Best Geology Theory Contest

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:39 pm

Bruce Nappi at CNPS at http://naturalphilosophy.org asked me to pick a topic for a Special Project in which to try his Structured Discussion methods, derived partly from Deliberatorium, which has been discussed on this forum a few years ago. He's trying to improve CNPS's organization and develop improved Scientific Method and CNPS is working on an alternative science wikipedia.

I chose Geology as the topic for the Project. Bruce wants to develop better "debating", or fact-finding, methods, and use this process to produce a paper on this topic for the CNPS Wiki.

My first step is to compile a list of Earth's main features which theories need to help explain. And then I need to name the most promising Geological Theories and gather the main claims of each theory and list them in a Table for comparisons. This is basically like what Ralph Juergens did to compare theories about Lunar Rilles in his Pensee' magazine paper, Of the Moon and Mars, ca. 1975.

I just got done with a preliminary list for each of those items, which I'll post below.

Everyone is welcome to help by commenting on any of this.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:47 pm

Again, feel free to suggest changes to these lists.

1. Preliminary List of Main Earth Features
Continental Crust, Oceanic Crust, Oceans, Sedimentary Rock Strata, Limestone, Igneous & Metamorphic Rock, Volcanism, Earthquake Zones, Fossils, Gigantism, Ancient Myths, Geomagnetism, Radioactivity, Dating Methods, Impact Features

2. Preliminary List of Promising Geological Theories (with Authors & Links)
ET: Expansion Tectonics __ James Maxlow __ http://www.expansiontectonics.com , http://www.dinox.org/expandingearth.html
ST: Surge Tectonics __ (Arthur Meyerhoff, deceased), Dong Choi __ http://ncgt.org
VC: Velikovskian Catastrophism __ (Immanuel Velikovsky, deceased), John Ackerman, Gary Gilligan __ http://www.pdfarchive.info/index.php?pages/Ve , http://www.firmament-chaos.com , http://www.godkingscenario.com/
EDU: Electrodynamic Universe __ (Ralph Juergens, deceased), Wal Thornhill, Don Scott __ http://holoscience.com, http://thunderbolts.info
ESU: Electrostatic Universe __ Charles Chandler __ http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
SD: Shock Dynamics __ Mike Fischer __ http://NewGeology.us , (LK1-4) http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php
CR: Creationism __ Michael Oard, John Baumgardner __ http://creation.com/michael-j-oard , http://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noahs...th-history
PT: Plate Tectonics __ Wikipedia __ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Preliminary List of Claims from Each Theory

ET: Earth (and all celestial bodies) expands significantly over millions of years, but sometimes shrinks temporarily as well.
- On Earth oceans indicate where most expansion has occurred in the surface layers.
- Mountain ranges occur near continental edges due to reduction in the Earth's radius of curvature that occurs with expansion at the surface.
- Megafauna were able to survive on a smaller Earth, because it had less mass and weaker gravity.
- The mass increase comes from the solar wind, which causes expansion at the core-mantle boundary inside the Earth.

ST: Earth (and all celestial bodies) shrinks significantly over millions of years, due to cooling.
- The lithosphere contains a worldwide network of deformable magma surge channels in which partial magma melt is in motion, due to Earth contraction and rotation.
- The Earth includes several concentric shells, which are explicable only if the Earth differentiated efficiently and at a much higher temperature than today.
- The antipodal positions of the continents and ocean basins (unlikely a matter of chance) mean that Earth passed through a molten phase.
- Heated spheres cool by rupture along great circles and remnants of two such great circles are active today: the Circum-Pacific and Tethys-Mediterranean fold systems.
- The Mohorovicic discontinuity originated during the initial cooling of the Earth, which was the level of neutral buoyancy where surge channels form.
- Flood basalt covering most of the seafloor and parts of continents originated from surge channel ruptures.
- Oceanization is the tendency of continental land to sink and become seafloor.
- Mountain ranges are formed by vertical uplift from below.

VC: Global cataclysms occurred about 3 millennia ago as described in ancient myths.
- Earth was formerly a moon of Saturn, but Saturn as a small star had a flareup which led to Earth escaping from Saturn and to near collisions with Venus and Mars.
- The surface features on the rocky planets and moons were caused by asteroid and meteor impacts and electric discharges or megalightning.
- A great flood occurred during the cataclysms.

EDU: Stars and planets form from galactic electric currents, which continue to power stars after formation.
- Global cataclysms occurred about 4,500 years ago as described in ancient myths.
- Venus, Mars and Earth were formerly moons of Saturn when the Saturn system was outside the solar system.
- When the system entered the solar system Saturn as a small star had a flareup.
- Eventually, due to the Sun's gravity or electrical charge effects, the three rocky planets escaped from Saturn, leading to cataclysmic near collisions.
- The surface features on the rocky planets and moons were caused by electric discharges or megalightning.
- A great flood occurred during the cataclysms.
- Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel, which expanded, uplifting mountains.

ESU: Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc.
- Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets, which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
- The surface features on the rocky planets and moons were caused by asteroid and meteor impacts, such as via thermonuclear explosions.
- Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact.

SD: A great Flood occurred about 11,500 years ago.
- Before the Flood there was a protocontinent and Earth's atmosphere was dense, so many creatures grew to gigantic sizes.
- A long swarm of meteorites of all sizes struck the Moon and the Earth, causing heavy rain and loss of much of the atmosphere.
- During this Flood orbiting asteroid-caused tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent.
- As atmospheric pressure fell, much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils.
- After the Flood the Chicxulub meteorite hit Mexico, spreading iridium and shocked quartz over the protocontinent.
- Then a giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands via Shock Dynamics.
- The movement of plates raised nearly all of the mountain chains via horizontal compression, and initiated global volcanism.
- "Cenozoic" large mammals & others were buried by flooding and were fossilized.
- Movement of continents toward the poles along with atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to glaciation.

CR: An orbiting asteroid caused megatsunamis and the great Flood about 5,000 years ago.
- The tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils.
- Asteroid impacts caused the plate tectonic convection in the mantle, which caused rapid continental drift.
- The impacts also led to glaciation.

PT: Asteroid impacts occurred over 3 billion years ago, but had no influence on plates.
- Islands existed early on and mantle convection caused them to slowly form a supercontinent.
- Mantle convection caused the supercontinent to slowly split apart into continents.
- Mountain ranges formed slowly from continental collisions and magma plumes etc.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:13 pm

Comparing Six Geological Theories
(I hope to present the following info in a Table for Comparisons.)
(A few statements are not yet completed.)

List of 6 Tectonics Theories for Comparison (including main sources)
__ET: Expansion Tectonics __ James Maxlow __ http://www.expansiontectonics.com
__PT: Plate Tectonics __ Wikipedia __ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
__ST: Surge Tectonics __ (Arthur Meyerhoff, deceased, Surge Tectonics 1996) Dong Choi __ http://ncgt.org __ http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/sho ... hp?tid=113
__EU: Electric Universe __ (Ralph Juergens, deceased, Of the Moon and Mars, Pensee IX & X), Wal Thornhill (Thunderbolts of the Gods), Don Scott __ http://holoscience.com, http://thunderbolts.info
__ESU: Electrostatic Universe __ Charles Chandler __ http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
__SD: Shock Dynamics __ Mike Fischer __ http://NewGeology.us __ http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Statements of 6 Geological Theories

ET, Expansion Tectonics, which says: Earth is expanding and its radius has doubled in the past 200 million years.1

PT, Plate Tectonics, which says: Mantle convection forms plate extensions at ocean ridges and subducts plate edges at subduction zones.2

ST, Surge Tectonics, which says: Earth has cooled and shrunk greatly and densification has caused continental lands to sink and magma surge channels have caused orogenesis etc.3

EU, Electric Universe, which says: Galactic electric currents formed the Earth and interplanetary discharges formed its features.4

ESU, Electrostatic Universe, which says: Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies.5

SD, Shock Dynamics, which says: A large asteroid impact broke up the supercontinent, causing rapid continental drift, orogenesis, volcanism, glaciation, etc.6

References
1. http://www.expansiontectonics.com
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
3. http://ncgt.org + http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/sho ... hp?tid=113
4. http://holoscience.com + http://thunderbolts.info
5. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
6. http://NewGeology.us + http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary summary of "claims" of each theory about:
F: Earth Formation, C: Crust, S: Sedimentation, O: Orogenesis, GL: Glaciation


ET, Expansion Tectonics:
<<Earth's radius has doubled in the past 200 million years.>>
_F: PT Nebular Hypothesis. Then Earth (and other celestial bodies with magnetic fields) expanded significantly over millions of years.
_C: Earth oceans are where most expansion has occurred at Earth's surface. Earth's mass increase comes from the solar wind or cosmic rays, which causes expansion at the core-mantle boundary inside the Earth.
_S: (See JM Manu.)
_O: Mountain ranges occur near continental edges due to reduction in the Earth's radius of curvature that occurs with expansion at the surface.
_GL: (See JM Manu.)

PT, Plate Tectonics:
<<Mantle convection forms plate extensions at ocean ridges and subducts them at subduction zones.>>
_F: Stars & planets form by gravitational accretion of cosmic dust as per the Nebular Hypothesis
_C: Islands formed and mantle convection caused them to slowly form a supercontinent. Mantle convection caused the supercontinent to slowly split apart into continents.
_S: Sedimentary rock strata were deposited in shallow seas on the continents over millions of years.
_O: Mountain ranges formed slowly from continental collisions and magma plumes etc.
_GL: Glaciation was caused by cooling.

ST, Surge Tectonics:
<<Earth has shrunk greatly and densification has caused continental lands to sink and surge channels have caused orogenesis etc.>>
_F: PT Nebular Hypothesis.
_C: Earth shrank significantly over millions of years, due to cooling.
_The lithosphere contains a worldwide network of deformable magma surge channels in which partial magma melt is in motion, due to Earth contraction and rotation.
_The Earth contains several concentric shells, which are explicable only if the Earth differentiated efficiently and at a much higher temperature than today.
_The antipodal positions of the continents and ocean basins (unlikely a matter of chance) mean that Earth passed through a molten phase. Heated spheres cool by rupture along great circles and remnants of two such great circles are active today: the Circum-Pacific and Tethys-Mediterranean fold systems.
_Flood basalt covering most of the seafloor and parts of continents originated from surge channel ruptures.
_Oceanization is the tendency of continental land to sink and become seafloor.
_Earth and planetary (particularly solar) interaction affects global tectonics
_S:
_O: Mountain ranges are formed by vertical uplift from below.
_There is Earth's core, mantle and crust interaction, in which thermal energy from the core is the fundamental energy source of global tectonic activities including earthquakes, volcanoes, rise and sink of the Earth surface, and global climate as well
_GL:

EU, Electric Universe:
<<Electrical forces formed the Earth and its features.>>
_F: Stars and planets form from galactic electric currents, which continue to power stars after formation. Venus, Mars and Earth were formerly moons of Saturn when the Saturn system was outside the solar system. When the system entered the solar system Saturn as a small star had a flareup.
_C:
_S:
_O: Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel, which expanded, uplifting mountains.
_GL:

ESU, Electrostatic Universe:
<<_F>>
_F: Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc.
_C: Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets, which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
_S:
_O: Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact.
_GL:

SD, Shock Dynamics:
<<A large asteroid impact broke up the supercontinent, causing rapid continental drift, orogenesis, volcanism, glaciation, etc.>>
_F:
_C: Then a giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands via Shock Dynamics.
_S: During this Flood orbiting asteroid-caused tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent.
- As atmospheric pressure fell, much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils.
_O: The movement of plates raised nearly all of the mountain chains via horizontal compression, and initiated global volcanism.
_GL: Movement of continents toward the poles along with atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to glaciation.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:04 am

This is copied from a CNPS forum.

John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society Forums › 6. Earth and Planetary Sciences › Impact Tectonics - Discussion
Shock Dynamics
9/6, 12:35 PM
_The title of this section looks like an invitation to discuss Shock Dynamics, which is well explained at http://NewGeology.us

Ray R
9/6, 02:36 PM
_Lloyd,
_There certainly was a lot of work done on that video. I commend it.
_Here's the problem:
_It's only in the last few seconds he hints at how the Pacific and Moon might have been produced - and Pangaea left.
_He actually starts off with the Pacific and Pangaea already in place.
_His asteroid shock in the Madagascar region was not nearly enough to have produced the ocean forms and land forms we see today.
_And if it had been, the extreme localized intensity would have produced much more explosive debris.
_The animations are excellent; but in fact, they merely illustrate his opinions, not necessarily reality.
_They are basically cartoons, that animate the topography from Pangaea to today.
_I suggest Shock Dynamics certainly did provide the lesser holes we see; as everyone knows.
_However; I say a collision with a planet the size of Venus was necessary to provide the world wide devastation observed; and the kinetic energy.
_Ray.

Lloyd Kinder
9/6 11:59PM
_Ray, thanks much for your comments.
_Maybe you haven't had time to read through Fischer's website. He did address the kinetic energy issue on this webpage: http://newgeology.us/presentation26.html . Without analyzing his calculations very thoroughly, it looks to me offhand like his estimates about the impactor may be good. If you get time to check it out, your comments would again be very welcome.
_You said: "His asteroid shock in the Madagascar region was not nearly enough to have produced the ocean forms and land forms we see today." If you haven't read his site yet, I'd like to get your comments about this webpage on Sliding Mechanism (how the continents could have slid so far after being hit by a large impact): http://newgeology.us/presentation10.html . He discusses fluidization, which is, I think, a known phenomenon of large underwater landslides.
_You then said: "if [the impact] had been [large enough], the extreme localized intensity would have produced much more explosive debris." Fischer discussed Ground Zero on this webpage: http://newgeology.us/presentation5.html . Do you think he's left anything out there or do any of his statements there seem implausible or improbable?
_I'm not fully convinced of Fischer's model yet, but it seems to have a fairly high probability. I guess my main doubts are about Australia having been closest to the impact, and about the Pacific Ridge having formed much earlier than the Atlantic and Indian Ocean Ridges.
_What Earth features do you think could be accounted for only by the effects of an object the size of Venus? Fischer and I agree that there was likely a large body near the Earth for some months or years which caused mega-tsunamis and considerable sedimentation on the supercontinent probably some centuries before the Shock Dynamics impact. Is that anything like what you have in mind?

Ray R
9/7 8AM
_Hi Lloyd,
_I glanced through presentation 26.
_He mentions the problem of inertia versus shock impact, but I'm not sure where he goes from there.
_He seems to assume the Pacific and Pangaea already a fait accompli. Then he goes on to use the opened areas.
_Continental material is largely unconsolidated, even though it looks solid enough.
_It's floating on granite bedrock, with red friable material on top of that, and several layers of limestone on top.
_I did like the reference in a previous website to the accordion effect - to which I also alluded.
_This is where the Rockies are up, the interior in a fold-down, and the Appalachians up.
_This indicates that push is transmitted through the continent, but with difficulty.
_My assumed Venus impact was large-area; whereas the shock impacts were relatively almost localized pinpricks.
_A very large iron, nickle, copper meteorite hit Northern Ontario in the Sudbury region. It penetrated to over a mile, and was obviously very dense. Yet there is very little upset of consequence outside the area.
_So I still think a localized shock impact's kinetic energy would be dissipated locally in continental material breakup because of the inertia, and not be somehow converted to long-term, large-area push.
_So I would expect
Re: Presentation 10:
_I see no reason for effectively fluidizing what he calls "crustal basalt" and the lithosphere.
_I see it as already being a highly viscous fluid. Magma indicates this.
_Therefore, the mechanism for the continents, etc. to slide is already in place.
_The slag in a steel-making BOF; Basic Oxygen Furnace, is mostly highly viscous acidic silicon. The brick lining is alkaline limestone, and tends to get dissolved. Limestone is dumped into the slag, which tends to neutralize it, and lower its viscosity.
_I expect the same principle may be partly in play under the continents, but that is speculation.
_Re: Presentation 5:
_Excellent very comprehensive work.
_I agree with his findings on shock effects.
_But he still sees the Pacific and Pangaea as already existing.
Ray.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:40 am

Mike at http://NewGeology.US replies:
_An analysis of precise geodetic measurements shows that Earth is not expanding - DOI:10.1029/2011GL047450 nor is it conceivable that Earth could expand from the inside in a way that would oppose gravity.
_Plate Tectonics mechanisms are inadequate for laterally compressing continental crust to produce the mountain ranges of the world (except for the uplifted Transantarctic Mountains). That is evident from the few published analyses of crustal dynamics that derive specific force values for the proposed mechanisms.
_Shock Dynamics, however, has the force necessary to separate landmasses and compress crust into mountains. Thereafter, slow movement of "plates" is due to a formerly proposed mechanism for Plate Tectonics, differential rotation largely influenced by the Moon. Plate Tectonics focused attention on the kinematics of the lithosphere and mantle, applying its device to locations around the world without regard to the overall pattern. The strength of Shock Dynamics is that it explains the pattern of landmasses, mountains, and seafloor features first, inferring the mechanism from what is observable. It is important to realize this, and not confine discussions of global geology to geophysics in the absence of what is clear to see on the face of the Earth.
_How many of the topics in geophysics are open to experimentation? Almost none due to scale and inaccessibility. Some work on chemical bond transition of minerals under ultra-high pressure is reasonable, but in general extrapolating small to grand scale is speculative and dubious. Seismic tomography rules out some things such as a hollow Earth or surge channels, but whether variations in wave speed are due to heat, chemistry, or the influence of water is again speculative. The main question that Shock Dynamics should be judged on is the layout of landmasses on the Earth. Specifically, did all landmasses that moved travel away from one point just north of Madagascar? Is there anything geologically unusual at that point and surrounding region? If so, what do they suggest? If these are not addressed, there is no point in delving into the speculative.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:59 am

Q4 Doesn't the sedimentary rock record indicate that all of the sediments were deposited by turbulent flooding over a short time period of months or years?
James Maxlow from http://www.expansiontectonics.com replies:
To a geologist this question is border-line nonsense. Sediments—the detrital products of weathering and erosion of pre-existing rocks—are basically eroded, transported, and deposited within low-lying terrestrial, lacustrine, or marine basins and have a very wide spectrum of sediment types, depositional environments, and surficial areas of deposition, which can accumulate over many millions to tens of millions of years. Individual beds may be deposited over a relatively short period of time, but the many kilometres of overall sedimentary thickness may take many millions of years to accumulate. Another misconception is that sediments do not accumulate across the entire Earth surface at the same time, for example, the sediments making up the Grand Canyon cannot be extrapolated across the world. They are instead specific to the ancient Western Interior Basin of North America.
_On an increasing radius Earth, the evolving coastal outlines are a reflection of the prolonged history of changing Earth surface area and surface curvature over time. On each of the small Earth models, sedimentary basin development initially formed a global, inter-connected network, which also reflected the distribution and history of the developing continental seas. These ancient basins and seas were centred mainly on what are now the European and Asian regions, as well as within Australian and adjoining North American and South American regions. Each of these regions, in turn, show complex sea-level histories, including climate induced sea-level changes, on-going erosion of the exposed lands, and ultimately to supercontinental crustal breakup, opening of the modern oceans, draining of the ancient seas, and introduction of new waters.
_Shoreline palaeogeography on Archaean to present-day small Earth models. The ancient shorelines are shown as blue lines and the ancient seas and modern oceans are shaded blue. Each image advances 15 degrees longitude throughout the sequence to show a broad coverage of palaeogeographic development. Note: there are no published data available for the late-Devonian model or models prior to the Cambrian Period.
_During late-Permian times (around 250 million years ago), the previously long and extended history of supercontinental basin sedimentation began to rapidly decline. As the ancient supercontinental crusts ruptured and crustal breakup was initiated, seawater from the previously existing continental seas then began to drain into the newly opening modern oceans. This draining further exposed the ancient supercontinental seafloor sediments to the ravages of erosion along with subsequent deposition of sediments elsewhere in newly formed marine sedimentary basins. As the supercontinents continued to breakup, the new marine sedimentary basins slowly began to dominate over the older continental basins. These marine sediments were initially deposited in basins located in rift zones between the emerging modern continents, followed later by deposition around the margins and continental shelves of the modern continents.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:58 am

On Sept 18, Mike Fischer of http://NewGeology.us replied to James Maxlow's comment above as follows.

There are many issues that Expanding Earth theory needs to confront, such as: 1) "Convergence between the Indian and Eurasian plates is estimated to be at least 1000-1400 km or as much as 2000-3000 km." - Li, Chang, Robert D. van der Hilst, Anne S. Meltzer, E. Robert Engdahl. 2008. Subduction of the Indian lithosphere beneath the Tibetan Plateau and Burma. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 274, pp. 157-168.

2) The seafloor has not just spreading features but convergence features also, such as the Mariana and Tonga trenches.

3) A new planet cooling from the "magma ocean" state differentiates to form a metal core and a basalt crust that forms a uniform "stagnant lid" surface. Continental crust is not present. To form continental crust, further refinement is required. Plate Tectonics theory posits continental crust forming in slivers at subduction zones and accreting into larger and larger masses, floating on the surface because it is less dense than basalt or mantle. Shock Dynamics theory posits a protocontinent formed following the grazing impact of a planetesimal with a stagnant lid Earth. That both formed the Moon and remelted the basalt and upper mantle in a single refining process that floated continental crust to the surface. However, Expanding Earth theory assumes the presence of continental crust entirely covering the Earth before it began expanding, without a refining process.

4) None of the other rocky planets show signs of having expanded.

5) The amount of water in or on a small Earth is insufficient to cover the present large Earth or even fill the oceans.

6) There is no conceivable way that the Earth can gain mass from the inside. Heating or cooling magma has little effect on volume, as seen with volcanic flows.

7) It needs to explain the movement of landmasses away from the point just north of Madagascar, which is central to Shock Dynamics theory.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:17 pm

The first Tectonics Debate occurred last Sunday and the transcript was posted at http://cnps.boards.net/thread/10/earth-theories-debate. A copy is below.

CNPS SPECIAL PROJECT. -- This Project is expected to last a few months. I hope to have discussions weekly or so.
The participants this time were Bruce Leybourne in Florida, me: Lloyd Kinder near St. Louis, Louis Hissink in Australia somewhere, Mike Fischer in North Carolina and Robert Farrar in the UK, maybe Wales? Chris Smoot also dropped by.]
_LK: Hi All. Thanks for your participation. This is for live discussion to question mainstream Plate Tectonics & our own alternative models.
---- The Tectonics Models being compared are ET: Expansion Tectonics; PT: Plate Tectonics; ST: Surge Tectonics; EU: Electric Universe; ESU: Electrostatic Universe; & SD: Shock Dynamics (Links at bottom. Bruce & Louis left early comments at the bottom. Bruce's were accidentally deleted.)
_LK: Below I list the main claims of each model in 5 categories of claims. Let's discuss in the spaces between each category. Let me know if I stated any of the claims incorrectly.
PT is the mainstream position. Let's share BRIEF arguments & links to important evidence in each category against PT & Let's ask important questions for each model. More than one person can write at a time (even in different sections).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. HOW THE EARTH FORMED.
<ET: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the Nebular Hypothesis. Then Earth (and other celestial bodies with magnetic fields) expanded significantly over millions of years.
<PT: (F:) Stars & planets form by gravitational accretion of cosmic dust as per the Nebular Hypothesis
<ST: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the Nebular Hypothesis.
<EU: (F:) Condensed plasma, could have been created and destroyed many times
<ESU: (F:) Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double-layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc.
<SD: (F:) The protocontinent [supercontinent] formed from a massive body that also formed the Moon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LH: Earth formation - any scientific theory has to be compatible with the culture of the society that uses it. For judeo-christians that means Big Bang model and all its problems. This is the standard model. Proposing acceptable alternatives involves also explaining and replacing the core societal beliefs bundled as religion.
_LK: >>>1B=Have_ Charles Chandler has the best evidence against the Nebular Hypothesis that I know of. I'll see if I can get the link. He says matter wouldn't accrete in space, that if it condensed too much the heat or hydrostatic pressure would force it apart. __ http//:qdl.sds-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12682.html
_LH: PN Oat, writing from the Hindu perspective, assumed everything was created "as is" billions of years ago, so a suitable rhetorical assumption could avoid having to deal with the something from nothing idea.
_LH: ======1A=Need_ Chandler is right - accretion is not observed, nor can one assume protons accumulating in a core since repulsion has to be factored in. High density phases best explained as Z-pinch products.
_LH: =2C=Need_ Planets could be fizzled out stars that are now escaping from Z-Pinch compressive forces?
_LK: Bruce, {I meant Louis} can you give more details on how plasma would condense?
_BL: >>>1B=Have_ Plasma condenses within the Chestahedron geometry, see __Frank Chester wonder of seven. Condensation happens during a charging phase, while plasma dissipation occurs during discharging. The magnetic field also strengthens and weakens from charging and discharging respectively.
_MF: The problems with accretion are well known, but I have not focused on this issue. Is the formation of any planetary systems being seen today by astronomers?
_BL: ===2B=Need_ The supposed Nibiru, i.e. brown dwarfs near the Sun, seem to be condensation vortices from current charging of the solar system. The coronal holes appear to be the areas where charge enters opened up by magnetic poles of the planets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. HOW THE CRUSTAL FEATURES FORMED.
<ET: (C:) Earth oceans are where most expansion has occurred at Earth's surface. Earth's mass increase comes from the solar wind, which causes expansion at the core-mantle boundary inside the Earth.
<PT: (C:) Islands formed and mantle convection caused them to slowly form a supercontinent. Mantle convection caused the supercontinent to slowly split apart into continents.
<ST: (C:) Earth shrank significantly over millions of years, due to cooling & the lithosphere contains a worldwide network of deformable magma surge channels in which partial magma melt is in motion, due to Earth contraction and rotation. Flood basalt covering most of the seafloor and parts of continents originated from surge channel ruptures. Oceanization is the tendency of continental land to sink and become seafloor.
<EU: (C:) Electrical circuits heat and cool (expand and contract), Surge Theory with an electrical reinterpretation makes the most sense for our model.
<ESU: (C:) Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets, which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
<SD: (C:) A giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands via Shock Dynamics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_MF: >1C=Have_ Earth is not currently expanding, according to __Wu et. al. 2011 Geophysical Research Letters Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame -- origin and Earth expansion, which uses "multiple precise geodetic data sets" to determine that "the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1 sigma measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm per yr". They averaged "weekly instantaneous frame origins spanning 26 years of Satellite Laser Ranging observations."
_LH: =3C=Need_ So earth is in volumetric stasis. __Vadim Anfilov years ago interpreted Oz seismic data that shrinkage or cooling is happening.
_BL: =2C=Need_ More likely a pulsating earth due to charging and discharging phases...
_MF: =1C=Need_ PT does not explain the positions of crustal features as a whole on the Earth, only locally. However, there is a pattern discernible beginning at a central point just north of Madagascar. Landmasses that moved went away from that point. This is a foundation of SD. ET superficially explains many features, especially if one looks only at the Atlantic Ocean region, but it is no longer obvious in the Southeast Asia region. ET also struggles to explain compression mountain building during expansion, and why mid-ocean ridges show varying speeds at different locations along the ridges, as between the central and south mid-Atlantic ridge.
_BL: >3C=Have_ There is an expansion at the equator during El Nino's, from EQ joule heating or warming of the mantle. It moves toward the equator with increasing viscosity and centrifugal forcing. This returns back to a contraction during La Nina. This is according to the __GRACE satellite mission data. Chestahedron geometry shows how this oscillation works. Whether or not there is net expansion or contraction was not addressed in the discussion and remains an open question depending on the time interval under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. HOW MILE-THICK SEDIMENTARY STRATA FORMED.
<ET: (S:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (S:) Sedimentary rock strata were deposited in shallow seas on the continents over millions of years.
<ST: (S:)
<EU: (S:) Sedimentation occurs constantly, can be chemical precipitates, weathered rock, turbidites etc. -- This has been covered well in many text books
<ESU: (S:)
<SD: (S:) During this Flood orbiting asteroid-caused tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent.
- As atmospheric pressure fell, much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LH: ======4A=Need_ Thick sediments are "usually" explained by erosion of adjacent mountains over long periods of time. Cliff Ollier would call this the "geological cycle", and is the standard model. Problem is that water cannot transport loads on horizontal planes - so having uniform sandstone deposits hundreds of miles laterally requires miraculous water. Even Gerry Pollack can't rig EZ water to do this, so I 've suggested, after watching the Star Wars Rogue One movie, that massive sediments are formed by electrified erosional products of deeply weathered regoliths via a sort of magnetohydrodynamic process. Very catastrophic in nature, however.
_LK: ======1A=Need_ Louis, what about an asteroid or other large body orbiting Earth causing megatsunamis that swept mud and sand onto the continent/s from the continental shelf forming sedimentary rock? Also, CO2 in seawater degassed and formed limestone?
_MF: Is there evidence for "the bulk removal of crust on the Earth"? Do you mean continental crust or mud and sand?
_BL: ===4B=Need_ This fits the arc blast concept of ocean basins being removed electrically.
_MF: I can imagine it, but where did all the continental crust disappear to? It currently averages 35 km thick.
_LH: =5C=Need_ Adds weight to the Sial-Sima macro structure proposed years ago too.
_MF: ======2A=Need_ The work of sedimentologist Guy Berthault has demonstrated that moving water carrying sediment deposits multiple layers simultaneously. Over 40 documented "megaflood" deposits illustrate this, as do the Columbia and Mt Saint Helens landscapes. Many sedimentary geological formations extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles.
_LH: ======6A=Need_ My field experience negates this - flowing water over bedrock is actually EZ water with a liquid crystal internal structure. It cannot pick up sediment loads. Water in bulk mode can. It's like water sliding over the bedrock like a fluidised glacier. However adding plasma forces makes it easier to explain massive sedimentary deposits.
_MF: ======3A=Need_ Moving water has enormous erosive and carrying power, including large rocks, and loss of flow energy releases the load.
_LH: ===7B=Need_ Observations of tsunamis making landfall doesn't seem to involve picking up bedrock - every thing on top and loose is picked up. A common error is arguing the consequent - here that sediments are deposited by water, and rivers flow along river beds, so hence the sediments are formed by the rivers. Isolated gravel deposits, such as chevron deposits abutting highlands, are explained as being put there by massive tsunamis. Load carrying tsunamis cannot carry any load over an ocean. They can only carry a load that they have excavated from bedrock but when a tsunami makes landfall, it rapidly runs out of energy as there is nothing "driving" the wave front. Plunking a stone in a pond causes tsunami-like waves to form but these are effects of the impact made by the stone being plunked into the pond. These waves dissipate into the background the further away they are from their initial generating force. Tsunamis making landfall very quickly run out of steam or energy. Videos of the latest Japanese events suggest the water body is behaving like a massive liquid crystal moving laterally over the land with great power. Not surprising if it is EZ water.
_MF: ======4A=Need_ The assumed source of sediment is previously eroded bedrock, not the bedrock itself. The tsunamis doing the work are assumed to be cross-continental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. HOW MOUNTAIN RANGES FORMED.
<ET: (O:) Mountain ranges occur near continental edges due to reduction in the Earth's radius of curvature that occurs with expansion at the surface.
<PT: (O:) Mountain ranges formed slowly from continental collisions and magma plumes etc.
<ST: (O:) Mountain ranges are formed by vertical uplift from below.
_There is Earth's core, mantle and crust interaction, in which thermal energy from the core is the fundamental energy source of global tectonic activities including earthquakes, volcanoes, rise and sink of the Earth surface, and global climate as well
<EU: (O:) Arc Blast or Static discharge between planets and the sun seem to be primary factors -- Recent field work, can be shared.
[Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel, which expanded, uplifting mountains.]
<ESU: (O:) Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact.
<SD: (O:) The movement of plates raised nearly all of the mountain chains via horizontal compression, and initiated global volcanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_MF: ===5B=Have_ "Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world are a consequence of crustal shortening." From: __Some Simple Physical Aspects of the Support, Structure, and Evolution of Mountain Belts. Peter Molnar, H. Lyon-Caen. Special Paper 218, Geological Society of America, 1988, pp. 179-207.
_LH: ======8A=Need_ Agreed - but what then is the horizontal force that operated? PT can explain this. ET cannot by definition. Electric plasma effects could by forming strong lateral variants of Lorentz Force as a peripheral effect of a distal electromachining process eroding regolith and upper crust to form ocean basins. Strange that mountains are associated with subducted plates causing shortening or accretion. Rather than ocean plate moving, the plasma arc stripped the regolith and crust off, forming the ocean basin, and as a peripheral effects laterally compressed the adjacent remnant crust, along with volcanic activity etc resulting from the massive inputs of energy into the system.
_BL: ======5A=Need_ Arc blast in the Grand canyon pushed up the Rockies, the thrust faulting is huge and needed sever energy to have that amount of thrust.
_MF: If that happened, wouldn't the Rockies be concentric around the Grand Canyon?
_BL: =6C=Need_ It didn't stop at the Grand Canyon, but traveled up the river systems of the Colorado and Green river creating the current morphology about 12,900 years ago when the Carolina Bays were formed also during the 12,900 megafaunal extinction event...
_MF: >>>>>>6A=Have_ PT is too weak to raise mountain chains. Numbers from the literature have values in this range: Slab pull: 500 bars, 450 bars ("subduction pull"), 300 bars; Ridge push: 200 bars, 250 bars, 250 bars, 200-300 bars, 200-400 bars; Basal drag: 200 bars, 200 bars. And basal drag is considered to be an opposing force to plate movement except beneath cratons. The stress required for crustal shortening to build mountains is hard to find, but has been calculated to be in a range from 1500 to 2500 bars up to 4000 to 6000 bars, inferring the latter "from earthquake data and evaluation of the stresses required to produce specific geological structures". In the case of South America, the combination of ridge push and forward basal drag (by trench suction) could produce only 400 to 600 bars of force, which is clearly insufficient to build the Andes. These forces are already engaged in moving the entire plate westward.
_LK: Mike, I had your reference for that saved up. __It's http://www.newgeology.us/Plate%20Tectonics.pdf
_MF: ======7A=Need_ This is one of the problems with PT, that it is okay at explaining the current situation but not the origin. This applies not only to mountain chains, but to the origin of subduction and the splitting of continental crust. A large force, as in SD, is required.
_LK: Mike, I'm putting your initials at the beginning of each of your paragraphs, so I know who said what.
_LH: ===8B=Need_ Well mountains are readily explained by PT, :-), but whether it is real or not. One fact is __Ollier and Pain's work - that many so-called mountains are actually old landsurface remnants that had their surrounds eroded away. This leaves the highly compressed mountains requiring large horizontal forces. Cosmic scaled electric arcs, as described by Oz aboriginals as Rainbow Serpents, or as Van De Waals phenomena could generate large Lorentz forces in the horizontal plane.
_MF: Is the ESU position on mountain ranges really the same as SD?
_LK: ===2B=Need_ Yes, Charles accepts your model somewhat, but he thinks the continents moved apart more slowly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. WHAT CAUSED ICE AGES & GLACIATION.
<ET: (GL:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (GL:) Glaciation was caused by cooling.
<ST: (GL:)
<EU: (GL:) Cosmic Ray density with particle cascades creating storms, volcanic eruptions and global envelope of cloud cover leading to ice ages. Glaciation is a small subset of the ice ages and increases every winter more snow accumulates than melts. -- I can bring some references on cosmic rays
<ESU: (GL:)
<SD: (GL:) Movement of continents toward the poles along with atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to glaciation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_BL: =7C=Need_ Seems to be tied to increasing cosmic ray density as we pass through certain sections of space in the various Milankovitch cycles.
Increased cosmic rays = increased particle precipitation = increased charging, increased lighting and storms and increased volcanic activity leading to increased clouds and solar shielding. Ice ages cometh, when earth reaches a certain capacitance the earth and likely the whole solar system is involved, arc blast ends the ice ages melting the caps, flooding from the poles, and twisting the planet's axis creating tsunamis from the oceans, piling animals from various climes together. Classic Velikovsky...
_MF: ===8B=Need_ Rather a basketful of assumptions there. An Ice Age would seem to require greatly increased atmospheric moisture, as in heating the oceans, at the same time the atmosphere is cooling dramatically in at least one hemisphere. And this continues for a long time following sudden instigation. Classic SD.
_LH: =9C=Need_ Years ago I had an email discussion with Gerry Pollack and I raised the issue of whether ice forms at the poles as a consequence of excess protons entering the ionosphere and surface, thus forming ice. If a body of water, say an ocean, has EZ water as a surface layer, and an inrush of protons occur, then that EZ water gets turned into ice as a reaction to the increased energy supplied by the protons. Hence ice ages could be explained as massive injection of protons via CME's etc, Animals seem to be mainly made of water, in this case EZ water, and an inrush of protons could actually snap-freeze life forms almost instantaneously. This mechanism could explain the snap-freezing of mammoths. So a super Carrington event could be interpreted as an ice-age? The mechanism here is that ice ages are not caused by a drop in temperature but, paradoxically , an in crease in the system's energy state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LH: ======10A=Need_ Preliminary comment: Whatever mechanism is proposed, gravity remains the elephant in the room. Empirically gravity seems electrical in nature, and if so there are at present more than 20 models proposed for the electron, whether particle or wave. This does not help much in understanding gravity. Rock density is a fundamental physical measurement and relies totally on a correct understanding of gravity. Mantle convection, for example, assumes lower density for higher temperature, everything else being equal. Or lower density is linked to pressure which is caused by gravitational attraction with less dense rising and more dense sinking, eebe. Solar explanations such as proposed by Robitaille etc, assume gravity. Mantle pressure in the Earth assumes gravity. Rivers and streams flow because of gravity, and hence erosion is caused, ultimately, by gravity. Weather is caused by density differentials in the atmosphere caused by gravity. Geological evolution assumes gravity and accretion, cosmological to the smallest bolide. If electrical forces EM AND gravity are considered then we have a problem of magnitude, EM force is 10^38 greater in magnitude than gravity force. We cannot combine the two as a unified "field" because if one is assume a magnitude 1, say EM Lorentz force, then gravity is so small in magnitude it can be ignored, and which is what A.J. Peratt did with his PIC computer simulations using plasma. If gravity can be ignored as an assumption of mass attracting mass, then alternative mechanisms need to explain non-plasma phenomena in lieu of Newtonian gravity. This leads directly to the problem of rock density which is a fundamental physical property of condensed matter, It leads directly to isostasy, from which PT was developed, so explaining rock density becomes crucial., because it is an essential theoretical axiom on which the rest is deduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ET: Expansion Tectonics __ James Maxlow __ http://www.expansiontectonics.com
PT: Plate Tectonics __ Wikipedia __ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
ST: Surge Tectonics __ Dong Choi __ ncgt.org __ forums.naturalphilosophy.org/show...hp?tid=113
EU: Electric Universe __ (Ralph Juergens, deceased), Wal Thornhill, Don Scott __ holoscience.com __ thunderbolts.info __ http://www.iascc.org/the-science
ESU: Electrostatic Universe __ Charles Chandler __ qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
SD: Shock Dynamics __ Mike Fischer __ NewGeology.us , (LK1-4) funday.createaforum.com/index.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LK: WE CAN ALL BRING UP QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BELOW NOW & GO UP ABOVE TO SEE WHAT TO ASK ABOUT IF NEEDED.
_CS: Before we really get into it, I would like to ask two things.
1. Did math solutions give us the very real orthogonal fracture/megatrend intersections and vortex structures on the ocean floor?.
2. Did geophysics give us the 1-2 Ga rocks on the magnetic 180 Ma ocean floor?
_LH: Lloyd, the color scheme you are using black letters on green background also has a mauve component that is unreadable. :-)
_LK: I don't control the colors. You can go to the gear symbol at upper right and click on Authorship colors to change the background to white.
_LH: You can adjust your own colours by clicking the coloured square next to your name. Took me a while to work it out.
_RF: >>>>>>1A=Have_ Lloyd have you considered adding the work of Michael Csuzdi to your list of global tectonic models? Thermionic Emission Geophysics__: breakthroughinenergy.com
_LK: I haven't heard of that, but always willing to add other ideas. Do you favor it for something?
_RF: ===2B=Need_ I think Csuzdi missed an opportunity; his model sees Earth's magnetic field as originating from within the Earth rather than externally.
_LK: ======3A=Need_ That's how Charles sees it too. He finds that the planets and stars likely have CFDLs and the charges in different layers can speed up or slow down as during impacts, causing the field to change.
_LH: ===11B=Need_ The internal origin for the geomagnetic field was, at the time it was proposed, logical since we did not know about the Van Allen belts, solar wind, etc. Just that the Sun was an irradiating source, space was empty in which was suspended an inert globe, the earth. Which had a magnetic field that could only be located inside the earth. Much progress has since been made but the theory hasn't changed. This is the problem. [LH thinks the field is Externally generated.]
_BL: =8C=Need_ [to CS] 1.) The orthogonal fracture zones (don't know about the math) but geometry again controls. This pattern can also be seen in the eight layers of the human heart, the Chestahedron geometry shows this relationship is tied to "vortex geometry" where all the platonic solids are contained within the chestahedron. The inner double layer of the inner and outer core has tetrahedron or fire element geometry as evidenced by the magnetic spike structure (Quinns inverse magnetic modeling techniques show the delta- y configurations of Giovanni Gregoris "Sea Urchin Spikes"). The next double layer in the mantle has the square "earth" geometry as evidenced by the four north south circuits on the ridges along the corners of the cube, global heat flow and mantle gravity signatures attest to this. As you move up into the water or dodecahedron geometry, you see the hurricanes follow these circuits which are part of the vile vortex system., the air has double diamond or double pyramid structure, this is seen in the Total Electron Content data where the points of the triangles actually point to where EQ [earthquakes?] will occurs sometimes, then there is the aether pentagon geometry where the plasma comes into the poles. Each double layer has its specific geometry, this was the beauty of Plato's forgotten knowledge. The vortex geometry of the chestahedron contains all the platonic solids and is responsible for the harmony or balance of electromagnetic forces linked to or controling the Golden ration or Fibonacci fractalization sequences...
_BL: >>>9B=Have_ The polarity of magnetic stripes on the seafloor has only been confirmed in 7 places by the Deep Sea Drilling Project, magnetic data is collected generally by shipborne and airborne scalar and sometimes vector magnetometers. Most of the stripes are simply what's called susceptibility contrasts and are not confirmed as polarity reversals. __Art Meyerhoff, author of surge tectonics has a good article on this; I don't have the link but it is covered in his text on Surge tectonics. He also states that many of the magnetic stripes are not parallel to the ridges, some are actually perpendicular to the ridges. The electrical orientation of the circuit determines the orientation of the stripe.
_LK: Bruce, I'd love to have a link to that info on magnetic stripe data.
_LK: I read Meyerhoff's book and copied some of it. The book didn't mention the magnetic stripes that I know of. It's good that the article apparently did though.
_MF: According to the numbered issues, this discussion is about the Earth rather than the universe. Apparently there has not been much thought on these issues. It is clear that there are collisions occurring in the galaxy, and perhaps there is exclusive evidence for electrical interaction? How could the electric universe concept [be tested] conceivably be disproved?
_LK: The CFDL theory of Earth might be disprovable. That's current-free electric double-layers.
_MF: How would that be done?
_LK: ======4A=Need_ It's part of the Earth, so we have better access than off-planet. Also, calculations can be made to determine feasibility. Charles has found that spacing of plasma cells in the lab and the spacing of planets and of stars in globular clusters all follow the same law or formula. So, knowing the charge on planets should tell us something about whether the planets could be repelled from each other according to that formula.
_MF: Is Earth positively or negatively charged?
_LK: =5C=Need_ The planets, as Charles says, have electric double-layers, so they're both charges, but I think they're more positive than negative. Anyway the atmospheres are positive. Charles & others say the Sun is more negative than positive, but the outer layer is positive there too.
_BL: >>>10B=Have_ Also there are the double layers within the earth that have opposite charges, this can be seen in the double layers of __Quinn's inverse modeled magnetic source depth data.
_BL: ===11B=Need_ The poles have opposite charges. LK has the answer on repelling planets, I would agree... you can see this in __experiments with small steel balls...
_MF: So would Earth repel another planet? It is surprising that planets mimic small steel balls.
_LK: >6C=Have_ Charles' findings suggest that all the planets repel each other. I can look for his paper on that. __ http//:qdl.sds-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/15369.html
_LH: ===12B=Need_ Negatively - mainly by the oceans having a surface layer of EZ water. Magnitude is diurnal.
_MF: ===9B=Need_ Magnetic polarity and intensity have also been found to change with depth in oceanic crust.
_BL: ===12B=Need_ As well as within cores of volcanic rxs. Polarity and intensity seem to change and rotate within the layers indicating the polarity and intensity are controlled locally via the volcanic electrical system and not a global orientation related to N-S poles...
_LK: Bruce, can you get me a link to that evidence from volcanic cores? What's rxs?
_BL: Rxs... abbreviation for rocks. This is stuff I read years ago, I'd have to search for those references. I may have it referenced in one of my publications, but that will take time to find again...
_LH: An earth in a gravitational or electrical environment? At present the whole edifice of Plate Tectonics and Expanding earth are based on the gravitational model. But plasma physics, the Peratt model, ignores gravity. If so then all the tectonic features that we observe on the Earth are presently explained by the gravitational model. Instead we need to explain things in an electrical model.
_LH: Proving the Electric Universe model requires falsifying the Western Cultural paradigm. This is a problem.
_LK: I don't think Western religions stand in the way of science much any more.
_LH: Describing the Earth's evolution requires a starting point, and this remains controversial. Most US geologists seem to favour a short chronology, others a long one. I had the same issue when I edited AIG News - the long chronologists did not like editorial favourable to the short-chronologists being published. It got to rather an excitable situation.
_MF: So long folks. [Disappointing discussions] on the topics, which are worthwhile.
_LK: Mike, what part of the country are you in? You're welcome to make suggestions to improve discussions. I'll try to organize better or find better ways to get info from everyone.
_MF: North Carolina
_LK: A question for you EU people. Looks like there are one or two of you here still, since Louis left. I'm an ESU person, rather than EU. The question is: Is a vacuum an insulator or a conductor, or neither or both?
_BL: Is there really such a thing as a total vacuum, seems to be an idealized mathematical construct, but if there's a few particles in there depending on what it was it seems it could be either or both...
_LK: =7C=Need_ Charles says a vacuum has no resistance to charge. So I think he says interplanetary discharges would likely not occur as EU theorists have said. I should get him here to explain, though, since he has the info.
_BL: ===13B=Need_ The concept of interplanetary discharge is simply static electric discharge, and we know the solar wind is full of particles, thus the assumption of a vacuum related to our solar system is mute...
_RF: ===3B=Need_ Vacuum Circuit Breakers are used in high voltage power systems to extinguish the electric arc.
_LK: ===8B=Need_ Would it be fairly easy to test in a vacuum chamber whether a vacuum is more conducting or insulating? I know Charles referenced some data from satellites or something that indicated that vacuum is "conducting".
_BL: Why the insistence the solar wind is a vacuum?
_LK: I don't know the density of the solar wind, but I'm guessing that on Earth it would be considered a vacuum? Do you know the density? Is it some tens or hundreds of particles per cc?
_BL: >14C=Have_ Depends on whether your interested in proton density or other particles,__ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ lot of information on solar wind properties at that link.
_LK: Thanks, Bruce. I guess we can wrap up soon, if there's not a lot of info to share yet. Do you's have more questions or comments or suggestions how to have better discussions?
_BL: Final comment, the one that got deleted earlier. Seems to me we should begin to understand the tectonic domain as a weather system, where Giovannis Sea urchin spikes are the pressure cells, the plate boundaries or surge channels are the stream flows, like jetstreams, and frontal boundaries, where counter flows to the mantle must exist in the asthenosphere or volcanics. The Westward drift of the magnetic field indicates an deep mantle trade wind etc. The plate tectonic concept of linear upwelling is like the idealized mathematical construct of the net heat flow model of Hadley Cell circulation in the atmosphere. It doesn't exist in actual flow dynamics. If you were a weatherman and all you could report on was heat is rising at the equator and moving towards the poles and you model doesn't allow the existence of pressure cells, stream flow or frontal boundaries, much less trade winds, you couldn't say much about the weather. This is the problem with plate theory, it's driver is based on an idealized mathematical construct that is simple to understand in a text book, but has no basis in reality... That's it in a nutshell, signing off, enjoyed the discussion...
_LK: Thanks for repeating that, Bruce. Good Day. I'll try not to delete that this time. Are you in Colorado or Florida?
_BL: Florida
_LK: Robert, do you have a link to your main info? Is it summed up somewhere?
_RF: Which info would that be, Lloyd.
_LK: Info on Tectonics.
_RF: >>>>>>4A=Have_ __ http:breakthroughinenergy.com
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Geology Theory Contest

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:32 pm

See last week's Tectonics discussion transcript above.

Tomorrow, Sunday, at 6PM Eastern Time I'm scheduling another discussion starting with questions for EU Tectonics at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/TectonicsDebate2

I have 18 questions posted there for EU and then after we discuss those we can ask and answer questions about the other Tectonics models.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests