Cosmic Catastrophe

[freebeard]

At this point I'd settle for Crater Lake. Largest volume of fresh water above sea level in the Western Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Fishing in Crater Lake is promoted because the fish species are not indigenous to the lake.

Definitely vulcansim, at least according to the Klamath Indians.

[oil pan 4]

How the atmosphere works for beginners, nasa and aerohead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mzc10-d2oo

I like how Ben destroys nasas bs narrative about how "sun doesn't affect the atmosphere" with nasas own peer reviewed papers. It's like there's one or 2 people at nasa who have big mouths and cling to obsolete outdated debunked science and are trying to force their stunted scientific development on everyone else to prop up a failing religion.

[freebeard]

This morning he gave the NASA source for the infographic.


https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4641

[RedDevil]

This one has Cosmic and Freebeard all written over it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZ_RSt0KP8

Not really catastrophic, except maybe if you're in a plane.

[freebeard]

I thought you were One Of Us.

(yeah, that 4096 was a tell)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Not talking about lightning. This woud be more like an inner most shell magnetic field collapse or some other unknown mechanism.
2,800 cubic miles of earth normally does not simply disappear, until it does.
We know the dirt didn't move by normal water erosion or a great flood.

1) perhaps I'm confused. the video clearly showed an arc discharge from above, acting upon some loose aggregate below, as if 'lightning' striking from a cloud.
2) if we're talking about Mars, it's innermost 'shell' is a solid metallic, nickel-iron core.
3) according to conventional dynamo theory, a metallic core is incapable of generating any magnetic field, unless surrounded by a convecting, electrically-conductive, liquid metallic substance to create the 'Faraday' effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Mars is smaller than Earth.
5) Mars has less thermal inertia than Earth.
6) Mars' surface- area-to-volume is disadvantageous compared to Earth.
7) Mar's inventory of heat-producing radioactive Aluminum-26, Uranium-238, and Potassium-40 paled in comparison to Earth.
8) Eventually losing its internal source of heat, with no erupting volcanoes, or a biosphere capable of producing greenhouse gases, Mars came to lose more heat to space than it could make up, eventually 'freezing.'
9) This would 'kill' its 'dynamo.'
10) There would be no strong magnetic field. A ' magnetic field collapse.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) We do know that Mars once had liquid water and a thick atmosphere.
12) We also know that lightning can do no more than melt existing rock ( geologists must routinely heat rock samples to remove viscous remanent magnetism in order to expose natural remanent paleomagnetism ).
13 ) We know that water DID move 2,800-cubic miles of crust, and perhaps over 300-million years. It's no mystery to geologists.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

So...

The long story short is that you can’t tell us where the 2,800 cubic miles of debris ended up.

Got it...




>

.

1) It all went 'downstream.'
2) If you know the geologic history of North America, then you know that from Northern Arizona, 'downstream' was sometimes 'South,' sometimes 'North,' and sometimes 'East.'
3) The Grand Canyon was below sea-level seventeen times ( 17) before the Colorado Plateau, which we see today, was finally thrust up. Any Park Ranger there will tell you so.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Do you have any information and or links that supports this hypothesis ?

As far as I know. Nobody can point to what happened to the missing material. It just doesn’t exist in sufficient quantities anywhere to account for erosion as being the main cause. 🤷


Update.

I was looking for something else and came across this news that was just released a couple of days ago.


The Grand Canyon lacks a billion years of geological history

https://eminetra.com/the-grand-canyo...istory/710917/


Billion years of rock missing.

No definitive answers.

More conjecture leading to more questions.


In all honesty, to say we know how the Grand Canyon was formed at this point is fraught with folly.

There is nothing else on Earth 🌎 like it to compare to.

Well...

Unless, it’s under the sea..


At this point in time however, it’s a true Enigma...





>

.

1) Earth is 4.6-billion years old.
2) The oldest rock exposed at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 4.0-billion years old, Vishnu Schist, which is 10,000-feet thick.
3) So 0.6- billion years is 'unaccounted' for to lay people.
4) Digging below the water line of the Colorado River will expose 'older' rock, down to the base of the crust, at 420-miles depth.
5) Missing material will be found in the in the paleoinventory of:
* glacial milk
* glacial till
* glacial tillite
* glacial till sheets
* Moraines
* Alluvial plains
* Outwash gravels
* Breccias
* Dissolved limestone
* In all locals 'downstream' over the last 300-million years

[aerohead]

1) Barra Peak is a PhD candidate student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
2) ' findings suggest' implies a hypothesis, not a theory.
3) We're now talking timetables between 1-Billion years ago and 500-million years ago.
4) Barra et al. are describing a 'horizontal' dyke assemblage intrusion of metamorphosed sedimentary rock ( which was once vertical ), in a vertical strata ( which was once horizontal ).
5) 'Helium' was present as cosmic gas which was part of the solar nebula from which all planets accreted, and not dependent upon radioactive decay.
6) You'll notice that the rocks were already 'dated' when the helium was considered. That would have been accomplished by radioactive parent-daughter products of Carbon, Uranium, Thorium, Potassium, and Rubidium.
7) I don't know what Vaagisha Singh's credentials are.
8) The 'missing' material is attributed to 'erosion.'
9) NASA / JPL has considered schemes involving high-temperature evaporation of of silicates ( lithosphere ) from planetary surfaces and found them to be unrealistic due to amounts of material involved ( Fegley B. & Cameron, A. G. Earth planetary Science Letters 82, 207-222 ( 1987 ).

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So Aerohead's Victorian answer of errors, erosion, little floods, great floods, wind, is open to not being accepted by main stream science.
Hopefully what ever caused it is only a once in millions of years kind of thing.

* From Vaagisha Singh's 'lifestyle' article, it doesn't appear that anyone but Peak et al. have anything invested in this hypothesis.
* Another unpopular notion, a PhD candidate can be 100% 'wrong' about their hypotheses and still receive a doctorate. The jury they go up against is looking for performance characteristics outside the specifics of their investigations which demonstrate a command of 'process,' regardless of outcome.
* PhD James Hansen shared that he was 100%, completely wrong about atmospheric heat on Venus, yet that didn't stand in the way of his receiving a PhD..