* First, to Webo, the approach of the Thunderbolts team has been to find common archetypes or themes that apply almost universally to ancient "myths", not just one source. That's especially Talbott's, Cochrane's and Cardona's approach. That's how they achieved their breakthrough in understanding the myths. Velikovsky had taken a more psychological and intuitive approach, I think, and he came to some major wrong conclusions, namely that Venus erupted from Jupiter and encountered Earth during the Exodus, about 1450 BC, and that Mars had several encounters with Earth about the time of the Trojan War, about 747 BC. And I favor the TB team's common themes approach, which I think is more reliable for helping to interpret the Bible. See http://kronia.com/thoth.html for articles with explanations of some of the results of their findings by that approach. * Pln2bz's second question again to another member "X" was:
2. Could a shock wave produce a fluidized crust that would allow crustal rocks to flow freely, and then to almost immediately thereafter freeze them (otherwise unchanged from their original compositions) into a new shape?
* I explained previously that the question is likely based on a misunderstanding of Shock Dynamics theory. But here's how "X" answered that question (though I've shortened and slightly paraphrased the answer for the sake of simplification and clarity):
* X's Answer: no. his own source material gives the opposition to this idea: 1. The paper referenced refers [only] to a Sturzstrom-avalanche area. it requires an acoustic wave that can only happen over short distances. 2. it would require the rock medium to have been a debris pile from the beginning. 3. Further, this paper specifies that its purpose is to find an explanation for the unusual dry rock slides on Mars, where there is no air or water layer available to enable the debris to glide such an unusually far distance across the surface. * an acoustic wave is theorized in the afore-mentioned paper [only] because neither the force of gravity nor earthquake waves are sufficient alone to perform the motion noted during these sturzstroms - these are special avalanches that travel greater distances than they ought to.
* The big picture here is that "Sturzstrom-avalanches" and "unusual dry rock slides on Mars" are real events that are not explained by conventional science, because the material in the avalanches on our seafloors and in the rock slides on Mars slide much "greater distances than they ought to", which is why Melosh or some other scientist was studying them. * Whether or not "acoustic waves" (which I think are sound waves) are responsible for the sliding, the fact seems to be that the sliding is real and it is rocks sliding long distances on rock. It's entirely reasonable to theorize that much larger rock, like continents, can also slide on a fairly smooth rock surface, like the lithosphere, especially under heat, pressure and electrified conditions. * Judging from a previous email I received from X, I think her own theory is that continental drift is gradual, and she seems very biased against the possibility of rapid continental sliding. I'm contemplating organizing a list of Earth features in order to compare the relevance of the various theories, like Ralph Juergens did re features of lunar rilles in his article "Of the Moon and Mars" at http://kronia.com.
X: And there are other statements he makes that are simply incorrect. he says that underwater canyons cannot form underwater. This is not true--turbidity currents are busy making and deepening underwater canyons as we speak.
* I'm the one who said it SEEMS that canyons GENERALLY can't form underwater. Only I called them gulleys, because they're on the steep slopes of the continental shelf cliffs and I wanted to distinguish between them and canyons on horizontal surfaces. * I doubt that turbidity currents deepen underwater canyons or gulleys significantly. I think the canyons cause the turbidity, rather than turbidity causing the canyons. Conventional scientists also think that rainwater carved out our major rivers above sealevel. But EU experts find a great preponderence of evidence that electrical discharges carved them out and that rainwater has deepened most of them only slightly. So, if turbidity has any effect on underwater gulleys or canyons, electrical discharges still likely carved them out in the first place. * Look at the similarity between the submarine gulleys on the continental shelf cliffs and the gulleys in Valles Marineris: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/378-260208-~ Hawaii seamount: http://www.drgeorgepc.com/tsuHawaiiPapauSeamount.gif Fraser island in Australia: http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/08boyd-m~ * Since TPODs are finding more and more Earth features to be likely caused by electrical forces, I think it's extremely likely that the same is true of the very similar looking features on the seafloors.
X: Shocked rocks can do several things. They cannot, however, flow like water, rapidly be frozen in place, and still retain their physical and chemical properties intact.
* But the bottom surfaces can melt, while the remaining crust retains its chemistry, and the melted bottoms can freeze again after sliding.
X: evidence of a meteor impact would include the presence of certain indicator rocks and minerals that are produced from the shockwave itself.
* Like the tektites that fell in the area from the Somali Basin to Australia.
X: Do we find those indicator rocks and minerals in all those mountains referred to on the website?
* You misunderstand the theory. The mountains were built up from horizontal compression during the initial breaking loose from the lithosphere and during the slowdown when friction was building up.
X: Melted rock will re-crystallize into predictable forms. If melted rock re-crystallized within 26 hours or so, as the author postulates, they would all have become aphanitic rocks, with no or few crystals visible to the naked eye (rhyolites, obsidians, basalts, and so on).
* Again, it was only a thin layer that melted at the bottoms of continents and probably between blocks in mountain building. Can't you conceive of a thin layer melting, like on the surfaces between a slab of ice sliding on an ice-covered pond? It's not like the whole slab melts, slides and then returns to the original slab shape and freezes again. In the case of the ice slab, just the bottom surface melts due to friction from sliding and then the melted bottom layer refreezes when sliding ends!! * I don't understand how you get the theory so mixed up.
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
The major objection I have to all theories that involve continents "moving" is that there is no evidence that they CAN move. Shock Dynamics is a fast version of tectonic movement. I need to see the observations that prove the continents are "floating" on another material.
allynh
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Boy, you guys have been busy while I was away.
Steve Smith wrote: I see that your mind was made up before you even posted anything, so good luck with the rabbit trails.
Thanks... Following rabbit trails is how I found your stuff. It's how I found all the great stuff over the past year.
I see in a different thread you mention how Australia could be moved. Good, keep expanding your theory to include real evidence. We need answers, not just opinion that bypasses real data. The majority of your TPODs illuminate real events and are solid examples of the power of looking at things through the EU viewpoint. Please don't take things as an attack if somebody points out that some of your TPODs don't match physical reality. No one has all the answers yet. If we did, this stuff wouldn't be considered "fringe science" and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Try to see how something as large as Australia could be moved without killing all the people. Was it lifted by antigravity and moved to its new position. Or did it slide along the way the Shock Dynamics group suggests. If something like that happened, you guys may be describing the same event but coming from different directions.
In another thread we discussed the possibility that earthquakes as underground lightning could be antigravity effects lifting the crust. The latest articles about detecting vast oceans of water under China may be them seeing plasma build up--rather than water--that are the cause of the recent major quakes. That may tie into the mechanism that Shock Dynamics is talking about. (I'm still working my way through all the links, but it looks fun so far. Tons of ideas to play with, and look up.)
Steve Smith wrote: Neal Adams is a cartoonist who happened to see continental fit just like I did when I was ten years old. And as Web states, anyone can animate anything and he has lots of practice. His animations of Europa were disingenuous at best as I pointed out.
Steve had an earlier complaint about Adams video for Europa. If you look at the video, you can see that Adams is unaware of plasma cosmology or the ability to carve using plasma. Yet, his example of crust spreading does fit the very real example he uses. Neither group can explain all the visible structures alone. I look at the video as an example of both plasma cutting and growth, all powered by the same process of pouring power into the system.
Steve Smith wrote: Someone seems to think plate tectonics and so-called "planetary expansion" are the only two theories out there.
Steve's complaint that we are only looking at two systems here is incorrect. The thread has discussed at least three valid systems that could explain the present Earth, all of them powered by EU plasma pumping energy into the system: Shock Dynamics, Expanding Earth, and Growing Earth, along with major plasma sculpting. None of the three contradict plasma sculpting, in fact, each person is trying to synthesize all the parts they understand into one complete system. Well done. Keep trying to see the whole.
The things I'm trying to do is duplicate Adams work using graphics software. He took existing maps and removed the ocean floor based on the ages listed on the map. As each strip was pulled away the continents came together on a smaller Earth.
I can see Steve's objection that what Adams appears to be doing is simple morphing of one map into another, but that is not how Carey came up with the original concept over fifty years ago. They used geological and fossil region maps to show that everything fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, jigsaw puzzle pieces can fit together and still be wrong, because the "picture" also has to match. That's what they did fifty years ago, they not only had the puzzle pieces of the continents fit together, they also had the geological and fossil regions also fit. They could literally see the same type of rock and fossil regions fit together when the continents were brought back together; the "picture" on the puzzle matched as well.
If you read the Carey book you can see that they realized the continents only fit together on a smaller Earth. When they tried to fit things together on the same size planet, there were overlaps and discontinuities. Those vanished on a sphere half the size.
What I want to do is duplicate Adams videos, but based on more information. I want to set up a model that will let me try expanding the Earth, then growing the Earth, then shifting the continents around like in Shock Dynamics, so that I can see which model fits the facts best.
I was able to find the map that Adams used for his examples, but I need to find more information.
I'm slowly searching the NOAA site for maps, but as people follow the rabbit paths that Steve talks about, let me know if you find any detailed maps of:
- World geological regions.
- World fossil beds.
- Ancient shallow seas.
- The fossil debris piles that Steve mentioned.
- The chevron deposits as mentioned in the Shock Dynamics articles.
I would like to combine all of them into one big model and see what comes out.
And Steve, keep being cranky about demanding data; it actually does help.
Thanks...
************* List of NOAA links I've found so far.
I'm going nuts harvesting all this stuff; and these are just the Earth images, there is a ton of stuff on the planets as well. I left them as text, rather than links, so you can see where the sites are. Just cut and paste into your browser. I'm pooped.
* First Allyn, then Steve. * Allyn, I'm starting to get rather impressed with your efforts and talents, not that it necessarily means much for me to be impressed by anyone. You said:
Carey ... used geological and fossil region maps to show that everything fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, jigsaw puzzle pieces can fit together and still be wrong, because the "picture" also has to match. That's what they did fifty years ago, they not only had the puzzle pieces of the continents fit together, they also had the geological and fossil regions also fit. They could literally see the same type of rock and fossil regions fit together when the continents were brought back together; the "picture" on the puzzle matched as well.
* If the pieces really do fit together as you say and the fossil and rock types fit together as well, that would be very persuasive to me of Earth expansion. As I said before, the Adams video I saw recently looked like some of the puzzle pieces were twisted out of shape or morphed a bit in order to fit. * It's apparent to me that Africa and South America fit well together and that parts of North America and Europe do too. I guess it seems that everything seems to fit into one supercontinent, but it's not apparent to me that opposite shores on the Pacific rim fit together. If I can see that in detail and see that the rock and fossil types, including the many sedimentary layers, fit together well, then I'll be very inclined to suppose that the Earth has expanded to open up the ocean basins (or that very sophisticated space aliens shaped the continents to make them look like the Earth has expanded). * I still prefer the Shock Dynamics, because I think the continents moved apart quickly, rather than gradually. How quickly could Earth expand? I've read evidence that the Earth's crust is less than 100,000 years old and that the atmosphere is under 30,000 years old, I think. * Steve, thanks for clarifying what makes you doubt continental movement theories (P.S. your TPODs have been very impressive too). You said:
The major objection I have to all theories that involve continents "moving" is that there is no evidence that they CAN move. Shock Dynamics is a fast version of tectonic movement. I need to see the observations that prove the continents are "floating" on another material.
* I don't know if I can answer that well, but I have a few thoughts. * First, if there's evidence that something DID move, would you say that's also evidence that they possibly CAN move? The fit between Africa and South America is rather compelling to me that they were once adjoined together and then they DID move apart, since they are apart. Also, if Australia, or the Matterhorn, can move, then it's conceivable that larger things can also move. * Second, I think you question whether there's any distinction between continental crust and lithosphere, or whether there's any weak boundary between them. The best answer I found to that was apparently yes, there seems to be a difference, but I don't know if there's a weak boundary between them that can slip readily. The difference between them seems to be cratons and I think I read lately that cratons are depleted of water and several common elements, whereas the lithosphere is well hydrated and undepleted. I suspect that electrical forces depleted them and I think that also made cratons more resistant to electrical current, though that's an uneducated guess. * We know that electric currents flow in the Earth and probably melt rock, thus forming magma. If the currents are more resisted in continental crust, or the craton portions, the currents would seem likely to flow more along the bottoms of the cratons, thus possibly making a more plastic or molten layer there. * So how does that sound?
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
We've gone over the "fit of the continents" before.
If you get a piece of paper and tear a jagged strip out of it — say about two inches wide — the two edges of the torn sheet will fit back together as if they were once a smaller piece of paper.
You aren't addressing the mid-ocean ridge and the obvious elecrical nature of its formation. That is the largest remaining electrical scar on the planet where the intial contact point was made. The electric arcs then cut through the planet's surface as we rotated under the initiator (whatever it might have been).
A swath was carved into the Earth and that swath is the ocean basins — I say basins because the conventional view calls the ocean by different names in different places, but there's only one ocean, obviously.
A bathymetric map reveals the vertical sidewalls of the continents, the dual-ridge morphology of the mid-ocean ridge, the longintudinal fractures along its length (indicative of the current pulling ions out of the surrounding region toward the discharge trackway), the giant circular formations on the west coast of North America where the arc "stuck" briefly, the Lichtenberg figures that are the western mountains, etc.
I could go on for a page with descriptions of the electrical nature of Earth geography.
What tends to irk me (and I try not to let it) is that everyone wants to add something to the electrical model when it is completely unnecessary. Big rocks didn't form the contintents, electric discharges did. The continents didn't slide around, they were cut to pieces in situ. The reason there are similar rocks on each side of the ocean is that the "original" landmass was composed of that rock and when the arc cut through it, naturally the two sides match.
The Australian connection to Asia is a red herring. The reason the two places have similar geography is that the primordial land was made up of similar strata.
Get a sphere and put clay all over it. Now take two knives about three inches apart and cut out pieces of the clay. Lo and behold, you are left with sides that match and have the appearance of once having been connected on a smaller sphere. It's an illusion.
Induction is about all we have to work with because there are no observations of continents moving around. There is some evidence from the mainstream (which I don't really think has a lot of credence) that the SIAL "roots" of the continents extend down into the SIMA for 700 kilometers, making them not floating islands (or even islands that were pushed around by the impact of a big rock), but deeply rooted "teeth" in the mantle. SIAL and SIMA themselves are only theories.
I start from the assumption that electricity formed the surface of the earth. If you want to start with the assumption that a big rock caused the primordial landmass to break apart and somehow slide around, or a smaller Earth blew up like a balloon, then that changes the entire paradigm. I prefer my assumptions.
The seafloor is carved up into channels with scalloped edges...the channels sometimes cut through underwater mountain ridges just like they do on the surface:
~ Google Earth came out with a new Oceans download yesterday. Now we can fly the seabed. Pretty darn nice.
s
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
There are other models for origination of continents, such as the predecessor paradigm to continental drift, cordilleran isostasy, which states that continents and seafloors rise and fall periodically based on erosion and deposition, etc. Not much of a theory... But Steve, the magnetic striping along midocean ridges is a significant piece of evidence for seafloor spreading, and needs to be explained by any theory of the continents. How does EDM explain the reversing polarization of the striping? If EDM is responsible for the features seen on the bottom of the Atlantic basins, why are the side ridges oriented as they apparently are parallel to the direction of alleged sliding vs. at right angles to the central EDM "event", and why are the matching sides not found equidistant from the central "line of fire?" That interesting crustal hole (any current info on that 2-year-old project?) could be the site of an intense ED, but could that not be indicative of an ED starting event for seafloor spreading and continental drift?
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
"Magnetic striping" is apocryphal, at best.
From the "Magnetic Field Question" thread:
Steve Smith wrote: The so-called "striping" found on the ocean floor is chaotic and not a uniform indication of magnetic field reversals. The prevailing opinion is that the mid-ocean ridge is expelling magma below the Curie point at which it will retain a magnetic field. When the magma cools the polarity of the field is "locked-in". The theory of field reversal is based on the observations that the rocks seem to be N at one time and then S at another. Multiple reversals are said to have taken place.
However, this map of the "stripes" near Iceland doesn't support that idea. The illustration at the top is the idealized model but the actual map doesn't follow the rules:
When the Sumerian civilization was first excavated, an intriguing discovery was made. The clay pots in various beds also showed magnetic field reversals. When clay is fired in a kiln it reaches temperatures above the Curie point, so whatever magnetic field in existence at the time causes the iron particles in the clay to orient themselves one way or the other. Since the magnetic reversals are supposed to happen in a cycles of thousands of years, did the Sumerians exist for thousands of years?
The magnetic reversals most likely occurred in a very short time. The striping pattern indicates the passage of electric currents through the strata as Earth and the Object from space interacted with each other during the upheavals.
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
I might also point out that there are "magnetic stripes" on Mars, as well. The paraochial nature of geologists is so ingrained that it has led them to propose the idiotic idea that Mars "once had tectonic plates." The Tharsis Montes fulgamites are described as "volcanoes that formed over hot spots in the crust just like the Hawaiian Island chain," because of that short-sighted thinking.
I also disagree with the notion of magnetic reversals, ie polar reversals. And I agree that the striping is the result of a more rapid process... but I want to better understand the EDM mechanism for the striping. Chaotic striping might be indicated by either seafloor spreading or some other explanation, but the symmetric striping you showed south of Iceland must be explained...
StefanR
Tectonic Bananas
Hi all, just wanted to add this to the collection of different theories. Although the presentation of the ideas are brought a little unconventionally, I think there is still something to it that I would like share. This guy presents on his site some claims against what he calls one of the biggest swindles in history. And that would be tectonics. I can only give as advise to take your time with it and not turn it away too soon because there's some real fun in the whole of the presentation. Welcome to the world of tectonic bananas!
(PS. for those near Adelaide, Australia. You seem to be living at a Golden Enigma )
A swindle starts as a bluff which later has to be backed by fraud otherwise it will all unrave BLUFF + FRAUD = SWINDLE Bogus geology Fake map Bogus rift concept So what is a swindle? It starts as a bluff which later has to be backed by fraud otherwise it will all unravel
What is a bluff? A bluff is a bold assertion which cannot be disproved because data takes 10000 years to accumulate
The San Andreas Fault Swindle
BLUFF + FRAUD = SWINDLE
GPS measurements 22km movement fraud Plate Tectonics
In the biggest swindle in history the bogus forking rift was invented to replace the forking ENIGMA as the main tectonic process on the planet even though there are none anywhere!
The weaving of so many swindles together is no accident and requires great skill and planning Especially concealing the aftershocks after the monster tsunami because they lined up with the real banana and big triangle and not the fake banana TECTONIC POKER is a game of bluff and bluffs are an essential part of swindles BLUFF >>> FRAUD >>> SWINDLE
The game of TECTONIC POKER BEGAN HERE AND MOVED RELENTLESSLY AROUND THE WORLD
Obviously the Gibraltar banana rules out any differential movement between Eurasia and Africa while they were each supposed to be drifting. To drift a thousand km yet still be connected by this permanent land bridge is the biggest joke in history and in 1968 it certainly didn't fool the major powers who then began heaping on more frauds to dupe each other!
Continental and Oceanic Banana-chains The complexity of tectonic footprints explains why it took three decades of intensive exploration to discover the first banana even though they are everywhere! The fact that bananas occur in many compounded forms did not make the task any easier The very long Atlantic banana-chain could have been discovered here in 1968 Eventually banana-chains were found right in the middle of Eurasia where like steel reinforcing rods they are no doubt holding this huge land mass together against the forces tearing continents apart
Here we see another banana-chain (red) in the middle of a continent and flanked by rows of cucumbers (blue) Bananas are always a tectonic high and cucumbers are always a tectonic low and this is why bananas are strong and cucumbers are weak The big riddle is whether one can exist without the other in which case it will be the source of the other
But given their close proximity in the middle of the continent it would be illogical if weak cucumbers were spawning strong bananas and it would therefore be strange if bananas did not also occur in California
The banana-tree and its cucumber fruit So there is no doubt that bananas are the highest form of tectonic evolution and the Bam quake at the end of 2003 again demonstrated their deadly power when one arm of this big banana-tree moved slightly and activated a fault passing right through the city of 100,000 people which had not had a quake for 2000 years These banana-trees seem to form from banana-chains by growing branches and each extra banana-branch invariably sprouts a cucumber as the whole thing develops into quite a monstrosity
Growth of the complete banana-cucumber tree can be quite rapid and in the space of three decades the long Atlantic banana-chain evolved into this splendid specimen
1968 2003
Banana-cucumber trees are not entirely rare and being dangerous demonstrate a sort of angry rage by flashing their accumulated earthquakes as a warning that it's safer to live in the softer cucumber depressions full of sediments than the hard tough bananas which are constantly under enormous stress as they battle the drift of continents!!
After the Sumatra banana caused the tsunami which killed 300,000 people a number of fully grown banana-trees with cucumber fruits were discovered Some cucumbers are long or more rounded some look like lemons and they all hang from the branches of the banana-tree
Recently enigmatic bananas and pumpkins have stood tectonics on its head by revealing the processes of bend, flex ,stretch, and spin The tectonic banana usually occurs offshore and is closely related to tectonic pumpkins onshore
Circular tectonic pumpkins occur within continents and they are subject to inertial spin forces as the continent rotates These spin movements are extremely slow and imperceptible but cause earthquakes around their perimeter while the pumpkin itself appears to be quite motionless and is otherwise invisible This tectonic cucumber found in California is surrounded by earthquakes and is located within the pumpkin which on this occasion is revealed by fewer earthquakes So this brings to a head the question of whether earthquakes are caused only by slip movements and just how big slip movements actually are when some footprints defined by earthquakes show no slip or spin and are certainly not cucumbers or matchboxes either The banana-tree obviously solves the riddle of earthquakes without any slipping!!
SUMMARY These new tectonic discoveries are extremely valuable for predicting earthquakes and locating the planet's mineral wealth The circular pumpkin in California is spinning slowly but certainly not sliding sideways and when a banana was discovered on top of the sliding San Andreas Fault and overlapping the cucumber the whole thing became extremely complicated because bananas do not slide sideways or spin So let us examine the case where cucumbers form deep lakes along the perimeter of circular pumpkins
Electrical banana is bound to be a sudden craze. Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase. --- Donovan Lietch
I've heard of those tectonic bananas before. Extremely powerful holding forces.
seasmith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Figure 7. Diagram to show a real perspective of the crust, the oceans, and the atmosphere. It has been drawn to a natural scale. Note that the crust of the Earth, the atmosphere and the oceans are all very thin indeed in relation to the overall size of the Earth. Relative to radius, the crust of the Earth on the continents is only one third of the relative thickness of the shell of an ordinary hen's egg. The crust of the Earth over the floor of the oceans is very thin indeed, and is only one fifteenth the relative thickness of an egg shell. Similarly, the ionosphere, a layer of diffuse plasma above the atmosphere is also relatively thin in relation to the radius of the Earth. The Moho is a very thin layer of plasma forming an interface between the molten rock of the mantle and the crystalline rocks of the continental crust and the ocean floor. In geometric terms the Moho is exceptionally smooth. It shows no resistance at all to seismic shear waves; it behaves as a gas. The ionised gas in both the ionosphere and the Moho must be profoundly influenced by the electromagnetic radiation of the Sun.
New Concepts In Global Tectonics No. 42, March, 2007 ISSN: 1833-2560 http://www.ncgt.org Editor: Dong R. CHOI
Google for PDF file with images ~
dahlenaz
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
webolife wrote: I also disagree with the notion of magnetic reversals, ie polar reversals. And I agree that the striping is the result of a more rapid process... but I want to better understand the EDM mechanism for the striping. Chaotic striping might be indicated by either seafloor spreading or some other explanation, but the symmetric striping you showed south of Iceland must be explained...
At this link you will find the striping explained as intensity variations. The paragraph is about 2/3 down the page. d...z
I can only give as advise to take your time with it and not turn it away too soon because there's some real fun in the whole of the presentation.
