DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Updates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96--------------------------------------------------
MF 2/3 onward
By: Admin Date: February 3, 2017, 9:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re DRAFT Part 1
Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:26 PM
Lloyd, The forum critic is understandably confused on two
counts. First, the SD event was about 300 years after the Great
Flood, by my estimate. The high-pressure atmosphere was
pre-Flood, and down to 1 atm by the time of the SD event.
Second, the SD meteorite exploded completely underground,
resulting in totally different effects. As Carey Sublette wrote
in describing the effects of nuclear explosions, underground
detonations can eliminate thermal radiation and reduce the range
of blast effects substantially. It would take the meteorite two
seconds to penetrate from the top of the stratosphere (50 km) to
Earth's surface. In a microsecond it would bury itself 40 km
deep in the continental crust and explode. Hot gases would race
back up to outer space along the hole punched in the atmosphere.
Rock surrounding the impact laterally would be vaporized out to
400 km, 130 km below it (currently the gravity low south of
India). Shock heating would only be 7% of heat lost; remaining
heat loss would be through conduction. The rest of the planet
would be intact, not "molten rock" as the forum critique
thought. On the Energy Estimates page only half of the total
mass x velocity product is used for moving crust, leaving 50% to
include heat loss and shock pressure not performing work. Since
90% energy transfer from impactor to target is standard, that
should be sufficient compensation. An underground explosion is
very efficient at transferring overpressure to the confining
material, compared to surface and air explosions that burn the
atmosphere and large surface areas, as the forum critic
envisioned. Unvaporized debris from an underground explosion is
thrown straight up, much of it collapsing and the rest carried
downwind. Combining these effects, it seems reasonable to
conclude that surface damage would have been minimal beyond the
vaporized crater, unlike the devastating Chicxulub impact.
---
February 03, 2017, 09:22:02 pm »
Mike, when I mentioned your SD model on a forum almost 3 years
ago, here's part of a reply that I got:
"An impact strong enough to move the Americas by 2000 miles in a
day would have turned the planet into a glowing cinder. It
wouldn't cause a "Great Flood," as there would be no water left.
Or air. Or anything else, other than molten rock."
I just looked at your Energy Estimates page and I see you didn't
discuss heat.
- Would the kinetic energy of the asteroid have been partly
converted into heat?
- And would that portion be added to your calculation to result
in a larger size for the asteroid?
- Do you suppose most of the heat would have entered the crust
around the impact site?
- Did you attempt to calculate how much atmosphere that asteroid
could have pushed away from Earth?
- Such a calculation might need to take ionospheric electric
charge into account.
- I know you said in your chronology paper that 2 or 3 bars of
atmosphere were lost.
- Have you calculated how far the heat wave from the impact site
would have been severe enough to kill living things?
- Also, would the shock wave - sonic boom - through the air have
been able to kill animals or fracture rock strata?
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2/7/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Tuesday, February 7, 2017, 6:32 PM
Lloyd, This looks like the same list as before, so refer to my
previous reply. Many of the charges are made in a
uniformitarian paradigm. Obviously fossils already in sediment
would be caught up in tsunamis and redeposited from moving water
in the manner described by Berthault. As I said, the assertions
made below are only one of a number of possible origins, yet
they are insinuated to be the only ones. There is
low-temperature conversion to Dolomite, and the masses found in
the geologic column are not forming today, implying different
environmental conditions when they formed, a failure of "the
present is the key to the past".
---
Date: Mon, February 06, 2017 8:30 pm
Hi Mike. Out of 13 categories of Flood Criticisms, there are 7
below that I don't have very good answers for. I don't know what
time spans #1 refers to. Do you? And do you know what #5 refers
to regarding Dolomite Overheating? If you can direct me to where
to find good answers for any of these, that would probably help.
I'll search at creation.com and elsewhere too.
---
From Mike, Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:22 PM
Stef's idea for the formation of pure and fossil-free salt
formations is interesting. It may be too early to promote it as
a means for producing them globally since Oldoinyo Lengai is the
world's only active carbonatite volcano. Its lava contains many
types of elements in addition to sodium, and chloride abundance
is less than sodium. If examination of other salt formations
finds an association with elements of carbonatite lavas, in
addition to the conjunction with oil and gas that Stef found,
his proposal would gain credibility. The evaporite theory for
salt formations clearly needs to be replaced.
---
Mike, thanks for the comments and links. 3 days ago I posted
this on the TB forum:
BASINS SUPPORT RAPID DEPOSITION
That is something Berthault's experiments apparently showed.
When tsunamis deposit strata they separate the strata according
to grain size etc. Since they are deposited simultaneously in a
megasequence they form curved strata in basins. The curves of
the strata nearly follow the curves of each basin surface,
except that each stratum is a bit thicker at the bottom than on
the sides, like this:
HTML http://www.fortunebay.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/michiganbasin-cross-big.jpg<br
/>. If strata formed in continental shallow seas, they should ha
ve
formed at river deltas as sloped fans, like this
HTML http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-10.jpg
and
HTML http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-09.jpg
. Or if
frequent tremors or tides or something caused the sediments to
spread out across the floor of a shallow sea, the sediments
should go to the bottom as flat layers, like this
HTML http://images.slideplayer.com/5/1507022/slides/slide_12.jpg
.
- So I agree that the broad horizontal lateral extent of strata
support very large tsunamis as the cause of deposition. If
erosion into shallow seas were true, there should only be fan
shaped strata and they shouldn't be separated into individual
rock types, since there would not have been pure lime regions
being eroded for thousands of years followed by similar periods
of clay erosion and sand erosion. I think those are among the
strongest arguments against gradualism.
- Last night I posted this on the TB forum:
Igneous Origin of Salt
I just made a good find on salt. See the 20 min. video, PRIMARY
IGNEOUS ORIGIN OF SALT FORMATIONS, at
HTML http://youtube.com/watch?v=MfN0MIOnRNQ
. It's just in time to
answer most of the next bunch of claims against the Great Flood.
The host of the video also authored a good paper, which I posted
on my forum at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10
.
- Mike, we're lucky to have critiques of the Great Flood posted
online. Those seem likely to be the reasons the NCGT members
support the conventional gradualist timeline. Of course,
radiometric dating methods are probably their main reason for
supporting it, but I think we have abundant evidence against it.
So I look forward to getting all the main pro and con arguments
listed coherently and organized into a good scientific format.
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 2/4/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Subject: RE: Critique Questions
It is typical of anti-creationists and other propagandists to
throw up a flurry of arguments loaded with assertions to give
their bluster an "overwhelming" appearance. The certainty of
the claims in the list you posted is unfounded. For most,
either the conditions of deposition stated are not the only
possibilities, or not enough is understood about them. For
example, until recently shale and other mudstones, which
comprise over 60% of the geologic column, were thought to
require quiet environments to form. The 2009 reference I sent
you demonstrates that they can form in moving water as well
Schieber, J., and J. B. Southard (2009), Bedload transport of
mud by floccule ripples - Direct observation of ripple migration
processes and their implications, Geology, 37(6), 483-486,
doi:10.1130/G25319A.1. Salt beds in the geologic column are
extremely pure compared to evaporites being formed today, as
described here:
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/does-salt-come-from-evaporated-sea-water/<br
/> And how dolomite is formed, especially in depth, remains
unsolved. It is apparent that conditions today differ from
those in place when most of the geologic column was laid down.
The huge geographic extent of many strata and the dearth of
erosional interfaces suggests large scale, at least regional
catastrophic deposition mechanisms.
- Don't forget the bizarre uniformitarian explanation for many
deposits - rising and falling landmasses and sea levels
depositing the same material over the same unchanged areas over
millions of years. There is no indication of this happening
today outside of small local environments. Note that in Shock
Dynamics geology, all Cenozoic sedimentary strata formed
hundreds of years after the Noahic Flood during the SD event.
- Compression built virtually all mountain chains, and rapid
compression of continental crust, as in SD, would likely have
had a substantial global piezoelectric electromagnetic effect.
I don't see it being associated with radiation, though.
-----
Subject: Critique Questions
Date: Fri, February 03, 2017 10:20 pm
- I analyzed a long critique of the Great Flood and sorted it
into 12 claims, along with my questions for each claim about
what might be answers to them. I didn't number all of the
claims, because some are closely related. I posted them here:
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-62/msg90/#msg90
- If you have answers to any of them, feel free to let me know.
Otherwise, I'll eventually try to find answers for them myself,
at least for the most important ones. I arranged the most
important ones first.
- Some of the claims refer to the impossibility of high amounts
of salt in sediments drying out quickly enough and of high
concentrations in the ocean being deadly for all life there. I
was thinking maybe there were more submarine brine lakes like
the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which got washed ashore in some
of the tsunamis.
- A claim about carbonates giving off too much heat is hard for
me to understand. Maybe you would understand it.
- I posted more material on my forum lately, like Walter Brown's
info about electrical effects, lineaments, radioactivity etc at
LK2. I found a map of lineaments online that seems pretty
detailed. The lines on it on the Atlantic coasts of Africa and
South America look like they could have formed when the
Madagascar strip connected to South America started peeling away
from Africa. I think there would have been really strong
electric currents under the continents as they slid apart and
they could have produced the radioactivity, some of which was
injected vertically under mountain ranges in granite intrusions
etc. There probably was a lot of supercritical water too, like
Brown thought, but not nearly as much. He claimed that it shot
into the upper atmosphere and came down in Siberia as rock ice,
which would have been cold enough to freeze mammoths to -150F.
#Post#: 118--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 2/10-2/11
By: Admin Date: February 11, 2017, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Re DRAFT Part 1
2/11) AM
Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:26 PM
My responses in "M2" below. - Cheers, Mike.
Date: Sat, February 11, 2017 9:53 pm
I thought I sent this yersterday or this morning, but it
looks like it went to me. So this might be a repeat for you.
Mike, you're showing me that I have a few more avenues to
explore for Part 1.
_M: Numbers 6 and 7 pose the question: what initiated the
Great Flood? I see John Baumgardner proposed in 2007 that
rotational tumbling of the earth induced by catastrophic plate
tectonics caused megatsunamis. That is quite a leap.
_L: In 2013 he seemed to propose that an asteroid orbited
the Earth elliptically, causing monthly tidal pulls &
megatsunamis.
M2: Earth's angular momentum is a staggering 7.07 x 10 to
the 33rd kilograms x meters squared/sec. Tumbling is out of the
question. The Moon causes monthly tides. Megatsunamis would
require a much larger body, and an erratic orbit to induce flow
in orthogonal directions.
_M: Similarly, getting an asteroid or planetesimal to pass
near Earth a number of times, but not hit it, and then leave, as
the cause of megatsunamis requires some difficult and precise
celestial mechanics, so it seems unlikely.
_L: What if the planetoid were the Moon? I have a reference
paper that shows calculations for circularization of elliptical
orbits by dust or gases in space within decades to centuries.
M2: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the
Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital
path.
_M: a meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment
population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy
... the sole source of water for the Great Flood.
_L: Don't you think the oceans existed before the flood? Why
do you think ICR's claim against a vapor canopy was wrong? I
think the atmosphere was one or two bars thicker than now, like
you said onsite, but I'm flexible on what was in the air that
was lost, whether more water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, or CO2. I
didn't think precipitation could raise sea level much. How deep
flooding do you figure?
M2: I think a low ocean existed before the Flood.
Vardiman's main objection to a vapor canopy is his estimated
temperature at Earth's surface. I find the vapor canopy to be a
reasonable source for a one-time global flood, to provide high
atmospheric pressure that could favor gigantism in dinosaurs,
and as a reason why rainbows could appear only after the flood.
Without today's mountain ranges (built 300 years post-Flood by
SD), Flood waters would only have to rise 1000 feet or less to
cover the land.
_M: Members of the meteorite swarm falling into the ocean
led observers on land to mistakenly call the resulting water
jets "fountains of the great deep". Note that these started and
ended at the same time as the rain deluge.
_L: That's what Gordon says too. But he thinks precipitation
didn't add significantly to the Flood. He says the Hebrew word,
"matar", in the Bible meant meteors, and "geshen" meant gushing.
I'll try to ask Gordon what he thinks of your statement.
_M: A persistent question for Flood geology has been why the
sediments of the geologic column did not end up on the Pacific
Ocean floor. Apparently megatsunamis flowed from the outer
oceans onto the protocontinent, scouring and depositing sediment
and quadrillions of fossils of sea creatures. It is reasonable
to think that each megatsunami grew as the water level rose,
reaching farther inland with each wave. Precipitated vapor
canopy water falling on land would leave freshwater remains,
whereas waves moving in from the coast would leave saltwater
remains. Each megatsunami would deposit its own stratigraphic
sequence.
_L: How are you saying that the water canopy was the sole
source of the Flood, but that megatsunamis were involved too? I
came across a website a couple days ago that said salts were
deposited with the dinosaurs out West. How would you determine
if Flood deposits involved fresh or salt water? Some NCGT
articles claim that the ocean floors do have sedimentary rock. I
think the seafloor drilling project found some sedimentary rock
above the basalt. Did it not? I found one creationist article
that said, I think, that some strata formed across North America
and across north Africa before continental drift, but some
higher strata also spilled out onto the Atlantic seafloor near
Africa, apparently after continental drift had started. That's
one reason I think SD may have occurred toward the end of the
Flood. Do you think the KT iridium layer came from the SD
impact? I thought maybe the Chixilub and others deposited the
glass spherules etc below the iridium layer, and the SD impact
produced the iridium.
M2: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater
denizens, which still exist today. Clearly the most sweeping
megatsunamis would have come from the rising ocean waters as the
rain fell since they covered 60% or more of Earth's surface. On
the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would have
flowed outward. The sediment layer on the seafloor averages
only .5 km thick. There are lots of examples of spreading and
stretching of continental crust involved in separation, which is
another reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty. I think
the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass spherules are
associated with Chicxulub. Conventional geologists require much
time between deposition layers, whereas creationists expect
simultaneous multiple deposition. It was laid down long before
the SD event, which I think produced the Australasian tektite
strewnfield.
_M: Regarding an Earth-killer impact, I think it is safe to
say that the Moon falling into the Earth would do the trick.
_L: Sounds like humor there. A friend, Charles, thinks a
part of the Moon split off from the Moon and made a fairly soft
landing, forming the supercontinent after the Earth had
solidified. He reasoned that, otherwise, if it had occurred
before Earth solidified, the granite would have melted and made
a thin layer all over the Earth. Charles found that stars and
planets likely form by electrical forces that cause galactic
filaments to implode into plasma double layers. The interior
should be solid because of having no degrees of freedom (and
absolute zero temperature) where electrons get squeezed out into
an upper layer. And a star can have about 5 double layers. Any
spherical body in space about 200 miles or more in diameter
would have double layers. The inner layers should be liquid. So
the aesthenosphere should be liquid. Even 12.8 km deep in the
Kola borehole the rock is too plastic to drill any deeper, so he
says that's due to lack of sufficient electrons. He thinks the
Moho is plasma. By the way, I read lately that the Kola borehole
encountered a lot of saltwater most or all of the way down.
M2: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split? I
think the conventional idea that the Moon formed following a
planetesimal impact on Earth is right. However, I agree that it
happened much later than conventionally believed, so that a
uniform basalt crustal layer encompassed the Earth at the time
of the collision. The subsequent mixing would have refined the
molten basalt and upper mantle to allow differentiation of
continental crust. Seismic tomography indicates that the
asthenosphere is solid rock at high temperature, allowing
ductile flow. Drilling 13 km into inland continental crust is
less than halfway through. The rock is probably gabbro under
high pressure with enough plasticity to collapse a borehole.
Why would the Moho be plasma?
#Post#: 120--------------------------------------------------
Moho, Roche Limit, Tides, Myths
By: Admin Date: February 14, 2017, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Moho, Roche Limit, Tides, Myths
Hi Mike.
I have a lot of reading to do to reply to your last email. I'll
ask later what you know about strata deposition directions etc,
but for now I'll just reply regarding the Moho, the Roche limit
and a little about tides. Charles thinks tides are
electrostatic. So does Miles Mathis in a sense. Mathis says the
Roche limit is a myth, quoting below. Maybe that means an
asteroid could make a relatively soft landing on Earth to form
the supercontinent. Several moons are known to be within the
supposed Roche limit.
You said: "Why would the Moho be plasma?" Because the Moho is at
the depth below which electron degeneracy pressure squeezes the
electrons out of atoms, so the electrons are pushed up above the
bottom of the Moho. And the crustal tides cause the crust to
move up and down 1 meter each day, so the Moho is 1 meter thick
at high tide and close to zero at low tide. So the Moho is
continuously getting ohmic heating. See for details Charles'
paper at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925
Charles said privately yesterday: "The formula for calculating
tidal forces was heuristically deriven, since Newtonian
mechanics doesn't predict tides as strong as they actually are.
And heuristic formulas don't scale well — there's no guarantee
that the results will be correct. If I'm right, that tides are
electrostatic, the existing heuristic formula for tides won't
predict the forces at different distances at all."
=====
My main interest here is trying to determine if an asteroid or
planet temporarily orbiting Earth elliptically would produce
tsunamis at perigee over one or two kilometers high and, if so,
how close and large the object would need to be.
Below are a bunch of excerpts from Mathis on Tides and the Roche
Limit. Can anyone help me find a way to calculate from this the
perigee and size of an object to raise such tides?
OCEAN TIDES
HTML http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
E/M FIELD
The most astonishing thing I have discovered in my Unified Field
is that small objects have stronger E/M fields than larger ones.
Given two spherical objects of equal density and make-up, the
smaller of the two will have a stronger E/M field, not just
relatively, but absolutely. The Moon has a field that is 110
times stronger than the Earth's field. ... This is due to the
ratio of the surface area to the volume, of course. A smaller
sphere will have the same ratio of mass to volume as a larger
sphere, by the definition of density. But it will have a larger
ratio of density to surface area, which proves my point.
[But doesn't the Sun have a much stronger E/M field than any
planet?]
TIDAL E/M PUSH
... The gravitational force pulls us down, as an effect, and the
E/M field pushes us up, as an effect, so the result is mostly
down, to the tune of 9.8. But now I am saying that instead of
subtracting, we add. The Moon causes the vector situation to
switch. So now, directly under the Moon, we have about 9.82 m/s2
as our resultant acceleration. And this makes the tidal
acceleration
.009545 x 2 = .0191 m/s2
And that is 572 times the maximum tidal force from gravity. So,
yes, you would weigh about .2% more directly under the Moon.
ORBITAL DISTANCE
... the orbital distance of the Moon is not a coincidence. ...
the orbital distance, which we are calling R here, is a direct
outcome of the two fields, E/M and acceleration (gravity). These
two fields cause the orbital distance. The acceleration creates
an apparent attraction, and the E/M field keeps the Moon from
being caught. The Moon's "innate" velocity is also involved, of
course, but the two fields determine this as well, after any
amount of time.3 So R is completely determined by the size of
the bodies and their densities. The Moon must orbit at (or near)
that radius where its field intercepts 1/3 of the Earth's
sphere. ... In the center of the circle the force is radial. In
other words, it comes straight down upon the ocean. ... You can
see that the initial force will change from radial to tangential
as we go out from the center of our circle.
OCEAN WATER PILE
... Now, if we look just beyond the tangent — which is to say
just beyond our circle of initial influence — we find water that
has not been touched by any force at all. It is completely
unaccelerated. As our accelerated water meets this unaccelerated
water, it will pile up behind it, causing a swell. This is one
of our high tides. In the initial stages of our analysis, it
must be a complete circle of high tides, with a diameter on the
curved surface of the Earth equal to 1/3 the circumference of
the Earth. It will travel at some velocity around to the far
side of the Earth, until blocked by a land mass or resisted by a
reverse tide.
RADIAL FORCE
But let us return to our central force. ... It hits the Earth
like a radial meteor, except that this meteor has a radius of
378,000km. It is like a meteor with a very low density. The main
difference between our force from the Moon and a real meteor is
that our force keeps arriving continuously. ... although the
force is radial, the motion created is tangential. The water
does not want to move down, and at greater depths it does not
want to move sideways, either. So the result is motion sideways
nearer the surface. Another circular wave is created, traveling
out from the center. Initially this central wave is 60o behind
the outer wave, and unless we show that it is moving faster than
the outer wave, it will stay 60o behind it.
MAGNETIC FORCE
... By the right hand rule, if the electrical force is radial
down, then the magnetic force will be clockwise, looking down on
the ocean. Toward the center of our circle, this should have a
magnifying effect on the electrical force, giving it the effect
of a screw instead of a nail. ... The screws therefore cause a
spreading, which magnifies the lateral forces already in play
with the electrical field. The magnetic field and the electrical
field work in tandem to produce the central wave.
SOLAR WIND EFFECTS
HTML http://milesmathis.com/tide3.html
... What really causes the spring and neap tide variation is the
Solar Wind.
ARCHIMEDES EFFECT
HTML http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
... If the Moon is directly above you, you are at the center of
the depression. You are lower than the mean sea level (sea
levels without a Moon), but the rest of the world is at high
tide (or would be, minus time lags). This is because the
mechanism of tide creation is relatively simple: when the Moon
is over water, it creates a lower sea below it, and this forces
all the other water higher. Just take a beach ball into the
bathtub, press it down ... The tangential velocity of the Moon
is already said to balance the gravitational forces between the
two bodies, so there is no leftover force to create tides. ...
Not only is the Moon not oblate to any degree, with apsides
pointing anywhere, if anything the Moon shows a negative tidal
bulge on the front.
... the force arriving from the Moon is neither negative nor
positive. It is photonic, not ionic, in the first instance.
However, once it arrives, it must act by driving free ions. That
is how the charge field becomes active in the E/M field. The
photons drive ions.
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
HTML http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html
... What we now call the gravitational field is actually a
differential field made up of both the gravitational pseudo
field and the E/M field. All fluctuations belong to the E/M
component; none to the gravitational component. This makes it so
much easier to explain the menstrual cycle, as well as to test
the theory. We already know that the brain and nervous system
work in large part on electrical impulses. The body, like the
oceans, is mostly saltwater: therefore it is a lovely conductor.
These and many other facts, too obvious to dwell on, lead
directly to confirmation of my theory. We also know that manmade
electrical fields can upset animal and plant cycles, including
the human menstrual cycle.
---
ELECTROSTATIC TIDES
Charles Chandler thinks tides are electrostatic (See
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925
regarding crustal tides). So
does Miles Mathis in a sense. Charles said privately yesterday:
"The formula for calculating tidal forces was heuristically
deriven, since Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict tides as
strong as they actually are. And heuristic formulas don't scale
well — there's no guarantee that the results will be correct. If
I'm right, that tides are electrostatic, the existing heuristic
formula for tides won't predict the forces at different
distances at all."
=====
See also:
HTML http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html
A RECALCULATION OF THE ROCHE LIMIT
HTML http://milesmathis.com/roche.html
["E/M field" means the field of mass-containing photons received
and emitted by all matter.]
Now let us calculate the first new Roche limit, where the E/M
field balances the gravity field. Using the equations from my
UFT paper, we just set the two fields to equal one another:
m(A + a) = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
2(A + a) = GM/R2
R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}
For the Earth and Moon, that distance would be about 4,006 km.
To find that number, I used my new accelerations for Earth and
Moon. In those equations, the accelerations are for the solo
gravity field, not the unified field, so standard-model numbers
are not what we want. Current numbers are calculated from
Newton's unified field equation, and are field differentials. In
other words, I used the number 2.67 for the Moon, not 1.62.
What I just found is a Roche limit assuming the Moon has no
tangential velocity.
...
So let us calculate a new Roche limit assuming the Moon keeps
its current orbital velocity. We will assume, like Newton, that
the Moon has an “innate” tangential velocity, uncaused by the
field itself. I have shown that this is not the case, but we can
choose any velocity we like to develop an equation, and the
current one is as good as any.
[m(A + a)] – mv2 /2R = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
4R2 (A + a) – v2R – 2GM = 0
R = v2 + √[v4 + 32GM(A + a)]
8(A + a)
For the Moon, that would be
R = 4,023km
... But let us move on to look at the second sort of Roche
limit, the one that mirrors more closely the current one. We
want to find a distance at which the E/M field would break up an
orbiter. As should already be clear from our analysis of Pan
above, this limit is a phantom. If Pan is still experiencing
accretion when it is so near the surface of a huge planet, then
we may assume that the tidal Roche limit is a complete myth. The
E/M Roche limit would also be a myth, in that case, because we
can see from Pan that neither field is strong enough to
disintegrate a moonlet, even when it is low density and hammered
by collisions.
The E/M field would tend to bounce a large body out of a low
orbit, because a level of balance would be impossible to find in
a natural way. Large bodies simply don't settle into low orbits
with little or no impact trajectory. If they have high incoming
velocities, the primary bounces them away with a quick increase
in the E/M field. If they have low velocities, the E/M field
keeps them at a greater orbital distance.
This is why only very small bodies are found in low orbits. They
encounter a small section of the charge field [E/M field], feel
a much smaller repulsion, and settle into orbit much more
slowly. This is also why they can exist in these low orbits:
using their own charge fields, they funnel the primary's charge
field around them, encountering a smaller effect. Larger bodies
can't do this nearly as efficiently.
... Now let us look at a near approach of Jupiter and Saturn,
using these new equations. How close did the two great planets
come millions of years ago, in order to create a resonance? We
can now find out.
To use my new equation, we have to first calculate new
accelerations for Jupiter and Saturn, based only on their radii.
We do that with a proportionality with the Earth.
9.81/RE = x/RJ = y/RS
x = 110.7
y = 92.7
R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}
R = 18,110 km
Saturn may have come that close to Jupiter, in being bounced
away by the combined E/M fields (supposing the planets had no
tangential velocities relative to one another). That was a very
close call, and a much closer pass or a hit might have upset or
destroyed the entire Solar System. Our entire history may have
depended on that near pass. And in millions of years, when the
resonant cycle returns to that near pass, the Solar System will
once again hang on the outcome.
This means that the rings and satellite systems of Jupiter and
Saturn must have re-formed since that close pass.
[Ancient myths suggest that the two gas giants and the inner
rocky planets were all involved in close encounters about the
time before the Great Flood.]
#Post#: 122--------------------------------------------------
Megatsunamis
By: Admin Date: February 14, 2017, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Mike, I have some more questions now. Oops. I got your
next email, so I'll add discussion of that at the end of this.
_M: Megatsunamis would require a much larger body [than the
Moon], and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal
directions.
=L: What info do you have on the direction of flow of waters
that deposited megasequences? All I've read from Baumgardner or
another creationist is that the floods swept from the NE to the
SW. A catastrophist, Cardona, has said that the flood came from
the north. I think he was quoting early Native American sources.
The Saturn Theory, based on ancient myths etc, is similar to
Velikovsky's theory and provides several planets, especially
Venus and Mars, as possible causes of tsunamis, so there could
have been planets temporarily orbiting Earth on different
orbital planes (See more at the end).
_M: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the Roche
limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital path.
=L: Since moons exist within Roche limits and since Mathis
reasoned that Roche limits don't exist, do you think he is
likely right?
_M: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater
denizens, which still exist today.
=L: Aren't the dinosaurs considered to be freshwater animals?
And yet they appear to have drowned in saltwater. Have they not?
_M: Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come from
the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered 60%
or more of Earth's surface.
_On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would
have flowed outward.
=L: How would rain cause tsunamis? Baumgardner calculated that
the sedimentary strata, which average 1.8 km thick, would have
needed tsunamis 2.5 km high to transport all the sand and mud
etc onto the supercontinent. Why would that not be correct?
_M: The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km
thick.
=L: Do you have figures on how much of that is solid rock? And
do you know which megasequence/s the rock belongs to? The
Atlantic shouldn't have any flood-formed strata, should it?
_M: There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching of
continental crust involved in separation, which is another
reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.
=L: Do you mean the supercontinent was not hardened granite and
hardened sedimentary rock when it broke up?
_M: I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass
spherules are associated with Chicxulub.
... It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think
produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.
=L: Do you have detailed info on that? Isn't the iridium in a
layer of clay? And isn't there also charcoal as from a
conflagration? And isn't the iridium/clay layer above the layer
of spherules? Can you explain that in detail?
_M: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split [to form the
supercontinent]?
=L: All I know is that the Moon is said to have similar
composition to Earth's continents, I think, although the mares
are said to be basalt. I have a few references on that. What I
read today about the Roche limit makes me more confident that
close passes of planets, moons, or asteroids would be possible.
_Mathis says all matter gives off photons that have mass, so
when bodies are close enough together they cause tides. He says
the force is like pressing down on a beachball in a bathtub. It
makes the surrounding waters rise. As the body moves overhead
it's photon force is like a beachball moving on the ocean,
causing tidal waves around it. So a large enough beachball would
make tidal waves large enough to roll over a low-level
supercontinent, carrying along sediments. What do you think of
that?
_M: I haven't heard about fields of mass-containing photons
before; aren't photons usually considered to be massless? Where
can I find the myths involving Jupiter, Saturn, and the rocky
planets interacting before the Great Flood?
=L: Although conventional science considers photons massless and
dimensionless, it makes no sense. The photon would be like a
ghost. How could such a thing have any effect on matter?
_Regarding Saturn Theory myths, one source is
HTML http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=
which does searches of numerous sources, but only like ten lines
at a time. Others are
HTML http://maverickscience.com
and
HTML http://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth
_The evidence from myths etc suggests that Venus, Mars and Earth
were previously satellites of Saturn, moving in single file
behind Saturn from distant parts of the solar system to the
present orbits. In Kronos magazine in the 1980s probably,
Cardona speculated that Jupiter was once close to Earth and its
moon Io was the source of the fire and brimstone that fell on
Sodom and Gemorrah. He may have abandoned that theory later, but
I'm not sure. Anyway, the most ancient myths called Saturn the
Sun. Later the name was transferred to the present Sun. This
video discusses the theory well: youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY
#Post#: 123--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 2/15
By: Admin Date: February 16, 2017, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[For reply: The Torah Retold
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5675
]
RE: Megatsunamis
Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:03 PM
Lloyd, my responses are "M2" below. - Mike
_M: Megatsunamis would require a much larger body [than the
Moon], and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal
directions.
=L: What info do you have on the direction of flow of waters
that deposited megasequences? All I've read from Baumgardner or
another creationist is that the floods swept from the NE to the
SW. A catastrophist, Cardona, has said that the flood came from
the north. I think he was quoting early Native American sources.
The Saturn Theory, based on ancient myths etc, is similar to
Velikovsky's theory and provides several planets, especially
Venus and Mars, as possible causes of tsunamis, so there could
have been planets temporarily orbiting Earth on different
orbital planes (See more at the end).
M2: Flow over North America appears to have been to the SW.
Other parts of the world were different. This ICR article cites
a report of flow to the NE in Siberia -
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/4208/
I don't recall Noah seeing
Venus and Mars fighting in the sky or passing so close to the
Earth as to rival the Moon in the sky in order to influence
tides. Note that the description in Genesis is that the waters
rose and the waters fell. The Ark was not swept all over the
world by high-energy currents; it landed near where it launched
in Mesopotamia.
_M: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the
Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital
path.
=L: Since moons exist within Roche limits and since Mathis
reasoned that Roche limits don't exist, do you think he is
likely right?
M2: The Roche limit is basic gravitational astrophysics,
simply identifying the point at which the force of tides
overcomes the force holding the object together. Gravity,
composition, and volume are all factors. Seems fairly obvious.
_M: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater
denizens, which still exist today.
=L: Aren't the dinosaurs considered to be freshwater
animals? And yet they appear to have drowned in saltwater. Have
they not?
M2: In the Hell Creek Formation Triceratops, who ate
vegetation, are buried with saltwater seashells. All variety of
mixing is evident in the fossil record around the world.
_M: Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come
from the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered
60% or more of Earth's surface.
_On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would
have flowed outward.
=L: How would rain cause tsunamis? Baumgardner calculated
that the sedimentary strata, which average 1.8 km thick, would
have needed tsunamis 2.5 km high to transport all the sand and
mud etc onto the supercontinent. Why would that not be correct?
M2: The Moon still caused global tides during the Great
Flood. If you double the amount of water on the Earth over 40
days, the tidal waves become tsunamis.
_M: The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km
thick.
=L: Do you have figures on how much of that is solid rock?
And do you know which megasequence/s the rock belongs to? The
Atlantic shouldn't have any flood-formed strata, should it?
M2: Seafloor sediment is different than continental
sedimentary rock. It is composed of organics, clay, and
minerals that settle to the bottom. In places, especially near
continents, there are the remains of avalanches (turbidites),
but there is nothing like the megasequences found on land.
_M: There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching
of continental crust involved in separation, which is another
reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.
=L: Do you mean the supercontinent was not hardened granite
and hardened sedimentary rock when it broke up?
M2: As with any material, the dominant forces that hold
continental crust together change with scale. While granite and
sedimentary rock are brittle on a small scale, at continental
scale they are thixotropic. When agitated with sufficient
force, the crust acts as a Bingham Fluid, returning to a
coherent solid when the agitating force subsides below the
threshold level.
_M: I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass
spherules are associated with Chicxulub.
... It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think
produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.
=L: Do you have detailed info on that? Isn't the iridium in
a layer of clay? And isn't there also charcoal as from a
conflagration? And isn't the iridium/clay layer above the layer
of spherules? Can you explain that in detail?
M2: Following the Great Flood the highest surface
sedimentary stratum was Cretaceous. The Chicxulub impact
occurred on top of that, depositing iridium, glass spherules,
and flame products. However, researcher Gerta Keller has made a
case for the iridium layer and reworked micro-tektites
associated with the K-Pg boundary falling 300,000 years
(uniformitarian), i.e. 50 cm, after the Chicxulub impact. That
would mean the SD impact produced them instead, and the
Chicxulub impact struck at the end of the Great Flood. The
attached chart if from one of her papers.
_M: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split [to form
the supercontinent]?
=L: All I know is that the Moon is said to have similar
composition to Earth's continents, I think, although the mares
are said to be basalt. I have a few references on that. What I
read today about the Roche limit makes me more confident that
close passes of planets, moons, or asteroids would be possible.
_Mathis says all matter gives off photons that have mass, so
when bodies are close enough together they cause tides. He says
the force is like pressing down on a beachball in a bathtub. It
makes the surrounding waters rise. As the body moves overhead
it's photon force is like a beachball moving on the ocean,
causing tidal waves around it. So a large enough beachball would
make tidal waves large enough to roll over a low-level
supercontinent, carrying along sediments. What do you think of
that?
M2: Similar composition of the Moon and Earth relate to the
origin of the Moon as a product of a collision with Earth by
something else earlier. There is no reason to think a chunk of
Moon later broke off and fell onto Earth to cause the Great
Flood. Celestial bodies have intrinsic mass; photons are not
involved. Gravitational attraction between two of them causes
tides, not photonic pressure.
_M: I haven't heard about fields of mass-containing photons
before; aren't photons usually considered to be massless? Where
can I find the myths involving Jupiter, Saturn, and the rocky
planets interacting before the Great Flood?
=L: Although conventional science considers photons massless
and dimensionless, it makes no sense. The photon would be like a
ghost. How could such a thing have any effect on matter?
_Regarding Saturn Theory myths, one source is
HTML http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=
which does searches of numerous sources, but only like ten
lines at a time. Others are
HTML http://maverickscience.com
and
HTML http://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth
_The evidence from myths etc suggests that Venus, Mars and
Earth were previously satellites of Saturn, moving in single
file behind Saturn from distant parts of the solar system to the
present orbits. In Kronos magazine in the 1980s probably,
Cardona speculated that Jupiter was once close to Earth and its
moon Io was the source of the fire and brimstone that fell on
Sodom and Gemorrah. He may have abandoned that theory later, but
I'm not sure. Anyway, the most ancient myths called Saturn the
Sun. Later the name was transferred to the present Sun. This
video discusses the theory well: youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY
M2: Modern sub-atomic physics is obsessed with particles,
which I think is a mistake. In my and other renegades'
opinions, light is only a wave which propagates in space through
a medium called "ether". The wave transfers energy only (which
can affect mass), so light is massless. Modern physics
designates light as particles called photons, to which they
assign no mass; same result/different paradigm. Regarding the
shuffling around of planetary orbits in the solar system, it
would be wise to try to find out if it is physically possible
before taking interpretations of myths at face value. Even if
an orbital mechanics scenario could be devised, I doubt it could
be resolved over the relatively short time covering human
history.
#Post#: 124--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 2/16
By: Admin Date: February 16, 2017, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mike. Do you have calculations of how much bouyancy a 2 or 3
bar atmosphere would give to megafauna? I did a calculation some
months ago that seemed to show that at least 100 bars would be
needed to provide significant buoyancy, but I don't know if I
did it correctly. Also, do you have more details about how much
CO2 would degas from the oceans if the atmosphere lost half or
two-thirds of its mass, and how much cement would be produced
from the CO2 for limestone and sandstone?
I'll respond to your last email later. First I'll send you parts
of a recent exchange with Gordon on the Thunderbolts forum. He's
a high school science teacher and an amateur geologist in
Washington.
On Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:50 pm he had said to me:
"You're on the right track. Those are certainly good categories
of data.
Tsunamis deposit laminated beds like other alluvial processes.
The question would be, could mega tsunamis operating as a
primary (not just occasional) mechanism produce stratigraphic
sequences like we see represented by the geologic column?"
On Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:45 am I told Gordon that you said: ""a
meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment
population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy
... the sole source of water for the Great Flood. Members of the
meteorite swarm falling into the ocean led observers on land to
mistakenly call the resulting water jets "fountains of the great
deep". Note that these started and ended at the same time as the
rain deluge....""
I commented: I'm not sure what he meant by the canopy as sole
source of Flood water, but he seems to have made a very similar
conclusion as you about the fountains. He seems to add that the
meteors caused the heavy rain. But I thought the meteors
continued to fall for 5 months altogether. What do you think?
On Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:46 pm Gordon replied as follows.
_I agree with the phrase "meteor swarm" here as it seems to
imply something more ominous than say a meteor shower.
_The "matar" [meteors - LK] were said to fall for a period of
about 5 months.
_I'm favorable to associating the matar with moon bombardment.
_I disagree with the hypothesis of the canopy, which is
unsupported by any physical principle you may wish to apply to
it.
_I do believe that a "layer" of moisture in the vicinity of the
tropopause/lower stratosphere did surround the earth, that it
was disrupted by the introduction of condensation nuclei
originating from large scale volcanic upheaval at the beginning
of the deluge period.
_It was generally the source of the several weeks of
unprecedented steady downpour, followed by a few months of
ongoing (but more intermittent) rainfall, followed by the full
emplacement of the current water cycle to this day; but this
amount of rain, while an initial signal of the unfolding
cataclysm was not the primary cause of the deluge.
_Splashing of the meteor swarm into the ocean was definitely not
the "fountains of the deep" as I understand them.
_The fountains of the deep I associate with the mid-ocean rift
zones as we find them today.
_It is important to remember that at the beginning of the
deluge, these rifts were in or on the continental landmass,
which through the period of spreading became the basins of the
Atlantic and parts of the Indian and (lesser parts of the)
Pacific oceans.
_What began as fountains from the "deep" earth, are still
fountains from the "deep" earth, coinciding now with the
mid-ridges of the "deep" ocean.
_Let's not be too quick to geographically delimit "deep"... it
is an apt descriptive word applying to a variety of situations,
but all conforming to a single concept: material erupting out of
the earth's crust, whether on land or at sea.
_In my scenario, the sources of the major portion of the deluge
water were:
1. the extant ocean waters of the time, powered by massive
seismic/volcanic upheaval of the spreading ocean basins; these
forces at probably a much smaller scale are observable in the
catastrophic action of tsunamis today;
2. major tidal action of a large (passing) planetoid that was
responsible also for the bombardment of the matar; it was likely
temporarily caught in a co-orbital dance with the earth for the
early part of the deluge period; this bombardment is evidenced
by astroblemes found throughout the geologic record from
PreCambrian through Cenozoic, and evidenced on the surface
today;
3. subterranean water sources that were/are part and parcel of
the pressures powering igneous processes in the deep crust or
upper mantle; huge volumes of water are seen to surface during
volcanic eruptions.
_An important part of my scenario is that its mechanisms are
associated with presently observable/researchable evidence.
On Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:15 pm Grey Cloud asked Gordon:
"Quick question so quick answer is fine. Why do you think the
water(s) came from the mid-ocean rift zones? My (limited)
understanding is that quakes can cause water to issue from the
ground."
On Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:45 pm Gordon answered Grey Cloud as
follows.
_I think that a good fraction of the deluge water had a
subterranean origin.
_As we see today in steamy volcanic eruptions both on land and
at sea, a lot of this deep origin water enters into the water
cycle via billowing into the atmosphere and eventually
precipitates back to the ground and eventually into the oceans.
_But also in the rift zones are found the famous "black smokers"
discovered by R. Ballard (of Titanic fame) and others, which are
billowing out sulfurous concentrations of very hot water from
deep below the crust.
_As to water surfacing during "normal" quakes, and/or near
active faults, further detail is needed to know whether this is
from ground water or has a deeper origin.
_Modern research is showing the creation of subterranean water
from the mixture of silicates and hydrogen originating deep
below the surface.
_Is this the origin of the original seas on the earth? Perhaps.
_Standard geology has an oft quoted adage: If ... all of the
known volcanoes, both inactive and active, produced the amount
of water seen in volcanic eruptions, it would be enough to
account for all of the world's oceans.
_There is no reason why this concept cannot apply also (and even
more aptly) to catastrophic geology.
#Post#: 136--------------------------------------------------
MF 2/16-2/18
By: Admin Date: February 18, 2017, 2:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:42 PM
Hi Lloyd. Buoyancy is not what I am interested in regarding an
atmosphere with higher pressure. It is the availability of
oxygen for breathing. When climbing a high mountain, the air
gets "thinner" as you go up because the atmospheric pressure
decreases with altitude. If you continue to go up, eventually
you black out. The presence of a vapor canopy, or more likely
an ice crystal canopy at high altitude, would make the
atmospheric pressure greater at sea level than it is today. I
am not the first to think that this hyperbaric situation would
allow giant animals to survive. Scroll down to "Changing the
World: Hyberbaric Oxygen" at this link
HTML http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/preflood.php
- The concentration of CO2 in water is directly proportional to
the atmospheric pressure, using the Henry's Law constant for
CO2. So 2 atmospheres doubles the solubility. Carbonated soft
drinks are bottled under pressure, and degas when opened. This
is complicated by CO2 reacting with water to form hydrated
carbon dioxide and then carbonic acid (H2CO3), developing
equilibrium with carbon dioxide and water. It is infamous for
weathering the calcite (CaCO3) in marble and limestone.
---
Hi Mike. 2/18/17
- Gigantism from hyperbaric conditions?
- Are you sure there's any physical evidence of a Roche limit in
space? There are several moons that exist within Roche limits.
And why don't satellites get pulled apart when they near
planets?
- Would you like to skim through Charles Chandler's paper, The
Torah Retold at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5675
and comment on
the plausibility of his conclusions regarding Moses and Atenism
and Biblical laws meant to prevent plagues? Atenism relates to
the article on your site about Did a Comet Cause the Great
Flood.
- When you originally mentioned recently the freshwater and
saltwater denizens, I thought you meant that geologists can tell
if fossils formed in freshwater or saltwater, i.e. rainwaters
and ocean tsunamis. But now you say both are found together all
over the world, so I guess I misunderstood your first comment.
- You said: "The Moon still caused global tides during the Great
Flood. If you double the amount of water on the Earth over 40
days, the tidal waves become tsunamis."
- Why doesn't the Moon cause tsunamis now? Or where did the
extra water go?
- I have a lot of reading to do. Yesterday a copied a bunch of
articles about strata from the Creation.com website.
- Have you read anything in the NCGT Journal yet at ncgt.org? I
know you quote David Pratt quite a bit on your site and he has
written a few times in NCGT, but I think it's only letters, or
discussion, not articles or papers etc. Not sure though.
- Below is the conclusion portion of a NCGT paper from last year
by an author who apparently died last year. It's against plate
tectonics and for a "fixist" model. Part of the title is "causes
of horizontal tectonic movements", which I haven't read, but it
might be informative. When we get to Part 4, it seems like it
might be good to discuss the arguments below. Your site already
discusses some of them. I'm marking three paragraphs with this
mark: >> . Would you like to comment a bit about those for me?
I'm not clear on how the SD model does or would explain the
upwelling of new rock formation at ocean ridges. If the
continents slid over the oceanic crust, why would new crust form
there? It seems redundant to have pre-existing crust there as
well as the new crust added to it. Your ideas on formation of
eclogite and UHD rock would be good to hear, if you've
considered those problems already.
204 New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, V. 4, No. 2, June
2016. www.ncgt.org
- Critical analysis of the plate tectonics model and causes of
horizontal tectonic movements
Arkady Pilchin
Universal Geosciences & Environmental Consulting Company
205 Hilda Ave., #1402
Toronto, Ontario, M2M 4B1, Canada.
arkadypilchin@yahoo.ca
- Concluding remarks
All of the above leads to the following conclusions:
The main problem with the plate tectonics model is
underdevelopment of its every part, from the model’s inception
until the present day.
- The outright dismissal of the geosynclinal model and all other
fixist models is not justified and was a mistake.
- Convection throughout the entire mantle or in any mantle layer
of any significant thickness is highly unlikely, because it
violates physical laws.
- The main forces postulated for plate tectonics are too weak
for any significant tectonic activity, and cannot be involved in
such tectonic processes as obduction, orogenesis, lithosphere
uplift, or even subduction. In general, their application
violates physical laws by ignoring the effect of friction and
strength limits.
Plate tectonic forces are incapable of generating any
significant force in a horizontal or upward direction.
- The plate tectonics model of the formation of new lithosphere
in spreading centers violates a number of physical laws; it is
unclear how it would be possible, with a buildup of only about 1
cm long, ~50 km deep and thousands of kilometers wide increments
of new lithosphere per year, for it to independently separate
into the main oceanic layers (including the peridotite layer) in
underwater conditions, and over millions of years form solid
oceanic plates thousands of kilometers long.
One of the main problems with sea floor spreading is the
inconsistency between the total lengths of mid-ocean ridges (the
total length of the mid-ocean ridge system is ~80,000 km and the
continuous mountain range is 65,000 km) and the total length of
trenches (30,000-40,000 km). Whereas, according to the plate
tectonics model, the total length of trenches should be twice as
long (~130,000-160,000 km) as that of mid-ocean ridges.
>> Any oceanic lithosphere plate (slab) with a thickness of ~50
km is composed of three main layers: brittle upper layer with
temperatures of less than ~573 K; elastic middle layer with
temperatures within the range of ~573-873 K; and plastic lower
layer with temperatures of >~873 K, and it cannot be considered
rigid.
It is clearly shown in the paper that under no circumstances
would the average density of an oceanic lithosphere plate be
denser than rocks of the upper mantle, and the formation of
negative buoyancy is not possible.
>> The formation of eclogite requires rocks of the upper
continental crust to be delivered to depths of about 64 km or
more, but even if the entire crust of any region were completely
transformed to eclogite, it would still not be enough to form
negative buoyancy by even 0.01 g/cm3.
- An oceanic plate has an average geothermal gradient of ~50-86
K/km, and a temperature of about 1573 K (or 1603 K) at the point
of contact between the lithosphere and asthenosphere, so
technically it cannot be considered cold.
Numerous problems of the plate tectonics model are mentioned in
the paper with corresponding references.
>> The formation of ultrahigh pressure (UHP) rocks cannot be
accomplished under lithostatic pressures alone, and requires the
involvement of gigantic (mostly horizontal) forces. This cannot
take place within a subduction zone.
Analysis of the causes of formation of significant overpressure
shows that only the decomposition of rocks (primarily
serpentinization of the peridotite layer) can generate gigantic
forces capable of horizontally moving oceanic plates; causing
obductions, subductions, orogenies, or uplift of lithospheric
blocks; forming serpentinite and ophiolite thrusts; and more.
- Analysis of the focus depths of earthquakes on continents
clearly shows that the absolute majority of them take place at
shallow and very shallow depths, and almost all of them within
the temperature range of the serpentinization process (~473-773
K). This also shows that continental subduction is not possible.
- It is shown that serpentinization of the oceanic peridotite
layer may cause formation of either obduction or forced
subduction of an oceanic plate near the continental margin (see
Fig. 1), or away from the continental margin (see Fig. 2).
From all of the above, it is clear that plate tectonics is an
inconsistent model violating numerous physical laws, and is
based on a large number of incorrect postulates and assumptions.
Given all this evidence, the plate tectonics model is shown to
be a dead end in geology that has unfortunately run its course
for too long.
#Post#: 141--------------------------------------------------
MF 2/19
By: Admin Date: February 19, 2017, 6:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2/19 To Mike
HYPERBARIC
I read the section of an article a couple days ago that you had
mentioned, Changing the World: Hyberbaric Oxygen. I actually
read the whole page. I was pretty impressed with it. The
Meissner effect to support an icy canopy is very interesting
too. I suppose the canopy may have come from debris from the
supercontinent-forming event. I just noticed at
HTML http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/games/depth_press
that a two
bar atmosphere would apparently produce the buoyancy of ten
meters of water and three bars would produce that of 20 meters
of water. So the calculation I did a year or so ago was way off,
I think. And the buoyancy of the thicker atmosphere should
greatly help explain gigantism as well, along with the greater
oxygen supply, and maybe CO2 too. I read about ten years ago of
an experiment with mice breathing a greater percent of CO2. I
think the result was that they lived longer or grew bigger.
CATACLYSM/S
How certain do you feel that the SD event came centuries after
the Flood? Gordon thinks they came together and I know of a
couple of reasons that suggest that too. One is that Baumgardner
said the CO plateau (the idea being based I think on strata that
are now partly eroded away, i.e. missing) was initially about 5
km high. He said the missing strata seem to have been eroded
away by sheet erosion as the Flood was receding. I figure the
plateau must have been uplifted at that time in order to be
eroded away during the Flood. And the uplift likely was due to
the SD event.
- The other reason is the rock ice that seems to have frozen
some of the mammoths. It also flash froze streams with fish and
cattle swimming in them. You said the SD event pushed the
northern continents close to the north pole. That would help
freeze those animals and streams. But it's been claimed that the
mammoths that had food still in their stomachs must have frozen
very suddenly, like those streams did, because the food would
otherwise have been digested or rotted or something like that.
So it was estimated that the air temperature had to reach at
least -150F. I think that's stated in Walter Brown's article on
frozen mammoths. If it's true, then I think the most likely
source of such cold air or ice would have been cold air from the
upper atmosphere during the cataclysm making its way to the
Earth's surface in the Arctic, or ice from the icy canopy doing
so. The canopy would not have been around after the Flood. So
I'm wondering if the rock ice is actually from the former
canopy.
- What do you think?
---
Sunday, February 19, 2017 11:09 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Comparing the Flood with the Shock Dynamics event, all
continental uplift and induced high-energy waves would occur
with the latter. The distinct change in fossil fauna between
the Mesozoic and Cenozoic make it clear to me that different
populations occupied the continents prior to the catastrophes
that buried them. There are no mammoths or cattle with the
dinosaurs in Mesozoic strata, and no dinosaurs with the mammoths
or cattle in Cenozoic strata. The Septuagint timing for
dividing the Earth in the "days of Peleg" in Genesis 10:25 and 1
Chronicles 1:19 is about 300 years, allowing a repopulation of
the (still intact) protocontinent after the Flood by survivors
on the Ark. The megafauna were then buried by the
less-universally annihilating Shock Dynamics catastrophe. The
extensive volcanism and exposed hot seafloor rock acting on
ocean water and overland megatsunamis, combined with a blanket
of particulates over the Earth generated by the giant impact,
explain the onset of a global ice age. Pushing Siberia
northward contributed to freezing the mammoths' pastures.
According to Vardiman, the problem with an ice or vapor canopy
is high heat at Earth's surface. The ice would have been in the
form of tiny crystals in order to stay aloft, and raining them
down into the hot atmosphere might have cooled but not frozen
the air. In favor of a canopy, the global pre-Flood environment
on the protocontinent was tropical to temperate, unlike the
extremes we have today without a canopy.
*****************************************************