Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue May 26, 2009 2:46 pm

These Coquina and Foraminafera type organisms need Light to grow. Hence their abundance in shallow waterS.

* Do you know of anywhere on Earth where shallow waters are forming limestone from foraminafera, or shells etc?
* There's lots of krill toward the surface of the deep oceans. There's plankton etc too. The krill definitely have shells. And krill is the most or one of the most abundant species on Earth. Why don't dead krill shells end up on the ocean floors, making a layer of limestone?
* All those hundreds or thousands of feet thickness of limestone on the continents are supposed to have formed in shallow water, 70 feet or less. So when the 70 foot thick layer is made and the shallow sea is filled in, how does the sea level then rise just enough to allow another 70 foot layer to form?
* And where does the new calcium and carbon keep coming from to keep making new layers of limestone?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4035
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby seasmith » Tue May 26, 2009 3:29 pm

~
Lloyd,

If you are addressing those questions to me, the answer is-

Different generative ages manifest different life forms.

[ Also, the biological profiles and sediments are vastly different between warm shallow water "seas" and deep, circulating oceans bounded by polar icecaps;
as any experienced diver can tell you. ]

&
Where's the new limestone?
:?:
seasmith
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby webolife » Wed May 27, 2009 2:15 pm

Lloyd wrote:
These Coquina and Foraminafera type organisms need Light to grow. Hence their abundance in shallow waterS.

* Do you know of anywhere on Earth where shallow waters are forming limestone from foraminafera, or shells etc?
* There's lots of krill toward the surface of the deep oceans. There's plankton etc too. The krill definitely have shells. And krill is the most or one of the most abundant species on Earth. Why don't dead krill shells end up on the ocean floors, making a layer of limestone?
* All those hundreds or thousands of feet thickness of limestone on the continents are supposed to have formed in shallow water, 70 feet or less. So when the 70 foot thick layer is made and the shallow sea is filled in, how does the sea level then rise just enough to allow another 70 foot layer to form?
* And where does the new calcium and carbon keep coming from to keep making new layers of limestone?


I've spent some time collecting and studying diatomaceous earth from eastern Washington...similar formation mechanism to chalk, and by extension, to limestone. The stuff is mined by a group out of Oregon, for sale to swimming pool filter folks, and used in toothpaste, dynamite, etc. These diatomite beds are sandwiched [I like to say "lensed"] cleanly between beds of basalt which can be found elsewhere to lie "conformably" atop each other. That tells me that the mechanisms for their formation may have to do with incursion of flooding diatom-rich seawater [perhaps tsunamis?] over a "hot" layer of recently poured lava, being boiled away rapidly [rather than slow detritus-like accumulation on a seafloor] then overlaid by another successive flow... quite contrary to the usual scenario of the layers of lava taking millions of years to accumulate. Within the diatomite beds, which are generally very powdery in texture, and in which microscopic fragments and intact portions of diatom shells can be discovered, there are solid "lenses" of diatomaceous opal, surrounded by the powdery diatomacous earth. Cross-sectionally the rocks show "expanding" layers of crystalization from the center outward. This evidence suggests to me the additional scenario of heat from both above and below the diatomite driving water toward the middle of the formation, this superhot material then dissolving the silica shells and recrystalizing as the diatomaceous opal. The "shallow seas" paradigm plays no part in this mechanism.
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed May 27, 2009 8:46 pm

* Web, that's an interesting analysis of diatomite beds and opal etc. I have some questions for you below.
* First, I found this interesting study: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/lamination.asp - It says in conclusion:
The continuous deposit of a heterogranular sediment in still water was studied.
1. It was noted that the deposited material organised itself immediately after deposition into periodic graded laminae giving the appearance of successive beds.
2. One of the more striking features of these laminae formed in the sediment itself was their regular periodicity.
3. The thickness of the laminae was measured in millimetres. It was independent of the speed of sedimentation and varied according to the extreme difference in the size of the mixed particles.
4. When deposition took place in a water flow, the lamination phenomenon was also observed. The geometry of lamination was modified by the water flow, but the latter was not the cause of the modification.
5. The periodic graded laminae were similar to the laminae or varves observed in nature which are interpreted as a superposition of seasonal or annual beds. Their origin, however, was quite different, arising from periodic structuring after deposition.
6. The question now is to study a number of laminated or varved formations in relation to this mechanism, particularly looking for physical structuring obtained from experimentation.
* Sounds to me like the laminae or thin layers have nothing to do with seasonal deposition, but are a result of natural sorting during deposition.

* You said:
diatomite beds are sandwiched ["lensed"] cleanly between beds of basalt which can be found elsewhere to lie "conformably" atop each other.

* Are you talking about diatomite beds lying comformably atop each other? This illustration http://www.beg.utexas.edu/eichhubl/Page ... ogfig6.jpg seems to give an example of that. Do you think you can interpret how these strata were laid down, the way you did the basalt and diatomite lenses? I guess this is in Texas, which isn't covered in the map below. In the illustration, observing from the top down, are 5 layers of Diatomaceous mudstone [DMS] interlayered with 4 mudstone strata [MS], then a discomformity, then MS, DMS, DMS, Porcelainite [Po = reddish Siltstone], MS, DMS, MS, Chert, MS, Po, MS, Po, MS, Po, MS, Chert, Po, MS, Po, Po, MS, etc. Dolostone, listed lower on the chart, I suppose is dolomite limestone. Correct? I suppose the calcium in normal limestone transmutes to magnesium. Do you reckon? This is from http://www.beg.utexas.edu/eichhubl/Page ... gtext.html

* Here's a map of Diatomite deposits [lenses?]
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3044
Image


* This site http://minerals.usgs.gov/news/newslette ... dmins.html says:
When the diatoms die, their skeletal remains sink to the lake bottom and create a thin layer. After many blooms over many hundreds of years, these thin layers can accumulate to form diatomite deposits meters thick (fig. 5)!
* Is that plausible to you? If you look on the bottoms of lakes, can you find a rock stratum of diatomite at the bottom covered with a thin layer of dead diatoms?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4035
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Wed May 27, 2009 10:42 pm

Well I guess the question is whether all the diatomite
beds sandwiched between the basalt beds were formed in
one flow of a diatomous/basalt mixture ? And so could
a large number of the sedimentary layers be formed at
the one pouring ( or flooding ). Then we could see if
there was repetition of such layering.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Thu May 28, 2009 1:11 am

Sorry, I guess the basalt is igneous. But what forms
when basalt and seawater undergo EDM and the mixture
is deposited as a flow ? And then this deposit is
electrically heated. A metamorphic rock ?
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby webolife » Thu May 28, 2009 11:19 am

Lloyd,
The diatomite is found exposed at the surface of course, as shown in your mapping, but in relation to layers of basalt that are seen elsewhere to lie together conformably. Some of these basalts are pillow formations, indicating deposition under [or into] a body of water, another widespread indicator that the water flooding was contemporary with the basalt flooding. The composite stratigraphy in the Texas link, like all composited geologic columns, is built on the assumption that different sedimentary compositions are derived from different eras of time, therefore putting them together requires making assumptions about the geologic time [or lack thereof] involved. The assumptions about time drive the conclusions about superposition, resulting in the hypothetical column. For example, it is quite possible that layers from the "Early Miocene" were actually coeval with layers from the "Late Miocene" etc. In the field, it is different... you see a deposit between two other layers in one place, and those two layers sitting conformably atop one another elsewhere, and you ask the question, how did this happen? Bottom line, the story you tell depends on the timescale you believe. I'm unsure from the lack of description of the diatomaceous mudstone if this is the same type of deposit I see in Washington. There is nothing particularly "muddy" about our local stuff. This would not significantly affect the mechanism I suggested, but the layering depicted in the hypothetical column, if it appears thus in the field, might reflect one of the particle sorting mechanisms you mentioned.
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Fri May 29, 2009 3:42 am

The Cambrian sediment contain creatures that still exist today.
There are also creatures with no ancestors there. I propose
that the present day creatures came from the Earth's oceans
through EDM. But the creatures with no ancestors came from
Mars !! So it was only in the Cenozoic period, after the
dinosaurs, that most of the creatures in the sediments came
from Earth.

Each geological time period ( eg Jurassic ) represents one
event of Mars coming very close to Earth in the Saturn System.
The combination is Earth ocean bottom rocks plus Earth seawater
with Martian rocks and creatures and probably Martian seawater
too. The flow of this mixture produced laminations that set
into strata. The strange rearrangement of strata is explained
by variations in the mixture producing a different order of
lamination. The upside down blocks of sediment are explained
by the block forming in one near approach of Mars and breaking
off during a subsequent Mars approach.

Therefore we will find the missing links to evolution on Mars !!
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby webolife » Fri May 29, 2009 11:37 am

That's what bothers me about EDM... one person claims it can and did destroy life on earth... another claims it can and bring life to earth from Mars... wow :o
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Sat May 30, 2009 5:47 am

As there were no fossils on Earth when the first
interaction with Mars occurred, one can assume
that Earth and Mars were not close together before
that time. Because the first fossils are very complex.
If Mars was close to Earth then we would have expected
Earth to have life,
there being similar conditions.

The levelled off precambrian rocks suggest a long
period of weathering. One cannot dispose of the
possibility that Earth came from outside the Solar
System. Another possibility is that the Solar System
moved into a more electrical area, which produced a
rearrangement of planets and moons. Of course the
entrance of Earth and maybe Saturn into the Solar
System would have produced much electrical interaction.

After this Mars would have made only about 10 high
energy near approaches to Earth. So one perhaps sees
the story as a planet entering the Solar System causing
electrical instability which stabilises after
a time. So as things stabilised Mars would not have had
so severe an electrical interaction with Earth.
Perhaps some event reduced the electrical potential.
So there is produced a stable system of planets
and Earth can prosper in perhaps a golden age.

Of course later this stable system breaks up and
unstable conditions exist for a few thousand years
leading to today's stable arrangement.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun May 31, 2009 7:59 pm

* Webo says:
That's what bothers me about EDM... one person claims it can and did destroy life on earth... another claims it can and bring life to earth from Mars...

* I don't think the theory that the ancient polar plasma column brought life from Mars to Earth is well thought out yet. I think Cardona and or Talbott think the column sucked up much of Earth's early water supply and held it for centuries or millennia and then released it during the Saturn System breakup. I think it's highly unlikely that most life forms could be sustained in the column and move safely from planet to planet.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4035
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Sun May 31, 2009 9:56 pm

I think it's highly unlikely that most life forms could be sustained in
the column and move safely from planet to planet.
Lloyd


Creatures can live in plasma, because plasma exists in cells
with little potential drop. It is only at the edges of these
cells in the double layers that there is a big potential drop
that would be hazardous to life. The problem is the pressure.
But an electrical pinch can increase the pressure inside the
pinch. Thus an atmosphere is possible inside the pinch.

The major problem I am having now with this theory is that
there are missing links in the evolution of the small creatures
that come after the dinosaurs. Now I can see that reductions
in electrical potentials could produce the situation where
Earth's oceans still suffer EDM, but no longer is there material
transferred from Mars. And the EDM affects DNA on Earth such
that new creatures are formed. However one would expect a lot
of strange creatures that don't live very long. And these are
presumably not found on Earth. And it would be hard for creatures
to survive the inundation of the muddy sediment.

So it's not perfect ! But it does explain most of the missing links
and the extra large creatures. After 30 years, or so, of considering
the Saturn System Dave Talbott came up with Mar's crust undergoing EDM.
All I've done is put creatures with this crust and sent the result
to Earth.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby webolife » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:38 am

All the "links" are missing.
Hence all those dotted lines in phylogenetic tree diagrams.
If they aren't dotted, the artist is dishonest.
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:50 am

All the "links" are missing.
webolife


The surviving creatures may well not have created fossils ! It is
only the process of being caught up in the big flow that allowed
fossils to be formed. So creatures from Mars that survived the
transportation probably lived in water and adapted to Earth's
gravity over generations. Then the next Mars-Earth close approach
formed lamination sediments with Martian and Earthian creatures
mixed in with this flow, and they formed fossils. And as suggested
before, as electrical conditions moderated, no longer did Mars
creatures or sediment reach Earth. This suggests that the Cenozoic
sediment would be in some way different from the Mesozoic sediment
because they lacked Martian rocks.(Other than the fossil differences)

In the following Figure 6.18 shows that the Li/Al ratio of Precambrian
rocks is about the same as Cenozoic rocks, whilst other rocks generally
have a higher ratio : here

This suggests that the Cenozoic rocks were formed from Precambrian
rocks, and these would have come from the bottom of the oceans. And
if the Martian rocks had a higher Li/Al ratio then the mixing of
these rocks with the Earth ocean bottom rocks would explain the
higher Li/Al ratio in the Mesozoic sediment. So a little evidence.
The Martian rocks would be deep crust or mantle rocks.

So now we have the laminar sedimentation process explaining the
missing links. We have dinosaurs coming from Mars which explains
their giant size. And also the original Cambrian rocks contained
a great variety of fossils and some very advanced and complicated
creatures like the trilobites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
"Many trilobites had complex eyes; they also had a pair of antennae."

This suggests that Mars had life for a long time, when along came
Earth and maybe Saturn, and a very electric Saturn System was formed.
And the pretty old Martian creatures were swept to Earth along
with lots of Martian rocks,where they mixed with Earth (now oceanic)
Precambrian rocks and the Earth Cambrian rocks formed.
So the theory is going OK !
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:03 pm

Mo, I don't think your theory will appeal to anyone as long as you can't show somehow that plasma columns, tornadoes etc are capable of transporting living things through space without killing them. Also, there needs to be evidence of life having existed on Mars. The so-called fossil microbes found in Mars rocks from Antarctica are said to be effects of preparing the rock for electron microscope viewing. So there's no solid evidence yet for former life there. You'll just have to wait till a Mars mission retrieves such fossils.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4035
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron