Gradualism Versus Catastrophism

[601L1n9FR09]

Just a bit disappointed at the lack of posting on this. As a catastrophist from an early age it is encouraging to see others fearlessly address the topic, especially others with "scientific" credentials to risk. Catastrophism suffered ruthless suppression for over a century, including the majority of my lifetime. In the debate it was the gradualists insisting the two models were mutually exclusive while the catastrophist maintained the gradual changes were simply what occurred between catastrophes. Along with many of the accepted models of today which were originally from catastrophism's side of the argument, consensus (mainstream) will absorb the concept, eventually embracing it and assert it is what "they" have been saying all along. As catastrophism gains credibility among the mainstream those of us that experienced the dark decades of suppression will expire one by one and the students of tomorrow will only learn how mainstream science figured it all out. As I watch the debate (or more accurately, the lack of debate) over EU/PC I am reminded of the years of isolation we catastrophists endured up until very recently. This forum provides a fellowship for advocates of ideas ruthlessly suppressed by the mainstream. There was no such forum for catastrophists even 10 years ago at least not for Joe Sixpack. Thank God for this website and I mean next time you pray, tell God Thanx. These articles calling the current paradigm into question with all that implies gives cause to wonder if perhaps others before any of us experienced such suppression might have had a clue after all. It is no secret that catastrophism was closely associated with creationism and the resultant polarization was in my view no accident. Observing the position of the EU/PC community I see their ideas gaining acceptance over the objection of the mainstream in a very similar fashion. I believe the truth is winning and that this website has a great deal to do with that victory. Pack a big lunch though. It's gonna be a long fight. On a positive note, the tactic employed most successfully in times past by the mainstream was to deny the opposition a forum. You have not only neutralized that tactic but are turning the tables in terms of popular opinion. God Bless!

JD

[katesisco]

The problem with catastrophism seems two fold:
1) S W Carey knew no way for the Earth to have expanded even though he clearly saw the geologic evidence.
2) In order to pursue this theory, one would have to accept that there is a way that the current laws are deficient.

Theory:
There is a 5,000 y recurring cycle of heliospheric reduction. NASA named gas cloud Fluff is 10 my old and may be responsible for this cycle. This would require an energy input into the gas cloud so that it compresses any solar systems inside the cloud. This energy could be neutrinos that saturate the MW out to our system. This would be the source of the periodic cycle. In order for this saturation to occur, one would have to see the MW as a storage capacitor battery that--once saturated--discharges immediately. The discharge would be through the AGN as a non locality event. The energy stored in the MW would be instantly converted to energy discharged through the plasma focus. It helps if you see the supercooled ribbon at the center of the Milky Way as a Tao, a Tiajitu.
Our planet Earth seems to have experienced both compression (pizeoelectric) as the heliosphere is compressed down, and then as the compressive event passes over us on its way to Mars or even Mercury, expansion where the Earth experiences pyroelectric expansive energy. Compression is due to the energized gas cloud's action. The power of the cloud comes from neutrinos. The neutrino bombardment still occurs after the heliosphere withdraws from Earth. The Earth's water finds new access to inner Earth which quite neatly solves the problem of 'subducted' oceans, 5x the amount on the face of the Earth. The core of the Earth is heated with the neutrinos. It may be responsible for the radioactive heat unexplainable for the Earth's age.
When MW energy storage saturation is reached, the energy collapsing the heliosphere disappears in a AGN non locality event. The heliosphere is immediately released from its restrictive compression and expands to Pluto. The Earth experiences immediate release from compression if inside the reduces heliosphere or regains a compressive heliosphere if outside the compressed boundary experiencing expansion. In either event there is a heated core to consider. Of major effect is the heated core of Sol, which may respond with explosive energetic flares. The Earth would also have to contend with a heated core which would seek release.
The fact that measurement shows Earth not currently expanding indicates that the gas cloud, as Russian scientists have surmised, is thinner at this point in our 25,000 y rotation through the spiral arm of our MW galaxy. A thinner gas would exert less compression hence the Earth may not enter an expansion , as it did not 5,000 y ago, and instead merely have to contend with the heated core seeking release when the AGN activates a non locality event.
Time will tell.

[mharratsc]

If the interaction of hydrogen ions from the solar wind fusing with oxygen from the biosphere resulted in the creation of H2O upon our planet, that might go some ways towards making the 'Growing Earth' theory plausible without needing to get creative with 'new physics'.

The trick is to catch the fusion occuring in the upper atmosphere, measure it, and see if it could quantifiably account for the increase in size that has been put forth... :\

[Aardwolf]

If the interaction of hydrogen ions from the solar wind fusing with oxygen from the biosphere resulted in the creation of H2O upon our planet, that might go some ways towards making the 'Growing Earth' theory plausible without needing to get creative with 'new physics'.

The trick is to catch the fusion occuring in the upper atmosphere, measure it, and see if it could quantifiably account for the increase in size that has been put forth... :\

Don't forget the protons that make it through the atmosphere and penetrate directly into the crust itself. The sun loses enough mass via the solar wind to build a whole new earth every 35,000 years. The Earth needs less than 0.001% of that ejected matter to account for the necessary expansion over 250 million years.

[Sparky]

Should we consider the moon's regolith as possibly being matter formed in the moon's ionosphere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_Comp_Graph.png
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.w ... cIh_Vm-kbA
sorry, i guess png files are not allowed.....

From this chart, oxygen, at over 40%, silicon, 20%, iron, over 10%, calcium, about 8%, aluminum, magnesium, and some others make up the surface dust.


EDIT; FROM

[IN THE SOLAR WIND]
trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe