Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

[JP Michael]

Do you all recall...

That's what our Kiwi friend mentioned above. I found it and hotlinked a 6 min vid:

Ebner Effect

FIOS commercialised it into their Greenbox which cost about €460. Results varied but nothing has been posted on their forum since 2017.

[JP Michael]

...what there proves EDM?

Big picture, Lloyd. Connect Setterfield, Ransom, Thornill and Hall together (and there are others; I gave only a brief sample of the literature) and you'll have most of the picture. I especially recommend Hall's articles, especially "Sputtering Canyons 1-3" and "Arc Blast 1-3".

Please note this is not specific evidence for excavation of ocean basins as per Moses (I have no opinion on that yet), but more generally that EDM, both as direct interplanetary arc discharge and its closely associated colloroy, ionic winds, is a primal geological force to be reckoned with.

Most 'mainstream' creationism does not factor EDM forces into any of their geological models. They have Flooding, Volcanism and Uniformitarianism only. Overemphasising the role of flooding and ignoring plasma/EDM will lead only to a skewed and/or incomplete picture.

...produce thermonuclear explosions.

Barry put this idea to the sword earlier in this thread:

...the huge impacts which closed the geological Eras were not nuclear in origin, nor did they ignite a thermonuclear response. If they had, the relevant chemical elements would still be in evidence, but there are none. To think otherwise is misleading speculation without any evidence.

Let the proponents of the thermonuclear bolide hypothesis demonstrate the relevant fusion byproducts left over in craters. Then there will be something to discuss on that point.

[Lloyd]

EDM CRATERS vs. BOLIDE IMPACT THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSION CRATERS

JP, what fusion byproducts should be produced by bolide thermonuclear explosions? I'll ask Charles also.

This article, Nuclear Weapons Tests and Environmental Consequences: A Global Perspective, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165831/ says as follows.

Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing involved the release of considerable amounts of radioactive materials directly into the environment and caused the largest collective dose from man-made sources of radiation (UNSCEAR 2000a).

14C [[fusion byproduct from nuclear weapons testing]] contribution ... is 70 % ... over the course of thousands of years

Considerable percentages are also found in the cases of radionuclides, 137Cs (13 %) and 90Sr (3 %), as well as seven other radionuclides with effective dose percentage values ranging from 1.1 to 2.4 %. It is estimated that, apart from radionuclide 14C, most of the other radionuclides will have delivered almost their entire dose over the next two centuries (UNSCEAR 1993).

Thus, when considering only 10 % of the 14C dose commitment, which corresponds to the truncated effective dose commitment in the year 2200 (by which time most of the other radionuclides will have delivered almost their entire dose), the 14C only contributes 19 % of the truncated effective dose commitment

So it looks like most fusion byproducts decay within a few centuries. C14 lasts the longest.

Does Barry know if the same radionuclides should be produced in a bolide impact thermonuclear explosion? Or which byproducts does he think should be produced? And what is the half-life of each?

Also, wouldn't EDM also produce fusion byproducts? Charles concluded that one third of the Sun's energy is produced from megalightning in or near the Sun's photosphere, which megalightning causes fusion. No fusion comes from the Sun's deep interior.

[JP Michael]

Unfortunately I am not up to speed with fusion byproduct chemistry.

When Charles talks about 'thermonuclear', he means fusion (not fission), right? And surely you both know that the only (currently known) way a thermonuclear fusion detonation can take place is if it forced to do so by a phase 1 fission chain reaction? To re-emphasise, I am talking about a detonation, not a couple of Hydrogens becoming Helium in a lightning bolt.

In a bolide, there is no mechanism for phase 1 fission. There is no concentrated quantity U235 or Pu239 in a meteor to go critical as the primary, at least from what we know of the usual composition of meteors. Secondly, there is no mechanism for phase 2 fusion. There is no containment of thermal X-rays, no Pu239 'plug' to implode, and no specific high-density concentration of deuterium or tritium. If bolides were going thermonuclear, don't you think there would be some evidence of the 14,000,000 K required to fuse even hydrogen atoms (and this is the baseline, temperature only goes up from here)? I admit there may be electroplasma forces we are unaware of causing elemental fusion at lower temperatures (eg. SAFIRE), but what needs to be demonstrated is that the conditions for 'cold' fusion in SAFIRE match those present in bolide impact, and at this point we're comparing chalk and cheese.

Barry noted the specific formation of pressure shocked quartz as one of the key indicators of bolide impact, specifically the two high-pressure, compact arrangements of silicon dioxide: coesite and stishovite. Seifertite can also be produced but is much, much rarer due to the extremely high pressures (35+ GPa) required to form it. Another form is called impactite. These all form at repeatable pressure/temperature ranges so we know the upper limit of temperature/pressures occuring during impact events, and they are no-where near 14 million Kelvin required for fusion.

Interestingly, Andrew Hall has much to say about the role of shockwave pressure from ionic windstorms in EDM events as a major contributor to the formation of specific geological features in his Arc Blast series.[1] I highly recommend those as essential reading.

Man-made nuclear detonations produce similar, but not identical, shocked silicon crystals, eg. trinitite from the Trinity test; the Russians have a similar, but not identical, material called kharitonchik (харитончик).

In my mind, I actually see a lot of interrelated phenomena here. The shockwave geological forming processes of bolide impact, EDM and thermonuclear detonation all share some common features, but also marked differences. The differences depend on location of shockwave reflection (eg., for bolides this is primarily underground, for EDM it is mostly surface-atmosphere, and thermonuclear can be any of the three depending on where the bomb was detonated), direction of shockwave and energy of shockwave.

Thermonuclear detonations cause shockwaves which can result in surface geological deformation. Shockwaves, such as those generated in a bolide impact, do not cause thermonuclear detonations but do actively deform geological features. Shockwaves are perhaps the most under-rated influence on earth geology during high intensity EDM ionic wind events in the Earth's past.

[1]A. Hall, "Arc Blast - Part 1," Thunderblogs, May 11, 2016; "Arc Blast - Part 2," Thunderblogs, May 21, 2016; "Arc Blast - Part 3," Thunderblogs, May 28, 2016.

[Lloyd]

JP, can you supply references for the statements you made about fusion and fusion byproducts? I don't know much about the subject either, but I'm willing to learn and to reason about it. For man-made fusion bombs, I kind of recall reading about the fission bomb inside that's needed to set off the fusion bomb, but nature can often do things much greater than man can. I don't think the fission bomb would be needed in a bolide impact of sufficient size. The momentum of the bolide, dense rock colliding with dense rock, should provide tremendous heat and pressure. We need to get calculations of how much of both would be produced by an impact of a certain size and velocity. As Charles said, it would be off the charts. He adds that the fusion byproducts would mostly be blown away. So we have some research to do here.

I discussed Andy Hall's ideas with others a couple years ago when I organized a geology project for CNPS (Chappel Natural Philosophy Society?). There are several threads on EU geology theory I posted at https://cnps.boards.net/board/12/geology

Here's the only post in the first EU thread there.

Electric Universe: supposes that major Earth features are explained mainly by electrical forces.
iascc.org __ holoscience.com __ thunderbolts.info (& Surge Tectonics: ncgt.org __ forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=113 )

1. __Bruce Leybourne & __Robert Farrar (& Wal Thornhill) suppose that the Atlantic basin was formed by sustained megalightning, i.e. electric discharge, which also produced fossiliferous sedimentary strata on adjacent continents.
_CNPS REQUESTS:
a. calculations of the precise conditions needed to produce the needed size of arc blasts (or megalightning)
b. specifying which strata & fossils were affected & to what distances, shown on a map
c. an explanation of how sedimentaton occurred
d. a comparison with known lightning trenches & an explanation of why no smaller meandering trench is found on the Atlantic seafloor.

2. __Andy Hall, __Doug Ettinger & maybe Robert (?) suppose that the Colorado plateau and many mountain chains, especially with flat irons, were formed by arc blasts (or megalightning) from the Puerto Rico trench etc.
andrewdhall.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/arc-blast/ __ thedailyplasma.blog/2016/09/16/arc-blast-part-one/
_CNPS REQUESTS:
a. calculations of the precise conditions needed to produce the needed size of megalightning
b. specifying which types of mountains were affected & how
c. cross-sections &/or on-site data.

I found one or more relevant geologic cross-sections of flat-irons online, and I don't think it or they supported the EU theory.

[Lloyd]

ANDY HALL'S et al EDM THEORY

_Here's an extensive dialogue I had almost 3 years ago with Andy and other EU proponents for CNPS.
https://cnps.boards.net/thread/23/eu-mountains
_This is one of the images I posted there: https://i.imgur.com/3V02aYs.png
_In this post there https://cnps.boards.net/post/58/thread I shared Mike Fischer's comment on the flatirons and the erosion image he sent me.
_I initially thought Andy's theory was very good for evidence of EDM caused mountain formation, but now I think it's more likely evidence of water erosion. The triangle shapes of the flat irons etc seem more likely due to water erosion than to EDM.
_At the top of this article is an image of coastal erosion https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-51207384 .
_What it shows is that water erosion can produce a repeating pattern. The flatirons aren't shaped like that, but they're a repeating pattern of triangles, instead of semicircles. The coastal erosion could be described as "scalloped" edges, like how Thornhill et al describe the cliffs of Vallis Marineris (the largest known canyon in the solar system) on Mars as seen here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006 ... ridges.htm .
_Here's a Google search on flatirons erosion: https://www.google.com/search?q=flatiro ... 5&biw=1366
_It brings up this site
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAD
which shows in the 6th image on the page a geologic cross-section of the flatirons, which shows that they are formed by water erosion.
_PS, Mike also shared this link there: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Flatiron-(geomorphology)

[JP Michael]

I'm impressed by the correspondence and the fact you have been thinking about this for some years now, Lloyd.

I am less impressed by the flooding hypothesis for the formation of 'flatirons' (aka. triangular buttresses).

What watery, erosional mechanism exists to plane away (or deposit anew) the surface strata specifically into resonant, triangular geometry? Water will not erode in that manner. It may exhibit partial resonance (eg. wave action vs a cliff face, like the sample photo from England), but this will not cause large and small triangular buttresses to form in the same location from a single event. Let me illustrate, taking Serranía de Hornoca in Argentina as my example.

Figure 1. Serranía de Hornoca


In this image, perspective south (that is, south is top of picture, north is bottom), in the wider view of this geological formation it is clear that there are two radical and distinct sides to it. One side, and one side only, has been pushed up and into the mountain, forcing bulbous, rounded lobes out the other side. This is exactly the prediction of hypersonic shock waves. There is a windward-side and a lee-ward side with separate, distinct resulting geology.

If this was erosion by water, we should expect rounding on both sides, or triangles on both sides, not half of each on each side. I challenge those of the flood view to demonstrate which way the water flowed to generate such disperate geology, and what mechanisms of water-flow exhibit such disperate features.

Distinct features in windward and leeward directions is a specific prediction of the hypersonic shockwave model.

Figure 2. Serranía de Hornoca


Zoomed out slightly, you can clearly see that whatever mountain used to be at Serranía de Hornoca, it was completely blown to pieces in a southward direction. Note in the northern (bottom) region of this image are copious 'blue' and 'white' sediments, one of the sources of the electrically-sorted deposition into the beautifully coloured triangular buttresses.

There are few, if any, triangular formations on the leeward side, a prediction specific to the hypersonic shockwave hypothesis. Flooding has no explanation for this feature.

Figure 3. Regional View: Serranía de Hornoca


In this image the more regional topography becomes evident. The chasmic scouring of the mountains from the north, including one immense chasm stretching from Camargo in the north to El Puente, exavating immense quantities of red and white-black material evident throughout all parts of the Andes further south.

Moreover, this entire valley is flanked on both sides by poorly formed triangular buttresses. This is because the excavation and deposition of material occured at a rather oblique angle to the wind's direction. These have subsequently been rounded by flow of water into the valley from rainfall over the centuries/millenia following the event. The rivers into the valley have all cut clear channels between the buttresses.

Serranía de Hornoca was not so fortunate; it copped the full frontal brunt of whatever this hypersonic wind event was and it literally split the mountain open from the inside, causing it to bubble, ooze and flow towards the south. The sudden, catastrophic shockwaves impacting the windward side of the mountain left the beautiful triangular features. This feature was not, and could not, have been formed by water.

Anyone who wants to travel to the region and calculate the physics of it is more than welcome to do so. All the angles and information you need is snapped frozen in the stone.

Figure 4. Oblique Angle Shockwave Physics.

[Lloyd]

JP, I figure the ridges are formed by buckling of the continental crust from horizontal compression as per http://NewGeology.us and the buttresses or flatirons are formed by rain erosion. I don't have time to discuss more right now.

[JP Michael]

the buttresses or flatirons are formed by rain erosion.

The problem with this is that formation in Argentina exhibits rain erosion features on the null overall contribution scale. Where did all the material erode to? It's not in the valley. Its not downstream. The erosion channels on the feature are blatantly evident and clearly show that it has not been eroding for long since the formation was made. I will post pictures tomorrow because I, likwise, have no time today.

[Lloyd]

FLATIRONS FLOOD + SHOCK DYNAMICS VS EDM

The images here appear to be geologic cross-sections of the Flatirons near Boulder CO.

(https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCZ ... 51764dad0f)


(https://richwolf.wordpress.com/2017/01/ ... flatirons/)
_3 years ago at CNPS I requested geologic cross-sections that would support Andy Hall's model of EDM formation of flatirons. I don't think I ever got a response about that.
_In the images above, the rock strata are named and are the same as the horizontal strata in other nearby areas.
_EDM (or ionic winds) surely could not have formed those strata. EDM would mix together a lot of different material which should not be recognizable as of the same strata as in nearby areas (where horizontal strata were not affected much by mountain uplift).
_All mountain ranges appear to have been formed by horizontal compression, due to the asteroid impact that broke up the supercontinent that caused rapid continental drift (see http://NewGeology.us), i.e. rapid sliding of the continents over the low-friction plasma Moho layer.
_The Great Flood was apparently receding at that time, so the tops of the mountains may have been washed away. The rock strata would have been soft then, because they were freshly laid down by the Flood. As the Flood receded (during regression) it may have formed the triangular buttresses, called flatirons.
_Experiments may be able to show how it could have happened. I doubt if EDM/ionic-wind experiments could produce the same effects, including geologic cross-sections.
_PS, commenting on your post above, JP, the asteroid impact and continental drift would have produced shock waves and thus shocked rock.

[moses]

Sediments form from laminated deposition which is a flow of material derived from ocean water plus other material by EDM. These laminated deposits do not have to form horizontally but huge mountain forming forces acted upon these sediments probably after the ice ages presumably via an interaction of Earth and Mars.

Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

See Flatirons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatiron_(geomorphology)

[Lloyd]

2149

1. Boulder, CO (Flatirons)

https://i.ibb.co/JBwmD9Q/Flatirons-Geol.png

2. Colorado Springs, CO (Garden-of-Gods)

https://i.ibb.co/gSw1Qpm/Fount-Forma.png

You can see here that the same strata are at the two locations: Flatirons at Boulder and Garden-of-Gods at Colorado Springs.
Boulder, CO -- Col. Spgs., CO
Pierre Shale -- Pierre Shale
Niobrara Fm -- Niobrara Gp
Benton Fm -- Graneros-Carlisle Fms
Dakota Gp -- Dakota Gp
Morrison Fm -- Morrison Fm
Lykins Fm -- Lykins Fm
Lyons Sandstone -- Lyons Fm (Permian)
Fountain Fm -- Fountain Fm (Penn-Permian)
Precambrian (Metamorphic & Granitic) Rocks
-- Proterozoic Granite and Gneiss
(Compare also this cross-section around Pike's Peak: https://sites.google.com/a/dcsdk12.org/ ... c-time/4-4 )

_You can see that the same diagonal strata that make up the flatirons near Boulder are horizontal east of the flatirons.
_It's easy to understand how the strata became partly diagonal where mountain uplift occurred (due to horizontal compression during rapid continental drift after the Great Flood).
_It's hard to understand how EDM or ionic winds would deposit the same strata both horizontally on the plains and diagonally on mountain slopes.
_Instead, EDM would surely make a mixture of the various rock types.
_Berthault's experiments showed how flooding causes the different rock types to separate into the different strata (with the names of each group of strata shown above).
_I don't think any EDM experiments have shown anything similar. If they have, let's see them. Okay?

[JP Michael]

Hey Lloyd,

I have not been able to develop a reply due to an unexpected guest (one of my wife's friends) occupying my study (spare bedroom) since Friday. I will have time to do this tomorrow.

I have noticed your focus on the Boulder flatirons. I will need some time for specific analysis of the region to make any observations pertinent to the hypersonic wind hypothesis.

The cross-sectional data is interesting. I will need to dig into how they arrived at those diagrams.

[Lloyd]

I assume the cross-sections come from drill core data.