Thunderbolts Forum

Small Online Conference Tonight

Conference Site Changed
The meetingwords.com site that I planned to have the conference at tonight isn't connecting for me, so I'm setting up another site for it at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/U0QsftuJQO.

It's at 7 pm Pac Time, 10 Eastern.

Online Conference was Productive

Preliminary Report

Three of us had a good discussion last night. We discussed the age of the Earth, ancient civilization and the Bible, the recent time of the dinosaurs, the Great Flood and rapid continental drift, Hydroplate theory, Shock Dynamics, and the Asteroid Bombardment.

The last led to a question about whether the Moon's near side melted, or suffered large impacts, that produced the flat maria.

I found some good sites that show the composition of Moon rocks etc. Here are the links below. I asked, "Do you think it's pretty conclusive that the maria were formed from impacts and the craters filled with flood basalt?"

Some Moon Rocks
Article about Those Moon Rocks

More Detailed Article with images

Apollo Landing Sites (mostly on maria)

Hopefully, we'll get some answers soon.

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

And I replied:
Conclusive, yes. The maria are circular and rimmed with shocked features, and basalt is found on their floors. Can't argue much with that. That the lunar episode corresponded with the flood "matar" is my conjecture; in fact I would say that if the Moon had not been there, the Earth would have been utterly destroyed. Well, I'm not convinced of that theory yet :)

As for the maria being on the near side of the moon, I visualize huge impactors knocking into the Moon, removing material from that side and actually altering its rotation. the almost instant magmatization of the crust at the impactor sites fills up those crater basins with the dense basalt we see today, giving rise to the smooth appearance Galileo termed maria. Meanwhile, in rebound the less [averagely] dense materials now forming the rest of the Moon centrifugally [ie. due to tidal locking with the Earth] reel the opposite side of the Moon into it's away-facing position with a small libration still observed today. in this tidally locked rotation/orientation, the away side continues to be bombarded by approaching meteors, while the facing side enjoys a relatively sheltered status, much like the drier rear window of a high speed car in a rainstorm.

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Those are interesting details about the lunar maria, Gordon, though I'm sure a lot more such details will be needed before too long.

Online Conference Transcript
Here's the transcript of yesterday's collaborative discussion.
CC is Charles. GW is Webb. LK is Lloyd.

LK: Are the ancient maps good evidence of former advanced civilization?
- Do you think there was advanced civilization that produced the Bible? Or that produced the ancient maps and other traces?

GW: Yes, I think the early Chaldean civilization was advanced, and produced maps, but I don't endorse every archaeological claim I've encountered about this.

LK: Do you think the Earth existed before the time the Bible says it was created?
- Do you consider Earth to be just 6,000 or 7,000 years old, as per the popular Bible interpretation?
- Or do you think the supercontinent formed before that?
- How do you think the supercontinent formed on the Earth? Have you read Charles' theory?

GW: I think it is possible that the earth's crust and atmosphere were the topics of Genesis 1 and 2, so there is a reasonable option that the primordial planet and other bodies were created prior to that time by immeasurable years.

LK: What is the best physical evidence of Catastrophism?
a. Berthault's findings on sedimentation?
b. interbedding of lava and sedimentary rock in Washington etc?
c. Fisher's findings of the large crater on the east side of Africa?
- Can you name other evidence here that you think should be discussed?

GW: Astroblemes associated with every major stratum, the strata themeselves, the absence of record for the 100-millions of years hiatuses

LK: What's the best evidence that conventional dating methods are largely useless?
(Can you supply references sometime to specific pages of scientific papers? or links to same? Are you satisfied with the links I posted on the Catastrophism thread?)

GW: You did a good job with your links. Also check the R.A.T.E. group for lots of "anomalous" dating results.
LK: I did check RATE.
CC: Where are those links — in the Catastrophism thread you mentioned elsewhere?
LK: Some are there. Do you want the link to the thread?
CC: Yes — then I'll import the thread into QDL, for future reference, and for archival purposes.
LK: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025

LK: Do you agree with Fisher's postings that show C14 dating of dinosaur bones show them to be between about 20,000 and 30,000 years old?
- When do you think dinosaurs died out and what's your reasoning?

GW: I could live with his dates, but I telescope them into a period of just about 6 milennia BP, due to my assumption that C14 was not well mixed with the early atmosphere available for assimilation in the biosphere prior to the flood, which I would date around 5K BP or so. Dinosaurs died out with the flood, but alive up to that time, in my view.

LK: Do you agree with Walter Brown's Hydroplate theory as the explanation for rapid continental drift?
I don't see much plausibility for the underground chambers of water. Do you?

GW: I taught from a standard text written back in the late 70s that made the claim that enough water is outgassed in volcanic eruptions to account for all of the world's oceans. I've been influenced by that statement, and can go with chambers or levels or layers or fissures/vents from the mantle or any other means by which water may have erupted out. But in my flood view, the water that already existed in the early seas is practically sufficient to have done the flood work via tsunami-type action.
LK: I don't think it would be possible for underground chambers of water to exist 10 miles down, because the rock is plastic, according to the Kola borehole findings. It became too plastic to drill through at 7 miles. I guess things could've been different before the flood.
Brown's Hydroplate theory explains continental drift as underground water chambers ten miles deep caving in and the pressure blowing out at the ocean ridges, which were previously part of the supercontinent.

CC: I don't see the evidence of large amounts of water coming out of the mid-ocean ridges.
LK: Gordon, have you done or seen calculations that support the Hydroplate theory?
- Do you agree with Brown's idea about underground chambers filled with water that caved in and sprayed water and rock through the spreading centers?
- What's wrong with Fisher's theory that continental drift occurred within a 26 hour period?
- If continental drift took 5 months, the continents would have moved at only 1 mph or less. Where would the force be applied to the continents for that lengh of time?

GW: I'm intrigued by it [Hydroplate theory?]. It would fit my model well if further confirmed. I'm not requiring the cave-ins but it's a good idea. I go with inertia after the initial drift-ignition event, Friction and inertia in some mix after that.
CC: I go with Fischer's theory of an impact that generated the momentum. I also favor rapid mountain building, instead of gradualism, just because one cannot say that the crust is oh so plastic, and then say that mountains could have been gradually built up — if the crust was that plastic, the leveling process would have kept up with the mountain building, so clearly, the moutain building was on a faster pace.
GW: Good point, it is also for this reason I don't believe subduction is required to explain boundary mountains and trenches.
CC: I have a totally different idea of subduction. I don't think (like the mainstream) that the oceanic crust is falling because it is cooler — it's actually warmer than the mid-ocean ridges. But I don't go with the "all over in an instant" model of Fischer's. Rather, I think that the impact event got things moving, but then I think that each earthquake in the subduction zone causes the next one. The energy sources that heat up the crust result in expansion. When traction is re-established after the rupture, the cooling then exerts a tensile force on the crust, pulling it toward the fault. This is why the rifts form in the back arcs.
LK: CC, have you written anything yet about earthquakes during the continental drift event?
CC: Do you mean in the initial event (i.e., Fischer's "bad day in Madagascar" event)?
LK: I mean during the entire episode of continental drift, mostly the Americas moving from Africa and Europe to about 3,000 miles west.
CC: No, I haven't treated that at all — I think that Fischer has the right bacic idea, and until/if/when I've done a great deal more studying, I couldn't expect to improve on his work. I just don't think that it was all over in 26 hours — I think that the initial impact got things going, but then the heating/cooling process at the faults helped keep things going.
LK: So the earthquakes you were talking about above are the current ones that do very minor continental drifting.
CC: Yes — it's just a couple of centimeters at a time for a "normal" earthquake, is that right, Gordon?
GW: Yes, Charles, with some noteable exceptions: the quake/tsunami in Japan, the quake tsunami in Indonesia, the 1964 Anchorage quake/tsunami, et.al.
CC: OK, so I can see how the momentum, which when averaged out is just millimeters per year, could have been initiated by an impact event. But I don't believe that the event could have accelerated the continents to the speed that Fischer says, nor do I see what could have brought them to such an abrupt stop.
LK: I like Mike's explanation of fluidization as being involved. He said it's like landslides along continental slopes, where the rock slides horizontally for long distances [on the seafloor].
GW: I'm dubious on fluidization as the mechanism... heat increases friction and vice-versa. Am I just plain wrong about heat and friction?
Regardless, I believe that friction between the cont plate and ocean plates of the Pacific caused the slowdown and the mountain/trench building orogenies.

LK: Heat reduces friction and there may be ionization too.
- Gordon, that's what Mike says too, that friction is what caused the continents to slow down and heat up, causing mountain building.

CC: In my model, the lithosphere slides on a frictionless Moho, which is a thin (1 meter) layer of supercritical fluid, which is compressible, and frictionless. So tectonic motion doesn't require mantle plumes, nor the energy sufficient to fight friction at the crust/mantle boundary.
[LK: Mike referred to the Moho too.]
CC: But this doesn't mean that the continents could have shifted thousands of kilometers in a day in my model. Mountains have roots, and moving the continents rapidly WOULD have forced friction. So in my model, electric currents in the Moho keep it molten (or rather, supercritical), but when mountain roots start pressing against the mantle, the tectonic motion has to wait for the electric currents to melt the rock. (I'll elaborate on that if you want.)
GW: Mountain roots are originating at the same time as the buildup, due to isostasy.
CC: Yes, but what I'm saying is that irregularities in the underside of the crust match up with complementary irregularities in the mantle. Then, for plate shifting to occur, one and/or the other has to undergo deformation. My problem with that is that it would take more energy than seems available. So I'm saying that the Moho is 1 meter thick, and hot enough to be supercritical. And it has an electric current in it. If plate shifting occurs, the irregularities don't match up quite so well, and that 1-meter gap gets reduced. The bad news is that the crust starts to run the risk of "running aground" as it shifts on the mantle.
[LK: You mean running aground during the major continental drift event?
CC: No — I'm talking about the minor events, as we see today.] The good news is that the reduced gap forces more electric current through a smaller area, which produces more heat. So suppose there used to be a consistent 1-meter gap between the crust and the mantle. But then the crust shifted. Now the irregularities (e.g., mountain roots) result in there being only a 1/2 meter gap between the crust and the mantle. But then that heats up, and melts the rock, re-establishing the gap, and preventing the [ship-wise] "grounding".
LK: Charles, wouldn't the supercontinent have had a root in the mantle with the Moho between them there too?
GW: ??why?
CC: Yes.
LK: So if a water chamber were down there, it wouldn't blow out at the thicker part of the supercontinent, would it? Or wasn't it so thick? Did there have to be a weakness in the supercontinent for the Americas to split off?
GW: But due to the aplasticity of the crust the mountainforming "front" end is also more brittle, with many fissures and faults, thus we see the subsequent formation of the volcanic chains at those locations.Thicker but weaker, that's why I noted above that the roots are of the same nature as the mountains, with the notable difference that due to the same forces you are referring to much melting is occuring there, producing magmas and the like which extrude into the weak upper crust.
CC: Hang on right there...
I also have a totally different idea on volcanoes. I don't think that high pressure magma can get forced up through cracks in the crust. Rather, I think that cracks in the crust, which are common around faults due to the inelastic deformation, enable electric currents. A microfracture just 1 nano-meter wide can drop the electrical resistance of granite, from over 2 mega-ohms, down to about 300 olms. The result is an electric current, and then can melt the rock, due to ohmic heaating. And I'm convinced that such electric currents, between the surface and the Moho (or at least between the ground table and the Moho) are what open up magma tubes. If it were not for that, there wouldn't be the concentration of heat into a tubelike structure that could create such a vent, since heat propagates outward radially. And high-pressure rock is a fair thermal conductor. (Cooler rock is a poor conductor.) But what we're seeing is a vertical shaft, from the Moho to the surface. This is not a characteristic of thermodynamics, but it IS a characteristic of electric currents.
- The significance of this is huge. Take the worst case scenario — Yellowstone. There is no known way to prevent volcanic eruptions, much less at supervolcanoes. But what if it is an electric current that is generating the heat to pressurize the magma chamber? All we have to do is go about 100 km away, and drill a bore hole about 5 km deep, which will attract all of the telluric currents in the area, because it will fill up with highly conductive ground water. With no electric currents flowing through the magma chamber at Yellowstone, it will cool down, and eventually freeze over — problem solved. A bore hole 5 km deep would cost about 20 million dollars to drill, which is within reach for humankind. So there's a practical way to prevent a mass extinction event.

GW: I'm not concerned so much with the mechanism; what you are saying is plausible. But the geography shows that generally volcanoes form not in the heights of the mount ranges [some exceptions] but on the lowland adjacent to the ranges
CC: Volcanoes occur where there is crustal deformation. I'm saying that the deformation creates the microfractures that enable the flow of electric currents. So under a given stress, it would make sense that the mountains do not undergo deformation, since they're thicker. A rigid material will always fail where it is thinnest. So the crust next to the mountains gets the deformation.
GW: I'm ok with that explanation.
CC: BTW, I'm saying that this is the same mechanism that causes earthquakes — tectonic pressure causes crustal buckling, and then currents can flow through the microfractures. The current heats the crust, which causes more tectonic pressure, which increases the buckling. Thus it's a positive feedback loop, resulting in a rapid increase in pressure, which causes the rupture. The surface heating prior to the rupture cannot be explained as deformation, since it's elastic.

LK: Do you think it's possible that the apparent Asteroid Bombardment (matar) during the Great Flood was due to Earth crossing the Asteroid Belt? What would preclude that?
- Don't you think the Bombardment would have caused the flood and continental drift?

GW: I think the flood and drift event [singular] was directly connected with earth interacting with planetoidal bodies. A glimpse at the the earth's placement with respect to the present known asteroids shows that no exotic explanation about the earth's transposition is necessary [like Earth crossing the Asteroid Belt? - LK]. Several possibilities here:
a. A planet swung by Earth (perhaps Venus, which is currently in a tidally phased rotation pattern with Earth), knocking Earth's rotation into a wobble
b. A planet swept through the asteroids, disrupting whatever was there and sending bits streaming by Earth
c. A comet collided with the earth breaking up as it neared, causing the preponderance of the "matar" to fall over the 5 month time

LK: Wouldn't the same event have been the cause of the bombardment on the Moon and possibly on Mars and many other bodies? So, if so, that suggests that they all went through the Asteroid belt to me. Not you?
GW: Why not? My studies have mainly been terrestrial, but the evidence abounds elsewhere in the solar system! But again, the asteroids are really all around us, and a major disruption in the belt could have affected earth as I suggested, but that's just one of many possible scenarios.
CC: I'm not sure I agree that the flood was caused by ET events, but I agree that something came through and upset a lot of apple carts. Recently I've been studying the similarity between the mares on the Moon and on Mars. I rather think that both of them got re-melted by something, instead of the mares filling up with lava flows. But the chance of two different bodies undergoing the exact same process, at exactly the same time (i.e., toward the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment) is relatively slight. So I think that something triggered them both. It could have been the thermalization of the impacts of the Bombardment, or gravitational deformation from a large body passing by.
- By "Late Heavy Bombardment", I'm just referring to all of the impact craters on the Moon and on Mars, and the fact that there are many of them in the highlands, but only a few in the lowlands. This means that the lowlands on both the Moon and on Mars were both molten at the same time.

LK: What's the evidence for melting on the mares and on Mars?
CC: It's just the flatness of the mares, and the absence of source volcanoes.
LK: Do you know of evidence of melting in the Moon rocks?
CC: Ummm... I don't know. What would be the difference between my "melting" and the volcanism in the standard model?
LK: Conventional vulcanism comes through volcanoes, except for flood basalts.
CC: So in megaflow eruptions, there isn't going to be an extinct volcano left afterwards, is that correct?
GW: The highly fluid nature of flood basalt is such that no cones were formed and the originating vents are left submerged and invisible to the investigator.
CC: Gordon, what would be the make/break telltale signs that the mares on the Moon and on Mars would definitely be megaflows, and not just general re-melting of the bodies due to some other energy source (such as tidal deformation)?
GW: An astronaut geologist needs to observe the basalt flows to see columnar jointing below and vesicular pattern above, then I would know the maria are mega flows; until then I'm open to any good explanations, such as yours:-)
CC: Is the columnar jointing a result of crystalization, or is it something else?
GW: Cooling of the flow is approximately uniform over the entire surface of the flow, causing a shrinkage pattern that produces the roughly hexagonal columns. The sides of the columns are conchoidal, but the tops are relatively flat where the top part of the flow [vesicular basalt] gets eroded away. Since there is no erosion on the Moon, this structure would have to be exposed in profile somewhere for the astro-geologist to see.
LK: Aren't there closeup images of any of the mares, or aren't there even Apollo landing sites there, which would be clear enough to tell what caused the flat surface?
CC: It sounds like the make/break evidence that I'm looking for would then be just the vesicular pattern. Is basalt too low in viscosity for this? In other words, I can understand air bubbles being trapped in felsic magma, and still being in the ejecta, leaving such characteristics after cooling. But what if the lava had plenty of time to out-gas — would it still be vesicular?10
GW: Right, no it would not be vesicular, but the rapidly cooling top surface of each flow is more brittle than the columnar "underbelly"... The analogy I use for students is like pouring coke into a glass, then rapidly freezing the glass...the crystals would be characteristic in the bottom of the glass, but full of airpockets above. This is a different picture than what you are describing I think?
CC: Well, I was just trying to see if there was any way of ruling out any of the various possibilities. BTW, as you know, without much of an atmosphere on either the Moon or Mars, the lava wouldn't have cooled quickly, because there wouldn't have been much thermal conduction, nor much convection to transport the heat away. So it sounds like the lava (if that's what it was) would have had plenty of time to out-gas.
GW: I agree with you on the convection point. Regardless, the columnar pattern should show up if it's basalt.
LK: Charles said the Moon is made of granite, like the Earth's continents.
CC: Actually, they have found both granite and basalt on the Moon, is that correct?
- BTW, I'm currently reconsidering whether or not I actually believe that the Moon impacted the Earth. The reason is because of the remelting that occurred at the same time as Mars (if that's what it was). This would mean that the Moon couldn't have been involved in such a catastrophic collision, or it would have been totally remelted, and there wouldn't be any highlands left.

LK: Charles, you said in your papers that Earth's and the Moon's granites are a lot alike, more than any other planets. Didn't you? What would account for that?
CC: Yes, but I'm just no longer sure that it's necessarily quite that simple. If there are basalts on the Moon, especially in the mares, then it isn't that the Moon is made entirely of the same stuff as the Earth's continents.
LK: Maybe Earth's basalt and granite ALL came from the protoMoon.
CC: Yes, that's possible.
GW: I'm on the side of Charles' mind change; I don't accept the collision theory of Moon and Earth, nor for that matter the ejected Moon theory.
LK: I linked to some lunar images. Check them out a few lines below. See the links?
- Charles, do you have a very clear idea how a close approach between "planets" would cause melting of the surfaces?

CC: I don't know what you mean by "very clear", but I was thinking that the thermalization of tidal deformation might do it. This is generally considered to be elastic deformation, which doesn't produce heat, but in my model, it is driving telluric currents, which could remelt the crust.
LK: Okay, that makes plenty of sense.
- And could Mars have approached closely to the Moon, as EU theorists sometimes speculate, and could that produce melted surfaces?

GW: Due to the tidally syncopated rotations of Earth and Venus, I suspect this was the near approach involved, which could have thrown Mars into its highly elliptical orbit as well as disrupting both the surfaces of Mars and the Moon.
LK: Gordon, can you tell anything about melting from this lunar mare image? http://cseligman.com/text/moons/humorum.jpg
Or this one? http://cseligman.com/text/moons/rille.jpg

GW: Not really...

LK: Is it obvious that the Grand Canyon formed from dam breaks of the ancient lakes that previously existed north and east of the canyon?
- Do you know how to calculate how soft the ground had to be in order for the canyon to erode so quickly and deeply?
- And do you know how to calculate how young the sediments had to be in order to be that soft?

GW: The Grand Canyon is the popular go to for both catastrophists and uniformitarians, so is a good place to discuss the mechanisms of sedimentation. I refer folks to Guy Berthault's sedimentology for the understanding of how multiple deep sedimentary layers are formed simultaneously by a moving current. The depositing of the sediments and subsequent draining of the rising plateau may have happened within weeks of each other, so the ground would have been adequately soft and immeasurably "young". As to the cementation process in rock formation, there is no reason to require long ages for sediment to become rock. We can do it in hours for a concrete sidewalk. How can we know this could happen in the past? The evidence is before our very eyes: The cement we use comes from the rock formations we're taking into evidence — the rocks are full of these cementers, which we quarry out and grind up for our use. There is no mystery, these rock formations may take months, even years to fully cure, but why assume the hundreds of millions of years required by the standard model? Related, the process of petrifaction is accomplished in hours in the lab, under the right conditions and catalysts. That these conditions existed in the past is inferred [not proven] by the fact that we find petrified remains in all kinds of sedimentary materials. Again, no reason whatever to claim ages of millions of years except to support the requirements of the standard model.

LK: Where are the main gaps in Catastrophism theory?
GW: Gaps in Catastrophic concepts. Our current epoch of relative geologic calm, cyclical seasons and climate were prescribed/predicted at the end of the flood event. Until people begin to recognize that our present case is a result and recovery from the cataclysm of old, the only thing that will convince them is the next global catastrophe. Perhaps even for some this is the lure of Anthropogenic Global Warming and its attendant catastrophes. So the "gap" is the the modern cultural mind. Along with this, the standard model indoctrination of radiometric dating, taught without reference or regard for the assumptions on which it is built, is a roadblock for many. "Hasn't science proven the world is 4.5 billions years old?" it will be commonly quipped.

LK: What are promising ways to get the theory of Catastrophism widely accepted?
- What audiences might be best targeted?
- Christians; Muslims; Jews; homeschool families; libertarians; Republicans; conservatives; private schools; specific places in social media; online conferences; online videos ...?

GW: Catastrophism isn't a theory, or even a variety of theories, it is a paradigm. When you view the world around you, you see processes at work, weather, the water cycle, mountains uplifting, volcanism, the biosphere with its myriad varieties and variations. Does this world appear to you as stable, unchanging [or invisibly slowly changing], predictably cyclical? If so, then the pardigm of Uniformitarianism suits you well, and you readily learn to interpret the physical evidence in the framework of gradualism. Since the time of Lyell, Hutton, and Darwin, the social indoctrination in this perspective has been facilitated by the naturalistic approach of scientism which, by its appropriate self-limitation to the experimental study of repeatable processes has led many to the conclusion that all of the universe of space, time and matter, is predictable and formulaic. It is possible that this indoctrination is indelible [for some?]; there is a comfort to this boxing up of the cosmos, that makes it virtually impossible to break free to explore other options.
- As open-minded to the evidence as most scientists claim to be, they generally fail to recognize that their worldview is enslaved to the modern materialistic and deterministic paradigm. I was trained in this perspective, and so it took me a number of years to be able to see the world as I do today. We are in a period of relatively unremarkable stability, punctuated however by occasional (and increasing, imo) catastrophic events. The physical record of the past Is full of evidence of widespread and repeated flood deposition, seismic activity, meteor impacts, and the like. These episodes are separated by imagined hiatal periods in which supposed long epochs of mountain building and subsequent erosion leave the earth's surface relatively flat. Without these alleged hiatuses, the record is one of cataclysm and catastrophe. In the "last days" we are told catastrophism will be mocked according to the biblical record (2 Peter). It is possible we are living in a representative social climate. People will continue to believe what they want to believe, until that belief system no longer suits them ... generations later perhaps history will record our time as the Era of Doubt, despite our ever increasing awareness of large-scale catastrophic processes.

Etherpad Discussion Tonight Saturday

The Catastrophism miniconference is planned for 8 PM Eastern Time tonight at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/U0QsftuJQO.

That time may change, but I'll try to be there then anyway. If it does change, I'll post it here.
You may leave comments in advance, if you like.

Topics include Dating the Cataclysm/s, Webb's Views on the Great Flood, and Webb's and Chandler's Views on the Supercontinent Origin. Any other requests for topics?

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Friday/Saturday Miniconference
[CC said: What is the reason for going with a "Young Earth" chronology?
LK: The Earth may or may not be old; its surface seems to be young. Cataclysms seem to have occurred around 4,350 years ago, which reshaped the top two miles of the continents' sedimentary strata. The cataclysm/s involved meteor impacts, land movements & tsunamis.]
LK: Dating the Cataclysm/s
a1) 4.3kyr: rivers, waterfalls, lakes, coral reefs, big trees, deserts, ice sheets, genealogies, ancient civilizations, ancient maps;
a2) a3) 20-30kyr: dinosaurs & giant insects extinction (C14 dating) [Mike Fischer, newgeology.us]
LK: He thinks they actually lived till the SD event about 10kyr BP; GW & I agree they lived till the SD event, but that was 4.35kyr BP or so.
a4) 4.35?kyr: giant mammals extinction; asteroid bombardment; impact craters; rock strata [Ask GW]
LK: Gordon, can carbonates be dated by C14 dating? Do you know if anyone has tried that? When dinosaur fossils were C14 dated, they showed 20kyr+, as shown above. I guess lime is the most common carbonate. Right?
GW: C14 Dating is limited to materials derived from organism remains or processes, because it has to be assimilated from the atmosphere. Limestone is therefore a candidate for C14 dating, if it is derived [as much of it is] from reef activity; but not all carbonates are thus derived. Simply: Life is built of carbon, but carbonates are not necessarily built from life. Dinosaurs are most often found in limestone [largely calcium carbonate], but it is the boney [or other] material of a fossil that would contain the C14, rather than the rock matrix surrounding it. The existence of any C14 in a fossils necessitates it being under 50K years old, and in my shortening of the timeline after the Cataclysm [due to prior lack of C14 in the pre-Flood condition, and subsequent influx of C14 following the greenhouse collapse] puts all C14 dates into a time frame probably 6K BP to present. C14 is found only in a ratio of ~1/1,000,000 to C12 in living organisms, and diminishingly minute amounts as you go back in time, with a half-life of 5730 yrs. if the assimilation rate remained constant, but I don't believe it was constant, but was rather suddenly introduced with the collapse of the primordial atmosphere.
b) Tsunamis and floods are known to form many strata simultaneously [Berthault, sedimentology.fr]
b1) Rationale: No impacts occurred in preCambrian strata [GW]
GW: Correction: the original impacts occurred on the surface of Pre-Cambrian crust, then repeatedly throughout the accumulating strata above.
b2) Impacts probably occurred all in the same short time period
b3) Therefore, the rock strata above preCambrian probably formed all at the same time
c) The arctic animals peppered with micrometeorites were probably killed by the asteroid bombardment [Walter Brown]
d) Ancient myths are probably based on observed major events and cataclysms [Dwardu Cardona]
e) Therefore, the asteroid bombardment, continental drift, the great flood and fossil formation probably all occurred about 4.3kya
f) Ancient myths probably tell us exactly which planets were involved in the major events and cataclysms [Dwardu Cardona]
g) From the impact, Australia moved at 150 m/s, or 340 mph, while the Americas moved slower than that [Shock Dynamics]
GW: I think much slower, more like 3 kph at peak, and Australia and India at around 7 kph perhaps.
h) PS, the preflood atmosphere was much thicker, which made large animals more buoyant [GW?]
GW: I doubt this. I think too many speculations about animal behavior and mobility are based on too little actual evidence.
i) The Younger Dryas time was the same time as the Cataclysm [GW?]
GW: I don't relate strata vertically by time [ie. the superposition assumption] but by horizontal placement [due to Berthault's stratigraphy], so pretty much anything above Pre-Cambrian rock relates to the flood catastrophe.
j) Please review the 15 minute Shock Dynamics video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IIE8UnvPUg
What parts do you disagree with, if any?

GW: Initiating event: The matar. Subsequently the splitting of the crust. then...
-RAIN: The rain fell for 40 days non-stop "gushing" [Heb: geshen],
-due to the sudden influx of condensation nuclei into the atmosphere,
GW: caused by the "fountains of the deep" as well as and initiated by the "matar" [planetoids from space]
-then intermittent rain fell for 5 months.
-This was a relatively small contributor to the water load of the flood.

Plans for Next Miniconference

The Supercontinent existed at least 1kyr before the Great Flood as preCambrian granite and had no mountains or volcanoes
[Bible; fossil record: Creationism]

Earth and other planets were moons of Saturn; after Saturn flared civilization began; the Saturn system gradually dispersed
[Bible; mythology: Cardona, Talbott et al]

There was advanced civilization before the Tower of Babel event and before the Great Flood
[ancient maps: Jonathan Gray]

The cataclysm started with asteroid impacts (about 4.35kya), which lasted 5 months, as Earth crossed the Asteroid Belt
[Bible (matar); GW]

The continents split off of the Supercontinent due to one large early impact and formed impulse mountain ranges on near sides
[Shock Dynamics: NewGeology.us; Mike Fischer]

The impact caused tidal waves to wash over the continents and build
[Bible; Shock Dynamics ""]

Giant Insects, Dinosaurs, Giant Mammals and all fossil animals and plants fossilized due to the Flood sedimentary rock strata
[Bible; GW; Shock Dynamics]

As the continents slid apart over a fluid layer and began to slow, friction caused far side mountains to form
[Bible; Native American legends; Australian legengs; Tiahuanaco: Jonathan Gray]

Flood Basalts, vulcanism and major erosion occurred as flood waters receded
[Bible; Walter Brown]

The cataclysm heated the oceans, causing evaporation and glaciation at higher latitudes
[Bible; Walter Brown; GW]

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Catastrophism Topics
At the end of my previous post I listed Catastrophism topics, which are meant to be chronologically sequential, like this:
1. Pre-Flood Supercontinent > 2. Saturn Flare > 3. Civilization > 4. Asteroid Bombardment > 5. Continental Drift > 6. Flood > 7. Fossils > 8. Mountain Uplift > 9. Erosion > 10. Glaciation
#1-#3 apparently occurred at least 1,000 years before the main cataclysm. #4-#9 occurred during the main cataclysm about 4,350 years ago. #10 started soon after the cataclysm and lasted a few hundred years. Here is a comparison between GW's and CC's models for the origin of the Supercontinent.

Topic #1: The Supercontinent
-ANISOTROPY: On a primordial mostly molten earth, anisotropy predisposes one side of the earth to melt or erupt more basaltic lava
-this becomes the early Pacific basin.
-PLANETARY ENCOUNTER: An early close tidal encounter with the Moon [or other astronomical body] facilitated this eruptive phase.
-major bombardment would have not yet occurred
-REBOUND: The accompanying release of pressure initiates an opposite side upheaval,
-evidenced by basement continental rocks having a composition similar to the mantle materials, eg. granites,
-which have undergone pressure-induced metamorphism during the uplift process.
-EARTH ROTATION: Stabilization of the earth's ~24 hr rotation would have occurred at this time.
-PRECAMBRIAN: Washing over of this basement continental mass by the seas during uplift covers the basement material with sedimentary Pre-Cambrian strata,
-as well as some primordial continental slope canyons/coastal valleys
-which would predispose additional deposition events around the edges of the supercontinent.
-UPLIFT: The accumulation of overburden keeps in motion the [isostatic] uplift of the supercontinent to its pre-cataclysm level
-3 km above the average surface level,
-with a continental root extending down a few dozen kilometers.
-Natural uplifted "cells" [cratons] at this point joined together [the "ur" supercontinent]
-acquire potential energy under the pressure of isostasy,
-and will later become the drifting plates catalyzed into motion by bombardment of the "matar".

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... 6199-15407
[LK Summary?: ProtoMoon was tidally extended; part of it soft-landed on Earth as the supercontinent. The remainder went into orbit as the Moon.]
-PROTOMOON GRANITE: Somewhat more telling of an impact is the fact that the Moon is made of granite, and so is the Earth's continental crust,
-but the rest of the Earth (i.e., the oceanic crust, and everything below) is fundamentally different stuff
— most notably of greater density, which is what allows the continents to float on the mantle and extend above sea level.
-The granite could not have been indigenous to the Earth,
-because if it was, it would have bubbled up to the surface when the Earth was entirely molten,
-and it would have leveled quickly under the force of gravity — as fast as irregularities in the surface of a lava lake disappear
— producing a very thin, very flat layer completely covering the heavier basalt.
-So the continental granite had to arrive later, after the Earth had cooled.
-And the impact had to be gentle enough not to completely re-melt the Earth.
-FLATTENED SUPERCONTINENT: Thereafter, the granite slowly pancaked into the original super-continent of Pangaea,
-which then rifted into the modern continents, under the force of gravity.
-(This disregards hypotheses concerning earlier supercontinents, such as Rodinia andColumbia, for lack of a force that could recombine the fragments.)
-The arc-like shape of Pangaea is atypical of collisional deposits
— perhaps the collider was spinning, and matter was scraped off of the collider where the rotation caused submersion.
-SIZE COMPARISON: The volume of the Moon is 2.20 × 10^10 km3, while the volume of the continents is 7.58 × 10^9 km3.1
-So Theia would have had a volume of 2.95 × 10^10 km3, and it would have lost 26% of its volume to the Earth, while retaining 74% for itself [the Moon].

Catastrophism Discussion: When & What?

Help Decide Time/s & Topic/s
Good News! 15 TB forum members so far are interested in online catastrophism conferences, whether to view them or participate in them.
If you readers are interested, please answer a few questions here http://goo.gl/forms/z1RiAbZFnj to help decide which topics to discuss first and on what date/s and time/s.
7 topics are listed and additional ones can be suggested.
See https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/U0QsftuJQO for news on the Conference/s.

Previous Answers
Here are 14 members' answers to these recent questions.
Was there a Global Flood a few thousand years ago? 14 say probably
Was there other global cataclysm a few thousand years ago? 14 say probably
Was there more than one global cataclysm in the past 20,000 years? 13 say probably
Are some ancient myths good evidence for ancient global cataclysm? 14 say probably
Which, if any, planets probably have had drastic changes in their orbits in the past 20,000 years? 12 named one or more planets
Do you know of very good evidence for your ideas about ancient cataclysm? 14 say yes
Are you willing to change your mind if you learn of better alternative evidence? 14 say yes
Are you interested in friendly collaborative discussion about catastrophism online (preferably on an Etherpad)? 12 say yes

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Tomorrow's Conference
While waiting for the Catastrophism Conference tomorrow at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/U0QsftuJQO, I'm doing a little online research on the Great Flood and related matters. My current view is that the sequence of events at the time of the last great cataclysm was: 1. BEFORE THE GREAT FLOOD > 2. ASTEROID BOMBARDMENT > 3. CONTINENTAL DRIFT > 4. GREAT FLOOD > 5. EXTINCTIONS & FOSSILIZATION > 6. MOUNTAIN FORMATION & VULCANISM > 7. EROSION & GLACIATION. And those are the topics I hope we will discuss in the online conferences. Those events were largely causative of each other. The Asteroid Bombardment caused the breakup of the Supercontinent and the rapid movement of the continents apart to near their present positions. The movement of continents largely caused the Great Flood tsunamis. The Great Flood caused Extinctions and Fossil formation. The slowing of Continental Drift by friction caused Mountain Uplift and Vulcanism. Receding Flood waters caused massive Erosion and the heated oceans caused evaporation and snowfall at higher latitudes, which was Glaciation in the one and only Ice Age.

Great Flood Videos
I was having a question lately about where all the sand, mud and lime would have come from if the sedimentary rock layers on continents were all formed during the Great Flood. After hearing the following video explain it, it seems it should have been obvious: they came largely from the seafloors. I wasn't thinking of the possibility that the oceans could have been stirred up enough to move much of the sediments from the seafloors onto the land.
Here are my Notes on the Flood Video called The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0
3'37": Evidence: If there was a Great Flood, the ocean waters could have flooded the continents, bringing along sand, mud and ocean creatures.
5'20": Tapeats Sandstone, Redwall Limestone and Coconino Sandstone belong to 5 megasequences of strata that cover much of North America.
5'42": Tapeats covers about 2/3 of U.S. and part of western Canada. It's also found in Israel.
6'24": Redwall having same features and fossils is found in AZ, TN, PA, England, Himalayas near Nepal,
7'00": Cretacious chalk, over 1,000 ft thick in places, is found in Ireland, S. England, Europe, Egypt, Turkey, Western Australia and in the U.S. from NE to TX.
8'40": Coconino, 300 ft thick, has crossbedding diagonal to the horizontal strata formed from underwater sand dune waves with the tops washed off.
10'53": Coconino covers from AZ to KS to TX. The sand waves started at 60 ft high each in water moving 3-5 mph. Coconino was deposited in a few days. The entire Grand Canyon strata were deposited in a few months.
12'54": Ayers Rock in central Australia is sandstone with nearly vertical strata with grains of different sizes, angular and some delicate, meaning they were deposited rapidly (from 60 miles away).
15'57": Ayers sandstone is over 18,000 ft thick. It was deposited within hours by turbidity currents moving up to 70 mph.
20'00": Coconino is over Hermit shale. Shale is hardened mud. Coconino sand came from Canada
22'00": Navajo sandstone in s. Utah lies over Coconino. Navajo sand contains zircons and quartz eroded from mountains of PA and NY.
23'00": Sand waves are direction indicators, indicating that Flood waters flowed during the Paleozoic over the Americas from n.e. to s.w. The same direction of flow occurred on the other continents too.
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8
3'58": The main strata of the Grand Canyon contain marine fossils. Redwall limestone is in the middle, containing many sea animals. It's 7 ft thick and over 180 miles wide.
8'20": In France there are similar sea animals buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects and reptiles. There's similar mixture in CO along with birds etc. Similar in WY.
11'00": In Tasmania an 80 ft thick stratum contains broken shells, a toothed whale and a possum.
17'12": 7 trillion tons of vegetation are buried in the world's coal beds. Same coal beds in the U.S. extend also from England to Russia.
... Delicate creatures are preserved. Some fish are preserved right after eating another fish, or giving birth, as evidence of rapid burial.
Video: The Mystery of Coal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlNudoEPSsM
This says coal consists largely of pieces of tree bark, wood, leaves etc. Peat bogs don't contain that, so coal doesn't come from there, despite the popular theory. But in Spirit Lake after the Mt. St. Helens eruption there was found layers of tree bark on the bottom, while the tree logs were floating on top.
Video: Extraordinary Evidence that Dinosaurs Lived with Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc
It says 95% of fossils are from marine invertibrates. 4.5% are from plants and algae. Vertibrates make up .0125%. This isn't widely mentioned, because it gives the impression of a Flood Deposit.
Webpage: Startling evidence for Noah's Flood: Footprints and sand 'dunes' in a Grand Canyon sandstone! http://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood
Webpage: Fossil Magnetism Reveals Rapid Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-of-earth-magnetic-field/. Since Continental Drift occurred during the Great Flood and largely caused it, the magnetic reversals on the seafloors must have occurred rapidly too, instead of over millions of years and that's what this website shows.

Michael Anteski
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

As to the findings of forest and plant species fossilized in beds of coal, ancient catastrophes could explain that finding.

An ancient world-scale cataclysm (such as the one described in Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision", telling of vast earth crustal eruptions associated with the close passage of a large cosmic body, which Velikovsky said was the future planet Venus acting as a comet), could have induced full-thickness earth crustal disruptions, producing the kinds of deep crustal rifts described in the book. -The book also compiled innumerable folk stories of cosmic strength winds during the same event (possibly caused by the heat of the unprecedented eruptive activity over the earth.)

That kind of scenario could have caused whole forests to be uprooted and blown into huge piles. Under these piles of vegetation, smothered combustion then would have slowly converted the biomass into coal, and could have left imprints of the forest in the seams of coal.

Venus could have brushed earth in that way, rather than colliding with it, as in Velikovsky's model. -We know that small cosmic bodies like Shoemaker Levy simply collide with a large body like Jupiter, simply on the basis of inertial momentum. But if two cosmic bodies are close in size, like Earth and Venus, they would not collide, but rather, their closely-matching magnetic energy fields would interact, so that this non-inertial interaction would prevent a collision, rather than their colliding from simple inertial force.

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Michael, I don't think I have my copy of the book any more. Do you know if the references are listed anywhere, or if they could be without much trouble? I think "Earth in Upheaval" has even better sources.

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Michael Anteski wrote:
As to the findings of forest and plant species fossilized in beds of coal, ancient catastrophes could explain that finding.

An ancient world-scale cataclysm (such as the one described in Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision", telling of vast earth crustal eruptions associated with the close passage of a large cosmic body, which Velikovsky said was the future planet Venus acting as a comet), could have induced full-thickness earth crustal disruptions, producing the kinds of deep crustal rifts described in the book. -The book also compiled innumerable folk stories of cosmic strength winds during the same event (possibly caused by the heat of the unprecedented eruptive activity over the earth.)

That kind of scenario could have caused whole forests to be uprooted and blown into huge piles. Under these piles of vegetation, smothered combustion then would have slowly converted the biomass into coal, and could have left imprints of the forest in the seams of coal.

Venus could have brushed earth in that way, rather than colliding with it, as in Velikovsky's model. -We know that small cosmic bodies like Shoemaker Levy simply collide with a large body like Jupiter, simply on the basis of inertial momentum. But if two cosmic bodies are close in size, like Earth and Venus, they would not collide, but rather, their closely-matching magnetic energy fields would interact, so that this non-inertial interaction would prevent a collision, rather than their colliding from simple inertial force.

"Venus could have brushed earth in that way, rather than colliding with it, as in Velikovsky's model."

I just want to clarify that Dr V never said that Venus actually physically collided with the Earth. Despite the title of his book, the "collision" referred to was one of electro-gravational forces between the planets.

- joe

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Well, I did just find this site. I guess it's a book online: CARL SAGAN AND IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY. The best section for my purposes is TERRESTRIAL GEOLOGY AND LUNAR CRATERS. Here's the site and it does have a lot of references shown: http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Svbasic.htm

Michael Anteski
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

LunarSabbathTruth wrote:
Michael Anteski wrote:
As to the findings of forest and plant species fossilized in beds of coal, ancient catastrophes could explain that finding.

An ancient world-scale cataclysm (such as the one described in Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision", telling of vast earth crustal eruptions associated with the close passage of a large cosmic body, which Velikovsky said was the future planet Venus acting as a comet), could have induced full-thickness earth crustal disruptions, producing the kinds of deep crustal rifts described in the book. -The book also compiled innumerable folk stories of cosmic strength winds during the same event (possibly caused by the heat of the unprecedented eruptive activity over the earth.)

That kind of scenario could have caused whole forests to be uprooted and blown into huge piles. Under these piles of vegetation, smothered combustion then would have slowly converted the biomass into coal, and could have left imprints of the forest in the seams of coal.

Venus could have brushed earth in that way, rather than colliding with it, as in Velikovsky's model. -We know that small cosmic bodies like Shoemaker Levy simply collide with a large body like Jupiter, simply on the basis of inertial momentum. But if two cosmic bodies are close in size, like Earth and Venus, they would not collide, but rather, their closely-matching magnetic energy fields would interact, so that this non-inertial interaction would prevent a collision, rather than their colliding from simple inertial force.

"Venus could have brushed earth in that way, rather than colliding with it, as in Velikovsky's model."

I just want to clarify that Dr V never said that Venus actually physically collided with the Earth. Despite the title of his book, the "collision" referred to was one of electro-gravational forces between the planets.

- joe
You replied correctly, but only to a grammatical error in the sentence as I wrote it. -I meant to say that Velikovsky's model stated that "Venus brushed earth in that way rather than colliding with it."

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Frozen Mammoth Questions
I can't figure out if the frozen Arctic animals froze during the Great Flood, or some centuries later. It seems they had to die later, since they mostly didn't drown, but this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IIE8UnvPUg suggests that they died during the Great Flood, when the northern continents moved from their formerly warmer locations to their present ones. But what could have caused the temperature in the Arctic then to suddenly go below -150 F, the temperature needed to flash freeze them and prevent mammoth stomach contents from beginning to digest or rot? Also, what made the Arctic muck and loess and ice pellets that killed some or most of them? The muck contains a lot of smashed tree and animal parts.

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US