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

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby Melusine » Sun Jun 14, 2015 1:23 pm

Metryq wrote:And the consensus is that geological time is accurate and that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. [...] Rarely does one find a person who flips the question over and ask, "Is the 65 mya date accurate?"

Quoting from this article: Did man walk with dinosaurs?

"Many ancient cultures show rock carvings, petroglyphs and figures of dinosaurs. Either they were much better at paleontology than anyone thought, or they actually saw dinosaurs."

User avatar
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:18 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:52 pm

I don't believe time machines are even possible, but I imagine researchers in many fields wish they existed—at the very least as "windows" into the past. Would they actually settle the questions, though?
User avatar
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:11 am

Ok, but what about the possibility of either Saturn being captured by the sun or Venus arriving as a new planet, within the last say 10,000 years.

I suppose the Earth could have remained relatively unaffected by such a a change. But what conditions would have been needed for massive electrical discharges between planets? For example, could Mars have made a close pass by the Earth, and a lightning storm erupted between the two? Would this not have created a huge shift in the orbit of the Earth, resulting in massive changes to our climate, much much colder or much much hotter?
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:51 am

If I read "Worlds In Collision" correctly the last interactions with Mars were around -631BCE, and the Venus close events circa -1450BCE with more than one close pass.
The big problem (and I suspect the reason for the seemingly species-wide amnesia over these events) is that we do not know what caused Jupiter to fission & spit out what became the Planet Venus eventually any more than we know wether or not Saturn is capable of doing something similar. A planet sized ejection might be the normal way Solar Systems develop - the main Star ejects the Gas Giants which in turn eject the rocky planets and so on. We do not really know how our solar system was formed - all we have are a series of assumptions & best guesses.

Hopefully we are in the clear as far as new ejections, but we do know it wouldn't take an object nearly that big to cause serious problems if it impacted
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby Eutrophicated1 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:19 am

Perhaps we should look to the name of the project to seek causative factors involving whatever planetary interactions have and will occur. If, as has been proposed at the conferences, Birkeland Currents are the driving forces for stellar and galactic creation, why not look to them also for past and future planetary events? It seems that if dual layer plasma pinches were responsible for the creation of planetary bodies, they might have been created as a string of objects, that weren't placed in what are now normalized orbits in the Sun's disc. They also might not have been created all at one time, since the sun might not have received a large enough Birkeland Current discharge with enough concentrated matter to do so.
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:30 pm
Location: Michigan, US

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby neilwilkes » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:49 am

There is no doubt in my mind at all that the planets we have in the current era were not created at the same time. None whatsoever, and especially in light of the definite possibility that Venus is less than 4,000 years old, possibly at most 3,500 years old. That is extremely sobering once it sinks into your mind & sits there for a while, and suddenly not only is the Universe is a lot less safe & secure but also our own Solar System suffers a crashing change - I was taught at school that the Sun is about 4.5 Billion years old and is nothing special, and an ordinary star on something called "Main Sequence" and whilst it would one day expand into a "Red Giant" & swallow up the world we live on this would not happen for another 4.5 billion years - so no worries there. Not only this but I was further taught all the planets were formed at once from a dust cloud and their orbits were tightly constrained by "gravity" which makes it all sound safe & predictable with no nasty surprises - after all, being held in place with words like "gravity" they must surely be all very solid & safe.
Then I read not "Worlds In Collision" - not at first - but "Earth In Upheaval" and was introduced to catastrophism. That led me down some strange byways I admit, but the core of it all makes so much more sense to me than the currently taught paradigms do. A very good friend of mine who used to drive around the south of France & the Alps a lot always commented to me that he could not understand how they were supposed to be many millions of years old because they all simply look so new, fresh & sharply formed - not at all what you would expect from mountains exposed to millennia of atmospheric weathering. It explains Tiahuanaco, and how it was built as a port yet is currently 15,000 feet up in the air and it also explains how it was ruined, with it's enormous cyclopean masonry scattered as if picked up & blown by the was! Right at the same time the Andes were formed, and probably in the 15th century BCE.

I'm currently reading "Mankind In Amnesia" (another of Velikovsky's) and it makes perfect sense to me - the experiences of our not-very-distant (and nowhere near distant enough for comfort) are being suppressed on almost a species-wide basis because we need a stable earth - after all, a moving one may hit something
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Giant footprint in Granite

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:55 am

This video contains various views of the infamous "giant footprint" in South Africa.

The footprint is in granite, and the mountain which contains it has lifted it up so that it is vertical. It would seem as if the giant had walked across a gravelly landscape, which was then suddenly electrically baked into granite and upthrusted.

- joe
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby Dyrnwyn » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:33 am

Hello. My background is in literature and I have no training in any kind of science. But I stumbled upon Jno Cook's "Recovering the Lost World" a year ago and devoured it. It's the most fascinating thing I've ever read in my life.

He mentions that when Earth was beneath Saturn in the polar configuration, Saturn's pull was strong enough to raise the land towards the north pole, which caused the oceans to pool in the south, and when Jupiter interrupted the configuration, Saturn's influence was no longer enough to pull the Earth like that and the oceans were released in the Deluge. Might this explain why there is so much more land above water in the northern hemisphere than the south? If for some reason Saturn captured Earth again and in the collision of plasmaspheres Earth was knocked upside down so that the south pole faced Saturn's "underside," could we expect lands to rise in the southern hemisphere and sink in the north, and if so, how long might the process take?
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:16 pm

Andrew Hall’s Blogs, Videos, Maragua Crater and Dinosaurs

Unread postby Bomb20 » Mon May 30, 2016 5:08 am

Andrew Hall contributed great pieces about the concepts of Electric Universe geology to the thunderblogs and Space News:


and part III is in preparation.

Mr Hall explained shock waves, reflections and resulting structures (triangular waveforms etc) of the EU geology. They are distributed over the whole world and I used Google Map to identify some for myself.

In Bolivia I found - among others - Maragua Crater! Geologists underline: “NOT a volcanic crater!” (e.g. see and,-65.4492904,8389m/data=!3m1!1e3 ). They call it a syncline and claim erosion as cause, see here (and on other places)

It should be clear that despite of more recent traces of erosion the crater itself was not created by erosion. No doubt, Andrew Hall’s explanations fit very well here.

However, there is another very interesting discovery to make there, called “Rumbo a las Huellas de Dinosaur” with dinosaur footprint trails near Niñu Mayu (west of crater floor). (scroll down)
The age of the traces is estimated on 80 million years. Strangely the dinosaur traces seem to lay on the surface and not in any layers below. Now I wonder: Why did 80 million years of erosion not destroy the traces? How many mm of stone would common erosion destroy? An erosion speed of 1 mm per 1000 years would result in a loss of 80 m material, 1 mm per 10,000 years would still mean a loss of 8 m!

The dinosaur traces near Niñu Mayu are in an area of triangular wave forms and it seems pretty obvious to me that the dinosaurs moved over this area after (!?) the creation of the explosive patterns there, otherwise the (most-likely electric) explosion would have deleted all traces, or not? Am I wrong?
User avatar
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Andrew Hall’s Blogs, Videos, Maragua Crater and Dinosaur

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:46 am

Not sure if this is applicable to those tracks, but others have been explained like this;
After the dinosaur left tracks, sediments covered the tracks, and kept covering them to a great depth, until the sediments turned to stone under the pressure. Later to be upthrust, and then the covering layers eroded away, leaving the tracks on the surface. A process which took millions of years.

This presumes the tracks we do see on the surface, are just the few which recently became uncovered, and haven't eroded away yet.

I was never really satisfied with that explanation.
I think, for the dinosaur to have left tracks, the soil must have been soft.
And if the soil was soft, what is the reason it hardened so much more than the layers that covered them, so that the covering layers would erode away so evenly, leaving the layer with the tracks so well exposed and preserved?

But how else could the soft ground they just trod on have become so hardened?
Can an electrical discharge do that?
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: Andrew Hall’s Blogs, Videos, Maragua Crater and Dinosaur

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:44 pm

comingfrom wrote:....
I was never really satisfied with that explanation.
I think, for the dinosaur to have left tracks, the soil must have been soft.
And if the soil was soft, what is the reason it hardened so much more than the layers that covered them, so that the covering layers would erode away so evenly, leaving the layer with the tracks so well exposed and preserved?

But how else could the soft ground they just trod on have become so hardened?
Can an electrical discharge do that?

Yes, an electrical discharge could instantly "bake" tracks in soft material into hard fossils. I would also suggest that electricity could turn gravel into granite, and, under certain conditions, trans-mutate elements.
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Andrew Hall’s Blogs, Videos, Maragua Crater and Dinosaur

Unread postby Bomb20 » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:38 am

Thanks for the helpful input to this question!

Scenario standard geology:
The dinosaur left a track in soft soil.

The track hardened very fast - before it was eroded away by water, wind, heat and frost.
(How does standard geology explain this fast process?)

Then the track was covered by softer sediment.
(The standard geology should note that sediment will fill those tracks!)

The sediment turns into stone like the hardened track.

Later erosion by water, wind, heat, frost, weather removes the covering layer(s) over the track. And indeed erosion does the great favour and works in a manner that is re-creating the original track!
(Standard geology requires not only an evenly erosion and softer covering layers, it must also claim that erosion did “bite away” the material which had filled the tracks before!)

Questions to standard geology:
1) How did the track harden so fast?
2) Where did the soft sediment come from? And how long fell sediment on the track?
3) How and how fast turned the sediment into stone?
4) How could erosion work so evenly that the level of the track was achieved?
5) And how could erosion even remove the sediment which must have filled the tracks and must have been hardened as well? Howe could erosion work so selective and re-create the 80 million years old tracks in such a perfect manner?

However, an alternative electric scenario must answer some awkward queries too.
The dinosaur walked over a landscape which was caused by a mighty (electric) explosive event (according to Hall’s theory) and I assume this must have been only a short time after (!) the event when the material was cooling down. But how did the track harden into stone? Wouldn’t this require a second electric event, immediately after the dinosaur walked through?
And how could the dinosaur survive the first event at all? And wouldn’t we need good experimental proof for fast transmutation by electric trans-mutation of elements?

Hmm, there is still a long way to got ...
User avatar
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Worldly Destruction by Winds

Unread postby perpetual motion » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:21 pm

Take your pick of these names as there are many, many more from around
the world depicting these evil forces as they were called. But just imagine
these on a scale of a few hundred miles across or more and just maybe
one hundred high (think really big) after this great flood period, going
on and on for years on end. Around and around the world these storms blow.
Now this would change a lot of scenery so to speak wouldn't you think.

Oh, and add a little water that is lying around in giant lakes and ponds and
sea shores, then you have mud, lots and lots of mud beyond our imagination.
Oh, and the speed of the wind will also be a few hundred miles per hour.

From southern South America on to the northern Africa and on to the Gobi
desert in Asia something really big happened on this world.

Haboobs have been observed in the Sahara desert (typically Sudan, where they were named and described), as well as across the Arabian Peninsula, throughout Kuwait, and in the most arid regions of Iraq.[4] Haboob winds in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Kuwait are frequently created by the collapse of a thunderstorm.
North Africa

African haboobs result from the northward summer shift of the inter-tropical front into North Africa, bringing moisture from the Gulf of Guinea.

Haboobs in Australia may be frequently associated with cold fronts. The deserts of Central Australia, especially near Alice Springs, are particularly prone to haboobs, with sand and debris reaching several kilometers into the sky and leaving up to 30 centimetres (1 ft) of sand in the haboob's path.

As with haboobs in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Kuwait, haboob occurrences in North America are often created by the collapse of a thunderstorm.

The arid and semiarid regions of North America—in fact, any dry region—may experience haboobs. In North America, the most common terms for these events are either dust storm or sandstorm. In the U.S., they frequently occur in the deserts of Arizona, including around the cities of Yuma and Phoenix;[5][6] in New Mexico, including Albuquerque; in eastern California, and in Texas.[7]
During thunderstorm formation, winds move in a direction opposite to the storm's travel, and they move from all directions into the thunderstorm. When the storm collapses, and begins to release precipitation, wind directions reverse, gusting outward from the storm and generally gusting the strongest in the direction of the storm's travel.[1][2][3] Haboobs can also form when a strong thunderstorm weakens rapidly, and releases a microburst.
Think really, really big!
When this downdraft of cold air, or downburst, reaches the ground, it blows dry, loose silt and clay (collectively, dust) up from the desert, creating a wall of sediment that precedes the storm cloud. This wall of dust can be up to 100 km (62 mi) wide and several kilometers in elevation. At their strongest, haboob winds often travel at 35–100 km/h (22–62 mph), and they may approach with little or no warning. Often rain does not appear at ground level as it evaporates in the hot, dry air (a phenomenon known as virga). The evaporation cools the rushing air even further and accelerates it. Occasionally, when the rain does persist, it can contain a considerable quantity of dust. Severe cases are called mud storms. Eye and respiratory system protection are advisable for anyone who must be outside during a haboob. Moving to shelter is highly advised during a strong event.
Berg wind
Bora (wind)
Chinook wind

"Diablo windThere was a desert wind blowing that night. It was one of those hot dry Santa Anas that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks. Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge. ”
— Raymond Chandler, "Red Wind"
“ The baby frets. The maid sulks. I rekindle a waning argument with the telephone company, then cut my losses and lie down, given over to whatever is in the air. To live with the Santa Ana is to accept, consciously or unconsciously, a deeply mechanistic view of human behavior.

...[T]he violence and the unpredictability of the Santa Ana affect the entire quality of life in Los Angeles, accentuate its impermanence, its unreliability. The wind shows us how close to the edge we are.

— Joan Didion, Slouching Towards Bethlehem.
Foehn wind
Katabatic wind
Norte (wind)
Sundowner winds

Think really, really big!
perpetual motion
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Worldly Destruction by Winds

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:17 pm

The Bible makes mentions this, in the beginning of chapter 7 of the book of Revelation.

I believe wind is an electrical phenomena.
When a thunderstorm is releasing precipitation it is also the ions discharging into the Earth, and these ions come down in circular spiral paths driving the air at the same time.

I'm nearly 60 now.
I remember what the weather was decades ago, and can compare to how it is now.
Where as it used to rain a lot of the time, now it rains sporadically, in short bursts.
We no longer see a week of rain, let alone a month or 2 of rain anymore.
Still, the amount of rainfall is about the same.
When it rains it pours.
And tornadoes are frequent here now, and we didn't used to get any a decade or two ago.
Many trees are being blown over or broken nowadays.

I don't think world will be destroyed, but it is certainly getting windier.
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest