I think silicon dioxide is the primary building block. Dusty plasmas in space are mainly silicates. The examination of the layering of Gale crater by the new rover will be interesting, but they are starting off with the assumption that sedimentation in long gone lakes was responsible. I think it just as likely that the water required for the formation could have arrived at the same time as the silicates, it is plentiful in space plasmas too.Your comments about "sand seas" made me wonder tho: What do you think the parent Rock was that electric disaggregation rendered into the homogenous sands ?
@Lloyd
I don't personally believe that the Earth or any other planets or moons have ever left one region and been captured by other bodies. The odds against gravitational capture are so huge that for it to occur once would be a miracle, more than once in one solar system, then it's either through an EM process, or it's the work of God, or a God.* I don't see much hard data in this thread. I think it's mostly speculation. Cardona has gathered lots of data on which he bases his Saturn Theory. See the Cardona Interview thread, or read his books. He found that, when Earth was apparently a moon of Saturn...
I think many of the proposals for what happened long ago and far away are the real speculation, and what I am trying to do in this thread is use known and accepted science to try and explain some of the formations I can see and touch and analyse now, quite literally in my own back yard. The action of wind, water, glaciers, earthquakes or volcanoes, upthrust or plate tectonics does not, IMO, make any sense. We know lightning exists, we know about electric fields, current pinches and boundary layers, we know about plasma acoustic waves, we know about cyclotrons and betatrons, we know about dielectrics and sedimentation and disaggregation, and many other accepted sciences that would seem to offer a much more rational explanation for most of what we can see and measure, but would require accepting electrical and plasma activity at immensely larger scales than we presently experience. I have no problem with that scenario, conventional planetary sciences do.
Relying on ancient observations of what was seen in the sky is not a scientific method of collecting data. We know that little pieces of rock in space can appear huge under the correct circumstances, and be big enough and bright enough to be seen in broad daylight. If the whole solar system was in a different electrical state, due to a surge in galactic currents, the planets and moons would also take on different appearances, and may have appeared much bigger or closer. Lets stay in the present with this examination.
@finno
Perhaps a better title for the thread might have been "Questioning the affects of Glacial mechanisms in the formation of present geological structures", or something like that. That the Earth has undergone wide temperature variations, including periods of intense and persistent cold, I quite accept. Enough ice to push down and shape continents, I doubt.I got to say first, this is hard topic, because this can be first time, when somebody ask, was there glacial iceage at all. You folks doing history right now.
I'd agree with a major event about that time, and lesser ones more recently. I'd choose electrical catastrophe over rebound any day, and I think all the mechanisms and materials required have been identified, they just haven't been applied to Earth sciences on the grand scale.I don’t know. Right now I waiting Allan&DeClair book Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B. C. Beacause im not sure, was reason to terrible earthquake in scandinavia from rebound or cosmic catastrophe?