Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2018 3:49:27 GMT
Everyone's Input on Earth's Crust, Please?
From: lloyd kinder [mailto:lkindr@yahoo.com]
Sent: 18 January 2018 02:42
To: 'Andrew Hall'; Doug Ettinger
Cc: 'lloyd kinder'; rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net; mike@newgeology.us; 'Bruce Leybourne'; louis.hissink@bigpond.com
Subject: Everyone's Input on Earth's Crust, Please?
Mike & Doug, I think you guys have rather similar models. Have yous noticed that? But for now I'm comparing Mike's & Robert's recent statements regarding Earth's crust.
Mike said:
_My guess on protocontinent formation is that after the Earth had cooled sufficiently to have an unbroken basalt shell, it collided with a Mars-size planetessimal (matching conventional theory but occurring later). (Doug says the size of Gannymede, a little bigger than the Moon.)
_Material, thrown out far enough not to fall back to Earth, rapidly coalesced to form the Moon.
_The wounded portion of Earth would have been what geophysicists call a magma ocean. "Instead of reforming a basalt surface, the mix of molten upper mantle rock and basalt formed a refined andesitic/granitic scab over the wound, floating because it is less dense than both basalt and mantle." That became the protocontinent.
Robert said:
_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 [mixture of metamorphic rock and igneous rock] 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.
_First, I'd like to ask Mike & Robert what agreements & disagreements yous have with each other on the above.
_Second, I'd like to hear everyone else's agreements & disagreements on those statements. Okay?
_It looks like Mike & Doug agree that a large body hit the basaltic Earth at an early date & formed the granite continents. Doug adds that it also brought the ocean waters & other volatiles. Robert, I'm not sure if your ideas contradict Mike's & Doug's. Do they?
_I started separate threads for each of the different models at cnps.boards.net/board/12/science . I ask for some details for each model for the review process. I'd appreciate if everyone can provide some or all of the requested details on your specific threads. I'm referring to the threads toward the top that have sticky icons (thumb tacks). Versteh?
_Robert, I may get to reading Robert Johnson's NCGT article tomorrow, the one you sent me last July, I think. Maybe I'll get to your site tomorrow too, Doug.
_Finally, can anyone explain why so much of the granite as deep as about 4 or 5 miles in the Russian and German deep bore holes is highly fractured?
- Good Day. Lloyd
Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:22 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com> Cc: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net mike@newgeology.us "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com
_Hello Lloyd, There are some agreements with Mike's and Robert's versions. But, I will list my basic differences with their alternative concepts. My version is greatly detailed with calculations in my paper: www.ettingerjournals.com/dbe_emm.shtml.
1. Yes, an icy Ganymede-sized struck a very molten young Earth that tilted its axis and displaced its orbit from about 2.7 to 3.0 AU between Mars and Jupiter.
2. The wounded Earth bringing some of its collisional debris fell toward the Sun; as it gained velocity its increasing centripetal force started to equal the Sun's gravity force; when these forces equalized the Earth assumed a new slightly elliptical orbit near 1 AU.
3. Orbiting slightly faster than the Moon it passed the Moon on each orbit; the combination of gravity forces between Moon and Earth slowed the Earth to match the orbital velocity of the Moon while at the same time the Moon moved outward away from the Earth to preserve angular momentum. This event is very important for understanding the evolution of the Earth's crust.
4. Other debris caused by the highly improbable collision created the Main Belt of asteroids, Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, other miscellaneous asteroids creating impacts on other solar system bodies called the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB). The dating for the LHB is about 4.1 to 3.9 bya. The oldest cratons Earth are dated about 3.6 bya. The beginning of Earth's oceans and primitive life is about 3.0 bya. The alignment of dating seems very probable.
5. Debris brought along by Earth either fell back to Earth or was swept up by the Moon for the next 600 to 800 million years; the debris that impacted the Moon caused the low velocity impactors called mascons and caused the Moon's mares that remained molten for almost 800 million years until all the collisional debris was depleted.
6. Yes, a magma ocean was created at and surrounding the Earth's impact crater that created the uplifted proto-continent be eventually surrounded by liquid oceans.
7. Prior to the impact, Earth was partially differentiated with a frozen basaltic crust; volatile gases and possibly liquid water gathered on and above the crust; the pristine Earth originally formed at 3.0 AU which was sufficiently far away from the proto-Sun's T-Tauri phase so that Earth's atmosphere and water were not boiled away.
8. The icy Ganymede impactor was mostly composed of volatiles such as CH4, CO2, NH4, and H20 that partially mixed with the basaltic crust, the mantle and debris that reached escape velocity to form the asteroids. This is why there are different categories of meteorite compositions and why the Earth's mega-continent was mostly granitic. The impactor's volatiles including water mixed with the Earth's materials to form the lighter weight granitic-type rocks.
9. Since the impact was mostly absorbed and inelastic, planet Earth was gorged and expanded in size causing the original basaltic crusts to crack open.
10. Other impactor volatiles went deeper into the mantle to be later differentiated to create volcanism, geological hot spots, continental size trapps, and the Moho layer that continue to this day.
11. Because of the tidal accelerations of the original closer distance between Moon and Earth; the dynamic imbalance of the single massive continent, the slippery Moho layer forming under the crusts, and the lighter granitic crust floating and pushing over the heavier basaltic crusts - continental drift and plate tectonics were created. These features are not seen on other celestial bodies.
12. As plates opened creating gaps or rifts, mantle material further differentiated to create more basaltic crust and flowed outward and upward to fill in and form oceanic ridges; ridges or mountains on the continental plates were continually created by the combination of subduction and pushing together of different continental plates.
(Note: The crustal features caused by catastrophic events occur later and are not involved in the Earth's metamorphosis. Also, much sedimentary rocks formed later due to wasting and layering of ejected materials from volcanoes and rifts. Possibly, very early volcanism did cause some of the sedimentary layers we see today.)
_I do not have any strong opinion about the fractured granite at 4 to 5 miles depth. Possibly, the mechanics of drilling into granite under high pressure creates the cracks. The important thing to gain from these explorations is that the continental crusts are deeper than oceanic crusts, and are composed mostly of granitic materials which is to be expected in my model of crust formation.
_I liked Mike's description that closely aligns with my model except for his idea of the Moon's formation. Celestial mechanics prevents a mass the size of the Moon being ejected from planet Earth to achieve escape velocity to give a Moon orbit. That is why NASA has invented an ad hoc concept of a rogue celestial body glancing off the Earth to form the Moon. Think about Moon's orbit carefully. Using Newton's equation for gravitation, you can easily prove that the Sun's gravitational force controls the Moon orbit, not the Earth. Henceforth, the Moon must be one of the original terrestrial planets with its rocky mantle and small iron core.
_Robert seems to have deep-seated questions about the origins of granite that requires water, the oldest sedimentary rocks requiring water (not so), and the dichotomy of the continental and oceanic crusts. He does not have to remain a "Neptunist". My model can answer these questions for him. Earth originally had water being formed 3.0 AU from the Sun and received more water from the ice-ball impactor that was mixed into Earth's original mantle and basaltic materials which is still being differentiated or ejected today. Do some homework by comparing the composition of ejected volatiles from both geological hot-spot-type and subduction-type volcanoes. You might be amazed. I am not a fanatical Bible person, but the story of my genesis model can be found there.
On the second day in the Bible's Genesis story I quote, "Let there be a firmament between the waters to divide the waters from waters. ......so God made the firmament and separated the water above the firmament. God called the firmament Heaven." The firmament, of course, was the first proto-mega-continent.
_All the best, By Doug Ettinger of ettingerjournals.com
Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:58 PM
From: "Robert Farrar" <rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> Cc: mike@newgeology.us "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com "'Doug Ettinger'" <dougettinger@verizon.net> "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
_Lloyd, My model appears to have some support from Russian geologists in the latest edition of the NCGT Journal, December 2017. In particular, the paper by Nina Pavlenkova- ‘Deep structure of continents and oceans and their origin’. Although I disagree with the one of the author’s conclusions, that the Earth is expanding, the main thrust of the paper is one which I agree with.
_It also appears that Russian geologists recognise the Earth’s hemispheric dichotomy (an Indo-Atlantic ‘continental’ hemisphere and a Pacific ‘oceanic’ hemisphere) as I have expressed elsewhere.
_In my opinion Earth contains vast amounts of volatiles (and was never a molten ball) which form a part of the “continentization” process; a modern example of this is found here: advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/e1701121.full
_And at least one geologist has questioned the popular view of Mount Etna:
www.newscientist.com/article/2158608-mount-etna-may-not-really-be-a-proper-volcano-at-all/
_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5274051/Mount-Etna-NOT-proper-volcano.html
_From the three above articles we can see that Earth’s water budget is derived from internal processes (none was brought by ‘dirty snowballs’) likewise Earth’s surface silica budget is the result of internal processes. Both Earth’s continents and oceans are eruptive structures.
_Incidentally, a similar process may be occurring on Venus today- the so-called “fountain of Aphrodite”- is closely related with the Cytherean ‘continent’ Aphrodite Terra. sci.esa.int/venus-express/58085-what-lies-beneath-venus-surface-revealed-through-the-clouds/
_As I previously stated I consider it entirely possible that sedimentary rocks (what I call primary sedimentary rocks geologists would label Precambrian) formed first and were later ‘granitized’. The duration of the initial continentization process is unknown but we see stratified deposits from volcanic eruptions laid down very quickly today so the process may have occurred in as little as 10^3- 10^6 years.
_Earth is defined as much as by what it is materially composed of as by its electrical environment and it is my view that Earth’s electrical environment was different in the recent (10^5 years) past and this may hamper any “retrodictions” that we make about the Earth’s evolution.
_I’d just like to go back to an earlier line of discussion regarding Andy’s ideas which got me digging around. With regards to lightning and the Surtsey eruption (inspired by an article by Louis Hissink lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/surtsey-island-sedimentology-conundrums/) I came across these words by Eric Crew B.Sc., F.I.E.E., F.R.A.S., writing in the SIS Chronology & Catastrophism Review journal January 1976 ‘Problems of Electricity in Astronomy’:
_“(1) Lightning causes the material in the discharge channel to be compressed and accelerated in the direction of the negative charge. (The free electrons moving in the opposite direction having relatively little affect on the flow of material). This jet of hot gas contains water vapour and if it is directed into the upper atmosphere, a streak of mist or ice particles will be formed, possibly several km long. On its downward path into the denser atmosphere, the particles bunch together and an ice lump may fall to the ground there are many such cases reported and even stones may have been formed when the lightning is in clouds of volcanic or other dust.
_“(2) A similar process to (1) may cause much larger bodies to form in the extensive atmosphere of Jupiter and these could be ejected into solar orbit as comets.
_“(3) If a charged body B (such as a large comet) approaches a planet A which has an atmosphere, opposite charges are induced and the atmosphere will be pulled out towards B. This increases the voltage gradient between B and the extended atmosphere very rapidly and violent discharges may take place even though the two bodies are separated by a considerable distance. The effect is intensified if both A and B have atmospheres, and even more so if they have opposite charges.
_“(4) The effect of (3) is to cause a jet of compressed material to form and for the substance to be ejected on to the negatively charged body, or the induced negative charge.
_“(5) Charges induced in the solid surface of A as B approaches will cause a ground current to flow and the resistance of its path will cause the induced charge to lag behind the line joining A and B. The electrical force will produce a turning moment on A and B and the resultant motion will depend on the direction of the torque in relation to the axis of rotation of A and B. The displacement may be increased if B has a crust floating on a molten interior, as the moment of inertia of this would be much smaller than that of a completely rigid sphere, even if the possible tilting of the axis is ignored.”
_In the following journal (Spring 1976) and following some mathematical calculations Crew continues:
“These calculations are merely to give an indication of the possible movement of the material in the channel, and particularly in view of the observation by Dr Worth which is described below, it seems reasonable to suppose there would be an appreciable acceleration of the whole channel towards the direction of the negative space charge, and that at the end of the flash of lightning the material in the channel would have enough kinetic energy to project it for a considerable further distance.
_“Another interesting characteristic of such a high speed jet is that it would produce a low pressure zone at its rear and it is possible that in some instances objects would be sucked off the ground in the vicinity by the inrush of air and carried to great heights, unharmed by the heat of the lightning.”
_Crew continues by describing the observation made by Dr Worth:
“One afternoon in July 1971, Dr L. H. Worth climbed to the summit of the Puy Mary, 1770 m, in central France. He saw a storm in the valley below him about 2 miles away and heard thunder. A few seconds afterwards he felt a strong blast of hot air, so powerful he had to lean against it. This happened three times and some people near him rushed away. He wrote to Nature to describe the incident and asked for comments. His letter was published on 21 April 1972 (p413) under the title "Atmospheric Mystery" and when I saw it I realised it supported the view of C. E. R. Bruce that electrical discharges would produce a jet. I wrote to Nature but the letter was not published nor was there any other reference to this subject. Another letter from Dr Worth was published in New Scientist on 8 February 1973. Again there were no comments and my letter was ignored.”
_Crew then discusses reports of incredibly large pieces of ice which fall after a lightning strike and asks:
“If a lump of ice can form by the action of lightning, then it seems reasonable to suppose that particles of other materials in the channel might be bunched together and fall as a stone. Dust would be heated to melting point (or carbonising if organic), and would perhaps fall as a fused mass, especially if the amount in the atmosphere was increased by volcanic eruptions.”
_From the above I would ask Andy to reconsider the suggestion that the pebbles and cobbles found on the island of Surtsey were, indeed, formed by lightning during the eruption and not eroded later (perhaps they were exposed later by wave action?). But having read Crew I think Andy is spot on with his model of how the geomorphology of the SW United States originated.
_Another question for Andy, is the area under your investigation known for fossil deposits? The comment by Crew of objects being sucked off the ground and carried to great heights got me thinking- could fossil deposits have been formed in gigantic watery electrical storms, such as the ones you describe?
_Regards, Robert
Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:36 PM
From: "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
To: "Robert Farrar" <rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net> Cc: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com> mike@newgeology.us "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
_There are several fossil groups in the Colorado Plateau sediments. There is one fossil group missing, or predominately missing (i'm not sure the geographic extent) which I think is the Triassic period. The fossils tend to be in deposits, as if swept together by a storm, or flooding. Catastrophists have often pointed this out, suggesting a large meteor. I think a survey of where and what fossils have been discovered associated with each age would show an interesting picture, if looked at with my storm model in mind. If anyone knows where such information is available open source, please let me know where I can get it.
_Have you seen this picture, Robert? I'm glad you brought lightning up. I think thermo-electric effects play a significant role in thunderstorms, because the vertically layered atmosphere presents changing dielectric layers to current flow, just like changing conductors in a thermo-pile, or thermo-couple circuit. I wrote an article called, The Summer Thermopile about what I suspect is the main driver behind thunderstorms. I also think the thermo-electric effect is largely what causes ice ages.
_It seems more than likely to me lightning would produce an ice chunk. Lode stones [[x]] may also be made by lightning. It's generally believed they are magnetized by lightning, but I think they are probably made by it in the first place.
_There have been many reports of herd animals killed en mass by lightning. In one instance, 300 reindeer died from a single bolt of lightning. The animals are always found bunched together, and it's reported they were 'huddled together against the storm when the lightning struck'. They sometimes have antlers, or horns 'blown off'. I think the animals were pulled together into a powerful 'positive' lightning [[??]] strike, which would sweep to it anything with a surface charge, like big antlers in a thunderstorm.
_I will reconsider Surtsey, but I would want to do more than to look at a picture. Maybe I can visit some day.
From: lloyd kinder [mailto:lkindr@yahoo.com]
Sent: 18 January 2018 02:42
To: 'Andrew Hall'; Doug Ettinger
Cc: 'lloyd kinder'; rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net; mike@newgeology.us; 'Bruce Leybourne'; louis.hissink@bigpond.com
Subject: Everyone's Input on Earth's Crust, Please?
Mike & Doug, I think you guys have rather similar models. Have yous noticed that? But for now I'm comparing Mike's & Robert's recent statements regarding Earth's crust.
Mike said:
_My guess on protocontinent formation is that after the Earth had cooled sufficiently to have an unbroken basalt shell, it collided with a Mars-size planetessimal (matching conventional theory but occurring later). (Doug says the size of Gannymede, a little bigger than the Moon.)
_Material, thrown out far enough not to fall back to Earth, rapidly coalesced to form the Moon.
_The wounded portion of Earth would have been what geophysicists call a magma ocean. "Instead of reforming a basalt surface, the mix of molten upper mantle rock and basalt formed a refined andesitic/granitic scab over the wound, floating because it is less dense than both basalt and mantle." That became the protocontinent.
Robert said:
_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 [mixture of metamorphic rock and igneous rock] 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.
_First, I'd like to ask Mike & Robert what agreements & disagreements yous have with each other on the above.
_Second, I'd like to hear everyone else's agreements & disagreements on those statements. Okay?
_It looks like Mike & Doug agree that a large body hit the basaltic Earth at an early date & formed the granite continents. Doug adds that it also brought the ocean waters & other volatiles. Robert, I'm not sure if your ideas contradict Mike's & Doug's. Do they?
_I started separate threads for each of the different models at cnps.boards.net/board/12/science . I ask for some details for each model for the review process. I'd appreciate if everyone can provide some or all of the requested details on your specific threads. I'm referring to the threads toward the top that have sticky icons (thumb tacks). Versteh?
_Robert, I may get to reading Robert Johnson's NCGT article tomorrow, the one you sent me last July, I think. Maybe I'll get to your site tomorrow too, Doug.
_Finally, can anyone explain why so much of the granite as deep as about 4 or 5 miles in the Russian and German deep bore holes is highly fractured?
- Good Day. Lloyd
Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:22 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com> Cc: rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net mike@newgeology.us "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com
_Hello Lloyd, There are some agreements with Mike's and Robert's versions. But, I will list my basic differences with their alternative concepts. My version is greatly detailed with calculations in my paper: www.ettingerjournals.com/dbe_emm.shtml.
1. Yes, an icy Ganymede-sized struck a very molten young Earth that tilted its axis and displaced its orbit from about 2.7 to 3.0 AU between Mars and Jupiter.
2. The wounded Earth bringing some of its collisional debris fell toward the Sun; as it gained velocity its increasing centripetal force started to equal the Sun's gravity force; when these forces equalized the Earth assumed a new slightly elliptical orbit near 1 AU.
3. Orbiting slightly faster than the Moon it passed the Moon on each orbit; the combination of gravity forces between Moon and Earth slowed the Earth to match the orbital velocity of the Moon while at the same time the Moon moved outward away from the Earth to preserve angular momentum. This event is very important for understanding the evolution of the Earth's crust.
4. Other debris caused by the highly improbable collision created the Main Belt of asteroids, Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, other miscellaneous asteroids creating impacts on other solar system bodies called the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB). The dating for the LHB is about 4.1 to 3.9 bya. The oldest cratons Earth are dated about 3.6 bya. The beginning of Earth's oceans and primitive life is about 3.0 bya. The alignment of dating seems very probable.
5. Debris brought along by Earth either fell back to Earth or was swept up by the Moon for the next 600 to 800 million years; the debris that impacted the Moon caused the low velocity impactors called mascons and caused the Moon's mares that remained molten for almost 800 million years until all the collisional debris was depleted.
6. Yes, a magma ocean was created at and surrounding the Earth's impact crater that created the uplifted proto-continent be eventually surrounded by liquid oceans.
7. Prior to the impact, Earth was partially differentiated with a frozen basaltic crust; volatile gases and possibly liquid water gathered on and above the crust; the pristine Earth originally formed at 3.0 AU which was sufficiently far away from the proto-Sun's T-Tauri phase so that Earth's atmosphere and water were not boiled away.
8. The icy Ganymede impactor was mostly composed of volatiles such as CH4, CO2, NH4, and H20 that partially mixed with the basaltic crust, the mantle and debris that reached escape velocity to form the asteroids. This is why there are different categories of meteorite compositions and why the Earth's mega-continent was mostly granitic. The impactor's volatiles including water mixed with the Earth's materials to form the lighter weight granitic-type rocks.
9. Since the impact was mostly absorbed and inelastic, planet Earth was gorged and expanded in size causing the original basaltic crusts to crack open.
10. Other impactor volatiles went deeper into the mantle to be later differentiated to create volcanism, geological hot spots, continental size trapps, and the Moho layer that continue to this day.
11. Because of the tidal accelerations of the original closer distance between Moon and Earth; the dynamic imbalance of the single massive continent, the slippery Moho layer forming under the crusts, and the lighter granitic crust floating and pushing over the heavier basaltic crusts - continental drift and plate tectonics were created. These features are not seen on other celestial bodies.
12. As plates opened creating gaps or rifts, mantle material further differentiated to create more basaltic crust and flowed outward and upward to fill in and form oceanic ridges; ridges or mountains on the continental plates were continually created by the combination of subduction and pushing together of different continental plates.
(Note: The crustal features caused by catastrophic events occur later and are not involved in the Earth's metamorphosis. Also, much sedimentary rocks formed later due to wasting and layering of ejected materials from volcanoes and rifts. Possibly, very early volcanism did cause some of the sedimentary layers we see today.)
_I do not have any strong opinion about the fractured granite at 4 to 5 miles depth. Possibly, the mechanics of drilling into granite under high pressure creates the cracks. The important thing to gain from these explorations is that the continental crusts are deeper than oceanic crusts, and are composed mostly of granitic materials which is to be expected in my model of crust formation.
_I liked Mike's description that closely aligns with my model except for his idea of the Moon's formation. Celestial mechanics prevents a mass the size of the Moon being ejected from planet Earth to achieve escape velocity to give a Moon orbit. That is why NASA has invented an ad hoc concept of a rogue celestial body glancing off the Earth to form the Moon. Think about Moon's orbit carefully. Using Newton's equation for gravitation, you can easily prove that the Sun's gravitational force controls the Moon orbit, not the Earth. Henceforth, the Moon must be one of the original terrestrial planets with its rocky mantle and small iron core.
_Robert seems to have deep-seated questions about the origins of granite that requires water, the oldest sedimentary rocks requiring water (not so), and the dichotomy of the continental and oceanic crusts. He does not have to remain a "Neptunist". My model can answer these questions for him. Earth originally had water being formed 3.0 AU from the Sun and received more water from the ice-ball impactor that was mixed into Earth's original mantle and basaltic materials which is still being differentiated or ejected today. Do some homework by comparing the composition of ejected volatiles from both geological hot-spot-type and subduction-type volcanoes. You might be amazed. I am not a fanatical Bible person, but the story of my genesis model can be found there.
On the second day in the Bible's Genesis story I quote, "Let there be a firmament between the waters to divide the waters from waters. ......so God made the firmament and separated the water above the firmament. God called the firmament Heaven." The firmament, of course, was the first proto-mega-continent.
_All the best, By Doug Ettinger of ettingerjournals.com
Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:58 PM
From: "Robert Farrar" <rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> Cc: mike@newgeology.us "'Bruce Leybourne'" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com "'Doug Ettinger'" <dougettinger@verizon.net> "'Andrew Hall'" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
_Lloyd, My model appears to have some support from Russian geologists in the latest edition of the NCGT Journal, December 2017. In particular, the paper by Nina Pavlenkova- ‘Deep structure of continents and oceans and their origin’. Although I disagree with the one of the author’s conclusions, that the Earth is expanding, the main thrust of the paper is one which I agree with.
_It also appears that Russian geologists recognise the Earth’s hemispheric dichotomy (an Indo-Atlantic ‘continental’ hemisphere and a Pacific ‘oceanic’ hemisphere) as I have expressed elsewhere.
_In my opinion Earth contains vast amounts of volatiles (and was never a molten ball) which form a part of the “continentization” process; a modern example of this is found here: advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/e1701121.full
_And at least one geologist has questioned the popular view of Mount Etna:
www.newscientist.com/article/2158608-mount-etna-may-not-really-be-a-proper-volcano-at-all/
_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5274051/Mount-Etna-NOT-proper-volcano.html
_From the three above articles we can see that Earth’s water budget is derived from internal processes (none was brought by ‘dirty snowballs’) likewise Earth’s surface silica budget is the result of internal processes. Both Earth’s continents and oceans are eruptive structures.
_Incidentally, a similar process may be occurring on Venus today- the so-called “fountain of Aphrodite”- is closely related with the Cytherean ‘continent’ Aphrodite Terra. sci.esa.int/venus-express/58085-what-lies-beneath-venus-surface-revealed-through-the-clouds/
_As I previously stated I consider it entirely possible that sedimentary rocks (what I call primary sedimentary rocks geologists would label Precambrian) formed first and were later ‘granitized’. The duration of the initial continentization process is unknown but we see stratified deposits from volcanic eruptions laid down very quickly today so the process may have occurred in as little as 10^3- 10^6 years.
_Earth is defined as much as by what it is materially composed of as by its electrical environment and it is my view that Earth’s electrical environment was different in the recent (10^5 years) past and this may hamper any “retrodictions” that we make about the Earth’s evolution.
_I’d just like to go back to an earlier line of discussion regarding Andy’s ideas which got me digging around. With regards to lightning and the Surtsey eruption (inspired by an article by Louis Hissink lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/surtsey-island-sedimentology-conundrums/) I came across these words by Eric Crew B.Sc., F.I.E.E., F.R.A.S., writing in the SIS Chronology & Catastrophism Review journal January 1976 ‘Problems of Electricity in Astronomy’:
_“(1) Lightning causes the material in the discharge channel to be compressed and accelerated in the direction of the negative charge. (The free electrons moving in the opposite direction having relatively little affect on the flow of material). This jet of hot gas contains water vapour and if it is directed into the upper atmosphere, a streak of mist or ice particles will be formed, possibly several km long. On its downward path into the denser atmosphere, the particles bunch together and an ice lump may fall to the ground there are many such cases reported and even stones may have been formed when the lightning is in clouds of volcanic or other dust.
_“(2) A similar process to (1) may cause much larger bodies to form in the extensive atmosphere of Jupiter and these could be ejected into solar orbit as comets.
_“(3) If a charged body B (such as a large comet) approaches a planet A which has an atmosphere, opposite charges are induced and the atmosphere will be pulled out towards B. This increases the voltage gradient between B and the extended atmosphere very rapidly and violent discharges may take place even though the two bodies are separated by a considerable distance. The effect is intensified if both A and B have atmospheres, and even more so if they have opposite charges.
_“(4) The effect of (3) is to cause a jet of compressed material to form and for the substance to be ejected on to the negatively charged body, or the induced negative charge.
_“(5) Charges induced in the solid surface of A as B approaches will cause a ground current to flow and the resistance of its path will cause the induced charge to lag behind the line joining A and B. The electrical force will produce a turning moment on A and B and the resultant motion will depend on the direction of the torque in relation to the axis of rotation of A and B. The displacement may be increased if B has a crust floating on a molten interior, as the moment of inertia of this would be much smaller than that of a completely rigid sphere, even if the possible tilting of the axis is ignored.”
_In the following journal (Spring 1976) and following some mathematical calculations Crew continues:
“These calculations are merely to give an indication of the possible movement of the material in the channel, and particularly in view of the observation by Dr Worth which is described below, it seems reasonable to suppose there would be an appreciable acceleration of the whole channel towards the direction of the negative space charge, and that at the end of the flash of lightning the material in the channel would have enough kinetic energy to project it for a considerable further distance.
_“Another interesting characteristic of such a high speed jet is that it would produce a low pressure zone at its rear and it is possible that in some instances objects would be sucked off the ground in the vicinity by the inrush of air and carried to great heights, unharmed by the heat of the lightning.”
_Crew continues by describing the observation made by Dr Worth:
“One afternoon in July 1971, Dr L. H. Worth climbed to the summit of the Puy Mary, 1770 m, in central France. He saw a storm in the valley below him about 2 miles away and heard thunder. A few seconds afterwards he felt a strong blast of hot air, so powerful he had to lean against it. This happened three times and some people near him rushed away. He wrote to Nature to describe the incident and asked for comments. His letter was published on 21 April 1972 (p413) under the title "Atmospheric Mystery" and when I saw it I realised it supported the view of C. E. R. Bruce that electrical discharges would produce a jet. I wrote to Nature but the letter was not published nor was there any other reference to this subject. Another letter from Dr Worth was published in New Scientist on 8 February 1973. Again there were no comments and my letter was ignored.”
_Crew then discusses reports of incredibly large pieces of ice which fall after a lightning strike and asks:
“If a lump of ice can form by the action of lightning, then it seems reasonable to suppose that particles of other materials in the channel might be bunched together and fall as a stone. Dust would be heated to melting point (or carbonising if organic), and would perhaps fall as a fused mass, especially if the amount in the atmosphere was increased by volcanic eruptions.”
_From the above I would ask Andy to reconsider the suggestion that the pebbles and cobbles found on the island of Surtsey were, indeed, formed by lightning during the eruption and not eroded later (perhaps they were exposed later by wave action?). But having read Crew I think Andy is spot on with his model of how the geomorphology of the SW United States originated.
_Another question for Andy, is the area under your investigation known for fossil deposits? The comment by Crew of objects being sucked off the ground and carried to great heights got me thinking- could fossil deposits have been formed in gigantic watery electrical storms, such as the ones you describe?
_Regards, Robert
Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:36 PM
From: "Andrew Hall" <hallad1257@gmail.com>
To: "Robert Farrar" <rfarrar.lpool@virgin.net> Cc: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com> mike@newgeology.us "Bruce Leybourne" <leybourneb@iascc.org> louis.hissink@bigpond.com "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
_There are several fossil groups in the Colorado Plateau sediments. There is one fossil group missing, or predominately missing (i'm not sure the geographic extent) which I think is the Triassic period. The fossils tend to be in deposits, as if swept together by a storm, or flooding. Catastrophists have often pointed this out, suggesting a large meteor. I think a survey of where and what fossils have been discovered associated with each age would show an interesting picture, if looked at with my storm model in mind. If anyone knows where such information is available open source, please let me know where I can get it.
_Have you seen this picture, Robert? I'm glad you brought lightning up. I think thermo-electric effects play a significant role in thunderstorms, because the vertically layered atmosphere presents changing dielectric layers to current flow, just like changing conductors in a thermo-pile, or thermo-couple circuit. I wrote an article called, The Summer Thermopile about what I suspect is the main driver behind thunderstorms. I also think the thermo-electric effect is largely what causes ice ages.
_It seems more than likely to me lightning would produce an ice chunk. Lode stones [[x]] may also be made by lightning. It's generally believed they are magnetized by lightning, but I think they are probably made by it in the first place.
_There have been many reports of herd animals killed en mass by lightning. In one instance, 300 reindeer died from a single bolt of lightning. The animals are always found bunched together, and it's reported they were 'huddled together against the storm when the lightning struck'. They sometimes have antlers, or horns 'blown off'. I think the animals were pulled together into a powerful 'positive' lightning [[??]] strike, which would sweep to it anything with a surface charge, like big antlers in a thunderstorm.
_I will reconsider Surtsey, but I would want to do more than to look at a picture. Maybe I can visit some day.