Author Topic: Mike Messages 1/25-26  (Read 65 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Mike Messages 1/25-26
« on: January 25, 2017, 01:29:12 pm »
=s1. MF: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:52 PM
- Re Baumgardner's paper. I was present at the conference when unveiled CPT.
- saying the sand that comprises sandstone was removed directly from crystalline bedrock by repeated tsunami cavitation action, producing enough sand to cover the continent 1,800 meters over 38% of the Earth's surface.
<<LK: Not that much; Sandstone is about 25% of sedimenrary rock about 1500m thick altogether, = about 400m thick on 50% of continent surface (57M sqmi) = 400m by  15% of Earth's surface.>>

- way, way out of the realm of possibility.
- sand is considered to be eroded from the bedrock
- it should take perhaps 10^4-10^7 years to accumulate the volume we find on Earth.
<<From rainfall? How long from tsunamis?>>

=s2. - Also, in his discussion of RATE I did not see one of the conclusions published in the RATE II report.
- It said that considerable radioactive decay has undeniably taken place, and either the Earth is very old or rates of decay were greatly accelerated.
- The RATE team pursued the latter, and realized that heat from the required accelerated decay would melt the Earth
- and the high levels of radiation would kill all aboard the Ark.
<<Maybe the heat and radiation were confined to molten granite, which maybe came from the underside of the continents.>>

- There is an unpopular biblical solution to both of these serious problems that I have nevertheless found appealing; Gorman Gray's "Young Biosphere Creation".  My video of this is at
<<See also >>


=s4. Request of MF re SD:
_1. explain East Pacific Rise spreading: formed from Moon; if fresh, formed just before SD event
_2. Explain why the Americas split off of Africa & Europe: example of croquet balls implies that Africa & South America were not strongly bonded; see if Americas previously moved away from the Pacific ridge
_3. Clarify if a) continental crust overrode ocean crust, or b) if it overrode the Moho layer, which is 7 km deeper: a requires the ocean crust was smooth enough to avoid interfering much with fluidization and sliding; If Atlantic crust thickness is the same as Pacific crust thickness, then a seems to be more likely

Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32 AM
In studying global geology, some things are clear while others can only be speculated on.  In the case of Plate Tectonics, Benioff zones are better understood than the supposed supercontinents before Pangea.
1. Looking closely at a large satellite altimetry map of the seafloor, you can see a substantial difference between the texture of the Southeast Indian Ridge (starting at the triple junction) through the East Pacific Rise (to its intersection with N. America) and the texture of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  The former is diffuse, with long sweeping transform faults, likely due to a hotter mantle and greater moving force than the latter, which is rough and more defined.  Because North America overrides it, the East Pacific Rise must have existed before the SD event.  My guess is that the planetesimal impact with Earth that formed the Moon and continental crust was not head-on.  The east-to-west angular collision pulled the basalt skin of Earth apart at the ridges more rapidly than the smaller SD bolide did.  The large population of seamounts in the Pacific testify to the hotter mantle as well.  The Louisville seamount chain was also overrun by an SD feature, the crustal wave that formed the Tonga-Kermadic Trench.

2. The division of the Americas from Africa during the SD event was caused by a combination of two forces.  The first is peeling, in the manner of riving white oak with a froe.  That began with Madagascar being blown off of Africa.  A strip of the same width as Madagascar was originally attached to Madagascar but became detached and swung southwest around South Africa.  This started the peeling off of South America.  At the Gulf of Guinea there was enough leverage to pull the attached mass of North America off of Africa and Europe, while stretching open the Amazon divide.  The second force was the pressure wave moving westward through or under Africa to impel first South then North America westward.

3. This is the most speculative.  The pattern of dispersed landmasses and other features on the globe makes it apparent that low-friction sliding happened.  My assumption is that continental crust is the refined slag from the combination of melted basalt and asthenospheric mantle.
<<What's your source for the basalt? I thought your source for continents was the Moon. Do you mean the Moon piece separated into basalt and continental granite?>>

Being lighter than the rest, it sits on top.  The protocontinent would have been fairly flat and uniform in thickness, with a depth of perhaps 25 km.  Its base could have been loosely attached to the warm material below.  The nature of the crust, oceanic and continental, is that it fluidizes when sufficient stress is applied.  It seems likely that there was some impression, like a flat-boat or surf board in water, and that the contact surface of oceanic crust was fluidized until the energy dissipated sufficiently to introduce high friction.  The final position has the continents firmly attached at the Moho.  Oceanic crust is thicker the farther it is from the mid-ocean ridge.
<<Isn't Pacific crust just like Atlantic crust? The Moho is likely plasma a meter thick, according to CC. It should be easy for continents to slide over the Moho. Maybe impacts broke the supercontinent loose from ocean crust, then the continents could be pushed over the ocean crust and slide on it.>>


=s0. <From: LK: Sun, January 22, 2017 11:11 pm>
<My working paper evidence is at>
<See boards: "LK1" and "Sources">
<my next task: identifying the primary evidence that I have & what's needed.>
<See Haves & Needs thread.>

=s1. <>Guy Berthault will be an important source.
<>find out if he has done any experiments that might simulate megatsunamis.
<>find out what the requirements are for lithifying sediments.
I suspect that sediments mixed with sufficient lime, as you seem to suggest, might lithify almost like concrete with very little overburden, whereas with [I meant say without] such cementing agents, it would likely require enough pressure to bring the temperature up to the melting point of sand or mud, which doesn't seem to be even possible to great depths.


=s0. MF:
- four-part series is good
- you have gathered more supporting material than I had expected
- I and the head of the Paleochronology Group, Hugh Miller, wrote
- several relevant papers
- as well as sources from my website research. 
- Hugh is dogged and always hopeful
- "Megaflood"  source identifying over 40

=s1. Guy Berthault's research applies to fast-moving water and should scale-up well for heavier loads. 
- As you say, sandstone and mudstone cemented by calcium carbonate is simple enough.  Silica cement is assumed to take more pressure and heat (up to 100 degrees C, well below grain meltin temperature) over a million years, but obviously that is untested. 
- The important fact is that water (and occasionally wind) move and segregate the matrix, and water solutions carry the cement.  Sandstone and mudstone can be metamorphosed by the heat of magma or high pressure from mountain building or meteorite impacts that melt them.  Flood and impact geology deal well with all of these.

=s2. The most difficult subject will be radiometric dating systems.  We are on fairly solid ground with Carbon-14 (with some caveats), but the battle over long half-life isotopes is highly contentious, as you probably know, with extended debate over details of evidence used by creationists, and it will be difficult to draw firm conclusions. 
- date for the Shock Dynamics event open to discussion


=s0. These two threads are working on John Baumgardner's paper, "Noah’s Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History":

=s1. Paper1 Part 1 JB: FLOOD (1st Sift)
- The Part 1 thread has his evidence for megatsunamis, which I rate pretty highly.
- JB's references another paper of his
- I'll look for data on requirements for lithification.

=s2. Paper1 Part2 JB: DATING (1st Sift)
- The Part2 thread has his evidence for radiometric dating being way wrong and C14 being most accurate so far, which I rate almost as highly.
- Gordon thinks conventional dating is unrealistic to assume that radioactive elements started out with no stable daughter products nearby, like lead. He said if they started out at about a 50/50 ratio, the dating would be very recent. Also, JB's data & a reference by Charles Chandler seem to suggest that high heat or pressure causes great increases in the rate of radioactive decay. Walter Brown also has some good references to evidence that ionization does the same.

=s4. PS, JB's subduction model seems very far-fetched, while your alternative makes eminent sense.

=s0. Haves & Needs thread at
- I've listed there 7 possible main topics for our proposed NCGT paper:
1. Megatsunamis deposited sed. strata
2. Dating methods are wrong
3. Myths & advanced civilization
4. Planetoids caused megatsunamis
5. Impacts caused conflagration
6. Impact broke up supercontinent
7. Rapid continental drift caused orogenesis
- I don't know if #4 and #5 will be needed. They might be sufficient to be discussed briefly instead of in detail. #4 seems more important than #5. #3 could be made into 2 separate topics, if needed. Advanced civilization wouldn't be needed, but I think it would be very intriguing, and I think the reasoning on it would help dating methodology.
- Questions:
- 1. explain the East Pacific Rise spreading. I recall that you theorized that that ridge was caused when the supercontinent formed from part of the Moon or something. But it looks like that ridge is about just as fresh as the mid Atlantic ridge. So I wonder if it's possible that the Pacific ridge formed during or just before the SD event.
- 2. Explain why the Americas split off of Africa & Europe. You used the example of croquet balls hit with a mallot, one ball representing Africa and the other South America. But that analogy implies that Africa & South America were not strongly bonded together. I was wondering if the Americas might have previously moved away from the Pacific ridge & collided with the eastern continents, forming a weak bond, and then got pushed back westward by the SD impact.
- 3. Clarify if a) continental crust overrode ocean crust, or b) if it overrode the Moho layer, which is 7 km deeper. The latter would seem to mean ocean crust built up in front of sliding continents. The former would mean the ocean crust was smooth enough to avoid interfering much with fluidization and sliding. If Atlantic crust thickness is the same as Pacific crust thickness, then a seems to be more likely.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 10:10:51 am by Admin »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter