Catastrophist Geology

[webolife]

Johnm33,
Where is your reference to "scalding" water. Are you referring to streams/mists coming up from the ground? Is your assumption that these are geysers? That refers to the period of earth history prior to the deluge, before seasonal rainfall....?

[johnm33]

webolife
Thats just a bible story which I assumed everyone was familiar with. If you search 'hot water floods in myth' there's plenty out there from around the world. f you have a copy of 'When the earth nearly died' skip to page 186 where numerous others are mentioned. So this is a recollection of human memory, not some distant geological era. As far as I'm aware no one has done the math on the implications of the amount of kinetic energy expressed as the earth slowed, and then sped up again. I'll open a thread in NIAMI if no one runs with it here.
john

[Robertus Maximus]

EDM EROSION?

Dendritic Patterns

I see the erosion of uplifted planation surfaces more in the way of a spark erosion but I would certainly not rule out dust devils in a highly electrified atmosphere.

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/D0P07B/inverte ... D0P07B.jpg

From the image in the above link, are we really seeing an “inverted dendritic stream channel”? I would suggest not. The pattern arose as a result of an electrical discharge the same process that carved dendritic patterns in newly formed mountain ranges on Earth.

GRANITE OCCURRENCE

Granite

The section quoted from Wikipedia simply states the popular simplistic view of the nature of granite, geologists know this is not the case, this is why it is promoted, it is harder to say “we don’t know”.

Granite is associated with orogenic belts as we can see in these two maps: first rock distributions

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl= ... mrc&uact=8

Click ‘view image’ for map.

Next, recognised orogenic belts assigned to imaginary time periods by geologists.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1- ... 16-gr1.jpg

“I have implied that granite is in effect defined by its geological relations, yet no rock is perhaps so varied in its geology. The thread which unifies the varied occurrences of granite is this: With trivial exceptions, granite is closely associated in time and space to mountain building and regional metamorphism in the so-called geosynclinals belts, where great thicknesses of sedimentary rock accumulate.” (Walton, Matt: Granite Problems, Science, 131:635, 1960)

But what of granite itself? “Rocks that were originally sandstones, limestones and slates have been found mysteriously changed by nature into granite. This is a most surprising phenomenon, since geologists heretofore have classed granite as a type of igneous rock that developed from a molten mass of material formed at considerable distances below the earth’s surface.

“Just how granite forms constitutes a major problem for geology. Three principle types of processes appear to be operative: magmatic, metamorphic, and metasomatic: these may act independently or in various combinations…A wide variety of sedimentary or igneous rocks may be changed into granite, in essentially the solid state, by the introduction of certain elements, such as alkalies and silica, and the removal of others, such as iron, magnesium, and calcium. This process of replacement or metasomatism is involved in granitization.” (Wyllie, Peter J.: Granite, McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, 1977)

Granite is the name given to a family of rock assemblages formed by modification of existing igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks by processes not completely understood, sometimes the modification can happen with the parent rock(s) in the ‘solid state’.

“Various lines of evidence were put forward in favour of in-situ granitization. Those listed by Walton include lack of dislocation of enclosing rocks to make room for the new granite; the presence of relics of pre-existing rocks with structure in alignment with that of the surrounding terrane; substitution of granite for a rock unit in a known sequence; and gradation of pre-existing rock into granite (Walton, 1960, p. 639).”

This observation casts doubt on the existence of ‘Precambrian’ granite- wherever it is found on the globe- how do we know ‘Precambrian’ granite did not form ‘recently’ through granitization?

Similarly an electrical origin of granite and tectonic uplift cannot be ruled out, indeed I consider this more likely as generally geologists do not consider electricity to be a rock forming/ altering agent.

Here is an image of electrically formed granite:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP ... qdUL&hl=en

(Taken from: Steinbacher, Michael M.: A New Approach to Mountain Formation, Proceedings of the NPA, 2011)

Robert Johnson has calculated the energy required to uplift the Andes mountain range some 3km:
“The Andes cover an area of approximately 3 x 106 km2; they have been uplifted by between 2 and 4 km, say 3 km on average. The uplift has occurred in the form of a horst, i.e. as a block bounded by vertical faults. We may therefore consider that the uplift was due to thermal expansion of the crust directly under the uplifted area.

“One model assumes that uplift could be due to the 8% expansion of basalt on partial melting. To generate an uplift of 3 km over the Andes would require 37.5 km depth of basaltic crust to be partially melted under the entire range. Assuming, conservatively, that there was no initial heating from magma at depth and that the crust was initially at 20 degrees Celsius throughout, and taking the density of basalt as 2.7 x 103 kg/m3 and the specific heat as 0.84 kJ/kg (Engineering Toolbox, 2014), the eutectic temperature of a typical basalt as 1,270 degrees Celsius and the latent heat of fusion as 506 kJ/kg (Kojitani and Akaogi, 1995), then the energy required to fully melt 37.5 km of basalt under the entire Andes is approximately 5 x 1026 Joules or 5 x 1033 erg.

“Based on this calculation, it is feasible that the postulated discharge currents could have contributed to tectonic uplift by thermal expansion.”

Partial melting of one percent of the parent rock can produce increases in electrical conductivity of up to two orders of magnitude, furthermore: “Electromigration may underlie the formation of new minerals and the change in element composition observed in fulgurite formation: lightning strikes commonly form fulgurites “through very rapid selective melting and fusion of pre-existing minerals within host rocks, or formation of new minerals …”

To conclude an electrical discharge could not only provide a mechanism to uplift large areas of the Earth’s surface but: “Granite could be formed by partial melting of existing strata along the line of discharge currents.”

LOESS ORIGIN

Loess

“One of the main problems for the origin of loess is that quartz in igneous and metamorphic rocks has a mean grain size of approximately 700 μm, while the main size of detrital quartz in 60 μm. The cut-off between sand and silt is 63 μm and most loess is in the range of 20 to 50 μm.

“So, the size of the quartz has to be reduced 90% from its source to account for the formation of loess. How does this happen?

“Four sources of loess have been proposed: (1) hot deserts, (2) cold deserts, (3) drowned sources covered by late-glacial sea level rise and (4) glacial grinding. All these sources raise questions. Hot and cold deserts do not produce significant quantities of loess. There are problems associated with the origin of loess from continental shelves, now underwater, since many loess belts are far inland from the sea.

“It had been assumed that the formation of loess was only by subglacial grinding. However, loess has been discovered in areas far from present or past glaciers or ice sheets, such as in northern Tunisia, northern Nigeria, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Minor amounts of loess have even been found in the Sahara Desert. Furthermore, experiments have shown that glacial grinding does not produce much silt. This deduction is reinforced by the observation that hardly any loess is produced by or deposited in front of present-day glaciers.

“So, there does not appear to be a viable source for the immense volume of loess.”

I am not suggesting that loess was not distributed by winds during a cataclysm, I believe it was. Windblown loess (dust) entombed many unsuspecting mammals during the latter stage of the cataclysm (http://creation.com/woolly-mammoths-choked-by-dust).

“So, there does not appear to be a viable source for the immense volume of loess.” I propose that we do when we consider the graphic you supplied, we see that the vast deposits of loess are very closely associated with mountain ranges or areas of uplift. Eroded uplifted planation surfaces provided a source of quartz. The planation surfaces themselves had previously been inundated by immense tides and covered by freshly eroded sediment. This already abraded sediment was further abraded by electrical forces during the period of uplift supplying plenty of loess to be whipped up by winds.

WORZEL ASH

Worzel Deep Sea Ash

https://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arc ... seaash.htm

Compare the composition of the ash layer given in the link above with the worldwide average chemical composition of granite, by weight percent: SiO2 — 72.04% (silica) Al2O3 — 14.42% (alumina) K2O— 4.12% Na2O — 3.69% CaO — 1.82% FeO — 1.68% Fe2O3 — 1.22% MgO — 0.71% TiO2 — 0.30% P2O5 — 0.12% MnO — 0.05%. Based on 2485 analyses.

The Worzel Deep Sea Ash could very well be eroded granite- given that we have previously seen the vague definition of just what makes granite.

[zackandmack]

Hello Everyone!

New here to the forum. I am writing a fiction novel, the third in a series and this takes place pre-flood, that is from around the Toba Event to the beginning of the Holocene.

I have already written how the end of the Ice Age was due to a cosmic event: Comet or bolide. I had not considered EU until two days ago when I listened to a Grimerica Podcast featuring Wal Thornhill. I find the EU theory interesting and and have no bias one way or another regarding Venus as the Comet or the EU Theory as it does fit into the paradigm of the end of the Younger Dryas.

Here's where I am having a problem understanding and maybe someone can help me out...that Earth was a moon of Saturn and furthermore that Saturn/Earth made its way here from another constellation.

I just don't see how that fits in with even "alternative archeology/geology" Gunung Padang is being dated to 25Kya. Austral-Asians (aboriginals) settled Australia at least 50Kya. Flores Island was settled maybe one million years ago with humans crossing the Wallace Line by boat from Sundaland.

How does all of this fit into the recent theories by Bruce Fenton showing how migration was Into Africa, not from...

If Earth just reached it present orbit 12kya then some of this is a bit off...

I could wrap my head around the idea that such a thing happened say 250 mya or something along those lines.

I appreciate the knowledge that will be provided here.

Thanks in advance

Zack and Mack the Two Headed Turtle

[moses]

Hello Zack and Mack the Two Headed Turtle,
that faith you have in the datings you provide is the real issue. Generally we here believe that things were a lot more electrical ending about 5,000 years ago. Heightened electricity can produce transmutations and speed up rates of radioactive decay. So that the isotope ratios are a result of electricity and not time.

Until you can free yourself from the dates EU will be untenable. So you would probably need to invent another stellar system where electrical effects abound. Certainly would be spectacular! And plenty of scope for imagination.

Cheers,
Mo

[zackandmack]

Thank you Mo for your reply...I will have to research this more. Let me ask if I may regarding Dr. John Brandenburg's theory regarding nuclear explosion/s of some sort 200mya based upon isotope decay rates. Would the electrical universe theory somehow play a role in this?

Zack and Mack the two headed turtle

[moses]

Such theories have many assumptions which are likely to be incorrect. The isotope ratios seem to be different on Mars even compared with Martian meteorites. Mars was likely scourged by discharge between Mars and some other body, such that the other body was in line with the then axis of Mars. This is because a lot more material was removed from one hemisphere of Mars.

One could also theorise that a super large explosion blew the material away, but that is not for me at the moment. Most likely is that the Martian material was removed in an orbit similar to how the same face of the Moon always faces Earth, or the way Io discharges.

Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

DATING METHODS WRONG
Z&M, the first few pages of my thread, Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16025
has lots of evidence that the cataclysm/s occurred somewhat more than 4,000 years ago. The entire surface of the continents was covered with an average of 2 km or so of sediment, so nothing can be dated accurately from before the cataclysms.

Later, in a post about "BROWN'S ELECTRIC THEORY" at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 50#p113860
I quoted Brown who referenced a German study in the 1990s that showed that ionization of radioactive elements causes them to decay billions of times faster than normal. So Brown explained that electric forces would have produced radioactive elements by fusion during the cataclysm/s and then caused many of them to decay rapidly.

In the post at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 20#p119437
I explained how Sedimentary Rock Strata Prove Catastrophism.

Robert, very interesting info. I'll get back to this later today or this week.

[Lloyd]

GRANITE
1. Robert, I'd like you to explain what you think the rock type was that became granite in the mountain belts. I know from living in New Hampshire a few years ago that the rock there is granite that appears to have been previously sedimentary rock, as the layers are usually easy to observe.
2. Do you acknowledge that the continents consist of less dense rock than the seafloors, about 2.7g/cc?
3. Do you agree that seismic waves show the densities of rock under the continents and the seafloors?
4. Here are densities of sedimentary & some igneous/metamorphic rock and main constituents are:
Limestone -- 2.3-2.7; av 2.5 g/cc -- Calcite -- 2.71 g/cc
Sandstone -- 2.2-2.8; av 2.5 g/cc -- Quartz -- 2.65 g/cc
Shale -- 2.4-2.8; av 2.6 g/cc ------- Kaolinite -- 2.6 g/cc
Granite --- 2.6-2.7; av 2.65 g/cc -- feldspar, quartz, mica, amphibole
Basalt ---- 2.8-3.0; av 2.9 g/cc ---- plagioclase feldspar, silica
Gabbro ---- 2.7-3.3; av 3.0 g/cc -- pyroxene, plagioclase
The main element components are Al, Si, O, OH, sometimes with Ca, K, Fe, Mg and/or Na, especially for the last four. It looks like most rocks are very close to the density of granite. What would electric currents transform into granite? What mineral type did Michael Steinbacher turn into granite?

[johnm33]

Looking at the uplift of the Andes if the earth stopped spinning almost all the seawater would rush to the poles carrying huge amounts of sediment with it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJfOWfaP6RI&t=390s around 5:00 and 6:30 "up to 20 kilometers of sediment" . Kinetic energy would heat and loosen things up more near the equator too making uplift easier. Not to mention all the ores which would be dissolved in supercritical water filling the voids. Look at the bathymetry of the arctic and that huge mass that could have overwhelmed Beringia. http://geology.com/world/arctic-ocean-b ... ry-map.jpg At the resumption of spin the water would follow very different paths south, scouring the landscape again, some of it above 100c[?] . Then the further south the water went the more energy would be sucked out of it by the same kinetic energy, until it freezes? with all it's sediment in place? to slowly consolidate as it thaws.

[Lloyd]

COMETARY ELECTRICAL EROSION
Comet mesa and crater erosion by electrical surface erosion.
See electrical erosion of Comet Temple I in the 47 to 50 minute segment of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo

A mesa on Temple I shows electrical[?] erosion over a short period of time in 2005, shortening the mesa by 50 meters after sunspot and solar wind activity had increased significantly.

[Robertus Maximus]

DATING METHODS WRONG

The problems with radiometric dating are well documented.

“Evolutionists have maintained than all naturally occurring radioactive nuclides having half-lives less than 400 million years are not found naturally. This fact, they say, is an iron-clad "proof" that the age of the earth must be over 4 billion years old. This argument can be easily refuted by presenting the fact that man-made long-lived radionuclides are increasing almost every year. From the Mallinckrodt Nuclear Trilinear Chart (Marshall Bruce, 1979), the number of stable nuclides has increased from 236 in 1968 to 252 in 1979. (A stable isotope can be defined as one having a half-life greater than 10 years.) During this same period, the number of megayear isotopes has decreased from 68 to 55. The sum of those stable nuclides and the megayear nuclides in 1968 does not equal to that of 1979. The former is 304 and the latter is 307 while the total number of all nuclides has increased from 1447 to 2131, an increase of 684 nuclides in eleven years, giving an average increase of over 60 man-made radioisotopes every year. In fact, most of these so-called "megayear isotopes" were manufactured in the laboratory. Does it mean that they exist in the laboratory for millions of years? Certainly not, because they were all freshly manufactured. For example, Ba-201 was created in the 1940s with a half-life of 1018 years. In 1977, Ba-201 was classified as a stable nuclide. Other man-made long-live isotopes include Nb-92 which has a half-life of 1.2 x 108 years; Sm-146 has a half-life of 1.03 x 108 years, Pb-205 has a half-life of 1.43 x 107 years, Pu-244 has a half-life of 8.16 x 107 years and Cm-147 has a half-life of 1.56 x 107 years. Therefore, when these long-lived radioactive isotopes were first created in the first day, they already have the appearance of having been there for "millions" to “billions" of years.” (Christopher Chui, Pick Your Age For The Earth, 1991)

From the above paragraph we see that radioactive isotopes present the appearance of being there for millions to billions of years- the moment the first appear.

Juergens asked “… Might we not imagine that new polonium (and uranium, too, for that matter) was created on Earth, and in place, by powerful thunderbolts?” (Juergens, R.E; Radiohalos And Earth History, Kronos Vol. III No. 1, Fall 1977)

‘New’ polonium and uranium were created in situ by powerful thunderbolts, these freshly created elements already carried the signature of being there for ‘millions’ and ‘billions’ of years.

“From its inception, radiometric dating has been too heavily influenced by expectations derived from Lyellian geology and Darwinian evolution. There is now sufficient evidence to dispute claims that almost all radiometric dates for Earth’s rocks are consistent with each other and with uniformitarian predictions.” (Salkeld, D; Scientific Dating Problems, The Radiometric Dating of Earth’s Rocks, C&C Review, 2003)

The weakness in radiometric dating is made obvious by geologists themselves, in strata where the ‘age’ is ‘known’, say Triassic for example, and we find discordant radiometric dates associated with that strata, geologist always defer to the evolutionary timescale- the timescale always wins over the data; yet geologists tell us: “The chronostratigraphic scale is an agreed convention, whereas its calibration to linear time is a matter for discovery or estimation.” (Gradstein, F.M; A Geologic Time Scale, CUP, 2004)The timescale is an ‘agreed convention’!

When radiometric dates do not agree with the ‘agreed convention’ geologists turn to biostratigraphy, biostratigraphy in turn depends on the reality of evolution by natural selection- the rocks should contain a full representative record of evolutionary progress- but they do not. The whole geologic timescale is a house of cards with no foundation regardless of the problems with radiometric dating.

GRANITE

1. The original source rocks in many areas that have undergone uplift are usually described as metamorphic and sedimentary- we can assume that a wide variety of rocks can contribute to the formation of granite given where granite is found and its broad definition.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Here is part 4 of the aforementioned Michael Steinbacher paper covering electrical granite and basalt:
“Can an electric current lithify loose sediment? A few years ago, I met a prospector who had been experimenting with running electrical current from a welder through stream sediment. He was surprised to find that when the material in his crucibles cooled, it was indistinguishable from rocks that he saw while prospecting.

“Granite, basalt, and schist, often appeared in layers that mimicked the strata in the mountains. It occurred to him that strata, perhaps even whole mountains, could be caused electrically.

“He immediately dismissed the idea: Where would the welder be, the source of the current?

“When I told him about plasma and the space currents that surrounded and likely penetrated the Earth, his idea regained plausibility. If a surge in space currents should generate something like an “enhanced aurora” that swept across and into the surface, there could be more than enough power to “weld” “superposed strata form[ed] simultaneously” into rocks—not gradually over millions of years but in hours.

“Under the right conditions, the plasma pinch can sort material according to various properties. Space plasmas appear to form cylinders of similar elements, sorted by ionization potential, around the filamentary currents (Birkeland currents) coursing through them. Experimenters need to investigate the effects of this process in dusty plasmas and in slurries mixed with an electrolyte.”

Others may wish to contribute if they have first-hand knowledge of Michael Steinbacher’s work.

[Lloyd]

GRANITE
_Robert, I asked: Do you acknowledge that the continents consist of less dense rock than the seafloors, about 2.7g/cc?
_You replied: Yes
_Questions: Do you agree that granite has the same density and element abundances as granite?
_And do you agree that granite comes from rock of the same element abundances and density as granite?
_Or do you contend that granite mostly comes from basalt, which is more mafic, I think?
_If so, do you know of evidence that electric currents can form granite from basalt? And what then would become of the mafic content?

_I asked: Do you agree that seismic waves show the densities of rock under the continents and the seafloors?
_You replied: No
_Question: Aren't geologists able to determine in the lab what the seismic wave velocities are for rocks of all densities?

Composition of Granite (G) & Worzel Ash (W):
Source (G): https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps ... anite.html
Source (W): https://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arc ... seaash.htm
... SiO2 ----- Al2O3 --- K2O --- Na2O - CaO -- FeO --- MgO --- TiO2
G: 70-77%; 11-13%; 3-5% ; 3-5% ; 1% ..; 2-3% ; <1% .; <1%
W: 75%...; 13.9% ; .....; 3.9% ; 0.88%; 0.66%; 0.03%; 0.20%
_Question: Why would Potassium (K) be missing in Worzel Ash if it came from granite?

_I asked: What mineral type would electric currents transform into granite?
_You replied: a wide variety of rocks can contribute to the formation of granite given where granite is found and its broad definition.
_... a prospector ... had been experimenting with running electrical current from a welder through stream sediment.
_when the material in his crucibles cooled, it was indistinguishable from ...
_“Granite, basalt, and schist, often appeared in layers that mimicked the strata in the mountains.
_“enhanced aurora” [could have] swept across and into the surface,
_there could be more than enough power to “weld” “superposed strata formed simultaneously” into rocks — not gradually over millions of years but in hours.
_Questions: Do you know of anyone doing or having done experiments on electrical formation of granite, basalt, schist etc?
_Do you agree that sedimentary rock was not formed electrically, but by megatsunami deposition?

_You added:Space plasmas appear to form cylinders of similar elements, sorted by ionization potential, around the filamentary currents
_Question: But is there any evidence it can do this in solid material?

BEST EVIDENCE
The best evidence I've seen is Comet Electrical Erosion at:
http://funday.createaforum.com/1-15/com ... 10/#msg210
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss18 ... 1497550434
_That appears to be possible electrical erosion on a comet, which apparently occurred during increased solar wind activity in 2005 or so.
_Questions: But I don't know of any evidence that electric currents can expand rock. Do you? I mean in order to form the mountain ranges?
_Is anyone doing experiments to test if electricity can expand rock? If not, why not?

Here's a West Coast Batholiths map:
https://petragogy.files.wordpress.com/2 ... holith.png
_Questions: Doesn't the separation between batholiths suggest there was no continuous electric current from southern South American Andes to the northern end of the North American Rockies, or vice versa, assuming batholiths were formed electrically?
_Did you know that Dwardu Cardona concluded that continental drift is real?
_Which of Mike Fischer's evidence at http://NewGeology.us do you dispute?
_If the east coasts of the Americas fit the west coasts of Europe and Africa very well and even have the same rock and fossil types, as they do where the coasts would have originally been adjacent, and if the Moho is a frictionless plasma layer over which the continents could slide easily after an impact, and if the impact evidence is available, as it is, what would make (rapid) continental drift impossible?

[Lloyd]

Correction
I meant to say for the first set of questions:
_Questions: Do you agree that the Earth's crust has the same density and element abundances as granite?
_And do you agree that granite comes from rock of the same element abundances and density as the crust?
_Or do you contend that granite mostly comes from basalt, which is more mafic, I think?
_If so, do you know of evidence that electric currents can form granite from basalt? And what then would become of the mafic content?

[kodybatill]

Underground functions are complex. A lot of the work comes from 5 specific elements, and then electron neutrinos passing through earth moving slower than them and their isotopes.
These would be mainly, Bismuth/Arsenic/Nitrogen type elements, with two other elements that were not rediscovered until fairly recent times. All of these elements replace the neutron of not being able to touch something physically, with the proton of causing oxygen type elements to propel into magnesium type elements.

These elements work in layers I believe, where each element mentioned has 4 other atomically related elements.

Bismuth - Magma pushing oxygen elements into magnesium elements/Alberton strong wind pushing oxygen type elements into magnesium type elements : ground surface.

Arsenic - material pressure pushing oxygen into magnesium/Tracion - plasma pushing oxygen into magnesium : under ground surface.

Nitrogen/Nitrogen - Electric charge pushing oxygen into magnesium : center of every pressure point of the layers of the ground.

And then it repeats as moving down closer to the center of the Earth:

Arsenic - material pressure pushing oxygen into magnesium/Tracion - plasma pushing oxygen into magnesium : Below every Nitrogen pressure point in the layer of the ground.

Bismuth - Magma pushing oxygen elements into magnesium elements/Alberton strong wind pushing oxygen type elements into magnesium type elements : Very Center of the Earth united with the central Nitrogen electrical charge component of pushing oxygen/selenium type elements into magnesium/radium type elements - AND also united with these, is the natural magnesium/radium centered Fiber Optics complex of triangulation - or in other-words, the creation and mitigation of unbreakable complexes of information, which are free to roam the Universe searching for supplemental information, like comets and even microscopic elements.

These 3 components of Bismuth-Alberton / Nitrogen-Nitrogen / and Fiber Optic center - creates a space where wind blows the heaviest recycling elements through the smallest differences, and turning them into complexes of unbreakable information.

As the oxygen moves towards the magnesium and slows down, it's link in the Nitrogen-Nitrogen Electric charge component slows down, in which case the electrical energy slows down, in which case it unites with water - since decelerating electrical charges unite with water - and accelerating electric charges create a greater number of water repelling moments than attracting moments.

Electron neutrinos moving slower than Alberton creates strong winds.
Electron neutrinos moving slower than Tracion creates plasma.
Electron neutrinos moving slower than Nitrogen causes Lightning.
Electron neutrinos moving slower than Arsenic causes earth quakes.
Electron neutrinos moving slower than Bismuth causes Magma to be created.

Electron neutrinos as a component are almost identical in a majority of ways, to first generation non-isotopic silicon - which is one of the main components of all water.