DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Updates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 142--------------------------------------------------
MF 2/24-3/29
By: Admin Date: February 24, 2017, 10:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 2/24
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2017, 03:11:09 pm »
Sunday, February 26, 2017 9:37 PM
Hi Lloyd,
John Casey comes highly credentialed; perhaps he has some
insight. I always get a little apprehensive when interview
guests are pushing a book, in the sense that when money is a
motive claims may be exaggerated. Meteorologists understand
that the accuracy of their predictions decreases rapidly as they
go beyond a few days because the interplay of forces is so
complex. For the same reason, geologists have been embarrassed
for decades at their failure to predict earthquakes, even in
terms of threat zones.
There is another guy who claims to predict earthquakes who calls
himself dutchsinse. He goes on YouTube almost daily, I guess,
with a long show marking current global activity and his
predictions. Apparently he thinks energy waves spread slowly
around the planet triggering faults. Example:
youtube.com/watch?v=j4S2u1M0bTE There seems to be controversy
surrounding him as well.
Regarding Global Wrench Tectonics, I agree with him that Plate
Tectonics has compounded problems over many years, and that as a
field of research geology is moribund today. But my goodness,
GWT is just impossible. It is not just a mountain of
speculation, there seems to be no discernment for plausibility
of the forces and events invoked. Let me invent an example in
terms of common experience: A child lifts a limousine over its
head and spins it on one finger. As it spins faster and faster,
cyclonic waves move away and remove the upper 7/8ths of
surrounding buildings in a radius of 5.6 miles. The reduced
weight causes crustal uplift and heating of sublithospheric
mantle. Consequent adjustment in the geomagnetic field opens
the ionosphere to an order of magnitude increase in cosmic ray
penetration locally. Resonant fluctuation of inorganic halites,
ferric coprolites, and metamorphic peat trigger a field
inversion and simultaneous jerk in Earth's rotation. Your
reaction to reading that is how I feel reading Global Wrench
Tectonics. And I say that as someone with a geology theory of
sliding continents!
Submitting a discussion to NCGT journal sounds like a good idea.
-----
Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:06 pm
- I just read (M O) Michael Oard's "Analysis of Walt Brown’s
Flood model" at
HTML http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory
- M O persuades me that the Grand Canyon was carved by Great
Flood waters toward the end of the Flood, which likely means
that the Colorado Plateau rose at that time.
- He shows numerous problems with Walter Brown's version, esp.
insufficient water from the two hypothetical lakes to carve the
canyon etc.
- M O also persuades me that mammoths were not flash frozen,
which likely means that they lived during the Ice Age after the
Flood.
- I think the thicker atmosphere before the Flood is highly
probable.
- I don't think the icy canopy is necessary, since megatsunamis
from an orbiting asteroid etc should suffice to produce the
Flood.
- M O is apparently just missing the SD impact model to explain
orogeny (and the preflood thicker atmosphere) to have a complete
model.
I plan to try to contact Oard and others soon to discuss the SD
model etc.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 12:44:31 pm by Admin »
#Post#: 149--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 2/28-3/1
By: Admin Date: March 1, 2017, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:42 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Oard does a good analysis of Walter Brown's Flood model. In
doing so, he makes several points that best fit the Shock
Dynamics model: 1) "the woolly mammoth population increased
rapidly to millions in the first few hundred years after the
Flood." These and many other animals replaced the dinosaurs,
and spread to their preferred habitats on the post-Flood
protocontinent before it was divided. And the timing of the SD
event is about 300 years after the Flood, in the "days of Peleg"
(Septuagint); 2) in SD, Siberia was forced far north in one day
by the collision of India and Southeast Asia with the Asia
mainland, producing the sudden cold climate Brown referred to
without rolling the whole Earth, for which there is no evidence;
3) "The woolly mammoths were buried in loess (wind-blown silt),
commonly found up to 60 m (200 ft) thick in the lowlands of
Siberia and Alaska." That is an enormous amount of wind-blown
silt suddenly burying mammoths. The SD event is an ideal
generator of such a storm, and it is hard to imagine any other
source.
I have no interest in contacting Michael Oard. The basic Shock
Dynamics theory was published in the Creation Research Society
Quarterly in 1992, and there was no response from any of the
readers. I presented it at the Third International Conference
on Creation in 1994, being on stage as the second piece of comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9 was falling into Jupiter, quite a coincidence
for a meteorite-impact theory, and there was no interest from
anyone at the conference. Everyone was enthralled, however,
with the rollout of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics by 5
creationist Ph.D.s at that conference, and the YEC love affair
with it continues. I was not allowed to submit either of two
papers on SD at the next conference, being told by creationist
Ph.D. reviewers that it would just "confuse" the people. My
discussions with YEC speakers at the 1994 conference had no
consequence, except with Wycliffe Bible translator Bernard
Northrup. He told me that he had been struggling without
success for years to convince YEC leaders that they were packing
too much Earth history into the Flood event. He showed me his
biblical time line of events, and I found SD fit his post-Flood
catastrophic requirements. Bernard died a few years ago without
having made a difference in creationist thinking. I am not
going to waste my time with members of the creationist
intelligentsia. Their severe oppression by the evolutionist
establishment over decades seems to have hardened their
positions against any significant changes, even those proposed
by allies. I am content to have SD explained on the internet,
open to "new wineskins" who run across it. Regrettably, very
few people know enough about geology to judge it fairly, and
most who do know something were taught it in the context of
Plate Tectonics theory.
-----
3/1/17; 2:41 PM
Hi Mike. If the SD impact raised the Colorado Plateau 300 years
after the Great Flood, was the Grand Canyon eroded during the
Flood, or at the time of the SD event? Oard said the upper
strata were eroded by sheet erosion. Would that have occurred
during the Flood? And then would the rest of the Grand Canyon
have eroded during the SD event? Oard said Grand and Hopi Lakes
didn't exist and much more water was needed to erode the Canyon
than what would have been in those lakes. The SD impact should
have caused a lot of flooding, so is that how the Canyon eroded?
Do you know how to determine whether the upper strata at the
Grand Canyon were eroded during the Great Flood or during the SD
event?
Dong Choi sent me several PDF files. The first one showed their
findings that the global temperature was gradually rising until
about 1996, then there was a sudden jump several tenths of a
degree Celsius, then it continued to rise gradually since then.
They show that #4-6 earthquake activity jumped about two years
earlier and followed the same trends. They show a map of Earth
heat, mostly from the ocean ridge system, which they say is
responsible for Earth's temperature. I posted their map and
graphs at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m/msg150/#msg150<br
/>where you can view them. The map shows Antarctica and Greenlan
d
as rather warm too, so I don't understand that. I guess I need
to ask Mr. Choi about that. Or do you understand it?
They also showed graphs indicating that major quakes and
volcanic eruptions have occurred during low sunspot periods,
esp. during little ice ages. Today Mr. Choi sent me more stuff.
This includes a paper on the New Madrid fault. The paper has a
world map showing two major anticlines in the western and
eastern hemispheres. See the same post link above. The eastern
one runs along near the northern edge of the Australian plate
through Indonesia then north to the central tip of Siberia. The
western anticline runs from SE of Brazil NW to the Gulf of
Mexico, then north through New Madrid and up through Hudson's
Bay and Baffin Island I think. They call the anticlines
antipodal. Can you see the map of the two anticlines? They have
very nearly the same shapes. Do you have an idea how they were
formed? Would they have formed before, during or after the SD
event? If you can figure out the likely cause of those two
anticlines, we could probably make a better impression on Mr.
Choi for the SD model.
I'll try to send an attachment soon of their New Madrid paper.
#Post#: 158--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 3/1-3/2
By: Admin Date: March 2, 2017, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017, 8:15 PM
Hi Lloyd,Thanks for bringing up the Grand Canyon. Perhaps
surprisingly, I have not paid much attention to it in the past,
aside from purchasing Steve Austin's book on the subject. On a
global scale it is a small feature despite being a geologic
monument. The YEC scenario for the lowest sedimentary rock
layers (Unkar to Chuar Groups) awkwardly attributes them to the
Creation Week, so that block faulting, tilting, erosion, and
deposition of overlying sedimentary layers can happen during the
Flood (or near the end?). Since I have two global catastrophes
at hand instead of one, I assume the lowest sedimentary rock
layers are Flood deposits. Uplift and block faulting of the
Colorado Plateau would occur as North America moved west during
the SD event, eroding the Great Unconformity as tsunamis rushed
eastward from the coast, then depositing all the sedimentary
layers above it. A large quantity of ocean water trapped inland
of the new western mountain chain eventually eroded the canyon
either as runoff or as a consequence of the subsequent ice age,
such as dam breaching. You will have to rely on Dong Choi to
explain his reports. I am unfamiliar with his claims about
Earth's temperature, and have never heard of two major
hemispheric anticlines. The map on which the anticlines are
drawn illustrates some undefined data, yet it shows no apparent
support for the position of the blue lines.
--------------------------------
Date: Thu, March 02, 2017 12:14 am
Mike, I just found their New Madrid paper online as a PDF at:
HTML https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/GCSR1-2015NewMadridChoi%26Casey%20(8).pdf
So you can see the caption for the map of the super anticlines
there. It references Choi 2013, so I'll try to check the 2013
issues of NCGT and maybe I'll find it there. It'll be
interesting to see his data or source for the map.
-----
On Thu, 3/2/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Subject: RE: Submit NCGT Discussion?
Lloyd, it does help to see the paper - thanks. The "super
anticline" concept seems to be a minority construct; I have not
encountered it before, and I still don't see what identifies
one. On the other hand, Figure 3 in the Choi and Casey paper
(New Madrid earthquakes compared to solar minimums or “solar
hibernations”) is sobering if the data is accurate. It is
counterintuitive, yet deserves further study.
-----
Thu 3/2/17 8:30PM
Hi Mike. I'm finding Choi's & Co's ideas pretty far-fetched. I
spent much of today copying and reading some of his and other
papers from NCGT.org. I posted them on my forum at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82
so you can
read what I found. I did find one of the papers Choi had
referenced in one of the illustrations in that separate paper
that I found online. So that's one of the papers I now posted at
that link above. It's actually a few of his papers all collected
together in the first two posts on that page. I also posted
Tassos' paper there about 5 myths in geology. I had read one of
Tassos' papers online a few years ago, but not one that's in
NCGT, as far as I know.
By the way, I left the most interesting parts in black text,
although Tassos' paper was too brief to color. The rest, less
interesting parts, I colored limegreen. So you can skip most of
the green text and concentrate on the black, probably.
Then I copied the Norwegian guy's Wrench Tectonics, that you
made light of the other day, along with his criticisms of Surge
Tectonics. Following his paper are a couple of papers
criticizing Wrench Tectonics and defending Surge Tectonics. I
thought it might be good to see what kinds of theories are
circulating in NCGT, so maybe we can address their flaws while
discussing your model there. I didn't have time to highlight the
best parts of those last papers yet, assuming there are any best
parts, Haha.
I think the reason those folks feel so confident about their,
what's it called, non-mobilist?, models is they've apparently
been making a lot of progress at predicting earthquakes. Choi
mentions surges in his papers a little and I think it refers to
surges of energy that are detectable and the surges migrate
along those geanticlines and it's predictable where and when
they'll cause serious quakes. I think the geanticlines are
supposed to be in the bedrock precambrian granite etc. They have
some interesting maps on that, but they're hard to read. Choi
says heat is a major driver of geodynamics. One of the wierdest
ideas he mentioned is that the continents and oceans rise and
fall over millions of years. They call subsidence of land
oceanization, I think. Choi started off by criticizing Plate
Tectonics. The problems with PT are what got these guys going
off on this rebel path. They say the ocean floors have a lot of
evidence of being continental sedimentary rock. They talk about
plumes coming up from the outer core.
If you have time to read it over, I'll be interested in your
comments. I haven't read much of the debate between Wrench and
Surge Tectonics yet, but I assume that the surging is what I
mentioned above, but not sure yet. They favor the theory of
vertical mobility over horizontal mobility, of course.
When I first wrote to you years ago, I suggested that lightning
is what produced the SD impact and others, but Charles Chandler
helped convince me that bolides are the real impactors. He found
that electrical forces do seem to be mainly responsible for star
and planet formation, which store electrical energy in internal
double layers. He found reasonable explanations of how
earthquakes and volcanoes are due to electrical ohmic heating.
He learned from Tassos that bedrock contains microfractures, so
that's where the electrical energy goes to make quakes etc. See
his papers at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6199
He's great at
debating, so I wish he would get involved, but he's not been
into science as much lately. If he thought it might help save
lives, I think he may be more inclined to get interested.
#Post#: 161--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 3/6-3/8
By: Admin Date: March 8, 2017, 12:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 6, 2017, 5:35 PM
Hi Lloyd, You have been doing a lot of reading I see, and
finding more chaff than wheat. So Choi agrees with Plate
Tectonics that heat is a major driver of geodynamics?
Supposedly the greatest remaining concentration of heat is in
the core, giving rise to alleged mantle plumes, and most of the
rest is from radioactive decay in the mantle, distributed
homogeneously. Calculations I have seen show Earth convects 44
terawatts of heat, but only half would be produced by these
sources, suggesting residual heat is also being vented. I agree
with those who attribute slow lithospheric motion to tidal
forces rather than heat, due mainly to the Moon but to other
bodies as well. Oceanic transgression and regression are
essential mechanisms for producing sequence stratigraphy in
Plate Tectonics and stasis theories. That may be easy for their
supporters to accept, yet I wish they would think about what
would have to happen at depth for all this repeated fluctuation
of hundreds of feet to occur globally. And I agree with Tassos
that Plate Tectonics, Heat Engine Earth, and the Organic Origin
of Hydrocarbon Reserves are mistaken. However, that does not
lead to "therefore Expanding Earth". Earthquakes are firing
every second around the world, usually in well-defined zones,
and the two hemispheric geanticlines don't seem to be in those
zones. What everyone is striving for is prediction of the
biggest earthquakes. Anyone who can consistently do that
deserves our attention.
Monday, March 6, 2017 5:43 PM
When I launched the newgeology website in 2003 I was looking for
a broadscope rebuttal to Plate Tectonics theory for visitors to
read, and Pratt's 2000 article fit the bill. While passing
judgement on PT, it did not advocate an alternative theory. I
have not paid much attention to Surge Tectonics since then or
communicated with David Pratt.
---
Wed, March 08, 2017 1:08 am
Hi Mike. Do you have any idea how many times the locations of
sedimentary rock strata would have had to move up and down in
order to deposit at least close to 2 km of strata by the regular
geologists' means? There are at least dozens of strata in most
locations. The Surge Tectonics folks think the seafloors also
are covered with sedimentary strata and granite, at least under
the basalt. What do you think would have to happen in the
asthenosphere or mantle for such up and down motions?
- I think my best argument is that it wouldn't be possible for
just one or two kinds of sediments to be deposited for thousands
of years followed by one or two other kinds. They'd have to mix
together. Wouldn't they?
- I found an NCGT article that seems to explain Surge Tectonics
theory pretty well, which I posted at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82/msg156/#msg156<br
/>
- I highlighted the most relevant parts in Bold Type.
- It describes a worldwide network of surge channels and
mentions some evidence for that.
---
Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:41 PM
Hi Lloyd, As you can imagine, sedimentary strata vary
considerably according to location. The two attached pictures
provide some general insight.
The Surge Tectonics statements strike me as unrelated to
reality. While the rotational lag of the lithosphere relative
to the mantle is correct, the "strictosphere" (upper mantle),
and consequently Earth's radius, has not been found to be
shrinking (nor expanding)
HTML https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html
Without shrinking, lithosphere will not be compressed for
"tectogenesis". The lithosphere is buoyant anyway, and would
not "collapse" into denser asthenosphere and mantle, even at
Benioff zones
HTML http://www.academia.edu/18543181/Continents_as_lithological_icebergs_the_importance_of_buoyant_lithospheric_roots<br
/> Without shrinking, magma in channels, if they exist, will not
be pumped to "surge".
I think the late geophysicist Don Anderson was right in his view
that near-surface mantle (at least) is not homogeneous but
contains scattered hot or wet pools. This is unexpected if the
mantle has been churning from top to bottom for billions of
years, yet seismic tomographic images reveal a generous
distribution of dense and less dense anomalies. However, I have
not seen any that support the surge channel concept. If you
have any such images at hand, I would like to see them.
#Post#: 177--------------------------------------------------
MF 3/16
By: Admin Date: March 18, 2017, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: Submit NCGT Discussion
Thu, March 16, 2017 2:23 pm
Hi Mike.
- Info overload is making it a little hard for me to sort out
how to proceed, but I don't see any brick walls yet. I asked
Dong Choi which NCGT issues show the best evidence for Surge
Tectonics, but he said I should get Art Meyerhoff's book,
although it's from the early 90s. I think Meyerhoff died in 94.
Dr. Choi said he was Meyerhoff's main student or something like
that. I ordered Meyerhoff's book at the local library and it
should be there tomorrow or Tuesday.
- I found an NCGT article from around 2004 that favors an
electrical battery model for Earth and I found out Dr. Choi
favors that model too and he said it helps explain the major
earthquake correlation with sunspot minima. My friend, Charles
Chandler, has a similar model and is working on submitting a
manuscript to NCGT for publication.
- The scariest thing I read in John Casey's book, Dark Winter,
is that the Sun's diameter has been measured since 1979 and is
found to be losing over 2 km in radius every year. In 4,000
years it may have lost over 8,000 km in radius. I think Charles
Chandler's model of the Sun is probably correct that it is
powered by electrical double layers and solar flare electric
discharges, instead of a nuclear furnace. If the Sun shrinks too
fast, humans may need to terreform Venus and move there.
- Charles' model of the Earth has it as similar electrical
double layers of high density matter in the center. Some of the
NCGT people seem to favor a cold formation model of the Earth,
but Charles argued that gravity alone could not have formed
Earth from whatever material was available. Electrical forces
must have been the primary cause.
- It seems that our discussion with NCGT may need to argue
against cold formation of Earth, transgressing/regressing
oceans, major vertical uplift/subsidence and radiometric dating,
at least. Since they seem to be able to predict earthquakes
based on detection of some kind of surges that supposedly
migrate north or south along the major geanticlines etc, there
must be something to the surges, but I'll have to wait till I
get the book soon to see if it explains evidence for surges etc
meaningfully.
- I did some more reading on the Kola Borehole yesterday and
found some interesting statements. I posted much of it at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/k/
- The pressure was found to be 92% to 29% of the expected value
for most of the first 8800 m, with the exception of the ca. 3200
m mark, where it was over twice the expected amount. Fracturing
of the rock was said to be the cause of the low pressures. Below
8800 m I guess the pressure was as expected. But the temperature
at 12000 m was 180 C, instead of 100 as expected. The main
scientist for the project seems to say that the rock below 7000
m was sedimentary rock from weathered granite that metamorphosed
back to granite. Plankton fossils were found about 6400 m deep.
-----
Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:28 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Some quick notes: the word "radiocarbon" in your post where it
reads "Radiocarbon dating places the culmination of the Archean
metamorphism in the Kola Peninsula at 2.7 to 2.8 billion years
ago." should be changed to "radiometric" or "radioisotope",
since radiocarbon reaches back only 55,000 years. Also,
metamorphosed granite is "granite gneiss", and metamorphosed
sedimentary rock is just gneiss. And this analysis from
Stanford concerns the Sun's diameter (conclusion at bottom of
page)
HTML http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
- It will be interesting to learn more about electrical activity
regarding Earth. That's all new to me. Anyone who can predict
earthquakes has my respect.
---
Wed, March 22, 2017 1:36 pm
Hi Mike. I got the Surge Tectonics book from the library
yesterday and I copied most of Chapter 3 onto my forum at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg178/#msg178
- I'm copying some more from other chapters and will probably
post it later today or tomorrow.
- It looks like they have pretty good evidence for the surge
channels, at least from the Moho level. I don't know if there's
evidence of channels below that. Charles has figured out that
vertical channels from the Moho likely produce volcanism and
earthquakes, but lava doesn't come from the Moho. It comes from
the crust around the channel. The Moho is ionized and provides a
path for ionization through the vertical channels. The tides
keep the electrical circuits charged, first in one direction
(up), then in the other (down), each day. Did you get a chance
to read any of Charles' material?
- I hope you have time to read what I copied on Surge Tectonics.
If so, I'd like to hear your comments. If the channels are real,
it would be nice if you or we can determine if SD can explain
them. They talk about Pascal's Law, which seems likely to be
important for SD, although I don't know how well that law would
apply to ionized matter within a planet. So far, I haven't
noticed any mention of the Earth having formed from cold matter.
---
Thu, March 23, 2017 10:54 am
Thanks for the paper, Mike. I'll look at it soon. Meyerhoff
claimed that the shrinkage of the Earth is very gradual and
episodic. I read that the Earth loses maybe twice as much mass
every year via hydrogen as it gains via meteors. The shrinkage
and cooling is plausible, but probably not by gravity causing
surge channels. Instead, Charles' model has tidal forces
constantly moving electric double layers in the Earth up and
down about 1 meter every day, so electric forces seem to be the
cause of surge channels, but probably not below the Moho. Tidal
forces are electrical too, as Charles explains. And Dong Choi
agrees with electrical forces in the Earth. Meyerhoff's book
doesn't seem to mention electrical forces, so Choi seems to
accept an Italian geologist's ideas about that, although NCGT
papers and discussions don't seem to discuss electrical forces,
other than the Italian geologist's paper from about 2004. So I
think the surge channels are explained by Charles' electrical
model.
- The book seems to express doubt that catastrophism has had
much influence on geological events or features, but I think we
have plenty of evidence that it has had major influence. Charles
and Gordon both accept the Shock Dynamics model in large part;
they just don't think the continents would have moved apart at
the speeds that you have determined. Gordon thinks it took
months. Charles probably thinks at least months and maybe years.
I on the other hand think it's obvious they had to move very
quickly as you suggest. If they didn't move quickly enough,
fluidization would have been overcome too soon by friction
---
Fri, March 24, 2017, 9:42 PM
Good for you, Lloyd. The fluid, swirling interaction of the
crustal pressure wave with moving landmasses during the Shock
Dynamics event is clearest in Oceania (attached image),
explained at
HTML http://www.newgeology.us/presentation13.html
It
all must have been quite rapid. Are Earth's electrical forces
considered by Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect?
Cheers, Mike
---
Sat, March 25/17 5:33PM
Hi Mike. Re: "Are Earth's electrical forces considered by
Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect?"
- No. The piezoelectric effect is so minor, that I don't think
he even discusses it in his model. If he were to discuss the
Shock Dynamics impact more in his model, he might then need to
discuss the piezoelectric effect, but he hasn't mentioned
thinking about doing that. Anyway, if piezoelectricity is
involved in fluidization, that seems to be the only time it
would be very significant. Well, I guess during impacts too.
- Here are the main topics in his Astrophysics & Geophysics
papers at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660-6031
and I'll describe
briefly what some of them explain in brackets: Introduction .
Accretion [that gravity can't cause it, but static electricity
must] . Filaments [that static electricity in space forms
galactic filaments] . Tokamaks [that faster rotating filament
collapses form ring stars] . Egg Nebula . Supernovae [that
supernovas are star births, not deaths, usually, - & that
successive supernovas form increasingly heavy elements]
Quasars [that quasars are ring stars] . The Sun - Motivation -
Surface [that the Sun has current-free electrical double-layers]
- Interior - Elements [that the layers consist mainly of 6th,
4th & 1st period elements] - Potentials [the layers are shown at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/17493.png
] - Conversions -
Energy Budget - Radiation - Granules - Sunspots - CMEs - Arcades
- Corona - Heliosphere - Cycles - Conclusion - Appendices ...
The Planets - Introduction - Titius-Bode Law - Remelted Crusts
[that impacts remelted crusts] - Geomagnetism [that electrical
double-layers cause Earth's magnetic field] - Tidal Forces [that
tides are electrical] - The Moho [that the Moho is constantly
electrified by tides] - Earthquakes [that electrical forces
cause them] - Volcanoes [that ohmic heating from the Moho causes
eruptions]
- Seneca Guns - Miscellaneous - Discussion ... Main Sequence .
Light Curves . Galaxies . Conclusion . Credits . Changes .
Discussions . In Progress
- Mike, have you come up with any explanations for continental
roots? I think the Surge Tectonics book says they prove that
continents have not moved. I figured maybe the roots must have
formed as the continents began to encounter significant friction
toward the ends of the sliding. If that's the case, then Africa
shouldn't have roots and Eurasia should have very little, unless
the entire supercontinent had slid previously. It seems that
melting often separates heavier material from lighter, so it
seems that could account for the roots. Do you have a better
explanation? If so, I'd like to know what it is for the NCGT
discussion.
#Post#: 182--------------------------------------------------
Re: MF 3/25-3/26
By: Admin Date: March 26, 2017, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MF: Sat, March 25, 2017 10:31 PM
- In SD, all the mountain ranges were raised quickly by
compressing continental crust. Bending crust to form the Andes,
the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Alps, etc. would activate the
piezoelectric effect on a large scale, I would think.
- My website addresses cratons and continental roots on this
page
HTML http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html
from which
excerpts are written below (quotes are sourced):
- Research is challenging the neat definitions of cratons.
"Generalizations of Archean cratons do not capture the
variability between cratonic regions or the complexity within a
single craton assemblage. For example, not every craton is
underlain by high-velocity roots, and the deepest roots do not
always occur under Archean cratons."
- "Most geochemical characteristics of lithospheric mantle
peridotites are most easily reconciled with a relatively
low-pressure melting origin, albeit in the case of cratonic
peridotites one taken to very high degrees of melting."
- "The geochemical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis
that the roots are the residue of partial melting".
- "The North Atlantic Cratonic sub-continental lithospheric
mantle and all other cratonic continental mantle roots studied
here are the product of extreme melt extraction at relatively
shallow depths (~90 km or less)."
- "The boundary between the lower crust and mantle may be open.
When magmatic or tectonic activity destabilizes and deforms the
lithosphere, ultramafic cumulates tend to move downward. This
'foundering' occurs during orogeny, rifting, and continental
breakup."
- "Intracrustal melting produces granitoid magmas and dense
mafic restites that return to the mantle. The foundering of
mafic restites from granitoid magmas is likely a major process."
- High temperature is required for dense lower crustal
mafic-ultramafic cumulates to sink into the mantle. Results of
experiments show that "an initial strain rate can significantly
reduce the Moho temperature required for an instability to
develop." "Instability times decrease because the initial
effective viscosity is lower."
- In the Shock Dynamics model, lateral stress (pivoting or
compression followed by extension) melted continental crust, and
the residue foundered, producing a mantle root. Melting and
founder of dense residue must have occurred after the motion of
the continents (which lasted only about 26 hours) had ceased.
---
LK: Sun, March 26, 12:22PM
- That's great, Mike. I did a search on your site, but I didn't
persist long enough to find that page about cratons and
continental roots. It sounds like my suspicion about how the
roots formed was correct. Now if we find which continents have
roots and which don't, that will hopefully confirm SD further.
- I agree that a lot of piezoelectricity likely occurred during
continental sliding and orogeny etc, but I was thinking it
probably didn't contribute much to the SD and continental drift
events. It's hard for me to distinguish in my mind between
piezoelectricity, telluric currents, electron flow from tidal
forces acting on current-free double-layers, and shock waves,
etc. A few months ago I showed you an article about the shock
effects of the Chixulub impact and you said you had read the
same findings from last summer, I think. It talked about how the
pressure from the impact shock waves caused solid rock to melt
briefly and thus bend, similar to the bending seen in foldbelts
or orogeny, I think. I don't think piezoelectricity was
mentioned, but obviously it would have been involved, but I
don't understand such things well enough to figure out exactly
what it would have done. The momentum of an impact would do a
lot. The shockwaves would cause brief melting and bending. I
guess the piezoelectricity would be part of the ionization and
melting. Do you think we should try to understand more
thoroughly how piezoelectricity was involved?
- Another matter that seems important is to account for the
surge channels that apparently exist in many locations, such as
under ocean ridges, mountain ranges, foldbelts etc. Have you
read what I copied from the Surge Tectonics book? They seem to
detect the channels as lenses. If a lens has the same velocity
P-waves all the way through, they call them inactive. If they
had I think slower waves in the center, they call them active.
That's if I understood what I read correctly. If their
identification of active surge channels is correct, then it
seems that the channels must have formed during the SD and
continental drift events. Do you have an idea how molten
channels would have formed in such locations during those events
and why many of them would remain active/molten? I think
Charles' model can help explain why they would remain active,
i.e. because of tidal forces keeping the channels electrified
each day. The channels under ocean ridges are said to be a few
hundred km wide, but those within continents are much narrower.
---
Sunday, March 26, 2017 7:26 PM
- Hi Lloyd, Continental "roots" are associated with cratons.
Radiometric dating of cratons puts them in particular eons.
Oldest to recent they are: archon, proton, tecton (see attached
image).
- Meteorite shock effects should be separate from piezoelectric
effects. In the former, the crust is temporarily fluidized,
which is confirmed by the report you mention about Chicxulub.
In the latter, the combination of momentum and sudden braking or
collision (Himalayas) result in brittle folding/breaking. My
guess is that this would influence the geomagnetic field and
magnetic striping that reflects alternating polarization of
re-worked oceanic crust.
---
LK: Thu, 3/29/17 9:50PM
- In the quote below from the book, Surge Tectonics, you can see
they say the surge channels form at the top of the Moho.
- Here from the book is a Surge Channels Map I found online:
HTML http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/images/ECNews/HeatFlow/WorldHeatFlowMap750.jpg
- The Webpage which seems religious is:
HTML http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/article.php?a_id=93
- They say the surge channels are within those warm bands. Many
are said to be active channels and some are inactive, which I
think means solidified.
- 3.9.3 ROLE OF THE MOHOROVIC DISCONTINUITY
Thus, when the postulated tholeiitic picrite magma reachs the
Moho- (... between 8.0-km/s ... and 6.6-km/s ...), it has
reached its level of neutral buoyancy and spreads laterally.
Under the proper conditions---abundant magma supply and
favorable crustal structure---a surge channel can form. We
suggest the possibility that the entire 7.0-7.8-km/s layer may
have formed in this way. In support of this suggestion, we note
that the main channel of every surge channel studied, from the
Archean to the Cenozoic, is located precisely at the surface of
the Moho-. This indicates that the discontinuity is very
ancient, perhaps as old as the Earth itself. This fact and the
great difference in P-wave velocities above and below the Moho-
surface suggest in turn that the discontinuity originated during
the initial cooling of the Earth.
- Here's a quote from the Conclusions section of the book.
9. Surge channels, active or inactive, underlie nearly every
major feature of the Earth's surface, including all rifts,
foldbelts, metamorphic belts, and strike-slip zones. These
belts are roughly bisymmetrical, have linear surface swaths of
faults, fractures, and fissures, and belt-parallel stretching
lineations. Aligned plutons, ophiolites, melange belts,
volcanic centers, kimberlite dikes, diatremes, ring structures
and mineral belts are characteristic. Zoned metamorphic belts
are also characteristic. In some areas, linear river valleys,
flood basalts, and/or vortex structures may be present. A lens
of 7.8-7.0 km/s material always underlies the belt.
- QUESTION #1: Does it make sense to you that these magma
"surge" channels would have formed at the top of the Moho under
those many belts, bands etc? My guess is yes, starting during
the SD event. I wonder if the folding, rifting, fracturing etc
caused the channels, instead of vice versa. Hmm?
- Here's a webpage of Pratt's on oceanization:
HTML http://davidpratt.inf
o/sunken.htm
- Here's a map from there:
HTML http://davidpratt.inf
o/earth/fig10.jpg
- The caption says Figure 13. Worldwide distribution of oceanic
plateaus (black)
- The article says those locations on the seafloors have granite
or continental rock. They think it means those are former
continental areas and that there was no continental drift.
- QUESTION #2: How do you think that is best explained?
- I was surprised to see that Pratt seems to believe in
Theosophy, which also seems to be his reason for having interest
in geology.
- I posted the main points of the Surge Tectonics book on the
forum at:
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg184/#msg184
- So it's a quicker read now.
*****************************************************