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 5 ... 13
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:

CNPS Structured Discussion / INVITE
« on: April 23, 2017, 11:37:33 am »
TB Members possibly interested in helping Improve Science:
bdw000, BirdyNumNums, Brigit Bara, Chan Rasjid, chut, Cubit32, D_Archer, dd6, Elder, fractal-geoff, GaryN, GenesisAria, Grey Cloud, jacmac, JCG, JeffreyW, JHL, jimmcginn, Keith Ness, Kuldebar, Melusine, philalethes, Phorce, phyllotaxis, Pi sees, Plasmatic, pln2bz, popster1, RayTomes, Roshi, Rushthezeppelin, saul, seasmith, Solar, Sparky, StefanR, trevbus, Webbman, Zelectric, ZenMonkeyNZ, Zyxzevn

Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed
Scientific bias prevents scientific progress
Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

Family & Friends / Read My Stuff
« on: April 23, 2017, 06:07:02 am »
Research professor, Peter Gray', blog Freedom to Learn at exposes problems in the education system, such as extreme stress, and better ways to teach and learn.

James Sloane was a doctor for 13 years, but got fed up when he wasn't allowed to provide patients real curative nutritional support when dying of cancer and other diseases, so he entered alternative health care. I'm listing his remedies at the link above.

Some of the worst health mistakes are:
_1. low-fat, high carb diet;
(higher natural fat, and low grain & sugar diet is best; sugar & honey are better than artificial sweeteners)
_2. using pain meds, which can cause organ failure etc;
(I'll list alternatives for pain at the link above)
_3. using antacids & other meds for indigestion
(drinking water & good diet are better for indigestion & acid reflux)
_4. getting constipated
(I finally learned that drinking enough good water prevents it; I have to drink almost 2 quarts of water a day; you can add honey etc, but I blend it with about 1.5 bananas per quart)
_5. not getting enough nutrition for adrenal & circulatory system support for stress & circulation
(get it from natural stable vitamin C in Amla Berry powder in capsules or Acerola Berry extract powder etc and B vitamins in Rice Bran)

I post some of the best science & tech news at that link. Some of the articles explain how a lot of conventional science is fraud. So it's best to be skeptical about all science claims. I'm working with others on improving science.
_There's no way to tell yet how old the Earth is.
_3/4 of continental land consists of sedimentary rock over a mile thick.
_Almost all of that rock was formed during a Great Flood over 4,000 years ago.
_At that time there was only one supercontinent without any mountains.
_The flood was caused by tidal attraction to a swarm of asteroids, which caused huge tsunamis.
_The tsunamis washed all of the sedimentary strata onto the supercontinent from the seafloors and the continental shelf over several months time.
_Many people around the world have different stories of a Great Flood.
_A few centuries after the Great Flood the largest asteroid of all hit the supercontinent just north of Madagascar, east Africa.
_The impact broke the supercontinent apart and caused the Americas, Australia, India and Antarctica to slide over the Moho layer to where they are now.
_It also caused the mountain ranges to form.
_Most scientists think the sedimentary rock strata formed slowly over millions of years.
_But sedimentary rock is separated into three kinds: sandstone, mudstone and limestone, each kind being usually many feet thick over large areas.
_How could there have been thousands of years of just one kind of sediment being deposited and then thousands of years of a different kind of sediment?
_The only proven way most sediments can be separated is in flooding over short timespans.
_Radioactive elements are used to date rocks incorrectly, because scientists assume that certain radioactive decay takes millions of years.
_But electrical ionization causes radioactive elements to decay millions of times faster than normal.
_The impact and continental sliding produced a lot of ionization.

I post a lot of articles at that forum a few times each month. Local community self-government is probably the best way to end corruption & provide opportunities for local people.

Everyone will be "saved" but not usually painlessly. Jesus said he's the good shepherd who goes after all lost sheep. The prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin almost certainly meant in the sign of the Virgin, which was Virgo, and he was born on Sept. 11, in Virgo. Look it up online. We're saved by following Jesus' example of loving or caring about everyone. That's what will save civilization IMO.

FAMILY TREE: Let me know if you want a copy of the Family Tree online. It needs to be updated, since it's mostly 20 years old.

CNPS Structured Discussion / CNPS General Discussion
« on: April 22, 2017, 01:20:31 pm »
Request New Forum Section
(from 9. CNPS Work Groups › CNPS Forum)
(04-19-2017, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 04-19-2017, 10:48 AM by Lloyd Kinder.)
I'd like to have a new forum section on Major Unexplained Science Facts & Alternative Models.

As an example, a major unexplained fact is that sedimentary rock strata are mostly separated over large areas into 3 major types, sandstone, claystone & limestone. Mainstream theory claims that the strata were deposited slowly over thousands and millions of years. But that would mean that over large areas only one type of sediment was deposited for many thousands of years, followed by many thousands of years of another type of sediment, etc. A better explanation is that the strata were separated during major flooding over very short time spans. (This would lead to the issue of radiometric dating, but there is a better explanation for that as well.)

Some other brief examples relate to universe expansion, black holes, quasars, neutron stars, science math, gravity, star and planet and galaxy formation etc, magnetic fields, chemistry, biology etc.

My idea is just to list everything briefly, including brief arguments, like with the first example above, and provide links to the best, more thorough discussions elsewhere, preferably in the CNPS Wiki.

Each unexplained fact could be given a name and listed alphabetically as well as by topic hierarchy.


LK Ideas for Organizing a Wiki
(April 22 ca 10:30 AM)
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics

1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted [during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

2. List Major Fields of Science
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology, Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology

3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(See Sample Wiki thread.)


Paraphrasing Bruce's Forum/Wiki Ideas
[Prior note to Bruce:] I wanted to start working on a CNPS Wiki Outline, but I can't find anywhere on the CNPS forum, so I started doing it on my private forum at .

Here's my rephrasing of your suggestions for the CNPS structured forum, to be followed by my comments.
a. Tell readers the goal is to produce one or more papers and Wikis.
- Each would have multiple identified authors, comments, and possibly subjections.
- So the Wikis and papers would look like conventional academic material.
- Wiki members have a choice to create a Wiki in conventional Wiki format
or do it using my Word template then give it to a Wiki editor
LK Forum Request:
1. Name Major Science Flaws
2. & briefly describe the Flaws
3. & briefly describe the most promising alternative theories or facts
- For #1 have a separate thread for each significant flaw
- Compose a list of flaws
- Ask readers to submit other flaws &/or alternative theories
- Post each submitter’s name with their submissions- Edit & post flaws alongside proposed alternative theories
b. To structure the topic put it into the forum as 3 co-located threads.
ba. "Topic" - discussion (for unedited input, only lightly moderated);
bb. "Topic" - external inputs (for edited questions, challenges, clarifications and other stimulus to stimulate scientific discussion, containing only one or few posts);
bc. "Topic" - summary and coordination (for edited summaries to steer the discussion, with sections like:
what is the current point being discussed;
what are people hung up on;
what needs to be discussed;
what accomplishments have been made so far;
special assignments etc.
- Create an outline of the local discussion & put it in your “coordination” post. - Use Mark’s MIT MAP concepts:
Questions ( ? ),
Ideas ( lightbulb),
pros and cons (thumbs up and down ) etc.
- See the user guide I made for the MAP that shows all his features.
- Add in new heading functions as appropriate:
Lines just as general outline headings: e.g. “Physics – General Principles”;
Subheadings: e.g. “What have others said about this?” or “This is what the discussion has concluded so far on this point”

My comments: I'm willing to experiment with that idea, if you or we can get at least 2 or 3 people involved in trying it out. It seems a bit complicated and it's not clear what the payoff would be. I'm wanting to work on listing major science flaws and maybe asking others to contribute to the list, because the payoff would seem to be correcting major flaws and making them well-known and contributing to science progress, assuming a popular website can be developed.

Aether Lattice Holes Theory
LST: I started reading your LST yesterday & it seems a little promising. I don't understand how dislocations would have mass etc, but I'm open-minded. So far, LST doesn't seem likely to explain how atoms could spin. I favor the idea that electrons and neutrons are connected to protons and the whole atom has to be balanced in order to spin. And unbalanced atoms fly apart, which is radioactivity. I haven't read enough to see if you covered radioactivity etc.

A day or two ago I mentioned some of my work with Sociocracy, CNVC etc. Then synchronicity hit. One of the members of the group chat in 2006 from Sri Lanka emailed me last night saying he uses NVC in his social work and he wants to learn more by taking a class in Denmark in June. He said he's working with leaders of his country to try to prevent more war there, after the 25 year war that ended a few years ago. He said he lost many friends and relatives in the war. Your democracy proposal might be something they could benefit a lot from. It seems like it would work well, but have you considered how to persuade anyone to adopt it in the first place? Most people who run for public office seem to be mainly interested in how they can benefit just themselves and seldom seem much concerned about improving conditions for the public. CELDF seems to have some experience with the persuasion part by actually having gotten a number of communities to adopt some of their suggestions for local ordinances. I think CELDF also is trying to work with other countries too, so I guess I should contact them about my Sri Lanka friend. Should I also give him suggestions from you?

CNPS Structured Discussion / SAMPLE WIKI
« on: April 22, 2017, 10:53:01 am »
Wiki Planning Outline
The purpose of this thread is to discuss and help plan the CNPS Wiki for Science Improvement.

Plans for Organizing a Wiki
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics

1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted [during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

2. List Major Fields of Science
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology, Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology

3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(This is a Suggested Wiki Outline)

(Give priority to flaws, shown with asterisks.)
3.1- Universe
*Big Bang
*Steady State
-Formation of 3.1-3.7:
3.2- Uniweb
Great Voids
(The uniweb is the universal web of strings of galaxy clusters)
3.3- Galaxy Clusters
3.4- Galaxies
3.5- Galactic Bulge
Interstellar Medium
Galactic Halo
3.6- Star Clusters
Star Systems
Gas Clouds
3.7- *Black Holes
*Worm Holes
*Neutron Stars
3.8- Dust
Electric Discharge
*Dark Matter
*Dark Energy
3.9- Space
3.10 Earth Local Science:
3.11- Life - Biology
3.12- Consciousness - Neurology
3.13- Intelligence - Psychology & Philosophy
3.14- Society - Sociology
3.15- ESP - Parapsychology

« on: April 03, 2017, 10:30:54 am »
Hi Charles. In late 2013 we were discussing how to improve science communication and science papers etc on the TB forum starting at --- I rejoined the Natrual Philosophy group lately ( and was pleasantly surprised that they're working on sort of the same thing there now. They have a regular forum there, but they're working on a more structured forum, as well as an alternative science Wiki, based on ideas similar to Deliberatorium. The person most responsible for that work seems to be Bruce Nappi, who has worked with Mark Klein, the guy at MIT who was experimenting with developing Deliberatorium there. Bruce says he was able to find ways to make Delib. work by modifying it a lot, with Mark's blessing. So I've been in touch with Bruce by email for a couple days and I volunteered to help develop the CNPS structured forum and their Wiki and to invite others to help, like from the TB forum etc. I told Bruce about our TB forum discussion that I linked above and he was very impressed with your part of the discussion. I told him he'd probably benefit by registering on your website and that you're a software developer. Bruce seems to be pretty good as a webmaster, but I didn't ask him yet how much experience he has. He writes a lot online and has a business apparently. One of his topics in online articles is participatory democracy via internet communication. His ideas on that are very similar to mine. I favor supermajority rule, instead of simple majority, and he says we can have 100% majority rule, which is unanimous rule. So I want to work with him on that too.

I asked Bruce yesterday to add a new section to the forum for the Electric Universe. I said I'd like to have discussion of at least 4 models there, the EU team's, yours, Oliver Manuel's and Brant's. Maybe there should be one for Bob Johnson's too, come to think of it. I hope a lot of TB forum members will want to discuss there and that we can develop efficient ways to have debates that lead to sound science for the CNPS Wiki etc. I think you're especially interested in saving people's lives from natural disasters etc, so I hope your papers on earthquakes, volcanism, tornadoes etc will get proper exposure, both at and at CNPS to start with. CNPS is having a conference in Vancouver, BC around July 20. Deadlines for submitting papers is May 31. I hope you may like to submit one or more of your papers. I don't know if you'd want to go to Vancouver to read your paper, but, if not, I imagine they'd allow someone else to read it there for you. Dwardu Cardona lives in Vancouver.

I think John Casey and Dong Choi may be able to improve their methods for predicting earthquakes etc, if they can learn something from your papers. I've been working with Mike Fischer of for a couple months or so on a paper on Catastrophism for NCGT. Since NCGT seems to mainly support Surge Tectonics, I wanted to understand that better, so Dong Choi suggested I read Meyerhoff's book on Surge Tectonics. Meyerhoff was his mentor. Below is part of what I wrote lately to Mike.

- In the quote below from the book, Surge Tectonics, you can see they say the surge channels form at the top of the Moho.
- Here from the book is a Surge Channels Map I found online:
- The Webpage which seems religious is:
- They say the surge channels are within those warm bands. Many are said to be active channels and some are inactive, which I think means solidified.
Thus, when the postulated tholeiitic picrite magma reachs the Moho- [rising from below] ([P-waves] ... between  8.0-km/s ... and 6.6-km/s ...), it has reached its level of neutral buoyancy and  spreads laterally. Under the proper conditions---abundant magma supply and  favorable crustal structure---a surge channel can form. We suggest the possibility  that the entire 7.0-7.8-km/s layer may have formed in this way. In support of this  suggestion, we note that the main channel of every surge channel studied, from the  Archean to the Cenozoic, is located precisely at the surface of the Moho-. This  indicates that the discontinuity is very ancient, perhaps as old as the Earth  itself. This fact and the great difference in P-wave velocities above and below the  Moho- surface suggest in turn that the discontinuity originated during the initial  cooling of the Earth.
- Here's a quote from the Conclusions section of the book.
9. Surge channels, active or inactive, underlie nearly every major feature of the  Earth's surface, including all rifts, foldbelts, metamorphic belts, and strike-slip  zones. These belts are roughly bisymmetrical, have linear surface swaths of faults,  fractures, and fissures, and belt-parallel stretching lineations. Aligned plutons,  ophiolites, melange belts, volcanic centers, kimberlite dikes, diatremes, ring  structures and mineral belts are characteristic. Zoned metamorphic belts are also  characteristic. In some areas, linear river valleys, flood basalts, and/or vortex  structures may be present. A lens of 7.8-7.0 km/s material always underlies the  belt.

End quotes. So I figure the surge channels likely formed as a result of the SD impact off east Africa. Wherever the crust, whether oceanic or continental, fractured severely, folded, etc, there was excess heat that produced the surge channels at the top of the Moho-. Since Choi already is favorable to the idea of Earth acting as an electrical battery, which one of NCGT's member groups wrote a paper on back around 2004, I think he and that group may be very impressed with your model. Louis Hissinck, one of NCGT's editors, who is also a member of the EU team who favors Thornhill's model at least somewhat, should be somewhat interested in your model too. Peter James is another contributor to NCGT who may have connections to the EU team. Anyway, does my idea about surge channels in the Moho- caused by the SD impact make sense to you? I know the Moho- probably would have existed before the impact, but they say it's a few km thick, whereas you say only about a meter of the thickness is caused by the tides. So I figure the extra thickness, if true, may have resulted from the impact. Got any comments?

« on: March 29, 2017, 09:31:27 pm »
3.1 Introduction
_Surge tectonics is based on the concept that the lithosphere contains a worldwide  network of deformable magma chambers (surge channels) in which partial magma melt  is in motion (active surge channels) or was in motion at some time in the past  (inactive surge channels).
_The presence of surge channels means that all of the compressive stress in the  lithosphere is oriented at right angles to their walls. As this compressive stress  increases during a given geotectonic cycle, it eventually ruptures the channels  that are deformed bilaterally into kobergens (Fig. 2.15).
_Thus, bilaterally deformed foldbelts in surge-tectonics terminology are called  kobergens.
_Surge tectonics involves
1. contraction or cooling of the Earth
2. lateral flow of fluid, or semifluid, magma through a network of interconnected  magma channels in the lithosphere
3. Earth's rotation, which involves differential lag between the lithosphere and  the strictosphere and its effects, i.e. eastward shifts (Table 2.3)
=the strictosphere is the hard mantle beneath the asthenosphere and lower crust
._lithosphere compression caused by cooling propels the lateral flow of magma  through surge channels

_Contrary to general belief continental roots are fixed to the strictosphere [as  shown] by large and increasing volumes of data, including neodymium and strontium  studies of crustal rocks (..., 1979).

_the deep roots of continents are a major obstacle to any hypothesis requiring  continental movements (..., 1985-1990).
_deep roots are seen beneath part of all of the Earth's ancient cratons.
_In places, however, lenses of 7.0-7.8-km/s material containing low-velocity zones  (Fig. 3.5) are present (..., 1989).
_Such lenses containing low-velocity layers postdate the establishment of the deep  cratonic roots, as we show in subsequent sections.

_3.3.2 Contraction Skepticism
_3.3.3 Evidence For a Differentiated, Cooled Earth
_1. The Earth includes several concentric shells, which are explicable only if the  Earth differentiated efficiently and at a much higher temperature than today.
_2. The outermost of these shells may be the oceanic crust whose thickness ranges  from about 4-7 km.
<<contradicts sed strata & oceanization
_This crust is characterized by relatively constant thickness and fairly uniform  seismic properties.
_This uniformity is explained if the oceanic crust is the outermost of the Earth's  concentric shells.
_5. A convincing evidence that huge segments of the lithosphere have been and are  being engulfed by tangential compression is the existence of Verschluckungszonen  (engulfment zones)
_In places along such zones, whole metamorphic and igneous belts that are  characteristic of parts of a given foldbelt simply disappear for hundreds of  kilometers along strike
_Although [some] considered these features to be former subduction zones, this  interpretation is difficult to defend because all of these zones, regardless of  age, are near-vertical bodies (1) reach only the top or middle of the asthenosphere  (150 to 250 km deep) and (2) do not deviate more than 10° to 25° from the vertical  (..., 1983-1984).
_6. The antipodal positions of the continents and ocean basins (unlikely a matter  of chance) mean that Earth passed through a molten phase
_7. Theory (..., 1970) and laboratory experiment (..., 1956) showed that heated  spheres cool by rupture along great circles. Remnants of two such great circles (as  defined by hypocenters at the base of the asthenosphere) are active today: the  Circum-Pacific and Tethys-Mediterranean fold systems. The importance of Bucher's  (1956) experiment to contraction theory, in which he reproduced the great circles,  is little appreciated.

3.8 Evidence for the Existence of Surge Channels
_As noted above, reflection-seismic techniques (...) have shown that the  continental crust of the upper lithosphere is divisible in a very general way into  an upper moderately reflective zone and a lower highly reflective zone (...).  Closer scrutiny of the newly-acquired data soon revealed the presence in the lower  crust of numerous cross-cutting and dipping events.
_When many of these cross-cutting events were preceived to be parts of lens-like  bodies, various names sprang up: .... Strictly nongenetic names include lenses,  lenticles, lozenges, and pods (...). Finlayson et al. (1989) found that the lenses  have P-wave velocities of 7.0-7.8 km/s, commonly with a low-velocity zone in their  middle.
_Thus we equate the lenses with the pods of "anomalous lower crust" and "anomalous  upper mantle" that we discussed in a preceding section. Klemperer (1987) noted that  many of the lenses are belts of high heat flow. Hyndman and Klemperer (1989)  observed that the lenses generally have very high electrical conductivity.
_Meyerhoff et al. (1992b) discovered that there are two types of undeformed  reflective lenses, and that many of these lenses have been severely tectonized. The  first type of lens is transparent in the middle (Fig. 3.29); the second type is  reflective throughout (Fig. 2.11). Tectonized lenses also may have transparent  interiors, or parts of interiors; many, however, are reflective throughout (Fig.  3.21). Where transparent zones are present (Fig. 3.20), bands of high heat flow,  bands of microearthquakes, belts of high conductivity, and bands of faults,  fractures, and fissures are present. Where a transparent layer is not present, high  heat flow and conductivity, however, are commonly still present. Meyerhoff et al.  (1992b) also found that lenses with transparent interiors are younger than those  without transparent interiors; moreover, there is a complete spectrum of lenses  from those with wholly transparent interiors to those without.

_The best explanations of thes observations are that (1) the lenses with  transparent interiors are active surge channels with a low-velocity zone sandwiched  between two levels of 7.0 to 7.8 km/s material; (2) the lenses with reflective  interiors are former surge channels now cooled and consisting wholly of 7.0 to 7.8  km/s material; and (3) the tectonized lenses are either active or former surge  channels since converted into kobergens by tectogenesis.

_Seismotomographic data, wherever detialed studies have been made, indicate that  the lenses seen in seismic-refraction and seismic-reflection studies form an  interconnected, reticulate network in the lithosphere. Although only one highly  detailed seismotomographic study has been made on a continental scale---this in  China---it leaves no room for doubt that the 7.0-7.8-km/s lenses with transparent  interiors and the seismotomographically detected low-velocity channels in the  lithosphere are one and the same....
_Using seismotomographic techniques, it will be possible to map active surge  channels over the world with comparative ease.

_Direct evidence for the existence of surge channels comes from tectonic belts  themselves, and from one type of magma flood province. The latter include rift  igneous rocks that crop out nearly continuously for their full lengths. Examples  include the rhyodactic Sierra Madre Occidental-Sierra Madre del Sur extrusive and  intrusive belt of Mexico and Guatemala, some 2,400 km long; the 1,600-km-long  Sierra Nevada-Baja California batholith belt; the 4,000-km+ batholith and andesite  belt of the Andes south of the equator; the 4,000-km-long Okhotsk-Chukotka silicic  volcanic belt; the 5,800-km-long Wrangellia linear basaltic province extending from  eastern Alaska to Oregon, which erupted in less than 5 Ma; and many other similar  continental magma belts. The ocean basins are equally replete with them, ranging  from the 60,000-km-long midocean ridge system through the 5,800-km-long Hawaiian-  Emperor island and seamount chain to many similar belts of shorter lengths.  Geochemical studies also show that most of these belts are interconnected. Another  linear flood-basalt belt, which has been studied only relatively recently, is the  subsurface Mid-Continent province that extends 2,400 km from Kansas through the  Great Lakes to Ohio (Figs. 3.23, 3.24).

_Other data mentioned in the preceding sections corroborate the interconnection of  active surge channels. One of these is the coincidence of the 7.0-7.8-km/s lenses  of the active surge channels (Figs. 2.9, 2.31, 3.6, 3.9, 3.14, 3.20) with the belts  of high heat flow (Fig. 2.26) and with belts of microseismicity. Both the presence  of high heat flow and microseismicity indicate that magma is moving within active  surge channels.

_However, an even more dramatic example is the June 28, 1992, Landers, California,  earthquake-related activity shown on Figure 3.25. This figure shows that the 7.5-  magnitude earthquake was strong enough to affect areas up to 1,250 km from the  epicenter (...) and provides an exampole of Pascal's Law in action. Given the  importance of Pascal's Law in surge-channel systems, the fact should be noted that  the viscosity of the magma in the surge channels affected by the Landers event is  sufficiently low that, when the stress was applied at a single hypocentral point  (Landers), the effects could still be transmitted for 1,250 km!

_3.9 Geometry of Surge Channels
_Corry (1988) published the "Christmas Tree" model shown in Figure 2.8; Bridgwater  et al. (1974) published the more complex model shown in Figure 3.26. Either of  these could be cross sections of surge channels. Both are multitiered with one or  more magma chambers above the main chamber.

_Study of Figures 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 2.31, 3.6, 3.9, 3.13, 3.14, 3.20, 3.23 and 3.24  might lead one to believe that surge channels are everywhere fairly simple  structures expressed at the surface by a single belt of earthquake foci, high heat  flow, bands of faults-fractures-fissures (streamlines), and related phenomena  which, during tectogenesis, deform into a single kobergen. Although this simple  picture is true of many kobergens, it is not true of all. Study of Figures 3.26 and  3.27 suggests that, during tectogenesis of the surge-channel complexes shown on  these figures, two or more parallel kobergens may exist at the surface. Such a  complex surface expression is in fact quite common. Well-documented examples are  found in the Western Cordillera of North America, the Mediterranean-Tethys orogenic  belt (including the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau), and the Andes, inter alia. Within the  Western Cordillera, the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and the Andes, we have found four or  more parallel kobergens side by side at the surface as documented and illustrated  by Meyerhoff et al. (1992b).

The principal forces acting on the lithosphere are compression, rotation, and  gravity.

Thus, when the postulated tholeiitic picrite magma reachs the Moho- (i.e., the zone  between 8.0-km/s mantle below and 6.6-km/s above), it has reached its level of  neutral buoyancy and spreads laterally. Under the proper conditions---abundant  magma supply and favorable crustal structure---a surge channel can form. We suggest  the possibility that the entire 7.0-7.8-km/s layer may have formed in this way. In  support of this suggestion, we note that the main channel of every surge channel  studied, from the Archean to the Cenozoic, is located precisely at the surface of  the Moho-. This indicates that the discontinuity is very ancient, perhaps as old as  the Earth itself. This fact and the great difference in P-wave ==velicities above and  below the Moho- surface suggest in turn that the discontinuity originated during  the initial cooling of the Earth. Hence, Mooney and Meissner's (1992) "transition  zone" was the level of neutral buoyancy at the time the 7.0-7.8-km/s material was  emplaced.

?>The formation of the Christmas-tree-like structures (Figs. 2.8, 3.26) at the  Moho- is simply an extension of the larger scale process of magma transfer from the  asthenosphere to the discontinuity. Once surge channels are established at the  discontinuity, the same processes take over that brought the magma to the  discontinuity in the first place, specifically, magma differentiation in the  channels and the Peach-Kohler climb force (...). After lighter magmas have formed  by differentiation and related processes, they rise to their own neutral buoyancy  levels, forming channels above the main surge channel (Figs. 3.23, 3.27).

Chapter 6 Magma Floods, Flood Basalts, and Surge Tectonics
_Some 63% of the ocean basins are covered with flood basalts. At least 5% of the  continents are likewise covered with flood basalts. Thus 68%---a minimum figure---  of the Earth's surface is covered with these basaltic rocks. Flood basalts, then,  are not the oddities that many suppose them to be. In spite of this, they receive  little attention among the scientific community.
_ Engel et al. (1965) long ago demonstrated that deep ocean-floor tholeiitic  basalts are the oceanic equivalent of the continental flood basalts. The Basalt  Volcanism Study Project (1981) differentiated between the continental flood basalts  and "ocean-floor basalts," while recognizing that the principal differences were  the abundance of minor and rare-earth elements. Press and Siever (1974...)  recognized the fact that the ocean-floor basalts and continental flood basalts are  nearly the same, and that their differences are explained readily by contamination  in the continental crustal setting.

_Continental flood-basalt provinces are geometrically of two types. The first is  broadly ovate, or even round, with the maximum diameter ranging from about 500 km  (Columbia River Basalt) to more than 2,500 km (Siberian Traps). The second is  distinctly linear, with a width of 100 to 200 km and lengths up to and even  exceeding 3,000 km.
_ Tectonism and metamorphism can severely disrupt any flood-basalt province after  its formation. For example, ... the Antrim Plateau Volcanics of northern Australia  ... parts ... have been removed by erosion. ... Similarly, only very scattered,  strongly flooded, and metamorphosed remains of the Willouran Mafic rocks are  preserved in ... South Australia, but their distribution shows that [it] is a  linear flood-basalt province.

_6.6 Flood-Basalt Provinces and Frequency in Geologic Time
As we observed near the beginning of this chapter, the commonly used textbooks of  physical geology, structural geology, and geotectonics rarely list more than 10 to  20 flood-basalt provinces. However, the magnificent review of basalts by the  participants in the Basalt Volcanism Study Project (1981) mentions or figures not  less than 56 flood-basalt provinces and 45 additional provinces of dike swarms  which the project participants thought might have fed flood-basalt provinces that  have since been removed by erosion.
_ Yoder (1988, ...) wrote that "Great basaltic 'floods' have appeared on the  continents throughout geologic time (Table 1)," but showed on his Table 1 none  older than 1,200+/- 50 Ma. He also ... made it clear that he regards midocean-ridge  and other oceanic basalts as flood basalts, as have a number of earlier workers  (..., 1974). We concur absolutely with their interpretation. We also concur with  the participants of the Basalt Volcanism Study Project (1981) that evidence of the  existence of flood provinces extends back in time to at least 3,760 Ma, and very  likely to the Earth's earliest (but nowhere preserved) history.

_6.7 Non-Basalt Flood Volcanism in Flood-Basalt Provinces
The bimodal nature of many flood-basalt provinces has been known and stressed for  many years (..., 1981). Time seems not to be a major factor (the idea being that,  the longer an underlying magma chamber is present, the more the magma will interact  with the continental crust above it). The most important factor may be the crustal  stress state.
_ We believe that the evidence from these examples demonstrates convincingly that  there is a complete gradation from all-basalt and basaltic andesite flood provinces  to bimodal provinces containing mainly rhyolite and ignimbrite. Hence, there are  basalt floods and rhyolite floods.
_ ... The volumetric predominance of these ash-flow tuffs has led to recognition of  the [Sierra Madre Occidental] as the world's largest rhyolite-dominated volcanic  province" (Fig. 6.28).
_ Thus, from 38 Ma until 17 Ma, a truly bimodal column of extrusive rocks  accumulated in northern Mexico and adjoining parts of the United States, with  rhyolite at one end, basaltic andesite at the other, and very little rock of  intermediate compositions. ... [Skipping remainder of paragraph]
_ We believe that these basalts of the "southern cordilleran basaltic andesite"  suite are flood basalts. And if they are flood basalts, then we have demonstrated  that the same mechanism that leads to continental and oceanic basalt outpourings  also produces the "orogenic andesite suite".
_ The Okhotsk-Chukotka Volcanic Belt, a linear belt of Cretaceous volcanics, is  similar to the Sierra Madre Occidental. It extends 3,000 km from the mouth of Uda  Bay (northwestern Sea of Okhotsk) to the Bering Sea almost at St. Lawrence Island.  It seems to have every type of volcanic from andesitic through rhyolite. Basalts  are scarce. Soviet geologists either ignore it or say that it is the remnant of a  volcanic arc.
_6.9 Surge-Tectonics Origin of Magma Floods
In the preceding pages we have referred to the presence of several flood-basalt  provinces around the world, and have shown that some flood provinces include large  volumes of silicic rocks, usually rhyolite and/or dacite. We have also shown by the  northern Mexican example that flood basalts can interfinger with the andesite  orogenic suite.
_The available evidence has led us to the conclusion that the same mechanism causes  volcanism in the midocean ridges, linear island and seamount chains, oceanic  plateaus, island arcs, and continental interiors. We next attempt an explanation of  our conclusion.
_ Many attempts have been made to explain flood volcanism in the framework of the  plate-tectonics hypothesis. The two principal explanations involve (1) hot spots,  or mantle plumes and (2) an extraterrestrial cause (e.g., an asteroid impact).
_ Extraterrestrial causes have been proposed by Alt et al. (1988), who applied this  hypothesis to the Columbia River flood-basalt province. A major problem with this  concept is that it does not explain linear flood-basalt provinces such as the  Keweenawan (Mid-Continent) rift and Wrangellia. Furthermore, Mitchell and Widdowson  (1991) pointed out that impact and shock phenomena should be present in the area  surrounding the Columbia River province if it resulted from extraterrestrial  action, but they are entirley absent.
_ As we noted in Chapters 3 and 4, Mooney et al. (1983) observed that all active  rifts studied by them have an anomalous lower crust with P-wave velocities in the  7.0 to 7.7 km/s range (Fig. 6.36). [Others] obtained the identical result.... Fuchs  (1974) believed that this pod of anomalous lower crustal material houses the  mechanism that causes rifting. It is interesting to note that all midocean ridges  have a pod of 7.0-7.7 km/s as well (..., 1959-1965). (Furthermore, each island arc  and foldbelt also has a pod of 7.0-7.7 km/s material that pinches out from the  center of the arc or foldbelt (..., 1987-1989 ... for the Japan arc ... [and] for  the Appalachians.)
_ Figure 3.6 is a cross section across the Baykal rift, from Krylov et al. (1979)  and Sychev (1985). Years of refraction work have shown [that] Lake Baykal is  underlain at about 32 km by a pod that is connected to the deeper asthenosphere.  The shallow pod contains a low-velocity zone that presumably is a partial melt. The  pod extends the full length of the rift. It is, in short, a channel containing  partly molten magma and an excellent example of one of our surge channels. Were it  to burst, we believe that it would produce another linear flood-basalt province.
_ According to our surge tectonic hypothesis, magma in surge channels moves both  vertically and horizontally. When two surge channels come in contact, their magmas  join together. If they are oriented at an appreciable angle to one another, we  believe that the result is a "collision". These5 "collisions" are responsible for  the eruption of round or ovate flood-basalt provinces worldwide.

We have proposed a new hypothesis of global tectonics in this book, one that is  different and will be considered unorthodox by many scientists and non-scientists  alike. However, we believe that current tectonic hypotheses cannot adequately  explain the increasing volume of data being collected by both old and new  technologies. We believe that the hypothesis of surge tectonics does explain these  data sets, in a way that is simple and more accurate.
 The major points of the surge-tectonics hypothesis can be summarized as follows:
 1. All linear to curvilinear mesoscopic and megascopic structures and landforms  observed on Earth (and similar features seen on Mars, Venus, and the moons of  Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus), and all magmatic phenomena are generated, directly or  indirectly, by surge channels. The surge channel is the common denominator of  geology, geophysics, and geochemistry.
 2. Surge channels formed and continue to form an interconnected worldwide network  in the lithosphere. They contain fluid to semifluid magma, or mush, differentiated  from the Earth's asthenosphere by the cooling of the Earth. All newly  differentiated magma in the asthenosphere must rise into the lithosphere. The newly  formed magma has a lower density and therefore, is gravitationally unstable in the  asthenosphere. It rises in response to the Peach-Kohler climb force to its level of  neutral buoyancy (that is, to form a surge channel).
<<So no vertical channels are needed
 3. Lateral movements in the Earth's upper layers are a response to the Earth's  rotation. Differential lag between the more rigid lithosphere above and the (more)  fluid asthenosphere below causes the fluid, or mushy, materials to move relatively  eastward.
 4. Surge channels are alternately filled and emptied. A complete cycle of filling  and emptying is a geotectonic cycle.
<<I rather think they don't empty; they solidify
The geotectonic cycle takes place along this sequence of events:
 a. Contraction of the strictosphere is always underway, because the Earth is  cooling;
<<...with minor exceptions due to major impacts
 b. The overlying lithosphere, which is already cool, does not contract, but  adjusts its basal circumference to the upper surface of the shrinking strictosphere  by large-scale thrusting along lithosphere Benioff zones and normal-type faulting  along the strictosphere Benioff zones.
<<Benioff zones were caused by recent impacts, so little shrinkage has occurred  since then, though major local and sometimes minor global effects have likely  occurred
 c. Thrusting of the lithosphere is not a continuous process, but occurs when the  lithosphere's underlying dynamic support fails. When the weight of the lithosphere  overcomes combined resistance of the asthenosphere and Benioff zone friction,  lithosphere collapse begins in a episodic fashion. Hence, tectogenesis is episodic.
<<Such collapse is likely frequent and minor, due to daily electrified tides
 d. During anorogenic intervals between lithosphere collapses, the asthenosphere  volume increases slowly as the strictosphere radius decreases and decompression of  the asthenosphere begins.
 e. Decompression is accompanied by rising temperature, increased magma generation,  and lowered viscosity in the asthenosphere, which gradually weakens during the time  intervals between collapses.
 f. During lithosphere collapse into the asthenosphere, the continentward (hanging  wall) sides of the lithosphere Benioff zones override (obduct) the ocean floor. The  entire lithosphere buckles, fractures, and founders. Enormous compressive stresses  are created in the lithosphere.
<<Again, the stresses should be minor, since they're frequent
 g. When the lithosphere collapses into the asthenosphere, the asthenosphere-  derived magma in the surge channels begins to surge intensely. Where volume of  magma in the channels exceeds volumetric capacity, and when compression in the  lithosphere exceeds the strength of the lithosphere that directly overlies the  surge channels, the surge-channel roofs rupture along the cracks that comprise the  fault-fracture-fissure system generated before the rupture. Rupture is bivergent  and forms continental rifts, foldbelts, strike-slip zones, and midocean rifts. We  call such bilaterally deformed belts kobergens.
<<This all occurred during the relatively recent major impact event
 h. Once tectogenesis is completed, another geotectonic cycle or subcycle sets in,  commonly within the same belt.
<<Surge channels likely only form during major impact events
 5. Movement in the surge channel during the taphrogenic phase of the geotectonic  cycle is parallel with the channel. It is also very slow, not exceeding a few  centimeters per year. Flow at the surge-channel walls is laminar as evidenced by  the channel-parallel faults, fractures, and fissures observed at the Earth's  surface (Stoke's Law). Such flow also produced the more or less regular  segmentation observed in tectonic belts.
 6. Tectogenesis has many styles. Each reflects the rigidity and thickness of the  overlying lithosphere. In opcean basins where the lithosphere is thinnest, massive  basalt flooding occurs. At ocean-continent transitions, eugeosynclines with  alpinotype tectogenesis form. In continental interiors where the lithosphere is  thicker, either germanotype foldbelts or continental rifts are created.
 7. During the geotectonic cycle, and within the eugeosynclinal regime, the central  core (crest of the surge channel) evolves from a rift basin to a tightly compressed  slpinotype foldbelt. Thus a rift basin up to several hundred kilometers wide  narrows through time until it is a zone no more than a few kilometers wide that is  occupied by a streamline (strike-slip) fault zone (e.g. the San Andreas fault).  Then as compression takes over and dominates the full width of the surge-channel  crest, the streamline fault zone is distorted, surge channel still contains any  void spaces, the overlying rocks may collapse into it, and through this process of  Verschluckung (engulgment) become a Verschluckungzone.
 8. The Earth above the strictosphere resembles a giant hydraulic press that  behaves according to Pascal's Law. A hydraulic press consists of a containment  vessel, fluid in that vessel, and a switch or trigger mechanism. In the case of the  Earth, the containment vessel is the interconnected surge-channel system; the fluid  is the magma in the channels; and the trigger mechanism is worldwide lithosphere  collapse into the asthenosphere when that body becomes too weak to sustain the  lithosphere dynamically. Thus tectogenesis may be regarded as surge-channel  response to Pascal's Law.
 9. Surge channels, active or inactive, underlie nearly every major feature of the  Earth's surface, including all rifts, foldbelts, metamorphic belts, and strike-slip  zones. These belts are roughly bisymmetrical, have linear surface swaths of faults,  fractures, and fissures, and belt-parallel stretching lineations. Aligned plutons,  ophiolites, melange belts, volcanic centers, kimberlite dikes, diatremes, ring  structures and mineral belts are characteristic. Zoned metamorphic belts are also  characteristic. In some areas, linear river valleys, flood basalts, and/or vortex  structures may be present. A lens of 7.8-7.0 km/s material always underlies the  belt.
 10. Active surge channels are most easily recognized by the presence of high heat  flow (Fig. 2.26), microseismicity, lines of thermal springs, small negative Bouguer  gravity anomalies, and a 7.8-7.0 km/s lens of material that is transparent in the  center or throughout.
 11. Inactive surge channels possess a linear positive magnetic anomaly, a linear  Bouguer positive gravity anomaly, and a linear, lens-shaped pod of 7.8-7.0 km/s  material that is reflective throughout.
 12. A surge-tectonics approach to geodynamics provides a new means for determining  the origin of the Earth's features and their evolution through time, for analyzing  regions prone to earthquakes and volcanism, and for predicting the location and  formation of mineral deposits throughout the globe.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13