Earth's Surface Formed Recently

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: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby norpag » Wed May 30, 2012 12:09 pm

Just go to Wiki -There is nothing mysterious about the Grand Canyon . There is a tremendous amount of data on its rocks and geological history.There is no evidence at all of electrical scarring. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon#Geology
norpag
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby norpag » Wed May 30, 2012 12:42 pm

Starbiter you make a completely unsupported assertion about what is taught in geology classes today.Give at least one specific example . What precisely is wrong with what is taught re Dolomite ,Ultra high pressure metamorphism and "missing" volcanoes whatever that is supposed to mean. I doubt that you have ever taken a class on these topics which are in any event irrelevant to Glaciation, Canyons and electrical scarring.
norpag
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby Sparky » Wed May 30, 2012 1:16 pm

norpag,
There is no evidence at all of electrical scarring.


Are 'you suggesting that you have "credentials" which would support such a statement?
What exactly were you taught about electrical scarring evidence? Is there a specific course on electrical scarring or is that included within another course.? What lab experiments, examining electrical effects , were you a party to?

Otherwise, that is a completely unsupported statement. :D
"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: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby norpag » Wed May 30, 2012 1:31 pm

In science, unlike in religion, credentials and authority don't mean much- only empirical data and observation count
See the links to fulgarites earlier on this thread. If the Grand Canyon was formed by electrical scarring there would be fulgarite type rocks on a Grand scale. No such rocks have been observed.
norpag
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby starbiter » Wed May 30, 2012 1:55 pm

norpag wrote:Starbiter you make a completely unsupported assertion about what is taught in geology classes today.Give at least one specific example . What precisely is wrong with what is taught re Dolomite ,Ultra high pressure metamorphism and "missing" volcanoes whatever that is supposed to mean. I doubt that you have ever taken a class on these topics which are in any event irrelevant to Glaciation, Canyons and electrical scarring.



Thanks for responding norpag. The topics i mentioned might be better discussed on the dune thread. I don't want to disrupt this discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=66317#p66317

I'll begin the discussion over there. Let's start with dolomite. From your statement above You see no problems with what is taught about dolomite by mainstream geology. I do. I have no formal training in geology. I never paid for a class. I did hang out with a field class. I had better access to the professors than the real students. You should be able to roll right over me with your degrees.

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

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby Sparky » Wed May 30, 2012 4:27 pm

norpag wrote:In science, unlike in religion, credentials and authority don't mean much- only empirical data and observation count

:roll: Well, that is the way it is suppose to work.....but...

See the links to fulgarites earlier on this thread. If the Grand Canyon was formed by electrical scarring there would be fulgarite type rocks on a Grand scale. No such rocks have been observed.


So, Fulgurites, from your empirical data and observational experience, would be the only electrical scarring that would be observed, and in the absence of such, there would be no reason to consider electrical activity in the formation of Earth's features? :?
"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: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby webolife » Thu May 31, 2012 2:37 am

Hey I sympathesize with norpag's inability to shift Earth Science paradigms -- there simply is no tolerance in academia for EDM or other interplanetary plasma discharging such as would be the culprit behind starbiter's super-aurorae. My own degree in Earth Science was devoid of any such consideration; nevertheless, although my "speciality" area of rapid crustal deformation and megaflooding is a huge departure from the cautious "occasional catastrophe" thinking of the standard geologists, I still acknowledge many of the basic processes taught in standard geology, albeit on a grander and faster scale. To norpag, I owe my justification of the catastrophic view to the realization that absolute dating methodologies are irretrievably steeped in assumption rather than actual observation, and that relative dating assumptions [eg. superposition] have been overthrown by actual observations in stratigraphy, such as those provided by Guy Berthault's flume experiments, along with my own direct observations of varves in progress at Lake Kachess and other locations in Washington. I am very cautious in my reception and analysis of EU arguments of EDM Earth history, and moreso of the plasma connections attributed to mythology, Saturn theory, etc. a la Velikovsky, Cardona, Scott, et al. But I am here to learn, to pose questions, to challenge others [but mainly myself], and to above all maintain a "growth" mentality.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 31, 2012 7:55 pm

webo-, i do believe we have been treated to a "drive by" ejecation.. :D

A Phd's conclusion, without looking at all arguments and data available, is a logical fallacy, "A hasty conclusion". Pretty much sums up standard cosmology too.

starbiter posted a very good argument in his thread, viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=66317#p66317 .
"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: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:24 pm

norpag wrote:Starbiter you make a completely unsupported assertion about what is taught in geology classes today.Give at least one specific example . What precisely is wrong with what is taught re Dolomite ,Ultra high pressure metamorphism and "missing" volcanoes whatever that is supposed to mean. I doubt that you have ever taken a class on these topics which are in any event irrelevant to Glaciation, Canyons and electrical scarring.


Hello Dr norpag: I gave You the one specific example You requested, on the dune thread.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=66721#p66721

I eagerly await your response.

michael steinbacher
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

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:51 am

I am glad that you have posted these topics. The catastrophic history of the earth, and of life upon it, is a very important topics for all scientists, students, and teachers & professors. Thunderbolts is the primary forum online for introducing our electromagnetic Universe, but, IMHO is too primarily focused on the sky, no pun intended. That is, the movements and activities of the planets and other bodies of our solar system, were primary causes of many, if not most, of the earth's various catastrophes and major changes throughout its history; and none of those movements and activities be explained by a gravity-only cosmogonic model. The electromagnetic model(s) of the the solar system's history, though, explain how and why these planetary movements took place; and I'm including here comets, asteroids, meteors, and so on. -Yes?
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:21 am

I've enjoyed reading the posts on this page. However, I have to ask, including of the person who started this thread, are you familiar with the works of Earl Milton and Alfred De Grazia? They have done very important work in this area! I include their names with Juergens, Velikovsky, Birkeland, Alfven, Arp, and Peratt, along with the Thunderbolts authors.
Some samples for you (plural) to read and consider:
In geology and biology the currently adopted time scale depends
upon the decay of long-lived radioactive atoms. The possibility
that radioactive decays are environmentally induced has recently
been proposed [9]. Without radiometric dating the rampant
inflation in the magnitude of the cosmic timescale over the last
century [10] will undoubtedly enter a sharp period of regression.
This question will be debated in detail in time; for the present it
is sufficient to say that if radioactive decay processes are not
invariant, then many problems facing Velikovsky will vanish.
The end result might well be a widespread reconsideration of
Velikovsky’s revised chronology. Similarly, if the cosmic time
scale is drastically shortened, then the physical history of the
Earth and Solar System will have to change. –Earl Milton, in Recollections of a Fallen Sky.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:25 am

A few more samples... some of the "con" (as in pro vs. con) authors will want to read the quoted texts, where also the notes and bibliographies may be found:
Recently, dendrochronologists, historians, meteorologists,
radiocarbon dating specialists, and astronomers combined in a
most unusual enterprise. They delivered a blow to the theory of
the constant Sun. John A. Eddy of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research conveyed the message: "We've
shattered the Principle of Uniformitarianism for the Sun."[14]
He presented evidence mentioned earlier, showing that for 70
years between 1645 and 1715 A.D. sunspots were almost
entirely absent. It proved to be a period of bitter prolonged
winters, when Londoners walked across an iced-over Thames
River, when the Northern Lights hardly displayed themselves,
and when the 11-year sun-spot cycle was absent. Lapses of the
same kind were uncovered in other historical periods.
Other conditions may be expected to vary with sunspots - solar
flares, ozone density, radiation diminution, precipitation,
magnetic fields, atmospheric turbulence, famines and perhaps
even human energy and inventiveness. No doubt the last will
be among the most difficult to prove. No simple search of the
annals of culture will reveal a closely related trend.
Stretching the uniformitarian thesis, more severe storms may
be conjectured for pre-historic times, in an attempt to keep the
planetary bodies in place, eliminate cometary encounters and
still explain catastrophes upon Earth. Thus Harlow Shapley,
who led some scientists in an attack upon Velikovsky's
catastrophism in 1950, himself had in 1935 proposed a solar
nova as the explosive generator of space X-rays.
Hurricanes, volcanism, interrupted rotation, ozone destruction,
ice ages, geomagnetic field reversals, biological extinctions and
even explosions of cometary and meteorological material on
Earth can be rationalized up to a point as effects of solar
misbehavior. Such a theory is possible, but it would be like
hiring a thief to catch a thief. For the Sun would then become
sole factor in quantavolutions, in the effort to exclude other
bodies from trespassing upon Earth. As we shall see, there is
too much evidence of other operative factors to assign the
whole job of quantavolutions to the Sun, even though, as a
matter of fact, the Sun is the original sire of quantavolution in
the solar system, according to the model of Solaria Binaria,
mentioned above, which begins history with a nova of the Sun.
According to the quantavolutionary theory here presented, solar
behavior has exhibited only effects of a moderate kind since its
gradual emergence as a distinct bright image some thousands
of years ago. Before then, the Sun was hidden or a bright
prominence in the cloudy firmament. Its indirect influence was
of course always paramount. But should the counter-thesis be
proposed that the Sun was responsible directly for earthly
catastrophes, it would have to be said that its
"uniformitarianism," though spotty, was nevertheless much
greater than that of the planetary family descended from the
Sun's binary partner, which I have called Super-Uranus after
the Greco-Roman first Heavenly Father.
The sunspots may be a trailing-off effect of the exhaustion of
the electrical current and magnetic tube. That is, they may be
fairly regular attempts of electricity to jump the gap between
the Sun and its binary. In such a case, the sunspots should
become less intense and more sporadic with the passage of
time, like the plasmoids and bolts of Jupiter.
Climate is the typical behavior of the atmosphere over any
geological column during a longish time. Every island, they say
in the Caribbean and Aegean Seas, has its own climate; "miniclimate"
would be precise. More expansively, we can talk of a
regional climate or a global climate. Too, we shall soon have a
"cosmic climate," since evidence is fast accumulating of solarplanetary
transactions on a continuing climatic basis.
Earthquakes, volcanism, winds, precipitation, magnetic fields,
temperatures, electric currents and the biosphere transact in
climatic affairs.
One does not get this sense of a welter and complex of factors
in going far back by conventional chronology. Rather one has
the sense that climates have swirled around in multiform
changes in the Quaternary period but then somehow climates
withdraw into the background while we are presented a broad
succession of ages in the tens of millions of years each, when
life changed very slowly and conditions of biological survival
and adaptation must have been constant over long periods of
time. One is privileged to view charts in which paleontological
developments occur at the slowest imaginable pace, with only a
dozen or so boundary lines where, certainly, it is given that
climates changed and new names are provided - Devonian,
Carboniferous, and so on. Did climates, with all the factors that
engender them, stand still for these long periods in rigid
constancy? This would be unbelievable. If in between the
major boundaries of epochs, climates changed as they have in
the brief recent past of the Quaternary, then the paleontological
and geological record is far too short, or contains very little
information. In sum, either the world has changed and the
recent past speeds up wildly in comparison with the remote
past, or else the remote past is still quite unknown despite its
diligent study over two centuries by numerous disciplines and
thousands of scholars. –Alfred De Grazia in The Lately Tortured Earth, Ch.2.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:28 am

Third of four samples....
Presently, radiometric dating, particularly the Potassium-Argon
test, is determining the ages of hominids, and this test is applied
ordinarily to volcanic issue. The stretching of the time of
hominids has gone on regardless of definitions of boundaries,
and little attention is given to traditional geochronology. If the
volcanic ashes imbedding a bone are adjudged to be two million
years old, that is usually the end of age reckoning. So the
hominids have gone back beyond the Pleistocene well into the
Pliocene.
How baffling the time element can be is suggested in an
incident. A skull of homo erectus was discovered in Kenya by
Bernard Ngeneo, working under Richard Leakey. It was dated
at 1.5 million years. Peking man, a prototype of homo erectus
had been dated by non-radiometric methods at 0.5 million years
or less. Leakey said, "this raises questions about the true age of
Peking Man. The Chinese must develop a new, different way to
date their sites for more accuracy. Upon re-examination, they'll
probably find these fossils to be a million years older than now
dated."[6]
In effect, the 40K-40A dating method is giving very old and by
implication "good" results, and should be the sole method of
plotting man's ascent! If so, some dates of hominid and homo
fossils that were estimated before radiometric methods were
employed may be useless. Or else these types lived for millions
of years on Earth. As I stated earlier, modern types are now
being found aged in the millions of years, not only skulls of
modern volume but also modern bones, and now modern
footprints. –Alfred De Grazia, in Ch.2 of Homo Schizo I.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:31 am

Fourth of four samples...
The defensive positions of a century ago are irreparably in
disrepair, however. At that time the age of the Earth itself was
being argued in the highest scientific circles in the neighborhood
of thirty to ninety million years, which would on today's
hominid reckoning give perhaps one-tenth of all earth-time for
the development of man [16]. But then man was still hovering
in the five figure bracket of 20,000 to 90,000 years. Certainly,
were it not for radioactive dating methods, evolutionary theory
would be at an impasse for lack of time for mutation and for
natural selection to transform the biosphere.
Like question-begging is the plague of natural selection, circular
reasoning is the plague of traditional geochronology. "The
rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more
accurately... circularity is inherent in the derivation of time
scales."[17] There are neither transition fossils in any number to
mark the important fossil stages, nor complete fossil columns
showing the evolutionary sequence; nor is evolution a hard set
of facts. Yet index fossils with a doctrinaire chronology are imposed
on the rocks and the rocks assigned dates. Then rocks of
comparable type, though lacking fossils, are dated accordingly,
and many of the strata and formations surrounding them, too.
Velikovsky has ingeniously displayed, using Blanckenhorn's
study of the Syrian-Palestinian rift valley, through which pass
the Jordan River and Dead Sea, that the old geochronology,
before radiochronometry, could properly formulate for it a
history of a few thousand years, rather than many millions of
years [18]. He further used proto-historical evidence, that of
Biblical sources, to strengthen the theory of short duration for
the rifting of the area. The older methods of geochronology are
often too flexible to engender confidence.
We must bring time into a new order. So long as it is the tool of
the old vision of a point-by-point development of humanity,
time will stretch out of bounds. The Holocene-Pleistocene
boundary is not fixed upon an event, unless it be an end of the
ice ages. But the ice ages are still going on, and it is doubtful
that they played much of a role in the humanization and
diffusion of man, except for imposing sometimes rather obvious
limits upon settlement. The Pleistocene-Pliocene boundary was
set by the International Geological Congress of 1950 on the
basis of late Cenozoic stratigraphy in Italy, more precisely on
the entrance of northern marine invertebrates into the
Mediterranean. This boundary, too, is scarcely useful, and
should be ignored in reckoning the origins of man in time. The
Pleistocene record is always discontinuous and fragmentary,
especially in glaciated areas. The task of scholars "would have
been incomparably easier if some stratigraphic section covering
the entire Pleistocene were available, showing, for instance a
complete sequence of alternating tills and soils. Unfortunately,
such a section seems to be available nowhere in the glaciated
areas."[19]
We note, too, how geological time-reckoning expands as we go
back in history. The Upper Paleolithic artistic period was dated
back 30,000 years by French scholars and geologists, working
on remains in caves and rock shelters. Estimates of
sedimentation rates of deposits into which artifacts were
sandwiched, gave such duration. But the dating of the Upper
Paleolithic artists is more a working consensus that an
absolutely tested fix. Pergrony and Caslis give us an age of
4500 years ago for metals, a Neolithic lasting 5000 years before
then, a Mesolithic of 2500 years, an Upper Paleolithic of 30,000
years, a Middle Paleolithic of 80,000 years and Lower
Paleolithic of from 800,000 to 1,500,000 years [20]. As we
have pointed out, this last figure is now verging upon five
million years.
The Upper Paleolithic period falls between the claimed periods
of competence of radiocarbon dating and potassium-argon
dating. The most careful work on this period is therefore
dependent on sedimentary dating in large part, and this cannot
get around the possibilities of periods of flood and torrents,
laying down blanket after blanket of clay and gravel to create
illusions, in today's peaceful landscape, of the passage of much
time. This is no new problem. For instance, when Alfred
Wallace was writing his studies of the distribution of animal
life in the nineteenth century, he had to confess to the great
difficulty of judging sedimentary deposits [21]. In repeated
discussions at the Dordogne cave and shelter sites with French
scientists who have excavated and are responsible for them, I
have been unable to accept their meticulous reconstructions as
valid.
In the end, they rely nowadays upon carbondating, which
although it often upsets their expectations, at least keeps them
in the Paleolithic period rather than moving them into more
recent times. That radiocarbondating which is based upon
measuring a ratio involving the diminishing amount of carbon-
14 isotopes discoverable in organic remains, can be erratic,
owing to atmospheric, species, and soil transformations, has
already been the subject of investigation. Recently, changes in
the Earth's geomagnetic field have been added to the several
conditions that alter radiocarbon dating. Unfortunately, the
usefulness of radiocarbon dating decreases exponentially as we
move into the periods of the neolithic and beyond, when the
need for a dating instrument becomes increasingly acute [22].
Geologists bought evolutionary time to preserve themselves
from alternative catastrophic hypotheses. Whereupon the
biologists and anthropologists, together with the geologists,
were persuaded of radiochronometry by geo-physicists. The
Potassium-Argon test claims validity over a time span of a
billion years and more, beginning at 100,000 years or less
before the present. Its favorite rock for testing is erupted
volcanic material, ashes and lava. It establishes a constant rate
of decay of the isotope potassium-40 into the isotope argon-40
(40K to 40A). Then it measures the amount of 40K and 40A in
a rock sample and, by the proportion of the two, determines the
'age' of the rock, hence of fossils embedded in the rock. A high
proportion of Argon-40 signifies an old age.
Unfortunately for its validity, and despite the brilliant technical
theory and achievements represented in its applications, the
40K ug 40A test suffers from a defect common to radioactive
elements in nature. The elements migrate. In consequence, the
proportions change, giving illusory ages. Rocks can both
acquire and lose both elements or either alone.
Moreover, one cannot rely upon a temporal sequence that
appears nicely to show older strata succeeded by younger strata
as a proof that the sequence occurred smoothly and without
disturbance. For the whole sequence may have been laid down
in short order during a turbulent period that is accompanied by
high argon deposition, or the eruptive sequence of a volcanic
source can lay down deposits, first heavier, then lighter, in
Argon-40, owing to a tendency of such trace materials to
migrate from heavier to lighter rock. It may not be necessary to
disbelieve absolutely in the validity of 40K ug 40A dating to
maintain a quantavolutionary opinion of the process of
humanization. However, it is more difficult to explain certain
critical fossil data and the mechanics of humanization while
adhering to a long time perspective. Vast stretches of noneventful
time have to be accepted between the occasions of
significant changes, such as bipedalism, large brain, tools, and
language; or else the finest, minutes, multitudinous ladder rungs
or steps are forced upon one, leaving one again in baffling
contradictions and a need to search for a meaning behind
evolution such that every bit of change requires every
subsequent bit of change, connecting intelligence with
depilation, and so, on, thus accounting for the confusion of
ladder-rung-labelling, with now one trait, then another being
given priority. –Alfred De Grazia, Ch.2, Homo Schizo I.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:37 am

Finally, some links for you...
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/_start_here.htm
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... m#v_pdf_01
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... Series.htm

-Those three will take you to the works of Milton and De Grazia cited.
Some other related links...
http://fascistoar.blogspot.com/2006/02/velikovsky-one-homework.html
http://inside.bard.edu/specialproj/clas ... #structure
http://www.grazian-archive.com/autobiog ... grazia.htm
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/resource.htm


Replies?
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests