Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process?

[starbiter]

michael, If the canyon is already there when an event occurs then we would expect some odd effects or erosion and deposits, etc. I think this is what you are describing.

Thus I am saying that the canyon formed well before such an event, when the Earth was in a different planetary formation, and during the laying down of all the sediment of the geological column. So we have our differences, but we still have renegade planets and electrical effects, etc.
Cheers,
Mo

Moses, my position is that the river was there first. The low point. Then there was a flood. Areas under water didn't get covered by blowing dust. The higher points along the river were left dry during the period of flying red hot dust. They grew very rapidly. When the whole area was submerged there would be slosh covering everything. When the flood reversed, the slosh on higher ground would be left behind because the currents weren't strong. The erosion happened when the water level dropped.

So the formation surrounding the canyon grew in layers. Some of the time slosh. Some of the time welded tuff like. The river prevented accumulation. No erosion required, other than flushing out fresh, soft, wet sediment.

I hope that makes sense. I really do!

michael

[starbiter]

Just to be clear, the formations below were created quickly. Days at most!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... _types.jpg

The first image is key. Keeping clicking on it until it fills the page. Everything not yellow on the first map isn't sediment. What isn't sediment was created during the beginning of the Plagues of Egypt. It wasn't there prior. The stuff that's not sediment, from the Plague of Darkness, in the shape of a spiral galaxy, or hurricane. Just a coincidence i suppose. From the Aleutian Islands to the Caribbean, it's a mirror image.

The shape would be from a Birkeland Current, with many diocotron instabilities within the structure.


The Earth was very different prior. Who knows how different. Anyone with answers is questionable. Things got shuffled.

A friend claims the flood of Noah came to the tops of the mountains. It was 19 feet high. Not very impressive mountains.

Mountains might be a process of addition from above, as described in legend.

michael

[moses]

Moses, my position is that the river was there first. The low point.
michael
What you are saying after the above, is not clear.
How many layers of sediment on the banks were there in that 'first' river. And I'm guessing that the other layers were formed by what you are describing.

Can we go slowly from the very ancient rocks.
Cheers,
Mo

[starbiter]

Moses, my position is that the river was there first. The low point.
michael
What you are saying after the above, is not clear.
How many layers of sediment on the banks were there in that 'first' river. And I'm guessing that the other layers were formed by what you are describing.

Can we go slowly from the very ancient rocks.
Cheers,
Mo

Linked below is an image of the Colorado river near Blythe CA.

http://goo.gl/maps/CP4wO

There are no mountains. There isn't a canyon. After millions or billions of years of erosion.

The layers of the Grand Canyon are linked below.

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm

Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster Granite - This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were they deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas. The color of this layer is dark grey or black.

me again,

The schist and granite would be the beginning of the process. Caused by the galaxy shaped structure shown in the yellow sediment map posted yesterday. Everything above the granite might have been rapidly deposited while Venus was close by looking like a Thunderbird.

The area around Blythe was probably under water. So there is just sediment there. The paper linked below says the sediments are up to 12 km deep. That's almost 40,000 feet.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/rdorsey/Downlo ... ar2013.pdf

Prior to the catastrophic event the area might have looked quite different. There might be cities down there, but they'd be hard to find. The same with Egypt. That might explain cities appearing on the newly created surface with technology that sprang from nowhere.

michael

[GaryN]

I believe I have the Texas flood and canyon 'formation' event figured out Micheal, and it explains a puzzle I had about some of my local geology. The picture popped into my head while I was watching a Velikovsky documentary, my subconscious must have been chewing it over.
Anyway, the answer is that NO water was involved with the formation of the canyon supposedly cut by the dam overflow. Nor was any water involved with the cutting of the Guadalupe River. They were both electrically excavated. The freshly cut canyon from the flood was actually there before the main channel that now leads up to the dam. All the sedimentary/fluvial layers that are visible along the banks of the flood excavation are what was torn out of the canyon, lofted in billowing clouds, and then settled back down, sorted as it fell , and covering the whole area, with much falling back into the excavated canyon.
The discharge channel then switched to what is now the Guadalupe, which cut deeper into the rock than the smaller one. This may have been only seconds after the first one was cut. Afterwards, when water entered the picture, it flowed down the deeper channel, and the water never flowed down the smaller one. The loose material that had filled the Guadalupe was washed away, leaving the bigger chunks in the river bed, and exposing the layered deposits lining the river.

The smaller channel may have had just some local drainage, but never a substantial flow. When the dam was built, it meant that at flood stage, the water backed up enough to allow it to enter the smaller channel which was still mostly filled with the layered deposits from the electrical excavation, and so all the dirt and smaller rock was washed away, as had happened along the Guadalupe. So now we see the layered deposits along the bank, and there are some rocks and boulder piles where the larger chunks have collected in eddies formed in the flood event.

But, there is by no means anywhere near the volume of rocks and boulders present in the 'new' channel, or the Guadalupe, to account for the volume of material removed, and that is because it was all turned to the dust and fine material that fills the Guadalupe river and lies along the banks and probably outside of the river banks for some distance.
Images from:
http://texasgeology.blogspot.ca/2012/09 ... ophic.html
Google maps shows where the new canyon was formed, but you can see, with the terrain view, that there was already a valley there, which was filled with the debris from the original excavation.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=maps+can ... e&t=p&z=15
I have a similar occurence around here, but the lake has not yet risen to a point where the secondary channel has been flooded, but I am confident that if I were to excavate in the centre of what is now a shallow, broad gulley, I would find just the same layering of debris, and a ragged canyon at the bedrock level. I hope you follow my reasoning here Michael, as I am very confident that this is what happened, both in Texas, and around here. Now I have seen this process, I'll bet by using Google maps I can identify more 'dry' creeks and rivers.
I did find the Velikovsky videos interesting, though I still think it possible that some of what was seen by observers at the time might be explained by other processes. I just KNEW that once I started into Velikovsky it would open up a whole new, and very large area of study, and I really can't fit any more on my plate right now! Maybe I'll just let my subconscious chew on it and wait for some answers to pop out when they are good and ready?

[starbiter]

I believe I have the Texas flood and canyon 'formation' event figured out Micheal, and it explains a puzzle I had about some of my local geology. The picture popped into my head while I was watching a Velikovsky documentary, my subconscious must have been chewing it over.
Anyway, the answer is that NO water was involved with the formation of the canyon supposedly cut by the dam overflow. Nor was any water involved with the cutting of the Guadalupe River. They were both electrically excavated. The freshly cut canyon from the flood was actually there before the main channel that now leads up to the dam. All the sedimentary/fluvial layers that are visible along the banks of the flood excavation are what was torn out of the canyon, lofted in billowing clouds, and then settled back down, sorted as it fell , and covering the whole area, with much falling back into the excavated canyon.
The discharge channel then switched to what is now the Guadalupe, which cut deeper into the rock than the smaller one. This may have been only seconds after the first one was cut. Afterwards, when water entered the picture, it flowed down the deeper channel, and the water never flowed down the smaller one. The loose material that had filled the Guadalupe was washed away, leaving the bigger chunks in the river bed, and exposing the layered deposits lining the river.

The smaller channel may have had just some local drainage, but never a substantial flow. When the dam was built, it meant that at flood stage, the water backed up enough to allow it to enter the smaller channel which was still mostly filled with the layered deposits from the electrical excavation, and so all the dirt and smaller rock was washed away, as had happened along the Guadalupe. So now we see the layered deposits along the bank, and there are some rocks and boulder piles where the larger chunks have collected in eddies formed in the flood event.

But, there is by no means anywhere near the volume of rocks and boulders present in the 'new' channel, or the Guadalupe, to account for the volume of material removed, and that is because it was all turned to the dust and fine material that fills the Guadalupe river and lies along the banks and probably outside of the river banks for some distance.
Images from:
http://texasgeology.blogspot.ca/2012/09 ... ophic.html
Google maps shows where the new canyon was formed, but you can see, with the terrain view, that there was already a valley there, which was filled with the debris from the original excavation.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=maps+can ... e&t=p&z=15
I have a similar occurence around here, but the lake has not yet risen to a point where the secondary channel has been flooded, but I am confident that if I were to excavate in the centre of what is now a shallow, broad gulley, I would find just the same layering of debris, and a ragged canyon at the bedrock level. I hope you follow my reasoning here Michael, as I am very confident that this is what happened, both in Texas, and around here. Now I have seen this process, I'll bet by using Google maps I can identify more 'dry' creeks and rivers.
I did find the Velikovsky videos interesting, though I still think it possible that some of what was seen by observers at the time might be explained by other processes. I just KNEW that once I started into Velikovsky it would open up a whole new, and very large area of study, and I really can't fit any more on my plate right now! Maybe I'll just let my subconscious chew on it and wait for some answers to pop out when they are good and ready?

Hi Gary,

The link You provided directly disagrees with Your vision.

http://texasgeology.blogspot.ca/2012/09 ... ophic.html

"The waters did not erode massive soil deposits, they cut through a limestone rock formation ! The geology in this area consists of materials of the Glen Rose geologic formation, that consists of inter-bedded limestone rock, marly limestone, nodular limestone, weak limestone, and rocky clay-marl. Although the marly materials are relativley erodible, the rock layers are not."

Me again,

I've seen formations that require a massive flood to create the erosion seen today. The water levels today couldn't come close to doing the job. Canyon Lake might have had two drainages when the lake level was much higher.

http://goo.gl/maps/vr36y

The dam at the top of Owens Gorge raises the lake level, but the water still doesn't reach the older drainages. Before the dam it was just a river, no lake.

http://goo.gl/maps/WnCZ5

I'm not sure how You determined the Canyon Lake event wasn't fluvial, as described above.

Glad You enjoyed the Dr Velikovsky interview. Worlds in Collision starts to get good after the third reading.

michael

[GaryN]

Where is all the material supposedly ripped out in the flood event??? Can you honestly account for all the volume of missing rock from the canyon by what is found in those boulder piles? At the confluence of the 'new' canyon and the Guadalupe, there should be mountains of boulders, they aren't there, and don't exist, it's all been reduced to dust and small pieces! I really have to wonder about logic and common sense and mechanical acumen, or rather the total lack of, amongst geologists, maybe they should stick to flower arranging or knitting or something.
Is my frustration showing at all?

[starbiter]

Where is all the material supposedly ripped out in the flood event??? Can you honestly account for all the volume of missing rock from the canyon by what is found in those boulder piles? At the confluence of the 'new' canyon and the Guadalupe, there should be mountains of boulders, they aren't there, and don't exist, it's all been reduced to dust and small pieces! I really have to wonder about logic and common sense and mechanical acumen, or rather the total lack of, amongst geologists, maybe they should stick to flower arranging or knitting or something.
Is my frustration showing at all?

These rocks you refer to are made of sediment. They were probably ground into dirt by the raging river. We're not talking about basalt. What didn't get crushed was probably flushed down the river. Water can move massive boulders. The rocks wind up on the bottom of rivers. They are hard to see.

You failed to comment on the difference between martian rilles and fluvial events on Earth that i posted earlier. Without the dam, the Guadalupe River goes down hill gently. As would be expected by draining water. Would a thunderbolt erode so smoothly? Why do all terrestrial canyons and valleys stop at the top of a hill instead of blasting through like on Mars? Can You find a terrestrial canyon on Google Maps like the electrical events on Mars. Just one would be nice to see. I'm wrong all the time. I'd be happy to be shown wrong.

I feel like a Grinch ruining Your thunderbolt Christmas. Sorry.

michael

[moses]

The schist and granite would be the beginning of the process. Caused by the galaxy shaped structure shown in the yellow sediment map posted yesterday. Everything above the granite might have been rapidly deposited while Venus was close by looking like a Thunderbird.
michael
Right - this is pretty clear.
You have the Venus interaction producing 12 km deep sediment. This is untenable to me. To me these sediment were formed in a previous planetary configuration. In an event or events way before the Venus interaction described by Velikovsky. I don't know why you insist that there was only one event in the formation of the sediment of the Grand Canyon.

Doesn't that tilted fault through the Vishnu Schist just scream a separate event to you. These sediment hold pretty different fossils too. It is just so clear to me that there were separate events separated by at least hundreds of years that produced the different sets of layered sediment. Until you come to this michael, all your valuable work will be spoilt.

Velikovsky just dealt with a few thousand years of Earth history. Waht happened before that.
Cheers,
Mo

[starbiter]

The fossils at the very bottom could be older. Things might have been settled prior to the event i propose.

It's the shape of the mountains on the yellow sediment map that leads me to believe one mountain making event.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... _types.jpg

The end of the process seems to fit this pattern of a giant Birkeland Current. How many giant Birkeland currents might there have been? If this is a Birkeland current remnant. The tops of the mountains are covered with massive cap rock that seems to have been molten dust.

The image linked below is an example of a cap rock i refer to. The mountain is just N of Tuscon AZ.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... p1SE0/edit

I see a hurricane force wind from the right and behind the mountain. The air would be choked with red-hot dust. It would have happened rapidly. This fits the description from the plague of darkness.

I agree with Dr Velikovsky in that there were many catastrophes. But only the plague of darkness description seems capable of something like what i see. The formation linked above would be the end of the process. It's on the top. From my reading of the Mars section of Worlds in Collision the event was horrible. But not capable of coating the mountain N of Tuscon with a granite cap rock. Beneath the granite is metamorphic gneiss.


The Covenant oil field would have happened at the same time. The oil is 6,000 feet deep. The oil is in a river system that flowed into a lake, surrounded by dolomite dunes. A comet the size of Venus seems like the only possible agent.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /index.htm

There seems to have been lots of sediment available. Maybe the sediment was chipped off of igneous formations one grain at a time. Or maybe it came from Venus.

http://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~gabi/sediment.html

michael

[moses]

It's the shape of the mountains on the yellow sediment map that leads me to believe one mountain making event.
michael
I too have one mountain making event. Was it after all those sediment were laid or before or during. For my theory it was after.

I agree with Dr Velikovsky in that there were many catastrophes. But only the plague of darkness description seems capable of something like what i see.
michael
Ok, I agree, tops of mountains and mountain formation, but not all those sediments of the geological column. That happened well before.

The Covenant oil field would have happened at the same time. The oil is 6,000 feet deep. The oil is in a river system that flowed into a lake, surrounded by dolomite dunes. A comet the size of Venus seems like the only possible agent.
michael
Not if one considers that all those sediments were formed earlier. Then the oil fields could have been and probably were, formed at the same time as those sediments.

There seems to have been lots of sediment available. Maybe the sediment was chipped off of igneous formations one grain at a time. Or maybe it came from Venus.
michael
Well my theory has the sediment coming from another planet plus from Earth's oceans, and this is how the Earth's oceans were formed. (Not really my theory.)

But I am only concerned that you acknowledge the possibility of the sediment being formed much earlier.
Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

moses, howdy...

I don't read most pages of posts, so when I come to your post, I have to figure out who is saying what...Would you please highlight Michael's and hit the quote button? It makes my scanning easier...

thanks

[GaryN]

Water can move massive boulders.

Not in a low slope river. There are some pretty large boulders in the Sooke river, they never move, and have never moved, even when the river is in flood stage, much more water than in that Texas overflow event. Even 2 feet diameter boulders are still in the same place after flood stage flows, as the laminar flow means little movement at the river bed. You can see the laminar flow in the Texas event where it washed out the South Access Rd, I've seen much greater volumes in the Sooke River, but there are no large boulders at all in the lower couple of kilometers, just pebble/cobble beds. The Texas event wasnt a dam BURST, there is a difference when that happens, admitedly.

You failed to comment on the difference between martian rilles and fluvial events on Earth that i posted earlier.

A surface electric wind will create patters similar to water flow. On mars I think electric winds much more likely. Electric winds could cut what look like river channels, on Earth and on Mars. Proving which is difficult.

Why do all terrestrial canyons and valleys stop at the top of a hill instead of blasting through like on Mars?

In my book, it is a vertical electric field gradient that causes what are now river and creek beds to go to the top of a hill or mountain. Why would they want to go down again? Where the electric discharge is between areas of differing horizontal potential, then something like this will happen. The erosion is from either end, but Matheson lake in the middle of that valley, is excavated quite deep.There are no rivers flowing into it, and only a smallish creek flowing out towards the sea, but I bet if I was to excavate down along that flat, sediment laden, sometimes swampy forest floor, I'd find the ragged discharge channel at the bedrock level.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sooke+ma ... a&t=p&z=13

I feel like a Grinch ruining Your thunderbolt Christmas. Sorry.

Bah, Humbug.

[starbiter]

It's the shape of the mountains on the yellow sediment map that leads me to believe one mountain making event.
michael
I too have one mountain making event. Was it after all those sediment were laid or before or during. For my theory it was after.

I agree with Dr Velikovsky in that there were many catastrophes. But only the plague of darkness description seems capable of something like what i see.
michael
Ok, I agree, tops of mountains and mountain formation, but not all those sediments of the geological column. That happened well before.

The Covenant oil field would have happened at the same time. The oil is 6,000 feet deep. The oil is in a river system that flowed into a lake, surrounded by dolomite dunes. A comet the size of Venus seems like the only possible agent.
michael
Not if one considers that all those sediments were formed earlier. Then the oil fields could have been and probably were, formed at the same time as those sediments.

There seems to have been lots of sediment available. Maybe the sediment was chipped off of igneous formations one grain at a time. Or maybe it came from Venus.
michael
Well my theory has the sediment coming from another planet plus from Earth's oceans, and this is how the Earth's oceans were formed. (Not really my theory.)

But I am only concerned that you acknowledge the possibility of the sediment being formed much earlier.
Cheers,
Mo

Hi Moses,

I agree, there could be sediment on Earth from prior to the Venus events. And post the Venus event. It would be foolish to limit the possibilities. But much of the sediment seems to be from the dark period described in Worlds in Collision.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Veli ... -Collision Please see page 58 "The Darkness"

Not only did sediment fall from the sky, it was concentrated by the catastrophic process. Some dust landed in the oceans creating a layer of ash. But it seems most of the dust was concentrated when dry land interrupted the wind causing rapid accumulation. It would stick to the windward side of growing mountains.

During much of the process it was raining beyond hurricane strength. Drainage patterns on the windward side of mountains would pour sediment into the flooded valleys. Sloshing oceans injected the sediment up the river systems as described in legend. The rivers ran in reverse, carrying the sediments with them. Continental shelves were created by the runoff.

All of the dust from the worldwide plague of darkness must have done something.


We seem to be progressing concerning mountain formation. You weren't very supportive 3 + years ago. I was describing "Sleeping Woman Mountain" [AKA Frenchman Mountain} E of Vegas. I claimed it was from a duning process. I now see a welded tuff process. You response is below.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =15#p30165

The image below is looking N.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... lqbjQ/edit

http://goo.gl/maps/cz9Tx

The wind would have been from the right [East].

The image below is looking East.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... ItN0E/edit

Granite and schist are at the base. The image below shows what i believe to be schist at the bottom center of the image above [road cut]

I believe this was all one event.

http://geoscience.unlv.edu/pub/rowland/ ... ology.html

If not one event, the wind was from the East with each new layer. That seems unlikely.

michael

[starbiter]

Water can move massive boulders.

Not in a low slope river. There are some pretty large boulders in the Sooke river, they never move, and have never moved, even when the river is in flood stage, much more water than in that Texas overflow event. Even 2 feet diameter boulders are still in the same place after flood stage flows, as the laminar flow means little movement at the river bed. You can see the laminar flow in the Texas event where it washed out the South Access Rd, I've seen much greater volumes in the Sooke River, but there are no large boulders at all in the lower couple of kilometers, just pebble/cobble beds. The Texas event wasnt a dam BURST, there is a difference when that happens, admitedly.

You failed to comment on the difference between martian rilles and fluvial events on Earth that i posted earlier.

A surface electric wind will create patters similar to water flow. On mars I think electric winds much more likely. Electric winds could cut what look like river channels, on Earth and on Mars. Proving which is difficult.

Why do all terrestrial canyons and valleys stop at the top of a hill instead of blasting through like on Mars?

In my book, it is a vertical electric field gradient that causes what are now river and creek beds to go to the top of a hill or mountain. Why would they want to go down again? Where the electric discharge is between areas of differing horizontal potential, then something like this will happen. The erosion is from either end, but Matheson lake in the middle of that valley, is excavated quite deep.There are no rivers flowing into it, and only a smallish creek flowing out towards the sea, but I bet if I was to excavate down along that flat, sediment laden, sometimes swampy forest floor, I'd find the ragged discharge channel at the bedrock level.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sooke+ma ... a&t=p&z=13

I feel like a Grinch ruining Your thunderbolt Christmas. Sorry.

Bah, Humbug.

Hi Gary,

The rocks You see in the stream beds in Your neck of the woods are probably igneous. Melted fire rock. The rocks in Texas are sediment. The hard ones seem to be caliche. Caliche is very hard. But it's not igneous hard.

http://www.arizonagoldprospectors.com/i ... p-caliche/

"OK fellers
OK fellers
Caliche is the most mis-used term in prospecting.
Rod is correct about true caliche being calcium carbonate---but.
The term Caliche,is used for a wide variety of mineral's,clay,
soils and salts in different areas.
All the white stuff around a hydrothermal or mineral deposit can
be several other things ,and be real important ,when looking for
gold. Some of what looks like caliche is sodium carbonate mixed
with grains of quartz, calcite other nitrates,and alkali. If it has alkali
it will be slick when wet.
Citric acid,bleach,vinegar,Coke,Pepsi,orange juice,CLR,will all
dissolve what we call caliche. Alkali will dissolve in water.

When drywashing I just pick the dirt,rocks and caliche,then back
rake into a stock pile. Most of the caliche will turn to powder from
the rocks during raking, whack the hard chunks with your shovel,
or leave them lay where you can walk on them while working.
They will get mashed up pretty good by the end of the day.
A trommel full of rocks works pretty good too. laugh.gif


Me again,

It appears caliche breaks up when tumbled. Especially when wet, i've been told.

Or maybe there is a conspiracy to hide the electrical nature of the gorge.

michael