Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Good thinking, Brigit. I would be a strong advocate of low-energy biological transmutation, if the evidence indicates it... but what conditions are required for it to be demonstrated... extreme heat, pressure, electrical fields? Where is it currently observed to be happening?
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Brigit, I'll talk about your question concerning fossils no longer being made, then hopefully satisfy your silicon obsession as well.
You have to remember, that after Mount St. Helen's blew they have been finding partially fossilized wood; and that's only after a few decades. The fossilization is not just powered by the heat or pressure but also by the electrical charge that filled and drove the pyroclastic flow, which was essentially a plasma. No silicon saturated water needed to be involved, just transmutation of the carbon and oxygen in the cell walls into silicon. I'll touch on that later.
When scientist find fossils they assume vast age, so any modern fossils would be assumed to be ancient. Fossilized bones could be modern yet dismissed because they think in terms of the "replacement" process rather than "transmutation". The one takes time, the other could happen in an instant.
When you think of wood or tissue fossilizing don't think in terms of bacteria being the culprit, think of the gorgon from myth turning people to stone. The wood or tissue is mostly carbon and oxygen in molecular bonds. Put the right kind of energy through the tissue and it "turns to stone."
I lost my college chemistry books a couple of years ago when a pipe burst, so I can't quote specifics, I can only paint a broad picture of what may be happening.
BTW, I looked at ordering the latest college chemistry book that is used in undergrad courses today, and had massive sticker shock. I only paid twenty bucks in the mid 70s for my chemistry book, and now they want 108 bucks; yikes! I've ordered a basic chemistry paperback for thirteen bucks, and that will have to do for now.
Be that as it may, what I remember from chemistry is that elements don't like to travel alone. Generally, single atoms are ionized and join up with other atoms to complete their outer electron shell to be stable. This close bond makes it easier for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) to occur within that molecular bond. Atoms like hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, float around as molecular versions H2, N2, and O2.
The Noble Gases like helium, argon, and neon, are happy to be single atoms because their outer electron shell is full. That's why they don't usually chemically react with other atoms and are inert and monatomic in all standard conditions. Helium is probably a fission byproduct rather than fusion--since it would take four hydrogen atoms coming together in some unknown process that causes two electrons to join with two protons (mix in neutrinos, and stir) to become neutrons in a stable helium atom. Fission works better because the helium atom pops out so easily as alpha decay. I suspect that's why helium comes from natural gas wells. There is no "organic" process to make helium, so it must be created in the transmutation process in the crust that generates the natural gas. Which means the helium we harvest today from natural gas wells are newly minted, brand new atoms, not captured from a gas giant, or made in exploding stars, but I digress.
Remember also, that neutrons all by themselves, decay into a proton and electron, while spitting out a neutrino, and thus you have a hydrogen ion created when neutrons are spit out in radioactive decay. As long as the neutron is not absorbed by another nucleus it will become a brand new hydrogen atom in less than 15 minutes, but I digress again.
One simple path to silicon:
Nitrogen is generally in the form of a molecule with two nitrogen atoms. In past TPODs they mention how the oxygen molecule hit by lightning can become sulfur. Well, that same lightning bolt can transform the nitrogen molecule into silicon.
Remember I mentioned that atoms don't generally like being single, they are usually found as molecules, either with the same or with other atoms. Now, SiO2 is common, and Si2 is rare. With that lightning bolt you have an ionized silicon atom floating in a bunch of ionized oxygen that just got excited as well. Most of the dust in the air may be newly made silicon oxide. That's why silicon is so common, just the way you like it.
Why doesn't the lightning bolt transmute all of the atmospheric gases to other elements, rather than just small amounts at a time. I suspect that it needs a catalyst to interact with the excited molecule of gas to trigger the change. A lightning bolt passing through "pure" gas would simply radiate the excess energy as photons. By the fact that the atmosphere is complex, i.e., full of many different molecules, water, dust, etc..., transmutation occurs, but in small quantities in comparison with the whole.
Think about that for a second. Silicon is one of the most common elements because the path from nitrogen to silicon is fairly straight forward. Nitrogen in molecular form is the largest stable gas that only needs energy to start the transmutation process to silicon. Which means that virtually all of the silicon around us is probably young, not made billions of years ago in some star.
Now look at the point about fossilization again:
The point mentioned in my earlier post was that there are many paths to silicon and they include the carbon and oxygen in tissue fusing into silicon with the right energy. Fossilization did not need a source of silicon to "replace" the tissue. The silicon in that "ancient fossil" may be so brand new that it was carbon and oxygen in the living cell just before transmuting to silicon oxide.
Now look at the path to iron, and this is where things get interesting:
You can find iron oxide all over the place. Silicon fuses into iron, but remember, neither silicon nor iron is found alone. Keep that in mind, because remember, all this transmutation is occurring mostly in molecular bonds mixed in with water, air, and other minerals.
(To paraphrase: No silicon is and island, but islands are made of silicon. Whoa, where did that come from. Have I been watching too many episodes of Lost?)
Look at Iron oxide, Iron(III) oxide-hydroxide, and Rust on Wikipedia, and realize that SiO2 is never alone when the transmutation process to iron occurs. The complexity of something so "simple" as rust is astonishing. Water, air, other minerals are always mixed with the SiO2, so when transmutations occur you get the vast array of iron compounds that are listed. Complexity builds on complexity. In the process of transmutation large atoms are made from smaller, but hydrogen and helium can also come out as Alpha particles and neutron decay, and those neutrons further decay into hydrogen.
If you really want to blow your mind, look up Manganese on Wiki and realize how critical it is for life, and how many compounds it makes. Realize that bacteria eat the various molecular forms of iron you discovered above and makes all those manganese compounds.
6. The oak tree "grows best in soils rich in silica, where lime may be totally absent, but the tree can have large amounts of calcium in its wood and bark (up to 60% lime in the ash)" (Kervran, _Biological Transmutations_, Beekman Press [hereinafter "BP"], 1972, p. 26).
I've mentioned transmuting nitrogen, oxygen, etc..., but when that lightning bolt hits, or stuff is under pressure, or the living cell does its dance, all elements and molecules are subject change. The list of stuff in the transmutation thread is just the start of what we need to look for.
Stuff like this makes me start asking:
Were does the definition of something living begin and end, when you have both physical and biological processes forming the same elements and compounds.
The Universe appears to be one vast machine that blurs the definition between organic and inorganic, living and nonliving processes. You can't look at isolated elements or minerals to understand how they came to be. Nothing is made in isolation, everything is part of a creating/building/changing whole.
(Whoa, I can hear the tablas and sitars playing to crescendo in the background. I be trippin' man, I be trippin'. Ohhhmmm....)
As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* Allyn, the transmutation of nitrogen to silicon or vice versa does seem to make sense, just as oxygen transmuting to sulphur or vice versa. But I suspect that the nitrogen comes from silicon more than vice versa, because silicon is the second most abundant element in Earth's crust after oxygen, whereas I think nitrogen is very rare in the crust. The quote that Brigit provided from one of the issues of the Thoth online newsletter seems to explain that silicon forms from the carbon in trees without the need for any outside source of silicon. No outside supply of nitrogen then would be needed either. The carbon is already there and that's what transmutes to silicon, as I understood the quote. Oxygen is also present in plants. I don't know if the carbon and oxygen combine to make nitrogen and 2 nitrogens combine to make silicon. Or maybe two carbons combine to make magnesium, which combines with helium to make silicon. Helium is rare, but it can become present via transmutation, just like hydrogen. * Brigit said:
Isn't it generally agreed that fossils are no longer being formed? Wouldn't that be an argument against microbes being involved in the process of fossilization? Otherwise, we should be able to observe it occuring on an ongoing basis...
* Allyn mentioned the Mt St. Helens petrified wood that has formed since the 1980? eruption. So fossilization apparently does still occur via vulcanism at least, i.e. via electrical forces involved in vulcanism. When Allyn and I mentioned biological transmutation previously, I didn't mean to suggest, and I guess Allyn didn't either, that petrified wood is formed by biological transmutation. My point was that, since biological processes can transmute elements at low temperatures, highly charged electrical conditions may produce transmutation too, such as in fossilization. And in fact electrical forces seem to transmute sulphur from oxygen routinely. * However, bacteria apparently do a lot of transmutation of rock too. Bacteria are known to exist in solid rock to depths of over a mile and they seem to live by transmuting what they need for survival. * The reason I mentioned lightning pulverizing rock before is because Wal Thornhill mentioned once that he thinks at least some of the sedimentary rock of the Earth's crust was formed by electrical pulverization and electrical layering and hardening of the powder, which is comparable to how vehicles are painted electrically in modern industry. One of the TPODs about Meteor Crater in Arizona mentions such layering on the rim of that crater. Another TPOD mentions layering of Mars' southern hemisphere from material etched from its northern hemisphere. Ralph Juergens was the first to note the pulverizing of material by lightning that I know of, back in the mid 70s. I can help you find all of those references, if you need help and are interested. Juergens' article was called Of the Moon and Mars, Part 1 and it's at kronia.com.
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
I have the feeling that you are trying to open my steel trap of a mind,
My only sense of "transmutation" ever occuring involved electricity: "An electric star, with innumerable plasma discharge vortexes thousands of kilometers long, possesses the natural particle accelerators and high density to produce the heavy elements right near the surface where their signatures appear in the spectrum. Stars generate their own heavy elements. For example, the Sun's explosions throw 'stardust' into space where some has been captured and shown to have a 'surprising abundance' of heavy elements."
--The Electric Universe, pg 71
You can see that I would be under the impression that this would be a high powered event, and making the association with living cells would be hard for me to take in.
But I did get in trouble with Lloyd earlier because I could not see how fossils could be associated with magma (on Surtsey), and here it is happening in my own state! My books say that does not happen So when allynh explained, "The fossilization is not just powered by the heat or pressure but also by the electrical charge that filled and drove the pyroclastic flow, which was essentially a plasma," now you are not only taking away my silica, but my water too! Thanks, Brigit
PS, Since no one knows what is in the middle of the earth, I can have Si all by itself if I want to.
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Brigit Bara wrote: I have the feeling that you are trying to open my steel trap of a mind,
[snip]
You can see that I would be under the impression that this would be a high powered event, and making the association with living cells would be hard for me to take in.
Oh shoot, I thought you'd read the various lightning/sulfur transmutation post in the TPODs; my bad. I'm playing endless catch up myself. Each time I think I've read everything, I stumble on vast treasure that I somehow missed.
Here's one from 2007 that touches on all my transmutation points.
Comment: Researchers think the hematite could have formed on Mars by thermal oxidation of iron-rich volcanic eruptive products during eruption or it could have formed by chemical precipitation when iron-rich water circulated through the pre-existing layers of volcanic ash. No volcano has been identified as a possible source and the pattern does not look like wind-blown fallout. And why is hematite concentrated in this one small region on Mars?
The Nobel nominee, the late Prof. Louis Kervran, had heretical views on the low-energy transmutation of common elements to form anomalous mineral deposits. He wrote: "There is no need to look for iron's origin in the centre of our planet; it is a "surface formation" at the level of the earth's crust. There is no connection between the core and the mineral strata; but all the classical theories speak of "concentration," of water-borne materials, of hydrothermal eruptions and of deposits. Even if all of this is accepted, these theories presuppose the existence of iron accumulated in certain locations. Therefore the iron existed but where did it come from?"
Without necessarily subscribing to Kervran's ideas about the origin of the earthly iron deposits, powerful electric discharges through other common elements, like carbon and oxygen, can form iron deposits. "On the surface, and often at a certain depth, superficial alterations have transformed the carbonate into a pure hematite, a formation difficult to explain since a mere ordinary and superficial alteration should give limonite [hydrated iron oxides] and not hematite," says F. Blondel. [Chronique des Mines Coloniales, Sept. 1955.] He goes on to say, "The hematite production on the surface is not well-clarified."
I suggest that water played no part in the Martian hematite deposition. The splash of iron oxides on this part of Mars is best explained as a recent exogenous deposit. It is recent in the sense that the deposit seems to have buried the fields of boulders strewn across the planet by the earlier electrical event that scoured Valles Marineris. The outlines of the distribution pattern shown above conform to that of other electrically etched surfaces, notably the 'calderas' on Io. The pattern need not be related to topography as we should expect if a lake were involved.
The dark grey surface inside the small crater is probably an electrically modified version of the deep maroon soil underneath, itself a fine-grained hematite deposit. The most likely modification would be physical, in some form of melting and glassification of the hematite. That effect was seen by Apollo astronauts in the soil and centers of small craters on the Moon. Next would be a heat induced chemical change, possibly to metallic iron. It is also possible for surface ion implantation to occur, with hydrogen being the most likely atomic addition. Or it may show evidence of nuclear transmutations – after the manner of Kervran. The combination of possibilities allowed in the electrical scenario is so diverse that it is difficult to predict precisely what will be found. However, it is probable that the surface has undergone a change from the soil beneath requiring a source of energy not to be found today on Mars.
Then there is this post that still burns my brain each time I read it. It will take months reading through it, breaking parts out to understand stuff, so that my mind "might" accept it.
This quote talks about the instability of the atom. The distortion he talks about can also happen during a lightning strike, allowing particles to shift and transmutation to occur. It doesn't take an accelerator to pump energy into an atom.
The "something absolutely fundamental" that is missing in our explanation of gravity and quantum behavior is the electrical structure of matter. Here we are not talking about negative electrons and positive atomic nuclei. We must "go down" one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant structures of electric charges of opposite sign that sum to the charge on that particle.
The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle.4 It must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field. There must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate the magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and near-instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same model applies to the proton and the neutron. This model satisfies Einstein's view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects.
We cannot have a theory of everything until we have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent. When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated. This has been interpreted as an increase in mass. However, charges have no mass. So how do they give the electron, proton and neutron the property of mass?
The accelerating electromagnetic field will distort the orbits of charges within the electron or proton. It seems the more distorted a particle becomes, the more easily the energy supplied to accelerate the particle is assimilated in further distortion rather than in acceleration. Hence the apparent increase in mass. The inertial mass of a particle is a measure of the degree to which it responds to an electric field by distorting rather than accelerating. It implies the charge centers of a proton at rest have to be separated more than those in an electron at rest. That allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the same electric field and accounts for their differences in size and mass.
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." – Henri Poincaré, Science and Method.
A neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a barely stable resonance, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and may involve an interaction with a neutrino. However, when combined with protons it seems neutrons form a new stable resonant structure that serves to bind the protons electrically despite the overall positive charge on the nucleus.
The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy.
The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.
I totally missed this link about Louis Kervran when I read through everything the first time. I only now saw it when I composed this post. The concept was so alien that I simply didn't see it. It's only been in the past couple of weeks that "transmutation" got burned into my brain. I would read stuff, hit overload, then have to take a nap to process it.
Also, the work of the outstanding French biologist, Louis Kervran, may gain a working physical model to explain how biological enzymes are capable of transmuting chemical elements at body temperatures. It seems that by exquisite tuning, one resonant system of nuclear charges may be transformed into another. And like the decay of the neutron, ubiquitous neutrinos are implicated as a catalyst. It may be that the answer to our future power needs will be answered when we understand how to extract nuclear energy resonantly instead of by using brute force as we do now. The New Jersey based company, Black Light Power, seems to have stumbled upon a similar process using a resonance between hydrogen and the iron atom. It is interesting that biological systems also use heavy elements like iron and magnesium to perform their minor miracles of transmutation of elements.
Read through the Kervran link, and you will see that your beloved silicon is still king.
BTW, I started a new thread that has links to the great video series from 1985, Caltech: The Mechanical Universe. I found a video capture system using Firefox on my iMac, like seasmith said to do, and I'm harvesting the half hour episodes. I hope to edit in subversive EU commentary once I get up to speed on the software.
I'm having too much fun with this stuff.
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
allynh, that was a fine post. I have to think.
So you may still have your Gorgon Microbe... ;)
ancientd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
This electric tarnsmutation is fascinating. I have been studying fossilised shrubs on a sand tune ( 300 feet high) underbedded with limestone beds . This is on a land sea boundary. On these cliffs are masses of sea shells dated c12 around 1500 AD ( .But these petrifications of solid silica with hollow stems should be thousands if not millions of years old in terms of conventional earth science paradigms. Some of these petrifications are ironstone as well. To me these petrifications are recent and tie in with aboriginal mythology of catastrophic events. These petrifications abound but in a fairly select raea of the dunes. So what happened?Field examination is so much more revealing than theories. To me even blind freddy could see that water was nowhere to be seen. What happened was all pewrvading and instantaneous. If you tried to C12 date it what are the scenarios that could totally distort the truth. If we for a moment consider electrical transmutation as a given what would follow. For a start the ratio of C12 to C14 would be totaly blown away as carbon is converted to Silicon etc. ( I keep studying my periodic tables for all the closeness of N,C,Ca,Si,Al, etc ) And who knows what transmutaion favours? ie. is C14 more readily converted than C12 in an electric blast?. As controversial is the positioning of lake Mungo and Lake Victoria man here in Australia. When unearthed they are all fossilised and often calcified externally and buried in a ferrous red dust. Notably they are found in sound dunes in semi lunar dried "lake beds"!!!!!. If they are Sodom and Gomorrah type victims ( On lake Victoria an estimated 15000 aborigilas lay shateered ) then their C14 dating of 40,000 to 60,000 years old could be dramitically false as I suspect it is . So in summary two points > 1) Carbon dating of fossilised depesits if electrically formed is subject to possible dramatic error and 2) field examination of at least some plant fossils speaks for quite recent processes. In my thoughts are much as I agree that the really dramatic events ( geologically ) occurre dlet us say around 4-6 thousand years ago I strongly suspect some pretty heavy upheavals have occurredc as recently as only 500 years ago.
mungo
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
I never had trouble with "transmutation" before, in space, in the Electric Universe.
In fact, I was just reading one of my favorite holoscience.com articles last night. In "Puzzling Star Stuff," Wallace Thornhill discusses NASA's Genesis mission to collect solar wind particles to gain "a precise list of raw ingredients for the solar system." W. Thornhill does not let that lie, naturally.
He writes:
In an electric star, both isotope ratios and heavy-element abundances would not be fixed at the time of its birth but would be "cooked up" in the outer layers by the high-energy discharges. It's ironic that physicists use an electrically driven plasma pinch in laboratory experiments to mimic the nucleosynthesis they believe occurs at the core of the Sun. The question seems never to be asked: if they find it easiest to drive nucleosynthesis using electrical power, why would Nature do it in a more difficult way? This very same plasma pinch, scaled up from the lab by many orders of magnitude, can produce the 60 elements found in the atmosphere of the Sun.
The formation of planets by electrical expulsion of part of the parent's core material also leads to nucleosynthesis in the grandiose lightning flash of a nova. That is why some of the expulsion debris, in the form of meteorites, contains the products of very short-lived radioisotopes in their flash-heated minerals. This is a far simpler explanation than to require rare supernova events nearby at just the right moment during the formation of the solar system.
The episodic expulsion of planets results in a period of readjustment within the solar system after each event. The powerful electric force mediates that process when the comet-shaped plasma sheaths of the planets interact during close approaches. The sheaths (misnamed magnetospheres) tangle and the planets abruptly "see" each other electrically. When this first happens, gargantuan electrical discharges snake between the bodies and scar their surfaces with circular craters, mounds, sinuous channels and etched terrains. These cosmic thunderbolts too are capable of inducing nucleosynthesis and radioactivity.
So, if I understand it correctly, nucleosynthesis is electricity's signature. And there is no reason to rule it out as an important cause of fossilization. Allynh and ancientd's posts clarify and bring the process down to earth, a leap that I had not been able to make. The same cosmic electric discharge that creates heavy elements and stardust on the Sun's surface could also bump the Carbon in a living organism down the periodic table to Silicon (silica), thus petrifying it.
I suppose that leaves the sedimentary impression-type fossils for the work of water, in a different catastrophe.
I don't know where all this leaves the textbook process of mineral replacement through water, pressure and time. Also, going back to the lab creation of petrified wood, there was no need to soak the wood in the silica solution--if they were using enough electricity.
PS I still find allynh & Lloyd's microbes and Kervre's "biological transmutation" a bit too startling, for now… :)
webolife
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Brigit said: I don't know where all this leaves the textbook process of mineral replacement through water, pressure and time. Also, going back to the lab creation of petrified wood, there was no need to soak the wood in the silica solution--if they were using enough electricity.
Pressure really never had much of a part in petrification...heat and a catalyst [eg. burial in a clayey matrix] are important. And the lab experiments showed that time was not a huge factor either. Concentration of solution provides electrical stimulation of the process... "external" electrification, now that's the question. The truly great thing about this question is that it is totally answerable by experiment....any one out there able/willing to tackle it?
ancientd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
While I am aware of the lab experiments with wet solutions the most intriguing "fact" I read was on a web article regarding accidental fossilization in Canada. I.ve lost the web site ( but will search on) Apparently a high tension power line fell over some recently cut down Pine trees and were unable to be moved for some time. The result was acording to the article fossilised trees. The article did not go into detail but I'd like to find out what the fossilization material was. . Tree fossilization varies greatly. I was examining some glossopteris tree fossils taken from Antartica and they are solid stone . They had been sectioned by Melbourne university and looked just like wood when wetted to see the tree rings. Now this is in a place where the ice cap is 5 kilometers thick so chemil reactions we would assume to be very slow in these conditions. On the other hand right here on the beach here in Melbourne, there are trees half converted to coal, some to some sort of silicon infill and the rest pristine wood. If the salt solution acts as a chemical replacement medium we would assume a uniform effect. The result of this fossilization is chaotic and non uniform. Not at all the result you would expect from thousands of years of immersion. If we consider a cosmogenic lightning or even electric tectonic effect then the variance becomes explainable as the discharge leaps to sights of higher condctance ( if thats the word I'm looking for ,oris it lower impedence-- my electrical knowledge is a bit rusty). Main point does anyone know of lab experiments trying to replicate electric fossilization/petrification
Mungo
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Does anyone have a z-pinch thing we can borrow?
webolife
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Partially coalified, and partially petrified, describes some of the wood samples found at Gingko Petrified Forest visitor center in eastern Washington, as well as samples I have in my classroom of material collected from the 1980 eruption logjam at Mt.St. Helens. We really need an electrification/petrifaction experiment here!
Lloyd
Limestone Cowboy
* This book, Mistake Earth Science, By Hans-Joachim Zillmer, at Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=7k7KdMWTLh4C&pg=PA235&~ talks about electrical fossilization and shows a picture of part of someone's leg fossilized inside a cowboy boot. I think I saw that last year somewhere. The information there may be helpful.
Lloyd
Ask Ransom & Thornhill re Experiment
* C.J. Ransom or Wal Thornhill may be the persons to ask to do the experiment. They seem to have access to the electrical apparatus required. They're credited with some of the experiments depicted or mentioned in some of the TPODs, like these 2: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050325blueber~ http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.~. * Let's recruit Michael Gmirkin to ask them if they have plans to do such an experiment, or if they could do it, or if they know who could do it. What do you say, Michael. How about asking them about that for us?
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* Here's more info from the above book at: http://books.google.com/books?id=7k7KdMWTLh4C&pg=PA235&~ * The boot didn't fossilize, just the leg in it. The author said it shows that fossilization occurs at different rates for different materials. The boot was found to have been made in the 1950s. The theory is that a man fell out of an airplane and hit a power line on the way down. Perhaps an animal carried away the rest of the dead man's carcass. Animals probably don't eat fossils. The author also shows a picture of fossilized human hands from around Bogota, Colombia. * The book says that geophysicists discovered layers in the Earth with high electric conductivity. The conductivity of each layer varies. Pospelow assumes that the layers of Earth's crust and mantle are electric condensers. They produce subterranean lightning. Drujanow, 1984, p. 32 is quoted. * He says Rolf Schaffranke mentioned in his book, Ether Technology (1977), an experiment by Townsend Brown which showed that a capacitor hung freely, with its poles horizontal, and placed under tension, will move toward the positive pole, and, if the polarity is reversed, will move the opposite way. This is his description of the Biefield-Brown effect. He has an illustration on p. 241. Wikipedia shows a diagram of something different, a sharp electrode and a gap to a larger smooth electrode. This is said to be called also an EHD thruster, or a Lifter. But this author says this thrusting effect in the Earth could cause tilting of the Earth's axis. * The effect also sounds similar to the way an electric relay switch works. An iron bar in a coil is made to move one way or the other, to open or close a circuit or do other things. I'm wondering if a similar effect could explain how mesas become uplifted from the surrounding terrain, as theorized in a few TPODs. * On p. 246 is a diagram of electro-gravity, using the same capacitor apparatus as above.
So when allynh explained, "The fossilization is not just powered by the heat or pressure but also by the electrical charge that filled and drove the pyroclastic flow, which was essentially a plasma," now you are not only taking away my silica, but my water too!
