Author Topic: Robert on Collaboration  (Read 168 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 16, 2017, 07:44:25 pm »
Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:57 PM
Hello Lloyd,
_Most of my career has been in electrical engineering, in various industries here in the UK, apart from six years or so as a train driver- I just tried my hand at doing something different- but I’m back in engineering now.
_For as long as I can remember I have had an interest in astronomy, earth science, prehistoric life etc. mostly self taught. As you might expect this route to knowledge was decidedly ‘mainstream’ shall we say? For example I subscribed to the US journal ‘The Skeptical Inquirer’ published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP) for over twenty years- a group that was highly critical of Velikovsky!
_For me doubts began to appear when I began questioning the claims of Big Bang theoreticians- when they developed concepts such as ‘baby universes’, ‘chaotic inflation’, ‘branes’ etc. the whole enterprise of modern theoretical science had become completely detached from reality. For about five years or so I was in a kind of conceptual wilderness, I began researching alternatives then by accident I came across the works of Alfven. This was it! Now the universe made sense again- it was electrical!
_From that revelation it was a series of intellectual ‘stepping stones’ that led me to Velikovsky, Juergens, Thornhill, Scott et al but initially I was sceptical until I was convinced that the mainstream were wrong.
_I joined the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in 2010, I’m now 50 years old so I guess I’m a late comer to catastrophism, but it was a natural progression for me, it is just so clear that Earth has suffered a major cataclysm- I only have a few print copies of Pensee, Kronos etc. most of the journals I read are contained on a copy of the ‘Catastrophism’ CD I have http://www.catastrophism.com/ .
_Lloyd, I will take your final point first, my views on the nature of the KT boundary layer I’ve had for nearly twenty years, at one time I intended to submit a paper to a scientific publication but never got past the developmental stage- the whole idea came to me following a brief discussion I had with Thomas Gold that centred around his Deep Earth Gas hypothesis.
_With orogenesis the book to read on the subject is The Origin of Mountains by Ollier and Pain https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Mountains-Cliff-Ollier/dp/0415198909
_Mountains are not what people generally think- the authors make it clear that mountains have formed regardless of the underlying strata and/or bedrock. It is whole regions that have experienced rapid uplift then depending on how much erosion has occurred determines what we call the uplifted area- little erosion we call a plateau- substantial erosion we would call a mountain range. As the authors say ‘there are no fold mountains’. https://preachrr.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/foldedlayers.jpg
_So, from the above image the strata would have been deposited and folded on a pre-existing flat surface. Later the surface was uplifted and eroded leaving behind mountains. Ollier and Pain are certainly not catastrophists but they do realise that during a unique period in Earth history rapid uplift occurred (vertical not lateral movements) - then stopped, nothing like it happened before or has happened since.
_When I look at such images I picture immense waves depositing freshly eroded sediment upon the surface of a pre-existing continent, tidal surges folding the layers in the process. Later certain areas were subject to electrical uplift if the discharge was particularly severe then vast amounts of material were electrically machined away leaving behind freshly cut mountains. The ‘age’ of the strata is not an indicator of the age of the mountain.
_I’m not a fan of really big impacts two suitably large bodies would not collide but following an exchange of charge they would be nudged into slightly different trajectories or one would capture the other- to my mind there never was a moon forming impact, that said the Shock Dynamics site does present the arguments against Plate Tectonics well and I’m all for that.
_When it comes to radiometric dating then creationist scientists have carried out extensive work in this field: http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
_I am aware of only a few papers that have been published in journals such as Ralph E. Juergens’ Radiohalos And Earth History from Kronos Vol. III No. 1 (Fall 1977) and a couple of others in SIS C&C Review are you aware of any others? Perhaps it is an area catastrophists need to focus on more?
_In my view radiometric dating is highly questionable to the point it may be meaningless, if the entire Phanerozoic rock record was laid down during a cataclysm then what went before has been almost completely demolished.
_I have attached a pdf file it is a paper by creationist scientist John Baumgardner you may find it of interest.

---

after 7:40PM
_Hi Robert. I'm pretty well aware of CSICOP and its biases, hypocrisy and pseudoskepticism.
_RADIOMETRIC DATING
_I collected most of my info on radiometric dating at http://funday.createaforum.com/2-11
_The best evidence there is at http://funday.createaforum.com/2-11/2-51 where there's this quote from Walter Brown's online book.
"Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this decreases its half-life more than a billionfold — from 42 billion years to 33 years.17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used in measuring half-lives.18"
_In his paper on Light Curves at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943 Charles calculated that the Sun and presumably the solar system are under 380 million years old and that radiometric dating ignores some facts. At http://funday.createaforum.com/2-11/increased-decay-rate I asked: Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?
Charles replied: Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat. Past that point, if they don't extract the heat from the core, it will go into runaway mode, resulting in a melt-down. So yes, the decay rate increases with temperature.
_ELECTRIC UNIVERSE
_You said: "I’m not a fan of really big impacts two suitably large bodies would not collide but following an exchange of charge they would be nudged into slightly different trajectories or one would capture the other- to my mind there never was a moon forming impact, that said the Shock Dynamics site does present the arguments against Plate Tectonics well and I’m all for that."
_Since you're an electrical engineer, would you be willing to have a friendly debate about the Electric Universe on the Thunderbolts forum? I tried to organize a debate there about 3 years ago, but couldn't get any more knowledgeable EU proponents, like Thornhill, Scott et al, to get involved. Charles was willing at that time, but no one else was, to speak of. Someone called Aristarchus debated him briefly, but didn't debate well.
_You're saying that large impacts aren't possible because like-charged bodies repel. That's one of the things I'd like to debate and several other issues too.
_CATASTROPHISM DATA
_What do you think is the best data in support of catastrophism and against uniformitarianism? I'd like to collect such data on the CNPS forum in preparation for a CNPS Wiki paper. And thanks for the article from Baumgardner. I have a lot of info from another paper by him on Noah's Flood.

---

Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:09 PM
<Robert
_I am currently overseeing some building work taking place at my home so I haven't had as much time as I would like to discuss the matters at hand.
_I have been working my way through the links you sent me when I am able and I've done some digging around- are you familiar with the article by Ralph Juergens "Radiohalos and Earth History"? I've attached a copy for your attention- if you are familiar with the article then just delete the attachment.
_I have briefly looked at Walt Brown's thesis, unusually we have a creationist who acknowledges that electricity has played a part in a global cataclysm, that said I favour Juergens’ hypothesis the cause being an external discharge rather than an internal one as suggested by Brown.
_An excellent non-creationist paper on the subject of radiometric dating is by David Salkeld printed in SIS C&C Review 2003 “Scientific Dating Problems the Radiometric Dating of Earth’s Rocks”- have you read this paper? If not I have scanned a copy which I could send as an attachment- but it would be in the form of jpeg images, just let me know.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 09:19:42 am by Admin »