Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

[john666]

I think that the possibility, that the volume of the Earth is for the most part(90-95%) made of water should be seriously considered by this forum.

Today biggest waves, reach only few hundred meters inland.
But if the Great Flood story is true, then the waves would have had to reach thousands of kilometers inland.

Even if you factor in the EM forces of celestial bodies in equation, shouldn't the EM forces of celestial bodies act downwards?
And accordingly if the Earth is for the most part rock, the water of the oceans would not have had acted much more differently, than the way water in the open swimming pool acts, when acted upon by wind during storms.

[moses]

John666, are you asking where the water came from, or about the flood.

Maybe the water came with the sediment of the geological column through some interation with another planet. Or maybe it was already here then.

The flood could have been the result of a wobble in the axis of the Earth. I have a theory that the 40 days of rain was due to the Earth being in a very elliptical orbit around the Sun where increased evaporation would occur and result in continuous rain for maybe 40 days. This could also explain the formation of the ice on antarctica and the arctic.

Cheers,
Mo

[john666]

Maybe the water came with the sediment of the geological column through some interation with another planet. Or maybe it was already here then.

I don't think that planets exchanging materials between each other is possible.
Two(or more) huge charged balls on a collision course with each other;
Shouldn't they repulse each other?

I am not asking from where the water came from, I am asking how did the water cover the entire surface of the Earth.
If the Earth is for the most part rock(solid), I don't see how the Earth could have experienced a truly GREAT Flood.

On the other hand if the Earth is 90-95% water, then the GREAT Flood could really be a viable option.
Maybe the correct name for our planet is not Earth but Water.

The flood could have been the result of a wobble in the axis of the Earth. I have a theory that the 40 days of rain was due to the Earth being in a very elliptical orbit around the Sun where increased evaporation would occur and result in continuous rain for maybe 40 days.

Rain is a localized phenomena.
You can not have rain, all over the world, at the same time.

As for "the orbit of the Earth around the Sun", I dont believe in these kind of things anymore.
I have become a full blown geocentrist.
All the stars in the night sky have a cycle of exactly one year.
You wouldn't have that if the Earth is not in the center of the sphere.

[moses]

<I don't think that planets exchanging materials between each other is possible. >

Care to elaborate.

<Two(or more) huge charged balls on a collision course with each other;
Shouldn't they repulse each other?>

If the electric fields fell off with distance then they would repulse, however in a plasma there is a huge fall off in the electric field at a distance from a ball, which is called a double layer. So two balls approaching each other in a plasma feel no effect until the double layers touch. Then electrical charge transfer occurs which may have a repulsive effect, but will also transfer material from one ball to the other with the electric charge transfer.

<Rain is a localized phenomena.
You can not have rain, all over the world, at the same time.>

If the Sun got closer to the Earth then the heat would evaporate an enormous amount of water from the oceans and also increase wind greatly. Thus the water laden air would travel world-wide, or nearly so, and produce rain everywhre. This is not really in doubt. The issue is whether the Earth was once nearer the Sun, which as a geocentrist, you may consider possible.

Cheers,
Mo

[jacmac]

john666 said:

All the stars in the night sky have a cycle of exactly one year.
You wouldn't have that if the Earth is not in the center of the sphere.

Each night as one looks up to the sky, at the same time on the clock, the stars that are beyond our solar system(zodiac) seem to move just a bit. After one year we are back to the beginning. The night is when we are looking out, opposite from the sun toward the sky outside the solar system. If the sun and the Zodiac were together rotating around the earth, why would the Zodiac move relative to the sun ?

Some tenants of standard cosmology are suspect, but the earth orbiting the sun is not one of them.

Jack

[john666]

If the electric fields fell off with distance then they would repulse, however in a plasma there is a huge fall off in the electric field at a distance from a ball, which is called a double layer. So two balls approaching each other in a plasma feel no effect until the double layers touch. Then electrical charge transfer occurs which may have a repulsive effect, but will also transfer material from one ball to the other with the electric charge transfer.

We really can not know what would happen, because we never observed such a huge EM effect, however I think that it is more logical to assume that no exchange of materials is possible, then the other way around.
Namely when we observe magnets, they either repulse each other, or attract each other.
When they repulse each other, they exchange no materials between each other.
Then there is the option of attracting each other, but if the Earth physically collided with some other celestial body, we would see some major deformation in a sphere, and we just do not see that.

If the Sun got closer to the Earth then the heat would evaporate an enormous amount of water from the oceans and also increase wind greatly. Thus the water laden air would travel world-wide, or nearly so, and produce rain everywhre. This is not really in doubt. The issue is whether the Earth was once nearer the Sun, which as a geocentrist, you may consider possible.

and produce rain everywhre. This is not really in doubt.

This is absolutely in doubt.
What you are saying is not possible.
You have rain in some parts of the world because you have clouds in some parts of the world.
And the reason you have clouds in some parts of the world, is because you do not have clouds in other parts of the world.

Just like if you want to have your refrigerator to stay cold, you need to have a continuous form of energy going into the refrigerator, so too is the case with the formation of the clouds.

Proof of my claim, is that at no time, at the Earth, are there more areas that are rainy or snowy as opposed to those that are not so.

[moses]

john666, I give up.
Cheers,
Mo

[john666]

john666, I give up.
Cheers,
Mo

I have to say, I agree with many if not most of the things you say.

[john666]

Another thing that is a very strong indication that the Earth is for the most part(90-95%) water;

We all know that the earthquakes are a electrical phenomena.
But the question is, how did the "battery", how did the electrical energy that causes earthquakes "build up"?
Through large masses of water of course!!!

Water is a great conductor of electricity;
Land masses that weight billions of tons;
The only way you can shake land masses that weight billions of tons, is through HUGE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY

And how can that electrical energy build up, if not through large masses of water that conduct large amounts of electricity?

[Brigit Bara]

GreyCloud says,

It can not be "mountain uplift", because "mountain uplift" is a process that doesn't exist in reality.
Nobody has ever observed a "mountain uplift".
3. Quite sure about that are you?

Some helpful search terms if you are not able to travel are "buckled rock strata" "hogback formations" and "uplifted rock strata."

[john666]

John, why do you not want to start a new thread about Earth being made of water? Are you afraid no one will want to discuss it? If so, they'll want to discuss it even less in this thread. I know the likely cause of earthquakes and I know there is likely not much water below Earth's crust. That info is available at Charles Chandler's site at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6199.html. By the way, mountain uplift was almost certainly caused by rapid continental drift, as explained at http://NewGeology.us.

You do not want to discuss the composition of the Earth?
You don't have to.

You claim that you know what causes earthquakes;
So tell me, what causes earthquakes?

[john666]

Are the following structures UPLIFTED?

[john666]

By the way, mountain uplift was almost certainly caused by rapid continental drift, as explained at http://NewGeology.us and the drift was caused by a huge impact. Also, a number of aboriginal tribes and the Bible claim to have witnessed mountain uplift.

So you are saying that the mountain ranges in Western North America and Tibet are caused by an impact near Madagaskar

[Grey Cloud]

John666,
You still haven't answered my question.
You have ignored Lloyd's request for you to open your own thread and respect the title of his thread.
You have summarily and childishly dismissed Brigit's evidence of mountain uplift.
You have not provided one wit of evidence for anything you have asserted.

[Brigit Bara]

Grey Cloud, wouldn't you say the Soft Serve was deposited on the sugar cone through a decorative nozzle?