Planetary geology

All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Planetary geology

Postby John » Fri 19 Jan 2018 3:28 pm

I find the discussion of geology, speculating about our planetary solar system, as presented by both the SIS forum and the internet to be difficult to follow and they leave me adrift on a sea of speculation. My [current] view is that Earth, Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn and Uranus experienced unique geological formation processes – unique because they were influenced only by the Sun and the gas planets. No doubt there was the odd interloper that interfered but we cannot know for sure.
I do not believe in oddities such as Pangea. For a huge mass of the Earth to accumulate into such a singular land mass and unbalance things simply has no place in my thinking. It is perhaps possible that [for example only!], Africa and South America once formed a single continent and the positioning of continents generally may have resulted from the expansion of Mother Earth. I can offer no indisputable evidence for any hypothesis – who can?
Whatever the truth, my scenario suggests that comparing Earth’s geography with that of the other solid planets is a lost cause, even though it is highly probable that a good deal of space debris and asteroids from relatively nearby systems [also perhaps in formative stages], affected Earth's geology by collision and accretion. I offer no references. There are none I know of.
I feel that in any ‘early’ Solar System, the Star has a greater ‘say’ [with gravitational and/or electromagnetic power] and that Star creates a very stable system. After a few billion years some ‘nearby’, but now weaker, Star may ‘lose’ a planet [multiple possible causes] and the wanderer may be captured or decimated in another system. Masses of debris become the order of the day! The gaps between stars in the Milky Way must be stacked with debris miles high by now.
There are good reasons to believe that ‘rogue’ planets have visited our system and made crash landings on Jupiter and/or Saturn that created Venus and all those moons around Jupiter and elsewhere. Our neighbour Solar bodies, Mars and the Moon may well be ‘captures’ from other systems! We just don’t know.
In this scenario, Earth had already had time to form its geology in [relative!] peace, whereas the new planets have had a very torrid time! From that point on, Earth's geology was thrown into turmoil, as was that of the others. But – Earth's was an already settled geology, whereas the others were still in early formative states. Their crustal states may have formed with layers different from Earth's. Why then should we turn somersaults trying to establish parallel geological processes when the layout conditions may have been so different? To presume similar geologies for an old relatively settled planet and turbulent new ones is wishful thinking. When we see how deformed and twisted our planet’s long formed, numerous and settled strata have become, a comparison with that of ‘newcomers’ seems futile.
Now back to Mother Earth's geology. I have long wondered at the reasoning that claims mountains are formed at the collision edges of so-called tectonic plates. While I have no belief in tectonics [this was originally an idea sneered at and literally salvaged only as desperate anti-Velikovsky weapon!], I accept that lateral pressures may be involved with concomitant upthrust when land masses rise to create great uneven plains.
But – why would roughly triangular mountain ranges dominate so much of these movements? The answer seems obvious – they wouldn’t!
In the light cast by Electric Universe theory, I see that all mountain ranges display a clear waveform that cannot possibly arise from land uplift. The range may be hundreds and hundreds of miles in length and the [pointed] mountain peaks thousands of feet high. Uplift doesn’t cut it! This phenomenon can be caused by nothing other than massive electric charges. The peak heights are somewhat irregular in most instances, presumably because of differences in the earth materials affected [I assume!]
If this is right and as electricity is come and gone in a moment, so must be the rise of entire mountain ranges. Quite a sight! I read somewhere that Tibetan traders saw the Himalayas rise before their eyes, closing an ancient trade route to India.
On this sort of tack, I have always maintained that the visit of the Queen of Sheba was only a practicable possibility if the River Jordan then still flowed through the Red Sea and on into the Gulf of Akiba. An open sea route would have risked total disaster costing millions. The transport, when loaded, looks unwieldy and easily capsized. Not an acceptable risk. To gamble on a sea route could have lost her ‘fleet’ on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. To do it in that way would label her a poser and a fool. Not an acceptable diplomatic policy!
I believe the rise of the small mountain range at the northern tip of the Gulf and consequent general earth movement soon buried the lower Jordan, but - I suggest - it found/created an underground route that still flows into the Gulf. After all, three thousands of years later, the Red Sea is not any deeper, nor is the land surrounding it any the more fertile. If the excess water simply fed into local land it would be self-evident.
This water thing bugs me. I find it confusing to read of an 'ocean of water’ tucked away hundreds of miles below our feet! It is supposed to be as hot as hell down there! Rock is sundered by this ‘water’ and apparently almost liquidised. Apparently, the water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, which is the layer of hot rock between Earth’s surface and its core.
If this is water I find it very odd. I can boil water and convert it to steam at ‘boiling point’. Are there different rules down below? I know that boiling point is altered at different levels, but at 700km down below it is pretty hot! So I think it grossly misleading to describe it as water. The physical power of what surely must be steam under colossal pressure will easily ‘outperform’ water pressure [anyway, surely water under sufficient pressure will get hot and change into steam]. Steam will permeate where water cannot.
Whilst it may be common scientific practice to label super-heated steam as water, for the rest of us [well, me] this is a misleading practice leading me to wonder about other possible ‘scientific’ misdescriptions that can deceive the layman.
Plain English please!
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest