Your comments about "sand seas" made me wonder tho: What do you think the parent Rock was that electric disaggregation rendered into the homogenous sands ?
I think silicon dioxide is the primary building block. Dusty plasmas in space are mainly silicates. The examination of the layering of Gale crater by the new rover will be interesting, but they are starting off with the assumption that sedimentation in long gone lakes was responsible. I think it just as likely that the water required for the formation could have arrived at the same time as the silicates, it is plentiful in space plasmas too. @Lloyd
* I don't see much hard data in this thread. I think it's mostly speculation. Cardona has gathered lots of data on which he bases his Saturn Theory. See the Cardona Interview thread, or read his books. He found that, when Earth was apparently a moon of Saturn...
I don't personally believe that the Earth or any other planets or moons have ever left one region and been captured by other bodies. The odds against gravitational capture are so huge that for it to occur once would be a miracle, more than once in one solar system, then it's either through an EM process, or it's the work of God, or a God. I think many of the proposals for what happened long ago and far away are the real speculation, and what I am trying to do in this thread is use known and accepted science to try and explain some of the formations I can see and touch and analyse now, quite literally in my own back yard. The action of wind, water, glaciers, earthquakes or volcanoes, upthrust or plate tectonics does not, IMO, make any sense. We know lightning exists, we know about electric fields, current pinches and boundary layers, we know about plasma acoustic waves, we know about cyclotrons and betatrons, we know about dielectrics and sedimentation and disaggregation, and many other accepted sciences that would seem to offer a much more rational explanation for most of what we can see and measure, but would require accepting electrical and plasma activity at immensely larger scales than we presently experience. I have no problem with that scenario, conventional planetary sciences do. Relying on ancient observations of what was seen in the sky is not a scientific method of collecting data. We know that little pieces of rock in space can appear huge under the correct circumstances, and be big enough and bright enough to be seen in broad daylight. If the whole solar system was in a different electrical state, due to a surge in galactic currents, the planets and moons would also take on different appearances, and may have appeared much bigger or closer. Lets stay in the present with this examination. @finno
I got to say first, this is hard topic, because this can be first time, when somebody ask, was there glacial iceage at all. You folks doing history right now.
Perhaps a better title for the thread might have been "Questioning the affects of Glacial mechanisms in the formation of present geological structures", or something like that. That the Earth has undergone wide temperature variations, including periods of intense and persistent cold, I quite accept. Enough ice to push down and shape continents, I doubt.
I don't know. Right now I waiting Allan&DeClair book Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B. C. Beacause im not sure, was reason to terrible earthquake in scandinavia from rebound or cosmic catastrophe?
I'd agree with a major event about that time, and lesser ones more recently. I'd choose electrical catastrophe over rebound any day, and I think all the mechanisms and materials required have been identified, they just haven't been applied to Earth sciences on the grand scale.
Lloyd
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
GN: I don't personally believe that the Earth or any other planets or moons have ever left one region and been captured by other bodies. The odds against gravitational capture are so huge that for it to occur once would be a miracle, more than once in one solar system, then it's either through an EM process, or it's the work of God, or a God.
LK: Cardona doesn't suggest gravitational capture, but electrical.
GN: I think many of the proposals for what happened long ago and far away are the real speculation, and what I am trying to do in this thread is use known and accepted science to try and explain some of the formations I can see and touch and analyse now, quite literally in my own back yard. - Relying on ancient observations of what was seen in the sky is not a scientific method of collecting data.
LK: On the contrary, comparative mythology is an excellent means of collecting data regarding what the ancients saw in the sky. They saw some of the planets close up, not due to atmospheric magnification, and they saw plasma phenomena, which Peratt was able to identify. Cardona is a comparative mythologist and a scholar and has sorted through enormous amounts of data, including astronomical, geological etc, much like Velikovsky did, but probably with better precision. Most of the events that produced present conditions on Earth occurred long ago. And what occurred left records or fingerprints in rock strata etc, so it can all be deciphered.
GN: I'd agree with a major event about that time, and lesser ones more recently. I'd choose electrical catastrophe over rebound any day, and I think all the mechanisms and materials required have been identified, they just haven't been applied to Earth sciences on the grand scale.
LK: Yes, they have. I believe Cardona has done the best job of that so far. If you want to use only conventional science here, I imagine this thread will end up on the NIAMI board, because these upper boards are for EU theory discussions. And Cardona's and Peratt's are the main contributors, I think, to the planetary science of EU theory.
GaryN
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Here is a vid of the conventional view of glacial processes.(10 mins.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... G3luuhc-5Y I noticed straight away that they use the ice flow as the reason for the plucking of the side slopes, and also as the reason for the sides to be polished smooth. What determines if you get plucking or polishing? And what happened to the huge volumes of material removed by the glaciers? If you look at the volume of material combined, in all the moraines and drumlins, it is next to nothing compared with the volumes of the valleys. Was it all turned to fine dust and washed out to sea? There are no large collections of boulders and pebbles lying offshore that I can find, and the deep ocean sediment seems to comprise very much of carbonate ooze. Where is all the Grand Canyon sediment? Wouldn't the Gulf of California be just plugged with sediment? The flow rates required to transport grains of a particular size are known, and the flow rates to transport sand or gravel, let alone pebbles and rocks out to sea would be preposterous. And looking at terminal morraines, there are very few rounded rocks, it is all angular and jagged.
Lloyd
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Gary said: Here is a vid of the conventional view of glacial processes.(10 mins.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... G3luuhc-5Y I noticed straight away that they use the ice flow as the reason for the plucking of the side slopes, and also as the reason for the sides to be polished smooth. What determines if you get plucking or polishing? And what happened to the huge volumes of material removed by the glaciers? If you look at the volume of material combined, in all the moraines and drumlins, it is next to nothing compared with the volumes of the valleys. Was it all turned to fine dust and washed out to sea? There are no large collections of boulders and pebbles lying offshore that I can find, and the deep ocean sediment seems to comprise very much of carbonate ooze. Where is all the Grand Canyon sediment? Wouldn't the Gulf of California be just plugged with sediment? The flow rates required to transport grains of a particular size are known, and the flow rates to transport sand or gravel, let alone pebbles and rocks out to sea would be preposterous. And looking at terminal morraines, there are very few rounded rocks, it is all angular and jagged.
* Regarding the Grand Canyon, I learned recently that there were two huge lakes covering about 3 large states behind the plateau where the canyon is now carved. It appears extremely likely that there was a weak line in the plateau where the lake water breached the plateau/dam, which led to the rapid and catastrophic draining of the lake. The plateau itself appears likely to have consisted of incompletely consolidated strata that were laid down by a flood not many centuries before the lake formed. The sediment washed out of the canyon seems likely to have formed another layer of sediment over a large area downstream, which gradually consolidated into rock. * Regarding possibly glaciated valleys with few or no moraines, Cardona's findings might indicate that moraines were swept away by huge tidal waves. I don't think Cardona rules out electrically carved valleys either. Valleys might have been electrically carved before glaciation and glaciers could have then followed the existing valleys. However, as evidenced by the rilles on the Moon, electrically carved valleys should go both uphill and downhill. I mean the bottoms of the valleys should not simply go downward from a high elevation toward the sea at low elevation. They should go uphill about as much as downhill, or maybe more, because the electrical flow would presumably be upward toward mountain tops and thence into space, as per Juergens' article, Of the Moon and Mars. There seems to be lots of evidence of that on the Moon and Mars, but very little on Earth, maybe because our weather conditions erase a lot of things over time. Venus seems to have rilles, so the atmosphere apparently doesn't prevent electrical carving of rilles. Maybe Earth just wasn't as close to the action as Mars, Venus and the Moon were. * Regarding angular and jagged rocks in moraines, if rocks on the bottom grind against other rocks without turning much, they would develop flat and angular sides and corners, like sharpening a pencil. You'd have to see them up close, I think, to tell if they have striations, as from grinding along on the ground. It seems very unlikely to me that moraines could be produced electrically. I haven't heard of a precedent so far.
webolife
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Gary, The concept behind "plucking" is the mechanical weathering process of ice wedging. Solar heated meltwater gets into cracks and crevices and freezes at night breaking the rocks. The rock shards become incorporated into the glacier as it flows away from the cirque or other plucking site. These rock get dragged along the valley floor as the glacier moves along, creating the grooved striations that typify both modern and ancient glacial valleys. Some may be incorporated more quickly into the body of the glacier or be rafted down atop it. Huge sections of mountains [hence they're called "erratics"] are located in the lowlands after the glaciers melt back/recede. There are millions of these rocks, angular and smooth, or still sporting the grooved surface, along the shoreline of Puget Sound, not so far from your Vancouver Island location. In addition, the sands of the world's beaches are identifiably the deposited remnants of granites, metamorphic series [such as gneiss and schist, etc.] and crystalline veins that typify the mountainous regions from which they were eroded, as well as the grinding of sandstones or other igneous [typicaly basaltic] formations that are found along the coast. Local sands often reflect the type of rocks associated with that region, but also the erratic characters of rocks transported from far away regions, eg. a lot of granite from the Canadian Rockies is found strewn about Washington and Oregon. Try digging or plowing up any plot of ground around Seattle and you persistently ran across "glacial till", boulders and and the like that are of rock not found in mountains or rock formations anywhere nearby, or often even in the state.
Lest my objections sound like I am promoting the standard model, I am not. I believe globally impacting catastrophic conditions were responsible for very rapid changes and rock forming processes [including the glacial event[s] and extinctions on the Earth's surface and in the crust, and that these are evidenced throughout the geologic record. I do not believe that the "slow rates of change" we see around us today are able to account for the structures we find. I do believe that the catastrophic events we see around us, such as volcanics, earthquakes, tsunamis, and extreme storms, are capable of producing the geologic record as we know it, if scaled up to globally acting agents. This is where astronomical interplanetary action comes in. I agree with Velikovsky, Cardona, Scott and others who look to such events and find evidence of electrical communication between moons and planets, comets, asteroids, etc. elsewhere in the solar system, but I am skeptical of wholesale trashing of terrestrial processes that are also able to be studied and simulated in both the field and lab.
Gravitation is an action, not a thing. Electricity and magnetism are actions, not things. Light is an action, not a thing. These actions are responsible for [we suppose] all phenomenality in the earth and the heavens, past and present. All are observable and quantifiable. All other theories about the particulate nature of the universe [incl the various imagined aethers] are open for full debate, and so here we are. We are all interested in the prediction of future events, which confirms our ideas, and may the best predictions win. So far, I think the standard models for astronomy and geology haven't done well, and the EU models are still very speculative. Only the future can tell whether we are on the right track. We have a long way to go.
finno
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Sorry because im been off. Actually im been here all the time, but this is first time when i read this pages with focus. Im been learn lot of new things, and what more i learn. now i understand how little i know...
But back for business. I readed all stuff from aurora´s from this forum. then i checked myself all kind. I founded very mystic storys from plasmatornadoes. i didnt know anything of this before. im always been believe, on north pole is only one plasmatornado (what we cant see) Actually when i see this picture i have ask again, what Parkkunen means 1984 when he wroted all potholes are done `electrical tornadoes´. http://www.alien-earth.org/news/item.ph ... y=2&page=2
GaryN
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Regarding the Grand Canyon, I learned recently that there were two huge lakes covering about 3 large states behind the plateau where the canyon is now carved.
Wouldn't that be in keeping with a model of many millions of years ago? The very long time lines are used by geologists to account for certain features, but if changes were very sudden and powerful, then those long timelines are not needed. I think it is the required magnitude of those events that unsettles some people, very slow and less destructive is much easier to accept.
It seems very unlikely to me that moraines could be produced electrically. I haven't heard of a precedent so far.
I have no problem with the moraines being caused by glaciation, and the angular rock from the freeze-thaw process, as the volumes are more like I would expect from glaciation. The huge volumes of missing material to have cut the whole valleys though may just never have existed if the landform was produced by a different method, perhaps involving cymatics and large current flows forming the bulk of the structures, and surface modification by electricity/plasma as more just a surface effect? Speculation again, but that is why I want to look at the small scale formations rather than large to begin with. I am confident that many of the features I see around here can not be explained by ice/water/wind erosion, and I'd like to get some geologists or students out on a tour and ask them to explain the mechanics of what they see. My enquiries so far have basically been answered with "Well perhaps we can't explain the details, but what else than glaciation or weathering could they be from?". I haven't mentioned why I'm looking for more precise explanations yet, don't want to rock their boats too much yet!
finno, the vortex seems to be everywhere, and a primary mechanism at many scales, from outer space to the nano scale. I was just reading that the first contracts are being awarded in Afghanistan to the big corporations so they can pillage, er, extract some of the trillions of dollars worth of valuable materials from the mountains of Afghanistan. You might be interested in some posts from last year, starting around here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&start=825#p58535 that I think relevant to this thread. This Google Maps location shows what appears to be a large electrical blister, perhaps from a vortex touching down there. The darker area at lower left is what I see as the blister, and some zoomimg and panning around can bring out what I perceive as cymatics-like patterns. Speculation again, but not without some basis in the known sciences. http://g.co/maps/d77z5 I thought this an interesting comment too, from page 57 of the Duning thread. Maybe there is no deep magma? viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&start=840#p60018 Apologies if this post is not very focused today, it's a gorgeous day here for some field work, so itching to get out and explore! Oh, and a new one on me, a rock glacier. Strange. At least they admit they don't know how they formed, but I can't think of an electrical explanation either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_glacier
webolife
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Read further... the rock glacier is an ordinary ice glacier infused with rock debris plucked from upstream mountain walls. They mention permafrost also as a contributing factor to the muddy appearance of the glacier. Eg. the Nisqually glacier and others on Mt. Rainier generally sport this appearance at elevations lower than the originating snowpack. When crevasses form above uneven surfaces, the glacier takes on a tiger stripe appearance.
GaryN
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
infused with rock debris plucked from upstream mountain walls.
Well you know I'm not keen on the plucking mechanism, those cannyon walls are pretty tough material, but, if the walls had been subject to a strong electric field and had the surface cracked or shattered so the glaciers just had to sweep it up and not to have plucked it off, I could go with that. Another idea that came to mind after my latest travels, was that if there were tornados moving up a pre-existing valley, they would probably break contact and dissipate at the higher elevations and drop anything they were carrying in a more concentrated pile. Speculation, but at the top of a small ravine I hiked to, the was a wetland behind what seemed to be an inordinate concentration of debris, with some quite large boulders mixed into a coarse sand and gravel base. The bottom of the ravine at the lower elevations was quite clear of debris, well defined, with exposed side walls. There is no huge pile of debris at the lower extent of the ravine, and as there was no catchment up at the top to feed any decent amount of water into the ravine, there would have been little if any erosion from water. Must have been a mini-glacier, I suppose. Another speculation, sparked by PPs mention of electric field gradients, is that if there were a much higher potential difference at the time between the lower and higher elevations , could a current channel be created that could be part of the melting and shattering process of a gulley or ravine formation? Would a tornado even be neccessary, or might they have been secondary events spawned by the surface current flows? More observation required, just wish my old legs were 30 years younger!
GaryN
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
I can't find any figures greater than 300 Volts per metre for the regular Earths vertical electric field, 1000 perhaps, to make your hair stand on end under a storm cloud, but I wonder what it could rise to if the Sun belched a huge bubble of ions that severely compressed our ionosphere? I also read that some Strange Stars have been found to have fields of 10^18 V, or higher, per centimetre! That would make your toes curl for sure! I would think it possible to calculate the field required to initiate an glow or arc mode discharge channel between a mountain peak and valley floor, so assuming a pre-existing lumpy land form, is this not a valid consideration in regards to canyon cutting?
GaryN
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Glaciers crossing? Have to take a look at those to see what's really happening there. Two different periods of glacier advance maybe? I think you will have to turn on the Terrain option. https://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=208 ... 1,0.110378
finno
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Hi again. Im been off because i readed first Allan&DeClair book "When the earth nearly died". Like I said, im not very good read or talk englinsh, so it takes time. By the way, It was first book what says `iceage can never have been more than a grand illusion´ or `iceage of orthodoxy is no more than shaky theory´. If you been read same book, you know what they means and they proof all that? Book crushing iceage first 65 pages.
You folks talking about canyons or ravines, because ice moving with that. It is argument because `ice cannot ascend hills´ (Allan&DeClair page 45). but striations rolling up and down hills, what is impossible if you believe glacialtherory. You can also found moraine fields up hills, not bottom. Like potholes are sometimes in highest places, like you can see at your own eyes:
I don't know, but I feel, its not iceage massive glacials what are done all that bizarre geological stuff. Some other way is answer.
GaryN
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
Im been off because i readed first Allan&DeClair book "When the earth nearly died"
Thanks finno, I hadn't heard of that book, will definitely look for it!
Like potholes are sometimes in highest places, like you can see at your own eyes:
Yes, I have found some potholes higher up, and one with a bubbly, melted looking bottom. What is it going to take to make scientists take a closer look at the many geological anomalies? There are no models or supercomputer simulations that can show the formation of the potholes by the swirling pebbles method, it really is pathetic, so they will not even try, only tell me I am crazy to question their authority.
I don't know, but I feel, its not iceage massive glacials what are done all that bizarre geological stuff. Some other way is answer.
And there is only one other way finno, but the implications are I think, too much for anyone to try and comprehend. I have been amazed by what I see as the obviousness of highly energetic events having taken place here, and in the not too geologically distant past. I have also been humbled more than ever before, because where I live is really in the foothills of these events, they are tiny by comparison to what must have occurred further "Up Island", as every mountain or canyon or river gets bigger the further north you go, until we have fjords similar to Norway. The energies must have been correspondingly greater, to an extent impossible for mere mortals to comprehend, or scientists to ever accept.
finno
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
I believe to electrical discharge. Also i know there is still long way to walk, orthodox science accept that. There are lot of proof of that. its been happened 11 000 – 10 700 years ago when the waters of the north Atlantic warmed by as much as 7 celsius within a mere 50 years. Theres been happen massive destruction.
Now we can explain – or guess – traces of the ice age. Moraine created by floods, striations are done somekind `electrical wind´ and boulders have nothing to do with glacial. You can found boulders everywhere; australia and caribbean (hurricanes throwing stones). Only potholes are mystery; it needs thatkind force what we can not even imagine. Rebound can be unknown geological mechanism where soil moves up and down?
rebound is intresting question. Like we can see, there are same "modern" plants and animals in ireland and north america. Same warm area plants in caribbean and canary island etc. Is there been unknown land rigde over atlantic before catastrophe? Or was norway connection to greenland and greenland in connection with to canada? Nobody knows what we can play with that thing.
Only what we know, what ever happened, it was rapid and destructive. Fennosscandia archeology proofs that. We know, arctic ocean beach lived peoples so early like 14 000 - 12 000 years ago. Actually they lived everywhere in lapland because there wasn't glacial (like Cardona says nothern hemisphere havent glacial). That peoples just lost suddenly and takes thousands of years when peoples camed again to fennosscandia.
I don't know how much you folks know story from Wolf cave. It was cave what was full of mud, rocks etc. And there was also traces of humans (or neantherdales) what was sensation. Because – if ice age theory is right, cave been lived over 120 000 year ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Cave I personally don't believe that. I believe, there is traces from humans, but not far away like latest catastrophe 11 700 years ago. They are that lost peoples whom died in electrical discharge.
Lloyd
Re: Questioning the Ice Ages
* Moraines and striations are surely caused largely by glaciers. These have been observed. How can you question what's plainly observed? Where moraines are missing, their absence may be explained by great floods. Everything doesn't have to have the same cause. Glaciers exist. Floods exist. Gravity exists. Not everything needs to be explained by electric forces.
