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: clay formation

Unread postby starbiter » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:55 am

Lloyd wrote:
Michael said: Comets are convenient for supplying everything required for the surface of Earth to quite a depth. Rare earths, hydrocarbons, carbonates, pyroxene, olivine, carbide, and of course clay.

* Then do you deny the Saturn Theory and detritus from periodic ancient Saturn flares?
* The volume of all former comets is likely to be quite small. The volume of Saturn in ancient times may have been greater than Jupiter. The source of all comets and asteroids may be Saturn too.



Hello Lloyd,

Have You read Dr Velikovsky's version of planetary catastrophic events?

http://www.varchive.org/itb/deluge.htm Please see the entire section. Part 2, Saturn and the flood.

The events associated with Saturn could have added to the surface of Earth. But these events were followed by interactions between Earth and electric comet Venus. It appears to me that the surface of our planet was deposited during these events, to a great depth. The ingredients required are found in modern comets. Any survivors of comet Venus would probably commemorate the events associated with Venus. If something similar happened today and a few survivors staggered out from caves used as shelter they probably wouldn't mention Moses and the plagues of Egypt. They would try to share what happened the previous day, month or year, not something from hundreds or thousands of years earlier. The same goes for events that were caused by Mars following Venus. These events during the time of Isaiah are the most detailed. The events during Venus are less detailed because of the catastrophes that followed. The events during the time of Saturn are quite hazy for the same reason. I've asked Dwardu if he will share his thoughts about the catastrophes associated with Venus and Mars. He doesn't think there will be time.

During the EU conference in Vegas and NPA 19 there were papers presented by Ev Cochrane and Dave Talbott about Electric Comet Venus. Do You deny Electric Comet Venus Lloyd? Do You think Electric Comet Venus would leave a mark on the surface of Earth. Would blowing dust, sand, gravel, rocks, and boulders disappear, or accumulate in a duning pattern? Would oil raining for dayS and nightS disappear, or accumulate in basins. If the Sun rises where it used to set would there be floods causing the rivers to reverse course?

Maybe the deeper layers of coal in the Book Cliffs are from the time of Saturn. The ones associated with giant dinosaur tracts. Certainty concerning the timing or agent would be misplaced, IMHO. The events during Venus and Mars would shuffle the deck, as it were.

michael steinbacher
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: clay formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:49 am

Ev's & Dave's Paper/s?
* Michael, what did Dave and Ev's paper/s say about Venus? Dave has a video on Youtube that shows how Venus apparently looked when it became unstable and started on a new course away from Saturn. Cardona has said that Venus as a comet formed the Ouroboros around Saturn, which was apparently at the time that it began on a new course away from Saturn too. So far, I haven't heard any of those three say anything about Venus, Mars, or other bodies besides Saturn having any catastrophic effects on the Earth. I had read Cardona saying a few years ago that the breakup of the Saturn System seemed to be rather chaotic and would be difficult to pin down in detail. There was always the possibility that the effects of other bodies besides Saturn on the Earth would be figured out, but I haven't heard if they've determined anything specific yet. Whatever did occur was likely to have occurred shortly after the Saturn System breakup had begun within about 5,000 years ago.
Cataclysms Without Planetary Intermediaries?
* The Great Flood and the Ice Age were effects that may have been caused entirely by the disruption of Saturn's plasma column to Earth and the movement of the Earth from an orbit near Jupiter to its present orbit, although there must also have been at least one large meteor or comet airburst, which embedded small meteorites in the tusks and bones of mammoths and other animals at the start of the last Ice Age. Dennis Cox also mentioned other detritus possibly from the same time that blanketed parts of the U.S. southwest. I think he considered the source to be the same or another airburst.
Detritus from Venus?
* If any detritus on Earth came from Venus, I think it would have included a lot of sulfur, because its atmosphere contains a lot of sulfuric acid and John Ackerman says the sulfur in the sulfuric acid comes from vulcanism on Venus' surface. Clay is kaolin, consisting of aluminum, silicate and water. It is said that: "Comet Tempel 1 contains clays, carbonates and hydrocarbons". All of the former moons of Saturn, including Venus and Mars, may contain such minerals, including kaolin (= clay), that were deposited on them after each Saturn flare. And the asteroids may also be largely from the former Saturn System. So many bodies could have been sources of many materials on Earth. If they've pinned anything down yet, I'd like to know.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: clay formation

Unread postby starbiter » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:12 am

Lloyd wrote:Ev's & Dave's Paper/s?
* Michael, what did Dave and Ev's paper/s say about Venus? Dave has a video on Youtube that shows how Venus apparently looked when it became unstable and started on a new course away from Saturn. Cardona has said that Venus as a comet formed the Ouroboros around Saturn, which was apparently at the time that it began on a new course away from Saturn too. So far, I haven't heard any of those three say anything about Venus, Mars, or other bodies besides Saturn having any catastrophic effects on the Earth. I had read Cardona saying a few years ago that the breakup of the Saturn System seemed to be rather chaotic and would be difficult to pin down in detail. There was always the possibility that the effects of other bodies besides Saturn on the Earth would be figured out, but I haven't heard if they've determined anything specific yet. Whatever did occur was likely to have occurred shortly after the Saturn System breakup had begun within about 5,000 years ago.
Cataclysms Without Planetary Intermediaries?
* The Great Flood and the Ice Age were effects that may have been caused entirely by the disruption of Saturn's plasma column to Earth and the movement of the Earth from an orbit near Jupiter to its present orbit, although there must also have been at least one large meteor or comet airburst, which embedded small meteorites in the tusks and bones of mammoths and other animals at the start of the last Ice Age. Dennis Cox also mentioned other detritus possibly from the same time that blanketed parts of the U.S. southwest. I think he considered the source to be the same or another airburst.
Detritus from Venus?
* If any detritus on Earth came from Venus, I think it would have included a lot of sulfur, because its atmosphere contains a lot of sulfuric acid and John Ackerman says the sulfur in the sulfuric acid comes from vulcanism on Venus' surface. Clay is kaolin, consisting of aluminum, silicate and water. It is said that: "Comet Tempel 1 contains clays, carbonates and hydrocarbons". All of the former moons of Saturn, including Venus and Mars, may contain such minerals, including kaolin (= clay), that were deposited on them after each Saturn flare. And the asteroids may also be largely from the former Saturn System. So many bodies could have been sources of many materials on Earth. If they've pinned anything down yet, I'd like to know.



Hi lloyd,

If Saturn was responsible for the events described in Worlds in Collision then my work on geology is unaffected. The mountains and valleys would be created by duning and flooding. The oil and coal would be external. The Earth would grow from matter ejected from Saturn. No problem.

It seems to me when i read WiC that Mars interacted with our planet while Isaiah preached. Sennacherib seems historic to me. His army seems historic to me. Homer seems to discuss Ares [Mars] and Athene [Venus].

Venus seems to have a catastrophic history with Earth. Every time i re read WiC it gets better, not worse. It fits what i see in the field.

If You choose to disparage WiC then please point out specific problems. It would be great if You'd read or re-read WiC yourself and point out problems with Venus as a comet interacting with Earth as described in WiC. I'll try to consider Venus as a great electric comet that caused fear and trembling, but did nothing. I'll try.

The Earth has quite a bit of Sulfur.

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/St-Te/Sulfur.html#b

In Earth's crustal composition, sulfur ranks thirteenth in abundance, with an estimated concentration of 0.05 percent. Sulfur exists in elemental form, as metallic sulfides, as sulfates, and, when combined with carbon and nitrogen, in organic forms. Most of the world's sulfur resource is located in North America.

Me again,

Attributing sulfur to volcanoes on Venus seems like a guess. This is probably based on Venus basalts being only volcanic. In an Electric Universe this is not a given. There are other sources of heat when plasma is an option. The atmosphere of Venus today might be different than it was as a comet, assuming it was a comet.




michael steinbacher
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: clay formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:51 pm

No Venus Encounter during the Exodus
* Michael, I looked up specific references and found some below. While the Saturnists have always considered that Earth very well may have had close encounters with Venus and Mars about the time of the Saturn System breakup, they concluded that these encounters occurred much earlier than Velikovsky thought.
MORE THAN ONE TYPHON (from Thoth, April 1998)
By Dwardu Cardona
http://othergroup.net/thoth/thotii07.txt
DEDavis asks: What is the current thinking on the Exodus story, then?
- CARDONA REPLIES:
I'll answer this one cautiously. Most historians today will tell you that the Exodus never happened, and this includes many an Israeli historian. For reasons which I cannot quite go into here, I tend to disagree. However, that said, I must also report that in all the years since WORLDS IN COLLISION was written, AND DESPITE WHAT WAS SAID IN IT, I have not been able to discover one single bit of evidence that would tie the planet Venus to the event. All that can be said with SOME certainty, is: (1) that a comet does seem to have made its appearance in the sky during the Exodus; (2) that this comet was NOT the comet Venus; and (3) that an earthquake also occurred just before the Israelites left Egypt. At this point, I dare not say more.
Dwardu.
- Kevin Weinhold wrote: Velikovsky wrote that he at one time was not sure if it was Venus or Jupiter that was the cause of the catastrophe. I suspect he connected Typhon-slain-by-Zeus via the confused connection in mythology: some reported that it was Zeus that fought and killed the monster with his lightning bolts; others reported that "Zeus" sent Venus (lightning bolts or whatnot) to kill the monster...is such a connection still not acceptable, considering that the ancients described the same event in two ways?
- CARDONA REPLIES:
Well, here, the bottom line appears to be simply this: While the comet called Typhon (that is, Comet Set) and the GREEK Typhon were NOT one and the same object, it will turn out that the GREEK Typhon was also a comet. More than that, the GREEK Typhon will turn out to have been cometary Venus in disguise. The comet called Set, on the other hand, which the Greeks also alluded to as Typhon, was NOT Venus. This is why I said the matter is a little bit complicated. The complication, however, arose simply because the Greeks, for reasons of their own, referred to the Egyptian Set as Typhon.
Dwardu
- DEDavis wrote: If I read _Worlds in Collision_ right (and it's easy to be dazzled by Velikovsky, and thus get confused as to what is evidence and what is reconstruction...) The chain of reasoning for linking the Exodus events with Venus is: 1.Venus = Athene = Pallas Athene = Typhon 2. Rockenbach said Typhon occurred at the time of the Exodus. Yes?
- CARDONA AGAIN:
This is PRECISELY where Velikovsky went wrong. The comet CALLED Typhon and the Typhon of Greek mythology are NOT the same. The comet Typhon of Rockenbach ultimately traces to Pliny, although Hephaestion, Junctinus, Lydus, Servius, Campester, Petosiris, and Joannes Laurentius also wrote about it. What Pliny actually wrote concerning this comet was this: "A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, to which Typhon, the king of that period, gave his name." As we all know (I hope) there was never a king of Egypt named Typhon, after whom this comet was named. What must be borne in mind here is that Typhon was what the Greeks called the Egyptian Set. Thus the Egyptian king called Typhon would have really been named Seti (of which Egypt knew more than one.) From this it follows that the comet called Typhon, named after King Typhon, would really have been named Set. It is therefore more accurate to refer to this comet as the Comet Set (although this, again, must not be confused with the original god Set.) Yes, I know, it's complicated. However, it should be seen from all this that the comet called Set/Typhon had nothing to do with the Greek demon called Typhon, with whom Athena was NOT at all associated. The Original Greek demon called Typhon was actually slain by Zeus. One other thing to keep in mind: It has never been ascertained on what evidence, if any, Rockenbach associated this comet with the Exodus. All those who also mentioned this connection, like Johann Hevel, got it from Rockenbach. Velikovsky himself was of the opinion that Rockenbach might have had access to ancient documents that might have contained quotations from the writings of Campester and Petosiris. This is doubtful in the case of Campester and purely conjectural in that of Petosiris. Lydus, who quoted Campester on Comet Typhon, would hardly have omitted this most interesting of items had the latter had anything to say about the subject. Fragments from the works of Petosiris have also been published but the information concerning the Exodus is not there contained. All we are left with, therefore, is a comet called Set which Rockenbach, for no reason we can discover, associated with the time of the Exodus. As I said before, there is absolutely no connection between this comet and the planet Venus.
Dwardu Cardona

Another Velikovsky Oversight
* Had he had more time, Velikovsky might have discovered this himself, but, as it is, he failed to make the following connection.
http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/cochrane.txt
Velikovsky was on the right track, although his understanding and chronology of the events involving the respective planets requires substantial revision. D. Cardona, "Velikovsky's Martian Catastrophes," Aeon 2:3 (1990), pp. 29-44; S. Mewhinney, "On the Year - 687," Kronos 6:4 (1981), pp. 4-27; S. Mewhinney, "Velikovsky, Mars, and the Eighth Century B.C.," Part Two in Kronos 12:1 (1987), pp. 69-80. While the idea of Saturn's prominence is original with Velikovsky, it must be said that he overlooked the association of Venus and Mars with the gas giant - he traced the episode of the Venus-comet to a much later period - and thus our thesis departs radically from Velikovsky's reconstruction of the events associated with these planets.


* I haven't looked today for a quote showing that Mars also did not encounter Earth about 2700 years ago, but I can try, if anyone wants to see it. I don't remember if Cardona said anything about that in my interview thread. But I don't think so.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: clay formation

Unread postby starbiter » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:41 am

Lloyd wrote:No Venus Encounter during the Exodus
* Michael, I looked up specific references and found some below. While the Saturnists have always considered that Earth very well may have had close encounters with Venus and Mars about the time of the Saturn System breakup, they concluded that these encounters occurred much earlier than Velikovsky thought.
MORE THAN ONE TYPHON (from Thoth, April 1998)
By Dwardu Cardona
http://othergroup.net/thoth/thotii07.txt
DEDavis asks: What is the current thinking on the Exodus story, then?
- CARDONA REPLIES:
I'll answer this one cautiously. Most historians today will tell you that the Exodus never happened, and this includes many an Israeli historian. For reasons which I cannot quite go into here, I tend to disagree. However, that said, I must also report that in all the years since WORLDS IN COLLISION was written, AND DESPITE WHAT WAS SAID IN IT, I have not been able to discover one single bit of evidence that would tie the planet Venus to the event. All that can be said with SOME certainty, is: (1) that a comet does seem to have made its appearance in the sky during the Exodus; (2) that this comet was NOT the comet Venus; and (3) that an earthquake also occurred just before the Israelites left Egypt. At this point, I dare not say more.
Dwardu.
- Kevin Weinhold wrote: Velikovsky wrote that he at one time was not sure if it was Venus or Jupiter that was the cause of the catastrophe. I suspect he connected Typhon-slain-by-Zeus via the confused connection in mythology: some reported that it was Zeus that fought and killed the monster with his lightning bolts; others reported that "Zeus" sent Venus (lightning bolts or whatnot) to kill the monster...is such a connection still not acceptable, considering that the ancients described the same event in two ways?
- CARDONA REPLIES:
Well, here, the bottom line appears to be simply this: While the comet called Typhon (that is, Comet Set) and the GREEK Typhon were NOT one and the same object, it will turn out that the GREEK Typhon was also a comet. More than that, the GREEK Typhon will turn out to have been cometary Venus in disguise. The comet called Set, on the other hand, which the Greeks also alluded to as Typhon, was NOT Venus. This is why I said the matter is a little bit complicated. The complication, however, arose simply because the Greeks, for reasons of their own, referred to the Egyptian Set as Typhon.
Dwardu
- DEDavis wrote: If I read _Worlds in Collision_ right (and it's easy to be dazzled by Velikovsky, and thus get confused as to what is evidence and what is reconstruction...) The chain of reasoning for linking the Exodus events with Venus is: 1.Venus = Athene = Pallas Athene = Typhon 2. Rockenbach said Typhon occurred at the time of the Exodus. Yes?
- CARDONA AGAIN:
This is PRECISELY where Velikovsky went wrong. The comet CALLED Typhon and the Typhon of Greek mythology are NOT the same. The comet Typhon of Rockenbach ultimately traces to Pliny, although Hephaestion, Junctinus, Lydus, Servius, Campester, Petosiris, and Joannes Laurentius also wrote about it. What Pliny actually wrote concerning this comet was this: "A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, to which Typhon, the king of that period, gave his name." As we all know (I hope) there was never a king of Egypt named Typhon, after whom this comet was named. What must be borne in mind here is that Typhon was what the Greeks called the Egyptian Set. Thus the Egyptian king called Typhon would have really been named Seti (of which Egypt knew more than one.) From this it follows that the comet called Typhon, named after King Typhon, would really have been named Set. It is therefore more accurate to refer to this comet as the Comet Set (although this, again, must not be confused with the original god Set.) Yes, I know, it's complicated. However, it should be seen from all this that the comet called Set/Typhon had nothing to do with the Greek demon called Typhon, with whom Athena was NOT at all associated. The Original Greek demon called Typhon was actually slain by Zeus. One other thing to keep in mind: It has never been ascertained on what evidence, if any, Rockenbach associated this comet with the Exodus. All those who also mentioned this connection, like Johann Hevel, got it from Rockenbach. Velikovsky himself was of the opinion that Rockenbach might have had access to ancient documents that might have contained quotations from the writings of Campester and Petosiris. This is doubtful in the case of Campester and purely conjectural in that of Petosiris. Lydus, who quoted Campester on Comet Typhon, would hardly have omitted this most interesting of items had the latter had anything to say about the subject. Fragments from the works of Petosiris have also been published but the information concerning the Exodus is not there contained. All we are left with, therefore, is a comet called Set which Rockenbach, for no reason we can discover, associated with the time of the Exodus. As I said before, there is absolutely no connection between this comet and the planet Venus.
Dwardu Cardona

Another Velikovsky Oversight
* Had he had more time, Velikovsky might have discovered this himself, but, as it is, he failed to make the following connection.
http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/cochrane.txt
Velikovsky was on the right track, although his understanding and chronology of the events involving the respective planets requires substantial revision. D. Cardona, "Velikovsky's Martian Catastrophes," Aeon 2:3 (1990), pp. 29-44; S. Mewhinney, "On the Year - 687," Kronos 6:4 (1981), pp. 4-27; S. Mewhinney, "Velikovsky, Mars, and the Eighth Century B.C.," Part Two in Kronos 12:1 (1987), pp. 69-80. While the idea of Saturn's prominence is original with Velikovsky, it must be said that he overlooked the association of Venus and Mars with the gas giant - he traced the episode of the Venus-comet to a much later period - and thus our thesis departs radically from Velikovsky's reconstruction of the events associated with these planets.


* I haven't looked today for a quote showing that Mars also did not encounter Earth about 2700 years ago, but I can try, if anyone wants to see it. I don't remember if Cardona said anything about that in my interview thread. But I don't think so.


Hello lloyd,

I already know what Dwardu thinks. That's why i asked YOU to read, or re read Worlds in Collision. If You had bothered You might have found the material below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Veli ... -Collision

Who, then, is the Archangel Michael?The entire story of Exodus is connected with the Archangel Michael. In Exodus 14 : 19 the pillar of fire and of cloud is called8 Angel of God. According to the Midrash,12 it was the Archangel Michael who made himself "awall of fire" between the Israelites and the Egyptians. Michael is said to be made of fire. TheHaggadah states: "Michael was appointed High Priest of the celestial sanctuary at the same timethat Aaron was made high priest of Israel," that is, in the time of the Exodus. Michael was alsothe angel who appeared to Joshua, son of Nun.The celestial struggle at the Sea of Passage is depicted in the familiar image of the ArchangelMichael slaying the dragon. Michael produces fire by touching the earth, and it was theemanation of this archangel that was seen in the burning bush. He has his abode in heaven and isthe forerunner of Shehina or God's presence, but as Lucifer, Michael falls from heaven and hishands are bound by God. All these attributes and acts of the Archangel Michael13 lead us torecognize which planet he represents: it is Venus.

Me again,

If You'll look at "The Terrible Ones", in the same chapter, it's clear, at least to me, that Mars is Archangel Gabriel.

Most of the catastrophists i know reject Dwardu's long/standard chronology. Stratigraphic research seems to favor a shorter chronology. Of course, either way, long or short chronology, Venus or Nibiru, my geology work is unaffected.

I'd like to apologize for this digression concerning comet Venus on a discussion of clay. If we choose to continue discussing comet Venus a new thread would be appropriate. If You wish to discuss this topic further it would be nice to hear YOUR thoughts on WiC, not just quotes from others. I'm familiar with the other side. If the standard chronology advocates wish to defend their positions themselves, the Thunderbolts Forum would be a great place. There are short chronology advocates much better informed than i who can defend that position. Forum members Venn and Nick C are well versed in this area. I'm into rocks myself. I can rap about dolomite until the cows come home.

michael steinbacher

michael steinbacher
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

Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:30 am

ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2012) — Did a massive comet explode over Canada 12,900 years ago, wiping out both beast and man in North America and propelling Earth back into an ice age?

That's a question that has been hotly debated by scientists since 2007, with the University of South Carolina's Topper archaeological site right in the middle of the comet impact controversy. However, a new study published Sept.17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) provides further evidence that it may not be such a far-fetched notion.

USC archaeologist Albert Goodyear is a co-author on the study that upholds a 2007 PNAS study by Richard Firestone, a staff scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Firestone found concentrations of spherules (micro-sized balls) of metals and nano-sized diamonds in a layer of sediment dating 12,900 years ago at 10 of 12 archaeological sites that his team examined. The mix of particles is thought to be the result of an extraterrestrial object, such as a comet or meteorite, exploding in Earth's atmosphere. Among the sites examined was USC's Topper, one of the most pristine U.S. sites for research on Clovis, one of the earliest ancient peoples.

"This independent study is yet another example of how the Topper site with its various interdisciplinary studies has connected ancient human archaeology with significant studies of the Pleistocene," said Goodyear, who began excavating Clovis artifacts in 1984 at the Topper site in Allendale, S.C. "It's both exciting and gratifying."


Cont. here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111320.htm
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:10 am

Not a Comet, but Saturn
* Cook seems to have the best explanation of what happened. See http://saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php. Earth hit Saturn's plasmasphere, or something like that, which produced an electrical shock and heat wave, which devastated life in North America. Anode electrical discharges he says carved the Great Lakes at that time and the electrically pulverized rock became sand and silt in a humid atmosphere. The discharges threw large gobs of the wet sand mixture in all directions, forming the Carolina Bays, Nebraska sand dunes, Illinois and nearby "glacial" loam or till etc. The heat was great enough to melt rock, which it did as far as the U.S. southwest. All the life forms burned up to form a layer of soot. It also put enough fine dust in the stratosphere to cool the planet for centuries. It produced the other markers too, i.e. nanodiamonds, tektites, neutron radiation damage etc.
* Cook claims that it even formed the Rocky Mountains, but as of so far I think that's less likely than what http://newgeology.us says about mountain formation.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:33 pm

Why can't it have just been a regular comet for that specific period?

Saturn, Venus, Mars and at least four other planets were associated with some form of "sun-age" or upheaval via various cultures around the world. Attributing specific events is very speculative and almost impossible to do.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago

Unread postby promethean » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:33 pm

let's let Mr. Cook have a say :

A massive electrical repulsive force has the same effect, and can better explain the burning of the whole continent. A point source, or a source of a limited size, even if miles across, would result in a radial drop-off in effect between "ground zero" and any location further out. That means that whatever the effect would be at one mile from the detonation, the effect would be one fourth at two miles, one ninth at three miles. But the effects will need to be felt well over two thousand miles away from Hudson Bay, even though the effects would be 1/1,000,000th at 1000 miles from ground zero.

A compressive electrical force impinging from above, over an area of perhaps 1000 or 2000 miles diameter, has the same results, but to a degree much greater than what can be imagined as resulting from an exploding icy object a mile or even a few miles in diameter.


( I am sure that he is referring to the "icy object" of the mainstream guy's limited imaginings ) :)

Cook has very cohesive argumentation to support his speculations...I urge you to check him out.
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)
promethean
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:58 am

Re: Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:28 am

* Yes, Cook at http://saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php has the best explanation of that event that I've heard, though I haven't found some of his other ideas to be well supported.
* In this case he explains that only a large moon or a planet size object could have produced the heat and shock wave over the entire continent of North America. A small object like a comet, or even several comets, would not have had enough energy to burn the entire biosphere of the continent, melt rock over a large area, carve out the 5 Great Lakes, splatter large gobs of wet sand all over the continent and make the widespread effects of a neutron bomb.
* Cook covers a lot of Firestone's findings, which the ScienceDaily article discusses, and Cook explains why Firestone's theories fall way short. Dennis Cox has read a lot of Firestone's material and communicated with Cook. Cox also discussed his own findings and efforts on this forum a year or two ago. See https://google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthunderbolts.info+%22dennis+cox%22.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago

Unread postby promethean » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:33 pm

[quote="Lloyd"]* Yes, Cook at http://saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php has the best explanation of that event that I've heard, though I haven't found some of his other ideas to be well supported.
* In this case he explains that only a large moon or a planet size object could have produced the heat and shock wave over the entire continent of North America. A small object like a comet, or even several comets, would not have had enough energy to burn the entire biosphere of the continent, melt rock over a large area, carve out the 5 Great Lakes, splatter large gobs of wet sand all over the continent and make the widespread effects of a neutron bomb.


I'm not sure where you got that idea , Lloyd.
If I understand correctly, Cook proposes that while the eventual arc discharge from a nearby Saturn is responsible for the machining of the Great Lakes and other features , it was the INITIAL CONTACT of the plasmaspheres that caused the repulsive shock that incinerated North America. He goes into much detail re: earlier contacts with Saturn and his identification of same as protagonist here seems on solid ground to me. Much of his evidence is based on Meso-American myth which is very detailed re: chronology but is "arcane and obscure" to the modern reader. His site requires much study with an open mind ; especially the establishing of a timeline of millions of years, but I find these attempts admirable ,
not impossible .
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)
promethean
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:58 am

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:58 pm

GeoChronology
Logical Chain of Events in Earth formation.
1) Precontinental Earth ---- (where continents did not yet exist.)
2) Flora and fauna ---------- (flourished on the precontinental Earth.)
3a) Saturn flares ----- 30k -- (produced detritus that formed sedimentary strata.) (30k = 30,000 y.a.)
3b) Or supervulcanism ----- (formed sedimentary strata.)
4) Supercontinent ----------- (formed quickly from flare detritus, including flood waters.)
5) Human artifacts ---------- (were sometimes deposited in deep strata labeled up to 200mya.)
6) Fossils and tracks -------- (were preserved during flooding.)
7) Supercontinent breakup - (must have occurred shortly after #4.)
8) Greenland ice sheet ------ (formed after #7.)
9) Grand Canyon ------------ (formed about 200 yrs after #3.)
10) Great Lakes --- 10k ---- (formed most recently along with NE dunes, IL loam, NC/SC bays.) (10k = 10,000 y.a.)

Discussion
LK: I asked Web to comment on this model. Here are my statements and questions and his replies.
1) Precontinental Earth ---- (where continents did not yet exist.)

W: Yes. Earth covered by water.

2) LK: Flora and fauna ---------- (flourished on the precontinental Earth.)
W: No. No life at all, with possible exception of bacterial forms.
LK: How long did life exist before the continents formed? What are major clues?
W: There are no clues as to the origin of life, only to the destruction of it. All fossil evidence in my model comes from the great flooding event of several millennia BP.

3a) LK: Saturn flares ----- 30k -- (produced detritus that formed sedimentary strata.) (30k = 30,000 y.a.)
W: No.
3b) LK: Or supervulcanism ----- (formed sedimentary strata.)
W: Possible. [I.e.] ... bedrock granites; Precambrian.
LK: Could the sedimentary strata have formed 30,000 years ago or more? Caves where cave paintings are found are said by Cook to have been occupied since 30,000 years ago or more.
W: Disagree with the radiocarbon dating --- would say 5-6 millenia BP, give or take a millennium or two, and post-flood.
LK: The Greenland ice sheet is said by Cook to have layers accurately datable to 30,000 years ago or more.
W: Only by presumption of atmospheric and oceanic uniformity over time, which I disagree with
LK: What reasons might you have to think those datings should be lowered much?
W: Rapid atmospheric recomposition by a % here and there during the flood and centuries afterward as the atmosphere was restabilizing to its present state, and abandonment of radio carbon dates based on uniformitarian assumptions about atmospheric stability over time
LK: Are Saturn flares or supervulcanism the most likely source for the sedimentary strata on the continents? And why?
W: Supervulcanism – still observable in perhaps smaller scales throughout the oceanic rift system and continental border ranges such as the Pacific Rim, et.al.

4) LK: Supercontinent ----------- (formed quickly from flare detritus, including flood waters.)
W: Pangaea [from] crustal upheaval [not flare detritus], then hundreds of years later, breakup of the supercontinent, and shifting/spreading of the continental pieces toward present positions.
LK: Do you agree that a supercontinent existed prior to the present arrangement of continents?
W: Yes.

5) LK: Human artifacts ---------- (were sometimes deposited in deep strata labeled up to 200mya.)
W: Yes.
LK: Have you read Lloyd Pye's findings of human artifacts found in strata dated as much as 200 mya or more?
W: And other authors… quite plausible to me.

6) LK: Fossils and tracks -------- (were preserved during flooding.)
W: Yes.
LK: Is it plausible that life could have survived while 2-mile-deep sedimentary strata were deposited, which killed and preserved much of it? If so, how could any have survived?
W: The Ark of Noah, in addition to much sea-supported life, which had no need of the ark.

7) LK: Supercontinent breakup - (must have occurred shortly after #4.)
W: ... [About] 2 millenia [after]; see my notes at #4.
LK: Do you agree that the supercontinent must have broken up shortly after it formed, since the Grand Canyon must have formed by erosion of soft sedimentary strata?
W: The second clause doesn’t necessasrily follow from the first, since the formation of the supercontinent and the breakup of same were separate events, however I agree that much major past erosion and continental deformation [orogenies] occurred when sediments were not fully cemented.

8) LK: Greenland ice sheet ------ (formed after #7.)
W: Yes.
LK: Could the Greenland ice sheet have existed prior to the supercontinent breakup?
W: No.

9) LK: Grand Canyon ------------ (formed about 200 yrs after #3.)
W: No, [see] after #4.
LK: Do you agree that the Grand Canyon must have formed from the breach of Grand and Hopi Lakes, and that the spires etc in the lake basins must have cemented for 200 years or so in order not to have fallen during the draining of the lakes?
W: Likely.
LK: Does it seem contradictory that the spires etc required time to cement, but that the canyon, which formed at the same time, had to form before the strata became hardened?
W: Not so much time [was needed] to cement, so no problem; rock formation requires a combination of various processes involving not only chemistry and other electrically moderated actions (eg. for cementation, or also for transmutation) but also heating and pressure from both horizontal and vertical stress, e.g. weight of overburdern, etc. – different sites would have culminated in or from different combinations or amounts of these processes.

10) LK: Great Lakes --- 10k ---- (formed most recently along with NE dunes, IL loam, NC/SC bays.) (10k = 10,000 y.a.)
W: Possible.
LK: Have you read Cook's explanation of the formation of the Great Lakes, Carolina Bays, midwest loam, Nebraska dunes etc?
W: Some; Cook has good questions for the standard model, but some of his specific alternative explanations I might take exception to.
LK: If so, do you think that event [forming of the Great Lakes etc.] could have been more recent than 10,000 years ago?
W: That range is reasonable
LK: What dates do you think best apply to the supercontinent formation and breakup, the Greenland ice sheet and the Great Lakes event?
W: My model allows an indeterminable [very short or very long] period of time before the upheaval of the crust that formed the original supercontinent, then a couple millennia after that until the great flood event, which triggered the glacial period, lasting a couple centuries, then tapering off in the 7-8 millenia BP range, and continuing to the present.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:50 am

Land Creatures
* In our discussion of my tentative geochronology, I and Web said:
1) LK: Precontinental Earth ---- (where continents did not yet exist.)
2) LK: Flora and fauna ---------- (flourished on the precontinental Earth.)
W: No. No life at all, with possible exception of bacterial forms.

* The flora and fauna that turned to fossils within the continental sedimentary strata (which strata we both think were deposited all at once) obviously existed for some time before the strata were laid down. Right? I mean they didn't magically come into existence as the strata were being deposited. Did they? If there was not yet any continental sedimentary strata when they first came to life, they must have lived on the precontinental surface. Isn’t that true?

Crustal Upheaval
* We said:
3a) LK: Saturn flares ----- 30k -- (produced detritus that formed sedimentary strata.) (30k = 30,000 y.a.)
3b) LK: Or supervulcanism ----- (formed sedimentary strata.)
4) LK: Supercontinent ----------- (formed quickly from flare detritus, including flood waters.)
3a) No.
3b) Possible. [I.e.] ... bedrock granites; Precambrian.
4) Pangaea [from] crustal upheaval [not flare detritus], then hundreds of years later, breakup of the supercontinent, and shifting/spreading of the continental pieces toward present positions.

* What does crustal upheaval mean?
- What would cause it?
- How could mud, sand and lime (the materials that make the sedimentary strata of the former supercontinent, now the continents) form from crustal upheaval?
- I can imagine such sediments forming from Saturn flares or from electric discharge machining of igneous or metamorphic rock, but I don’t see how they could form quickly from volcanic lava or magma, although volcanic ash seems to be a plausible source for mud, I guess. What am I missing?

Caves & Ice Sheet Dating
* We said:
LK: Could the sedimentary strata have formed 30,000 years ago or more? Caves where cave paintings are found are said by Cook to have been occupied since 30,000 years ago or more. The Greenland ice sheet is said by Cook to have layers accurately datable to 30,000 years ago or more.
W: Disagree with the radiocarbon dating --- would say 5-6 millenia BP, give or take a millennium or two, and post-flood.
- [The Greenland ice sheet dating is based on] presumption of atmospheric and oceanic uniformity over time, which I disagree with.

* By post-flood, do you mean the strata formed immediately post-flood (and as a result of the flood)? Or do you mean a long time after the flood? Surely, you don’t mean that, do you?
- You think the supercontinent’s sedimentary strata formed 5,000 to 8,000 years ago? What evidence do you base that on?
- By atmospheric and oceanic uniformity over time, do you mean many of the ice sheet layers formed more rapidly than normal?
- If so, do you know of any proof for that?
- I think Cook said the Thera/Santorini eruption has been accurately dated, because a layer in the ice sheet was found that has the signature markers for it. And several other later eruptions are also accurately dated.
- Do you have any problem with that?
- If not, do you have an idea how far back the dating of the ice sheet layers are accurate, and based on what?

Noah’s Ark
* We said:
LK: Is it plausible that life could have survived while 2-mile-deep sedimentary strata were deposited, which killed and preserved much of it? If so, how could any have survived?
W: The Ark of Noah, in addition to much sea-supported life, which had no need of the ark.

* TPODs have shown that the ancients likely referred to celestial and atmospheric phenomena as Earth, animals, people, trees and oceans, so it seems likely that Noah’s ark referred to a celestial or atmospheric plasma-related event that was visible to the ancients.
- Are you willing to consider that possibility?
- If so, can you think of other ways by which land creatures could have survived a crustal upheaval or other means of rapid deposition of sedimentary strata?
- How plausible is it that a spaceship or other artificial structure or force protected the land creatures?
- Does there seem to be any non-artificial means that could have protected land creatures from extinction?

Grand Canyon
* We said:
7) LK: Supercontinent breakup - (must have occurred shortly after #4 [formation of the supercontinent].)
W: ... [About] 2 millenia [after]; see my notes at #4.
LK: Do you agree that the supercontinent must have broken up shortly after it formed, since the Grand Canyon must have formed by erosion of soft sedimentary strata?
W: The second clause doesn’t necessasrily follow from the first, since the formation of the supercontinent and the breakup of same were separate events, however I agree that much major past erosion and continental deformation [orogenies] occurred when sediments were not fully cemented.

* Are you implying that the Grand Canyon formed shortly after the supercontinent formed and that the supercontinent broke up 2,000 years later?
- I thought the Grand Canyon must have formed after the supercontinent broke up, when the Rockies and the Appalachians had already formed from rapid “continental drift” movements. Is that wrong? If so, why?
- Do you agree that the Grand Canyon formed from erosion of soft sedimentary strata?
- The strata would not have remained soft after 2,000 years, would they?

Web's Model
Web said: My model allows an indeterminable (very short or very long) period of time before the upheaval of the crust that formed the original supercontinent, then a couple millennia after that until the great flood event, which triggered the glacial period, lasting a couple centuries, then tapering off in the 7-8 millenia BP range, and continuing to the present.

* So you have the Supercontinent formation at 9 or 10kBP and then the Great Flood quickly followed by the Ice Sheet at 7 or 8kBP.
- How could the supercontinent have formed without a Great Flood to make the nicely layered sedimentary strata?

Pacific Expansion?
* The evidence for the widening of the Atlantic Ocean after the supercontinent broke up seems very strong, since the opposite shore outlines match up well and so do the rock strata and fossil types on opposite shores.
- Is the evidence very strong that the Pacific Ocean also widened in a similar way?
- Do the rock strata and fossil types match up there too?
- In my thread, “Breakthrough on How Continents Divided”, I think I posted some evidence for the latter, but I don’t remember if it was very strong for the Pacific.
- If both ocean basins were formerly closed at the same time, it means the Earth’s equatorial diameter was likely much smaller previously and the supercontinent would have covered most of the globe. But as Fred Juenemann pointed out, Earth may have been oval shaped, due to EM pinching forces, and, when those forces diminished, gravity would have made it spherical, which could explain how the ocean basins widened. You can stretch a spherical balloon by hand to make it oval shaped, which would be similar to the effect of z-pinch forces on the Earth’s shape. Letting go of the balloon would allow it to take its normal spherical shape. If the balloon were coated with a thin layer of soft plaster or putty etc, while it was pulled into the oval shape, letting it go should result in something like the breakup of a supercontinent, I guess.
- It looks to me like the Pacific Ocean basin formed first, centered on the East Pacific Rise, which undercuts the western U.S. Shortly after that, it looks like something caused the Atlantic basin to open up, centered on the mid-Atlantic Ridge, which pushed the Americas up near to the East Pacific Rise and partly over it. I think a deep electrical impact off the east coast of Africa, similar to that described by http://newgeology.us, could have caused the Atlantic to open up and widen.
- What do you think?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby webolife » Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:22 pm

There are two main continental formations that would I categorize:

The first is what I would term crustal bedrock... it is largely granitic but has a patchy coating of what would be termed Precambrian material, a great deal of which is in the form of shale or slate. When the supercontinent of which this stuff is made rose up above the water that previously covered the earth surface [as I see it], much runoff and erosion occurred as the waters rushed off the rising continental mass. This was a massive deformation of the entire planet... I don't think any life was present at the time, but I'm not saying absolutely there there were no microscopic forms... there is a small amount of intriguing evidence for this. But this upheaval and the subsequent erosion resulted in the deposition of layers of the stuff we call Precambrian that may be found throughout the world, both on "dry" land and on seafloors. Subsequent vertical shifting/upwelling of land may have occurred due to isostasy. This was the earth's condition prior to the great flooding event, which I characterize as being a low topography surface, ie. lack of mountain ranges as we know them today. Life [both land and sea] originated, in my view, when the earth was in this state.

The second is the result of the great crust splitting upheaval that occurred some millenia later [in my chronological perspective], in which the supercontinent was rent in several pieces, accompanied by "super"vulcanism and rapid spreading of the continental fragments. The movement of these pieces was accompanied by seismic destruction, tsunamis at every boundary [plate boundaries to some], and as tremendous friction built up on the leading edges of the continents, causing the great worldwide orogenies, the interconnected boundary ranges that characterize continental borders away from the spreading centers, notably the Atlantic Rift. The world's life barely survived this catastrophe, but the fossils are now found in that next sequence of strata, interlayered or patched together with volcanic flows, wherever one wishes to observe, beginning with what we term the Cambrian layer, but not neatly organized like the presumptive "Geologic Column". The worldwide nature of this event is however, documented by numerous layering interfaces that can be found across several continents, eg. the Precambrian/Cambrian, Permian, Cretaceous/Teriary interfaces.

It is important to keep these two categories distinct, since different events are evidenced by them.
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: 2536
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Magnetic Dating?

Unread postby Metryq » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:55 am

Greetings, I am new to the forum. Most recently I've been reading the "C14" thread about radiometric dating. I've looked up "magnetic dating" and learned that there are two types: paleomagnetic and archaeomagnetic, both based on assumed reversals of the Earth's magnetic field and the precession of the poles.

I've read that magnetized materials lose their strength over time. Then it occurred to me: where do naturally occurring magnetic materials (like lodestone) come from? Are they initially charged up by lightning strikes, or perhaps catastrophic events, as posited by EU? Are there traces of magnetism around electric discharge machined craters—on Earth and other bodies? Such traces probably would not make a good clock, as the clock can be reset, magnetic strength restored. However, such magnetic "fingerprints" might indicate where on Earth an assumed catastrophe tore up the landscape.

Thoughts?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests