Possible electrical scars on Planet Earth...

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: antarctica

Unread postby mharratsc » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:07 pm

LOL, Michael- I think that is entirely plausible reasoning for the huge elevation changes reported in at least the Peruvian range, if not both. :)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:15 pm

webolife wrote:
Sparky, regardless of what killed the mammoths, flashfreezing must occur in order to preserve their ingested flora from bacterial decay. It must happen so soon that wouldn't whatever caused the flashfreezing also cause the death of the elephant? This is of course referring to an arctic, not antarctic, event... regardless, it is the radical climatic shift that makes both fossiliferous regions remarkable.


That is possible, of course...At the least i would say there would have been a close association between the cause of death and the sudden freezing....You are talking about extremely low temps...much lower than would normally be found on earth.

could outer space have been pushed down locally, displacing earth's atmosphere. like a huge tornado in reverse.?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: antarctica

Unread postby starbiter » Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:29 pm

I have heard it proposed that water was pulled into space during the encounter with Venus. It was pulled to the North, and possibly into space during the crossing of the Red Sea time. When the waters returned they were well below freezing temps. I'm not married to this model, but open to it.

open michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

antarctica - fossilised deciduous forests

Unread postby MattEU » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:41 pm

Image
antarctica fossilised deciduous forests - bark and leaves!

Geologist Molly Miller of Vanderbilt University discovered, in the Beardmore Glacier area of Antarctica, the remains of three ancient deciduous forests complete with fossils of fallen leafs scattered around the petrified tree stumps "These were not scrubby little things," Miller said. "These were big trees." Unlike any trees today, Glossopteris trees lived in stands as thick as almost a thousand per acre just 20 or 25 degrees from the South Pole, latitude at which today they would have received no sunlight for half the year. This powerful evidence that when they grew the Antarctic was in a semi tropical zone. As for what they looked like, Glossopteris tapered upwards like a Christmas tree. Instead of needles, they had large, broad lance-shaped leaves that fell to the ground at the end of summer

Miller says they lived at a time when the Antarctic climate was much warmer. Some are estimated to have attained heights of 80 feet (24.6 meters), based on their trunk diameter. Miller, Tim Cully and graduate student Nichole Knepprath came upon the three stands of the lost forests in December 2003These trees are alive today but only grow in warm moist areas such as Queensland Australia.
http://ancientdestructions.com/site/des ... orests.php


can we work out or is there any evidence of antartic "stuff" that can only grow in constant daylight or needs daylight each day of the year and can not survive or be formed if there are long periods of darkness? if there is stuff then would this mean that it was a the earth itself physcially reversing and not just the magnetic poles?
User avatar
MattEU
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:00 am

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:06 am

Could antarctic have been subtropical before it moved into it's present position by tectonic plate movement?

Or---what degree of tilt would be required to move antarctic into subtropic conditions.?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: antarctica

Unread postby webolife » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:30 am

The fact is that Antarctica was once subtropical, as evidenced by its fossil diversity and vast coal beds. I believe the continent drifted to its polar position during a catstrophic event on the earth in the geologically recent past. Some here believe in an expanding earth mechanism for this drift, some in an impact shock dynamics scenario, others in a no-drift scheme in which major continental shaping and movement is accomplished through mega lightning and EDM processes. My view probably looks the most like the standard model for continental drift to some forum contributors; however, I dispute this label because:
#1) I believe in catastrophically rapid seafloor spreading which
#2) is currently slowed to a fingernail growth pace that is still pressure enough to be the major cause of seismic activity and volcanism worldwide, and
#3) I do not believe in the necessity of subduction as a part of my model. Antarctica's position and climate are explanable as a result of a worldwide climate changing event [singular, although I acknowledge several stages[as many as dozen perhaps] including seafloor spreading that also gave rise to the mountain ranges of the world. The nearly worldwide freeze that occurred at the latter stage of this event is still visible in the polar regions, while the earth as a whole is generally rebounding and re-warming [not AGW]. As a general rule,
#4) the fossil record shown by the hypothetical geologic column indicates that the world's climate was subtopical throughout until recently, and to a large degree this supports a unified land mass without major mountain structures prior to the erosive/depositional event that produced the sedimentary formations [70% of the surface features on the earth], including those on Antarctica, and caused the near extinction of biodiversity on the planet. In addition,
#5) world wide distributions of major impact [whether asteroidal or electric or both is frequent subject of debate here in EU land] cratering throughout the geologic record, but especially at major stratigraphic discontinuities, played a major part in the beginning of and progress of this catastrophic event, including the very significant "astrobleme" in Wilkes Land, associated with the Permian/Triassic extinctions.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:03 am

webolife wrote:Some here believe in an expanding earth mechanism for this drift,...


As far as I am aware EE theory doesn't have any drift associated with it. IMO antartica has always been exactly where it is now (relative to the other continents). The drifting of continents has always appeared an absurdity to me, and that was before I was even aware of other potential theories.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: antarctica

Unread postby webolife » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:11 pm

Aardwolf: "relative to the other continents" is your key phrase here. Pick any other continent to be "staying put", and Antarctica will appear to be drifting along with its alleged expansion crack periphery. By exactly the same token, continental drift and seafloor spreading could be measured from some other point than the usual midatlantic rift zone and other major rift regions, but that is a convenient place to start. In the EE view, all the continents drift apart something like an earth-sized big bang raisin bread model. Artists' illustrations and estimations aside, the exact directions [of movement] and configurations of those ridges surrounding Antarctica is not that well known from what I have been able to gather.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:12 pm

webolife wrote:Aardwolf: "relative to the other continents" is your key phrase here. Pick any other continent to be "staying put", and Antarctica will appear to be drifting along with its alleged expansion crack periphery. By exactly the same token, continental drift and seafloor spreading could be measured from some other point than the usual midatlantic rift zone and other major rift regions, but that is a convenient place to start. In the EE view, all the continents drift apart something like an earth-sized big bang raisin bread model. Artists' illustrations and estimations aside, the exact directions [of movement] and configurations of those ridges surrounding Antarctica is not that well known from what I have been able to gather.


I agree that they are seperating or that there are increasingly larger gaps between then but this is caused by planetary material filling in at the rifts. I just disagree with using the term drifting to describe it because that implies that they are floating on a surface of some sort, which they are not. The only direction the crust is moving is outwards, and as it does it spreads apart to fit the ever increasing sphere.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:55 am

Aardwolf,"-it spreads apart to fit the ever increasing sphere."


Are you saying mass is increasing, or that some "ballooning" process is at work?...Is there a site that explains your perspective?

thank you
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Anaconda » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:24 am

Sparky wrote:
Aardwolf,"-it spreads apart to fit the ever increasing sphere."


Are you saying mass is increasing, or that some "ballooning" process is at work?...Is there a site that explains your perspective?

thank you


Hi Sparky:

Yes, there are many website's that explain the Expanding Earth theory:

One website is right here on the Thunderbolts Forum:

Are the planets growing?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1184

There is also a more concise discussion at expandingearth.org by Lawrence S. Myers:

http://www.expanding-earth.org/
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:00 am

Sparky wrote:
Aardwolf,"-it spreads apart to fit the ever increasing sphere."


Are you saying mass is increasing, or that some "ballooning" process is at work?...Is there a site that explains your perspective?

thank you


I suppose potentially it could be either as really it's just necessary to explain why the attractive force we call gravity was obviously lower in the past. It could be because the mass was lower in the past or it could be that gravity, if related to electromagnetism, was reduced when the earth was smaller (maybe because of the decreased surface area?).

I am hoping that at some point in the future the EU will identify which it is and maybe even provide the mechanism for expansion. I accept though that many EU proponents are not supportive of EE so it may be some time.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: antarctica

Unread postby Aveo9 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:44 pm

I created an account so I could reply to this thread.

Although he doesn't acknowledge the Saturnian cosmology, I think the research of Donald Patten in his book "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" could shed some light on a lot of the questions raised in this thread. Patten's conclusion is that the polar ice sheets were caused by a deposition of ice from a fragmenting icy visitor (an icy moon of Mars to be exact), but I think his research can be better explained by the EU theory.

Regarding the sudden onset of the freezing conditions he says [I hope I get my formatting right]:

In the case of the mammoths, the span of time between death and freezing can be estimated quite accurately through an examination of the carcasses. This is determined by the extent of water separation within the cell, for water begins to separate within the cell at death, and it ceases to separate at freezing. The small extent of separated water indicates that carcasses were frozen rapidly, perhaps at temperatures below -150° F ... They perished immediately by asphyxiation because, at these temperatures, their lungs were frozen solid. They dropped immediately, and death ensued very shortly.


But just how cold was it, and where did all the ice come from? It seems most of the answers come from studying the northern hemisphere, simply because there is more thawed land there to study, but the conclusions are just as relevant for Antarctica too.

Patten continues:

It has been established, from the direction of ice flows, studies of gradients, distances, and other related data, that there were several nodes of ice on the Canadian Shield. It has further been established that the depth of ice at these nodes was between 15,000 and 17,000 feet.

In the Southern Hemisphere, a comparable circumstance apparently existed. In 1958, an ice core was taken on the Antarctic Ice Cap near Byrd Station. Drilling commenced at an elevation of 5,000 feet above sea level. The thickness of the ice sheet was 10,000 feet, and the drill went through solid ice all the way. This means that ice is not only situated 5,000 feet above sea level in the Antarctic Region; it is also resting on terra firma some 5,000 feet below sea level.

... if it is believed that ice, descending from outer space at a superrefrigerated temperature around -200°F., caused the sudden and extreme change in atmospheric temperatures, then the sudden asphyxiation and freezing of the mammoths becomes logical. Similarly, the stacking up of ice in nodes 10,000 to 15,000 feet deep becomes conceivable. Furthermore, if this is a period of simultaneous gravitational and magnetic conflict, with tides alternately 5,000 and 10,000 feet both above and below mean sea level, then formations including ice deposits could well occur below mean sea level. And apparently this is what happened, for ice does rest on bedrock some 5,000 feet below sea level, and it has had enough coldness to overcome both the heat of oceanic melting and the heat of internal pressure. This similarly checks with mammoth fossils engulfed in ice but also in alluvium.


There is more evidence for the deposition of ice being a sudden castastropic event, rather than a gradual tectonic one:

Any acceptable theory on the ice mass must accommodate itself to the geometry of the ice formation. There were several nodes on the Canadian Shield, from 15,000 to 17,000 feet in elevation, generally about 3 miles deep at these apexes. From these areas, the ice flowed outward in a radial pattern and in every direction, corrected only by coriolis forces or local topographical features. It flowed over hills hundreds and even over a thousand feet high, and swept on over valley and dale for hundreds of miles. As it flowed, it gathered rocks, timber, and other debris which were ground and ultimately dropped at its edges, forming lateral and terminal moraines. The extent of the ice flow is determined from and orthogonal to the terminal moraines; the direction of the flow was parallel to such formations as drumlins and the lateral moraines. The path of flow is also plotted by locations of erratic boulders, striations and other methods.

A radial pattern of flow occurs when material flows outward in all directions from the center until a new equilibrium is established. This occurs, for instance, when honey is poured on bread, when milk is spilled on the table, or when pancake batter is dropped onto the griddle. Such events are sudden which cause radial patterns of flow. Gradual events cause riverine patterns of flow. The radial pattern of flow of ice from the Ice Epoch is another evidence of sudden accumulation.


And this is perhaps the most interesting characteristic of the Ice Dump: It seems to have been centered around the earth's magnetic poles! The radial centre of the Ice Age ice caps in both hemispheres are only several hundred miles away from the current magnetic poles. It's well known that the magnetic poles are slowly wandering, so it's very conceivable that they've shifted several hundred miles over the last several thousand years since this event. In Patten's more recent work "The Mars-Earth Wars" we get an even clearer picture:

This ice is deficient in the oxygen 18 isotope common to ocean water and clouds. Also the ice is deficient in the deuterium form of hydrogen.

It has a uniform crystalline axis, pointing about 10° from vertical, suggesting it was related to, or directed in by magnetic field force lines. It is also intermixed in the volcanic ash, 3,000 and 4,000 feet below modern sea level, indicating that the polar flat spot was not at Antarctica at the time of Noah's Flood. As to volcanic ash, the deeper the ice core drilling, the thicker the ash in the mixture.


So it seems the ice was electrically charged when it fell to the Earth!

Now here's my theory:

What if there were water ions present in the plasma envelope that surrounded the Earth and connected it to Saturn before the Flood? It's reasonable to assume that the envelope contained both hydgrogen and oxygen ions. Could they have combined to form water ions in those conditions? (I do recall an experiment performed - and replicated - where water was created out of other elements using nothing but interacting electrical fields. I can't remember exactly where I read about it but I'll see if I can find it.) If this was the case then the plasma surrounding the Earth's atmosphere would have been filled with electrically charged water ions (which would explain the Biblical "waters above the firmanent" and the "vapour canopy" that young-earth creationists insist upon).

In which case what would happen when the connection between Earth and Saturn was severed? The electrically charged water ions would have fallen to Earth along the re-aligning magnetic field lines, sparking the intense rain recorded at the beginning of the Flood. As the connection was severed and the plasma went into dark mode, could the water ions have been subjected to the intense cold of deep space for the first time ever? If so, the rain that opened the Flood would have been followed by a torrent of intensely cold, electrically charged ice causing the instant-freeze that killed the mammoths (and dozens of other tropical species in the same regions) and formed the ice caps described above.


My quotes are sourced from "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" by Donald Patten, 1966 - chapter 6
and from "The Mars-Earth Wars" by Donald Patten and Samuel Windsor, 1996 - chapter 7.
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell
User avatar
Aveo9
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: antarctica

Unread postby SirWilhelm » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:14 pm

The Great Flood seems to have been a catastrophe with many dimensions. Among all the ones I see mentioned here, I failed to see the possiblilty that the whole crust of the Earth shifted, like the skin of an orange, shifting some areas from temperate areas into the artic areas. This, it seems, was simultaneous with the world wide flood, debris falling from space, cosmic scale lightning, land rising, falling and shifting on the surface of the crust, and the simultaneous eruption of most, if not all, the world's volcanoes. I believe almost all of the evidence that has been interpretated as ice ages should be seen as evidence of this catastrophe. I think the varied nature of the catastrophe has left the evidence for it so jumbled and confused, it's hard to put the puzzle it presents together, especially for dates for any particular part of it. But I think the date of 10,500 BCE is the most likely. More evidence is pouring in, however, so nothing is set in stone, so to speak.
SirWilhelm
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:28 pm

Re: antarctica

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:02 am

Welcome Aveo9, and thanks for bringing Donald Patten to my attention. I'll look into his work further, but from what you have posted, I think his description fits best with what I had imagined.
I think your explanation sounds reasonable, though I will leave it to others with more scientific knowledge of these processes to give their yea or nay on the idea.

Greetings, Sir Willhelm.
The Great Flood seems to have been a catastrophe with many dimensions. Among all the ones I see mentioned here, I failed to see the possiblilty that the whole crust of the Earth shifted, like the skin of an orange, shifting some areas from temperate areas into the artic areas


I believe Miles Mathis with his calculations has shown that the axis of the Earth would shift under changes in the electrical charge in the above scenario. The whole earth shifted, not just the crust.
This would also fit with the idea posited by solrey in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2629#p28708

I'm left with little doubt now that what has happened on earth in relatively recent times was indeed catastrophic. If we can now determine how often this may happen, and when it will next occur, I can get ready to hide under my bed. :-)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest