Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:19 am

Walter Brown did acknowledge electrical forces involved in catastrophism somewhat, but Charles Chandler includes them much more extensively. But, for now, I'll just show some of Brown's material on that.

BROWN'S ELECTRIC THEORY

This chapter will show that gigantic electrical discharges within the earth’s crust during the global flood quickly produced earth’s radioactivity....

ACCELERATED DECAY RATES
Most attempts to change decay rates have failed. For example, changing temperatures between -427°F and +4,500°F has produced no measurable change in decay rates. Nor have accelerations of up to 970,000 g, magnetic fields up to 45,000 gauss, or changing elevations or chemical concentrations.

Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this decreases its half-life more than a billionfold — from 42 billion years to 33 years.16 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used in measuring half-lives.17

NUCLEAR COMBUSTION
Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion31 and have produced traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a brief (10^-8 second), 50,000 volt, electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. For the most part, the relative abundance of chemical elements produced corresponds to what is found in the earth’s crust.

For weeks [during the Flood], compression-tension cycles within both the fluttering crust and ... pillars generated piezoelectric voltages that easily reached granite’s breakdown voltage.81 Therefore, powerful electrical currents discharged within the crust repeatedly, along complex paths of least electrical resistance. ...

Quartz is the only common mineral in the earth’s crust that is piezoelectric. Granite contains about 27% quartz by volume. If the myriad of quartz crystals throughout the 10-mile-thick granite crust were partially aligned and cyclically and powerfully stretched and compressed, huge voltages and electric fields would rapidly build up and collapse with each flutter half-cycle. If those fields reached about 9 × 10^6 volts per meter, electrical resistances within the granite would break down, producing sudden discharges — electrical surges (a plasma) similar to lightning. ... Even during some large earthquakes today, this piezoelectric effect in granite generates powerful electrical activity and hundreds of millions of volts.77

Grab a phone book with both hands and [make it arch-shaped upward]. The top cover is in tension and the bottom cover is in compression. Similarly, rock in the fluttering crust ... would alternate between tension ... and compression. ... Huge cyclic voltages would build up and suddenly discharge within the granite crust, because granite contains so much quartz, a piezoelectric mineral. Once granite’s breakdown voltage was reached, electrical current — similar to bolts of lightning — would discharge vertically within the crust. ...

Electrical breakdown ... begins when a powerful voltage removes an electron from a neutral atom, giving the atom a positive charge. This positive charge and freed electron, flowing as a plasma, accelerate in opposite directions, collide with other atoms, knock out more electrons, and, yes, occasionally produce new chemical elements!1 So much heat is generated from collisions that even more atoms lose electrons. A plasma flow is like an avalanche of snow; once it begins, it continues as long as there are flowing electrical charges (loose snow) and the voltage (steep mountain) remains high enough. Within the fluttering granite crust at the beginning of the flood, the piezoelectric effect ... generated high enough voltages to initiate plasma flows — electrical breakdowns — within the crust.

POLING
Figure 189: Poling is an industrial process that steadily aligns piezoelectric crystals so greater voltages can be produced. During the centuries before the flood, tidal stress cycles in the granite crust (tension followed by compression, twice a day [assuming the Moon was here then]) slowly aligned the quartz crystals. (A similar picture, but with arrows and positive and negative signs reversed, could be drawn for the compression half of the cycle.) Over the years, stresses heated the crust to some degree, which accelerated the alignment process. The fact that today so much electrical activity accompanies large earthquakes worldwide shows us that preflood poling was effective. Laboratory tests have also shown that quartz crystals have a degree of alignment in most quartz-rich rocks.80

... For weeks after the flood began, bremsstrahlung radiation produced a sea of neutrons throughout the crust. Subterranean water absorbed many of these neutrons, converting normal hydrogen (1H) into heavy hydrogen (2H, called deuterium) and normal oxygen (16O) into 18O. Abundant surface water (a huge absorber) protected life.

1. ... Every phenomenon involved in the hydroplate explanation for earth’s radioactivity is well understood and/or demonstrable: the piezoelectric effect, poling, nuclear combustion, electron capture, flutter with high compressive and tensile stresses, neutron production by bremsstrahlung radiation, Z-pinch, neutron activation analysis, rapid decay of artificially produced superheavy nuclei, and increased decay rates resulting from high voltages and concentrated electrical currents.

3. ... As explained in Figure 189 on page 354, electric fields resulting from the cyclic compression and tension before the flood increasingly aligned quartz crystals in granite — a process called poling. Amazingly, laboratory tests have shown that alignments still exist after thousands of years.80

5. ... Why is earth’s radioactivity concentrated in the continental crust?
... Earth’s radioactivity was produced by powerful electrical discharges within the fluttering granite crust during the flood. Consequently, earth’s radioactivity should be concentrated in the continental crust.

27. ... During the flood, about 5,000 years ago, electrical discharges (generated by the piezoelectric effect) — followed by fusion, fission, and accelerated decay — produced 235U and all other radioisotopes.

31. Where comparisons are possible, why does radiocarbon dating conflict with other radiometric dating techniques?
... Radiocarbon resides primarily in the atmosphere, oceans, and organic matter. Therefore, electrical discharges through the crust at the beginning of the flood did not affect radiocarbon. However, those discharges and the resulting “storm” of electrons and neutrons in the crust produced almost all other radioisotopes, disturbed their tenuous stability, and allowed them to rapidly decay [via ionization] .... This is why very precise radiocarbon dating — atomic mass spectrometry (AMS), which counts individual atoms — gives ages that are typically 10–1000 times younger than all other radiometric dating techniques (uranium-to-lead, potassium-to-argon, etc.).

35. ... Electrical intensity, not time, produced the high concentration of decay products in some meteorites. During the flood, pillars within the subterranean chamber experienced the most compression and electrical discharges, which, in turn, produced the greatest number of radioactive decay products. Most meteorites originated from crushed pillars, so meteorites should have more decay products.

37. ... In two meteorites, 60Ni was found in minerals that initially contained 60Fe. ... Accelerated radioactive decay began at the onset of the flood, not only in the fluttering crust but in the pounding and crushing of pillars. ... Iron was a common element in pillar tips. During the electrical discharges, bremsstrahlung radiation produced a sea of neutrons throughout the crust. Those neutrons converted some stable iron (54Fe, 56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) into 60Fe which, because of accelerated decay, quickly became 60Ni. Days later, pillar fragments were launched from earth [via subterranean supercritical water pressure]; some became meteorites.

PREDICTION 7: By 2020, satellites in low-earth orbits will predict the location of major earthquakes several days beforehand. They will do this by measuring electrical changes in the ionosphere that are produced by piezoelectric voltages building up in stressed rock around the focus of the coming earthquakes. If the focus is above the crossover depth, which is 220 miles below the earth’s surface, upward escaping magma may also produce detectable heat around the epicenter days beforehand.

43. Paul Rincon of the British Broadcasting Company reports: One study looked at over 100 earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or larger in Taiwan over several decades. The researchers found that almost all of the earthquakes down to a depth of about 35 km were preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7435324.stm, 5 June 2008
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:17 am

WALTER BROWN'S GRAND CANYON SCENARIO

Brown's explanation of the Grand Canyon is much more detailed and plausible than the EU team's model. Electric forces were involved, as in the previous post. But an arc discharge between planetoids is not likely what carved the canyon. Breaches of Grand and Hopi Lakes resulted in torrents of lake waters pouring through them in weeks time.


GRAND CANYON EVENTS
A series of major events ... occurred which produced the Grand Canyon.
- a. The flood waters drained off the suddenly thickened and elevated continents [or supercontinent], leaving behind postflood lakes in every continental basin.
- b. [Something like rapid continental drift over the East Pacific Rise] lifted the Colorado Plateau an average of 6,200 feet. ... Carried on top were two large, growing lakes — Grand Lake and Hopi Lake.
- c. A few centuries later, Grand Lake breached its southwestern boundary, causing Hopi Lake to also breach. The combined waters of both lakes spilled off the western edge of the Colorado Plateau, first sweeping off the soft Mesozoic sediments south and west of the lakes (the Great Denudation), then carving the Grand Canyon in weeks. Therefore, the Colorado River was born — a consequence, not the cause, of the carving of the Grand Canyon.

MISSING SEDIMENTS
At least 2,000 cubic miles of soft Mesozoic sediments were swept off the hard Kaibab Limestone. Then, as the Grand Canyon began to be carved 30 miles to the south, land under the Grand Canyon rose, lifting the south end of the funnel. This is why the funnel’s floor of hard Kaibab Limestone now rises more than 1,000 feet as one proceeds southward along the top of Marble Canyon. Echo and Vermilion Cliffs — and these potholes — also rose. All the layers exposed in these cliffs and in the walls of Marble Canyon show this dramatic tipping. ...

BIG CRACK
Figure 121: The Big Crack: Where Marble Canyon Began.
Water from Grand Lake spilled out near the top right corner of this picture and flowed violently toward the bottom left corner, eroding this funnel-shaped region. As huge amounts of material were removed, the horizontal sedimentary layers below — no longer pressed down by so much weight — arched upward [from magma pressure below], stretched, and cracked. Subsurface water then began spilling into this deep, minutes-old crack, now called Marble Canyon. Notice the many small “sink valleys” and their tiny tributaries near the edge of Marble Canyon. Surface channels that captured a large portion of the water spilling out of Vermilion Cliffs (at the top of the picture) and Echo Cliffs (at the bottom right) grew larger, allowing them to capture even more water. They became barbed canyons. Can you see why they are somewhat evenly spaced along Marble Canyon?

CANYON FORMATION
The south-flowing torrent of water spilling from Grand Lake undercuts the northwestern corner of Hopi Lake (elevation 5,950 feet), releasing its waters as well. Their combined waters, now sweeping westward over northern Arizona, first remove at least 1,000 feet of the soft Mesozoic sediments above the hard Kaibab Limestone. As this weight is removed from almost 10,000 square miles south and west of the funnel, deeper sedimentary layers arch upward, stretching and in many places cracking open the hard, brittle Kaibab Limestone above.

WATERFALL
Near the breach point on Hopi Lake’s high shoreline, a waterfall, about thirteen times higher (with possibly a hundred times greater flow rate) than Niagara Falls bursts forth. The torrent from “Hopi Falls” plus the flow from Grand Lake sweeps away so much rock that deeper rock must rise — not just directly under the deepening channel, but under the flanks of the channel as well. ... The faster rock rises into the torrent, the more mass the combined flows sweep away, so deeper rock — and the flanks of the channel — also rise. A similar mass removal and lifting of the flanks takes place along the southern flow inside Marble Canyon. This is clearly seen in the steeply tipped layers in Echo and Vermilion Cliffs, all along Marble Canyon. ... Therefore, the Kaibab Plateau is pushed up by the combined lifts west of the southern flow and north of the western flow. This channels and focuses the western flow through the lowest path, so even more mass is swept away. (Recall that the Mesozoic layers had been swept off days or weeks earlier.)...47

PLATEAU UPLIFT
At least 76 lava flows and numerous volcanoes are in the Grand Canyon area.44 Finally, the higher a block rose, the greater the pressure needed to lift it higher. Therefore, the magma below (containing dissolved water45) spread laterally, so adjacent blocks which had not risen as much were lifted instead. The spreading magma was like an expanding ink spot. Thus, the Colorado Plateau — and other plateaus — are generally circular.

SOFT ROCK CUTTING
Meanwhile, cascading waters from Grand and Hopi Lakes have begun eroding a 216-mile path to — and down through — the western edge of the Colorado Plateau. The deeper the waters cut below the high postflood water table, the more high-pressure water is released from the flanks of the lengthening channel. Each sedimentary particle becomes a cutting tool carried by the rapidly-flowing (and falling) water. As more sediments are eroded, more “liquid sandpaper” becomes available to erode more sediments. Additional energy is provided by the release of this mile-high, subsurface water. In weeks, 800 cubic miles of sediments from the Kaibab Limestone and below are removed, forming the Grand Canyon.

GRAND LAKE EVENTS
Beneath Grand Lake’s basin today is a 1,400-foot-thick layer of sandstone. When Grand Lake was present, that sand was uncemented and saturated with water. Sand grains are hard and somewhat rounded, so water-saturated sand layers contain about 40% water by volume. As the lake emptied, the relatively large channels between these grains allowed the high-pressure water under Grand Lake to rapidly discharge upward,51 through the lowest portions of the lake bottom — the easiest routes of escape. With those upward torrents of high-pressure water came swirling sand and dirt that was quickly swept out of Grand Lake and down through the Grand Canyon, which was forming 100–250 miles to the southwest. The highest portions of the lake bottom, including islands, offered the greatest resistance to the upward-surging flow, so those high regions remained intact. Cliffs (along some lake boundaries) and mesas and buttes (internal to the lake) began to take shape.

RIVER & OUTWASH
Figure 130: Algodones Sand Dunes (California’s Imperial Sand Dunes). Where did all this clean, pure sand (2.5 cubic miles worth) come from? Why is it here in a 45-mile-long and 5-mile-wide valley?

The sudden breaching of Grand and Hopi Lakes carved the Grand Canyon and gave birth to the Colorado River. ... There is no evidence for a precanyon Colorado River, because the river never existed before the Grand Canyon was excavated. The river is a consequence of that excavation, not its cause. ... A few thousand cubic miles of sand and other sediments were transported south, along the Arizona-California border (the path now occupied by the Colorado River). That surge far into the Gulf of California also flooded the long, Imperial Valley that extends northwest of Yuma. Sediment-laden water quickly filled that valley, because its entire length is about 700 feet lower than the Colorado River as it exits the Grand Canyon, and much of the valley is below today’s sea level. Within the turbid flood waters, sand (as opposed to mud and clay) would have quickly settled out. ... After the flooding Colorado River crested at the southeast end of the valley, most of the valley’s waters would have drained back into the Colorado River and ultimately into the Gulf of California. Left behind in the valley were large volumes of sand and the Salton Sea, whose surface today is about 220 feet below sea level.

PREDICTION 14: A chemical and isotope analysis of the sand dunes will show that the sand came from the Grand Canyon.

TIME OF BREACH
Question: When did Grand Lake breach its natural dam?
- Enough time had to pass for the 350-foot-thick layer of Kaibab Limestone to harden in the presence of so much subsurface water.... Hardening had to occur before the potholes ... could form.
- Enough time had to pass for Hopi Lake to cool and its silica-rich waters to soak into and petrify floating logs.
- Red Butte ... was already capped by hardened lava when the torrent of water spilled out of Grand Lake.
- Three legends of Native American tribes living near the Grand Canyon contain surprising elements consistent with the scientific evidence concerning the canyon’s formation. This suggests that humans were living in the region when the Grand Canyon formed. If so, some length of time was needed for humans to migrate to the Grand Canyon region. The Navajo legend about the Grand Canyon may give another reason for dating it at least a few centuries after the global flood.
- For these reasons, the Grand Canyon probably formed at least a few centuries after the flood.
- Lake Bonneville and Lake Missoula most likely breached centuries after Grand and Hopi Lakes, giving Bonneville and Missoula more time to etch their shorelines. Frequent thunderstorms in Grand and Hopi Lakes’ regions also had more time to erode and erase any shoreline markings.

UPLIFT & MAGMA CHANNELS
The Colorado Plateau has been lifted an average of 6,200 feet above sea level, but the portion of the Moho directly below has been correspondingly depressed. ... This means that the plateau was lifted by material injected between the plateau and the Moho. Several miles above the Moho was the subterranean water chamber [aquifer?]. ... The chamber largely collapsed toward the end of the flood and became a thin, ready-made conduit, corresponding to the thin, horizontal channel in Figure 122.... Undoubtedly, some water remained at the floor-roof interface, but even with no water, the interface would have been the easiest path for magma to escape from beneath the sinking Rockies.
[Offhand, I think what was injected above the Moho layer was the East Pacific Rise when the North American plate slid over it after an Indian Ocean asteroid impact broke apart the supercontinent.]

XENOLITHS
Angular rock fragments, called xenoliths, are often found in magma flows. These fragments, which are millimeters to meters in diameter, sometimes contain diamonds. Geologists have always had difficulty visualizing how flowing magma could fragment and pluck out pieces of its conduit’s thick wall. It is almost as strange as turning on your faucet and seeing pipe fragments — some of which contain diamonds — spilling into your sink. Maybe flowing magma did not produce xenoliths. Perhaps some xenoliths were the result of very young, sinking mountains that crushed and slid rocks under great pressure and heat, generating magma — and diamonds.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:24 am

I think Brown's timelines are reasonable.
I place the erosion of the Grand Canyon also in the later phases of the Flood sequence, and could accept perhaps up to several years, even a century or so, for it to be formed by a Grand Lake dam breach. The key for me is the state or degree of unconsolidation of the Kaibab sediments, as well as the timing of the plateau uplift. In the catastrophic scenario of a recent timeframe, it must be understood that the canyon's formation was a confluence of several major factors or events, as opposed to the standard model's epochal series of unobservably slow gradual sediment build-up punctuated by even longer invisible hiatal periods of grain-by-grain erosion.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby moses » Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:31 pm

Webo,
Do you think that the definition of 'Flood' should change due to the dating of Noah's Flood to 2350 BC ? As this is very near when biblical scholars put the flood, I feel that we have some solid ground now for dating things.

It appears that widespread thunderbolts excavate water just like they excavate dust. Instead of just the one interplanetary thunderbolt, the electrical energy is spread out in a tasselled form. Thus enormous amounts of water are lifted into the air resulting in deluging rainfall over a fairly large area.

But what about water events before this Noah's flood. We cannot call such events 'Flood'. Can we?

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:16 pm

AGE OF THE SUN & THE EARTH
At another thread, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&p=114076#p114076, I quote Walter Brown's explanation of Earth's radioactivity as due to electrical discharges within Earth's crust at the time of the Great Flood and I ask Charles if this info may affect his calculation of the age of the Sun and the Earth, which he found to be apparently about 378 million years, whereas conventional science estimates 4.5 billion years, about 12 times as old. Brown's explanation seems to be very well detailed, so I think it's worth checking out, esp. since it's an EU explanation.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:43 am

Moses,

On the premise that the biblical account is "historical" and fundamentally descriptive rather than purely allegorical or symbolic, there are three important "water events", which I will summarize:
1. First two creation days -- describing the earth's surface as originally oceanic [unlike some others on this thread, I consistently hold that the "deep" refers to the earth's liquid ocean and its associated crust/basins], the appearance of the original continent [singular; "Pangea" perhaps] and the associated erosive and formative events that would like be evidenced in the lower pre-Cambrian rocks and primordial granitic continental mass. This was presumably an upheaval event, involving catastrophic igneous processes disrupting the crustal basins. The bipartate nature of the atmosphere would have naturally followed this event, upper atmospheric water being emplaced by the immense amount of steam generated. Surface [land] volcanics would have been neglible, and the atmosphere would have been comparable free of condensation nuclei, so no precipitation from the primordial atmosphere, rather a global greenhouse condition would have been established, as evidenced by virtually all fossil finds below the Pliocene. Geysers and springs pouring out from below the continental surface and spreading across the low [relatively flat] topography would have provided the necessary watering of the ground required for the flourishing of vegetation. This condition would have persisted until the time of the second water event...
2. The global flood -- no amount of twisting and redefining of words [by old earthers] can invalidate the clear and oft-repeated biblical claim of the worldwide flood. Close examination of the account shows that the physical event began with the sending of the "matar" [meteors/hailstones, emphasis on "stones"], followed by the breaking up of "the fountains of the deep", followed by the torrential "geshen" [rains] for a month and a half, continuing intermittently but frequently for five months. Geologic evidence demonstrates that astroblemes/craters are associated all of the major formations from the Cambrian up, which I take to be the remnants of the erosion/depositional processes during the flood, the destructive [to life] potential of this barrage of asteroidal impacts [or EUs EDM] should not be underestimated. Many of these astroblemes are found in ocean basins, but most on land. I presume other ocean basin astroblemes are yet to be discovered or have been erased by ocean currents, but the point I would make here is that these could generate an ongoing cascade of tsunamis which I take to be a major contributor to land life extinction. The catastrophic seismic nature of the second event is clearly understood by the recognition that the "fountains of the deep" as we know them today are the mid-ocean rifts that encircle the global; but they would have been largely land rifts at the beginning, splitting the continent into pieces, the continental drift episode beginning very rapidly [say 50+ km/day] and slowed by this time to a fingernail growth speed. This unimaginable destructive release of energy would have furthered the extinction of animal life across the continents, and caused the flooding of the coastal and inland regions of all the continents. Remembering that the topography of the original continents was relatively low, it is reasonable to claim that this second process was the major cause of the flood. The third process of torrential rains would have contributed only minorly to the floodwater volume, negating the need for exotic or imaginary extraterrestrial water sources for the flood. The biblical accounting of the mountain uplifts at the end of the flood period makes it clear to me that there is no need whatsoever for an extraordinary or excessive depth of water in order to account eg. for fish fossils on Mt Everest, as flood deniers mockingly suggest.
3. The significant post-flood climate change [implying a new earth tilt, resulting from whatever planetary flyby may have initiated the "matar"], in which seasons are determined by climatology rather than the original noted astronomy from creation day 4; this further affirms the claim that there was no rain as we know it for the first period of creation, ie. prior to the flood. Other water events not described/observed by the biblical authors such as the episode of continental glaciation [which I hold to be true based on the preponderance of available evidence] would be certainly attributable to this cataclysmic climate change, along with the significant climatic effect of the new continental topography of mountain ranges and watersheds.

Three pieces: pre-flood, flood, post-flood. My detailed analysis of this view spans a 20-hour power point presentation which I have given on several occasions. New discoveries continue to support and enrich the catastrophic view, and much is yet to be learned, but these three "water events" are foundational for a biblical understanding of geologic history.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby moses » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:14 pm

Many thanks for your reply webo. I too see the formation of sediments to have occurred in a kind of flood. There is much we do not agree on but I do not want to go into this just now.

I am very interested in Noah and how that fits into your scenario. Care to comment ?
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide


Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby moses » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:14 pm

It is still not clear to me. Is the formation of the so-called geological coloumn associated with Noah. If so then I find this completely unacceptable.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:28 am

Moses,
Specifically, what bothers you the most about the geologic column being a model of actions of the Noachian flood?
I've spent 43 years studying this and hopefully may be able to directly address your issues...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby moses » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:48 pm

What bothers me most is that we now have very good tree ring evidence of a flood 2350 BC and this ties in well with the bible, and offers us stable ground to sort all this out, and then we have this completely wild idea that the geological column was formed at the same time.

The geological column formed much earlier in very different circumstances to the flood of Noah. It is crucial to our understanding that this is recognised. The story is that the Earth was in a different configuration which produced the geological column, and then the break up of this configuration had certain effects, and then the unstable orbits had various effects and towards the end of this instability an interaction between Venus and the Earth produced the flood of Noah.

Now there are a lot of variations in this story, but having the formation of the geological column at the same time or the same event as Noah's flood is basically damaging to working out what actually occurred. Simply having many events can't be that hard to accept, can it ?

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:49 pm

Reply to Mo
moses wrote:What bothers me most is that we now have very good tree ring evidence of a flood 2350 BC and this ties in well with the bible, and offers us stable ground to sort all this out,

I've showed early in this thread that your dating is likely about right, but I regard the Bible as not such good evidence, compared to other myths and the geological and archeological evidence, which we've been discussing in this thread. It would be helpful if you could cite the tree ring evidence that you mentioned. Could you do that?

and then we have this completely wild idea that the geological column was formed at the same time.

If you'd read this thread more carefully, you might see that the idea isn't wild at all. Rock strata that cover entire continents, or several continents, and which are conforming and quasiconforming all the way down to the great unconformity at the top of the granitic crust are excellent evidence that the strata were laid down all at close to the same time.

The geological column formed much earlier in very different circumstances to the flood of Noah. It is crucial to our understanding that this is recognised. The story is that the Earth was in a different configuration which produced the geological column, and then the break up of this configuration had certain effects, and then the unstable orbits had various effects and towards the end of this instability an interaction between Venus and the Earth produced the flood of Noah.

Cardona has theorized that Saturn flared and produced detritus that formed the rock strata, but Berthault's experiments etc make it apparent that the strata were almost certainly laid down by one Great Flood, not by Saturn flare debris. The EU team actually doesn't seem to have come to any definite conclusions yet about how Venus may have been involved in the Flood. They have said that the Saturn system included Venus, Mars and Earth and that Venus and Mars became unstable when the system broke up, but the team hasn't determined whether they were directly involved in causing the Flood. I posted a bunch of myth evidence earlier that is pretty suggestive that Venus was involved somehow and there's some evidence for Mars as well, but that evidence doesn't tie in yet with geological and archeological evidence, as far as I know. There were likely many asteroids in close proximity to the 3 planets at the time of the Saturn system breakup and some of them may have been large enough to produce tidal waves that could have flooded the supercontinent before it split up into continents (which latter must have occurred after the beginning of the Flood). Cardona agrees that the supercontinent split up via rapid continental drift over the Moho, the most recent occurrence having been about the time of the breakup. So far, I consider the evidence for the Saturn system, a Saturn flare and the system's breakup at the time of the Flood to be very strong.

Now there are a lot of variations in this story, but having the formation of the geological column at the same time or the same event as Noah's flood is basically damaging to working out what actually occurred.

What's damaging is coming to definite conclusions before enough evidence is in and properly analyzed.

Simply having many events can't be that hard to accept, can it ?

Formation of the supercontinent was one event. Evolution of life on the supercontinent was a second event. Flooding of the supercontinent, such as due to a close approach of an asteroid or planetoid was a third. Asteroid impacts on the supercontinent during the Flood was a fourth. An asteroid impact that broke up the supercontinent and caused mountain formation and vulcanism was fifth. The ice age that resulted was sixth. Catastrophic erosion which carved the great canyons and filled the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea etc was seventh. It's not hard to accept those seven events. Or you could say six catastrophic events, since the second wasn't catastrophic. Cardona imagines that many Saturn flares occurred thousands of years apart, but there seems to be no evidence that any of the material in the rock strata came from Saturn. Instead, the evidence appears to be that the strata came from the edge of the supercontinent and from seafloor sediment and were laid down in a flooding environment.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:27 pm

Earth's Radioactivity from Impacts
These are Charles' recent replies to my questions in this thread:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&start=270
Lloyd wrote: Or how do you think Earth's radioactivity originated?
CC: I believe that the continental granites, as well as the water in the oceans, arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment. The impact events could have fused heavy elements.
Lloyd wrote: Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?
CC: Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat. Past that point, if they don't extract the heat from the core, it will go into runaway mode, resulting in a melt-down. So yes, the decay rate increases with temperature.
ZZ countered at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&start=270#p114089
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&start=285
Lloyd wrote: You've stated in a few places that high velocity impacts produce thermonuclear explosions, which involve electrical discharges.
CC: Thermonuclear explosions: yes, electrical discharges: not really, at least not in the EU sense, where there would be a potential between the impacter and the impactee that would do something. An explosion creates a lot of high velocity ions, and IMO, these get pinched into the spider ejecta that we see on the Moon. Such ion streams could be called electric currents of sorts, but that isn't in the EU model. And I'm not talking about any sort of pre-existing electric fields that do anything.
Lloyd wrote: Have you determined how strong the discharges would need to be or what other factors are involved to fuse radioactive elements in impacts?
CC: The fusion would occur simply because of the extreme pressures and temperatures at the point of collision. A small, high-velocity impacter might get annihilated, while a large, slow-moving impacter might simply merge with the impactee, though at the point of collision, some heavy elements might have been fused.
Lloyd wrote: When do you regard it as most likely that the bombardment occurred?
CC: Since I'm estimating the age of the Earth (and everything else in the solar system) to be 378 million years, it would have been after that. But no, I don't have a specific number. Mars and the Moon had already formed crusts by the time the LHB occurred. But I haven't developed a method of estimating how long that would take.
Lloyd wrote: I looked online for radioactivity connected with impact craters, but didn't find much.
CC: I didn't find anything either, in a quick search, but for cratered impacts, I wouldn't really expect much. The extreme pressures & temperatures occur at the interface between the impacter and the impactee. If the impacter gets annihilated in the process, everything subjected to the extreme pressure & temperature will get dispersed. I actually think that heavy elements will not be found unless the impacter persists. The high pressures & temperatures need to be created, such that heavy elements are fused. But then they need to be cooled, while still under pressure. The reason is that radioactive elements are unstable at high temperatures. So you're not going to see much in the way of heavy elements at ground zero of a nuclear explosion -- the elements might have been fused, but shortly thereafter, they got split back apart in high energy collisions. The only way for such fragile atoms to persist is if the pressure necessary to fuse them was still present, but the temperatures at which they are unstable were removed before the pressure relaxed.
Lloyd wrote: Have you written anywhere else on how impacts delivered water to the Earth?
CC: That's in the article called Remelted Crusts [http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15407]. Ceres is thought to be as much as 50% water.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:44 pm

Comments on Charles' Replies above
Source of Earth's Radioactivity
I had thought that Walter Brown's explanation of Earth's radioactivity having formed by vibrations and crustal electric current made sense, but Charles' explanation makes more sense to me. He says the high temperature and pressure on the impactor would fuse elements, but in order for the radioactive elements to persist, the impactor would have to cool down while there's still high pressure after impact. This would be more likely to occur with very large impactors.

Supercontinent
Charles' model seems to suppose that the supercontinent and the oceans formed from the so-called Late Heavy Bombardment of asteroids. That bombardment though was apparently not the last one, because the last one occurred 4,500 years ago or so during the Great Flood, when many asteroids bombarded Earth during the Flood. The Bible may suggest that the supercontinent formed about one thousand years before the Great Flood, but it could have formed millions of years ago. But the present surface features of Earth almost certainly formed less than 4,500 years ago, when the supercontinent was split up into continents and islands. This event must have had impactors large enough to fuse radioactive elements in the then newly formed sedimentary rock strata, where they're found today.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby moses » Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:12 pm

Lloyd,
I will wait for webo to reply, however I will make a couple of comments. The reference to the Irish bog tree rings has been given before, an excellent article which I would have expected you to read when it first appeared in this forum.

That the strata were laid in one event or a few events is agreed, but not at the same time as Noah's flood. Totally different events and totally different means of production.

I have said nothing about a Saturn System, only a previous configuration of planets. I do not believe in a supercontinent or continental drift. I have read most of what is written in this forum but disagree quietly with a lot of it.

What is damaging is going on extensively about some theory and not considering all theories when the evidence is quite slim. There is evidence of many events, and just putting them altogether in one event just boggles my mind.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests