Hi Webolife, I'm with you now. I hadn't taken into consideration the was basin-now plateau thing or, more importantly the lack of mountains down the west coast (even though they don't exist in my model either ). Regarding tsunamis from the Atlantic - does the geology of the eastern side of N America support this? I would have thought that the Appalachians would be older(?). My own thoughts are that the indigenous peoples survived more on the eastern side of the continent but were more or less wrecked west and centre. Or perhaps some of those from the central region were forced to move east. And possibly some of those from the central region moved south into Mesoamerica. I think the Maya maybe, possibly, could have come from either somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico or more likely one of the gulf states, e.g Florida. I get that last bit from the Popol Vuh. It seems that wherever their original home was, the land could no longer support the population so one group stayed behind and several other groups set off in various directions. The group that was to become the Quiche (Maya) travelled in dark and cold conditions (no Sun) to somewhere in Mesoamerica. After some years (?) they sent some people back to the original homeland but the direct way back was now partly under water and part of the journey was done by island-hopping. It hard to get any real sense of direction from the book.
Lloyd
Re: Rock Strata Formation
GC said: What evidence do we have that debris can be lifted into space; that it can be pulverised, as opposed to vapourised; that it can be sorted; or, that it can be deposited elsewhere. In the context of sedimentary rock this would involve depositing it in layers, in discrete areas, as opposed to scattering it across the landscape.
* Jupiter's field apparently lifts material from Io very high above it, I think over a hundred miles. If it were a little stronger, it would lift it completely into space. The rings of the planets seem to be material lifted from some of the moons via jets or geysers. * Ralph Juergens' famous article "Of the Moon and Mars" now at http://kronia.com shows the picture of effects of a lightning strike on a baseball diamond in Florida in 1949 or so, which includes a trench and pulverized dust on each side of it, which he suggested is similar to the dust of the rays of the Tycho crater on the moon and along the sides of the lunar rilles. * I think it was Thornhill who claimed that some of the material from Meteor Crater in AZ was deposited in layers near the crater in reverse order from the layers existing in the rock strata of the area, as mentioned in one of the TPODs. * I was also impressed recently with Nick's quote of Juergens on the Duning thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&~, where he said:
[Radiohalos are in plutonic rocks, including granite, and] the Earth's radioactive elements are concentrated in granitic rocks, [because] granite origins [are] a result of electrical breakdown of pre-existing sediments during Earth catastrophes of the kind described by Velikovsky.
nick c
Re: Rock Strata Formation
GC,
OK so I'll buy the excavation due to the energy involved. But: What evidence do we have that debris can be lifted into space;
As that tpod stated the importance of the missing material in the Grand Canyon, and other places, can not be overestimated. It had to go someplace.
The electrical force is some 1039x more powerful than gravity and is scalable. The statements in the
tpod are backed by lab experiments and as well known industrial processes. At the proposed scale of planetary catastrophics, lifting material off of one planet and depositing it on another, or depositing it at another place on the same planet would be an expected by product of that scale of electrical excavation. That process is in accord with the testimony of ancient literature, the details of this are available in a wide variety places containing EU related literature, in books, articles, as well as the TPOD's, holoscience site, and of course many threads on these forums, etc etc. (see Lloyd's post above).
The guys who made the video have empirical evidence from lab experiments, sea-floor core samples and from the eruption of Mt St Helens. Their theory even accounts for the fossilised trees which straddle the banks and more or less complete fossilised animal skeletons.
The theory fits best in a catastrophic scenario. That is, I assume, why Lloyd posted it.
As I said in my previous post it would be a complete package, the electric excavation would be accompanied by floods and winds of unimaginable proportions. My post was not intended to diminish the importance of their work, only add that another factor needed to be taken into consideration.
Lloyd, my apologies for making a side comment that resulted in your thread going slightly off course.
Nick
webolife
Re: Rock Strata Formation
GC, the migrations of those people groups in North America would have happened centuries after the catastrophic scenario I envision. The significance of this thread is the recognition that the so-called "law" of superposition no longer holds for interpretation of geologic age... out goes the geologic column, index fossils, radiometric age correlation, pretty much uniformitarianism is negated. Instead of assuming hundred-millions of years of trickle-speed events, one begins to imagine the effects of one or more whopper catastrophes, happening globally over a relatively short time frame.
Lloyd
Re: Rock Strata Formation
* Juergens suggested in Nick's earlier quote that granite formed by electrical breakdown of pre-existing sedimentary rock. So how long was the sedimentary rock pre-existing? Days, years, centuries, millennia?
Re: Electrically charged rocks? Post by Lloyd » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:05 pm * Here http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol212/sandst&cong.htm it says, "Sandstones make up ... about 25% of the stratigraphic record". [I think that means 25% of sedimentary rock.] * Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock it says, "Sedimentary rock covers 75-80% of the Earth's land area, and includes common types such as limestone, chalk, dolostone, sandstone, conglomerate, some types of breccia, and shale" [they forgot siltstone perhaps]. Another webpage said sedimentary [rock] makes up about 5% of the Earth's crust and it averages one to two miles deep on the continents, but very little at all in the ocean floors.
* I wonder how much of the crust is granite. One article says:
The author proceeds from the conception that the history of the Earth had two stages. The first one is the geosyncline-platform or the granite stage, and it is characterised by the formation of the granitic continental crust. The second or basalt stage is marked by the rise of overheated basalts from the deep layers of the mantle. On the surface it is manifested in tectonic activisation, in extrusions of plateau-basalts and in oceanisation, which is associated with the secondary transformation of the granite-basalt continental crust into the water-basalt oceanic crust.
* I guess the continents are mostly granite covered with sedimentary rock. Right? I'll try to finish this line of thinking later. It's time to quit for today.
moses
Re: Rock Strata Formation
out goes the geologic column... webolife
If by this you mean that if sediment A lies above another sediment B then sediment A is non necessarily younger than sediment B, then I think that this goes too far. There is clear evidence of many episodes of deposition, and even though many layers would be formed in the same event, generally the deeper sediment is older. Mo
Grey Cloud
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hi Lloyd,
"* Jupiter's field apparently lifts material from Io very high above it, I think over a hundred miles. If it were a little stronger, it would lift it completely into space. The rings of the planets seem to be material lifted from some of the moons via jets or geysers".
This relates to Jupiter which has a different atmosphere than Earth and is any case almost entirely hypothetical or theoretical.
"* Ralph Juergens' famous article "Of the Moon and Mars" now at http://kronia.com shows the picture of effects of a lightning strike on a baseball diamond in Florida in 1949 or so, which includes a trench and pulverized dust on each side of it, which he suggested is similar to the dust of the rays of the Tycho crater on the moon and along the sides of the lunar rilles".
In the context of the thread topic we are not talking about trenches with adjacent pulverised dust. Nor is the Moon relevant. BTW kronia.com is no longer available as the domain registration has expired.
"[Radiohalos are in plutonic rocks, including granite, and] the Earth's radioactive elements are concentrated in granitic rocks, [because] granite origins [are] a result of electrical breakdown of pre-existing sediments during Earth catastrophes of the kind described by Velikovsky".
Irrelevant once more as we are not talking about granite.
Berthault and his team are talking about something which is happening all day every day, on Earth, i.e. the movement and laying down of sediments in water. There is no need to invoke any extra-planetary examples, hypothetical models or anything else.
Grey Cloud
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hi Nick,
"As that tpod stated the importance of the missing material in the Grand Canyon, and other places, can not be overestimated. It had to go someplace".
Berthault's work is not just about the Grand Canyon, it applies, as I understand it, to sedimentary rock in general regardless of location. How do we know that there is material missing from the Grand Canyon? If the area has gone from being a basin to being a plateau then the canyon could well be just a split or rift. In any case, the rock making up the Grand Canyon is the subject of Berthault's work, i.e. the Grand Canyon is made up of sedimentary rock. Your EDM model is entirely hypothetical as no one has ever observed it on anywhere near the scale you envision.
"The electrical force is some 1039x more powerful than gravity and is scalable".
So what? This is completely irrelevant. As I just said to Lloyd, sedimentary deposition (by gravity) is happening all day every day.
"The statements in the tpod are backed by lab experiments and as well known industrial processes".
Are they?
"At the proposed scale of planetary catastrophics, lifting material off of one planet and depositing it on another, or depositing it at another place on the same planet would be an expected by product of that scale of electrical excavation".
Again entirely hypothetical and irrelevant in the context of Berthault's work.
"That process is in accord with the testimony of ancient literature,…."
No it is not. I challenge you to come up with something from any ancient literature which even suggests 'lifting material off of one planet and depositing it on another'.
Regarding my comment about Berthault's work accounting for fossilised trees and critters, you wrote: "The theory fits best in a catastrophic scenario". No it doesn't, Berthault's work fits best into all day, every day reality. It doesn't require any scenarios, catastrophic or otherwise.
"My post was not intended to diminish the importance of their work, only add that another factor needed to be taken into consideration".
No other factor need be taken into consideration. Berthault's findings apply whether the deposition is on a slow, steady, daily basis; as a result of a regular flash-flood or water movement of catastrophic proportions.
Grey Cloud
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hi Webolife, The movement of the people in the Popol Vuh is a direct result of catastrophe on Earth and events occurring in the sky, i.e. this is the reason they are moving and these things are still appertaining as they move. It's a similar story in other parts of the world.
I agree about the negation of uniformitarianism re dating etc. but, there again, dating has always been problematic and is the bane of any study of catastrophism.
My current understanding of catastrophes is that they occur on a regular, cyclical basis. This cycle is determined / governed by the precession (and probably other larger cycles currently not known or understood). I think that there are greater and lesser catastrophes which are related to longer and shorter cycles. This is from reading ancient texts, not other peoples interpretations and theories. I don't particularly like words such as 'globally' in this context as I feel they can be misleading. There may well be greater catastrophes which directly affect the entire planet but I feel that the more common lesser catastrophes are more regional in their direct impact. Certainly, secondary effects such as volcanic winters would affect the whole planet; but directly, no. As an aside, I feel that one of the main failings of all these modern theories is that they seriously underestimate the powers and capabilities of planet Earth. They tend to view Earth as a sort of victim, getting battered from pillar to post by various other celestial bodies.
Changing tack: you mentioned that you have been aware of Berthault's work for a couple of years. What impact, if any, do you think his work is having in academia? If you could point me to any discussions of his work, I'd be grateful.
Interesting that Henke in the last link can offer only an ad hom attack. It makes no odds whether Bethault is a YEC or believes in fairies. Either his science is sound or it isn't.
Webolife, I'm still interested if you know of any scientific discussion on this.
starbiter
Re: Rock Strata Formation
I'd like to offer a diferent view on the missing material from the Grand Canyon. I've posted images on the dune thread showing mountains with missing material. The sides of the mountains were heated electrically and compressed into rock. The mountain becomes smaller during the process. If the current was strong enough material seems to have been removed. I assume it was turned into fine dust. That's what electricty does during EDM. The sides of the Grand Canyon are examples of this. On the other hand, from what i have seen, the canyon was never filled in. There was no rock to remove. The Colorado River prevented accumulation of dust and sand during the the encounter with the comet. The river is a drainage for a huge area. The Green and Gunnison Rivers join up with the Colorado River and head South. The river was there before the mountain. While the dust and sand was blowing during the time of darkness it accumulated where the land was dry. It accumulated rapidly in a dune process. The river didn't allow a mountain to form where it was flowing. The dust and sand blew across the river and began accumulating again once dry land was available on the other side of the river. Any sand blowing into the river is washed away.
This isn't unique with the Grand Canyon. This applies to every canyon, from what i've seen. This applies to flat deserts separating mountains. The desert wasn't excavated. It was prevented from accumulating sand because it was flooded. If the desert is completely level, it was flooded until there was no more blowing sand available. If there are small dunes or rolling hills, the area dried up while sand remained in the atmosphere. Hydrology is the key to mountain building.
The Great Basin in the map below was flooded wherever there isn't a mountain.
I was taught by the EU leaders that canyons and deserts were violently riped out by huge thunderbolts. I embraced this. I went out to document just this. I found something much more subtle. Even though subtle, this process was still violent beyond description.
I've lost EU friends over this. I'm no fun. Never invite me to a party, unless you want to get rid of your guests.
Party pooper michael
Lloyd
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Mo said to Webolife: If by this you mean that if sediment A lies above another sediment B then sediment A is non necessarily younger than sediment B, then I think that this goes too far. There is clear evidence of many episodes of deposition, and even though many layers would be formed in the same event, generally the deeper sediment is older.
* Mo, you apparently haven't yet seen the initial link this thread referred to, or the first page of posts on the thread. It was shown that layers form on slopes and the strata are built up from one end to the other horizontally. The small stuff settles to the bottom, coarser material settles on that, then more fine stuff settles on that, making the first diagonal layer, then another layer forms in the same way on the downstream side of the first layer. While layers are formed diagonally, strata form horizontally quite often, but from end to end, not bottom to top. Did you see the diagram on page one of this thread?
webolife
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Starbiter, You never have to worry about me leaving your party...it's too much fun arguing with you! Even when I tried to leave your "mountains are dunes" thread, I couldn't resist coming back...
Grey Cloud, Your links are the discussion I'm aware of. Like anyone with a paradigm smashing experiment, Berthault gets no recognition from mainstreamers, and lots of recognition from alternate views such as YEC, and now EU? One of the interesting things about radiometric dates is that often if the results don't match the prior assumption of the geologic column, they are "tossed".
Moses, Look back at the images and discussion in this thread, then look at a Guy Berthault video. You'll see that superposition simply does not apply when sediments are laid down by moving currents. You, I, and likely the rest of us, were educated from a simple and dramatically wrong model, which went something like this: throw a bunch of mud in a jar of water, shake it up, then watch it settle. Furthermore, superposition is based on the prior assumption of uniformitarianism, that sediments accumulate at extremely slow and gradual rates, compact and/or get cemented, then get uplift and/or eroded virtually to a level over millions of years, then accumulate again by the same slow process. Each major layer is considered by SM geologists to be an orogeny, to try to explain why many sediments occur in global distributions. Under this unobserved view, of course sediments below would be considered older. But observed moving currents do not deposit sediments in this manner! Berthaults experiments speak for themselves, and violate pretty much everything you thought about formation of sedimentary rocks!
Lloyd
Re: Rock Strata Formation
GC said: Berthault and his team are talking about something which is happening all day every day, on Earth, i.e. the movement and laying down of sediments in water. There is no need to invoke any extra-planetary examples, hypothetical models or anything else.
* That's incorrect. They're talking about sedimentation under catastrophic conditions. I think their experiments only show how the strata are laid down, not how they turn to stone. I don't think sedimentary rock formation has been observed in nature. * I never said the granite info was relevant to your questions. I said it was interesting. * If you want there not to be EU answers to your questions, you can always ignore any answers that anyone gives, just as you're doing.
Michael said: I was taught by the EU leaders that canyons and deserts were violently riped out by huge thunderbolts. I embraced this. I went out to document just this. I found something much more subtle. Even though subtle, this process was still violent beyond description.
* The Greek account of the clash between Venus and Mars suggests that humans observed lightning carving out the canyon on Mars, i.e. Vallis Marineris.
The Colorado River prevented accumulation of dust and sand during the the encounter with the comet. The river is a drainage for a huge area.
* But the sediments from the river are not found anywhere. Sediments from the Mississippi are found at the delta, but nothing is found from the Colorado.
webolife
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Oh, Lloyd, be nice to GC... he's just a healthy skeptic, like the rest of us... Actually Bethault's experiments apply to sediments laid down by moving currents under any conditions, whether catastrophic or not. The real clincher is his demonstration, easily repeated, that multiple layers are laid down exigently, so that relative age is not determinable by looking at a vertical column of sediment. The application for catastrophists is that he also showed that the depth of the water plus the speed of the current are the main determiners of the size of the sedimentary formations, hence a flood of catastrophic proportions may be sufficient to explain the accumulation of sediments in the Grand Canyon.
).
