Catastrophist Geology

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: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:04 am

Lloyd, as you are, by now, probably aware I do not agree with consensus geological models. Many, if not all of today’s geological concepts arose before the robotic exploration of the solar system- geological certainty was established before most of the solar system was explored. That certainty has led to problems. Planetary geologists simply project their models onto other planets, their satellites and even asteroids and comets.
Lloyd wrote:_Questions: Do you agree that granite has the same density and element abundances as granite?
_And do you agree that granite comes from rock of the same element abundances and density as granite?
_Or do you contend that granite mostly comes from basalt, which is more mafic, I think?
_If so, do you know of evidence that electric currents can form granite from basalt? And what then would become of the mafic content?

In my opinion our understanding of what “makes the Earth” is in need of complete revision. I have offered an alternative- which is still a work in progress. I have presented my view on the origin of Earth’s ‘continental crust’ in my ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’ thread (https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&start=90#p120196).
Lloyd wrote:_Question: Aren't geologists able to determine in the lab what the seismic wave velocities are for rocks of all densities?

Our ‘knowledge’ of the make-up of Earth’s interior is highly subjective and based on the 19th century idea that the Earth formed as a hot ball. From seismic studies geologists thought that the Conrad Discontinuity represented a change from granitic crust to basaltic crust. The well at the Kola superdeep borehole penetrated this region. At this depth no transition of rock types was found- “the change in the seismic wave velocity is caused by a metamorphic transition in the granite rock. In addition, the rock at that depth had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising”; current seismic interpretations should be treated with a degree of scepticism. Whilst experimental data can produce values for given seismic wave velocities is this not conducted in a laboratory, in a controlled environment? We have already seen that actual drilling data disproved the model.
Lloyd wrote:_Question: Why would Potassium (K) be missing in Worzel Ash if it came from granite?

“…the chemical contrasts between certain granites strongly suggest that there are two main types, one a chemically evolved, relatively potassium-rich, ‘S-type’, derived from crustal rocks that had previously passed through the erosional-sedimentary cycle, and another, more primitive, potassium poor, ‘I-type’, derived from crustal igneous rocks that had not previously been recycled.” (W. S. Pitcher; The Nature and Origin of Granite) The conventional view appears to be that granite acquires increasing amounts of potassium as it is “recycled”- I’m not too sure about that given my view on the origin of the ‘continental crust’. Nevertheless, the potassium content of granite can clearly vary.
Lloyd wrote:_Questions: Do you know of anyone doing or having done experiments on electrical formation of granite, basalt, schist etc?
_Do you agree that sedimentary rock was not formed electrically, but by megatsunami deposition?

_You added:Space plasmas appear to form cylinders of similar elements, sorted by ionization potential, around the filamentary currents
_Question: But is there any evidence it can do this in solid material?

Other than the work done by the aforementioned Michael Steinbacher, I am unaware of any organised on-going research in this area but no doubt related work is being carried out (http://www.everythingselectric.com/pumice). Others may wish to contribute if they have first-hand knowledge of Michael Steinbacher’s work. It is known that downed high voltage power lines can produce Lechatelierite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lechatelierite) what is interesting here is that it is also assumed that “Lechatelierite was formed during the impact of a meteorite into a layer of Coconino Sandstone at Meteor Crater in Arizona.”- having previously acknowledged that Lechatelierite can form electrically.

Given that some 95% of the Phanerozoic fossil record consists of marine sea creatures, primarily molluscs, then it would be unwise to assume that large areal expanses of sedimentary rock were not deposited other than by water and rapidly. However, the question I have posed elsewhere (https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&start=90#p120196) is, are ALL sedimentary rocks a product of the rock cycle acting over aeons of time? Moreover, I consider it likely that in a cataclysm some of the previously deposited sedimentary rock was electrically eroded following uplift.

Fulgurites? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgurite)
Lloyd wrote:_Questions: But I don't know of any evidence that electric currents can expand rock. Do you? I mean in order to form the mountain ranges?
_Is anyone doing experiments to test if electricity can expand rock? If not, why not?

Hopefully you have received the copy of the NCGT Journal and read Robert Johnson’s paper; I am unable to answer your second question, maybe experiments are being carried out by individuals not connect with mainstream institutions?
Lloyd wrote:_Questions: Doesn't the separation between batholiths suggest there was no continuous electric current from southern South American Andes to the northern end of the North American Rockies, or vice versa, assuming batholiths were formed electrically?
_Did you know that Dwardu Cardona concluded that continental drift is real?
_Which of Mike Fischer's evidence at http://NewGeology.us do you dispute?
_If the east coasts of the Americas fit the west coasts of Europe and Africa very well and even have the same rock and fossil types, as they do where the coasts would have originally been adjacent, and if the Moho is a frictionless plasma layer over which the continents could slide easily after an impact, and if the impact evidence is available, as it is, what would make (rapid) continental drift impossible?

I do not see that it would be necessary to conclude that an arc was not continuous based on the distribution of granite outcrops, surely we can conclude that the surface and subsurface material at that point has been electrically metamorphosed.

Dwardu Cardona may very well have reached that conclusion, many geologists disagree as I am sure you are aware- being familiar with the work of the Meyerhoffs.

Which of Mike Fischer's evidence (?) do I dispute? All of it- as I do all mobilist theories.

The Moho- as I have previously stated, we must exercise a degree of caution when geologists tell us with certainty that particular structures exist deep within the Earth having modelled seismic wave data. I have already given the example of the Conrad Discontinuity at the Baltic Shield. Deep drilling in the North Atlantic Ocean has similarly failed to reveal the Mohorovicic Discontinuity. (https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/where-art-thou-oh-moho/).

"Hopes were running high early last month that geophysicists had finally come within striking distance of a decades-old goal. Drillers aboard the JOIDES Resolution in the mid-North Atlantic were making steady progress down through hundreds of meters of rocky ocean crust toward the legendary Mohorovicic discontinuity, or simply the Moho, the boundary between the thin veneer of Earth's crust and the 2900 kilometer thick mantle.

"But as drilling proceeded with unparalleled ease through 700 meters of crust, then 1000 meters, and even 1400 meters, the Moho was a no-show. Seismic probing had put it at a depth of 1 kilometer or less just off the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but drilling cores never showed any sign of the predicted fresh mantle rock. It seems Earth is more complicated than the best geophysical tools had suggested, says Jay Miller, the onboard project manager during the 4 months of drilling...

"After running through a dozen drill bits in 54 days of drilling through 1415 meters of solid rock, however, scientists onboard Resolution had recovered nothing that looked like the underlying mantle. “I'm surprised,” says Collins. Possibly, he says, his vertical, two-dimensional seismic picture missed an unexpected deepening of the Moho off to one side: “Perhaps they were unfortunate in where they drilled.” WHOI colleague and seismologist Robert Detrick adds that identifying deep rock “is a hard call to make based on seismic velocity alone.” Rocks of different compositions can have the same seismic velocity, he notes: “It's a problem that plagues seismology.”(My emphasis)

It may well be that the Moho – where it exists- is simply water saturated fractured rock.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:45 am

Impact Geologists, Beware!

A new study concludes that ‘shocked quartz’ is not necessarily produced by asteroid/ comet/ meteorite impacts.

See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074840/abstract

As the authors point out “…but it will serve as a reminder that on Earth, meteorite impacts are among the most rare of geologic events. On our planet, lightning strikes more often than meteorites.”

It also raises the question of rocks which consensus geology views as forming at depth under great pressure and heat- is it possible that where we find such rocks at the Earth’s surface that they actually formed in situ by powerful electric discharges?

Our understanding of Earth’s geology is in need of revision, electrical effects past and present now must be considered.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:41 pm

I hope to get back to discussing here again soon. I'm a little pre-occupied.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:50 pm

The guy at CNPS wants to start a year-long project to test his model for improving scientific publishing online and said I could pick the topic, so I picked Geology and I said I'd like to collect the major claims from the various geology theories and compare and rate them. So I expect I'll be looking for the major EU catastrophism claims and facts along with those of the other theories I'll know about.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby DJunqueira » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:49 pm

I found a very interesting association between two images of Thunderbolts videos that I would like to share.
I think the experiment of Garrett Hill explain well how that terrain pointed by Michael Steinbacher was formed.

Garrett Hill video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDPW7vTd5Y&t=295s

Michael Steinbacher video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyWVAwcrgFM
Attachments
Lab_descarga_eletrica.jpg
Lab experiment from Garrett Hill
Relevo_EU.jpg
Landform by Michael Steinbacher | EU2015
User avatar
DJunqueira
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:51 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest