Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
CNPS Structured Discussion / BN 5-Part Plan
« Last post by Admin on June 02, 2017, 09:55:43 pm »
6/2 9:50 PM
_Hi Bruce. I wanted to start one or two threads in section 1 of the forums, but I don't see a way to do that? Don't members have that ability?
_I just now came across your critique of my 8-point scientific method. You apparently posted it on May 26. I previously came across the discussion that had been going on about the scientific method for some time, so I've been getting in late on these discussions.
_Your critique doesn't seem to say anything much different from what I had said are problems because many scientists and media don't really follow scientific method well. I haven't read your links to Carl Sagan's comments on scientific method, but I'm very unimpressed with Sagan myself. I believe he was one of the main supporters of mainstream corporate science lies. I don't know if you're aware of how much corporate greed has turned science into fairy tales.
_Your data on repeats of the MM experiment is very interesting. I'd enjoy hearing exactly what was measured to have the velocities you quoted.
_And your 5-part idea sounds good for improving science. 1. Store raw data for public access 2. along with critiques; 3. Summarize experiments historically and 4. develop better theories; 5. Self-organize teams to rectify false media claims to better inform the public. It may help for such teams to be aware of the problem of corporate greed and deep state dangers to science.
_Storing raw data & critiques sounds like fun. Do you have a place to store them? Can the Wiki have a section for raw data? I think most of the Wiki design will be a waste of effort, if it's to be based on the Wikipedia model.

---

Monday, June 5, 2017 1:45 PM
_Lloyd, Members can post new Threads, but not "forums". When I tried to give them that ability, they refused to even look through the outline to find existing forums that were appropriate to their new ideas. I have changed the explanation for the major category to instruct them about this.
_You should have received a direct email telling you I posted the May 26 reply. If you didn't you may not have had email notification turned on.
_Your point about me not criticizing your scientific method outline is correct. That approach is sound. The problems lie outside that method. Corporate greed is a major part of the problem, as you say. So, that's why I went into some depth on how Structured discussion is intended to fix this.
_About the MM experiment repeats, they all used the same geometry as MM, just adding better sensors, longer path lengths and changing variables that MM didn't think about. For example, Miller believed the aether was proved by MM, but it's slow speed was due to earth-capture. So he did tests a various altitudes, including high mountain sights. He showed a direct correlation of measured aether speed with altitude. He also was much more careful on temperature and pressure issues. All of the data I uncovered was on-line. I can't quickly find my reference list. But it should be something for us to put together.
_Monday, June 5, 2017 3:47 PM
_I think the raw data will eventually get stored in many places. For small amounts, it could essentially be an attachment to the paper. For huge studies, it may simply be permissions for access to the current repository. For medium data sets, CNPS has its own servers. Since CNPS is in control of the Wikis, we should be able to work that out. But again, I think it will be a referral to a separate document.
_About the "CNPS Critical Wikis", remember, while they "look" like a Wiki, and are "composed" using a Wiki document format, they are a totally different breed of cat because they do NOT allow public editing. CNPS controls the content.

---


22
CNPS Structured Discussion / Theory Rating
« Last post by Admin on May 31, 2017, 11:05:50 am »
Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:25 AM
<Bruce
_OK. I understand your objective. But, for me, I can't do the rating without having a broader understanding of the theory the pieces come from. As I said, they appear to be just a totally disjointed list of physics concepts.
_For example, your first entry is: P Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or multiple thereof. You rated this P. I'd rate it I. Why? Because the long history of the duality discussion - particle / wave - has not been resolved. For any statement that simply sides with a photon being "a particle of a fundamental mass and radius", but provides no sound explanation, it has to be labeled "improbable" because there is over 100 years of strong arguments that say it CAN'T be just a particle.
_This is why I don't find value in the a simple rating scale you are using. It's not the simplicity that's the issue. Here's another simple system I do think has value:
_Y = yes, I'm interested in discussing further;  N = no, I'm not.  At least this system would help locate people to carry an idea further. I think this Y/N version would actually be an outcome of your system. Let's say you picked one issue that scored P on your survey. That doesn't mean everyone who took the survey would work with you. Those who voted I just wouldn't participate, producing a de facto N.
_I think this is a typical case where you are "too close" to your subject. You know it so well. People like me, even with years of physics experience, are coming into it cold. We need a lot more background to help you. THAT is what I'm trying to coach people into doing with the structured method.
_So, point me to a paper on P.U.T. and let keep my test trial going.

---

.5/31) 11AM)
>Bruce.
_You say you want to "help locate people to carry an idea further". So in the theory rating thread at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151 I added this statement: YOUR INTEREST IN DISCUSSING P.U.T. (YES or NO):
_So here's how that thread starts out now.
-----------------------------------------
Below is the list of Essential Ideas of PUT.
Please rate each idea as I, M, or P:
I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
(& give reasons for I ratings in parentheses)
_WHAT RATING YOU GIVE P.U.T.:
_YOUR INTEREST IN DISCUSSING P.U.T. (YES or NO):
---------------------------------------------------
_What do you think of the objective of building an encyclopedic list of good alternative theories, explaining each one in about a paragraph, as a list of essential ideas of each theory?
_Each member on the email string and each other member of CNPS probably has their own theories. Would it be a good experiment to have a CNPS forum or section where we can try to list the essential ideas of each member's main theory? Each theory listing could include a link to their discussions on the main forum. The rating method could be an option that readers could click on.
_You rated the first idea of PUT and you included your reason for rating it I, which was helpful. It shows that the wording of the photon idea may need to be improved or another idea may need to be added to the list of essential ideas. I rated one of the ideas as I, but that doesn't keep me from having interest in the theory. Would you mind rating some more of the PUT essential ideas?

---

6/1 - 11AM
>Bruce.
_I have some comments about the forums.
Here are the main forum sections.
1. CNPS Small Forums (Topics)
2. Relativity
3. Philosophy
4. Universe, Aether and Field Theory
5. Mass, Energy and Forces - Components of the Universe
6. Earth Sciences
7. Human Biology
8. Definitions
9. CNPS Work Groups
_Some members say they can't find things on the forums. Instead of having many forums in each section, why not let members start their own threads in any of those 9 sections and let moderators request moderator-controlled threads when members or mods ask for them? And maybe let moderators move threads to other sections in case members start them in the wrong sections.
_I think Human Biology should be changed to Biology; Evolution should be moved from under Philosophy to under Biology. Is astronomy/cosmology supposed to go under section 4? I think it might be good to have section 4 called Astronomy or Cosmology and section 5 called Physics & Chemistry.
_Have you consulted with any forum experts, regarding optimum layout as well as attracting new members?
23
EU DEBATE / May 30
« Last post by Admin on May 30, 2017, 11:21:06 pm »
LK QUESTIONS
<LK to RF>
Q1: Have you done or read any calculations on EDM that support those ideas in  detail?
Q2: Do you know of experiments that show that EDM can erode surfaces like that and  produce partly melted clays and quartz sand?
Q3: A close encounter between planets would surely raise very high tides, causing  megatsunamis, so why would not the cavitation effect produce the sand from granite  bedrock and the tsunamis account for the sediment deposition and erosion, leaving  behind some mesas?
Q4: Doesn't water erosion produce dendritic patterns?
Q5: The EU team accept much of Velikovsky's evidence on catastrophism, and  Velikovsky referred to violent winds that occurred, so wouldn't the winds account  for loess and volcanism account for deep sea ash?

------------------------------------------

<RF to LK>
INTERPLANETARY ELECTRIC DISCHARGE
_[See] ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’:  https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534
_See: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534#p116159
_(Johnson. Robert. 2014. Massive Solar Eruptions and their contribution to the  causes of Tectonic Uplift. NCGT Journal Vol.2 No.1.)  _http://www.ncgtjournal.com/assets/NCGT_Journal_Contents_March_2014.pdf
_demonstrates that an external source of energy arising from massive solar  eruptions is likely to have been available on rare occasions in past eras.
_electric discharges to the Earth’s surface many orders of magnitude larger than  present-day lightning strikes would result from the impact of an extreme Coronal  Mass Ejection.
_The energy delivered directly to the crustal strata could have been sufficient to  contribute to uplift via many of the existing thermal expansion and phase change  models.
>>>_Rapid ion diffusion in the electric fields associated with the discharges is also  likely to have occurred, thereby potentially offering a solution to ‘the granite  problem’.
_(Gold, 1962, discussion p. 170) considered what effect a more massive solar  eruption would have on the Earth
_the increased solar wind pressure would drive the inner edge of the Earth’s  [outer] magnetosphere down into the upper atmosphere
_storm-generated electric currents would then encounter great resistance
_the path of least resistance is to short down in a massive and continuous  ‘lightning strike’ or discharge through the atmosphere, run through the more  conducting surface of the Earth, and short back up to the magnetosphere in a second  discharge to close the circuit back to the magnetosphere (figs. 1 and 2)
_huge direct currents of “hundreds of millions of Amps” would run in the surface of  the Earth
_Robert Johnson proposes that just such electrical discharges acted to uplift  modern mountainous regions
_Such currents would flow if either Earth encountered another celestial body or  Earth’s electrical environment changed
_I see such discharge altering Earth’s surface gravity which may have contributed  to the vertical tectonics at that time
_(see ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’ for my views on vertical  tectonics).
_We can picture both electrical and physical processes generating sediment but wave  action certainly did not sculpt Mt Everest
_the dendritic patterns of mountain ranges must have an electrical origin
_Paul Anderson has done work in this respect. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=c7w1rGeqXBg
_“Paul Anderson uses fractal analysis to determine what process –fluvial or  electrical- shaped the various landforms on the Earth, the main focus being canyons  and riverbeds.
_This analysis is then compared to electrical discharge patterns recorded in  laboratory experiments.
_Water flow does not appear to form structures with as many branches, particularly  perpendicular branches, as do electrical events.
_the current from the source must have been higher than it is today in the present auroras.
_The auroral process would have extended well beyond the current northern and  southern locations,
_and once the atmosphere could not support the ionization it would break down in  the form of electric discharges.’
_mountain formation was not only due to electrical uplift but also due to  electrical erosion.
_In this image of the Tibetan Plateau the rim has been eroded to form snow-capped  mountain ranges.
_“This is the pattern we see the world over
_What strata escaped being metamorphosed were eroded, pulverised and scattered by  intense electrical winds
_(something similar but on a vastly reduced scale still occurs on Mars today

<>Are you referring to global dust storms from electrified dust devils?
<>Do you see dendritic patterns on Mars from that?

ASH & DUST
_In the same thread I write: “Ashes and Dust
_Large areas of the Earth’s strata and surface record what geologists perceive as  ‘massive volcanic eruptions’ quite often these prehistoric eruptions dwarf any  recorded eruption.
_For example, Dinosaur National Monument (Utah, USA) is part of the Morrison  Formation which covers some 700,000 square miles.
_Part of the formation is: ‘dominated by silica-rich volcanic ash representing  explosive volcanism on a colossal scale
_A staggering quantity of volcanic materials, estimated at more than 4,000 cubic  miles, occurs within the thin but widespread Brushy Basin Member in Wyoming, Utah,  Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona.
_No volcano is known within the boundary of the Morrison deposit, no local lava  flows are known within the Morrison boundary, and geologists place the nearest  explosive volcanic source vents in southern California or Nevada.
_How these coarse volcanic materials in such colossal quantities were distributed  on so wide a scale remains a mystery.’(15)
_“The Worzel Deep Sea Ash consists of colourless shards of volcanic glass with an  index of refraction of 1.500 and varying in size from 0.07 to 0.2 mm.
_There is no particle size sorting.
_Most of the shards are in the form of curved, fluted, or crumpled films of glass.
_A minority are nearly equidimensional fragments of silky pumice.
_No crystalline minerals have been found.
_In all important respects it is similar to material which has been classified as  volcanic ash in the deep-sea deposits of the world.
_On preliminary examination, the ash of the Worzel layer appears to be quite  similar to the ash layer which occurs in a suite of cores from the Gulf of Mexico.
_Rex and Goldberg have found quartz particles of continental origin in abundance in  Pacific sediments as much as 2,000 miles from the nearest continent
_The ash is entirely unlike material described as meteoritic dust.’
_“The researchers concluded: ‘Apparently we require either a single very large  volcanic explosion, or the simultaneous explosion of many volcanoes
_or a cometary collision similar to that suggested by Urey as explanation" for the  origin of tektites.’
_In other words a global cataclysm is required to account for the ash.
>>>_However, if we look at the chemical composition of the ash (17) we find it shares similar chemical properties with granite (18).
_“Loess covers about 10% of the Earth’s land surface
_according to Michael Oard it is generally considered to be wind-blown (Aeolian)  silt.
_It is composed mostly of quartz grains, with minor portions of clay and sand often  mixed with the silt.
_Loess is commonly intermixed vertically with ‘paleosols’, which are supposedly  fossil soils that have been preserved in the geologic record or buried deeply  enough that it is no longer subject to soil forming processes.
_Scientists previously believed the silt particles in loess were derived from ice  abrasion, but they now believe that loess has both a glacial and non-glacial  origin.
_In central China it is up to 300m thick.
_Millions of woolly mammoths and other Ice Age animals are mostly entombed in loess  in non-glaciated areas of Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.
_Wind blown material is common within the Ice Age portion of the Greenland ice  cores.
_“Whether it be ‘volcanic ash’, deep sea ash or loess, all this material may be the  by-product of the electrical erosion that occurred during the mountain forming  period.
_material eroded in the early stages may have been deposited whilst marine  incursions were still ongoing
_this material would have been incorporated into marine strata and interpreted as  ‘volcanic’.
_During the latter stages when marine transgressions had subsided electrical dust  storms would have scattered the material globally- eventually to settle on the  ocean floor or entrap ‘Ice Age’ mammals.
_“Furthermore, marine sponge spicules have been identified in loess,
_we have already seen that the fossilised remains of sea creatures have been found  atop Mount Everest
_it is likely that the remains of sponges originated from the uplifted uppermost  sedimentary strata pulverised and scattered by an electrical discharge

RADIOACTIVE CRATER
_Louis Hissink https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/indian-impacts- hammerhead-geology-by-louis-hissink/
_Woolfe Creek Crater with its radioactive crater rim is an electrical discharge  producing radioactive elements in situ.

GRANITE
_Given the association of radioactive elements with granite
_and great masses of granite are found to have been emplaced among deformed and  metamorphosed sedimentary strata to form enormous granite bathyliths in the cores  of major mountain ranges
_Granite is never found outside mountain belts (Bucher, 1950, p. 37).”
_There's a link between electrical discharges and topographic uplift

------------------------------------------

MT ST HELENS EROSION
Dendritic erosion at Mt. St. Helens Fig. 3
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04

SOIL EROSION
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/27/d1/f2/27d1f2af2117530c81dd959e6be06873.jpg

GRANITE
Wikipedia: Occurrence
Granitic rock is widely distributed throughout the continental crust. Much of it was intruded during the Precambrian age; it is the most abundant basement rock that underlies the relatively thin sedimentary veneer of the continents. Outcrops of granite tend to form tors and rounded massifs. Granites sometimes occur in circular depressions surrounded by a range of hills, formed by the metamorphic aureole or hornfels. Granite often occurs as relatively small, less than 100 km² stock masses (stocks) and in batholiths that are often associated with orogenic mountain ranges. Small dikes of granitic composition called aplites are often associated with the margins of granitic intrusions. In some locations, very coarse-grained pegmatite masses occur with granite.
Origin
Granite has a felsic composition and is more common in recent geologic time in contrast to Earth's ultramafic ancient igneous history. Felsic rocks are less dense than mafic and ultramafic rocks, and thus they tend to escape subduction, whereas basaltic or gabbroic rocks tend to sink into the mantle beneath the granitic rocks of the continental cratons. Therefore, granitic rocks form the basement of all land continents.

LOESS
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/loess_deposits.gif
Loess is a sedimentary deposit composed largely of silt-size grains that are loosely cemented by calcium carbonate.

Distribution and composition of loess sediments in the Ili Basin, Central Asia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213009877
The bulk mineral components of the Ili loess are dominated by quartz and feldspar with minor amounts of calcite, chlorite, mica, dolomite and hornblende. More than 20 types of heavy minerals were observed with major components of amphibole, magnetite and epidote. The major elements of the Ili loess are characterized by high abundance of SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO and minor amounts of Fe2O3, MgO, Na2O and K2O.

WORZEL ASH
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,244845,245282

The "Worzel Ash" (Los Chocoyos Volcanic Ash)
Author: Xebec ()
Date: June 26, 2008 03:47AM
legionromanes wrote:

"The debris Venus allegedly deposited in Earth's atmosphere causing 40 years of darkness after the Exodus left no trace in the world's ice caps or ocean bottoms, [See "Ice Cores", Kronos X:1, 1984, 97-102, or Appendix D at end of [abob.libs.uga.edu].] a test ignored by Rose [and an example of negative evidence with which Velikovskians do not have a good track record of dealing. N.B.: The "Worzel Ash" touted by Velikovsky and his epigoni is known to be volcanic (to the exclusion of any other source) from eruptions in Central America, limited in extent (i.e., not global), and far older than 3500 years; see "The Worzel Ash," Kronos X:1, 1984, 92-94 or section "The 'Worzel' Ash" in Mewhinney's "Minds in Ablation". (12-III-99) .]"

Note "Minds in Ablation Part Seven: Dust" is at: [ www.pibburns.com ]

The extent of the "Worzel Ash" of Worzel (1959) and as discussed by Ewing et al. (1959) and Anders and Limber (1959) is now known to have been vastly overestimated. Detailed research published by Bowels et al. (1973), Drexler et al. (1980), Ledbetter (1984, 1985), and Ledbetter and Sparks (1979), which included trace element analysis and dating by biostratigraphy, oxygen isotope stratigraphy, and radiometric methods not performed by Worzel (1959), show that what he mapped as the "Worzel Ash" actually consists of a number of different beds of volcanic ash that vary greatly in age. They found that the "Worzel Ash" was not a single global ash bed. From the trace and minor element analysis of 128 volcanic ash samples from 56 cores, Bowles et al. (1973) concluded that the unit, which Worzel (1959) mapped as the "Worzel Ash" consists of different ash beds of differing ages including three regionally widespread volcanic ash beds. Ledbetter and Sparks (1979) found what they called the "Worzel D ash" to be the distal counterpart of the rhyolitic Los Chocoyos ash-flow tuff of Guatemala and both were the result of a caldera ("supervolcano") eruption. Drexler et al. (1980) found that the "Worzel D" (Los Chocoyos) ash was created by a massive caldera eruption of the Atitlan caldera, which buried the much of the Guatemalan Highlands and Pacific coastal plain under a thick layer of ignimbrite and spread volcanic ash from Florida to Ecuador. Drexler et al. (1980) contains a map showing the distribution of the Los Chocoyos ("Worzel D" and Y8) ash bed. In this eruption, the Atitlan caldera erupted 270-280 cubic kilometers of volcanic material and created a huge volcanic caldera now filled by Lake Atitlan (Rose et al. 1987).

More coring and detailed geochemical analyses by Ledbetter (1985) of ash layers recovered from cores in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Central America defined 11 distinct ash beds within the sediments underlying the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean surrounding Central America. He was able to delineate the extent of each of the ash layers. The two most widespread ash layers, the Los Chocoyos ("Worzel D") ash bed was estimated to be 84,000 years old and the Worzel L ash bed was estimated to be 230,000 years old. Ledbetter (1984) noted that the Y8 ash bed in Gulf of Mexico is the same as the Los Chocoyos (Worzel D) ash bed.

The distributions of the Los Chocoyos (Worzel D) and other regionally extensive volcanic ash beds (tephras) are shown in figure 2 (page 6) of Machida (2002). In this figure, The Wozel D ash is ash deposit no. 26.

References

Anders, E., and N. Limber, 1959, Origin of the Worzel Deep-Sea Ash. Nature. vol. 184, pp. 44-45.

Bowels, F.A., R.N. Jack, and I.S.E. Carmichael, 1973, Investigation of Deep-Sea Volcanic Ash Layers from
Equatorial Pacific Cores. Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 84, no. 7, pp. 2371-2388
DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606(1973)84<2371:IODVAL>2.0.CO;2

Drexler, J.W., W.I. Rose, Jr., R.S.J. Sparks, and M.T. Ledbetter, 1980. The Los Chocoyos Ash, Guatemala: a major stratigraphic marker in middle America andin three ocean basins. Quaternary Research, vol. 13, pp. 327-345.

Ewing, M., B.C. Heezen and D,B. Ericson, 1959, Significance of the Worzel Deep Sea Ash. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 355-361.

Ledbetter, M.T., 1984. Late Pleistocene tephrochronology in the Gulf of Mexico region. In N. Healy-Williams, ed., pp. 119-148, Principles of Pleistocene Stratigraphy Applied to the Gulf of Mexico. IHRDC Press, Boston.

Ledbetter, M.T., 1985, Tephrochronology of marine tephra adjacent to Central America. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 77-82.
DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606(1985)96<77:TOMTAT>2.0.CO;2

Ledbetter, M.T., and R.S.J. Sparks, 1979, Duration of large-magnitude explosive eruptions deduced from graded bedding in deep-sea ash layers Geology. vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 240-244
DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(1979)7<240:DOLEED>2.0.CO;2

Machida, H. 2002, Quaternary Volcanoes and Widespread Tephras of the World. Global Environmental Research. vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3-17. [ www.airies.or.jp ]

Rose, W.I., C.G. Newhall, T.J. Bornhorst, and S. Self, 1985, Quaternary silicic pyroclastic deposits of Atitlan Caldera, Guatemala. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. vol. 33, no. 1-3, pp. 57-80.

Worzel, J.L., 1959, Extensive deep sea sub-bottom reflections identified as white ash. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 45, no. 3, pp.349-355.

Some URLS
Los Chocoyos ash [ volcano.und.edu ]
Atitlan, Guatemala [ volcano.und.edu ]
Lake Atitlan [ volcano.und.edu ]
Lago de Atitlán [ en.wikipedia.org ]
Essen in "Re: The Evidence of Mu" <[ www.grahamhancock.com ];
C. Leroy Ellenberger - [en.wikipedia.org]


Yours,
David

------------------------------------------

24
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.
25
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?
26
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.
27
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.
28
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.
29
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.

30
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? ...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10