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 seasmith » Sat May 23, 2009 6:31 pm

Lloyd wrote:
* Do you mean the strata weren't laid down quickly? Or do you mean the canyon wasn't carved out quickly?


Nick C wrote:
Note that this area is a high point, The Colorado Plateau, an expected touch down point for a lightning strike. That the excavated material is missing is consistent with EDM


In that post, I was primarily addressing the Pre-cambrian / Cambrian Unconformity. Above the un-conform, as Nick notes, it is high ground (which has been pretty convincingly described as an uplifted area); and as we discussed several times in forum 1.0, the canyon structure may very well be an EDM artifact which became a natural river channel. Both structures are dendritic in form.
Seeing-considering-signifying the Unconformity, including the layers and (some eroded) structures below it, considering the complex mixing of the two zones (and Archean and Protozoic sub-zones), allowing for the igneous intrusions and their mixing and erosions, recognizing the various heat/pressure dependent varieties of crystal and granular micro-structures of the multitudinous rock types~ and the extended evolutionary profile of the fossil records~
i just don't see how Cronos [even with all his sprogs] could create the sand, cement, gravel and concrete;
all in one batch.

As Web rightly notes, the other big conundrum, other than unconformities, is ? where'd the eroded hiatial deposits go ?
Yes Nick, they could be in space. But a good pile of them the may and/also be, descending below the bottom of the sea.
True, the abyssal sediments seem to have been LAID DOWN not too long ago, but the sediment's Particles may well date back in to the fog of antiquity.

If the earth has been getting larger...

~s~
seasmith
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby nick c » Sat May 23, 2009 9:42 pm

seasmith wrote:i just don't see how Cronos [even with all his sprogs] could create the sand, cement, gravel and concrete;
all in one batch.

I agree. We are dealing with long periods of time, and multiple catastrophes in the course of a long Earth history.
Apparently I misunderstood your original post which was:
As an aside, have you ever spent a significant period of time walking around in the Grand Canyon, and the other stupendously exposed geologic terrains in the US southwest ?
My trivial personal reflection is that: it warn't made quickly bro.


I thought you were referring to the formation of the canyon itself. I think the canyon was formed suddenly and recently; that is, it was carved out of pre existing sedimentary rock, which was very old. Although I don't accept conventional timescales arrived at by uniformitarian dating methods (such as radiometric dating) I don't deny that the various stratigraphic layers could have been formed in very ancient catastrophes that predate human experience, perhaps involving millions of years. Catastrophism is a nightmare for a geologist attempting to date the geological column. Many older layers could be completely removed from an area, leaving no trace, and replaced with new depositions. In addition to EDM, the results of rapid tectonic changes and oceans spilling over onto the continents could distort the dating of the column in a number of ways. The text book time scales have an illusion of precision which is not justified once the assumption of uniformitarianism is discarded. The time scales need to be reevaluated in the light of catastrophism. The age of the Earth and it's earlier history are not known, and a new field left wide open for discovery.
If the earth has been getting larger...

I have yet to be convinced....

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun May 24, 2009 1:45 pm

* Nick:
I don't deny that the various stratigraphic layers could have been formed in very ancient catastrophes that predate human experience, perhaps involving millions of years.

* If thousands or millions of years of time elapsed between depositions of strata, the strata should not be smooth, but each layer should have many dips in it and missing pieces from water erosion primarily and also earthquakes and maybe glaciation somewhat.
* The best evidence seems to be that all of the strata that are conformed were deposited in fairly quick succession, within a few decades at most. The Great Flood and EDM deposition seem to be the best candidates for how the strata were deposited. EDM seems to be the best candidate for how the strata below unconformities were leveled off. The unconformities seem to be the only places where there might have been somewhat long stretches of time involved. And even that possibility may be a stretch.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby nick c » Sun May 24, 2009 5:06 pm

hi Lloyd,
The point of my previous post is that catastrophic dating is much more difficult, especially since the ptb in geology are bound by uniformitarian assumptions. There is still much to be learned and hopefully professional geologists will some day be able to look at their field without their uniformitarian tinted glasses.
If a series of catastrophes occurred followed by thousands of years of non catastrophe, such as the era we are presently experiencing, than that peaceful era could reasonably be expected to conform to uniformitarian conditions. Later when another catastrophe occurred the uniformitarian period would be buried and probably represented in some way in the geologic column.
So, in a general sense, several layers could be created in a matter of hours, days, or years depending on the sequence and nature of the catastrophe(s). Then the layer on top, thin or thick, could have taken many thousands of years to form, as it represents a long period characterized by uneventful uniformitarian processes. When once again the powerful forces of nature reshape the Earth, many new layers would be created rapidly on top of those previous layers.
I think that is pretty much the message of Earth In Upheaval.
Imhop, the Earth is of an unknown age, the present state of knowledge does not permit concluding anything more specific. I cannot discount the possibility that there could have been long periods of tranquil uniformity between catastrophes and these too must have left some trace in the column. The disassembly of the Saturnian system and its' assimilation into the system of the present Sun was probably only the most recent of many tortures inflicted upon the planet Earth.

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Sun May 24, 2009 8:04 pm

>* If thousands or millions of years of time elapsed between depositions
>of strata, the strata should not be smooth, but each layer should have
>many dips in it and missing pieces from water erosion primarily and also
>earthquakes and maybe glaciation somewhat.
>* The best evidence seems to be that all of the strata that are conformed
>were deposited in fairly quick succession, within a few decades at most.
>The Great Flood and EDM deposition seem to be the best candidates for how
>the strata were deposited. EDM seems to be the best candidate for how the
>strata below unconformities were leveled off.
>Lloyd

>So, in a general sense, several layers could be created in a matter of hours,
>days, or years depending on the sequence and nature of the catastrophe(s).
>nick c


The geological column shows evidence of a recurring event.
If Mars cycled towards Earth then the closest approach
would likely be a very electrical event. This is when the
oceans were carved out by Birkeland currents. The resulting
mushy sediments would spread out in even layers, sorted into
finer and coarser particles. When Mars neared Earth a tornado
developed between the two planets. Much material with water
transferred between the planets.

The sediments would dry out and set whilst Mars is away from
the Earth. Perhaps other alignments create greater electrical
conditions such that varying amounts of sediment are formed.
Or none at all, so that the time between really close approaches
is maybe hundreds of years, allowing the sediments to fully
form.

Thus the oscillation of Mars from near to far must have been
vital knowledge to the Saturnian System Earth dwellers. It
would allow one to get to a cave in a mountain and survive.
It would not be easy and perhaps humanity began when things
in the Saturn System became less electrical, and the ocean
EDM gouging stopped. It would then be merely a time of lots
of thunderbolts which didn't destroy too much, and most
creatures survived. There must be some ancient number of
years between Mars approaches. This number of years must
appear often in this ancient culture. Any clues !?
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 25, 2009 9:00 am

* I hope we can keep this thread focused on fossilization and not go too far astray, but how the rock strata were laid down should be relevant to fossilization.
* I previously suggested that most of the strata, such as in the Grand Canyon area, are mostly conforming, which means parallel. I think even curving strata can be conforming. I found though that there are several contact surfaces there that are not conforming, which suggests that normal deposition processes were interrupted at those stages. Here is an illustration of the various kinds of contact surfaces.
Image
* The difference between an unconformity and a disconformity appears to be that the strata below a disconformity contact are conforming with those above, while below an unconformity contact the strata are not conforming.
* Here's an illustration of disconformities (5, 4, 3) and an unconformity (2) and a nonconformity (1).
Image
* Here's a photo with markings: the blue dashed lines are probably disconformities and the red one an unconformity.
Image
* It looks like my earlier impression was wrong, which was that the Cambrian [?] unconformity was a smooth, horizontal plane, whereas it seems here to be very rough, apparently eroded electrically or by water etc.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 25, 2009 9:39 am

* Mo said:
If Mars cycled towards Earth then the closest approach would likely be a very electrical event. This is when the oceans were carved out by Birkeland currents. The resulting mushy sediments would spread out in even layers, sorted into finer and coarser particles. When Mars neared Earth a tornado developed between the two planets. Much material with water transferred between the planets.

* As I understand Cardona's interpretation of the mythological record, the Saturn Age was one of ideal conditions on Earth. Initially, Saturn was the only body seen in the sky and it was reddish colored at the north pole and it wasn't very bright. About 11,000 years ago Saturn flared up like a nova, but it was not a catastrophic event on Earth. He said there were similar periodic flare-ups in earlier pre-history. Sometime after that, Saturn eventually turned more yellowish and then Mars was visible. When Saturn was reddish, Mars was not visible, because of being the same color. Later Venus appeared, first as a comet that circled Saturn, seeming to form a cloudlike ring around Saturn, which gave Venus the reputation as a comet, a dragon and maybe an ouroboros. Venus eventually settled on the polar axis appearing in the center of the face of Saturn. Venus may have displaced Mars, causing Mars to move to an unstable location on the axis, which caused it to move toward Earth for a period of time and then back toward Venus and back and forth like that.
* I haven't heard Cardona or anyone suggest that major EDM events occurred between Mars and Earth during those closer approaches of Mars, such as megalightning. I think the only major catastrophic effects Mars had on Earth at that time may have been via the polar vortex, as you suggest. That plasma vortex actually went all the way to Venus and Saturn, I think. So it was always at the north pole, but it makes sense that close approaches of Mars could have caused it to stray beyond its normal location. In Thoth magazine online, I think Cardona had said that the vortex churned up the soil and rock in the pole area half a mile deep or so. And when it would occasionally stray it churned a wider area and would catch animals and trees and churn them up with the soil and rock, thus producing the hills and islands of muck and splintered trees and bones, such as mammoth bones etc. I haven't heard of human bones, tools, or artifacts being found among the muck, so it seems that humans kept their distance from the vortex generally.
* I just realized that the Saturn Age was said to involve no rains from the sky, but only mists from the ground. So maybe there was very little erosion then. If so, then the lack of erosion over long periods of time may not be a problem in the stratigraphic record, contrary to what I had thought earlier.
* I don't know how plasma vortexes might work, but I haven't heard Cardona or others suggest that water and or other matter was transferred between Mars and Earth during close approaches. The only transfer they've suggested, that I know of, is the removal of a lot of water from the Earth into the vortex, until the end of the Saturn Age, when the vortex collapsed and much of the water fell back to Earth, mostly at the north pole, which resulted in the Great Flood coming from the north. And it was about that time when the Earth's uppermost rock strata were laid down, via flood and or electrical deposition.
* Cardona has suggested that tidal forces from Saturn, Venus and Mars from the north and maybe Jupiter from the south, I think, may have made Earth egg-shaped, which may have had something to do with producing a supercontinent on one side of the Earth.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby seasmith » Mon May 25, 2009 11:05 am

Lloyd, you wrote:

“” If thousands or millions of years of time elapsed between depositions of strata, the strata should not be smooth, but each layer should have many dips in it and missing pieces from water erosion primarily and also earthquakes and maybe glaciation somewhat… … The unconformities seem to be the only places where there might have been somewhat long stretches of time involved. And even that possibility may be a stretch.”


Let’s consider just fossilization and erosion for a moment:

“ “… occur in local uplifts of the continental interior, as in the Ozarks, Black Hills, southern Oklahoma and central Texas.They may be of Protoerzoic age, but it is possible they are partly are wholly Archean. “ “


Archean is basicly what’s left of Earth’s primal surface, which was later covered by vast shallow seas. This surface probably existed before the major mountain building episodes, so we wouldn’t expect deep riverine type erosion artifacts. Furthermore, and I speculate, the fairly regular surface was eroded smooth by eons of Chemical Erosion.
Think of the pliable surface of younger Venus, and its highly corrosive atmosphere.

Proterzoic is the layer laid down on the Archean, over long periods of time, by those seas. We can infer long periods of time from the types of sedimentary rock layers.
[ Both are Pre-Cambrian era formations )

“ “ The same is true of a considerable part of the crystalline core of the Rocky Mountains, although in parts of Wyoming, Colorado and various other places there are extensive exposures of very thick Proterozoic quartzites, shales and limestones. “ “


Limestones and many shales are Fossil rock. Beauzillions of one-celled oganisms lived, died, sank, were buried, pressed, heated and transformed to make them.

“ “ The Grand Canyon region offers excellent sections of a thick series of Protoerzoic sediments which rest unconformably on Archean crystalline rocks. “ “


And then many layers of Cambrian era deposits “rest unconformably” above these. This of course is the mile thick cover containing your more recognizable fossils.

http://books.google.com/books?id=G9Y7wxiudOoC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=cambrian+unconformity&source=bl&ots=Dkbkeohxl6&sig=dcAST5CJTLik3Vc2vcq3-OvgGmI&hl=en&ei=vyoXSvvEHcartgetorjjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA84,M1

As NickC has said, many intervening periods of orogeny and uniformity may well also be in the mix.

~s~
seasmith
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby seasmith » Mon May 25, 2009 4:08 pm

hmmm....

I had added the qualifier "cataclysmic" to orogeny, for the last sentence above;
where'd it go ?
Maybe not always, but probably cyclicly, there were periods of cataclysmic orogeny and merogeny.
Global catastrophes.


s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Mon May 25, 2009 4:57 pm

>* I haven't heard Cardona or anyone suggest that major EDM events
>occurred between Mars and Earth during those closer approaches of
>Mars, such as megalightning.
>Lloyd


I'm pretty sure that Dave T has the crust of Mars
being thin in the northern hemisphere(?) of Mars due
to electrical interactions between Mars and Earth
whilst in the Saturn System. Personally I'd go for
the thinning occurring after the break-up whilst
interacting electrically with another planet.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 25, 2009 9:53 pm

* Seasmith said:
I speculate, the fairly regular surface was eroded smooth by eons of Chemical Erosion. Think of the pliable surface of younger Venus, and its highly corrosive atmosphere.

* I apparently had the wrong impression about the smoothness of the Cambrian unconformity. So there may not need to be a smoothing agent in that case. Do you see evidence of chemical erosion on Venus? There's lots of evidence of electrical erosion.
Limestones and many shales are Fossil rock. Beauzillions of one-celled oganisms lived, died, sank, were buried, pressed, heated and transformed to make them.

* If that's how limestone is made, why is there no limestone on the ocean bottoms? My understanding is that they're basalt, which is igneous rock. The lack of limestone there seems to be good evidence that the oceans are very young, and or that limestone doesn't form the way you think. I'll say more shortly, I think.
As NickC has said, many intervening periods of orogeny and uniformity may well also be in the mix.

* The best explanation of orogeny, i.e. mountain building, that I've heard, is Shock Dynamics, which shows evidence that the ancient supercontinent was shattered by an "impact", which pushed the pieces apart in all directions at high speed, moving them near to their present positions within 2 days - rapid continental drift. The mountains built up by horizontal compression at the time of the initial impact and again as friction built up under the continental slabs, making resistance to further sliding motion.
* During the Saturn Age the mythic record seems to indicate that there were no mountains before the breakup of the Saturn system. So I think orogeny has only occurred during that one "continental drift" event.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 25, 2009 10:32 pm

HOW LIMESTONE FORMED?
Limestones and many shales are Fossil rock. Beauzillions of one-celled oganisms lived, died, sank, were buried, pressed, heated and transformed to make them.

1. Image
Limestone (with fossil fragments)
1. http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~oesis/micro/index.html
This is a fairly typical limestone deposited in shallow water. A good proportion of the particles are tiny shells and worm tubes, and much of the rest is very small particles of calcium carbonate. Where there was empty space in the sediment, such as inside the worm tube on the right of the picture, larger crystals of calcite have grown. Field of view 3.5 mm, polarising filters.
2. Image
2. Oolitic limestone is made up largely of sand-sized, rounded pellets of calcium carbonate, which are formed in warm shallow water where carbonate sediment is moved about by currents. In this closer view we can see that some of the pellets have grown by adding layers of calcium carbonate onto a tiny sedimentary grain of quartz. Isle of Skye, Scotland. Field of view 3 mm.
3. Image
3. Limestone (dolomitic) In this limestone, diamond-shaped crystals of dolomite (calcium magnesium carbonate) have grown after deposition, while the sediment was being changed into rock. They replace the fine calcium carbonate mud (dark material in the photo) that makes up the rest of the rock. Field of view 3.5 mm.
* So why does limestone form only in shallow seas? Has anyone observed limestone forming in shallow seas in the past few centuries? What prevents limestone from forming in deeper seas and oceans?
* Notice that only the first type of limestone mentioned above has appreciable amounts of seashells? It also has appreciable amounts of Calcium Carbonate apparently precipitated out of seawater. The remaining 3 types don't include seashells or fossils, it seems. So how does or did CaCO3 precipitate out of seawater? Might electrical forces have been strongly involved?
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... stone.html
Limestone (mineral), a common sedimentary rock composed primarily of the mineral calcite (CaCO3). Limestone constitutes approximately 10 percent of the sedimentary rocks exposed on the earth’s surface. It forms either by direct crystallization from water (usually seawater) or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments. In the first case, it carries a record of the chemical composition of seawater and it provides evidence of how that composition has changed with time. In the second case, limestone provides a record of the evolution of many important fossils. Limestone usually forms in shallow water less than 20 m (70 ft) deep and thus also provides important geological information on the variation in sea level in the past.

When calcium carbonate precipitates, it can form two different minerals—calcite and aragonite. Calcite and aragonite are polymorphs, meaning that they have the same chemical composition, but the atoms are stacked differently in the crystal. Fresh calcium carbonate sediments sometimes contain calcite, sometimes they contain aragonite, and often they contain a mixture of the two. This is because some animals make shells of calcite while others make shells of aragonite. Similarly, the direct precipitation of calcium carbonate without the aid of organisms sometimes produces calcite, sometimes produces aragonite, and often produces a mixture of the two, depending on factors such as temperature and pressure. However, calcite is more stable than aragonite, and so, through diagenesis, aragonite slowly changes to calcite. In addition, calcite slowly absorbs magnesium from surrounding water, slowly changing to dolomite.


* I underlined a few phrases here to point out a possible unfounded assumption. It seems to be assumed that limestone contains calcite and aragonite because shells etc contain them, but it also admits that the calcite and aragonite can form directly by precipitation from seawater. It's also assumed that calcite slowly absorbs magnesium and turns to dolomite. It seems more likely that electrical energy, heat and pressure etc transmute some calcium to magnesium to form dolomite quickly, not slowly.
* So how likely is it that limestone formed slowly by shells etc living, dying, falling to the bottom of a shallow sea, getting heated up and pressured into limestone?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby moses » Tue May 26, 2009 2:53 am

>* So why does limestone form only in shallow seas?
>Has anyone observed limestone forming in shallow seas
>in the past few centuries? What prevents limestone from
>forming in deeper seas and oceans?


I tried looking into this but it gets hazy. But well worth
looking further.

>* So how likely is it that limestone formed slowly by shells
>etc living, dying, falling to the bottom of a shallow sea,
>getting heated up and pressured into limestone?


It is possible that the rocks that were where the oceans are now
had deposits of shells,etc, and these fossils were transferred to
the where the limestone is now. It is likely that living creatures in
the ocean were swept up with the ocean bottom rocks, and maybe old
calcium was transmutated to magnesium thus forming the limestone.

>So I think orogeny has only occurred during that one "continental drift" event.
>Lloyd


And you can't see mountains ( Andes, Himalayas, etc ) being
formed out of near miss planetary interactions ?
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby seasmith » Tue May 26, 2009 7:11 am

~
One view:

“ “Aqueous Rocks.—The aqueous rocks, sometimes called the sedimentary, or fossiliferous, cover a larger part of the earth’s surface than any others. They consist chiefly of mechanical deposits (pebbles, sand, and mud), but are partly of chemical and some of them of organic origin, especially the limestones.


http://geology.com/publications/lyell/ch1.shtml


“ “Most limestone is formed with the help of living organisms. Many marine organisms extract calcium carbonate from seawater to make shells or bones. Mussels, clams, oysters, and corals do this. So too do microscopic organisms such as foraminifera. When the organisms die their shells and bones settle to the seafloor and accumulate there. Wave action may break the shells and bones into smaller fragments, forming a carbonate sand or mud. Over millions of years, these sediments of shells, sand, and mud may harden into limestone. Coquina is a type of limestone containing large fragments of shell and coral. Chalk is a type of limestone formed of shells of microscopic animals.


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565838/limestone_(mineral).html

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

If the later calcium carbonate and dolomite type minerals saturated the proterozoic seas due to the erosion of earlier uplifted layers of calcium rich exoskeletal cell walls and carcasses,
then the later precipitated sediments could be metamorphed, over time, into the varieties of second derivetive Limestone.

s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby seasmith » Tue May 26, 2009 9:23 am

Lloyd said:
Do you see evidence of chemical erosion on Venus? There's lots of evidence of electrical erosion.


We don't presently have the ability to clearly resolve the details of Venus' surface.
We do have an improving profile of its temperature and atmospheric make-up.

As to chemical vs electrical process, the two are very often intertwined. A common example would be a battery.

s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests