Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[kell1990]

How many cataclysms are needed to make this history work? There surely must be many.

[sketch1946]

I agree with the phrase "meteor swarm" here as it seems to imply something more ominous than say a meteor shower. The "matar" were said to fall for a period of about 5 months. I'm favorable to associating the matar with moon bombardment.

Greetings, Webolife, People back in history had a problem with rocks falling from the sky, about the time of Napoleons measurement of the earth, and the establishment of the meter, scientists mocked rocks falling from the sky... "How did they get up there? Haha haha etc..."

This is a youtube video, funny enough it's visible evidence of solar 'rain'....
"Eruptive events on the sun can be wildly different. Some come just with a solar flare, some with an additional ejection of solar material called a coronal mass ejection (CME), and some with complex moving structures in association with changes in magnetic field lines that loop up into the sun's atmosphere, the corona."

"On July 19, 2012, an eruption occurred on the sun that produced all three. A moderately powerful solar flare exploded on the sun's lower right hand limb, sending out light and radiation. Next came a CME, which shot off to the right out into space. And then, the sun treated viewers to one of its dazzling magnetic displays -- a phenomenon known as coronal rain."

"Over the course of the next day, hot plasma in the corona cooled and condensed along strong magnetic fields in the region. Magnetic fields, themselves, are invisible, but the charged plasma is forced to move along the lines, showing up brightly in the extreme ultraviolet wavelength of 304 Angstroms, which highlights material at a temperature of about 50,000 Kelvin. This plasma acts as a tracer, helping scientists watch the dance of magnetic fields on the sun, outlining the fields as it slowly falls back to the solar surface."

NASA | Fiery Looping Rain on the Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFT7ATLQQx8
Funny how much plasma is involved in all that....

So the bible translators generally have translated 'hail' where the Hebrew really said rocks... rocks mixed with fire... not hail with fire... matar mostly means rain, but is also associated with raining fiery rocks.. the Hebrew for rock 'barad' is also used for fiery rain... it was also translated 'hail' a fault not really of the bible, but of the translator's perceptions....
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1259.htm

It is important to remember that at the beginning of the deluge, these rifts were in or on the continental landmass, which through the period of spreading became the basins of the Atlantic and parts of the Indian and [lesser parts of the] Pacific oceans. What began as fountains from the "deep" earth, are still fountains from the "deep" earth, coinciding now with the mid-ridges of the "deep" ocean. Let's not be too quick to geographically delimit "deep"...

I don't think the Hebrews were seafarers, so their knowledge of oceans was almost certainly second hand. The bit about the initial cracks in the crust is a good one, some time ago I did a tectonic diagram of the probable initial state of the Red Sea, looking at the nice new sea floor pics from NASA.. you can see the 'stretch marks'... all over the ocean floors, plain as day... I found you have to imagine how much erosional sediment has been added by time to create the so-called continental shelves, which I believe have added to the edges of the initial 'continents'

major tidal action of a large [passing] planetoid that was responsible also for the bombardment of the matar; it was likely temporarily caught in a co-orbital dance with the earth for the early part of the deluge period; this bombardment is evidenced by astroblemes found throughout the geologic record from PreCambrian through Cenozoic, and evidenced on the surface today;

My feeling is Velikovsky was right that Venus was the culprit, Venus is red hot, 469 degrees K, has a massive atmosphere, is spin-locked with Earth, retrograde rotation, came within close distance with Earth, maybe a third body involved, I saw some diagrams a long time ago in a book by Francis Hitching.. I'll have to dig it out and find the name of the guy that did the orbital calculations... after all, Venus and Earth and Mars are all tiny compare with big daddy Jupiter, the father of the 'Gods'

I've just found that theoretical physicists are quite happy with planets and moons looping around all over the place, captures, tidal locking, polar tilts etc, but only if it happened 'long ago'.... Ask any mainstream scientist how did Uranus get it's polar orientation so whacky, and how did Pluto and Neptune get into such an odd set of orbits, they'll tell you about passing stars, chance encounters, orbital changes, captures etc...

"Unlike the other planets of the solar system, Uranus is tilted so far that it essentially orbits the sun on its side, with the axis of its spin nearly pointing at the star. This unusual orientation might be due to a collision with a planet-size body, or several small bodies, soon after it was formed." (see! 'long ago'..)

subterranean water sources that were/are part and parcel of the pressures powering igneous processes in the deep crust or upper mantle; huge volumes of water are seen to surface during volcanic eruptions.

Yes, if I had more time I could agree with you more thoroughly...
(with more references and links)
....vast amounts of water locked up in the primordial magma seems quite mainstream...

A Russian physicist (Gamov?) from memory, some time ago calculated that the existing water, if there were no mountains, would be 1800 meters over a leveled, not a flat! earth.... I read a few times that there were no mountains in the age of the dinosaurs... whenever that was really...

An important part of my scenario is that it's mechanisms are associated with presently observable/researchable evidence. "An extraordinary claim must be backed by extraordinary evidence," and I believe that extraordinary evidence of a catastrophic past is before our eyes.

I couldn't agree more! surely this whole thing is about observable evidence... I was just looking at that youtube video of the fiery rain, and all i could see was ***plasma***... I wondered what it would be like, (a thought experiment) to be standing on the surface of the sun, right next to a solar flare, then watching a CME right beside me, erupting more mass than the whole earth, against the supposedly enormous solar gravity... the coronal mass ejection erupting far up into the 'sky' above me, accelerating to nearly the speed of light, far further and wider than the our moon's orbit, then have it curve back down and disappear into the seething masses on the surface... I would be wondering what the hell was going on!.... yeah I know, my feet would get hot, and there'd be no place to sit down....

[sketch1946]

Webolife wrote: "...It is important to remember that at the beginning of the deluge, these rifts were in or on the continental ***landmass, which through the period of spreading became the basins ...."

To illustrate what Webolife is saying, here's a possible plate tectonic scenario for the opening of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf... notice the sediment at the southern 'bend' of the Red Sea, over the time since this plate movement (or movements) took place, all that sediment has washed down and expanded the apparent edge of the coast... this rifting and spreading should continue in the future all the way down the Great African Rift Valley, creating features like the Red Sea...

http://graphics.baileynet.com.au/2017/0 ... tectonics/

[webolife]

Sketch,
Just a few notes about your continental shelves... there is indeed a lot of sediment on the continental shelves, as well as valleys carved into them, predominantly beyond the mouths of rivers. However, core samples and direct observations of "exposed" shelves lead us to understand that in most areas the shelves were the original continental coastline, which has in many places been submerged by rising sea levels, eg. at the recession of continental glaciation. Slump also plays a part in some areas, and may be responsible for some of the Red Sea sedimentation. This understanding of the continental shelves makes the continental drift scenario very compelling as the fit of the continents [about 90%] using the continental shelves as the guide is substantially [about 10%] better than the already good fit of present day coastlines [conservatively about 80%]. It is somewhat difficult for me to believe that these coastline shapes would remain so intact in a hundred-millions of years slow drift scenario. On the other hand, during the period of major drift, the sea inundated the landmasses substantially, leaving evidences of other temporary coastlines as prominent features of mid-continental geology. In the standard model, these are generally referred to as "shallow inland seas", and assigned uniformitarian ages of millions of years duration.

[sketch1946]

G'day webolife
Thanks for the input, good points...

Did you have any thoughts about the red sea video? The fit is convincing to me, considering the main part of the puzzle with the most sediment is such a neat fit when that sediment is 'removed'....

The issue of where the original crustal splits exist is an interesting problem. The amount of sediment that flows annually down the great river systems is only the most obvious, but all the erosion that occurs annually must go somewhere... all over the globe, annual erosion leads to a build up of coastal plains, I live near Cairns in the Far North of Queensland, and all around Cairns are tidal flats, where the Barron River has shifted its mouth in recorded time, here the evidence is observable.., on a map this extends the coastline a few km from where an initial crustal split would have occurred with whatever coastline was previously attached to the Queensland coast, one of the hardest puzzles for joining the pieces.... on the south coast of Australia, which was once attached to Antarctica, you can see a beautiful example of an abrupt edge to the Australian continent. The rocky edges of the coastline are abrupt, sheared off, tilted near 45 degrees in some places, and the foot of the rocky cliffs is bedded firmly into the coastal sediment....

The interesting area between the North of Australia and Papua/New Guinea is shallow and always depicted as if these two parts of the puzzle were always connected, yet I found a geological / seismic study of the sea bed which was done because fossil fuel interests have an intense interest in this area for different reasons... the sea bed has km thick of sediment, suggesting it has built up for a long time, so Australia and New Guinea may have been separated and the gap filled with sediment...

In the same way the Ganges valley sediment is at least 5-6 km thick. So maybe there was a crack in the crust that has occurred there, and been subsequently filled with sediment, the visible twisted and curved mountains to the northwest of Pakistan seem to suggest this, they are probably the most deformed and yet visibly curved and folded right in this 'corner'... The theory of plate tectonics specifically subduction as the primary cause of the young and dramatically uplifted Himalaya ***demands that the Indian peninsula is being compressed and sliding under the Ganges valley, so the actual morphology where the 'craton' of the peninsula is steeper than expected is called a 'craton bulge' a slightly unbelievable explanation for why the craton isn't a smooth slope as expected. Uplifting is also used as a way to explain the reason why the peninsula craton isn't jammed against the foot of the Himalayas... Since I believe that overall global expansion is responsible for mountain-folding, the evidence to my eye is a simple great rift valley type split forming the bed of the Ganges, subsequently filled with sediment... the original crack between the foot of the Himalayas and the peninsula craton would have those boundaries, ie if the craton and the foot of the Himalayas were closed up, this would bring the two regions together to show where this expansion started... the Himalaya with all the folding and buckling and twisting would be the result of the huge landmasses to the north and east and southwest conforming to a changing geometry of a larger earth...

In a similar situation where coastal flats should be 'removed', I did a fit of Madagascar to the African Coast, and a great fit can be found by ignoring the current flat coastline and then the whole of Madagascar fits snugly against Africa...

[sketch1946]

Is the Ganges plain a buried rift valley, with the folding Himalaya pushing over it from the North?
Expanding earth hypothesis would make this possible:

Indra Bir Singh:
"It seems most probable the Early Eocene Subathu sediments were deposited in a rift valley near the present-day southern margin of the Lesser Himalaya, before the initiation of the foreland basin...."

"...it is reasonable to assume that the supply of sediment was always more than could be accommodated in the foreland basin..."

http://www.palaeontologicalsociety.in/vol41/v13.pdf

Notice in the middle of this diagram, approx under the 'U' of Upper, the sediments are over 2 km deep,
the Himalayan sediments from the right of this diagram could be overthrusting due to the massive Himalayan mountain folding occurring due to earth expansion

[sketch1946]

Haha, now the ancient history of the Himalayan mountain-building is all about ***climate change***... magic words...

Makes me think of the stories that used to be told around the fireplace during the 'dark' ages....
(my emphasis here and there...)

[Once upon a time] "...By about 450 million years ago, as ***the forces of mountain building waned***, erosion leveled the topography down to the deep-level ***metamorphic*** rocks, generating enormous amounts of sediment. Subsequently, the ancestral Himalaya Mountains disappeared [poof!] and the region eventually subsided below sea level as the landmass was rifted away [presumably by CO2?] from India's northern margin, Gehrels said."

"The region remained buried below marine sediments until India collided [bang!] with southern Asia around 55 million years ago and the modern Himalaya Mountains began to form," he added. More research is needed to determine the relative proportions of faulting, burial, metamorphism, generation of granites, uplift and erosion that occurred during these two phases of mountain-building, he said."

"The revised geologic history also challenges Earth scientists to rethink ideas on global ***climate change*** and the global shift in seawater chemistry of about 55 million years ago."

"Global ***climate [change]*** began to cool around 55 million years ago, and scientists theorize that this may have been driven by weathering reactions in the Himalaya that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, decreasing the ***greenhouse effect*** and cooling Earth."

To my eye, I still have difficulty imagining ***how*** the relatively small mass of the Indian peninsula can have enough ooomph to 'collide' into the edge of a flat Asian continental 'plate', 'dive' underneath, and lift it five miles into the air, leaving a central bulge, not a dent...(looking from above)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 071157.htm

[willendure]

I don't think the Hebrews were seafarers, so their knowledge of oceans was almost certainly second hand.

You should read H.G.Wells "A Short History of the World". One of the interesting things about the Hebrews is their belief in one god as an abstract entity. They were travellers and seafarers most certainly. What is interesting in H.G.Wells is that he explains how when they travelled and settled in a new location they retained the same religious beliefs and identity - in contrast to other peoples who adopted or adapted the religions of the places they migrated to. This explains why they were so succesfull in setting up trading and banking networks and why even today the Jews are so high up in our banking systems.

[seasmith]

Continental Drift / Displacement of Continents
Michael ( Miklos) Csuzdi, P. Eng. ( Electrical)

The Pacific floor is Earth's second largest continent...

There are geological evidences that there were five cataclysmic
incidents in the Earth's history
when conditions for life, especially
for the higher forms of life, were interrupted for a length of time,
and most of the related species involved became extinct.
Simultaneously, several inches thick mud covered most part of the
Earth, which are now embedded in the rock formations of that age.
In
my view these five events coincided with the births of five of the six
physical continents. Before the last cataclysm the Earth showed a
rectangular pyramid configuration of the continents, North America was
still attached to Eurasia. Alaska and Siberia were the same land in
the subtropical zone, and the mammoth lived on it. Then an inland
fault developed, and a large area suddenly separated from the eastern
end of Eurasia, and this became North America.
The two land masses
immediately started to move to their new zero force positions in
the pentagonal pyramid system, but because of their non-circular
geometry a torque also developed on both, and caused their rotations.
North America rotated clockwise, Eurasia counterclockwise, thus both
Alaska and Siberia moved to the north in a few hours.
The mammoth died
out in the jerks of the land, and their carcasses with their broken
bones got quickly frozen. After a quick thaw their flesh is still
edible, and there is undigested tropical food in their stomach.
They still can be found in this state both in Alaska and in Siberia.

page 123

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefil ... ebPage.pdf

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/index.php?&pageid=11

[Grey Cloud]

I don't think the Hebrews were seafarers, so their knowledge of oceans was almost certainly second hand.

You should read H.G.Wells "A Short History of the World". One of the interesting things about the Hebrews is their belief in one god as an abstract entity. They were travellers and seafarers most certainly. What is interesting in H.G.Wells is that he explains how when they travelled and settled in a new location they retained the same religious beliefs and identity - in contrast to other peoples who adopted or adapted the religions of the places they migrated to. This explains why they were so succesfull in setting up trading and banking networks and why even today the Jews are so high up in our banking systems.

This is total nonsense.
Scholars, including Israeli, are still trying to decide who or what was a 'Hebrew'.
The Jewish god is not an abstract, he is a personal god.
There is little or no evidence for any seafaring (apart from the Ark story).
The Jewish religion has evolved over time, and contains elements from other cultures.
It is too simplistic to say that people adopted or adapted the religions of the places they settled. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't and sometimes they imposed their own, e.g. Christianity.
Wells was writing a century ago which means he did not have the century's worth of further evidence which we have today.

[sketch1946]

Hi willendure, Grey Cloud,
silly me... what was I thinking?....I forgot about Solomon sending out ships that took maybe three years for a round trip...

"1 Kings 10:22
For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.

Ezekiel 27:15
"The sons of Dedan were your traders. Many coastlands were your market; ivory tusks and ebony they brought as your payment.

1 Kings 9:26
King Solomon also built a fleet of ships in Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. 27And Hiram sent his servants with the fleet, sailors who knew the sea, along with the servants of Solomon. 28They went to Ophir and took four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there, and brought it to King Solomon.

And of course Paul, Saul of Tarsus, cruised all over the Mediterranean like he was hopping on a bus...

[Grey Cloud]

Hi willendure, Grey Cloud,
silly me... what was I thinking?....I forgot about Solomon sending out ships that took maybe three years for a round trip...

"1 Kings 10:22
For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.

Ezekiel 27:15
"The sons of Dedan were your traders. Many coastlands were your market; ivory tusks and ebony they brought as your payment.

1 Kings 9:26
King Solomon also built a fleet of ships in Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. 27And Hiram sent his servants with the fleet, sailors who knew the sea, along with the servants of Solomon. 28They went to Ophir and took four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there, and brought it to King Solomon.

And of course Paul, Saul of Tarsus, cruised all over the Mediterranean like he was hopping on a bus...

Tarshish was a place, location unknown. Hiram was a Phoenician king/ruler. Solomon was not a Hebrew - he was a king of Israel. There is prcactically no archaeological evidence to back-up the biblical account.

Dedan appears to have been in the Arabian peninsula. In the Ezekial passage quoted, it is the Dedanians who are doing the sailing not the Hebrews.

It is Hiram's people who are doing the sailing and navigating in the 1K 9:26 passage. The location of Ophir is currently unknown.

Saul of Tarsus was not a Hebrew. He was not using Hebrew shipping.

[Lloyd]

HOW MANY CATACLYSMS?

How many cataclysms are needed to make this history work? There surely must be many.

I think Gordon's idea is that there was just one major cataclysm followed by some minor ones, i.e. asteroid bombardment, tidal wave flooding, major volcanism etc, and continental drift all during the Great Flood, followed by catastrophic erosion and an ice age. Whereas Mike's idea is that there were two major cataclysms followed by minor ones, i.e. the continental drift impact with orogeny event occurred some centuries after the Great Flood event etc. I think one of those two ideas is correct and hope to determine which one is better sometime, but I think the paper we're working on may need to present both options.

FOUNTAINS
Gordon, thanks for explaining your theory more. I see I misunderstood your idea about the fountains of the deep. Do you think the ridge in the Pacific was active during the continental drift? Mike says he has evidence that that ridge was inactive then but he thinks it was active earlier when the supercontinent formed. As you probably know, he thinks the Atlantic ridge formed and became active as a result of the huge impact on the supercontinent off the east coast of Africa above Madagascar, which caused the Americas to break away from Africa and Eurasia. Do you agree with that? Or do you think something else caused the rift that became the Atlantic ridge? Mike says the impact caused a strip of land from Madagascar to the southern tip of South America to rift apart from south Africa first and the rift continued to open up northward, along the present west coast of Africa etc, which is why the Atlantic is now wider to the south.
- You say there was likely a layer of water vapor high in the atmosphere which precipitated out due to volcanic dust. Mike thinks there was about 1 or 2 bars more atmosphere than now, which was lost which allowed CO2 in oceans to degas to form limestone and cementing agents for hardening strata. Do you think there could not have been that much more atmosphere? Can you refer me to a source which explains why a vapor canopy would not be possible? Mike mentioned a creationist argument against it, but he doesn't think it was entirely correct.

OCEAN TIDES FROM PHOTONIC PRESSURE
Sketch, it looks like conventional ideas about tides are wrong, so to get better info for calculations you may want to read http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t286-tides-and-catastrophism#1989

http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
[Mathis says the tides are due to photon pressure from the Moon and Sun, not from their gravity.]
So now, directly under the Moon, we have about 9.82 m/s2 as our resultant acceleration. And this makes the tidal acceleration
.009545 x 2 = .0191 m/s2
And that is 572 times the maximum tidal force from gravity. So, yes, you would weigh about .2% more directly under the Moon.
... It hits the Earth like a radial meteor, except that this meteor has a radius of 378,000 km. It is like a meteor with a very low density. The main difference between our force from the Moon and a real meteor is that our [photon] force keeps arriving continuously.

Archimedes Effect
http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
... If the Moon is directly above you, you are at the center of the depression. You are lower than the mean sea level (sea levels without a Moon), but the rest of the world is at high tide (or would be, minus time lags). This is because the mechanism of tide creation is relatively simple: when the Moon is over water, it creates a lower sea below it, and this forces all the other water higher. Just take a beach ball into the bathtub, press it down [to see the effect.]

ROCHE LIMIT MYTH
The following suggests that theories need not care about Roche limits, so it doesn't matter how close a planet comes to Earth; neither will be destroyed unless there's a collision.
http://milesmathis.com/roche.html
We want to find a distance at which the [Roche limit destroys] an orbiter. As should already be clear from our analysis of Pan above, this limit is a phantom. If Pan [name of a moon] is still experiencing accretion when it is so near the surface of a huge planet, then we may assume that the tidal Roche limit is a complete myth. The E/M [photonic] Roche limit would also be a myth, in that case, because we can see from Pan that neither field is strong enough to disintegrate a moonlet, even when it is low density and hammered by collisions.

[webolife]

HOW MANY CATACLYSMS?

How many cataclysms are needed to make this history work? There surely must be many.

I think Gordon's idea is that there was just one major cataclysm followed by some minor ones, i.e. asteroid bombardment, tidal wave flooding, major volcanism etc, and continental drift all during the Great Flood, followed by catastrophic erosion and an ice age. Whereas Mike's idea is that there were two major cataclysms followed by minor ones, i.e. the continental drift impact with orogeny event occurred some centuries after the Great Flood event etc. I think one of those two ideas is correct and hope to determine which one is better sometime, but I think the paper we're working on may need to present both options.

FOUNTAINS
Gordon, thanks for explaining your theory more. I see I misunderstood your idea about the fountains of the deep. Do you think the ridge in the Pacific was active during the continental drift? Mike says he has evidence that that ridge was inactive then but he thinks it was active earlier when the supercontinent formed. As you probably know, he thinks the Atlantic ridge formed and became active as a result of the huge impact on the supercontinent off the east coast of Africa above Madagascar, which caused the Americas to break away from Africa and Eurasia. Do you agree with that? Or do you think something else caused the rift that became the Atlantic ridge? Mike says the impact caused a strip of land from Madagascar to the southern tip of South America to rift apart from south Africa first and the rift continued to open up northward, along the present west coast of Africa etc, which is why the Atlantic is now wider to the south.
- You say there was likely a layer of water vapor high in the atmosphere which precipitated out due to volcanic dust. Mike thinks there was about 1 or 2 bars more atmosphere than now, which was lost which allowed CO2 in oceans to degas to form limestone and cementing agents for hardening strata. Do you think there could not have been that much more atmosphere? Can you refer me to a source which explains why a vapor canopy would not be possible? Mike mentioned a creationist argument against it, but he doesn't think it was entirely correct.

OCEAN TIDES FROM PHOTONIC PRESSURE
Sketch, it looks like conventional ideas about tides are wrong, so to get better info for calculations you may want to read http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t286-tides-and-catastrophism#1989

http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
[Mathis says the tides are due to photon pressure from the Moon and Sun, not from their gravity.]
So now, directly under the Moon, we have about 9.82 m/s2 as our resultant acceleration. And this makes the tidal acceleration
.009545 x 2 = .0191 m/s2
And that is 572 times the maximum tidal force from gravity. So, yes, you would weigh about .2% more directly under the Moon.
... It hits the Earth like a radial meteor, except that this meteor has a radius of 378,000 km. It is like a meteor with a very low density. The main difference between our force from the Moon and a real meteor is that our [photon] force keeps arriving continuously.

Archimedes Effect
http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
... If the Moon is directly above you, you are at the center of the depression. You are lower than the mean sea level (sea levels without a Moon), but the rest of the world is at high tide (or would be, minus time lags). This is because the mechanism of tide creation is relatively simple: when the Moon is over water, it creates a lower sea below it, and this forces all the other water higher. Just take a beach ball into the bathtub, press it down [to see the effect.]

ROCHE LIMIT MYTH
The following suggests that theories need not care about Roche limits, so it doesn't matter how close a planet comes to Earth; neither will be destroyed unless there's a collision.
http://milesmathis.com/roche.html
We want to find a distance at which the [Roche limit destroys] an orbiter. As should already be clear from our analysis of Pan above, this limit is a phantom. If Pan [name of a moon] is still experiencing accretion when it is so near the surface of a huge planet, then we may assume that the tidal Roche limit is a complete myth. The E/M [photonic] Roche limit would also be a myth, in that case, because we can see from Pan that neither field is strong enough to disintegrate a moonlet, even when it is low density and hammered by collisions.

Although there have been numerous "catastrophes", I see only one "cataclysm" with possibly a number of important discrete or ongoing after-effects.

I can go along with Fischer on the sequencial splitup of the Atlantic basin, but it is not a primary concern of mine. As I have noted repeatedly, I do not think that there was only one impact, but several, and the first impacts needn't have been the primary movers of the crustal plates. I am not sure exactly to what extent the atmospheric vapor layer/zone would have affected the barometric pressure of the antediluvian atmosphere, but may have been a fraction higher, I doubt 2 bars worth. I haven't seen evidence from geology or paleontology to support the conclusion of that significant a difference. As you recall[?] my scenario does not require the atmospheric water to be the primary contributor to the flood itself.

I am pretty much at odds with Miles Mathis on the three points you highlighted.
Tides: While I appreciate the concept of "photonic pressure" my vectoral array is in the opposite direction of Mathis's. If my analog to photonic pressure were to influence the tides in any significant way, it would be to make the sun's contribution of greater effect than the moon's, which is not the case. The rest of that section is just incomprehensible [to me]. My light vectors are of the same mechanism and origination as gravitation, not opposed to it, ie. both are centropic pressure field outcomes. (*Centropic: directed toward the system centroid)
Archimedes effect: I think Miles has lost his marbles [er... beach balls] on this one. The seas rise under the moon, with a measurably predictable delay, which forms the basis for tide tables which have been used without significant error for many decades.
Roche limit: It makes sense to me, whether it's exact formulation is correct, I am not an expert... the electrical theorists might have better insight on the applicability of this threshold. Mathis's detraction of it is based on his [imo, reversed] application of photonic pressure, so I think he's probably wrong here as well. From our understanding of LaGrangian points, it seems that there must be a critical mutual mass dependent distance at which two bodies will discharge, either chunks of mass or electric charge. The net direction of that exchange might tell us important information about the underlying mechanism, eg. whether "gravitation" or "electricity". We might see only accretion by the larger body in the case of gravitation, but it might go either way [??] in the case of electrical discharge.

[sketch1946]

G'day Grey Cloud,
Not sure what to make of your response, it's hard to read mood on posts...
I wasn't trying to be contentious, I'm sorry if I have appeared to be argumentative, I'm just trying to have some fun discussing some of these things...

My understanding of the word 'Hebrews' was the people of Solomon's kingdom (specifically the people of Solomon's kingdom, people descended from Abraham)

The bible account describes Solomon's many relations with neighbouring nations, he had wives from all over the place, Solomon collected things from all over the known world, he had close relations with Hiram of Tyre, whose sailors sailed all over the place... I was just trying to conjecture about the knowledge of the 'fountains of the deep' at the time of Solomon.

Of course the expression 'fountains of the deep' could mean something else to the people reading the book of Genesis, long after it was first written down... it would presumably be some time after the flood event described. Presumably the expression was derived from an oral history before writing was invented?

So my speculation about the understanding of how much the 'Hebrews' would have known about 'the deep' was a bit irrelevant, thousands of years after the flood event described...

The 'Hebrews' of Solomon's time nevertheless must have had some understanding of geography due to their interactions with other nations, the bible account describes 'servants of Solomon' who had sailed on the ships commissioned by Solomon. So whatever understanding these people of Solomon's time had of the deep sea would not really have much to do with the etymology.

I understand 'Hebrews' to mean the descendants of Abraham, the people who came to be known as Israel, or Jews. People descended from Abraham. Like Paul.
In his own words:
Paul says he is "... of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews"


"1 Kings 10:22
For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish ***with the ships of Hiram; once every three years ***the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.

1 Kings 9:26
King Solomon also built a fleet of ships in Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent his servants ***with the fleet, sailors who knew the sea, ***along with*** the servants of Solomon.

Point taken, Solomon had the ships built, Hiram provided sailors 'who knew the sea', and the ships sailed out ***along with the servants of Solomon'...so some 'Hebrews' went along too... so there is no reason to deny that 'Hebrews' of Solomon's kingdom could have known about the sea, much the same as today, people can understand about the deep sea without having been there, these Hebrews would have learned about the deep sea by word of mouth, literature, etc

The full quote from Ezekiel shows the extent of the deep sea knowledge of the sailors of Tyre, whose sailors sailed ***with Solomon's 'servants': lots of places named here, some identified some still conjectural:

12Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs. 13Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market. 14They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses and horsemen and mules. 15The men of Dedan were thy merchants; many isles were the merchandise of thine hand: they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony. 16Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds, purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate. 17Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants: they traded in thy market wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm. 18Damascus was thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making, for the multitude of all riches; in the wine of Helbon, and white wool. 19Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market. 20Dedan was thy merchant in precious clothes for chariots. 21Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they occupied with thee in lambs, and rams, and goats: in these were they thy merchants. 22The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones, and gold. 23Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad, were thy merchants. 24These were thy merchants in all sorts of things, in blue clothes, and broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel, bound with cords, and made of cedar, among thy merchandise.

The fact we don't know today where Tarshish or Ophir or Dedan is with certainty, is surely not a big issue for this discussion, the ships went someplace, and came back with produce...
...and presumably from their interactions with the people of Tyre, and their own experiences, the Hebrew people would have been aquainted with stories about the 'deep'