|
|
Post by loretta on Jun 1, 2013 10:57:03 GMT -5
Was it formed from part of earth that was ejected when impacted by another body...or something to that effect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Virginia on Jun 1, 2013 13:55:09 GMT -5
I have heard that theory before but NASA says the moon is hollow. Was it created for our benefit by Aliens or maybe God?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 2, 2013 23:52:35 GMT -5
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, I copied this from a creationist web-site: - “Have you ever wondered where the Moon came from? Those of us who believe in the Bible know the answer to this question. God created the moon on the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19)” There – take that and believe it. However simple this answer may be, it is not in agreement with the Hebrew of the Torah, or the rabbinic commentary on creation. From: The Legends of the Jews, By Louis Ginzberg, 1909, Chapter I: The Creation of the World - “The fourth day of creation produced the sun, the moon, and the stars. These heavenly spheres were not actually fashioned on this day; they were created on the first day, and merely were assigned their places in the heavens on the fourth.”Why doesn’t the Rabbinic commentary agree with the most fundamental Christian commentary? A word study in Hebrew – Verse 1 – “created” – Hebrew verb Bara' (ברא) – Strongs study number H1254 Translate only once as created, every other time this word refers to making something fat – to fatten. Only Christendom uses this word to mean that God created something out of nothing. Rabbinic commentary suggest that God fatten what was already there to form the matter of our reality. Verses 3 and 16 – “let there be” and “God made” – same verb – Hebrew verb - Hayah (היה) – Strongs study number 1961 from the root 1933 Translated as: to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, to happen, occur, take place, to come about, come to pass to come into being, to arise, appear, to be instituted, be established, to exist, be in existence, to abide, remain, continue From Rabbinic tradition: everything began in verse 1, but God wasn’t finished molding them into their final form until later verses. So the Moon was not created in verse 16, but its creation was completed in verse 16 and was set in its established place in verse 17. The scientific theory that best fits this Rabbinic version is Capture Theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon“This hypothesis states that the Moon was captured by the Earth. This was popular until the 1980s, and some things in favor of this model include the Moon's size, orbit, and tidal locking. One problem is understanding the capture mechanism. A close encounter with Earth typically results in either collision or altered trajectories. For this hypothesis to function, there might have been a large atmosphere extended around the primitive Earth, which would be able to slow the movement of the Moon before it could escape. That hypothesis may also explain the irregular satellite orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. In addition, this hypothesis has difficulty explaining the essentially identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two worlds.” AND – to no surprise to me – this also fits my theory of FD-WEDT. Look at wikipedias issues point by point. 1- Results in either collision or altered trajectories – lets rule collision out for now (see next post), and as for altered trajectories – how do we know it wasn’t? All we can measure is the result. We have no data of the Earth’s trajectory prior to capture, so it is a mute argument. 2- For this hypothesis to function, there might have been a large atmosphere extended around the primitive Earth, which would be able to slow the movement of the Moon before it could escape. – Although FD-WEDT does not address the moon per se, but everything mentioned here is totally consistent with FD-WEDT – yep – 100% total agreement!3- Identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two worlds. – I am unprepared to answer this directly, except to say; just how many worlds do we know of their oxygen isotope ratios? We have moon rock by the pound, and a few ounces of mars rock that came here on its own. Does anyone know the oxygen isotope ration of those few ounces? Asteroid, comets, and meteors were not formed by the same process. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 3, 2013 0:48:22 GMT -5
Collision Theory From Wikipedia: “The most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the Moon involves a collision of two protoplanetary bodies during the early accretional period of Solar System evolution. This "giant impact hypothesis", which became popular in 1984, satisfies the orbital conditions of the Earth and Moon and can account for the relatively small metallic core of the Moon. Collisions between planetesimals are now recognized to lead to the growth of planetary bodies early in the evolution of the Solar System, and in this framework it is inevitable that large impacts will sometimes occur when the planets are nearly formed. It is thought to have originated in the 1940s with Reginald Aldworth Daly, a Canadian professor at Harvard.
The hypothesis requires a collision between a body about 90% the present size of the Earth, and another the diameter of Mars (half of the terrestrial radius and a tenth of its mass). The colliding body has sometimes been referred to as Theia, the mother of Selene, the Moon goddess in Greek mythology. This size ratio is needed in order for the resulting system to possess sufficient angular momentum to match the current orbital configuration. Such an impact would have put enough material into orbit about the Earth to have eventually accumulated to form the Moon.”There are many reasons why Collision Theory does not fit the evidence. 1- It is hard to pick the most obvious evidence, because there are several, but I will start with the fact that the Earth and Moon do not have the same densities. Moon rock has a density - 3.34 g/cubic cm, while Earth rock has a density - 5.52 g/cubic cm. If Moon rock was originally Earth rock, then why the difference in density? 2- The Moon is lumpy. One of the problems encountered by lunar satellites is that the gravity of the moon is not consistent. Some areas have greater gravity than others, indicating that some areas are denser than others. Two lunar satellites were sent specifically to investigate this phenomenon. This evidence is consistent with Standard Formation Theory, which says that space rock gathered together. Then over time as the ball grew in diameter the center melted into a molten core, but leaves the surface lumpy. Moon Gravity: NASA's Grail Probes Show How 'Lumps' Of Mass Form Under Lunar SurfaceSPACE.com, Denise Chow, 05/30/2013 www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/moon-gravity-mapping-probes-lumps-mass-lunar-surface_n_3361383.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003“A pair of spacecraft that meticulously mapped the moon's gravitational field has helped astronomers solve the long-standing mystery of why the moon is so gravitationally lumpy.
A team of scientists used data collected by NASA's twin Grail probes— which ended their yearlong gravity-mapping mission in December 2012 by crashing into the moon — to glean new details about strange concentrations of mass that sit hidden beneath the lunar surface. These geologic structures, called mascons (short for mass concentrations), are so dense they alter the moon's gravity field, causing perturbations that can tug a spacecraft lower in its orbit around the moon, or push it wildly off course.”FD-WEDT also uses this same evidence to prove that the Moon and Earth could not have form by the same mechanism The Moon is obviously a collection of space rock that pulled itself into a spherical planetoid, while Earth formed as a result of a large gas giant protoplanet with a much greater gravity well, pressures, and temperatures that left earth with a very large iron core and a nicely homogeneous mantel and crust. 3- One of the major evidences of Whole Earth Decompression are sea mounts. The Hawaiian Sea Mount chain give evidence of the decompression process as to rate and direction. The volcanic mounts were/are formed as lava pushes its way to the surface from a hot spot within the core. As the pacific sea floor spread it passes over this hot spot and another mount is formed. The Hawaiian–Emperor seamount chain containing over 80 identified undersea volcanoes, stretches over 5,800 kilometres (3,600 mi) from the Aleutian Trench in the far northwest Pacific to the Loʻihi seamount, the youngest volcano in the chain, which lies about 35 kilometres (22 mi) southeast of the Island of Hawaii. (Wikipedia) If the Moon was gouged out of the pacific basin, as collision theory suggest, these mounts would have never formed into the chain we see today. 4- Another evidence for FD-WEDT are oceanic trenches, which appear as secondary decompression cracks along the Pacific rim. These cracks/trenches are also inconsistent with a collision theory. 5- Lastly – for this post – is the fact that the continental shelves of the Pacific Rim fit together like a jig saw puzzle to form planetoid Pangea. Any impact of the scale suggested by collision theory would have disrupted this symmetry. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 3, 2013 1:36:56 GMT -5
As for the Moon being hollow, being towed into position by Aliens to be used as an observation platform, I am not sure of exactly how to answer. We are told from the Torah, from Enoch, and the Koran that the Moon serves a deliberate purpose. More so that just to illuminate the night. Without the Moon being in its specific tidally locked orbit, life on earth would be very different indeed. The gravitational tug of war regulates the uniformly consistent ocean tides of course, but also, stabilizes the tilt of the Earth at 23.5 degrees. It is to be a sign in the heavens – what does that mean? From Enoch we read that it is the moon that regulates our calendar. In fact, the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar – coincidence? – I think not! Although, it might be a lost art; but my mother planted her garden by the phases of the moon. As for being hollow, I think it depends on exactly what you mean by that. From: er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/pg15.htm“Back in November 1969, the Apollo 12 astronauts had sent their Lunar Module crash- ing into the Moon following their return to the command craft after the lunar landing mission. That Lunar Module struck with a force of one ton of TNT. The shock waves built up to a peak in eight minutes and con- tinued for nearly an hour. April 14, 1970, the S-IVB struck the Moon with a force equivalent to 11 1/2 tons of TNT. It hit 85 miles west northwest of the site where the Apollo 12 astronauts had set up their seismometer. Scientists on Earth said, ‘The Moon rang like a bell.’” NASA's Grail Probes just confirmed that some areas of the Moon are less dense than others. Would this also suggest the possibilities of large voids within the Moon? If the Moon is composed of lumpy sections, wouldn’t void naturally occur between the lumps? So – hollow like a balloon – NO, but caverness voids? – Possibly. These voids could be the home to Moon dwelling life forms. You know me and I am not suggesting little green men, but demonic forces, Archons, Jinn, Watchers, Satan’s seed using the Moon as a base of operation – I will not disagree. More word study - Elohiym - Strongs word number H430 (אלהים), Definition – (plural), rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods; (plural intensive - singular meaning), the totality of god or goddess, godlike one, works or special possessions of God. Strict Roman Christendom interpret the ‘us’ or ‘Elohiym’ as only the totality of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. However, if you adopt a larger reality ‘us’ and ‘Elohiym’ also take on a possibly larger definition. The President of the United States can say, ‘We are going to the moon,’ and immediately everyone understands that the ‘we’ includes more than just a small group of people; it naturally include thousands, if not millions, of people working on the project, not to mention the selected astronauts that reap all the media attention. Pleroma - the Greek word that approximates Elohiym - Strongs number G4138 (πλήρωμα) Translaed as:that which is (has been) filled a ship inasmuch as it is filled (i.e. manned) with sailors, rowers, and soldiers in the NT, the body of believers, as that which is filled with the presence, power, agency, riches of God and of Christ that which fills or with which a thing is filled of those things which a ship is filled, freight and merchandise, sailors, oarsmen, soldiers completeness or fulness of time fulness, abundance a fulfilling, keeping Used by St. Paul in the general sense of "filling up." It means the sum total of the blessings brought to the world by Christ (Romans 15:29; Ephesians 1:23; 3:19). Also applied to the fullness of divinity in Christ (Colossians 1:19), and the Church as the plentitude or complement of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).17 Consider these words of definition, the sum total, fullness of the divinity, and the plentitude. What concept is being conveyed here? Just as Elohiym takes on a mean of more than just a singularity, Pleroma also conveys this same more ness. Just where in these definitions are the limits to their meaning established? Elohiym is translated within the ‘one book’ as angels. Just how many does that imply? Only Rome has stepped forward to limit the leans of these words. One of the things about scripture that is amazing is the fact that anyone verse, phrase, or statement, could have, does have, might have layers upon layers of meaning. We are told by scripture that the Moon is there for a purpose. The Elohiym were not born of earth - therefore by definition - Alien and Extraterrestrial. The Moon was set in its place, captured, assigned. - It is all in how you read the vocabulary. A rose by any other name ? Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by loretta on Jun 3, 2013 15:43:09 GMT -5
Amazing input! I am doing more pondering of just what was happening when God was arranging the heavens and earth and how that all might have taken place. In my mind's eye I am seeing a scenario much more interesting than I have ever thought before. I love the Hebrew concept you pointed out about "create" and then "fatten"... Thanks so much for sharing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 4, 2013 23:09:02 GMT -5
I started out as a protestant, but as I began to take my Bible studies more and more serious I had the crazy idea – of whom better to ask Old Testament questions from than the local Rabbi. Not being a Jew myself, it actually took me some time to find a source that would entertain my questions.
It didn't take long at all to realize that the Jews and the Christians interpret the Old Testament very differently. I was told that the basic difference is that Christians read Jesus into the Old Testament, while the Jews just read the Old Testament. Much like the prophesies of Nostradamus. Ten different people can read 10 different applications into almost every quatrain.
The next step in evolution was to consider only the rabbinic commentaries current with the life and time of Jesus. Again I discovered a world of difference between Jewish thought of then versus now. Jewish commentary today is dry, void of mysticism, and deliberately tries to justify reading Jesus out of the Old Testament. While, Jewish commentary during the age of Jesus was full of mysticism and metaphysics.
During the days of Jesus, in the nation of Israel, possession by demons was a commonly understood phenomenon. Jesus cast out how many? In the Book of Acts a Rabbi cast out demons. In the process of casting out demons Jesus refers to the knowledge from the ‘Testament of Solomon.’ However, today Christians and Jews deny demonic possession.
During the days of Jesus, in the nation of Israel, talk of entering heaven and life in heaven was a common conversation by Jesus. Jews today are much more of the saducce persuasion where the goal is not life in heaven, but closeness to God on earth while they are alive.
During the days of Jesus, in the nation of Israel, there was much commentary about 7 heavens. The Zohar and the Merkabah were great works of literature discussing the 7 heavens and the 7 celestial spheres. The Apostle Paul wrote about 7 heavens. The Jewish expression – Being in 7th heaven – meant the best possible location possible.
Today all these concepts have become myths, legends, or non-relevant stories of mysticism or metaphysics.
As one studies scripture written soon after the days of Jesus, it is helpful to return to the original language of the day, but to interpret those scriptures in terms of modern day attitudes is a mistake. However, to look at that original language framed in the same cosmology and attitudes of that era bring an entirely new perspective to understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jun 8, 2013 19:40:50 GMT -5
I agree with you to a point. But don't you think that Christianity doesn't teach demonology to keep its members from falling prey to it?
Look at our society. If people knew they could call upon demonic forces to reap fame, power, or fortune; I think Satan would have a long line of people awaiting his blessings.
Just how many we-stories are there about Hollywood's elite in allegiance with the devil, or stories from the music industry. Satan is powerful enough!
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 4, 2013 19:38:27 GMT -5
Hi, I posted above, but I did not log-in. You can delete the above post from Guest if you like. I think I am logged in now.
The moon seems to be no different to other planets or suns. Every heavenly body seems to have formed by the precipitation and accumulation of similar elements that developed nuclear heat which expanded and formed a crust. Genesis 1 speaks of dry land appearing on earth during day 2. Dry land in the form of continent building is seen from the Siberian Traps, etc. Large amounts of flood lava spewing out over large surfaces, as seen in the basaltic flood lavas of the lunar mare. I think these patterns are consistent on all planets and moons; whereas stars show a gaseous formation, but using the exact same elements. The elements are the building blocks of "the heavens and earth". I suspect that the elements have a distinct origin to the Big Bang hypothesis. It is possible that planets form similar to biological processes that rely on a DNA blueprint. This geological blueprint may be recorded in space itself. Space could "birth" the sub-atomic particles, and the formation of the sub-atomic particles into elements, relying on gravity and electro-magnetic forces (as well as the "strong force") are following a predetermined blueprint. The atoms bond together much like the cells of a body start forming a fetus or life form. Every body has its own predetermined glory. A human is different to a monkey; a moon is different to a planet; a planet is different to a star. Each have their predetermined bodies and roles they perform.
That's my suggestion. I hope you are all well and growing in the Lord.
God Bless
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 5, 2013 1:18:55 GMT -5
The moon seems to be no different to other planets or suns. Every heavenly body seems to have formed by the precipitation and accumulation of similar elements that developed nuclear heat which expanded and formed a crust. What you are referring to is the Nebular Theory (circa 750) + the standard planet formation theory (1963) – The Nebular Theory is Ok to a point. However, the Standard Planet Formation theory is flawed. It makes entirely too many assumptions and as entirely too many exceptions to be a valid theory. Nebular Theory suggest that accumulating space rock coalesces into larger and larger clumps until the gravity of that clump pulls it into a planetoid sphere. The problem with our observations to date is the LACK of evidence. The amount of space rock (chondrites) at our disposal + the amount of measures planetary evidence is very small indeed. Of what we do know the Moon does seem to fit the theory. Ordinary Chondrites have a metallic content of metal equal to or heavier than iron of 2-4%. Accumulate enough of these together and you would form a planetoid with a 2-4% iron (or heavier) core, just like the moon. Increased pressures at the center of the planetoid causing liquefaction of the core seem pretty straight forward. However, by what mechanism drives this liquefaction process to churn the entire content of the planetoid so that the crust becomes a uniform layer? Large lava flows is not the issue. In fact, as we learned from the Grail gravity project, the moons crust is lumpy indeed, meaning that mantel convection does not happen with planetary bodies and the larger lumps and clumps remain unaffected. This is consistent with Nebular Theory. Earth does not it this model. Our planetary core id not 2-4% iron 37.7%. If mantel convection churned the entire mass over the entire surface would be of volcanic rock, and it is not. He other major exception to earth fitting this standard model is the fact that earth, of all the planets ere are aware of, does not have a continuous mono layer crust. Instead he crust is broken into seven continental plates separated by vey wide, and much younger, oceanic floor. Therefore these tow planetary bodies could not have formed by the exact same process! At the home site for Pondering Confusion please review the information presented there for Whole Earth Decompression Theory. ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=wholeponderingconfusion.com/index.php?id=herndonand then my small contribution to this same line of reasoning: ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=FDWEDT1 |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 5, 2013 1:47:12 GMT -5
It is possible that planets form similar to biological processes that rely on a DNA blueprint. This geological blueprint may be recorded in space itself. Space could "birth" the sub-atomic particles, and the formation of the sub-atomic particles into elements, relying on gravity and electro-magnetic forces (as well as the "strong force") are following a predetermined blueprint. The atoms bond together much like the cells of a body start forming a fetus or life form. Every body has its own predetermined glory. A human is different to a monkey; a moon is different to a planet; a planet is different to a star. Each have their predetermined bodies and roles they perform. Neal Adams, the artist behind the Bat Man Comic Book Series, presents a theory very similar to this. He suggests that at the core of planets there is continuous creation of silicon, which then causes the planets expand. Just speaking to his theory, not your suggestion, but there are several problems with is model. Primarily, continued silicon growth would dilute the heavy core model and interfere with magnetic field theory as well as, nuclear core theory. www.nealadams.com/index.php/scienceUnfortunately, Neal Adam’s theory has zero support by any other scientist and his websites have all changed into a “pay to see the evidence” format. Here is a YouTube video of his explaining the expansion of the Moon. If you look hard enough, he also has great videos about Europa and several other planets in our solar system. youtu.be/tBT8KyWVxj8DNA for planetary development? I agree that each heavenly body may, or may not, have a designed function, a divine purpose if you will. Our moon certainly does! Explain your suggestion in more detail please. Are you suggesting something in regard to divine plan, or something secondary to Sacred geometry of atomic and molecular construct? |
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2013 20:16:58 GMT -5
What you are referring to is the Nebular Theory (circa 750) + the standard planet formation theory (1963) – The Nebular Theory is OK to a point. However, the Standard Planet Formation theory is flawed. It makes entirely too many assumptions and as entirely too many exceptions to be a valid theory. Hi Dave, Hydridic Earth theoryI don't quite follow the Nebular theory as you have described it. I am probably between the Nebular theory and the Hydridic Earth theory, presented by Russian geologist Vladimir Larin. A similar theory presented by J. Marvin Herndon is "Early Earth Formation as a Jupiter-like Gas Giant." (http://nuclearplanet.com/) Geologist, L.W. Dan Bridges, stated: " Throughout the universe, hydrogen is the most abundant element. It is only natural that our Moon, Earth, and our planets contained a huge volume of hydrogen gas when they were formed." You see examples of the hydrogen still existing as liquid hydrogen or metallic hydrogen on our gas planets; Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. As hydrogen is the first element, it is natural that this first element would play an important role in the formation of the universe, and we see that this is true even now. The collision of meteorites to become the basis of planet building is a page torn from the evolution cook-book. I do not subscribe to evolution, and I think there are adequate explanations (and greater evidence) to suppose an alternative model. Expanding Earth I do accept that the expanding earth is a more plausible model, as the continental drift from Pangaea and Gondwanaland seem too incredulous for me to accept. Recent sea-mount dating contradicts these findings also. You can see no such seafloor scarring of India being dragged from Africa and colliding with China. The scarring of the seafloor tells a radically different picture. All of the expansion comes from a central point; the MOR. I do not think this happened in 200 million years. The earth went through a period of radical re-shaping during a hyper-volcanism period. This either happened due to catastrophism or uniformitarianism. For me personally I think the evidence is greater for catastrophism. Each to his own though. Moon CratersMore radical still... I believe that the craters on the moon were caused by cryptovolcanism; possibly due to the release of hydrogen gases as the crust was trapping gas inside the exoskeleton. Again, from L.W. Dan Bridges, " There are many large craters on our Moon. The standard interpretation assumes that they were caused by meteorite impact. This is a fundamental mistake which has created many other misinterpretations on Earth." The Olympus Mons, on Mars, is a volcano which is 600 kilometers wide at its base, and 22 kilometers high. This is over twice the height of Mount Everest. Volcanic processes within planets and moons are a known fact; meteorite impact craters are conjecture and speculation. Anyway, I hope my ideas are not too radical for the audience here. We can only make assessments based on our available knowledge, and as Einstein says, a little imagination goes a long way. God Bless Steve |
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2013 20:37:09 GMT -5
DNA for planetary development? I agree that each heavenly body may, or may not, have a designed function, a divine purpose if you will. Our moon certainly does! Explain your suggestion in more detail please. Are you suggesting something in regard to divine plan, or something secondary to Sacred geometry of atomic and molecular construct? Hi Dave, I certainly believe in creation and design. The moon did not accidentally spin and rotate at exactly the same time-rate (29.5 days) so that we would always see only one side of the moon. This is by design. The moon did not accidentally drift away from earth to become 400 times closer than the sun, while coincidentally the moon so happens to be 400 times smaller than the sun. This was by design. The rotation, size and distance of the moon from the earth are precise - by design. Our moon is not alone in solar eclipses either; many planets display this precision with solar eclipses with their moons. The precision involved in our universe speaks of a laid out blueprint and design that was carefully executed. How this DNA style blueprint was concealed is still a mystery. I suspect that space itself is the mother giving birth to the initial sub-atomic particles which led to the formation of hydrogen. It possibly works like coral spawning - once every year (or thousand years). When the Holy Spirit hovered over the earth, we have an example of other laws and forces at work, such as electro-magnetism and centrifugal forces. The original quarks were bonded together to make a proton and neutron, and these were bonded with electrons to make hydrogen. An initial strong force, such as the Holy Spirit, was likely at work to make this possible. God Bless Steve |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 6, 2013 0:41:28 GMT -5
Expanding Earth I do accept that the expanding earth is a more plausible model, as the continental drift from Pangaea and Gondwanaland seem too incredulous for me to accept. Recent sea-mount dating contradicts these findings also. You can see no such seafloor scarring of India being dragged from Africa and colliding with China. The scarring of the seafloor tells a radically different picture. All of the expansion comes from a central point; the MOR. I do not think this happened in 200 million years. The earth went through a period of radical re-shaping during a hyper-volcanism period. This either happened due to catastrophism or uniformitarianism. For me personally I think the evidence is greater for catastrophism. Each to his own though. Expanding Earth Theory is a defunked theory from the 1930s Germany. This theory alone does not provide a mechanism for expansion nor address the fluidic complication imposed by the theory. However, better stated as Whole Earth Decompression Theory as stated by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon (who is my guy) not only address the mechanism for decompression, but provides the mechanism for: 1. Continental Drift theory and Plate Tectonics – The continental plates do bump and grind against one another and even shift to some degree – just not to the extent that those theories claim. 2. Earthquakes – currently blamed on plate tectonics, however plate tectonics is only a secondary result from decompression. 3. Volcanism – also secondary to decompression 4. A-biotic oil theory – also secondary to decompression As for your hyper-volcanism period and the demand for catastrophism.Both addressed by: The Fluid Dynamics of Whole Earth Decompression Theory (FD-WEDT) - my theory, which is also secondary to J. Marvin Herndon’s work. Herndon offers a solution of a solar ejection event which swept the entire inner solar system leaving all the planets of the inner solar system as rocky planets with minimal ATM, while outer planets remained as gas giants. I argue within my own theory that this event had to be a “sudden and catastrophic event.” Hendon’s theory with my addition – fit the scripture perfectly. This is the primary reason I believe in this combination of theories without reservation, because they do correlate perfectly with all other theories, from multiple science disciplines, as well as, scripture – which is also why I have had issues getting it formally published with scientific literature; thus, the sole purpose of the Book. It was never super-continent Pangea – it was planetoid Pangea – which also fits the scriptural account of predeluvian earth. Your hyper-volcanism played a huge role in FD-WEDT, but instead of covering the entire land masses (which there is no evidence of) it happened primarily under the oceans water forming the ocean floors. If haven’t already – I invite you again to check our parent website - ponderingconfusion.com/There you will find FD-WEDT parts 1 through 4 that address all of this in greater detail. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 6, 2013 1:08:08 GMT -5
Scientific dating of past / ancient rock and artifacts.
Interestingly enough one of the secondary side effects of Whole Earth Decompression Theory (WEDT) and FD-WEDT is their impact to the entire science of dating. Carbon 14 is only reliable to about 14,000 years, even saying that the degree of accuracy spans several thousand years. Multiple measurements are mad on an object and the range of suggested answers is sometime staggering. The reported answers are then just an average of the most acceptable results – which is opinioned based not mathematically based.
Beyond the 10,000 year mark science uses radio-active isotopes, like strontium 90, to measure the date back into the millions of years. The math goes like this:
Assumption #1 – quantities of these isotopes has always been constant on earth.
Assumption #2 – the rate of decay has always remained constant
So the age of an object is equal to Assumption #1 divided by Assumption #2
WEDT and FD-WEDT both suggest that in the beginning protoplanet Pangea (earth) was at the core of a Jupiter sized protoplanet gas giant – therefore Assumption #1 is dramatically flawed
Also, whatever cosmic event triggered the sun to erupt is evidenced by Neal Adams work with expansion zones on multiple moons and planets throughout our solar system – therefore Assumption # may also be suspect.
Another interesting point along with this is the apparent telescopic dating effect in the time line that just may support this line of reasoning. Dates seem sort of linear up until about 25,000 years ago, or so. Then suddenly dates begin to jump into the 100s of thousands and quickly into the millions of years.
|
|
