Prove Electric Universe Earth

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 153

Prove Electric Universe Earth Dec 19, 2017 1:23:17 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:23:17 GMT

First, ELECTRIC UNIVERSE EARTH THEORY

On Fri, 10/27/17, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Subject: Tectonics Discussion Sunday 6PM ET
To: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net, donbriddell@fieldstructure.org, servant@wt.net, mike@newgeology.us, james.maxlow@bigpond.com, leybourneb@iascc.org, irfantaner@hotmail.com, bhatmi@hotmail.com, jcasey@ievpc.org, lev.maslov@cccs.edu, giovanni.gregori@idasc.cnr.it, louis.hissink@bigpond.com, kubota@env.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp, perm@must.edu.mn, ninapav@mail.ru, dp@davidpratt.info, Karsten.storetvedt@uib.no, lkindr@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, October 27, 2017, 10:43 PM Sunday Oct 29 6PM Eastern Time, 3PM Pacific, 11PM UK (I think) and on Monday farther east
Short notice, but please go to public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/TectonicsDebate2
_[LK: Important questions for EU first, then the other models]
Here are 3 of the questions that require some reading at links in advance, preferably.
-----LK10. So, 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 at qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 ?
-----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 ?
-----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 ?
Anyone who can't attend may leave messages there (or here).
Thanks for everyone's help.
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: Links for Stellar Transformer & Surge Tectonics]
Re: EDM of the Atlantic
Wednesday, November 8, 2017 9:27 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
====1 Files 2 MB PDF
Earth As A Stellar Transformer ebook.pdf
...
Re: EDM of the Atlantic
Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:45 PM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Hi Lloyd, Also meant to send you to www.climatestat.com/ if you like to see some of the older papers, when I was using surge tectonics a bit more.
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC) www.iascc.org
Institute for Advanced Studies in Climate Change
12361 East Cornell Ave. Aurora, CO 80014
303.802.0848 www.iascc.org leybourneb@iascc.org

[BL: NCGT Article]
Re: EDM of the Atlantic
Thursday, November 9, 2017 2:33 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
1 Files 1 MB PDF
Leybourneetal,nCGTv5,n1.pdf

_[LK: BL re EU Atlantic Formation]
Please Read a Link or 2
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:29 PM
From: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Hi Everyone. I've added Doug Ettinger to the email group. He's another EU proponent (See ettingerjournals.com ).
_I think Bruce & Robert Farrar have suggested that the Atlantic, like the Grand Canyon, was carved out electrically, instead of being the result of seafloor spreading. Some of us consider that highly unlikely, but I or we are curious what evidence you have against seafloor spreading nonetheless. So far, the electrical effects that could have built some of the mountains appear plausible, but that's at least partly because the catastrophes that some of us envision would have involved a lot of mass colliding with and rubbing against a lot of mass, producing a lot of friction and ionization. I think our evidence is formidable on seafloor spreading etc, but let's see how your EU evidence holds up in our discussions/debates. Okay?
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: PT Mantle Convection Problem]
Re: Please Read a Link or 2
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:51 PM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Hi Lloyd, As I mentioned in a comment before, possibly this is the one you deleted... is the problem with seafloor spreading (linear upwelling convection) and the plate tectonics driver in general is that it's based on a net heat transport model that nowhere exists in nature, only in the plate tectonic theory and Hadley Cell circulation. The analogy of Hadley Cell circulation in the atmosphere makes this understanding clear. Hadley Cell circulation is a net heat transport model that calculates the net heat transport to the poles, but the circulation doesn't really occur this way. For instance if you were a weatherman and all you could say is heat is moving from the equator toward the poles, and you were not allowed to discuss jetstreams, High/Low pressure cells, trade winds, frontal boundaries etc., because your framework doesn't allow for those understandings then your attempt to describe the weather would be totally useless, and this is the same problem Plate Tectonics has. I can't make it any clearer or simpler to understand, this is the BIG PROBLEM with the sacred theory of plate tectonics and the seafloor spreading process, when people finally come to understand this, they will certainly feel duped....
_Remember I mapped the seafloor for years with the U.S. Navy. Had lots of time at sea to ponder this, you might take the time to thoroughly analyze this for yourself, I think you will come to the same realization eventually....
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

[BL: EU, IEVPC.org, IASCC.org, NCGT.org]
Re: Field Studies of Hall's Mountains?
Friday, November 17, 2017 12:02 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com> "Dong Choi" <dchoi@ievpc.org> "Mick Davis" <mick@iascc.org>
1 Files 417KB PDF
LeybourneLetterProof.pdf
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Bruce Leybourne <leybourneb@iascc.org> wrote:
_Hi Lloyd ...
We are working on some papers that will be coming out for next years Electric Universe 2018 conference, don't want to steal the thunder, or Arc Blast in this case from these presentations. I will document some preliminary evidences summarized in our upcoming IASCC (www.iascc.org) newsletter available for our members, it's free to join on our website by leaving an email address. I'll make sure you get a copy. I'll leave it up to Andy to expound on his ideas a bit more, and I'll help him align it with the bit of field evidence we currently have. We've both been very busy lately, and probably won't get our rough drafts out till next spring. I'm copying Andy and a few others on this so you can get in touch. I also was recently appointed/enlisted as Vice-President of the International Earthquake and Prediction Center, see IEVPC.org, and have published quite a bit in their New Concepts In Global Tectonics (NCGT) Journal. They have an editorial review panel and we will be submitting our papers for review there. Possibly some of your group would like to help with the reviewers? Could use some professional input from geologist/geophysicist, electrical engineering types, that have the right backgrounds, tectonic theorist etc. We'd like to generate more interest in the NCGT Journal anyway, get our subscriptions up etc. You can forward this message to the larger group we've been having a lively debate with, most of them should have a high interest level in the ongoing research in earthquake forecasting and climate change prediction we are also working on, see attached paper on how I called the turn of hurricane Irma 2 days before even the European model, based strictly on lightning activity the previous year. This was published for us in Letters to the editor of the NCGT Journal, by Dr. Dong Choi. If any of your guys have been having trouble getting unconventional ideas published this is a good venue, needs to be a plausible and well written paper. The back issues are worth looking at if anyone is doing in depth research on these subjects, I've got many papers, some going back to 1998 published there.
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

[LK: How to Prove EU]
From: lloyd kinder [mailto:lkindr@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 11:58 PM
To: hallad1257@gmail.com; rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net; dougettinger@verizon.net; leybourneb@iascc.org; louis.hissink@bigpond.com
Subject:
_Only 2 members participated in the discussion of proofs last Saturday, so I'll ask members individually for replies regarding their own models.
Bruce, Andy, Robert, Louis & Doug, regarding Electric Universe Tectonics, do you agree that this is what's needed to definitively prove the model?
_1. calculate how much charge was needed to remove the amount of continental crust that would have filled the Atlantic basin (or Valles Marineris for Doug);
_2. prove how it's possible for that much charge to be stored & what conditions are needed to produce such a discharge on the Earth (or Mars) & that such conditions were reasonably possible;
_3. prove that Plate Tectonics, Expansion Tectonics & Shock Dynamics are highly improbable ways of forming the Atlantic (or the Mars canyon) & sedimentary strata.
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: No EU Proof?; Gulf Sed]
Re: What would prove your model?
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 8:02 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_No Lloyd, Doubt these items would prove any theories. For example, acoustic basement of the carbonate platform off of western Florida is considered the Mid-Cretaceous Unconformity (MCU) with thick overlying sediment and reefs built up al the way to present. The magnetic signatures linked to the Tampa Bay lightning anomalies are part of an ancient Triassic Ridge complex, which these sediments rest upon. If you take a cross section from Florida over to Yucatan you will see that the carbonate shelves have similar sediments, but the basin is missing most of the thick sequences in the Mesozoic and Holocene, some of the more recent sediments have thin veils of cover, possibly considered Pleistocene. Could you explain this with erosion, arcblast, plate or surge theory? They currently explain everything with plate theory, do you consider it proven? Of course not..
_Tuesday, December 5, 2017 8:08 AM
_Hi Lloyd, It's an interesting approach, all based on highly speculative assumptions therefore unlikely a proof.
Proving something is improbable is a statistical approach, not a theoretical one.
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

[DE: Calc Atlantic ED; Great Deluge Link]
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Doug Ettinger <dougettinger@verizon.net> wrote:
_Hello to Lloyd and others, I have attached a short dissertation about the concerns addressed in the previous email. I hope it stirs some more interest. Who in the Electric Universe group actually is promoting the excavation of the Atlantic Ocean Basin by electrical discharge? I am not aware of such EU people.
_[DE: Calculations on ED Atlantic Formation etc]
_Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material by high energy plasma discharge
_Lloyd Kinder has requested what amount of energy is required to excavate material to form the Atlantic Ocean Basin and what could be a possible energy source. I believe that such an event would have destroyed the planet. I suggested that the largest size of likely planetary excavation would be Valles Marinaris on Mars. I am a student of the Electric Universe (I do not accept their Saturn Myth). One of their claims is that the planets gather charge via the solar wind in the form of electrons and ions – like giant piff balls used in static charge experiments. The solar winds are directed toward the planet with the guidance of magnetic fields toward the polar regions. Proof of this continual gathering of charge are the auroras, sprites, elves, lightning, weather systems, and the planetary magnetospheres.
_Hence, I postulate that the source of the Lloyd’s [energy source is ultimately the solar wind] from the Sun that includes a secondary source (my idea). This other source is a periodic return of an orbiting Nemesis star which is a brown dwarf. This star has its own electric field and charged winds that can confound the steady solar winds and elevate the overall dark plasma surrounding the Sun. Also, the brown dwarf system may have its own charged planets. And, at various times either the [brown dwarf star] or one of its planets have close encounters with Earth. The last serious close encounter occurred during the Younger Dryas about 11,500 years BP that caused a slight crustal/mantle displacement and the Great Deluge.
_So, I will use this event to attempt a calculation of energy transfer between Earth and a closely passing celestial body. Then, others are welcome to use the highly speculative results to compare the energy required for a proportionate excavation of the Atlantic Ocean. The excavation that occurred during the Younger Dryas by a giant lightning bolt is the [Hudson Bay] and its southern arm, the James Bay. The material removal must also include about 2 miles depth of the Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered this region. The ice sheet could easily have been deeper at this period of glaciation.
But first, a short review of plasma science is in order. Plasma arc welding or cutting uses 50 to 350 amps and voltages from 27 to 70 volts utilizing DC negative electrode to sputter away hard metals. Lightning, another form of plasma discharge, is a sudden electrostatic discharge (part of consensus science) which requires high electric potential between two regions of space or between two bodies. The other requirement is that a high resistive medium obstruct the free, unimpeded equalization of opposite charges.
_An [average bolt of lightning] carries electric current of 30,000 ampere and transfer 15 coulombs of electric charge and 500 megajoules of energy. Large bolts of negative lightning can carry up to 120 kA and 350 coulombs. The average positive ground flash has peak currents of 400,000 amperes and a charge of several hundreds of coulombs. The average lightning strikes globally is measured in flashes per km2 per year to be 50 to 100 over land masses and less over oceans. This electrical energy occurring continually is received from the solar wind at the poles and dispersed equatorially through the ground surface, oceans, and atmosphere. Plasma technology with laboratory experiments have proven that plasma energy phenomena are scalable even for interstellar and intergalactic observations.
_If all the Earth’s collected energy that has not yet been released to the magnetosphere were concentrated at one pole by the Earth’s magnetic field briefly, a bolt of electric plasma could be released between Earth and a possible close encounter of another charged celestial body. Of course, a voltage potential between the two bodies must exist. The planetary lightning bolt would travel via Birkland currents or an electrical double layer breaking down the resistance of the weak medium of the solar wind in interplanetary space. This lightning bolt is directed to the Earth’s pole which at the time was postulated to be just east of the Hudson Bay, which is the geographical center of the Laurentide and Greenland ice sheets. This amount of energy if discharged suddenly could easily punch holes through the polar ice sheet and continental crust. This event is postulated to have occurred during the Younger Dryas. The developing interaction of the bodies’ magnetic fields briefly pulled on the magnetized crustal/mantle unit of Earth thereby displacing it about the inner core and changing the North Pole location on the crust.
_A substantial amount of all the energy stored on the Earth’s surface was transferred to the North Pole with the aid of the planet’s magnetic field. I will now speculate [how to calculate the energy] of this massive discharge. Assume the location area of the gigantic bolt is the surface area of the Hudson and James Bays. These bays encompass an area of 1,230,000 km^2. Then, 1,230,000 km^2 x 100 flashes x [about 600 coulombs] = [7.38 x 10^10 coulombs] of energy
Or x [about 400,000 amperes] = [4.92 x 10^13 ampere] of current and, we know that only 50 amps and 27 volts cuts and sputters through steel plate. I hope this calculation gives one the frightening immensity of such an event. The Clovis people were wiped out due to ice shards, dust and electrical currents moving across the North American terrain especially in river valleys.
_A rough approximation of the mass of the Hudson Bay is – [100 m (avg. depth) x 1 km/1000 m x 1,230,000 km2 (surface area)]
Plus [2 miles of ice sheet thickness x 1609 m/mile x 1 km/1000m x 1,230,000 km^2 (area)] = 123,000 km^3 + 3,958,000 km^3 = 4,081,140 km^3 of excavated hard ice and crustal rock.
This completes my calculation. One is certainly welcome to critique or add to these concepts. I sincerely appreciate any interest.
By Doug Ettinger 12/05/2017
_Best regards, Douglas Ettinger
Author of ettingerjournals.com/ The Great Deluge: Fact or Fiction

[BL: Sun Charging Cycle]
Re: Sat. CNPS Discussion 6PM ET on Proofs
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:14 PM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
Cc: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com> "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com> davidn@aoi.com.au jweirich@psi.edu rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net donbriddell@fieldstructure.org servant@wt.net mike@newgeology.us "James Maxlow" <james.maxlow@bigpond.com> "Irfan Taner" <irfantaner@hotmail.com> "M I Bhat" <bhatmi@hotmail.com> "John Casey" <jcasey@ievpc.org> lev.maslov@cccs.edu "Giovanni Gregori" <giovanni.gregori@idasc.cnr.it> louis.hissink@bigpond.com kubota@env.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp perm@must.edu.mn ninapav@mail.ru dp@davidpratt.info "Karsten Storetvedt" <Karsten.storetvedt@uib.no>
_I'd consider the earth as the most likely holder of excess charge, charging the core with incoming plasma from solarwinds. The ionosphere is a likely contributor also. There is a solar driven ~36 year charging and subsequent ~36 discharging cycle tied to the climate change index of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is seen in the magnetic moment decay cycles (Quinn). This turned from discharging to charging around 2002-03, just before the last huge spate of hurricanes 2004-05, if you recall Katrina etc. Lighting doubled the year before in Tampa Bay, where three hurricanes intersected in 2004. This year the hot spot moved to Ft. Meyers, were hurricane Irma turned.
_We are in a 36 year and the La Nina charging cycle now. The ~36 year charging cycle has an inflection point (3-7 year) during the ENSO i.e. El Nino (discharging) La Nina (charging). earthquakes are tied to these cycles too.
_Earth is most likely holder of the charge the bolide experienced, the ionosphere could paly a role too. This can also be seen in Total Electron Content data during earthquakes, and has been used to forecast some earthquakes by International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC). www.ievpc.org/id74.html
_All the Best,
Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

[DE: Geo Hot Spots]
RE: Sat. CNPS Discussion 6PM ET on Proofs
Friday, December 8, 2017 9:40 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
Cc: lkindr@yahoo.com
_Bruce, I am glad to help. But, please know that I have my own version of geological hot spots which comes from my paper, “Earth’s Metamorphosis (EMM) Hypothesis” found on my website. Hot spots are ancient pools of melted volatiles mixed with the Earth’s original mantle materials that are trapped at or under the Moho layer and situated near ancient fissures. The extra volatiles came from the rogue planet or moon that impacted and penetrated Earth about 3.9 billion years ago. That is why the geologic hot spots occur at random locations – under both oceanic and continental crusts and at rifts such as Iceland. These hot spots travel under the crust such as the Hawaiian Islands faster than predicted plate movements. The Coriolis effect of the spinning Earth causes them to move under and with respect to the crust.
_I gave you a simplified understanding of your ‘stellar transformer’ which I was not sure you agreed with. I thought you might edit my explanation to achieve better agreement.
_Keep pondering, Doug Ettinger

[LK: Q re Proof of AH's EU]
Re: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material by high energy plasma discharge
Friday, December 8, 2017 10:58 PM
From: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
To: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net> "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
Cc: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_Hi Andy. The original email explained the CNPS Special Project a little, the purpose being to experiment with ways to improve scientific discussion and process, then I got some of the members' answers about their models which are in the 4th thread at cnps.boards.net/board/12/science called Earth Theories. You may answer the questions there if you like, to get some of the main claims of your model listed with the others. After getting the models posted there I organized discussions on etherpads which I then copied to the first 3 threads at that same link. So you can see most of the discussions there. The etherpad discussions weren't as productive as I'd hoped, so I started asking questions by email lately.
_To me, it makes sense to try to pinpoint what each model needs to do in order to prove it's correct. So I've asked everyone about that. And I think you're sort of addressing that.
_I had previously answered Doug's question, but I don't see it copied here, so I'll repeat. He asked who believes the Atlantic was formed by electric discharge (E.D.). Wal Thornhill was the first one I read to say that. Then Robert Farrar said it on the Thunderbolts forum, I guess. Then Louis Hissink said it and finally Bruce Leybourne in the first discussion.
_I see that Bruce and Doug are now comparing each other's models and trying some collaboration.
_I asked someone before why E.D. would excavate matter in the case of the Atlantic or Mars canyon and deposit it in others, but haven't heard an answer.
_I don't think it should be hard to calculate how much charge a body could hold and how much would be needed to excavate the Atlantic basin or the Mars canyon and thus what range of distances from Earth would be needed for charged bodies of various sizes.
_In your model you say the Colorado Plateau was uplifted somehow by E.D. or something like that. Do you have details written somewhere on how that would be possible?
_We know that North America seems to have over-ridden the East Pacific Rise, so why would that not explain the Colorado Plateau?
_I can see E.D. having some effects on the surface, but not a mile deep. Your blog on E.D. streamers hugging the ground for some reason and melting and raising small mountain chains seemed somewhat plausible, but I think you need cross-sections and mineral analyses to really make your case on that.
_Mike has challenged the idea that the flatirons were formed that way. But I'd like to see those cross-sections and mineral analyses.
- Good Day. Lloyd

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 153

Prove Electric Universe Earth Dec 19, 2017 1:25:05 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:25:05 GMT

[RF: Atlantic ED]
RE: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material by high energy plasma discharge
Saturday, December 9, 2017 2:35 PM
From: "Robert Farrar" <rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
2 Files 306KB DOCX Of the Moon and Mars Part 1.docx 122KB
DOCX Of the Moon and Mars Part 2.docx 184KB
_Lloyd, Not too sure if you already have these so I have attached two MS Word documents by Ralph Juergens originally published in Pensee Vol. 4 No 4 and Vol. 4 No 5 (1974/ 1975) they may go some way to providing an answer to at least one of your questions.
_I first came across the idea that the Atlantic Ocean basin was an electrical scar a number of years ago when I asked Wal Thornhill to elaborate on an answer he gave at an SIS conference in the UK in 2010. ... I believe the proposal has some merit.
_It may be nothing but I have noticed that the ocean ridges surrounding Antarctica display a polygonal pattern, other ridges radiate approximately northwards from this pattern in some cases to a circular basin in the Arctic. Now, Earth's magnetic north pole is located in Antarctica whilst the south magnetic pole is located in North America (the Arctic).
_For comparison Saturn's north magnetic pole is found at the planet's north rotational pole whilst Saturn's south magnetic pole is located at Saturn's south rotational pole. What feature do we find associated with Saturn's north magnetic pole? A polygon called 'the Hexagon', at the south magnetic pole we find a circular 'Hurricane' or 'Storm'. Coincidence?
_I still see an electrical origin of the Atlantic basin as a possibility, in my model, during a cataclysmic period Earth's gravity increased which resulted in subsidence of many areas weakened by the discharge. Listric faults associated with Atlantic type margins may be a result of the subsidence. Starting at the 'southern polygon' the discharge travelled north by the time it reached Newfoundland/ Iberian Peninsula it was weakening and depositing increasing amounts of material including the remains of mangled megafauna and forests.
_It is similar to Tony Peratt's idea of an energetic auroral column.
_Regards, Robert

[DE: Saturn Theory & EU EED/IED]
On Sat, 12/9/17, Doug Ettinger <dougettinger@verizon.net> wrote:
Subject: RE: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material by high energy plasma discharge
To: "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
Cc: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com>, rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net, "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org>, louis.hissink@bigpond.com
Date: Saturday, December 9, 2017, 3:44 PM
_Hello Andy, Yes, please join us. At first I was just emailing Lloyd and certain others. It sounds like you embrace the “Saturn polar configuration” as do many EU people. And, for the first time from you, I am hearing that the Valles Marinaris electrical discharge occurred during this configuration. I have much respect for the EU and your own work going forward after Steinbacher passed away. My contrarian idea is that close encounters of rogue bodies passing through the solar system cause discharges with the various solar system planets and their satellites. I do not accept the polar configuration. I sent Wallace Thornhill a paper addressing my issues with the Saturn Myth. He politely responded and dissented with the idea that planet Earth did not have enough heat sink for survivors to make the journey from Saturn’s orbit of about 9 AU to Earth’s present orbit. This paper can be found on my website: www.ettingerjournals.com/ “Problems with the Saturn’s Myth’s Polar Configuration” (Replacing the Proto-Planet Saturn Idea with an Orbiting Brown Dwarf Star). I want to stay with Lloyd’s threads. You and I have a similar idea that any gigantic planetary discharge originates with electrical potential difference occurring between two very close celestial bodies. Hence, a lightning bolt must pass through interplanetary space. I believe others on this thread believe that only strong electrical fields fed by solar winds build up a type of capacitance or induced potential internal to the planet; no other external body is required for a huge discharge. Actually, I believe that both of these events do occur. To help Lloyd, perhaps for discussion purposes we label the electrical discharges as external (EED) and internal (IED). Immensely enjoying this thread, Doug Ettinger

[LK: Saturn Theory & EED: CC/Gal Filaments]
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:19 AM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Folks.
_SATURN THEORY
The Saturn theory would be more plausible if the proposed Saturn system had entered the Solar system and come as far as Earth's orbit before Earth, Mars and Venus separated from the system, then Saturn would have gone on with just its present moons to its present orbit. Then Earth's life would not have had to endure any frigid travel through space for some years or decades. So I don't think it's likely worthwhile for the whole group to discuss the Saturn theory much, until really strong evidence comes to light pro or con.
_EXTERNAL ELECTRIC DISCHARGES
In his paper on Filaments at qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/15482.html Charles Chandler explained why galactic filaments cannot be Birkeland currents partly as follows.
_"The section on Accretion identified a force far stronger than gravity that is responsible for the collapse of dusty plasmas into stars, planets, & moons. Now we can examine the dynamics of this process. Recent research has shown that giant molecular clouds first resolve into linear filaments, and then the filaments collapse into stars.1,2,3 (See Figure 1.) The Universe is actually full of filaments of various sizes and shapes.4,5 Both gravity and hydrostatic pressure object to this form, leaving only EM as the driving force. Some EM theorists have generalized the concept of Birkeland currents to explain the prevalence of filaments, but without establishing the electromotive forces at play, and without demonstrating that the currents would require material filaments. An electric current actually prefers a vacuum, 6 and would evacuate the material in a filament by ohmic heating [ I think he means as is the case with lightning - LK]. So electric currents neither prefer filaments, nor cause them. Rather, the filaments are caused by their electrostatic properties."
_His paper goes on to explain how filaments seem to implode like a rubber band, producing streams of positive ions and streams of negative ions, separated by conflicting magnetic fields. The ends of the "rubber bands" meet at the center at relativistic velocities and form current-free double-layers, which are stars, planets and moons. You can read the paper to see his detailed explanation of the process. If he's right, then it seems that the amount of charge available for EEDs (external electric discharges as Doug says) between large bodies may be much more limited than many EU theorists expect. Also, if he's right that EDs prefer a vacuum, then bodies with imbalanced charge would have to get so close that their atmospheres touch before EEDs could occur between them. Right?
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: Gal Z-pinch]
On Sun, 12/10/17, Bruce Leybourne <leybourneb@iascc.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material ...
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
Cc: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net, louis.hissink@bigpond.com, mike@newgeology.us, "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>, "Doug Ettinger" dougettinger@verizon.net>
Date: Sunday, December 10, 2017, 7:38 AM
_Maybe I overlooked it, but Chandlers discussion seems to miss the concept of plasma Z-pinch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne

[LK: Z-pinch & CC/Filaments]
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
_Hi Bruce. Charles is well aware of the Z-pinch, I'm sure. His paper at qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5738 discusses how the Z-pinch is involved in formation of "exotic" stars. Here's what Wikipedia says at your link about the pinch.
_"The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma."
_Here's their example of a Z-pinch: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch#/media/File:Z-pinch_H-gamma.jpg
_The caption says: "Laboratory scale Z-pinch showing glow from an expanded hydrogen plasma. Pinch and ionisation current flows through the gas and returns via the bars surrounding the plasma vessel."
_Apparently, the hydrogen plasma in the tube must be at atmospheric pressure and density and it's positioned between electrodes which supply the current. The pinched plasma appears to be much less dense than typical solids and liquids at STP. In molecular clouds the plasma density would be considerably less than in this lab experiment, would it not? And any electrodes would be way too far apart and too weak to provide a current. Right?
_In space, Debye cells have negative central dust grains surrounded by positive ions usually, it seems. When they form filaments during gas cloud collisions or supernovas, and then implode, the relativistic implosion velocities produce magnetic fields that push the positive and negative ions apart, while the electric fields try to pull them together. So the Z-pinch just keeps the negative ions of the negative stream together and the positive ions in the positive stream together, but the electric fields prevent either stream from approaching the density of a solid or liquid. Isn't that correct?
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: Filaments & Birkeland Currents]
On Mon, 12/11/17, Bruce Leybourne <leybourneb@iascc.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material ...
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
Cc: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net, louis.hissink@bigpond.com, mike@newgeology.us, "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>, "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
Date: Monday, December 11, 2017, 6:28 AM
_Ok Lloyd, So why the insistence that "galactic filaments cannot be Birkeland currents partly as follows..."
My understanding is that Birkeland currents emanate from the Z-Pinch of the sun, why are they not considered filaments? Is this just a matter of scale, i.e galactic vs. solar system???
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne

[LK: Sun, Z-pinch, Birkeland Current, Gal Filaments]
Monday, 12/11/2017 Noon?
_Hi Bruce. Regarding: ""So why the insistence that "galactic filaments cannot be Birkeland currents ..."[?] My understanding is that Birkeland currents emanate from the Z-Pinch of the sun, why are they not considered filaments? Is this just a matter of scale, i.e galactic vs. solar system???""
_Don't you mean the Z-pinch, which is a magnetic constricting force, emanates from the Birkeland current of the Sun?
There's no sign of a Birkeland current powering the Sun. There should be a strong magnetic field from any powerful Birkeland current, or EED. And the current should be visible at the poles of the Sun, as arc discharges, like the streamers in a plasma globe. So there's no sign of a Z-pinch either.
_Why would a filament powering the Sun be invisible, while galactic filaments are visible? What makes galactic filaments visible? Is it arc or glow discharging? Or is it reflection of starlight? And if it's from EED, what causes the EMF? Charles said: "electric currents neither prefer filaments, nor cause them. Rather, the filaments are caused by their electrostatic properties."
- Good Day. Lloyd

[LK: No Current Powering Sun]
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
_Hi Bruce. Regarding: ""So why the insistence that "galactic filaments cannot be Birkeland currents ..."[?] My understanding is that Birkeland currents emanate from the Z-Pinch of the sun, why are they not considered filaments? Is this just a matter of scale, i.e galactic vs. solar system???""
_Don't you mean the Z-pinch, which is a magnetic constricting force, emanates from the Birkeland current of the Sun?
There's no sign of a Birkeland current powering the Sun. There should be a strong magnetic field from any powerful Birkeland current, or EED. And the current should be visible at the poles of the Sun, as arc discharges, like the streamers in a plasma globe. So there's no sign of a Z-pinch either.
_Why would a filament powering the Sun be invisible, while galactic filaments are visible? What makes galactic filaments visible? Is it arc or glow discharging? Or is it reflection of starlight? And if it's from EED, what causes the EMF? Charles said: "electric currents neither prefer filaments, nor cause them. Rather, the filaments are caused by their electrostatic properties."
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: Why Sun Charging Current Invisible]
Re: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material ...
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 7:35 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_All good questions... we are supposedly in a spiral arm of the Milky Way, rotating around the Pleiades. Can't seem to see the filament connecting our galaxy either. Maybe we are just to close, inside the filament and can't see it? Maybe we just aren't connected? What do you think>?
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

[DE: Saturn Myth & EED]
RE: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material ...
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:49 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
Cc: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
_Hello to the Project Group: I wish to add some thoughts to the paragraphs below labeled Saturn Theory and External Electric Discharges. See below.
_Doug Ettinger
(LK: SATURN THEORY: The Saturn theory would be more plausible if the proposed Saturn system had entered the Solar system and come as far as Earth's orbit before Earth, Mars and Venus separated from the system, then Saturn would have gone on with just its present moons to its present orbit. Then Earth's life would not have had to endure any frigid travel through space for some years or decades. So I don't think it's likely worthwhile for the whole group to discuss the Saturn theory much, until really strong evidence comes to light pro or con.)
_The proposal that Saturn and its polar configuration first visited the orbital region of the present day Earth is even more improbable. How do these celestial bodies including the Moon rearrange themselves into today's orbital locations with the forces available: gravitational and electromagnetic? Enough said about this theory. Yes, let's move on to EED and plate tectonics.
(LK: EXTERNAL ELECTRIC DISCHARGES: ...)
_I want to be sure that you understand my concept of EED. External electric discharges, not too dissimilar to lightning, do exist between celestial bodies. The excavated blast areas on Mars and the Moon are proof. The bodies do NOT have to be close enough that their atmospheres clash. They could be easily as far away as half or more the distance of the present Moon and Earth. Their voltage difference is immense as is explained in my paper, "Electron Asymmetry". The clash of their magnetospheres and increased solar wind density will aid in the these strikes covering large distances and being highly focused - many times on polar regions, but not necessarily. At these 'close encounter' distances gravitational and magnetic fields of these bodies are greatly affected, too.
_Best regards, Doug Ettinger
www.ettingerjournals.com

[LK: Q re Calc & Power Source for Atlantic Basin etc]
RE: Calculating the excavation of planetary surface material...
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 1:48 PM
From: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
To: "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com> "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
Cc: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_Hi All. I'm trying to copy this discussion to cnps.boards.net/thread/25/proofs-needed-earth-theory . Doug, you probably missed my recent comments, since my message didn't get to your inbox, which latter may have been full or something. I don't think I copied it to that forum thread yet, but I plan to before long.
_Doug, in your calculations you said this. ((("A substantial amount of all the energy stored on the Earth’s surface was transferred to the North Pole with the aid of the planet’s magnetic field. I will now speculate how to calculate the energy of this massive discharge. Assume the location area of the gigantic bolt is the surface area of the Hudson and James Bays. These bays encompass an area of 1,230,000 km^2. Then, 1,230,000 km^2 x 100 flashes x [about 600 coulombs] = 7.38 x 10^10 coulombs of energy Or x [about 400,000 amperes] = 4.92 x 10^13 ampere of current and, we know that only 50 amps and 27 volts cuts and sputters through steel plate. I hope this calculation gives one the frightening immensity of such an event. The Clovis people were wiped out due to ice shards, dust and electrical currents moving across the North American terrain especially in river valleys. A rough approximation of the mass of the Hudson Bay is – [100 m (avg. depth) x 1 km/1000 m x 1,230,000 km2 (surface area)] Plus [2 miles of ice sheet thickness x 1609 m/mile x 1 km/1000m x 1,230,000 km^2 (area)] = 123,000 km^3 + 3,958,000 km^3 = 4,081,140 km^3 of excavated hard ice and crustal rock. This completes my calculation. One is certainly welcome to critique or add to these concepts. I sincerely appreciate any interest. By Doug Ettinger 12/05/2017")))
_If you estimate that 70 billion coulombs and 50 trillion amps were involved in carving the Hudson Bay area, which was a "substantial amount" of Earth's surface energy, would a substantial amount mean at least, say, 20%? If so, then the max possible might be 350 billion coulombs and 250 trillion amps. Is that right?
_Does anyone else have a way to calculate what conditions would have been needed for ED to carve the Mars canyon or the Atlantic basin?
_Doug says the solar wind would be involved in interplanetary ED, but that the solar wind was greater at times in the past. What would cause the solar wind to increase in mass? The solar wind is weak beyond the Earth's orbit, so could the Earth have been farther away than now and still get enough solar wind charge to carve out the Mars canyon or the Atlantic? Or how would the charging have been increased enough to produce large enough EDs?
_A paper at arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0209/0209070.pdf says this re Jupiter and Io.
"The orbital velocity of Io is less than the rotational velocity of the Jovian magnetospheric plasma. Therefore the Jovian field lines and the associated plasma stream past Io at a relative speed of 57 km s-1, which sets up a potential difference of ~400 kV across Io resulting in a current of ~10^6 A that closes through the Jovian and Ionian ionospheres."
_Could any magnetic field have been strong enough to induce enough current to excavate the Mars canyon or the Atlantic? Does everyone agree that Jupiter's magnetic field produces the current that heats up Io? Does it also cause the volcanism?
_Andy, what does your model consider the cause of charging that would produce EDs between the Caribbean and the Colorado Plateau?
- Good Day. Lloyd

[BL: Galactic Filaments ED]
Re: Doug, Bruce, Andy et al Calculate Max ED Power
Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:34 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com> "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_The energy may only manifest when the whole system is activated, i.e. galactic filament glow observed far far away, possibly affects our system from time to time.
_Calculating this amount of energy, must necessarily remain in the realm of a purely speculative considerations... can appreciate the efforts though.
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

[DE: Calc ED Power for Atlantic etc]
RE: Doug, Bruce, Andy et al Calculate Max ED Power
Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:38 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
Cc: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_Hello Lloyd and Others, I will insert my commentary responding to most of Lloyd's comments. See below.
_Regards, Doug Ettinger
(((LK: -----Original Message----- From: lloyd kinder [mailto:lkindr@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:07 AM
... Doug, in your calculations you said this. "A substantial amount of all the energy stored on the Earth’s surface was transferred to the North Pole with the aid of the planet’s magnetic field. I will now speculate how to calculate the energy of this massive discharge. Assume the location area of the gigantic bolt is the surface area of the Hudson and James Bays. These bays encompass an area of 1,230,000 km^2. Then, 1,230,000 km^2 x 100 flashes x [about 600 coulombs] = 7.38 x 10^10 coulombs of energy Or x [about 400,000 amperes] = 4.92 x 10^13 ampere of current and, we know that only 50 amps and 27 volts cuts and sputters through steel plate. I hope this calculation gives one the frightening immensity of such an event. The Clovis people were wiped out due to ice shards, dust and electrical currents moving across the North American terrain especially in river valleys.
_DE: A rough approximation of the mass of the Hudson Bay is – [100 m (avg. depth) x 1 km/1000 m x 1,230,000 km2 (surface area)] Plus [2 miles of ice sheet thickness x 1609 m/mile x 1 km/1000m x 1,230,000 km^2 (area)] = 123,000 km^3 + 3,958,000 km^3 = 4,081,140 km^3 of excavated hard ice and crustal rock. ...")))
_My calculation above is revealing a possible removal of planetary crust including ices of approximately 4x10^6 km^3 / 7.4 x 10^10 coulombs.
(((LK: If you estimate that 70 billion coulombs and 50 trillion amps were involved in carving the Hudson Bay area, which was a "substantial amount" of Earth's surface energy, would a substantial amount mean at least, say, 20%? If so, then the max possible might be 350 billion coulombs and 250 trillion amps. Is that right?)))
_DE: I am not sure how you derive 20%, but the total amount of energy transferred to Earth is substantially more. Currents travel along the surface and deeply into the crust toward the equator to induce a magnetic field that briefly coupled and interacted with the larger magnetic field of the rogue planet or brown dwarf star that made a close encounter. This coupling jerked the Earth's crustal/mantle unit about the liquid core just prior to the Great Deluge.
(((LK: Does anyone else have a way to calculate what conditions would have been needed for ED to carve the Mars canyon or the Atlantic basin?)))
_Does anyone have the data of the volume of material excavated from Valles Marinaris?
(((LK: Doug says the solar wind would be involved in interplanetary ED, but that the solar wind was greater at times in the past. What would cause the solar wind to increase in mass? The solar wind is weak beyond the Earth's orbit, so could the Earth have been farther away than now and still get enough solar wind charge to carve out the Mars canyon or the Atlantic? Or how would the charging have been increased enough to produce large enough EDs?)))
_DE: In my version of a genesis / great flood storyline, a brown dwarf star's magnetosheath intersects the magnetosheath of the Sun - exchanging charge. Whatever the direction of exchange of charge the heliosphere should have been filled with a higher density of solar and/or brown dwarf winds. Hence, Birkland currents or double layer sheaths are more enhanced for creating interplanetary EED's.
(((LK: A paper at arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0209/0209070.pdf says this re Jupiter and Io. "The orbital velocity of Io is less than the rotational velocity of the Jovian magnetospheric plasma. Therefore the Jovian field lines and the associated plasma stream past Io at a relative speed of 57 km s-1, which sets up a potential difference of ~400 kV across Io resulting in a current of ~10^6 A that closes through the Jovian and Ionian ionospheres.")))
_DE: This analysis is excellent for determining induced currents by external magnetic fields. I like it. Yes, indeed, the so-called volcanoes of Io are really EED's, or sputtering of crustal materials. The arcing has been observed by NASA to move across the surface of Io - ruling out volcanoes.
(((LK: Could any magnetic field have been strong enough to induce enough current to excavate the Mars canyon or the Atlantic? Does everyone agree that Jupiter's magnetic field produces the current that heats up Io? Does it also cause the volcanism?)))
_DE: The Mars canyon does exist for no other reason than a high energy arc discharge. See Wallace Thornhills explanations. And, I believe the only other answer is that the canyon resulted from an EED.
(((LK: Andy, what does your model consider the cause of charging that would produce EDs between the Caribbean and the Colorado Plateau?)))
_DE: Such earthly arcing could have occurred during the Great Deluge event or at much earlier times, but I endorse current moving closer to the surface. I am not sure how Andy derives the arcing similar to solar CME's. Andy probably believes the material was deposited via arcing and the closest, likely place is a trench in the Caribbean region. I continue to believe in a version of plate tectonics with a strong mixture of electromagnetic phenomena.
- Have a wonderful day, Doug Ettinger

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 153

Prove Electric Universe Earth Dec 19, 2017 1:27:51 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:27:51 GMT

[LH: No Electric Sun; EU/ET]
RE: CNPS Special Project Report & Requests
Friday, December 15, 2017 7:14 PM
From: "Louis Hissink" <louis.hissink@bigpond.com>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> hallad1257@gmail.com davidn@aoi.com.au jweirich@psi.edu rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net dougettinger@verizon.net donbriddell@fieldstructure.org servant@wt.net mike@newgeology.us james.maxlow@bigpond.com leybourneb@iascc.org irfantaner@hotmail.com bhatmi@hotmail.com jcasey@ievpc.org lev.maslov@cccs.edu giovanni.gregori@idasc.cnr.it kubota@env.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp perm@must.edu.mn ninapav@mail.ru dp@davidpratt.info Karsten.storetvedt@uib.no GeneAEllis@msn.com
_I'm fence sitting now on EU theory as there seem to be some fundamental problems with electron solar behaviour - particularly if as observed protons and electrons both travelling in the same direction in the solar E field. And to confuse matters there are 12 different models for the electron, and 24 if one deals with it's apparent dual nature - particle/wave form.
_We simply do not understand the fundamentals of electricity and that's what I will be mulling over the next few months.
_I have changed my mind on Earth Expansion theory and now support the Carey/Maxlow model but only strictly in a catastrophic plasma scenario where a planetary scaled discharge formed the Atlantic Ocean, and this massive plasma input could have added extra matter into the mantle/crust apart from also causing partial melting and formation of less dense basalts at the spreading ridges. Earth expansion under the present uniformitarian paradigm is a non starter since the matter creation mechanism is implausible, vis. Accumulation of magnetically charged (what ever the heck that means) particles entering the poles.
_So if I am quiet its because I am mulling and navel gazing but feel free to rattle my cage.
_Cheers _ Louis Hissink

[AH: IED, Sedimentation; Jupiter]
Re: Doug, Bruce, Andy et al Calculate Max ED Power
Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:40 PM
From: "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
To: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
Cc: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org> "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_Lloyd, The potential difference between the Caribbean and Colorado Plateau is the potential difference between Earth's interior and volcanism at Yellowstone (and other) supervolcanoes. There is an electric field inside Earth due to interior electric currents, and an outer electric field between ground and the ionosphere. They need to be viewed independently, because the earth's crust is a dielectric layer between these different field regimes, like a spherical capacitor plate. During normal fair weather, the atmospheric electric field points down, meaning electrons drift towards space. But during a storm, the atmospheric field near Earth is reversed and lightning spits at the ground.
_The interior current, which we don't have much knowledge of, is what I speculate gets amped-up by induction, or even direct current from solar wind, or some other effect, like a large passing comet. Charge builds on the inside of earth's crust. As it heat-up, it erupts the volcanoes first, which fills the atmosphere with ionic matter and reverses and intensifies the electric field between ground and atmosphere like a thunderstorm does, only more so. In a reversed electric field, the highest positive charge density lies at ground level, around the volcano and on high points like mountains where positive ions are drawn by the electric field. This changes the circuitry, and Earth's surface is no longer negative, but positive.
_When volcanic eruption can't satisfy the current flow from Earth's interior to the surface, perhaps because it's disrupted by vaporized pockets, or because of resistance of the material to a surge in current, the current finds a new path and erupts in a discharge. The arc follows a surface conductive path, because ions collect at the ground surface, and follow the voltage gradient between Earth's interior and the high positive points at the volcanoes and mountains. Except the "surface conductive path" isn't always at the surface, but more often just below it where there is water to ionize. Any dry overburden that is layered on top of a wet zone where current travels is blown away. Hence the Grand Canyon. This discharge - arc blast - creates the fault systems that rivers follow.
_I also see places in very arid regions where these surface conductive arcs appear to have taken to the air, like a cloud to cloud lightning bolt, and come down in bollides like a meteor. This is what i first wrote about in "Arc Blast", but that is only one effect.
_Why the discharge comes out in the Caribbean trenches is because: first, the continental cratons are in the way further north and present an extra layer of resistance; and second, because the internal electric field is modulated by spherical harmonics of the planet, and that generates hot spots, or nodes of higher potential. The currents, I believe are AC multiphase currents that probably have a large DC component. Therefore, transient phase difference can emerge between different locations. The positions of the continents and the path of the mid-ocean trenches and ridges which define the path of interior currents (mantle currents) follow a spherical harmonic pattern.
_As the discharge blasts through the Earth's crust, it drags everything with it including the ocean. So early layers are laid down wet as limestones, followed by sediments of rock and sand. It's happened more than once, so there can be layers of sediment overlaid with volcanic extrusion, overlaid with more sediments. Mineral deposits follow the pattern of these arcs, I believe, but I need to do more work to show it. There are other forms of discharge vents, like kimberlite pipes and karsts, that I believe are caused by discharges from inside Earth. They contain high energy crystal, like diamond and often have mineral deposits in their throat. The Grand Canyon is surrounded by breccia pipes that are mined for uranium. These are discharges to surface from the same current that created the Colorado River, blasting through dry overburden laid down by the winds that preceded it, and depositing the highly conductive elements that follow the arc. That's why mythology reports dragons from the sea with jeweled bellies. Mineral deposits are skid marks of the discharge.
_I also think the electrical environment of Jupiter is being misunderstood, because we are neglecting the internal electric field of the planet. What causes Jupiter to boil with such violence is the potential difference between the interior of the planet and the exterior - not between the planet and the sun.
_Thanks for the question.
_Cheers, Andy

[DE: ED Sedimentation]
_RE: Doug, Bruce, Andy et al Calculate Max ED Power
Friday, December 15, 2017 9:35 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
Andy, Thank you for the answer. And, thanks to Lloyd for creating these discussions. Andy, you have done your homework. You may be providing the best model for the strangeness of sedimentation covering the Earth’s surface. What remains to answer, is what triggers this immense electromagnetic power.
_Best regards, Doug Ettinger

[DE: ED Sedimentation]
RE: Puzzle for Andy's Model
Friday, December 15, 2017 2:32 PM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
8 Files 420KB [Images not shown here]
_Andy, you have an excellent start with laboratory data. I believe I understand better how the shock waves produce the macro-formations. The electromagnetic phenomena is revealed by the very different layers of stratification. This is excellent work.
_Regards, Doug Ettinger

[AH: IED, ED Storms, Hollow Earth]
Re: Doug, Bruce, Andy et al Calculate Max ED Power
Friday, December 15, 2017 2:40 PM
From: "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
To: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
Cc: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org> "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_Doug, I'll leave that to Wal, Dave and others to address. I definitely have ideas, but not the background or data to be of much help. I'll stick with showing the effect it had on the planet, and maybe something of evidence will present itself that helps determine a sequence of events and causation. I believe there were many events. Some that made storms like we read of in the bible, and earlier primordial storms that built the continents, perhaps at the time the planet formed, or was in close proximity to another body. That is why I think stratigraphy, analyzed under the assumption of my theory, is essential. Everything I see speaks to massive discharges coming from within the planet in the form of volcanoes and arc blast. Lightning effects, which I just wrote two articles on soon to be published at Thunderbolts, seem to be atmospheric. Not lightning bolts from space, but originating in storms like we see today, only much bigger. Like I say, we can see the same things going on right now on Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and Neptune.
_I actually think Wal's ideas from Jan Lamprecht about a hollow Earth may be correct. The seismology she presents certainly supports that, and I think it supports my ideas about internal currents if you consider the inside of earth is a plasma. Think of those toy plasma balls with filaments of plasma reaching out and spreading across the inside of the glass bulb. I can picture this inside a hollow earth, and a filament punching through to discharge across the outside of the glass. That I think is essentially what creates an arc blast event.. Of course, it could even suggest a crystalline structure - a solid plasma in other words. These are things I can only speculate.
_I will say, I can see a scenario where the polar alignment is involved. It would explain certain things, but I haven't done enough homework to voice an opinion. I also see evidence the earth gimballed about under some electro-mechanical force, but that concept needs much more work, too.
_What you and Lloyd have been doing, estimating energy to excavate a feature like Valles Marinaris, is also key to gaining a handle on what could cause it. Thanks for asking questions and having an interest. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss it. You may see some of the words I've been writing in an article down the road.
_Cheers, Andy

[DE: Moho; Hollow Earth]
RE: Doug, Bruce, Andy et al Calculate Max ED Power
Friday, December 15, 2017 3:44 PM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net louis.hissink@bigpond.com mike@newgeology.us
_Hello Andy, You are doing well in your field of interest; it is best to keep your focus.
_Arc blasts may be generated upward from the upper mantle or the Moho layer but must be supplied by power by some external means unless the Earth’s stored power is still being utilized. I did not know Wal Thornhill was involved with hollow Earth ideas. I wonder how that works. Any particle inside a fairly concentric hollow sphere receives no net gravity force from the mass of the sphere. An accounting of the mass of inertia of the Earth is also necessary. I will follow-up on this contrarian concept by Wal and Jan Lamprecht.
_I will be looking forward to your EU presentations.
_Regards, Doug Ettinger

[DE: EU; Electrons]
RE: CNPS Special Project Report & Requests
Saturday, December 16, 2017 12:27 PM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'Louis Hissink'" <louis.hissink@bigpond.com> "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> hallad1257@gmail.com davidn@aoi.com.au jweirich@psi.edu rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net donbriddell@fieldstructure.org servant@wt.net mike@newgeology.us james.maxlow@bigpond.com leybourneb@iascc.org irfantaner@hotmail.com bhatmi@hotmail.com jcasey@ievpc.org lev.maslov@cccs.edu giovanni.gregori@idasc.cnr.it kubota@env.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp perm@must.edu.mn ninapav@mail.ru dp@davidpratt.info Karsten.storetvedt@uib.no GeneAEllis@msn.com
_Hello Louis, What I know is that the electrons either travel toward Sun's polar region outside the heliosphere or within the heliosheath or magnetsheath. Within the heliosphere the electrons travel away and are especially concentrated in the ecliptic plane.
_The present model of the electron is certainly adequate. It explains static electricity and the periodic table. And, particle theory still applies the consensus model. Be careful with new models; they must explain at least everything that the current model does.
_I am attempting to utilize the electron (current model) in explaining gravity. Like EU, I believe that gravity is electromagnetic in nature, but my explanation is different. See my paper, "Electron Asymmetry".
_Doug Ettinger www.Ettingerjournals.com

[LH: Electric Gravity; No Electric Sun]
RE: CNPS Special Project Report & Requests
Saturday, December 16, 2017 3:56 PM
From: "Louis Hissink" <louis.hissink@bigpond.com>
To: "'Doug Ettinger'" <dougettinger@verizon.net> "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> hallad1257@gmail.com davidn@aoi.com.au jweirich@psi.edu rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net donbriddell@fieldstructure.org servant@wt.net mike@newgeology.us james.maxlow@bigpond.com leybourneb@iascc.org irfantaner@hotmail.com bhatmi@hotmail.com jcasey@ievpc.org lev.maslov@cccs.edu giovanni.gregori@idasc.cnr.it kubota@env.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp perm@must.edu.mn ninapav@mail.ru dp@davidpratt.info Karsten.storetvedt@uib.no GeneAEllis@msn.com
_Hello Doug, That's the problem - electrons travelling away from the Sun while at the same time so too the protons. Under an E field this should not occur. The solar wind comprises protons and electrons as, apparently, measured. This is probably the reason modern astrophysics don't like dealing with plasma universe theories - and why they omit electric currents from their theories - ignore those mechanisms and there's no problem in having electrons and protons travelling in the same direction.
_As for gravity, I had to deal with a gravity anomaly encountered during a drilling operation I was supervising in northern Western Australia during 2009. We were drill testing gravity anomalies (buried iron ore deposits) and the modelling kept indicating shallow sources that drilling falsified.
_We subsequently discovered that electronegative shallow ground water caused local attraction of down-hole gravity survey instruments, implying electric charge was countering or affecting gravity. Standard theory, as used by my contracted consulting geophysicists, implied a gravitating mass above the instrument, which clearly was not evident. Hence they concluded instrument error. However I and the drillers, by replication of the measurements, demonstrated it was real. So the theory is the problem and not the data. Solution to the problem involves Gerry Pollack's work with EZ or liquid crystal water as a starting point.
_Which leads to electrical effects and electric sun and universe models. Bob Johnston (SIS) has discovered problems with the electric sun model but apart from an abstract for the SIS talk in the UK, there is a dearth of information. Apparently BJ has noticed a lack of supporting physical evidence for the Electric Sun model; more research needed.
_A return to fundamentals is thus necessary.
_Cheers _ Louis

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 153

Prove Electric Universe Earth Dec 19, 2017 3:58:49 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 3:58:49 GMT

Hi EU Group. (See my requests for summaries at the end.)
Bruce Nappi said he'll probably let me be a "peer reviewer" if I want to, so as a potential reviewer, I want to let all of the Earth Theorists know what I think may be necessary to pass the review process as a high-ranking theory. (Science is never completed, I guess, so not passing the review process may just mean more info or better reviewers are needed.) Anyone is welcome to volunteer to do peer review by the way.

_I have a new thread at my CNPS forum called Prove Electric Universe Earth at cnps.boards.net/thread/31/prove-electric-universe-earth . I've organized most of our EU messages into 3 threads. That's one. Another is EU Mountains at cnps.boards.net/thread/23/eu-mountains . And the 3rd is EU Meteors at cnps.boards.net/thread/26/eu-meteors . The last two are less important at this point. The EU Mountains thread may lead to important findings.

_I consider Electrostatic Universe theory by Charles Chandler at qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 to be the best supported EU-related model so far. I've only seen a little of the material by the rest of you, but I am very familiar with Wal Thornhill's model and Don Scott's model less so. Charles Chandler critiqued their models on the Thunderbolts forum, but Wal and Don never replied there, as far as I know.

_Charles explained rather well why the gravity model or Nebular Hypothesis can't work and he gave a brief explanation of why accretion is not due to Birkeland currents with Z-pinches. He explains pretty well why electrostatic charges in gas cloud collisions and supernova radiation lead to star and planet formation by galactic filament implosion. When the implosions reach greater velocities, exotics result, such as pulsars, white dwarfs, quasars etc. But most implosions produce normal stars and planets. In the case of exotics, counter-streaming charges form into rings with extreme magnetic fields, resembling tokamaks. But in the case of normal stars, the charge streams form into electric double layers in spherical form. The Sun is found to have 5 charge layers, 3 positive, 2 negative between. The underlying negative layer holds the photosphere strongly to the Sun. Electron degeneracy pressure due to gravity causes charge separation between layers. Tidal forces cause charge recombination and reseparation between the top two layers, which produce solar radiation and all of the electrical solar features. So, instead of the Sun being a load on an unobserved electric circuit, the double layers act like a battery where charge is stored from the initial implosion and releasted gradually. It's hard to see how anyone could think that the Sun is receiving near the amount of charge that it's radiating. Also, no one has explained where the electric generators are to produce the currents. For the Earth, Charles explains in detail how earthquakes and volcanism occur. He also has detailed explanation of thunderstorms, tornadoes etc on another site. He finds that the Earth has 3 charge layers, two positive and a negative between. I think the negative is just below the Moho; I'm not certain.

_Bruce, your Stellar Transformer Earth model may not be very compatible with Charles' model, if it relies on electric currents from the Sun to produce Earth's electrical effects. I know there's a heliospheric current sheet from the Sun that extends about as far as Jupiter, where it's very weak, so that current seems unlikely to be able to produce strong electrical effects on the gas giants. And I think any current from outside should produce strong magnetic fields that are detectable. The current sheet may produce the auroras, even on Neptune, but that's still not much current, it seems. I've only seen a little of your model so far, including one of your EU conference videos, where you showed interesting EU effects at Earth's poles and the platonic solids patterns. You mentioned such patterns on the seafloors, I think, and I'd like to see those. I guess it's just you and Robert who think the Atlantic was formed by interplanetary ED.

_Andy, you say some mountain chains formed by ground-hugging electric streamers from the seafloor to the Colorado Plateau etc. Do you contend that the plateau was raised electrically? It looks to me like the plateau raised due to the North American plate sliding over the East Pacific Rise. And I'm talking about a very rapid sliding of the Americas, as Mike Fischer's Shock Dynamics site details at NewGeology.us . Doug likes some of Walter Brown's ideas and so do I. I especially like his explanation of how radioactive elements formed in Earth's crust, by sliding of some strata over others. Doug, I think you agree that strata formed rapidly & catastrophically, but you think there were long periods of time between strata deposition. Since there is very little erosion between strata, it seems to me that they must have formed all at once over a period of months or years. And the problems with radiometric dating are due to not realizing that strong ionization causes rapid radioactive decay. Radiocarbon dating shows that dinosaur bones are 20,000 to 40,000 years old, but the older dates are the least accurate.

_So far, Andy's model for formation of multi-flatiron & "multi-prism" mountain chains seems more plausible than other models. Mike disagrees, but hasn't yet provided info that overrides Andy's, I think. If there was a supercontinent that was split apart by a major impact, as Mike explains, and the continents slid over the nearly frictionless plasma Moho layer, I can see that huge amounts of electric charge and discharge could have occurred. It's not clear that the ED's could have been strong enough to form mountain chains, so we need to come up with good calculations. Mike has calcs for the impact and the continental sliding energies. If the continents could not have had enough charge to form the mountains, then maybe asteroids provided some extra. Or maybe planets or the Sun provided the charge. As I mentioned before, it's plausible to me that ground-hugging electric streamers at least dozens of miles long are possible, since similarly large discharges apparently occur in the Sun's photosphere. So we need to specify what conditions may make that possible on Earth.

_Doug, you say a large object impacted Earth and formed the continents, I think. What do you have against a supercontinent that broke up from an impact?

_I think it may help if you folks can all write up a basic summary of each of your models, so we can all read each other's summaries. Can you each write a summary in 2 or 3 paragraphs with just your basic outline? Then we can ask each other questions for going deeper into each one.

Last Edit: Dec 19, 2017 17:25:44 GMT by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 153

Prove Electric Universe Earth Jan 8, 2018 23:22:05 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 23:22:05 GMT

RE: Do I have your model right?
Friday, January 5, 2018 2:10 PM
From: "Robert Farrar" <rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> Cc: hallad1257@gmail.com leybourneb@iascc.org
_Hello Lloyd, I may be a solitary voice with regards to my answers to the questions you ask, nevertheless here goes…
_[Earth's Crust] How and when did the largely granitic/sedimentary continents and the largely basaltic ocean basins form?
_Earth is essentially basaltic, what we now call continents formed by the granitization of the basaltic basement and ‘outgassing’ of silica. Granite as a singular rock is somewhat of a misnomer instead it refers to a group or family of similar rocks. The continental cratons may well have been sedimentary to begin with and gradually granitized, evidence for this are the accompanying migmatites found in the cratons plus many granites show evidence of a pre-existing structure. The 18th and 19th century view of ‘Plutonic’ granite is somewhat problematical.
_The process of granitization involved the presence of water- I guess you could say I’m a neo-Neptunist- so as sedimentary layers were deposited water was also accumulating. With time a global dichotomy developed geologists now see this dichotomy as two types of crust.
_How and when did sedimentary rock strata form?
_From what I have outlined above sedimentary rocks formed early in Earth’s history. Sedimentary rocks without fossils are ‘primary’ sedimentary rocks whilst those with fossils are reworked ‘primary’ sedimentary rocks.
_How and when did mountains form?
_Mountains formed recently in Earth’s history (Pliocene, Pleistocene). As James Maxlow somewhat discourteously pointed out Ollier and Pain have done excellent research in this area. Mountains are due to in situ uplift and erosion, this process happened the world over during a well defined ‘recent’ period. My view is that this period was more recent than Ollier and Pain realise and involved electrical uplift and erosion.
_In 1963 Thomas Gold wrote: “The earth’s magnetic field could clearly not hold up the incoming gas, and it would indeed drive down to the atmospheric level where the gas pressure can resist the further flow. At that level the atmosphere is dense and the ionization that could be maintained would not result in a good conductivity. The incoming gas bringing its strong field into the virtually insulating atmosphere would then result in very large electric fields so directed that the resulting currents would maintain those fields. But in the atmosphere this can be done only by electrical breakdown. Since the ground is a good conductor such a breakdown is likely to take a path of breakdown through the entire thickness of the atmosphere on each side of the magnetic cloud being pressed in, and through the body of the earth from one site of breakdown to the other … This breakdown would be in the form of a series of sparks, burning for extended periods of time and carrying currents of hundreds of millions of amperes.”
_Gold envisaged a solar superstorm of extraordinary proportions impacting Earth’s electrical environment- the discharge path would travel from pole to pole “in the form of a series of sparks, burning for extended periods of time and carrying currents of hundreds of millions of amperes”. When we look at Earth’s north magnetic pole we see a polygonal pattern surrounding the continent of Antarctica (Saturn has a similar atmospheric hexagonal pattern at its north magnetic pole). The discharge paths then radiate outward generally toward the south magnetic pole on the North American continent- not too distant from the Arctic Ocean basin. Of course geologists do not see discharge paths, they see spreading centres. Where the circuit was not completed the current would have discharged into the Earth’s upper layers- lightning like- increasing Earth’s negative potential. Following from the works of Wal Thornhill the additional charge led to an increase of Earth’s internal polarization and subsequently G as experienced at the Earth’s surface.
_Writing in 'Marine Geomorphology' Chris Smoot observes: “The northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) stacked profiles show the MAR to be shoaler at the crest tapering to low abyssal plains on the flanks. The various highs along the profiles are blocks, ridge-formed seamounts, or sundered plateaus. This is the standard acceptance of the ocean basin feature. Superimposed profiles of the MAR at 17o 30’N latitude and the front range of the Rocky Mountains at 39oN latitude show such remarkable similarity, that they must have been produced by the same tectonics.” (my emphasis)

_How and when did the Earth form?
_As much as I would like to know, this is unanswerable. In an infinite and eternal plasma universe Earth may be much older than the present consensus view- which uses a meteorite to date the Earth based on the hypothesis that both condensed from the same protostellar cloud, of course the Earth may be much younger than the present consensus view. If I had to choose between condensation from a gas cloud or expulsion from a gas-giant planet I’d choose the latter.
_Post Script
I have viewed Andy’s very interesting presentations at thunderbolts.info- when a thought occurred to me- that’s not easy for the hard of thinking!
In the presentations Andy notes structures formed following lightning strikes in the ‘Four Corners’ region of the US. What caught my attention was his description of the resultant conical mound as being covered with pebbles of fused sand.
_Now consider the island of Surtsey. Surtsey formed in a commotion of fire and electricity:
img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ist7ga037ujjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg
_Now consider this from Louis Hissink:
lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/surtsey-island-sedimentology-conundrums/
_Is it possible that the boulders, cobbles and pebbles of Surtsey are analogous to the fused pebbles observed by Andy? Can we conclude that volcanoes form where ‘internal’ and ‘external’ lightning meet?
_Regards, Robert

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:23 PM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
_1. ATLANTIC BASIN. Whoever thinks the Atlantic was formed by MegaLightning (Electric Discharge), i.e. __Bruce, __Robert & maybe __Louis, can you all describe the process in some detail. Maybe you've all seen the picture from the 1949 issue of National Geographic in which lightning carved a trench in a baseball diamond a foot or so wide, at least half a foot deep and ten feet or more long. Also, someone here referenced Juergens' 1975 article from Pensee', Of the Moon and Mars, in which he showed that rilles on the Moon are likely the result of ED. And similar rilles are said to be found near impact craters on Earth, like Meteor Crater in AZ. But the Atlantic would be a vastly larger trench than those rilles. Charles Chandler has argued that the canyon on Mars is a rift that formed when Mars' northern hemisphere was hit by a large body, which event also caused the huge volcanoes. How big would megalightning need to be to carve the Mars canyon or the Atlantic basin? And what conditions would be required to produce such megalightning? I guess the biggest problem seems to be how megalightning could cause much or most of the sedimentary rock strata to form, especially with fossils in it. Can you explain that? __Bruce, do you have info that suggests that the Atlantic floor is not mostly basalt? I read that Wegener claimed that the rock and fossil types on opposite shores of the Atlantic match extremely well. Do you have evidence against this? __Mike, have you learned how the cracks in the Atlantic floor formed and did the sliding continents leave those as tracks? Or did they form by contraction or something?
_2. IMPACTS. Some of you (__Bruce & __Robert at least) claim that asteroids etc would not be able to impact & form craters on Earth or the Moon etc because of their like charges repelling them. Then why are meteors like the recent one over Russia able to impact? And why was SL-9 able to impact Jupiter? Don't you think the Great Red Spot on Jupiter could be from a large impact, like John Ackerman says? And what about Mars northern hemisphere etc? What is the charge on the Earth and what sign? Likewise regarding the Moon, Mars etc. What is the charge on NEAs? Would an NEA going over 20km/s not be able to penetrate Earth's charge field? What are your calculations to show that? I think these questions are crucial. You say craters are formed by megalightning, but Charles Chandler has argued well that many or most craters are due to thermonuclear explosions, as all it takes to produce one is high pressure and temperature, which can result from high velocity and mass (or momentum). Such explosions could produce major electric discharges, which could form rilles, tektites etc (even thorium, I think).

Re: CNPS Questions for EU etc
Friday, January 12, 2018 8:07 AM
From: "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Hi Lloyd, Don't have a problem with impacts, seems to be ample evidence of this too. Mega lightning as you are now calling, what we termed Arc Blast mostly removes strata. I think the normal depositional environments form most strata.
_Generally at the end of an epoch, if caused by arc blast or other catastrophe, a unit is left that shows the catastrophic event that occurred. But much is generally eroded away and leaves an unconformity..., the older the less that is generally left intact.
_All the Best, Bruce Leybourne (IASCC)

Last Edit: Jan 16, 2018 3:31:18 GMT by Admin

Cnps

Prove Electric Universe Earth

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:23:17 GMT

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:25:05 GMT

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:27:51 GMT

Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 3:58:49 GMT

Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 23:22:05 GMT

Quick Reply