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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
elderlyrstaff
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:25 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by elderlyrstaff » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:14 pm

An Attempt to Justify -3327/-3326 as a Deluge Date with Footnotes
From Sacred Texts Christianity
{From the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. XI, Part 1,
1943, pp. 52-74. The transcriptions of the original texts have been omitted in this version.}
p. 52
an endnote says
3 Presumably the number of years supposed to have passed from the time of Enoch to the beginning of the reign of Vi§tasp. The date for Enoch was probably calculated with the help of the Jewish
world-era, or the mundane era of Alexandria (beginning 5493 B.C.), or by counting backwards from
the Deluge. Taking 3237 B.C. (but 3251 B.C. according to the Coptic chronology) as the date of the
Deluge (see S. H. Taqizadeh, BSOS., X, 122, under c), and adding 669 ( = from Enoch's death to the
Deluge according to the Hebrew Genesis), and subtracting the number in our fragment, 3,28[8 ?],
from 3,237 + 669 = 3,906, the resulting date, 618 B.C., agrees perfectly with the traditional
Zoroastrian date for the beginning of Vi§tasp's reign (258 + 30 years before Alexander's conquest of
Persia, 330 B.C.; cf. Taqizadeh, ibid., 127 sq.). From this one may infer that the famous date for
Zoroaster: "258 years before Alexander" was known to Mani (Nyberg, Rel. Alt. Iran, 32 sqq., thinks it
was invented towards the beginning of the fifth century).
If the start of BC is -3 then -5493 is really, in modern terms, - 5496 BC. Subtracting 93 (Omission Principle – see Barry Setterfield at http://www.setterfield.org) then Anno Mundi is -5589 or 5589 BC. Adding a number to get to the Deluge is dodgy because we have a range of numbers to choose from: see Whiston’s Josephus; 2262 (= 2242 from LXX plus Africanus’ 20), 2256, 1656, 1556, 1550, etc. Taking 2262 we get -33271 – see CUT. When Enoch ruled is from -3914 so adding 328x gets us to - 628 if x=6. If 258 yrs, as stated, is an invention then we are free to examine a little more. Let us state that Vištāsp's reign commenced 268 yrs + 30 years before Alexander’s conquest of Persia in - 330 then unfortunately for Zoroastrian dating we have a -628 start for our benchmark king. This satisfies CUT’s chronological schema. Move over Zoroaster2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cut needs to correct a Flood date of 829.13 for Day 1. It should be 829,044,373 yrs ago or 829.04. Forty days later is 828,815,463 yrs ago or 228, 910 radiometric years later.
2 From Enc. Brit., 11th Ed., Vol 28 Handy Edition, p.1041 we have “We are quite ignorant as to the date of Zoroaster; King Vistãspa does not seem to have any place in historical chronology, and the Gathas gives no hint on the subject. ... According to the Arda Viraf, I, 2, Zoroaster taught, in round numbers some 300 years before the invasion of Alexan¬der.” This then puts us with Zoroaster looking for a patron to advance the spread of his teaching ca. - 332 – 300 = -632 in round numbers. Given that our options are varied we should look at the other end of the space and take -329 -300 = -629. If we go with the first option we have an x=3, and -632 – 3283 = -3915 Enoch’s start of rule in CUT. If we go with the second option we have x=6 and -629 – 3286 = -3915. If our rounding is ± 2 then x goes down to 1 or up to 8 to maintain CUT’s contention. The closer to the start of King Vistãspa’s reign the better since Zoroaster would have been seeking a sponsor very early on. Taking -618 for the King we would find that Zoroaster spent some possibly 10 years searching a sponsor and this is a bit unrealistic for such a likely lad. As well, the rounding down of the 300 years by 14 years is a bit of a stretch.
A final point to make is that the next year-pair is -2902/-2901. The ‘little’ Zoroaster and King devia¬tions pale into insignificance with the -2902 - -3327 = 425-yr gap. Remember that Henk Jens with

NB from the above it is the promiscuous mixing of Coptic and non-Coptic sources which generates chronologists’ visits to the dating hell of “14 missing years”.

the reversal of his use of E.W. Bullinger only gives certain limited date pairs throughout ancient his¬tory.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:41 pm

nick c wrote:
john666 wrote: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.
That is a highly speculative thesis of your, for which you have no evidence.
You only have speculations.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:38 pm

Lloyd wrote:As for Starbiter's work, maybe you should briefly describe your understanding of it.
This is starbiter in his own words, and I basically agree with him, the mountains were not caused by "tectonic movement", but by a process that he described in his thread:

"It's my contention that the mountains were created during the events described by Dr. Velikovsky during the encounter with Venus. The Plague of Darkness consisted of dust, sand, gravel, and rocks that lasted for up to nine days with hurricane force winds from the West. For three of these days the darkness caused by air borne particulates was complete. During and after this event the sun changed it's motion at least four times. Each change would create a flood of biblical proportion causing valleys and basins to flood. The effects of these floods caused the dust and dirt to be carried away and be evenly spread. Existing river systems would prevent accumulation so the dune/mountains would be interrupted and continue on the other side of the river. The river would easily flush away the air borne material. Preventing a canyon of Granite is much easier than eroding it. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison is over two thousand feet of solid Granite and Quartz. This would be the path of greatest resistance. After the canyon was formed by the dunning process an electrical surge [River of Fire]traveled through the river system and converted the wet ore into Granite.
It doesn't matter when this event took place or even if it was Mars and not Venus. The point is, the consistent observations from every corner of the world describe events that would produce what is described. If the descriptions are correct what is proposed would be the natural result. The only thing that limits the size of dunes is the amount of sand and the intensity and duration of the wind. In this instance both were plentiful.
When visiting the Grand Canyon there is a chart showing the layering. There are layers of underwater sediment and layers of dune. Flood, followed by dune, followed by flood and so on."
Lloyd wrote: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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohorovi% ... continuity
"The Mohorovičić discontinuity (Croatian pronunciation: [moxorôʋiːt͡ʃit͡ɕ]),[1] usually referred to as the Moho, is the boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle."

You can not invoke Moho to explain why Africa didn't move during the supposed impact, while the Americas allegedly moved thousands of kilometers.
Because Moho - supposing that this theoretical construct actually exists - is not a boundary between the continents and the Earth's crust, but a boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle.
Lloyd wrote: 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.
Do you have any video evidence for this?
I ask this, because this IS a bold statement that goes against the physical laws as I understand them.
Lloyd wrote: CC's paper best explains the formation of the supercontinent and NewGeology best explains the breakup of the supercontinent into continents and islands IMO.
If this is the best explanation, then explain to me the following;

Why does American Cordillera have North-South orientation, while the Great Eurasian Mountain Ranges(Turkey,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Kazakhstan,Tibet,Mongolia,Siberia) have West-East orientation?
If the shock wave acted radially from the impact site, why such a different spatial orientation in the two main structures?

And may I remind you, that it is not just American Cordillera that has North-South orientation, but the whole of Americas. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... -Frame.png
Which means that the creation of American Cordillera, and the creation of the shape of Americas ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by webolife » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:34 pm

The question of where the water came from [for the deluge] has been addressed on numerous threads.
Here is a summary of some of the ideas that have been repeated often, with some brief comments/questions:
1. Venus interacting as a cometary body with the earth, broke up due to a period in which it was revolving for a short time about the earth, offsetting the earth's axial rotation. This interaction was also allegedly the cause of the rapid glacial epoch, as chunks of ice crashed down into the Canadian and other northerly regions. This view was partially based in the belief that comets were dirty snowballs, a hypothesis that has been now well tested by direct observation and discounted. Does the electric comet hypothesis encourage or discourage this view?
2. Saturn [Bruce, Velikovsky, Cardona, Talbott, et.al.] acting as the polity center for a string of satellites, incl Earth, imparted its watery atmospheres onto many of its satellites, incl earth, during the violent planetary disturbance that occurred as the Saturn group came into the realm of Sol, this occurring during the historical past. This is a primary or core view of EU staff, which I take issue with based on its evidenciary base being a very narrow interpretation of many mythological coincidences, and not supported by scientifically testable tenets. I wish I could trust it more, as solid evidences supporting it would be a great contribution to my own catastrophic view of earth history. Is there any physical evidence which favors the Saturn myth as a scientific model?
3. Subterranean reservoirs of primordial waters located deep within the crust or Moho, which erupted in cataclysmic quantities as the "fountains of the great deep" broke open at the beginning of the deluge. This view is receiving recent support from reports of large water reservoirs being detected in the regions of magma below volcanic chains. The standard model of geology has some adherents to the view that if currently measured proportions of water in observed volcanic eruptions were applied to all the volcanic formations of the past, it would be sufficient to account for the world's ocean volume. Is it possible that little extraterrestrial water is needed for the deluge?
4. Redistribution of water from the primordial oceans of the earth may have been sufficient to flood the original continental plates as they spread out during the Pangaean split-up. This would have been made possible by the action of seismic seawaves over the low topography plates that pre-existed the buildup of the boundary ranges of today. There is very little water by comparison to planetary mass on the earth, in the solar system, or in the universe as we know it. Is it not probable that we [and life in general] owe our existence in large part to Earth's unique conditions and catastrophic history of water on our planet?

As I see it, the current body of evidence most favors the last two options, but my perspective is in a minority of contributors to this thread. Just saying.

As for the Moho, seismic imagery shows it is there... we just don't know yet what its physical characteristics are. I think it is important to be very tentative rather than stating its properties as a "given" in any theory.
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: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by webolife » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:44 pm

john666 wrote:Why does American Cordillera have North-South orientation, while the Great Eurasian Mountain Ranges(Turkey,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Kazakhstan,Tibet,Mongolia,Siberia) have West-East orientation?
If the shock wave acted radially from the impact site, why such a different spatial orientation in the two main structures?

And may I remind you, that it is not just American Cordillera that has North-South orientation, but the whole of Americas. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... -Frame.png
Which means that the creation of American Cordillera, and the creation of the shape of Americas ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.
If you apply the radiant vectors, to the east African/Indian Ocean site of Fischer, you will see that the orientation of boundary ranges is one of the primary evidences for this alleged impact site. As you have noted, there may be other site possibilities that could have resulted in the plate movements, but I am fairly confident that there were several [chronologically related] impactors that began the cascade of events leading to the deluge, based on the persistence of astroblemes throughout the geologic record. Also remember to use north/south and east/west orientations in the context of the sphericity of the earth's surface, rather than a flat Mercator-style Earth view.
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.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:14 am

webolife wrote:If you apply the radiant vectors, to the east African/Indian Ocean site of Fischer, you will see that the orientation of boundary ranges is one of the primary evidences for this alleged impact site.
When you are talking about the boundary ranges, what do you have in mind?
webolife wrote:As you have noted, there may be other site possibilities that could have resulted in the plate movements, but I am fairly confident that there were several [chronologically related] impactors that began the cascade of events leading to the deluge, based on the persistence of astroblemes throughout the geologic record.
There had to be several impactors because the different spatial orientation of the worlds two greatest mountain ranges can not be explained in any other way.
But the impactors are not Space Rocks but THUNDERBOLTS.

Giant high energy thunderbolts;
Why am I so certain about that?

Because of the image bellow

Image

If starbiters work is legitimate, if he is correct about the mountains being the result of "a dunning process", then the Tibetan plateau - which is the highest plateau in the world - can be viewed as the biggest solidified dune in the world.
Because when you look at the topographical map of Tibetan plateau, does the plateau not have a dune like look?

I think it does have that kind of look, very much so.

And if the Tibetan plateau was created in "a dunning process", in which electricity and water are the "two main ingredients", then the entire Great Eurasian Mountain Range was created in "a dunning process", because the Tibetan plateau is an integral part of the Great Eurasian Mountain Range.

I think that starbiter in his thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=4&t=2780 together with others who contributed to his ideas, was the person that was the closest to the truth about the geological history of our world.

For the catastrophists, one question if fundemental;

Was the catastrophe that created the continents caused by Matter( Space Rocks), or Energy(Thunderbolts).

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by seasmith » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:11 am

...mountains being the result of "a dunning process", then the Tibetan plateau - which is the highest plateau in the world - can be viewed as the biggest solidified dune in the world.
Because when you look at the topographical map of Tibetan plateau, does the plateau not have a dune like look?

I think it does have that kind of look, very much so. -john666

John, you need to get out more ...

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:20 pm

john666 wrote:
I think that starbiter in his thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=4&t=2780 together with others who contributed to his ideas, was the person that was the closest to the truth about the geological history of our world.

For the catastrophists, one question if fundemental;

Was the catastrophe that created the continents caused by Matter( Space Rocks), or Energy(Thunderbolts).
Compare the image of Tibetan_Plateau, with the images of sand dunes.
Especially look at the last image, Colorado's Great Sand Dunes National Park;

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

starbiter in his work gave us a gold mine of information, and we should use it in our discussions about the past of our world.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:56 pm

john666 wrote:- ... the mountains were not caused by "tectonic movement"
LK: Yes, they were. Mountains consist primarily of sedimentary rock strata that were originally horizontal. Then horizontal motion of tectonic plates, first by impact shock waves for smaller mountain chains and then collisions between plates for higher mountain chains, caused vertical buckling, which raised the mountains. The horizontal pressures can hardly be denied.
When visiting the Grand Canyon there is a chart showing the layering. There are layers of underwater sediment and layers of dune. Flood, followed by dune, followed by flood and so on."
LK: The dry dune theory is false. It's been proven that those supposed sand dunes were actually underwater sand layers. They have many signs of underwater formation. It has been determined how fast the flood waters were moving when the sand was deposited, i.e. a few miles per hour. There are animal tracks preserved on the formerly underwater sand ridges where the animals, probably amphibians or reptiles, were walking up the hillsides of the ridges, probably trying to stay in shallow water. Dry sand dunes cannot preserve animal tracks with toe prints etc; they only show blurry depressions.
- So the entire paleozoic and mesozoic strata seen in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere were obviously deposited over a short period of time, weeks or months, by a series of very high tsunamis, the Great Flood, which carried mud and sand from the supercontinental margins and degassed lime from the oceans, forming the various sedimentary rock strata on the supercontinent. The lime was the main cementing agent. Cenozoic strata were deposited in later floods a few hundred years later during the supercontinent breakup, when there was less degassed lime in the oceans.
This is starbiter in his own words- "It's my contention that the mountains were created during the events described by Dr. Velikovsky during the encounter with Venus. The Plague of Darkness consisted of dust, sand, gravel, and rocks that lasted for up to nine days with hurricane force winds from the West. For three of these days the darkness caused by air borne particulates was complete.
LK: Dust storms with hurricane-force winds apparently buried and froze the mammoths and other animals in the Arctic during the supercontinent breakup, when the northern continents were pushed northward.
During and after this event the sun changed it's motion at least four times. Each change would create a flood of biblical proportion causing valleys and basins to flood.
LK: What's the evidence that the Sun changed its motion? If it's true it likely means in reality that the Earth changed its motion, which made it look like the Sun did.
The effects of these floods caused the dust and dirt to be carried away and be evenly spread. Existing river systems would prevent accumulation so the dune/mountains would be interrupted and continue on the other side of the river. The river would easily flush away the air borne material. Preventing a canyon of Granite is much easier than eroding it. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison is over two thousand feet of solid Granite and Quartz. This would be the path of greatest resistance. After the canyon was formed by the dunning process an electrical surge [River of Fire]traveled through the river system and converted the wet ore into Granite.
LK: My guess is that the Black Canyon formed the way the Grand Canyon did, i.e. from breaching a natural dam of a large lake, so large amounts of fast flowing water would cavitate the bedrock and erode it away. This would have occurred some time after the mountain building phase of the supercontinent breakup. I'm not able to find a good cross-section map of the Black Canyon offhand. Do you know of one online?
It doesn't matter when this event took place or even if it was Mars and not Venus. The point is, the consistent observations from every corner of the world describe events that would produce what is described. If the descriptions are correct what is proposed would be the natural result. The only thing that limits the size of dunes is the amount of sand and the intensity and duration of the wind. In this instance both were plentiful.
LK: Gary Gilligan also supposes that the sands of the desert regions came from Venus, but it's more likely they came from flooding during the supercontinent breakup or from the earlier Great Flood. If the sand grains were found to be different from known rock types on Earth, then it would be reasonable to suspect extraterrestrial origin.
Lloyd wrote: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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohorovi% ... continuity
"The Mohorovičić discontinuity (Croatian pronunciation: [moxorôʋiːt͡ʃit͡ɕ]),[1] usually referred to as the Moho, is the boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle." You can not invoke Moho to explain why Africa didn't move during the supposed impact, while the Americas allegedly moved thousands of kilometers.
- Because Moho - supposing that this theoretical construct actually exists - is not a boundary between the continents and the Earth's crust, but a boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle.
Lloyd wrote: 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.
- Do you have any video evidence for this? I ask this, because this IS a bold statement that goes against the physical laws as I understand them.
LK: The Moho is between the mantle and all of the crust, i.e. both the ocean basalt crust and the continental granite crust.
These articles prove that long runout landslides exist and that they're not well understood:
https://www.google.com/search?q=long+ru ... 8&oe=utf-8.
Some of these articles suggest that fluidization, like Mike Fischer proposed, may explain the long runouts:
https://www.google.com/search?q=long+ru ... 8&oe=utf-8.
I can think of two possible reasons that Africa would have resisted being moved as much by the supercontinent breakup impact as the Americas: 1. the Moho may have been deeper under Africa than under the Americas; 2. there was more friction under Africa than under the Americas, which took longer to reach fluidization.
Lloyd wrote: CC's paper best explains the formation of the supercontinent and NewGeology best explains the breakup of the supercontinent into continents and islands IMO.
If this is the best explanation, then explain to me the following;
Why does American Cordillera have North-South orientation, while the Great Eurasian Mountain Ranges(Turkey,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Kazakhstan,Tibet,Mongolia,Siberia) have West-East orientation?
If the shock wave acted radially from the impact site, why such a different spatial orientation in the two main structures?
- And may I remind you, that it is not just American Cordillera that has North-South orientation, but the whole of Americas. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... -Frame.png
Which means that the creation of American Cordillera, and the creation of the shape of Americas ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.
Haven't you read http://NewGeology.us yet? Look at the videos on the home page. Both mountain ranges are perpendicular to the impact site. India rammed Asia and along with friction built up the Himalayas. Friction built up the Rockies and Andes. The North American plate also ran over the East Pacific Ridge, which greatly widened the belt of the Rockies.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by seasmith » Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:35 pm

Here ya go Lloyd:
Rock formations of the Black Canyon area 9. Contorted gneiss, north rim of Black Canyon near Colorado State Highway 92
The park is not too far off US-50 and there are several pretty cheap campgrounds, if you get out that way (bring binoculars, the trails are treacherous).

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_ ... ntents.htm

[click on "Rock Formations" for full geo profile]

ps. note the four "unconformity" lines on the schematic, they are probably your 'catastrophic periods'.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:32 am

I caught some of Coast to Coast last night, featuring Robert Schoch. At the point where I tuned in, he was talking about plasma and solar outbursts as being the possible cause for some of the modification of surface features on Earth. He mentioned that some of his fellow geologists were quite interested in his proposals, an encouraging small step I think. Bringing more real scientists to the geology table, I don't think it would take long before other conventional geologists would realise that many puzzling features or formations could be explained much more easily by EM forces than conventional ones, though I think the 'conversion rate' would still be quite low.
Perhaps most people could sleep easier with the belief that geological things change in an imperceptibly slow way, easy to pick up and move somewhere safer.
The problem I have with Schoch is that, presently, he does not go far enough with his proposals, and I doubt he ever will go so far as to consider that features such as the Tibetan plateau and the Taklamakan desert were also electrically formed, and in very short order.
Plasma, Solar Outbursts, and the End of the Last Ice Age
http://www.robertschoch.com/plasma.html
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:02 am

Gary,
The problem I have with Schoch is that, presently, he does not go far enough with his proposals, and I doubt he ever will go so far as to consider that features such as the Tibetan plateau and the Taklamakan desert were also electrically formed, and in very short order.
You will have to wait until he retires. It's amazing the difference between what a professor says and what an emeritus professor says. He may even come out with a Schoch horror revelation. :roll:
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:37 am

john666 wrote:- ... the mountains were not caused by "tectonic movement"
Lloyd wrote:LK: Yes, they were. Mountains consist primarily of sedimentary rock strata that were originally horizontal. Then horizontal motion of tectonic plates, first by impact shock waves for smaller mountain chains and then collisions between plates for higher mountain chains, caused vertical buckling, which raised the mountains. The horizontal pressures can hardly be denied.
Image

Image

If what you saying about the mountains being largely the result of "collisions" then the mountains would look like rubble(or a train wreck).
But what we see instead is that mountains are highly structured formations.

The two pictures that I posted above, are the reason why your theory of "collisions" being the cause of mountains can not possibly be true.





Lloyd wrote:LK: The Moho is between the mantle and all of the crust, i.e. both the ocean basalt crust and the continental granite crust.
These articles prove that long runout landslides exist and that they're not well understood:
https://www.google.com/search?q=long+ru ... 8&oe=utf-8.
Some of these articles suggest that fluidization, like Mike Fischer proposed, may explain the long runouts:
https://www.google.com/search?q=long+ru ... 8&oe=utf-8.
I can think of two possible reasons that Africa would have resisted being moved as much by the supercontinent breakup impact as the Americas: 1. the Moho may have been deeper under Africa than under the Americas; 2. there was more friction under Africa than under the Americas, which took longer to reach fluidization.

How do you define continent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent ... he_concept
"Geologists use the term continent in a different manner from geographers, where a continent is defined by continental crust: a platform of metamorphic and igneous rock, largely of granitic composition. Some geologists restrict the term 'continent' to portions of the crust built around stable Precambrian "shield", typically 1.5 to 3.8 billion years old, called a craton."

Even if we would use the typical geographical definition of "continent", your invocations of "the Moho may have been deeper under Africa than under the Americas", or "there was more friction under Africa than under the Americas, which took longer to reach fluidization", are highly speculative and devoid of meaning, because you have not offered an estimation of how much deeper would the Moho have been under Africa, or what is the reason for the alleged MUCH GREATER friction under Africa than under the Americas.

And you should attempt to offer these explanations, because what you are saying, goes against all knowledge that we have about how a projectile interacts with the target area which it impacts.

As for your "fluidization concept", the information on the link that you offered, suggests to me that when long runout landslides happen, the entire mass of material becomes semi-fluid, not just the contact surface as you suggested in your asteroid impact scenario.


Lloyd wrote: Haven't you read http://NewGeology.us yet? Look at the videos on the home page. Both mountain ranges are perpendicular to the impact site. India rammed Asia and along with friction built up the Himalayas. Friction built up the Rockies and Andes. The North American plate also ran over the East Pacific Ridge, which greatly widened the belt of the Rockies.
Did you read what you wrote?

Both mountain ranges are perpendicular to the impact site.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpendicular
"In elementary geometry, the property of being perpendicular (perpendicularity) is the relationship between two lines which meet at a right angle (90 degrees). The property extends to other related geometric objects."

First of all, the alleged impact site is a physical point on Earth, not a line or a geometric object, and therefore nothing can be perpendicular TO IT

But even if we ignore this fact, and say that the alleged impact site is a geometric object, you would still be wrong because if as you say Both mountain ranges are perpendicular to the impact site
then both mountain ranges should be PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER

So let us look at the topographical map of the world, to find out whether the American Cordillera and the Great Eurasian Mountain Ranges are parallel to each other, or not;

Image

No, definitely not parallel to each other.
American Cordillera has North-South orientation, while the Great Eurasian Mountain Ranges(Turkey,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Kazakhstan,Tibet,Mongolia,Siberia) have West-East orientation.

One single impact, whether it be a "Matter impact", or a "Energy impact", could not have created ALL THE VARIOUS CONTINENTAL SHAPES which we see when we look at the map of the world.

There had to be at the very least TWO MAJOR IMPACTS.

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by nick c » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:32 am

MerLynn, please do not derail threads toward your own off topic theorizing.

A series of posts by MerLynn and respondents have been moved to a new thread titled "An alternate view of electricity and magnetism" here.
MerLynn and other interested parties can pursue the discussion on that thread.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by webolife » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:29 pm

John666, not sure what you're thinking when you envision a "collision" of plates, but check out the following simplified geologic map of the North Cascades of Washington [one of "my" local boundary ranges], and see how that compares to your "train collision" picture.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2940/images/coverthb.gif
Also when using images be sure to use one that has not been vertically distorted like your mountain range pic. What kind of "structure" do you envision mountains have? I can tell you as an Earth Science major and amateur geologist for over four decades that mountain formations are highly convoluted in many areas, crisscrossed by numerous intrusive and seismic events, and altered by much pressure/heat-induced metamorphism. At the core of most ranges are plutons that have been pushed up from deep in the crust by the same forces that Lloyd has analogized as collisions.

Also when considering "parallel" you need to be looking at a globe rather than a flat map... you may be perpetuating some of your misconceptions by thinking in Mercator's distorted terms rather than Columbus's ;) The boundary ranges are aligned with plate boundaries [which are not straight lines] which are roughly aligned to the mid-ocean ridges thousands of km away. In addition the Atlantic seacoasts of Europe, Africa and the Americas are parallel to the mid-Atlantic rift and to each other. The Himalayas and other roughly east-west ranges from the Pyrenees and Alps to the Caucasus are aligned with the mid-Indian Ocean ridges far to the south. If you prefer the word "aligned" to "parallel", I'm sure Lloyd would be happy to be more concise in his use of that word. Likewise, you will find that these ranges are roughly "perpendicular" to the radiants drawn from Fischer's impact site. Having said that, let me emphasize to you that I am not a devotee of Fischer. I have indicated in numerous posts and threads that astroblemes ["impact" sites] are associated with every major stratum in geologic history, that in fact there must have been not one or two, but hundreds of impacts that modified the crustal structures we find today.

Please, as I've tried to indicate to you before, the use of dogmatic words like "true" and "false" are ill-placed in scientific discussion. You are welcome to express your beliefs of course, that is a common type of contribution to these boards; but if you are going to state a claim, use evidences [plural] to support it rather than just trying to debunk others' claims as of no value.
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.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests