Author Topic: CHARLES CHANDLER  (Read 1 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
« on: April 03, 2017, 10:30:54 am »
Hi Charles. In late 2013 we were discussing how to improve science communication and science papers etc on the TB forum starting at --- I rejoined the Natrual Philosophy group lately ( and was pleasantly surprised that they're working on sort of the same thing there now. They have a regular forum there, but they're working on a more structured forum, as well as an alternative science Wiki, based on ideas similar to Deliberatorium. The person most responsible for that work seems to be Bruce Nappi, who has worked with Mark Klein, the guy at MIT who was experimenting with developing Deliberatorium there. Bruce says he was able to find ways to make Delib. work by modifying it a lot, with Mark's blessing. So I've been in touch with Bruce by email for a couple days and I volunteered to help develop the CNPS structured forum and their Wiki and to invite others to help, like from the TB forum etc. I told Bruce about our TB forum discussion that I linked above and he was very impressed with your part of the discussion. I told him he'd probably benefit by registering on your website and that you're a software developer. Bruce seems to be pretty good as a webmaster, but I didn't ask him yet how much experience he has. He writes a lot online and has a business apparently. One of his topics in online articles is participatory democracy via internet communication. His ideas on that are very similar to mine. I favor supermajority rule, instead of simple majority, and he says we can have 100% majority rule, which is unanimous rule. So I want to work with him on that too.

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

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

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

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

Social Buttons