Author Topic: MF 2/3 onward  (Read 33 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
MF 2/3 onward
« on: February 03, 2017, 09:22:02 pm »
Re DRAFT Part 1
Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:26 PM
Lloyd, The forum critic is understandably confused on two counts.  First, the SD event was about 300 years after the Great Flood, by my estimate.  The high-pressure atmosphere was pre-Flood, and down to 1 atm by the time of the SD event.  Second, the SD meteorite exploded completely underground, resulting in totally different effects.  As Carey Sublette wrote in describing the effects of nuclear explosions, underground detonations can eliminate thermal radiation and reduce the range of blast effects substantially.  It would take the meteorite two seconds to penetrate from the top of the stratosphere (50 km) to Earth's surface.  In a microsecond it would bury itself 40 km deep in the continental crust and explode.  Hot gases would race back up to outer space along the hole punched in the atmosphere.  Rock surrounding the impact laterally would be vaporized out to 400 km, 130 km below it (currently the gravity low south of India).  Shock heating would only be 7% of heat lost; remaining heat loss would be through conduction.  The rest of the planet would be intact, not "molten rock" as the forum critique thought.  On the Energy Estimates page only half of the total mass x velocity product is used for moving crust, leaving 50% to include heat loss and shock pressure not performing work.  Since 90% energy transfer from impactor to target is standard, that should be sufficient compensation.  An underground explosion is very efficient at transferring overpressure to the confining material, compared to surface and air explosions that burn the atmosphere and large surface areas, as the forum critic envisioned.  Unvaporized debris from an underground explosion is thrown straight up, much of it collapsing and the rest carried downwind.  Combining these effects, it seems reasonable to conclude that surface damage would have been minimal beyond the vaporized crater, unlike the devastating Chicxulub impact.

---

February 03, 2017, 09:22:02 pm »
Mike, when I mentioned your SD model on a forum almost 3 years ago, here's part of a reply that I got:
"An impact strong enough to move the Americas by 2000 miles in a day would have turned the planet into a glowing cinder. It wouldn't cause a "Great Flood," as there would be no water left. Or air. Or anything else, other than molten rock."

I just looked at your Energy Estimates page and I see you didn't discuss heat.
- Would the kinetic energy of the asteroid have been partly converted into heat?
- And would that portion be added to your calculation to result in a larger size for the asteroid?
- Do you suppose most of the heat would have entered the crust around the impact site?
- Did you attempt to calculate how much atmosphere that asteroid could have pushed away from Earth?
- Such a calculation might need to take ionospheric electric charge into account.
- I know you said in your chronology paper that 2 or 3 bars of atmosphere were lost.
- Have you calculated how far the heat wave from the impact site would have been severe enough to kill living things?
- Also, would the shock wave - sonic boom - through the air have been able to kill animals or fracture rock strata?

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2/7/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Tuesday, February 7, 2017, 6:32 PM
 
Lloyd, This looks like the same list as before, so refer to my previous reply.  Many of the charges are made in a uniformitarian paradigm.  Obviously fossils already in sediment would be caught up in tsunamis and redeposited from moving water in the manner described by Berthault.  As I said, the assertions made below are only one of a number of possible origins, yet they are insinuated to be the only ones.  There is low-temperature conversion to Dolomite, and the masses found in the geologic column are not forming today, implying different environmental conditions when they formed, a failure of "the present is the key to the past".

---

Date: Mon, February 06, 2017 8:30 pm
Hi Mike. Out of 13 categories of Flood Criticisms, there are 7 below that I don't have very good answers for. I don't know what time spans #1 refers to. Do you? And do you know what #5 refers to regarding Dolomite Overheating? If you can direct me to where to find good answers for any of these, that would probably help. I'll search at creation.com and elsewhere too.

---

From Mike, Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:22 PM
Stef's idea for the formation of pure and fossil-free salt formations is interesting.  It may be too early to promote it as a means for producing them globally since Oldoinyo Lengai is the world's only active carbonatite volcano.  Its lava contains many types of elements in addition to sodium, and chloride abundance is less than sodium.  If examination of other salt formations finds an association with elements of carbonatite lavas, in addition to the conjunction with oil and gas that Stef found, his proposal would gain credibility.  The evaporite theory for salt formations clearly needs to be replaced.

---

Mike, thanks for the comments and links. 3 days ago I posted this on the TB forum:
BASINS SUPPORT RAPID DEPOSITION
That is something Berthault's experiments apparently showed. When tsunamis deposit strata they separate the strata according to grain size etc. Since they are deposited simultaneously in a megasequence they form curved strata in basins. The curves of the strata nearly follow the curves of each basin surface, except that each stratum is a bit thicker at the bottom than on the sides, like this: http://www.fortunebay.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/michiganbasin-cross-big.jpg . If strata formed in continental shallow seas, they should have formed at river deltas as sloped fans, like this http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-10.jpg and http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-09.jpg . Or if frequent tremors or tides or something caused the sediments to spread out across the floor of a shallow sea, the sediments should go to the bottom as flat layers, like this http://images.slideplayer.com/5/1507022/slides/slide_12.jpg .
- So I agree that the broad horizontal lateral extent of strata support very large tsunamis as the cause of deposition. If erosion into shallow seas were true, there should only be fan shaped strata and they shouldn't be separated into individual rock types, since there would not have been pure lime regions being eroded for thousands of years followed by similar periods of clay erosion and sand erosion. I think those are among the strongest arguments against gradualism.
- Last night I posted this on the TB forum:
Igneous Origin of Salt
I just made a good find on salt. See the 20 min. video, PRIMARY IGNEOUS ORIGIN OF SALT FORMATIONS, at http://youtube.com/watch?v=MfN0MIOnRNQ . It's just in time to answer most of the next bunch of claims against the Great Flood. The host of the video also authored a good paper, which I posted on my forum at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10 .
- Mike, we're lucky to have critiques of the Great Flood posted online. Those seem likely to be the reasons the NCGT members support the conventional gradualist timeline. Of course, radiometric dating methods are probably their main reason for supporting it, but I think we have abundant evidence against it. So I look forward to getting all the main pro and con arguments listed coherently and organized into a good scientific format.

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

On Sat, 2/4/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Subject: RE: Critique Questions
It is typical of anti-creationists and other propagandists to throw up a flurry of arguments loaded with assertions to give their bluster an "overwhelming" appearance.  The certainty of the claims in the list you posted is unfounded.  For most, either the conditions of deposition stated are not the only possibilities, or not enough is understood about them.  For example, until recently shale and other mudstones, which comprise over 60% of the geologic column, were thought to require quiet environments to form.  The 2009 reference I sent you demonstrates that they can form in moving water as well  Schieber, J., and J. B. Southard (2009), Bedload transport of mud by floccule ripples - Direct observation of ripple migration processes and their implications, Geology, 37(6), 483-486, doi:10.1130/G25319A.1.  Salt beds in the geologic column are extremely pure compared to evaporites being formed today, as described here:  http://www.icr.org/article/does-salt-come-from-evaporated-sea-water/  And how dolomite is formed, especially in depth, remains unsolved.  It is apparent that conditions today differ from those in place when most of the geologic column was laid down.  The huge geographic extent of many strata and the dearth of erosional interfaces suggests large scale, at least regional catastrophic deposition mechanisms.
- Don't forget the bizarre uniformitarian explanation for many deposits - rising and falling landmasses and sea levels depositing the same material over the same unchanged areas over millions of years.  There is no indication of this happening today outside of small local environments.  Note that in Shock Dynamics geology, all Cenozoic sedimentary strata formed hundreds of years after the Noahic Flood during the SD event.
- Compression built virtually all mountain chains, and rapid compression of continental crust, as in SD, would likely have had a substantial global piezoelectric electromagnetic effect.  I don't see it being associated with radiation, though.

-----

Subject: Critique Questions
Date: Fri, February 03, 2017 10:20 pm
- I analyzed a long critique of the Great Flood and sorted it into 12 claims, along with my questions for each claim about what might be answers to them. I didn't number all of the claims, because some are closely related. I posted them here: http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-62/msg90/#msg90
- If you have answers to any of them, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I'll eventually try to find answers for them myself, at least for the most important ones. I arranged the most important ones first.
- Some of the claims refer to the impossibility of high amounts of salt in sediments drying out quickly enough and of high concentrations in the ocean being deadly for all life there. I was thinking maybe there were more submarine brine lakes like the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which got washed ashore in some of the tsunamis.
- A claim about carbonates giving off too much heat is hard for me to understand. Maybe you would understand it.
- I posted more material on my forum lately, like Walter Brown's info about electrical effects, lineaments, radioactivity etc at LK2. I found a map of lineaments online that seems pretty detailed. The lines on it on the Atlantic coasts of Africa and South America look like they could have formed when the Madagascar strip connected to South America started peeling away from Africa. I think there would have been really strong electric currents under the continents as they slid apart and they could have produced the radioactivity, some of which was injected vertically under mountain ranges in granite intrusions etc. There probably was a lot of supercritical water too, like Brown thought, but not nearly as much. He claimed that it shot into the upper atmosphere and came down in Siberia as rock ice, which would have been cold enough to freeze mammoths to -150F.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 10:54:57 am by Admin »

Social Buttons


Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 2/10-2/11
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2017, 10:22:16 am »
Re DRAFT Part 1
2/11) AM

Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:26 PM
    My responses in "M2" below. - Cheers, Mike.

    Date: Sat, February 11, 2017 9:53 pm
    I thought I sent this yersterday or this morning, but it looks like it went to me. So this might be a repeat for you.

    Mike, you're showing me that I have a few more avenues to explore for Part 1.

    _M: Numbers 6 and 7 pose the question: what initiated the Great Flood? I see John Baumgardner proposed in 2007 that rotational tumbling of the earth induced by catastrophic plate tectonics caused megatsunamis. That is quite a leap.

    _L: In 2013 he seemed to propose that an asteroid orbited the Earth elliptically, causing monthly tidal pulls & megatsunamis.

    M2: Earth's angular momentum is a staggering 7.07 x 10 to the 33rd kilograms x meters squared/sec.  Tumbling is out of the question.  The Moon causes monthly tides.  Megatsunamis would require a much larger body, and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal directions.

    _M: Similarly, getting an asteroid or planetesimal to pass near Earth a number of times, but not hit it, and then leave, as the cause of megatsunamis requires some difficult and precise celestial mechanics, so it seems unlikely.

    _L: What if the planetoid were the Moon? I have a reference paper that shows calculations for circularization of elliptical orbits by dust or gases in space within decades to centuries.

    M2: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital path.

    _M: a meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy ... the sole source of water for the Great Flood.

    _L: Don't you think the oceans existed before the flood? Why do you think ICR's claim against a vapor canopy was wrong? I think the atmosphere was one or two bars thicker than now, like you said onsite, but I'm flexible on what was in the air that was lost, whether more water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, or CO2. I didn't think precipitation could raise sea level much. How deep flooding do you figure?

    M2: I think a low ocean existed before the Flood.  Vardiman's main objection to a vapor canopy is his estimated temperature at Earth's surface.  I find the vapor canopy to be a reasonable source for a one-time global flood, to provide high atmospheric pressure that could favor gigantism in dinosaurs, and as a reason why rainbows could appear only after the flood.  Without today's mountain ranges (built 300 years post-Flood by SD), Flood waters would only have to rise 1000 feet or less to cover the land.

    _M: Members of the meteorite swarm falling into the ocean led observers on land to mistakenly call the resulting water jets "fountains of the great deep". Note that these started and ended at the same time as the rain deluge.

    _L: That's what Gordon says too. But he thinks precipitation didn't add significantly to the Flood. He says the Hebrew word, "matar", in the Bible meant meteors, and "geshen" meant gushing. I'll try to ask Gordon what he thinks of your statement.

    _M: A persistent question for Flood geology has been why the sediments of the geologic column did not end up on the Pacific Ocean floor. Apparently megatsunamis flowed from the outer oceans onto the protocontinent, scouring and depositing sediment and quadrillions of fossils of sea creatures. It is reasonable to think that each megatsunami grew as the water level rose, reaching farther inland with each wave. Precipitated vapor canopy water falling on land would leave freshwater remains, whereas waves moving in from the coast would leave saltwater remains. Each megatsunami would deposit its own stratigraphic sequence.

    _L: How are you saying that the water canopy was the sole source of the Flood, but that megatsunamis were involved too? I came across a website a couple days ago that said salts were deposited with the dinosaurs out West. How would you determine if Flood deposits involved fresh or salt water? Some NCGT articles claim that the ocean floors do have sedimentary rock. I think the seafloor drilling project found some sedimentary rock above the basalt. Did it not? I found one creationist article that said, I think, that some strata formed across North America and across north Africa before continental drift, but some higher strata also spilled out onto the Atlantic seafloor near Africa, apparently after continental drift had started. That's one reason I think SD may have occurred toward the end of the Flood. Do you think the KT iridium layer came from the SD impact? I thought maybe the Chixilub and others deposited the glass spherules etc below the iridium layer, and the SD impact produced the iridium.

    M2: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater denizens, which still exist today.  Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come from the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered 60% or more of Earth's surface.  On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would have flowed outward.  The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km thick.  There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching of continental crust involved in separation, which is another reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.  I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass spherules are associated with Chicxulub.  Conventional geologists require much time between deposition layers, whereas creationists expect simultaneous multiple deposition.  It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.

    _M: Regarding an Earth-killer impact, I think it is safe to say that the Moon falling into the Earth would do the trick.

    _L: Sounds like humor there. A friend, Charles, thinks a part of the Moon split off from the Moon and made a fairly soft landing, forming the supercontinent after the Earth had solidified. He reasoned that, otherwise, if it had occurred before Earth solidified, the granite would have melted and made a thin layer all over the Earth. Charles found that stars and planets likely form by electrical forces that cause galactic filaments to implode into plasma double layers. The interior should be solid because of having no degrees of freedom (and absolute zero temperature) where electrons get squeezed out into an upper layer. And a star can have about 5 double layers. Any spherical body in space about 200 miles or more in diameter would have double layers. The inner layers should be liquid. So the aesthenosphere should be liquid. Even 12.8 km deep in the Kola borehole the rock is too plastic to drill any deeper, so he says that's due to lack of sufficient electrons. He thinks the Moho is plasma. By the way, I read lately that the Kola borehole encountered a lot of saltwater most or all of the way down.

    M2: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split?  I think the conventional idea that the Moon formed following a planetesimal impact on Earth is right.  However, I agree that it happened much later than conventionally believed, so that a uniform basalt crustal layer encompassed the Earth at the time of the collision.  The subsequent mixing would have refined the molten basalt and upper mantle to allow differentiation of continental crust.  Seismic tomography indicates that the asthenosphere is solid rock at high temperature, allowing ductile flow.  Drilling 13 km into inland continental crust is less than halfway through.  The rock is probably gabbro under high pressure with enough plasticity to collapse a borehole.  Why would the Moho be plasma?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 04:19:32 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Moho, Roche Limit, Tides, Myths
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2017, 10:56:51 am »
Moho, Roche Limit, Tides, Myths
Hi Mike.
I have a lot of reading to do to reply to your last email. I'll ask later what you know about strata deposition directions etc, but for now I'll just reply regarding the Moho, the Roche limit and a little about tides. Charles thinks tides are electrostatic. So does Miles Mathis in a sense. Mathis says the Roche limit is a myth, quoting below. Maybe that means an asteroid could make a relatively soft landing on Earth to form the supercontinent. Several moons are known to be within the supposed Roche limit.

You said: "Why would the Moho be plasma?" Because the Moho is at the depth below which electron degeneracy pressure squeezes the electrons out of atoms, so the electrons are pushed up above the bottom of the Moho. And the crustal tides cause the crust to move up and down 1 meter each day, so the Moho is 1 meter thick at high tide and close to zero at low tide. So the Moho is continuously getting ohmic heating. See for details Charles' paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925

Charles said privately yesterday: "The formula for calculating tidal forces was heuristically deriven, since Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict tides as strong as they actually are. And heuristic formulas don't scale well — there's no guarantee that the results will be correct. If I'm right, that tides are electrostatic, the existing heuristic formula for tides won't predict the forces at different distances at all."

=====
My main interest here is trying to determine if an asteroid or planet temporarily orbiting Earth elliptically would produce tsunamis at perigee over one or two kilometers high and, if so, how close and large the object would need to be.

Below are a bunch of excerpts from Mathis on Tides and the Roche Limit. Can anyone help me find a way to calculate from this the perigee and size of an object to raise such tides?

OCEAN TIDES
http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
E/M FIELD
The most astonishing thing I have discovered in my Unified Field is that small objects have stronger E/M fields than larger ones. Given two spherical objects of equal density and make-up, the smaller of the two will have a stronger E/M field, not just relatively, but absolutely. The Moon has a field that is 110 times stronger than the Earth's field. ... This is due to the ratio of the surface area to the volume, of course. A smaller sphere will have the same ratio of mass to volume as a larger sphere, by the definition of density. But it will have a larger ratio of density to surface area, which proves my point.
[But doesn't the Sun have a much stronger E/M field than any planet?]

TIDAL E/M PUSH
... The gravitational force pulls us down, as an effect, and the E/M field pushes us up, as an effect, so the result is mostly down, to the tune of 9.8. But now I am saying that instead of subtracting, we add. The Moon causes the vector situation to switch. So now, directly under the Moon, we have about 9.82 m/s2 as our resultant acceleration. And this makes the tidal acceleration
.009545 x 2 = .0191 m/s2
And that is 572 times the maximum tidal force from gravity. So, yes, you would weigh about .2% more directly under the Moon.

ORBITAL DISTANCE
... the orbital distance of the Moon is not a coincidence. ... the orbital distance, which we are calling R here, is a direct outcome of the two fields, E/M and acceleration (gravity). These two fields cause the orbital distance. The acceleration creates an apparent attraction, and the E/M field keeps the Moon from being caught. The Moon's "innate" velocity is also involved, of course, but the two fields determine this as well, after any amount of time.3 So R is completely determined by the size of the bodies and their densities. The Moon must orbit at (or near) that radius where its field intercepts 1/3 of the Earth's sphere. ... In the center of the circle the force is radial. In other words, it comes straight down upon the ocean. ... You can see that the initial force will change from radial to tangential as we go out from the center of our circle.

OCEAN WATER PILE
... Now, if we look just beyond the tangent — which is to say just beyond our circle of initial influence — we find water that has not been touched by any force at all. It is completely unaccelerated. As our accelerated water meets this unaccelerated water, it will pile up behind it, causing a swell. This is one of our high tides. In the initial stages of our analysis, it must be a complete circle of high tides, with a diameter on the curved surface of the Earth equal to 1/3 the circumference of the Earth. It will travel at some velocity around to the far side of the Earth, until blocked by a land mass or resisted by a reverse tide.

RADIAL FORCE
But let us return to our central force. ... It hits the Earth like a radial meteor, except that this meteor has a radius of 378,000km. It is like a meteor with a very low density. The main difference between our force from the Moon and a real meteor is that our force keeps arriving continuously. ... although the force is radial, the motion created is tangential. The water does not want to move down, and at greater depths it does not want to move sideways, either. So the result is motion sideways nearer the surface. Another circular wave is created, traveling out from the center. Initially this central wave is 60o behind the outer wave, and unless we show that it is moving faster than the outer wave, it will stay 60o behind it.

MAGNETIC FORCE
... By the right hand rule, if the electrical force is radial down, then the magnetic force will be clockwise, looking down on the ocean. Toward the center of our circle, this should have a magnifying effect on the electrical force, giving it the effect of a screw instead of a nail. ... The screws therefore cause a spreading, which magnifies the lateral forces already in play with the electrical field. The magnetic field and the electrical field work in tandem to produce the central wave.

SOLAR WIND EFFECTS
http://milesmathis.com/tide3.html
... What really causes the spring and neap tide variation is the Solar Wind.

ARCHIMEDES EFFECT
http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
... If the Moon is directly above you, you are at the center of the depression. You are lower than the mean sea level (sea levels without a Moon), but the rest of the world is at high tide (or would be, minus time lags). This is because the mechanism of tide creation is relatively simple: when the Moon is over water, it creates a lower sea below it, and this forces all the other water higher. Just take a beach ball into the bathtub, press it down ... The tangential velocity of the Moon is already said to balance the gravitational forces between the two bodies, so there is no leftover force to create tides. ...  Not only is the Moon not oblate to any degree, with apsides pointing anywhere, if anything the Moon shows a negative tidal bulge on the front.

... the force arriving from the Moon is neither negative nor positive. It is photonic, not ionic, in the first instance. However, once it arrives, it must act by driving free ions. That is how the charge field becomes active in the E/M field. The photons drive ions.

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html
... What we now call the gravitational field is actually a differential field made up of both the gravitational pseudo field and the E/M field. All fluctuations belong to the E/M component; none to the gravitational component. This makes it so much easier to explain the menstrual cycle, as well as to test the theory. We already know that the brain and nervous system work in large part on electrical impulses. The body, like the oceans, is mostly saltwater: therefore it is a lovely conductor. These and many other facts, too obvious to dwell on, lead directly to confirmation of my theory. We also know that manmade electrical fields can upset animal and plant cycles, including the human menstrual cycle.

---

ELECTROSTATIC TIDES
Charles Chandler thinks tides are electrostatic (See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925 regarding crustal tides). So does Miles Mathis in a sense. Charles said privately yesterday: "The formula for calculating tidal forces was heuristically deriven, since Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict tides as strong as they actually are. And heuristic formulas don't scale well — there's no guarantee that the results will be correct. If I'm right, that tides are electrostatic, the existing heuristic formula for tides won't predict the forces at different distances at all."

=====

See also: http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html

A RECALCULATION OF THE ROCHE LIMIT
http://milesmathis.com/roche.html
["E/M field" means the field of mass-containing photons received and emitted by all matter.]
Now let us calculate the first new Roche limit, where the E/M field balances the gravity field. Using the equations from my UFT paper, we just set the two fields to equal one another:

m(A + a) = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
2(A + a) = GM/R2
R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}

For the Earth and Moon, that distance would be about 4,006 km. To find that number, I used my new accelerations for Earth and Moon. In those equations, the accelerations are for the solo gravity field, not the unified field, so standard-model numbers are not what we want. Current numbers are calculated from Newton's unified field equation, and are field differentials. In other words, I used the number 2.67 for the Moon, not 1.62.

What I just found is a Roche limit assuming the Moon has no tangential velocity.

...
So let us calculate a new Roche limit assuming the Moon keeps its current orbital velocity. We will assume, like Newton, that the Moon has an “innate” tangential velocity, uncaused by the field itself. I have shown that this is not the case, but we can choose any velocity we like to develop an equation, and the current one is as good as any.

[m(A + a)] – mv2 /2R = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
4R2 (A + a) – v2R – 2GM = 0
R = v2 + √[v4 + 32GM(A + a)]
               8(A + a)
For the Moon, that would be
R = 4,023km

... But let us move on to look at the second sort of Roche limit, the one that mirrors more closely the current one. We want to find a distance at which the E/M field would break up an orbiter. As should already be clear from our analysis of Pan above, this limit is a phantom. If Pan is still experiencing accretion when it is so near the surface of a huge planet, then we may assume that the tidal Roche limit is a complete myth. The E/M Roche limit would also be a myth, in that case, because we can see from Pan that neither field is strong enough to disintegrate a moonlet, even when it is low density and hammered by collisions.

The E/M field would tend to bounce a large body out of a low orbit, because a level of balance would be impossible to find in a natural way. Large bodies simply don't settle into low orbits with little or no impact trajectory. If they have high incoming velocities, the primary bounces them away with a quick increase in the E/M field. If they have low velocities, the E/M field keeps them at a greater orbital distance.

This is why only very small bodies are found in low orbits. They encounter a small section of the charge field [E/M field], feel a much smaller repulsion, and settle into orbit much more slowly. This is also why they can exist in these low orbits: using their own charge fields, they funnel the primary's charge field around them, encountering a smaller effect. Larger bodies can't do this nearly as efficiently.

... Now let us look at a near approach of Jupiter and Saturn, using these new equations. How close did the two great planets come millions of years ago, in order to create a resonance? We can now find out.

To use my new equation, we have to first calculate new accelerations for Jupiter and Saturn, based only on their radii. We do that with a proportionality with the Earth.

9.81/RE = x/RJ = y/RS
x = 110.7
y = 92.7

R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}
R = 18,110 km

Saturn may have come that close to Jupiter, in being bounced away by the combined E/M fields (supposing the planets had no tangential velocities relative to one another). That was a very close call, and a much closer pass or a hit might have upset or destroyed the entire Solar System. Our entire history may have depended on that near pass. And in millions of years, when the resonant cycle returns to that near pass, the Solar System will once again hang on the outcome.

This means that the rings and satellite systems of Jupiter and Saturn must have re-formed since that close pass.

[Ancient myths suggest that the two gas giants and the inner rocky planets were all involved in close encounters about the time before the Great Flood.]
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 12:06:05 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Megatsunamis
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2017, 08:29:40 pm »
Okay, Mike, I have some more questions now. Oops. I got your next email, so I'll add discussion of that at the end of this.

_M: Megatsunamis would require a much larger body [than the Moon], and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal directions.
=L: What info do you have on the direction of flow of waters that deposited megasequences? All I've read from Baumgardner or another creationist is that the floods swept from the NE to the SW. A catastrophist, Cardona, has said that the flood came from the north. I think he was quoting early Native American sources. The Saturn Theory, based on ancient myths etc, is similar to Velikovsky's theory and provides several planets, especially Venus and Mars, as possible causes of tsunamis, so there could have been planets temporarily orbiting Earth on different orbital planes (See more at the end).

_M: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital path.
=L: Since moons exist within Roche limits and since Mathis reasoned that Roche limits don't exist, do you think he is likely right?

_M: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater denizens, which still exist today.
=L: Aren't the dinosaurs considered to be freshwater animals? And yet they appear to have drowned in saltwater. Have they not?

_M: Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come from the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered 60% or more of Earth's surface.
_On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would have flowed outward.
=L: How would rain cause tsunamis? Baumgardner calculated that the sedimentary strata, which average 1.8 km thick, would have needed tsunamis 2.5 km high to transport all the sand and mud etc onto the supercontinent. Why would that not be correct?

_M: The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km thick.
=L: Do you have figures on how much of that is solid rock? And do you know which megasequence/s the rock belongs to? The Atlantic shouldn't have any flood-formed strata, should it?

_M: There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching of continental crust involved in separation, which is another reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.
=L: Do you mean the supercontinent was not hardened granite and hardened sedimentary rock when it broke up?

_M: I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass spherules are associated with Chicxulub.
... It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.
=L: Do you have detailed info on that? Isn't the iridium in a layer of clay? And isn't there also charcoal as from a conflagration? And isn't the iridium/clay layer above the layer of spherules? Can you explain that in detail?

_M: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split [to form the supercontinent]?
=L: All I know is that the Moon is said to have similar composition to Earth's continents, I think, although the mares are said to be basalt. I have a few references on that. What I read today about the Roche limit makes me more confident that close passes of planets, moons, or asteroids would be possible.
_Mathis says all matter gives off photons that have mass, so when bodies are close enough together they cause tides. He says the force is like pressing down on a beachball in a bathtub. It makes the surrounding waters rise. As the body moves overhead it's photon force is like a beachball moving on the ocean, causing tidal waves around it. So a large enough beachball would make tidal waves large enough to roll over a low-level supercontinent, carrying along sediments. What do you think of that?

_M: I haven't heard about fields of mass-containing photons before; aren't photons usually considered to be massless? Where can I find the myths involving Jupiter, Saturn, and the rocky planets interacting before the Great Flood?
=L: Although conventional science considers photons massless and dimensionless, it makes no sense. The photon would be like a ghost. How could such a thing have any effect on matter?
_Regarding Saturn Theory myths, one source is http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=
which does searches of numerous sources, but only like ten lines at a time. Others are http://maverickscience.com and http://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth
_The evidence from myths etc suggests that Venus, Mars and Earth were previously satellites of Saturn, moving in single file behind Saturn from distant parts of the solar system to the present orbits. In Kronos magazine in the 1980s probably, Cardona speculated that Jupiter was once close to Earth and its moon Io was the source of the fire and brimstone that fell on Sodom and Gemorrah. He may have abandoned that theory later, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the most ancient myths called Saturn the Sun. Later the name was transferred to the present Sun. This video discusses the theory well: youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 11:17:53 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 2/15
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2017, 01:22:51 pm »
[For reply: The Torah Retold http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5675 ]

RE: Megatsunamis
Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:03 PM
Lloyd, my responses are "M2" below. - Mike

    _M: Megatsunamis would require a much larger body [than the Moon], and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal directions.
    =L: What info do you have on the direction of flow of waters that deposited megasequences? All I've read from Baumgardner or another creationist is that the floods swept from the NE to the SW. A catastrophist, Cardona, has said that the flood came from the north. I think he was quoting early Native American sources. The Saturn Theory, based on ancient myths etc, is similar to Velikovsky's theory and provides several planets, especially Venus and Mars, as possible causes of tsunamis, so there could have been planets temporarily orbiting Earth on different orbital planes (See more at the end).

    M2: Flow over North America appears to have been to the SW.  Other parts of the world were different.  This ICR article cites a report of flow to the NE in Siberia -  http://www.icr.org/article/4208/  I don't recall Noah seeing Venus and Mars fighting in the sky or passing so close to the Earth as to rival the Moon in the sky in order to influence tides.  Note that the description in Genesis is that the waters rose and the waters fell.  The Ark was not swept all over the world by high-energy currents; it landed near where it launched in Mesopotamia.

    _M: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital path.
    =L: Since moons exist within Roche limits and since Mathis reasoned that Roche limits don't exist, do you think he is likely right?

    M2: The Roche limit is basic gravitational astrophysics, simply identifying the point at which the force of tides overcomes the force holding the object together.  Gravity, composition, and volume are all factors.  Seems fairly obvious.

    _M: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater denizens, which still exist today.
    =L: Aren't the dinosaurs considered to be freshwater animals? And yet they appear to have drowned in saltwater. Have they not?

    M2: In the Hell Creek Formation Triceratops, who ate vegetation, are buried with saltwater seashells.  All variety of mixing is evident in the fossil record around the world.

    _M: Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come from the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered 60% or more of Earth's surface.
    _On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would have flowed outward.
    =L: How would rain cause tsunamis? Baumgardner calculated that the sedimentary strata, which average 1.8 km thick, would have needed tsunamis 2.5 km high to transport all the sand and mud etc onto the supercontinent. Why would that not be correct?

    M2: The Moon still caused global tides during the Great Flood.  If you double the amount of water on the Earth over 40 days, the tidal waves become tsunamis.

    _M: The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km thick.
    =L: Do you have figures on how much of that is solid rock? And do you know which megasequence/s the rock belongs to? The Atlantic shouldn't have any flood-formed strata, should it?

    M2: Seafloor sediment is different than continental sedimentary rock.  It is composed of organics, clay, and minerals that settle to the bottom.  In places, especially near continents, there are the remains of avalanches (turbidites), but there is nothing like the megasequences found on land.

    _M: There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching of continental crust involved in separation, which is another reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.
    =L: Do you mean the supercontinent was not hardened granite and hardened sedimentary rock when it broke up?

    M2: As with any material, the dominant forces that hold continental crust together change with scale.  While granite and sedimentary rock are brittle on a small scale, at continental scale they are thixotropic.  When agitated with sufficient force, the crust acts as a Bingham Fluid, returning to a coherent solid when the agitating force subsides below the threshold level.

    _M: I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass spherules are associated with Chicxulub.
    ... It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.
    =L: Do you have detailed info on that? Isn't the iridium in a layer of clay? And isn't there also charcoal as from a conflagration? And isn't the iridium/clay layer above the layer of spherules? Can you explain that in detail?

    M2: Following the Great Flood the highest surface sedimentary stratum was Cretaceous.  The Chicxulub impact occurred on top of that, depositing iridium, glass spherules, and flame products.  However, researcher Gerta Keller has made a case for the iridium layer and reworked micro-tektites associated with the K-Pg boundary falling 300,000 years (uniformitarian), i.e. 50 cm, after the Chicxulub impact.  That would mean the SD impact produced them instead, and the Chicxulub impact struck at the end of the Great Flood.  The attached chart if from one of her papers.

    _M: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split [to form the supercontinent]?
    =L: All I know is that the Moon is said to have similar composition to Earth's continents, I think, although the mares are said to be basalt. I have a few references on that. What I read today about the Roche limit makes me more confident that close passes of planets, moons, or asteroids would be possible.
    _Mathis says all matter gives off photons that have mass, so when bodies are close enough together they cause tides. He says the force is like pressing down on a beachball in a bathtub. It makes the surrounding waters rise. As the body moves overhead it's photon force is like a beachball moving on the ocean, causing tidal waves around it. So a large enough beachball would make tidal waves large enough to roll over a low-level supercontinent, carrying along sediments. What do you think of that?

    M2: Similar composition of the Moon and Earth relate to the origin of the Moon as a product of a collision with Earth by something else earlier.  There is no reason to think a chunk of Moon later broke off and fell onto Earth to cause the Great Flood.  Celestial bodies have intrinsic mass; photons are not involved.  Gravitational attraction between two of them causes tides, not photonic pressure.

    _M: I haven't heard about fields of mass-containing photons before; aren't photons usually considered to be massless? Where can I find the myths involving Jupiter, Saturn, and the rocky planets interacting before the Great Flood?
    =L: Although conventional science considers photons massless and dimensionless, it makes no sense. The photon would be like a ghost. How could such a thing have any effect on matter?
    _Regarding Saturn Theory myths, one source is http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=
    which does searches of numerous sources, but only like ten lines at a time. Others are http://maverickscience.com and http://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth
    _The evidence from myths etc suggests that Venus, Mars and Earth were previously satellites of Saturn, moving in single file behind Saturn from distant parts of the solar system to the present orbits. In Kronos magazine in the 1980s probably, Cardona speculated that Jupiter was once close to Earth and its moon Io was the source of the fire and brimstone that fell on Sodom and Gemorrah. He may have abandoned that theory later, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the most ancient myths called Saturn the Sun. Later the name was transferred to the present Sun. This video discusses the theory well: youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY

    M2: Modern sub-atomic physics is obsessed with particles, which I think is a mistake.  In my and other renegades' opinions, light is only a wave which propagates in space through a medium called "ether".  The wave transfers energy only (which can affect mass), so light is massless.  Modern physics designates light as particles called photons, to which they assign no mass; same result/different paradigm.  Regarding the shuffling around of planetary orbits in the solar system, it would be wise to try to find out if it is physically possible before taking interpretations of myths at face value.  Even if an orbital mechanics scenario could be devised, I doubt it could be resolved over the relatively short time covering human history.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 04:35:50 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 2/16
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2017, 01:25:39 pm »
Hi Mike. Do you have calculations of how much bouyancy a 2 or 3 bar atmosphere would give to megafauna? I did a calculation some months ago that seemed to show that at least 100 bars would be needed to provide significant buoyancy, but I don't know if I did it correctly. Also, do you have more details about how much CO2 would degas from the oceans if the atmosphere lost half or two-thirds of its mass, and how much cement would be produced from the CO2 for limestone and sandstone?

I'll respond to your last email later. First I'll send you parts of a recent exchange with Gordon on the Thunderbolts forum. He's a high school science teacher and an amateur geologist in Washington.

On Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:50 pm he had said to me:
"You're on the right track. Those are certainly good categories of data.
Tsunamis deposit laminated beds like other alluvial processes. The question would be, could mega tsunamis operating as a primary (not just occasional) mechanism produce stratigraphic sequences like we see represented by the geologic column?"

On Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:45 am I told Gordon that you said: ""a meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy ... the sole source of water for the Great Flood. Members of the meteorite swarm falling into the ocean led observers on land to mistakenly call the resulting water jets "fountains of the great deep". Note that these started and ended at the same time as the rain deluge....""
I commented: I'm not sure what he meant by the canopy as sole source of Flood water, but he seems to have made a very similar conclusion as you about the fountains. He seems to add that the meteors caused the heavy rain. But I thought the meteors continued to fall for 5 months altogether. What do you think?

On Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:46 pm Gordon replied as follows.
_I agree with the phrase "meteor swarm" here as it seems to imply something more ominous than say a meteor shower.
_The "matar" [meteors - LK] were said to fall for a period of about 5 months.
_I'm favorable to associating the matar with moon bombardment.
_I disagree with the hypothesis of the canopy, which is unsupported by any physical principle you may wish to apply to it.
_I do believe that a "layer" of moisture in the vicinity of the tropopause/lower stratosphere did surround the earth, that it was disrupted by the introduction of condensation nuclei originating from large scale volcanic upheaval at the beginning of the deluge period.
_It was generally the source of the several weeks of unprecedented steady downpour, followed by a few months of ongoing (but more intermittent) rainfall, followed by the full emplacement of the current water cycle to this day; but this amount of rain, while an initial signal of the unfolding cataclysm was not the primary cause of the deluge.
_Splashing of the meteor swarm into the ocean was definitely not the "fountains of the deep" as I understand them.
_The fountains of the deep I associate with the mid-ocean rift zones as we find them today.
_It is important to remember that at the beginning of the deluge, these rifts were in or on the continental landmass, which through the period of spreading became the basins of the Atlantic and parts of the Indian and (lesser parts of the) Pacific oceans.
_What began as fountains from the "deep" earth, are still fountains from the "deep" earth, coinciding now with the mid-ridges of the "deep" ocean.
_Let's not be too quick to geographically delimit "deep"... it is an apt descriptive word applying to a variety of situations, but all conforming to a single concept: material erupting out of the earth's crust, whether on land or at sea.
_In my scenario, the sources of the major portion of the deluge water were:
1. the extant ocean waters of the time, powered by massive seismic/volcanic upheaval of the spreading ocean basins; these forces at probably a much smaller scale are observable in the catastrophic action of tsunamis today;
2. major tidal action of a large (passing) planetoid that was responsible also for the bombardment of the matar; it was likely temporarily caught in a co-orbital dance with the earth for the early part of the deluge period; this bombardment is evidenced by astroblemes found throughout the geologic record from PreCambrian through Cenozoic, and evidenced on the surface today;
3. subterranean water sources that were/are part and parcel of the pressures powering igneous processes in the deep crust or upper mantle; huge volumes of water are seen to surface during volcanic eruptions.
_An important part of my scenario is that its mechanisms are associated with presently observable/researchable evidence.

On Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:15 pm Grey Cloud asked Gordon:
"Quick question so quick answer is fine. Why do you think the water(s) came from the mid-ocean rift zones? My (limited) understanding is that quakes can cause water to issue from the ground."

On Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:45 pm Gordon answered Grey Cloud as follows.
_I think that a good fraction of the deluge water had a subterranean origin.
_As we see today in steamy volcanic eruptions both on land and at sea, a lot of this deep origin water enters into the water cycle via billowing into the atmosphere and eventually precipitates back to the ground and eventually into the oceans.
_But also in the rift zones are found the famous "black smokers" discovered by R. Ballard (of Titanic fame) and others, which are billowing out sulfurous concentrations of very hot water from deep below the crust.
_As to water surfacing during "normal" quakes, and/or near active faults, further detail is needed to know whether this is from ground water or has a deeper origin.
_Modern research is showing the creation of subterranean water from the mixture of silicates and hydrogen originating deep below the surface.
_Is this the origin of the original seas on the earth? Perhaps.
_Standard geology has an oft quoted adage: If ... all of the known volcanoes, both inactive and active, produced the amount of water seen in volcanic eruptions, it would be enough to account for all of the world's oceans.
_There is no reason why this concept cannot apply also (and even more aptly) to catastrophic geology.

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
MF 2/16-2/18
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2017, 02:07:20 pm »
Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:42 PM
Hi Lloyd.  Buoyancy is not what I am interested in regarding an atmosphere with higher pressure.  It is the availability of oxygen for breathing.  When climbing a high mountain, the air gets "thinner" as you go up because the atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude.  If you continue to go up, eventually you black out.  The presence of a vapor canopy, or more likely an ice crystal canopy at high altitude, would make the atmospheric pressure greater at sea level than it is today.  I am not the first to think that this hyperbaric situation would allow giant animals to survive.  Scroll down to "Changing the World: Hyberbaric Oxygen" at this link  http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/preflood.php
- The concentration of CO2 in water is directly proportional to the atmospheric pressure, using the Henry's Law constant for CO2.  So 2 atmospheres doubles the solubility.  Carbonated soft drinks are bottled under pressure, and degas when opened.  This is complicated by CO2 reacting with water to form hydrated carbon dioxide and then carbonic acid (H2CO3), developing equilibrium with carbon dioxide and water.  It is infamous for weathering the calcite (CaCO3) in marble and limestone.

---

Hi Mike. 2/18/17
- Gigantism from hyperbaric conditions?
- Are you sure there's any physical evidence of a Roche limit in space? There are several moons that exist within Roche limits. And why don't satellites get pulled apart when they near planets?
- Would you like to skim through Charles Chandler's paper, The Torah Retold at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5675 and comment on the plausibility of his conclusions regarding Moses and Atenism and Biblical laws meant to prevent plagues? Atenism relates to the article on your site about Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood.
- When you originally mentioned recently the freshwater and saltwater denizens, I thought you meant that geologists can tell if fossils formed in freshwater or saltwater, i.e. rainwaters and ocean tsunamis. But now you say both are found together all over the world, so I guess I misunderstood your first comment.
- You said: "The Moon still caused global tides during the Great Flood.  If you double the amount of water on the Earth over 40 days, the tidal waves become tsunamis."
- Why doesn't the Moon cause tsunamis now? Or where did the extra water go?

- I have a lot of reading to do. Yesterday a copied a bunch of articles about strata from the Creation.com website.

- Have you read anything in the NCGT Journal yet at ncgt.org? I know you quote David Pratt quite a bit on your site and he has written a few times in NCGT, but I think it's only letters, or discussion, not articles or papers etc. Not sure though.
- Below is the conclusion portion of a NCGT paper from last year by an author who apparently died last year. It's against plate tectonics and for a "fixist" model. Part of the title is "causes of horizontal tectonic movements", which I haven't read, but it might be informative. When we get to Part 4, it seems like it might be good to discuss the arguments below. Your site already discusses some of them. I'm marking three paragraphs with this mark: >> . Would you like to comment a bit about those for me? I'm not clear on how the SD model does or would explain the upwelling of new rock formation at ocean ridges. If the continents slid over the oceanic crust, why would new crust form there? It seems redundant to have pre-existing crust there as well as the new crust added to it. Your ideas on formation of eclogite and UHD rock would be good to hear, if you've considered those problems already.

204 New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, V. 4, No. 2, June 2016. www.ncgt.org
- Critical analysis of the plate tectonics model and causes of horizontal tectonic movements
Arkady Pilchin
Universal Geosciences & Environmental Consulting Company
205 Hilda Ave., #1402
Toronto, Ontario, M2M 4B1, Canada.
arkadypilchin@yahoo.ca 
- Concluding remarks
All of the above leads to the following conclusions:
The main problem with the plate tectonics model is underdevelopment of its every part, from the model’s inception until the present day.
- The outright dismissal of the geosynclinal model and all other fixist models is not justified and was a mistake.
- Convection throughout the entire mantle or in any mantle layer of any significant thickness is highly unlikely, because it violates physical laws.
- The main forces postulated for plate tectonics are too weak for any significant tectonic activity, and cannot be involved in such tectonic processes as obduction, orogenesis, lithosphere uplift, or even subduction. In general, their application violates physical laws by ignoring the effect of friction and strength limits.
Plate tectonic forces are incapable of generating any significant force in a horizontal or upward direction.
- The plate tectonics model of the formation of new lithosphere in spreading centers violates a number of physical laws; it is unclear how it would be possible, with a buildup of only about 1 cm long, ~50 km deep and thousands of kilometers wide increments of new lithosphere per year, for it to independently separate into the main oceanic layers (including the peridotite layer) in underwater conditions, and over millions of years form solid oceanic plates thousands of kilometers long.
One of the main problems with sea floor spreading is the inconsistency between the total lengths of mid-ocean ridges (the total length of the mid-ocean ridge system is ~80,000 km and the continuous mountain range is 65,000 km) and the total length of trenches (30,000-40,000 km). Whereas, according to the plate tectonics model, the total length of trenches should be twice as long (~130,000-160,000 km) as that of mid-ocean ridges.

>> Any oceanic lithosphere plate (slab) with a thickness of ~50 km is composed of three main layers: brittle upper layer with temperatures of less than ~573 K; elastic middle layer with temperatures within the range of ~573-873 K; and plastic lower layer with temperatures of >~873 K, and it cannot be considered rigid.
It is clearly shown in the paper that under no circumstances would the average density of an oceanic lithosphere plate be denser than rocks of the upper mantle, and the formation of negative buoyancy is not possible.

>> The formation of eclogite requires rocks of the upper continental crust to be delivered to depths of about 64 km or more, but even if the entire crust of any region were completely transformed to eclogite, it would still not be enough to form negative buoyancy by even 0.01 g/cm3.

- An oceanic plate has an average geothermal gradient of ~50-86 K/km, and a temperature of about 1573 K (or 1603 K) at the point of contact between the lithosphere and asthenosphere, so technically it cannot be considered cold.
Numerous problems of the plate tectonics model are mentioned in the paper with corresponding references.

>> The formation of ultrahigh pressure (UHP) rocks cannot be accomplished under lithostatic pressures alone, and requires the involvement of gigantic (mostly horizontal) forces. This cannot take place within a subduction zone.
Analysis of the causes of formation of significant overpressure shows that only the decomposition of rocks (primarily serpentinization of the peridotite layer) can generate gigantic forces capable of horizontally moving oceanic plates; causing obductions, subductions, orogenies, or uplift of lithospheric blocks; forming serpentinite and ophiolite thrusts; and more.

- Analysis of the focus depths of earthquakes on continents clearly shows that the absolute majority of them take place at shallow and very shallow depths, and almost all of them within the temperature range of the serpentinization process (~473-773 K). This also shows that continental subduction is not possible.
- It is shown that serpentinization of the oceanic peridotite layer may cause formation of either obduction or forced subduction of an oceanic plate near the continental margin (see Fig. 1), or away from the continental margin (see Fig. 2).
From all of the above, it is clear that plate tectonics is an inconsistent model violating numerous physical laws, and is based on a large number of incorrect postulates and assumptions. Given all this evidence, the plate tectonics model is shown to be a dead end in geology that has unfortunately run its course for too long.

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
MF 2/19
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2017, 06:57:11 pm »
2/19 To Mike
HYPERBARIC
I read the section of an article a couple days ago that you had mentioned, Changing the World: Hyberbaric Oxygen. I actually read the whole page. I was pretty impressed with it. The Meissner effect to support an icy canopy is very interesting too. I suppose the canopy may have come from debris from the supercontinent-forming event. I just noticed at http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/games/depth_press that a two bar atmosphere would apparently produce the buoyancy of ten meters of water and three bars would produce that of 20 meters of water. So the calculation I did a year or so ago was way off, I think. And the buoyancy of the thicker atmosphere should greatly help explain gigantism as well, along with the greater oxygen supply, and maybe CO2 too. I read about ten years ago of an experiment with mice breathing a greater percent of CO2. I think the result was that they lived longer or grew bigger.

CATACLYSM/S
How certain do you feel that the SD event came centuries after the Flood? Gordon thinks they came together and I know of a couple of reasons that suggest that too. One is that Baumgardner said the CO plateau (the idea being based I think on strata that are now partly eroded away, i.e. missing) was initially about 5 km high. He said the missing strata seem to have been eroded away by sheet erosion as the Flood was receding. I figure the plateau must have been uplifted at that time in order to be eroded away during the Flood. And the uplift likely was due to the SD event.
- The other reason is the rock ice that seems to have frozen some of the mammoths. It also flash froze streams with fish and cattle swimming in them. You said the SD event pushed the northern continents close to the north pole. That would help freeze those animals and streams. But it's been claimed that the mammoths that had food still in their stomachs must have frozen very suddenly, like those streams did, because the food would otherwise have been digested or rotted or something like that. So it was estimated that the air temperature had to reach at least -150F. I think that's stated in Walter Brown's article on frozen mammoths. If it's true, then I think the most likely source of such cold air or ice would have been cold air from the upper atmosphere during the cataclysm making its way to the Earth's surface in the Arctic, or ice from the icy canopy doing so. The canopy would not have been around after the Flood. So I'm wondering if the rock ice is actually from the former canopy.
- What do you think?

---

Sunday, February 19, 2017 11:09 PM

Hi Lloyd,
Comparing the Flood with the Shock Dynamics event, all continental uplift and induced high-energy waves would occur with the latter.  The distinct change in fossil fauna between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic make it clear to me that different populations occupied the continents prior to the catastrophes that buried them.  There are no mammoths or cattle with the dinosaurs in Mesozoic strata, and no dinosaurs with the mammoths or cattle in Cenozoic strata.  The Septuagint timing for dividing the Earth in the "days of Peleg" in Genesis 10:25 and 1 Chronicles 1:19 is about 300 years, allowing a repopulation of the (still intact) protocontinent after the Flood by survivors on the Ark.  The megafauna were then buried by the less-universally annihilating Shock Dynamics catastrophe.  The extensive volcanism and exposed hot seafloor rock acting on ocean water and overland megatsunamis, combined with a blanket of particulates over the Earth generated by the giant impact, explain the onset of a global ice age.  Pushing Siberia northward contributed to freezing the mammoths' pastures.  According to Vardiman, the problem with an ice or vapor canopy is high heat at Earth's surface.  The ice would have been in the form of tiny crystals in order to stay aloft, and raining them down into the hot atmosphere might have cooled but not frozen the air.  In favor of a canopy, the global pre-Flood environment on the protocontinent was tropical to temperate, unlike the extremes we have today without a canopy.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 11:03:50 pm by Admin »