Possible electrical scars on Planet Earth...

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: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby kevin » Wed May 21, 2008 12:54 pm

Rangerover777,
"Where did all the matter go"
You should hold onto that thought closely, imho.
I consider that the really big step we need to take is in the comprehension that matter is not a constant.
All our sciences and view of things are based on this very subject, we consider that everything created as matter MUST remain as such , in one form or another, what if ?
What if everything is NO-THING, that all matter is merely transient and held together relative to the specific field condition that normally surrounds and envelopes it?
What if that condition suddenly violently alters and vast amounts of matter simply revert back to their origonal maker, SPACE, not as matter , but as the very dualistic core STUFF that composes and coalesces in a myriad of ways to make matter.
It's about recognition of a method of creation and equal dissolvement in and out of a churning cauldren.
without this recognition, then every scientific ASSUMPTION/S are based on a false comprehension.
I will remember those words,
"Where did all the matter go"
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby rangerover777 » Wed May 21, 2008 2:08 pm

Thanks Kevin for your thoughts.

About “where all this matter go ?” I meant to say that no matter went anywhere in
the first place (in the Grand Canyon formation), so we don’t even have to explain
it (unless you agree with EU) and why to deal with something that never happen ?

About matter not being constant, I agree with you, though not completely in agreement
about your explanation.

I think all the “physical matter” is made of atoms (which made of N & S individual magnets
and the NPM - Neutral Particle of Matter), and the atoms are held by magnets as well.
You said that “all matter is merely transient and held together relative to the specific field
condition that normally surrounds and envelopes it”.
So we agree that there is a movement inside the matter and that it held by a field.
Though you say that this field is an envelope, and I think they held from within the matter
which maybe or maybe not create an envelope as well.

Now, you said “What if that condition suddenly violently alters and vast amounts of matter
simply revert back to their original maker, SPACE, not as matter , but as the very
dualistic core STUFF that composes and coalesces in a myriad of ways to make matter”.
Here I have some difficulties to understand you :
- Which conditions are change ?
- What these conditions used to be before they changed ?
- If the condition will change gradually and not violently, different result will appear ?
- Why matter held by envelope and not by interior field ?
- Do you have any test that clearly show the field around each individual matter ?
- What is matter’s original maker ? Did you mean that Space can be the maker of matter ?
- If this envelope is holding the matter together, what was inside this envelop ?
- What is this dualistic core stuff is made of and what it’s characteristics ?
- Why if a matter change it’s form and disappear, it become a coalescence core and
not spreading apart ?
- I your mind the atom does not exists ?

Also you said (if you can explain please) :
“It's about recognition of a method of creation and equal disseverment in and out of a
churning cauldron. without this recognition, then every scientific ASSUMPTION/S are
based on a false comprehension“.
- What do you think is a method of creation ? And if there is only one like that ?
- I did not understand how “churning cauldron” was pasted into you model ?
- Why should anyone will recognize something he/she don’t understand or think is wrong ?
- What are your building block of matter or the universe ?

If you can be more specific and explain please.

By the way, I tried to stay on the Grand Canyon formation topic. So if you have any opinion
on the rest of the post (not only on one line), please do explain.

Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby kevin » Wed May 21, 2008 3:12 pm

Rangerover777,
The Grand Canyon is simply the best example of something that present comprehension cannot grasp.
Therefore it is the best subject to theorise the possible alternative explanations of why it is there.
To step outside of present thinking and understanding will never be achieved if we simply adhere to the current science and laws there of.
The best of the best brains have pushed all of that to its limits, something simply doesn't add up.
I consider nikola Tesla knew the truth of what everything is, and how it operates.
If you allow yourself to consider that the explosion at Tunguska may have been nikola Tesla utilising the fabric of creative space , and inadvertantly showed the tremendous powers involved.
By projecting a beam of positive charge at the iononosphere, I consider it punched a hole in that and gained up millions fold in the negative sea outside the ionosphere, it crashed to earth in an angle at the fired beam, and caused the resultant crater.
If a natural tear in the ionosphere occured, I consider the grand canyon could be the evidence of this.
If a massive flood of negative polorised magnets were to zap matter, I consider the result would be to ourselves a dissappearance of that matter.
We cannot at present even contemplate such a thing.
It is simply my opinion and reasoning, not backed up by any evidence, how could it be?
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby moses » Wed May 21, 2008 5:13 pm

1. Lightning scares have an impact point on the ground and from there it spread out. In other
words, it creates circle or ½ circles or rounded shape imprints, but the geological
formations we are dealing with, are elongated, curving, or shaped without ant geometric
shape (like a tree branches for instance).
Ordinary lightning and laboratory lightning creates tree-like figures.
Pictures of this are available. You find them.

2. I don’t believe that lightning can dig down a formation like that Grand Canyon. For many
reasons :
- Assuming lighting could “trench” an imprint. Multiple lightning that occur in the
same region will erode each other formation. So you could not see a sharp sinuous
channels and cliffs formations. It would look much more “dull” and rounded…
- If lightning excavate the ground all the channels will steep down to the hardest point
hits and if later on liquids will poured in, it will create a very strange looking lake…
- Where all this matter go ? How can billions of tons can evaporated ?

Lots of power in lightning between planets. Sharp edges are produced.

3. I’m wondering if someone in EU sat down to calculate the amount of energy
require to evaporate the Grand Canyon or other formations in planets and moons.
and when such an energy is being release as a lighting, can’t we observed in real
time such an event ? After all many of the rocky planets and moons have similar
formations, so this lighting should happen very often…

Plenty of high-powered electrical effects are observed in the universe. Take the
example of the nearby star that produced a flare 1000 times larger than Solar
flares. The Grand Canyon type formations occurred when planets got too close to
each other and the electrical potential difference between them caused a very big
current to flow across hundreds of kilometers of space.

Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby rangerover777 » Wed May 21, 2008 6:49 pm

Thanks Moses for clarifying the EU approach (the first time I read that today, I thought
I missed something).

Since Area 51 is near by, I hope EU don’t claim it was done the same way…just joking.
One of the best tools for everyone on this thread, is to take a hike with Google-Earth over
the Grand Canyon, for some reason the resolution is very good. Actually anywhere on
the globe, it’s a great tool to observe geological formations…highly recommended.

A few more questions for the EU model (after taking a tour in Google Earth) :

1. I base my understanding of EU from http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm
But if there is another source, please let me know.

2. If the GC was hit by a lightning and vaporized billions of tons in a blink of an eye.
Don’t you expect to find some molten rocks ? Or any evidence of very high temperature ?
After all there is not so much soil erosion going on there, so it is possible to find some
evidence from it’s formation… (or no one look for that, so far ?)

3. Did EU or USGS measured the yearly sinking / uplifting of certain points along the GC ?
Or rather ignoring such information, even if it exists ?

4. I could not find the lab demonstration of how the GC was formed by lightning. So let me
ask you a few questions about that :
- is this model was tested on the 10 rock layers that composed the GC (in simulation of course) ?
- And if yes, the layers characteristics where similar to the actual layers in the GC ?
- And if it was not done this way, what was the composition of the surface ?
- In the photo of the above link they show a burned grass in a golf field, from a lightening.
Grass is an organic matter that can leave an imprint, soil and rock are a completely
different story, since even if part of it would be evaporated, the remaining will be
molten rock at the bottom of the valleys. Did you witness any such a result in the lab ?

5. If theoretically you could clean off all the soil erosion and the debris. What you would see
is a STEPS FORMATION. How can a lightning can create steps ? It suppose to look like
a V-shape, isn’t it ?

6. Why all this region of the GC was uplifted ? Does this have to do with lighting as well
or it’s just a coincidence that the elevated plateau happen exactly under the GC ?

7. Did anyone try to calculate the amount of energy needed to evaporate the GC ?
- Is such an energy could deflect earth from it’s orbit around the sun ?
- Or effect it’s rotation around it’s axis ?
- Or “send the North Star to the North/West” ?
- Is that amount of vaporized matter in such a short time could imbalanced
the whole earth ?
- In your opinion such an impact of lighting (that suppose to happen in many places
On the face of this earth) - have only a minor consequence ?

8. You said “The Grand Canyon type formations occurred when planets got too close
to each other and the electrical potential difference between them caused a very big
current to flow across hundreds of kilometers of space“.

9. I never seen lightning between planets, do you have any pictures ?

10. If the planets get too close to each other and there is difference of electrical potential,
Then the electrical currents “flares” should meet in the middle, why on earth ?

11. Also a few hundreds miles - are not enough.

12. If you simulate two highly electric charged balls of wet rock in a lab - when you will
bring them close to each other, the charges will “deal with each other” not with
the matter the two balls are made of, isn’t it ?

13. I understand how in theory a lightning can cause valleys, but RIDGES ? It’s beyond me.

14. Does such amount of energy in a lightning, can create such a delicate “work of art” ?
if it can evaporate such a quantity of soil & bedrock, can it leaves such a fragile
imprint ?

15. Why the "discharged lighting" from another planet, did hit the ocean first ? Water as
you know conduct electricity better then soil.

16. If two planets get's too close together and discharg occured, Gravity have no meaning ?
no colission, no deflecting each other from orbits ? Only lightining ?


These are some of my questions. I think answering them could clarify a lot of this
theory, not only to myself but for other contributors as well.

Thanks
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby moses » Thu May 22, 2008 8:24 am

5. If theoretically you could clean off all the soil erosion and the debris. What you would see
is a STEPS FORMATION. How can a lightning can create steps ? It suppose to look like
a V-shape, isn’t it ?

Lightning actually forms steps. google plasmaresources to find Dave Smith's website.
There is also my website : http://www.freewebs.com/petermoses/
Mo's electric health - not totally up-to-date.

6. Why all this region of the GC was uplifted ? Does this have to do with lighting as well
or it’s just a coincidence that the elevated plateau happen exactly under the GC ?
13. I understand how in theory a lightning can cause valleys, but RIDGES ? It’s beyond me.

As lightning pulls out matter, then it pulls on the whole region - hence the uplift.
If the force is spread then there is more uplift than removal of matter. Also
there is positive lightning and negative lightning.

7. Did anyone try to calculate the amount of energy needed to evaporate the GC ?
- Is such an energy could deflect earth from it’s orbit around the sun ?
- Or effect it’s rotation around it’s axis ?
- Or “send the North Star to the North/West” ?
- Is that amount of vaporized matter in such a short time could imbalanced
the whole earth ?
- In your opinion such an impact of lighting (that suppose to happen in many places
On the face of this earth) - have only a minor consequence ?
16. If two planets get's too close together and discharg occured, Gravity have no meaning ?
no colission, no deflecting each other from orbits ? Only lightining ?

I have a theory that when Mars and Earth came close together there was
a pole shift on both planets so that where Earth's north pole was directed
Mars' south pole was directed. Then the lightning between them caused
them to rotate at the same rate. It's a maybe. Also when Venus got close
to the Earth lightning reduced the attraction that drew the two planets
together. This mechanism produced the present stable orbits. Also a theory.

Not minor consequences, but survivable by many or most. In more ancient
days there was lightning that carved out the oceans and deposited the rocks
in layers that is now called the geological column. That must have been hard
to survive. ( more theory )
Usually others here answer these questions. I'm more into theory ?

Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby webolife » Thu May 22, 2008 12:58 pm

RR777 is asking some good scientific questions about planetary EDMs...
Anyone here in planetary EU have some hard scientific support? If we are to claim this happened, we'd better be able to show for it, not just say maybe it occurred. The paucity of good alternative explanations is not evidence in itself.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby webolife » Thu May 22, 2008 1:44 pm

Mo said: "Also there is positive lightning and negative lightning. "
Unless there is an alternate EU definition for "positive" and "negative" that I'm unaware of,
the effects of positive and negative discharges are symmetrical, not opposite, at least in terms of uplifting versus carving.
Maybe Steven Smith could enlighten us all here. I'm still with RR777 here, where is the hard observational evidence?
We need at least a close encounter of the second kind.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby rangerover777 » Thu May 22, 2008 3:52 pm

Thanks Moses for taking the time and thought to answer my questions.
Thanks Webolife for being curious and honest.

Though I’m the one to ask these question, they are not belong to me but to anyone
who wants to explore the EU model for the GC (Grand Canyon) formation.
It may also benefit EU as well, since there maybe some aspects that were not
taken into considerations and it may help EU to coalescence it’s theory to become
more integrated. Or not…??

“My source” : http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm

I realized that some of my questions that deals with the “Uplift and Cracking theory”,
were not answered (in the last and the former post) and I’m wondering if the reasons
for that are :
- Because these avenues do not considered valid ?
- These alternatives were never explored by EU ?
- Explored but no model could be built ?
- Being satisfied with the EU model, leads to reject other alternatives ?
Allow me to ask these questions again (they are too important to put aside….) :

1. Did EU or USGS measured the yearly sinking / uplifting of certain points along the GC ?
Or rather ignoring such information, even if it exists ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, some of the questions that deals directly with the EU model were not answered,
I hope it’s Ok to ask them again :

2. If the GC was hit by a lightning and vaporized billions of tons in a blink of an eye.
Don’t you expect to find some molten rocks ? Or any evidence of very high temperature ?
After all there is not so much soil erosion going on there, so it is possible to find some
evidence from it’s formation… (or no one look for that, so far ?)

3. I could not find the lab demonstration of how the GC was formed by lightning. So let
ask you a few questions about that :
- is this model was tested on the 10 rock layers that composed the GC (in simulation of course) ?
- And if yes, the layers characteristics where similar to the actual layers in the GC ?
- And if it was not done this way, what was the composition of the surface ?
- In the photo of the above link they show a burned grass in a golf field, from a lightening.
Grass is an organic matter that can leave an imprint, soil and rock are a completely
different story, since even of part of it would be evaporated, the remaining will be
molten rock at the bottom of the valleys. Did you witness any such a result in the lab ?

4. You said “The Grand Canyon type formations occurred when planets got too close
to each other and the electrical potential difference between them caused a very big
current to flow across hundreds of kilometers of space“.

5. I never seen lightning between planets, do you have any pictures ?

6. If the planets get too close to each other and there is difference of electrical potential,
Then the electrical currents “flares” should meet in the middle, why on earth ?

7. Also a few hundreds kilometers - are not enough.

8. If you simulate two highly electric charged balls of wet rock in a lab - when you will
bring them close to each other, the charges will “deal with each other” not with
the matter the two balls are made of, isn’t it ?

9. Does such amount of energy in a lightning, can create such a delicate “work of art” ?
if it can evaporate such a quantity of soil & bedrock, can it leaves such a fragile
imprint ?

10. I understand how in theory a lightning can cause valleys, but RIDGES ? It’s beyond me.

11. Did anyone try to calculate the amount of energy that can evaporate the GC ?
- Is such an energy could deflect earth from it’s orbit around the sun ?
- Or effect it’s rotation around it’s axis ?
- Or “send the North Star to the North/West” ?
- Is that amount of vaporized matter in such a short time could imbalanced
the whole earth ?
- In your opinion such an impact of lighting (that suppose to happen in many places
on the face of this earth) - have only a minor consequence ?

On this last question you brought up your theory (thanks), if you know the EU answer,
please clarify.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions that answered and shaped new questions :

1. If theoretically you could clean off all the soil erosion and the debris. What you would see
is a STEPS FORMATION. How can a lightning can create steps ? It suppose to look like
a V-shape, isn’t it ?

Moses said “Lightning actually forms steps. google plasmaresources to find
Dave Smith's website“.
- I was searching but could not find how lightning can creates “steps formations”,
Please be more specific.
- In the pictures in the link above, that compare Mars landscape to the GC, it’s
hard to tell whether the Martian formation have steps or not… Maybe there is
better pictures that I’m not aware of, and you can tell me where to find.


2. Why all this region of the GC is elevated ? Does this have to do with lighting as well
or it’s just a coincidence that the elevated plateau happen exactly under the GC ?

Moses said “As lightning pulls out matter, then it pulls on the whole region - hence the uplift.
If the force is spread then there is more uplift than removal of matter. Also
there is positive lightning and negative lightning“.
- Why an average lighting that occur 40,000 times on a daily base on earth, does not
show any tendency to pull matter ?
- Are we dealing with a different type of lightning, when it come to the GC model ?
- When lightning is hitting the ground it discharged and RELEASE energy, if it releases
energy, it looses all it’s PULLING POWER (which is suppose to be electric as well),
Am I correct ? So how can it lift one grain of soil ?
- What is a positive and negative lightning ? Isn’t lightning is a discharge between negative
and positive ? So how lightning can be positive or negative ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New questions :

20. In the above link, where the Martian landscape is compared to the GC.
For some reason the Martian one have a quite large FLAT LAND in the middle.
How can a striking by lightning can creates so many V-shapes and sinuous and suddenly
we have a large flat land in the center ?

21. Why two planets will get close together in the first place ?

22. Can planets “Disobey” the sun and do whatever on their minds ?

23. And if they did get close together, don’t they have North and South poles that if
not align with the other plant’s poles they will collide with each other ?

24. Does planets can exit their orbit with no reason and hike for fun in the solar
system, with no consequences ?

25. Why the planets magnetic poles have no role in this magnificent lightning creation ?

26. Why the poles cannot discharge the “Big Lightning”, like the Aurora does ?
The aurora discharge the “electricity” that comes from the sun, which is much more
intense then any “fly-by planet”. So why the “Big Lightning” go to the Grand Canyon
and not to the aurora ?



Please be specific.

Thanks
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu May 22, 2008 4:42 pm

Excellent questions Rangerover777 and I for one am looking forward to any answers.

Your question number 22: "Can planets “Disobey” the sun and do whatever is on their minds?" is one that has crossed my mind in relation to David Talbott's Saturn theory. What was the Sun doing while Saturn, Mars and Venus were carrying on?

Another thing I can't get my head around is: does the lightning hit the ground and then move along carving out the canyon or does it hit the entire length at once? In other words, is it a 'bolt' or is it a 'curtain' (or sheet)?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby moses » Thu May 22, 2008 6:17 pm

OK - I'm no plasma physics scientist. There are some on this forum.
I doubt that they read the 'Mad ideas' section. Perhaps you could
copy your questions and copy them into the forum 'Electric Universe'
or 'Planetary Science' maybe under 'grand canyon questions', although
there has been much discussion on this in the past, so previous topics
on such might exist.

"Can planets “Disobey” the sun and do whatever is on their minds?" is one that
has crossed my mind in relation to David Talbott's Saturn theory. What was the
Sun doing while Saturn, Mars and Venus were carrying on? Grey Cloud

The double layers around planets, which define their magnetospheres,
effectively insulate planets from the electical effects of other
planets and the Sun. In the Saturn System there was electrical
interactions between Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth, and possibly
other planets, but not with the Sun. So the major forces between the
Saturn System and the Sun would have been gravitation, whereas the
major force between Mars and Earth would have been electrical. Thus
the Saturn System would likely have orbitted the Sun at a similar
distance to where Saturn is now, although this is just my own theory.

Sorry I don't answer your questions but I'll only stuff up the
answers.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby rangerover777 » Thu May 22, 2008 6:21 pm

Thanks Grey Cloud for the encouragement. I hope one of EU knowledgeable
personal will cruise by and sit down with us to discus these questions.
I hope it’s part of their policy (“good household”).

As to your questions :

1. “What was the Sun doing while Saturn, Mars and Venus were carrying on ?”
- I wish I could answer that, but since I don’t even understand why you asking
that, it mean I have to go read more EU to understand your question.

2. “does the lightning hit the ground and then move along carving out the canyon
or does it hit the entire length at once? In other words, is it a 'bolt' or is it
a 'curtain' (or sheet)?”
- I’m searching the answer to that as well.
- I think there is a misconception about the imprint of a lightning, since if you look
at it from the side “Freeze it for a moment”, lay it flat down on the surface of earth,
It may somewhat resembled to the grand canyon, somewhat. But keep in mind,
lightning strikes the earth VERTICALLY not HORIZANTLY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

So I’m sitting and waiting like you and Webolife for answers.

Thanks again.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby rangerover777 » Thu May 22, 2008 8:05 pm

The Grand Canyon (GC) formation.

http://www.soultones.com/canyon/canyon5_LG.jpg

I actually opened this thread on ‘Mad Ideas’, but since it’s not that mad and even
show some scientific orientations, I thought maybe someone could provide answers
to my questions and comments about the EU model for the GC formation.

Just after TV show, my skepticism grew in regard to the formation theory, which claim
that most of the erosion was done by the Colorado river trenched it’s way down over the
past 5 million years. The whole history of this region described back to 1.7 billion years by
geologists, so it’s a long story and all kind of events are involved (volcano, Rocky Mountains,
covered by sea several times, etc.), but the main vista we see today was done by the river.
The Grand canyon dimension as of today :
Length: 277 mi. (446 Km)
Width: 9-18 mi. (15-29 Km)
Depth: over 1 mi. (>1.6 Km)
Elevations:
- North rim 8900 ft. (2670 m)
- South rim 6900 ft. ( 2070 m)

Of course during the past 5 millions year of it’s life (as claimed), the river trenched it’s
way down at least 50 - 100 meters or so, but to create 15 - 29 Km wide river x 1.6 Km deep,
you need to drain an ocean in order to create such a canyon. Take the Nile, Amazon and
Mississippi rivers combined - you cannot witness erosion on such a scale !!!

1. Obviously there is not so much soil erosion from rock and soil slides.
Also once there is a slide, from one cliff to the flat soil below (there are almost
no flat lands left anymore), the slide create a slope, and any other
future slide will slide over the old one or push part of it down. In other words,
almost any amount of soil that will slide from any “shelve” will go down and
washed by the Colorado river, or winter side streams.

2. Now the whole region is made of 10 layers that somehow were eroded over the years
to create this magnificent vista. Some happen due to the wind, rain, streaming water
and maybe trapped water within the rocks, that when become ice, it cracked the rocks.
But this is maybe 5% - 10% of what we are looking at today.

3. I think the greatest question is what happen in “phase I” (and maybe Phase II) to the
Grand Canyon ? If it was a glacier, the bottom would be much more flat and the side
cliffs were much more smooth and the curves of the canyon would be much more round.
I think it answered for the cataclysmic flowing of water or debris from a volcano eruption,
in the same way.

4. One thing that caught my attention is the vertical forces that came from below :
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _stair.htm
(vertical scale has been heavily exaggerated - in this scheme)
It look as it was a plateau before phase I, that was pushed up from below. Now, if
the lift was done by a relatively narrow area from below, the fracture of the canyon
would look like a V-shape (like in the link above). But if it was wide enough pressing
field from below, then the two sides of the canyon would spread apart (they are almost
matching like North America to Africa), as they look today and a deeper layer of earth
crust will emerge between them. All the small cliffs in the middle, the “islands” and the
deeper vertical cracks that goes along the canyon that were pushed up from below.
http://i.pbase.com/o4/64/345764/1/61792 ... G_0959.JPG

5. Another interesting point is that if it was pushed from below, cracks across
the bottom of the canyon are likely to appear, in different crossing angles (not only
along the canyon) and many “triangular” like you see today would emerge.

6. I tend to believe that the three key elements are :
- The shape of the field that pushed from below.
- The layers of this region, that cause it to crack in this beautiful characteristic way.
- The pressure was not equal all along the canyon.

7. Ways to put this theory to test :
- Measure the yearly uplift / sinking in 40 different locations.
- Simulate this process in a laboratory.
- Test soil samples of 500 locations and try “To Close Up” the puzzle like when
it use to be a plateau.
- Same way (close it up), but instead of soil and rock samples, use the layers angles
and elevations only (can be easily done with computer).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is only my opinion and I brought it up to provide a background or point of
reference to the main subject : The EU theory of formation
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading the theory and taking a tour on Google-Earth, I had a few
questions and comments that came to my mind :

EU claims that these formations occurred due to “electrical arc scars” (or lightning)
which creates similar imprint on the ground and evaporated the “missing matter”
from the GC (correct me if I‘m wrong).

1. Lightning scares have an impact point on the ground and from there it spread out. In other
words, it creates circle or ½ circles or rounded shape imprints, but the geological
formations we are dealing with, are elongated, curving, or shaped without a geometric
shape (like a tree branches for instance).

2. It’s hard to believe that lightning can dig down a formation like that Grand Canyon,
for a few reasons :
- Assuming lighting could “trench” an imprint. Multiple lightning that occur in the
same region will erode each other formation. So you could not see a sharp sinuous
channels and cliffs formations. It would look much more “dull” and rounded…
- If lightning excavate the ground all the channels will steep down to the hardest point
hits and if later on liquids will poured in, it will create a very strange looking lake…
- Where all this matter go ? How can billions of tons can evaporated ?

3. I’m wondering if someone in EU sat down to calculate the amount of energy
require to evaporate the Grand Canyon or other formations in planets and moons.
and when such an energy is being release as a lighting, can’t we observe such an
Event in real time ? After all, many of the rocky planets and moons have similar
formations, so this lightning of this magnitude should happen very often…

4. Isn’t it obvious that in many of these formations (not all of them), the amount
of matter sunk down equal to the amount of matter raised up ?

5. If the GC was hit by a lightning and vaporized billions of tons in a blink of an eye.
Don’t you expect to find some molten rocks ? Or any evidence of very high temperature ?
After all there is not so much soil erosion going on there, so it is possible to find some
evidence from it’s formation… (or no one look for that, so far ?)

6. Did EU or USGS measured the yearly sinking / uplifting of certain points along the GC ?
Or rather ignoring such information, even if it exists ?

7. I could not find the EU lab demonstration of how the GC was formed by lightning.
So let me ask you a few questions about that :
- is this model was tested on the 10 rock layers that composed the GC (in simulation of course) ?
- And if yes, the layers characteristics where similar to the actual layers in the GC ?
- And if it was not done this way, what was the composition of the surface ?
- In the photo of the above link they show a burned grass in a golf field, from a lightening.
Grass is an organic matter that can leave an imprint, soil and rock are a completely
different story, since even if part of it would be evaporated, the remaining will be
molten rock at the bottom of the valleys. Did you witness any such a result in the lab ?

8. If theoretically you could clean off all the soil erosion and the debris from the GC “shelves“.
What you would see is a STEPS FORMATION. How can a lightning can create steps ?
It suppose to look like a V-shape, isn’t it ?

9. Why all this region of the GC was uplifted ? Does this have to do with lighting as well
or it’s just a coincidence that the elevated plateau happen exactly under the GC ?

10. Did anyone try to calculate the amount of energy needed to evaporate the GC ?
- Is such an energy could deflect earth from it’s orbit around the sun ?
- Or effect it’s rotation around it’s axis ?
- Or “send the North Star to the North/West” ?
- Is that amount of vaporized matter in such a short time could imbalanced
the whole earth ?
- In your opinion such an impact of lighting (that suppose to happen in many places
On the face of this earth) - have only a minor consequence ?

11. If I understood it well, EU claim that GC formations occurred when planets got too
close to each other and the electrical potential difference between them caused a large
amount of current to flow across space.
- I never seen lightning between planets, do you have any pictures ?
- If the planets get too close to each other and there is difference of electrical potential,
then the electrical currents “flares” should meet in the middle, why on earth ?

12. If you simulate two highly electric charged balls of wet rock in a lab - when you will
bring them close to each other, the charges will “deal with each other” not with
the matter the two balls are made of, isn’t it ?

13. I understand how in theory a lightning can cause valleys, but RIDGES ?

14. Does such amount of energy in a lightning, can create such a delicate “work of art” ?
if it can evaporate such a quantity of soil & bedrock, can it leaves such a fragile
imprint ?

15. Why the "discharged lighting" from another planet, did hit the ocean first ?
Water as we know conduct electricity better then soil.

16. If two planets get's too close together and discharge occurred, Gravity have no meaning ?
no collision, no deflecting each other from orbits ? Only lightening ?

17. In the pictures in the link above, that compare Mars landscape to the GC, it’s
hard to tell whether the Martian formation have steps or not… Maybe there is
better pictures that I’m not aware of, and you can tell me where to find.

18. Why an average lighting that occur 40,000 times on a daily base on earth, does not
show any tendency to pull matter ?

19. Are we dealing with a different type of lightning, when it come to the GC model ?

20. When lightning is hitting the ground it discharged and RELEASE energy, if it releases
energy, it looses all it’s PULLING POWER (which is suppose to be electric as well),
Am I correct ? So how can it lift one grain of soil ?

21. In the above link, where the Martian landscape is compared to the GC.
For some reason the Martian one have a quite large FLAT LAND in the middle.
How can a striking by lightning can creates so many V-shapes and sinuous and suddenly
we have a large flat land in the center ?

22. Why two planets will get close together in the first place ?

23. Can planets “Disobey” the sun and do whatever on their minds ?

24. And if they did get close together, don’t they have North and South poles that if
not align with the other plant’s poles they will collide with each other ?

25. Does planets can exit their orbit with no reason and hike for fun in the solar
system, with no consequences ?

26. Why the planets magnetic poles have no role in this magnificent lightning creation ?

27. Why the poles cannot discharge the “Big Lightning”, like the Aurora does ?
The aurora discharge the “electricity” that comes from the sun, which is much more
intense then any “fly-by planet”. So why the “Big Lightning” go to the Grand Canyon
and not to the aurora ?

28. There may be a misconception about the imprint of a lightning, since if you look
at it from the side “Freeze it for a moment”, lay it flat down on the surface of earth,
It may somewhat resembled to the grand canyon, somewhat. But keep in mind,
lightning strikes the earth VERTICALLY not HORIZANTLY.


I hope I did not overloaded the system…

Please be specific

Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Not by a trickle...

Unread postby MGmirkin » Thu May 22, 2008 9:00 pm

On a related topic, possibly:

(Martian Canyons by a Trickle or a Gush?)
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2008/522/1

Evidence for catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism? :o

Here on Earth, the slow seepage of groundwater did not scratch out 3-kilometer-long Box Canyon, the group says. Instead, one or more catastrophic megafloods gouged it out in a matter of days or weeks, the geologists say. If similar-looking martian canyons also formed catastrophically, early Mars may have been only episodically warm and wet, if that.

Box Canyon seemed like the ideal place to test the seepage, or "sapping," mechanism of canyon formation ... It has the classic signs of sapping: the stubby, rounded shape and steep walls at its upstream head that give the impression of a natural amphitheater; little evidence of water having carved channels draining into the amphitheater; and a substantial spring in the amphitheater. By conventional thinking, the spring had ever so slowly weakened the head-wall rock, which fell as boulders and debris that the seepage eventually eroded away.

But when Lamb and his colleagues looked closer, the sapping hypothesis fell apart. Their calculations indicate that flowing spring water is too feeble by a factor of 22 to move the existing bouldery rubble downstream and make room for more. Moreover, spring water is chemically incapable of eroding the rubble by dissolution. And rock dating showed that erosion of the canyon's head wall ceased 45,000 years ago--further evidence that the present water flow isn’t up to the job of cutting a canyon.

[...]

A better explanation is a megaflood, the group says. Pools carved into solid rock remain where torrents of water may have plunged off the head wall. And a slight notch on the top of the head wall is finely scoured as if once crossed by high-speed, rock-laden waters. From the scale of that scouring, the group calculates a flow that could have easily moved rubble downstream. Indeed, the flow could have resulted from a partial diversion of known catastrophic floods unleashed upstream when natural lake dams broke tens of thousands of years ago.

Catastrophic floods may have carved similar-looking canyons on Mars, the group writes. "We're not saying canyons on Mars couldn't have been carved by springs," says Lamb. But "just because a canyon head is amphitheater-shaped, it shouldn't be assumed to have been carved by springs," he says. If martian canyons were gouged out only by rare floods rather than many millennia of slow seepage, Mars may have lacked the continually warm and wet climate needed for the origin and evolution of life.

Box Canyon may well be the product of floods, says Mars geologist Michael Carr of the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, but "I'm not throwing out the sapping hypothesis" for Mars. Solid rock may not be liable to spring erosion, he says, but "who knows what's underneath" the lava-strewn surface of Mars? It could be easily erodable sands. Finding out sounds like a job for a nimble-footed rover.


So, if not water seepage for the stubby bits like the extremities of Valles Marineris, then what?

Image

The crater chain along the top of the map should be indicative of one possibility...

Image

(Electrodynamic sculpting, as in Plasmatic's "ionizer discharge" videos...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dbs5QAMOqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB_EKVWgbj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rqQnUCiWQo

Keep in mind, also, what a lightning strike to something solid can look like:

Image

Image

Image

Image

One more interpretation, among probably many... But which fits best?

Is it seepage, or a giant bolt of lightning, or something else entirely? All I know is that it seems like the images of known lightning bolts to cement have a striking similarity to the morphology (stubby alcove "fingers") of Valles Marineris, which is precisely the place where standard models appear to fail in terms of explanatory power... Though they're getting closer, in my opinion, with acknowledgment of "catastrophism" rather than "uniformitarianism" as an explanation in the case of Box Canyon.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Grand Canyon formation

Unread postby MGmirkin » Thu May 22, 2008 9:17 pm

rangerover777 wrote:28. There may be a misconception about the imprint of a lightning, since if you look at it from the side “Freeze it for a moment”, lay it flat down on the surface of earth, It may somewhat resembled to the grand canyon, somewhat. But keep in mind, lightning strikes the earth VERTICALLY not HORIZANTLY.

Please be specific


Came in late to the thread it appears, haven't read the first half of it, I think?

It's all well and good to say "but lightning strike vertically, not horizontally..." AND YET, see the section of my prior post preceded by...

MGmirkin wrote:Keep in mind, also, what a lightning strike to something solid can look like:
[Images]


See also a few other images of lightning scars that occupy the 2D plane at the surface of the ground, where lightning has "spread out" in Lichtenberg figures:

http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Li ... 8439416210
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Li ... 5601382722
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Li ... 4331491682

Apparently, lightning can travel horizontally across the surface and is not constrained to ONLY moving in Z direction (in a 3D graph), rather it can spread out in the X/Y plane (if specific conditions of conduction or insulation are favorable for that). Likely, not unlike the "gliding discharge" of a Lichtenberg figure across a dielectric insulator or on a photographic plate (as was done to obtain some of the first rudimentary images of Lichtenberg figures). It tends to branch out in a bifurcating feathery manner across the surface (though the charges may actually flow from the outside in toward the center [main channel]).

As you can see, no need for rhetorical ambiguity of competing theories / opinions, lightning strikes to concrete show exactly the kinds of branching tendrils from the main channel seen at the peripheries of Valles Marineris' two main parallel gouges. It seems to me that denying lightning's ability to move along the plane of the surface (parallel to it) in addition to toward/through the plane of the surface (perpendicular to it), might fly in the face of concrete examples (pun not intended, until I noticed it; now it is!) to the contrary.

Just my 2c, now that I've very cursorily glanced over one or two snippets from a few recent posts.

So, for the moment I'd simply go so far as to say it's at least "plausible" that the correspondence of morphologies between lightning scars, Grand Canyon, Box Canyon & Valles Marineris might trace back to common cause, which may be electrical in nature (lightning can apparently make just such formations and plasma is scaleable over many OOM [Orders Of Magnitude]), or may not (if something more plausible can be found that explains ALL the features somewhat consistently). More research needed, but perhaps we know which directions to look in and one or two to rule out (seepage, etc.)?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest