Questioning the Ice Ages

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: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby webolife » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:06 pm

moses wrote:We see on the Earth's surface today evidence of past global disaster, as well as a present crustal tension which may be hindering similar scale disaster during our brief lifetimes... but our ancestors experienced and survived some of these global events, and we or some of our descendants will experience future catastrophes.
webo

I so much agree with all you write above, but I do wonder why there should be future catastrophes. To me there was a previous configuration of planets which was upset by some event and then an adjustment period occurred until the present day stable configuration formed. Now this story does not suggest that some event will occur in the future that will upset this stable configuration. Sure, galactic currents could change or some planetary object could enter the Solar System, but these things seem of low probability, so why the future catastrophe.
Mo


A valid question... I guess I would say that the agents operating in the past must still be capable of operating, or else we have moved entirely away from the realm of scientific inquiry. However, my hope is as yours, that understanding of past catastrophe may in some part preclude or impede future disaster.
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: 2528
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby moses » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:02 pm

A valid question... I guess I would say that the agents operating in the past must still be capable of operating, or else we have moved entirely away from the realm of scientific inquiry. However, my hope is as yours, that understanding of past catastrophe may in some part preclude or impede future disaster.
webo

Strange - an understanding of past planetary catastrophe is very unlikely to have any effect on the future planetary situation. And just because there was a past situation does not mean that a similar situation will occur in the future. Sure if we understood completely what happened in the past and we then noted that similar conditions were occurring again, we could prepare to survive.

And indeed human affairs are like this as we repeat the patterns of the past. Like how many people and weapons can one cram onto a planet before chaos rules. But there is so much talk about Revelation-type planetary catastrophe, that I think we need to be clear that there is no impending Solar System type disaster coming anytime soon.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby webolife » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:51 am

I'm not sure how "clear" we can be about that... but let me modify my statements by saying that "disaster" is a human term, so understanding past events' effect on human history surely must better enable us to prepare for and yes, possibly avert or temper, a future catastrophe if we recognize its signs. At least I hope so, else why study interplanetary plasma events? But I understand you to be saying, eg. that just knowing comets have impacted the earth in the past does not prevent them from falling in the future.
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: 2528
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby moses » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:35 pm

...else why study interplanetary plasma events?
webo

Because these events made humans go through through hell, and that has affected our genes and epigenetics. Through understanding what happened to humans we can begin to approach a healing strategy.
Mo

But I understand you to be saying, eg. that just knowing comets have impacted the earth in the past does not prevent them from falling in the future.
webo

The comets were formed when big electrical interactions occurred. So most of the comets are now gone. Therefore the probability of being in a cometary interaction is very low. I must stress that I think that it is very important to realise that we are in a very stable situation.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby finno » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:15 pm

In my opinion, ice age is not explained by all geological oddities what we can see. They are incompatible with the theory of glacier. Now comes little problem. early theory from Noah flood doesnt explain all, and is not sufficient. Not even with tectonic movements. We need also something else. Of course there is Hapgood-theory from cataclysm, but it is also insufficient. Large asteroid can explain flood and tectonics, even cataclysm, but not potholes or striations.

Only way right now coming from Cardona books. Electric discharge what causes flood and earthquakes. It even explains large potholes (thanks to film The Lightning Scarred Planet part two, where drops hot plasma pillars preparing craters). electric theory is a fruitful theory what suitable for all like fist to eye. 8-)
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:43 am

@webolife:
4. Tectonic/seismic/orogenic events described by standard geology may have taken place, but at a much faster rate, or on a larger scale than the gradualists have envisioned.

Yes, I like that one. There does some to be some evidence suggesting the western Pacific sea floor having sunk thousands of feet, perhaps in a day or days, Atlantis too, maybe? And mountains rising in a similarly short period. A brief catastrophic level electrical/plasma event would be the initiator, though perhaps hundreds of years for everything to settle down afterwards?

@finno
like fist to eye.


Yes, I think the evidence is so obvious everyone should recognise it. If it could be confirmed that what I am seeing in my area really is from a short, very energetic event rather than glacially slow erosion and weathering, then it's a new ball game for sure, and I intend to pursue the matter 'till I am satisfied one way or the other, I've come too far to let the matter drop now.

@moses
but I do wonder why there should be future catastrophes.

If the geological and archaeological dates are to be believed at all, then it would seem that there have been catastrophes at around 13,000 year intervals. La Voilettes Superwave theory is probably the best known proposal. I'd also consider the event may be from something happening to our Sun without the galactic centre event. And I do believe we should heed the ancient Greek philosophers tales of many past and future catastrophes. I'm torn between hoping it doesn't happen in my lifetime, and hoping it does, so my last words could be "see, I told you so!"
http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict.html
but our ancestors experienced and survived some of these global events, and we or some of our descendants will experience future catastrophes.

It is indeed difficult to accept that, as the ancient Greeks said, sometimes there were no survivors. The implications then are very much in the sci-fi realm, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibilities yet.
That this was a world wide event is attested to by identifiable strata and boundary layers found on different continents.

I'll not discount the flood scenario as it is recounted globally. I just don't see evidence of it in my area, though perhaps the apparent electrical events occurred after the flood? I have been wondering about multiple events, as in some places there seems to be much younger looking, 'clean' shattered rock on top of the moss and lichen encrusted roundish rocks and boulders in the river/creek beds. More detailed examination is required there.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby moses » Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:48 pm

If the geological and archaeological dates are to be believed at all,...
Gary

Not at all.

It is indeed difficult to accept that, as the ancient Greeks said, sometimes there were no survivors.
Gary

The possibility of other creatures being moved to earth from somewhere else seems remote to me, because they would not be adapted to the pressure and temperature and the bugs. However some DNA modification of creatures that were adapted to Earth seems likely to me. Regardless, these creatures had to survive severe conditions.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:51 pm

Superwave
Gary said: If the geological and archaeological dates are to be believed at all, then it would seem that there have been catastrophes at around 13,000 year intervals. La Voilettes Superwave theory is probably the best known proposal. I'd also consider the event may be from something happening to our Sun without the galactic centre event. And I do believe we should heed the ancient Greek philosophers tales of many past and future catastrophes.

Saturn Theory
* The Saturn Theory seems to have a lot more going for it, since it conforms to both the mythological record and to the geological record. As Cardona, Talbott and others have shown extensively via comparative mythology, our Sun wasn't our Sun until the Saturn System first entered the Solar System about 10,000 years ago. So it wasn't the Sun that caused any series of catastrophes. And the Greeks were less knowledgeable about catastrophes than the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, so their idea of future cataclysms is likely based more on imagination. I don't know that I've heard of the Superwave theory, but these facts:
1. Thornhill's finding about Saturn having been previously a brown dwarf star and
2. Cardona's finding that brown dwarfs are known to flare, apparently more spectacularly than the Sun normally does, and
3. that in a fluctuating electrical environment through which Saturn seems to have moved somewhat in a comet-like fashion, it would have flared periodically, probably every few thousand years,
-- show that periodic catastrophes would have been caused by flares from Saturn itself, with no need for help from the galactic center, the Sun, or other influences (though there are likely to have been occasionally a few other influences).
Rock Strata Deposition before Continental Breakup and Seafloor Spreading
* Something I'd like to understand is how many rock strata were likely laid down during each Saturn flare. Seafloor spreading must have occurred mainly after most of the strata were deposited, so it must have been somewhat recent, though Cardona said in his interview that he thought seafloor spreading (continental drift) occurred during more than one of the Saturn flare events (due to the flare's electrical forces putting the brakes on Earth's core or mantle spin, which caused the crust to slide over the mantle at the Moho layer, I think). He seems to think that seafloor spreading started during one flare event, then continued during later flare events. But, if that were true, the ocean floors would be thinnest in the latest spreading zones (around ocean ridges) and thickest in the earliest zones near continental margins, whereas the seafloors seem to have about the same thickness all the way across [I think it's mainly about 3 mile-deep basalt in 3 layers.
Seafloor Spreading at 10,000 BP or 5,000 BP?
* After thinking this over now, this is what seems most plausible:
From the 10,000 BP Event (the Saturn System entering the Solar System):
1) - first, Saturn's plasmasphere encountered and bounced off of the heliosphere several times
2) <causing> Saturn flares
3) <which caused> rock strata deposition on Earth etc
4) - then, the Saturn System finally penetrated the heliosphere
5) <which caused> Earth's core and mantle to brake (stop rotating normally) <which caused> continental sliding
6) - then, the Saturn System continued on an elliptical orbit toward the Sun, which brought Earth into the Golden Age
7) - then, the Saturn System broke up near Jupiter
8) and the Saturn System planets continued toward their present orbits
9) <causing> Earth's ice age
* Cardona said (2) Saturn flares caused (5) mantle braking and continental sliding, but sliding had to occur after the youngest sedimentary rock strata were deposited. That's why I modified the order of events a little.
* It's also possible that (5) may have occurred at (7), which might even be a better fit and it might mean that Jupiter caused Earth's mantle braking, which caused the continental sliding.
* There are a lot of facts that need to be incorporated properly into a comprehensive theory, and I don't have them properly ordered yet myself. It'll be fun to see them all come to order.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:57 am

Electric Glacial Deposits
* Looks like you're right about glacial deposits in the midwest not being from glaciers, Gary.
* Cook shows at http://saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php that electric discharges from a planet or large moon likely carved out the Great Lakes, pulverized the rock to sand mixed with wet atmosphere and slung it out in all directions, making the Carolina Bays, the midwest glacial deposits, the Nebraska sand dunes and so on.
* But Cook, Firestone et al maintain just the same that there was a large ice sheet, which the planetary interaction partly melted.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:53 am


I looked at the page Lloyd, and saw the first graphic and decided not to delve into the site just now. It may well be that there were many more glaciers than there are now, but not to the depths proposed I'd say. That depth of ice is needed to produce the forces required for glaciers to gouge out the valleys, rivers and creeks. I believe that most if not all of what we are told is from glaciation is from electrical and plasma mechanisms, and the ice more a frosting on the cake, decoration rather than the primary agent of erosion.
that electric discharges from a planet or large moon likely carved out the Great Lakes, pulverized the rock to sand mixed with wet atmosphere and slung it out in all directions, making the Carolina Bays, the midwest glacial deposits, the Nebraska sand dunes and so on.

That is one possible scenario, but not the only one. A CME of sufficient magnitude could do it I believe, and as the Sun often produces CMEs then it is only a question of if the magnitude is ever large enough to resurface the Earth.
I watched the DEEP IMPACT—CONFIRMING THE ELECTRIC COMET video, and envision the ongoing process of surface modification to be applicable to all bodies, not just comets. Crater rim glows and UV flashes have been observed on the Moon for a long time, and just because the Earth has protection from our magnetosphere now does not mean that such protection can not be blown away by a big enough CME so that modification similar to that occurring on the comet might take place on Earth, but on a much larger scale.
I'l read more of Cooks site when I get time, as even though I might differ on some points, it is good to at least see some alternative models being given serious thought. I'm not really attracted to the Saturnian model though.
This book presents a cosmology based entirely on the supposition that our coherent worldwide mythology is history rather than creative fiction writing in antiquity.

The mythology may be coherent, but not, I think, the mechanics. I regard the Sun to be the driver of everything that has happened to the Solar system, and always will be. That the appearance of the heavens changed dramatically is more than likely due to changes in the ionospheres of the planets and moons, including our own ionosphere, resulting in much larger or closer appearing planets and moons, and the visibility of events or objects normally invisible from Earths surface under more stable conditions. The appearance of the Sun has changed greatly over time, as evidenced by artefacts found around the world which show a very different looking sun, and those different Suns were consistent in their look even from widely separated cultures who had, as far as we know, no means of communication at those times. That's my present view of it all Lloyd, but I do try to keep an open mind, as I hope everyone else does!
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:22 am

Gary,
Man what a fascinating thread!
Most of what I was taught to be evidence of glaciation, I rejected on many grounds.
For example glaciers today transport rock in bands and deposit them in bands as they recede. Erratic boulders I have seen are miles away from anything similar and not in any sort of line, group or cluster we might associate with current observations or recently formed moraines.
Teetering rocks on the edges of cliffs would seem to argue water as opposed to ice. Ice would mover over the edge of a cliff taking its rocks along with it. Water transporting rocks to the edge of a cliff would not as likely force them over the edge. As the water and the rock approach the edge, the water falls losing contact with much of the leading face of the rock. Any force that pulls (call it vacuum? but it is associated with cavitation) would at that point be pulling downward. Even if that were not so the leading face of the rock can at the very least be said to lose buoyancy and resist proceeding over the edge. The combination of several forces falling off drastically (some more obvious than others)at the time the rock arrives at the edge argues against glaciation. That being said, the principles of stratigraphy were not really subjected to true scientific scrutiny until Berthalt a decade or so back. All of them have now been invalidated in repeatable laboratory experiments. All of them made so much sense that they had never been questioned in over 300 years. So my rock on the cliff edge idea makes sense to me but I don’t have a glacier machine in my lab to test it with. Actually I don’t even have a lab :oops: . Just the same, such reasoning caused me to reject the proposition that teetering rocks are evidence of glaciers.
I accepted striations as pretty much indisputable. You have certainly turned me around on that one.
Your posts are terrific. Keep typing baby!
While I do believe there was an ice age I think far too much has been attributed to it geologically speaking. I believe the duration was far shorter and it was far more recent than even the current consensus asserts, (and that figure has been shrinking drastically all my life.)
I have a Biblical Bias and will not pretend otherwise; so far it has not disappointed me.
▼Lambert Dolphin ran this up his flagpole and I just had to salute▼

http://ldolphin.org/iceage.html

Webo says,
1. Catastrophic worldwide flooding in the manner described by Guy Berthault's flume experiments, involving multiple simultaneously laid layers. That this was a world wide event is attested to by identifiable strata and boundary layers found on different continents.
2. Weathering erosion took place soon after and sometimes interspersed with the depositional events of this flooding, causing the features attributed to millions of years of gradualism to occur in days, weeks, months, and/or at most a number of years. Rock formations were transformed more quickly from unconsolidated or only partially cemented states, rather than being "rock hard" and requiring millions of years of grain-by-grain sculpting.
3. This catastrophic event may be associated with or have originated in electrical/plasma and/or other astronomical impact events, as evidenced by astroblemes found throughout and correlated with virtually all of the geologic strata.
4. Tectonic/seismic/orogenic events described by standard geology may have taken place, but at a much faster rate, or on a larger scale than the gradualists have envisioned. This is evidenced by the impact of relatively tiny catastrophes we have seen in our own lifetimes -- sudden hardly imagined things happen. The present is not the key to the past, but rather the inverse... past catastrophes which are no longer taking place at such a scale produced the presently seen features of the earth's surface.
5. We see on the Earth's surface today evidence of past global disaster, as well as a present crustal tension which may be hindering similar scale disaster during our brief lifetimes... but our ancestors experienced and survived some of these global events, and we or some of our descendants will experience future catastrophes.
6. The Ice Age was merely a brief [and still continuing in the polar regions] icing on the [somewhat but not entirely jumbled] layer cake of geology produced by this catastrophe.

I agree with ALL of it, even the future catastrophes in #5. I figure the Word has proven more accurate than all of mans theories I would be a fool not to give it the benefit of the doubt.

To all: Does anyone out there have an extra glacier machine I can borrow? Or a lab? ;)
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:02 pm

Some more intriguing formations from the glacially carved Sooke River.
Image
Image
More images on my Picassa site, starting here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1133457513 ... 8711263410

I've been looking into the electrical and mechanical properties of sandstone and granite, and it is more complex than I had thought. Trying to figure out a demonstrable method for the electrical and plasma formation of the features I have observed is, I admit, beyond me. So, I'm hoping to learn enough about geology and the electrical characteristics of rocks to be able to approach both the Earth sciences and electrical engineering departments of our local University, without sounding like a total ignoramus, and see if I can set up a discussion between them in order that they could perhaps figure it out between them. I'm sure I'll get sideways glances, perhaps a complete rejection, from both departments, but it could be amusing if nothing else!

Hi boiling,
I think the Creationists have some very good questions, and have pointed out some major flaws in the accepted geological models and time-lines. My own view is that there has been an intentional perversion by most organised religions of the writings of the more ancient sects, in order to attribute Creation to a mystical spirit God, whereas we were originally informed that the Sun was the Creator (and destroyer and dissolver) of worlds without number. Maybe a spirit God somehow uses the Sun to do the creating and destroying? It does seem to me though that the magnitude of the seemingly recent changes to the Earth is well beyond anything that could be expected from 'ordinary' geological forces at play now.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

* The potholes could have formed more readily in sediments that were not yet hardened into solid rock, as Walter Brown seems to suggest with regard to those near the Grand Canyon. I suppose Web may have similar ideas regarding those in the Pacific Northwest.
* Walter Brown may be able to explain electrical processes in rock strata better than most professors. Here are places on his site that deal with electrical processes: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acreationscience.com+electric. I think he discusses those mainly in the section dealing with radioactivity, which he shows to be possibly very strongly affected by electrical processes. Therefore, radioactive dating would be difficult or impossible.
* Your desire that the main god of the ancients be the Sun won't change their testimony. The ancient documents were found in many places and times. It seems absurd to suppose that they were all misinterpreted. I believe Cardona, Talbott, Cochrane et al are much better researchers than you on that matter. In order to have any credibility, you'd have to show the specific quotations where Cardona et al have misinterpreted the Sun as Saturn. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:21 pm

Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

Quite possible...
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:41 pm

Lloyd wrote:In order to have any credibility, you'd have to show the specific quotations where Cardona et al have misinterpreted the Sun as Saturn. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.


Not to actually disagree but in Symbols of an Alien Sky Episode One Talbot identifies the 'Wheel of Shamash' produced by the alignment of the 3 planets in the 'Great Conjunction' with Saturn as 'Shamash'.

What is to say that the 3 together as One were not 'Saturn', and that name was then later applied to the planetary body we know today all by it's lonesome?

For that matter how certain are Talbot, Cradona, et al on the identification of the planets as they are today as actually being the ancient focus of the myths?

How do they know that the planet we call Mars today is actually the same entity referred to in ancient mythology?

If the events that went along with the myths were as intense as what is suggested by Cardona et al how can they be certain that when the dust settled the ancient peoples didn't just find the closest God facsimile planets(color, size, etc.) and name them after their mythical God entities?

How do they (or you) know for certain the modern Sun isn't 'Saturn', having undergone extensive plasma/electrical changes(say super-nova perhaps?) to become unrecognizable to a primitive and weary people emerging from a potentially near-extinction level catastrophic event?

If it doesn't look like the old Sun then it must be a new Sun, that's how primitive minds work usually.

Again I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, just keeping an open mind to the full range of possibilities and suggesting some that may be overlooked by some.

Cheers,
Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests