Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

[Lloyd]

5857

REDSHIFT COMPTON EFFECT

I posted Kierein's explanation at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... 2182#p2182

The universe isn't expanding significantly; redshift isn't due to expansion or to galaxies moving rapidly apart. It's due to ionization affecting photons.

Longwave radiation of photons produces gravity.

[Lloyd]

6457

MAIN ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION SO FAR
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =180#p1988
D. how and when sedimentary rock strata formed,
E. how and when mountains formed,
F. what major cataclysms occurred in ancient times, and
G. what caused the cataclysms

F. G. 1. Saturn flare-up and 2. Saturn system breakup, caused 3. the meteor bombardment and 4. the temporarily Earth-orbiting body;
4. the orbiter at perigee caused the global flood of Earth's low elevation supercontinent, causing D. the sedimentary rock strata;
5. the supercontinent-splitting asteroid impact from 3., caused E. mountain formation and 6. rapid continental drift of the continents to present locations;
7. volcanic smoke and dust and 8. meteor impact dust and 6. continental drift of continents toward polar regions, caused 9. the post-flood ice age;
1. the Saturn flare-up caused the 10. Younger Dryas global conflagration and black mat and 11. mass extinctions;
10. the Younger Dryas impact/s and other lesser impacts from 3., caused 12. a spray of huge ice boulders that formed 13. the Carolina Bays and Nebraska basins;
and 1. the Saturn flare-up also melted 9. much of the post-flood ice sheets, causing 14. floods, that removed the remaining ice sheets
Most of the cataclysms occurred between 4 and 5 thousand years ago.

I'll try to get more into all this soon.

[JP Michael]

Do you have any place for post-flood castastrophism and, if so, what periods/players were involved?

I already note you seem to mostly reject Hall's hypersonic wind hypothesis as a significant geological force, so I will not bother going over that again.

[Lloyd]

POST-FLOOD CATACLYSMS
JP, I need to work more on the list of cataclysms in my previous post. The Ice Age was obviously post-Flood and so were the Younger Dryas impact-related events. The Ice Age appears to have lasted a few hundred years. Above, I make it look like there were two Saturn flare-ups, one at the onset of the Flood and one at the onset of the Younger Dryas events. I didn't notice that till I reread it. So that's a possibility. Also, major meteor impacts likely continued for many centuries occasionally, esp. around Halloween, when Earth goes through the Taurid meteor stream, which was likely formed from a Saturn flare-up or the like.

IONIC WINDS
I don't dismiss those entirely. I just don't see good evidence for them. The subsurface strata are what would possibly convince me. The geologic cross-sections I've seen seem to undermine Hall's idea. Electrical forces surely were dominant in all or most of the cataclysms, but in the way Charles Chandler explains regarding volcanoes, earthquakes, impacts, etc at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 , and the way Walter Brown explained regarding continental sliding ionization and radioactive elements formation in the continental crust, etc. I'm always open to more evidence re Hall's and others' ideas.

[Lloyd]

6501

TWO SATURN FLAREUPS

In my last post I said it looks like Saturn may have flared at the onsets of the Great Flood and again of the Younger Dryas events centuries later. As I recall, Cardona said in his interview (at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =10&t=3824 ) a few years ago that Saturn as a brown dwarf star flared up every few thousand years. But in his book, Flare Star, he said flareups could occur more often. He said on page 335:
_(B)y 2003, astronomers were talking about dwarf novae as a matter of fact. Six of these, all said to be well-known, have been found to flare up "every few weeks or months." As proposed by Liller in 1997, these outbursts are believed to occur when the dwarf spills gas into a white dwarf companion. And yet, as always the case with these new discoveries, all of these six dwarf novae staggered astronomers by being "more luminous than expected." 1
_Granted that these dwarf novae have been identified as those from red dwarf stars, it should be remembered that brown dwarfs, which can be just as red, are merely the slightly less massive siblings of red dwarfs. And if red dwarfs can flare up in nova-like brilliance, then so can brown dwarf stars. More than that, if these six red dwarfs flare up "every few weeks or months," they should be classed as recurring dwarf novae, which is what they really are.
_1 J. Roth. "Calibrating Dwarf Novae. " Sky & Telescope (September 2003). p. 20.

So obviously it's possible that Saturn flared up twice a few centuries apart. But now I need to see what evidence there is for both flare-ups. I suppose there's more evidence for the Younger Dryas flare-up, since it involved a heat wave that melted much of the ice sheets, meteor showers with micro-diamonds, meteor impacts, etc. The Flood flare-up would have possibly produced larger meteor/asteroid impacts on Earth and other bodies, and the iridium dust of the K-T boundary impacts that led to dinosaur extinctions, likely during the onset of the Great Flood.

Ancient Cataclysms

Most of the cataclysms occurred between 4 and 5 thousand years ago. Lesser ones continued after that from occasional impacts etc.

1. 1st Saturn flare-up and
2. Saturn system breakup,
caused
>3. the meteor bombardment and the temporarily Earth-orbiting body;
>(this orbiter at perigee)
caused
>>4. the global flood of Earth's low elevation supercontinent,
causing
>>>D. the sedimentary rock strata (including fossils showing mass extinctions);

1. Saturn flare-up and
2. Saturn system breakup,
caused
>3. the meteor bombardment and
>>5. the supercontinent-splitting asteroid impact from 3.,
caused
>>>E. mountain formation and
>>>6. rapid continental drift of the continents to present locations;
>>>>7. volcanic smoke and dust from 3. and 6. and
>>>>8. meteor impact dust from 3. and
>>>>6. continental drift of continents toward polar regions,
caused
>>>>>9. the post-flood ice age;

1. 2nd Saturn flare-up
caused
>10. the Younger Dryas global conflagration and black mat and microdiamonds
>11. and mass extinctions;
>10. the Younger Dryas impact/s and other lesser impacts from 3.,
caused
>>12. a spray of huge ice boulders that formed the Carolina Bays and Nebraska basins;
and 1. the Saturn flare-up also
melted
>9. much of the post-flood ice sheets,
causing
>>13. floods, that removed the remaining ice sheets

[Lloyd]

K-T Boundary Misplacement

Above I said: The Flood flare-up (the Saturn flare-up that preceded the Great Flood) would have possibly produced larger meteor/asteroid impacts on Earth and other bodies, and the iridium dust of the K-T boundary impacts that led to dinosaur extinctions, likely during the onset of the Great Flood.

Come to think of it, the K-T boundary would be strata formed near the end of the Flood, toward the top of the "Flood geologic column". It could be associated with the Chicxulub crater in Mexico.

[JP Michael]

Lloyd, you need to read Michael Csuzdi's books and articles:

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/index.php?&pageid=5

This is mind-blowing and paradigm-shattering stuff. It is Csuzdi's contention that it is Coulomb's Force of Repulsion which is the prime mover and shaker of the Earth's continents, and I daresay his argument is mighty convincing.

Some citations from Csuzdi's Underground Geophysics:

The calculations indicate that about 10^16 free electrons per m^3 in the crust would generate the observed geomagnetic field. This is a relatively extremely small number of electrons. In the crustal rock there are about 10^28 atoms per m^3 (Avogadro's number), thus the electron density is only one part per 10^12 atoms. In comparison, in current carrying copper wires there is one free electron for each atom (as measured by the Hull effect).

The existence of free electrons, a net charge in the crust reminded me Coulomb's electrostatic repulsion force that would arise between blocks of
charged objects. On the Earth, the charged blocks would be the continents. Just how much repulsion force would be generated by the above calculated free electrons? Take, for instance, two Africa-size continents with 40 km crustal thickness, and place them 10,000 km apart (in space, to avoid the complications of the spherical surface of the globe). They would be repelling each other by an unbelievable 2x1025 kg· force. They would accelerate apart at 70,000 (seventy thousand) m/sec2. By comparison, in free fall bodies accelerate at 10 m/sec2, and the bullet in the barrel of a shotgun accelerates at 200,000 m/sec2.

I called this result an impasse and deadlock. Under this force the continents should have blown up themselves long time ago. Perhaps they do not have any net charge after all, and my co-rotation theory of the geomagnetic field is all wrong. I spent long months pondering about this problem, trying to find evidence one way or another.

[Csuzdi then describes the process by which he changed Earth orientation by putting Africa at the north pole and noting where the continents lay in a very organised pattern]

The rule appears to be that two adjacent continents must not stay in the same hemisphere. Even Antarctica obeys this rule by taking no sides. What kind of force would cause this? My conclusion is that a repulsion force is acting among the continents. Under this force each continent would move as far away from its neighbor as possible; thus they would move to a great circle of the globe, to the E-equator. Then, if the force is very great, it would cause "buckling" along this great circle.

Because earth is a sphere, the buckling effect, unlike the collapse of a radio tower to the ground, has no end point. Only equilibrium: the locations where the continents are currently. Csuzdi supposes that the earth's core is functioning like a thermionic cathode (and so is the sun, in his opinion).

If the crust was removed, the entire Earth would shine red hot.

I have studied red-hot surfaces in my own profession of electrical engineering; the cathodes of electron tubes. I imagined that we live on a huge thermionic cathode. Is this an operational cathode? Is it working as a cathode? Obviously, there is no anode plate or anode voltage around it, as in an electron tube. Normally, if you tum off the anode voltage of an electron tube in a radio, it stops working even if the cathode is kept red hot by the heating voltage.

By implication I realized the Sun was also a thermionic cathode, and it certainly operated as a cathode. Astronomers report that a constant flow of electric charges leaves its surface, that they call "solar wind". It consists of an equal amount of positive and negative charges as protons and electrons. These are generated by the thermal breakup of atomic hydrogen, the very matter of the Sun's surface. However, for some reasons astronomers do not identify the solar wind with thermionic electric charge emission in the sense as it is used in studies of electron tubes.

The Earth's red hot inner surface and the solar wind reminded me of the principles of electron tubes I studied at the university in the 1950's. An electron tube may stop operating when the anode voltage is turned off in normal everyday use in a radio, but it does not cease its charge emission. The "zero-voltage anode current" is an important measure of the cathode's efficiency in converting its thermal energy into electrical energy. This had been an important problem just before the transistors came into use, in battery operated portable radios. This property is measured in a test circuit of Figure A-27.

In the diagram D is the electron tube, a diode, B is an adjustable power supply, A is an ammeter to measure the anode current Ia, and V is a voltmeter to measure the anode voltage Ua. The tube's normal operating range is in the P region where a small change in the anode voitage results
in a relatively large and linear change in the anode current. In the S region saturation occurs because the cathode is unable to supply enough charges for a linear increase of the current. However, at the Z point in the diagram, at zero anode voltage, the anode current is not zero. Furthermore, even at negative anode voltages the current flows, against the anode voltage.

The standard explanation of this mechanism is that at red-hot temperatures atoms of the cathode ( of whatever material) break up into their constituent particles of positive ions or protons, and free electrons. Another name of these particles is "electric charges". Then collisions with thermally fast vibrating particles accelerate them in random directions. Those particles that happen to be accelerated toward the cathode's surface, depart the cathode material and continue traveling away from it. They carry an energy that originates in the cathode's thermal energy. The flow of charges away from the cathode is properly called thermionic electric charge emission (not "wind"). The amount of material emitted by the cathode is determined by the type of the cathode's material, its surface temperature, and its surface area. Most notably, the thickness of the cathode, and the inner temperature of the cathode, do not come into account.

If the cathode is located in the vacuum of free space, both types of charges are emitted in equal quantities. This equality is maintained in digital accuracy because of the nature of charge generation. Any neutral atom consists of a number of positively charged protons in its nucleus, and the same amount of negatively charged electrons in orbits around the nucleus. The equal number of opposite charges negate each other; the atom does not exhibit an external electric charge. When thermal collision removes one electron from orbit, the electron becomes a free negative charge. The loss of one electron means the loss of one negating counterpart for one proton, and the nucleus will exhibit one external positive charge. A general expression for this process is ionization of the atom, and the non-negated atom becomes a positive ion. To understand the operation of the electron tube ( and the Earth's cathode) it is necessary to discuss two concepts. One is the penetration or infusion of matter with electric charges, and the other is the two types of energy the charges carry.

In free space the emitted charges travel together to indefinite distances since nothing removes their energy. However, the opposite charges behave . differently if there is an impediment in their way. The difference is caused by the significantly different physical size of the charges. The negative charge or free electron is several orders of magnitude smaller than a positive ion. It is so small that it can easily infuse solid matter and propagate in it, including insulators (semiconductors) and metals, while a positive ion cannot infuse or penetrate either.

Emitted charges simultaneously carry energy in two different forms. One is a kinetic energy determined by the velocity and the mass of the involved particles. This is the same type of energy that is carried by, say, 1-------the-bullet-shot-by-a-gun-;-This-energy-is-active-only-when-the-partidesmove at some velocity. The other type of energy is charge separation. When opposite charges are separated, an electric force develops between them that tends to reunite the charges in the original form of a neutral atom. This energy is active even if the particles are not moving. Its related force is an electric force, called electrostatic force, Coulomb's force, or any combination of these names.

In the electron tube at zero anode voltage emitted charges propagate from the cathode toward the anode plate initially unhindered, just like the solar wind. In this form there is no significant charge separation, thus the charges collide with the solid-metal anode plate by their kinetic energy. Free electrons easily move in, they infuse it, and continue moving inside. However, positive ions cannot do this. Instead, they stay in the space between the cathode and the anode plate. This constitutes a charge separation, free electrons in the metal and ions outside. An electrical energy builds up in which the positive ions tend to attract the departing free electrons back.

However, this attraction extends not only toward the anode plate. It is omnidirectional, it acts also toward the cathode. Indeed, electrons traveling through the circuit from the anode to the cathode, reappear on the cathode. They have lost their kinetic energy in the resistive wire, slowed down, and they are capable to recombine with the waiting and attracting positive ions into their original neutral atom. Depending on heat loss, resistance, charge separation, and particle velocity, a balance sets up at some value of the current that remains constant as long as the cathode's temperature is maintained. No anode voltage is needed for the electrons to infuse the solid-matter anode plate and wiring, and propagate in them.

The above experiment can be extended by a further simplification. If no anode voltage is needed, then the anode plate can also be removed, together with its external circuitry. The emitted charges still keep moving away from the cathode by their kinetic energy, and they will collide with the next piece of solid matter in their way. This is the glass envelope of the electron tube. Again, free electrons infuse it and propagate in it ( although at smaller velocity than in metals), and the positive ions stay behind. This is charge separation again, in which the ions exert an electrical attraction force on the free electrons that entered into the glass wall, and perhaps exited at its outer surface.

However, there is no return circuitry to the cathode. A completely balanced situation arises in which the space in the tube is filled to some density of both charges that prevents further emission from the cathode (in the industry this is called "space charge"). In the balance there are more positive ions than electrons inside, and the missing electrons are partly in the glass, partly in the air just outside the glass. This is easily observable on any operating TV screen when you approach it with your fingers. The electrons cause a tingling sensation as they move into your skin, and even you may experience electrical discharge, or sparks.

Free electrons outside the thick glass screen all have moved through the glass, and there are still more free electrons in the glass wall as long as the cathode remains operating. (This is a very important mechanism toward understanding the Earth's electrical operation). In this TV tube the
anode voltage is not zero. However, the presence of an anode voltage causes only quantitative changes, not qualitative ones. We can vary the elements of the experiment to maintain a significant amount of free electrons in the glass wall. We can reduce the anode voltage, increase the size of the cathode, and decrease the relative thickness of the glass wall. Eventually we arrive at the dimensions of the Earth, and we will have a significant amount of free electrons in the glass-like granite envelope of the magma cathode, in the crust.

Electrically charged bodies exhibit a force between themselves. In fact, this is the most ancient observation of electricity. Thales of Miletus reported in 600 B.C. that a piece of amber, having been rubbed, would attract small bits of straw and feathers. This phenomenon remained only a curiosity until the dawn of modern age. In 1785 a French scientist, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, determined the numerical relationship between the quantity of electricity that two bodies carry, Q1, Q21 the distance between the bodies, R, and the force they develop, F.

There is so much more in this I am still reading through, but highly recommended. Fischer is wrong, methinks. The continents are charged bodies that are mutually repulsive to one another. The present arrangement on earth is the only way they can maintain equidistant mutual repulsion from one another. Brilliant!

[JP Michael]

Underground Geophysics, pp. 34-35:

The near-perfect geometrical pentagonal pattern I obtained after removing the zigzag component, suggests that the acting force between the continents is very powerful. It moves the landmasses into those positions against inertia, friction and other possible obstacles. If the force is really an electrical one, then the first question is how can such force "grip" a continent?

The Earth's surface is about 70% ocean, and 30% continental landmass. At the bottom of the ocean there is a very thin, solid layer of rock, the "ocean floor", of only 5-km thickness, which separates the red-hot fluid magma surface from the water. The ocean floor does not support itself, it is floating in the magma. The continental landmasses are similarly floating, and they are submerged to about 90% of their 50-km thickness. This is similar to a large frozen lake covered by a thin sheet of ice. The continents are represented by ships embedded in the ice sheet.

The red-hot magma surface continuously operates as a thermionic cathode by emitting electrical particles. The particles carry kinetic energy that, in free space, would carry them to indefinite distances. However, the ocean floor and the continents form a solid-layer envelope, the crust, that prevents the particles from freely escaping into outer space. Thus the particles are forced into the crust by their own kinetic energy and also by those particles that are following them. There is also a filtering action at work in which only free-electrons penetrate the crust. Then they propagate upward in the crust and infuse it in its volume.

The continental landmasses are much thicker than the ocean floor, by about ten times. However, on global scales, both of them are very thin with respect to their lateral expanse. For example, the Atlantic Floor is about 5000 km wide, thus its relative thickness is 1: 1000, or 0.1 %. Similarly, the continent of North America is also about 5000 km wide, thus its relative thickness is 1:100, or 1 %. From the magma cathode's point of view the crust is only a thin film with some minor variation in its thickness. Thus, the cathode's rate of emission is independent of the local thickness of the crust. Consequently, free electrons infuse both the ocean floor and the continents at the same rate; the same number of electrons enters them per meter2 per second.

The different thickness becomes significant when we compare continents to the ocean floor, because the solid mass of rock acts as an accumutator of free electrons. Consequently, electron accumulation is much greater in continents than it is in the floor. Electrons travel relatively slowly in the crust, it may take several days or weeks to move through (while in metals it would be only a few microseconds). Thus, while they are still in the crust they constitute a volume charge. Consequently, the total charge per unit surface area of crust is ten times higher when it is a continent than when it is an ocean floor.

Therefore, in the first approximation, the electrical role of the ocean floor can be ignored. In this view the physical model of the Earth is that there are six continents floating in a liquid on a spherical surface. The continents are charged in their volume, thus they exert Coulomb's electrical force on each other. This is very similar to a pith ball electroscope in which the pith balls are moving along the radius of their suspending threads, thus they are like moving on a spherical surface. But the earth's gravity also acts on the balls, from an outside direction, and it makes this electroscope a little complicated. For the continents the role of the thread is played by gravity, thus no force acts on them from the outside. This is a clear and simple gravity centered terrestrial electroscope.

[Lloyd]

6745

The different thickness becomes significant when we compare continents to the ocean floor, because the solid mass of rock acts as an accumutator of free electrons. Consequently, electron accumulation is much greater in continents than it is in the floor. Electrons travel relatively slowly in the crust, it may take several days or weeks to move through (while in metals it would be only a few microseconds). Thus, while they are still in the crust they constitute a volume charge. Consequently, the total charge per unit surface area of crust is ten times higher when it is a continent than when it is an ocean floor.

He also says at the end that it's electrostatic repulsion. That's what Charles Chandler says is how the universe electrical forces are, whereas the EU says they're electrodynamic. And I agree with Charles. The Moho layer under the continents and ocean floors is likely plasma, which Charles explains on his site. He says it's only about one meter thick but it conducts electricity rapidly all around the globe as the lunar tidal effects keep the Moho a plasma that's virtually frictionless. Your guy's ideas may supplement Charles' and Mike Fischer's ideas.

[JP Michael]

Not sure what Csuzdi would think about Fischer's hypothesis. It would need to be one massive impact to force the continents out of the respective Coulomb-Force null zones, after which they would immediately seek to return to their original, equidistant locations. If an impact did manage to disturb the continents, then they would simply seek their new equilibrium travelling at 'free-fall' speed to do so. Csuzdi has many such calculations in his books.

However, I just do not see any evidence of an impact of such magnitude in the Indian ocean. I find it far more likely that the uncovering of the broken and varigated Pangaea after the Flood resulted in the primary land masses gathering large amounts of electrons (compared to the ocean basins)and then beginning the natural repulsive traverse to their present locations. This may be in part why Noah was instructed to remain in the ark for some months before they eventually disembarked.

One thing Csuzdi does not dwell on is the impact of planetary catastrophism on potential continental charges. I would like to know what effect electrical interference of another planetary body (e.g. Saturn/Jupiter/Venus/Mars) would have on the repulsive Coulomb forces Csuzdi supposes is keeping the continents separated from one another.

I think it is also possible that Csuzdi may have inadvertantly identified the original north-south position of Earth's axis post-Deluge, with Africa at the north pole. This explains glaciation in Africa in an earlier epoch, as well as abundant vegetation across north America/Canada, Greenland and Northern Eurasia. Earth has been tipped from its original position and its rotational axis may have also altered. The continents, already having found repulsive equilibrium, have not needed to move their locations even though the axis of rotation altered.

[Lloyd]

6781

Not sure what Csuzdi would think about Fischer's hypothesis. It would need to be one massive impact to force the continents out of the respective Coulomb-Force null zones, after which they would immediately seek to return to their original, equidistant locations. If an impact did manage to disturb the continents, then they would simply seek their new equilibrium travelling at 'free-fall' speed to do so. Csuzdi has many such calculations in his books. However, I just do not see any evidence of an impact of such magnitude in the Indian ocean. I find it far more likely that the uncovering of the broken and varigated Pangaea after the Flood resulted in the primary land masses gathering large amounts of electrons (compared to the ocean basins)and then beginning the natural repulsive traverse to their present locations. This may be in part why Noah was instructed to remain in the ark for some months before they eventually disembarked.

You didn't look very hard for the evidence of the biggest impact on Mike's site, because it's pretty plain.
See https://www.newgeology.us/presentation5.html and https://www.newgeology.us/presentation9.html to start with.
Also https://www.newgeology.us/presentation6.html and https://www.newgeology.us/presentation10.html etc.

If the continents are charged the way Csuzdi thinks, what keeps them from breaking up into tiny pieces that spread out all around the globe as little islands? The charges are dissipated by the Moho layer. I suppose you haven't bothered to check out Charles' info on that at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6199

At http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11093 Charles said this.

The temperature does not simply increase steadily with depth, nor do the isotherms follow the expectations of there being an internal heat source, and where the isotherms would be dictated by the thermal conductivity and diffusivity of crustal chemicals. Rather, the temperature increases steadily with depth, at roughly 0.02 K/m,5 until it spikes in the Moho at over 900 K, and then it drops back down to what it was just above the Moho. So there is no mistaking that there is a heat source in the Moho, and there is good reason to believe that this occurs at a chemical boundary.

Go and read the rest along with some of the other papers there.

[JP Michael]

You didn't look very hard for the evidence of the biggest impact on Mike's site, because it's pretty plain.

I don't consider weak arguments to be plain (by which I presume you meant 'obvious'). A couple of maps, a croquet ball being hit into another one as an explanation for how the continents were shunted across the face of the entire globe, and some amusing computer animations, etc., is weak evidence.

Fischer claims that the meteor penetrated the crust completely and sent up an explosion, but there is no evidence of any penetration crater in the aftermath. Shouldn't there be some kind of deep hole in what is now the Indian Ocean crust east of Africa? Where is it? Even Storax Sedan, 104 MT (4.35x10^14 Joules), left an immense crater in the ground. Why didn't Fischer's bolide leave one? It was supposed to be exploding with 1.255x10^26 Joules of energy required, according to his own calculations, to move the continents. Why did an explosion supposedly 12 orders of magnitude greater than Sedan leave basically no observable crater? Or, like Fischer's hand-waving evidence of crater rims bring conveniently destroyed by inflowing water, did the largest ever meteor to supposedly strike earth have a penetration crater that simply vanished from existence? Nonexistent evidence isn't evidence. But Fischer is close to Csuzdi by identifying Africa as the centrepiece for continental relationships. At least he got that part right.

Csuzdi's model has several advantages over Fischer's: scalability (the geometric arrangements can be tested small scale and then adjusted for continental masses), repeatability and predictability. Most notable in the last regard are his calculations for the location of the Martian and Lunar continents which follow the same geometric pattern seen on Earth. This is a very strong argument for a repeatable, orderly, electrically-derived means of continental sorting which is likely common across the universe, not just our own solar system. The arrangement of Earth's, Mars' and the Moon's continents follow a geometric pattern determined by electric repulsion forces which are observable and repeatable. The theory is simpler than Fischer's and requires fewer ad-hoc assumptions and just-so hand waving explanations (like the lunacy of Australia & Antarctica rotating 90 degrees 'just because' and New Zealand riding 9,000 km east then turning 90 degrees 'because turbulence' and travel another 2,000 km south). Csuzdi's geophysics is much simpler, and we both know that God's creation loves the simple path. This does not discount the possibility of an asteroid impact north of Madagascar; it simply says that such an impact is largely irrelevant to the precise geometric pattern of the location of Earth's continents as determined by the universal principles of electromagnetism.

If the continents are charged the way Csuzdi thinks, what keeps them from breaking up into tiny pieces that spread out all around the globe as little islands?

Csuzdi assumes that the electric permeability of the crust is one electron per trillion atoms (this is compared to, say, a copper wire which is one electron per atom). This gives the whole continental volume a specified charge without it being exceedingly violent. The earth's crust is a semiconductor according to his model; it does not permit transport of positive charge but only negative charge, and that in the direction of mantle -> crust -> atmosphere. The charge it does carry is not enough to break the essential bonds of its constituent materials, in the same way that a copper wire is not broken up by the charge it carries (although said wire will being to melt if enough voltage is put into it: these are volcanoes in the Earth's crust). I daresay the dissipation of electrons into the oceans may also play a significant role in keeping the continents put. I do not yet know if, or how, Csuzdi factors oceanic charge into his calculations, given that 70% of our planet is covered in the liquid.

As for the Moho layer, I do not know enough about it to comment at length. Csuzdi supposes the crust floats on a themionic cathode magma and I have not yet read what he says about the Moho layer, if anything. It may be that the Moho layer is acting as virtual cathode sheath separating distinct charged regions of the crust/mantle. Csuzdi's core argument is that, like in a cathode vacuum tube, wherever there is heat there is transfer of electrons. That the Moho layer is so hot, compared to the regions above and below, gives important evidence that a significant concentration of electrons are pooling in that area, exactly as one would expect for Csuzdi's model, because the crust is a semiconductor and, unlike the plastic mantle below it, can only permit the passage of less electrons than are actually pooling beneath it for passage to the atmosphere.

[Lloyd]

6936

Gee, you are extremely biased. You don't acknowledge plain evidence.
Just north of Madagascar is a huge depression over 600 miles in diameter. See the first 3 images at https://www.newgeology.us/presentation5.html
See the images after the first two images at https://www.newgeology.us/presentation9.html
Esp. the 3rd and 4th images there.
They show where the asteroid struck Africa on Earth's crust and where the asteroid ended up in Earth's mantle just below the crust south of India. The asteroid caused the crust to slide over the mantle several hundred miles. The least flexible part of the mantle is located where the asteroid ended up by India. The sources of the supporting images below the main ones are given under each image.

His other pages show: that the continents all moved away from that one location north of Madagascar; that mountains formed on the near and far sides of the continents with respect to the asteroid impact; etc. (I have to get ready to go to work.)

[Lloyd]

ANCIENT MAPS FRAUD?

The fraud is in claiming that the maps are evidence of ancient advanced civilization. Maybe there are maps that do show such evidence, but the famous ones appear not to show such evidence at all, and that suggests that the others may not either.

I briefly discussed it at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... 2335#p2335 where I posted links to the videos that demonstrate the possible fraud.

[JP Michael]

Gee, you are extremely biased. You don't acknowledge plain evidence.

What, because I refuse to acknowledge Fischer's interpretation of the Indian Ocean's Somali Basin, I therefore cannot "acknowledge plain evidence"? You're confusing 'facts' with 'interpretations', and I am well within my rights to question them, just as you are well within you rights to question Csuzdi's proposal. You seem to be having a deferential knee-jerk reaction to criticism of your favoured theories. This isn't critical thinking. If you want to argue that Csuzdi's electromagnetic repulsion hypothesis is wrong, read his materials and demonstrate why he's wrong instead of handwaving and fiat declaring "You're Csuzdi's disciple; I'm Fischer/Chandler's disciple!" (cf. John 9:28)

That such a basin exists east of the African continent is a fact. Here is a brilliant (and 4K!) topographical map of the Indian ocean floor. What I reject is Fischer's interpretation of the existence of a large basin off the east coast of Africa. If the depth of the basin is 'evidence' of a meteor strike, then why not also the Bay of Bengal? Why not also the Arabian Basin? Why not also the Wharton Basin? Why not also the Natal Basin? Why not also the Crozet Basin? They're all comparable in depth and circumference. Are these 5 separate meteor strikes? If not, why not?

His other pages show: that the continents all moved away from that one location north of Madagascar; that mountains formed on the near and far sides of the continents with respect to the asteroid impact; etc.

And how does Fischer know this is what happened? Isn't it only because he needs this to be true in order to confirm his shock dynamics hypothesis? Yet he has to add auxillary hypotheses to justify the final 90 degree rotations of Australia and the shunting of New Zealand several thousand kilometres south of where it had originally, supposedly, slid, in addition to Madagascar and Africa hardly moving at all from the original blast. Just because some video supposedly 'shows' continents flying out from some central point doesn't mean it was ultimately caused by a meteor strike. Csuzdi's model could very well explain the same thing without a meteor strike and, admittedly, with much more prevalent, and simpler, electromagnetic mechanics.

evidence of ancient advanced civilization

Genesis 4:17-25 is not enough? They were building cities, mastering agricultural techniques, creating music and poetry and engaged in metallurgy and smithing, the latter of which has repeatedly appeared in coal and other interesting archaeological excavations, all prior to the Deluge. And what do we find after the Deluge? Building of cities, mastering agricultural techniques, creating music and poetry, and engaging in metallurgy and smithing (Genesis 11 ff.). Nothing has changed in 6,000 years of earth history!

There is no question in my mind that humanity has been intelligent and involved in creative industry since the very beginning. All of human history testifies to this. There is no period when humanity has not been building, farming and creating works of art and culture. It is only evolutionary dogma which asserts the contrary in the mainstream. I suppose the only issue is whether such activity took place on the Antarctic continent, and I doubt the extant military bases and exploration on that frigid and mostly inaccessible location will truly divulge what they are really there for. Just like with artifacts found in stone and coal, the authorities know their mainstream indoctrination programmes are wrong. They just don't want the rest of the world to realise how wrong they are, and how we've been lied to about the true history of the world since our births.