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 Lloyd » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:10 am

Plate Tectonics
* I discussed this matter 2 or 3 years ago here and I showed that the rock types and fossil types on opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean match very well, along with the outlines of the coasts that also match well.
* If you have a picture of something that's been torn in two, you can tell if a section is missing or not by whether or not the pieces complete a picture when put together. If huge electric discharge machining (EDM) removed a huge section of Earth, leaving the Atlantic basin gap, the rock and fossil patterns on opposite shores would be very unlikely to match up well.
* The website, http://newgeology.us, explains how the continents may have been broken up and slid over the Moho plasma layer, almost frictionlessly. Instead of a large bolide causing the breakup, though, it may have been a large lightning strike. Cardona says it was Saturn flares which caused Earth's core to stop rotating briefly a number of times and the crust continued to rotate, sliding over the mantle, until friction brought it to a halt. I think a lightning impact may have accompanied the flare/s, causing the crust to break up.
* Whether or not other planets have experienced plate tectonics, Earth is at least somewhat unique and it's likely that a planet has to meet certain unusual conditions before tectonic activity is possible. Like it has to have a plasma layer and it may have to suffer a strong impact or brief magnetic braking of rotation.
* EDM seldom produces identical outlines on opposite sides of gouges that it makes in a surface. The opposite sides of Valles Marineris do not fit together well and it appears to be a result of EDM. With EDM there tends to be narrowing and widening of the gouge as the EDM moves forward, because the current or voltage changes. When a rock or something is broken in two, the opposite sides of the break fit together, but opposite sides of an EDM gouge do not.
* Here's the thread where I discussed some of this before: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1462.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:25 pm

..rock types and fossil types on opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean match very well, along with the outlines of the coasts that also match well.


Yes, that does seem to suggest a previous association, but I haven't dug into that subject. Does that scenario hold out in other parts of the world, say by using that reversed expanding earth video? And the fit is not precise between America/Africa like a torn piece of paper would be, so what altered the edges, just the hundreds of millions of years of slow movement? I'm not ruling out it all having happened much more quickly, and much more catastrophically, than the slow steady grind model. The magnetic stripes they base much of the model on may also be a red herring if an electrical catastrophic event, or a few, have occurred. And of course, being the suspicious type, I have to wonder if, like with cosmic distances, radiometric dating or global warming, the data that don't fit their models aren't quietly junked.

Back to the present...
Magic micro-glaciation? I spent a couple more days crawling up river beds, creeks and gulleys. I don't think it takes a PhD to determine that something isn't right with the model of glaciation.
The Sooke River valley is supposedly of glacial origin, though I believe I see electrical and plasma shaping. Although there are may constrictions in the river bed, there are no accumulations of rocks and boulders blocking these constrictions, and it does not appear that many of the rocks move very much, if at all.
I then went up Charters creek, which empties into the Sooke river at a 90 degree angle. I had not been up this creek before, and the first thing noted was the number of rocks and boulders, and then the size of many of them, way out of keeping, I thought, with the scale of the creek. Travel is all hopping from boulder to boulder, and the creek bed, where exposed, has the sculpted, soft smooth curves look. I found that some of what appear to be boulders are still attached to the river bed, part of mounds of granite that look like they had not fully finished their transformation to boulders. There creek banks at the base are also molten/blobby appearing, and higher up have the jagged and torn faces, with the large angular blocks lying below in the creek bed. Again, what seems obvious to me, is that none of these rocks, boulders and blocks have ever moved, and are nested so well together that I don't think they ever could.
Having a little light left at the end of the day, I ventured up a smaller creek that enters the Charters Creek, again at 90 degrees. It looked much the same as the larger creek and the Sooke river, melted/sculpted bed, pebbles up to 3 feet long, shattered and broken rock, and big chunks from sheer rock faces that are lying in the creek bed, and in one place completely block the creek.
The formations in all the waterways seem identical regardless of scale. They appear to have all been formed at the same time, but that would require glaciers running every which way, and to have cut the smaller creeks, very small glaciers. How small can a glacier be?
I have some preliminary maps and more images up at Picassa, from the Glinz Lake/Ayum creek location, the most puzzling so far of these locations. I was informed by the caretaker that the lake has very few rocks or boulders in it, a very undulating bare bedrock base in areas, and up to 7 or so feet of soft organic mush in pockets (potholes?)in the bed, and muddy silt building up at the inlets and outlets. I'm wondering now if a core sample at the inlet would show annual layering, as if it did, it should be possible to date the lake. I'd really like to know that figure, as some of what I have seen looks like it just happened yesterday.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1133 ... 4142561378
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:33 pm

I was wondering where the smallest glacier was. When I saw this, I was going to say I had them beat with most of the ones I have seen around here, but then I realised there are no glaciers NOW. But there were, honest!
Mini-Galacier
Image
It's been like pulling hens teeth trying to get a conversation out of my PhD GeoScience acquaintance, plasma and electricity are not in her view of the Universe, but I just found out that on my brother-in-laws side of the family I have a Professor of GeoSciences connection, at Edinburgh University. A very nice man my sister tells me, but perhaps I'll need to tread very carefully and respectfully. To start with anyway!
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/25628448
I might have to go with Sheldons view though. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYMFHON8LFw
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:27 pm

Gary said: Yes, that does seem to suggest a previous association, but I haven't dug into that subject. Does that scenario hold out in other parts of the world, say by using that reversed expanding earth video? And the fit is not precise between America/Africa like a torn piece of paper would be, so what altered the edges, just the hundreds of millions of years of slow movement? I'm not ruling out it all having happened much more quickly, and much more catastrophically, than the slow steady grind model. The magnetic stripes they base much of the model on may also be a red herring if an electrical catastrophic event, or a few, have occurred. And of course, being the suspicious type, I have to wonder if, like with cosmic distances, radiometric dating or global warming, the data that don't fit their models aren't quietly junked.

* Who's they? Why not check out the site? http://newgeology.us
* He figures 26 hours, not millions of years. And I figure the impact that broke everything apart may have been electrical, at least in great part.
* The fit between the continental shelf edges is excellent. Erosion in the past few thousand years has only made slight changes to the outlines.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:09 pm

Who's they? Why not check out the site? http://newgeology.us


Thanks Lloyd, I'll take a look at the site. 'They' are the standard model bods.

Here is a page about the trouble with the glacial model. I only just found the site, will have to spend more time on it.
Problems in the Glacial Theory
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/gtprob.html#evidence
The more that the apparent scale of changes, and seeming rapidity of those changes becomes plausible, in my mind anyway, the closer the picture looks, dare I say it, to the Oahspian model, and some of the Cosmology expounded in the late 1800s is now being found to have a basis in recent geological and archaeological findings, in particular some western pacific deep ocean bed features, and the Yonaguni 'ruins'. Perhaps not appropriate material for the upper boards though? :)
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby moses » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:39 am

Well Gary, I had thought that there were periods of glaciation called ice ages, but upon reading that article I can now perhaps see that there was one big catastrophic event which produced much of the sediment which is attributed to the ice ages. After this event I need to reconsider what happened.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:57 am

Hi Moses, I have only had a quick look yet at the site, but I really like what I am reading. I see there is a page on potholes, and even though at the other side of the continent to my location, the processes appear to be identical. No doubt they can be shown to be global.
An Oversize Boulder Inside a Pothole
Image
Sooke Potholes, way above the river, and just what are the odds of a boulder ending up in a pothole that is barely bigger than the hole. I haven't tried, but perhaps it is still attached to the bottom, wouldn't be surprised.
Image
Mystery of Pothole Origins
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/pothole.html
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby finno » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:14 am

I think that grinding stones –theory are created from old mills. Like you all know, there are two millstone what rubbing against each other and wear off when rotating enough. Of course scientist at 18. century think, this is same mechanims how potholes can come.
But if we think that seriously, its stupid idea. How normal stone can drill itself inside hard granite rock, even 8-14 meter deep? Its not possible. There is no power what can push stone inside granite and deeply. and if we think, there is against rock and stone – whichone decompose first? We can even shoot with artillery that stone to rock, and only stone breakdown.

Secondly, how many knows, potholes are full stones? There is no one grinding stone, there is thousands stone. All kind stones, but stones are from same rock where pothole is. When Keijo Parkkunen at 1984 told how stupid idea grinding stones are, he get received a listener from “Spede” who was the most famous film maker in Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spede_Pasanen
Together they opened Pirunpesa-pothole only because they wanted to show, in Earth aint be so big stone like need to make it.
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:P ... 4rvi_8.JPG

Like I said before, Keijo Parkkunen talked so early like 1984, potholes are created from `electrical tornadoes´and when potholes borned, there was terrible heatness. He founded bottom potholes melted stones and metals.Today Parkkunen is over 80-year but still in game. In this film he is inside pothole and answer the question; “now when you are down there, can you show that grinding stone, what maked that pothole?” Hope you all understand joke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RyYlBG6 ... re=related
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:40 pm

@Lloyd
* He figures 26 hours, not millions of years.

For the whole Earth, I would't count that out. However, looking at my own creek, and others in the area, I now imagine events lasting possibly only minutes at the most for the melted/flowing river bed, and but seconds for the shattered and fractured rock and the dust/sand/gravel. How long does a tornado take to do its damage, or a lightning bolt?
The Creationist site has saved me a whole lot of work in bringing together the arguments and information against the large glaciation model, but IMO, a great flood or floods does not answer the questions, in my area anyway. These are very concentrated, very high energy, short duration effects.
Here are a couple of images from Sweden, Tern Island.
Image
Image
In my recent river and creek hikes I have seen some similar formations (they are more common at some beaches) but there are also many places where there are sharp, angular rocks intermixed or sometimes covering the smoothed and rounded ones, and they have come from higher up, which indicates to me that the surrounding mounds of bedrock had to have been cool enough to have been fully crystallised at the time of the events. The fact that none of the rocks appear to have moved also indicates to me that there has been little erosion, tumbling, chipping or whatever to produce the finer rocks and grains, and that the main event was responsible for all the material seen in and around the creeks.
That the bigger rocks have not moved is evidenced by the fact that it it quite obvious that some of them are lying in or very close to the holes that they came from, as if they were just popped out of the holes. Everything has settled down and basically is now locked in place and would take a tremendous water flow to ever move it.
The many big trees in the area are all growing in pockets of dust/sand/gravel that has, predominantly but not exclusively, the rounded rocks embedded in it at the lower elevations and both smaller pebbles and shattered rock at the higher levels. All that material, IMO, came out of the creek/river bed in an explosive shower of debris that has not been washed or swept away since the event.
I'm sure a serious scientific enquiry would show the mechanical impossibility of the accepted models of Earths geological past, but don't think that will happen any time soon, and certainly not with any co-operation, or funding from any recognised establishments or agencies, or the media. Could an informal, unlettered group of enthusiasts attract enough attention to push the idea into the limelight ? Don't know unless we try, do we?
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:42 pm

From a previous post by starbiter:
On a lighter note, isn't it odd that creationists don't flock to myth and EU. Much of the myth is from the same source creationists use. Word for word. But creationists being ignorant of EU only have a flood at there disposal. They concentrate on the flood. Any effects of the flood were erased by the events that followed, i think.

viewtopic.php?p=34044&sid=efcd364d15cd8a76ebf2b65187009857#p34015

I'd been looking for information on glacial tillites, but it seems a debris flow appears identical,
and at least one tillite has been reclassified. However, neither of these methods would seem to account for them being also seen in waterways as small as my own creek, which they are. The third option is going to have to be, IMO, the debris from the ripped out river/creek bed material settling back down.
Michael asks why creationsts don't flock to EU, but that also would seem to mean that EUers must accept Creationism, as evolution could not have occured with a periodic razing of the Earths surface.
Is there an 'official' position as far as TB is concerned? If there were no chance for evolution, then we are from either creation by the religious mysterious spirit God, or engineered by real, physical, highly advanced science Gods. Which one is it?

Another thought provoking page:
How Many Ice Ages Were There?

"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ....."

"[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school".

I think there are many more things that should not be taught as fact in high school...

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/11-iceages.htm
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:33 pm

Michael asks why creationsts don't flock to EU,...


true colors ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby finno » Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:59 am

I think, here is always been two scholar, who dont buy ice age –therory. First are of course creatonists but second are Velikovsky scholars (or catastrophe fans). I am been founded couple intresting books, lot of you all ready know Cardona, but Allan&DeClair are first book, what iam been read, what says there wasn’t glacial at all. Now I reading William Corliss books from geological anomalies – its very instructive.

Look like all information are right now exist.
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:00 pm

but Allan&DeClair are first book, what iam been read, what says there wasn’t glacial at all. Now I reading William Corliss books from geological anomalies – its very instructive.

Thanks finno, I'll look into those authors. I am presently reading a book, "Ghost Mountains and Vanished Oceans" about the Lithoprobe project, a Canadian seismic reflection based continent wide survey. It seems Canada may be at least partly responsible for the development of the subduction/tectonics model.
http://www.lithoprobe.ca/
I did find some information on electromagnetic anomalies, telluric currents, conductivity, along the coast here, but haven't looked into the documents yet.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/p66-005
I have had two more people examine the formations at the Sooke Potholes, both very well informed on the standard time and erosion model, and yesterday it was explained to me that faults are responsible for most of what I see. Vertical, horizontal, diagonal, tiny ones, all faults. I have not had what I consider to be satisfactory mechanical explanations for the formation of potholes or the presence of the large number of rocks and boulders still in the river/creek channels all the way to the top of the hills and mountains, which should, if glaciers carved the features, all have been swept downstream.
It seems to me though that there are only two options, millions of years of weathering and erosion, subduction, tectonics and faulting or almost instantaneous catastrophic level electrical and plasma events. Absolutely no room for compromise here. I have the geologists views, now I need to find some real ;) scientists to take a closer look and give me their interpretations.
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: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby webolife » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:18 pm

GaryN says, "no room for compromise", but 39 years of study have led me to be able to envision a [third] global catastrophic option that includes elements of both your opposing scenarios:
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.
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: 2534
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Questioning the Ice Ages

Unread postby moses » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:04 pm

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
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest