad, or find another way to reference images, like links.

18:51CC: I'm getting that you want to discuss Saturn Theory?

18:52Lloyd: No, the Shock Dynamics event and what Gordon was saying about meteor impacts during the flood.

18:52Lloyd: I'm actually combining a number of theories.

18:53Lloyd: yours, Gordon's, Saturn Theory, Fisher's, Gray's

OK, so let's work on that for a while.

I like your idea about planets repelling each other's positive charges.

Yes — last evening I watched a show on Jupiter, and it talked about the planets migrating. They were saying that Jupiter had to form further out, where the hydrogen is cool enough to condense — out near the freezing line. But the whole thesis of what they were saying was based on the accretion disc model, that Jupiter scavenged a bunch of matter in the disc, and this is what determined the present day location of it, and the other planets. But I really like Bode's Law, and the electrostatic repulsion of Debye cells explains it perfectly.

Yeah, I just read that yesterday.

I'll paste my theory below:

Do you want to do any critiquing of that yet?

Let me think about it for a while. ;)

;)

You're going with a "Young Earth" timeline. I guess my only comment is that very little of the work that I've done so far identifies the duration of the events in question. I'm starting to get an idea of how long it takes for dusty plasma filaments to implode, and for main sequence stars to form, and for toroidal plasmoids (a.k.a., natural tokamaks) to form. That's all very sketchy at present. And I don't even have a sketchy idea of time spans for geology. In general, until/if/when I have studied something, and I have found good reason to disagree with the consensus, I'll just use the consensus as my default view, even if it's just placeholder while I'm working on other stuff. So my question is: what is the reason for going with a "Young Earth" chronology? There has to be a reason.

I've been posting on the Cataclysm thread in order to show that the conventional dating methods are way off. C14 dating seems to be most accurate and it dates many things way younger and if there was a thick damp atmosphere there may have been no C14 initially, which would make older C14 dates off too.

OK — I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to see the for's and against's for this.

That's what I've been putting up on that thread, which I can organize and discuss here sometime.

Actually, I asked you if you'd like to put Observations from your papers in Observations Folders. Are those ready or not hard to handle?

I agree with this. In general, I "try" to lay out the observations, and then I identify the mainstream explanation, and what's wrong with it, and then I get into my proposed explanation. This is a fairly standard approach, though I can't say that I'm meticulous about it, and various observations are interspersed with theories and hypotheses. So it isn't like all of the observations are in one big block at the beginning, that would be trivial to break out into their own section. But I'm considering the possibility that such a degree of formalization would be a good exercise, and it's definitely good scientific form.

If you answered that already in the Public Discussions thread on your site, I'll read that.

Can you copy some Observations from one of your papers here? Or do you need to sign off before long? I have an hour or so.

I was going to go fix some supper before too long, but I can keep going for perhaps 1/2 hour.

OK.

I copied one of your papers to the Titanpad earlier and started trying to sort out the Observations, but it was a bit difficult.

I think that I'll probably have to restructure the article to support this. You might not be able to just extract the relevant sentences — they might need to be reworded so that it all makes sense. But like I said elsewhere, this is a standard format for good scientific literature.

I like the wording of your papers as they are, so I hope you don't lose the logical flow by separating out Observations.

Well, most of what I've done needs a lot more work, in order to be accessible. I tend to write for my own purposes, to capture the logic, but there isn't always enough meat there for others to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying.

That's why critiquing papers here should help.

And when we go to explain our ideas in a different venue, it forces a different literary style, which is really useful. The best explanations are not the ones in formal articles — they're the ones you come up with in conversations to make the ideas accessible. Then you have to realize that it's higher quality stuff, and figure out how to structure your articles like that. :)))

Yup.

I'll be happy to focus on your line of reasoning, with the Young Earth hypothesis, Shock Dynamics, etc. I have a little bit of familiarity with it, but not so much that I remember the arguments, when years come between them. ;)

Gordon has good ideas and info too.

OK, so let's go with it.

Well, would you like to schedule a session here with Gordon and me? I don't know if he'll have time for this, but he did work on a Google Doc with me a year or so ago.

Sure.

When would be handy for you? and how long?

Evenings, 1 hour at a time?

I'll ask Gordon by email and PM then, for an evening soon. He's in Pacific Time, so I guess 7 his time might be good, but that would be 10 your time. Is that too late? I usually go to bed about 930, but I could delay a little.

No, 10 pm EDT is fine.

I'll ask him if 6 or 7 is okay with him.

Should I make up a questionnaire about odd theories that we agree or disagree with?

If you're talking about a QDL survey, one of the cool things is that users can add their own options. (I fixed a few bugs with this, so if it didn't work for you before, try it again.) So you don't have to anticipate every conceivable odd theory — you can just list a few, and then let people add their own, and other people can come back and re-take the survey, to express interest later. Of course, if you're talking about an Etherpad survey, it's a lot more open-ended. :)))

Yeah.

I see you haven't answered yet. Here is the question:

>>>>>>

Plan for Etherpad for Observations

Here's a potential Plan I came up with this morning. What do yous think of it?

1. Hold Etherpad Discussions/Conferences

- First organize online Etherpad Conferences

- Later maybe hold Conferences at physical locations too

2. Post CC model observations to QDL Observations Folder

3. Critique CC model onsite & on Etherpad

4. Post newgeology.us, MM model, EU mythology to QDL

5. Use Etherpad to sort observations to Observations Folder

6. QDL team vote on other models to post

7. Critique these models onsite & on Etherpad

You're way ahead of me there. I guess I'm still in the crawling stage. We need a way of engaging people in discussions. And my point has always been that there has to be more to it than just discussing — the discussion have to lead somewhere. So it shouldn't be just an endless stream of verbiage — it needs to lead to the production of a thesis, which lays out the info and the arguments. But I'm leaning towards just getting people involved first, and then employing other methods that we can developed for structuring the material after the fact. We can have (and have had) plenty of discussions, on TB and elsewhere. We learned a lot. But if we want the knowledge to grow, we can't just tell people to go read a couple dozen threads on TB — we have to assemble the information in a usable form. I just don't think that the information can be captured in a usable form — we have to capture it first, and structure it later. :)

Do you think it would be interesting to critique Shock Dynamics here?

I'm not sure that I'm qualified. It looked like very thorough work to me. I'd be happy to lurk & learn, and maybe ask questions. But yes, I think that this would be worthwhile.

Critiquing is often just asking questions anyway, if you don't understand something well.

Yes.

OK, can we break off now, 'cuz I'm getting hungry, and you're probably getting tired. I can copy this to a document for back-up purposes, in case we lose it. Hopefully we can pretty much pick up later where we left off.

Yeah. I'll invite Gordon & others here for an evening soon.

I'm guessing that more than two people here at once might cause more disconnections.

Well, see you later.

OK, cool. Ciao. ;)

*(k means thousand years ago)

1. (...k) Solar System Formation: Imploding nebular solar filament forms Sun & planets in a line O-A-J-S-H-V-M-E-D-U-N-P (O=Sun, D=Moon, A=Aster) (That's from CC's model & is consistent with Saturn Theory)

2. (15k) Supercontinent: DiMoon collides softly with Earth, making the supercontinent and the Moon (CC's model +)

- flora & fauna cover the Earth in its ideal climate

- humans build advanced civilization (Gray's model)

3. (12k) Saturn Flare: Something in the Kuyper belt hit Saturn, causing it to flare (Saturn Theory +)

<<<>>>

4. (6k) Asteroid Belt: Much later, something collides hard with Aster, making the Asteroid belt (CC model +)

5. (5k) Saturn system meets Jupiter, causing Earth, Mars, Venus, Moon & Mercury to drift away from Saturn (Saturn Theory)

6. (4.4k) Bombardment: Saturn's planets cross the Asteroid belt for 5 months (Bible + Saturn Theory)

- during which asteroids bombard Earth, Moon & Mars

- An asteroid hits Earth east of Africa, causing rapid continental slides (Fisher's model)

- Mountains build up at the beginning & end of the continental slides

- Vulcanism occurs when continents slow down & stop sliding (Gordon's + Fisher's ideas)

- Flood basalts occur in India, Siberia and Washington

-The great flood occurs, involving many tsunamis lasting 5 months (Bible + Gordon's idea)

7. (4.4k) The Ice Age begins during the bombardment and lasts a few hundred years afterward (Gray's model)

8. (4.3k) Maps: Humans make new maps and inherit old ones of the world before and after the ice age began

- civilization begins to rebuild (Gray's model)

9. (4.2k) Canyons: Natural dam breaks cause floods that erode the Washington scablands and the Grand Canyon (maybe Gordon's model + Walter Brown's model)