Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

Sure Plenty of evidence.

The simple fact that atoms, all atoms undergo super conductivity.

The laws of conservation of energy is another.

atomic ionization another.

The fact that atoms demonstrate these properties esatblishes that atomic formation is based on back ground constant of the surrounding enviroment. demonstartion ionzation of copper occurs under a flame or electric current, including light spectrum this behavior of copper establishes that copper under goes a change due to its enviroment, hence a drastic increase or decrease in a atoms enviroment results in drastic changes to the atom, (see transmutaion of atomic elements in your chemistry book.)

the state of atomic behavior of a atom then simply depends on the background energy of the planet, solar system, or galaxy, as a result of a solar system the sun determins the background constant by its emmission, in the aspect of a galaxy the galaxy emmission determins the base of the back ground constant of energy but in various regions the local group of stars determine the background energy for that region in combination.

like wise the local star group of a region determine the center of gravity, the base of atomic esacpe velocity, the stablity of atoms by event of back ground constant, and there fore ionization potential. simply the region must have a signal frequency, like a radio transmitter which carries a given singal that reapears as reciveable, in other words region gravity determins the number of chemical forms possible. atoms in zero gravity seperate due to ionzation caused by energy exspenditure, wherein the atom must satisfiy the vaccum, heat sink of the cosomos in order to remain stable, this is achived by the hydrogen atom which can disapate the energy single rapidly enough, and retain energy from the enviroment to cause consevation of enegry to occur.
if the various atoms do not have a singal of this gravity matrix, they simply would exspend energy becoming radioactive in the proccess of atomic decay, just as the atom it self must have this matrix of gravity so also must each chemical have a gravity matrix, the energy of that chemical is associated with the millions of gravity signals of the matrix acting as the background energy. look at it this way if you have a magnet a piece of iron will attract when so far way a bigger piece will react a different way, in response to a magnetic, or lok at it this way when you trun up the volume on the radio you ears hear a little music, trun the vloume way up your ears react to the louder music, or a example of the iris of the eye, the eye contracts with a large amount of light but exspands with little light, like wise chemicals form in the same way as if each chemical was picking up a radio signal and reacting, because there are various signals in the gravity matrix various chemicals can form any where on earth.

there are some 4,000,000 plus know chemicals on earth, with 66,000 of them in common useage, the number of possible gravity matrixs for are local group of stars at its base is some 14,400 monoatomic chemicals, including diatomic chemicals such as H2, atoms that bind with like atoms to form simple diatomic chemicals or structures.

the most significant gravity signture for or earth is the suns reaction with are nearest neighbor alhpa centuri, a binary star, in which the reaction of that signture is resposible for SiO4, CH2,H2O, in general the basic signture of life.

Large proof is seen in the Ozone hole over the earth and in spring, when the earth begins spring it begins its approach toward the sun, at the same time the earth apporaches alpha begin in direct alignment in summer, during the fall the earth deprats from its close appoach to the sun and fall begins, at the same time the ozone hole appears, Ozone is O3, in spring during the approach the ozone hole will close.

simply earth chemistry relavant to or current form of chemistry began about 27,000 years ago maybe a little longer, when our sun came into apporach of the alpha binary star as our sun passed though the galaxy. ther are about 9,000 years left in which we will have a simular and related chemistry to our current chemistry on earth.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon
 
Ahh, thanks andre. but im going to bite for entertainment value.

"The simple fact that atoms, all atoms undergo super conductivity."

Under what conditions? Extreme cold seems to be the main one.

"demonstartion ionzation of copper occurs under a flame or electric current, including light spectrum this behavior of copper establishes that copper under goes a change due to its enviroment, hence a drastic increase or decrease in a atoms enviroment results in drastic changes to the atom, (see transmutaion of atomic elements in your chemistry book.) "

Whoaa, you seem to be confusing nuclear changes with electronic changes in the atom, which is just silly.

"the state of atomic behavior of a atom then simply depends on the background energy of the planet, solar system, or galaxy, as a result of a solar system the sun determins the background constant by its emmission, in the aspect of a galaxy the galaxy emmission determins the base of the back ground constant of energy but in various regions the local group of stars determine the background energy for that region in combination"

What sort of energy? We have spectrographs from stars far away in time and space that show the same elements, spectrographs from all sorts of stars of all ages and sizes. Tehse dont show any difference in atoms or atomic rules that we have enumerated today.


"the base of atomic esacpe velocity"

So yoru trying to say that this changes noteiceably in different regions of the galaxy? of course it does, if yoru clsoe to a star, btu it gets lower and lowe r the furtehr you are from it. Gravitational interactiosn are extremely weak over large distances, and cetainly wouldnt affect such movements over the areas you seem to be talking about.

"the most significant gravity signture for or earth is the suns reaction with are nearest neighbor alhpa centuri, a binary star, in which the reaction of that signture is resposible for SiO4, CH2,H2O, in general the basic signture of life."

Nope, makes no sense. Formations of Sio4, etc can be easily explained by cheistry on this palent, without any reference to Alpha centauri etc.
 
guthrie:
Then say that you instead input catastrophic data instead and say that would require some other subsidence and such activity. So whre is the evidence for such subsidence?
Click to expand...
--There wouldn't be any such evidence as far as I am aware(at least <i>directly</i>). Why, what would you expect to see if cooling rates were high?

Then as for acceleration of radioactive decay, by how much?
Click to expand...
--Depends on how much decay you want to pack into a certain span of time. But if you want to extrapolate from the biblical account and couple it with the young earth interpretation of the geologic column, acceleration by about 5.0 x 10^8 seems to be in order.

and how? How do you cause acceleration of radioactive decay?
Click to expand...
--Beats me. Go find a YEC interested in nuclear physics.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
 
"--There wouldn't be any such evidence as far as I am aware(at least directly). Why, what would you expect to see if cooling rates were high?"

Well, there would be, since i have dragged out of the depths of my brain, that rocks crystallise differently due to different cooling rates, so surely if you cool them faster/ slower, the crystals will show up smaller/ bigger, etc. therefore we need cores from teh ocean floor rocks to check this. Then we can mimic cooling/ heating cycles in the laboratory quite well, probably even most of the pressure to go with it, so we can get some sort of idea of what goes on where.

"--Depends on how much decay you want to pack into a certain span of time. But if you want to extrapolate from the biblical account and couple it with the young earth interpretation of the geologic column, acceleration by about 5.0 x 10^8 seems to be in order."

But then your saying the bible is a true and accurate record of what went on, and looking for evidence to fit it. And those links andrew gave seemed to throw the whole accelerated decay thing out the window.



HHmm gravity, at the moment i understand it to be something like the attractive force between lumps of matter, its very weak, but goes a long way, but is noticeable most easily in large masses such as the earth. Its theoretical particles are gravitons, or else you get gravity waves, but the detectors havent really found any yet.
 
Well, there would be, since i have dragged out of the depths of my brain, that rocks crystallise differently due to different cooling rates, so surely if you cool them faster/ slower, the crystals will show up smaller/ bigger, etc. therefore we need cores from teh ocean floor rocks to check this. Then we can mimic cooling/ heating cycles in the laboratory quite well, probably even most of the pressure to go with it, so we can get some sort of idea of what goes on where.
Click to expand...
--Possible, but I am unaware of any such differential determination. I am aware that by analysis of crystal morphology you can tell if an igneous rock was cooled under the presence of water or not, though that would be a given for ocean floor basalts.

--I have seen a few studies on shock hydrodynamics but not enough to make any viable conclusion--as indicated in the article I will leave the gas dynamics to others who already have that ball rolling.
"But then your saying the bible is a true and accurate record of what went on, and looking for evidence to fit it."
--Not at all. Indeed that may be the scientific methodology of inquiry for the ICR, AiG, ect. but that is the fundamental difference between myself and other YEC's and YECist organizations. I plan on writing an article or two, and possibly a book later on in life on the subject--depending on time constraints.

"And those links andrew gave seemed to throw the whole accelerated decay thing out the window."
--Not at all. All the article threw out was the feasibility of the speculations given in Woodmorappe's article. I certainly do not agree with with Woodmorappe's postulates, though I wouldn't think of illustrating my disagreement with such an unwarranted passionately critical approach as is given in the rebutal Andre cited, despite the folly of Woodmorappe's paper.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
 
"Possible, but I am unaware of any such differential determination. I am aware that by analysis of crystal morphology you can tell if an igneous rock was cooled under the presence of water or not, though that would be a given for ocean floor basalts."

Ahh, but i am aware that in igneous rocks, you can tell how slowly they cooled by the grain structure, hence for example, gabbros, you have coarse grained gabbros, or fine grained basalts, the finer grains being due to the faster cooling rate. From a wee book i have on it all:
"Regarding cooling, a useful rule of thumb is that the faster a magma cools, the finer the final grain size will be."

Now, clearly this will vary according to exact chemical composition, but the rule of thumb still stands and can be experimented with, therefore my orginal suggestion about checking rock cores is a useful way of checking that your hypotheis about extremely fast cooling etc is correct.

"Not at all. Indeed that may be the scientific methodology of inquiry for the ICR, AiG, ect. but that is the fundamental difference between myself and other YEC's and YECist organizations. I plan on writing an article or two, and possibly a book later on in life on the subject--depending on time constraints."

But when you say such things as (from the page on teh ocean floor)
"As the pre-flood ocean lithosphere was subducted near to their corresponding convergent plate boundaries hot upwelling mantle rock would replace it. "
or:

" One significant observation associated with my analysis is the fact that these equations so coherently agree with the data when inserting mainstream values(of course they are based on uniformitarian assumptions, but still they produce accurate results). Plugging in catastrophic time constraints does not give us the observed values of ocean bathymetry using the half-space cooling or plate models alone. A new model of plate cooling of the oceanic lithosphere is required in order to have the ocean basins subside to today's observed values. "

Or in other words, you are looking for ways to fit the current data to a preset idea, namely that of a flood, catastrophe that happened only a few thousand years ago.

"Not at all. All the article threw out was the feasibility of the speculations given in Woodmorappe's article. I certainly do not agree with with Woodmorappe's postulates, though I wouldn't think of illustrating my disagreement with such an unwarranted passionately critical approach as is given in the rebutal Andre cited, despite the folly of Woodmorappe's paper."

But if his assertions are the main point of radioactive accelerative decay, then what else is ther eto cause you to believe it happened/ can happen under normal earth conditions? As for passion, that neednt detract from the actual facts and science in the article, just add a layer of fun or unpleasantness to it. After all, if we could all be perfectly rational all the time, well, im not sure what the world would be like.
 
here'e a point.

transmutaion adn decay are dependant on background constant of the atoms enviroment, for that is 288 kelvins, in regions of earth where there is dramatic change, cool spots the rate of decay will change.

as the earth has a back ground constant the majority of decay will be the same, it would probably be best to sort sample by latituted, relavant to region tempture zones, such as above the 40 th lat, and 30 lat South to 30 lat north, with one small band of 10 degrees, then sort by depth, and time exspoed to depth and enviormental conditions, this would take a grid, and then a time curve formula, for enviroment changes, wheater water of land. solar light exsposer would also be a factor relavant to surface condtions.

to cause acclereated decay of a atom requires a change in back ground constant, however this would be representive of a small duration of change in the total life span of the atom, depending on isopte or if you view the life of a atom as it,slife time as a given element of the various forms it will take before depleteing to hydrogen.

atoms are subject to formation by stellar gravity of stars in a local region, there for they can from in a local region, and can remains stable in that region, there subseptablity to change will change when that atom moves through out the region of local stars. the base factor of decay for the atom then becomes the rate of energy exchange providing atomic stabltiy, new back gound constant.

the easiest way to accelrate decay other than by strong xrays bombardment, would be to subject the atom to temptures below 2 kelvins, or exstremly cold temptures, cauing exspenditrue of spectrum energy and internal changes and prefomance of the atom.



gravity is seen as being weak, and in general it is weak in comparsion to the mass of the entire object, but it ie equal to any portion of the mass, gravity is very strong so strong that if the enviroment of other energy did not insulate you form the charge of gravity, you would be burnt toast in faster than a atto second/nano second.
if just accidently there was some distrbance in the balance of insulating energy that protects you and the force charge of gravity you finger would be gone before you even could feel it gone, before you even could see that it was gone it would be gone, and you would not even feel any pain.

gravity is a postive force i.e. atracting force, with a large negtive charge. gravity waves should be detected all the time by perhial motion, or remaint energy signiture.
the gravity in one gram is enough force to push one gram half way to venus, or lift one person at 200 lbs to the otter earth atomsphere around 600 miles above earth, in a flash.


DWAYNE D.L.RABON
 
I enjoy reading Dwayne's posts. They are like trying to figure out
a complicated jigsaw puzzle or something. It's like his brain contains
a vast amount of knowledge, but it comes out mixed up, or at least
it does to me. I often wonder what he is trying to say, no offense
to you Dwayne, it's just that my brain can't comprehend. Case in
point:
______________________________________________
if just accidently there was some distrbance in the balance of insulating energy that protects you and the force charge of gravity you finger would be gone before you even could feel it gone, before you even could see that it was gone it would be gone, and you would not even feel any pain.
_______________________________________________
 
Undivine science is insisting on regular radioactive decay all the time and there seems to be several independend radiogenic dating methods that concur and that also concur with other dating techniques like layer (varve) counting, drendology, volcanic tracers, paleo magnetic chron identifications, etc.
Click to expand...
--I havent done much research on varves, but one thing that I think you are missing is that if the Cambrian+ geologic column was deposited in a short period of time, at least your last two would be knocked off the list. Regarding dendrochronology, it would depend on what you are trying to get at.

"I've read your paper on acceleration in radioisotopic decay. A most interesting hypothesis on Venus. I would agree that the popular runaway greenhouse effect cannot explain Venus heat."
--I have never seen an attempt at explaining the crustal evolution of venus to any atmospheric phenomena--eg. a runaway greenhouse. Though thinking about it I doubt it could ever preform such geologic work as is seen to have occured so rapidly in the past on Venus.

"However explaining it with an acceleration in radioisotopic decay may not be the answer either."
--May not be, but I havent seen a hint at any other plausible answer. Accelerated radioisotopic decay sure explains it very well, so I thought I would note that in my paper.

"Even if that acceleration was possible, I doubt if there would be enough radioisotopes available to reach those high energy states. And if such an event turned Venus into Dante's inferno, why would an acceleration in radioisotopic decay not have done the same on Earth?"
--I havent done any calculations for radiogenic heat on Venus for its rheology and radioisotopic distribution, though I have for the Earth. From the findings of my paper, it would seem that the same thing that apparently has occured on Venus would have occured on the Earth--tectonically resurfacing of the Earth. Though at the end of my paper on the initiation of CPT I note:

There are still the questions of why the geologic evolution of Venus, as a result of a pulse of radiogenic heat, was so much more catastrophic than the earths and why its tectonism has come to a screeching halt shortly after this global resurfacing event. I would suggest that the answer will be found in the modeling of heat transfer <i>and the wide-spread presence of water as a plate cooling agent</i>.
Click to expand...

"Moreover it does not explain the current retrograde rotation of Venus. "
--Indeed it doesn't. The retrograde spin of any planet (including the Sun's rotation axis) would not be explained by an internal force relative to the planet. Such cosmological properties would have to be related to events occuring during solar cosmogenesis from the initial nebula.

"There happens to be a hypothesis around that can account for all anomalities of Venus: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...&threadid=23713

But it is work in progress."
--Are you conjuring up a theory from scratch in that thread or is it based on published scientific studies I might be able to look at? Just wondering. I am most interested in the <i>source of heat</i> for the global resurfacing.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
 
Ah ha! I have dug up a geology textbook I have, and fuond the bit on plate tectonics. It seems that they did do sediment cores on the seafloor plates. They show increasing depth of sediment further away from the ridges, as you would expect with increasing age hence increasing amount of stuff deposited on them, moreover, these cores show dateable fossils that match the magnetic reversal dating and so demonstrate there has not been any major catastrophe affecting plate movement that much. Unless of course you want to try and totally discredit the potassium argon dating system.

"transmutaion adn decay are dependant on background constant of the atoms enviroment, for that is 288 kelvins, in regions of earth where there is dramatic change, cool spots the rate of decay will change.

as the earth has a back ground constant the majority of decay will be the same, it would probably be best to sort sample by latituted, relavant to region tempture zones, such as above the 40 th lat, and 30 lat South to 30 lat north, with one small band of 10 degrees, then sort by depth, and time exspoed to depth and enviormental conditions, this would take a grid, and then a time curve formula, for enviroment changes, wheater water of land. solar light exsposer would also be a factor relavant to surface condtions."

Nope, this is contrary to what i have learnt about decay. decay is constant no matter what the chemical situation. that article says it can vary with beta decay, in plasma, ie not earth normal conditions, so im afraid thats jsut silly what you are saying.

"slife time as a given element of the various forms it will take before depleteing to hydrogen."

Depleting to hydrogen? dont you know iron is the stable midpoint? Or that many of the heavier elements go straight down teh periodic table to lead, not hydrogen?

"atoms are subject to formation by stellar gravity of stars in a local region, there for they can from in a local region, and can remains stable in that region, there subseptablity to change will change when that atom moves through out the region of local stars. "

Is possibly a garbled laymans understanding of the current state of knowledge, but otherwise, not worth considering.

"the easiest way to accelrate decay other than by strong xrays bombardment, would be to subject the atom to temptures below 2 kelvins, or exstremly cold temptures, cauing exspenditrue of spectrum energy and internal changes and prefomance of the atom."

Below 2K is very cold. They make bose-einstein condensates at less than 1K, but nobody has reported any greater amount of radioactive decay at that temp than i have come across.
http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00400.htm

"gravity is a postive force i.e. atracting force, with a large negtive charge. gravity waves should be detected all the time by perhial motion, or remaint energy signiture.
the gravity in one gram is enough force to push one gram half way to venus, or lift one person at 200 lbs to the otter earth atomsphere around 600 miles above earth, in a flash."

Sounds nice, but can you provide any experimental data, and if gravity is negative, whats positive?
 
Garbbled you say, you had no idea untill i told you about it. not even a twinkle!!!

like i said before there are various states of background constant, 2 degrees kelvin, 50 degrees kelvin 10 degrees and 288 degrees,

to change the backgound constant of a atoms enviroment, changes the distribution of energy recived and emited by the atoms, this cause the atom to jump, even shot like a arrow acoss a room, float around in the air in various directions ect.... in addtion it causes ionization, excited electron orbitals, gamma and beta emmisions during orbital changes ect...... this is normal practice with atoms and in chemistry, such as magnetic pulse, laser pulse, spectrum emmissions to produce unifrom chemical reactions ect..... inozation of atoms on earth only occur naturall to the 3 and 4 th postive, but as much as to the 7 th postive ion, it gets more difficult to remove electrons from the atom past the 7 th electron, at which point strong xrays become the main soucre of furthur izonzation of the atom, also at this point the nucleaous of the atom becomes increaseingly unstable with the contiuned release of atoms produceing byproducts. the atom in this higher ionzation state continually attracts free electrons in the atomsphere or enviroment even stripping electrons from other atoms, this is the first state of radioactivity. and may capture electrons that are quite plenlty ful in earth enviroment given density of earths mass and light and solar wind capture for earth which makes electrons abundant in a small area, this little abundant graden of electrons allows atoms to make exchange of electrons and maintain stablity preventing decay.
a change in the distridution of electrons changes the rate of decay, such as a solar event, the density of earth soil or given matter, a change in the magnetic feild of earth. which it is highly likly that dating meathods do not take in to account the previous stronger magnetic feild of earth and its gradual decline as it approaches magnetic reversal every 5,000 to 7,000 years.
a change in the back ground constant like wise will change the complete relation of the atom to enviroment and change electron capture by the atom sigificantly, simple fact or conductivity,of a elecromagnetic particle, you know electrons in a cathod tube like the T.V., the enetire energy of the atom will change with change in the back ground constant, consdier ice and water,and vapor.
a atom on earth will behave differntly than atom in solar space at 50 degrees kelvin, at ten degrees kelvin in galaxtic space it will change again, at 2 degrees kelvin in comsic space in changes again. what is the differnce, the state of ionzation, distribution of energy, the energy state of the atom was differnt in earth atomsphere than in cosmic atmos, in space the atom must exspend energy to maintain form or existant as a atom, to do this it must absorb energy light wave, radiation from the back ground constant, that radiaditon caused by cross annhilation of light or other sources determins the energy state of the atom and the atoms ablity to exspend energy, spectrum light wavy, ect.... at 2 degrees kelvin the atom must constrict electron orbital size, increasing the rate of ionzation, and at the same time vaccum of space strips the electrons from the atom, the atom has no means of restoreing the electrons to maintain stablity as in a earth enviroment and so be comes eratic and unstable becoming radioactive and decaying progessivly to hydrogen.
the event of decay was greater in the begining formation of the galaxy than as it got older, so generally speeaking the rate of decay for atoms would be getting slower and slower as the galaxy ages.( as well in the begining formation atoms where made from hydorgen).
it is not only the backgorund constant that causes decay or the structures of atoms, but the gravity of stars in a local region of the galaxy, here the gravity matrix of the local region allow subatomic particle to convene and form a atom, if you cool a atom on earth to 2 degrees kevlvin the atom it self and its internal sub atomic particles will be come more responsive to the gravity matrix of the local region, this is why atoms remain stable during super conductivity exsperiments, the sub atomic particles become responsive and congerated by the gravity matrix signal of local stars, and at the same time become super conductive, so then what is the missing factor in comparison to cosmic space, well of course earth gravity.
consider this every atom when heated to its boiling point has a responsive point, natural polar axis, for some atoms it is cosmic space for some it is solar sapce for some it is galaxtic space, this means that the atom will drift in that direction if undistrubed by other forces or distrubance. just a note

the event of atoms did not just form amd congreate by them sevels from the begining of the big bang or what ever, of course hyrdorgen could emerg from this bang, being the base builing block of atomic structure, sorry but atoms had to be built from hydrogen by congeration of mass hydgrogen under attraction in a near zero gravity, i don't know what you thought you where questioning when i said that. the ablity of those masses to remain satble depends on the gravity of the local stars in a region of the galaxy, i think that you think on the line of formation of atomic mass in a sun or star, a single sun can only stablize a small amount of mass atomically by the gravity of its own total mass.

oh yeah you keep asking me for some proof as if you did not know up from down, so read your text book on ionzation.



Dwayne D.L.Rabon
 
here's a note if a super nova occured in our local group of stars, it would cause a disturbance in the atomic mass of the elements, releasing gamma and beta particles in a assumable 10% of atomic elements.


the history of earth trajectory in the last say 2 to 4 billion years would place the earth in various regions of the galaxy with various stars at different times that may under whent super nova event during earths near proxicimty at the time in the past 2 to 4 billion years changing events of radioactive dating.

the figure of a earth history of life being only 27,000 years remains a fact that all acheologist, geologist, chemist, dinosaur specialist will just have to deal with and amend the current doctrines of science, publications in histiry books and muesum. it is a fact that has to be lived with. several sciences may feel a upset, but it just simply a fact of the speed of our sun traveling though the galaxy that provides a accurate measure of ttime relavnt to life being possible on earth. so for sea shells ect found in the mojo its a case of seppeage and compression that place such fossil there, this is not so much a upset as this has been argued to such that have presented the fossile status theroy many years prior in early formations of such theror regarding seep and compression of fossils.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon
 
Oh and venus has exsperinced massive degassing of it s core, which was responsible for it magntic feild, it is the event of degassing that result in venus atmosphere and curstal formation due to internal collaspe.
the same will occur to earth during the next magnetic feild reversal, degassing and crustal collaspe, crustal collaspe is resposinable for the formation of our current oceans, and the remaint of super volcanos is the event of degasing of the earths gaseous core. eventually the earth will end up like venus filled with carbon atomsphere from the internal gasous, in fact this might be the last magnetic reversal the earth has, comming up herer in ten to 40 years.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon
 
"like i said before there are various states of background constant, 2 degrees kelvin, 50 degrees kelvin 10 degrees and 288 degrees,"

But those arent states, these temperatures, a state is more liquid/ solid etc.
Think of temperature on a continuum.

"to change the backgound constant of a atoms enviroment, changes the distribution of energy recived and emited by the atoms, this cause the atom to jump, even shot like a arrow acoss a room, float around in the air in various directions ect.... in addtion it causes ionization, excited electron orbitals, gamma and beta emmisions during orbital changes ect...... this is normal practice with atoms and in chemistry, such as magnetic pulse, laser pulse, spectrum emmissions to produce unifrom chemical reactions ect..... inozation of atoms on earth only occur naturall to the 3 and 4 th postive, but as much as to the 7 th postive ion, it gets more difficult to remove electrons from the atom past the 7 th electron, at which point strong xrays become the main soucre of furthur izonzation of the atom, also at this point the nucleaous of the atom becomes increaseingly unstable with the contiuned release of atoms produceing byproducts. the atom in this higher ionzation state continually attracts free electrons in the atomsphere or enviroment even stripping electrons from other atoms, this is the first state of radioactivity. and may capture electrons that are quite plenlty ful in earth enviroment given density of earths mass and light and solar wind capture for earth which makes electrons abundant in a small area, this little abundant graden of electrons allows atoms to make exchange of electrons and maintain stablity preventing decay."

Like i said, garbled. You seem to be saying that all this somehow means that things change massively, although exactly how you arent saying very well.

"a change in the distridution of electrons changes the rate of decay, such as a solar event, the density of earth soil or given matter, a change in the magnetic feild of earth. which it is highly likly that dating meathods do not take in to account the previous stronger magnetic feild of earth and its gradual decline as it approaches magnetic reversal every 5,000 to 7,000 years."

Rate of decay? you mean radioactive? Because if so your just being silly. CAn you give any quotes of experiemnts or suchlike done ot back this up??? Dating methods do take the earth EM field into account where necessary, or have you got information otherwise?? And like Ive said before, reversal is not every 5-7,000 years, can you give any proof of this?

"in space the atom must exspend energy to maintain form or existant as a atom"

Nope, complete garbage. It stays as it was unless something else impacts on it, or else it loses energy to some sort of ground state.

"oh yeah you keep asking me for some proof as if you did not know up from down, so read your text book on ionzation."

But you quite clearly only know what the textbook says then try and parlay it into something completely different. My final point is that what is the point here, what are you trying to say to us? And you need to try and produce proof if your being scientific.

"the history of earth trajectory in the last say 2 to 4 billion years would place the earth in various regions of the galaxy with various stars at different times that may under whent super nova event during earths near proxicimty at the time in the past 2 to 4 billion years changing events of radioactive dating."

2-4 billion years? Well, we know about all that sort of stuff affecting dating back then, thats why there are error bars. CAn you perhaps demonstrate the intersection between the solar system and nearby novas in the past few billion years?


"the figure of a earth history of life being only 27,000 years remains a fact that all acheologist, geologist, chemist, dinosaur specialist will just have to deal with and amend the current doctrines of science, publications in histiry books and muesum. it is a fact that has to be lived with. "

HAHahhahahahahah. ROFLMA.
Really, a fact according to what? What scientific rational have you used? What experiments have you done?

Oh no, you havnt have you, youve jsut thought it all out in your head, have you not? And I wish i could fly yet somehow i cant, how odd, maybe that bears about as much resemblance to reality as your pet thoughts do.
 
where i could write a book, you and guthie could not think your way out of a paper bag.
example your thoguht theroys and conjector are still based on points regarding earth lifeforms as millions of years old.
or points such as the atoms of the univerese where just infinte objects formed from the begining of creation with out building blocks. or points such that polr reversals happen every million or so years. these concepts of which you base your most fundmental security are all false and have been reprted as false since the comming of their ideas as theorys more than 60 years ago.
the simply fact that our solar system travels through the galaxy at a certain speed defines that our solar system has only been associated with a given star fo a given poit of time, in this case alpha centurei for the last 27,000 years. which defines that life on earth relative to our chemistry has only been possible for 27,000 years. it is your arragonce and pride that some how humans and earth life is better and more invincable than it is.
you basic argument against influnce of stars on life atoms and earth chemistry is the argument that the gravity of stars does not effect atomic structure to cause a signifcant change chemically or in the stablity of subatomic particles compsoing the atoms.
I have given information that is common to nuclear reactions, man made or other wise, simply the act of the sun to create helium involves the the unifcation of at least three hydrogen atoms, and as many as four called a aplha particle. this basic process seen in the sun and in nuclear reactions is the key point in understanding the development of the atomic structure as a proccess of action that exist.
understanding the above as a event, in addtion to the knowledge that the universe is x number of years old, and composed many of hydrogen and helium, some 98% hydrogen, and that hydrogen and helium are the basic forms of atom internal struture, meaning not onle are they emitted in such manner, they are calculated to operate with in the atom in such formation, this defines that atoms are built from hydrogen and helium, or protons and alpha particles.
in furthure approach to understanding we find that the basic unit of distrubance to the atomic sturture is the event of removal of a electron the uint of stablity for a hydrogen atom, and progresses to helium two electrons, this is called ionzation, which is the fundmental of chemistry and directly relative to subatomic structure. for earth the normal state of ionzation is 3 to 4 postive ion, which results in the distrubance of 4 protons, or 2 alpha particles or 8 proton/neutrons, ionzation beynd this poit demonstrtes the begining of radioactive behavior meaning stripping of electrons from other atoms in the enviroment, and the emmission of xrays, beta particles and gamma, in general this becomes a serious event with the state of 7 postive ion states. which is the distrubance of 7 protons or 4 alpha particles or 16 proton/neutrons, the total distrubance is 16 bodies or 14th of uraniums atomic weight and a 4th of iron. the even of disturbance can be seen to effect the stablity of the atom just by evalution of proportions of particles.
the event of removal of a electron from the orbit of the atom causes a orbital change, which changes as the atom seeks to fill its energy requirments of its sub atomic particles protons and neutrons, a failure to fill this requirement causes increasing instablity over time as the atom disapates energy and can not maintain uniform energy requirements to staifiy the subatomic particles, at which point the atom becomes radioactive and exsperinces transmutaion, or the emmmission of its most unsatble subatoimc particle, which begings to move about the atomic internal structure randomly usally this is a hydrogen atom or proton, in other cases a aphal particle, it is this same disbalnce that is the cause of iostopes and their short life span before transmutaion.
having said that little bit for your information, the event of hydrogen to congreate to build atoms requires given conditions, these condtions inorder to form heavy atomic structure require near zero gravity, cold temptures and hydrogen, here atoms can form, in say for conversation deep space as in the beging of the galaxy more easily as the condtion that would appera in a sun furing the proccess of helium formation exist abundamtly through out space, by this proccess heavy atoms may form. for understanding what has been said the condtions of the sun in its proccess to make a heavier atom are distributed though out space as the rate of presssur and energy have changed, meaing the condtions of the sun has become the background constant making atoms formable from hydrogen, and helium in the congreation proccess to the building structure of a atom.
as hydrogen ionznizes and congreates it form heavy atoms resultong in the formation of planets from the gaseous orgins of the galaxy and cosoms as we know it.
the ablity of hydrogen to congreate is due to the matrix of gravity in the galaxy, this means that other clouds of hydrogen are in formation and developing a gravity center, as the gravirty centers form within the proxicinty of other gravity center formations heavier atoms become possible, in that region of the galaxy, the number of hydrogen clouds forming a gravity center determine the ablity of hydrogen to form given atoms, for earth and or solar system that is 235 lets say givein say 120 stars as a role in its formation, thats about the number of bodies in our local star group and gives about 14,000 combinations, or 120 combinations of star gravity matrix to form urainum out of 14,000 basic combinations, this means that each star in our local group will react with two stars to form unrainum. one the point of ,or locacation of the forming urainum formed from hydrogen congregation.
without the induction of gravity in a region of space hydrgogen will not beable to congreagte to form any thing but hydrogen.

genrally speaking this means that uranium was one of the last atoms to form in the formation of planets and suns or that region of the galaxy, the heavier the atom the younger it is, therefore exspaining its present existance.

the event of super nova in our local region of stars or even spartic dirtubnace in stars effects the atomic stablity of atoms on earth and in our region, causing radioactive reactions such as beta and gamma emmissions, a super nova would with out doubt cause proton emmssions and in stable atoms such as tellrilium aplha partical emmission resulting in transmutation of the atom, this provides a understanding of iostopes and ther occurance in part a iostpe may aslo be the event of time of its creation chagnes in and reaction to are star gravity matrix. results of deacy ect......
to change a atoms location in a region of the galaxy would change the gravity matrix causing unstablity and transmutaion of the atom, the atoms location in a region of space or the galaxy changes in senstivity to the garvity matrix, the effect of that gravity matrix can be effected by solar emmission, changes in background constant that effect the overal condtion of the atom in that space, meaning that on earth a x ray is needed to penitrate the atome and cause a distrubance but in another region of our local gravity matrix red light or a green light wave may produce the same disturbance.

these events change atomic dating drastically and make it unreliable without their consideration and a formula for insertion,
as earth has traveled the galaxy there has been vairiuos changes in the local gravity matrix, and backgorund constant that effect atomic dating and decay of atoms, postion changes, energy changes, ionzation changes and so on.

i have exspalined the event of magnetic pole reversal many times, in breif note, the core of the earth is hallow, surround by hydrogen, and heium gases at very cold temptures, that generate the magentic feild, the diatomic polarity of hydrogen is the most magnetic element known and the most abundant starting form the beinging of planet creation ect........ the core of earth has a zero gravity. the event of the induction of the earths axis moves the magnetic poles northward, untill the magentic poles reaches the axis at which point the magntic feild or poles collaspe, starting reformation at the equator and beging the trek towrad the axis onece again.
Currently thr magntic pole are located at 82 degrees north, the axis of earth is stated to be located at 87.5 degrees north, north east. thats about 10 degress from it present location, current measures of the magnetic poles motion show a increae in motion as the magentic pole appraches the earths axis, this same event occurs on the sun and is recorded, resulting in a colaspe of the poles with seperation of the pole into serval pieces as many as ten and then a gradual motion of the pieces to the equator where the dissapear, this occurs about every 11 years and takes abotu 9 month to complete, on earth it will take 400 years. the present motion of the magentic poles and there proxicimty to the axis give a time fram at the magentic pole current motion as 10 to 40 years, before collaspe of the magenmtic poles, it is stated as little as ten years as the suns pole reversal may provoke the earths magntic poles to prematureally reverse.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon
 
Ah ha! I have dug up a geology textbook I have, and fuond the bit on plate tectonics. It seems that they did do sediment cores on the seafloor plates. They show increasing depth of sediment further away from the ridges, as you would expect with increasing age hence increasing amount of stuff deposited on them, moreover, these cores show dateable fossils that match the magnetic reversal dating and so demonstrate there has not been any major catastrophe affecting plate movement that much. Unless of course you want to try and totally discredit the potassium argon dating system.
Click to expand...
--I think your missing something. The acceleration of radioisotopic decay initiated and continued throughout the catastrophic regime of plate tectonics and any geologic work (eg. deposition of sediment) would have been accelerated as well. The processes by which sediments are deposited off the coast of the continents (at least those that are terrigenous) would have progressed similarily as those being deposited on the continents. The continental geologic column contains the appearance of age in the catastrophic framework--that sediments on the ocean floor reflect by any method of dating or correlation sediments on the continents in no way conflicts with the postulate of catastrophic geology.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
 
Oh and venus has exsperinced massive degassing of it s core, which was responsible for it magntic feild, it is the event of degassing that result in venus atmosphere and curstal formation due to internal collaspe.
the same will occur to earth during the next magnetic feild reversal, degassing and crustal collaspe, crustal collaspe is resposinable for the formation of our current oceans, and the remaint of super volcanos is the event of degasing of the earths gaseous core. eventually the earth will end up like venus filled with carbon atomsphere from the internal gasous, in fact this might be the last magnetic reversal the earth has, comming up herer in ten to 40 years.
Click to expand...
--Ten to 40 years? where do you get that estimate? I havent seen it closer to us by scientific studies than 2000 years.

--You can't explain the venusian crustal dichotomy by a decreasing surface area(ie. degassing) because not only is there evidence of buckling plates under pressure, but of plate extension as well. They certainly don't resemble the spreading and convergent plate boundaries here on earth(sea-floor spreading and subduction) though through analysis of the Venusian topography this has been well substantiated. There is no reason to think that the reversing of the geomagnetic field will result in significant degassing, or any at all really. This has been accomplished during its initial formation.

--You also might want to give us your geochemical analysis which suggests that the plumes of your selected "supervolcanoes" actually originate at the core-mantle boundary or deeper. Not only that but you should share with us the evidence that significant degassing(which you speak of) occurs from that seismic locus.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
 
The direct evidence of a pole reversal in short time noted is one the occurance of magnetic pole reversal on the sun, and two the proxcimity of the magnetic poles to the rotational axis of the earth.

the most convining evidence with out looking at the behavior and events of the sun is the effect that the rotatrion axis has on the magnetic pole motion.

without a great deal of math, and simple observence of normal properties invovling a inducting vector, be it a washing machine on spin cycle, a flushing toilet, a jet engine ect.... the fact remains that the force created by the axis rotation inducts a bodie to its center or wall, the earth is round and the magnetic feild statring at the equator is gradually pulled to the geographical poles or axis poles, this force of induction increase with the proxcimity of the magnetic poles to the axis of induction, simple and standard physical event. when ever a inducting force pulls a oject to its center the vortex or induction pulls that bodie to the physical center of rotation, inthe case of the earthx axis that would be down in the middle of the earth. this even causes the poles to collaspe.

this fact can not be denied regardless of any calculation you should attempt, havins said that and you have takein this to fact, or elese self test, thwe fact remains that the magnetic poles are located with in 10 degres of the earths axis, the magnetic poles as recorded by CGS, Nasa, USGS show a marked increase in the motion of the magnetic as of 2002, the record of the poles motion has been keep for about 100 years, a plot of its motion shows a continuing increase in its motion as it approaches the magentic poles, it was one 12 km a year then 15, and as of current in not readjust the rate is some 18 km a year.. given this 1 degree on earth is equal to 70 mile or 69 miles to be more exact. 1 mile is equal to about 5280 feett there are 369,600 feet in one degree, 18 km is equal to 54,000 ft, this provides a formula for timing the point of the magntic pole meeting the axis of earth at the present speed of the magnetic poles motion at about 7 years a degree, this would give a time frame of 70 years be it that the axis of earth is located 10 degrees from the current magnetic pole.
fact is that the magnetic pole is located a 82.5 degrees latitude west, the axis is stated as being located at 87.5 degrees latitued east, the center of axis of the earth at surface is considered to be 70 miles by 70 miles or one degree. given this the calculation as 10 degrees at 70 years untill the magntic poles reach the axis.

it remains intregal to the calculation to include the rate of increase, the current rate is stated as being 2km faster than the pervious motion of the magnetic poles, and it appears that such is the case in the rate of increase from past intrevals, accuracy has been only avaiable in the record for say 10 to 20 years, just given the factor of 2 km increase with the last interval, the next can be exspected to be greater by some division of 2 km, in addtion the increase will be greater than previouls increase due to proxcimity, a fair and netural rate of increase is 1 km with the next intreval, occuring at a unknown time, this fact of circumstance determins that the magnetic pole will reach the axis prior to 70 years, as there has been increases gradually in the past 100 to 50 years it is safe to assume that due to increase od induction cause by the proxcimity of the magntic pole to the axis that the time intreval will be equal to at lesat 25 years to 30 years, however the influnece os the suns magentic pole reversal causes a change that would place each intreval at about 10 years, a increase of 1 km per year in 70 years would result in a motion of the poles at some 9 km per year at the time of axis and pole unision. a plausable factor of decrease due to the sun magntic feild in oppostion with a motion of 0.5 increase period would result in a motion of 7 km increase at unison of pole and axis. or a total of 25km per year as the motion of the pole.
in such calculation it would take 60 years to meet the axis, quite frankly this is conservative as the increase will continue to make gain, such as 0.5,0.8,1.0 in periods of solar oppostion and in years of simular direction of force 1.0, 2.0 3.0 ect...... the general equation will result in a time period of 40 years, the fact that pole reversals occur prior to meeteing the axis is due to the procces of collaspe, this means that at some point the magnet pole will begin its collaspe prior to meeting the pole, this point can be estimate as being the outter rim of the magentic poles measrued center and outter rim of the polar axis, assumablly,
fact remains that current measure ments show a large fluxs in the diameter of the magntic poles periodic exspansion which may occur daily, this currernly appears to be a influnecs of solar wind, but with out doubt must be tied to the induction of the axis of earth as well.
my personall calculation gives a range of 5 degrees from the axis of the earth, given lunar motion 1.5, 5.5 degree motions being princplae to earth motion, that takes the 10 degrees give in the calculation and cuts it in half to about 7.5 degrees to the event of begining collaspe, and puting the point of collaspe at the geograhical north pole 90 degrees, that abotu 40 years know matter how you look at it and as little as 10 years should the suns pole reversal drastically effect the earth magntic pole motion.

tell me would you denie that the magntic pole is inducted by the axis of the earth. it is your only chance at denial of the fact or pole reversal in the short time given. if so then what would give as a account of present magnetic pole motion.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon
 
True creation-
"I think your missing something. The acceleration of radioisotopic decay initiated and continued throughout the catastrophic regime of plate tectonics and any geologic work (eg. deposition of sediment) would have been accelerated as well. The processes by which sediments are deposited off the coast of the continents (at least those that are terrigenous) would have progressed similarily as those being deposited on the continents. The continental geologic column contains the appearance of age in the catastrophic framework--that sediments on the ocean floor reflect by any method of dating or correlation sediments on the continents in no way conflicts with the postulate of catastrophic geology."

Well, firstly, theres the dating problem, that suggests rocks etc are millions of years old. secondly, if you have a catastrophic speed up of production of crust at the bottom of the ocean, would that crust therefore not have less sediment on it? The point i perhaps didnt make clear also included that the depth of sediment apparently matches the more continous long term deposition over millions of years, whereas if you had a catastrophic event as you describe, surely there would be a long stretch of ocean floor with roughly the same depth of sediment, likely nearly devoid of fossils and suchlike or filled with the bodies of whatever lifeforms lived in the ocean then, whereas from what ive read, the depth increases on a reasonably constant amount the further from the crack between the plates you are. Furthermore, i would assume that they have checked the progression of the fossil evidence in the sediment, so if it is checked over million sof years you can find different kinds of fossils present, according to the orthodox geological column. If there was a catastrophic event one woould expect some sort of discontinuity or at the very least a large stretch of sediment that comes from the actual event, and therefore is different in particle size, distribution, and geology. Ie if you look at a delta from a river, there is definite distribution of particles and so on that makes it all obvious to the eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top