The first review

[Dillon]

Submitted on 2012/04/15 at 4:36 am

A noble goal indeed — regardless of the accuracy of your work. I have already received the book and have read the first four chapters of it (counting the introduction). I noticed your quote from Dr. Herndon and wholeheartedly agree with it.

As I said, I’ve only read the first four chapters thus far, so the questions that have come to my mind about your theory may yet be answered, but the most blatant one that is currently hindering my full acceptance of the theory is the ability of solids and liquids to “decompress”. The only analogy that you have given thus far for what you are saying has happened to the Earth is that of a rubber ball being squeezed and then released. The trouble with that analogy is that it isn’t technically the solid rubber in the ball that compresses — it is the gas bubbles within the rubber that compress. I was taught that solids and liquids do not compress because their constituent atoms are already touching (it is this principle that allows things like hydraulic jacks to work — if the liquid in the hydraulic jack compressed at all, even a fraction of a cubic millimeter, the jack would not function to leverage and lift the multi-ton car).

[Dave]

Submitted on 2012/04/15 at 4:49 am | In reply to Dillon.

I copied this from a graduate course link @ efm.leeds.ac.uk – University of Leeds:

“Themes > Science > Physics > Fluid Dynamics > Fluid Dynamics > Compressible or Incompressible

All fluids are compressible – even water – their density will change as pressure changes. Under steady conditions, and provided that the changes in pressure are small, it is usually possible to simplify analysis of the flow by assuming it is incompressible and has constant density. As you will appreciate, liquids are quite difficult to compress – so under most steady conditions they are treated as incompressible. In some unsteady conditions very high pressure differences can occur and it is necessary to take these into account – even for liquids.”

AND – let me make these following points:
1. It is primarily the gasses trapped within the fluids and semi-solid mantel that account for most of the decompression sequence.
2. Would not also the extreme energies of an expanding earth cause mantel fluid to heat and vaporise?
3. Mantel materials do expand as seen in volcanic lava flows – what force is it that cause these lava flows to eject from the earth today?

[Dillon]

Submitted on 2012/04/15 at 4:54 am

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but what I have been taught is a bit at odds with a few of the things that you are saying and if what I have been taught is wrong, I need a good source that proves the point — one way or the other.

[Dave]

Submitted on 2012/04/15 at 4:57 am | In reply to Dillon.

You said – I don’t mean to be argumentative,

No worries – make me think – I love this type of fellowship. Exchange of ideas – looking at something from another’s perspective. This is also why, i am at my best in print – because body posturing and facial expressions are not biasing the conversation – know what I mean.

[Dave]

Submitted on 2012/04/16 at 2:14 am | In reply to ponderingconfusion.

Compressibility of solids and/or liquids -

Every reference source I check these last 2 days confirms that liquids and even solids are compressible. Although, for steady state applications the degree of compressibility is negligible – However, under extreme condition of heat and pressure molecules can become more dense within an object.

One of the major components of WEDD, and the driving force behind Eucken, is why are minerals found on earth in their present concentrations, location, and density.

Gemstones for example – Graphite is a solid yet under extreme pressures and temperatures it is compressed into diamonds. And while the average density of rock strata ranges between 2-3gr/cu cm – diamonds push upwards to 8/9.

OK – you are going to say that diamonds are formed deep within the earth and evidenced by finding them near volcanic vents. Yet the world largest concentrations are found in South Africa void of Volcanoes.

In fact – many gemstones are found in geographic location completely void of volcanoes – so how do they appear in the crustal plates.

(actually Herndon and Eucken were speaking more about fissionable materials – gemstone are my example)

So, how did these supposedly deep earth formed minerals get to the surface? Which brings up another question that has always haunted me from my high school years; If planet earth formed by standard planet formation theory, I understand how the combined pressures and gravity well caused the core to liquefy – but what mechanism caused the crustal plates to form homogeneously?

The quick answer is mantel convection – OK – when mantel materials reach the surface we see it as volcanic rock. Then why isn’t the entire surface of the planet formed by volcanic rock? Which it is not.

[Dillon]

Submitted on 2012/04/16 at 2:17 am | In reply to ponderingconfusion.

Mathematically speaking, the model that you describe does not allow for sufficient gases to be trapped within the solid core of the Earth before its atmosphere is removed.

[Dave]

Submitted on 2012/04/16 at 2:20 am | In reply to Dillon.

?? I don’t know where you got this assumption. Herndon doesn’t say that – I don’t say that – at least I didn’t mean to it.

Have you ever poured concrete? Even with this very heavy and dense material – the biggest issue to any pour is the air pockets trapped within weakening the concrete.

Is it not the gasses coming out of molten lava that causes volcanoes to explode? Don’t under water volcanic vents bubble? Much of the rock along the American West HWYs have evidence of trapped gasses that formed bubbles within the molten rock.

[Dillon]

Hi Dave:

Sorry that I still haven’t finished reading your book. I’ll read a few more sections today. I still don’t understand how a solid or liquid could expand as much as you are saying. I think an explanation and illustration of what is happening at the molecular level would be extremely helpful — something like this image from the wikipedia article on ice along with the measurements sowing how the molecular sub-structures in the post-expanded form of the solid or liquid are 65% larger than they were in the compressed state. Bear in mind that the molecules must remain in contact with one another for the substance to be a solid or liquid — if they come apart, the substance becomes a gas.

Attachments:

[Dave]

ponderingconfusion.com
[e-mail]
204.133.31.98 Submitted on 2012/04/29 at 2:08 am

Thanks for the image – really helpful

Gosh I want to explode with ideas for your consideration – not sure where to start.

The construct of matter is not quite as simple as you present.

Atoms – are not particles that behave like marbles on sticky glue. They are better presented as clouds of energy. Look at a periodic chart and notice the diameter of each atom. Starting with H and working our way up the list each atom grows in proportion as mass changes. Until you get to Potassium – the addition of one more proton and electron actually change the fluid like geometry of the atom and electron shell configuration so that element 19 is smaller in dia than element 18. There are many examples but look at elements 93 & 92, 93 is much smaller then 92.

When 2 atoms interact – the distance between the atomic centers is not as simple as a=a. But energy of each excited cloud of electron shells + the rotational effect = variance to the distance between the atomic centers.

Molecules are so much larger and are so much more flexible. Even the revelation of different bonding types – ionic vrs covalent yields variance between particles. Some bonds are stronger bonds and pull particles closer together. In the world of proteins the entire function of an enzyme is to alter shape forcing bonds close enough that substrate binds into product.

The variation in the distance between atomic centers = density – and density is a function of temp and pressure. The physics of matter is much different here on the surface of earth than it is – say – on the sun’s surface. The difference being the energy, temp, and pressure of the environment.

But let me make this clear about Earth Decompression Dynamics. Even with the best physical example of the compression of a solid is – graphite to diamond. No where, Dr Herndon or I, ever suggesting the reverse.

The solid crust of the earth did not expand – it was already solid – although interesting things happened to it. Volcanic flows – Mountain building – super saturated soils flushed from the American West – secondary decompression cracks formed as ocean trenches – the Hawaiian sea mount chain grew into the Hawaiian Islands giving indication of expansion rate and direction on the Pacific sea floor. The up-lifting of the entire Colorado Platue.

The discussion of the expansion process resides within the semi-solid mantel and fluid core. Even the mistaken concept of mantel convection implies a fluidic construct. Meaning solids suspended in a fluid. AND regardless of whatever composition, this mantel slurry is basically aqueous – meaning water.

Herndon has an stellar eruption sweeping the inner solar system and evicting protoplanet pangea’s ATM.

My argument is this:
That had to be a sudden and catastrophic occurrence – sudden and catastrophic changes to earth’s pressure – gravity well – energy.

My scientifically conducted experiment in my theory – opening a can of any carbonated beverage bought at sea level and bring it to the Colorado Peaks and regret opening it. The bubbles do not necessarily form on the surface of the beverage – but throughout the entire contents – then just race to the surface.

Just as the “gasses” trapped in one form or another within the fluids of the mantel would have suddenly and catastrophically formed and raced to the surface (or better stated raced to the underside of the crustal plates – or – spewed forth from – already present on planetoid pangea – internal pressure release rifts – now seen as the mid-oceanic rifts)

The omnidirectional hydrostatic pressure wave from each bubble formed would have / could have mounted combined omnidirectional hydrostatic pressures — both ejecting fluids (anything light enough so it can) from beneath the crustal plates.

The energy release of such an event would now add an entirely new dynamic to the decompression scenario. Fluids driven into gasses the cycle repeats.

Volcanic outflows – in Russian would have covered the entire planet (of today) under 10 feet of new land. Are you familiar with the geography Idaho / Washington and the formation of the coulees?

FD-WEDT is suggesting that the mantel of the planet was much like Herndon’s rubber ball example – or I envision more like a sponge. Pressed flat under great pressures – forced to hold its fluidic molecules more closely – more dense – but once the pressure changed – fluid dynamics mandate an immediate response to changes in equilibrium.

Dr Herndon’s ball just expands

My sponge expands to a more comfortable shape – but in my example my sponge is also releasing a large volume of fluids / gasses

The fluidic mantel and the liquid core expanded – continental plates were broken apart – separated at per-existing internal pressure release rifts now oceanic rifts – because of rotational mechanics the weighty solid crustal plates would have pulled outwards by centrifugal forces flinging them into their current locations about the globe – while the oceanic rifts spewed forth to fill the gaps.

The obvious application of these FD-WEDT principles just revel that as the above paragraph was occurring – the gasses – followed by the fluids would have exploded from within planetoid pangea – swamping the planet in fluids – for a short period of time – (say about as long as Noahs Flood)

The overall implication of Herndon’s theory is FD-WEDT and all of a sudden – a zillion other – seemingly unrelated earth science theory – have place an mechanism within a larger context.

The grace for humanity is – we live near the end of the planetary stress for equilibrium and have been for a few thousand yaers. Earthquake – volcanic eruptions – oceanic sea floor rift excretions – all indicate that the expansion process continues.

Isn’t the entire fear of 2012 and the galactic core alignment fear that the energy within the planet would increase and cause catastrophic earth change?

Tag your it

I really appreciate the chance to defend myself – I love a challenge – make me think – it is the greatest hobby – this is also how I fellowship -

Everything always comes back to scripture – the truth of scripture