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 4 ... 12
CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: CNPS General Discussion
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:21:11 pm »
Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:37 PM
_Lloyd, I really appreciate your support with this.
_I can't find any way to regulate the "sticky" function other than turn it on or off. But starting a new focus topic like P.U.T is where I should set you up with a structured format. It would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and coordination  (Your input only - no need to stick this) Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs and documentation  (Your input only - no need to stick this) Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure.
_I don't have control of the date labeling. When I open the page, it shows the creation date. BUT, it also has a note saying, "last modified xx/yy/zz".  If you don't think this is strong enough, you could add a note in bold at the top of the page:  "LAST UPDATE: xx/yy/zz" .  You could also include separate updates. Decide if this is needed - just another admin headache. Where it would make sense is on the coordination page. List the date each "coordination" guideline is posted and dated entries under a new subheading: COMPLETED.
_I wish my experience with participants was as positive as yours. On the email string it was hard to find even 5 good peer reviewers out of 50. Not only are many outright trolls, but most are also incapable of logical clarity. This is why I am so interested in your reviewing rules. Were you ever on the email string? If not, I can put you on for a few days and then get you off. All that is needed is to have a few troublesome "trigger" words show up and they will polarize into clans. The word "relativity" would cause a fire storm; so would "God", which shows up all the time. Sure we could edit those out, but that would impose both a heavy editing "hand" and a lot of effort. I also think your P, M, I rating would result in a wave of complaints from all those who don't agree. That's why, I was hoping your review approach would FORCE the group to "resolve" all the issues to categories like: most probable explanation (7 reviews); clarifications;  all dissenting views - a. xxxxxx; b. xxxxxx  etc.  At this point, I agree that a high count of multiple "probable" reviews would give a theory a high place in a WIKI. But I'd like to see some summary reference to the dissents.
_When I said, "ALL" the papers, I was anticipating that for some topic, like Photonic Universe, there would be many theories submitted. Each would be reviewed. But there would be a lot of similarities, with variations, among them. For example, in your "Working Paper", you included a "definition" of "PHOTON: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius… which is detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation …."  I would contribute a short paper under this topic for Space Lattice Theory that would challenge this definition. In SLT, for example, the photon has a very different "definition". It is not a physical entity, but a dislocation (localized void) in a structured lattice. HOWEVER, in SLT, dislocations produce all the properties of mass. So, in your forum on P.U.T., your definition for photon would get a "probable" rating, and my SLT concept would show up as a dissenting view. In a forum for SLT, my photon definition would be "probable" and your definition a dissenting view. THAT SAID, in yet another place in the forum, i.e. the DEFINITIONS section, the "classical" photon definition might be "most probable" and both of our definitions dissents.
_I do agree with your idea of prioritizing based on some scale of "value". Until we see the response to this, I wouldn't jump to a simple "humanity and the ecosystem" criterion. Where I think this is heading is something more like multiple scales. For example, "Current discussions related to human sustainability are: Synchronizing Clocks; Twin Paradox; 3.4 Science at the supernatural boundary etc..   Current discussions on ecosystems: 6. Earth Sciences; 6.1 Catastrophism …etc. "  This is easy to do because the lists would be short.


5/23 9 PM
_Re "sticky" function, no problem.
_Re date labeling, I could take care of that manually, if I were allowed to edit the thread titles in the forums where I moderate or facilitate.
_You said: "starting a new focus topic like P.U.T is where I should set you up with a structured format. It would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and coordination  (Your input only - no need to stick this) Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs and documentation  (Your input only - no need to stick this) Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure."
_That would be okay, if you let me edit the thread titles, as I said above. I'm okay with "Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers" for now, though I think there could be better titles. I'm less okay with "summary and coordination", and "external inputs and documentation". I'd rather call the former "working paper" and the latter "discussion summary and references", or something like that.
_No, I haven't been on the email string? David said today that he recieved my membership fee, so does that qualify me now? Sounds like fun having members who get triggered. I was in Dave Talbott's private group a few years ago and it was so frustrating having many of my messages refused, that I quit the group. So I'm glad you don't censor so much. I'm willing to join the string. Would I then be allowed to invite members to join forum discussions?
_Re Space Lattice Theory, do you have the list of essential elements of the theory? Do you have a forum for it yet? I can help with it, if you want to do that.
_Do you have time to rate the essential elements of P.U.T.? I could rate those of SLT as well as the theories I'm working on. That should give us ideas how to improve the process. By the way, I suspect that I'd give SLT a lot of M's. If I were to do such a review or rating, I might discover a key question or claim that might be most worth your focusing on, if you haven't already found it.


Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM
<Bruce: Re "thread titles", there is no separate control that I can set for that. You are allowed to edit your posts. So, the fact that it doesn't let you change the titles is a built in control. You could delete and repost, but that might not produce meaningful dates on the posts. I think I can change the titles. So, I could do that for you if it isn't done often.
_Since I haven't set up the forums, suggest a better title. But if what you want to change is "summary and coordination" or "External Inputs and documentation", we should discuss why. What are the functions of a "working paper"? Why aren't "summary" in my wording and "discussion summary" in yours the same? Why isn't "documentation" in mine and "references" in yours the same?
_Your membership fee is not related to the email string.  The membership fee just makes your participation in the Forum official. David just made you a Forum member before you paid your fee because he recognized you.  You get on the email string when someone includes you in the cc: list. You get off when someone removes you. You don't have any say in it, except to complain. I'll put you in. But, please, just loiter for a few days. It's a rat hole because everything will go into the landfill. Yes, you can ask members to look at specific Forum topics. They all know about the Forum. So, no need to tell them. Many participate in both places.
_For Lattice Theory, take a look at . This has multiple length versions of the theory. I haven't put it on the forum because I want to get at least one structured forum going. It would be a topic that is much more popular like a relativity / aether test match. I have one. Just haven't had time to launch it.
_What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I try?


5/24 7:33 PM
Hi Bruce. I read part of the email group discussion. Where was David saying I could invite members to the forum?
_I think you want to have 3 types of threads:
1. "summary and coordination"
2. "External Inputs and documentation" and
3. "discussion".
I think by "summary" you mean "discussion summary". And by "coordination" I think you mean "coordination on collectively writing a CNPS wiki paper". I figured that "working paper" makes that more obvious. And it doesn't seem to be helpful to have the discussion summary in with the working paper. It's also not obvious to me yet that a discussion summary is needed. If it IS needed for some reason, I could maybe just bold the main words in the discussions, as I started to do.
_I'm not clear on whether "external inputs" would be something other than "discussion". And "documentation" seems like presenting lots of paperwork, so I thought "references" would be clearer and less overwhelming.
_So the thread titles that seem best to me are:
"working paper"; "references"; "discussion"; and "theory rating".
The first two would be stickied; the last two would not. If "discussion summary" is needed for some reason, I'd prefer to put it with "references". I'll discuss "theory rating" below.
_You said: "What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I try?"
_Well, I started 3 threads for "theory rating" here:
_Each thread starts like this:
Rate this theory & give reasons for I-ratings (in parentheses).
RATING: [for reader to fill in]
_I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
_Spoiler alert: I rated the 3 theories as follows, respectively:
21P, 13M, 1I
9P, 4I
17P, 1M
I included the reasons for my I-ratings.
_The I-ratings could show:
a) what the reader didn't read or understand, or
b) what the theorist needs to explain better, or
c) what needs to be dropped or replaced from the theory.
Readers giving their reasons for I-ratings should be helpful to theorists.
The M-ratings could show deficiencies too, but the I's should probably have the theorist's highest priority for addressing.
_The process of rating essential elements goes pretty fast. It should make it fairly easy for readers/reviewers to rate theories. It just requires someone to take the time to determine the essential elements of a theory and display them. Even that isn't very time-consuming in many cases. I've read a lot of theories and I can remember some or many of the essential elements of many of them. It seems like reading the essential elements of a theory helps the reader to understand it quite a bit. Maybe the ratings would help theorists improve the list of essential elements and the definitions.
_My impression is that a streamlined wiki could be developed pretty quick, if it mainly just showed the essential elements of any theory or claim, and if it had a way like this for readers to rate each essential element (and a way to rate the raters). I'm imagining a dynamic wiki that would be constantly improving, due to reader and theorist interactions.
_Will you let me know where you post your rating of PUT?

Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 23, 2017, 11:23:00 am »
5/23 11:20 AM
Hi Robert.
_How often do you have time for discussion? Once or more a week?
_On the CNPS forum at I just started a working paper on Impact-Flood Catastrophism. Here's what I have so far.
Planetoid: any rocky body in outer space: i.e. meteor, comet, asteroid, moon, rocky planet
Recent Planetoidal Near-Collision/s: planetoid/s coming close enough to Earth to raise high tides
Megatides/Megatsunamis: tides/tsunamis high enough to deposit sedimentary rock strata
Impacts: fall of planetoids on Earth's surface
Megasequence: conforming strata between unconforming strata
Megasequences Deposition: deposition of conforming strata
Supercontinent: large continent composed of smaller continents
Supercontinent Breakup: breakup of a supercontinent into smaller continents due to impact/s
Impact Orogeny: mountain uplift caused by continent breakup
Impact Volcanism: volcanic eruptions caused by
Radiometric Dating: using radioactive decay in rock to estimate the time it formed
Radiometric Dating Errors: errors in estimating ages of rock due to changing decay rates
Gradualism: the theory that large-scale geological features change very gradually, not rapidly
Gradualism Errors: overlooking the fact that large-scale cataclysms can cause rapid geological changes
Fossilization: formation of fossils during strata deposition
Atmosphere Shrinkage: shrinkage of the atmosphere due to rapid losses to space
Gigantism: tendency of plants and animals to grow to giant size
End of Gigantism: loss of conditions favoring gigantism
Ice Age: time of widespread glaciation
Ancient Myths: ancient anthropomorphic reports about celestial conditions before, during and after cataclysms
Advanced Ancient Civilization: high tech civilization in ancient times, destroyed by cataclysms
_I expect that you disagree about some of those. So I'd like to discuss our disagreements on the TB forum? Are you willing to do that? I think that would help a lot to clear up differences.

Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:31:24 am »
5/16 8:08 PM
_Hi Mike. I found a catastrophist who's willing to collaborate, named Robert, though he's not yet impressed with Shock Dynamics. You're much more knowledgeable on geology than I am. Can you provide a good counter-argument to his statements on orogenesis that follow? He says they formed by vertical uplift, rather than by horizontal folding, but it seems to me that the uplift was surely due to the horizontal compression. Right? If so, what's the best proof/s? Thanks for any help.
_He said as follows:
_With orogenesis the book to read on the subject is The Origin of Mountains by Ollier and Pain
_Mountains are not what people generally think- the authors make it clear that mountains have formed regardless of the underlying strata and/or bedrock. It is whole regions that have experienced rapid uplift then depending on how much erosion has occurred determines what we call the uplifted area- little erosion we call a plateau- substantial erosion we would call a mountain range. As the authors say ‘there are no fold mountains’.
_So, from the above image the strata would have been deposited and folded on a pre-existing flat surface. Later the surface was uplifted and eroded leaving behind mountains. Ollier and Pain are certainly not catastrophists but they do realise that during a unique period in Earth history rapid uplift occurred (vertical not lateral movements) - then stopped, nothing like it happened before or has happened since.


Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:44 PM
_Re Orogeny
_Hi Lloyd,
_In the days before Plate Tectonics took over geology, the idea of stasis was pervasive.  There was just uplift and subsidence.  I am surprised that anyone still holds to that notion as a catastrophist; quite odd.  One of the few significant mountain ranges raised by simple uplift is the Transantarctic Mountains.  But as veteran orogeny specialist Peter Molnar wrote,
_"Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world are a consequence of crustal shortening."
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.
_Ollier and Pain are rightly heralded by catastrophists for writing "Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time.  Some earth process switched on and created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift.  This is a deviation from uniformitarianism." (The Origin of Mountains. Cliff Ollier, Colin Pain. 2000. Routledge, London. p. 303.)
_Nevertheless, as old-school Australian geomorphologists they are sympathetic to the vertical tectonics they grew up with.
_Regarding the building of the Himalayas,  "Convergence between the Indian and Eurasian plates is estimated to be at least 1000-1400 km or as much as 2000-3000 km." (Li, Chang, Robert D. van der Hilst, Anne S. Meltzer, E. Robert Engdahl. 2008. Subduction of the Indian lithosphere beneath the Tibetan Plateau and Burma. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 274, pp. 157-168.)
_In other words, the collision of India with Asia shortened the two landmasses by a total of 1000 to 3000 km, folding mountains and raising the Tibetan Plateau.
_An observation from a specialist in Appalachian mountain geology is old but unambiguous: "the evidence of intense shortening perpendicular to the length of the chain, not only in the folded marginal belts but also in the central core belt, is too clear for me to doubt that there was not only confining but directed pressure, the greatest compressive stress being consistently directed roughly horizontally across the orogenic belt." (Rodgers, John. 1970. The Tectonics of the Appalachians. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. p. 224.)
_I could go on and on.  Someone who dismisses compressional orogeny and clings to vertical tectonics will no doubt be unimpressed by Shock Dynamics geology, but I suspect they are not operating with an open mind.

CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: CNPS General Discussion
« on: May 21, 2017, 01:56:44 pm »
Hi Bruce. You said:  I'm sure others have analyzed the MM theory.  If we could find reports already written about this, it would save a huge amount of our time.

I doubt if there are any unbiased reports. Plenty of people, including scientists, are interested in MM's ideas, but they don't take the time to make a very meaningful report.

I looked briefly at the CNPS Wiki and it looks like it will be merely a collection of alternative science papers. I don't think that will be very helpful. I think what would be helpful is establishing a system for evaluating (while minimizing bias) theories and claims and publicizing the best ones (and only links to others so readers could see why they don't make the grade, which could lead to improving those theories too).

Making the list of essential elements of each theory or claim, as you suggested, would be important. But then there needs to be a process for evaluating each element too. I guess I could try working on such a process on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum. Readers could be tested on logic and on knowledge of a theory's subject matter before they could qualify to evaluate the essential elements of a theory. Then CNPS could publicize the best theories. Mainstream theories would need to be evaluated too, so the public can see why alternatives are sometimes better.


Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:45 PM
_I agree with the essence of all of your points. So, here's how I would follow them:
_If you can find ANY MM reports, I think this would be a benefit. I agree, they will be biased. But I'm looking more for a "checklist" of critiques rather than final resolutions. We would also be starting a bibliography on the topic.
_I have the same observation about the Wikis. At the present time, we don't even have poor histories of prior criticism. Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any topic, then we can address your additional concerns.
_Your point about establishing a "system for evaluating (while minimizing bias) theories and claims" is my next TOP priority. I actually tried to find such a system by doing a fair search on the topic of "peer review". Wouldn't you expect someone has addressed this before???  What I found was terrible. I've attached my summary of what I found. It is still a feeble approach. You touched on this again in your last paragraph.
_Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I think is good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as helpful is publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be flaws which are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.
_Your last paragraph brings up "reader testing". This is a sensitive issue if we try to grade ALL readers. What I think is a good solution is to reward great Peer Reviewers. That stays on the positive side. The other thing that will become an indirect measure is just the "rejection", by peer reviewers, of things people say, without calling those members out by name. This depends on how well we can develop a peer review system and methodology.
_So, all of these items should be HIGH PRIORITY for us. We can both test them out in our structured forums (... and I admit, I'm still way behind getting mine going.)

CNPS Peer Review Guidelines [from web search]
_Scientific progress depends on communication of information that can be trusted. Reviews should be objective evaluations of the claims presented.
_The core values of peer review are
1. availability – does the reviewer have the time to do the review by the deadline?
2. expert assessment – does the reviewer have the background to do the review?
3. transparency – the process is open for review by others
4. impartiality – the review is not biased by social background of the submitter
5. fairness – the review is not biased by social acceptance of the science presented
6. integrity – the review is not biased by financial, social, religious or philosophical background of the reviewer. The reviewer presents all significant findings, both positive and negative
_The reviewer will not make ANY personal comments. For example, it is not appropriate to write: “The author clearly has not read any Foucault.” Instead, say: “The analysis of Foucault is not as developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal article.” Also, be careful not to write: “The author is a poor writer.” Instead, you can say: “This article would benefit from a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the author’s argument due to the many stylistic and grammatical errors.”
_Technical Rigor is expected. Data and arguments are to be addressed or clarified substantially.
_Reviews must be constructive and be presented in a courteous tone.
_the reviewer will respect the intellectual independence of the author. When writing a review, be mindful that you are critiquing the article in question – not the author.
_During the review, the reviewer will be expected to do the following:
1. Mark up the copy. Things that should be marked are:
all important points. Use reference numbers that index the points for longer discussions made in a separate notes area; errors in graphs and tables, spelling and grammar,
1. Before starting to read, make sure you have:
 a. tools to mark the copy. b. a method to make notes as you read.
The notes should have the following sections: questions; things that seem to be mistakes;
2. Read the article.
3. Make a simple outline of the article. Write a brief 3 or 4 sentence summary of the article. List its major contributions.
4. Write a draft of the review. If the review is favorable, write a longer summary highlighting the strengths. The structure of the review should be as follows:
a. Write out any major criticisms. Begin with the larger issues and end with minutiae.
b. Some major areas of criticism to consider:
Is the article well-organized?
Does the article contain all of the components you would expect (Introduction, Methods, Theory, Analysis, etc)?
Are the sections well-developed?
Does the author do a good job of synthesizing the literature?
Does the author answer the questions he/she sets out to answer?
Is the methodology clearly explained?
Does the theory connect to the data?
Is the article well-written and easy to understand?
Are you convinced by the author’s results? Why or why not?
5. Write out any minor criticisms of the article.
6. Address editorial issues; for example: mislabeled tables and graphics, misspellings and grammar.
7. Review the review.


5/23/17 8:50AM
_I got started on the Photonic Universe forum, including a list of essential elements of the model. Now I'm trying to start on the Electrodynamic Universe forum and the Catastrophism forum, since I have a sense of how to proceed.
_I wanted to sticky a couple threads that I had started before, but the stick option was no longer available once they were posted without sticking them, but the stick option was available by posting a second message in the same thread. So I was able to stick them, but I had to delete the second post, because you want just one post each in those threads that I post in exclusively. So it would be nice if the stick option would remain after first posting without sticking, instead of with being available only with the second post.
_Another issue is the date on the threads that I post in exclusively. They show the date of the first posting. Instead, they should show the date of the updated posting. Otherwise, readers will think the thread hasn't been posted to since the first posting. An example of this is on my thread: "Electrodynamic Universe - working paper".
_Also, when a reader opens the thread, the date of the first posting or edit should appear inside, and the last update at the top, maybe right above or before the first posting date. It might be good if each update date (not just the last one) were also listed inside, but not important.
_I'd like to experiment with "peer reviewers". I think any reader should be able to qualify as one by doing a short self-test on the forum.
_You said: "... we don't even have poor histories of prior criticism. Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any topic, then we can address your additional concerns."
--- Critiques sometimes contain good data, including on logic, but I don't think they're very important, because they take up time to review, interpret and discuss. I like to simplify a lot. Just one reader or peer reviewer is a good start for evaluating claims. I hope to try doing that before long myself, as a trial. Each essential element (claim or idea) of a model could be rated P for 70-100% probable, M for 30-70% probable (M for Maybe), or I for 0-30% probable (I for Improbable). I think all P ratings should eventually have explanations included, but wouldn't need to initially.
--- This simple method could be used for theories of any length. The sky is blue is a theory. A better theory would be that the sky is blue a certain percentage of the time etc. Long theories merely have more claims, each of which can be evaluated separately.
_You said: ""Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I think is good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as helpful is publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be flaws which are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.""
--- It's not clear what you mean by "ALL the papers". Will you explain? The readers' (peer reviewers') evaluations of essential elements of papers should be made public and we should make it easy to see which elements are rated P, M, and I, then the ones with the most P's should move to the Wiki, IMO.
_I think it's also important to prioritize theory topics. Those that seem most important for the good of humanity and the ecosystem should have highest priority. Readers or peer reviewers should be encouraged to evaluate those first. CNPS should also display them by such priority, IMO.

Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 16, 2017, 07:44:25 pm »
Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:57 PM
Hello Lloyd,
_Most of my career has been in electrical engineering, in various industries here in the UK, apart from six years or so as a train driver- I just tried my hand at doing something different- but I’m back in engineering now.
_For as long as I can remember I have had an interest in astronomy, earth science, prehistoric life etc. mostly self taught. As you might expect this route to knowledge was decidedly ‘mainstream’ shall we say? For example I subscribed to the US journal ‘The Skeptical Inquirer’ published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP) for over twenty years- a group that was highly critical of Velikovsky!
_For me doubts began to appear when I began questioning the claims of Big Bang theoreticians- when they developed concepts such as ‘baby universes’, ‘chaotic inflation’, ‘branes’ etc. the whole enterprise of modern theoretical science had become completely detached from reality. For about five years or so I was in a kind of conceptual wilderness, I began researching alternatives then by accident I came across the works of Alfven. This was it! Now the universe made sense again- it was electrical!
_From that revelation it was a series of intellectual ‘stepping stones’ that led me to Velikovsky, Juergens, Thornhill, Scott et al but initially I was sceptical until I was convinced that the mainstream were wrong.
_I joined the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in 2010, I’m now 50 years old so I guess I’m a late comer to catastrophism, but it was a natural progression for me, it is just so clear that Earth has suffered a major cataclysm- I only have a few print copies of Pensee, Kronos etc. most of the journals I read are contained on a copy of the ‘Catastrophism’ CD I have .
_Lloyd, I will take your final point first, my views on the nature of the KT boundary layer I’ve had for nearly twenty years, at one time I intended to submit a paper to a scientific publication but never got past the developmental stage- the whole idea came to me following a brief discussion I had with Thomas Gold that centred around his Deep Earth Gas hypothesis.
_With orogenesis the book to read on the subject is The Origin of Mountains by Ollier and Pain
_Mountains are not what people generally think- the authors make it clear that mountains have formed regardless of the underlying strata and/or bedrock. It is whole regions that have experienced rapid uplift then depending on how much erosion has occurred determines what we call the uplifted area- little erosion we call a plateau- substantial erosion we would call a mountain range. As the authors say ‘there are no fold mountains’.
_So, from the above image the strata would have been deposited and folded on a pre-existing flat surface. Later the surface was uplifted and eroded leaving behind mountains. Ollier and Pain are certainly not catastrophists but they do realise that during a unique period in Earth history rapid uplift occurred (vertical not lateral movements) - then stopped, nothing like it happened before or has happened since.
_When I look at such images I picture immense waves depositing freshly eroded sediment upon the surface of a pre-existing continent, tidal surges folding the layers in the process. Later certain areas were subject to electrical uplift if the discharge was particularly severe then vast amounts of material were electrically machined away leaving behind freshly cut mountains. The ‘age’ of the strata is not an indicator of the age of the mountain.
_I’m not a fan of really big impacts two suitably large bodies would not collide but following an exchange of charge they would be nudged into slightly different trajectories or one would capture the other- to my mind there never was a moon forming impact, that said the Shock Dynamics site does present the arguments against Plate Tectonics well and I’m all for that.
_When it comes to radiometric dating then creationist scientists have carried out extensive work in this field:
_I am aware of only a few papers that have been published in journals such as Ralph E. Juergens’ Radiohalos And Earth History from Kronos Vol. III No. 1 (Fall 1977) and a couple of others in SIS C&C Review are you aware of any others? Perhaps it is an area catastrophists need to focus on more?
_In my view radiometric dating is highly questionable to the point it may be meaningless, if the entire Phanerozoic rock record was laid down during a cataclysm then what went before has been almost completely demolished.
_I have attached a pdf file it is a paper by creationist scientist John Baumgardner you may find it of interest.


after 7:40PM
_Hi Robert. I'm pretty well aware of CSICOP and its biases, hypocrisy and pseudoskepticism.
_I collected most of my info on radiometric dating at
_The best evidence there is at where there's this quote from Walter Brown's online book.
"Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this decreases its half-life more than a billionfold — from 42 billion years to 33 years.17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used in measuring half-lives.18"
_In his paper on Light Curves at Charles calculated that the Sun and presumably the solar system are under 380 million years old and that radiometric dating ignores some facts. At I asked: Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?
Charles replied: Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat. Past that point, if they don't extract the heat from the core, it will go into runaway mode, resulting in a melt-down. So yes, the decay rate increases with temperature.
_You said: "I’m not a fan of really big impacts two suitably large bodies would not collide but following an exchange of charge they would be nudged into slightly different trajectories or one would capture the other- to my mind there never was a moon forming impact, that said the Shock Dynamics site does present the arguments against Plate Tectonics well and I’m all for that."
_Since you're an electrical engineer, would you be willing to have a friendly debate about the Electric Universe on the Thunderbolts forum? I tried to organize a debate there about 3 years ago, but couldn't get any more knowledgeable EU proponents, like Thornhill, Scott et al, to get involved. Charles was willing at that time, but no one else was, to speak of. Someone called Aristarchus debated him briefly, but didn't debate well.
_You're saying that large impacts aren't possible because like-charged bodies repel. That's one of the things I'd like to debate and several other issues too.
_What do you think is the best data in support of catastrophism and against uniformitarianism? I'd like to collect such data on the CNPS forum in preparation for a CNPS Wiki paper. And thanks for the article from Baumgardner. I have a lot of info from another paper by him on Noah's Flood.


Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:09 PM
_I am currently overseeing some building work taking place at my home so I haven't had as much time as I would like to discuss the matters at hand.
_I have been working my way through the links you sent me when I am able and I've done some digging around- are you familiar with the article by Ralph Juergens "Radiohalos and Earth History"? I've attached a copy for your attention- if you are familiar with the article then just delete the attachment.
_I have briefly looked at Walt Brown's thesis, unusually we have a creationist who acknowledges that electricity has played a part in a global cataclysm, that said I favour Juergens’ hypothesis the cause being an external discharge rather than an internal one as suggested by Brown.
_An excellent non-creationist paper on the subject of radiometric dating is by David Salkeld printed in SIS C&C Review 2003 “Scientific Dating Problems the Radiometric Dating of Earth’s Rocks”- have you read this paper? If not I have scanned a copy which I could send as an attachment- but it would be in the form of jpeg images, just let me know.

Mike Messages / Robert's TB Posts
« on: May 16, 2017, 10:50:40 am »
Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process?
Lightning strikes causing rocks to explode have for the first time been shown to play a huge role in shaping mountain landscapes in southern Africa
My own view is that Earth’s mountains formed recently (within the last 250,000 years?)during a planet shattering cataclysm. A disruption of Earth's rotation resulted in repeated ocean surges forming immense plateaus of sedimentary rock were the ocean waters met pre-existing land areas. These plateaus were then etched by huge electrical discharges leaving behind the typical Lichtenberg morphology we see in many mountain ranges today.

- I used the date of 250,000 years ago for the period of mountain building as an upper limit. My preferred age would be 20,000 +/- 10,000 years ago. I base this on the convergence of radiocarbon ages of ‘fossilised’ soft tissue from dinosaurs, megafauna etc. which were preserved in the same cataclysmic event that led to the formation of today’s mountain ranges. (I realise that problems exist regarding carbon dating but it’s the best I can do!)
- Whilst I have no problems with airborne material settling and forming layers (from a later electrical event), the fossil record primarily indicates a watery catastrophe. 95% of the fossil record consists of marine invertebrates, 4.75% plants [not including coal?], 0.24% insects and 0.01% fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, basically everything else!
- In my scenario as Earth’s rotation was disrupted not only did the ocean waters rush poleward but Coriolis forces led to immense ocean gyres causing ‘sloshing’ (to borrow a term). Where the flow was restricted by then existing landmasses, ranges such as the Alps and Himalaya formed. The Rockies and Andes formed due to the north-south orientation of the Americas acting as a simple barrier to the waters of the proto-Pacific.
- At this stage only immense plateaus of folded sediment (were we now find mountain ranges) existed and helped protect continental interiors from further devastating inundations. Electrical events now machined these plateaus forming the typical Lichtenberg morphology (this would have been the time when large amounts of airborne dust would have been present). The Tibetan Plateau is a good example of this, with the Himalaya to the south and Tian Shan to the north (perhaps the Taklimakan Desert is a depository for some machined material?)
- To my mind, Paul E. Anderson has done excellent work demonstrating the evidence for the electrical scarring of Earth’s surface: likewise, your work on external granite and basalt – again excellent. This is why I think the main erosive agent would have electrical discharge rather than water and why we find fossilised sea creatures in concretions (electrical fossilisation?) in mountainous areas.
- I also think that Earth’s carbonate strata and salt deposits are igneous in origin, that’s why we find carbonate in comets- it was machined from the Earth! Where from exactly, I don’t know but every time I look at the Pacific Ocean I wonder…

Re: Rock Strata Formation
- Is the K-T Boundary Layer a Coal Seam?

The information comes from ‘Creation of the Teton Landscape’ by Love, Reed and Pierce 2007. An earlier online edition with imperial as opposed to metric units can be found here:
... If we look at the strata concerned in the Alaska Basin: Flathead, Gros Ventre, Gallatin, Bighorn, Darby and Madison that gives us a deposit of some 2,455 feet, newer estimates may have been revised lower.
- According to the authors: ‘The regularity and parallel relations of the layers in well-exposed sections such as the one in Alaska Basin suggest that all these rocks were deposited in a single uninterrupted sequence. ...

- Did Limestone form catastrophically?
- ... Carbonatites are an unusual type of rock consisting of greater than 50% carbonate minerals and have a global distribution. The only active carbonatite volcano is Ol Doinyo Lengai in Tanzania; the lavas of Ol Doinyo Lengai are rich in the rare sodium and potassium carbonate minerals and are known as Natrocarbonatites. Other forms include Ferrocarbonatite, Calciocarbonatite and Magnesiocarbonatite.
- Carbonate rocks are not usually thought of as being igneous in origin but the idea is not a new one.
From an article in Nature (142: 704-705, 1938) ‘Limestones as Eruptive Rocks’, we read ‘…so early as 1892, some limestones occurring in the form of dykes and cutting the volcanic rocks of the Kaiserstuhl in Baden, were described by A. Knop, and three years later A. G. Hogbom described limestone dykes in a region of alkali-rich intrusive on the island of Alno in Sweden. Hogbom also recorded calcite as a primary mineral in some rocks at Alno, and there were other descriptions of primary calcite in alkali-eruptive rocks from Canada and India.’ ...
- Could it be that the guyots and seamounts of the western Pacific Ocean are all that remains of a former carbonatite/carbonate platform; a platform that was easily eroded by wave action during a cataclysm, the erosional products of which were transported far to the east to be deposited on a pre-existing landmass? Were Calciocarbonatites and Magnesiocarbonatites eroded re-worked and deposited as limestone and dolomite? If so, then perhaps limestone and dolomite should be re-classified as ‘catastrophites’! ...

An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Catastrophist Geology
- ... Does the Western Interior Seaway Have a Catastrophic Explanation?
- ... Creationist researcher Michael Oard in his book ‘Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries’ (see: introduces to the reader a hypothesis he calls BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) which is required under the creationist model to explain the strata and fossil distribution found in this band running the length of North America.
- From another article (see: Oard writes, ‘There is another interpretation that also fits the facts and that is the BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) hypothesis…The BEDS model is based on the fact that the level of the Floodwater would fluctuate up and down as it rose in the first half of the Flood.
- ...  John Baumgardner, ran computer models of a repeated near Earth encounter by a planet/moon sized body. Regarding the simulation he writes: ‘Although the water initially is at rest, accelerations from the giant tidal perturbation quickly lead to water velocities of 270 m/s (metres per second) and more, with high levels of turbulence, intense cavitation erosion, and sediment suspended and transported for thousands of kilometres, as surges of water rush into the continent interior.
- ... The Phanerozoic rock record covering or partly covering North America is comprised of six megasequences (megasequences are discrete groups of sedimentary rock layers bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, often with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom, followed by shale, and then limestone at the top),
- ... Experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault
- ... a. Superposed strata do not always result, according to Steno’s beliefs, from successive layers of sediment; consequently the principle of superposition does not always apply to strata formed in a current;
b. Stratification formed parallel to a slope exceeding an angle of 30°, can invalidate the principle of original horizontally. Inclined strata are not necessarily, therefore, the result of subsidence or uplift.’ ...

- Did Limestone form catastrophically? ...

- ... Whilst not all geological features require or necessitate an electrical aspect, in my view an electric discharge was the ‘prime mover’ during a catastrophic period of earth history. During this period both the characteristics of the Earth and its environment changed, a change the Earth is, even today, adjusting to- hence my thread ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’.
- I agree with your comment regarding salt, salt is certainly an igneous rock and I hope to post another contribution soon looking at a role played by salt- quite obviously I view the consensus geological explanation- vast dried up seas- with a large slice of scepticism! Salt may also play an important electrical role today something I touched on in ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’ given the amount of brines discovered by superdeep drilling projects- did conductive salt magmas play an electrical role in a past cataclysm? ...

Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 15, 2017, 11:30:04 pm »
Hello Lloyd,

I had a quick look at the Natural Philosophy website, it looks familiar and I recognised some of the authors, I may have visited it in the past, if I did then it may have had a revamp since then?

Ok, let’s get down to business, what do we agree on? I’ll put down a few brief points as a taste of where my research has led me.

The Universe: the universe is infinite and eternal; I favour the plasma model proposed by Alfven, Peratt, Lerner et al.

Redshift: not too sure if I agree with the Thunderbolts project people on this one as they tend to promote Halton Arp’s hypothesis, I read Halton Arp’s work some time ago, he did raise some valid points but in a plasma universe redshift could very well be explained by the Wolf Effect.

A simple description of the universe may be: as the size of the universe approaches infinity the energy/ matter density approaches zero- as the size of the universe approaches zero the energy/ matter density approaches infinity.

Stars: stars are powered externally- connected to their environments as suggested by Birkeland and later proposed by Juergens and Milton and more recently Scott and Thornhill.

Saturn Hypothesis: The Thunderbolts project people put a lot of energy into this one- I’m undecided. I have my own alternative- the Sun was formerly a Red-Giant star.

Age of the Earth: how can you attribute an age to the Earth by dating a meteorite? The Earth may very well be much older than currently assumed.

Plate and Expansion tectonics: neither is correct- I agree with the stance taken by former Soviet geologists, I think I’ve made that obvious in my Thunderbolts thread. The Earth is old but many of its surface features are recent.

Origin of Life: again not too sure on this one as there have been a few interesting ‘Electricity of Life’ videos posted that have caused a rethink in my position. An easy way out would be that in an infinite and eternal universe life has always existed!

Evolution vs. Speciation: I’m with the Creationists on this one (I’m not a creationist). While we have evidence of evolution i.e. selection- we have no examples of speciation. The exact speciation process may no longer function correctly today, controversial scientist Peter Duesberg has suggested that cancer is a form of speciation. If so perhaps the process has gone terribly wrong in Earth’s new environment (see below).

A global cataclysm occurred: In my view for much of its history Earth was a very different place a large low-relief hemispheric ‘continent’ existed the other hemisphere was covered by water. This arrangement led to very little erosion the hemispheric dichotomy existed for billions of years. It was under this hemispheric arrangement that life arose (?) and speciated perhaps the actual speciation process was not for the squeamish, we could think of the pre-cataclysm Earth as a planet of mutants. When the cataclysm occurred ecosystems were largely destroyed, remnants of the destroyed ecosystems were fossilised. Survivors probably inhabited the deep interior of the ‘continental’ hemisphere.

Sedimentary strata: the Phanerozoic rock record was laid down during a global cataclysm(s).

The Moon: the Moon was captured during the latter stages of the cataclysm.

Consciousness: arises in the brain and is a process not a thing, I favour the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection proposed by Gerald M. Edelman.

Time: time is thermodynamic irreversibility.

If you can think of any other categories that you may wish to discuss or collaborate on (if any!?) then let me know. I’ll take a look at the CNPS forum as soon as I am able- it looks like you have to register first.


I didn't realize you've been posting on the TB forum since 2013. Had I known that, I would have invited you to various discussions I've been involved in since 2012 especially. I read some of your early posts and the recent ones. You seem to be well informed and you write professionally.

What's your background? I've studied catastrophism since 1969. I'm 68 now. What about you? I noticed you mentioned Kronos, so I guess you've read some or much of those issues. I still have all of them, I believe. I also have all but one issue of Pensee'. And I have a few issues of Aeon. And I've read the Thoth e-newsletter. I read a few issues of Catastrophism and Ancient History. I also read 4 of Velikovsky's books as well as Talbott's The Saturn Myth and Cardona's God Star. And I like Ev Cochrane's site at I think. Gary Gilligan and John Ackerman also have some interesting ideas.

I think Talbott and Cardona make a good case for the Saturn Theory, but it's hard to verify. I started gathering Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms last year and I guess you read my Letter to the Editor of NCGT Journal where I explained that nearly the entire geologic column must have been deposited in a short time span. The next step I want to take with that is proving the inaccuracy of radiometric dating and the last step would be explaining orogenesis. I'd like to see what you think of . I've discussed that quite a bit on the TB forum and I think it likely explains orogenesis much better than anything else, including what you mentioned with Michael "Starbiter".

Thanks for mentioning a lot of your views. If you want to know which of them I disagree with, let me know. But I'm more interested in pursuing the Catastrophism story. I think you have helpful insights. I read a little of what you said about the KT boundary.

Mike Messages / Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 13, 2017, 03:00:45 pm »
Re Robert's TB thread: Catastrophist Geology

Hi Robert.

Thanks for interest in collaboration.

Except for the last few pages of my thread on Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, I copied and reorganized nearly all of the posts on a private forum of my own at . They're mixed in with other material from other sources. And they're mostly in the sections called LK1 to LK4. I started writing a paper in section LK1 at . So that and the other LK sections and the Sources & Outline section cover most of the discussions and evidence. Also the Mike Messages and XX First Draft sections cover additional or reorganized material.

The CNPS section is the most recent and involves discussing Catastrophism on the CNPS forum in an effort to use the discussion with scientists, pros and laymen, to write a paper for the CNPS Wiki for Alternative Science.

This recent post at my Thunderbolts thread above has my Letter to the Editor of NCGT Journal at . The letter discusses reasoning that most of the sedimentary strata must have been deposited over a short time span by megatsunamis not many millennia ago.

I favor Charles Chandler's EU model instead of the Thunderbolts team's model. His model is much more thorough and well-reasoned. It's at . He found that stars etc likely form from electrical recombination after ionization-caused charge separation, via implosions that produce mainly current-free electric double layers within stars, planets etc. So stars etc are storage batteries that slowly lose charge, instead of being loads on a circuit as in Thornhill's model, which lacks electric generators for the circuits.

Impacts are bolide collisions, not just electric discharges. But the bolides are highly charged and can cause E.D.'s etc. Tidal forces are also electrical. Both impacts and tidal forces caused megatsunamis, which produced the sedimentary rock strata. The Phanerozoic may have some fossils, e.g. pollen, I think. It may lack most fossils because the sediments may have formed before there was much life on Earth.

If you have counter-evidence for any of this, I'm always open to it and want to know about it.

Are you ready to discuss collaboration?


CNPS Structured Discussion / Message to Dave Talbott re Wiki
« on: May 11, 2017, 05:14:55 pm »
5/11, 5PM
>Dave (Talbott). Glad to see your replies to Grey Cloud and Norman in Norman's NIAMI thread. Norman tried to argue with me in my thread, Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, when I discussed myths, that the ancients were referring to the Milky Way. I asked him to start a different thread to discuss that, because I considered it off-topic. He got upset once when I posted an announcement on his thread, so I've stayed away since then, though I read what you wrote there lately.

I'm working with Bruce Nappi at CNPS. He wants to set up the CNPS forum for structured discussions for the purpose of collaborating on science papers for an upcoming CNPS Wiki for Alternative Science. I figure it may lead to a more efficient process.

I started a thread called, Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki, on this forum at to invite members to contribute data on any of several topics, including ancient myths. I've seen myths about the Great Flood organized in a table that easily showed the similarities and differences among many Flood myths worldwide. It seems that all ancient myths could be organized in similar tables and would then make the archetypes and real meanings more obvious. Do you think that's possibly true? If so, I suppose a team might need to prioritize a list of archetypes or something to put into such tables. What do you think about that? Or about the invitation to members to collaborate for the CNPS Wiki? I have gotten a Catastrophism board and E.U. boards etc at the CNPS forum.


[>TB] Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki

Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
CNPS is starting to create an Alternative Science Wiki, like Wikipedia, and is calling for anyone to help, especially scientists, lay scientists, writers, editors, promoters & supporters. CNPS is the Chappel Natural Philosophy Society, which was previously the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Their website is

Bruce Nappi is helping organize discussions on the CNPS forum on any science topic of interest. The purpose of forum discussion is to collaborate to produce professional science papers that will be posted on the CNPS Wiki. Several topics are posted on the forum, but more can be added on request.


What data do you feel science overlooks or misrepresents? And what theory or model does that data support?

Initial preferred topics for discussion are:
Catastrophism: Ancient Global Cataclysm
Mythology: Ancient Myths
Earth Sciences: Global Tectonics
Astronomy: Solar Science

But other science topics may also be discussed.

If you want to post data here, I'll copy it to the CNPS forum. I'll see [if] it's also convenient enough to post links here.

CNPS Structured Discussion / CNPS Members
« on: May 08, 2017, 08:06:28 pm »
Current Members of the CNPS

Name: Profession: Country: List: Interests:

Quantum theory,
Natural philosophy

Tufail Abbas; Muscat Muscat
Discoverd Mathematics,
Area of Time,
Geometry of Space,
Frequency of Universe,
One Force of Universe,
Absence of Anti-matter

Musa D. Abdullahi; Abuja FCT; Electrical engineer

Neal Adams; New York NY; Author, Artist, Designer, Comic Book Artist
*Growing Earth,
Growing Universe,
Limited compressive Subduction,
Prime Matter Particles

George Adriaenssens; Atlanta GA; Electrical Engineer
quantum physics,
particle physics,

Dennis P. Allen; Spring Lake MI; Mathematician
Toroidal Ring

Ramin Amirmardfar; Tabriz East Azerbayjan

Sergey N. Arteha; physicist
foundations of physics,
number theory

Russell Ashbaugh; Elkhart IN

Lyndon E. Ashmore; Physics teacher
Big Bang,
Hubble's Constant

Satya Pal Asija; Shelton CT; Engineer, Patent Attorney

George John Assad; BETHLEHEM PENNSYLVANIA; Global Business Access {} & The HEALTHCARE Foundation [www.TH

Andre K. T. Assis; Campinas SP; Professor of Physics
Mach's Principle,
Tired Light,
Weber's Electrodynamics,
Ampere's Force between Current Elements

Steven Alan Athearn; Rockland ME; Auxotectonics Forum (
*expanding Earth hypothesis,
reciprocal system,

Russell Bagdoo; Saint-Bruno Quebec

Patrick G. Bailey; Los Altos CA; Research Scientist, President of the Institute for New Energy, Past Editor of the New Energy News, Advanced Energy Conversion Techniques and Devices

Rick Baldrick; Columbus ohio
*mass expansion,
*geometric time and creation

Andrew Bartlett; Cardiff Wales; Cardiff University Sociologist
Sociology of Science

Jeff Baugher; Dayton OH; PHD Student
Differential Geometry,
Field Theory,

Stephane Baune; Montreal QC
Superluminal transmission,
Special Relativity

Bill Beaty; Seattle WA; Electrical Engineer, Independent Researcher
T-storm physics,
Classical Analogs of QM,
New Energy,

Alan Beiras

Mark Liston Bender; San Antonio TX; Director, Writer
**Electric Universe,
Human Energy,
Total Solar Eclipse

Robert J. Bennett; New York NY; Author

Robert M Berger; Parkland FL; Computer Scientist
Science in general

Donald Berk; WA

D. DeWayne Birkhofer; Albert Lea MN; Medical Doctor

Forrest Bishop; Seattle WA
Ivor Catt,
Bishop Cubes,
space propulsion,
**Electric Universe,
*Expanding Earth

Bob Boberson; Aurora CO

Hector L Bonilla; Mitchell SD; Recycling Engineer 5756527629

Glenn Borchardt; Berkeley CA; Author, Philosopher, Scientist
Infinite Universe Theory,
Scientific Philosophy,
Univironmental determinism,
Scientific Worldview,
Universal Cycle Theory

Phil Bouchard; Gatineau Quebec; Software Engineer
Unified Field Theory,
Faster-Than-Light Speed

Nikolai Bouianov; King Ontario

Joseph A. Bova; Mentor OH; Electrical Engineer
Unified Field Theory,

Don Briddell; Mt. Airy MD; Structure Theorist, Design Scientist, Sculptor, Artist
Field Structure Theory,
Structural Skew Topology,
Nuclear Structure,

Henry Neil Broadbent; Somers Victoria; Electrical Engineer
world catastrophies,
Electric Universe,
*Expanding Earth

Gerald M. Brown; Cedarville OH; Professor of Electrical Engineering
Elementary particle models,
universal force law

Steven Bryant; El Cerrito CA; Researcher & Author
Unified theory,
quantum mechanics,
Modern Mechanics

Egbert Klaas Buning; Zuidwolde Drenthe

J. Burton; Natural philosopher

Joseph R. Burwell; Austin TX; Patent Attorney; Electrical Engineer

Thomas Burwell; Greensboro NC
philosophy of science,
history of science,
computational mathematics

Stan Byers; Fremont CA; Electronic Engineer
Special Relativity,
Force at a Distance

Charles S. Cagle; Salem Oregon
Particle and Gravitational Physics,
Nuclear Fusion Processes;
*Planetary Growth Physics;
Heavy Dark Matter

Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri; Celico Cosenza; Theoretical Physics, Unviersity of Calabria - ITALY and FoPRC Foundation of Physics Research Center

Richard O. Calkins; Sammamish WA; Retired GTE Executive
Physics generally,

Bruce Camber; New Orleans LA; Center for Perfection Studies

Barton Campbell; Jersey City NJ

Vincent W. Carpenter; Billings MT; Rancher, Prof. of Music, WWII Pilot
Special Relativity

Helio Carvalho; Rio De Janeiro RJ
Newtonian Physics,
Emission Theory,
Walter Ritz,
Linear Momentum Conservation.

Ivor Catt; St Albans Hertfordshire; Electronics Engineer

Zdenek Cerveny; Kladno Str.kraj

Michael Charrier; Houston TX; Independent
Physics -
Gravity -
Space-Time-Matter Theory,

Sergei M. Cherniakov; Physicist

Bayarsaikhan Bayar Choisuren; Ulaanbaatar Ulaanbaatar
Special and General Theory of Relativity,
Bifurcation theory and
Aether Theories

Shane Claggett; Los Angeles CA
computational protein design,
quantum mechanics,

Blair M. Cleveland; Cedar Springs Ontario; Electronics Eng. Technologist, Amateur Scientist, Music composer
Electromagnetic Propulsion,
Electromagnetism theory,
Quantum Vacuum Physics,
life and work of Nikola Tesla

Steve Coleman; Laurel MD; Analyst/Engineer
Unification Theory,
Special Relativity,
Quantum Physics

Oliver Consa; barcelona
ring electron

Jeffrey N. Cook; Maumee OH; Inventor, Independent researcher
Zero Point Energy,
Synthetic Life

Stephen John Crothers; Sunshine Plaza Queensland; Independent researcher in theoretical astrophysics
General Relativity

Frank D'Angelo; Tecumseh ON

Valentin Danci; Toronto Ontario
Quantum Mechanics,

Chuck Daugherty; VA

A. P. David; Austin TX; Hellenist
**Electric Universe

Rodrigo de Abreu
special relativity,
speed of light

Fran De Aquino; Sao Luis MA; Professor of Physics, Research Scientist

David de Hilster; Boca Raton FL; Supercomputers, Artist, Filmmaker
Particle Model,
*Growing Earth,

Bob de Hilster; Boca Raton FL; Electrical Engineer
Particle Model,

James Decandole; Toronto Ontario; Retired
Particle physics,
atomic structure,
theory of motion

Douglas Decicco; Deerfield Beach FL
Solar Power

Frank A Dekeyser; Toronto Ontario
plasma physics,
**electric universe,

John T Dotzler; Las Cruces NM; layman, none
interested in truths of all of natures secrets

Edward Henry Dowdye; Greenbelt MD; Physicist, Laser Optics Engineer, Independent Researcher
Emission Theory,
Classical Physics,
Special Relativity,
General Relativity,
Extinction Shift

James Neil Downing; Garden Ridge TX
EM theory,
fundamental particles

George James Ducas; Dallas TX

Jeremy Dunning-Davies; Professor of Physics

Primoz Durjava; Maribor Slovenia; Rational Scientific Method group

Rick Dutkiewicz; Allegan Mi; Progressive Science Institute
Scientific Philosophy,
Univironmental determinism,
Universal Cycle Theory,

Chris Eckman; Pocatello ID; Student
Brown's Gas,
New Energy,
Magnetic Propulsion,

John B. Eichler; Little Rock AR; Computer Scientist
*Expanding Earth,

Christian Opdal Eid; Oslo Oslo
Cosmic radiation

Eugene A. Ellis; Ocean View DE
*Expanding Earth

Matthew S Emery; Lafayette IN;
anti gravity,

Peter F. Erickson; Vancouver WA
Philosophy of Science

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov; Varna Varna
Theory of Everything

Francis Viren Fernandes; Biochemist
Quantum Theory,
Fine Structure Constant

Viraj Fernando; Toronto ON; Independent Researcher
History of Science,
Philosophy of Science

Thomas Findlay; Prestwick South Ayrshire; Unemployed
**Electric Universe,
honest science

Ray Fleming; Austin TX; Manager, Radioactive Material Licensing
quantum vacuum,
zero point field theories,
vacuum arc discharge,
health physics,
x-ray fluorescence

Ryan James Fleming; Leeds west yorkshire
Concomitant Dissidence

James E. Francis; Crestone CO
History of Philosophy and Science,
Great Books and Eastern Classics,
Kinesiology and Epigenetics,
Web Design and Internet Marketing,
Photography and Videography

Thomas Geoffrey Franzel; Salem OR; Businessman
history of science,

Sara A Frazier; Knoxville TN
Human Kind

Robert E. French; Troy MI
Emission Theory

Robert S. Fritzius; Starkville MS; Electrical Engineer
Emission Theory,
Gamma Ray Bursters,
Newtonian Physics,
Walter Ritz

Francesco Fucilla; Geophysicist, Author, Philosopher, Inventor, Oil Entrepreneur, Businessman, Film Producer
Field Theory,

Bill Gaede; Physicist, Engineer
Upcoming Extinction of Man,
*The religion of Mathematical Physics,
quantum theory,
string theory

Raymond H. Gallucci; Frederick MD; Nuclear Engineer
Natural History,

Lori Anne Gardi; London Ontario; Senior Software Developer in Medical Imaging
Fractal Cosmology, Robarts Research Instit
chaos theory,
black holes,
event horizons,
quantum mechanics,
medical physics,
3D ultraound

David Garroway

Oskar erick Gelves; Villa Rosario Norte de Santander; Master student in renewable energies in the European Atlantic University

angelo gentile; lecce italia

Kim Gifford; Petaluma CA
Plasma cosmology,
**Electric Universe

Freeman Gilmore; Haslett MI
music physics

Vladimir B. Ginzburg; Pittsburgh PA; Mechanical Engineer, Inventor
Vortex Theory,
Toroidal Ring

Clifford Gobreski; Bothell WA
Electronic correlations entire universe,
light-frequency spectrum,
free t-shirts

Robert Guy Grantham; Lincoln Lincolnshire; Chemist
fundamental physics,
epola model of space (of M.Simhony)

Sydney E. Grimm; Amersfoort provincie Utrecht
foundations of physics,

Toby Grotz; Prairie Village KS; Electrical Engineer, Inventor
New Energy

Bernardo Gut; Philosopher

Mitchel Haas; Lincoln NE; Web Developer
Alternate atomic theories

Julie Ann Haberle; Carlton MN; Independent Researcher
**Electric Universe,

Peter C. M. Hahn; Sherwood Park Alberta; Electronics Engineering Technologist
Gravitational Waves,

Helmut Hansen; Author

Syed Tashbi Hasnain; Karachi Sindh

Ronald R. Hatch; Torrance CA; GPS Scientist

Richard Hecht; Santa Barbara California
*religion and

Adrian Hodson

William R. Hohenberger; Fort Myers FL; Engineer, Philosopher, Author, Investor
Nuclear Structure,
Fine Structure Constant,
*Expanding Earth,
Steady State Universe,
Philosophy of Science,

Laurent Hollo; Carignan QC; Computer security analyst
dimensions of physical quantities

Herman Holushko; Richmond Hill Ontario; Software Engineer

Ryan Howard. V; Mumbai Maharashtra
Electric and Magnetic fields,
vintage watches

Bill Howell; ID

Bill Howell; Hussar Alberta; Science Research Manager (bureaucrat)
Solar System,
Earth modeling,
**Electric Universe

Franklin Hu; Seattle WA; Software Engineer
Unification theories,
Atomic structure

Stephen W. Hurrell; Ellesmere Port Cheshire; Engineering Designer
*Expanding Earth,
Structual Dynamics of Dinosaurs

Jerry Hynecek; Allen TX; Engineer
General Relativity Theory

Steve Jackson; Brantford ON
Vortex physics,

Arkadiusz Jadczyk; Castelsarrasin Tarn-et-Garonne
Ronin Institute,
Quantum Future Group Inc.

Richard Jesch; Albany CA; Senior Technician
Experiments which are repeatable and show unexpected results.

Gary L. Johnson; Canon City CO; Professor of Electrical Engineering
New Energy

Jan Olof Jonson; SE-12342 Farsta Stockholm

Ramsamy Sudhan Kasthuri; Chennai tamilnadu
reading physics

Lutz Kayser; Majuro Majuro Atoll; Professor emeritus of Physics
Space transport,
dissident physics theories

David H. Kelk; Oshawa Ontario; University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Computer science,

Jane Kerber; Urbana Illinois
Quantum Field Theory

Lloyd Kinder; St. Charles MO; Writer
Atomic Structure,
Scientific Method

Pawel Kolasa; Burnaby BC; Author
Newtonian Physics,
Motionless Earth

Steve Kornegay; New Smyrna Beach fl; none

Bogdan Kosanovic; Bethesda Maryland
physical reality

Miguel Kovac; Mechanical Engineer
Fundamental Particles,

Milan Krupa; Temecula CA; engineer, entrepreneur, inventor
Quantum physics,

Jack Kuykendall; Phoenix AZ
Chemistry (Motion of Mass)

Lou Ellen LaFollette; Caledonia MI; Financial Analyst
Human Behavior,
Animal Behavior,
Human Development

Tom Lang; Solana Beach CA; Aerospace Engineering, inventor
Quantum Mechanics,
Physical Explanation of Physics

Robert Larose; Laval Quebec; SAE Fiber-optic AS-3
computer simulation,

Frederic Lassiaille; Professor of mathematics
Dark Matter,
Quantum Mechanics,

Bob Lavaggi; Bearsville New York

Jae Young Lee; Jeonju Jeonllabuk-do
Theory of relativity

Hans van Leunen
Quantum physics

Joseph Levy; Physicist

Alison Lewey; Dillard Georgia

Frank Lichtenberg; Physicist
Materials research - especially oxides,
Global Scaling,

Carl R. Littmann; Wyncote PA; Physicist

Zoltan Losonc

Charles William Lucas; Mechanicsville MD; Physicist
Universal Electrodynamic Force,
Nuclear Structure,
Atomic Structure,
Elementary Particle Structure,
Molecular Structure,
Force of Gravity,
Force of Inertia,
Origin of Life at Molecular Level,

James Marsen; Ridgefield Park NJ
quantum mechanics,

James Maxlow; Glen Forrest Western Australia; Geologist
*Expanding Earth

Kent William Mayhew; Ottawa Ontario
phase change,
nucleation theory,
earth sciences,
climate change,

Al McDowell; Raleigh NC

John Middlemas; Sliema Northern Harbour Area
conspiracy theories,
the truth.

John B. Miller; Danbury CT

Roger Millikan; Santa Barbara CA
elementary particles

Don E. Mitchell; Cottonwood AZ; Software engineer, diverse mechanical and electronics, experimental designs, goofy guy, severly agit
Amateur physics,
control automation,

Ian Grant Montgomery; Melbourne Victoria; Company Owner/Director
Fundamental Physics

Ken Moore; Kensington MD; Computer Systems Engineer

Richard Kelly Moore; Wexford Wexford
scalar waves,
**Thunderbolts Project

kasim muflahi; Birmingham West Midlands

Steve Mulford; Marietta Georgia; Researcher, Philosopher, Writer
**Thunderbolts Project

Roger Munday; Engineer (Fire Suppression), Navigating Officer

Harvey Jack Musser; Rehoboth Beach DE

Bruce Nappi; Hull MA; A3Society
Grand Unification
World Sustainability

Witold Nawrot; 04-903 Warszawa Mazowieckie

Slobodan Nedic; Belgrade Serbia
orbital motion,

Bent Kargaard Nielsen; Aalborg / Svenstrup J Jylland; Philosopher
Big Bang,

Charles Ogilvie; London England
Space Travel

Akinbo Ojo; Surulere Lagos

Clifford Franklin Oliver; Santa Maria Ca; Applied Physics
Zero Point Energy,

Warren Opheim; Prior Lk MN

Howard Arthur Osborn; Seal Rock OR
Theory of everything

John Linus OSullivan; Fairfield CT; Business/Science

Andreas Otte; Computer Scientist
**Electric Universe,

Glenn Paradis; Toronto Ontario

Bernard Pelletier; Laval Quebec
lovely ladies,

Camden Percival; Ridgefield Connecticut

Nick Percival; Ridgefield CT; Entrepreneur

Lothar Pernes; Engineer
Emission Theory,
Variable Stars

John-Erik Persson; Electrical Engineer
Special Relativity,

Ingo Peter; Aachen NRW; UAS Aachen
Scientific problems,

Yair Pina; Coyoacan Mexico City; UNAM

Marc J. Plotkin; Fairfax VA
Emerging Gravitational Field Propulsion Technologies

Rajendra Sendhabhai Prajapati; Vadodara Gujarat
Cause of Gravity,
Renewable energy

Ekhard Preikschat; Bellevue WA

Lew Paxton Price; Garden Valley CA; Independent Researcher
Dark Energy,
Dark Matter

Christopher G. Provatidis; Professor at NTUA
computer methods,
inertial propulsion,

James Arthur Putnam; Castle Rock CO; Independent Researcher Physics
Original writings of physics,
life and

Candi Raelund; Kalispell MT; none, just family
Energy that is not seen!

Dionysios G. Raftopoulos; Anavissos Attiki; Mechanical-Electrical Engineer of NTUA
Projective Geometry,
Music-Physics Relation,

Salina Gail Ramsay; Lexington KY
Rysmonic Cosmology,
Sacred Geometry

Arthur Ramthun; Winsted CT; Member of ASABE

Hilton Ratcliffe; Astrophysicist, author
Classical mechanics,
Classical geometry,
Solar System,

Cameron Y. Rebigsol; Vancouver WA; retiree
cosmological evolution,
solar system formation,
human evolution

John Raymond (Ray) Redbourne; Hamilton, Ontario; Industrial Instrumentation and Controls Tech
Aether Physics with Applications,
No affiliations.

Eric S Reiter; Pacifica CA; Independent researcher
Wave-particle duality,
Quantum physics

Curtis E. Renshaw; Alpharetta GA; Physicist/Electrical Engineer
Special Relativity

Jerry A Reynard; Laurel MD
Cosmology (as a hobby),
(C-R) Comedy-Recycling Theory

Maxim Karl Rice; Albuquerque NM
zero point energy,

Harry Hamlin Ricker; Newport News VA; Electrical Engineer
Special Relativity,
History of Science,
Philosophy of Science,

M. D. Roe; Las Vegas Nevada

Jan Peter Roos; Burlington MA; President of APGR
Fluid dynamicist,
Energy Density of the vacuum,
Pushing Gravity,
OU Generation

Jamie Rose; Minden NV; General Systems Theorist, Ceptualist, Medical Adjudicator
General Systems,
High power rocketry

Carlo Rosignoli; White Plains NY

Sisir Roy; Kolkata West Bengal; Professor of Physics
Quantum Mechanics,
Unsharp Observables,
Wolf Mechanism,
Brain Function Modelling,
Dynamic Geometry,

Joseph A. Rybczyk; Chalfont PA; Engineer

Claudio Valdez Saldanha; Florianopolis SC

Dezso Sarkadi; Debrecen Hajdu-Bihar; Physicist
fundamentals of physics,
nuclear physics

Luiz Eduardo Azambuja Sauerbronn; Rio De Janeiro RJ; Mechanical Engineer

Paul Schroeder; Wind Lake WI; Mathematician, Computer Programmer, MIS Director
Big bang,

Larry Seyer; Kailua Kona Hi
Over Unity,

Gauri Shankar; Aligarh Non-US/Non-Canadian
New findings in plant science and in other fields too

Ajay Sharma; Shimla XX Not in USA

Rati Ram Sharma; Panchkula Haryana; Professor of Biophysics & Nuclear Medicine
Higgs boson,
Quantum Theory,
Molecular Homoeopathy,
Science-Philosophy Symbiosis,
*Non-Darwinian evolution

Duncan W. Shaw; Vancouver BC; Lawyer, Judge, Scientist
inertia and
structure of atoms

Jerry Shifman; Portland OR; Electrical Engineer

Stan Sholar; Huntington Beach CA; Electrical Engineer
Quantum Theory,
General Relativity,
Special Relativity,

Thomas Smid; Physicist, Astronomer
Quantum Theory,

Joseph J. Smulsky; Professor of Physics
Theoretical mechanics

Youngsinn Sohn; Ellicott City Maryland
Plasma Universe,
Vedic Literature,

Domina Eberle Spencer; Roxbury Crossing MA; Professor of Mathematics
Gaussian Dynamics

Nils Oskar Tobias Stavlid
Avesta - Scalar waves,
material physics in general

Hans Strupat; Laguna Niguel CA; Computer Scientist, Photographer
astronomy, physics

Carl Strutinski; Geologist
*Earth Expansion,

Peter Sujak; Prague Czech Republic; physicist, nuclear physicist
Fundamental physics,
quantum mechanics

Raquel Suma; Sant Celoni Barcelona

James C. Sung

Christian Sutterlin; Fluid Mechanics Engineer
Alternative paradigms,
Analytical philosophy,
Angular momentum,
Fluid mechanics

Hartwig Wolfgang Thim; Linz Upper Austria; Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering
Special Relativity

Clive Tickner; Southwold Suffolk; published in GSJ

David Tombe; Belfast Northern Ireland; scientist
Centrifugal Force,
Coriolis Force,

Emmanuel Quarshie Torsu; Accra Ghana; Research

Jimmy E Touma; Shalimar FL
plasma cosmology

Alexander Unzicker; Munich AB
Particle Physics

Hans Jørgen Vad; Åbyhøj Denmark

Lee Field Valstad; Ruidoso Downs NM; Sterogene Bioseperations, Lab Tech
Theory of Everything,

George Edgar Van Hoesen; Nixa Missouri

Cornelis Verhey; Rapid City SD; Electronics R&D Lab Technician
Matter-Energy Continuum,

Nicolaus Vern; Sydney NSW; Land Surveyor
*Expanding Earth

Jose Villavicencio; Delray Beach fl
Everything science/Physics,
nutrition and
everything else!

Greg Volk; Eagan MN; Electrical Engineer, Investments
Atomic Structure,
Toroidal Ring,
Mach's Principle,
Hertzian Electrodynamics

Robert Volkmann; Midland Texas

Debra C Vuckovich; Troy MI
alternative theories in physics to better explain experimental data,
**Thunderbolts Project forum

Dan Wagner; Madison CT; Aerospace Engineer

Scott Wall; Georgetown Ont; Software Developer
Electric Universe,
*Comparative Mythology

John R. Warfield; Scottsdale AZ; Medical Doctor
General Relativity,
Magnetic Propulsion

Stewart Ian Wells; Truckee CA

Wilhelmus de Wilde; MONTROUVEAU Loir & Cher; retired; FQXi, Vixra

Joel M. Williams; Los Alamos NM; Chemist
Atomic Structure

Keith Paul Wilson; St Paul MN; Corporate Executive - Diverse Industries
*Expanding Earth,

Weldon Wilson; Edmond OK; Physics, Dept of Engineering & Physics

Donald Wortzman; West Palm Beach FL; Astronomical Society of the Palm Beaches

*Kenneth D Wright; Logan UT; Scientists Supporting Religion Foundation
mathematics and theoretical physics

John P. Wsol; San Clemente CA; Software Engineer, Database expert, Cosmologist
Unified Theory,
Multi-dimensional Thinking,
Quantum Theory,
Cognitive Science,

Tolga Yarman; Nuclear Engineer
nuclear sciences,
quantum mechanics,

Jeff Yee; Dublin California; South China Normal University

Orgest ZAKA; Tirana Albania; Mathematics Science, University of Vlora I.QEMALI, Vlora Albania

Mihail Vasile Zastavnitchi; Chisinau mun. Chisinau
Classical Physics

Reiner Georg Ziefle; Psychiatrist, Philosopher

CNPS Structured Discussion / CNPS Contacts
« on: May 08, 2017, 10:42:29 am »
Email String
"Akinbo Ojo" <>
"Bruce Nappi" <>
"Don Briddell" <>
"Al McDowell" <>
"Carl Littmann" <>
"Carl Reiff" <>
"Cameron Rebigsol" <>
"Christopher Provatidis" <>
"David Taylor" <>
"David Tombe" <>
"Dennis Allen" <>
"Franklin Hu" <>
"Hartwig Thim" <>
"Harvey Fiala" <>
"IMontgomery52Private" <>
"Ivor Catt" <>
"Jeff Baugher" <>
"Lou Ellen LaFollette" <>
"Matthias Grabiak" <>
"Musa D. Abdullahi" <>
"Nick Percival" <>
"Pal Asija" <>
"Phil Bouchard" <>
"Rajendra Prajapati" <>
"Robert Bennett" <>
"Roger Munday" <>
"Roger Rydin" <>
"Slobodan Nedic" <>
"X Baunes" <>
"Yuri Keilman" <>
"A. F. Kracklauer" <>
"james carter" <>
"cowani" <>
"" <>
"Kay Scarborough" <>
"Jean de Climont" <>
"John Middlemas" <>
"julie haberle" <>
"karl thompson" <>
"Mike ****" <mike.****>
"Abridged Recipients" <>
"Osvaldo Domann" <>
"?e?t???? ?a?a???t?d??" <>
"Peter Whan" <>
"Guy at Epola" <>
"John Fiala" <>
"" <>
"Stephen Crothers" <>
"verhey cornelis" <>
"" <>

NPA Contacts
(from )
Arteha, Sergey N. (Dr.) ==
Beaty, William J. ==
Chukanov, Kiril B. (Prof.) ==
Hayden, Howard C. (Dr.) ==
Intini, Francesca (Dr.) ==
Johnson, Claes (Prof.) ==
Jonson, Jan Olof ==
Nichols, Bill D. ==
Nott, Ronald ==
Osmaston, Miles F. ==
Taylor, Helen Look-Yat ==
Tombe, Frederick David ==
Treat, Michael R. (Dr.) ==
Brady, Terry O. ==
DeWitte, Roland ==
Gold, Thomas (Prof.) ==
Guy, Bernard (Prof.) ==
Haberle, Julie Ann ==
Khaidarov, Karim Amen (Dr.) ==
Kolasa, Pawel ==
McCarthy, Dennis J. ==
Nahhas, Joe Alexander (Prof.) ==
Osmaston, Miles F. ==
Scarborough, Alexander A. ==
Setterfield, Barry John ==
Taylor, Helen Look-Yat ==
Wachspress, How ==

Big Bang: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, Lloyd Kinder, Phil Bouchard
DarkMatter: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, Lloyd Kinder, Phil Bouchard
Relativity: Akinbo Ojo, Phil Bouchard, Viraj Fernando
Gravity: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, David Tombe, John Fiala, Lloyd Kinder
Radiometric: John Fiala, Lloyd Kinder,,,

Intini, Francesca (Dr.)
Jonson, Jan Olof
Nichols, Bill D.
Nott, Ronald
Tombe, Frederick David
Treat, Michael R. (Dr.)

Email String;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION
« on: May 07, 2017, 12:08:53 pm »
Hi Bruce.
Regarding Skype, my computer no longer has enough space for it. If you'd like live discussion, we could use a chat room, such as at
That way we'd also have a record of the discussion. If that's okay with you, when would you like to try it?

BN re Specific Issue/s
You said the next step is to focus on a specific issue that is promising for making progress: either join a popular discussion, or seek to attract people to an issue.

I wrote a letter to the editor of NCGT (New Concepts in Global Tectonics) Journal about Catastrophism a few days ago and it was accepted for publication in their next quarterly issue in June. The editor said what I wrote is important and original. More specifically the topic was what can explain the fact that sedimentary rock strata are separated into individual rock types, i.e. sandstones, claystones and limestones, over large areas. I argued that it's highly improbable that slow erosion and minor flooding could have deposited only one sediment type for thousands of years over large areas, e.g. sand, followed by thousands of years of only one other type, e.g. clay, etc. I suggested that only flooding, as by megatsunamis, could separate sediment types, and that tidal forces and impacts could account for megatsunamis.

I posted more details in a new thread at

Would you care to pursue that topic?

If you are able to contact CNPS members, I could help you write up a message to send them inviting them to join the discussion on the forum.

I'd also like to have the discussion on a couple of other forums and then I'd post useful comments onto the CNPS forum.

What do you think?

I'm also willing to work with other topics. It might be feasible to work on two or more topics at the same time. Do you have other topics to suggest? I have a list of topics, but I haven't found where I posted them yet.


Today, Bruce said:
I only suggested Skype because it has such good sound quality. Regular phone would be fine as well. Good time to talk is between 4:30 - 8:00p. I need to set a time so I can steer other activities around it. Tonight or any night this week are currently open.

Catastrophism Topic
I'm not strong on tectonic issues. So, I don't think I'd be helpful there. There is a large following on Expansion Tectonics. So, a way to find people for your ideas is to post a request on that forum. A second way is to compose an article for the monthly newsletter that goes to all the members. If you aren't getting the newsletter, send a note directly to David de Hilster and tell him. I only found out about the news letter last month, and I've been a member for over a year. Check the newsletter for style and length of the article. Third, there is a blog on the main website. That's also a way to reach a lot of members. That said, I never read them because I don't have time.

As for you comment on sedimentary rock strata, I thought the answer to your question was resolved a long time ago. It would have been one of the first to be addressed. Without a good answer, the whole field of sediment geology would not have come together. From what I remember, large thickness, uniform content layers can only form in large bodies of water. The rivers feeding that body of water deliver a mix of sediments in which the largest particle size depends on the flow rate of the rivers close to the body of water. Buoyancy and currents in the large body of water then act as separators.

I have a few toys called sand art that demonstrate the principle well. The one shown here is from  $11.00   When you flip the frame, the sand separates into clear layers. But a lot of sedimentary rock is conglomerate. To make your point, I think you'd have to first do some literature analysis on the history of this topic. If you found it was not well answered, I'd start with an announcement of that fact, based on your analysis.

LK's List of Topics
I found a post of yours that has a lot of topics. Is this the one you were looking for?  If so, you can't find it because I removed it from active until we sorted out the CNPS Wiki issue. I thought I told you that awhile back. If not, I apologize. But I would have still broken this post into separate posts. If I was going to do that, I would have asked you to do it. And that is still a good plan:

A. Don't post on the Wiki until CNPS settles down on it.
B. If you want to post on Plans to Improve the Scientific Method, do that under 3.3 Philosophy of Science. I put a new forum in there for you: The Scientific Method.
C. Your list of Major Scientific Fields is actually the foundation for my outline numbering. What deviates from that right now is the history of CNPS member interest in the past. If the forum takes hold, it will eventually include all the fields you listed. Right now, many have no interest or are included under other headings.
D. The list of facts and flaws is one of the issues I wanted to talk to you about directly.

"The purpose of this thread is to discuss and help plan the CNPS Wiki for Science Improvement."
(See my CNPS Wiki thread)


Hi Bruce. I'm trying to keep track of our discussion at

I don't know if you registered for that forum, but you don't need to now. I didn't realize previously that the board wasn't accessible to the public. But now I'm pretty sure it is, since I changed the setting.

You said my "list of facts and flaws is one of the issues [you] wanted to talk to [me] about directly." I prefer not to use the phone, unless necessary, so let me know if you think it's necessary. Otherwise, I'm willing to discuss that here or in the chat room. I'm in the Central Time zone.

You said you found my List of Topics post. I also have it copied at but yes, that's the same one.

Thanks for the new forum for The Scientific Method.

For the Catastrophism topic, I plan, as you suggest, to contact the Expansion Tectonics forum and also "compose an article for the monthly newsletter" and ask David about getting it and I'll check out the blog. I also plan to bring up the issue on 2 other forums. I'll try to start tomorrow, Monday.


May 8, 9AM

rather than test my structured approach on the CNPS Forum, let do a test right here on FUNDAY where you have complete control of it. Let me summarize the approach specifically for this effort: (I will use the heading terminology from FUNDAY)

    Start out by renaming General Category CNPS Wiki to  CNPS Structured Discussion
    Under that Category, create 2 new Subjects: CNPS - Summary and Coordination, CNPS - External Inputs. Lock them for Admin editing only. If you can order them at the top of the subject list, that is best.
    Rename DISCUSSION, to CNPS - General Discussion.
    Eliminate CNPS WIKI OUTLINE as a subject and put that post in the General Discussion.
    Create a post for the CNPS - Summary and Coordination subject titled: FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION. This is where you provide "play by play" guidance about what is going on and where attention is needed. It is essentially telling readers what is going on and how to jump into the discussion. There will be a separate paragraph for each of the subjects listed in the next task. When you complete a review for the next task, come back to this post and create a paragraph for it.
    Now you're ready to start Facilitating the discussion. Start reading the posts from the earliest date. The first one is the CNPS WIKI OUTLINE post on April 22. This is the post with 4 subjects in it. So, your next task is to create a Post for the Summary and Coordination subject. Title this Post: SUBJECTS UNDER DISCUSSION. This will NOT be a one time post. You will go back and edit this post over and over. The content of the post will essentially be an outline of the subjects you find in all the posts. So, after reading the CNPS WIKI OUTLINE post from the general discussion string, you would create the following outline: (note the structure list is in alphabetical order. As new posts raise new topics, edit the list.)

    Science - Facts: { I don't know how to describe your goal for this. But put that here. }
    Science - Flaws: For what specific scientific topics or issues do critical thinkers believe the mainstream presents a wrong conclusion. What is a reference that presents a critical thinking challenge.
    Science - Structure: What are the Major Fields of Science being discussed by CNPS members, Where can the discussions be found.
    Scientific Method: What it is; what are its problems; how can it be improved
    Wikis: writing Wikis for CNPS
    Now create a coordination subject post for each of these topics. Again, this is for your edit only. Each of these would look similar to your Outline & Sources post dated April 23 12:19p The organization of each post would be related to the description included in the "subjects under discussion" list.
    Once you get all of this in place, your effort is reduced to summarizing activity and coaching.

This should go pretty quickly because all you will be doing is organizing the material that has already been posted.


2PM May 8: I told BN I restructured this forum as he advised. But I'd like to start inviting people to discussion of the Catastrophism topic and I want to do that on the CNPS forum, not here. I need to be able to read my own posts there, so when can I do that?


5:40PM: Okay, I tried to post in various places. In 6. Earth Sciences I'm able to post under "discussion" and under "Surge Tectonics" and see my posts. But I can't post anywhere else there without waiting for moderation.

I need to be able to see my posts right away under "summary and coordination" and under "external inputs and documents".

And I probably need to be able to start new threads for other Earth Sciences topics.

Also, other members need to be able to see their posts right away in that section 6 in the discussion threads. If they can't see and edit their posts right away, they'll very likely leave and not return. I don't want to invite people until at least that forum section 6 is user friendly, as in being able to see and edit their own posts.

You said before that I'd be able to moderate that and maybe some other sections. So, if anyone spams or trolls, I could delete them. Am I still to have that ability?

Mike Messages / Letter to NCGT
« on: April 28, 2017, 08:38:02 pm »
Fri, April 28, 2017 9:59 pm
Hi Mike.
I think Baumgardner said the geologic column has 6 megasequences of many conforming sedimentary strata with unconformities between each megasequence. I gather that there's only sheet erosion indicated in the unconformities. Do you know if that's correct? I mean is there much other erosion there, that would have required long time spans? And are there clearly only about 6 megasequences?

My understanding is that megatsunamis deposited each megasequence on the supercontinent with some sheet erosion removing the tops of each megasequence. Does that seem right to you?

Here's a draft I just now wrote for the NCGT members:

I thought it might be good to submit 3 parts:
1st, explaining the separation of strata by major flooding over large areas and short time spans;
2nd, explaining orogenesis;
3rd, explaining rapid radioactive decay.

Do you have comments?


Monday, May 1, 2017 8:53 PM
Hi Lloyd,
This first post makes sense to me, although the explanation could also include successive waves generated by one or two global-scale catastrophes, such as meteorite impacts, whose energy was not dissipated by a single wave.  Each wave would perform both sheet erosion and multi-strata deposition during its transgression and regression.  Six megasequences are generally recognized (see attached).



Question about Sedimentary Rock Strata

I've read Meyerhoff's book on Surge Tectonics and some of the NCGT Journals & Newsletters. Now here is a brief geology question.

Re: Sedimentary Rock Strata:
What brief explanation is there for the fact that sedimentary rock strata covering large continental areas are generally sorted into different rock types, i.e. esp. sandstones, claystones, and limestones? I.e., assuming that millions to billions of years of erosion and deposition occurred, how was it possible for only one rock type to be deposited over large areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of another rock type, etc?

The only plausible means I know of for separation of strata into such individual rock types is by major flooding over short time spans, as demonstrated by Guy Berthault.

The geologic column is said to consist of 6 megasequences worldwide, each containing many conforming sedimentary strata, and each megasequence occurring over an unconformity.

The best explanation seems to be that each megasequence was deposited during major flooding over a short time span of days or weeks.

Since the unconformities between the megasequences seem to show mainly only sheet eroision, there must have been only short time spans of days, weeks or months between each megasequence deposit.

The best theory to explain the unconformities and megasequences seems to be megatsunamis or tidal waves, raised either by tidal action of a large body or bodies that orbited Earth for some months or years on an eccentric orbit, reaching perigee every few weeks or months, or by a series of similarly temporally spaced ocean  meteorite impacts, whose energy was not dissipated by a single wave.

The megatsunamis seem to have eroded seafloor and continental shelf materials and deposited them on the continents for a few days or weeks at most during each megasequence deposition during transgressions, along with some sheet erosion during regressions.

Implications for three possible mechanisms.
1. Surge Tectonics: Wherever oceanization may have occurred, the same megasequences might be expected to be found under seafloors, at least under the Atlantic. 2. Shock Dynamics: If the megasequences are not found, especially under the Atlantic seafloor, then a supercontinent may have broken up from a major impact, with rapid continental "drift" facilitated by fluidization at the Moho (See ). 3. Earth Expansion: If major expansion occurred, it may have forced the continents apart. However, if ocean ridges are signs of expansion, then the Pacific must have expanded first, then the Americas slid over much of the Pacific as the Atlantic expansion occurred.

While a major impact could explain rapid continental movements, a cause of major Earth expansion or of oceanization seems more obscure. A fourth possible mechanism, electric discharge machining removing material from the Atlantic and depositing it on the continents, does not seem well explained as yet.

Lloyd Kinder,

CNPS Structured Discussion / CNPS WIKI OUTLINE & SOURCES
« on: April 23, 2017, 12:19:14 pm »
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(This is a Suggested Wiki Outline)
(Give priority to flawed claims)

3.1- Universe:

-Universe Origin: (Inferior Claim) Big Bang -Motion: (Inferior Claim) Expansion:
__[X]Disproof: High redshift quasars in front of or connected to low redshift galaxies prove that redshift does not equate to distance and the quasars are not receding faster than the galaxies. If the universe is expanding, it is not expanding rapidly. There is no solid evidence of a Big Bang.
Quasar in Front of Galaxy:
Quasars Nearby:
Fingers of God:
__*Best Alternative Theory: High redshift quasars and galaxies likely have bipolar jets and it is ions moving inward in those jets that cause the high redshift, rather than a recessional velocity of the quasars and galaxies.

-Universe Origin: (Inferior Claim) Creation:
__[X]: There is no evidence that anything can be created from nothing.

-Universe Origin: (Best Alternative Theory) Eternal:
__*: The universe is eternal, has always existed, but not in the same form.

-Universe Motion: (Inferior Claim) Steady State:
Comparing distant galaxies to closer galaxies, it is apparent that the universe has been changing, so it is not in a steady state.

-Universe Motion: (Inferior Claim) Relativity:
Time and space do not expand or contract, but their appearance does.

-Universe Motion: (Best Alternative Theory) Spinning:
Gravity may be a centrifugal force in a spinning universe.

-Universe Motion: (Best Alternative Theory) Indeterminate:
There is not enough data to determine if the universe is slowly expanding or contracting, but it is not doing either rapidly.

-Universe Formation: 3.1-3.7: (Inferior Claim) Gravitational:
Gravity is not the primary force of structure formation in the universe.

-Universe Formation: (Best Alternative Theory) Electric:
The electric force is the primary force of structure formation.
Astrophysics & Geophysics:

-Universe Formation: (Best Alternative Theory) Radiation:
The electric force is caused by photonic radiation.

3.2- Cosmic Web:
(The cosmic web is the universal web of strings of galaxy clusters)
Great Voids:
List of Voids:

3.3- Galaxy Clusters:
List of Galaxy Clusters:

3.4- Galaxies:
List of Galaxies:

3.5- Galactic Bulge:

Interstellar Medium:

Galactic Halo:

3.6- Star Clusters:

Star Systems:

Gas Clouds:

3.7- (Inferior Claim) Black Holes:

(Inferior Claim) Worm Holes:

(Inferior Claim) Stars:
List of Stars:
List of Element Abundances:

(New Theory) Ringstars (Exotics) & (Inferior Claim) Neutron Stars:
List of Ringstars:

Planets, Moons:
List of Planets:
List of Moons:
List of Element Abundances:
List of Mineral Abundances:

Comets, Asteroids, Meteors
List of Comets:
List of Asteroids:
List of Meteor Streams:
List of Element Abundances:
List of Mineral Abundances:

3.8- Dust:
List of Element Abundances:

(New Theory) Matter Formation:
List of Elements:




Electric Discharge:



(Inferior Claim) Dark Matter:

(Inferior Claim) Dark Energy:

3.9- Space:




3.10 Earth
(Inferior Claim) Uniformitarianism:




(Inferior Claim) Fantasy Mythology:

3.11- Life - Biology:

3.12- Consciousness - Neurology:

3.13- Intelligence - Psychology:

3.14- Society - Sociology:

3.15- ESP - Parapsychology:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12