Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:18 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:John666,

You have summarily and childishly dismissed Brigit's evidence of mountain uplift.
Childishly dismissed?
What are you talking about?
You are talking about the picture of ice cream?

THE ICE CREAM WAS CREATED FROM TOP-DOWN

How do either you or Brigit know that the mountain WASN'T created from the top-down?

A forum member who died, created a thread about that http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=4&t=2780

Too bad that not more people on this forum realized how brilliant his idea of Mountains being the Result of a Duning Process really was.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:16 pm

John666
Neither Brigit nor myself claim to know anything. Brigit was providing evidence for her view which is more than you have done. We on this thread at least are aware of Starbiter's work.
You still haven't answered my question.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:36 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:John666
Neither Brigit nor myself claim to know anything. Brigit was providing evidence for her view which is more than you have done. We on this thread at least are aware of Starbiter's work.
You still haven't answered my question.
I still haven't answered what question?
No matter what I say, you are still going to continue to deny that the Great Flood ever happened.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by nick c » Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:23 pm

John666,
Instead of derailing this thread, why don't you open a new thread dealing with your theory?

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:31 am

nick c wrote:John666,
Instead of derailing this thread, why don't you open a new thread dealing with your theory?
If you want to open a thread about anything, you have my permission to do it.
I am not derailing anything, I am having a open minded debate ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Which is something some of you have forgotten how it looks like.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by nick c » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:36 am

John666 wrote:If you want to open a thread about anything, you have my permission to do it.
You are missing the point, I do not need your permission. The point is that you are free to open a new thread on your preferred topic.
I am not derailing anything
Several participants in this thread apparently feel that you are derailing the thread. One of those participants (Lloyd) is the author of the original post that started this thread.
I am having a open minded debate ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Well then that statement shows your misunderstanding. This thread is NOT ABOUT EVERYTHING, hence the expressed complaint about derailment.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:31 am

Lloyd wrote:Nick, if possible, how about splitting this thread into two, starting at John's first post and name the second thread something like John's Theory or Water Earth Theory of Ancient Global Cataclysm?
Lloyd, if possible, answer my question about the cause of earthquakes, and while you are at it, explain how an impact near Madagascar :?: :?: :?: could have caused American cordillera and the mountain ranges of Tibet.

But if it isn't possible, because you feel insecure in your answers, please continue dodging my questions, in the hope that censorship is going to kick in sometimes soon.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:29 am

John666
But if it isn't possible, because you feel insecure in your answers, please continue dodging my questions
Does that apply to you too, vis-a-vis my questions?
P.S. Lloyd provided two links.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:21 am

I am glad that there are certain forum members, certain free spirits who appreciate open-mindedness, but now is time to fight ;)
john666 wrote:
Lloyd, if possible, answer my question about the cause of earthquakes, and while you are at it, explain how an impact near Madagascar :?: :?: :?: could have caused American cordillera and the mountain ranges of Tibet.

But if it isn't possible, because you feel insecure in your answers, please continue dodging my questions, in the hope that censorship is going to kick in sometimes soon.


Image

There are two reasons why an impact near Madagascar could not have caused American cordillera and the mountain ranges of Tibet:

1.As one can see on the map, the mountain ranges of Africa are lower, than the American cordillera and the mountain ranges of Tibet.
If a shock wave, whose center was near Madagascar, had caused the mountain ranges, it would be logical to assume that the greatest deformation(the biggest height of the ranges), would have been near Madagascar.
But that is obviously not what we see.

2.The orientation of the cordillera is North-South, while the orientation of mountain ranges of Tibet is East -West.
One would expect that if the mountain ranges were caused by the same process, they would have the same spatial orientation, but that is not what we see.

To be continued...

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:39 am

There is one big mistake that almost all of those who discuss geological history of the world make.
They almost never look at the topographical map of the world!!!
Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise to us, that "they" regularly make huge mistakes in logic.
As one can see on the topographical map of the world, American Cordillera runs parallel to the Americas.

Therefore it is a logical assumption, that the process that shaped the part of the supercontinent known as Americas, also at the same time created American Cordillera.

Now lets turn our attention to Eurasia;
I don't think that there is a name for the mountain ranges of Turkey,Iran,Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet, Kazakhstan,Mongolia and Far east Siberia, even though it is clear that they are are all part of the same structure, that goes East-West throughout Eurasia.
Therefore I will name these mountain ranges, The Great Eurasian mountain ranges.

If one understands that what I said about the connection between the formation of American Cordillera and the formation of Americas in general, is correct, that one must also understand that a similar connection must exist between the formation of The Great Eurasian mountain ranges and the formation of Eurasia in general.

In other words, the entire Eurasia as it is today, was created in one single time period, NOT SEVERAL OF THEM!!!

That what I just said, is the basics of basics, If one does not understand something as simple as that, one will never understand the more concrete stuff connected with the creation of specific mountain ranges.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:13 am

john666 wrote:Another thing that is a very strong indication that the Earth is for the most part(90-95%) water;

We all know that the earthquakes are a electrical phenomena.
But the question is, how did the "battery", how did the electrical energy that causes earthquakes "build up"?
Through large masses of water of course!!!

Water is a great conductor of electricity;
Land masses that weight billions of tons;
The only way you can shake land masses that weight billions of tons, is through HUGE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY

And how can that electrical energy build up, if not through large masses of water that conduct large amounts of electricity?
Nobody has been able to debunk the impeccable logic behind this argument, so what I said has to be a FACT 8-)

I am going to explain how the Alps and Apennines were created, but before I go into the specifics, I will have to explain some general things;

Image
(if one wants to see a bigger image of this map go at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... -Frame.png)

As one can see on the map, The Great Eurasian mountain ranges, end(if viewed from the East) at the "border" between Western Turkey and the Mediterranean.
What one can also see, is that we can draw a line, extending through Mediterranean and The Great Eurasian mountain ranges.
What one can also see, is that parts of Europe that follow the Mediterranean, are the most mountainous parts of Europe.

What conclusions can we draw from that?
Before I get to that, let me remind you, that the best explanation offered so far, for the way, by which the mountains were created, came from starbiter who passed away http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=4&t=2780

I also have to say that after his death, some unfortunate developments on this forum came to pass;
This forum should have wholeheartedly embraced his basic ideas(because they are obviously correct)
But what happened instead, is that certain forum members, continued regurgitating basically the same conventional explanations for mountain formation, that we have heard from the corrupt mainstream.
The only difference being, that their explanations have a flair of a little bit of catastrophism.

I am going to break this circle of misinformation.
And I am going to do so, by combining starbiters research with mine own.
starbiter said that the mountains were created by a process of duning, meaning by a process in which water and electricity shaped and hardened smaller particles into large structures such as mountains.
He was of course correct, but what he didn't realize is that the material didn't come from Venus or any other celestial object, but that it came from Earth itself!!!

All the material from which the mountains were formed, is 100% Earth material.
The electricity however, did come from some other celestial body that had close encounter with the Earth.
One could say that this other celestial body, deformed the skin of the Earth

"What conclusions can we draw from that?", was the question asked;
The conclusions are the following:

1.Where there is now the water in the Mediterranean, was once land;
2.The land was turned - through the enormous electricity of the intruder celestial body - into smaller particles;
3.These particles, through the process of duning, turned into the mountain ranges of southern Europe, and partially into The Great Eurasian mountain ranges;
4.The fourth conclusion is not so obvious, so I am going to explain it at length;
The majority if not the great majority of the land material from which The Great Eurasian mountain ranges were created, came from area of the Earth that is south of the Mediterranean.

People might say, how is that possible, south of the Mediterranean is Africa :?:
Yes it is, but that was not always so.
As even conventional geologists have recognized (because it is so obvious) The Americas and Africa were once part of the same structure.
What however happened is that some huge electrical force, moved Africa Eastwards.
If I would have to guess, I would say that this movement of Africa Eastwards, and the creation of The Great Eurasian mountain ranges all happened, in more or less the same time-frame.
In fact I would go a step further and say that almost ALL the formations that we see on Earth, were created in more or less the same time-frame.

Big statements, I know;
But how else can one explain the obvious connections, between the different structures visible on the topographical map of the world?

Now, using the same principles, lets try to explain the formation the Alps and the Apennines;

Image
(if one wants to see a bigger image of this map go at http://www.graphatlas.com/europe_map_re ... rivers.jpg)

As one can see in the image the Alps and Apennines are part of the same whole.
Even wiki admits something similar to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_Mountains

"The Apennines were created in the Apennine orogeny beginning in the early Neogene (about 20 mya, the middle Miocene) and continuing today.[19] Geographically they are partially or appear to be continuous with the Alpine system. Prior to the explosion of data on the topic from about the year 2000 many authors took the approach that the Apennines had the same origin as the Alps. Even today some authors use the term Alpine-Apennine system. They are not, however, the same system and did not have the same origin. The Alps were millions of years old before the Apennines rose from the sea."

Those many authors before the year 2000 where definitely correct, because as one can see on the map, the different heights of the mountain ranges(the Alps compared to Apennines) become apparent only when the angle changes from 5-10 degrees(the Alps system) to almost 90 degrees(Alpine-Apennine system).

Are we to presume that this is only a coincidence?
According to the mainstream science yes, but on the thunderbolts forum one should have higher standards.

The land material that was "used" in the formation of the Alpine-Apennine system, was "extracted" from the area that is today occupied by the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Sea(below Italy).
The formation of the Alpine-Apennine system, was a duning process!!!

There you have it people!!!

KNOWLEDGE

User avatar
comingfrom
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by comingfrom » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:44 pm

Thank you, John.
I think that the possibility, that the volume of the Earth is for the most part(90-95%) made of water should be seriously considered by this forum.
The Earth is mostly made of rock.

Biological processes, bacteria and plants, break down the rock minerals and provide free oxygen to the atmosphere.
The oxygen exposed to the solar wind in the upper atmosphere reacts with the protons to form water.
This is where water comes from.

A period of disruption to the magnetosphere can cause greater exposure to the solar wind, resulting in increased water production, and great floods.
How do either you or Brigit know that the mountain WASN'T created from the top-down?
While I believe in duning processes, and electrical deposition, I think it is obvious, and there is evidence to show, the major mountains you are referring to are uplifted.

~Paul

Maol
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by Maol » Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:02 pm

comingfrom wrote:The oxygen exposed to the solar wind in the upper atmosphere reacts with the protons to form water.
This is where water comes from.

~Paul
Hydrogen ions = Protons in the solar wind react with Oxygen ions and Electrons in the solar wind to form water.

This is where water comes from.

john666
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by john666 » Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:56 am

comingfrom wrote:Thank you, John.
I think that the possibility, that the volume of the Earth is for the most part(90-95%) made of water should be seriously considered by this forum.
The Earth is mostly made of rock.

Biological processes, bacteria and plants, break down the rock minerals and provide free oxygen to the atmosphere.
The oxygen exposed to the solar wind in the upper atmosphere reacts with the protons to form water.
This is where water comes from.

A period of disruption to the magnetosphere can cause greater exposure to the solar wind, resulting in increased water production, and great floods.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are assuming that at the end of this process, clouds form, and that the rain puts the water in the spaces that are now occupied by the oceans
comingfrom wrote:While I believe in duning processes, and electrical deposition, I think it is obvious, and there is evidence to show, the major mountains you are referring to are uplifted.

~Paul
Image

There is no evidence;
There are only claims presented as evidence.
In the link that you gave it says:
"Yes, Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm per year growth rate 10 km in a million years!!"

More then 1 cm per year amounts to more then 10 cm in a period of 10 years.

Where are the photographs, to document this process?

There aren't any.

If what the geologists are saying is true , it would be very easy to make photographs of the areas of the Himalayas that were previously underground

And in these photographs one would see the difference between the areas of the Himalayas that are "normal" compared to the areas that were recently uplifted, in a similar way as one can see the difference between the different rock steps that I have just linked(that is only a rough analogy).

But there are no such photographs, because there is no such evidence, because the geologists are lying.

"Uplifting of mountains", is an alleged process that defies Gravity.
There is absolutely nothing logical in it, unless somebody can show how Gravity can be defied, when billions of tons are concerned.

User avatar
comingfrom
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Earth - The Water Planet and Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread post by comingfrom » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:56 pm

Thank you, John.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are assuming that at the end of this process, clouds form, and that the rain puts the water in the spaces that are now occupied by the oceans
I'm not saying that's how all the water originally got there, but one process by which water is being added now. Likely there was already some water when the Earth formed.

There are probably other processes which create water. Some water diviners distinguish juvenile water sources from underground (as opposed to normal underground water supplied by the evaporation cycle).
There is no evidence;
There are only claims presented as evidence.
In the link that you gave it says:
"Yes, Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm per year growth rate 10 km in a million years!!"

More then 1 cm per year amounts to more then 10 cm in a period of 10 years.

Where are the photographs, to document this process?

There aren't any.
Of course there are.
But you can't tell a 1 centimeter difference in a mountain from a photograph, and you don't have a photograph from a million years ago.

I am presuming scientists have far more reliable ways of determining that measurement than examining photos.

As for the 10Km/10 million years, that is calculated on the presumption that the growth rate has always been steady.
Of course, the uplift was much greater in the beginning, putting the age of the Himalayas in the thousands, rather than millions of years. (The highest peak, Everest, is 8.8Km)
If what the geologists are saying is true , it would be very easy to make photographs of the areas of the Himalayas that were previously underground
But the fact is, there are still sea shells on the surface, from when it was ocean floor.
And in these photographs one would see the difference between the areas of the Himalayas that are "normal" compared to the areas that were recently uplifted, in a similar way as one can see the difference between the different rock steps that I have just linked(that is only a rough analogy).
Did you go take photographs after the latest quake in Nepal? I'm sure you will find some areas uplifted.

Though regular massive earthquakes are a feature of the region which do displace parts in relation to other parts, on the whole, the mountain range is uplifting as one whole piece.
But there are no such photographs, because there is no such evidence, because the geologists are lying.
Maybe you need to look up their papers, to know how they arrived at their "lie".

I'm pretty sure they didn't arrive at 1cm/year by sitting around looking at photographs.
And they have had a few decades of data now, so they are not looking for a 1cm change.
Surely they at have least got the direction right, even if their rate is an estimate.
"Uplifting of mountains", is an alleged process that defies Gravity.
There is absolutely nothing logical in it, unless somebody can show how Gravity can be defied, when billions of tons are concerned.
Gravity is not a strong force.
The push of drifting continents is a very great force.
And there is far more weight in the continents, than in the mountains.

Besides that, if you look for them, there are steps in the mountain ranges.
There are the high peaks, the highlands, lower peaks, lower highlands, foothills, etc., down to the plains.
It is certainly not a steady slope, from the plain to the highest point.

And the line of highest peaks shows us where the upthrusting force is the greatest.
Some more interesting pics
~Paul

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests