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 GaryN » Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:40 am

I borrowed a DVD from our library, "How the Earth was made", season two, from the History Channel. The episode about the formation of the Grand Canyon was very interesting in that, to me, it demonstrates the impossibility of the mechanical model of erosion. They have some animations that show how the canyon could get so deep, but don't demnstrate to me how it got so wide, or why many scalloped edges exist at the rim of the canyon. And where are the house sized boulders they mention located now? Anyone else seen the video?
Here is a trailer for the episode:
http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-ea ... and-canyon
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: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:31 am

Formation of the Grand Canyon: deeply seeping water, followed by rising lavic heat changing the water to steam and creating potential for cavitation. Then erosion due to normal surface factors.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:35 am

To amplify the last post, first there is a normal flowing Colorado River channel in an ancient time frame. Then the water under the river bed seeps into a semi porous subsurface stratum. Along with that, there is a much deeper heat-conducting vent reaching down to the lower crust and mantle region. The vent conducts the heat all the way up to the subsurface water, converting the water to steam which tends to cavitate the semi porous stratum under the river. Then, ordinary erosion beneath the river eats into the subsurface and the stratum collapses. -That such a deep vent could exist in the West is indicated by the Yellowstone geysers, the best model for which would be that a very-deep heat-conducting vent dating to an ancient crustal-disturbing cataclysm is still conducting heat up to the subsurface region, where in the case of Yellowstome geysers, there is an underground lake in which the heat builds up and erupts to the surface on a regular schedule as a geyser.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:23 pm

first there is a normal flowing Colorado River channel in an ancient time frame


So how is the original river bed formed? The ancient time frame is necessary in all conventional models, in order to explain away phenomena that can not be shown to be mechanically sensible, given the known properties of rock, erosion rates, weathering. Yours is a very involved model Michael, and I can not say it is wrong, but I can say it doesn't make sense to me in a mechanical way. As with all other models, I can find no computer simulations, or real world experiments that can come even remotely close to reproducing the physical formations we actually observe. I could allow that a strong surface flow of electrical energy between the high mountains and the sea could heat and erode and rip out a long canyon, but then the loosened material would all need to be have washed down this new river canyon, and we dont see that huge volume of material, with the house sized boulders, having accumulated anywhere. That's where millions of years would be required again, to allow for everything having being reduced to sand and silt and being washed downstream. I'd have to say any removed material was electrically reduced to dust and sucked away, perhaps to become the sands of the Great Basin desert formations.

More on glaciers:

Traces of immense prehistoric ice sheets

The result of this research is a topographic map of the Arlis Plateau, a seamount on which deep, parallel-running furrows can be discerned on the upper plateau and the sides – and over an area of 2500 square kilometres and to an ocean depth of 1200 metres. "We knew of such scour marks from places like the Antarctic and Greenland. They arise when large ice sheets become grounded on the ocean floor and then scrape over the ground like a plane with dozens of blades as they flow.


http://phys.org/news/2013-09-immense-pr ... heets.html

Again, a model that can not be supported by computer simulation or experiments. No amount of ice can push rocks down into a bedrock surface, and certainly not to create miles long grooves. This does imply though, that an electrical/plasma erosion cause would require energies of a magnitude that few would be willing to consider even remotely possible. I guess I'm one of the few.
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: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:35 am

The model for formation of the Grand Canyon (and also for the geysers in Yellowstone) is partly based on little known (you could call academically esoteric) researches which have been done concerning details found in traditional accounts appearing to relate to world scale cataclysms within the time frame of modern man. -The researches began with Immanuel Velikovsky, especially his work "Worlds in Collision" (1950). Academia rejected Velikovsky's model for a world scale cataclysm around 1500 BC which resulted (according to Velikovsky) from a brush with cometary (future planet) Venus, . The Velikovsky model was rejected largely because his chronology was proven wrong, inasmuch as astronomical charts believed to be reliable showed Venus in its present orbit at an earlier date than Velikovsky had assigned to the Venus-brush cataclysm. -Thus Velikovsky's model, with its vast amount of highly correlative world-wide traditional accounts, was thrown out just because its chronology was wrong. -I believe Velikvsky was right about the Venus -brush cataclysm, he just had the chronology wrong. (I believe the correct time frame for the event was between 1200 BC and 11000 BC, but the evidence for that time frame is too great to go into here.) -The point of this in regard to the model I propose for Grand Canyon and Yellowstone is that a great many of the accounts cited by Velikovsky (and others I have found) tell of enormous, full-thickness, crustal rifts opening up and of highly anomalous spewings afterward for a lengthy post-cataclysm period. -This is why the idea of crustal vents down to the lower crust persisting to the present day is not ruled out in my mind, in spite of the absence of this concept in current academic theory.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:07 am

To further amplify my response to Gary N, I would add that an important theoretical implication of my last Post would be that there could have been other, even more ancient (much older than 11,000 BC) cataclysms which could have included full-crustal rifts and persisting heat vents, which formed by a similar full-crustal disruption as described for the 11,000 BC Venus-fly- by event. -I don't regard surface debris existing in the area in the present day to be a critical factor in evaluating the basic formative event, in view of the vast time frame and incidental surface changes over such time lapses.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby finno » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:59 am

This can be intresting academic reseach. Everybody knows, thickest glacial was on Scandinavia. This tell something else. Im not been read this yet, but it tells how Finland was without icecap almost all latest wechelian period. Its against everything what we know. Normally we been believe, scandinavia has very heavy ice-cap, but newest reseachs tell here was only 25% all ground under ice, and that happens only little bit times.
heres reseach, but like I said, im not been reading myself yet. Its for english.

http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/93225# ... yYpHG.dpuf
( you can read all when: avaa tiedosto= open pdf-file)
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:31 pm

An interesting paper finno, but very complex. A very big jig-saw puzzle they are trying to put together, but based on the wrong model altogether I believe. If the micro-fossils they use to help determine the age of the strata were ripped out from older, deeper strata, and became included in newer layers built from the settling of the excavated materials, then none of the dates can mean anything. I'll look closer at the document when I get time, but on first impression, I'd say they are on a wild goose chase with their present beliefs.
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: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby finno » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:20 pm

Hmm..if i understand right, they found from west Finland sediments without breaks all time vechselian period. One sediment tells how ground was frost (like in Siberia today) but havent thick icecore.
Sediments without breaks are hard to found, because normally all sediments are upside down. Long time ago geologists think, reason are glacial and melting. Today swedish geologists talk about massive earthquakes, what happens at holocene period (that can be reason, why here didn’t live peoples).

Anyway, if we cant found geologic evidence, we can found evidence from biology. Anyway, heres been two scholars. Other one talk from veichsel maksim, when one big massive ice was from arctic sea to german and britain. Other one says, here always been many plants and animals what lived in scandinavia all weichsel period. Like norwegian lemming what survived during the last glacial period in some local ice-free refugia in scandinavia
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/268/1469/809.full.pdf

I don’t know, can I translete this right, but in here we talking about from ice age what is today cornered. Day by day, more and more
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:08 am

To give my reply to the idea I presented above, that there was a crustal-disrupting cataclysm within the timeframe of mdern man (specifically, I posit, 11,000 BC timeframe), and to continue along the lines of Scandinavian evidence, one can cite the Norse Younger Edda which contains this: "That part of Ginungagap that turns to the north was filled with thick and heavy ice and rime, and everywhere within were drizzling rains and gusts. But the south part of Ginungagap was lighted up by glowing sparks flying out of Muspelheim." -In the earliest Scandinavian mythic formulation, "Muspel" was a region to the south. "Ginungagap" referred to a vast region between Muspel and a cold land to the north, Niflheim. Later on, "Ginungagap" became a term for the North Atlantic Ocean. "Heim" meant "place." -It appears that this account is telling about a post-disaster scene in which the northern parts of the Atlantic Ocean were icy and there were extreme eruptions to the south. An old Finnish legend in the Kalevala (Davidson, H.R. Ellis, "Gods and Myths of the Viking Age" (Bell Pub., 1978, p. 32) tells of a horrendous ancient cataclysm that was followed by a "generation-long darkness." -This certainly could refer to an ice-age-producing disaster.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:34 am

I was looking at this report of some previously unknown species of gecko found in a remote area of Australia, near Cape Melville. Supposedly isolated from the rest of Australia for millions of years.

Bizarre gecko discovered in remote Australian rainforest
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... z2jEJ2tVIg
I saw mention in the article about the giant boulders around there.
Image
Also some of the hills around there seem to consist entirely of large rounded boulders. Were these all glacially pushed along, rounded and smoothed, and piled up like this? I really doubt it, but what else could create these boulders?
Looking a little deeper, it seems that glaciation has been assumed to have occurred because they see geological features similar to those found in areas of the world where they know glaciation occurred, such as the furrows, grooves and scratches on top of granite mounds. As I do not think there is any proof that ice can exert enough pressure on rocks to cut these grooves, and round and smooth such huge boulders, then it seems that most likely all their assumptions are completely wrong about the origin of the glacial features in the northern hemisphere too.
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: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby finno » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:07 am

GaryN wrote:Looking a little deeper, it seems that glaciation has been assumed to have occurred because they see geological features similar to those found in areas of the world where they know glaciation occurred, such as the furrows, grooves and scratches on top of granite mounds. As I do not think there is any proof that ice can exert enough pressure on rocks to cut these grooves, and round and smooth such huge boulders, then it seems that most likely all their assumptions are completely wrong about the origin of the glacial features in the northern hemisphere too.


Not only australian boulders but boulder field.
http://worldwidenewsandsports.com/new-l ... ost-again/
Boulder field?
Australia is about only place in the world, where scientists says, theres never been glacial time – not even early history millions and millions years ago. If we can found anykind evidence from “glacial in australia” there is something wrong – and really bad.

Problem is not new. Father of Glaciation Louis Agassiz was scientist from 1839 ad. who gived proofs from glaciation. That potholes, boulder etc and when he traveled to Brazil, he founded same proofs from there. Brazil also is place, where never been glaciation. After scientist says Agassiz was right, but in Brazil he was wrong. I don’t know, im not seen what he saw in there.
Actually same proofs you can found also from central Africa, but again scientist have explanation. Because Africa was early history part Panagea, that glacial proofs are very old. Time when dinosauruses still walking. But they don’t explain how that proofs can survive from erosion power, same time mountains go down and new mountains coming up, but proofs from glaciation can survive?

ps. what we early talked about at striations, I founded intresting picture
http://www.traveladventures.org/contine ... and06.html
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:08 pm

Hi finno,
I found this site that has some good, free information on earth and space sciences, and this one I thought interesting:

Was the Precambrian Basement of Western Troms and Lofoten-Vesterålen in Northern Norway Linked to the Lewisian of Scotland? A Comparison of Crustal Components, Tectonic Evolution and Amalgamation History"
http://www.intechopen.com/books/tectoni ... nked-to-th

It shows the complexity of trying to piece together the Geological features of western Troms and Lofoten. Huge amounts of time has been spent in coming up with a model that can explain it all. Some interesting images and diagrams, but they talk comfortably about what happened billions of years ago, like it is fact, but I can not accept it. Though an alternative, electrical explanation would mean believing in events of such magnitude that they might be considered as perhaps "hirveä"? Horrendous, hideous even. Maybe not the correct word, but what could describe events of such magnitude?

The intechopen site has some very interesting publications on a number of subjects, worth a look.
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: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:34 am

I can imagine Greenland and Antartica instantly glaciated when Saturn lost its grip on Earth. The polar Birkeland currents faded away and the vast amounts of vapor held above the poles rained as ice. Doesn´t mean that Greenland and Antartica had been iceless, rather that the permanent thick ice cover is young.
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:07 pm

Whatever the source, and I still think large CME events most likely, Earth being within a plasma stream could have lead to adiabatic cooling of the higher latitude regions. Perhaps at the time of the Biblical deluge, ice was being deposited at the poles, very rapidly and relatively recently? But I don't believe the mechanics of ice flows allows for the carving of the huge valleys or canyons they are finding under those ice fields.

The images that solrey presented in this thread would seem to make sense in a time when the Earth had tilted 90 degrees, and one pole was excavated, deposition occurring at the other. The mid-Atlantic trench would have been a current path between the poles, and the mountain chains along the west side of south and north America another such path? Those current paths are still active I believe, but at a greatly reduced magnitude.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=363&start=150#p28708
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: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests