Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[webolife]

First of all, you do accept that the earth is a sphere, right?
Presuming that basic understanding, the shock vectors would be radial to the impact site, so that would push Antarctica to the south, Australia to the east, India to the northeast, EURASIA TO THE NORTH, and the Americas roughly to the northwest and west, if Fischer's shock dynamics is correct.

And in what direction should Africa be pushed, considering that Africa is WEST OF the alleged impact area just like the Americas are WEST OF the alleged impact area, because for the Americas you said:

"and the Americas roughly to the northwest and west"

Call me crazy, but I think Africa should be pushed towards the west just like the Americas, if Fischer's model is to have any internal logical consistency.
If you think otherwise, give me an evidence based argument FOR AFRICA TO REMAIN STATIONARY

Your inelastic projectile fragments have little to do with the elastic collision of an astronomical body with the earth. Little, not nothing; however you should try shooting your projectile at a clump of [roughly] connected bodies and gauge the behavior of the bodies that are peripheral to the impact site as compared to the behavior of the sections close to the impact site.

Even if we disregard the fact that your analogy is false, considering that in Fischer's scenario you do not have several connected bodies, BUT ONE SUPERCONTINENT your thought example would still be wrong, because
A PROJECTILE acts completely the same whether the target are connected bodies, disconnected bodies, or a single body.

You want to say that is not the case?

Then show us the video of a impact, where that is not the case, because I can show you right now, dozens of videos where this is the case.

You didn't try the experiments, did you...
As a matter of record, Africa is pushed up against the southerly section of Eurasia in a bulldozing of several linked ranges, from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus ranges, so yes, as you suggest, Africa was also set in motion. Remember that the earth is a sphere, so don't keep getting confused by the flat map compass directions; follow the shock vectors along great circles.
With regard to the break up of the supercontinent, any model for continental drift presumes the propensity of the primordial continent to fragment along the lines it did. Why those particular plate boundaries is an unknown in any model I've seen to date, including Fischer's. The key point for a simulation experiment is that you'd have to allow for the possibility of the fragmentation in order to analyze the relative motions of the blocks. Which, again, I am surmising you have not tried, so that you can see for yourself what could happen.

[Lloyd]

Happy Christmas, Folks.

Gordon,
Did you see my post at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 25#p116423? Or did you see the video I discussed there, "Decrypting the Cosmic Origins of Halloween" at https://youtu.be/75hVrv392BY? I thought Carlson did a great job of showing that an object from the precursor to the Taurid Meteor Stream (and maybe the Leonid too) caused a global cataclysm a few thousand years ago, which was commemorated as Halloween. If you watched the video, what do you think? I was very impressed.

If we also explore Talbott's and others' comparative mythology, we can suppose that the constellation Taurus was named after the bull-like appearance of the ancient polar column with the Saturn crescent atop it. Taurus is said to be ruled by the planet Venus, which was called a comet by the ancients. A sword is one of the ancient symbols for a comet. In the video an image of Mithra killing a bull with a sword through its shoulder, seems to indicate that the comet Venus came from the direction of the Pleiades, which are at the shoulder of Taurus, and spawned the Taurid Meteor Stream there, which probably continues to pummel Earth with meteors for some decades or longer.

Elder,
you seem to base your dating method on radiometric dating, but I don't think that method is at all consistent in its dating of rock strata or fossils etc.

John,
If you have a 100 meter square slab of ice an inch or two thick on a pond or on a smooth flat hard surface, and you hit the slab with a grenade about 10 meters from an edge, I imagine you'd expect the slab to break up into several pieces that would move apart radially. Right? I say a grenade because any impact at very high velocity would produce a thermonuclear explosion. It's true that the American plates would normally not be expected to separate from the Afro-Eurasian plate, if the grenade hits the eastern side of Africa. It seems that in order for that to happen, there would have to be more friction under Africa, which could have been due to it being more strongly attached to the Earth's mantle. The Moho may have been deeper there.

[webolife]

Lloyd, I did see Randall's video. Such views of mythology are always of interest to me, and it certainly makes sense to isolate a zodiacal constellation as the radiant for meteor showers or past cometary visitations, incl possibly Venus. Every so [not-so] often, Venus does "encounter" the Pleiades, ie. the Subaru. However, I'm sorry I'm still quite skeptical about the number of coincidences that have to be forced into a particular worldview in order for it to be viable... ie. too many ifs and supposes, without "encounters of the third kind" so to speak.

[john666]

As a matter of record, Africa is pushed up against the southerly section of Eurasia in a bulldozing of several linked ranges, from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus ranges, so yes, as you suggest, Africa was also set in motion.

As a matter of fact, in Fischer's scenario https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IIE8UnvPUg Africa has not moved a single kilometer.
So no, Africa in Fischer's scenario was NOT SET IN MOTION.

[john666]

John,
If you have a 100 meter square slab of ice an inch or two thick on a pond or on a smooth flat hard surface, and you hit the slab with a grenade about 10 meters from an edge, I imagine you'd expect the slab to break up into several pieces that would move apart radially. Right? I say a grenade because any impact at very high velocity would produce a thermonuclear explosion. It's true that the American plates would normally not be expected to separate from the Afro-Eurasian plate, if the grenade hits the eastern side of Africa. It seems that in order for that to happen, there would have to be more friction under Africa, which could have been due to it being more strongly attached to the Earth's mantle. The Moho may have been deeper there.

That what you said about more friction under Africa is a possibility, however when you saying the things that you are saying, you are making an assumption that the interior of the Earth has the structure which the mainstream science ascribes to it.
Which is a big "IF"

Also, you can make a simulation of an asteroid hitting any other part of the world, and producing the continental shapes of today.

Choosing of south east Africa coast as a impact site is completely arbitrary.

[Lloyd]

John, you said choosing the east African site as the impact point was arbitrary. It may seem that way superficially, but Fischer explains reasonably why he made that conclusion, namely because all of the continents appear to have moved away from that point, and because a very large crater appears to be there. Have you read the first couple pages of his site? http://NewGeology.us

I accept Charles Chandler's model for Earth's interior in the Planets section of his papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031.

As for Africa's motion, Fischer does say Africa moved with respect to the mantle or something like that. I can find the location of his statements on that if you like. I think he said Africa did not move much with respect to the crust, but it did move quite a way with respect to the mantle, about the distance from east Africa to near India.

[webolife]

Also, John666, it's the relative motions of all the continents that make up any scenario on continental drift. I'm not defending Fischer's shock dynamics above all other views, but his continental movement vectors are valid. The continents' motions with respect to his Madagascar radiant would in fact put them into their current positions. Africa's motion westward would also be thwarted by the mostly symmetric Atlantic seafloor spreading. In addition to movement wrt the mantle that Lloyd indicated, there is also a big question remaining about the movement of the continents with respect to the poles, or with respect to the equator, whichever you prefer. The fact that current polar regions were once subtropical could be an indicator of a former worldwide greenhouse, a view which I favor; or it could also be an indicator of movement of the continents away from an equatorial region; or an axial shift might be the solution. All of these views require careful analysis of the available evidences. I favor scenarios in which there is continental drift via seafloor spreading versus views in which there is no drift. I have not heard yet a viable mechanism for planet expansion, a topic which occupies its own thread elsewhere...

Since you seem to object to comments being made by others on this thread, what is your view of earth history, and by what evidences do you defend it? What do you have to contribute to the table? Do you actually use any kind of scientific approach to studies of this kind? Are you a catastrophist? What is your background, so that we can understand better where you're coming from?

[elderlyrstaff]

Guys,
My posts are missing.

[elderlyrstaff]

Elder,
you seem to base your dating method on radiometric dating, but I don't think that method is at all consistent in its dating of rock strata or fossils etc.

Let me clarify. The radiometric dating I use is selected not wholesale. By this I mean that in my twenty years of research (limited as it is) I have broken Stratigraphic and Radiometric dates into three ‘classes’;
1. Cosmic Year 0 to -2898 radiometric dates excluding Ar/Ar. Mostly I use detrital zircon dates. I am aware that some EU positions would be invalidated if U/PB SHRIMP dates in zircons are accepted but let the chips fall where they may.
2. -2898 to Present radiocarbon dates modified for ZPE considerations
3. 1 Ma to ca. 10,000 years ago dates are nonsense any way you want to consider. The Lake Suigestu 60,000 years is so easily demonstrated as dopy that I am embarrassed when Senior, dignified and respected Geologists come out of their speciality to defend their Suigestu professional peers.
When I refer to Cosmic Year 1 I am not referring to General Cosmic Year 1 which is -4915 to -4914. I mean the start of the physical world as we in the EU community and Setterfield community perceive it.
Stratigraphic dating is also quite useful if you accept a certain caution (which comes from twenty-years experience) in one’s use of this model as it has developed. Only when you have worked with the Geologic Column and seen the defenders go full throttle against any non-Orthodox researcher can you tread as carefully as you need to through this potential minefield i.e. I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There is probably more I should say at this point but at 70 years of age I am so potty that it eludes me right now.

[john666]

John, you said choosing the east African site as the impact point was arbitrary. It may seem that way superficially, but Fischer explains reasonably why he made that conclusion, namely because all of the continents appear to have moved away from that point, and because a very large crater appears to be there. Have you read the first couple pages of his site? http://NewGeology.us

I accept Charles Chandler's model for Earth's interior in the Planets section of his papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031.

As for Africa's motion, Fischer does say Africa moved with respect to the mantle or something like that. I can find the location of his statements on that if you like. I think he said Africa did not move much with respect to the crust, but it did move quite a way with respect to the mantle, about the distance from east Africa to near India.

Well, I have a problem with his most basic premise.
He says in his video the following "In Shock dynamics, an explosion sets continents sliding over crust, like ships on water"

How can you have this type of movement occuring over the crust, if the crust is not liquid but solid?

But maybe you have in mind CC work who says "If the Earth's crust was totally remelted, why didn't the continents slump more? The continents are made of granite, while the oceanic crust is basalt. Granite is lighter than basalt, so the continents "float" like icebergs in the basaltic sea. But if the continents were completely remelted by the LHB, they should have flowed out over the basalt, leaving a thin layer (~14.90 km deep) of granite wrapping all of the way around the world. It's possible that the crust didn't get quite hot enough to become that runny during the LHB."

But in his scenario, there is one big problem which is present in almost all geological scenarios;

WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?

He says asteroids, but to me that is just shifting the problem out of site, not resolving it.
Because the question then remains, how was the water in asteroids created?

It is not my intention to promote my own theory on this thread, but in the recent past in my own thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16184 I proposed that the water is indigenous to Earth, and I also proposed a far different process of formation of continents.
A process that relied on the work of the late starbiter.

It seems very counterintuitive for me to say that all the tremendous masses of water that we find Down bellow
came from the sky.

[john666]

John, you said choosing the east African site as the impact point was arbitrary. It may seem that way superficially, but Fischer explains reasonably why he made that conclusion, namely because all of the continents appear to have moved away from that point, and because a very large crater appears to be there. Have you read the first couple pages of his site? http://NewGeology.us

I accept Charles Chandler's model for Earth's interior in the Planets section of his papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031.

As for Africa's motion, Fischer does say Africa moved with respect to the mantle or something like that. I can find the location of his statements on that if you like. I think he said Africa did not move much with respect to the crust, but it did move quite a way with respect to the mantle, about the distance from east Africa to near India.

Well, I have a problem with his most basic premise.
He says in his video the following "In Shock dynamics, an explosion sets continents sliding over crust, like ships on water"

How can you have this type of movement occuring over the crust, if the crust is not liquid but solid?

But maybe you have in mind CC work who says "If the Earth's crust was totally remelted, why didn't the continents slump more? The continents are made of granite, while the oceanic crust is basalt. Granite is lighter than basalt, so the continents "float" like icebergs in the basaltic sea. But if the continents were completely remelted by the LHB, they should have flowed out over the basalt, leaving a thin layer (~14.90 km deep) of granite wrapping all of the way around the world. It's possible that the crust didn't get quite hot enough to become that runny during the LHB."

But in his scenario, there is one big problem which is present in almost all geological scenarios;

WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?

He says asteroids, but to me that is just shifting the problem out of site, not resolving it.
Because the question then remains, how was the water in asteroids created?

It is not my intention to promote my own theory on this thread, but in the recent past in my own thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16184 I proposed that the water is indigenous to Earth, and I also proposed a far different process of formation of continents.
A process that relied on the work of the late starbiter.

To me, it seems very counterintuitive to say that all the tremendous masses of water that we find Down bellow came from the sky.

[john666]

John, you said choosing the east African site as the impact point was arbitrary. It may seem that way superficially, but Fischer explains reasonably why he made that conclusion, namely because all of the continents appear to have moved away from that point, and because a very large crater appears to be there. Have you read the first couple pages of his site? http://NewGeology.us

I accept Charles Chandler's model for Earth's interior in the Planets section of his papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031.

As for Africa's motion, Fischer does say Africa moved with respect to the mantle or something like that. I can find the location of his statements on that if you like. I think he said Africa did not move much with respect to the crust, but it did move quite a way with respect to the mantle, about the distance from east Africa to near India.

Well, I have a problem with his most basic premise.
He says in his video the following "In Shock dynamics, an explosion sets continents sliding over crust, like ships on water"

How can you have this type of movement occuring over the crust, if the crust is not liquid but solid?

But maybe you have in mind CC work who says "If the Earth's crust was totally remelted, why didn't the continents slump more? The continents are made of granite, while the oceanic crust is basalt. Granite is lighter than basalt, so the continents "float" like icebergs in the basaltic sea. But if the continents were completely remelted by the LHB, they should have flowed out over the basalt, leaving a thin layer (~14.90 km deep) of granite wrapping all of the way around the world. It's possible that the crust didn't get quite hot enough to become that runny during the LHB."

But in his scenario, there is one big problem which is present in almost all geological scenarios;

WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?

He says asteroids, but to me that is just shifting the problem out of site, not resolving it.
Because the question then remains, how was the water in asteroids created?

It is not my intention to promote my own theory on this thread, but in the recent past in my own thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16184 I proposed that the water is indigenous to Earth, and I also proposed a far different process of formation of continents.
A process that relied on the work of the late starbiter.

To me, it seems very counterintuitive to say that all the tremendous masses of water that we find Down bellow came from the sky.

[nick c]

WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?

Saturn.
Velikovsky proposed, derived from his mythic analysis, that the Earth was originally a satellite of Saturn and that much of the Earth's water came from there.
Later space age discoveries have shown that there is plenty of water in the Saturn system.
http://www.universetoday.com/15374/is-t ... on-saturn/

And all of Saturn’s moons have large quantities of water ice.

[Lloyd]

[Re http://NewGeology.us] Well, I have a problem with his most basic premise. He says in his video the following "In Shock dynamics, an explosion sets continents sliding over crust, like ships on water"
- How can you have this type of movement occuring over the crust, if the crust is not liquid but solid?
- But maybe you have in mind CC work who says "If the Earth's crust was totally remelted, why didn't the continents slump more? The continents are made of granite, while the oceanic crust is basalt. Granite is lighter than basalt, so the continents "float" like icebergs in the basaltic sea. But if the continents were completely remelted by the LHB, they should have flowed out over the basalt, leaving a thin layer (~14.90 km deep) of granite wrapping all of the way around the world. It's possible that the crust didn't get quite hot enough to become that runny during the LHB."
- But in his scenario, there is one big problem which is present in almost all geological scenarios;
WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?
-He says asteroids, but to me that is just shifting the problem out of site, not resolving it.
Because the question then remains, how was the water in asteroids created?
- It is not my intention to promote my own theory on this thread, but in the recent past in my own thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16184 I proposed that the water is indigenous to Earth, and I also proposed a far different process of formation of continents.
A process that relied on the work of the late starbiter.
- To me, it seems very counterintuitive to say that all the tremendous masses of water that we find Down bellow came from the sky.

You're talking about 2 or 3 different things here: the origin of the oceans and the supercontinent, the Great Flood and Continental Drift. NewGeology is about the Rapid Continental Drift event. CC's paper is on the origin of the supercontinent and oceans. Regarding how the continents could slide over the mantle, NewGeology explains that large masses of solid material moving at high speed over other solid material results in fluidization between the two contact surfaces, which greatly reduces friction, which is why material in underwater landslides often move so far away from the bases of underwater cliffs. There is also a liquid plasma layer under the continents and ocean floors, called the Moho, which is almost frictionless. That is what the continents slid over. CC's paper best explains the formation of the supercontinent and NewGeology best explains the breakup of the supercontinent into continents and islands IMO. The Great Flood, caused by tidal pulling by Venus or Mars or another body forming 2.5 km high tidal waves on the supercontinent before it broke up, best explains rock strata formation on the continents etc. As for Starbiter's work, maybe you should briefly describe your understanding of it.

[GaryN]

john666 wrote:

WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?

Where does the water in space come from? Was it that big bang thing again?