• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Damned / Rejected Science (Miscellaneous)

There are a number of anomalies that would say that Venus is not the same as other planets.
1. The orbit is in four revolution sync' with the earth.
Click to expand...
Nothing particyularly anomalous about that. Harmonic relationships in planetary orbits are turning up all over the galaxy. The three planets of Gliese 876 are in harmonic relationship to one another; Cruithne and a number of other NEOs are locked in a 1:1 harmonic relationship with Earth, and Mercury is not tidally locked as Velikovsky thought but rotates in a 3:2 relationship with the Sun.

Of course Tesla had a lot to say about harmonic relationships, but it appears that his theories are not necessary to explain these beautiful phenomena. Planets naturally fall into harmonic orbits as they are more stable; the asteroids have sorted themselves into bands and equilateral triangles over time, but this is due to the effects of gravity rather than capricious electrical forces.

The Hilda triangle;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_family

In fact the predictability of orbits seems to make a good case against any transient electrical phenomena playing any part in planetary orbits. In our solar system we can now observe at least 119 moons in the solar system, many of which interact regularly by exchanging momentum in a predictable way. Some swap orbits on a regular basis, especially around Saturn. None of them exchange momentum to any measurable extent by electrostatic or magnetic means.
 
almond13 said:
How it soaked into the ground is simple.
Click to expand...

Go on then, how? How did it soak through impermeable rock and carve out large underground chambers? And in the case of North Sea Oil, how did it sink through the water first?
 
almond13 said:
Venus gives off more heat than it receives from the sun. This is not unusual for a planet, but in the case of Venus it's something like 10,000 times the earth.
Click to expand...

Would you like to quote a source for this?

Earth gets about 1kw/m2, are you suggesting Venus is outputting over 10,000 kw/m2? That would make it quite bright...!

As far as I can tell,

Ultimately, Venus is hot due to its proximity to the sun; it does not emit more heat than it receives from the sun, and any heat produced by its celestial movements would have long dissipated. Sagan concludes: "(1) the temperature in question was never specified [by Velikovsky]; (2) the mechanism proposed for providing this temperature is grossly inadequate; (3) the surface of the planet does not cool off with time as advertised; and (4) the idea of a high surface temperature on Venus was published in the dominant astronomical journal of its time and with an essentially correct argument ten years before the publication of Worlds in Collison" (p. 118).
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
 
It is true that Venus gives off heat from deep inside; the planet has a certain proportion of radioactive elements inside, just like the Earth, and the heat from the decay causes the cores of both planets to be hot. Earth emits a very small amount of heat at its surface, despite the fact that internal heat rises quite quickly as you go deeper; the main reason for this is that solid rock is a good insulator.

On Venus the atmosphere is much hotter, so the layer of solid, cooler rock is much thinner.
See this .pdf for a look at whether this thinner solid crust is the reason that plates cannot form, and therefore, paradoxically, the cause of the current inactive surface.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/chapman_c ... nardic.pdf

The greater heat near the surface has caused the plates to meld together into a single, immobile, thin shell.

Edit; the upshot of this effect is that the inner heat of Venus escapes more readily into the atmosphere through the relatively thin crust than it does on Earth; the transfer may well be 10,000 times higher on Venus than on Earth. But 10,000 times very little is still not a great deal.
 
wembley8
“”Would you like to quote a source for this””?
Can't find it, but I will

“”the idea of a high surface temperature on Venus was published in the dominant astronomical journal of its time and with an essentially correct argument ten years before the publication of Worlds in Collison" (p. 118).””

This is a downright lie. The high surface temperature was denied at the time.

“”Earth gets about 1kw/m2, are you suggesting Venus is outputting over 10,000 kw/m2? That would make it quite bright...! “”

Come on wembley8, you can do better than that?
What is referred to – and I think you know this -, is the amount of heat that a planet radiates into space. What the quote says is that Venus radiates 10,000 times more heat than the earth when the insolation is taken into account. Venus, being closer to the sun gets more than the earth and to be in equilibrium needs to radiate more. However, Venus radiates more than it receives from the sun and the total is 10,000 times that of the earth that radiates very little. If you look at Jupiter for example you will see that it radiates quite a lot more heat into space than it receives from the sun. This does not happen in the case of the earth as there is no heat producing mechanism of any consequence.

Accepting a hot surface for Venus solves many of the problems of atmospheric turbulence. Also the oscillation of the atmosphere and the unexplained cloud overlapping draws it's energy from this source. Venus is engulfed in a desperate battle to expel heat energy
The observed variation is not exactly periodic. but more akin to a
relaxation oscillation in which the amplitude builds up on successive
cycles and then suddenly collapses. In order to produce the observed
changes the cloud deck of Venus must be moving up and down by as much
as one kilometer. simultaneously over the entire surface of the planet.
such a large atmospheric oscillation requires a high input of mechanical
energy. This condition is difficult to account for in the case of a slowly
rotating planet heated uniformly by the Sun's rays [Greenhouse effect].
Therefore the cycle variations point to some unexplained deep-seated
property of the atmospheric dynamics."
25New Scientist Vol. 58 (1973). p. 72 (emphasis added); see also the
Astrophysical Journal Vol. 181. p. L5.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks eburacum, I hadn't read your post when I answered.
 
The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article
entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as
follows:
All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat
from radioactive elements within their rocks. But Taylor's
observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing
almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is
inconceivable according to present theories of planetary
formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of
the radioactive elements than Earth does. At last weeks
meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say
sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.
Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply
points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
refused to go away. More measurements are needed before
astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
extra heat will disappear on further investigation.
http://groups.google.com.py/group/talk. ... ee/browse_
frm/month/1990-09?hl=es&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1990-09%3Fhl%3Des%26&hl=es
:hello:
 
Go on then, how? How did it soak through impermeable rock and carve out large underground chambers? And in the case of North Sea Oil, how did it sink through the water first?
Click to expand...
I have already told you how it got into the rock. The entire surface of the earth was quaking and was cracked. The oil in the coastal areas soaked under the sea in the fissures of the continental shelf. See map of oil distribution.
 
Since 1980 the idea of a hot surface on Venus has become more accepted; it really isn't that difficult to understand.
In fact Venus probably has a slightly cooler and less active core than Earth; it has only a small magnetic field after all. The Earth's magnetic field is caused by differetial rotation in it's hot and active core, according to current theories.

But both Earth and Venus are in thermal equilibrium; that is to say the temperature of both planets rises with depth. It just happens that Earth's temperature gradient doesn't start getting hot until several kilometers underground, while the temperature of Venus's atmosphere is so high that temperatures found deep underground on Earth occur above the surface on Venus.
This heat is prevented from escaping from Venus because of the greenhouse effect, of course...
 
Yes, yes and yes.
Millions of years old oil is an assumption based on current theory.
There have been other theories by famous scientists to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gol ... _petroleum
Click to expand...

If you read up on your Thomas Gold theory you'll see that while he does believe that oil was formed from hydrocarbons from space he does not say anything about it being from venus passing by 3500 years ago rather at the formation of the earth. So that kind of rules out Venus as being the cause of the oil. You can't have it both ways. Either Venus created the oil when it passed by a few thousand years ago or Thomas Gold is right and the oil was formed by hydrocarbons from space at the earths formation 4 and half billion years ago. Which is it?

[/quote]Again, Velikovsky did not say that Venus “hit the earth
Well thats quite obvious isn't it seen as how we are still here. When a mars sized object hit us billions of years ago the moon was formed. The fact the Venus didn't hit us still doesnt account for the lack of evidence that Venus actually passed close by us. As i pointed out to you 65 million years ago a tiny object left behind the KT boundry which can be found in several places throughout the world. So a tiny object hitting the earth can leave huge amounts of evidence then why is there none from a near earth sized object passing close by. Are you trying to say that despite passing so close and leaving the oil (as you claim) it didn't leave any dust, rock or other solid ejecta scattered across the earths surface.
Click to expand...
 
heh, I know this thread is dragging on a bit, but .....
As i pointed out to you 65 million years ago...
Click to expand...
Yes, you're absolutely right it's getting boring. At such times, what better diversion than a quote from FT202 and the occasionally Fortean Paul Sieveking with a quote from John Michell:
I can't resist another quotation: "There are an infinite number of ways in which you can see the world and an infinite range of data to support, or discredit, any of them. You can believe in black holes if you like, or you can believe in angels. I am not a believer, but if I had to choose I would take the latter, because unlike the holes, angels have often been sighted and their influence has generally been for the good."
Click to expand...

It worked! :D
 
I don't think its getting boring i'd like an answer, and in case you are trying to avoid it or its all suddenly getting to emotive heres the questions again

If you read up on your Thomas Gold theory you'll see that while he does believe that oil was formed from hydrocarbons from space he does not say anything about it being from venus passing by 3500 years ago rather at the formation of the earth. So that kind of rules out Venus as being the cause of the oil. You can't have it both ways. Either Venus created the oil when it passed by a few thousand years ago or Thomas Gold is right and the oil was formed by hydrocarbons from space at the earths formation 4 and half billion years ago. Which is it?

[/quote]Again, Velikovsky did not say that Venus “hit the earth
Well thats quite obvious isn't it seen as how we are still here. When a mars sized object hit us billions of years ago the moon was formed. The fact the Venus didn't hit us still doesnt account for the lack of evidence that Venus actually passed close by us. As i pointed out to you 65 million years ago a tiny object left behind the KT boundry which can be found in several places throughout the world. So a tiny object hitting the earth can leave huge amounts of evidence then why is there none from a near earth sized object passing close by. Are you trying to say that despite passing so close and leaving the oil (as you claim) it didn't leave any dust, rock or other solid ejecta scattered across the earths surface.
Click to expand...
 
Hi feen
If you read up on your Thomas Gold theory you'll see that while he does believe that oil was formed from hydrocarbons from space he does not say anything about it being from venus passing by 3500 years ago rather at the formation of the earth. So that kind of rules out Venus as being the cause of the oil. You can't have it both ways. Either Venus created the oil when it passed by a few thousand years ago or Thomas Gold is right and the oil was formed by hydrocarbons from space at the earths formation 4 and half billion years ago. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right Gold said nothing about Venus and oil.
But I didn't say that he did.
What I was trying to point out was that there have been alternative theories, from prominent scientists in the past.
Hasn't this been my gripe all along? That consensus theory should not exclude other points of view? It is necessary to keep other points of view or everything will become stagnant. There will be no progress. To quote the book as if it was the last word is not what science is supposed to be about.
Well thats quite obvious isn't it seen as how we are still here. When a mars sized object hit us billions of years ago the moon was formed. The fact the Venus didn't hit us still doesnt account for the lack of evidence that Venus actually passed close by us. As i pointed out to you 65 million years ago a tiny object left behind the KT boundry which can be found in several places throughout the world. So a tiny object hitting the earth can leave huge amounts of evidence then why is there none from a near earth sized object passing close by. Are you trying to say that despite passing so close and leaving the oil (as you claim) it didn't leave any dust, rock or other solid ejecta scattered across the earths surface.
Click to expand...
Again, the theory of the origin of the moon is one of many. It was chosen as the one that supports the prevailing theory. Therefore, if present theory is found to be wanting, then the moon theory has to go also. This does not give anyone the right to claim that one theory is correct and all others are rubbish.
For example, the KT was thought to be the cause of the dino' extinction, but overwhealming evidence proved this not to be the case.

I have already posted the reason according to the Velikovsky theory as to why there was no dust. It was because of the electrical repulsion between the planets involved. Research in favour of his theories does not take place; in fact just the opposite as I have shown with links posted about censorship of evidence supporting. Censoring something does not make it wrong. You will note that books about and by Hitler are freely available. Books that challenge the status-quo tend to be banned, censored or ridiculed.
 
So the electrical repulsion stops dust, rocks and other solid material from being transferred but doesn't stop the hydrocarbons being transferred? And you think that answer covers you? It seems very conveniant that some solid material gets through and other solid matter doesn't.
My use of the KT boundry as an example was nothing to do with weather it caused the extiction of the dinosaurs rather to ask how an object that is infinitesimal in size compared to Venus can leave a large amount of evidence 65 million years after the fact and that a body the size of Venus passes and according to you leaves nothing but oil deposits.
So how long does the consensus theory have to put up with these ludicrous (IMO) unprovable and disproved theory's. How long do we have to say Venus was formed along with the rest of the solar system billions of years ago and then add that although it may only have be 3.5 to 4 thousand years ago. I'm sorry Almond but there is nothing, not one scrap of reliable evidence to suggest that venus is only 3.5 to 4 thousand years old and i have every right to say Velkovisky is talking through his arse on this one. Maybe research is not being done because its a load of rubbish.
As you say censorship does not make a theory wrong but reasearch is not going to turn a load of cobblers into the truth either.
 
THE BURNING OF TROY

By Alfred de Grazia


Part Two: Geological Issues
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... _p2_11.htm
Perhaps because it lacked an acid effect, the great exoterrestrial intrusion of Tunguska (Siberia) in 1908 is not signaled in the core; it seems to have produced no sharp deviation in the tests of oxygen isotope extremes, or in dust micro-particles, or in acid rain. Since this blast was more powerful than others that did register, and since it raised enough dust to darken the skies for a long period of time, its absence from the lists is strange. Furthermore, Tunguska's blast produced nitrogen oxides in the Earth's stratosphere that lowered the Earth's temperature 0.3? C for a decade 1908-18. The unusual gases and temperature drops should have affected the O 18 measure for those years as well as provided ample microparticles for an exhibition of deviance.
Nor are climatic crises such as the Maunder Minimum (1645- 1715) noticeable in the published record of the cores. In this case, a "Little Ice Age" around the world has been attributed to a cessation of sun spots. The period should evidence itself in the ice core in some manner. Nor can we locate unusual years around the times conventionally assigned to the end of the Upper Paleolithic cave culture of the Dordogne, although the general view is that the people of that Age were forced to follow their animal quarry to cooler northern regions. The enormous quantities of ice could not disappear while the Greenland ice cap was still picking up its usual ration of new ice each year.
The 800 top meters of the Camp Century core count off 4000 years with uniform temperatures. No other climatic indicator on this planet shows such a uniformity.
The Greenland scientists report concentrations of volcanic activity in this latest millennium and in the millennium from -6000 to -7000. This does not conform to the impressions left with us by ancient history and geology. The first millennium and the second millennium B. C. were both marked by very heavy volcanism so far as legend and archaeology can be depended upon, and heavy disturbances may have been almost continuous before then.
Click to expand...
So you see that the ice cores do not show what happened in the past. I suggest that you read this link.
 
And i suggest that you start looking at different answers to your Venus Questions Almond. Why this fasination with Ice Cores? As i have repeatadly pointed out to you the tiny impact 65 million years ago left evidence ALL OVER THE WORLD not just in the polar regions. So where is the evidence for the passing of Venus. You still have not explained how this electrical repulsion stopped dust, rock and other debris hitting the earth but allowed the solid hydrocarbons to get through.
How can meteorites (tiny again compared to even the 65 million year old impact in Mexico) thrown up from mars make it to earth and leave evidence and The gigantic Venus cannot? Its patently ridiculous especially considering that this was supposed to have happened 3,500 years ago, which is not even the blinking of an eye in gelogical terms. What about millions of other sample cores from mining and archeology that have never shown any evidence of the passing of Venus. Seriously do you really believe that an object the size of Venus can pass earth and leave nothing in the way of tangable evidence? Nothing? Even your assertion that the hydrocarbons left behind by Venus and then trasformed into the oil deposits is frankly ridiculous. All this was supposed to have happened 3,500 years ago all over the world and yet there is no evidence. I really hate to labour the point but it is inconceivable that an object that large can pass by and leave no evidence.
 
AD440 A disaster wipes out the British population and erases what was then dense woodland - Gildas - 'the fire of righteous vengeance...blazed from sea to sea..once lit it did not die down..it burnt up almost the whole surface of the island..Horrible it was to see the foundation stones of towers and high walls thrown down bottom upwards..' Fire is sent from heaven whilst the fire of heaven burns. Days are as dark as night. The Isle of Axholme was suddenly overwhelmed.. vast numbers of trees were instantly burned through near the ground and fell aligned NW/SE [similar to Tunguska,1908].CW106ff, 284-5

AD534-5 ¾ mile dia meteorite or 1-2 mile across comet fragment [size of those hitting Jupiter July 1994] collides with earth [force released 1000000+ Hiroshimas/several 100,000 megatons]. Creates world-wide dust veil, especially in northern hemisphere. - tree-ring data from north America and Europe shows 15 year slower growth. Sun dims dark 1½years. Result - Dark Age deepens. Massive crop failure in British Isles Italy Mesopotamia China [70-80% Chinese pop die]. Liang dynasty Emperor orders out 500,000 pop of Imperial City Loyang. China descends into chaos over next 10 years. AD 540+ First Middle East and European substantial bubonic plague due to catastrophic conditions [source David Keys Independent 25 7 94].
http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/3related.html
Click to expand...
Velikovsky's final encounter - do the ice cores show this?
 
All this was supposed to have happened 3,500 years ago all over the world and yet there is no evidence. I really hate to labour the point but it is inconceivable that an object that large can pass by and leave no evidence.
Click to expand...

You don't find what you ain't looking for? :D
 
almond13 said:
Go on then, how? How did it soak through impermeable rock and carve out large underground chambers? And in the case of North Sea Oil, how did it sink through the water first?
Click to expand...
I have already told you how it got into the rock. The entire surface of the earth was quaking and was cracked. The oil in the coastal areas soaked under the sea in the fissures of the continental shelf. See map of oil distribution.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't recognise this picture of earthquakes creating convenient fissures stretching down miles that then vanish without a trace.
Also how did the oil it soak under the sea? (Density of crude is about .79 to .88, sea water at least 1.02) And where did the large chambers that it soaked into came from? Also, the map of known oil reserves has rather changed since Velikovsky's time...
 
almond13 said:
wembley8
“”Would you like to quote a source for this””?
Can't find it, but I will

“”the idea of a high surface temperature on Venus was published in the dominant astronomical journal of its time and with an essentially correct argument ten years before the publication of Worlds in Collison" (p. 118).””

This is a downright lie. The high surface temperature was denied at the time.
Click to expand...

I'd refer you to Rupert Wildt's paper in Astrophysical Journal of 1940 ("Note on the Surface Temperature of Venus.") where he proposed that runaway greenhouse effect was the cause of high temperatures on Venus.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/GREENHOU.htm

Even Velikovsky knew this, and has a game attempt at dismissing this - http://www.varchive.org/lec/aaas/afterword.htm - but is notably unconvincing. As you say, he just can't do numbers.

What the quote says is that Venus radiates 10,000 times more heat than the earth when the insolation is taken into account.
Click to expand...

I see. I can't find anything recent that suggests this is accepted.
 
Velikovsky
Sagan repeatedly states that none of my advance claims was original and correct. He made this announcement in the press before the Symposium, but as an organizer and panelist he should not have prejudiced the outcome. He says that Rupert Wildt in 1940 already proposed that Venus under the clouds is hot, and that I presented my claim of the heat of Venus without telling of Wildt and Wildt's estimate. (Actually, I did not give anyone's estimates.) So what was Wildt's estimate, and upon what was it based? He was the originator of the greenhouse effect theory that would keep Venus hot, and he came to the conclusion that only the subsolar point of the surface of Venus is of the temperature of boiling water, or possibly up to 135 degrees Centigrade. Professor G. Kuiper later showed that Wildt erred in his evaluation of the albedo or reflecting power of the Venus clouds, and therefore the temperature because of the greenhouse effect would be definitely less.
http://www.varchive.org/lec/aaas/afterword.htm

(From SLAYING THE MONSTER. THE AAAS VELIKOVSKY SYMPOSIUM, 1974)
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.p ... &sample=79
Sagan on Planetary Physics and Surfaces
Problem 8. The Temperature of Venus
The conventional view before results from Mariner 2 showed, in early 1963, the surface temperature of Venus to be 800oF had been that it would be slightly warmer than Earth. By the time of the symposium Sagan's recollection had become, in effect, that "we knew it all along." In fact, the only person--apart from Velikovsky--who had predicted a high temperature a Dr. Rupert Wildt, whose work was based on a greenhouse mechanism and not generally accepted. (By 1979 Sagan's memory had evidently suffered a further lapse, for in Broca's Brain he states [p.153] "One now fashionable suggestion I first proposed in 1960 is that the high temperatures on the surface of Venus are due to a runaway greenhouse effect.") When the conventional view was shown to be spectacularly wrong (one is tempted to say "catastrophically"), Wildt's proposal was hastily resurrected in an attempt to explain why, while preserving the doctrine of a long-established planet and slow, uniformitarian change.
But it doesn't really wash. Contrary to current media fictions, the main agent responsible for Earth's greenhouse effect (a natural phenomenon, without which we'd be around 33oF cooler) isn't carbon dioxide but water vapor, which contributes over 90 percent. Back in the days when Venus's atmosphere was believed to contain a considerable amount of water, the suggestion of an enhanced greenhouse effect yielding temperatures considerably higher than those generally proposed wasn't unreasonable. But it just doesn't work as a plausible mechanism for sustaining the huge temperature gradient that exists down through Venus's atmosphere. Especially when it turns out that the heat source is at the bottom, not the top.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends who you read and if they were there at the time. I have already posted stuff on the symposium that was fixed not in Velikovskys favour
 
I'm afraid I don't recognise this picture of earthquakes creating convenient fissures stretching down miles that then vanish without a trace.
Also how did the oil it soak under the sea? (Density of crude is about .79 to .88, sea water at least 1.02) And where did the large chambers that it soaked into came from? Also, the map of known oil reserves has rather changed since Velikovsky's time...
Click to expand...
For the chambers I refer you to my previous post on deep hole drilling where running water and organisms were found at about six miles deep?
During earthquakes fissures open and close in the surface of the earth. This earthquake was worldwide and the oceans were in turmoil. You may as well ask why there is coal under the sea, or indeed why there are deep coal mines on land. How did coal, that's supposedly from trees get to be a mile underground?
BTW the map that I linked is recent.
 
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapour is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapour is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapour constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapour in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Click to expand...
 
almond13 said:
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapour is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapour is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapour constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapour in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Add to this the already stated fact that all planets in the solar system are warming..
 
Your problem appears to be that you appear to have little or no knowledge of geology or minerology. World wide earthquakes? Where is the evidence for this? As for asking why coal is under the sea or deep under ground you agian don't seem to know how and when coal is formed. I could give you the standard answer of compaction of vegetation millions of years ago but you won't believe it so there is little point. As for the coal being under the sea or deep underground its the same reason that everthing else gets buried and uncovered over tens even hundreds of millions of years. When the initial constituant of the coal was laid down it was on the surface over the coarse of millions of years its subducted and compacted hence the reason it ends up underground. Land masses move and carry the coal seams with sometimes being subducted and ending up under the sea. But i seem to remember that you don't believe in plate tectonics so i don't expect you to except this as an answer.
I would also love to see your evidence for these world wide earthquakes as well. Devestation on this scale would have left evidence, where is it? It was only just under 3500 years ago according to your information. We have evidence of single event volcanos and earthquakes from farther back in time that 3500 years so where is the evidence for world wide earthquakes. There should evidence everywhere and there isn't.

Quote:
All this was supposed to have happened 3,500 years ago all over the world and yet there is no evidence. I really hate to labour the point but it is inconceivable that an object that large can pass by and leave no evidence.


You don't find what you ain't looking for?
Click to expand...

Your wrong again its not you don't find what you ain't looking for its 'you don't find whats not there.
 
almond13: "You mean like heliocentrism?"
Heliocentrism caused necessary turmoil...

"How did coal, that's suppposedly from trees get to be a mile underground?"
Well, there's plate tectonics...
But still no evidence of a marauding Venus (and by the way, biblical chronoloy is false).
 
When the initial constituant of the coal was laid down it was on the surface over the coarse of millions of years its subducted and compacted hence the reason it ends up underground. Land masses move and carry the coal seams with sometimes being subducted and ending up under the sea. But i seem to remember that you don't believe in plate tectonics so i don't expect you to except this as an answer.
I would also love to see your evidence for these world wide earthquakes as well. Devestation on this scale would have left evidence, where is it? It was only just under 3500 years ago according to your information. We have evidence of single event volcanos and earthquakes from farther back in time that 3500 years so where is the evidence for world wide earthquakes. There should evidence everywhere and there isn't.
Click to expand...
As I understand the theory, the continental plates do not subduct, but raft across subduction zones. Even if I'm wrong about this, subduction would surely destroy any coal.

The world around us and the solar system outside show huge amounts of evidence for catastrophism and the coal is just one example.

There are unbelievable masses of bones around the world, both of fish and animals.
In the north there is an island made of nothing but bones and vegetable and and animal remains frozen together. Huge areas of the Canadian permafrost are a “muck” of animal and vegetable remains and the same in Siberia. In India there are hills made almost entirely of bones of the last geological period.

“”The Florida fossil beds at Vero and Melbourne proved - by the artifacts found there together with human bones and the remains of animals, many of which are extinct - that these fossil beds were deposited between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago. From observations on beaches in numerous places all over the world, Daly concluded that there was a change in the ocean level, which dropped sixteen to twenty feet 3,500 years ago. Kuenen and others confirmed Daly's findings with evidence derived from Europe. “”http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword08c.htm

In other places the continental shelf has risen by similar amounts in the same time period.

There is evidence that the poles have shifted as there are traces of geologically recent forestation in the northern most part of Greenland – the most northern land on the planet and also unfossilised wood in Antarctica.
Science admits to pole shifts on other planets like Mars and the moon but not earth.

The third planet in the Velikovsky trio, Mars, has been catastrophically ripped apart in past times with half it's surface removed to a kilometre in depth and great gashes in it's surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top