Updates > Updates

Robert on Collaboration

(1/2) > >>

Re Robert's TB thread: Catastrophist Geology

Hi Robert.

Thanks for interest in collaboration.

Except for the last few pages of my thread on Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, I copied and reorganized nearly all of the posts on a private forum of my own at http://funday.createaforum.com . They're mixed in with other material from other sources. And they're mostly in the sections called LK1 to LK4. I started writing a paper in section LK1 at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-71 . So that and the other LK sections and the Sources & Outline section cover most of the discussions and evidence. Also the Mike Messages and XX First Draft sections cover additional or reorganized material.

The CNPS section is the most recent and involves discussing Catastrophism on the CNPS forum in an effort to use the discussion with scientists, pros and laymen, to write a paper for the CNPS Wiki for Alternative Science.

This recent post at my Thunderbolts thread above has my Letter to the Editor of NCGT Journal at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&start=720#p119437 . The letter discusses reasoning that most of the sedimentary strata must have been deposited over a short time span by megatsunamis not many millennia ago.

I favor Charles Chandler's EU model instead of the Thunderbolts team's model. His model is much more thorough and well-reasoned. It's at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031 . He found that stars etc likely form from electrical recombination after ionization-caused charge separation, via implosions that produce mainly current-free electric double layers within stars, planets etc. So stars etc are storage batteries that slowly lose charge, instead of being loads on a circuit as in Thornhill's model, which lacks electric generators for the circuits.

Impacts are bolide collisions, not just electric discharges. But the bolides are highly charged and can cause E.D.'s etc. Tidal forces are also electrical. Both impacts and tidal forces caused megatsunamis, which produced the sedimentary rock strata. The Phanerozoic may have some fossils, e.g. pollen, I think. It may lack most fossils because the sediments may have formed before there was much life on Earth.

If you have counter-evidence for any of this, I'm always open to it and want to know about it.

Are you ready to discuss collaboration?


Hello Lloyd,

I had a quick look at the Natural Philosophy website, it looks familiar and I recognised some of the authors, I may have visited it in the past, if I did then it may have had a revamp since then?

Ok, let’s get down to business, what do we agree on? I’ll put down a few brief points as a taste of where my research has led me.

The Universe: the universe is infinite and eternal; I favour the plasma model proposed by Alfven, Peratt, Lerner et al.

Redshift: not too sure if I agree with the Thunderbolts project people on this one as they tend to promote Halton Arp’s hypothesis, I read Halton Arp’s work some time ago, he did raise some valid points but in a plasma universe redshift could very well be explained by the Wolf Effect.

A simple description of the universe may be: as the size of the universe approaches infinity the energy/ matter density approaches zero- as the size of the universe approaches zero the energy/ matter density approaches infinity.

Stars: stars are powered externally- connected to their environments as suggested by Birkeland and later proposed by Juergens and Milton and more recently Scott and Thornhill.

Saturn Hypothesis: The Thunderbolts project people put a lot of energy into this one- I’m undecided. I have my own alternative- the Sun was formerly a Red-Giant star.

Age of the Earth: how can you attribute an age to the Earth by dating a meteorite? The Earth may very well be much older than currently assumed.

Plate and Expansion tectonics: neither is correct- I agree with the stance taken by former Soviet geologists, I think I’ve made that obvious in my Thunderbolts thread. The Earth is old but many of its surface features are recent.

Origin of Life: again not too sure on this one as there have been a few interesting ‘Electricity of Life’ videos posted that have caused a rethink in my position. An easy way out would be that in an infinite and eternal universe life has always existed!

Evolution vs. Speciation: I’m with the Creationists on this one (I’m not a creationist). While we have evidence of evolution i.e. selection- we have no examples of speciation. The exact speciation process may no longer function correctly today, controversial scientist Peter Duesberg has suggested that cancer is a form of speciation. If so perhaps the process has gone terribly wrong in Earth’s new environment (see below).

A global cataclysm occurred: In my view for much of its history Earth was a very different place a large low-relief hemispheric ‘continent’ existed the other hemisphere was covered by water. This arrangement led to very little erosion the hemispheric dichotomy existed for billions of years. It was under this hemispheric arrangement that life arose (?) and speciated perhaps the actual speciation process was not for the squeamish, we could think of the pre-cataclysm Earth as a planet of mutants. When the cataclysm occurred ecosystems were largely destroyed, remnants of the destroyed ecosystems were fossilised. Survivors probably inhabited the deep interior of the ‘continental’ hemisphere.

Sedimentary strata: the Phanerozoic rock record was laid down during a global cataclysm(s).

The Moon: the Moon was captured during the latter stages of the cataclysm.

Consciousness: arises in the brain and is a process not a thing, I favour the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection proposed by Gerald M. Edelman.

Time: time is thermodynamic irreversibility.

If you can think of any other categories that you may wish to discuss or collaborate on (if any!?) then let me know. I’ll take a look at the CNPS forum as soon as I am able- it looks like you have to register first.


I didn't realize you've been posting on the TB forum since 2013. Had I known that, I would have invited you to various discussions I've been involved in since 2012 especially. I read some of your early posts and the recent ones. You seem to be well informed and you write professionally.

What's your background? I've studied catastrophism since 1969. I'm 68 now. What about you? I noticed you mentioned Kronos, so I guess you've read some or much of those issues. I still have all of them, I believe. I also have all but one issue of Pensee'. And I have a few issues of Aeon. And I've read the Thoth e-newsletter. I read a few issues of Catastrophism and Ancient History. I also read 4 of Velikovsky's books as well as Talbott's The Saturn Myth and Cardona's God Star. And I like Ev Cochrane's site at MaverickScience.com I think. Gary Gilligan and John Ackerman also have some interesting ideas.

I think Talbott and Cardona make a good case for the Saturn Theory, but it's hard to verify. I started gathering Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms last year and I guess you read my Letter to the Editor of NCGT Journal where I explained that nearly the entire geologic column must have been deposited in a short time span. The next step I want to take with that is proving the inaccuracy of radiometric dating and the last step would be explaining orogenesis. I'd like to see what you think of http://NewGeology.us . I've discussed that quite a bit on the TB forum and I think it likely explains orogenesis much better than anything else, including what you mentioned with Michael "Starbiter".

Thanks for mentioning a lot of your views. If you want to know which of them I disagree with, let me know. But I'm more interested in pursuing the Catastrophism story. I think you have helpful insights. I read a little of what you said about the KT boundary.

Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process?
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=88481#p88481
Lightning strikes causing rocks to explode have for the first time been shown to play a huge role in shaping mountain landscapes in southern Africa
My own view is that Earth’s mountains formed recently (within the last 250,000 years?)during a planet shattering cataclysm. A disruption of Earth's rotation resulted in repeated ocean surges forming immense plateaus of sedimentary rock were the ocean waters met pre-existing land areas. These plateaus were then etched by huge electrical discharges leaving behind the typical Lichtenberg morphology we see in many mountain ranges today.

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780&p=88615#p88615
- I used the date of 250,000 years ago for the period of mountain building as an upper limit. My preferred age would be 20,000 +/- 10,000 years ago. I base this on the convergence of radiocarbon ages of ‘fossilised’ soft tissue from dinosaurs, megafauna etc. which were preserved in the same cataclysmic event that led to the formation of today’s mountain ranges. (I realise that problems exist regarding carbon dating but it’s the best I can do!)
- Whilst I have no problems with airborne material settling and forming layers (from a later electrical event), the fossil record primarily indicates a watery catastrophe. 95% of the fossil record consists of marine invertebrates, 4.75% plants [not including coal?], 0.24% insects and 0.01% fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, basically everything else!
- In my scenario as Earth’s rotation was disrupted not only did the ocean waters rush poleward but Coriolis forces led to immense ocean gyres causing ‘sloshing’ (to borrow a term). Where the flow was restricted by then existing landmasses, ranges such as the Alps and Himalaya formed. The Rockies and Andes formed due to the north-south orientation of the Americas acting as a simple barrier to the waters of the proto-Pacific.
- At this stage only immense plateaus of folded sediment (were we now find mountain ranges) existed and helped protect continental interiors from further devastating inundations. Electrical events now machined these plateaus forming the typical Lichtenberg morphology (this would have been the time when large amounts of airborne dust would have been present). The Tibetan Plateau is a good example of this, with the Himalaya to the south and Tian Shan to the north (perhaps the Taklimakan Desert is a depository for some machined material?)
- To my mind, Paul E. Anderson has done excellent work demonstrating the evidence for the electrical scarring of Earth’s surface: likewise, your work on external granite and basalt – again excellent. This is why I think the main erosive agent would have electrical discharge rather than water and why we find fossilised sea creatures in concretions (electrical fossilisation?) in mountainous areas.
- I also think that Earth’s carbonate strata and salt deposits are igneous in origin, that’s why we find carbonate in comets- it was machined from the Earth! Where from exactly, I don’t know but every time I look at the Pacific Ocean I wonder…

Re: Rock Strata Formation
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134&p=116046#p116046
- Is the K-T Boundary Layer a Coal Seam?

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134&p=116129#p116129
The information comes from ‘Creation of the Teton Landscape’ by Love, Reed and Pierce 2007. An earlier online edition with imperial as opposed to metric units can be found here:
... If we look at the strata concerned in the Alaska Basin: Flathead, Gros Ventre, Gallatin, Bighorn, Darby and Madison that gives us a deposit of some 2,455 feet, newer estimates may have been revised lower.
- According to the authors: ‘The regularity and parallel relations of the layers in well-exposed sections such as the one in Alaska Basin suggest that all these rocks were deposited in a single uninterrupted sequence. ...

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134&p=116131#p116131
- Did Limestone form catastrophically?
- ... Carbonatites are an unusual type of rock consisting of greater than 50% carbonate minerals and have a global distribution. The only active carbonatite volcano is Ol Doinyo Lengai in Tanzania; the lavas of Ol Doinyo Lengai are rich in the rare sodium and potassium carbonate minerals and are known as Natrocarbonatites. Other forms include Ferrocarbonatite, Calciocarbonatite and Magnesiocarbonatite.
- Carbonate rocks are not usually thought of as being igneous in origin but the idea is not a new one.
From an article in Nature (142: 704-705, 1938) ‘Limestones as Eruptive Rocks’, we read ‘…so early as 1892, some limestones occurring in the form of dykes and cutting the volcanic rocks of the Kaiserstuhl in Baden, were described by A. Knop, and three years later A. G. Hogbom described limestone dykes in a region of alkali-rich intrusive on the island of Alno in Sweden. Hogbom also recorded calcite as a primary mineral in some rocks at Alno, and there were other descriptions of primary calcite in alkali-eruptive rocks from Canada and India.’ ...
- Could it be that the guyots and seamounts of the western Pacific Ocean are all that remains of a former carbonatite/carbonate platform; a platform that was easily eroded by wave action during a cataclysm, the erosional products of which were transported far to the east to be deposited on a pre-existing landmass? Were Calciocarbonatites and Magnesiocarbonatites eroded re-worked and deposited as limestone and dolomite? If so, then perhaps limestone and dolomite should be re-classified as ‘catastrophites’! ...

An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116157#p116157
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116158#p116158
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116159#p116159
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116175#p116175
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=116266#p116266
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117111#p117111
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117113#p117113
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117150#p117150
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117163#p117163
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117201#p117201
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117257#p117257
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117279#p117279
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117307#p117307
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117330#p117330
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117331#p117331
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117342#p117342
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117464#p117464
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117709#p117709
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117800#p117800
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=117839#p117839
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118064#p118064
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118085#p118085
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118086#p118086
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118163#p118163
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118197#p118197
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118250#p118250
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118319#p118319
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118324#p118324
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=118435#p118435
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534&p=119121#p119121

Catastrophist Geology
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703&p=119310#p119310
- ... Does the Western Interior Seaway Have a Catastrophic Explanation?
- ... Creationist researcher Michael Oard in his book ‘Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries’ (see: http://creation.com/dinosaur-challenges-and-mysteries) introduces to the reader a hypothesis he calls BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) which is required under the creationist model to explain the strata and fossil distribution found in this band running the length of North America.
- From another article (see: http://creation.com/dino-stampede) Oard writes, ‘There is another interpretation that also fits the facts and that is the BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) hypothesis…The BEDS model is based on the fact that the level of the Floodwater would fluctuate up and down as it rose in the first half of the Flood.
- ...  John Baumgardner, ran computer models of a repeated near Earth encounter by a planet/moon sized body. Regarding the simulation he writes: ‘Although the water initially is at rest, accelerations from the giant tidal perturbation quickly lead to water velocities of 270 m/s (metres per second) and more, with high levels of turbulence, intense cavitation erosion, and sediment suspended and transported for thousands of kilometres, as surges of water rush into the continent interior.
- ... The Phanerozoic rock record covering or partly covering North America is comprised of six megasequences (megasequences are discrete groups of sedimentary rock layers bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, often with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom, followed by shale, and then limestone at the top),
- ... Experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault
- ... a. Superposed strata do not always result, according to Steno’s beliefs, from successive layers of sediment; consequently the principle of superposition does not always apply to strata formed in a current;
b. Stratification formed parallel to a slope exceeding an angle of 30°, can invalidate the principle of original horizontally. Inclined strata are not necessarily, therefore, the result of subsidence or uplift.’ ...

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703&p=119462#p119462
- Did Limestone form catastrophically? ...

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703&p=119577#p119577
- ... Whilst not all geological features require or necessitate an electrical aspect, in my view an electric discharge was the ‘prime mover’ during a catastrophic period of earth history. During this period both the characteristics of the Earth and its environment changed, a change the Earth is, even today, adjusting to- hence my thread ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’.
- I agree with your comment regarding salt, salt is certainly an igneous rock and I hope to post another contribution soon looking at a role played by salt- quite obviously I view the consensus geological explanation- vast dried up seas- with a large slice of scepticism! Salt may also play an important electrical role today something I touched on in ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’ given the amount of brines discovered by superdeep drilling projects- did conductive salt magmas play an electrical role in a past cataclysm? ...

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.
_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.
_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.
_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
_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.

5/16 8:08 PM
_Hi Mike. I found a catastrophist who's willing to collaborate, named Robert, though he's not yet impressed with Shock Dynamics. You're much more knowledgeable on geology than I am. Can you provide a good counter-argument to his statements on orogenesis that follow? He says they formed by vertical uplift, rather than by horizontal folding, but it seems to me that the uplift was surely due to the horizontal compression. Right? If so, what's the best proof/s? Thanks for any help.
_He said as follows:
_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.


Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:44 PM
_Re Orogeny
_Hi Lloyd,
_In the days before Plate Tectonics took over geology, the idea of stasis was pervasive.  There was just uplift and subsidence.  I am surprised that anyone still holds to that notion as a catastrophist; quite odd.  One of the few significant mountain ranges raised by simple uplift is the Transantarctic Mountains.  But as veteran orogeny specialist Peter Molnar wrote,
_"Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world are a consequence of crustal shortening."
Some Simple Physical Aspects of the Support, Structure, and Evolution of Mountain Belts. Peter Molnar, H. Lyon-Caen.  Special Paper 218, Geological Society of America, 1988, pp. 179-207.
_Ollier and Pain are rightly heralded by catastrophists for writing "Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time.  Some earth process switched on and created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift.  This is a deviation from uniformitarianism." (The Origin of Mountains. Cliff Ollier, Colin Pain. 2000. Routledge, London. p. 303.)
_Nevertheless, as old-school Australian geomorphologists they are sympathetic to the vertical tectonics they grew up with.
_Regarding the building of the Himalayas,  "Convergence between the Indian and Eurasian plates is estimated to be at least 1000-1400 km or as much as 2000-3000 km." (Li, Chang, Robert D. van der Hilst, Anne S. Meltzer, E. Robert Engdahl. 2008. Subduction of the Indian lithosphere beneath the Tibetan Plateau and Burma. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 274, pp. 157-168.)
_In other words, the collision of India with Asia shortened the two landmasses by a total of 1000 to 3000 km, folding mountains and raising the Tibetan Plateau.
_An observation from a specialist in Appalachian mountain geology is old but unambiguous: "the evidence of intense shortening perpendicular to the length of the chain, not only in the folded marginal belts but also in the central core belt, is too clear for me to doubt that there was not only confining but directed pressure, the greatest compressive stress being consistently directed roughly horizontally across the orogenic belt." (Rodgers, John. 1970. The Tectonics of the Appalachians. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. p. 224.)
_I could go on and on.  Someone who dismisses compressional orogeny and clings to vertical tectonics will no doubt be unimpressed by Shock Dynamics geology, but I suspect they are not operating with an open mind.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version