Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[Lloyd]

Sketch, I'd like to keep this thread on the topic of ancient cataclysms.

[sketch1946]

Hi Lloyd,
No worries, I strayed off topic, sorry!

The connection was pretty tenuous, I admit

Ancient Global Cataclysm, nearly everyone drowned, earth covered with water,
flood story, told in the oldest book we have.. also related to 'legends' from all over the world...

the connection to this thread in my mind:
ancient cataclysm->bible flood story->source of the water?->'fountains of the deep'->what would the Hebrews have meant by the term?->did they have knowledge of the oceans and the 'deep'?

[sketch1946]

Lloyd wrote:
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-ti ... phism#1989

G'day Lloyd.
Thanks for the milesmathis link, not sure about his calculations to be honest...

I had a bit of a look around for possibly more reliable tidal calculations and tidal theory, found this one, what do you think?
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm

It looks like in a general way the geometry of the earth's tidal bulge could be considered as a stationary distorted bulge on each side of the earth in line with the moon, with a diminished tide at the poles, the earth could be considered to rotate inside this ocean geometry, with a tiny offset approx 3 degrees. (Ignoring the sun's influence for the purpose of calculating the tidal height)

Apparently the continents cause all sorts of effects due to harmonics and local seafloor depth, islands etc...

"The gravitational attraction that the Moon exerts on Earth is the cause of tides in the sea; the Sun has a lesser tidal influence. If Earth had a global ocean of uniform depth, the Moon would act to deform both the solid Earth (by a small amount) and the ocean in the shape of an ellipsoid with the high points roughly beneath the Moon and on the opposite side of Earth. However, because of the presence of the continents, Earth's much faster rotation and varying ocean depths, this simplistic visualisation does not happen. Although the tidal flow period is generally synchronized to the Moon's orbit around Earth, its relative timing varies greatly. In some places on Earth, there is only one high tide per day, whereas others have four, though this is somewhat rare."

"The notional tidal bulges are carried ahead of the Earth–Moon axis by the continents as a result of Earth's rotation. [approx 3%] The eccentric mass of each bulge exerts a small amount of gravitational attraction on the Moon, with the bulge on the side of Earth closest to the Moon pulling in a direction slightly forward along the Moon's orbit (because Earth's rotation has carried the bulge forward). The bulge on the side furthest from the Moon has the opposite effect, but because the gravitational attraction varies inversely with the square of distance, the effect is stronger for the near-side bulge. As a result, some of Earth's angular (or rotational) momentum is gradually being transferred to the rotation of the Earth–Moon pair around their mutual centre of mass, called the barycentre."

[Lloyd]

Mathis showed that the barycenter doesn't work either.

If the Moon's gravitation caused the tides, the highest tides should be at the equator, but that's where they're the lowest. So I think Mathis is likely on the right track. Charles Chandler seems to have proved also that gravity isn't the cause of tides. He says electric charge is the cause. That's similar to what Mathis says, but not the same.

[webolife]

Mathis showed that the barycenter doesn't work either.

If the Moon's gravitation caused the tides, the highest tides should be at the equator, but that's where they're the lowest. So I think Mathis is likely on the right track. Charles Chandler seems to have proved also that gravity isn't the cause of tides. He says electric charge is the cause. That's similar to what Mathis says, but not the same.

Explain yourself.
How can the barycenter "not work?" It is the geometrical gravitational center of mass of the given bodies.
The equatorial tides are not "lower" than the tides elsewhere, unless you are talking about the effects of coastline topology, eg. the Bay of Fundy, et.al., on the measured tidal range. You will in fact find that coastal topologies do have higher complexity in the higher latitudes. Also, the moon's orbit is only occasionally coplanar with the earth's equator.

Back to the thread topic, if tides are to be invoked as part of the complexity of mechanisms associated with the deluge, then let's not just throw around random statements about them. This is a complaint of mine in general about some EU contenders. It is just too easy to throw out "gravitation" and its known mathematical, measurable and predictable effects in favor of some preferred "electrical" scenario -- but "gravitation" is a verb, it's what happens, regardless of whether the root cause of gravitation is electrigravitic, electrostatic, aetheric or some other version.

[Lloyd]

TIDES
Here's CC's paper on Crustal Tides: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925
I gather that ocean tides work the same way.

And here are some excerpts from Mathis' paper: http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t286-ti ... phism#1989

These guys don't say that electrical forces cause gravity. Charles found that electrical forces are likely primarily responsible for galactic filament formation thence to star and planet formation via electrical implosion, then opposing charge streams that form electric double layers. So all large bodies are highly charged in the first place. Gravity plays a role, but not the primary role, other than helping to hold things down on larger bodies. But even dust and sand is held down on small asteroids, which has to be due to charge, since gravity isn't strong enough there.

Charles also shows in the paper on the Titius-Bode Law at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top15369 that electrical replusion explains the spacing of the planets, with gravity having the strongest effect closer to the Sun.

URANIUM
Gordon, I found online that uranium is found in greatest density in black shale and volcanic rock. I think Walter Brown figured that electrical forces in deep underground chambers fused uranium, which then erupted through volcanoes etc. This also explains parentless Polonium, which also apparently formed as magma was crystalizing. I'll have to check to see where Polonium halos are found. Is it biotite? Of course, I go with Mike Fischer's version of the deep underground friction, i.e. from continents sliding over ocean basalt crust. Do you have an idea why black shale would have so much uranium? Do you know if there's generally much volcanic ash etc in it? The black is said by some to be due to organic matter, i.e. carbon, I presume.

[Lloyd]

Just One Major Cataclysm
- I just read (M O) Michael Oard's "Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood model" at http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory
- M O persuades me that the Grand Canyon was carved by Great Flood waters toward the end of the Flood, which likely means that the Colorado Plateau rose at that time.
- He shows numerous problems with Walter Brown's version, esp. insufficient water from the two hypothetical lakes to carve the canyon etc.
- M O also persuades me that mammoths were not flash frozen, which likely means that they lived during the Ice Age after the Flood.
- I think the thicker atmosphere before the Flood is highly probable.
- I don't think the icy canopy is necessary, since megatsunamis from an orbiting asteroid etc should suffice to produce the Flood.
- M O is apparently just missing the SD impact model to explain orogeny (and the preflood thicker atmosphere) to have a complete model.

I plan to try to contact Oard and others soon to discuss Fischer's SD model etc.

[Grey Cloud]

Lloyd,
Don't forget that the food the mammoths were eating was temperate zone stuff. Plants don't grow well on ice.

[Lloyd]

Mammoths & the Grand Canyon
GC, regarding mammoths etc not being able to live in icy conditions, Oard figures that the Arctic Ocean kept the north warm for a few centuries before it got cold.

But Mike Fischer just gave me another reason the major impact that broke up the supercontinent had to come a few centuries after the Great Flood. He says the dust and ice storms that killed and buried many mammoths and other animals deposited up to 60 meters of loess. He thinks that could only have happened in a major cataclysmic event and that the rapid movement of the northern continents toward the north pole is the logical event to cause such huge dust storms and quick freezing. The huge number of mammoths etc must have required several centuries to reach such large populations. I'm inclined to agree with all of that, but then the Grand Canyon puzzle needs to be solved. Oard said the upper strata in the area of the Grand Canyon were likely removed by sheet erosion, which required a lot more water than the supposed Grand and Hopi Lakes could provide. So I asked Mike if he thinks the Great Flood sheet erosion would have removed those upper strata and then, when the Impact event raised the Colorado Plateau about 300 years later, more flooding at that time, but not as severe, could have formed the Grand Canyon.

[Grey Cloud]

Lloyd,
You missed the point. Mammoths have wooly coats, buttercups don't.

[Lloyd]

What is your point, GC? They lived in a warm climate. Did they not? But they were adapted to cold too as per http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_ ... _15-17.pdf

[webolife]

Right, Lloyd. The mammoths, like other elephants today, had to survive on massive amounts of vegetation, which, as GC pointed out, was determined to be growing in warmer climates. During the rapid onset of the siege of polar glaciation, the mammoths were equipped to make the trek across the Arctic land bridges, as were other furry creatures and fur-wearing people. They didn't survive long in that environment and, in the catastrophic timeline, didn't have to. Nevertheless, the North American continent was populated by herds of mammoths a century or two after the cataclysm, but didn't fare well for long. More to the point is the recognition that high latitude areas were warm climes before the cataclysm, as shown by virtually every fossil evidence. Before the deluge, a subtropical[ish] climate worldwide, at least spanning the original continents; afterwards, an atmospheric adjustment period resulting in the latitudinally differentiated climate zones of our current world, as well as a general trend toward global warming that was quite marked at first, tapering off to the slower pace of the last few millenia. During that period of adjustment, the climate changes Fischer is noting would have been happening without the necessity of a major [or additional] episode of drift.

[Grey Cloud]

Webolife wrote:

Nevertheless, the North American continent was populated by herds of mammoths a century or two after the cataclysm, but didn't fare well for long.

Ergo and ipso facto there was not a 'global' deluge. Case closed.

[Lloyd]

MORE MAMMOTHS & THE GRAND CANYON

Before the deluge, a subtropical[ish] climate worldwide, at least spanning the original continents; afterwards, an atmospheric adjustment period resulting in the latitudinally differentiated climate zones of our current world, as well as a general trend toward global warming that was quite marked at first, tapering off to the slower pace of the last few millenia. During that period of adjustment, the climate changes Fischer is noting would have been happening without the necessity of a major [or additional] episode of drift.

I discussed this with Mike lately. I mentioned that the Grand Canyon appears to have formed after major sheet erosion, which removed a large part of the top strata and that the supposed Grand and Hopi lakes apparently did not exist, as Oard explained, so the final erosion of the Canyon also needed a lot more water than what those supposed lakes would have contained. So I told Mike it seems that the Canyon must have formed during the Great Flood when the Colorado Plateau uplifted, due to the SD impact that caused continental drift.

But then Mike said some of the probably last mammoths were entombed in loess and rock ice from huge dust storms that piled drifts up to 60 meters deep. He said the SD impact would have been the perfect cause of such storms. And that seems reasonable to me too, so I replied that maybe the Great Flood did the main sheet erosion in the area of the Grand Canyon and then some centuries later when the SD impact caused continental drift and orogeny, additional flooding occurred which did some sheet erosion and carved out the Grand Canyon. And it also caused the dust storms that entombed mammoths etc. How about that, Gordon?

GC, the mammoths could have reached a population of a few million in 3 centuries, starting with one or a few pairs after the Great Flood.

[Grey Cloud]

Lloyd,

GC, the mammoths could have reached a population of a few million in 3 centuries, starting with one or a few pairs after the Great Flood.

You're clutching at straws there. Elephants have a gestion period of over 18 months. They are herd animals where the main bull does the humping.

The Grand Canyon is a local phenomenom. If it was caused by a global event then one would see similar sights around the world.