|
Post by Dave on May 8, 2012 10:09:45 GMT -5
Of all the planetoid bodies observed to date, Earth is the only planet that has jigsaw fitting continental plates - separated by much younger ocean floors?
Of all the planetoid bodies observed to date; Earth seems to have a disproportionately heaver nickle / Iron planetary core - yielding a much stronger electromagnetic fields than other planetary bodies.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 22, 2013 21:31:16 GMT -5
I have started reading your book, Dave, and so far I find it enjoyable to read, and, yes..., ponder. The first two chapters I didn't care for too much (sorry), but the content has gained greater altitude from chapter 3. I dread arriving at the alien hysteria of the later chapters, but the WEDT is captivating. I am not yet convinced (of Herndon's theory), but the discussion is worthy. I wonder if the 'eruptive solar event' can account for the planets of the entire Solar System??? For instance, the hydrogen-helium gas giants of Jupiter (particularly), Saturn, Uranus and Neptune may be the threshold of the "solar event"; as the closer planets to the sun seem to validate a compression of gases into concentrated masses of heavier elements. However, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn (etc) would require a different explanation (or mechanism) to account for their concentrations into heavier elements. I would think that... if the solar event is to explain the first planets (in order to the sun), then the outer planets must be consistent with the given hypothesis. I notice that you propose an alternative solar event other than Herndon's ignition of the sun. What is that? (If it is answered in later chapters... then I will discover your alternative eventually). Please do not take my queries as a refutation. I think the hypothesis has some merit, although it may only explain part of the processes at work. You say that the " sequence of decompression was violently rapid" (p.55). How rapid? If the major events, such as the solar event, and the fluids replacing the gases, were "immediately following", then why could these events not happened in thousands of years, not billions, as you suggested in the first chapters regarding time-dilation? If time-dilation is the key to harmonize science and genesis, then why does it even matter what mechanism was used if the results and time-frame of evolution were the same? (Note: I agree with the Bible's explanation of time-dilation - not Einstein's. There is no evidence that light travels at 186,000 mps outside our solar system. The mechanism that caused "cosmic inflation" requires that time traveled at speeds millions of times faster (instant) in order to reach horizontality and homogeneity. See below: Faster Than the Speed of Light, by Joao Magueijo Space, Time, And Matter And The Falsity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, by Kamen George Kamenov The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, by Barry Setterfield www.setterfield.org/report/report.htmlNASA is also experimenting on Warp Speed; which requires the assumption that light can travel faster than our usual presumed speed limit of 186,000 mps: Faster Than the Speed of Light?www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/science/faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) I will no doubt have more questions as I proceed through your book, but I will try to avoid the alien hysteria, if that's ok with you, as I find the discussion on aliens to be annoying (putting it mildly). If I understand correctly, you have added the "fluid dynamics" aspect to the WEDT so as to account for the flood of Noah's day... is that right? You also place the flood of Noah's day at approximately 65 million years ago... is that right? That would also imply that it has not rained for 65 million years... is that your contention? I am trying to unravel what you are actually trying to say, as it seems a bit cryptic in places. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 23, 2013 4:26:16 GMT -5
Great questions – love them
The first two chapters I didn't care for too much (sorry)
The point of chapter one is to first examine just exactly how we interpret information. People must recognize their own biases and limits, if they don’t realize this they will never see anything from any perspective other than what they have been conditioned to believe.
The only point of chapter two is that “time is not linear” period.
There is no evidence that light travels at 186,000 mps outside our solar system.
This is my point. If time is not linear then what consistency is offered by mps – none!
You also place the flood of Noah's day at approximately 65 million years ago... is that right?
No – that is not correct. Commonly held science theory places this date, not me. It is also commonly held science theory that places the asteroid impact that supposedly killed the dinosaurs at the same date. Science also places the age of the oldest ocean floor at approx. 70 million years. I only say that there is no reason why these three events couldn't correlate with the Flood event as well – regardless of date.
That would also imply that it has not rained for 65 million years... is that your contention?
What? Where did you get that one? Scripture tells us that there was no rain on the earth before the flood. This is consistent with a gas giant protoplanet where the atmospheric construct, in regards to density and pressures were much different than today’s earth. Scripture also tells us that the plants were watered from the ground up. Also consistent with a gas giant protoplanet where the increased pressures upon the rocky planetoid squeezed the water to spring from the surface. Scripture tells us that the rainbow did not appear on earth until after the flood. Also consistent with evidence that the atmospheric construct change dramatically from something that didn’t support the rainbow phenomena to something that did support it.
I notice that you propose an alternative solar event other than Herndon's ignition of the sun. What is that?
Herndon offers only one possible cause – ignition. Do we know for sure? – NO! Therefore, there may have been a different event other than ignition. The sun may have been burning brightly for a long time before it erupted. Something cosmic could have happened at the center of our galaxy that caused a hick-up throughout the galaxy that affected our sun. It could have been at God’s command. The point I wanted to make was that it could have been a solar eruptive event from any other cause than just ignition.
You say that the "sequence of decompression was violently rapid" (p.55). How rapid?
From Protoplanet Pangea to Noah leaving the ark – according to scripture approximately 400 days. Then the question comes – 24hr days? Just as the question remains of creation being six 24hr days. Therefore the necessity for chapter two, because the 24hr day wasn’t established (couldn’t have been established) until earth reached full diameter.
I wonder if the 'eruptive solar event' can account for the planets of the entire Solar System??? For instance, the hydrogen-helium gas giants of Jupiter (particularly), Saturn, Uranus and Neptune may be the threshold of the "solar event"; as the closer planets to the sun seem to validate a compression of gases into concentrated masses of heavier elements. However, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn (etc) would require a different explanation (or mechanism) to account for their concentrations into heavier elements. I would think that... if the solar event is to explain the first planets (in order to the sun), then the outer planets must be consistent with the given hypothesis.
Hmmmm? Possibly I do not understand your point here. Gasses do not become concentrated into masses of heavier elements. Gasses are gasses. Heavier elements are heavier elements. The whole point of Herndon’s theory is that only by the gathering together of a gas giant size of space material could have produced Planetoid Pangea with a large iron/nickel core, as well as, produced the concentrations and densities of the other metals, uranium, or the other products of high pressure and temperature environments such as gemstones.
As for the concentrations of heavier elements in the moons of outer system planets? Just what are those concentrations? And my question to you is this, did those moons form where they currently reside, or could they be formed elsewhere and have since become captured?
If time-dilation is the key to harmonize science and genesis, then why does it even matter what mechanism was used.
If I have given the impression that time-dilation is the key necessary to justify science theory and creation, then I have given the wrong impression. Scripture is written from God’s perspective. His use of the term day is from an entirely different perspective, than modern science theory’s adherence to linear time and the 24hr day. I tried to make the point clear that discussions of time, for me, are mute – because time is not linear
Why does it matter what mechanism is used?
Most science theories, if not all, do not supply any mechanism for the events listed below, except to say, as they do with the Big Bang - an unexplained mechanism, or just unknown. So far Dr. Brown and myself, via J. Marvin Herndon, are the only people out there offering a mechanism for the flood of Noah. Dr. Brown does not address the entire picture, While WEDT and FD-WEDT offer a plausible mechanism for not only the flood, but also, where the waters receded to, the Biblical conditions of earth before the flood (i.e. no rain, no rainbow, plants watered from the ground up, a separation in the firmament above and below), an explanation of why earth’s surface is broken into continental plates separated by younger ocean floors, plate tectonics, earthquakes, volcanism, and a-biotic oil theory.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 23, 2013 4:41:01 GMT -5
as I proceed through your book, but I will try to avoid the alien hysteria, if that's ok with you, as I find the discussion on aliens to be annoying (putting it mildly).If you do read that section, you will see that I don't necessarily believe in aliens as presented from science fiction, but as presented by scripture. I believe that the powers against humanity are very powerful forces indeed. The Archon, the Nephilim (who have various names and forms, the Watchers, Giants, Grigori, some of human hybrid, some forms alien to earth, some forms visiting us from other dimensional localities of reality (heavens), some visiting us from within our own universe) are capable of performing miracles on a biblical scale; for example, performing a (good act) in the outright miraculous healing of the sick so that thousands end up following a ministry of a false prophet. In fact, I think it dangerous to deny that the opposition has power. Just as the people wrapped up in the religion of science want to limit God's omnipotence, thereby limiting God’s ability and power, downplaying creation and the flood to fairy tales and myths; the downplaying the of oppositions ability also minimizes there capability to deceive us. The anit-Christ: (which in Greek, does not mean against Christ – but pseudo Christ – false Christ)Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 2 Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And my personal favorite, which always makes me think of "Alien Grays"Rev 16:13 (KJV) And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Rev 16:13 (ASV) And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits, as it were frogs: 14 for they are spirits of demons, working signs; which go forth unto the kings of the whole world, to gather them together unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. Rev 16:13 (YLT) and I saw come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs-- 14 for they are spirits of demons, doing signs--which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to bring them together to the battle of that great day of God the Almighty; -- Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Virginia on Aug 23, 2013 9:11:45 GMT -5
Steve says he does not believe in aliens but if God does not reside on Earth but in Heaven---then God does become an Alien. At least an alien to Earth.
The story above describes the aliens that are lizard like and people who have had contact with them all say these aliens are "MEAN" just exactly what Dave is describing. Are they demons--I do not know.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 23, 2013 16:47:14 GMT -5
No – that is not correct. Commonly held science theory places this date, not me. Yes, I misunderstood what you were saying on page 69 about dinosaurs and the extinction event. You clarify your statements on page 89. What? Where did you get that one? Scripture tells us that there was no rain on the earth before the flood. Again, I misunderstood what you were saying regarding the timing of the flood. I thought you were saying that the flood coincided with the 65 million year time-line. Herndon offers only one possible cause – ignition. Do we know for sure? – NO! Therefore, there may have been a different event other than ignition. Yes. This idea seems likely from scripture. The interesting thing about Herndon's idea is that it helps explain the heavier elements found on the closest planets to the sun. As for the concentrations of heavier elements in the moons of outer system planets? Just what are those concentrations? And my question to you is this, did those moons form where they currently reside, or could they be formed elsewhere and have since become captured? These are the questions that still perplex any model of our solar system. How did the many moons become satellites? Scientists believe that the earth's moon was formed through a collision of a mars-size planet crashing into earth over 4 billion years ago. If this is the standard explanation for our moon, why would other moons become satellites any other way? Why would Jupiter remain gaseous while its moons become concentrated of heavier elements? Why would these other planets experience eclipses, as our planet does? The chances of these eclipse coincidences being formed out of an accident is too much to comprehend. These moons need to be in exact positions (distances) in relation to the sun and their planets to re-enact an eclipse. Capture or collision??? Either explanation is inadequate to account for the uncanny precision of our solar system (and universe). God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 23, 2013 21:42:54 GMT -5
I absolutely love the questions! The interesting thing about Herndon's idea is that it helps explain the heavier elements found on the closest planets to the sun.
I am not sure this is a correct statement. I could argue that Neptune might have much more heavier elements than Mercury. It is true that visually is appears that the closeness of mercury to the sun has burnt off, or boiled away, its lighter substances, while the outermost moons appear to be snowballs and the outermost planets are gas giants. However, this is not a product of Herndonism. Standard planet formation theory works for our moon. The average space rock contains only 2-4% of elements as heavy as iron or heavier. Gather enough of this material together and you would eventually form a spherical planetoid – but – it would not have a core of no greater than 2-4% iron or heavier. Also, with the moon there is evidence that there is no such thing as mantel convection. Pressures and temperature may have liquefied the core, you will have volcanic flow upon the surface; but without mantel convection the mantel and crust would remain lumpy and uneven as the Gail Gravity Probes have proven. Therefore, this same process could have never generated an earth like planet, with an iron/nickel core of 37% of the total planetary mass, or layering rock strata forming the crust. Additionally, earth has a disproportionate concentration of things like tungsten, strontium, and many others. To gather this much heavy materials together would require a Jupiter sized gas giant. Where the increased pressures and gravity well of the protoplanet causing the total liquefaction of the mantel, as well as, additional materials burning up upon entry into the dense atmosphere and raining down upon the rocky core in a layering effect. Scientists believe that the earth's moon was formed through a collision of a mars-size planet crashing into earth over 4 billion years ago. If this is the standard explanation for our moon, why would other moons become satellites any other way?I am sure there are many way to form a moon. As stated our moon seems to be a process of Standard Planet Formation. Yet, Demos and Phobos are examples of captured rocky objects and some of the smaller outer moons are mere snowballs. Why would Jupiter remain gaseous while its moons become concentrated of heavier elements?
Jupiter remains a gas giant because the solar eruptive event lacked the force to eject its atmosphere, but that does not mean that Jupiter, or any of the gas giants, don’t have a rocky planetoid at their centers. We assume they do. Why wouldn’t they? In fact, here I go again, but the Archon are said to inhabit the visible planets of our solar system. The conditions of the rocky planetoid at Jupiter center would appear very much like Planetoid Pangea appeared before the flood, which was a suitable environment for the Archon / Nephilim. I hope I made it clear within the book that neither the pressure nor the gravity would have precluded human life. Humans that weigh 150-200 lbs here would only be 450-550 lbs there and we see these people at WalMart all the time. How did the many moons become satellites? WEDT suggests that the inner solar system was cleared of its rocky debris, by the solar eruptive event. Sweeping away the rock that peppered the moon and left earth relatively impact free for so long. Much of this rock may form the asteroid belt; some of it possibly became the captured moons of the larger gas giants. Interesting FYI – if the rock was all pushed out as suggested, then once they reached their apogee they would all begin to return toward the sun and eventually flood the inner solar system with a meteor shower of unprecedented number. Why would these other planets experience eclipses, as our planet does? The chances of these eclipse coincidences being formed out of an accident is too much to comprehend. These moons need to be in exact positions (distances) in relation to the sun and their planets to re-enact an eclipse.
I am sure you mean – “Why wouldn’t these other planets experience eclipses, as our planet does? If you are referring to a total eclipse, then you are correct it has to do with the diameter of the moon in relation to the planet and the distance between the two. But as for just eclipse - ?? – I am sure they experience these all the time. The moons of Mars cast shadows on the surface of Mars whenever in correct orientation and would be seen as transient events from the surface of Mars looking back at the sun. Have I misunderstood your question? See how WEDD and FD-WEDT fit all aspects, of not just earth geophysics, but even the grander scale, as well as, the literal scriptural account.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 24, 2013 16:31:45 GMT -5
I could argue that Neptune might have much more heavier elements than Mercury. It is true that visually is appears that the closeness of mercury to the sun has burnt off, or boiled away, its lighter substances, while the outermost moons appear to be snowballs and the outermost planets are gas giants. However, this is not a product of Herndonism. Herndon suggests that the earth was once a Jupiter-size gas planet that had compressed via the solar event. Presumably the other planets were also gas giants that went through a similar compression... stopping at Jupiter. If the solar event had stopped at Jupiter, then why are the moon of Jupiter not also gas giants? If they were captured, then why are not all moons captured? Why have one origin for one moon and another origin for other moons? This sounds like the story needs to keep changing to accommodate any holes in the story. BTW., the use of the term "heavy elements" was borrowed from your book. I prefer to understand the planets as either being gaseous or solid. Also, with the moon there is evidence that there is no such thing as mantel convection. Pressures and temperature may have liquefied the core, you will have volcanic flow upon the surface; but without mantel convection the mantel and crust would remain lumpy and uneven as the Gail Gravity Probes have proven. Mantle convection is a hypothesis to explain seafloor spreading and continental drift. I do not think it is proven that convection is anything more than a fanciful idea. Herndon has adequately demonstrated that convection is a false assumption: See also Herndon's other videos on Youtube which debunk convection theory (while maintaining seafloor spreading at the MOR): 21st Century Earth Dynamics Part 1 21st Century Earth Dynamics Part 2Interesting FYI – if the rock was all pushed out as suggested, then once they reached their apogee they would all begin to return toward the sun and eventually flood the inner solar system with a meteor shower of unprecedented number. I do not subscribe to the giant impact theories. I am sure you mean – “Why wouldn’t these other planets experience eclipses, as our planet does? No, I meant what I said. Other planets also experience eclipses. This is too big a coincidence that capture theory of moons would also facilitate eclipses, while other methods of moon formation, such as our moon, would also "accidentally" demonstrate eclipses. This is a precision event that requires careful calculation and engineering; something that capture or collision does not provide. I will post some links on eclipses on other planets shortly so that we are on the same page. See how WEDD and FD-WEDT fit all aspects, of not just earth geophysics, but even the grander scale, as well as, the literal scriptural account. I think Herndon has contributed in a marvelous way, as has Neal Adams and Warren Carrey, etc. We are very fortunate to investigate these subjects - for the first time - with the detail that we now have available through scientific inquiry. I am encouraged by your desire to unfold these mysteries. Many are too consumed with the mundane to give our origins any consideration. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 24, 2013 17:06:59 GMT -5
Herndon suggests that the earth was once a Jupiter-size gas planet that had compressed via the solar event. Presumably the other planets were also gas giants that went through a similar compression... stopping at Jupiter.
This is not correct. Over the last 6 years I have had several email exchanges with Dr. Herndon educating myself to properly defend both WEDD and FD_WEDT.
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are not 100% gas throughout. Each is expected to have a rocky core at their centers. Neptune's rocky core could be much bigger than Mercury or even Earth, there is no way to measure such a thing, except to infer it by the strengths of their magnetic fields which are a product of their metallic cores not their gaseous atmospheres.
Herndonism says, that those rocky cores would naturally be compressed to a much greater density than non-gas giant planets, due to the combined effects of pressure and gravity well.
Protoplanet Earth lost its large gaseous Atmosphere - therefore without these pressures and gravity wells the rocky core, Planetoid Pangea, was then allowed to decompress.
Compare the mere size of Io or Europa next to Jupiter. In the tidal tug of war between gravitates, if either moon was a gas giant, the parent planet would have certianaly absorbed as much as either moon failed to hold onto.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 24, 2013 17:14:27 GMT -5
Mantle convection is a hypothesis to explain seafloor spreading and continental drift.
Mantel convection is a hypothesis that says - over enough time all the separate components of a planets mantel and crust undergo liquefaction yielding a homogeneous mantel and crust.
It is not true of the Moon It is also not true of the Earth
Thanks for continuing to make my own point.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 24, 2013 17:25:26 GMT -5
I do not subscribe to the giant impact theories.I guess I do not understand your point. There is no such thing as an impact crater? Didn't you watch Shoemaker-Levi 9 crash into Jupiter? Comets with highly elliptical orbits enter our inner solar system all the time. Haley's comet, Hal Bob, Kahotek, and the upcoming comet ISON in November this year. How would you scientifically explain away the Star Wormwood falling to Earth in Revelations? Did I say all these returning rocks would all crash into anything, or did I say they would return to the inner solar system in record numbers. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 24, 2013 17:33:49 GMT -5
Other planets also experience eclipses.
Again, I do not think we are talking about the same thing here.
Of course all moons experience an eclipse. Whenever a moon passes between the planet and the sun it would appear in transit as a New Moon phase. Whenever the planet is between the moon and the sun it would appear as an eclipse because the planet's shadow is cast upon the moon.
I don't really understand why there is confusion here.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 24, 2013 17:48:11 GMT -5
This is not correct.... Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are not 100% gas throughout. You are being a bit pedantic, Dave. I am only referring to the language used by Herndon. Of course the planets are not 100% gas, I was generalizing, as is Herndon when he calls them "gas giants". Mantel convection is a hypothesis that says... I think you were making the point that the moon does not display mantle convection in contrast to earth??? You said: "without mantel convection the mantel and crust would remain lumpy and uneven as the Gail Gravity Probes have proven..." There is no such thing as an impact crater? Didn't you watch Shoemaker-Levi 9 crash into Jupiter? Perhaps we could discuss this another time. In short, I believe that Jupiter has a function in our solar system in order to absorb meteorite debris, as Shoemaker-Levi 9 demonstrated. I do not believe that the giant craters on the earth or moon are impact craters. I believe they are cryptovolcanic. The largest volcano in the solar system, Olympus Mons, is over twice the height of Mount Everest. The solar system, including Mars, Earth and our moon, show signs of giant super-volcanoes that have been mistakenly identified as impact craters. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 24, 2013 18:38:15 GMT -5
I think you were making the point that the moon does not display mantle convection in contrast to earth???
No - there is no mantel convection on the moon - and there is no mantel convection on the earth either.
This is a Herndonism - I had never really considered it before being introduced to Herndon's theory of WEDD. But I am in total agreement with him on this issue. There is no mantel convection on/in Earth.
Mantel convection is necessary if your assumption is that the earth has always been exactly the same diameter as today. MOR spread, therefore these people need mantel convection to explain where it spreads to. It spreads to the continental shelf then must subduct under them in a circular mantel convection to eventually return to the MOR.
If this is true why don't we see evidence of crowding and buckling at the coastal boundaries. NO - WEDD and FD-WEDT suggest that the MOR spread outwardly filling in the ocean floor and filling in the secondary decompression cracks that we call oceanic trenches- as the planet decompressed and expanded.
This also why the oldest ocean floor is at the coastal boundaries and date relatively the same as: the demise of the dinosaur, the irrudium layer, and the Yucatan Peninsilla mega crater - and my placement for the flood of Noah. But, do not hold me to the 65 / 70 million year time table, because I have an issue with both the dating process and the linearity of time. Which is also something else we can discuss on another post.
P.S. I had to look up what pedantic means - if you meant exact, a stickler for detail, or perfectionist then thanks. I just hope you didn't mean unimaginative.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 24, 2013 23:44:09 GMT -5
This is a Herndonism - I had never really considered it before being introduced to Herndon's theory of WEDD. But I am in total agreement with him on this issue. There is no mantel convection on/in Earth. Agreed. I do not see a need to introduce convection theory. It is required only to assist continental drift theory; which is impossible (IMO). But, do not hold me to the 65 / 70 million year time table, because I have an issue with both the dating process and the linearity of time. Which is also something else we can discuss on another post. I hold that the biblical chronology is accurate and true. I personally think that each creation day represents 1000 years each in duration (not 24 hour days); but the chronology of years leading back to David, Moses, Abraham, Noah-Adam is literal and actual (although I personally follow the Septuagint chronology). That is another subject..., so I can only generalize on the topic at this stage. I had to look up what pedantic means - if you meant exact, a stickler for detail, or perfectionist then thanks. I just hope you didn't mean unimaginative. No, not unimaginative. You have a great deal of cerebral adaptivity. God Bless Steve
|
|