Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Admin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
LK2 Fossils & Dating / Re: 2b. TB/Human Evidence
« on: April 29, 2018, 10:58:44 pm »
500 Million-Year-Old Human Footprint Fossil Baffles Scientists

LK2 Fossils & Dating / Re: Gobekli Tepe
« on: April 27, 2018, 11:27:22 pm »
The Reason Gobekli Tepe Was Buried 8,000 BC


Search Images: gobekli tepe comet

Cosmic and cometary induced cataclysms - 9500, 7640, 3150 and 1198 BC

Gobekli Tepe Stone Carvings Indicate Comet Impacted Earth & Reset Ancient Human Civilization

LK2 Fossils & Dating / Gobekli Tepe
« on: April 27, 2018, 09:25:59 pm »
... Many animal remains have also been uncovered in situ (Peters & Schmidt, 2004), covering a wide range of species, mainly mammals but also a few birds and the occasional fish. Importantly, several radiocarbon dating analyses have been carried out. The earliest calibrated date of the organic content of some wall plaster from one of the enclosures (Enclosure D) corresponds to an incredible 11,530 BP +/- 220 years (Dietrich & Schmidt, 2010). This is just at the end of, or shortly after, the YD period. This begs the question, is there any archaeological evidence here of the proposed event that initiated the YD period over 1,000 years earlier?
... Let us now consider another feature of pillar 43. We suggest the carved circle in the visual centre of pillar 43 can be interpreted as the sun, and the pillar is communicating a date, i.e. it is a "date stamp". Normally, the zodiacal epoch is defined by the position of the sun being "in" a particular zodiacal sign at sunrise/sunset on one of four auspicious dates in the year: the spring equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox or winter solstice. Using stellarium it is easy to see, when the location is set to Sanliurfa in southren Turkey (which is about 10 miles from Gobekli Tepe) and when we consider these four events1, that the hypothetical date stamp likely corresponds to one of the following four dates (with an error of around +/- 250 years - see Figure 6):
2,000 AD - Winter solstice
4,350 BC - Autumnal equinox
10,950 BC - Summer solstice
18,000 BC - Spring equinox
_These dates correspond to those when, according to stellarium, the sun is slightly above the spout of the teapot asterism of Sagittarius, i.e. when the circle-sun is just above the right wing of the vulture on the pillar. Note that it does not matter if we use the morning sunrise or evening sunset to locate the zodiacal sign - they give the same result. However, the orientation of the constellations with respect to the horizon does depend on the choice of sunrise or sunset, and for the best agreement with Pillar 43 we choose the sunset.
_Let us now consider these dates. We understand Gobekli Tepe is an authentically ancient site, and we can certainly rule out 2,000 AD. Given the established radiocarbon date [of GT] we can also rule out 4,350 BC. Of the remaining two dates, by far the closest to the radiocarbon date is 10,950 BC, based on the summer solstice, and we suggest therefore that this is the most likely date. When the uncertainty in this date estimate is taken into account, it is in very good agreement with an estimate for the date of the proposed YD event, 10,890 BC (Petaev et al., 2013).
... CONCLUSIONS. According to the catastrophist viewpoint, the Younger-Dryas event was probably caused by a cometary encounter with the Taurid complex. Can we now confirm this? No. What we can say is the following:
_ It is very likely that the people of GT had been keen astronomers for a very long time, and the low-relief carvings of animals (except snakes) symbolise specific asterisms. Pillar 43 very likely refers to the date 10,950 BC +/- 250 yrs.
_ There is a consistent interpretation of much other symbolism at GT in terms of the YD event as a cometary encounter, which supports the theory of coherent catastrophism. But we cannot be as confident in this proposal as the proposal for the date stamp. Other evidence from further excavations at GT and other sites may help to clarify this. Evidence linking GT to coherent catastrophism is as follows:
_1) A great deal of physical evidence from a wide range of earth sciences appears to support the proposal that a major event occurred around 10,890 BC. A leading candidate for this event is a cometary encounter consistent with coherent catastrophism. The date stamp on pillar 43 corresponds closely with this date.
_2) That the people of GT remained interested in this date even several millennia later suggests it was a very important event that had a significant impact on their cultural development.
_3) The headless man on pillar 43 indicates the event led to loss of life.
_4) Symbolism on pillar 18 is consistent with an event of cosmic origin. The fox symbolism, in particluar, suggests a cosmic event originating from a specific position. The belt-buckle, "eclipse" and snake symbols are consistent with a cometary encounter. But the symbolism on pillar 18 might be consistent with other astronomical interpretations as well that we have not considered.

LK3 Impacts / Re: TB/IMPACTS
« on: April 22, 2018, 01:40:32 pm »
Study suggests Earth's water was present before impact that caused creation of the moon

Rare metals on Mars and Earth implicate colossal impacts

Study: diamonds in meteorite may indicate a lost planet that once roamed our solar system [4.55Gya]

Meteorite impacts may have created Earth's tectonic plates

Huge impact crater discovered near the Falklands Islands

Large ancient impact event discovered in Southeast Asia

The Dino-Killing Asteroid Impact Also Created A Stunningly Beautiful Geological Masterpiece

Scientists say dinosaurs would've survived if the asteroid struck just seconds later
(Actually, large dinosaurs would have died anyway, because Earth lost atmosphere from the impacts that made large animals partly buoyant. See e.g. Ted Holden's data.)

Earth is impacted by meteors often

'Chicxulub impact event produced huge sulfur cloud that plunged world into ice age'

Yellowstone supervolcano threat theory 'demonstrably false' - USGS expert to RT [I agree; the supervolcanoes erupted about 5,000 years ago due to the Shock Dynamics impact]

Origin of Gold: Was it asteroid impact or some mysterious particle?

LK3 Impacts / Re: YD Impact
« on: April 22, 2018, 01:39:19 pm »
Earliest Manmade Climate Change Took Place 11,500 Years Ago

Younger Dryas Ice Stream Retreats Under a Cold Climate

Carolina Bays are shock liquefaction impact features from hypersonic ice boulders launched from glacial ice sheet by cosmic impact at Younger Dryas

Two New Scientific Papers Suggest a Catastrophic Extraterrestrial Impact Event Occurred 12,000 Years Ago

New study claims Göbleki Tepe may have been used to record meteor impacts, including Younger Dryas Event in 10890 BC

Studies of ‘Crater Capital’ in Estonia Shows Impactful History

SC Scientist Leads Team that Finds Evidence of Possible Comet Impact 12,800 years ago

Clovis Comet? Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Gets a Bayesian Beating ~ and Survives!

Minimal Geological Methane Emissions During Younger Dryas

Younger Dryas Black Mat in Geoarchaeological Site in Zacatecas, Mexico

Greenland ice stream retreated during the Younger Dryas period

German Town Encrusted With Impact Diamonds

Impact-related microspherules in Late Pleistocene Yukon and Alaskan 'muck' deposits indicate recurrent episodes of catastrophic emplacement

Did comet impacts kill lots of animals in Alaska?

Early humans witnessed global cooling, warming, and massive fires from comet debris impacts says major study

"Cosmic signatures" of the Younger Dryas impact found in Antarctica

An Astronomical Hypothesis for the Younger Dryas Impact Event

Topper exposes Pre-Clovis tool-making and YDB

Younger Dryas Impact Quantification

LK3 Impacts / Re: YD Impact
« on: April 22, 2018, 09:05:49 am »
_An Astronomical Hypothesis for the Younger Dryas Impact Event
_The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis since 2007
_Datestamp: World's oldest monument memorializes Younger Dryas

Antonio Zamora
_The Carolina Bays as evidence of a cosmic impact https://www.
_Mechanism for the creation of the Carolina Bays https://www.
_Younger Dryas crater https://www.
_Carolina Bay deformations and irregularities https://www.
_Younger Dryas Impact Quantification https://www.
_Younger Dryas Extinction https://www.

Chris Catrell
_Carolina Bay Formation--A REALLY bad day! Part 1: https://www.
_Carolina Bay Formation Part 2: LiDAR...A Game Changer! https://www.
_Carolina Bay Formation Part 3: The Impact! https://www.
_Carolina Bay Formation Part 4: WHEN!?! https://www.
_Carolina Bay Formation Part 5: The Younger Dryas https://www.
[Older Dryas from dryas pollen in older ice core part; Younger Dryas pollen in newer ice core part; cold-warm-cold were brief periods IMO]
_Carolina Bay Formation Part 6: The Black Mat Layer https://www.

_Antonio Zamora in Geomorphology: Carolina Bays are shock liquefaction impact features from hypersonic ice boulders launched from glacial ice sheet by cosmic impact at Younger Dryas
_The Carolina Bays
_Geology (Moderated): Inferred Orientation of Distal Ejecta!msg/gec-geology-moderated/dMJrAYfe3mg/K2JJynjVj6cJ
_The Carolina Bays and the Destruction of North America
_Carolina Bays - Evaluation of an impact hypothesis
If a meteorite impacted the ice sheet, the ejecta would have had to travel at least 1000 kilometers from central Michigan to North Carolina. We can use ballistic equations to calculate the speeds and angles necessary to launch a projectile this far. Speeds of 3 to 4 km/sec would be sufficient to reach from Michigan to the East Coast. The ejected material would have traveled above the atmosphere for a portion of the trajectory. - The Carolina Bays occur only in unconsolidated sediments in low-lying areas where the water table is within a few meters from the surface (Eimers et al. 2001). Saturated, cohesionless soils like these may liquefy and flow like liquids when subjected to monotonic, cyclic, or shock loading (Sladen et al. 1985).
_Saginaw Impact Structure
Oval Crater as Google Earth Overlay on Saginaw Region
_Carolina bays gouged into the ground at a magnetic reversal
the Carolina bays were created at about the same time as the Gothenburg magnetic reversal.
_The Carolina bays: New evidence points to a killer comet
>MF> Still others have studied the loss of ocean circulation and found Hudson Bay sediments off Africa and Europe, carried there, they think, by icebergs flushed into the southern seas by the influx of fresh water from the melted ice sheet.
_The Nebraska Bays

_Black Mat in Turkey
_Cosmic Black Mat found on 5th continent
_Burn Paper
_Mexican Black Mat in Quaternary International

_(3) HOLOCENE IMPACT CRATERS 10,000 BP up-dated list of Holocene impact craters
Tsöörikmäe (Estonia) c. 9,500 BP (date: Pirrus; Tiirmaa)
Mache (Russia) c. 7,000 BP (date: Shoemaker/Grieve)
Ilumetsa (Estonia) c. 6,000 BP (date:Czegka)
Henbury (Australia) c. 5,000 BP (date: Shoemaker/Grieve)
Boxhole (Australia) c. 5,000 BP (date: Shoemaker/Grieve)
Morasko (Poland) c. 5,000 BP (date: Czegka)
Campo del Cielo (Argentina) c. 4,000 BP (date: Shoemaker/Grieve)
Rio Cuarto (Argentina) c. 4,000 BP (date: P. Schultz)
Kaalijarvi (Estonia) c. 4,000 BP (date: Shoemaker/Grieve)
Wabar (Saudi Arabia) c. 600 BP (date: Wynn/Shoemaker)
Simuna (Estonia) c. 50 BP (date: Pirrus; Tiirmaa)
_Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 9: Winter 1979 Issue Contents: Moon-like craters in the north sea floor
In the North Sea geophysicists discover thousands of elliptical craters or pockmarks in the sediments. The craters are 30-330 feet across, 6-25 feet deep, and located in water about 500 feet deep. The long axes of the craters point roughly in the same direction; and the craters tend to be arranged in lines. the crude similarity of these sea-floor craters to the Carolina Bays should not be passed over.
_Thousands of methane craters spewing gas from the sea floor formed within 3 months off Germany
The time of emergence can be confined to 3 months in autumn 2015 p009-09.gif
_North Sea Quaternary morphology
_Hundreds of Huge Craters Discovered in the Arctic Ocean
_Marine landforms: ridges and craters in the Barents Sea
_The Cosmic Tusk: Exploring abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history
_Dendrochronologist Mike Baillie on impacts more recent than Younger Dryas
_The Black Death and Abrupt Earth Changes
_Eight Little Craters All In A Row [IL, MO, KS]

L. L. Ely: Response of extreme floods in the southwestern United States to climatic variations in the late Holocene. GEOMORPHOLOGY, 1997, Vol.19, No.3-4, pp.175-201
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, ELLENSBURG, WA, 98926, USA - A regional synthesis of paleoflood chronologies on rivers in Arizona and southern Utah reveals that the largest floods over the last 5000 years cluster into distinct time periods that are related to regional and global climatic fluctuations. The flood chronologies were constructed using fine-grained slackwater deposits that accumulate in protected areas along the margins of bedrock canyons and selectively preserve evidence of the largest events. High-magnitude floods were frequent on rivers throughout the region from 5000 to 3600 C-14 yrs BP (dendrocalibrated age = 3800-2200 BC) and increased again after 2200 BP (400 BC), with particularly prominent peaks in magnitude and frequency around 1100-900 BP (AD 900-1100) and after 500 yrs BP (AD 1400). In contrast, the periods 3600-2200 BP (2200-400 BC) and 800-600 yrs BP (1200-1400 AD) are marked by sharp decreases in the occurrence of large floods on these rivers.

Off Topic / Favorites
« on: March 28, 2018, 05:49:21 pm »

Lift the Veil Too



CHR: LenKin rawanti

« on: March 27, 2018, 03:12:51 pm »
Subject: More YDI
Date: Fri, March 16, 2018 10:49 pm
I read a paper a few years ago by the Firestone group that showed in detail why those who critiqued their earlier paper were way wrong. First two items may be part of that paper.

Independent evaluation of conflicting microspherule results from different investigations of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Faulty protocols yield contaminated samples, unconfirmed results

Clovis Comet? The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Gets a Bayesian Beating… And Survives!

(My) Reply to YDI Skeptics (2014)

Chandler on the YDI Hypothesis

Support: comet impact may have triggered the Younger Dryas period (2012)

Carolina Bays are shock liquefaction impact features from hypersonic ice boulders launched from glacial ice sheet by cosmic impact at Younger Dryas

Last Ice Age happened in less than year say scientists

The statement that an Ice Age started in less than a year seems entirely plausible, but dating said Ice Age to 13,000 years ago based on varves seems unreliable, as per the following

The Northeast impact Zone and the destruction of the Laurentide Ice Sheet

A Catastrophe of Comets (bunch of articles such as 2 following)
Mirror site:

The Younger Dryas – The Rest of The Story (2012+?)

A thermal airburst impact structure

New study claims Göbleki Tepe may have been used to record meteor impacts, including Younger Dryas Event in 10890 BC (Make that 2,000BC)

Two New Papers Suggest a Catastrophic Extraterrestrial Impact Event Occurred 12,000 Years Ago

Dennis Cox has reported on a major crater field in W Texas and New Mexico (re Younger Dryas: I was communicating with Cox in 2010)

New evidence of Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact

LK3 Impacts / YD Impact
« on: March 27, 2018, 03:07:44 pm »
Subject: More YDI
Date: Fri, March 16, 2018 10:49 pm
Hi Mike. I think I read a paper a few years ago by the Firestone group that showed in detail why those who critiqued their earlier paper were way wrong. I thought there was probably a link to it on the Thunderbolts forum, but I haven't found it. Instead, I found the following links that relate to the YDI. Oh, wait. I now found two items that may be part of the paper I remember reading. After these first two items are the other links I found first.

Independent evaluation of conflicting microspherule results from different investigations of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Faulty protocols yield contaminated samples, unconfirmed results

Clovis Comet? The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Gets a Bayesian Beating… And Survives!

(My) Reply to YDI Skeptics (2014)

Chandler on the YDI Hypothesis

Support: comet impact may have triggered the Younger Dryas period (2012)

Carolina Bays are shock liquefaction impact features from hypersonic ice boulders launched from glacial ice sheet by cosmic impact at Younger Dryas

Last Ice Age happened in less than year say scientists

The statement that an Ice Age started in less than a year seems entirely plausible, but dating said Ice Age to 13,000 years ago based on varves seems unreliable, as per the following

The Northeast impact Zone and the destruction of the Laurentide Ice Sheet

A Catastrophe of Comets (bunch of articles such as 2 following)
Mirror site:

The Younger Dryas – The Rest of The Story (2012+?)

A thermal airburst impact structure

New study claims Göbleki Tepe may have been used to record meteor impacts, including Younger Dryas Event in 10890 BC (Make that 2,000BC)

Two New Papers Suggest a Catastrophic Extraterrestrial Impact Event Occurred 12,000 Years Ago

Dennis Cox has reported on a major crater field in W Texas and New Mexico (re Younger Dryas: I was communicating with Cox in 2010)

New evidence of Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact

SOURCES + OUTLINE / Miscellany
« on: January 16, 2018, 03:46:52 pm »
Dymaxion World Map for ET

Antarctic pattern
15d40'27.59N  146d3'2.22E

Antarctica = Atlantis = large mass in ocean of space; Cayce predicted Russia would save mankind
Myth: Atlantis = Large Mass that vanished in the Ocean of Space
Egyptian artifacts found in Turkey at 46' (dating to 10,000BC is wrong)
- https://www.
- https://www.

Olympus Mons to Valles Marineris

Lightning Data
Data from NASA’s space-based optical sensors revealing the uneven distribution of worldwide lightning strikes.
Units: flashes/km2/yr. Image credit: NSSTC Lightning Team.
_The estimated peak power per lightning stroke is 10^12 watts (1,000,000,000,000 watts or 1,000 Giga Watts). The total energy in a large thunderstorm is thought to be enough to power the whole of the USA for 20 minutes.
_A tall thunderstorm cloud can hold over a 100 million volts of potential. The voltage potential in a lightning bolt is proportional to its length, and varies depending on the diameter of the bolt, air density and impurities of the air (humidity, dust, ash). The electrical breakdown of air (ionisation) normally take 3,000,000 volts per metre, however with the ambient electric fields of a charged thunder cloud and impurities in the air, ionisation normally takes place at much lower voltages during a storm. Lab tests have shown a leader will advantage if the tip of the streamer is about 4.5kV (4500v) for a negative charge and 5.5kV (5500v) for a positive charge.
_The current in a lightning strike typically ranges from 5,000 to 50,000 amperes depending on the strength of storm. NASA has recorded strikes of 100,000 amperes and there are other reports of strikes over 200,000 amperes.
_[There are few lightning strikes in cold climates or over oceans. Most lightning occurs in central Africa and in all of Africa south of the Sahara, South & Central America & southern U.S., East Indies, eastern south Asia, northern Australia]

AH: Total Lithosphere Thickness

Two Deep Wells Oklahoma
From 1972 through 1974, the company engineered and drilled two Oklahoma natural-gas commercial wells at depths greater than 30,000 feet (approximately 5.7 miles) – the No. 1-27 Bertha Rogers well (total depth 31,441 feet) and the No. 1-28 E.R. Baden well, both located in the Anadarko Basin, and east-west trending basin in West-Central Oklahoma.

Shungite Formed Electrically
_Fullerenes are produced by 2 processes: Combustion of carbon-bearing fuels, and high voltage, high current density, electrical discharges through existing carbon deposits, such as coal.
_In the Kerelia region of Northwest Russia, very large deposits of a mineral now known as shungite (some percentage of fullerines is found in all shungite varieties) were discovered and used for water purification, as far back as Napoleon's time.

_Shungite has to date mainly been found in Russia. The main deposit is in the Lake Onega area of Karelia, at Zazhoginskoye, near Shunga, with another occurrence at Vozhmozero.[1] Two other much smaller occurrences have been reported in Russia, one in Kamchatka in volcanic rocks and the other formed by the burning of spoil from a coal mine at high temperature in Chelyabinsk.[5] Other occurrences have been described from Austria, India, Democratic Republic of Congo[1] and Kazakhstan.[6]
_Shungite has been regarded as an example of abiogenic petroleum formation,[4] but its biological origin has now been confirmed.[3] Non-migrated shungite is found directly stratigraphically above deposits that were formed in a shallow water carbonate shelf to non-marine evaporitic environment. The shungite bearing sequence is thought to have been deposited during active rifting, consistent with the alkaline volcanic rocks that are found within the sequence. The organic-rich sediments were probably deposited in a brackish lagoonal setting. The concentration of carbon indicates elevated biological productivity levels, possibly due to high levels of nutrients available from interbedded volcanic material.[3]
_The stratified shungite-bearing deposits that retain sedimentary structures are interpreted as metamorphosed oil source rocks. Some diapiric mushroom-shaped structures have been identified, which are interpreted as possible mud volcanoes. Layer and vein shungite varieties, and shungite filling vesicles and forming the matrix to breccias, are interpreted as migrated petroleum, now in the form of metamorphosed bitumen.[3]

_Geo: Study claims Don Juan Pond in Antarctica, among the saltiest waters on Earth, is fed from deep below
_Geo: Mysterious deep-Earth seismic signature explained?
_Geo: Drilling in Texas leads to uptick in earthquakes
_Geo: 10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat

Worldwide sedimentary basins + oil producing areas

The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood

A Global Digital map of Sediment Thickness

Major types and distribution of sedimentary basins around the world

Lithological map of the world

Petroleum Oil

EU DEBATE / Re: 1st Tectonics Discussion
« on: October 23, 2017, 05:23:38 pm »
Hi All. I edited our 1st Tectonics Discussion from yesterday and posted it at:
And if you have problems there, I posted a backup at:

The participants were Louis Hissink, Bruce Leybourne, Robert Farrar, Mike Fischer and I, Lloyd Kinder. Chris Smoot also left a message for us. And James Maxlow provided a copy of his manuscript in advance. The first three participants are Electric Universe proponents, Mike and I are Shock Dynamics proponents, and I also favor Charles Chandler's ElectroStatic Universe model, which is kind of related to the other two. And it seems that EU incorporates some ST. We used an etherpad, which had some problems for some of us. I may try a Google Doc next time. We discussed for nearly 2 hours. It was kind of haphazard for the first phase, as we were all able to write at once, then we all collected together at the bottom for a while before closing. I'll try to improve the process for the future. Suggestions are always welcome.

I have requests for the participants and anyone else who wants to help for followup. We want to collect all of the most important evidence in references and brief arguments for each of the 6 models (i.e. Expansion Tectonics, Plate Tectonics, Surge Tectonics, Electric Universe, Electrostatic Universe and Shock Dynamics). We shared some references, but we need to get quite a bit more, if possible. I added the term =Have_ after participants' initials (at the beginning of each person's statements) to indicate where references are at least partly shown. And I added the term =Need_ after initials to indicate arguments & claims for which references are not shown. Before those terms I also numbered each participant's number of references requested and I rated how important I think each reference will be, A as very important, B as moderately important and C as less important. So, since it may be laborious to obtain references, we can prioritize those ranked A, then B.

EU DEBATE / 1st Tectonics Discussion
« on: October 23, 2017, 03:04:03 pm »
CNPS SPECIAL PROJECT. (((Sunday 6pm Eastern Time))) -- This Project is expected to last a few months. I hope to have discussions weekly or so.
(If this page freezes on your computer, you may need to reopen the link at )
_LK: Hi All. Thanks for your participation. This is for live discussion to question mainstream Plate Tectonics & our own alternative models.
---- The Tectonics Models being compared are ET: Expansion Tectonics; PT: Plate Tectonics; ST: Surge Tectonics; EU: Electric Universe; ESU: Electrostatic Universe; & SD: Shock Dynamics (Links at bottom. Bruce & Louis left early comments at the bottom. Bruce's were accidentally deleted.)
_LK: Below I list the main claims of each model in 5 categories of claims. Let's discuss in the spaces between each category. Let me know if I stated any of the claims incorrectly.
PT is the mainstream position. Let's share BRIEF arguments & links to important evidence in each category against PT & Let's ask important questions for each model. More than one person can write at a time (even in different sections).
<ET: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the Nebular Hypothesis. Then Earth (and other celestial bodies with magnetic fields) expanded significantly over millions of years.
<PT: (F:) Stars & planets form by gravitational accretion of cosmic dust as per the Nebular Hypothesis
<ST: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the Nebular Hypothesis.
<EU: (F:) Condensed plasma, could have been created and destroyed many times
<ESU: (F:) Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double-layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc.
<SD: (F:) The protocontinent [supercontinent] formed from a massive body that also formed the Moon.
_LH: Earth formation - any scientific theory has to be compatible with the culture of the society that uses it. For judeo-christians that means Big Bang model and all its problems. This is the standard model. Proposing acceptable alternatives involves also explaining and replacing the core societal beliefs bundled as religion.
_LK: 1B=Have_ Charles Chandler has the best evidence against the Nebular Hypothesis that I know of. I'll see if I can get the link. He says matter wouldn't accrete in space, that if it condensed too much the heat or hydrostatic pressure would force it apart. __ http//
_LH: PN Oat, writing from the Hindu perspective, assumed everything was created "as is" billions of years ago, so a suitable rhetorical assumption could avoid having to deal with the something from nothing idea.
_LH: 1A=Need_ Chandler is right - accretion is not observed, nor can one assume protons accumulating in a core since repulsion has to be factored in. High density phases best explained as Z-pinch products. ===
_LH: 2C=Need_ Planets could be fizzled out stars that are now escaping from Z-Pinch compressive forces? ===
_LK: Bruce, {I meant Louis} can you give more details on how plasma would condense?
_BL: 1B=Have_ Plasma condenses within the Chestahedron geometry, see __Frank Chester wonder of seven. Condensation happens during a charging phase, while plasma dissipation occurs during discharging. The magnetic field also strengthens and weakens from charging and discharging respectively. ===
_MF: The problems with accretion are well known, but I have not focused on this issue. Is the formation of any planetary systems being seen today by astronomers?
_BL: 2B=Need_ The supposed Nibiru, i.e. brown dwarfs near the Sun, seem to be condensation vortices from current charging of the solar system. The coronal holes appear to be the areas where charge enters opened up by magnetic poles of the planets. ===
<ET: (C:) Earth oceans are where most expansion has occurred at Earth's surface. Earth's mass increase comes from the solar wind, which causes expansion at the core-mantle boundary inside the Earth.
<PT: (C:) Islands formed and mantle convection caused them to slowly form a supercontinent. Mantle convection caused the supercontinent to slowly split apart into continents.
<ST: (C:) Earth shrank significantly over millions of years, due to cooling & the lithosphere contains a worldwide network of deformable magma surge channels in which partial magma melt is in motion, due to Earth contraction and rotation. Flood basalt covering most of the seafloor and parts of continents originated from surge channel ruptures. Oceanization is the tendency of continental land to sink and become seafloor.
<EU: (C:) Electrical circuits heat and cool (expand and contract), Surge Theory with an electrical reinterpretation makes the most sense for our model.
<ESU: (C:) Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets, which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
<SD: (C:) A giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands via Shock Dynamics.
_MF: 1C=Have_ Earth is not currently expanding, according to __Wu et. al. 2011 Geophysical Research Letters Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame -- origin and Earth expansion, which uses "multiple precise geodetic data sets" to determine that "the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1 sigma measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm per yr". They averaged "weekly instantaneous frame origins spanning 26 years of Satellite Laser Ranging observations."
_LH: 3C=Need_ So earth is in volumetric stasis. __Vadim Anfilov years ago interpreted Oz seismic data that shrinkage or cooling is happening.
_BL: 2C=Need_ More likely a pulsating earth due to charging and discharging phases... ===
_MF: 1C=Need_ PT does not explain the positions of crustal features as a whole on the Earth, only locally. However, there is a pattern discernible beginning at a central point just north of Madagascar. Landmasses that moved went away from that point. This is a foundation of SD. ET superficially explains many features, especially if one looks only at the Atlantic Ocean region, but it is no longer obvious in the Southeast Asia region. ET also struggles to explain compression mountain building during expansion, and why mid-ocean ridges show varying speeds at different locations along the ridges, as between the central and south mid-Atlantic ridge. ===
_BL: 3C=Have_ There is an expansion at the equator during El Nino's, from EQ joule heating or warming of the mantle. It moves toward the equator with increasing viscosity and centrifugal forcing. This returns back to a contraction during La Nina. This is according to the __GRACE satellite mission data. Chestahedron geometry shows how this oscillation works. Whether or not there is net expansion or contraction was not addressed in the discussion and remains an open question depending on the time interval under review.
<ET: (S:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (S:) Sedimentary rock strata were deposited in shallow seas on the continents over millions of years.
<ST: (S:)
<EU: (S:) Sedimentation occurs constantly, can be chemical precipitates, weathered rock, turbidites etc. -- This has been covered well in many text books
<ESU: (S:)
<SD: (S:) During this Flood orbiting asteroid-caused tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent.
- As atmospheric pressure fell, much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils.
_LH: 4A=Need_ Thick sediments are "usually" explained by erosion of adjacent mountains over long periods of time. Cliff Ollier would call this the "geological cycle", and is the standard model. Problem is that water cannot transport loads on horizontal planes - so having uniform sandstone deposits hundreds of miles laterally requires miraculous water. Even Gerry Pollack can't rig EZ water to do this, so I 've suggested, after watching the Star Wars Rogue One movie, that massive sediments are formed by electrified erosional products of deeply weathered regoliths via a sort of magnetohydrodynamic process. Very catastrophic in nature, however. ===
_LK: 1A=Need_ Louis, what about an asteroid or other large body orbiting Earth causing megatsunamis that swept mud and sand onto the continent/s from the continental shelf forming sedimentary rock? Also, CO2 in seawater degassed and formed limestone? ===
_MF: Is there evidence for "the bulk removal of crust on the Earth"? Do you mean continental crust or mud and sand?
_BL: 4B=Need_ This fits the arc blast concept of ocean basins being removed electrically. ===
_MF: I can imagine it, but where did all the continental crust disappear to? It currently averages 35 km thick.
_LH: 5C=Need_ Adds weight to the Sial-Sima macro structure proposed years ago too. ===
_MF: 2A=Need_ The work of sedimentologist Guy Berthault has demonstrated that moving water carrying sediment deposits multiple layers simultaneously. Over 40 documented "megaflood" deposits illustrate this, as do the Columbia and Mt Saint Helens landscapes. Many sedimentary geological formations extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles. ===
_LH: 6A=Need_ My field experience negates this - flowing water over bedrock is actually EZ water with a liquid crystal internal structure. It cannot pick up sediment loads. Water in bulk mode can. It's like water sliding over the bedrock like a fluidised glacier. However adding plasma forces makes it easier to explain massive sedimentary deposits. ===
_MF: 3A=Need_ Moving water has enormous erosive and carrying power, including large rocks, and loss of flow energy releases the load. ===
_LH: 7B=Need_ Observations of tsunamis making landfall doesn't seem to involve picking up bedrock - every thing on top and loose is picked up. A common error is arguing the consequent - here that sediments are deposited by water, and rivers flow along river beds, so hence the sediments are formed by the rivers. Isolated gravel deposits, such as chevron deposits abutting highlands, are explained as being put there by massive tsunamis. Load carrying tsunamis cannot carry any load over an ocean. They can only carry a load that they have excavated from bedrock but when a tsunami makes landfall, it rapidly runs out of energy as there is nothing "driving" the wave front. Plunking a stone in a pond causes tsunami-like waves to form but these are effects of the impact made by the stone being plunked into the pond. These waves dissipate into the background the further away they are from their initial generating force. Tsunamis making landfall very quickly run out of steam or energy. Videos of the latest Japanese events suggest the water body is behaving like a massive liquid crystal moving laterally over the land with great power. Not surprising if it is EZ water. ===
_MF: 4A=Need_ The assumed source of sediment is previously eroded bedrock, not the bedrock itself. The tsunamis doing the work are assumed to be cross-continental. ===
<ET: (O:) Mountain ranges occur near continental edges due to reduction in the Earth's radius of curvature that occurs with expansion at the surface.
<PT: (O:) Mountain ranges formed slowly from continental collisions and magma plumes etc.
<ST: (O:) Mountain ranges are formed by vertical uplift from below.
_There is Earth's core, mantle and crust interaction, in which thermal energy from the core is the fundamental energy source of global tectonic activities including earthquakes, volcanoes, rise and sink of the Earth surface, and global climate as well
<EU: (O:) Arc Blast or Static discharge between planets and the sun seem to be primary factors -- Recent field work, can be shared.
[Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel, which expanded, uplifting mountains.]
<ESU: (O:) Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact.
<SD: (O:) The movement of plates raised nearly all of the mountain chains via horizontal compression, and initiated global volcanism.
_MF: 5B=Have_ "Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world are a consequence of crustal shortening." From: __Some Simple Physical Aspects of the Support, Structure, and Evolution of Mountain Belts. Peter Molnar, H. Lyon-Caen. Special Paper 218, Geological Society of America, 1988, pp. 179-207.
_LH: 8A=Need_ Agreed - but what then is the horizontal force that operated? PT can explain this. ET cannot by definition. Electric plasma effects could by forming strong lateral variants of Lorentz Force as a peripheral effect of a distal electromachining process eroding regolith and upper crust to form ocean basins. Strange that mountains are associated with subducted plates causing shortening or accretion. Rather than ocean plate moving, the plasma arc stripped the regolith and crust off, forming the ocean basin, and as a peripheral effects laterally compressed the adjacent remnant crust, along with volcanic activity etc resulting from the massive inputs of energy into the system. ===
_BL: 5A=Need_ Arc blast in the Grand canyon pushed up the Rockies, the thrust faulting is huge and needed sever energy to have that amount of thrust. ===
_MF: If that happened, wouldn't the Rockies be concentric around the Grand Canyon?
_BL: 6C=Need_ It didn't stop at the Grand Canyon, but traveled up the river systems of the Colorado and Green river creating the current morphology about 12,900 years ago when the Carolina Bays were formed also during the 12,900 megafaunal extinction event... ===
_MF: 6A=Have_ PT is too weak to raise mountain chains. Numbers from the literature have values in this range: Slab pull: 500 bars, 450 bars ("subduction pull"), 300 bars; Ridge push: 200 bars, 250 bars, 250 bars, 200-300 bars, 200-400 bars; Basal drag: 200 bars, 200 bars. And basal drag is considered to be an opposing force to plate movement except beneath cratons. The stress required for crustal shortening to build mountains is hard to find, but has been calculated to be in a range from 1500 to 2500 bars up to 4000 to 6000 bars, inferring the latter "from earthquake data and evaluation of the stresses required to produce specific geological structures". In the case of South America, the combination of ridge push and forward basal drag (by trench suction) could produce only 400 to 600 bars of force, which is clearly insufficient to build the Andes. These forces are already engaged in moving the entire plate westward.
_LK: Mike, I had your reference for that saved up. __It's
_MF: 7A=Need_ This is one of the problems with PT, that it is okay at explaining the current situation but not the origin. This applies not only to mountain chains, but to the origin of subduction and the splitting of continental crust. A large force, as in SD, is required. ===
_LK: Mike, I'm putting your initials at the beginning of each of your paragraphs, so I know who said what.
_LH: 8B=Need_ Well mountains are readily explained by PT, :-), but whether it is real or not. One fact is __Ollier and Pain's work - that many so-called mountains are actually old landsurface remnants that had their surrounds eroded away. This leaves the highly compressed mountains requiring large horizontal forces. Cosmic scaled electric arcs, as described by Oz aboriginals as Rainbow Serpents, or as Van De Waals phenomena could generate large Lorentz forces in the horizontal plane. ===
_MF: Is the ESU position on mountain ranges really the same as SD? ===
_LK: 2B=Need_ Yes, Charles accepts your model somewhat, but he thinks the continents moved apart more slowly.
<ET: (GL:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (GL:) Glaciation was caused by cooling.
<ST: (GL:)
<EU: (GL:) Cosmic Ray density with particle cascades creating storms, volcanic eruptions and global envelope of cloud cover leading to ice ages. Glaciation is a small subset of the ice ages and increases every winter more snow accumulates than melts. -- I can bring some references on cosmic rays
<ESU: (GL:)
<SD: (GL:) Movement of continents toward the poles along with atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to glaciation.
_BL: 7C=Need_ Seems to be tied to increasing cosmic ray density as we pass through certain sections of space in the various Milankovitch cycles. ===
Increased cosmic rays = increased particle precipitation = increased charging, increased lighting and storms and increased volcanic activity leading to increased clouds and solar shielding. Ice ages cometh, when earth reaches a certain capacitance the earth and likely the whole solar system is involved, arc blast ends the ice ages melting the caps, flooding from the poles, and twisting the planet's axis creating tsunamis from the oceans, piling animals from various climes together. Classic Velikovsky...
_MF: 8B=Need_ Rather a basketful of assumptions there. An Ice Age would seem to require greatly increased atmospheric moisture, as in heating the oceans, at the same time the atmosphere is cooling dramatically in at least one hemisphere. And this continues for a long time following sudden instigation. Classic SD. ===
_LH: 9C=Need_ Years ago I had an email discussion with Gerry Pollack and I raised the issue of whether ice forms at the poles as a consequence of excess protons entering the ionosphere and surface, thus forming ice. If a body of water, say an ocean, has EZ water as a surface layer, and an inrush of protons occur, then that EZ water gets turned into ice as a reaction to the increased energy supplied by the protons. Hence ice ages could be explained as massive injection of protons via CME's etc, Animals seem to be mainly made of water, in this case EZ water, and an inrush of protons could actually snap-freeze life forms almost instantaneously. This mechanism could explain the snap-freezing of mammoths. So a super Carrington event could be interpreted as an ice-age? The mechanism here is that ice ages are not caused by a drop in temperature but, paradoxically , an in crease in the system's energy state. ===
_LH: 10A=Need_ Preliminary comment: Whatever mechanism is proposed, gravity remains the elephant in the room. Empirically gravity seems electrical in nature, and if so there are at present more than 20 models proposed for the electron, whether particle or wave. This does not help much in understanding gravity. Rock density is a fundamental physical measurement and relies totally on a correct understanding of gravity. Mantle convection, for example, assumes lower density for higher temperature, everything else being equal. Or lower density is linked to pressure which is caused by gravitational attraction with less dense rising and more dense sinking, eebe. Solar explanations such as proposed by Robitaille etc, assume gravity. Mantle pressure in the Earth assumes gravity. Rivers and streams flow because of gravity, and hence erosion is caused, ultimately, by gravity. Weather is caused by density differentials in the atmosphere caused by gravity. Geological evolution assumes gravity and accretion, cosmological to the smallest bolide. If electrical forces EM AND gravity are considered then we have a problem of magnitude, EM force is 10^38 greater in magnitude than gravity force. We cannot combine the two as a unified "field" because if one is assume a magnitude 1, say EM Lorentz force, then gravity is so small in magnitude it can be ignored, and which is what A.J. Peratt did with his PIC computer simulations using plasma. If gravity can be ignored as an assumption of mass attracting mass, then alternative mechanisms need to explain non-plasma phenomena in lieu of Newtonian gravity. This leads directly to the problem of rock density which is a fundamental physical property of condensed matter, It leads directly to isostasy, from which PT was developed, so explaining rock density becomes crucial., because it is an essential theoretical axiom on which the rest is deduced. ===
ET: Expansion Tectonics __ James Maxlow __
PT: Plate Tectonics __ Wikipedia __
ST: Surge Tectonics __ Dong Choi __ __
EU: Electric Universe __ (Ralph Juergens, deceased), Wal Thornhill, Don Scott __ __ __
ESU: Electrostatic Universe __ Charles Chandler __
SD: Shock Dynamics __ Mike Fischer __ , (LK1-4)
_CS: Before we really get into it, I would like to ask two things.
1. Did math solutions give us the very real orthogonal fracture/megatrend intersections and vortex structures on the ocean floor?. ===
2. Did geophysics give us the 1-2 Ga rocks on the magnetic 180 Ma ocean floor? ===
_LH: Lloyd, the color scheme you are using black letters on green background also has a mauve component that is unreadable. :-)
_LK: I don't control the colors. You can go to the gear symbol at upper right and click on Authorship colors to change the background to white.
_LH: You can adjust your own colours by clicking the coloured square next to your name. Took me a while to work it out.
_RF: 1A=Have_ Lloyd have you considered adding the work of Michael Csuzdi to your list of global tectonic models? Thermionic Emission Geophysics__:
_LK: I haven't heard of that, but always willing to add other ideas. Do you favor it for something?
_RF: 2B=Need_ I think Csuzdi missed an opportunity; his model sees Earth's magnetic field as originating from within the Earth rather than externally. ===
_LK: 3A=Need_ That's how Charles sees it too. He finds that the planets and stars likely have CFDLs and the charges in different layers can speed up or slow down as during impacts, causing the field to change. ===
_LH: 11B=Need_ The internal origin for the geomagnetic field was, at the time it was proposed, logical since we did not know about the Van Allen belts, solar wind, etc. Just that the Sun was an irradiating source, space was empty in which was suspended an inert globe, the earth. Which had a magnetic field that could only be located inside the earth. Much progress has since been made but the theory hasn't changed. This is the problem. [LH thinks the field is Externally generated.] ===
_BL: 8C=Need_ [to CS] 1.) The orthogonal fracture zones (don't know about the math) but geometry again controls. This pattern can also be seen in the eight layers of the human heart, the Chestahedron geometry shows this relationship is tied to "vortex geometry" where all the platonic solids are contained within the chestahedron. The inner double layer of the inner and outer core has tetrahedron or fire element geometry as evidenced by the magnetic spike structure (Quinns inverse magnetic modeling techniques show the delta- y configurations of Giovanni Gregoris "Sea Urchin Spikes"). The next double layer in the mantle has the square "earth" geometry as evidenced by the four north south circuits on the ridges along the corners of the cube, global heat flow and mantle gravity signatures attest to this. As you move up into the water or dodecahedron geometry, you see the hurricanes follow these circuits which are part of the vile vortex system., the air has double diamond or double pyramid structure, this is seen in the Total Electron Content data where the points of the triangles actually point to where EQ [earthquakes?] will occurs sometimes, then there is the aether pentagon geometry where the plasma comes into the poles. Each double layer has its specific geometry, this was the beauty of Plato's forgotten knowledge. The vortex geometry of the chestahedron contains all the platonic solids and is responsible for the harmony or balance of electromagnetic forces linked to or controling the Golden ration or Fibonacci fractalization sequences... ===
_BL: 9B=Have_ The polarity of magnetic stripes on the seafloor has only been confirmed in 7 places by the Deep Sea Drilling Project, magnetic data is collected generally by shipborne and airborne scalar and sometimes vector magnetometers. Most of the stripes are simply what's called susceptibility contrasts and are not confirmed as polarity reversals. __Art Meyerhoff, author of surge tectonics has a good article on this; I don't have the link but it is covered in his text on Surge tectonics. He also states that many of the magnetic stripes are not parallel to the ridges, some are actually perpendicular to the ridges. The electrical orientation of the circuit determines the orientation of the stripe.
_LK: Bruce, I'd love to have a link to that info on magnetic stripe data.
_LK: I read Meyerhoff's book and copied some of it. The book didn't mention the magnetic stripes that I know of. It's good that the article apparently did though.
_MF: According to the numbered issues, this discussion is about the Earth rather than the universe. Apparently there has not been much thought on these issues. It is clear that there are collisions occurring in the galaxy, and perhaps there is exclusive evidence for electrical interaction? How could the electric universe concept [be tested] conceivably be disproved?
_LK: The CFDL theory of Earth might be disprovable. That's current-free electric double-layers.
_MF: How would that be done?
_LK: 4A=Need_ It's part of the Earth, so we have better access than off-planet. Also, calculations can be made to determine feasibility. Charles has found that spacing of plasma cells in the lab and the spacing of planets and of stars in globular clusters all follow the same law or formula. So, knowing the charge on planets should tell us something about whether the planets could be repelled from each other according to that formula. ===
_MF: Is Earth positively or negatively charged?
_LK: 5C=Need_ The planets, as Charles says, have electric double-layers, so they're both charges, but I think they're more positive than negative. Anyway the atmospheres are positive. Charles & others say the Sun is more negative than positive, but the outer layer is positive there too. ===
_BL: 10B=Have_ Also there are the double layers within the earth that have opposite charges, this can be seen in the double layers of __Quinn's inverse modeled magnetic source depth data.
_BL: 11B=Need_ The poles have opposite charges. LK has the answer on repelling planets, I would agree... you can see this in __experiments with small steel balls... ===
_MF: So would Earth repel another planet? It is surprising that planets mimic small steel balls.
_LK: 6C=Have_ Charels' findings suggest that all the planets repel each other. I can look for his paper on that. __ http//
_LH: 12B=Need_ Negatively - mainly by the oceans having a surface layer of EZ water. Magnitude is diurnal. ===
_MF: 9B=Need_ Magnetic polarity and intensity have also been found to change with depth in oceanic crust. ===
_BL: 12B=Need_ As well as within cores of volcanic rxs. Polarity and intensity seem to change and rotate within the layers indicating the polarity and intensity are controlled locally via the volcanic electrical system and not a global orientation related to N-S poles... ===
_LK: Bruce, can you get me a link to that evidence from volcanic cores? What's rxs?
_BL: Rxs... abbreviation for rocks. This is stuff I read years ago, I'd have to search for those references. I may have it referenced in one of my publications, but that will take time to find again...
_LH: An earth in a gravitational or electrical environment? At present the whole edifice of Plate Tectonics and Expanding earth are based on the gravitational model. But plasma physics, the Peratt model, ignores gravity. If so then all the tectonic features that we observe on the Earth are presently explained by the gravitational model. Instead we need to explain things in an electrical model.
_LH: Proving the Electric Universe model requires falsifying the Western Cultural paradigm. This is a problem.
_LK: I don't think Western religions stand in the way of science much any more.
_LH: Describing the Earth's evolution requires a starting point, and this remains controversial. Most US geologists seem to favour a short chronology, others a long one. I had the same issue when I edited AIG News - the long chronologists did not like editorial favourable to the short-chronologists being published. It got to rather an excitable situation.
_MF: So long folks. [Disappointing discussions] on the topics, which are worthwhile.
_LK: Mike, what part of the country are you in? You're welcome to make suggestions to improve discussions. I'll try to organize better or find better ways to get info from everyone.
_MF: North Carolina
_LK: A question for you EU people. Looks like there are one or two of you here still, since Louis left. I'm an ESU person, rather than EU. The question is: Is a vacuum an insulator or a conductor, or neither or both?
_BL: Is there really such a thing as a total vacuum, seems to be an idealized mathematical construct, but if there's a few particles in there depending on what it was it seems it could be either or both...
_LK: 7C=Need_ Charles says a vacuum has no resistance to charge. So I think he says interplanetary discharges would likely not occur as EU theorists have said. I should get him here to explain, though, since he has the info. ===
_BL: 13B=Need_ The concept of interplanetary discharge is simply static electric discharge, and we know the solar wind is full of particles, thus the assumption of a vacuum related to our solar system is mute... ===
_RF: 3B=Need_ Vacuum Circuit Breakers are used in high voltage power systems to extinguish the electric arc. ===
_LK: 8B=Need_ Would it be fairly easy to test in a vacuum chamber whether a vacuum is more conducting or insulating? I know Charles referenced some data from satellites or something that indicated that vacuum is "conducting". ======
_BL: Why the insistence the solar wind is a vacuum?
_LK: I don't know the density of the solar wind, but I'm guessing that on Earth it would be considered a vacuum? Do you know the density? Is it some tens or hundreds of particles per cc?
_BL: 14C=Have_ Depends on whether your interested in proton density or other particles,__ lot of information on solar wind properties at that link.
_LK: Thanks, Bruce. I guess we can wrap up soon, if there's not a lot of info to share yet. Do you's have more questions or comments or suggestions how to have better discussions?
_BL: Final comment, the one that got deleted earlier. Seems to me we should begin to understand the tectonic domain as a weather system, where Giovannis Sea urchin spikes are the pressure cells, the plate boundaries or surge channels are the stream flows, like jetstreams, and frontal boundaries, where counter flows to the mantle must exist in the asthenosphere or volcanics. The Westward drift of the magnetic field indicates an deep mantle trade wind etc. The plate tectonic concept of linear upwelling is like the idealized mathematical construct of the net heat flow model of Hadley Cell circulation in the atmosphere. It doesn't exist in actual flow dynamics. If you were a weatherman and all you could report on was heat is rising at the equator and moving towards the poles and you model doesn't allow the existence of pressure cells, stream flow or frontal boundaries, much less trade winds, you couldn't say much about the weather. This is the problem with plate theory, it's driver is based on an idealized mathematical construct that is simple to understand in a text book, but has no basis in reality... That's it in a nutshell, signing off, enjoyed the discussion... ======
_LK: Thanks for repeating that, Bruce. Good Day. I'll try not to delete that this time. Are you in Colorado or Florida?
_BL: Florida
_LK: Robert, do you have a link to your main info? Is it summed up somewhere?
_RF: Which info would that be, Lloyd.
_LK: Info on Tectonics.
_RF: 4A=Have_ __

LK4 Continental Drift & Orogeny / GLACIAL CATACLYSM - Chapman
« on: October 23, 2017, 09:10:05 am »
Glacial Cataclysm

Granitic and sedimentary rocks … were dredged up from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from a depth of 3,600 ft. They exhibited deep scratches and striations similar to those stones in “drift” formations commonly attributed to glacial action. However, in the same area there were found “some loosely consolidated mud stones”.... Together with many other geological and topographic formations on the bed of the Atlantic these mud stones were formed not underwater but in the open air, and must … date from a time when that portion of the ocean floor was above sea level.

Firstly, numerous marine shells, often of currently-existing species, lie at high elevations on several islands in Arctic Canada. They should have been pulverised had ice-sheets ever crept across those territories, for in no instance do they appear to have been deposited where they are now found since alleged Ice Age times.
Secondly, among the most telling details in this category are the numerous enclaves of unglaciated territory within regions which, glacialists long argued, supposedly lay under thick, continuous ice-sheets, not once but on several successive occasions.

… Initially it might be considered reasonable to expect the end of an Ice Age to herald warmer conditions, but widespread investigations have shown that the reverse actually happened: temperatures generally fell as the effects attending the termination of the Younger Dryas episode were experienced globally. Sea-surface temperatures, for example, dropped in the North Atlantic, in the western North Pacific, in the South China Sea and even in the tropical Sulu Sea between the Philippines and northern Borneo, where marine cores indicate a “pronounced cooling of surface waters during Younger Dryas times” in tandem with an increased summer monsoonal regime in central China. Late Pleistocene sediments in deep-sea cores obtained from the bed of the central North Atlantic contain the remains of planktonic foraminifera, which collectively exhibit faunal patterns [that] show a former mixing of top and bottom ocean-water layers ten times faster that the speed … of glacial and interglacial episodes.... [Similar patterns were found in cores from the Caribbean basin.] … Effects of changes like these were widespread [as] around Hudson Bay, across Atlantic Canada and in the northeastern USA, and occurred even as far south as South America and Antarctica.

Particularly interesting and certainly perplexing is the well-established fact that many allegedly glaciated hills and mountains in the northern hemisphere are scored and striated from top to bottom on their northern sides only. In North America this remarkable condition is quite common. … Of further relevance is the fact that deposits of gravel and other “drift” materials sometimes occur only on the northern and north-western flanks of hills, in some instances showing every indication of having been actually plastered up against the hillsides with great force. Many cases of this occur on both sides of the Atlantic. In Labrador, for example, “erratic” boulders have been rammed into hillsides apparently with much violence.
    Large “erratic” boulders in the Sahara Desert, on the Mongolian plains, and in subtropical Uruguay constitute a parallel anomaly. And when it is discovered that it is possible to produce rock striae like those usually attributed to ice action by such dissimilar agents as drift-sand, fast-moving [flows from volcanoes], snow, mudslides and high pressure grit-charged steam, we are obliged to seriously question.

The carapace of a tortoise twenty feet long was found [in the Siwalik Hills north of Delhi]. The Etephas ganesa an elephant species found [there], had tusks about fourteen feet long and over three feet in circumference.

CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: CNPS General Discussion
« on: September 26, 2017, 05:48:30 pm »
Forum next steps
Saturday, August 5, 2017 9:09 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Hi Lloyd,
_The board has just finished gathering notes together. There is a lot to think through and discuss - 5 pages to be exact. So, major decisions are away off. It will take at least a month, given all board members are volunteers. I think I have enough understanding of the issues to take action. I've also been officially put on the board. So, let's move ahead with what we can. I'll discuss this in the Special Projects section below.
_Someone else asked me if the email posts could automatically be displayed on the Forum. I don't know how to do that. But I also think it's a bad idea. As we move to more productive Forum discussions, MOST of the email posts would have to be deleted as trash. It's better to work to bring over responsible members who agree to tighter conduct rules. I'll put your name on my email removal list if you want. Let me know. It will still take awhile to be effective.
_I looked at all the posts related to Critical Wikis in the Forum. All of them seemed very preliminary - almost like scratch sheets. But you've collected information for each which is where the process has to start. Let's address this further by talking about a special project.
_The Special Projects section of the CNPS planning notes is included below. These are all suggestions for efforts CNPS could work on AS A GROUP in the coming year. So far, CNPS has not figured out HOW to work as a group. As I said, CNPS has a lot to discuss. What I'd like you and I to do is pick ONE project that we will work together on right away as an example to the other directors of how I think we can employ the Structured Discussion process. The "ONE" project I'm referring to is NOT on the list below. It's one of the projects you have already started that you have a personal interest in.
_Let's say, for example, you pick the 3.3.3 Scientific Method project. What we would do, is, include sections that address items 4.1, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11 and 4.12 from the Special Projects list. Since all of those for all of science would still be much to big a job, we could aim all the parts at a specific physics issue, like item 4.4 from the list. That would also pull in 4.2 and 4.3.
_You can also pick one of your other interests instead. But none of those came up during the conference, nor have they had much interest. The nearest matches were Expansion Tectonics and Positron / Electron aethers, both big topics at the conference. Of course, you can also pick a new topic to try.
_My objective in listing all these alternatives is for you to see that I want to support something you have a strong personal interest. This comes from my major drive with the board. CNPS, as a society, has to deliver VALUE to its members. I want to use our interaction to demonstrate how this can be done.
_4.  Special Projects
_The purpose of special projects is that they have specific goals and an organized process that people can get in on and benefit from.
_4.1   Detailed Library and keyword subject index of member papers
The CNPS library has 13,000+ items. Unless these are organized for easy and understandable access, people will not take the time to “wade” through them. Most items have titles that are not descriptive of their contents. Detailed indexing is needed.
·     Indexing should be done by the authors for their own papers against published guidelines.
·     This effort should earn awards: e.g. Those that index their papers go to the top of the list.
_4.2   GPS paper based on Ron Hatch’s work – title: “GPS corrections to Special Relativity”
Ron’s work provides paradigm shifting experimental results for the speed of light. A large effort, tied to CNPS, should be started to push this into social awareness.
_4.3   Do focused promotions of “breakthrough” ideas from the conference
·     Musa showed how a bipolar aether can explain gravity, using only electrostatics.
·     Bruce stumbled on a way to eliminate one of the S.I. fundamental units (distance or time). Unzieker offered to “look” at it.
·     Bruce found a new paradox for SR – the “c-speed” paradox. Lori Gardi also found a similar phenomenon, both of which show SR is an instrument calibration error problem.
_4.4   A focused push on Special Relativity
The study of email interactions by members showed that SR constituted more than 80% of all discussions. We should focus SR to pull members into the Forum.
·     Find summaries of SR proof experiments.
·     Find summaries that show where society thinks SR has been used – Mercury orbit etc.
·     Review and find challenges for each. Base this on the Sapere Aude index (which Gertrud will help with). Update and promote that index.
·     Publish a major “SR Update paper”
_4.5   Attack the LANGUAGE problem!
During the conference, it was very clear that members do NOT talk the same language, because they don’t share the same definitions of words. This is a critical problem to solve.
·     One element would be setting up a Critical Thinker Glossary. Each term would be supported by a published Critical Wiki.
·     Tear apart the misleading terminology of terms used in particle physics.
_4.6   Attack the “shut up and do the math” problem!
Many members are very competent manipulating equations. But many of those are not as good understanding how the variables in the equations apply to reality. An effort to convert them would improve intermember communication.
_4.7   Experimental Evidence Review
·     List the experimental evidence that society believes “proves” major theories: Michelson-Morley, Eddington etc. Organize and present the now known errors.
·     Focus on helping people identify Pseudo Science ::: “not subject to tangible proof”
_4.8   Develop scientific tests that will break the logjams of entrenched theories
Members have suggestions for each of these and more.
·     Speed of light
·     Aether / Gravity: develop a test to determine the mechanism – fields, particles
_4.9   Debates! Use a new Structured Communication approach
·     Duncan Shaw suggested staging debates to resolve incompatible theories. Conventional debate models, as an approach, have collapsed with the collapse of modern democracy. Structured Communication provides a solution. This new form of debate can be used as a verbal alternative to Structured Communication in the Forum. The goal is not to find a winner, but to assemble a comprehensive review of a topic. If there is enough knowledge to reach a conclusion, then a “winner” would be found.
_4.10                 Science Court!
·     This would be a variation of Duncan’s Debates. Using a new Structured Communication approach, it would NOT be aimed at reaching a verdict but be more like a Congressional hearing to: gather information and organize information. Critical thinkers would be welcome. Mainstream voices could present like anyone else, but would not be shown any presumed merit.
_4.11                 Implement the Critical Wikipedia
·     One approach under investigation is to make a Critical Wikipedia page a goal for Structured Discussions in the Forum. This would apply to every scientific term discussed there.
_4.12                 Start Peer Review
·     We are going to need reviewers for many things. Let’s start the search for people who can do this well, and reward them for doing so.
__On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:39 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_Hi Bruce. Is work with the Conference finished yet?
_I guess I mentioned that Gertrud said she didn't want to write on the forum. She also didn't reply to my request to ask her and her team questions.
_Someone put me back on the email string, which is okay so far. It seems to me it might be feasible and helpful to have the email messages automatically displayed on the forum in your first section, from where they could later be moved to a more appropriate section. What do you think?
_Is the Wiki coming along okay to your satisfaction?
- Good Day. Lloyd


Re: Debates
Saturday, September 2, 2017 7:34 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_David is not moving very quickly deciding on action. He was focused on setting up the conference for next year. That is now done. It will be at UConn.  In any case, there is no need to wait. Just start moving ahead with your ideas. Getting James to annotate the questions is a big help. I'll push David to let me start a real organization newsletter. That's the proper way to tell members about the ET effort. But you should definitely post to the email string.

On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:00 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_Hi Bruce. You said:
_B: I think you can start your first debate right in the Forum using your role as facilitator. For example, In the Tasks & Request for Volunteers, number 1.4 is Organize focused discussions related to the "open" questions with a goal of finding answers. Add a new item in the Open Assignments list: 4.2 Hold debates on specific open questions. Then assign yourself as the Team Leader.
_L: James Maxlow told me a couple days ago that he's working on answering all 22 questions about ET, so I expect to see his answers on the forum soon. He asked if it's okay to include pictures and I said yes. I also expect that I'll still have at least one or two open questions after he posts his answers.
_The other open questions are regarding the other geological theories. I don't know if CNPS members will be interested in helping find answers to those questions, but I guess I can ask.
- Good Day. Lloyd

Re: Debates
Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:03 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_This is outstanding work on your part. I'm including David deHilster on this reply because this can have significant impact on CNPS growth.
_You've asked a lot of questions. Let me take them one at a time. (matched to reference numbers added below)
_Back in mid August, we hadn't fully organized the Expansion Tectonics Structured Forum yet. You were already working on Surge Tectonics. So that is what they were responding to. I've set the 6.0 Forum category up to handle as many subjects as users show interest in.
_There is a LOT to read "between the lines" here. Dr. Choi, based only on your contact, evidently forwarded your ideas to many of their "editorial" members.  That's a big deal. Furthermore, most of them replied positively. To me, this is an important example of how we can grow CNPS. I'm also noting, it is not because they found the CNPS website. It happened because we reached out to a specialty.
_So this is where we need David's input.  How do we bring them in?  For example, we could ask one member of NCGT to join CNPS as the primary interface. Hopefully, it will lead to others joining voluntarily. To start their involvement, I've created a Forum user category called "Guest Scholar". They essentially have temporary read/write forum privileges. Other NCGT members can join the forum as "Guests", but they can only read.
_I always believed that creating a Critical Wiki "feature" at CNPS could become a major draw for members. David has done a lot to establish a foundation for this. But a lot of work is needed to make it more usable. With this new expression of interest from outside, it may be the trigger we need to start a "formal" CNPS project. The key is lining up the manpower to do it. But this outside interest could be the catalyst.
_They want to know more about us! This, again, suggests a new approach to how we do outreach. We can tell them to just look through our website. But, most people won't do that because it covers too broad an area. But, having a person like you, with your background, make a one-on-one contact opened the door to make an introduction. Again, I want to get David's perspective on this. For me, we should not just reply with anything simple like our mission statement or goals. This needs to be targeted towards what NCGT readers are interested in. It would actually be presented in a way that is a "ghost article" that NCGT could publish in their journal as an editorial or special interest piece showing how CNPS resources can help their effort.
_My plan for the Forum in this regard is simple. We would generate as many Wikis as effort comes forward to produce. That's the draw from their group. NCGT, being a journal, may not have the skills to generate Wikis. We have the skills - they have the writers. We just need to pull it together and give both organizations notoriety for it.
_We are already starting to explore debates / discussions in the Forum using my new Structured approach. Their participation will help. But, we need to use the new approach or the outcome will just go into the Internet Landfill.  We have to stop that.
_Both, plus more options as well. There should be as many papers and Wikis as the members provide energy to produce. Each paper will focus on some narrow issue. In those papers, they will briefly reference all the theories they drew from. So, there will be a pyramid of both papers and Wikis: A few general references at the top spreading to larger numbers at levels below as more specific subjects are addressed. What will help launch this is getting enough annotation on the papers already cataloged in the CNPS library so they can become the basis for the new Wikis.
_David has recently pulled part of the Wiki format process together. Specifically, he has covered the composition part. What is still missing is guidance on the pyramid approach. That will be new. In brief, it will show how a large group of papers and Wikis come together as a system. For example, there would be a major organizing Wiki for Global Tectonics, that briefly talks about all the major theories (this is the table you have started). It would point to organizing Wikis for each individual theory. Those, in turn, would point to additional Wikis for parts of the theory.  We do not have a process description in place to point anyone to yet. In the mean time, just focus on one Wiki at a time.
_As for the debates, use the etherpad discussions and emails we have had as guidance. Remember, this is an experiment to find out which ideas work best.
_Use the answers he gives to support your earlier discussions for ST. But I think you need to narrow down your interest. You are also getting a lot of support from James Maxlow. Don't shortchange him. It may be better to focus NCGT on ET until the first few papers and Wikis are produced so we have something tangible to show for all the effort that is being generated. To date, category 6.2 has posted 24 threads; 70 replies; and 1364 views. You and I have sent 175+ emails. Using the methods I developed for the email analysis, I estimate that the Expansion Tectonics forum effort has now drawn over 225 hours of effort from our members! Let's keep focusing to get a paper and Wiki out of this soon!
__On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:19 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_Hi Bruce.
_On August 15, Dr. Choi, who edits the NCGT (New Concepts in Global Tectonics) journal, replied to me regarding the CNPS Special Project as follows.
_{1} "We received feedbacks from editorial members. Most of them are willing to join. All of them are world-class experts in their own field, who proposed their own ideas with sound data.  Naturally more subjects must be included in addition to surge tectonics. Surge tectonics appeared more than 20 years ago, and during the period many new data have appeared - some require revisions and adjustments, which must be reflected in the Wiki.
_{2} "Please let us know more in detail in what format the Wiki will be published, and what and how we need to prepare.
_{3} "We want to know more about you. Please introduce yourself to our editorial members.
_{4} I guess Dr. Choi may have had the impression that all of the theories involved in this project would receive Wiki entries. Is there any reason they should not have such entries there? It seems worthwhile to me.
_{5} Anyway, I think several of the other NCGT editors are interested in debates or discussions.
_{6} Will the theories in the project all be mentioned in the final paper of this project? Or will each theory have its own entry in the Wiki?
_{7} Do you have an answer to what format the Wiki will be published in? Should I just give them a link to the CNPS Wiki?
_{8} For them to prepare for the debates/discussions, will they just need to ask questions about other theories and answer other people's questions about theirs?
_{9} I just now told him about my progress on the Special Project and asked him if he could fill out the remaining ST claims for 5 Earth features. I hope to answer his questions soon.
- Good Day. Lloyd

Re: 6.0 Forum
Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:39 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi" <>
_I think I understand your overall idea, but there are factors you aren't considering. The major one is the scope of the facilitation problem. To do justice to each of these subsections, we would need a separate facilitator for each one. You couldn't possibly facilitate all of them. This is why I kept trying to get you to pick one, just to work out the details. To fulfill just ET, here are the tasks I still think need to be accomplished:
_A comprehensive, annotated bibliography still needs to be collected. The goal is to provide a complete foundation for the theory with no loose ends.
_A comparison table / discussion is needed to frame ET within the other theories.  The goal is, when major papers are written, they can start from a defined place in the tectonic map that makes it clear what their pros and cons are, in relation to all the others. This is important because it  FOCUSES all the following efforts.
_Let me elaborate on this a little more. The major problem plaguing ALL of science is chaos in our discussions! This is what my papers have been talking about. The tectonic discussions are no different. Until we get a map that tells everyone: a. these are the theories; b. this is what makes them distinct; c. these are their strong points; d. these are their weak points, the discussions will turn into landfill chaos, just like the email string. Since the conference, there have been over 1600 emails! - ALL lost to CNPS progress!  Think about the stats I provided just on 6.2 ET: "To date, category 6.2 has posted 24 threads; 70 replies; and 1364 views. You and I have sent 175+ emails. Using the methods I developed for the email analysis, I estimate that the Expansion Tectonics forum effort has now drawn over 225 hours of effort from our members!"  WHAT HAVE WE, AND YOU SPECIFICALLY AS FACILITATOR, GOT TO SHOW FOR IT! What have you achieved for the 225 hours you have facilitated so far!
_If we try to cover all of this, we will get nothing in the end. The comparison table goal is to narrow down our selection of critical issues that NEED TO BE SOLVED. A critical issue is one that, if solved, make major headway, + or - for a theory.
_Selection of one or two CRITICAL ISSUES.
_Focused discussion / debate / summary papers / analysis on the critical issues.
_Wiki's and papers!
_The reason I have been pushing ET is it has some major advantages going for it:  James Maxlow just gave the conference's keynote on this; he's a world class scientist / expert on it, he will help us with it; and we have you to facilitate it. Until we find all of those credentials for the any of the other theories, they just need to stay back burner. In your list, you present some new names: Farrar, Choi. If they would be willing to join CNPS and become major contributors to a forum discussion, then we could expand your facilitator role (as long as we can get other "junior" facilitators to help you.) We need these key assets identified and committed FIRST before we launch the other topics, not after.

Re: Forum 6 & Wikis
Saturday, September 9, 2017 2:51 PM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_{1} The problem with establishing a section 6.0 is that it would imply there was an overarching coordination of all the tectonic discussions. As I said, that is too much scope for any one person.
_{2} As for Wikis being "works in process", while they will be, we don't want to set them up to appear that way.  Eventually, we will publish Wikis for both the overall field of Tectonics, and each of the subtopics. But, each wiki has to appear to knowledgeably capture a snapshot of sound thinking.
_For example, the target conventional Wiki for the overall field is . This is a disaster. So, the goal of our "Critical Wiki" will be to reference the existing wiki as the "mainstream" viewpoint, and then tear it apart. To maintain credibility, we don't want to pitch it as an index of half-baked ideas. We want to present it as a reference document of "ongoing" research. These are two very different approaches. Your table would be the main structure for this Wiki. But, to be clear, this Critical Wiki would not be associated in any way with forum discussions. It will not be put together on the fly where the public will see the discussion and give an take behind it.
_The "work in process" is what the forum is for. That is what the facilitator is supposed to coordinate.
_As for drawing members to CNPS, a wiki is not a good way to do it. That has to be driven by an advertising approach, which displays a large number of wikis. We are not ready to do that, and don't anticipate being ready for at least a year. So much editing is needed.
_The wikis are open to the public.  So is the forum - for reading. So, that's already built in. As for public involvement, that's what my articles talk about. Uncontrolled public access to the internet is being "shut down". While the conventional Wikipedia is still "open to the public", a lot of rules have been added to control access. Every new member has to now go through 6 months of moderation. The Critical Wikis are NOT accessible for public editing. The process for developing them will go through the Forum. The Forum is also access controlled. While I agree with your point of "excitement" for many to access science in progress, the collapse of language and dialog throughout society - which also applies to 70% of the people on the email string - has limited what can be done. As you know, CNPS already has a Youtube channel, plus a weekly live video meeting. Both are largely failures. Why? Neither are generating involvement of many members or drawing new members. Why? That's what my articles are about.
_{3} Your approach has been discussed and rejected. There are very few members capable of producing an acceptable Wiki. Those that are will be asked to be editors. What ANY member can do is write their own blog, publish their own bio on the site, and make their own YouTube videos (for now). All the parts of your next sentence will be done: providing formats, providing guidance for acceptance, and passing judgement on submissions.
_{4} Yes, you are making good headway. But we are a long way from a Wiki page. Go back and look at your own "facilitator guidelines" on the coordination page. If you think you have enough for a Wiki, I'll help you get it started. But the process will not be open for public viewing. You should only focus on one or two Wikis to start with - i.e. maybe the 6.0 wiki and a 6.2 wiki, for example.
_{5} We must have a very different concept of what it means to "annotate" a bibliography. In its most simple form, the annotation is a collection of "keywords" that describe the topics the citation provides substantial material about. Each keyword would have a page number for the section of the document where that topic is best addressed. To give you an idea of a "full annotation", for two of my books, the annotation has over 1600 keywords!  Typically, there would be dozens or hundreds per book or paper. Give me an example of any citation that you think this has been done for? You may be thinking of the TOPIC sort for member papers. This isn't even a start. The board is trying to figure out how we even do it.
_{6} What do you mean by "The comparison table is basically complete." The only thing I can find on the forum is something called "Comparative Geology Special Project", and "Main Claims of Each Theory"; both are in "soft delete" - i.e. not visible to readers. You have just run a poll on it. You were correct in titling it a project. This is a good start, but much more to do. When it is done, that would be a good Wiki.
_{7} This paragraph captures more of the complexity of the tasks ahead. You said, "but the authors and supporters, not facilitators, should do most of the work." That's  true. But what you didn't say was, 'it is the facilitators roll to tell the members, specifically, what tasks they need to do and somehow get them to do that.'  This observation explains why the forum is not proceeding faster than it is. CNPS is, essentially, a VOLUNTEER operation. No one, including the board and executives, are paid for any effort. This is where something else you said comes in, "access to science in progress would be kind of exciting for many readers". That's the approach you need to count on to draw in support. You said the debates would do that. Why are you changing your viewpoint?
_{8} The idea of "focus groups" is good, but not new. We have them already, all over the place. The Board of Directors acts a one group. All the people at the conference were another. But you also already have that ability in your hands. Every facilitator should consider all the readers of their forum as a "targeted focus group". That's what leadership and facilitation are about. Every time you run a poll, that's what it's about. I've been asked to restart the CNPS newsletter. As soon as I get the final tools to do it, every newsletter will turn the whole membership into a focus group.

Re: Re-organizing
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:45 PM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Good review. Comments embedded.
__On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:43 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_L: Hi Bruce.
ORGANIZING. I spent the day yesterday reviewing our emails since early August. I posted the gist of them just for reference at . I'm trying to reorganize everything, especially your many requests, so I can understand it all more clearly & decide how to act on it.
_Q&A. Instead of organizing Q&A like you want, a simple solution for helping readers find what they want is to let volunteers help readers do searches on the forums or in Wikis. To accomplish the Q&A organizing you want seems like it would require many people doing extremely long hours of very boring work. There's no end to questions that readers will have, which means the organizing work would never end.
_B2: I must not be communicating my goals well enough on this. The Q&A organization I envision should be simple to manage. So, we need to find out how we are seeing it differently. Here is a summary of what I am proposing. It is being described as though the process has been set up and is running:
    One or more pages (but not too many) are set up in the structured section as a Q&A SUMMARY. The entries are ordered by question. The questions are grouped by similarity.  Answers provided by posts to the discussion, for any question, are summarized and edited into the page right under their appropriate question.
    The facilitator needs to read and understand (if possible) ALL the posts made to the related forum topic.
    Each post can classified into one of the following 3 categories:
        It addresses an existing question.
        It poses a new question.
        It is something administrative, irrelevant, nonsense or off topic.
    If it addresses an existing question, AND it provides useful information, a very brief description of the point it makes should be added to the answer section under the question it addresses. Each addition includes a title, time and date code so the source post can be found.
    If it poses a new question, the facilitator needs to decide whether the question is appropriate for the discussion. If so, add a brief summary of the new question into the Q&A. If not, there are a number of responses that can be taken:
        Ignore it.
        Delete it.
        Tell the poster to post it somewhere else.
        Ask the poster to clarify it.
So, I don't see where the long hours of work come in.  As for getting volunteers to do searches, I don't think we would find any. That would clearly be boring work.
_B: There are other topics which have much larger member interest than ET. So, I think the best approach we can take is for me to set those up with the ideas I've been presenting to you. Viewing the results of different styles will give us evidence for how well they work. Try to keep a journal of what you try, and design the processes to produce some measurable metrics.
_L: I've started importing discussion of Franklin's Poselectron Sea theory etc to 5.3.5 Gravity section.
_B2: Why are you changing your focus from ET? If you want more people to post to ET, we have to do some marketing. But, if you feel the workload in ET is already to heavy, why are others needed?  If you have a good workload going in ET, you should already by formulating publishable papers and Wikis. What am I missing?
_B: The wikis are open to the public. So is the forum - for reading. So, that's already built in.
_L: I just checked and the forums are not accessible to the public. PS, I believe my Wiki idea was not half-baked.
_B2: Why do you say the forums are not accessible to the public? Yes, people have to register as guests, but anyone can do that and read the forum, without having to join CNPS.
_B: "Access to science in progress would be kind of exciting for many readers".
_That's the approach you need to count on to draw in support. You said the debates would do that. Why are you changing your viewpoint?
_L: The people I've contacted don't seem to want to join the CNPS forums, maybe partly because they can't see what it's like before registering. Also, when I talked about debates before, I usually meant discussions, which are much easier to carry out and get good info from and are probably more efficient.
_B2: It's important to be clear on each point you are making. Anyone can "see what the forum is like" before becoming a CNPS member. They can't read the forum unless they register as a guest. But it does not require them to submit any sensitive information; there is no charge; and registering does not commit them to anything. They don't get advertising or anything. If they want to participate in discussion, they do have to join - except for special cases. If there is a person with well established contributions to the topic, and their posts to discussions elsewhere prove they don't act like trolls, we can give them temporary access.
_L: ANNOTATION. What you call an annotated bibliography seems to be what I normally call an index. Have you checked it out to see how long it would take to do that? The most efficient method seems to be to make material searchable on the forums and in the Wikis.
_B2: The material on the forums and Wikis is searchable. The problem with that is, every time a person searches for some term that has already been searched before, it is a duplication of effort. The current goal is to get authors to annotate their own publications. The reward they get for that is inclusion on a list of annotated publications. It will quickly become clear that such publications get far more attention.
_B: The "work in process" is what the forum is for. That is what the facilitator is supposed to coordinate.
_L: I've been focused on the Q&A and Comparison Table and promoting Discussions etc. So I haven't gotten to the Coordinating yet. Maybe I will after getting this all organized today or so.
_B2: You have enough in the comparison table for now.  It can be expanded later. Once we find out why the Q&A is taking so much effort, and change that, you should have the time for coordination.
- Good Day. Lloyd

Re: CNPS Progress - Forum
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:12 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_While you replied to David with an offer to help with the website ( and thanks for that), your email was mostly about the forum geology effort. Let me answer those questions.
_CNPS still needs to formulate a concept for how to work with NCGT. From my viewpoint, CNPS has 2 goals: new members; getting key insights for ongoing forum discussions. In return, we would be providing NCGT with potential: new readers; new articles. The key is how to promote this.
_NCGT does not have members. It only has readers and editors. The CNPS Forum can not be opened to the public because it would be trashed by mainstream Trolls. So, the CNPS Forum has to remain open for "public" read-only, and interaction by CNPS members. The "trade" of value that I was thinking about could be: giving a handful of NCGT editors and special scientists temporary "visiting scholar" privileges on the forum. They are essentially equal to member permissions but under a separate group name (visiting scholars for example) so we can easily keep track of them. These scholars would be directed to support an ongoing forum discussion. Right now, Expansion Tectonics is the only major geology discussion. They could bring new ideas into that discussion, but only as critiques or support of ET. A item of value for them, related to other geology theories, would be an endorsement of their cooperation in the Newsletter. That might get them some readers. But adding new topics to the forum would totally be based on CNPS member requests.
_And to make my overall goal for the forum clear, it is to DO REAL SCIENCE. It's not just idle chatter like the email string, that get's lost in the internet landfill. The goal I'm trying to reach is: 1. make new discoveries; 2. publish them in multiple papers with CNPS member names as authors, and CNPS credit as the sponsor, coordinator; 3. publish related Wikis; 4. create related videos (etc. supporting Davids new push).
_So the only collaboration I can think of outside the ideas listed above would be some kind of discount deals. For example, CNPS members get 10% off NCGT publications, and NCGT readers get 10% off CNPS membership - something like that. But this is a totally emotional sell because of the low cost of both periodicals and CNPS membership. What ideas do you have for "close collaboration"? As I said, we can give NCGT and its new theories exposure in the Newsletter and the 1. Small forums sandbox. But any major push in the forum depends on CNPS member interest.

CNPS Structured Discussion / Plan & Potential Schedule
« on: August 13, 2017, 03:38:51 pm »
 4.9 Debates! Use a new Structured Communication approach
 4.10 Science Court! like a Congressional hearing to gather information and organize information
 4.11 Implement the Critical Wikipedia: make a Critical Wikipedia page a goal for Structured Discussions in the Forum.
 4.12 <Get reviewers &> Start Peer Review <& use it for okaying CNPS Wiki topics>
 Potential Schedule
 "I+" means "I (Lloyd) and possibly others".
 .Aug10-20 (4.9, I+) Start organizing debates on Geology & ask people to join in debating or in observing
 .Aug10-31 (I+) List the main claims for some of the theories
 .Aug15-17 (Bruce + I) Try some practice debates in etherpad and chatroom
 .Aug20-31 (I + debaters) Try etherpads and chatrooms and copy chat highlights to Forum
 .Sep1-15 (4.10+4.12, I + others) Evaluate debate claims = peer review
 .Sep15 (4.11, I+) Create a Wiki page from info from debates>

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13