Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Last post by Admin on May 26, 2017, 07:28:59 pm »
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017, 9:33 AM
_Lloyd, I'm only addressing your first two points in this response. I'll address rating in a followup email.
_Inviting members to the forum: Remember, the email string is a renegade email environment. NO RULES!  David and CNPS have no authority there. And "as a rule" they avoid it. So, to invite members, you essentially just go OFF TOPIC! You post an email, "reply all", and state your goal.  For example, "Anyone interested in this topic might be interested joining XYZ on the Forum." Also, after a few days, you will have dozens of emails with different topics. So, go out of order and reply all to the email with a topic that is closest to what you want to talk about.  Remember, please don't fall into the rat hole.
_Structure:I looked at your 4.1 Photonic Universe set up. Your suggestions now make
more sense to me, along with your explanations below. I had never considered using the forum to directly develop a paper. I always considered it a much larger, CNPS wide event. So, this is a very good idea for smaller efforts and can be added as an alternative element of the structured approach.
_Notice, we {two blindfolded researchers communicating by email}  have been examining the elephant from different sides. Let me expand on your observations and you will see the problem.
_The term "Summary":  Yes, by this I did mean "discussion summary", but not just from the standpoint of content summarization. More importantly, I viewed it as a running summary of coordination of the discussion. Think of this more as a "status report". The goal being, when a new person enters the discussion, or someone has left for awhile and returned, the "summary" tells them: 1. what this forum is all
about - its goals, challenges etc.; 2. what has gone on so far (discussion summary); 3. what issues have been resolved; 4. what issues are hot now;  and 5. what are the current focus activities. Again, in short, my "summary" is a project "status report". Item 2, which is what you started to do, does not need to be a line-by-line summary. Too much work.
_The term "coordination": This did not foresee paper writing. As such, it was simply coordination of the discussion in an attempt to resolve specific scientific questions. Any paper that came out of that, I thought, would be written by the facilitator as a personal activity, possibly involving others as co-authors.
_The term "external inputs": As part of the facilitation, I expected the facilitator to bring in material from sources outside the discussion as "drivers" to focus or promote the discussion. For example, one discussion on the email string degraded into an emotional fight about what Einstein believed and meant about the speed of light. I jumped in (which I only did infrequently) with a long quotation I cited "verbatim" from a transcribed presentation that Einstein made. I emphasize
"verbatim" because I had to stay in the discussion long enough to just get them to acknowledge that they could not make up their own story about what Einstein "said" when there was physical history that recorded what he said. In the end, they ignored me and went back to fighting. This is where the control of the structured part of the forum can shut this down, without actually moderating (by deletion) the actual discussion. So, the external inputs section would collect these intervention documents. Another group of "external inputs" would be discussions from other forums brought in by the facilitator which challenged the forum discussion.
_The term "documentation": I picked this word because the external "material" could be in any form: papers, speeches, drawings, graphics, articles, quotes from anywhere including other forums, books, policies, data tables etc. To me, "references" seemed to apply just to formal papers and books.
_Possible solution: Here is an approach I think addresses both of our approaches.
1. If the facilitator wants to produce a paper as the outcome of the forum discussion, this is stated in the forum launch. 2. An additional forum entry is made for this, e.g. 4.1.1.4  Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper . This can be formatted (by me during set up) as: open access; moderated; facilitator only.  The facilitator would decide which one. 3. The term "references" is just as good and easy to incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled "Summary" document. 4. The "external input" function could be merged into the references but also added directly into the discussion. For example, if the facilitator (or anyone else)  brought in a post from another forum, they would post it and its citation as part of the discussion. The facilitator would then grab the citation for the "reference" section.

---

On May 26, 2017, at 12:55 AM)
Hi Bruce. Your last email was in my spam folder all day along with a bunch of emails from your email string.
_I thought you had said earlier that the purpose of the structured forum was to produce papers for the Wiki. If not, then what is the purpose? Just to have fun?
_You said: "Possible solution:
1. If the facilitator wants to produce a paper as the outcome of the forum discussion, this is stated in the forum launch."
2. An additional forum entry is made for this, e.g. 4.1.1.4  Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper . This can be formatted ( by me during set up ) as: open access; moderated; facilitator only.  The facilitator would decide which one."
__I think I'd prefer facilitator only for mine. Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?
_"3. The term 'references' is just as good and easy to incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled 'Summary' document."
__Okay, but instead of "Summary", I think I'd prefer "Ongoing Status Report" or "New & Returning Members, Read This!", if I understand you.
_"4. The 'external input' function could be merged into the references but also added directly into the discussion. For example, if the facilitator (or anyone else)  brought in a post from another forum, they would post it and its citation as part of the discussion. The facilitator would then grab the citation for the "reference" section.
__Right. As for the phrase "external inputs", it seemed vague to me, but I don't know if other people would have that impression.

---

Friday, May 26, 2017 10:39 AM
<Bruce
_There are multiple purposes for the structured forum. Here were my goals in general order of priority:
_Discuss single topics to break down disagreements among members around specific issues. CNPS members are strongly divided about Relativity. Most of this, however, is due to simple language flaws. If those could be resolved, then doors would open for serious work.
_Set up structure to improve all discussions. This would include things like: set up a bibliography for novice members to answer "resolved" issues without taking up forum effort; set up a bibliography for "expert" members as the basis for discussion. They now rely on memory, which they present full of errors.
_Breakdown topics into items that need separate resolution, with the goal of a larger result ( that might end up with one or more papers). For example, we are talking about developing a number of low cost experiments that will resolve the Relativity / Aether debate once and for all.
_The forum will be the primary mechanism to plan and coordinate member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and expansion of conferences.
_The structured forum will become a new paradigm for coordinating scientific research. Creating more papers, the way it is done now, even by academia, is just one more landfill.
_" I think I'd prefer facilitator only for mine."   OK. I'll set up a "closed" forum for you: 4.1.1.4  Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper
_"Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?"       See list above.
_"3. The term 'references' is just as good and easy to incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled 'Summary' document." __Okay, but instead of "Summary", I think I'd prefer "Ongoing Status Report" or "New & Returning Members, Read This!", if I understand you."
_At this stage of experimentation, I'm open to different wording for the structured elements for different forums. So, pick out your titles and the order they should show up in.  HOWEVER, make sure you cover the needed structure issues:
1. A summary of what is going on in the discussion: status report a. what this forum is all about - its goals, challenges etc.; b. what has gone on so far (discussion summary); c. what issues have been resolved and what breakthrough conclusions have come up; d. what issues are hot now;  e. what are the current focus activities (which are different from d. due to renegade members); f. what you believe the stumbling blocks to resolution are.
2. Guidelines - coordination - of what you want the current discussion to focus on. If you have a real team effort going, list the assignments.
3. A brief bibliography of key material that sets the foundation for the discussion. This includes updates as the discussion goes forward.
4. A mechanism for bringing in outside viewpoints. This can be merged into the discussion for both you and members. But it also needs a semi-static document to cite it or directly include the text, and not rely only on the waterfall discussion.

---

5/26 7:11 PM
Hi Bruce. My reply is in two parts.
_Part 1.
Here is my understanding of your structured forum goals, which I label A-D, with your quotes in << - >>:
A. Attempt to resolve disagreements among members:
<<Discuss single topics to break down disagreements among members around specific issues. CNPS members are strongly divided about Relativity. Most of this, however, is due to simple language flaws. If those could be resolved, then doors would open for serious work.>>
B. Set up bibliographies to reduce newbies' questions:
<<Set up structure to improve all discussions. This would include things like: set up a bibliography for novice members to answer "resolved" issues without taking up forum effort; set up a bibliography for "expert" members as the basis for discussion. They now rely on memory, which they present full of errors.>>
C. Each section develop goals, like doing experiments, writing papers ... :
<<Breakdown topics into items that need separate resolution, with the goal of a larger result ( that might end up with one or more papers). For example, we are talking about developing a number of low cost experiments that will resolve the Relativity / Aether debate once and for all.>>
D. Improve & promote CNPS & scientific research:
<<The forum will be the primary mechanism to plan and coordinate member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and expansion of conferences.
The structured forum will become a new paradigm for coordinating scientific research. Creating more papers, the way it is done now, even by academia, is just one more landfill.>>
_My impressions are:
A seems useful.
B seems difficult & of questionable value. We or some of us could try it and do a survey to say what's worthwhile in the effort.
C seems most valuable.
D sounds like what the last CNPS forum might be doing. Right?
_Part 2.
You said:
<<At this stage of experimentation, I'm open to different wording for the structured elements for different forums. So, pick out your titles and the order they should show up in.  HOWEVER, make sure you cover the needed structure issues:
1. A summary of what is going on in the discussion: status report
a. what this forum is all about - its goals, challenges etc.;
b. what has gone on so far (discussion summary);
c. what issues have been resolved and what breakthrough conclusions have come up;
d. what issues are hot now; 
e. what are the current focus activities (which are different from d. due to renegade members);
f. what you believe the stumbling blocks to resolution are.
2. Guidelines - coordination - of what you want the current discussion to focus on. If you have a real team effort going, list the assignments.
3. A brief bibliography of key material that sets the foundation for the discussion. This includes updates as the discussion goes forward.
4. A mechanism for bringing in outside viewpoints. This can be merged into the discussion for both you and members. But it also needs a semi-static document to cite it or directly include the text, and not rely only on the waterfall discussion.>>
_My impressions are:
1a seems useful and easy enough.
1b-e seem difficult & of lesser value. Readers can do most of those things themselves.
1f seems possibly useful, but it may be time-consuming & hard to remember to do.
2 seems okay.
3 seems only slightly useful. This sounds like "Important Files" or the like on some forums. Maybe the CNPS forum setup will make the bibliography more convenient than on most forums. But there should be a survey eventually to ask members how helpful the bibliography is and whether and how it should be improved (ditto for the whole forum).
4 seems slightly useful too.
_Let's see if I can come up with thread titles, now that you've explained your goals more completely. Okay, here are my choices for thread titles:
1st - for 1a & 1b-f & 2 (all in one thread): purpose, status report & assignments(?);
2nd - for a wiki working paper: wiki working paper;
3rd - for 3 & 4 (in one thread): bibliography & important outside viewpoints.
All of those would be stickied in that order and the discussion section would be unstickied. How's that?

---

Saturday, May 27, 2017 5:33 PM
<Bruce
_This is a good summary of my points. Your selection of titles covers all of my points plus your working paper. So, let's give it a shot.
_I notice that you already changed the titles in your section with the subheading Important threads.  That is how I would have done it, but with 4.1.1.4 numbering. Am I right that you created the subheadings: Important threads, and Normal Threads, using a "sticky" function?.  I tried logging in as a member to see if I could reply to these. I was able to. That's what I want to stop by locking the forums you called "Important", so regular members can't post in that area - Too many trolls.
_The only title I'm not sure if you want to lock or not is the Working Paper. I thought you said you wanted to lock it, but I can't find that discussion. Let me know about this.
_While I generally agree with your summary, there are still a few comments where I haven't convinced you of the merit. A way to do that might be for me to participate in your forum. When the issues come up, if I point them out, I think you will then see my concerns.
_A few, however, I can address right now:
_Setting up the bibliographies for newbies - yes, this is a difficult task. But I wouldn't expect any single forum, like yours, to complete the effort. Over time, however, many forums making a few contributions each would produce a large impact.
_For example ( and this relates to your MM paper ), there should not be any confusion about principles like "photons". The MM paper falls right into this quagmire. So as soon as any member raises a question about what a photon is, they should be referred to the Definition section of the Forum - in this case: 8. Definitions - Photon. And why this is a good example is, when a newbie or newly joining expert jumps to the Photon definition, what I expect is they will NOT get a simple answer.  Instead, they will be referred to a number of Critical Wiki articles that show the scientific community, at large, is still very divided about what photons are. After they read a few articles, they would return to your forum with a much more open and critical approach.
_Yes, for approach D,  the Work Group section will be involved. But largely to "coordinate" this goal. The primary work effort, however, will be for specific structured forums to make the scientific progress. And, it will be the ability of the structured approach to break down barriers to progress that will attract new members.

---

5/27 7:45 PM
Hi Bruce.
_I don't remember using thread titles "Important threads" and "Normal threads". I guess it's possible.
_Am I right that you've made me facilitator of just these forums?
3.3.3 The Scientific Method
4.1.1 Electric Universe or Aether
6.1 Catastrophism
6.2 Expansion Tectonics
6.3 Surge Tectonics
_I guess you'll be providing 3 locked threads for each of them titled:
- purpose, status report & assignments(?)
- wiki working paper
- bibliography & important outside viewpoints
plus an unlocked section titled discussion.
_After you do that, then I can change the titles of some of the threads that I started and relocate the contents appropriately.
_Which forum/s would you like to post in to help get me oriented?
_I invited email string members to a thread in 3.3.3.
22
CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Last post by Admin on May 23, 2017, 09:21:11 pm »
Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:37 PM
_Lloyd, I really appreciate your support with this.
_I can't find any way to regulate the "sticky" function other than turn it on or off. But starting a new focus topic like P.U.T is where I should set you up with a structured format. It would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and coordination  (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs and documentation  (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure.
_I don't have control of the date labeling. When I open the page, it shows the creation date. BUT, it also has a note saying, "last modified xx/yy/zz".  If you don't think this is strong enough, you could add a note in bold at the top of the page:  "LAST UPDATE: xx/yy/zz" .  You could also include separate updates. Decide if this is needed - just another admin headache. Where it would make sense is on the coordination page. List the date each "coordination" guideline is posted and dated entries under a new subheading: COMPLETED.
_I wish my experience with participants was as positive as yours. On the email string it was hard to find even 5 good peer reviewers out of 50. Not only are many outright trolls, but most are also incapable of logical clarity. This is why I am so interested in your reviewing rules. Were you ever on the email string? If not, I can put you on for a few days and then get you off. All that is needed is to have a few troublesome "trigger" words show up and they will polarize into clans. The word "relativity" would cause a fire storm; so would "God", which shows up all the time. Sure we could edit those out, but that would impose both a heavy editing "hand" and a lot of effort. I also think your P, M, I rating would result in a wave of complaints from all those who don't agree. That's why, I was hoping your review approach would FORCE the group to "resolve" all the issues to categories like: most probable explanation (7 reviews); clarifications;  all dissenting views - a. xxxxxx; b. xxxxxx  etc.  At this point, I agree that a high count of multiple "probable" reviews would give a theory a high place in a WIKI. But I'd like to see some summary reference to the dissents.
_When I said, "ALL" the papers, I was anticipating that for some topic, like Photonic Universe, there would be many theories submitted. Each would be reviewed. But there would be a lot of similarities, with variations, among them. For example, in your "Working Paper", you included a "definition" of "PHOTON: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius… which is detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation …."  I would contribute a short paper under this topic for Space Lattice Theory that would challenge this definition. In SLT, for example, the photon has a very different "definition". It is not a physical entity, but a dislocation (localized void) in a structured lattice. HOWEVER, in SLT, dislocations produce all the properties of mass. So, in your forum on P.U.T., your definition for photon would get a "probable" rating, and my SLT concept would show up as a dissenting view. In a forum for SLT, my photon definition would be "probable" and your definition a dissenting view. THAT SAID, in yet another place in the forum, i.e. the DEFINITIONS section, the "classical" photon definition might be "most probable" and both of our definitions dissents.
_I do agree with your idea of prioritizing based on some scale of "value". Until we see the response to this, I wouldn't jump to a simple "humanity and the ecosystem" criterion. Where I think this is heading is something more like multiple scales. For example, "Current discussions related to human sustainability are: 2.1.2.2 Synchronizing Clocks; 2.1.2.4 Twin Paradox; 3.4 Science at the supernatural boundary etc..   Current discussions on ecosystems: 6. Earth Sciences; 6.1 Catastrophism …etc. "  This is easy to do because the lists would be short.

---

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

-----

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM
<Bruce: Re "thread titles", there is no separate control that I can set for that. You are allowed to edit your posts. So, the fact that it doesn't let you change the titles is a built in control. You could delete and repost, but that might not produce meaningful dates on the posts. I think I can change the titles. So, I could do that for you if it isn't done often.
_Since I haven't set up the 4.1.1.4 forums, suggest a better title. But if what you want to change is "summary and coordination" or "External Inputs and documentation", we should discuss why. What are the functions of a "working paper"? Why aren't "summary" in my wording and "discussion summary" in yours the same? Why isn't "documentation" in mine and "references" in yours the same?
_Your membership fee is not related to the email string.  The membership fee just makes your participation in the Forum official. David just made you a Forum member before you paid your fee because he recognized you.  You get on the email string when someone includes you in the cc: list. You get off when someone removes you. You don't have any say in it, except to complain. I'll put you in. But, please, just loiter for a few days. It's a rat hole because everything will go into the landfill. Yes, you can ask members to look at specific Forum topics. They all know about the Forum. So, no need to tell them. Many participate in both places.
_For Lattice Theory, take a look at http://www.a3society.org/LatticeTheory . This has multiple length versions of the theory. I haven't put it on the forum because I want to get at least one structured forum going. It would be a topic that is much more popular like a relativity / aether test match. I have one. Just haven't had time to launch it.
_What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I try?

-----

5/24 7:33 PM
Hi Bruce. I read part of the email group discussion. Where was David saying I could invite members to the forum?
_I think you want to have 3 types of threads:
1. "summary and coordination"
2. "External Inputs and documentation" and
3. "discussion".
I think by "summary" you mean "discussion summary". And by "coordination" I think you mean "coordination on collectively writing a CNPS wiki paper". I figured that "working paper" makes that more obvious. And it doesn't seem to be helpful to have the discussion summary in with the working paper. It's also not obvious to me yet that a discussion summary is needed. If it IS needed for some reason, I could maybe just bold the main words in the discussions, as I started to do.
_I'm not clear on whether "external inputs" would be something other than "discussion". And "documentation" seems like presenting lots of paperwork, so I thought "references" would be clearer and less overwhelming.
_So the thread titles that seem best to me are:
"working paper"; "references"; "discussion"; and "theory rating".
The first two would be stickied; the last two would not. If "discussion summary" is needed for some reason, I'd prefer to put it with "references". I'll discuss "theory rating" below.
_You said: "What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I try?"
_Well, I started 3 threads for "theory rating" here:
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=180
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=181
_Each thread starts like this:
Rate this theory & give reasons for I-ratings (in parentheses).
RATING: [for reader to fill in]
_I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
-----------------------------------
_Spoiler alert: I rated the 3 theories as follows, respectively:
21P, 13M, 1I
9P, 4I
17P, 1M
I included the reasons for my I-ratings.
_The I-ratings could show:
a) what the reader didn't read or understand, or
b) what the theorist needs to explain better, or
c) what needs to be dropped or replaced from the theory.
Readers giving their reasons for I-ratings should be helpful to theorists.
The M-ratings could show deficiencies too, but the I's should probably have the theorist's highest priority for addressing.
_The process of rating essential elements goes pretty fast. It should make it fairly easy for readers/reviewers to rate theories. It just requires someone to take the time to determine the essential elements of a theory and display them. Even that isn't very time-consuming in many cases. I've read a lot of theories and I can remember some or many of the essential elements of many of them. It seems like reading the essential elements of a theory helps the reader to understand it quite a bit. Maybe the ratings would help theorists improve the list of essential elements and the definitions.
_My impression is that a streamlined wiki could be developed pretty quick, if it mainly just showed the essential elements of any theory or claim, and if it had a way like this for readers to rate each essential element (and a way to rate the raters). I'm imagining a dynamic wiki that would be constantly improving, due to reader and theorist interactions.
_Will you let me know where you post your rating of PUT?
23
Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« Last post by Admin on May 23, 2017, 11:23:00 am »
5/23 11:20 AM
Hi Robert.
_How often do you have time for discussion? Once or more a week?
_On the CNPS forum at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=127 I just started a working paper on Impact-Flood Catastrophism. Here's what I have so far.
_IMPACT-FLOOD CATASTROPHISM
_ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS & DEFINITIONS
Planetoid: any rocky body in outer space: i.e. meteor, comet, asteroid, moon, rocky planet
Recent Planetoidal Near-Collision/s: planetoid/s coming close enough to Earth to raise high tides
Megatides/Megatsunamis: tides/tsunamis high enough to deposit sedimentary rock strata
Impacts: fall of planetoids on Earth's surface
Megasequence: conforming strata between unconforming strata
Megasequences Deposition: deposition of conforming strata
Supercontinent: large continent composed of smaller continents
Supercontinent Breakup: breakup of a supercontinent into smaller continents due to impact/s
Impact Orogeny: mountain uplift caused by continent breakup
Impact Volcanism: volcanic eruptions caused by
Radiometric Dating: using radioactive decay in rock to estimate the time it formed
Radiometric Dating Errors: errors in estimating ages of rock due to changing decay rates
Gradualism: the theory that large-scale geological features change very gradually, not rapidly
Gradualism Errors: overlooking the fact that large-scale cataclysms can cause rapid geological changes
Fossilization: formation of fossils during strata deposition
Atmosphere Shrinkage: shrinkage of the atmosphere due to rapid losses to space
Gigantism: tendency of plants and animals to grow to giant size
End of Gigantism: loss of conditions favoring gigantism
Ice Age: time of widespread glaciation
Ancient Myths: ancient anthropomorphic reports about celestial conditions before, during and after cataclysms
Advanced Ancient Civilization: high tech civilization in ancient times, destroyed by cataclysms
_I expect that you disagree about some of those. So I'd like to discuss our disagreements on the TB forum? Are you willing to do that? I think that would help a lot to clear up differences.
24
Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« Last post by Admin on May 23, 2017, 09:31:24 am »
5/16 8:08 PM
_Hi Mike. I found a catastrophist who's willing to collaborate, named Robert, though he's not yet impressed with Shock Dynamics. You're much more knowledgeable on geology than I am. Can you provide a good counter-argument to his statements on orogenesis that follow? He says they formed by vertical uplift, rather than by horizontal folding, but it seems to me that the uplift was surely due to the horizontal compression. Right? If so, what's the best proof/s? Thanks for any help.
_He said as follows:
_With orogenesis the book to read on the subject is The Origin of Mountains by Ollier and Pain https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Mountains-Cliff-Ollier/dp/0415198909
_Mountains are not what people generally think- the authors make it clear that mountains have formed regardless of the underlying strata and/or bedrock. It is whole regions that have experienced rapid uplift then depending on how much erosion has occurred determines what we call the uplifted area- little erosion we call a plateau- substantial erosion we would call a mountain range. As the authors say ‘there are no fold mountains’. https://preachrr.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/foldedlayers.jpg
_So, from the above image the strata would have been deposited and folded on a pre-existing flat surface. Later the surface was uplifted and eroded leaving behind mountains. Ollier and Pain are certainly not catastrophists but they do realise that during a unique period in Earth history rapid uplift occurred (vertical not lateral movements) - then stopped, nothing like it happened before or has happened since.

---

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:44 PM
_Re Orogeny
_Hi Lloyd,
_In the days before Plate Tectonics took over geology, the idea of stasis was pervasive.  There was just uplift and subsidence.  I am surprised that anyone still holds to that notion as a catastrophist; quite odd.  One of the few significant mountain ranges raised by simple uplift is the Transantarctic Mountains.  But as veteran orogeny specialist Peter Molnar wrote,
_"Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world are a consequence of crustal shortening."
Some Simple Physical Aspects of the Support, Structure, and Evolution of Mountain Belts. Peter Molnar, H. Lyon-Caen.  Special Paper 218, Geological Society of America, 1988, pp. 179-207.
_Ollier and Pain are rightly heralded by catastrophists for writing "Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time.  Some earth process switched on and created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift.  This is a deviation from uniformitarianism." (The Origin of Mountains. Cliff Ollier, Colin Pain. 2000. Routledge, London. p. 303.)
_Nevertheless, as old-school Australian geomorphologists they are sympathetic to the vertical tectonics they grew up with.
_Regarding the building of the Himalayas,  "Convergence between the Indian and Eurasian plates is estimated to be at least 1000-1400 km or as much as 2000-3000 km." (Li, Chang, Robert D. van der Hilst, Anne S. Meltzer, E. Robert Engdahl. 2008. Subduction of the Indian lithosphere beneath the Tibetan Plateau and Burma. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 274, pp. 157-168.)
_In other words, the collision of India with Asia shortened the two landmasses by a total of 1000 to 3000 km, folding mountains and raising the Tibetan Plateau.
_An observation from a specialist in Appalachian mountain geology is old but unambiguous: "the evidence of intense shortening perpendicular to the length of the chain, not only in the folded marginal belts but also in the central core belt, is too clear for me to doubt that there was not only confining but directed pressure, the greatest compressive stress being consistently directed roughly horizontally across the orogenic belt." (Rodgers, John. 1970. The Tectonics of the Appalachians. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. p. 224.)
_I could go on and on.  Someone who dismisses compressional orogeny and clings to vertical tectonics will no doubt be unimpressed by Shock Dynamics geology, but I suspect they are not operating with an open mind.
25
CNPS Structured Discussion / Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Last post by Admin on May 21, 2017, 01:56:44 pm »
Hi Bruce. You said:  I'm sure others have analyzed the MM theory.  If we could find reports already written about this, it would save a huge amount of our time.

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

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

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

-----

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

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

-----

5/23/17 8:50AM
>Bruce
_I got started on the Photonic Universe forum, including a list of essential elements of the model. Now I'm trying to start on the Electrodynamic Universe forum and the Catastrophism forum, since I have a sense of how to proceed.
_I wanted to sticky a couple threads that I had started before, but the stick option was no longer available once they were posted without sticking them, but the stick option was available by posting a second message in the same thread. So I was able to stick them, but I had to delete the second post, because you want just one post each in those threads that I post in exclusively. So it would be nice if the stick option would remain after first posting without sticking, instead of with being available only with the second post.
_Another issue is the date on the threads that I post in exclusively. They show the date of the first posting. Instead, they should show the date of the updated posting. Otherwise, readers will think the thread hasn't been posted to since the first posting. An example of this is on my thread: "Electrodynamic Universe - working paper".
_Also, when a reader opens the thread, the date of the first posting or edit should appear inside, and the last update at the top, maybe right above or before the first posting date. It might be good if each update date (not just the last one) were also listed inside, but not important.
_I'd like to experiment with "peer reviewers". I think any reader should be able to qualify as one by doing a short self-test on the forum.
_You said: "... we don't even have poor histories of prior criticism. Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any topic, then we can address your additional concerns."
--- Critiques sometimes contain good data, including on logic, but I don't think they're very important, because they take up time to review, interpret and discuss. I like to simplify a lot. Just one reader or peer reviewer is a good start for evaluating claims. I hope to try doing that before long myself, as a trial. Each essential element (claim or idea) of a model could be rated P for 70-100% probable, M for 30-70% probable (M for Maybe), or I for 0-30% probable (I for Improbable). I think all P ratings should eventually have explanations included, but wouldn't need to initially.
--- This simple method could be used for theories of any length. The sky is blue is a theory. A better theory would be that the sky is blue a certain percentage of the time etc. Long theories merely have more claims, each of which can be evaluated separately.
_You said: ""Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I think is good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as helpful is publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be flaws which are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.""
--- It's not clear what you mean by "ALL the papers". Will you explain? The readers' (peer reviewers') evaluations of essential elements of papers should be made public and we should make it easy to see which elements are rated P, M, and I, then the ones with the most P's should move to the Wiki, IMO.
_I think it's also important to prioritize theory topics. Those that seem most important for the good of humanity and the ecosystem should have highest priority. Readers or peer reviewers should be encouraged to evaluate those first. CNPS should also display them by such priority, IMO.
26
Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« Last post by Admin on May 16, 2017, 07:44:25 pm »
Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:57 PM
Hello Lloyd,
_Most of my career has been in electrical engineering, in various industries here in the UK, apart from six years or so as a train driver- I just tried my hand at doing something different- but I’m back in engineering now.
_For as long as I can remember I have had an interest in astronomy, earth science, prehistoric life etc. mostly self taught. As you might expect this route to knowledge was decidedly ‘mainstream’ shall we say? For example I subscribed to the US journal ‘The Skeptical Inquirer’ published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP) for over twenty years- a group that was highly critical of Velikovsky!
_For me doubts began to appear when I began questioning the claims of Big Bang theoreticians- when they developed concepts such as ‘baby universes’, ‘chaotic inflation’, ‘branes’ etc. the whole enterprise of modern theoretical science had become completely detached from reality. For about five years or so I was in a kind of conceptual wilderness, I began researching alternatives then by accident I came across the works of Alfven. This was it! Now the universe made sense again- it was electrical!
_From that revelation it was a series of intellectual ‘stepping stones’ that led me to Velikovsky, Juergens, Thornhill, Scott et al but initially I was sceptical until I was convinced that the mainstream were wrong.
_I joined the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in 2010, I’m now 50 years old so I guess I’m a late comer to catastrophism, but it was a natural progression for me, it is just so clear that Earth has suffered a major cataclysm- I only have a few print copies of Pensee, Kronos etc. most of the journals I read are contained on a copy of the ‘Catastrophism’ CD I have http://www.catastrophism.com/ .
_Lloyd, I will take your final point first, my views on the nature of the KT boundary layer I’ve had for nearly twenty years, at one time I intended to submit a paper to a scientific publication but never got past the developmental stage- the whole idea came to me following a brief discussion I had with Thomas Gold that centred around his Deep Earth Gas hypothesis.
_With orogenesis the book to read on the subject is The Origin of Mountains by Ollier and Pain https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Mountains-Cliff-Ollier/dp/0415198909
_Mountains are not what people generally think- the authors make it clear that mountains have formed regardless of the underlying strata and/or bedrock. It is whole regions that have experienced rapid uplift then depending on how much erosion has occurred determines what we call the uplifted area- little erosion we call a plateau- substantial erosion we would call a mountain range. As the authors say ‘there are no fold mountains’. https://preachrr.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/foldedlayers.jpg
_So, from the above image the strata would have been deposited and folded on a pre-existing flat surface. Later the surface was uplifted and eroded leaving behind mountains. Ollier and Pain are certainly not catastrophists but they do realise that during a unique period in Earth history rapid uplift occurred (vertical not lateral movements) - then stopped, nothing like it happened before or has happened since.
_When I look at such images I picture immense waves depositing freshly eroded sediment upon the surface of a pre-existing continent, tidal surges folding the layers in the process. Later certain areas were subject to electrical uplift if the discharge was particularly severe then vast amounts of material were electrically machined away leaving behind freshly cut mountains. The ‘age’ of the strata is not an indicator of the age of the mountain.
_I’m not a fan of really big impacts two suitably large bodies would not collide but following an exchange of charge they would be nudged into slightly different trajectories or one would capture the other- to my mind there never was a moon forming impact, that said the Shock Dynamics site does present the arguments against Plate Tectonics well and I’m all for that.
_When it comes to radiometric dating then creationist scientists have carried out extensive work in this field: http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
_I am aware of only a few papers that have been published in journals such as Ralph E. Juergens’ Radiohalos And Earth History from Kronos Vol. III No. 1 (Fall 1977) and a couple of others in SIS C&C Review are you aware of any others? Perhaps it is an area catastrophists need to focus on more?
_In my view radiometric dating is highly questionable to the point it may be meaningless, if the entire Phanerozoic rock record was laid down during a cataclysm then what went before has been almost completely demolished.
_I have attached a pdf file it is a paper by creationist scientist John Baumgardner you may find it of interest.

---

after 7:40PM
_Hi Robert. I'm pretty well aware of CSICOP and its biases, hypocrisy and pseudoskepticism.
_RADIOMETRIC DATING
_I collected most of my info on radiometric dating at http://funday.createaforum.com/2-11
_The best evidence there is at http://funday.createaforum.com/2-11/2-51 where there's this quote from Walter Brown's online book.
"Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this decreases its half-life more than a billionfold — from 42 billion years to 33 years.17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used in measuring half-lives.18"
_In his paper on Light Curves at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943 Charles calculated that the Sun and presumably the solar system are under 380 million years old and that radiometric dating ignores some facts. At http://funday.createaforum.com/2-11/increased-decay-rate I asked: Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?
Charles replied: Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat. Past that point, if they don't extract the heat from the core, it will go into runaway mode, resulting in a melt-down. So yes, the decay rate increases with temperature.
_ELECTRIC UNIVERSE
_You said: "I’m not a fan of really big impacts two suitably large bodies would not collide but following an exchange of charge they would be nudged into slightly different trajectories or one would capture the other- to my mind there never was a moon forming impact, that said the Shock Dynamics site does present the arguments against Plate Tectonics well and I’m all for that."
_Since you're an electrical engineer, would you be willing to have a friendly debate about the Electric Universe on the Thunderbolts forum? I tried to organize a debate there about 3 years ago, but couldn't get any more knowledgeable EU proponents, like Thornhill, Scott et al, to get involved. Charles was willing at that time, but no one else was, to speak of. Someone called Aristarchus debated him briefly, but didn't debate well.
_You're saying that large impacts aren't possible because like-charged bodies repel. That's one of the things I'd like to debate and several other issues too.
_CATASTROPHISM DATA
_What do you think is the best data in support of catastrophism and against uniformitarianism? I'd like to collect such data on the CNPS forum in preparation for a CNPS Wiki paper. And thanks for the article from Baumgardner. I have a lot of info from another paper by him on Noah's Flood.

---

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

27
Mike Messages / Robert's TB Posts
« Last post by Admin on May 16, 2017, 10:50:40 am »
Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process?
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=88481#p88481
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131015094026.htm
Lightning strikes causing rocks to explode have for the first time been shown to play a huge role in shaping mountain landscapes in southern Africa
My own view is that Earth’s mountains formed recently (within the last 250,000 years?)during a planet shattering cataclysm. A disruption of Earth's rotation resulted in repeated ocean surges forming immense plateaus of sedimentary rock were the ocean waters met pre-existing land areas. These plateaus were then etched by huge electrical discharges leaving behind the typical Lichtenberg morphology we see in many mountain ranges today.

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=88615#p88615
- I used the date of 250,000 years ago for the period of mountain building as an upper limit. My preferred age would be 20,000 +/- 10,000 years ago. I base this on the convergence of radiocarbon ages of ‘fossilised’ soft tissue from dinosaurs, megafauna etc. which were preserved in the same cataclysmic event that led to the formation of today’s mountain ranges. (I realise that problems exist regarding carbon dating but it’s the best I can do!)
- Whilst I have no problems with airborne material settling and forming layers (from a later electrical event), the fossil record primarily indicates a watery catastrophe. 95% of the fossil record consists of marine invertebrates, 4.75% plants [not including coal?], 0.24% insects and 0.01% fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, basically everything else!
- In my scenario as Earth’s rotation was disrupted not only did the ocean waters rush poleward but Coriolis forces led to immense ocean gyres causing ‘sloshing’ (to borrow a term). Where the flow was restricted by then existing landmasses, ranges such as the Alps and Himalaya formed. The Rockies and Andes formed due to the north-south orientation of the Americas acting as a simple barrier to the waters of the proto-Pacific.
- At this stage only immense plateaus of folded sediment (were we now find mountain ranges) existed and helped protect continental interiors from further devastating inundations. Electrical events now machined these plateaus forming the typical Lichtenberg morphology (this would have been the time when large amounts of airborne dust would have been present). The Tibetan Plateau is a good example of this, with the Himalaya to the south and Tian Shan to the north (perhaps the Taklimakan Desert is a depository for some machined material?)
- To my mind, Paul E. Anderson has done excellent work demonstrating the evidence for the electrical scarring of Earth’s surface: likewise, your work on external granite and basalt – again excellent. This is why I think the main erosive agent would have electrical discharge rather than water and why we find fossilised sea creatures in concretions (electrical fossilisation?) in mountainous areas.
- I also think that Earth’s carbonate strata and salt deposits are igneous in origin, that’s why we find carbonate in comets- it was machined from the Earth! Where from exactly, I don’t know but every time I look at the Pacific Ocean I wonder…

Re: Rock Strata Formation
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134&p=116046#p116046
- Is the K-T Boundary Layer a Coal Seam?

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134&p=116129#p116129
The information comes from ‘Creation of the Teton Landscape’ by Love, Reed and Pierce 2007. An earlier online edition with imperial as opposed to metric units can be found here:
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/grte/grte_geology/sec6.htm
... If we look at the strata concerned in the Alaska Basin: Flathead, Gros Ventre, Gallatin, Bighorn, Darby and Madison that gives us a deposit of some 2,455 feet, newer estimates may have been revised lower.
- According to the authors: ‘The regularity and parallel relations of the layers in well-exposed sections such as the one in Alaska Basin suggest that all these rocks were deposited in a single uninterrupted sequence. ...

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134&p=116131#p116131
- Did Limestone form catastrophically?
- ... Carbonatites are an unusual type of rock consisting of greater than 50% carbonate minerals and have a global distribution. The only active carbonatite volcano is Ol Doinyo Lengai in Tanzania; the lavas of Ol Doinyo Lengai are rich in the rare sodium and potassium carbonate minerals and are known as Natrocarbonatites. Other forms include Ferrocarbonatite, Calciocarbonatite and Magnesiocarbonatite.
- Carbonate rocks are not usually thought of as being igneous in origin but the idea is not a new one.
From an article in Nature (142: 704-705, 1938) ‘Limestones as Eruptive Rocks’, we read ‘…so early as 1892, some limestones occurring in the form of dykes and cutting the volcanic rocks of the Kaiserstuhl in Baden, were described by A. Knop, and three years later A. G. Hogbom described limestone dykes in a region of alkali-rich intrusive on the island of Alno in Sweden. Hogbom also recorded calcite as a primary mineral in some rocks at Alno, and there were other descriptions of primary calcite in alkali-eruptive rocks from Canada and India.’ ...
- Could it be that the guyots and seamounts of the western Pacific Ocean are all that remains of a former carbonatite/carbonate platform; a platform that was easily eroded by wave action during a cataclysm, the erosional products of which were transported far to the east to be deposited on a pre-existing landmass? Were Calciocarbonatites and Magnesiocarbonatites eroded re-worked and deposited as limestone and dolomite? If so, then perhaps limestone and dolomite should be re-classified as ‘catastrophites’! ...

An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116157#p116157
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116158#p116158
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116159#p116159
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116175#p116175
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116266#p116266
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117111#p117111
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117113#p117113
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117150#p117150
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117163#p117163
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117201#p117201
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117257#p117257
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117279#p117279
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117307#p117307
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117330#p117330
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117331#p117331
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117342#p117342
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117464#p117464
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117709#p117709
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117800#p117800
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117839#p117839
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118064#p118064
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118085#p118085
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118086#p118086
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118163#p118163
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118197#p118197
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118250#p118250
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118319#p118319
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118324#p118324
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118435#p118435
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=119121#p119121

Catastrophist Geology
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703&p=119310#p119310
- ... Does the Western Interior Seaway Have a Catastrophic Explanation?
- ... Creationist researcher Michael Oard in his book ‘Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries’ (see: http://creation.com/dinosaur-challenges-and-mysteries) introduces to the reader a hypothesis he calls BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) which is required under the creationist model to explain the strata and fossil distribution found in this band running the length of North America.
- From another article (see: http://creation.com/dino-stampede) Oard writes, ‘There is another interpretation that also fits the facts and that is the BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) hypothesis…The BEDS model is based on the fact that the level of the Floodwater would fluctuate up and down as it rose in the first half of the Flood.
- ...  John Baumgardner, ran computer models of a repeated near Earth encounter by a planet/moon sized body. Regarding the simulation he writes: ‘Although the water initially is at rest, accelerations from the giant tidal perturbation quickly lead to water velocities of 270 m/s (metres per second) and more, with high levels of turbulence, intense cavitation erosion, and sediment suspended and transported for thousands of kilometres, as surges of water rush into the continent interior.
- ... The Phanerozoic rock record covering or partly covering North America is comprised of six megasequences (megasequences are discrete groups of sedimentary rock layers bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, often with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom, followed by shale, and then limestone at the top),
- ... Experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault
- ... a. Superposed strata do not always result, according to Steno’s beliefs, from successive layers of sediment; consequently the principle of superposition does not always apply to strata formed in a current;
b. Stratification formed parallel to a slope exceeding an angle of 30°, can invalidate the principle of original horizontally. Inclined strata are not necessarily, therefore, the result of subsidence or uplift.’ ...

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703&p=119462#p119462
- Did Limestone form catastrophically? ...

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703&p=119577#p119577
- ... Whilst not all geological features require or necessitate an electrical aspect, in my view an electric discharge was the ‘prime mover’ during a catastrophic period of earth history. During this period both the characteristics of the Earth and its environment changed, a change the Earth is, even today, adjusting to- hence my thread ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’.
- I agree with your comment regarding salt, salt is certainly an igneous rock and I hope to post another contribution soon looking at a role played by salt- quite obviously I view the consensus geological explanation- vast dried up seas- with a large slice of scepticism! Salt may also play an important electrical role today something I touched on in ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’ given the amount of brines discovered by superdeep drilling projects- did conductive salt magmas play an electrical role in a past cataclysm? ...
28
Mike Messages / Re: Robert on Collaboration
« Last post by Admin 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 MaverickScience.com 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 http://NewGeology.us . 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.
29
Mike Messages / Robert on Collaboration
« Last post by Admin on May 13, 2017, 03:00:45 pm »
Re Robert's TB thread: Catastrophist Geology
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703

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 http://funday.createaforum.com . 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 http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-71 . 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 http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&start=720#p119437 . 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 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031 . 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?

G'Day
30
CNPS Structured Discussion / Message to Dave Talbott re Wiki
« Last post by Admin 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 http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561 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
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561

Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
CNPS WIKI
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 http://naturalphilosophy.org.

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.

REQUESTING ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE DATA

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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10