Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

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: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Tue May 24, 2011 12:38 pm

starbiter wrote:Hello Gary: You said,

[...]
Of course there are slower, ongoing changes, but they pale in comparison to the major electric and plasma
events.


me again,
I couldn't agree more. With a 3,500, to 10,000 year model, and the depth of the new material covering the Earth, any slow change process would be difficult to see. There is no time to erode granite, or basalt. And a process requiring millions of years would be overwhelmed by the catastrophic events described in Worlds in Collision.

all by myself, plus one, michael


According to this research, glaciers can erode mountains composed of igneous and metamorphic rock...in about 300,00 years:-

The cooling of the rock happened very quickly in this case, and the entire valley was carved out in about 300,000 years.

"We can say that the glacier was ripping out a huge amount of material and dumping it into the ocean," Farley said. "And rather than taking evidence from a single instant, we can for the first time see an integral of hundreds of thousands of years. So this is a new way to get at the rate at which glaciers do their work."

http://www.livescience.com/3975-glacier ... ivers.html
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby starbiter » Tue May 24, 2011 1:27 pm

Hello PP: I'm comfortable with melting and moving glaciers doing stuff. And geologists have been invoking glaciers to describe much of what we see on the surface of Earth. They have to explain everything.

The study You site still requires an extra 290,000 years to carve a canyon, under perfect conditions for carving. There are many basalt, and granite canyons without a glacier to blame the canyons on.

If the mountains are young, as EU proposes, the process of mountain formation requires a fresh approach. If You read, or re-read Worlds in Collision, what i propose would transpire. There would be consequences.

From an EU perspective, the only criticism that would shake my confidence would be someone saying, "the descriptions from WiC wouldn't do what your saying". Does anyone familiar with WiC feel that way? If so, why? For those not familiar with WiC, you no little of EU. It's not just ions and electrons.

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=3

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Tue May 24, 2011 2:03 pm

Well, I'm sure there are examples of canyons that have been electrically machined on Earth. But mountain ranges often vary in terms of their possible formation. I also think that with evidence of deep "roots" directly underneath the tallest mountain ranges (such as the Himalaya) this supports a mechanism that is more to do with the internal dynamics of the mantle (which is also an electrical environment) than externals.

I tend not to take an absolutist or fundamentalist view of Earth history. Catastrophists say that Earth features have been more dominated by electric machining than other processes - and I think that is not proven at this point. Still, I do respect your hard-work in trying to find answers.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby starbiter » Tue May 24, 2011 2:35 pm

PP said,
[...]
Catastrophists say that Earth features have been more dominated by electric machining than other processes - and I think that is not proven at this point. Still, I do respect your hard-work in trying to find answers.

Me again,
When i began my geology journey 3 years ago i was looking for canyons excavated by thunderbolts. That was the catastrophic model at the time. The TPOD version. I found something much more subtle. The agents were wind, dust, and flood, while plasma events transpired. The canyon walls have been effected by the plasma. In some cases material seems to have been removed by a process similar to Electric Discharge Machining. But in most cases, the canyon was already there. The plasma seems to lithify and melt, more than excavate. The wind, dust, and flooding explain most of the formations i see. This is not trying to minimize the severity of the electrical nature of the events. The dust was removed from the surface of comet Venus electrically. The changes in Earth's motion were electrical in nature. So sloshing was electrical. It's all very simple really. And it's all described in Worlds in Collision.

Some areas do seem to have risen in mass. Peru is the best example. But not as mountains. The whole area rose. The Earth was stressed. Recently.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby Aveo9 » Fri May 27, 2011 2:39 am

starbiter wrote:PP said,
[...]
Catastrophists say that Earth features have been more dominated by electric machining than other processes - and I think that is not proven at this point. Still, I do respect your hard-work in trying to find answers.

Me again,
When i began my geology journey 3 years ago i was looking for canyons excavated by thunderbolts. That was the catastrophic model at the time. The TPOD version. I found something much more subtle. The agents were wind, dust, and flood, while plasma events transpired. The canyon walls have been effected by the plasma. In some cases material seems to have been removed by a process similar to Electric Discharge Machining. But in most cases, the canyon was already there. The plasma seems to lithify and melt, more than excavate. The wind, dust, and flooding explain most of the formations i see. This is not trying to minimize the severity of the electrical nature of the events. The dust was removed from the surface of comet Venus electrically. The changes in Earth's motion were electrical in nature. So sloshing was electrical. It's all very simple really. And it's all described in Worlds in Collision.

Some areas do seem to have risen in mass. Peru is the best example. But not as mountains. The whole area rose. The Earth was stressed. Recently.

michael


From the little I've read, many of the ancient accounts of electrical cosmic events seem to include extremely strong, extremely hot winds. If you consider a tornado as a tamer version of an atmospheric electric discharge and imagine the discharge was intense enough that the tornado entered glow mode - I think the wind would still do most of the damage to the surrounding area.

Presumably many EDM events were accompanied by intense scorching winds, which would corroborate your findings.
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell
User avatar
Aveo9
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby starbiter » Fri May 27, 2011 7:01 am

Hello Aveo: I find the process to have lots of options. It seems more grey than black and white. If a dune/mountain is unconsolidated [not lithified], wind alone could remove material. If a plasma event interacted with formations, something similar to electric discharge machining could remove material, even lithified rock. It appears to me that once an area begins to melt there is less removal of material. It has been suggested that the surface tension would increase, possibly preventing removal by wind or EDM. Once material stops being removed, the temperature could increase faster.

The process might have had a tornadic look, or a river of fire look. An enhanced aurora might produce either.

Much of the damage i see in the field is on the South facing sides of mountains. I've been in the northern hemisphere. It might be different below the equator. It was suggested to me by Redshifto that a release of energy from the equator traveling poleward could explain this. So many questions. So little time.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby webolife » Fri May 27, 2011 11:32 am

starbiter wrote:Much of the damage i see in the field is on the South facing sides of mountains. I've been in the northern hemisphere. It might be different below the equator.


The predominant global wind pattern in the northern hemisphere is the zone of the westerlies. The Coriolis effect due to Earth's rotation causes winds to move counterclockwise around regions of low pressure, therefore all wind affected areas will display erosive and or depositional consequences predominantly from the south. In an electrically driven event, the earth's rotation and resulting Coriolis winds would likely produce the same south side effects, n'est-ce pas?
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: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby starbiter » Fri May 27, 2011 1:03 pm

webolife wrote:
starbiter wrote:Much of the damage i see in the field is on the South facing sides of mountains. I've been in the northern hemisphere. It might be different below the equator.


The predominant global wind pattern in the northern hemisphere is the zone of the westerlies. The Coriolis effect due to Earth's rotation causes winds to move counterclockwise around regions of low pressure, therefore all wind affected areas will display erosive and or depositional consequences predominantly from the south. In an electrically driven event, the earth's rotation and resulting Coriolis winds would likely produce the same south side effects, n'est-ce pas?


Thanks for the information Webo. There is a wild card with this scenario though. According to the witnesses, the Sun rose in the East prior to the events associated with Venus. Then after a period of time during or after the plague of darkness, the Sun rose in the West. It's possible the reported extreme West winds at the beginning of the Plague of Darkness were due to the Earth slowing down, while the atmosphere continued moving easterly. When the Hebrews reached the Red Sea, the winds shifted to easterlies. This might have been due to the Earth beginning to rotate in the opposite direction.

This reversal of motion would release the waters pilled up at the equator. Of course the equatorial bulge is 26.5 miles. That means 13.25 miles of water would rush poleward. That might explain the extended flooding i see in the North. Once the waters moved poleward, it might have taken some time for the Earth to get back up to speed. And the waters might have needed time to be concentrated at the equator again.

My point is that the Earth might not have been rotating during some of the events.

It stands to reason that there was another reversal, providing beautiful sunrises in the East today. This doesn't rule out the Coriolis effect being a factor. I'm just pointing out how different things were during the encounters with Venus. You can't figure on the Earth to be rotating in the way we're accustomed to.

The damage i see in the mountains, burning and melting, especially the South facing sides, must have happened after the growth period. When there was no more dust and wind. This could be the end of the events associated with Moses/Moshe, or later during the time of Joshua, or even 700 years later during the time of Isaiah.

Thanks for your response Webo, michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Fri May 27, 2011 1:05 pm

I am interested in your thesis, Michael.

Will you be recording your audio\visual presentation at the Natural Philosophy Alliance?
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby starbiter » Fri May 27, 2011 1:12 pm

PersianPaladin wrote:I am interested in your thesis, Michael.

Will you be recording your audio\visual presentation at the Natural Philosophy Alliance?



Thanks PP. You might have lost some credibility with your first sentence there. Be careful!

I'm not sure what the situation will be like in MD. Maybe someone will record me with their iphone.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Catastrophism vs. Gradualism - a false debate?

Unread postby kiwi » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:35 am

Scientists have discovered the earliest known complete nervous system preserved in the fossilised remains of a creature that crawled or swam in the ocean 520 million years ago.


520 million? ... nearly as old as me :? :arrow:


http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/ ... old-fossil
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron