Say FR09, I discussed cavitation earlier, and it definitely has good potential for carving out depressions in rocky or other hard surfaces, as documented widely. The question in the Potholes area in Washington is whether cavitation is able to explain the way the potholes are often over arched at the rim with less dense and more brittle vesicular part of the basalt while lower portions of the pits, made of the denser columnar part of the basalt flow, are often more hollowed out. I can't see cavitation doing this, at least not without the aid of the lower layers being in a not-completely-cooled state, and therefore more reactive to the water flow... There is a neat little hike over by Deep Lake that takes you right by those pictured Potholes, which I'd love to take you on. Went with JimJ and Dotini last year to a coulee area just southwest of there to visit the Blue Lake Rhino mold.
Ya think Jay three has space for three? PM us both about your availability.
They are uncannily similar at first glance to the potholes [referred to as Rock Basins in your other pic] of the Northwest Scabland region. Even the steep sided mesas look like the sides of Washington's coulee system. I would be hard-pressed to deny that these areas were both caused by the action of floodwater currents, including cavitation. As I stated to Jaythree in an earlier communication, cavitation plus hot explosive action must have worked together in the formation of the eastern Washington Potholes. I do not believe cavitation alone can account for why the less durable material at the rim of the basalt plateaus is often left, while the harder denser columnar basalt below has been undercut from below that vesicular material. In the Canyonlands area, I still claim floodwater currents as the principle agent, with cavitation; but in this case it is apparent that the rim material is of more durable quality than the underlying sandstone, and underlying hot basalt is not an issue, so cavitation is all that is required.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
What is Best Source on Cavitation? * Web, do you know of any website that has a good explanation of cavitation plus references? I found some creationist material on it at the following 3 sites. But they don't seem to provide enough details to understand how cavitation works exactly. Cavitation Explosively Erodes Evolution http://www.mandley.com/advdemo/mod05/adv5910.htm Chapter 23: Aren't Millions of Years Required for Geological Processes? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/arent-million~ Answers to my Evolutionist Friends, Geology http://www.creationism.org/heinze/HeinzeGeology.htm Hydroplate Theory Errors * I think it's the first one above that mentions the ideas of the hydroplate theory without using the word hydroplate, as far as I could tell. I don't consider that theory realistic. Do you? It's based on the Biblical reference to "the fountains of the great deep", which creationists tend to interpret as referring to sources of flood water within the Earth. But the ancients almost certainly did not mean that, when they talked about the great deep. They were referring to the sky, which they called the ocean and the great deep. Cardona said in my interview with him that Saturn appeared to float on an ocean, because there was a water-like looking substance surrounding it. Creationists are missing out on the advantages of comparative mythology, which makes such findings possible. By looking at any myth in isolation, such as the Biblical version, they fail to see how other worldwide myths relate to it.
webolife
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Lloyd, I don't consider myself to be an expert comparative mythologian. I'm not a fan of Cardona's view of the great deep being the sky, since the word used for the atmosphere [the firmament, or waters above the firmament] is different: "shamayim" [the place of the high waters], versus the "waters below the firmament." but I keep trying to find some thread of rationality in it, if for no other reasons than that I respect you.
I tend to prefer this more direct view of the "great deep fountains": 1. Once there was a single landmass. 2. Rifts opened in that landmass from which upwelled or spirted lava eruptions in several directions across the face of that land. 3. As the land split apart, ocean waters filled in the gaps. 4. Now those same lava eruptions are found in the center of those ocean gaps along the mid-ocean ridges. 5. The same fountains which once came from deep below the land mass now come from deep below the ocean surface.
webolife
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
I'm interested in the hydroplate concept, but would consider it speculative... what we do know about terrestrial water is that enough of it is expelled in volcanic eruptions to correlate the amount presumed expelled by all known volcanics [whether extinct ,dormant or active] to the amount water in today's oceans. Whether or not that water once comprised [or still is part of] a layer [associated with the Moho discontinuity perhaps?] is anyone's guess. In terms of earth history [under any model] volcanics are considered to be a relatively "recent" geologic process, suggesting that the oceans are also a recent formation. What "recent" means differs of course between the catastrophists and the uniformitarians.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Shamayim * Web, it seems that shamayim refers to the Saturn Configuration. * I found this book online about shamayim from The Baltimore Literary - 1839 - at http://books.google.com/books?id=AeQRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA636&~. I'm paraphrasing below. - Page 634 (534). Writers generally suppose wrongly that the word "shamayim" in the first verse of Genesis, translated "heavens", means the Solar System, or the siderial system. The verse goes "First God created the shamayim and aretz ...". Then we are told on the second day, "And God said let there be rakiang (an expanse, a spreading out, or a space) in the midst of the waters, and let there be a division between the waters to the waters." And God made this expanse and he divided between the waters which were beneath the expanse and the waters which were raised in the expanse, and God called this expanse shamayim. Thus far, shamayim and rakiang are synonymous, meaning the space in which the heavenly bodies are suspended. - Page 635 (535). After relating the creation of the sun, moon and stars, Moses adds, "God placed them in rakiang hashamayim", showing at once that the heavenly bodies themselves are totally different from the shamayim. Shamayim is not a plural noun, but it signifies but two of something and no more. Yarchi and Maimonides affirm that shamayim is an abbreviation for Eysh and Mayim, fire and two waters. ... Moses intended to convey the idea from the words Berakiang Hashamayim that the great luminaries act from the Rakiang, general space, through the Shamayim, atmospheric space. * A little later the author shows that the Bible says birds flew in the shamayim, meaning the atmosphere. * So this shows that shamayim means fire and two waters, but waters must mean fluids, or somewhat tempestuous fluids. It seems to me that fire between the two waters would describe the polar plasma column, or the former skies full of lightning and chaos effects. * This article http://littleguyintheeye.wordpress.com/tag/adam-saturn/ says "The Hebrew letter shin is related to 'fire' in ancient thought. The Hebrew letter Mem is a pictograph of water. Water & fire." http://littleguyintheeye.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/water-~ Notice what image is formed by combining fire and water in occultic thought. The Hexagram. Also notice that it is the combination of air (heaven) and earth (water).
Anaconda
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
There is a substantial body of evidence to support a mechanism to introduce large amounts of energy into the Earth's crust & mantle which could account for the mass extinctions of 11,000 B. C.
I subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past.
Here are the peer-reviewed scientific papers which support my position:
Dr. Peratt laid out the scientific evidence for such a High-Current, Z-Pinch in two scientific papers published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE:
Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity (I & 2) by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt:
Dr. Peratt's reputation & understanding of plasma phenomenon both in the laboratory and in the field is unmatched.
The process Dr. Peratt describes based on his laboratory work with plasma phenomenon & field work cataloging petroglyphs is exhaustive.
Per Anthony L. Peratt:
The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focusses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified accoridng to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurance of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, a millennia ago.
And, it turns out that Science has observed & measured stars that have powerful electromagnetic current sheets radiating out from their equators:
This would seem to offer observational confirmation that aurora current sheets can exist which are orders of magnitude stronger than the present heliopheric current sheet.
And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this energy level given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.
Regardless of the exact age of the Earth (I agree no one knows), it does appear high electromagnetic energy epochs were repeated across the great expanse of Earth's history. These epochs were catastrophic in effect and extent. There were many secondary electrmagnetic effects and phenomena. It seems quite possible that mass extinctions, including large reductions in human populations, even civilization collapsing effects could have happened.
Another physical effect would be an increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels and, thus, large amounts of material being expelled into the atmosphere, for which there is supporting physical evidence.
Substantial re-forming of the Earth's surface is also possible due to catastrophic volcanic, earthquake, polar meling, and atmospheric electromagnetic plasma effects.
At times in Earth's history, the surface was a very inhospitable place to be. From Man's perspective, the Earth's surface would literally be in upheaval.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Anaconda: his energy level given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.
* That energy was not given off by the Sun, but by Saturn, which the Earth was following before and after Saturn entered the Solar System at the time of that last Saturn flare. * Dave Talbott is the one who told Peratt about the petroglyphs in the first place. I believe they met at an EU conference in 2002. I'm sure Peratt must know about Dave's Saturn Theory. But he couldn't mention that in his paper, because conventional science isn't ready to hear that yet. So the image of Earth in a flux tube from the Sun was actually from Saturn. Fred Jueneman got his idea from that, I think, about the Earth having been squeezed by the z-pinch into an egg-shaped form, which caused the appearance of continental drift when the equatorial region of Earth expanded and the polar axis shrank.
It says: Split Cinder Cone was created by magma that followed a fault plane. That same fault has since moved right laterally, tearing the small volcano in half.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Electrical Erosion * This image on the other hand from a TPOD from July 2011, called Balanced Water, showing channels on ridge tops on the flanks of a mountain near Palisades, CO, surely depicts electrical erosion. * Two of the channels run down (probably up actually) along ridge tops and the others run normally down valleys. The channels all seem to be about the same depth, so I wonder if it means the valley channels were also eroded electrically.
starbiter
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
The tops of the ridges in the last post are where people walk. It causes erosion. Where there are no people the tops of ridges don't look like the picture above.
I drove by this area 4 years ago and thought zapping. It's a slow process of learning.
michael
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Not Formed Electrically? * Oh, well that's something. Humans are like electricity and follow ridge tops. * I don't know if the cinder cone volcano on the rim of the Grand Canyon, pictured below, casts any doubt on the possible electrical formation of the canyon system, but I'm curious about how the cone could have formed either before or after the canyons were carved. Maybe they formed simultaneously. http://pixofmyuniverse.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ufZlrpPxE8U/RqByKvCcIBI/AAAAAAAAA~
This is a closeup of the eroded cinder cone on the south rim of the Grand Canyon as seen from Toroweap Overlook. The side canyon it is being eroded by is called Prospect Canyon.
The beige circular area in the center of the map below is surrounded by a 400 mile wide circle of basalt. The area West of the Grand Canyon is part of the circle. I picture a 400 mile wide fire tornado of molten, red hot dust as described in legend and myth. The dust, sand, gravel, rocks, and boulders fell from the sky red hot mingled with the river of fire. The descriptions from the Chicago fire are similar.
This process could also heat the subsurface causing lava vents and volcanoes. The whole process would of course be electrical. The 400 mile ring might be a diocotron instability. Venus or Mars could have been above the four corners area.
michael
webolife
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Lloyd, Funny thing about Hebrew. There are barely more than maybe 2800 root words in the entire ancient Hebrew lexicon, and some of the root meanings must be derived from just one or two alphabet characters. Not being a Hebrew scholar myself [although my son is], I find the approach that best serves my understanding is to look at the literal root meanings, and how they are applied in a variety of contexts. Thus "rakia" for example is used to indicate "brass" in one place, and a "shield" in another, so here in Genesis 1, "rakia" describes what I believe to be the FUNCTION rather than the appearance of the atmosphere, the function of shielding! This could apply in a variety of ways, most of which would have not been visible to the ancient Hebrews: UV [the ozone layer], plasmic particles [the magnetosphere], x-rays, and meteors are all thwarted by respective atmospheric layers. Meteors [heb. "matar"] were undoubtedly visible and may have been understood in terms of your "fire" of shamayim, but I favor a different interpretation of that root, not "shin" but "shem" which means chief, or of high position. The recent earth history we are trying to ferret out in this thread would have involved descriptions of a time when the matar fell from the shamayim through the arrubah [windows] or a broken atmospheric structure. I see that as being caused by the breaking up of the fountains of the deep with the resultant nucleation of the hitherto relatively pristine atmosphere, but that's for another post sometime.
Another thought on shamayim: Shamayim refers at the fundamental level to our atmosphere, but because it is the window to outer space, takes on that second layer of meaning. A third layer of meaning derives from the grandness of the celestial "heavens" in the use of the word to represent the yet greater extension of the spiritual realm. Now, when we read that the sun, moon and stars, but also the birds are all in the shamayim, that is precisely how we see it today! These things are all "in the sky", "seen through the atmospheric window" or what have you... what's more, the phrase used is "the face of the shamayim", which literally translates as the "open sky" — this is another topic relevant perhaps to this thread, but I take this to mean that the atmosphere prior to this mention of the sun, moon and stars was not open or "clear" enough to be able to see the forms of sun, moon and stars, but an event changed this allowing the astronomical objects to be emplaced from the viewpoint of an earthbound observer. This is no more inaccurate than saying that the sun rises or sets, and I'm sure these terms are frequently used by the most brilliant of scientists simply for the common vernacular.
