Author Topic: NCGT PLAN  (Read 28 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
NCGT PLAN
« on: March 16, 2017, 08:52:09 pm »
=MF: Sunday, February 26, 2017 9:37 PM
_dutchsinse on YouTube claims to predict earthquakes [with] controversy
_Apparently  he thinks energy waves spread slowly around the planet triggering faults:  youtube.com/watch?v=j4S2u1M0bTE
_Global Wrench Tectonics is just impossible.
_Submitting a discussion to NCGT journal sounds like a good idea.

=LK: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:06 pm
_I think the thicker atmosphere before the Flood is highly probable.
_I don't think the icy canopy is necessary, since megatsunamis from an orbiting  asteroid etc should suffice to produce the Flood.

=MF: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:42 PM
_in SD, Siberia was forced far north in one day producing the sudden cold climate 
_"The woolly mammoths were buried in loess (wind-blown silt), commonly found up to  60 m (200 ft) thick in the lowlands of Siberia and Alaska."
_The SD event is an ideal generator of such a storm, and it is hard to imagine any  other source.
_at the 1994 conference Wycliffe Bible translator Bernard Northrup showed me his  biblical time line of events, and I found SD fit his post-Flood catastrophic  requirements.
_Regrettably, very few people know enough about geology to judge it fairly
<<So we should teach them.>>

=LK: 3/1/17; 2:41 PM
_The SD impact should have caused a lot of flooding, so is that how the Canyon  eroded?
_Do you know how to determine whether the upper strata at the Grand Canyon were  eroded during the Great Flood or during the SD event?
_Dong Choi PDF files show a map of Earth heat, mostly from the ocean ridge system,  which they say is responsible for Earth's temperature.
_http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m/msg150/#msg150
_The map shows  Antarctica and Greenland as rather warm too
<<I need to ask Mr. Choi about that.>>
<<figure out the likely cause of those two anticlines>>

=MF: Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017, 8:15 PM
_Uplift and block faulting of the Colorado Plateau would occur as North America  moved west during the SD event, eroding the Great Unconformity as tsunamis rushed  eastward from the coast, then depositing all the sedimentary layers above it.
_A large quantity of ocean water trapped inland of the new western mountain chain  eventually eroded the canyon either as runoff or as a consequence of the subsequent  ice age, such as dam breaching.
_You will have to rely on Dong Choi to explain his  reports.
_The anticlines map shows no apparent support for the position of the blue lines.

=LK: Date: Thu, March 02, 2017 12:14 am
_their New Madrid paper: https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/GCSR1- 2015NewMadridChoi%26Casey%20(8).pdf
_It references Choi 2013, so I'll check the 2013 issues

=MF: Thu, 3/2/17
_Figure 3 in the Choi and Casey paper (New Madrid earthquakes compared to solar  minimums or “solar hibernations”) is sobering if the data is accurate.

=LK: Thu 3/2/17 8:30PM
_papers from NCGT.org I posted at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82 
_I also posted Tassos' paper there about 5 myths in geology.
_theories circulating in NCGT we can address their flaws while discussing your  model there.
_they've apparently been making a lot of progress at predicting earthquakes.
_Choi mentions surges in his papers
_I think it refers to surges of energy that are detectable and the surges migrate  along those geanticlines and it's predictable where and when they'll cause serious  quakes.
_I think the geanticlines are supposed to be in the bedrock precambrian granite  etc.
_Choi says heat is a major driver of geodynamics; the continents and oceans rise  and fall over millions of years.
_They call subsidence of land oceanization
_They say the ocean floors have a lot of evidence of being continental sedimentary  rock.
_They talk about plumes coming up from the outer core.
_They favor the theory of vertical mobility over horizontal mobility

=MF: Monday, March 6, 2017, 5:35 PM
_So Choi agrees with Plate Tectonics that heat is a major driver of geodynamics?
_Supposedly the greatest remaining concentration of heat is in the core, giving  rise to alleged mantle plumes, and most of the rest is from radioactive decay in  the mantle, distributed homogeneously.
_Calculations I have seen show Earth convects 44 terawatts of heat, but only half  would be produced by these sources, suggesting residual heat is also being vented.
_I agree with those who attribute slow lithospheric motion to tidal forces rather  than heat, due mainly to the Moon but to other bodies as well.
_Oceanic transgression and regression are essential mechanisms for producing  sequence stratigraphy in Plate Tectonics and stasis theories.
_That may be easy for their supporters to accept, yet I wish they would think about  what would have to happen at depth for all this repeated fluctuation of hundreds of  feet to occur globally.
_And I agree with Tassos that Plate Tectonics, Heat Engine Earth, and the Organic  Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are mistaken.
_Earthquakes are firing every second around the world, usually in well-defined  zones, and the two hemispheric geanticlines don't seem to be in those zones.

=LK: Wed, March 08, 2017 1:08 am
_Surge Tectonics folks think the seafloors also are covered with sedimentary strata  and granite, at least under the basalt.
_I think my best argument is that it wouldn't be possible for just one or two kinds  of sediments to be deposited for thousands of years followed by one or two other  kinds.
_NCGT article that seems to explain Surge Tectonics at  http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82/msg156/#msg156
_It describes a worldwide network of surge channels and mentions some evidence for  that.

=MF: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:41 PM
_Surge Tectonics rotational lag of the lithosphere relative to the mantle is  correct
_the "strictosphere" (upper mantle), and consequently Earth's radius, has not been  found to be shrinking (nor expanding)  https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html
_Without shrinking, lithosphere will not be compressed for "tectogenesis".
_The lithosphere is buoyant anyway, and would not "collapse" into denser  asthenosphere and mantle, even at Benioff zones   http://www.academia.edu/18543181/Continents_as_lithological_icebergs_the_importance _of_buoyant_lithospheric_roots
_Without shrinking, magma in channels, if they exist, will not be pumped to  "surge".
_near-surface mantle (at least) is not homogeneous but contains scattered hot or  wet pools.
_seismic tomographic images reveal a generous distribution of dense and less dense  anomalies.
_I have not seen any that support the surge channel concept.
<<If you have any such images at hand, I would like to see them.>>

=LK: Thu, March 16, 2017 2:23 pm
_Dong Choi said the best evidence for Surge Tectonics is Art Meyerhoff's book
_NCGT article around 2004 favors electrical battery model for Earth and Dr. Choi favors that model too; he said it helps explain the major earthquake correlation with sunspot minima.
_Our discussion with NCGT may need to argue against
- cold formation of Earth,
- transgressing/regressing oceans,
- major vertical uplift/subsidence and
- radiometric dating
_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.

=MF: 3/16, 2017 7:28 PM
_metamorphosed granite is "granite gneiss", and metamorphosed sedimentary rock is just gneiss.
_this analysis from Stanford concerns the Sun's diameter (conclusion at bottom of page)  http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
_electrical activity regarding Earth [is] all new to me.

=LK: 3/22, 2017 1:36 pm
_Surge Tectonics book copied at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg178/#msg178
_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.
_If the [surge] 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.
_I haven't noticed any mention of the Earth having formed from cold matter.

=LK: 3/23, 2017 10:54 am
_Meyerhoff claimed that the shrinkage of the Earth is very gradual and episodic.
_I read [not in the book] 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.
_I think the surge channels are explained by Charles' electrical model [& SD].
_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

=MF: 3/24, 2017, 9:42 PM
_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
_Are Earth's electrical forces considered by Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect?

=LK: 3/25/17 5:33PM
_No. The piezoelectric effect is [too] minor
_if piezoelectricity is involved in fluidization, that seems to be the only time it would be very significant ... impacts too.
_Here are the main topics in his Astrophysics & Geophysics papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660-6031
_continental roots the Surge Tectonics book says prove continents have not moved.
_maybe the roots formed as the continents began to encounter significant friction toward the ends of the sliding.
_then Africa shouldn't have roots and Eurasia should have very little, unless the entire supercontinent had slid previously.
_[Maybe] melting often separates heavier material from lighter, so that could account for the roots.
_Do you have a better explanation for the NCGT discussion.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 06:23:14 pm by Admin »

Social Buttons


Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: NCGT PLAN
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2017, 10:31:33 am »
NCGT Discussion
- cold formation of Earth,
- transgressing/regressing oceans,
- major vertical uplift/subsidence and
- radiometric dating

---

On 02/04/2017 20:56, lloyd kinder wrote:
> Geology Question & Invitation
> Hi. I read the NCGT Journal & Newsletters. I hope you may be able to answer a brief geology question below. Or you may like the invitation.
> 1. Sedimentary Rock Strata:
> What brief explanations do you know of for (or what specific source/s can you cite perhaps that explains) the fact that horizontal sedimentary rock strata covering large areas are generally sorted into different rock types, i.e. esp. sandstones, claystones, and limestones? I.e., assuming millions to billions of years of erosion and deposition occurred, how was it possible for only one rock type to be deposited over large areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of another rock type, etc?
> 2. INVITATION:
> CNPS added a section on their forum at my request for Surge Tectonics and I started a couple threads there. If you'd like to participate, or invite other NCGT members to do so, anyone can register for free at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org --- And the Surge Tectonics section of the forum is at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=129 --- I copied excerpts there from Chapters 3, 6 & 7 of Meyerhoff et al.' 1996 book, Surge Tectonics.
> - In case you're not familiar with CNPS, they have a yearly conference in July for all kinds of mostly alternative sciences. People need to be members to submit papers for their Proceedings and the deadline is the end of May. They have details at http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/proceedings-2017
> - CNPS is working to improve scientific discussion and methodology for greater efficiency and thoroughness. They are also working to create an online Wiki Encyclopedia that critiques Wikipedia and other short-sighted conventional science claims. When enough scientists join this effort, it should prove exciting as it will likely greatly advance science and society. The potential for the internet to improve communication worldwide is just beginning to be tapped and realized.

---

Tuesday, April 4, 2017 3:53 AM
Hello Lloyd, It’s possible that some sedimentary strata were not deposited gradually but very quickly in some catastrophic event. For example, Derek Ager (The New Catastrophism, 1993) wrote: ‘we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation as at times very rapid indeed’ (p. 49). This subject is also covered by William R. Corliss in Neglected Geological Anomalies (1990), which has a chapter entitled ‘Deposits of remarkable size’. We know that fossilization requires rapid burial. There are cases of tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers.
Regards, David Pratt

---

4/9/17 10:15PM
Hi David. Thank you for the references. I guess you're familiar with Mike Fischer's website about Shock Dynamics at http://NewGeology.us since he has posted some of your geological arguments there against aspects of plate tectonics. Shock Dynamics is definitely a catastrophic model. It doesn't address rock strata formation significantly, but he makes note of the Great Flood event some centuries before the Shock Dynamics asteroid impact. Creationist John Baumgardner wrote a paper called in part, Noah's Flood, in which he surmised that a large object orbited the Earth for a few months on an elliptical orbit. When it reached perigee, tidal forces apparently caused very high tsunamis that covered much of the supercontinent, depositing megasequences about once a month. I don't follow Biblical claims myself, but those findings seem close to correct to me.
- I found a website of yours about Theosophy and that seems to be the basis of your interest in geology as at NCGT.org. Is that right? I don't find that to be very plausible myself. But the surge channels described in Surge Tectonics seem reasonable and may fit into the Shock Dynamics and Baumgardner scenario/s okay. Mike's model considers the Moho to be an important piece of the puzzle, and that's where the surge channels are said to be. Mike and I consider it unlikely that the continents rose and fell numerous times to deposit the sedimentary rock strata, esp. over long time periods, because only over short time spans could moving waters sort out the strata into separate layers all at once, or many at once. The only contradiction is radiometric dating, but Walter Brown has explained that radioactive decay was found to proceed up to at least billions of times faster under conditions of high ionization, which would have occurred where continents slid over the Moho. Would you like to comment or discuss?

- Good Day. Lloyd Kinder
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 10:25:01 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Letter to NCGT
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2017, 08:38:02 pm »
Fri, April 28, 2017 9:59 pm
Hi Mike.
I think Baumgardner said the geologic column has 6 megasequences of many conforming sedimentary strata with unconformities between each megasequence. I gather that there's only sheet erosion indicated in the unconformities. Do you know if that's correct? I mean is there much other erosion there, that would have required long time spans? And are there clearly only about 6 megasequences?

My understanding is that megatsunamis deposited each megasequence on the supercontinent with some sheet erosion removing the tops of each megasequence. Does that seem right to you?

Here's a draft I just now wrote for the NCGT members:
http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/p-88/msg192/#msg192

I thought it might be good to submit 3 parts:
1st, explaining the separation of strata by major flooding over large areas and short time spans;
2nd, explaining orogenesis;
3rd, explaining rapid radioactive decay.

Do you have comments?

---

Monday, May 1, 2017 8:53 PM
Hi Lloyd,
This first post makes sense to me, although the explanation could also include successive waves generated by one or two global-scale catastrophes, such as meteorite impacts, whose energy was not dissipated by a single wave.  Each wave would perform both sheet erosion and multi-strata deposition during its transgression and regression.  Six megasequences are generally recognized (see attached).

---

LETTER TO NCGT JOURNAL

Question about Sedimentary Rock Strata

I've read Meyerhoff's book on Surge Tectonics and some of the NCGT Journals & Newsletters. Now here is a brief geology question.

Re: Sedimentary Rock Strata:
What brief explanation is there for the fact that sedimentary rock strata covering large continental areas are generally sorted into different rock types, i.e. esp. sandstones, claystones, and limestones? I.e., assuming that millions to billions of years of erosion and deposition occurred, how was it possible for only one rock type to be deposited over large areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of another rock type, etc?

The only plausible means I know of for separation of strata into such individual rock types is by major flooding over short time spans, as demonstrated by Guy Berthault.

The geologic column is said to consist of 6 megasequences worldwide, each containing many conforming sedimentary strata, and each megasequence occurring over an unconformity.

The best explanation seems to be that each megasequence was deposited during major flooding over a short time span of days or weeks.

Since the unconformities between the megasequences seem to show mainly only sheet eroision, there must have been only short time spans of days, weeks or months between each megasequence deposit.

The best theory to explain the unconformities and megasequences seems to be megatsunamis or tidal waves, raised either by tidal action of a large body or bodies that orbited Earth for some months or years on an eccentric orbit, reaching perigee every few weeks or months, or by a series of similarly temporally spaced ocean  meteorite impacts, whose energy was not dissipated by a single wave.

The megatsunamis seem to have eroded seafloor and continental shelf materials and deposited them on the continents for a few days or weeks at most during each megasequence deposition during transgressions, along with some sheet erosion during regressions.

Implications for three possible mechanisms.
1. Surge Tectonics: Wherever oceanization may have occurred, the same megasequences might be expected to be found under seafloors, at least under the Atlantic. 2. Shock Dynamics: If the megasequences are not found, especially under the Atlantic seafloor, then a supercontinent may have broken up from a major impact, with rapid continental "drift" facilitated by fluidization at the Moho (See http://NewGeology.us ). 3. Earth Expansion: If major expansion occurred, it may have forced the continents apart. However, if ocean ridges are signs of expansion, then the Pacific must have expanded first, then the Americas slid over much of the Pacific as the Atlantic expansion occurred.

While a major impact could explain rapid continental movements, a cause of major Earth expansion or of oceanization seems more obscure. A fourth possible mechanism, electric discharge machining removing material from the Atlantic and depositing it on the continents, does not seem well explained as yet.

Lloyd Kinder, lkindr@yahoo.com
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 11:01:42 am by Admin »