Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc

[Steve Smith]

Lloyd,

No one can say how old the Earth is. Especially in light of the plasma events that have distorted the ratios of radiogenic elements to one another. There's no way to tell how old any rocks are and since fossils are dated by the strata in which they're found there's no way to tell how old they are. Problems with C-14 and archeology are well-known to most of those reading this -- meaning there's really no determining the age of the ancient ruins.

When I say the things we see were formed in the recent past I do mean a few thousand years ago. The surface of the Earth has been reshaped and sculpted so recently that most of the formations have not eroded -- the mountains are new and the canyons, craters and deserts are also new. As to when the planet itself formed how will we ever know?

[davesmith_au]

... This shows again that the Thunderbolts team who started this website regard the Earth as much younger than do conventional scientists. And you folks who doubt that need to do some rethinking.

To say that the Thunderbolts team regard the Earth as much younger than do conventional scientists is a total misinterpretation of anything I have read by any of the Thunderbolts team anywhere.

Perhaps it is you who needs to do a little rethinking Lloyd. Not about the age of the Earth itself (for you are free to think whatever you like), but about how you interpret what it is that the Thunderbolts team regard as the age of the Earth. No-where in any of the publically published literature have I seen the Thunderbolts team state anything definite with regard to this specific issue.

There is plenty written with regard to the still uncertain timing of relatively recent (within recorded human history) reshaping of it's surface and other events, but it's age is not to be inferred from this information, nor any other that I have read. Not only that, but the age of Earth is irrelevent to the hypothesis.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Eres]

.By "relatively recent", I'm sure Stephen meant a few thousand years ago. This shows again that the Thunderbolts team who started this website regard the Earth as much younger than do conventional scientists. And you folks who doubt that need to do some rethinking.

No Lloyd isnt correct. Nobody among the researchers of the EU has ever affirmed from any part this concept. The Earth has certainly suffered a superficial reshaping in the last millennia (not possible to exactly quantify), but no one proof exists that can ever establish with certainty the age of the Earth, as of the Sun, as of the stars and of the same universe. A serious rethinking would maybe serve to you as for all the mainstream's myths. You have a very superficial and confused idea of EU's theories. A suggestion; study it before speaking at random of it

[nick c]

Lloyd:

This shows again that the Thunderbolts team who started this website regard the Earth as much younger than do conventional scientists. And you folks who doubt that need to do some rethinking.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but my interpretation from the reading of the Thunderbolts team (as well as Velikovsky and most of the catastrophists who have been inspired by him) is that references to "creation" refer to the destruction of an old world order and the emergence of a new one. This has happened more than once, the Earth pre-existed all of these creations. In other words, the surface features of the Earth as well as the Earth's postition in the solar system, have been radically changed within the timespan of the memory of man. There is nothing specific that could be said concerning the creation of the Earth, other than at some point in the past it probably was born from a gas giant/brown dwarf, possibly proto-Saturn.
As Steve Smith pointed out, at this time there is not a reliable estimate of age, because the present methods of radiometric dating, uniformitarian estimates of depostion of strata, planetary evolution from a condensing nebula, etc are invalid.
The conditions on Earth stand in sharp contrast to its' so called twin, Venus, which is indeed young, with a massive atmosphere, high temperature, etc etc, that are the characteristics of its' youth. One could ask the question, how long would it take for Venus to evolve to a somewhat similar condition to that of the Earth? The Earth is by the implication of that comparison- an unspecified "old," ....age unknown.


Nick

[Grey Cloud]

Dave Smith wrote:

Not only that, but the age of Earth is irrelevent to the hypothesis

.
I may have missed the point somewhere but didn't the hypothesis start off concerning the age of granite, or at least the rapidity or otherwise of its formation?

Nick C:
You make the differentiation between the age of the Earth per se and the Earth's surface, which I feel is a valid point. However, you do not make the same differentiation in the case of the age of Venus. You appear to be assuming that because the atmosphere etc of Venus are 'young' that the planet itself is.

General
Doesn't the 4.5 billion figure come from the Big Bang, accretion, gravity and all that?

In my opinion th Genesis account is a conflation of several things and the young age of the Earth which the Creationists advocate is in fact the age of the post-catastrophe world.

And for what it's worth, in Greek myth, Earth (Ge or Gaia) is older than (created before), Saturn (Kronos).

[nick c]

Hello Grey Cloud,

Nick C:
You make the differentiation between the age of the Earth per se and the Earth's surface, which I feel is a valid point. However, you do not make the same differentiation in the case of the age of Venus. You appear to be assuming that because the atmosphere etc of Venus are 'young' that the planet itself is.

Let me clarify my point. The parallel between Earth (interior/surface) and Venus (interior/surface) is irrelevant, because the two planets have entirely different histories. Although the massive atmosphere and anomalous heat are consistent with a young Venus, my statement was made primarily with reference to the writings that I mentioned:

...my interpretation from the reading of the Thunderbolts team (as well as Velikovsky and most of the catastrophists who have been inspired by him)...

Central to Velikovsky's thesis is that Venus was a new planet who appeared as a fearsome comet, before settling into its' present orbit.
That was my reasoning for calling Venus a young planet, which therefore:
invites a comparison with Earth,
which should be a twin of Venus,
but is in reality very different,
because they have different histories (ergo age.)


Where I got these crazy ideas from:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_cosmos03.htm [edit: Admin note: one user has reported viruses from going to this site, though my own programs did not encounter any - user discretion required - DS.]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... stitan.htm

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=3


http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth17.txt

http://www.varchive.org/bonds/bonds.htm

It's really good reading

Nick

[Grey Cloud]

WARNING. While accessing the bibliotecapleyades site from Nick's link my anti-virus program detected two viruses. Amin might waant to delete the lionk?

[nick c]

Sorry, if anyone encountered any problems with that link.
I have had no problems with that website.
Here is a different link to the same article, that should be better.
"Venus Isn't Our Twin"
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9aqt6cz5
Nick

[Grey Cloud]

Sorry, if anyone encountered any problems with that link.
I have had no problems with that website.
Here is a different link to the same article, that should be better.
"Venus Isn't Our Twin"
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9aqt6cz5
Nick

Sorry, I should have made it clearer that it was the bibliotecapleyades homepage that caused the problem. The page with the article seemed ok.

[bboyer]

As Grey Cloud has clarified, the problem seems to be with the site's root page at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net. It crashes both IE7 and Firefox 3 Beta 5. The Windows system message indicates it is preventing data execution:

What is Data Execution Prevention?

Data Execution Prevention (DEP) is a security feature that can help prevent damage to your computer from viruses and other security threats. Harmful programs can try to attack Windows by attempting to run (also known as execute) code from system memory locations reserved for Windows and other authorized programs. These types of attacks can harm your programs and files.

DEP can help protect your computer by monitoring your programs to make sure that they use system memory safely. If DEP notices a program on your computer using memory incorrectly, it closes the program and notifies you.

It is very unlikely that it's a virus but a problem with the Anfyteam JAVA application that attempts to load at the homepage. I've personally had issues with their implementations in the past (http://www.anfyteam.com). So, it's probably a safe page other than will likely crash the latest versions of popular browsers that have implemented more stringent security safeguards when it comes to memory address protection. Nevertheless, as Dave Smith has advised, "user discretion."

Back to the topic at hand ....

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Nick
You wrote that:

The parallel between Earth (interior/surface) and Venus (interior/surface) is irrelevant, because the two planets have entirely different histories.

That statement is true only if one subscribes to the Velikovsky - Talbot - Cardona - Cochrane version of catastrophism. I'm afraid that I do not. I have no problem with catastrophes, no problem with either Mars and or Venus getting a pounding but I do not see anything in the myths which suggests that either suddenly appeared.

The point I was trying to make was that Venus could be as old as the hills but she may have had a face-lift due to a catastrophe.

Thanks for the links, I re-read the material but it still doesn't do it for me.

[nick c]

Greycloud:

That statement is true only if one subscribes to the Velikovsky - Talbot - Cardona - Cochrane version of catastrophism. I'm afraid that I do not.

Fair enough, the vast majority of experts in the field would agree with you.
We agree to disagree.
My opinion is that the 900 degree temperature of Venus is best explained as natal heat. This of course is testable, Venus should be cooling down over time.
Perhaps some future discovery or new information concerning Venus will inspire you to revisit these ideas.

Nick

[Lloyd]

- Stephen Smith said, "No one can say how old the Earth is. ... As to when the planet itself formed how will we ever know?"
I'm pretty sure you meant Probably, no one can say how old the Earth is. If myths can tell us how old Venus is, and I think the team here agrees that it was probably ejected from Saturn within the last 10,000 years, then, if Venus has had a certain rate of cooling down or other similar process, and the birthtime of Venus can be calculated from that rate, then there may be similar processes on Earth that can also be calculated. Upriver had the idea that pulsars are where star systems are formed and he said he thinks the Sun and or Saturn may have come from the Vela pulsar. If he's right, we may be able to calculate when the Sun and or Saturn was at the Vela pulsar, which would likely be when our system/s were formed. Then we'd know the Earth etc formed after that. Anyway, I think we'll soon come across reliable dating methods for most things.
- Dave Smith said, "To say that the Thunderbolts team regard the Earth as much younger than do conventional scientists is a total misinterpretation of anything I have read by any of the Thunderbolts team anywhere. Perhaps it is you who needs to do a little rethinking Lloyd ... about how you interpret what it is that the Thunderbolts team regard as the age of the Earth."
- Dave Talbott's brother, Steve, published a newsletter around 1975 called Research Communications Network in which one issue discussed Robert Gentry's findings about radio-halos in basement rock, the granite or basalt that underlies sedimentary rock. Gentry has a website. His conclusion was that the radio-halos proved conclusively that this rock all crystalized almost instantly, such as within days, if not hours, whereas conventional science I believe considers that rock to have crystalized over billions of years.
- Wal Thornhill has told me privately that he thinks much of Earth's sedimentary rock was formed by electrical deposition, each layer I think in a matter of hours or days, probably similar to the way the northern regions of Mars were removed and electrically deposited around its south polar region. Dave Talbott discussed the latter recently in the Origin of Myths board, if I recall right.
- And Stephen Smith just acknowledged that the recent TPOD I referred to previously on this thread did indeed say that a formation on Earth conventionally thought to be hundreds of millions of years old they regard as only a few thousand years old.
- When you subtract all these millions and billions of years from the conventional guessing, my logic tells me it doesn't leave a great age for the Earth. And my point was that you folks who are rooting for a great age for the Earth would be better off having more of an open mind. I'm not rooting for any particular finding myself. I'll go whichever way the evidence leads, but I'm showing you the evidence that seems to lead to a young age.
- Wal also likes some of Ralph Sansbury's ideas. I think Wal for a while considered it possible that Ralph was right about light from distant galaxies coming to us at a speed far in excess of the speed of light, because his Electric Universe CD mentioned Ralph's light experiment, which seemed to be designed to show that. The implication would be that those galaxies are not billions of years old, but could be very young. I think Wal has more recently come to disfavor that aspect of Ralph's theories, but I'm not positive. What I know of Ralph's theories is mostly from what I've read from Wal's writings.

[davesmith_au]

Lloyd. Nothing in your post above suggests that "the Thunderbolts team who started this website regard the Earth as much younger than do conventional scientists".

All of your comments refer to the SPEED with which various may have occurred, or the rough time at which certain FEATURES may have been created.

We are also supposed to be discussing PUBLISHED data which does not include private conversations you have had with anyone, especially where those conversations still don't support your position. That is to say for instance what you quoted Wal Thornhill as saying was about the speed with which particular features may have been created, and not the age of the Earth.

- When you subtract all these millions and billions of years from the conventional guessing, my logic tells me it doesn't leave a great age for the Earth. And my point was that you folks who are rooting for a great age for the Earth would be better off having more of an open mind. I'm not rooting for any particular finding myself. I'll go whichever way the evidence leads, but I'm showing you the evidence that seems to lead to a young age.

I don't see anyone rooting for a great age for the Earth. Nor do I see any EVIDENCE which seems to lead to a young age. I only see evidence that certain features may well be relatively young, and that some features may have been produced very quickly instead of over billions of years.

What I am trying to show is that it is you who seems to think that the Thunderbolts team thinks the Earth is young, when the Thunderbolts team themselves seem to advance no hypothesis at this stage on how old the Earth may be. The point is, you are free to think what you like, but you are not free to misrepresent the Thunderbolts' position on such things, and it can be counterproductive to do so. You would be wise to go over the 'evidence' again, and see what it really is suggesting, so as not to come to erronious conclusions.

Now how about we move back to the topic of the thread, which is "Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc".

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Lloyd]

- I previously showed in this thread a possible route for transmutation from Mercury to Gold and Iridium. When someone brought up the matter of Iridium in the K-T boundary of sedimentary rock recently, I started working on a possible transmutation route from an abundant element to Iridium. Lead is a pretty common heavy element. In this table of heavier elements, Lead is the most common in the Earth's crust at E-5, which means 10 to the -5th power in kg per kg of crust.
El Earth's Crust __ Ocean Water __ Solar System __ Isotopes
Os 76 E−9>−10___ 76 __________ 76 E−7_______ Os 76:192,190,189,188,186,187
Ir 77 E−10−11___ 77 __________ 77 E−7_______ Ir 77:193,191
Pt 78 E−9>−8____ 78 __________ 78 E−6______= Pt 78:195,194,196,198
Au 79 E−9_______ 79 E−12>−11__ 79 E−7_______ Au 79:197
Hg 80 E−8_______ 80 E−11>−10__ 80 E−7_______ Hg 80:202,200,199,201,198,204
Tl 81 E−7_______ 81 E−11______ 81 E−7_______ Tl 81:205,203
Pb 82 E−5_____== 82 E−11______ 82 E−6______= Pb 82:208,206,207,204
Bi 83 E−8,−7____ 83 E−11______ 83 E−7_______ 83:209
Po 84 E−16______ 84 E−20______ 84 __________ 84:209
At 85 __________ 85 __________ 85 __________
Rn 86 E−19______ 86 E−22______ 86 __________ 86:222
Fr 87 __________ 87 __________ 87 __________
Ra 88 E−13______ 88 E−17______ 88 __________ 88:226
Ac 89 E−16______ 89 __________ 89 __________
Th 90 E−6,−5__== 90 E−12______ 90 E−8_______ 90:232
Pa 91 E−12______ 91 E−17______ 91 __________
U 92 E−6______= 92 E−9_______ 92 E−8>−9____ 92:238
- Thorium and Uranium are next most common and they are the source of much of the Lead, because they're radioactive and decay to Lead. The Thorium and Uranium apparently are fused from other elements in high-powered electrical discharges.
In the last column under Isotopes the first number indicates the number of protons and the remaining numbers in each line indicate the number of protons and neutrons for each isotope, going from the most common to the least common isotope.
- So I thought I'd look for a transmutation route from Lead to Iridium. And here's the first part of a process that could work, especially if Lead were radioactive. EPC theorists have suggested that radioactivity may vary depending on how much electrical stress elements are subject to. I suppose Earth was under greater electrical stress in the Saturn era, so that might have made Lead radioactive at that time. The process would start with any of these 4 most common isotopes of Lead and first emit 2 beta-particles, then 2 alpha-particles, going from Pb to Bi to Po to Pb to Hg.
82:208,206,207,204> 83:208,206,207,204> 84:208,206,207,204> 82:204,202,205,203> 80:200,198,201,199
- These starting isotopes of Lead do exist and the ending isotopes of Mercury also exist, but the intervening isotopes only partly exist, but it's common in radioactive decay to involve intermediate isotopes that don't normally exist.
- Once Mercury Hg 80:200 is obtained, biological or heat transmutation can possibly result in the Mercury fissioning into Li 3:7 and Ir 77:193. The whole process then, after eliminating the superfluous isotopes is [b = beta-; a = alpha-particle]:
Pb82:208 -b= Bi83:208 -b= Po84:208 -a= Pb82:204 -a= Hg80:200 -Li3:7= Ir77:193.
- Iridium then can be fused with Hydrogen or Helium to make Platinum or Gold:
Ir77:193 +H1:1= Pt78:194; Ir77:193 +He2:4= Au79:197.
- So it seems possible that the ancients may have witnessed natural transmutation of Lead into Gold, Iridium and Platinum.