DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Updates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 176--------------------------------------------------
NCGT PLAN
By: Admin Date: March 16, 2017, 8:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
=MF: Sunday, February 26, 2017 9:37 PM
_dutchsinse on YouTube claims to predict earthquakes [with]
controversy
_Apparently he thinks energy waves spread slowly around the
planet triggering faults: youtube.com/watch?v=j4S2u1M0bTE
_Global Wrench Tectonics is just impossible.
_Submitting a discussion to NCGT journal sounds like a good
idea.
=LK: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:06 pm
_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.
=MF: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:42 PM
_in SD, Siberia was forced far north in one day producing the
sudden cold climate
_"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."
_The SD event is an ideal generator of such a storm, and it is
hard to imagine any other source.
_at the 1994 conference Wycliffe Bible translator Bernard
Northrup showed me his biblical time line of events, and I
found SD fit his post-Flood catastrophic requirements.
_Regrettably, very few people know enough about geology to judge
it fairly
<<So we should teach them.>>
=LK: 3/1/17; 2:41 PM
_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 PDF files show a map of Earth heat, mostly from the
ocean ridge system, which they say is responsible for Earth's
temperature.
_
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m/msg150/#msg150
_The map shows Antarctica and Greenland as rather warm too
<<I need to ask Mr. Choi about that.>>
<<figure out the likely cause of those two anticlines>>
=MF: Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017, 8:15 PM
_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.
_The anticlines map shows no apparent support for the position
of the blue lines.
=LK: Date: Thu, March 02, 2017 12:14 am
_their New Madrid paper:
HTML https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/GCSR1-<br
/>2015NewMadridChoi%26Casey%20(8).pdf
_It references Choi 2013, so I'll check the 2013 issues
=MF: Thu, 3/2/17
_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.
=LK: Thu 3/2/17 8:30PM
_papers from NCGT.org I posted at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82
_I also posted Tassos' paper there about 5 myths in geology.
_theories circulating in NCGT we can address their flaws while
discussing your model there.
_they've apparently been making a lot of progress at predicting
earthquakes.
_Choi mentions surges in his papers
_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.
_Choi says heat is a major driver of geodynamics; the continents
and oceans rise and fall over millions of years.
_They call subsidence of land oceanization
_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.
_They favor the theory of vertical mobility over horizontal
mobility
=MF: Monday, March 6, 2017, 5:35 PM
_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.
_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.
=LK: Wed, March 08, 2017 1:08 am
_Surge Tectonics folks think the seafloors also are covered with
sedimentary strata and granite, at least under the basalt.
_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.
_NCGT article that seems to explain Surge Tectonics at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82/msg156/#msg156
_It describes a worldwide network of surge channels and mentions
some evidence for that.
=MF: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:41 PM
_Surge Tectonics 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<br
/>_of_buoyant_lithospheric_roots
_Without shrinking, magma in channels, if they exist, will not
be pumped to "surge".
_near-surface mantle (at least) is not homogeneous but contains
scattered hot or wet pools.
_seismic tomographic images reveal a generous distribution of
dense and less dense anomalies.
_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.>>
=LK: Thu, March 16, 2017 2:23 pm
_Dong Choi said the best evidence for Surge Tectonics is Art
Meyerhoff's book
_NCGT article around 2004 favors electrical battery model for
Earth and Dr. Choi favors that model too; he said it helps
explain the major earthquake correlation with sunspot minima.
_Our discussion with NCGT may need to argue against
- cold formation of Earth,
- transgressing/regressing oceans,
- major vertical uplift/subsidence and
- radiometric dating
_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.
=MF: 3/16, 2017 7:28 PM
_metamorphosed granite is "granite gneiss", and metamorphosed
sedimentary rock is just gneiss.
_this analysis from Stanford concerns the Sun's diameter
(conclusion at bottom of page)
HTML http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
_electrical activity regarding Earth [is] all new to me.
=LK: 3/22, 2017 1:36 pm
_Surge Tectonics book copied at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg178/#msg178
_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.
_If the [surge] 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.
_I haven't noticed any mention of the Earth having formed from
cold matter.
=LK: 3/23, 2017 10:54 am
_Meyerhoff claimed that the shrinkage of the Earth is very
gradual and episodic.
_I read [not in the book] 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.
_I think the surge channels are explained by Charles' electrical
model [& SD].
_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
=MF: 3/24, 2017, 9:42 PM
_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
_Are Earth's electrical forces considered by Charles to be due
to the piezoelectric effect?
=LK: 3/25/17 5:33PM
_No. The piezoelectric effect is [too] minor
_if piezoelectricity is involved in fluidization, that seems to
be the only time it would be very significant ... impacts too.
_Here are the main topics in his Astrophysics & Geophysics
papers at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660-6031
_continental roots the Surge Tectonics book says prove
continents have not moved.
_maybe the roots formed as the continents began to encounter
significant friction toward the ends of the sliding.
_then Africa shouldn't have roots and Eurasia should have very
little, unless the entire supercontinent had slid previously.
_[Maybe] melting often separates heavier material from lighter,
so that could account for the roots.
_Do you have a better explanation for the NCGT discussion.
#Post#: 180--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCGT PLAN
By: Admin Date: March 23, 2017, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NCGT Discussion
- cold formation of Earth,
- transgressing/regressing oceans,
- major vertical uplift/subsidence and
- radiometric dating
---
On 02/04/2017 20:56, lloyd kinder wrote:
> Geology Question & Invitation
> Hi. I read the NCGT Journal & Newsletters. I hope you may be
able to answer a brief geology question below. Or you may like
the invitation.
> 1. Sedimentary Rock Strata:
> What brief explanations do you know of for (or what specific
source/s can you cite perhaps that explains) the fact that
horizontal sedimentary rock strata covering large areas are
generally sorted into different rock types, i.e. esp.
sandstones, claystones, and limestones? I.e., assuming millions
to billions of years of erosion and deposition occurred, how was
it possible for only one rock type to be deposited over large
areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of
another rock type, etc?
> 2. INVITATION:
> CNPS added a section on their forum at my request for Surge
Tectonics and I started a couple threads there. If you'd like to
participate, or invite other NCGT members to do so, anyone can
register for free at
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org
--- And
the Surge Tectonics section of the forum is at
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org
/forumdisplay.php?fid=129 ---
I copied excerpts there from Chapters 3, 6 & 7 of Meyerhoff et
al.' 1996 book, Surge Tectonics.
> - In case you're not familiar with CNPS, they have a yearly
conference in July for all kinds of mostly alternative sciences.
People need to be members to submit papers for their Proceedings
and the deadline is the end of May. They have details at
HTML http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/proceedings-2017
> - CNPS is working to improve scientific discussion and
methodology for greater efficiency and thoroughness. They are
also working to create an online Wiki Encyclopedia that
critiques Wikipedia and other short-sighted conventional science
claims. When enough scientists join this effort, it should prove
exciting as it will likely greatly advance science and society.
The potential for the internet to improve communication
worldwide is just beginning to be tapped and realized.
---
Tuesday, April 4, 2017 3:53 AM
Hello Lloyd, It’s possible that some sedimentary strata were not
deposited gradually but very quickly in some catastrophic event.
For example, Derek Ager (The New Catastrophism, 1993) wrote: ‘we
cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation as at times very
rapid indeed’ (p. 49). This subject is also covered by William
R. Corliss in Neglected Geological Anomalies (1990), which has a
chapter entitled ‘Deposits of remarkable size’. We know that
fossilization requires rapid burial. There are cases of tree
trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary
layers.
Regards, David Pratt
---
4/9/17 10:15PM
Hi David. Thank you for the references. I guess you're familiar
with Mike Fischer's website about Shock Dynamics at
HTML http://NewGeology.us
since he has posted some of your geological
arguments there against aspects of plate tectonics. Shock
Dynamics is definitely a catastrophic model. It doesn't address
rock strata formation significantly, but he makes note of the
Great Flood event some centuries before the Shock Dynamics
asteroid impact. Creationist John Baumgardner wrote a paper
called in part, Noah's Flood, in which he surmised that a large
object orbited the Earth for a few months on an elliptical
orbit. When it reached perigee, tidal forces apparently caused
very high tsunamis that covered much of the supercontinent,
depositing megasequences about once a month. I don't follow
Biblical claims myself, but those findings seem close to correct
to me.
- I found a website of yours about Theosophy and that seems to
be the basis of your interest in geology as at NCGT.org. Is that
right? I don't find that to be very plausible myself. But the
surge channels described in Surge Tectonics seem reasonable and
may fit into the Shock Dynamics and Baumgardner scenario/s okay.
Mike's model considers the Moho to be an important piece of the
puzzle, and that's where the surge channels are said to be. Mike
and I consider it unlikely that the continents rose and fell
numerous times to deposit the sedimentary rock strata, esp. over
long time periods, because only over short time spans could
moving waters sort out the strata into separate layers all at
once, or many at once. The only contradiction is radiometric
dating, but Walter Brown has explained that radioactive decay
was found to proceed up to at least billions of times faster
under conditions of high ionization, which would have occurred
where continents slid over the Moho. Would you like to comment
or discuss?
- Good Day. Lloyd Kinder
#Post#: 192--------------------------------------------------
Letter to NCGT
By: Admin Date: April 28, 2017, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fri, April 28, 2017 9:59 pm
Hi Mike.
I think Baumgardner said the geologic column has 6 megasequences
of many conforming sedimentary strata with unconformities
between each megasequence. I gather that there's only sheet
erosion indicated in the unconformities. Do you know if that's
correct? I mean is there much other erosion there, that would
have required long time spans? And are there clearly only about
6 megasequences?
My understanding is that megatsunamis deposited each
megasequence on the supercontinent with some sheet erosion
removing the tops of each megasequence. Does that seem right to
you?
Here's a draft I just now wrote for the NCGT members:
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/p-88/msg192/#msg192
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/p-88/msg192/#msg192
I thought it might be good to submit 3 parts:
1st, explaining the separation of strata by major flooding over
large areas and short time spans;
2nd, explaining orogenesis;
3rd, explaining rapid radioactive decay.
Do you have comments?
---
Monday, May 1, 2017 8:53 PM
Hi Lloyd,
This first post makes sense to me, although the explanation
could also include successive waves generated by one or two
global-scale catastrophes, such as meteorite impacts, whose
energy was not dissipated by a single wave. Each wave would
perform both sheet erosion and multi-strata deposition during
its transgression and regression. Six megasequences are
generally recognized (see attached).
---
LETTER TO NCGT JOURNAL
Question about Sedimentary Rock Strata
I've read Meyerhoff's book on Surge Tectonics and some of the
NCGT Journals & Newsletters. Now here is a brief geology
question.
Re: Sedimentary Rock Strata:
What brief explanation is there for the fact that sedimentary
rock strata covering large continental areas are generally
sorted into different rock types, i.e. esp. sandstones,
claystones, and limestones? I.e., assuming that millions to
billions of years of erosion and deposition occurred, how was it
possible for only one rock type to be deposited over large areas
for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of
another rock type, etc?
The only plausible means I know of for separation of strata into
such individual rock types is by major flooding over short time
spans, as demonstrated by Guy Berthault.
The geologic column is said to consist of 6 megasequences
worldwide, each containing many conforming sedimentary strata,
and each megasequence occurring over an unconformity.
The best explanation seems to be that each megasequence was
deposited during major flooding over a short time span of days
or weeks.
Since the unconformities between the megasequences seem to show
mainly only sheet eroision, there must have been only short time
spans of days, weeks or months between each megasequence
deposit.
The best theory to explain the unconformities and megasequences
seems to be megatsunamis or tidal waves, raised either by tidal
action of a large body or bodies that orbited Earth for some
months or years on an eccentric orbit, reaching perigee every
few weeks or months, or by a series of similarly temporally
spaced ocean meteorite impacts, whose energy was not dissipated
by a single wave.
The megatsunamis seem to have eroded seafloor and continental
shelf materials and deposited them on the continents for a few
days or weeks at most during each megasequence deposition during
transgressions, along with some sheet erosion during
regressions.
Implications for three possible mechanisms.
1. Surge Tectonics: Wherever oceanization may have occurred, the
same megasequences might be expected to be found under
seafloors, at least under the Atlantic. 2. Shock Dynamics: If
the megasequences are not found, especially under the Atlantic
seafloor, then a supercontinent may have broken up from a major
impact, with rapid continental "drift" facilitated by
fluidization at the Moho (See
HTML http://NewGeology.us
HTML http://NewGeology.us
). 3. Earth Expansion: If major expansion
occurred, it may have forced the continents apart. However, if
ocean ridges are signs of expansion, then the Pacific must have
expanded first, then the Americas slid over much of the Pacific
as the Atlantic expansion occurred.
While a major impact could explain rapid continental movements,
a cause of major Earth expansion or of oceanization seems more
obscure. A fourth possible mechanism, electric discharge
machining removing material from the Atlantic and depositing it
on the continents, does not seem well explained as yet.
Lloyd Kinder, lkindr@yahoo.com
*****************************************************