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 (
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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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? (
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 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. (

"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: 148
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.


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: 148
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.
Posts: 4170
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.
Posts: 4170
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:

Michael Steinbacher video:
Lab experiment from Garrett Hill
Landform by Michael Steinbacher | EU2015
User avatar
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:51 pm

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:38 am

Microspherules in Yukon and Alaskan Muck

The authors of the paper: ‘Impact-related microspherules in Late Pleistocene Alaskan and Yukon “muck” deposits signify recurrent episodes of catastrophic emplacement’ ( have found microspherules in sediments forming part of ‘muck’ deposits.

“Large quantities of impact-related microspherules have been found in fine-grained sediments retained within seven out of nine, radiocarbon-dated, Late Pleistocene mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and bison (Bison priscus) skull fragments. The well-preserved fossils were recovered from frozen “muck” deposits (organic-rich silt) exposed within the Fairbanks and Klondike mining districts of Alaska, USA, and the Yukon Territory, Canada. In addition, elevated platinum abundances were found in sediment analysed from three out of four fossil skulls. In view of this new evidence, the mucks and their well preserved but highly disrupted and damaged vertebrate and botanical remains are reinterpreted in part as blast deposits that resulted from several episodes of airbursts and ground/ice impacts within the northern hemisphere during Late Pleistocene time (~46–11 ka B.P.). Such a scenario might be explained by encounters with cometary debris in Earth-crossing orbits (Taurid Complex) that was generated by fragmentation of a large short-period comet within the inner Solar System.”

The authors conclude:

“Our results suggest that large amounts of melt-quenched impact spherules, associated with Pleistocene megafaunal remains, were deposited in the mucks of eastern Beringia after ~48 kyr. The SEM/EDS and Pt/Pd data we acquired indicates they are not cosmic, anthropogenic, or volcanic in origin (Fig. 8), but were most likely produced by hypervelocity airbursts and ground/ice impacts. Based on this evidence, and the damaged and disrupted character of the muck’s vertebrate and botanical material documented by others, we conclude that some parts of the Beringian muck and Yedoma deposits were catastrophically emplaced during the Late Pleistocene by blast winds associated with multiple episodes of cosmic impact.

“Blast winds from the impacts would have swept across the Beringian landscape flattening trees and killing, dismembering, and burying megafaunal carcasses or body parts, along with logs, branches, other plant material, with a matrix of redeposited loess in low-lying creek valleys. Normal depositional processes such as slopewash, creep, and mudflow would have continued within the valleys during the thousands or more years between blast events. The lack of microspherules in the primary loess (Table S1) indicates that it was emplaced between impact episodes and those microspherules found within the mucks were added to the remobilized primary loess as it was retransported by blast winds along with comminuted organic material and the damaged and fragmented vertebrate and plant remains.”

I agree with the authors that the formation of the microspherules is certainly catastrophic, the question is did they form from an impact melt or an electrical discharge?

Rather than impacts perhaps the sediment deposits found around the periphery of the Arctic Ocean resulted from an electrical discharge- which, in its final stage, took the form of an immense cyclone unceremoniously depositing its mangled load of megafauna and forests?
Robertus Maximus
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby DJunqueira » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:17 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:Rather than impacts perhaps the sediment deposits found around the periphery of the Arctic Ocean resulted from an electrical discharge- which, in its final stage, took the form of an immense cyclone unceremoniously depositing its mangled load of megafauna and forests?

I would tend to think that both could occur, since according to EU theory, after Venus passed by Mars and discharged electrically, many fragments of that encounter would have been launched into space and could thus have hit the Earth latter on. The powder also generated could be the cause of the electric discharge.
User avatar
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:51 pm

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:24 pm

Has the Earth’s Surface Been Shaped by Immense Tornadoes?

In 1974 Ralph Juergens speculated as to what landforms an electrical discharge would leave on the Lunar and Martian surfaces. (1) Juergens suggested that an interaction between the Moon and Mars could have produced some of the surface features found on both worlds.

On the Moon it was suggested that craters and sinuous rilles could form by an electric discharge. On Mars the Mariner 9 spacecraft had only two years previous (1972) revealed some remarkable Martian surface features; Juergens suggested that Nix Olympica (now Olympus Mons) and the Canyon-lands (now Valles Marineris) were just some of the features formed by an electric discharge on that world.

If such a wide variety of surface features could form on both the Moon and Mars by the same process, what, if any, landforms could a similar planetary scale discharge produce on Earth?

Water World

One look at the Earth from space and an immediate and obvious difference between not only the Moon and Mars but all the other terrestrial bodies is apparent, most of the Earth’s surface is covered by a veneer of water. Not only water but all manner of ‘volatiles’ constantly emanate from below the surface be it on land or under the sea.

On a planet with an abundance of volatiles would an electric discharge of the scale envisaged by Juergens, one appearing as a giant electric arc, leave dry valleys and craters, or would such a discharge take on a completely different appearance? If a discharge can produce surface features that are both common and unique to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, then perhaps Earth too has its own idiosyncratic features.

Tornadoes, dust devils and waterspouts

To understand the wide variety of atmospheric vortex features we have to take step back and look farther afield. Such features are the result of processes not only at a global level but at a heliospheric level.
“In the electrical model of the solar system, all planets must contrive to supply electrons to the positively charged Sun.” (2) In this particular instance we are talking about relative potentials, the Sun is highly negatively charged but as interstellar space carries a greater charge in the negative sense, the Sun acts as if is positively charged. Juergens had suggested that planetary magnetospheres intercepted electrons bound for the Sun, the magnetospheres then re-emitted surplus electrons to participate in the solar discharge: “The continuous arrival of positively charged cosmic rays on earth suggests that our planet carries and continually renews a strong negative charge. Indeed, experiments performed some years ago by Quinn and Chang indicate, in spite of the experimenters’ pointed disclaimer, that the earth behaves as a secondary cathode in the solar discharge…I would speculate, therefore, that the earth’s negative charge represents that of electrons intercepted on their way to the sun by earth’s sheath-like tail, and that this charge is built up to a point where the earth re-emits electrons into the solar discharge.” (3)

This complex interaction is what powers Earth’s weather systems, elsewhere I suggested that thunderstorms that form during the night demonstrate that the Earth sources electrons from the magnetotail (4), and part of the charge exchange process is achieved through lightning activity and vortex (i.e. tornadoes, waterspouts, dust devils) activity.

“Usually the cloud to ground discharge takes the form of the multiple sparks we call lightning. However, in some parts of the world the lightning switches to the slower discharge of the tornado. Then, instead of the electric charge rushing directly between the ground and the cloud along a thin lightning channel, it is constrained by powerful electromagnetic forces to rotate in a long, thin cylinder or vortex. Measurement of the magnetic field and earth current near touchdown of a tornado shows that it is electrically equivalent to several hundred storm cells. It is this concentrated electrical power in the central vortex that creates damage far in excess of that possible for a simple wind vortex. It also explains the burnt surfaces and objects sometimes found after the passage of a tornado.” (5)

The destructive nature of tornadoes is well known, this account from Rouen, France in August 1845 also provides an insight into the havoc caused by the electrical nature of tornadoes: “The trees in the vicinity were flung down in every direction, riven and dried up for a length of from six to twenty feet and more. While clearing away the ruins, in the attempt to rescue the unfortunate people buried beneath them, it was noticed that the bricks were burning hot. Planks were found completely charred, and cotton burned and scorched, and many pieces of iron and steel were magnetized.” Some of the corpses showed traces of burning, and others had no visible cuts or contusions, but seem to have been killed by lightning. Workmen who were hurled into the surrounding fields, all agreed that they had seen flashes and had noticed a strong smell of sulphur. Persons who happened to be on the adjacent heights, alleged that they saw the factories wrapped in flames and smoke as the cloud enveloped it.” (6)

In the above we see evidence that certain materials displayed a remanent magnetism after the passage of the tornado. Is it possible that in the past electric discharges, taking the form of immense vortexes, reshaped parts of the Earth’s surface and left evidence in rocks that were susceptible to magnetization?

Earth’s ‘Hexagon’

Antarctica is surrounded by what consensus geology considers being a more-or-less continuous ‘spreading centre’. (7) The problem for Plate Tectonicists is that there is no corresponding ‘subduction zone’ to remove the supposedly newly created oceanic crust. Furthermore, the polygonal shaped ridge surrounds the Earth’s North Magnetic Pole (the South Magnetic Pole being in North America), looking out into the solar system we see a similar polygonal feature, this time an atmospheric feature, surrounding the North Magnetic Pole of Saturn- the famous Hexagon.

Radiating and trending northwards from the circum-Antarctic ‘spreading centre’ are a number of ridges or other ‘spreading centres’ including the East Pacific Rise, Central Indian Ridge, Ninety East Ridge and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Where such ridges make landfall we find deep canyons on the continental shelves farther inland we see elevated plateaus and mountain ranges but where did the material originate that forms these features? Fossil remains in areas such as the Colorado and Himalaya Plateaus usually consist of “graveyards” a strange mix of marine, lacustrine and terrestrial animals and plants, of course consensus geology sees these deposits as having formed over millions of years. Over time as the landscape constantly changed animals of the land, sea and air met their fate at the same locale- but what if this assumption is incorrect? What if the “graveyards” are something else altogether? What if the “graveyards” formed as the mountains themselves were formed? They would then be testament to a cataclysm. If ‘spreading centres’ and ridges were formed electrically do extraterrestrial analogues exist?

Earth’s Tiger Stripes

“The south polar region of Enceladus has long been a source of fascination to planetary scientists since jets of water vapour and icy particles were found to spew from vents along the moon’s distinctive ‘tiger stripe’ fractures, and now evidence has been presented to suggest that Earthlike plate tectonic activity is in action.

“The science team liken the spreading to Earth’s mid-ocean ridges where volcanic material wells up and creates new crust, but with one major difference: the spreading on Enceladus is almost all in one direction.”Asymmetric spreading like this is unusual on Earth and not well understood," says Paul Helfenstein, Cassini imaging associate at Cornell University. "We are not certain about the geological mechanisms that control the spreading, but we see patterns of divergence and mountain-building similar to what we see on Earth, which suggests that subsurface heat and convection are involved."”(8)

Cassini mission scientists noted how similar in appearance Enceladus’ ‘tiger stripe’ fractures appear to Earth’s ‘sea-floor spreading’ features going so far as to make a direct comparison of such features as spreading ridges, transform faults and an offset spreading centre. On Enceladus the ‘tiger stripe’ terrain, which continues to emit jets of warm water vapour and organic compounds, are analogues of Earth’s ‘spreading centres’ and their associated volcanic activity including black and white ‘smokers’, both are weaker relics of earlier massive electrical activity that once carved and punctured their respective surfaces.

We can now piece together the pole-to-pole discharges that reshaped Earth’s surface resulting in Earth’s ridge and mountain systems.

Pole to Pole

In 1963 astronomer Thomas Gold considered the consequences of the Earth’s magnetosphere encountering an exceptionally large solar outburst. According to Gold: “The earth’s magnetic field could clearly not hold up the incoming gas, and it would indeed drive down to the atmospheric level where the gas pressure can resist the further flow. At that level the atmosphere is dense and the ionization that could be maintained would not result in a good conductivity. The incoming gas bringing its strong field into the virtually insulating atmosphere would then result in very large electric fields so directed that the resulting currents would maintain those fields. But in the atmosphere this can be done only by electrical breakdown. Since the ground is a good conductor such a breakdown is likely to take a path of breakdown through the entire thickness of the atmosphere on each side of the magnetic cloud being pressed in, and through the body of the earth from one site of breakdown to the other … This breakdown would be in the form of a series of sparks, burning for extended periods of time and carrying currents of hundreds of millions of amperes.” (9)

Gold had considered an exceptionally large CME (coronal mass ejection) but what other scenarios could be envisaged that could produce similar currents, scenarios that are currently beyond mainstream science thinking? A drastic change in Earth’s electrical environment for example?

Thunderbolts contributor Andrew Hall has done some excellent research work looking at the formation of mountains (10) positing the role of the atmosphere in their formation. (11) Elsewhere I have suggested that the Earth originally displayed a hemispheric dichotomy, an oceanic Pacific hemisphere and a continental Indo-Atlantic hemisphere. (12) Although termed ‘continental’ we can picture the Indo-Atlantic hemisphere as containing lakes and inland seas as we see on the continents today. Combining both approaches we can trace the path of the discharge current travelling south to north excavating the Indo-Atlantic hemisphere as it goes. Machined and pulverised sediments are pushed away by a powerful Lorentz Force, piling up ahead of the discharge, leaving behind a newly formed magnetized basaltic ridge and fractures filled with fresh lava (The rocks of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) are often portrayed in Plate Tectonic cartoons as being entirely igneous, this is not the case. Limestone containing shallow water fossils has been recovered from the MAR, the limestone is of a chemical variety that has been altered by a process that must have taken place subaerially). Outpouring subsurface water from the fractured crust gradually filled the newly formed basin (extensive subsidence would have followed as Earth’s surface gravity increased due to an accumulation of charge).

Forests in the path of the discharge are burned and petrified- disparate ecosystems are thrown together for future palaeontologists to ponder. As the current pushes more and more watery sediment strata form and are folded in situ eventually the mass of the load seems to have exceeded the motive power of the discharge which now, as in the earlier reports of the effects of tornadoes, begins to ‘bake’ and erode the newly formed assemblage perhaps partially melting not only the sedimentary mass but the basement rock as well. The Rocky and Himalaya Mountains were probably formed this way. Only one discharge channel stretches from ‘pole to pole’, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge which terminates in the Arctic Ocean basin, the largest sedimentary basin on Earth. (13)

Fire and Ice

Writing in 1976 on the subject of electricity in astronomy Eric Crew observed: “Lightning causes the material in the discharge channel to be compressed and accelerated in the direction of the negative charge. (The free electrons moving in the opposite direction having relatively little affect on the flow of material). This jet of hot gas contains water vapour and if it is directed into the upper atmosphere, a streak of mist or ice particles will be formed, possibly several km long. On its downward path into the denser atmosphere, the particles bunch together and an ice lump may fall to the ground there are many such cases reported and even stones may have been formed when the lightning is in clouds of volcanic or other dust.” (14)

In the scenario suggested here, with extended and catastrophic electrical activity encircling Antarctica radiating out toward the Arctic we can ask the question- did this postulated electrical discharge event(s) rapidly encase both polar regions in ice?

If lightning can also form stones from dust what are we to make of ice-age ‘dropstones'? Recently, Michael Rampino, a Professor of Biology at NYU, has suggested that deposits once considered being ancient ice-age tillites are actually impact debris. (15) In the scenario suggested here such tillites and ‘dropstones’ would be neither- they would be products of intense electrical activity- electrified stones falling from the dust choked atmosphere into soft sediment.

Wrong Turn?

Shortly after the discovery of sea-floor magnetic anomalies geologists noted that the “…lineations strongly resemble stress patterns that appear in certain plastics.” An electrical cause was briefly considered, “…a complicated system of electric currents in the crust and the ocean could account for our lineation. Not a shred of other evidence supports such an idea, however.” (16) That was in 1961, today even mainstream science to some degree acknowledges Earth’s electrical nature. Perhaps in the past Earth was electrified even more so, so much so that electrical scars were left on the floors of new ocean basins.

With hindsight and knowing what we know today about the electrical nature of the solar system, would geologists, if they were equally aware in 1961, have explored an electrical interpretation of sea-floor magnetic anomalies further? Perhaps the New Global Tectonics revolution would never have happened and a more accurate picture of Earth’s electrical nature would have been painted.


1. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1974. Of the Moon and Mars, Part 2. Pensee, IVR X. Vol. 4 No. 5. Winter 1974-75
2. Thornhill. Wallace. 2004. Electric Dust Devils. EU Views.
3. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1973. On Cosmic Electricity. Pensee, IVR V. Vol. 3 No. 3. Fall 1973
5. Thornhill. W. op. cit. (2)
6. Corliss. William. R. 1983. Tornados, Dark Days, Anomalous Precipitation, and Related Weather Phenomena. Sourcebook Project, Maryland. USA.
9. Gold. Thomas. 1963. Large Solar Outbursts in the Past. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarvm Scripta Varia 25
10. Hall. Andrew. 2016. Arc Blast Part 1, 2 and 3. Thunderblog.
11. Hall. Andrew. 2018. Sputtering Canyons Part 1. Thunderblog.
12. op. cit. (4)
14. Crew. Eric. 1976. Problems of Electricity in Astronomy. SIS Review, Vol 1. No 1, January 1976
15. Rampino, Michael. 2017. Are some tillites impact-related debris-flow deposits? J. Geol., 125, No. 2
16. Raff. Arthur. D. 1961. The Magnetism of the Ocean Floor. Scientific American, October 1961
Robertus Maximus
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Catastrophist Geology

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:29 am

Of Geotectonic Wizards And Geomagnetic Reversals

In 1978, a year before his untimely death, Ralph Juergens unsettled the settled science of sea-floor spreading. In a little known work Juergens pulled back the curtain on the great and powerful Oz-like myth of sea-floor spreading and exposed it to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Sea-floor magnetic anomalies had an explanation without the need for sea-floor spreading but the mobilists reinterpreted the data, data that was eventually used to ‘prove’ the New Global Tectonic paradigm- Plate Tectonics.

Our story begins in 1952 with the discovery of magnetic anomalies in the Pacific Ocean, “…when Ronald G. Mason of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography towed a magnetometer off the stern of a ship sailing from Samoa to San Diego. The instrument revealed an intriguing series of magnetic anomalies -- field intensities higher or lower than theory would predict -- along the track of the ship. It appeared that the anomalies were arranged alternately positive and negative -- high and low magnetic intensity, respectively -- with remarkable consistency.” (1)

Then, “…in 1955 the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey assigned the ship Pioneer to a research project in deep water off the West Coast. It was to steam along east-west track lines five miles apart, holding to the prescribed course within 150 yards.” “By late 1956 the ship had surveyed a strip of ocean several hundred miles wide extending from Mexico 1,400 miles north to the Queen Charlotte Islands, off British Columbia.” (2)

Over the next three years the survey was gradually extended farther out into the Pacific Ocean and by the early 1960’s geophysicists wondered what process could possibly cause or have caused such magnetic anomalies.

Notice that at this time magnetic anomalies are simply measured as regions of different magnetic intensity, even so there is more to this interpretation than meets the eye, as Juergens points out: “The investigator averages all the highs and lows in the readings along a single profile, then subtracts the result from each of them "in order to define positive and negative anomalies" (emphasis added).This manipulation puts "zero" -- a datum line separating positives from negatives -- squarely through the middle of the profile. He does not ask: What if I were to lower the datum enough to eliminate half the negative anomalies defined by my procedure, or raise it enough to eliminate half the positive anomalies?” (3)

The arbitrary definition of the newly discovered sea-floor magnetic anomalies didn’t stop the sea-floor spreaders and, “In 1963, F. J. Vine and D. H. Matthews of Cambridge University proposed that the peculiarly systematic magnetic features, mapped as positive and negative anomalies by all workers up to that time, were actually alternating strips of crustal rock magnetized with normal and reversed polarity.” (4)

Vine and Matthews had utilised data from a survey of the Carlsberg Ridge, returned as part of the International Indian Ocean Expedition, the surveyed region was mountainous and certain relationships were observed, “…[1] long-period anomalies over the exposed or buried foothills of the ridge; [2] shorter-period anomalies over the rugged flanks of the ridge; [3] a pronounced central anomaly associated with the median valley.” (5) The authors noted that the “…central anomaly can be reproduced if it is assumed that a block of material very strongly magnetized in the present direction of the Earth’s field underlies the median valley and produces a positive susceptibility contrast with the adjacent crust.” and a “…trough of negative anomalies, flanked by steep gradients, separates two areas of positive anomalies. The trough of negative anomalies corresponds to a general depression in the bottom topography which represents the median valley of the Ridge. The positive anomalies correspond to mountains on either side of the valley.”(6)

Up to this point the authors refer to positive and negative anomalies, acknowledging that “topographic features are capable of producing anomalies”, there is no mention of reversed magnetization, indeed, the authors note “…the effect of a body magnetized in the present direction of the Earth’s field is to reduce the strength of the field above it, producing a negative anomaly over the body and a slight positive anomaly to the north.” However, by the fifth paragraph a subtle sleight-of-hand has occurred: “Two comparatively isolated volcano-like features were singled out and considered in detail. One has an associated negative anomaly as one would expect for normal magnetization, the other, completely the reverse anomaly pattern, that is, a pronounced positive anomaly suggesting reversed magnetization.” (7)

And there it is, from that point on, positive and negative magnetic anomalies that suggested normal and reversed magnetization were forever ‘normal’ and ‘reversed’ magnetization. The anomalies may have suggested ‘normal’ and ‘reversed’ magnetization but where the authors influenced by a preconceived bias? Did they make the data fit the theory?

“The theory is consistent with, in fact virtually a corollary of, current ideas on ocean floor spreading and periodic reversals in the Earth’s magnetic field.” (8) It would appear that a consensus already existed.

However, as Juergens pointed out there was no real need for magnetic reversals, “… it was well-understood, as predicted on theory and verified again and again in continental magnetic surveys, that normally magnetized geologic formations could account for the entire ocean-bottom picture, imposing negative as well as positive anomalies on profiles. Vine and Matthews themselves conceded this. Each magnetized formation is itself a magnet. Its field lines, like those of the earth, emerge from one pole, loop in all directions all the way around, and re-enter at the other pole. And as the lines make their loops, they reinforce the earth's field here, oppose it there, giving rise to positive and negative anomalies.

“The magnetic latitude of a magnetized formation determines how steeply its axis will be inclined with respect to the ground surface (assumed level). And this, in turn, influences the form of the anomaly curve it will impose on a profile. Reinforcement (positive-anomaly build-up) will be more pronounced at higher magnetic latitudes, and opposition (negative-anomaly build-up) at lower magnetic latitudes. But anywhere on the globe most magnetic profiles will display both positive and negative anomalies in close association and traceable entirely to normally magnetized rocks.” (9)

Vine and Matthews did concede that point, “It is appreciated that magnetic contrasts within the oceanic crust can be explained without postulating reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field; for example, the crust might contain blocks of very strongly magnetized material adjacent to blocks of material weakly magnetized in the same direction. However, the model suggested in this article seems to be more plausible because high susceptibility contrasts between adjacent blocks can be explained without recourse to major inhomogeneities of rock type within the main crustal layer or unusually strongly magnetized rocks.” (10)

So, it would seem, that the entire sea-floor spreading hypothesis was ‘confirmed’ by a more ‘plausible’ opinion and an assumption or belief of ‘reversed’ magnetization, yet only two years earlier “…Arthur Raff favoured an explanation according to which "the strongly positive anomalies are produced by ribbons of highly magnetic, volcanic basalt that flowed into previously formed channels and solidified. [Of all the models considered,] the strips of solidified lava seem to us the most likely." Earlier in his article he had noted that "the right pattern of stress," even without a flow of molten rock, might explain the lineated anomalies, "since the magnetization of rocks varies under stress." But he rejected this piezo-magnetic explanation, characterizing the necessary forces as "highly unusual and unlikely." Nevertheless, he reasoned that the lineations must reflect "some sort of ridged or striated pattern in the crustal rock, obscured by overlying sediment." He added that the magnetic anomaly maps bear "a striking resemblance to the patterns that appear in Bakelite and Lucite when they are placed under stress. This suggests that the present structure is the fossil record of ancient stresses."” (11)

Magnetic anomalies had an alternative explanation one that consensus geology refused to entertain- a possible catastrophic one as Juergens reminds us, “Whatever the actual process or processes by which parallel features flanking oceanic ridges became anomalously magnetized, it appears most likely that powerful tectonic forces were involved. The overall picture, divorced from the ill-fitting frame of sea-floor spreading, evokes explanation in terms of Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval.

“Somehow, today's well-schooled earth scientist finds it within himself to accept the startling notion that the geomagnetic field has flipped over hundreds of times since the Cretaceous Period, which immediately preceded the present Cenozoic Era in Geologic time. He subscribes to this, apparently, on the assurances of a few specialists claiming to know how an unelectrified earth can generate a magnetic field and, even more, how such a field can be reversed. Yet when Velikovsky argues, on the basis of historical testimony, archaeological evidence, and sound physical principles, that the geomagnetic field has been suddenly reversed on more than one occasion in historical times, the earth scientist looks the other way.

“We have seen that a close look turns up little, if any, evidence from the sea bottoms pointing to geomagnetic reversals, and none at all for sea-floor spreading. To the contrary, patterns of rock magnetism beneath the oceans point to global upheaval and turmoil.” (12)

Sea-floor spreading the keystone of not only Plate Tectonics but also of Expanding Earth theories has entered the geological hall-of-fame, so certain are geologists of its validity that it is taught as fact to geology students and non-specialists alike, yet the research on which it stands, that of sea-floor magnetic anomalies and their interpretation is subjective. The reality may be very different- a catastrophic one.

“The relationships between the anomalies and mid-ocean ridges are fully compatible with the idea that the rifted ridges are the scars of violence done to the earth's crustal fabric. The suggestion that contortions of the crust may be completely masked by overlying sediments was substantiated in the early 1960's through echo soundings; the investigators, Maurice Ewing and several colleagues of Columbia University's Lamont Geological Observatory, concluded that "horizontal currents" -- a euphemistic term for catastrophic water sloshings of the kind described by Velikovsky (Earth in Upheaval, "A Working Hypothesis," and elsewhere) -- must be held responsible for so emplacing sediments as to erase completely all superficial evidence of the "remarkably rugged" basement complex revealed by their studies.” (13)

Having exposed the great and powerful Oz-like myth of seafloor spreading Juergens left the door open for a catastrophic interpretation, one of electrical discharges, storms and dare I say it- tornadoes!


1. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978, Geogullibility And Geomagnetic Reversals, Kronos Vol. 3 No. 4 (Summer 1978)
2. Raff. Arthur. D. 1961, The Magnetism of the Ocean Floor, Scientific American, October 1961, pp. 146-156.
3. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978. op. cit. (1)
4. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978. op. cit. (1)
5. Vine. F. J, Matthews. D. H. 1963, Magnetic Anomalies over Oceanic Ridges, Nature, September 1963
6. Vine. F. J, Matthews. D. H. 1963. op. cit. (5)
7. Vine. F. J, Matthews. D. H.1963. op. cit. (5)
8. Vine. F. J, Matthews. D. H.1963. op. cit. (5)
9. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978. op. cit. (1)
10. Vine. F. J, Matthews. D. H.1963. op. cit. (5)
11. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978. op. cit. (1)
12. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978. op. cit. (1)
13. Juergens. Ralph. E. 1978. op. cit. (1)
Robertus Maximus
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests