Hi Webolife, Okay so Peleg stays. I don't know if you had a look at the Peleg discussion on the link I provided earlier but your ideas seem to suggest a regional rather than global interpretation of the term 'earth being divided' as do I. You mentioned the end of the ice age, which brings up a few questions: a) was there an ice age? and b) what caused it to end? and c) how fast did it end?
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Regional in effect, but global in extent, if you get my drift [pun intended]... the post-ice epoch rising sealevel would have affected coastlines that were less mountainous, or "breaks" in coastlines such as the Strait of Gibraltar, etc. We're still in the "Ice Age", and/but the ice is still receding, hence the meltback we see in Greenland and Antarctica, some Alaskan valley glaciers, etc. Global warming has been happening since the great "event" for many millenia, as I see it, and has recently produced or is asociated with some cascading effects [melting glaciers and tundra -> release of methane -> decreasing ozone -> etc.] that have signalled to some [I believe incorrectly] that somehow the industrial revolution caused/is causing it. As for Peleg and his kin, they are the great [great] grandkids of the survivors, who as I see it, lived through the entire continental division scenario of a few centuries before, regardless of the mechanism invoked...shock, EDM, or a more traditional seafloor spreading view. Once the destabilizing global catastrophe and its attending global winter were over, the earth slowly returned/is returning to its former warmer state. It will never reach that state, however, if my view is correct that the former "greenhhouse" climate structures [eg. smoother topography, more vaporous atmosphere, undivided continents, etc.] are no longer in place.
Lloyd
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Grey Cloud said:
What I don't get, and I may have missed it or it may just be me, is what the oceans are doing while all this shocking dynamism is going on.
* As I said earlier, the Saturn model has the oceans mostly in the polar column above the north pole until the Saturn age ended, which is what brought the Great Flood. The flood came from the polar column, when it was severed from Saturn. The flood also filled the ocean basins.
If, as this guy says, the landmasses are behaving like fluids and moving across the planet (in 26hrs) then surely the ocean(s) will be doing it more so?
* As I said earlier, the continents did not behave like fluids. Only the bottoms of the continents became fluid and areas of mountain building became somewhat fluid. The continents behaved like slabs of ice which slid on an ice-like surface.
I'm thinking tserious tsunamis here. I'm also thinking that any previously fresh water sources would be seriously contaminated from gasses and other stuff released during the fluid phase. This, I think, would also apply to any newly formed lakes, rivers, etc. This would have a devastating effect on any flora and fauna which had managed to survive the fluid phase. If the ground turned to the consistency of dough then what would happen to a multi-ton dinosaur?
* It's only in areas of mountain building that rock became doughy or fluid. The dinosaurs were killed by the "impact" shock and by the vulcanism, flooding etc.
Aquatic flora and fauna would also presumably suffer from the oceans being contaminated with silt from the land and a general stirring up from runaway landmasses? Plus current and temperature changes? ... On a related note, what about other impact sites such as Chicxulub(?), would they cause the fluid dynamism effect albeit on a smaller scale?
* They may have caused some small-scale sliding.
You mentioned the end of the ice age, which brings up a few questions: a) was there an ice age? and b) what caused it to end? and c) how fast did it end?
* The ice age began right after the Great Flood, possibly due to extensive vulcanism and perhaps to orbital changes. The ice age has been decreasing since it began.
webolife said:
Once the destabilizing global catastrophe and its attending global winter were over, the earth slowly returned/is returning to its former warmer state. It will never reach that state, however, if my view is correct that the former "greenhhouse" climate structures [eg. smoother topography, more vaporous atmosphere, undivided continents, etc.] are no longer in place.
* I agree that the paradise conditions of former times won't likely return naturally, but I think it's entirely possible to restore them technologically. I've also thought about moving an icy asteroid to Venus to cool it off and supply water. It should be a great place to grow forests, although the atmosphere is probably too heavy. We'd probably have to siphon off a lot of the atmosphere. I've suggested that we should take it to Mars, which has too little. I think it would be great to make as many of the planets and moons as possible habitable.
Grey Cloud
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Hi Lloyd, The Saturn model, whether Cardona's hot air balloon or Talbott's line astern variant, is not part of this guy's model. He has the oceans in situ, so I think my questions are still valid.
Lloyd
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
You can ask Mike about that, if you want [http://newgeology.us]. But I don't accept pre-flood oceans as part of my model. My model is mostly TB (Thunderbolts) with most of SD (Shock Dynamics) added to try to account for the continental fits and sliding, mountain building, the ocean ridges, seamounts, seafloor features etc.
Grey Cloud
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Hi Lloyd, No worries. My original post was addressed to anyone rather than just to you.
rengel
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Everybody who discusses ridge and moutain formation should have seen the following diagram by Peter Brüchmann http://www.peter-bruechmann.de/de/index.php?menu=3&cont~. According to the hypotheses Brüchmann puts forward, an asteroid broke through the earth's crust, pushed the magna outwards.
At weak points, the crust broke. The Magma was pushed out from within to form the young looking mountain ranges of the Alps, the Himalaya, the Andes, the Rockies. So far, nobody can explain convincingly why these mountains don't show so little signs of wheatering although they alledgedly have been created millions of years ago.
Where the crust held, it was pushed up. It didn't break, but only cracked at the surface. This way, the Grand Canyon and similar structures were created. They are fissures in the upper crust. At least, this explains why nobody found the debris that alledgedly was washed out by the Colorado River.
These are just to two points out of Brüchmann's book, which pertain to this thread. Alas, the book is in German.
Lloyd
Mountain Building & EDM
Reply to Rengel: * I don't know if that theory may be useful in any way, but I think the mountain ranges are better explained here: http://newgeology.us/presentation1.html. See these 2 sections especially. 5. Minor mountains on the continents that moved are on the side nearest the crater. (Australia's original position is as in 3. above, with Southeast Asia attached to what is now northwest Australia) [image]http://newgeology.us/InsideMts.jpg 6. Major mountains are on the side farthest from the crater. [image]http://newgeology.us/OutsideMts.jpg
Reply to Steve Smith: who previously stated that EDM doesn't carry large rock formations into the air. * This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061206vmridge~ says, "It is worth remembering that a cosmic thunderbolt of sufficient power to carve Valles Marineris would not just distribute pulverized debris around the planet, but launch great volumes of rocky and dusty debris into space. This could include both the red dust that has fallen historically upon our own planet and the meteorites that have been definitively identified as Martian in origin."
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Rengel, The "young" mountains you mentioned are generally fossiliferous sedimantary formations which have in some places undergone metamorphosis... coastal ranges are often interlayering of basalt and sedimentary layers, with good evidence of these formations happening coevally [pillow basalts, conformable interlayering etc.] ... but at the core of most ranges are found large plutons which definitely have been pushed up from beneath; the shock model works, as well as shifting continental masses... I'm favorable to both.
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd, I don't follow your "no pre-flood oceans" stance... what kind of scenario do you visualize for life on earth pre-flood?
Lloyd
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
* Webolife said:
at the core of most ranges are found large plutons which definitely have been pushed up from beneath
Another example of an anomalous, mountain-sized uplift is Stone Mountain, Georgia [http://www.gatewaysportaviation.com/images/stone_mountainsm~]. Once again, the standard explanation sees Stone Mountain as the remains of a granitic magma intrusion into softer limestone sediments that subsequently wore away, uncovering the dome-shaped pluton after millions of years. "Overlying rock strata" is a theory similar to "dark matter". It was invented so that the theory would work and not because of observational data. Long eons of geologic time and the slow course of wind and water picking single grains off the face of a granite colossus until it resembles Half Dome [http://www.sagarmatha.com/images/halfdome.jpg] is a theory whose time has passed. Ice has never been demonstrated to break and crush mountains into spires and mounds. Wind and rain dash themselves against the formations like bugs on a windshield, but that doesn't mean weather or insects created the shapes. Instead of eroding down, they could have been electrically pinched up.
* You said:
I don't follow your "no pre-flood oceans" stance... what kind of scenario do you visualize for life on earth pre-flood?
* There were no deep oceans, just shallow lakes or seas etc. Climate was warm on all of Saturn's planets, including Earth, from pole to pole. Mammals that have sparse hair, like humans, elephants, hippos, rhinos [?], swine, etc probably lived a lot in water. * If Earth was more electrified then, and if there were seas containing sodium chloride [salt], the electricity may have formed sodium chlorate [NaClO3], which could form into sodium chlorite [NaClO2], which could form chlorine dioxide [ClO2], which destroys most pathogens, including viruses, bacteria and fungi, because most of them have low pH, whereas mammal cells and friendly intestinal bacteria are mostly neutral. ClO2 is death to lower pH organisms. It's used now in drinking water in some places. It heals tooth infections. I can attest to that. That may have aided longevity.
Grey Cloud
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Weren't mammoth and rhino of the woolly variety? Wouldn't the wool shrink if they lived in water?
rengel
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd, thank you for the links. What I'missing on that website, is a time scale. The author (Fischer) claims, everything happened within 26 hours, but doesn't state when (how many millenia ago). Or did I miss something?
Then, this model does explain the 'inner' and the 'outer' mountains, but two important 'young' looking mountain ranges are missing: the Rockies and the Alps.
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd, I think of two different processes in "push up" and "intrude". In the latter, liquid magmas squeeze their way upward through sedimentary formations and harden over a long period of time as big chunks of rock underground, unable to make it to the surface to be extruded as lavas, volcanos and the like. Long term erosion and mountain building pressures expose these in mountain ranges, according to that traditional view. The "pushing up" scenario, on the other hand, presupposes the existence of granitics in the primordial crust, then by crust-moving pressures [eg. shock, continental drift, or EDM?], these formations are lifted and thus exposed. I am in a place not so much of "sureness" about the mechanism, but of trying to ask the right questions... looking for the best evidence match... I'm going to be a hard sell on the Saturn theory.
saturnine
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Concerning the 26 hours... how was that determined?
I don't know if you had a look at the Peleg discussion on the link I provided earlier but your ideas seem to suggest a regional rather than global interpretation of the term 'earth being divided' as do I.
