Earth Theories Debate #2

_BL 1. HOW THE EARTH FORMED. Condensed plasma, could have been created and destroyed many times
_BL 2. HOW THE CRUSTAL FEATURES FORMED. Electrical circuits heat and cool (expand and contract), Surge Theory with an electrical reinterpretation makes the most sense for our model.
_BL 3. HOW MILE-THICK SEDIMENTARY STRATA FORMED. Sedimentation occurs constantly, can be chemical precipitates, weathered rock, turbidites etc. -- This has been covered well in many text books
_BL 4. HOW MOUNTAIN RANGES FORMED. Arc Blast or Static discharge between planets and the sun seem to be primary factors -- Recent field work, can be shared.
[Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel, which expanded, uplifting mountains.]
_BL 5. WHAT CAUSED ICE AGES & GLACIATION. Cosmic Ray density with particle cascades creating storms, volcanic eruptions and global envelope of cloud cover leading to ice ages. Glaciation is a small subset of the ice ages and increases every winter more snow accumulates than melts. -- I can bring some references on cosmic rays

_LK1. Do you claim that large objects cannot collide with planets, moons, asteroids etc, because of electrical repulsion or any other reason?
>_RF: ===1B=Need_ Encounters between planetary sized bodies will not involve physical collision; their plasma spheres determine the point of encounter; discharge will occur when plasma spheres collide.
_LK1a. References?

_LK2. If so, have you calculated how much repulsive force the Earth and maybe other bodies would have?
>_RF: ===2B=Need_ Wal Thornhill has produced some figures; I'll get them to you.

>_LK3. And what's the minimum velocity (or velocity to mass-charge ratio) an object would need to have in order to overcome the repulsion and to impact the Earth or the Moon?

_LK4. Is it possible for an object to be neutrally or oppositely charged and thus be able to impact?
_RF: In a nutshell yes, that is why we find "Martian meteorites' on earth that is fragments a planetary body would probably be captured e.g. earth's moon.
>_LK4a. What determines an object's charge in interplanetary space?

_LK5. Bruce mentioned CFDLs within the Earth. What references do you have in support?
_RF: would agree with Bruce. I suspect many of the boundaries are not physical but electrical. Deep drilling at the Kola borehole did not find the expected seismic layers.
LK: Do you know Bruce's evidence for CFDLs within the Earth?
_RF: No I do not, but I would suspect he is sceptical when it comes to how seismic signals are modeled, as I am.
>_LK5a. Do seismic signals indicate charge, viscosity, solidity, density, flow rate, or what?

_LK6. Do you accept that gravity can produce CFDLs within planets or stars?
_RF: Not quite, gravity would be an emergent feature of electromagnetic phenomena. As Alfven remarked gravity systems are ashes of electrical systems or words to that effect.
_LK: One of Thornhill's articles suggested that gravity could produce charge separation within large bodies.
_RF: But let's not forget it's electrical forces first, gravity second. I suspect when we apply our understanding of G at earth then project that understanding on to say Saturn, we find Saturn would float on water.

>_LK7. Isn't it true that only supernovas and gas cloud collisions can likely cause galactic filaments to implode?

>_LK8. If filament matter were moving at very high velocity, wouldn't the positive and negative charges separate due to magnetic forces?

>_LK9. If a Z-pinch started to constrict flow of the filament matter, wouldn't that reduce the velocity and thus weaken the Z-pinch?

>_LK10. Please read Figure 11 at qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 . Instead of a Z-pinch forming spheres of matter along a filament, isn't it more likely that an imploding filament would have both ends rushing toward the center where the positive and negative streams coming from opposite directions would join with their opposites, as described in Figure 11?

_LK11. How massive, charged and close would a planet/star have to be to produce interplanetary megalightning strong enough to rip away the Earth's crust the size of the Atlantic Ocean?
>_RF: ======3A=Need_ That would depend on the electrical environment at the time. I theorise that the heliospheric environment was different in the past; earth's surface was altered by conditions that no longer exist.
>_LK11a. I repeat question 11 and add: what was Earth's environment like & when & what are your main references?

_LK12. How could the megalightning pulverize crustal granite into powder and lay it down on the continents in layers of mudstone, sandstone and limestone with fossils throughout the strata?
_RF: Probably quite easily we must keep in mind that water cavitation of bedrock involves a plasma. A postulated global cataclysm would have decimated most lifeforms the 'lucky' were fossilised.
_LK13. Why should we believe the strata formed in that way, when it's known that floods produce strata of these kinds and it can even be determined at what velocity & direction water was moving when the sediments settled out?
>_RF: ======4A=Need_ Guy Berthault has demonstrated 'dry' strata formation. I see both processes taking place.
>_LK13a. Do you have references to how ED can pulverize granite and deposit it as individual strata of mudstone, sandstone and limestone with fossils throughout and then lithify it all? The way I see it, ED could only form one stratum (because the event would likely only occur once in the same place) with all the rock types mixed together and the fossils would all be on the bottom and the dust would likely remain as dust, except where rain washes it away. And there'd be too few cementing agents. Megatsunamis caused by a close-orbiting large body could produce all of the sedimentary strata with fossils over some months or years and lithify it with the various cementing agents, including lime from dissolved CO2 in oceans due to the former thicker atmosphere, which allowed gigantism. Comments?

_LK14. Since the opposite shores of the Atlantic have the same shapes and contain the same geologic cross sections and the same fossils, doesn't that prove that those shores were once connected?
_RF: No, ocean basin mapping has discredited the plate tectonics model. The idea of a 'fit' is problematic humans can see patterns where none exist.
_LK: References?
_RF: Chris Smoot in Marine Geomorphology 'very few ocean floor features were correctly portrayed in the literature before the 1980's'. By then plate tectonics was well established based on what knowledge of the ocean floor? Chris Smoot mentioned certain global features on the ocean basins that don't conform to the plate tectonics model.
_LK: Do you have a link or something on that?
_RF: CS mentioned global oceanic features last time. I got his book thru Amazon and it's an eye opener. Marine Geomorphology.
_LK: Does he have evidence that the ocean ridges don't have the perpendicular faults? Why would the Atlantic ridge be right down the center? I don't think there's any denying the fit between Africa and South America etc.
>_RF: ===5B=Need_ The mid Atlantic ridge is unique. Fortunately, there is a wealth of criticism when it comes to the idea of continents fitting. I'll get them to you.

>_LK15. If a large impact north of Madagascar broke up the supercontinent and set the continents sailing over the plasma Moho, wouldn't that explain mountain range formation on the near sides of the continents, as per newgeology.us/presentation9.html ?

>_LK16. Isn't it logical that mountain ranges on the sides of continents farthest away from the impact, like the Andes and Rockies, formed due to heating from friction below the Moho, instead of by megalightning? (Arc discharges would be involved either way, but maybe smaller in the case of the latter.)

_LK17. And why would megalightning have followed the west coast of the Americas, instead of going into the more conductive ocean nearby?
>_RF: ===6B=Need_ I'll get Bob Johnson's paper to you.

>_LK18. What would be different about megalightning that carves out the Atlantic basin and the megalightning that raises mountain ranges?

_LK: PS, We discussed last time whether a vacuum is insulating or conducting. Charles Chandler's explanation for vacuum conductivity is at qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8819 -- Robert mentioned vacuum circuit breakers last time, which I'd need to ask Charles about. Here's a quote from that QDL paper: "The conductivity of the material can be expressed in terms of the Fermi speed and the mean free path of an electron in the metal. Conductivity: σ=ne2dmvF where: σ=conductivity, n=free electron density, e=charge of electron, d=distance between atoms, m=mass of electron, vF =Fermi speed. In other words, the raw speed of the electron is given just by the charge-to-mass ratio, while the net speed is the raw speed minus the time lost to collisions, which is a function of the mean free path. Hence a perfect vacuum, with an infinite mean free path, and therefore no time lost to collisions, has no resistance, and therefore, it's a perfect conductor. This can be confirmed in many ways. For example, if a vacuum was a perfect insulator, neon lights wouldn't work. Electrons moving from one atom to another in a plasma are moving through empty space, which is the definition of a vacuum. If perfectly empty space presented infinite resistance, even a small mean free path would preclude any current at all, and electron transfer would only happen on particle collision. But then the electric current would travel through plasmas at no greater than the speed of sound. Since currents in plasmas actually travel at a respectable fraction of the speed of light, electrons are definitely moving through perfectly empty space, which they certainly wouldn't do if it was a perfect insulator."
_RF: Is not a vacuum an absence of atoms, ions, electrons etc? The practical reason we use a thermos flask is to reduce losses through random particle motion. Is this too simplistic? The heliosphere is not a vacuum for example.
_LK: How could neon lights etc work if a vacuum has infinite or great resistance? Can you read Charles' paper there ( qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8819 )?
>_RF: ===7B=Need_ I'll take a look.
_LK: Comments?

_LK: I'm gathering some Smoot & related material from online:
_Page 24, Figure 2 Earth: Intensive faulting of the tropical zone of the Atlantic bottom; Page 72, Ancient and continental rocks in the Atlantic: www.researchgate.net/profile/Volkmar_Mueller/publication/301221462_DOES_COSMOLOGICAL_EXPANSION_EXIST_ON_SMALLER_SCALES/links/570d394108aec783ddce1ae6/DOES-COSMOLOGICAL-EXPANSION-EXIST-ON-SMALLER-SCALES.pdf
_Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat: www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm
_THE ELECTRIC EARTH: breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefiles/media/PDF%20Documents/Csu-1977TheElectricEarth.pdf
_Electrostatic Forces in the Earth's Crust: breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefiles/media/PDF%20Documents/Csu-AGU1981-12CrustElectro-StaticForces.pdf
_LK19. What questions does everyone have for any of the models (ET, PT, ST, EU, ESU, SD) described in the first post at cnps.boards.net/thread/9/earth-theories ?