Well it sure looks like there is more energy coming out than going in. What's the explanation?
nick c
Re: Rock Strata Formation
hello Grey Cloud,
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.
I have never heard that before. Mainstream geologists have attributed its' origin to erosion by the Colorado River, that has been questioned recently, but I believe it is still the mainstream explanation. No rifting....if there was a rift what forces caused such a gash in the Earth? keep in mind it is at a high point (plateau) and forms a lichtenburg figure, with no sign of detritus, etc. etc. What about similar features on moons and planets? all these are tied into an electrical explanation whereas they would be coincidental to erosion or rifting.
Do we see 277 mile long/ mile deep canyons being formed today? So where is your evidence in favor of a rift or a split? And what force could have accomplished that? Electrical formation explains all those features, answers all those questions, and many more...rifting or erosion do not. The EU literature has information on lab experiments and industrial processes, and scalabilities that you question. They are posted on the net, with links. I do not have the time to show you where they are. Start with the tpods. It would be good for you to read the EU literature on the subject before critiquing it.
Grey Cloud wrote:
nick c wrote: 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.
Wrong. The work is about how the geological column was formed. Electrical processes are very much relevant. That is why it was posted in a forum dedicated to the Electric Universe.
Grey Cloud wrote:
nick c wrote: 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'.
Ancient peoples would report what they observed, subjectively interpreted within the context of their belief system. So what could be expected if ancient humans were subjected to enormous electrical discharges? Besides the obvious floods and wind, I would expect tales of blasts from heaven, thunderbolts destroying mountains, mountains being moved, overturned, lifted, or flying mountains, rains of stones, rocks, and other materials. such as this: http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyc ... /astra.htm
Ravana then shot an asthra called "Thama" whose nature was to create total darkness in all the worlds. The arrows came with heads exposing frightening eyes and fangs, and fiery tongues. End to end the earth was enveloped in total darkness and the whole of creation was paralysed. This asthra also created a deluge of rain on one side,a rain of stoneson the other, a hail-storm showering down intermittently, and a tornado sweeping the earth. Ravana was sure that this would arrest Rama's enterprise [...]After much thought, he decided to use "Brahmasthra," a weapon specially designed by the Creator Brahma n a former occasion, when he had to provide one for Siva to destroy Tripura, the old monster who assumed the forms of flying mountainsand settled down on habitations and cities, seeking to destroy the world.
highlights my own Here in one myth you have a story that cites mountains flying, and rains of stones. I got that in a two minute google. I could gather much more, but why take the time? These catastrophic testimonies are ubiquitous in the mythic literature of all nations. What effect would that have on the geologic column? [Mentioning in passing is one thing, but let's not turn this thread into a discussion of myth.]
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.
I think you may be missing Berthault's point, he is not demonstrating that the geological column could be explained by forces in operation today, rather he is in the process of building a case for the geologic column being created rapidly in a global flood, a la Noah. I could be wrong about that, but that is my impression.
Nick
moses
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Your replies suggest that I have not been clear. I am saying that the sediments of the Grand Canyon would be dated so: The lowest say 50 layers were formed at the same time, and then the next say 200 layers were formed some time later in another episode, and so on to the top say 30 layers which were all formed most recently in the latest flooding/depositional episode.
I think we should look into the idea that much water was deposited with the sediment of the geological column, such that giant flows of water occurred, and such a flow could have caused the Grand Canyon.
The significant question will be whether there was one eposide of deposition that formed all the sediment of the Grand Canyon, or were there many such episodes. Even with many episodes of flooding and deposition, much water could have flowed through the Grand Canyon during each episode. But clearly differences in the result would be expected.
And the sediment washed away in the flooding could have travelled a long way in pretty turbulent flow. So was it electrical machining or monster flooding. I think we can rule out rifting due to the slopes of the sides of the Grand Canyon. Mo
Grey Cloud
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hi Nick, Re the Grand Canyon. The rift/split thing was something I came up with of the top of my head. My point was that there is no need to invoke hypothetical inter-planetary lightning bolts. If the Grand Canyon was a basin then the sediment would have been laid down then. The split could have occurred as a result of the subsequent uplift / conversion into a plateau. You asked what force could have caused this: the Earth.
Lichtenberg figures. I realise that, strictly speaking, Lichtenberg figures are associated with electrical discharge, however, that type of figure or pattern occurs throughout nature. Ferns, human veins etc all display a similar fractal-based design as Lichtenberg figures. I am not dismissing the idea of electrical discharge merely saying that you seeing a Lichtenberg figure is not proof-positive.
You asked: "Do we see 277 mile long/ mile deep canyons being formed today?" Quite possibly. The fact that they are not being formed near instantaneously is neither here nor there. You could try looking at from the other direction and ask: 'If the entire Earth was peppered by mega-lightning bolts, then why is there only one 277 mile long canyon?'
"It would be good for you to read the EU literature on the subject before critiquing it".
I have read it but unlike you I have not memorised it to the extent that I can quote it chapter and verse. In any case it is not the EU material I am criticising, it is the fact that you have leapt in with all this talk of electrical activity where none is needed. The fact that Berthault's work undermines the Standard Model does not mean that it vindicates the EU model. As I've already stated, Berthault's work seems to cover all the bases regarding sedimentary deposition whether the water current is slow, medium or fast; trickle or flood. It has no need of anything else to fill in blanks. I also wonder whether this EU-related lab work and industrial use of EDM has been done on rocks or just metals?
GC
"Again entirely hypothetical and irrelevant in the context of Berthault's work".
Nick
"Wrong. The work is about how the geological column was formed. Electrical processes are very much relevant. That is why it was posted in a forum dedicated to the Electric Universe"
No, it is not wrong. Berthault's model explains how the geological column is formed and his explanation does not require electrical processes. If you wish to include electrical processes then it is incumbent upon you to prove Berthault's model to be wrong and to prove that electrical processes provide a better or fuller explanation. It is entirely insufficient and unscientific to cobble electrical processes on to Berthault's model just because you want the EU model to be vindicated.
My challenge to you was "to come up with something from any ancient literature which even suggests 'lifting material off of one planet and depositing it on another'. I see nothing in the Ramayana passage which supports material coming from another planet. I was not challenging the fact that there are catastrophic references in ancient literature.
You asked: "What effect would that have on the geologic column?". If it had one, the onus is on you to prove it.
"I think you may be missing Berthault's point, he is not demonstrating that the geological column could be explained by forces in operation today, rather he is in the process of building a case for the geologic column being created rapidly in a global flood, a la Noah. I could be wrong about that, but that is my impression."
Berthault may well have a Christian agenda but his research and findings apply, as I've repeatedly stated, to all day, every day sedimentation up to and including floods. His lab work involving the flume was not based on flooding but on the effects of various current strengths, as I understood it. His animations showed how the sedimentation occurred where rivers flowed into the sea.
Lloyd
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Mo said: The significant question will be whether there was one eposide of deposition that formed all the sediment of the Grand Canyon, or were there many such episodes. Even with many episodes of flooding and deposition, much water could have flowed through the Grand Canyon during each episode. But clearly differences in the result would be expected. - And the sediment washed away in the flooding could have travelled a long way in pretty turbulent flow. So was it electrical machining or monster flooding. I think we can rule out rifting due to the slopes of the sides of the Grand Canyon.
* We may have to think this through quite a bit before we can decide if excess flowing water may have carved the Grand Canyon. Let's start with the Great Flood scenario. 1. The supercontinent broke up forming the continents and islands. 2. A flood came from the north polar vortex after the breakup of the Saturn System. 3. The flood waters washed sand, silt and lime from Canada to the 3-4 mile deep Colorado plateau and other parts of the U.S. etc. 4. Something solidified the sediments and fossils in the plateau. 5. Something carved out the Grand Canyon, leaving no outwash sediments in the Gulf of California. * I guess you're suggesting that 5 came before 4. We'll have to think on that some more, I think. * Below are comparisons of the dendritic ridges on Olympus Mons on Mars with ridges on the edges of continental shelves and submarine canyons. If the Mars ridges were carved electrically, then it's possible that the same was true for the Earth features. At any rate, canyons and gullies on the continental shelves may not have formed by water flow under water, meaning the oceans were not yet there. Olympus Mons dendritic ridges: Monterey, CA canyon: Redondo, CA canyon & shelf: Andfjorden, Norway Andoya canyon:
starbiter
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hello Lloyd: Excellent Redondo Trench graphic. I lived just North in Hermosa Beach for many years. According to myth the oceans evaporated to such an extent that from the coast no water could be seen. The water sank below the continental shelf. This at a time of great run off from the continents. The trench could be the result of erosion during this time. Erosion is dificult with rock. But the newly exposed sediments caused by the receding ocean could be eroded quickly, i think.
michael steinbacher
starbiter
Re: Rock Strata Formation
The sediments that surround the Redondo Canyon look like they were deposited in a pattern similar to the Berthault experiments. This would require all of the LA basin to be in flood stage during a continental flood. The water would have been super saturated with dust and sand.
I'm with you Lloyd in the electrical excavation of those features. I am thinking about Miles Mathis and his belief that the earth would have tilted over under the influence of the electric charge, in which case the inertia of the water would have resulted in apparent withdrawal from the shoreline in some locations, and a tidal wave washing over the land in other areas. Then there would be a whole lot of sloshing around of the ocean, making it very difficult to reconstruct an exact pattern for the laying down of the suspended solids as things settled down. Just a thought.
starbiter
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hello GaryN and Lloyd: I agree with both of you. The area may well have been effected electrically. It's not one or the other. The amount of obvious Electrical Excavation and Electrical Alteration i see is dificult to describe. The canyon may have been created as i describe above, then zapped. It's hard to explain sandstone with a catastrophic timeline without EU, and zapping.
Doesn't the material that comprises the Continental Shelf look like the video that this thread is based on. With mountains preventing the process. That would be new, i think. And myth makes it possible. The material would be available. Both water and particulates. But it doesn't work without a continental flood filling the drainage.
There is a river running South to North along Hwy. 101. During the catastrophic flooding it would have filled the valley, emptying into Monterey Bay, eroding the newly exposed, freshly dry, sediments.
With an ocean there the process doesen't work so well.
michael steinbacher
webolife
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Where do I begin.... I agree that submarine canyons were originally carved by continental runoff on exposed continental boundaries which later were submerged with the filling of the oceans. The turbidity currents we see on occasion are mass movements of sediment that has accumulated in the shoreward sections of these canyons toward the abyssal plain below... they do not generally appear to carve out the canyons, but merely use the canyons as a conduit.
The Berthault experiments were mostly done in stream tables and show the deposition of sediments under flowing water on a low slope [as one would expect in a "mature" river system], not just where deltas are forming as water slows into a relatively still body.
Mo, I misunderstood your original statement about the superposition of Grand Canyon formations. My own model has there being three separate sediment laden currents, as you also suggested, but I connect these events in a single multi-staged catastrophe... eg. three major seismic or tidally driven sloshes of ocean over the low topography of the [pre-mountainous] continent.
The martian slip-faces seem very duney to me [ starbiter] and earthly [watery] sedimentary deposition shows characteristics of this as well. The supposition that Mars' current atmosphere is too thin to accomplish the kind of duning required has at least three answers, all of which are feasible: 1)The ancient atmosphere of Mars was denser and has been stripped away somewhat, or 2)Electrically driven duning has occurred, or 3)There used to be lots of water on Mars. I doubt this one, and predict that little if any substantial water will ever be found there.
Back to Earth, I agree with GC that EDM-sized electrical action is unnecessary to explain what happens next: Ordinary erosion [albeit on a catastrophic scale] is sufficient to carve out lichtenbergian features in sediment that is [mostly?] uncemented... furthermore, cementation occurs chemically in a matter of hours or days under the right conditions, as anyone who has poured a sidewalk or foundation knows. To me all chemistry is electrical, so you can have your electrical connection at a very fundamental level. Megalightning is way more exotic an explanation than is required to understand the mega-features on the Earth, or Mars... I'm don't disbelieve in it, still a early seeker in the EU, but it seems to be given too much unexplainable and unobserved power to convert me just yet.
starbiter
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hello Webo: According to accepted estimates the level of the ocean during the last ice age was at a minimum 300 ft. lower. Others double this number. Some say over 2000 ft. This is from Earth in Upheaval, page 119. The point is, there's a good chance the shelf was dry, with newly formed sediment. The events would have been simultaneous. The ice age happened rapidly while what i propose was happening. All with a large planet sized comet in the sky. Webo, i know this must make your head spin. Without WiC this is insane. I'm sorry.
michael
nick c
Re: Rock Strata Formation
hi GC,
The rift/split thing was something I came up with of the top of my head. My point was that there is no need to invoke hypothetical inter-planetary lightning bolts. If the Grand Canyon was a basin then the sediment would have been laid down then. The split could have occurred as a result of the subsequent uplift / conversion into a plateau.
Obviously, we have reached an impasse here. There is not any good reason to assume that the forces observed today have always been the only ones in operation. The uniformitarian theories cannot adequately explain any of the major features of the Earth and other terrestrial bodies in the solar system. Berthault's model (in uniformitarian mode) does not adequately explain the formation of the Grand Canyon. I accept electrical action as the mechanism for the formation of the Grand Canyon, as spelled out in numerous places in the EU literature. To me it is the simplest and most complete explanation, accounting for numerous anomalies associated with the canyon.
Lichtenberg figures are associated with electrical discharge, however, that type of figure or pattern occurs throughout nature. Ferns, human veins etc all display a similar fractal-based design as Lichtenberg figures. I am not dismissing the idea of electrical discharge merely saying that you seeing a Lichtenberg figure is not proof-positive.
The lichtenburg figure is but one piece of supporting evidence, to isolate that one piece and dismiss it as incidental is to ignore the total argument. There is no such thing as "proof-positive" in science, nothing is ever 100% certain.
The fact that Berthault's work undermines the Standard Model does not mean that it vindicates the EU model.
True. However as the proverb says, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and aspects of Berthault's work are compatible with and useful to the EU model. I assume that is the reason Lloyd posted it on the forum.
My challenge to you was "to come up with something from any ancient literature which even suggests 'lifting material off of one planet and depositing it on another'.
Again the ancients subjectively interpreted extraordinary events within the context of their belief systems and knowledge. That myth expresses their fear of world destruction before the unrestrained forces of gods battling celestial monsters, of mountains being lifted and moved, of rains of rock and stones, etc. All these events would be expected as material was excavated, lifted, and redeposited in the manner described in EU literature.
Berthault may well have a Christian agenda but his research and findings apply, as I've repeatedly stated, to all day, every day sedimentation up to and including floods. His lab work involving the flume was not based on flooding but on the effects of various current strengths, as I understood it. His animations showed how the sedimentation occurred where rivers flowed into the sea.
Berthault's motivation is only of a side interest, his work stands as it is and must be judged in an objective manner. His demonstrations are thought provoking, but there are several things to keep in mind. He has shown how different strata could be deposited at or near the same time, thus attacking a basic assumption of sequential slow deposition in geology. I don't see how this could create the geologic column under exclusively uniformitarian assumptions. It is clearly a catastrophic model. The links from mainstream critics show this. I don't think that it can account for the geological column as it is observed from his demonstrations alone. Some questions: -do the models he uses present the proper mechanical scaling? for example, what do the current flows and particle sizes in his model scale up to in real world applications? and actual movements of water presently observed? [note: electrical scaling does not have the problems that plague mechanical scaling...Hannes Alfven showed that lab demonstrated electrical effects are scalable up to cosmic proportions.] -Berthault's experiments display different strata created by water flow, however in these experiments the column created is composed of loose granulated particles, in the real world the column is composed of rock? how does this particulation become rock?
You asked: "What effect would that have on the geologic column?". If it had one, the onus is on you to prove it.
No it is not, because the question is rhetorical. There has been much written on the interpretation of the geologic column from a catastrophic perspective, on various threads on this forum, holoscience, tpod's, books etc. I am not obligated to explain what is common knowledge to those posting on this thread. The material is readily available to all who have an interest.
I have read it but unlike you I have not memorised it to the extent that I can quote it chapter and verse. In any case it is not the EU material I am criticising, it is the fact that you have leapt in with all this talk of electrical activity where none is needed.
Please, excuse me for derailing a thread by bringing up the topic of the Electric Universe. You could report me to the forum administrator for such a heinous crime This is a forum dedicated to the Electric Universe. Anything and everything posted here should in some way pertain to the EU. Did Lloyd, the original poster, intend for this discussion to exclude all electric and plasma factors? My guess is "no." The deposition of material and the formation of the geologic column is indeed a topic in the EU, and I "leapt" in with reference to EU material (some written by the people who host this forum) pertaining to that topic. Discussion of electric activity is proper here, as is being shown by the posts already made in this thread. Now if you'll excuse me I have to continue my hobby of rote memorization of EU material. The insulting implication being that I have no mind of my own!
Nick
webolife
Re: Rock Strata Formation
starbiter wrote: Hello Webo: According to accepted estimates the level of the ocean during the last ice age was at a minimum 300 ft. lower. Others double this number. Some say over 2000 ft. This is from Earth in Upheaval, page 119. The point is, there's a good chance the shelf was dry, with newly formed sediment. The events would have been simultaneous. The ice age happened rapidly while what i propose was happening. All with a large planet sized comet in the sky. Webo, i know this must make your head spin. Without WiC this is insane. I'm sorry.
michael
Actually Starbiter Mike, I agree that what you have said in this post is quite plausible. This particular claim of Dr. V has been included for nearly 20 years in my list of likelhoods in the catastrophic model I hold.
Grey Cloud
Re: Rock Strata Formation
Hi Nick,
"There is not any good reason to assume that the forces observed today have always been the only ones in operation".
Neither is there, in the context of Berthault's work, any good reason to invoke any other (highly hypothetical) factor or factors.
"The uniformitarian theories cannot adequately explain any of the major features of the Earth and other terrestrial bodies in the solar system".
I have not suggested that they can.
"Berthault's model (in uniformitarian mode) does not adequately explain the formation of the Grand Canyon".
So now Berthault is in uniformitarian mode; in your last post he was in catastrophic mode, viz the Noachian Deluge.
"I accept electrical action as the mechanism for the formation of the Grand Canyon, as spelled out in numerous places in the EU literature. To me it is the simplest and most complete explanation, accounting for numerous anomalies associated with the canyon".
That's you. I prefer to accept Berthault's work as it stands until I see something from geologists which refutes it or otherwise exposes flaws in it. This is why I asked Webolife if he had seen anything.
"The lichtenburg figure is but one piece of supporting evidence, to isolate that one piece and dismiss it as incidental is to ignore the total argument".
No it isn't ignoring the total argument, it is dismissing inadmissible or irrelevant evidence.
"There is no such thing as "proof-positive" in science, nothing is ever 100% certain".
I didn't at any point suggest that there was.
"The fact that Berthault's work undermines the Standard Model does not mean that it vindicates the EU model".
"True. However as the proverb says, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and aspects of Berthault's work are compatible with and useful to the EU model. I assume that is the reason Lloyd posted it on the forum".
So you do science by proverb? It is not 'aspects of Berthault's work are compatible with and useful to the EU model' but Berthault's conclusions, i.e. that the SM has it wrong about the geological column. Your assumptions and Lloyd's reasons are irrelevant to my contention that there is no need to attempt to cobble EU theories onto Berthault's work.
"Again the ancients subjectively interpreted extraordinary events within the context of their belief systems and knowledge. That myth expresses their fear of world destruction before the unrestrained forces of gods battling celestial monsters, of mountains being lifted and moved, of rains of rock and stones, etc. All these events would be expected as material was excavated, lifted, and redeposited in the manner described in EU literature".
Again more waffle. I wrote:
"My challenge to you was "to come up with something from any ancient literature which even suggests 'lifting material off of one planet and depositing it on another'."
You came up with a passage from the Ramayana, to which I responded: "
I see nothing in the Ramayana passage which supports material coming from another planet. I was not challenging the fact that there are catastrophic references in ancient literature".
You have still not come up with anything suggesting that 'it came from another planet'.
Berthault's motivation is only of a side interest, his work stands as it is and must be judged in an objective manner.
It was you who brought up his possible religious bias. It is me who is saying that his work must be judged in an objective manner, i.e. not subject to the EU model being the one true faith.
"He has shown how different strata could be deposited at or near the same time, thus attacking a basic assumption of sequential slow deposition in geology".
Correct, and he didn't need to invoke hypothetical thunderbolts or extra-terrestrial material.
"I don't see how this could create the geologic column under exclusively uniformitarian assumptions. It is clearly a catastrophic model".
Berthault is back in catastrophic mode again, then?
"-do the models he uses present the proper mechanical scaling? for example, what do the current flows and particle sizes in his model scale up to in real world applications? and actual movements of water presently observed?"
Read the documentation on the website, perhaps that has the answers you seek. I would suggest that the particles he used were real world particles not hypothetical ones. Berthault said in the vids that it was mechanical laws which were behind the behaviour of the particulates, so the question becomes: are the laws of mechanics scaleable?
"Hannes Alfven showed that lab demonstrated electrical effects are scalable up to cosmic proportions".
He had a cosmic-sized lab, did he? Or is it more theory?
"-Berthault's experiments display different strata created by water flow, however in these experiments the column created is composed of loose granulated particles, in the real world the column is composed of rock? how does this particulation become rock?"
In the vids Berthault mentions the eruption of Mt St Helens. Basically, it dries out.
"Please, excuse me for derailing a thread by bringing up the topic of the Electric Universe. You could report me to the forum administrator for such a heinous crime".
I never accused you of derailing the thread. My problem was, and is, you attempting to cobble EU theory onto something which doesn't require it.
starbiter] and earthly [watery] sedimentary deposition shows characteristics of this as well. The supposition that Mars' current atmosphere is too thin to accomplish the kind of duning required has at least three answers, all of which are feasible:
The insulting implication being that I have no mind of my own!
