Author Topic: MF 2/24-3/29  (Read 360 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
MF 3/16
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:33:25 pm »
RE: Submit NCGT Discussion
Thu, March 16, 2017 2:23 pm
    Hi Mike.
- Info overload is making it a little hard for me to sort out how to proceed, but I don't see any brick walls yet. I asked Dong Choi which NCGT issues show the best evidence for Surge Tectonics, but he said I should get Art Meyerhoff's book, although it's from the early 90s. I think Meyerhoff died in 94. Dr. Choi said he was Meyerhoff's main student or something like that. I ordered Meyerhoff's book at the local library and it should be there tomorrow or Tuesday.
- I found an NCGT article from around 2004 that favors an electrical battery model for Earth and I found out Dr. Choi favors that model too and he said it helps explain the major earthquake correlation with sunspot minima. My friend, Charles Chandler, has a similar model and is working on submitting a manuscript to NCGT for publication.
- The scariest thing I read in John Casey's book, Dark Winter, is that the Sun's diameter has been measured since 1979 and is found to be losing over 2 km in radius every year. In 4,000 years it may have lost over 8,000 km in radius. I think Charles Chandler's model of the Sun is probably correct that it is powered by electrical double layers and solar flare electric discharges, instead of a nuclear furnace. If the Sun shrinks too fast, humans may need to terreform Venus and move there.
- Charles' model of the Earth has it as similar electrical double layers of high density matter in the center. Some of the NCGT people seem to favor a cold formation model of the Earth, but Charles argued that gravity alone could not have formed Earth from whatever material was available. Electrical forces must have been the primary cause.
- It seems that our discussion with NCGT may need to argue against cold formation of Earth, transgressing/regressing oceans, major vertical uplift/subsidence and radiometric dating, at least. Since they seem to be able to predict earthquakes based on detection of some kind of surges that supposedly migrate north or south along the major geanticlines etc, there must be something to the surges, but I'll have to wait till I get the book soon to see if it explains evidence for surges etc meaningfully.
- I did some more reading on the Kola Borehole yesterday and found some interesting statements. I posted much of it at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/k/
- The pressure was found to be 92% to 29% of the expected value for most of the first 8800 m, with the exception of the ca. 3200 m mark, where it was over twice the expected amount. Fracturing of the rock was said to be the cause of the low pressures. Below 8800 m I guess the pressure was as expected. But the temperature at 12000 m was 180 C, instead of 100 as expected. The main scientist for the project seems to say that the rock below 7000 m was sedimentary rock from weathered granite that metamorphosed back to granite. Plankton fossils were found about 6400 m deep.

-----

Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:28 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Some quick notes: the word "radiocarbon" in your post where it reads "Radiocarbon dating places the culmination of the Archean metamorphism in the Kola Peninsula at 2.7 to 2.8 billion years ago." should be changed to "radiometric" or "radioisotope", since radiocarbon reaches back only 55,000 years.  Also, metamorphosed granite is "granite gneiss", and metamorphosed sedimentary rock is just gneiss.  And this analysis from Stanford concerns the Sun's diameter (conclusion at bottom of page)  http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
- It will be interesting to learn more about electrical activity regarding Earth.  That's all new to me.  Anyone who can predict earthquakes has my respect.

---

Wed, March 22, 2017 1:36 pm
Hi Mike. I got the Surge Tectonics book from the library yesterday and I copied most of Chapter 3 onto my forum at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg178/#msg178
- I'm copying some more from other chapters and will probably post it later today or tomorrow.
- It looks like they have pretty good evidence for the surge channels, at least from the Moho level. I don't know if there's evidence of channels below that. Charles has figured out that vertical channels from the Moho likely produce volcanism and earthquakes, but lava doesn't come from the Moho. It comes from the crust around the channel. The Moho is ionized and provides a path for ionization through the vertical channels. The tides keep the electrical circuits charged, first in one direction (up), then in the other (down), each day. Did you get a chance to read any of Charles' material?
- I hope you have time to read what I copied on Surge Tectonics. If so, I'd like to hear your comments. If the channels are real, it would be nice if you or we can determine if SD can explain them. They talk about Pascal's Law, which seems likely to be important for SD, although I don't know how well that law would apply to ionized matter within a planet. So far, I haven't noticed any mention of the Earth having formed from cold matter.

---

Thu, March 23, 2017 10:54 am
Thanks for the paper, Mike. I'll look at it soon. Meyerhoff claimed that the shrinkage of the Earth is very gradual and episodic. I read that the Earth loses maybe twice as much mass every year via hydrogen as it gains via meteors. The shrinkage and cooling is plausible, but probably not by gravity causing surge channels. Instead, Charles' model has tidal forces constantly moving electric double layers in the Earth up and down about 1 meter every day, so electric forces seem to be the cause of surge channels, but probably not below the Moho. Tidal forces are electrical too, as Charles explains. And Dong Choi agrees with electrical forces in the Earth. Meyerhoff's book doesn't seem to mention electrical forces, so Choi seems to accept an Italian geologist's ideas about that, although NCGT papers and discussions don't seem to discuss electrical forces, other than the Italian geologist's paper from about 2004. So I think the surge channels are explained by Charles' electrical model.
- The book seems to express doubt that catastrophism has had much influence on geological events or features, but I think we have plenty of evidence that it has had major influence. Charles and Gordon both accept the Shock Dynamics model in large part; they just don't think the continents would have moved apart at the speeds that you have determined. Gordon thinks it took months. Charles probably thinks at least months and maybe years. I on the other hand think it's obvious they had to move very quickly as you suggest. If they didn't move quickly enough, fluidization would have been overcome too soon by friction

---

Fri, March 24, 2017, 9:42 PM
Good for you, Lloyd.  The fluid, swirling interaction of the crustal pressure wave with moving landmasses during the Shock Dynamics event is clearest in Oceania (attached image), explained at  http://www.newgeology.us/presentation13.html  It all must have been quite rapid. Are Earth's electrical forces considered by Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect? Cheers, Mike

---

Sat, March 25/17 5:33PM
Hi Mike. Re: "Are Earth's electrical forces considered by  Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect?"
- No. The piezoelectric effect is so minor, that I don't think he even discusses it in his model. If he were to discuss the Shock Dynamics impact more in his model, he might then need to discuss the piezoelectric effect, but he hasn't mentioned thinking about doing that. Anyway, if piezoelectricity is involved in fluidization, that seems to be the only time it would be very significant. Well, I guess during impacts too.
- Here are the main topics in his Astrophysics & Geophysics papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660-6031 and I'll describe briefly what some of them explain in brackets: Introduction . Accretion [that gravity can't cause it, but static electricity must] . Filaments [that static electricity in space forms galactic filaments] . Tokamaks [that faster rotating filament collapses form ring stars] . Egg Nebula . Supernovae [that supernovas are star births, not deaths, usually, - & that successive supernovas form increasingly heavy elements]
Quasars [that quasars are ring stars] . The Sun - Motivation - Surface [that the Sun has current-free electrical double-layers] - Interior - Elements [that the layers consist mainly of 6th, 4th & 1st period elements] - Potentials [the layers are shown at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/17493.png ] - Conversions - Energy Budget - Radiation - Granules - Sunspots - CMEs - Arcades - Corona - Heliosphere - Cycles - Conclusion - Appendices ... The Planets - Introduction - Titius-Bode Law - Remelted Crusts [that impacts remelted crusts] - Geomagnetism [that electrical double-layers cause Earth's magnetic field] - Tidal Forces [that tides are electrical] - The Moho [that the Moho is constantly electrified by tides] - Earthquakes [that electrical forces cause them] - Volcanoes [that ohmic heating from the Moho causes eruptions]
- Seneca Guns - Miscellaneous - Discussion ... Main Sequence . Light Curves . Galaxies . Conclusion . Credits . Changes . Discussions . In Progress
- Mike, have you come up with any explanations for continental roots? I think the Surge Tectonics book says they prove that continents have not moved. I figured maybe the roots must have formed as the continents began to encounter significant friction toward the ends of the sliding. If that's the case, then Africa shouldn't have roots and Eurasia should have very little, unless the entire supercontinent had slid previously. It seems that melting often separates heavier material from lighter, so it seems that could account for the roots. Do you have a better explanation? If so, I'd like to know what it is for the NCGT discussion.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 06:08:55 pm by Admin »