Earth's Surface Formed Recently

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

Permafrost

Unread postby johnm33 » Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:12 am

I dunno whether this should be here or under mad ideas, but here goes. When 'the Earth stood still' and according to revelations the rivers 'boiled', the worlds oceans, free of centrifugal force, would have flooded poleward. I believe only the gap between Greenland and Svalbard was open at that time. On balance i also believe that the standstill wasn't sudden but built as whatever caused it approached us and rotation recovered as it retreated. Sufficient water pressed into the arctic to carry the 'out of place' seals and belugas south. What I 'm wondering about is was the arctic ocean more extensive reaching down into Siberia, specifically into those areas which are covered by permafrost more than 100m deep. Next were the mammoths, who have been found 'marching underground in single file' in fact swimming south with the flow? and as the rotation recovered was the water, finding itself energetically stressed suddenly instantly supercooled [some sort of coherence domain?] by the same physics that caused the boiling, followed by the same process again and again as more water was centrifugally driven south with ever increasing force, and was this the cause of the permafrost? Wherever I read of permafrost there always seems to be salt or condensed brine below it, which kind of fits my case. What I would also expect is to find oceanic fish frozen into the permafrost and I've never heard of such. Some of the Siberian permfrost is 500m deep and I find it difficult to accept that cold could reach those depths from an environment where mammals could survive. Any thoughts?
johnm33
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Permafrost

Unread postby johnm33 » Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:49 pm

There're are a couple more points I'd like to raise, the first is that if the slowing and halt of rotation caused rivers to heat to the point of being scalding, how did it affect rocks, that is the Earths crust and mantle? I have no idea how to work out the physics but I do know water has a very high specific heat, meaning it takes a lot of energy to raise it's temp. How much more could the temp. of rock be raised by this process? The next is that looking at the recent hole that appeared in the Yamal peninsular it seemed that the permafrost extended all the way to the bottom, 70m, how could this form with sea levels 100m lower than today, when nowhere on the peninsular rises much higher than 45m above sea level. That's to say if this occured as a consequence of snowfall followed by melt and freeze why didn't the water drain away? or why isn't it more like greenland ice at depth? Is it possible that it froze as a block as it rose out of the ocean and headed south? The gas [methane] fields are directly below the permafrost, as far as I can tell, which is exactly what I would expect if a rich peaty forested landscpae was buried and left to brew for a few thousand years.
johnm33
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Permafrost

Unread postby Frantic » Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:59 pm

johnm33 wrote:I dunno whether this should be here or under mad ideas, but here goes. When 'the Earth stood still' and according to revelations the rivers 'boiled', the worlds oceans, free of centrifugal force, would have flooded poleward. I believe only the gap between Greenland and Svalbard was open at that time. On balance i also believe that the standstill wasn't sudden but built as whatever caused it approached us and rotation recovered as it retreated. Sufficient water pressed into the arctic to carry the 'out of place' seals and belugas south.


ok rule # 1 post a link to what ever you are talking about.
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin.html

If it were to have been a slowdown and then return to rotation that event would not be the day the Earth stood still.

Nothing in your post explains why the rivers and oceans are boiling.

Days would grow longer and longer, nights would grow longer and longer. While there are records of floods in ancient history I am not aware of one in which the oceans are said to have slowly retreated to the poles.

It is an interesting what if, but no reason to think it ever happened.
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Permafrost

Unread postby johnm33 » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:43 am

Frantic
"If it were to have been a slowdown and then return to rotation that event would not be the day the Earth stood still. "
In revelations and Velikovskys study of 'myths' the standstill prolonges one day/night depending where people were on the globe I was merely making the distinction between a sudden halt and a progressive 'braking' and then the reverse. How long the standstill was I have no particular opinion, other than to generally trust the eye witness accounts as they are conveyed down to us.
"Nothing in your post explains why the rivers and oceans are boiling. " I made no mention of the oceans boiling,[ though as massive as they are I would still expect them to warm by several degrees] as to the rivers it's to do with the Kinetic energy, and angular momentum of earths rotation, I don't know the physics but if something is travelling at 1000 miles an hour [setting aside the complex gyrations even a stationary object on the planets surface undergoes] it somehow possesses that energy within itself and forced to stop that energy gets expressed as heat. When the world slows the oceans which are held by centrifugal forces around the equator retreat poleward, but also head east. So one would expect the Pacific to head north east over north America and the Atlantic to do the same in Europe. These walls of water would show apparent acceleration eastwards as they moved north given the increased differential between their near-Equatorial speed of 1000mph [1675KPH] relative to slower surface speeds nearer the poles. Apart from this the Pacific would overwhelm Beringia. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin
Given the short duration of the event not all the ocean would get to the poles, and most of the evidence would be lost due to the almost equal and opposite flood of water returning south-west as the spin recovered.
My contention is that as the earth's spin increased again, the same physics would work in reverse, that is large bodies of water would rapidly cool, and the further south they reached the more rapid the cooling would be.
On this bathymetry map http://www.arctic.io/zoom/yDzd/0.5;0.5;1/Bathymetry search the area south and west of Svalbard to find the parrallel tracks and resting bodies of 2 mountainous chunks of rock washed south in this returning flood. You'll find them west of the top of Norway. It's also worth a close look at the area north of Alaska and the erosion of the continental shelf there.
johnm33
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:08 pm

Also irrelevant, it seems to me, is the fact that glaciologists got it wrong about the location and depth of the plane. That seems to be an ad hominem argument – if glaciologists get some things wrong they must get everything wrong.

I think the point here is glaciologists did not just get "some things wrong" but they got the primary fundamental of the entire method wrong. In essence, yes, that makes all of it wrong. The data IS the ice cores. The wrongness is basically everything else. If the method is compared with samples of a known age (which it was) and fails (which it did) you can logically assume it to be accurate for samples of unknown ages? You are now relying not only on assumption but one that has been proven erroneous by direct observation. You can lead a horse to water. You can stand there and watch it die of thirst. It makes no sense to flog it afterwards.
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

How old?

Unread postby Regulus » Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:04 am

This is an interesting find and would indicate that the Amazonian rainforests aren't that old.

Sediment cores "...results revealed that the oldest sediments did not come from a rainforest ecosystem at all. Rather, they showed that the landscape, before about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, looked more like the savannahs of Africa than today’s lush rainforest"
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-his ... est-001833
Couer de Leon
User avatar
Regulus
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:25 am
Location: Devonport, Tasmania Aust

Radiometric Dating?

Unread postby Panurg3 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:09 pm

I've heard many times on this site and related sources about how various direct dating methods involving nuclear decay may not be a reliable means of dating earth (and i guess also the moon from returned rocks). Needless to say this applies also to other methods and assumptions used (by extension) for greater scales. If our understanding of these processes can change, in what new ways can they be used? Has anyone tried to recalibrate these data based upon some other clocks? I imagine an approach would be to assemble a graph of all data, including stratigraphy, erosion, magnetic records in rocks... etc, and somehow the mythological. You can weight these any way you wish and then look for patterns. You could create a topographic time map of our world. And if decay rates are variable, by what factors do they vary? Sounds like a massive undertaking- the more different kinds of data, the better, but also the greater the difficulty. Probably people are doing or have started this, but I haven't stumbled upon much in my stumblly kind of way.

and here's the philosophical bit:
Science officialdom's main sin, in my view, is hubris (which is a word I would love to see more of in criticisms of the mainstream). That we can rewind history to the trillionths of a second after the big bang and determine that the coalescence of the earth occurred on a tuesday and never question some assumptions is just hubris. History, whether artistic or scientific, will always be just that, a STORY. We cannot remove the teller from the tale. If the past exists, the history of the natural world is written everywhere in everything, so a myriad of possible stories could exist within your expanding dataset. The question is: Will you follow the story as it changes? Recognizing that the history is not the thing, that it's only a model, Arthur, do we need to claim validation of objectivity in the same manner as the heads of academia? If we recognize that models must constantly mutate to survive usefully,
that can put a question mark on what we mean when we say "objective truth". But I don't believe this means we can't achieve something useful.

(in the next 10 or 20 years we should be able to get dramatically better views of other star systems- the odds may be good that we can witness first hand planets forming, fissioning or migrating, which could make our models less virtual- or destroy them.)

no, but really, anybody see some good graphs on the recalibration of these methods?
I'll even take mainstream attempts at a unified graph of all dating techniques...
Panurg3
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:54 am

Re: Radiometric Dating?

Unread postby Metryq » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:31 am

"Absolutes" are part of a mechanistic mindset; some people can't stand "not knowing" and so will cling to absolute notions even when they've been shown to be faulty. I think every dating scheme is going to have a range of use—radiometric, stratigraphic, etc. In some cases, a presumed dating scheme may be entirely wrong. (Consider the EU view of the H-R diagram.)

Beyond a certain point, any dating scheme is going to become less accurate and eventually break down. Like a bullet fired from a gun, a tiny deviation off target becomes compounded with distance. And eventually, the bullet will fall to the ground, too. Some EU beliefs suggest a massive "reset button" event, beyond which we can only guess—like the imagined arrival of Saturn and its brood into the neighborhood of the Solar system. That upsets various geological and radiometric clocks.

Unless you're planning to build a time machine and must know exactly how far into the past to aim, does it really matter whether or not we know—with absolute certainty—what happened and when in the past? Those who are truly curious will keep digging around and exploring. Those who've grown weary of the chase will become dogmatic and settle down in one place.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Radiometric Dating?

Unread postby Batchy » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:37 pm

Radiometric dating or any dating method is only useful, if the one making the measurements, knows for a certainty, how much radiation the item initially held.

In a uniformitarian world view, everything in the past thousands, millions of years, is the same as we observe today. It's assumed that we can use the half-life of isotopes to calculate backwards, the age of the item being measured.
There's a major flaw with that paradigm. Unless we know how much radioactivity there was in the item to begin with, we have no way of knowing how much activity to expect today.
For example, I give you a bucket with a few drops of water in it. I ask "This bucket is leaking. How long did it take to empty?"
You would straight away ask, "How much was in there to begin with? Did it leak faster or slower as it was emptying?"

Unless you know initial conditions when an isotope was embedded in your item, you have to assume some value as your starting point. An equation can be solved easily, if the variables are known. Radio dating doesn't know the variables.

Geological radiometric dating makes huge assumptions about the age of rocks, based on a model of geological evolution. But what if the model is wrong? What if there were catastrophic events in the past that altered the composition of rock formations. The age of rocks could be orders of magnitude incorrect, even if the dating method is valid.
He covers himself with light as with a garment. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain. Psalm 104: 2
Batchy
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:49 am

Re: Radiometric Dating?

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:24 am

Batchy wrote:For example, I give you a bucket with a few drops of water in it. I ask "This bucket is leaking. How long did it take to empty?"

Bad analogy. When radioactives decay, they turn into other elements. Radiometric dating compares the percentage of radioactive element to that of the decay element in a sample. Your leaky bucket analogy makes no such comparison. It is well known that radiometric dating is not perfect. To add to the problem, it has also been discovered that decay rates vary over the course of the year. I can't recall if the process is understood exactly. And EU suggests that in situ transmutations can occur—without waiting for distant supernovae to explode and shower us with their product.

Then there are cases like the "lost squadron" that show gradualist assumptions to be way off the mark.

Knowing the initial state of a sample would help, sure. But you may be thinking of the arguments against neutrinos "changing flavor" on their way from the Sun.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Formation of Mount Lycabettus

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:32 am

Mount Lycabettus is a limestone hill in Athens.

This photograph from 1862 provides a good perspective of the mountain free from modern obstructions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Lyca ... d_1862.jpg

The mythology says it was created by Athena. (Velikovsky identifies Athena with the comet Venus.)

What do you think?

- joe
LunarSabbathTruth
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Formation of Mount Lycabettus

Unread postby MattEU » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:40 pm

Yeah, the shape looks like other Buttes around the world and some of the Qolla's on Malta.

It is that ridge or spine on one side that a lot of them seem to share, that I believe gives it away.

Nice find :)
What is the origin or formation of our planets amazing amount of sand? Water erosion and weathering? Extraterrestrial? EU geology? Other?

Everythings Electric? EU theory related blog
User avatar
MattEU
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:00 am

Re: How old?

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:09 am

Since recently reading "Earth in Upheaval" & "Worlds In Collision" I do not find this at all surprising, to be honest with you - and even this age might be too much given Velikovsky's writings seem to pretty much confirm that the entire surface of the planet changed catastrophically in 3500 BC and again in 800 BC.
Additional evidence can be easily found in the almost annual discoveries of lost cities in ruins under the rainforest canopy, and given how many Maya there once must have been in an area now almost entirely covered by tropical rainforest the Central American ones are very likely less than 1500 years old at the very most
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Making Granite

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:21 pm

Michael Steinbacher has said that he knows of a process whereby dirt can be transformed into a form of granite via a process similar to an electric arc furnace. Does anyone know the details required to reproduce this experiment?

- joe
LunarSabbathTruth
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:02 am

In the EU preview by Michael Steinbacher he showed how a river and sort of mountain is formed.

With an anode and cathode and wet sand in between, looked very cool.

Maybe granite can also form through some electrical process...but Michael is on this forum so i think only he knows what you are asking about...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests