DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: EU DEBATE
*****************************************************
#Post#: 220--------------------------------------------------
1st Tectonics Discussion
By: Admin Date: October 23, 2017, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
CNPS SPECIAL PROJECT. (((Sunday 6pm Eastern Time))) -- This
Project is expected to last a few months. I hope to have
discussions weekly or so.
[NEXT TIME MAYBE:
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6DSuZNzgPVRcVhct1_voeGVYgMOzkUcflWg1J2ddIM/edit<br
/>]
DIRECTIONS: PLEASE STATE INITIALS & FIRST & LAST NAME IN CHAT
BOX AT LOWER RIGHT. START EACH PARAGRAPH WITH YOUR INITIALS.
(If this page freezes on your computer, you may need to reopen
the link at
HTML https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/CritiquePlateTectonics
)
_LK: Hi All. Thanks for your participation. This is for live
discussion to question mainstream Plate Tectonics & our own
alternative models.
---- The Tectonics Models being compared are ET: Expansion
Tectonics; PT: Plate Tectonics; ST: Surge Tectonics; EU:
Electric Universe; ESU: Electrostatic Universe; & SD: Shock
Dynamics (Links at bottom. Bruce & Louis left early comments at
the bottom. Bruce's were accidentally deleted.)
_LK: Below I list the main claims of each model in 5 categories
of claims. Let's discuss in the spaces between each category.
Let me know if I stated any of the claims incorrectly.
PT is the mainstream position. Let's share BRIEF arguments &
links to important evidence in each category against PT & Let's
ask important questions for each model. More than one person can
write at a time (even in different sections).
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
1. HOW THE EARTH FORMED.
<ET: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the
Nebular Hypothesis. Then Earth (and other celestial bodies with
magnetic fields) expanded significantly over millions of years.
<PT: (F:) Stars & planets form by gravitational accretion of
cosmic dust as per the Nebular Hypothesis
<ST: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the
Nebular Hypothesis.
<EU: (F:) Condensed plasma, could have been created and
destroyed many times
<ESU: (F:) Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic
electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric
double-layers within the bodies, which produce radiation,
earthquakes, volcanism etc.
<SD: (F:) The protocontinent [supercontinent] formed from a
massive body that also formed the Moon.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
_LH: Earth formation - any scientific theory has to be
compatible with the culture of the society that uses it. For
judeo-christians that means Big Bang model and all its problems.
This is the standard model. Proposing acceptable alternatives
involves also explaining and replacing the core societal beliefs
bundled as religion.
_LK: 1B=Have_ Charles Chandler has the best evidence against the
Nebular Hypothesis that I know of. I'll see if I can get the
link. He says matter wouldn't accrete in space, that if it
condensed too much the heat or hydrostatic pressure would force
it apart. __ http//:qdl.sds-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12682.html
_LH: PN Oat, writing from the Hindu perspective, assumed
everything was created "as is" billions of years ago, so a
suitable rhetorical assumption could avoid having to deal with
the something from nothing idea.
_LH: 1A=Need_ Chandler is right - accretion is not observed, nor
can one assume protons accumulating in a core since repulsion
has to be factored in. High density phases best explained as
Z-pinch products. ===
_LH: 2C=Need_ Planets could be fizzled out stars that are now
escaping from Z-Pinch compressive forces? ===
_LK: Bruce, {I meant Louis} can you give more details on how
plasma would condense?
_BL: 1B=Have_ Plasma condenses within the Chestahedron geometry,
see __Frank Chester wonder of seven. Condensation happens during
a charging phase, while plasma dissipation occurs during
discharging. The magnetic field also strengthens and weakens
from charging and discharging respectively. ===
_MF: The problems with accretion are well known, but I have not
focused on this issue. Is the formation of any planetary systems
being seen today by astronomers?
_BL: 2B=Need_ The supposed Nibiru, i.e. brown dwarfs near the
Sun, seem to be condensation vortices from current charging of
the solar system. The coronal holes appear to be the areas where
charge enters opened up by magnetic poles of the planets. ===
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
2. HOW THE CRUSTAL FEATURES FORMED.
<ET: (C:) Earth oceans are where most expansion has occurred at
Earth's surface. Earth's mass increase comes from the solar
wind, which causes expansion at the core-mantle boundary inside
the Earth.
<PT: (C:) Islands formed and mantle convection caused them to
slowly form a supercontinent. Mantle convection caused the
supercontinent to slowly split apart into continents.
<ST: (C:) Earth shrank significantly over millions of years, due
to cooling & the lithosphere contains a worldwide network of
deformable magma surge channels in which partial magma melt is
in motion, due to Earth contraction and rotation. Flood basalt
covering most of the seafloor and parts of continents originated
from surge channel ruptures. Oceanization is the tendency of
continental land to sink and become seafloor.
<EU: (C:) Electrical circuits heat and cool (expand and
contract), Surge Theory with an electrical reinterpretation
makes the most sense for our model.
<ESU: (C:) Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets,
which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
<SD: (C:) A giant meteorite impact north of what is now
Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and
islands via Shock Dynamics.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
_MF: 1C=Have_ Earth is not currently expanding, according to
__Wu et. al. 2011 Geophysical Research Letters Accuracy of the
International Terrestrial Reference Frame -- origin and Earth
expansion, which uses "multiple precise geodetic data sets" to
determine that "the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to
within 1 sigma measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm per yr". They
averaged "weekly instantaneous frame origins spanning 26 years
of Satellite Laser Ranging observations."
_LH: 3C=Need_ So earth is in volumetric stasis. __Vadim Anfilov
years ago interpreted Oz seismic data that shrinkage or cooling
is happening.
_BL: 2C=Need_ More likely a pulsating earth due to charging and
discharging phases... ===
_MF: 1C=Need_ PT does not explain the positions of crustal
features as a whole on the Earth, only locally. However, there
is a pattern discernible beginning at a central point just north
of Madagascar. Landmasses that moved went away from that point.
This is a foundation of SD. ET superficially explains many
features, especially if one looks only at the Atlantic Ocean
region, but it is no longer obvious in the Southeast Asia
region. ET also struggles to explain compression mountain
building during expansion, and why mid-ocean ridges show varying
speeds at different locations along the ridges, as between the
central and south mid-Atlantic ridge. ===
_BL: 3C=Have_ There is an expansion at the equator during El
Nino's, from EQ joule heating or warming of the mantle. It moves
toward the equator with increasing viscosity and centrifugal
forcing. This returns back to a contraction during La Nina. This
is according to the __GRACE satellite mission data. Chestahedron
geometry shows how this oscillation works. Whether or not there
is net expansion or contraction was not addressed in the
discussion and remains an open question depending on the time
interval under review.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
3. HOW MILE-THICK SEDIMENTARY STRATA FORMED.
<ET: (S:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (S:) Sedimentary rock strata were deposited in shallow seas
on the continents over millions of years.
<ST: (S:)
<EU: (S:) Sedimentation occurs constantly, can be chemical
precipitates, weathered rock, turbidites etc. -- This has been
covered well in many text books
<ESU: (S:)
<SD: (S:) During this Flood orbiting asteroid-caused tsunamis
deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the
protocontinent.
- As atmospheric pressure fell, much calcium carbonate
precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock
with fossils.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
_LH: 4A=Need_ Thick sediments are "usually" explained by erosion
of adjacent mountains over long periods of time. Cliff Ollier
would call this the "geological cycle", and is the standard
model. Problem is that water cannot transport loads on
horizontal planes - so having uniform sandstone deposits
hundreds of miles laterally requires miraculous water. Even
Gerry Pollack can't rig EZ water to do this, so I 've suggested,
after watching the Star Wars Rogue One movie, that massive
sediments are formed by electrified erosional products of deeply
weathered regoliths via a sort of magnetohydrodynamic process.
Very catastrophic in nature, however. ===
_LK: 1A=Need_ Louis, what about an asteroid or other large body
orbiting Earth causing megatsunamis that swept mud and sand onto
the continent/s from the continental shelf forming sedimentary
rock? Also, CO2 in seawater degassed and formed limestone? ===
_MF: Is there evidence for "the bulk removal of crust on the
Earth"? Do you mean continental crust or mud and sand?
_BL: 4B=Need_ This fits the arc blast concept of ocean basins
being removed electrically. ===
_MF: I can imagine it, but where did all the continental crust
disappear to? It currently averages 35 km thick.
_LH: 5C=Need_ Adds weight to the Sial-Sima macro structure
proposed years ago too. ===
_MF: 2A=Need_ The work of sedimentologist Guy Berthault has
demonstrated that moving water carrying sediment deposits
multiple layers simultaneously. Over 40 documented "megaflood"
deposits illustrate this, as do the Columbia and Mt Saint Helens
landscapes. Many sedimentary geological formations extend over
hundreds of thousands of square miles. ===
_LH: 6A=Need_ My field experience negates this - flowing water
over bedrock is actually EZ water with a liquid crystal internal
structure. It cannot pick up sediment loads. Water in bulk mode
can. It's like water sliding over the bedrock like a fluidised
glacier. However adding plasma forces makes it easier to explain
massive sedimentary deposits. ===
_MF: 3A=Need_ Moving water has enormous erosive and carrying
power, including large rocks, and loss of flow energy releases
the load. ===
_LH: 7B=Need_ Observations of tsunamis making landfall doesn't
seem to involve picking up bedrock - every thing on top and
loose is picked up. A common error is arguing the consequent -
here that sediments are deposited by water, and rivers flow
along river beds, so hence the sediments are formed by the
rivers. Isolated gravel deposits, such as chevron deposits
abutting highlands, are explained as being put there by massive
tsunamis. Load carrying tsunamis cannot carry any load over an
ocean. They can only carry a load that they have excavated from
bedrock but when a tsunami makes landfall, it rapidly runs out
of energy as there is nothing "driving" the wave front. Plunking
a stone in a pond causes tsunami-like waves to form but these
are effects of the impact made by the stone being plunked into
the pond. These waves dissipate into the background the further
away they are from their initial generating force. Tsunamis
making landfall very quickly run out of steam or energy. Videos
of the latest Japanese events suggest the water body is behaving
like a massive liquid crystal moving laterally over the land
with great power. Not surprising if it is EZ water. ===
_MF: 4A=Need_ The assumed source of sediment is previously
eroded bedrock, not the bedrock itself. The tsunamis doing the
work are assumed to be cross-continental. ===
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
4. HOW MOUNTAIN RANGES FORMED.
<ET: (O:) Mountain ranges occur near continental edges due to
reduction in the Earth's radius of curvature that occurs with
expansion at the surface.
<PT: (O:) Mountain ranges formed slowly from continental
collisions and magma plumes etc.
<ST: (O:) Mountain ranges are formed by vertical uplift from
below.
_There is Earth's core, mantle and crust interaction, in which
thermal energy from the core is the fundamental energy source of
global tectonic activities including earthquakes, volcanoes,
rise and sink of the Earth surface, and global climate as well
<EU: (O:) Arc Blast or Static discharge between planets and the
sun seem to be primary factors -- Recent field work, can be
shared.
[Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the
Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel,
which expanded, uplifting mountains.]
<ESU: (O:) Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental
drift due to a large asteroid impact.
<SD: (O:) The movement of plates raised nearly all of the
mountain chains via horizontal compression, and initiated global
volcanism.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
_MF: 5B=Have_ "Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world
are a consequence of crustal shortening." From: __Some Simple
Physical Aspects of the Support, Structure, and Evolution of
Mountain Belts. Peter Molnar, H. Lyon-Caen. Special Paper 218,
Geological Society of America, 1988, pp. 179-207.
_LH: 8A=Need_ Agreed - but what then is the horizontal force
that operated? PT can explain this. ET cannot by definition.
Electric plasma effects could by forming strong lateral variants
of Lorentz Force as a peripheral effect of a distal
electromachining process eroding regolith and upper crust to
form ocean basins. Strange that mountains are associated with
subducted plates causing shortening or accretion. Rather than
ocean plate moving, the plasma arc stripped the regolith and
crust off, forming the ocean basin, and as a peripheral effects
laterally compressed the adjacent remnant crust, along with
volcanic activity etc resulting from the massive inputs of
energy into the system. ===
_BL: 5A=Need_ Arc blast in the Grand canyon pushed up the
Rockies, the thrust faulting is huge and needed sever energy to
have that amount of thrust. ===
_MF: If that happened, wouldn't the Rockies be concentric around
the Grand Canyon?
_BL: 6C=Need_ It didn't stop at the Grand Canyon, but traveled
up the river systems of the Colorado and Green river creating
the current morphology about 12,900 years ago when the Carolina
Bays were formed also during the 12,900 megafaunal extinction
event... ===
_MF: 6A=Have_ PT is too weak to raise mountain chains. Numbers
from the literature have values in this range: Slab pull: 500
bars, 450 bars ("subduction pull"), 300 bars; Ridge push: 200
bars, 250 bars, 250 bars, 200-300 bars, 200-400 bars; Basal
drag: 200 bars, 200 bars. And basal drag is considered to be an
opposing force to plate movement except beneath cratons. The
stress required for crustal shortening to build mountains is
hard to find, but has been calculated to be in a range from 1500
to 2500 bars up to 4000 to 6000 bars, inferring the latter "from
earthquake data and evaluation of the stresses required to
produce specific geological structures". In the case of South
America, the combination of ridge push and forward basal drag
(by trench suction) could produce only 400 to 600 bars of force,
which is clearly insufficient to build the Andes. These forces
are already engaged in moving the entire plate westward.
_LK: Mike, I had your reference for that saved up. __It's
HTML http://www.newgeology.us/Plate%20Tectonics.pdf
_MF: 7A=Need_ This is one of the problems with PT, that it is
okay at explaining the current situation but not the origin.
This applies not only to mountain chains, but to the origin of
subduction and the splitting of continental crust. A large
force, as in SD, is required. ===
_LK: Mike, I'm putting your initials at the beginning of each of
your paragraphs, so I know who said what.
_LH: 8B=Need_ Well mountains are readily explained by PT, :-),
but whether it is real or not. One fact is __Ollier and Pain's
work - that many so-called mountains are actually old
landsurface remnants that had their surrounds eroded away. This
leaves the highly compressed mountains requiring large
horizontal forces. Cosmic scaled electric arcs, as described by
Oz aboriginals as Rainbow Serpents, or as Van De Waals phenomena
could generate large Lorentz forces in the horizontal plane. ===
_MF: Is the ESU position on mountain ranges really the same as
SD? ===
_LK: 2B=Need_ Yes, Charles accepts your model somewhat, but he
thinks the continents moved apart more slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
5. WHAT CAUSED ICE AGES & GLACIATION.
<ET: (GL:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (GL:) Glaciation was caused by cooling.
<ST: (GL:)
<EU: (GL:) Cosmic Ray density with particle cascades creating
storms, volcanic eruptions and global envelope of cloud cover
leading to ice ages. Glaciation is a small subset of the ice
ages and increases every winter more snow accumulates than
melts. -- I can bring some references on cosmic rays
<ESU: (GL:)
<SD: (GL:) Movement of continents toward the poles along with
atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to
glaciation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
_BL: 7C=Need_ Seems to be tied to increasing cosmic ray density
as we pass through certain sections of space in the various
Milankovitch cycles. ===
Increased cosmic rays = increased particle precipitation =
increased charging, increased lighting and storms and increased
volcanic activity leading to increased clouds and solar
shielding. Ice ages cometh, when earth reaches a certain
capacitance the earth and likely the whole solar system is
involved, arc blast ends the ice ages melting the caps, flooding
from the poles, and twisting the planet's axis creating tsunamis
from the oceans, piling animals from various climes together.
Classic Velikovsky...
_MF: 8B=Need_ Rather a basketful of assumptions there. An Ice
Age would seem to require greatly increased atmospheric
moisture, as in heating the oceans, at the same time the
atmosphere is cooling dramatically in at least one hemisphere.
And this continues for a long time following sudden instigation.
Classic SD. ===
_LH: 9C=Need_ Years ago I had an email discussion with Gerry
Pollack and I raised the issue of whether ice forms at the poles
as a consequence of excess protons entering the ionosphere and
surface, thus forming ice. If a body of water, say an ocean, has
EZ water as a surface layer, and an inrush of protons occur,
then that EZ water gets turned into ice as a reaction to the
increased energy supplied by the protons. Hence ice ages could
be explained as massive injection of protons via CME's etc,
Animals seem to be mainly made of water, in this case EZ water,
and an inrush of protons could actually snap-freeze life forms
almost instantaneously. This mechanism could explain the
snap-freezing of mammoths. So a super Carrington event could be
interpreted as an ice-age? The mechanism here is that ice ages
are not caused by a drop in temperature but, paradoxically , an
in crease in the system's energy state. ===
----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
_LH: 10A=Need_ Preliminary comment: Whatever mechanism is
proposed, gravity remains the elephant in the room. Empirically
gravity seems electrical in nature, and if so there are at
present more than 20 models proposed for the electron, whether
particle or wave. This does not help much in understanding
gravity. Rock density is a fundamental physical measurement and
relies totally on a correct understanding of gravity. Mantle
convection, for example, assumes lower density for higher
temperature, everything else being equal. Or lower density is
linked to pressure which is caused by gravitational attraction
with less dense rising and more dense sinking, eebe. Solar
explanations such as proposed by Robitaille etc, assume gravity.
Mantle pressure in the Earth assumes gravity. Rivers and streams
flow because of gravity, and hence erosion is caused,
ultimately, by gravity. Weather is caused by density
differentials in the atmosphere caused by gravity. Geological
evolution assumes gravity and accretion, cosmological to the
smallest bolide. If electrical forces EM AND gravity are
considered then we have a problem of magnitude, EM force is
10^38 greater in magnitude than gravity force. We cannot combine
the two as a unified "field" because if one is assume a
magnitude 1, say EM Lorentz force, then gravity is so small in
magnitude it can be ignored, and which is what A.J. Peratt did
with his PIC computer simulations using plasma. If gravity can
be ignored as an assumption of mass attracting mass, then
alternative mechanisms need to explain non-plasma phenomena in
lieu of Newtonian gravity. This leads directly to the problem of
rock density which is a fundamental physical property of
condensed matter, It leads directly to isostasy, from which PT
was developed, so explaining rock density becomes crucial.,
because it is an essential theoretical axiom on which the rest
is deduced. ===
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
ET: Expansion Tectonics __ James Maxlow __
HTML http://www.expansiontectonics.com
PT: Plate Tectonics __ Wikipedia __
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
ST: Surge Tectonics __ Dong Choi __
HTML http://ncgt.org
__
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/show...hp?tid=113
EU: Electric Universe __ (Ralph Juergens, deceased), Wal
Thornhill, Don Scott __
HTML http://holoscience.com
__
HTML http://thunderbolts.inf
o __
HTML https://www.iascc.org/the-science
ESU: Electrostatic Universe __ Charles Chandler __
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
SD: Shock Dynamics __ Mike Fischer __
HTML http://NewGeology.us
,
(LK1-4)
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
_LK: WE CAN ALL BRING UP QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BELOW NOW & GO UP
ABOVE TO SEE WHAT TO ASK ABOUT IF NEEDED.
_CS: Before we really get into it, I would like to ask two
things.
1. Did math solutions give us the very real orthogonal
fracture/megatrend intersections and vortex structures on the
ocean floor?. ===
2. Did geophysics give us the 1-2 Ga rocks on the magnetic 180
Ma ocean floor? ===
_LH: Lloyd, the color scheme you are using black letters on
green background also has a mauve component that is unreadable.
:-)
_LK: I don't control the colors. You can go to the gear symbol
at upper right and click on Authorship colors to change the
background to white.
_LH: You can adjust your own colours by clicking the coloured
square next to your name. Took me a while to work it out.
_RF: 1A=Have_ Lloyd have you considered adding the work of
Michael Csuzdi to your list of global tectonic models?
Thermionic Emission Geophysics__:
HTML http://breakthroughinenergy.com
_LK: I haven't heard of that, but always willing to add other
ideas. Do you favor it for something?
_RF: 2B=Need_ I think Csuzdi missed an opportunity; his model
sees Earth's magnetic field as originating from within the Earth
rather than externally. ===
_LK: 3A=Need_ That's how Charles sees it too. He finds that the
planets and stars likely have CFDLs and the charges in different
layers can speed up or slow down as during impacts, causing the
field to change. ===
_LH: 11B=Need_ The internal origin for the geomagnetic field
was, at the time it was proposed, logical since we did not know
about the Van Allen belts, solar wind, etc. Just that the Sun
was an irradiating source, space was empty in which was
suspended an inert globe, the earth. Which had a magnetic field
that could only be located inside the earth. Much progress has
since been made but the theory hasn't changed. This is the
problem. [LH thinks the field is Externally generated.] ===
_BL: 8C=Need_ [to CS] 1.) The orthogonal fracture zones (don't
know about the math) but geometry again controls. This pattern
can also be seen in the eight layers of the human heart, the
Chestahedron geometry shows this relationship is tied to "vortex
geometry" where all the platonic solids are contained within the
chestahedron. The inner double layer of the inner and outer core
has tetrahedron or fire element geometry as evidenced by the
magnetic spike structure (Quinns inverse magnetic modeling
techniques show the delta- y configurations of Giovanni Gregoris
"Sea Urchin Spikes"). The next double layer in the mantle has
the square "earth" geometry as evidenced by the four north south
circuits on the ridges along the corners of the cube, global
heat flow and mantle gravity signatures attest to this. As you
move up into the water or dodecahedron geometry, you see the
hurricanes follow these circuits which are part of the vile
vortex system., the air has double diamond or double pyramid
structure, this is seen in the Total Electron Content data where
the points of the triangles actually point to where EQ
[earthquakes?] will occurs sometimes, then there is the aether
pentagon geometry where the plasma comes into the poles. Each
double layer has its specific geometry, this was the beauty of
Plato's forgotten knowledge. The vortex geometry of the
chestahedron contains all the platonic solids and is responsible
for the harmony or balance of electromagnetic forces linked to
or controling the Golden ration or Fibonacci fractalization
sequences... ===
_BL: 9B=Have_ The polarity of magnetic stripes on the seafloor
has only been confirmed in 7 places by the Deep Sea Drilling
Project, magnetic data is collected generally by shipborne and
airborne scalar and sometimes vector magnetometers. Most of the
stripes are simply what's called susceptibility contrasts and
are not confirmed as polarity reversals. __Art Meyerhoff, author
of surge tectonics has a good article on this; I don't have the
link but it is covered in his text on Surge tectonics. He also
states that many of the magnetic stripes are not parallel to the
ridges, some are actually perpendicular to the ridges. The
electrical orientation of the circuit determines the orientation
of the stripe.
_LK: Bruce, I'd love to have a link to that info on magnetic
stripe data.
_LK: I read Meyerhoff's book and copied some of it. The book
didn't mention the magnetic stripes that I know of. It's good
that the article apparently did though.
_MF: According to the numbered issues, this discussion is about
the Earth rather than the universe. Apparently there has not
been much thought on these issues. It is clear that there are
collisions occurring in the galaxy, and perhaps there is
exclusive evidence for electrical interaction? How could the
electric universe concept [be tested] conceivably be disproved?
_LK: The CFDL theory of Earth might be disprovable. That's
current-free electric double-layers.
_MF: How would that be done?
_LK: 4A=Need_ It's part of the Earth, so we have better access
than off-planet. Also, calculations can be made to determine
feasibility. Charles has found that spacing of plasma cells in
the lab and the spacing of planets and of stars in globular
clusters all follow the same law or formula. So, knowing the
charge on planets should tell us something about whether the
planets could be repelled from each other according to that
formula. ===
_MF: Is Earth positively or negatively charged?
_LK: 5C=Need_ The planets, as Charles says, have electric
double-layers, so they're both charges, but I think they're more
positive than negative. Anyway the atmospheres are positive.
Charles & others say the Sun is more negative than positive, but
the outer layer is positive there too. ===
_BL: 10B=Have_ Also there are the double layers within the earth
that have opposite charges, this can be seen in the double
layers of __Quinn's inverse modeled magnetic source depth data.
_BL: 11B=Need_ The poles have opposite charges. LK has the
answer on repelling planets, I would agree... you can see this
in __experiments with small steel balls... ===
_MF: So would Earth repel another planet? It is surprising that
planets mimic small steel balls.
_LK: 6C=Have_ Charels' findings suggest that all the planets
repel each other. I can look for his paper on that. __
http//:qdl.sds-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/15369.html
_LH: 12B=Need_ Negatively - mainly by the oceans having a
surface layer of EZ water. Magnitude is diurnal. ===
_MF: 9B=Need_ Magnetic polarity and intensity have also been
found to change with depth in oceanic crust. ===
_BL: 12B=Need_ As well as within cores of volcanic rxs. Polarity
and intensity seem to change and rotate within the layers
indicating the polarity and intensity are controlled locally via
the volcanic electrical system and not a global orientation
related to N-S poles... ===
_LK: Bruce, can you get me a link to that evidence from volcanic
cores? What's rxs?
_BL: Rxs... abbreviation for rocks. This is stuff I read years
ago, I'd have to search for those references. I may have it
referenced in one of my publications, but that will take time to
find again...
_LH: An earth in a gravitational or electrical environment? At
present the whole edifice of Plate Tectonics and Expanding earth
are based on the gravitational model. But plasma physics, the
Peratt model, ignores gravity. If so then all the tectonic
features that we observe on the Earth are presently explained by
the gravitational model. Instead we need to explain things in an
electrical model.
_LH: Proving the Electric Universe model requires falsifying the
Western Cultural paradigm. This is a problem.
_LK: I don't think Western religions stand in the way of science
much any more.
_LH: Describing the Earth's evolution requires a starting point,
and this remains controversial. Most US geologists seem to
favour a short chronology, others a long one. I had the same
issue when I edited AIG News - the long chronologists did not
like editorial favourable to the short-chronologists being
published. It got to rather an excitable situation.
_MF: So long folks. [Disappointing discussions] on the topics,
which are worthwhile.
_LK: Mike, what part of the country are you in? You're welcome
to make suggestions to improve discussions. I'll try to organize
better or find better ways to get info from everyone.
_MF: North Carolina
_LK: A question for you EU people. Looks like there are one or
two of you here still, since Louis left. I'm an ESU person,
rather than EU. The question is: Is a vacuum an insulator or a
conductor, or neither or both?
_BL: Is there really such a thing as a total vacuum, seems to be
an idealized mathematical construct, but if there's a few
particles in there depending on what it was it seems it could be
either or both...
_LK: 7C=Need_ Charles says a vacuum has no resistance to charge.
So I think he says interplanetary discharges would likely not
occur as EU theorists have said. I should get him here to
explain, though, since he has the info. ===
_BL: 13B=Need_ The concept of interplanetary discharge is simply
static electric discharge, and we know the solar wind is full of
particles, thus the assumption of a vacuum related to our solar
system is mute... ===
_RF: 3B=Need_ Vacuum Circuit Breakers are used in high voltage
power systems to extinguish the electric arc. ===
_LK: 8B=Need_ Would it be fairly easy to test in a vacuum
chamber whether a vacuum is more conducting or insulating? I
know Charles referenced some data from satellites or something
that indicated that vacuum is "conducting". ======
_BL: Why the insistence the solar wind is a vacuum?
_LK: I don't know the density of the solar wind, but I'm
guessing that on Earth it would be considered a vacuum? Do you
know the density? Is it some tens or hundreds of particles per
cc?
_BL: 14C=Have_ Depends on whether your interested in proton
density or other particles,__
HTML http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
lot of
information on solar wind properties at that link.
_LK: Thanks, Bruce. I guess we can wrap up soon, if there's not
a lot of info to share yet. Do you's have more questions or
comments or suggestions how to have better discussions?
_BL: Final comment, the one that got deleted earlier. Seems to
me we should begin to understand the tectonic domain as a
weather system, where Giovannis Sea urchin spikes are the
pressure cells, the plate boundaries or surge channels are the
stream flows, like jetstreams, and frontal boundaries, where
counter flows to the mantle must exist in the asthenosphere or
volcanics. The Westward drift of the magnetic field indicates an
deep mantle trade wind etc. The plate tectonic concept of linear
upwelling is like the idealized mathematical construct of the
net heat flow model of Hadley Cell circulation in the
atmosphere. It doesn't exist in actual flow dynamics. If you
were a weatherman and all you could report on was heat is rising
at the equator and moving towards the poles and you model
doesn't allow the existence of pressure cells, stream flow or
frontal boundaries, much less trade winds, you couldn't say much
about the weather. This is the problem with plate theory, it's
driver is based on an idealized mathematical construct that is
simple to understand in a text book, but has no basis in
reality... That's it in a nutshell, signing off, enjoyed the
discussion... ======
_LK: Thanks for repeating that, Bruce. Good Day. I'll try not to
delete that this time. Are you in Colorado or Florida?
_BL: Florida
_LK: Robert, do you have a link to your main info? Is it summed
up somewhere?
_RF: Which info would that be, Lloyd.
_LK: Info on Tectonics.
_RF: 4A=Have_ __ http:breakthroughinenergy.com
#Post#: 221--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Tectonics Discussion
By: Admin Date: October 23, 2017, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All. I edited our 1st Tectonics Discussion from yesterday and
posted it at:
HTML http://cnps.boards.net/thread/10/earth-theories-debate
And if you have problems there, I posted a backup at:
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/1-15/1-102/msg220/#msg220
The participants were Louis Hissink, Bruce Leybourne, Robert
Farrar, Mike Fischer and I, Lloyd Kinder. Chris Smoot also left
a message for us. And James Maxlow provided a copy of his
manuscript in advance. The first three participants are Electric
Universe proponents, Mike and I are Shock Dynamics proponents,
and I also favor Charles Chandler's ElectroStatic Universe
model, which is kind of related to the other two. And it seems
that EU incorporates some ST. We used an etherpad, which had
some problems for some of us. I may try a Google Doc next time.
We discussed for nearly 2 hours. It was kind of haphazard for
the first phase, as we were all able to write at once, then we
all collected together at the bottom for a while before closing.
I'll try to improve the process for the future. Suggestions are
always welcome.
I have requests for the participants and anyone else who wants
to help for followup. We want to collect all of the most
important evidence in references and brief arguments for each of
the 6 models (i.e. Expansion Tectonics, Plate Tectonics, Surge
Tectonics, Electric Universe, Electrostatic Universe and Shock
Dynamics). We shared some references, but we need to get quite a
bit more, if possible. I added the term =Have_ after
participants' initials (at the beginning of each person's
statements) to indicate where references are at least partly
shown. And I added the term =Need_ after initials to indicate
arguments & claims for which references are not shown. Before
those terms I also numbered each participant's number of
references requested and I rated how important I think each
reference will be, A as very important, B as moderately
important and C as less important. So, since it may be laborious
to obtain references, we can prioritize those ranked A, then B.
*****************************************************