DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Updates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64--------------------------------------------------
Mike Messages 1/25-26
By: Admin Date: January 25, 2017, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
=s1. MF: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:52 PM
- Re Baumgardner's paper. I was present at the conference when
unveiled CPT.
- saying the sand that comprises sandstone was removed directly
from crystalline bedrock by repeated tsunami cavitation action,
producing enough sand to cover the continent 1,800 meters over
38% of the Earth's surface.
<<LK: Not that much; Sandstone is about 25% of sedimenrary rock
about 1500m thick altogether, = about 400m thick on 50% of
continent surface (57M sqmi) = 400m by 15% of Earth's
surface.>>
- way, way out of the realm of possibility.
- sand is considered to be eroded from the bedrock
- it should take perhaps 10^4-10^7 years to accumulate the
volume we find on Earth.
<<From rainfall? How long from tsunamis?>>
=s2. - Also, in his discussion of RATE I did not see one of the
conclusions published in the RATE II report.
- It said that considerable radioactive decay has undeniably
taken place, and either the Earth is very old or rates of decay
were greatly accelerated.
- The RATE team pursued the latter, and realized that heat from
the required accelerated decay would melt the Earth
- and the high levels of radiation would kill all aboard the
Ark.
<<Maybe the heat and radiation were confined to molten granite,
which maybe came from the underside of the continents.>>
- There is an unpopular biblical solution to both of these
serious problems that I have nevertheless found appealing;
Gorman Gray's "Young Biosphere Creation". My video of this is
at youtube.com/watch?v=VjZFQ-L_aaE
<<See also
HTML http://2mop.webs.com
>>
-----
=s4. Request of MF re SD:
_1. explain East Pacific Rise spreading: formed from Moon; if
fresh, formed just before SD event
_2. Explain why the Americas split off of Africa & Europe:
example of croquet balls implies that Africa & South America
were not strongly bonded; see if Americas previously moved away
from the Pacific ridge
_3. Clarify if a) continental crust overrode ocean crust, or b)
if it overrode the Moho layer, which is 7 km deeper: a requires
the ocean crust was smooth enough to avoid interfering much with
fluidization and sliding; If Atlantic crust thickness is the
same as Pacific crust thickness, then a seems to be more likely
Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32 AM
In studying global geology, some things are clear while others
can only be speculated on. In the case of Plate Tectonics,
Benioff zones are better understood than the supposed
supercontinents before Pangea.
1. Looking closely at a large satellite altimetry map of the
seafloor, you can see a substantial difference between the
texture of the Southeast Indian Ridge (starting at the triple
junction) through the East Pacific Rise (to its intersection
with N. America) and the texture of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The
former is diffuse, with long sweeping transform faults, likely
due to a hotter mantle and greater moving force than the latter,
which is rough and more defined. Because North America
overrides it, the East Pacific Rise must have existed before the
SD event. My guess is that the planetesimal impact with Earth
that formed the Moon and continental crust was not head-on. The
east-to-west angular collision pulled the basalt skin of Earth
apart at the ridges more rapidly than the smaller SD bolide did.
The large population of seamounts in the Pacific testify to the
hotter mantle as well. The Louisville seamount chain was also
overrun by an SD feature, the crustal wave that formed the
Tonga-Kermadic Trench.
2. The division of the Americas from Africa during the SD event
was caused by a combination of two forces. The first is
peeling, in the manner of riving white oak with a froe. That
began with Madagascar being blown off of Africa. A strip of the
same width as Madagascar was originally attached to Madagascar
but became detached and swung southwest around South Africa.
This started the peeling off of South America. At the Gulf of
Guinea there was enough leverage to pull the attached mass of
North America off of Africa and Europe, while stretching open
the Amazon divide. The second force was the pressure wave
moving westward through or under Africa to impel first South
then North America westward.
3. This is the most speculative. The pattern of dispersed
landmasses and other features on the globe makes it apparent
that low-friction sliding happened. My assumption is that
continental crust is the refined slag from the combination of
melted basalt and asthenospheric mantle.
<<What's your source for the basalt? I thought your source for
continents was the Moon. Do you mean the Moon piece separated
into basalt and continental granite?>>
Being lighter than the rest, it sits on top. The protocontinent
would have been fairly flat and uniform in thickness, with a
depth of perhaps 25 km. Its base could have been loosely
attached to the warm material below. The nature of the crust,
oceanic and continental, is that it fluidizes when sufficient
stress is applied. It seems likely that there was some
impression, like a flat-boat or surf board in water, and that
the contact surface of oceanic crust was fluidized until the
energy dissipated sufficiently to introduce high friction. The
final position has the continents firmly attached at the Moho.
Oceanic crust is thicker the farther it is from the mid-ocean
ridge.
<<Isn't Pacific crust just like Atlantic crust? The Moho is
likely plasma a meter thick, according to CC. It should be easy
for continents to slide over the Moho. Maybe impacts broke the
supercontinent loose from ocean crust, then the continents could
be pushed over the ocean crust and slide on it.>>
----------
=s0. <From: LK: Sun, January 22, 2017 11:11 pm>
<My working paper evidence is at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php#c1>
<See boards: "LK1" and "Sources">
<my next task: identifying the primary evidence that I have &
what's needed.>
<See Haves & Needs thread.>
=s1. <>Guy Berthault will be an important source.
<>find out if he has done any experiments that might simulate
megatsunamis.
<>find out what the requirements are for lithifying sediments.
I suspect that sediments mixed with sufficient lime, as you seem
to suggest, might lithify almost like concrete with very little
overburden, whereas with [I meant say without] such cementing
agents, it would likely require enough pressure to bring the
temperature up to the melting point of sand or mud, which
doesn't seem to be even possible to great depths.
-----
=s0. MF:
- four-part series is good
- you have gathered more supporting material than I had expected
- I and the head of the Paleochronology Group, Hugh Miller,
wrote
- several relevant papers
- as well as sources from my website research.
- Hugh is dogged and always hopeful
- "Megaflood" source identifying over 40
=s1. Guy Berthault's research applies to fast-moving water and
should scale-up well for heavier loads.
- As you say, sandstone and mudstone cemented by calcium
carbonate is simple enough. Silica cement is assumed to take
more pressure and heat (up to 100 degrees C, well below grain
meltin temperature) over a million years, but obviously that is
untested.
- The important fact is that water (and occasionally wind) move
and segregate the matrix, and water solutions carry the cement.
Sandstone and mudstone can be metamorphosed by the heat of magma
or high pressure from mountain building or meteorite impacts
that melt them. Flood and impact geology deal well with all of
these.
=s2. The most difficult subject will be radiometric dating
systems. We are on fairly solid ground with Carbon-14 (with
some caveats), but the battle over long half-life isotopes is
highly contentious, as you probably know, with extended debate
over details of evidence used by creationists, and it will be
difficult to draw firm conclusions.
- date for the Shock Dynamics event open to discussion
-----
=s0. These two threads are working on John Baumgardner's paper,
"Noah’s Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth
History":
=s1. Paper1 Part 1 JB: FLOOD (1st Sift)
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/s/1-35/
- The Part 1 thread has his evidence for megatsunamis, which I
rate pretty highly.
- JB's references another paper of his
- I'll look for data on requirements for lithification.
=s2. Paper1 Part2 JB: DATING (1st Sift)
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/s/2-36/
- The Part2 thread has his evidence for radiometric dating being
way wrong and C14 being most accurate so far, which I rate
almost as highly.
- Gordon thinks conventional dating is unrealistic to assume
that radioactive elements started out with no stable daughter
products nearby, like lead. He said if they started out at about
a 50/50 ratio, the dating would be very recent. Also, JB's data
& a reference by Charles Chandler seem to suggest that high heat
or pressure causes great increases in the rate of radioactive
decay. Walter Brown also has some good references to evidence
that ionization does the same.
=s4. PS, JB's subduction model seems very far-fetched, while
your alternative makes eminent sense.
=s0. Haves & Needs thread at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/x/0-39/
- I've listed there 7 possible main topics for our proposed NCGT
paper:
1. Megatsunamis deposited sed. strata
2. Dating methods are wrong
3. Myths & advanced civilization
4. Planetoids caused megatsunamis
5. Impacts caused conflagration
6. Impact broke up supercontinent
7. Rapid continental drift caused orogenesis
- I don't know if #4 and #5 will be needed. They might be
sufficient to be discussed briefly instead of in detail. #4
seems more important than #5. #3 could be made into 2 separate
topics, if needed. Advanced civilization wouldn't be needed, but
I think it would be very intriguing, and I think the reasoning
on it would help dating methodology.
- Questions:
- 1. explain the East Pacific Rise spreading. I recall that you
theorized that that ridge was caused when the supercontinent
formed from part of the Moon or something. But it looks like
that ridge is about just as fresh as the mid Atlantic ridge. So
I wonder if it's possible that the Pacific ridge formed during
or just before the SD event.
- 2. Explain why the Americas split off of Africa & Europe. You
used the example of croquet balls hit with a mallot, one ball
representing Africa and the other South America. But that
analogy implies that Africa & South America were not strongly
bonded together. I was wondering if the Americas might have
previously moved away from the Pacific ridge & collided with the
eastern continents, forming a weak bond, and then got pushed
back westward by the SD impact.
- 3. Clarify if a) continental crust overrode ocean crust, or b)
if it overrode the Moho layer, which is 7 km deeper. The latter
would seem to mean ocean crust built up in front of sliding
continents. The former would mean the ocean crust was smooth
enough to avoid interfering much with fluidization and sliding.
If Atlantic crust thickness is the same as Pacific crust
thickness, then a seems to be more likely.
*****************************************************