The proper spelling is Chicxulub.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

I apologize. Real life has reared it's head in the form of moving into a new house, and an onset of cluster headaches, the former robbing me of time, and the latter really taking me off of my game

Sorry about that. I do fully plan on discussing these issues with you, but I feel it would be a disservice and a lack of respect to give it nothing but my best, which I cannot do in a cluster cycle.

You will see me popping around the forum, but not getting into anything too deep. If you will forgive me, I will give this thread my promptest attention (hopefully very soon) as soon as this cycle passes. Again, my apologies. I take your ideas very seriously, and to discuss them in my current condition would be to disrespect them. Please accept my apology

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Thank You I find Chicxulub.
Into This crater is vary many track of huge K/T geocatastrophe. it's possible
this crater was created during huge geocatastrophe but it can not explain how did the reptiles and fishes die into all seas and all oceans!... how was created Caucasus and another same age mountain ranges very far from impact.
This crater was not center of huge K/T geocatastrophe.
This impact could not destroy huge tethys ocean!...

Thank you Serenitude , I think you are my future adherent, because I want to send to you my book as the gift, with my autograph. please send to me your postal address. here or e-mail.
today ........... hypothesis, tomorrow ............ TRUTH !!!
I wish you all the best!

Margiani.

"TRUTH CAN BORN DURING DISCUSSION" I think we are near one of the important discovery. All day I think a lot about this crater Chicxulub There are many
same sentences in the my book and in the free encyclopedia WIKIPEDIA
-Black thick clouds covered all Earth for years. .. (my book)
-During which the surface of the Earth was totally covered by a cloud of dust for several years (wikipedia)
-The geocatastrophe was ended by huge glacier (my book)
-The emission of dust and environmental changes close to a nuclear winter (wikipedia)
-Huge masses of ocean water washed over almost all the continents (my book)
-The impact caused giant tsunamis in all directions... (wikipedia)
- ....kilometers-high tsunami, giant sea waves,.... (wikipedia)
You know that. I had not any information about Chicxulub Crater when I wrote my book. Knowledge in Cosmogeology can help as to read tracks of huge geocatastrophes (geotrack). I don't have any doubt of many scientists investigations about Chicxulub Crater . Author of Cosmogeological theory can write that. Caribbean seas' floor proves that, impact was huge...
I have written to you...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into This crater is vary many track of huge K/T geocatastrophe. it's possible
this crater was created during huge geocatastrophe but it can not explain how did the reptiles and fishes die into all seas and all oceans!... how was created Caucasus and another same age mountain ranges very far from impact.
This crater was not center of huge K/T geocatastrophe.
This impact could not destroy huge tethys ocean!...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clue is into EB geotransfer... (rapid movement outer nucleus masses into asthenosphere). Inner balance of Earth inner geological forces between mantle and outer nucleus was destroyed by this giant impact. and was began EB geotransfer... HUGE GEOCATASTROPHE.....
now we can explain everything and it is important discovery...
I need your support.
Thanks,
Margiani

I don't know when you will read this message. During discussion to you and John Mendenhall I found right way. Now my modern theory is in the mainstream of main sciences. Please read #1 or Topic 16 of my site again, fully version. there are
very many news.
I'm very glad and happy.
Thanks,
Margiani

Margiani, hi ...
a couple of things you might want to consider here ...

- what you have described as "geoevolution" and "cosmogeology" have, since the 1970's been called "planetary geology" by those who study it.

- what you have described as "geotrack", the rest of the community knows as "the Geological Timescale" ... and what you describe as "geocatastrophe" is more widely known as an "Event" ... a "Boundary Event" (usually the boundary is named, eg the K/T Event) ... or a "Geochronological Event" ... and in the geological record, the evidential boundary is often called the "horizon" ...

- your assertion that mountain ranges etc could not possibly form by conventional plate tectonics runs completely counter to ~250 years of careful observation, study, experiment ... in short "science" ... and you will have to provide strong evidence to back up your claim.

- geological evolution is very much like someone's description of war ...
long periods of boredom, interspersed with bursts of furious activity ...
in other words, the evolution of the Earth and other planets can best be described as mostly gradualism, with odd peaks of catastrophism ...

now, where were we?

__________________

sorry You do not understand me well.
For my modern theory I choose own name. because in the planetary geology are very many false data. my theory has war to the hubble's theory.
I don't want war with fathers of planetary geology, because I choose another names.
you are right geological evolution is very much like the war between Earth geoforces and alive world.
Geocatastrophe is more true name, because scientists were not able to understand what event happened million and million years ago. Geocatastrophe, geotransfer, geoevolution, etc are more true names of unknown events............
the evolution of the Earth and other planets can best be described as mostly as the gradualism, and sometimes different peakes of catastrophism ...
thanks,
Margiani

Sorry should be Chicxulub. It's a small town on the Yucatan peninsulsa, approximately at the center of the K-T impact structure. I have read, I think S&T, that Chicxulub translates roughly as "the Devil's Tail."

Appropriate, yes?

Name is true, because it is at the one of the main "hell" of the Earth. Please in your free time read fully version K/T event from my first letter. (#1).
There are very many news.
please send me your questions again.

Thanks
Margiani

Sorry should be Chicxulub.

I'm sorry too, better is if you will write about our discovery in one of the scientific magazine. This news is important for the future of mankind...
Thanks,
Margiani

OK ... ... let's look at some of this ...

by "the collapsed planet's huge chunk", I assume you are describing a meteorite ??? ... and suggesting that this meteorite was a remnant of a "collapsed planet" ??? ...

I'm guessing that you don't accept that the "Africa-south American (without Andes) continent (sic)" rift occurred much earlier than 65MaBP (million years before present time) ??

on whose "expertise"??? ... there are many who would argue that the K/T Event was not the most terrible ... merely the most spectacular ... with ~70% extinction of species, including all saurians ...

the P/T Event (~230MaBP) was more widespread with the breakup of Pangaea and ~90% extinction rate ... as was the O/S Event (~435MaBP) again ~90% extinction rate ...

in terms of totality, the E/C Event (~545MaBP) has to rate in the top 3 ... ~100% of macroscopic species extinction ...

are you referring here to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? ... or it's associated transform faults?

the Andes had existed long before that ... they've been traced back to the breakup of Pangaea ... and are called the Samfrau Mountains during the Gondwana (II) existence ...

actually, it's the Australian and the Indian plates ... and part of the associated subduction zone is called the Java Trench ...

what you are describing here occurred much much earlier in the Earth's evolution ... this is from the Hadean epoch ...


newsflash ... it still is ... has been for ~4.5 billion years ... and will be for quite some time to come ...

actually, ~30% of macroscopic life survived ... only small mammals because at that time, there were only small mammals ... but other, larger creatures also managed to live on ...

simply not true ... a large number of sea reptiles (crocodilians and turtles), sharks and rays, and jawed fish, even the coelacanth which had been happily extinct for 70 million years, until some fisherman off the African coast netted one in 1938! ...


again, this is a description more befitting the Hadean epoch ... climate evidence from the geological record indicates that the K/T Event was followed by a brief period more closely resembling the "nuclear winter" scenario ... a global "chill out, dude!" ... which benefitted the mammals more than the reptiles ...

actually, the Black Sea is a remnant of the Tethyan Sea ... the rest of the statement is fair enough, but the geological evidence does not support the idea that all of this occurred ~65MaBP ... but that the process had been ongoing for more than 100Ma before that ...

it was? ... which huge glacier was that? ... if you are going to suggest a "global glacier", then you are describing the "snowball Earth" theory ... which refers to 2 or 3 events in the Archaean (~545Ma and earlier) ...


well, various workers will quibble over the numbers ... but OK ...
why have you left the others out of your list ... especially the "small one"???
or are these simply example dates?

your data seems to be lacking ... quite a number of strong glaciers happened during those glacial periods ... and many others ...

this sounds like a crude description of plate tectonics ...

this sounds like a more informed description of plate tectonics ... at least more detailed ...

well, the Jurassic spans from ~140MaBP to ~200MaBP ... and there are plenty of places around the world with no traces found ... yet ...

but dating of the Southern Atlantic Ocean floor on both sides of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does extend back as far as ~140MaBP ... which is why the textbooks suggest that this is when South America and Africa first separated ... and that's why the Cretaceaous sedimentary layer exists ...
if the separation had occurred at the K/T boundary, that layer on the ocean floor would have to have been deposited more recently than ~65MaBP ...
the naming or "dating" of a sedimentary layer describes the age in which it was deposited ... therefore, the Cretaceous sedimentary layer(s) were deposited during the Cretaceous Period (~65Ma to ~140Ma BP) ...

simply untrue ... read previous ...

not quite ... scientists have found oceanic crust older than that ... The floor of the Black Sea is one example ... most are now upthrust, including some rather revealing ophiolites (pieces of oceanic crust which show the cross-section of layers from sedimentary surface to the deep columnar structures) ... and few geoscientists find it "impossible to believe" that most of the ocean floor is less than ~200 million years old ... that is one of the core proofs of plate tectonics ... and 200 million years remains much longer than 65 million years ... so?


once again, you are describing the Hadean epoch ... (~4.58BaBP - ~3.8BaBP) ... BaBP = billion years before present time ...

thus far, there is not a lot of evidence to indicate metal outflow from the core to the mantle across the D" layer ... assuming that is what you mean by "outer nucleus into asthenosphere" ?? ... there are indications of thermal exchange ... but little to suggest actual mixing ... the existence of the D'' layer (a discontinuity in seismic signal returns) actually disproves the idea ...

I'm afraid it's not a discovery ... whether you are referring to underplating of the lower mantle (the D" layer) ... or underplating of the crust (the Moho) ... these discoveries were made long ago ...

well ... it would if not for subduction zones ...

your statement here is self-contradictory ... "permanent renewing" ie, plate tectonics means by definition an ongoing process ... one not confined to catastrophic events ... and while the oceans are very big ... 200 million years is a very very long time ... more than enough for oceanic crust to be subducted ...

__________________

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY CRAN
1. Meteorites, asteroids, comets, etc masses are different parts of different geospheres of collapsed planets or its natural moons.
2. It's possible rift occurred much earlier than 65MaBP, but separation movement was
possible during geocatastrophe. Can you prove rift occurred much earlier than 65MaBP.
3. Cosmogeological expertise ocean bed's map. Not so cheap traveling around ocean bed. It is law of geoevolution, and geoforces, most long period finished with most terrible geocatastrophes (there are many against the mainstream). Geocatastrophe finished with 90~99% extinction of species, including all saurians ... It's law of geocatastrophes.
4. It's possible ~90% extinction rate ... ( for both event )
5. For E/C Event (~545MaBP) law of geoevolution is same.

6. No, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was formed during peaceful period. I'm referring margins between thin and thick lithosphere plates.
7. the Andes had not existed long before that ... all giant or small Mountains ranges geolayers were ancient into oceanes bed. It's possible few hill of Andes was hill of ancient island or land.
8 All oceans' thin lithosphere plate had own age. This solid masses were formed from asthenospheres's liquid masses during huge geocatastrophes.
9 Asthenospheres' surface has 1,500 C. temperature. During rapid movement plates on the asthenosphere, many places of asthenosphere was opened during small time. Opened red-hot (1,500 C) places is covering by ocean water by this time and beginning formation new ocean's bad (new thin ocean's lithosphere plates)
10. ~30% of macroscopic life survived ... It's possible. only small mammals because at that time, there were only small mammals ... you are right ... but other, larger creatures survive was not possible.
11. a large number of sea reptiles (crocodilians and turtles), sharks and rays, and jawed fish...... FALSE DATA!
12 "nuclear winter" unacceptable for Cosmogeology. You know circulation water in the atmosphere necessary temperature (0 ~ 100 c) 100Oc mistake.
13. I am in the team witch can support.... Small and big Caucasus mountain ranges, black sea, Caspian sea, etc. its geographical formation happened during K/T events, but its geological layers age more old.
14 "snowball Earth" theory ...unacceptable for Cosmogeology. "global glacier", is same as the huge glacier.
15. "small one"???.... dates are from investigations Antarctic's thick ice chunks.
16. Every geocatastrophe finished with glacial periods... It is law of geoevolution. between geocatastrophes glacial more small.
17. this sounds like a crude description of plate tectonics ... You can understand this sounds at the San-andres ....
18. This sounds like a more informed description of plate tectonics ... at least more detailed ... I'll try...
19. well, the Jurassic spans from ~140MaBP to ~200MaBP ... and there are plenty of places around the world with no traces found ... yet ... Don't try to find traces. It's very difficult and expensive.
There are many errors around dates.
20. simply untrue ... read previous ... you don't understand. lithosphere tiles older than 65 million years doesn't exist. SEDIMENTARY LAYER older than 65 million years exists at the costs.
21. Black sea... I wrote about ocean's bad... Everything is in the books of tectonic science.
22. (~4.58BaBP - ~3.8BaBP) ... BaBP = billion years before present time ... I'm only 40 years old.

23. EB geotransfer is law of geoevolution. there are indications of thermal and chemical elements exchange. You can disproves ....
24. Earth has two thin layer between solid and liquid aggregation state. Under crust and under D geosphere 185 km thickens. (cosmogeological layers).
25. well ... it would if not for subduction zones ... You are not right sometimes.
26. 200 million years not so very long time for geoevolution......
THANKS for you work and questions,
Margiani

NOTE: Moderators, and members with experience, please correct me if I am wrong or misrepresent the situation in any way ...


While there is certainly speculation and debate about the existence of planets and natural satellites (moons) which have been destroyed, and while it is accepted that an unknown number of protoplanets were likely destroyed during the early stages of planetary evolution, to describe a meteorite or comet as "one of the collapsed planet's huge chunk" might be considered unnecessarily misleading ... if you want a known general term that describes any natural object (ie, a meteorite or comet) that strikes a planet, you can use "boloid" ...

I can see from this last post of yours that part of the difficulty I'm having in understanding your statements stems from your use of English ...
"the" is what we call a "definite article" ... and that means that it is used to describe a specific object or instance (even if it is a group) and distinguishes that from the general population of objects or instances ... eg, "the collapsed planet's" means you are referring to something belonging to one (1) specific planet ... if we want to refer to something in a more general way, we use an "indefinite article" ... like "a" ... or "an" ...
eg, "it is a law..."

I don't have to prove it, Margiani, and for two reasons:

1. It has been proved to the satisfaction of scientists, and is part of the "body of knowledge" ie, is part of the "mainstream" ... and was proved by a branch of science developed specifically to prove such things ... geochronology ... the same branch of science you are relying on when you state that the dinosaurs were wiped out ~65 million years ago ... or when you state other estimated ages for mass extinctions or boundary events ... picking and choosing which data suits you, and claiming that all of the rest of that science is bunk or wrong, is not only poor science, it is hypocrisy ...

2. On this forum, and specifically in Against The Mainstream, the burden of proof does not lie with established science ... the need to prove anything is the responsibility of the proponent ... in this case, you, Margiani ...
why is that?
Because for a theory to be accepted by the world of science, it must meet certain criteria ... which better scholars than I could list ... but an important part of that is the theory must explain all of the observations, must be provable by experiment, and that experiment must be reproducable ... and it must be based on self-consistent and testable laws and be consistent with other known laws.

It is not up to others to do your background research, Margiani ...
unless you are paying for that service ... or can find someone who will work for you for free ... eg, if you knew enough about the science you are criticising to actually teach that science in a college or university, then you would have plenty of enthusiastic research assistants to find and correlate the data that you are asking me to provide you here for free ...

OK ... so it is your expertise in reading and interpreting maps ... ???
Post 857752: "it is law ..."???? Perhaps your concept of what constitutes a scientific law is different ... but I believe that peer review and independent testing is only part of the requirement to turn an idea into a scientific law ...

"most" is an unclear word with at least three definite interpretations in English ... two of which you have used in this statement (though it is not very clear which two definitions you intend) ... but I digress ...

true enough ... that is the basis of the Geological Timetable ... geochronological units were always defined by distinct changes in the geological record ... that is the practice ... the law which underpins this practice is the Law of Superposition ... which dates back to the mid-17th century ... to claim such a thing as a "law" is the same as someone else saying "there are 60 minutes in an hour ... that is a law of time"

Again with "it's law of ..." ???
If you are claiming a 90-99% extinction rate from the K/T Event, then you are simply disputing the fossil record ... the same record that your other claims rely upon ...

I know I said it is up to you to do the research, learn the science, and prove your "theory" ... but I'll quote here from Cassell's Atlas of Evolution:
"About 75% of species were wiped out at the end of the Cretaceous period" I stand corrected ...

I've scanned in a diagram illustrating the breakdown based on the fossil record thus far ... please note - the last statement of the text does not imply that there fewer survivors, it ackowledges the possibility that there may well have been more survivors ... though their fossils remains have not yet been found.
you can click on the thumbnail for the full image


You are referring then to the continental slopes ... the regions which lie between the continental shelves ("thick lithosphere plates") and the abyssal plains (surface of the "thin lithosphere plates") ???

Again, you are simply disputing the record and the body of knowledge ...
the same record, I repeat, that you rely upon elsewhere ...

I'm not sure I understand you here ... but it seems like you are stating that entire ocean basins formed at the same time ... ???

Asthenosphere's surface is a bit hotter than that, but that's a minor detail ... the same thing is achieved at Mid Ocean Ridges ... and happening right now at active spreading margins ... and has been happening, as far as we can tell, for more than 3.5 billion years ... whether or not any global catastophes have occurred ... the process and the events are quite independent, but both are well documented in the geological record ...

It's indicated in the fossil record ... and your concession of that point contradicts your statement of "law" earlier ...
"not possible"? ... why? ... because your imagined scenario of the seas boiled away precludes it? ... "not possible" requires evidence to prove it ... the evidence in the geological record, particularly the fossils, provides evidence that these creatures did continue into the Tertiary ... and some, such as those mentioned below have continued to the present day ...

prove it ... prove that the widely available information ... and the body of knowledge is providing or based on "false data" ... and keep in mind, that you are not only arguing the evidence of geology now, you are also arguing the evidence of biology ... and the evolution of species ...


"unacceptable for Cosmogeology"??? ... yet, elsewhere you claim these events all end with a glacier ... ???
I see ...

Yes there are, it is part of the scientific method ... but errors of hundreds of millions, or billions, of years would get trounced on fairly quickly ...

Again, the onus is on you to prove that the body of knowledge is wrong; in this case you are again disputing geochronology ...

I simply pointed out that the floor of the Black Sea was found to be a remnant of the Tethys Sea ... that is also in books of geology and plate tectonics ("tectonic science") ...

I am 45, how is that relevant?

Again, I don't have to disprove ... you have to prove that the mainstream is wrong/you are right ...
the acceptance of processes of accretion, fractionation, differentiation, and deep earth convection-advection-adduction ... have been around for some time, and are widely understood (and yes debated in detail) but I don't know of any worker or scholar who has claimed any of them as a "law" ...

well, given that you've claimed to have "created cosmogeology", it's difficult to argue ... but I shall retain more confidence in the mainstream interpretation of seismic data ... which has been refining our understanding and "view" for about a century ...
again, there are some strong debates about what the data describes, and some exciting recent findings (especially at the core-mantle boundary and within the core itself) ...

deep tomography, like cosmology (I imagine), is a rich field for "alternative theories" ... because we are working blind and interpreting indirect evidence ...

and yes, the mainstream view does go through revolutions and evolutions ... when, and only when, it is consistent with what is known science (observations and reproducible experiments) ... how the cosmologists do experiments on their esoteric ideas, I don't know ... but geologists do many of their experiments in labs ... they study the minerals that they can get their hands on ... and they make new minerals by subjecting known raw materials (at various estimated percentages) to the conditions that physicists tell them exist at x depth ... and occasionally, they encourage star jockeys to throw things at a comet or the Moon ...

true ... I am not right sometimes ... but that doesn't discount the existence or the activity of subduction zones ...

no, but it remains a bit more than two and a half times 65 million years ...

you're welcome ...

ps ...I will be away from my computer for the next two days ... I will check back after that ...

__________________

Originally posted by CRAN
You have a war not only to my English, not only to my theory, you have a war to future of the Earth. You don't like it.
I don't need war to you!
In the Cosmogeology I'm KING, and author of all laws for my KINGDOM.
I'll develop my theory with additional evidences...
Future will be judge...
Thanks,
Margiani.

No, Margiani, no war. Cran was as best I could see, only trying to help you with communicating your ideas effectively in English; and he did so in a very polite way. If you phrase your statements in a manner that confuses your readers, it's not helping you get your ideas across. Don't you agree?

No one here is looking to start a war with you. However, this is a discussion forum, and you can and should expect that statements you make will be the subject of discussion -- particularly if they contradict well-established fact. As someone here says, you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your facts.

Hey, this is your hypothesis. You can be king, prime minister, archbishop, even master of the buckhounds; have at it. So far it appears to be a rather small kingdom, however.

OK, well, best develop your hypothesis in line with what is actually known about geological history. It'll work so much better that way. And yes, the future is always the judge.

Thank you, Abelian Grape ... I believe you are correct ...


You are welcome, Margiani ... good luck with your "kingdom" ...

[edited to add] I spotted a typo in my earlier post ... "Ba BP" should be "Ga BP" ... my bad
[once again] in ref to the Snowball Earths, "Archaean" should have been "Precambrian" ...

__________________

Margiani, I'm sorry. This is where you really lost me. I didn't know what "adherent" meant earlier, but given the language barrier I took it as a comment. But you must understand where you're posting to. The whole point of the posting to the ATM forum is to have your hypothesis kicked around and see if water comes out. It's a process that's good for you, and if your hypothesis is worth a damn, it'll stand up. And if you're honestly wanting to make the most of your hypothesis, you'll apreciate both criticisms and both demostrable and theoretical problems with your hypothesis, as solving these can only make your hypothesis stronger if it's worth a darn to begin with.

But so far, you have a) presented data already known to science, sometimes for hundreds of years, with new names, or b) responded with hostility when your data is shown to contradict readily observable modern science.

I don't know if you are aware of the workings of the ATM forum, but the onus is COMPLETELY on you to show why not only your theory meets all observable science and predictions, but also why it explains those results in a simpler manner than the theories we already have. So far, you have ALOT of new words and a revisionist geological history, but precious little else. You are spunky and obviously think alot of your hypothesis, so be a pleasant chap or lass and let it go through the wringer - if it's worth anything to begin with, it'll withstand all criticism and come out stronger, and you'll be able to correct any errors you may have.

But it's a two-way street - you must be expecting INTENSE criticism, and you must respond to any and all questions posed to you. It's the way the ATM forum works. I tell you this so your hypothesis has a shot here, and so your thread doesn't go down in flames. As for involvement from here, if you have any specific questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them, but people FAR more knowledgable than I are involved in the thread now, and they are doing a much better job than I could of helping you. Good luck

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

My "kingdom" will be very lucky and important to all intellectuals, but fate of our Earth will be not so lucky...
Thanks Cran,
You are best opponent.

perhaps ...

you have two options, Margiani ...

1. you can appeal to the scientific community, but you will need to have much more information and expertise in known science, and you would need to go through a process of peer review ... which is much harder, and far more critical, than anything you have experienced here ...

and the first questions you will likely be asked is whether you have ever heard of Abraham Werner, an 18th century mineralogist, and why do you think passing off his ideas would be considered a remarkable discovery in the 21st century??

2. you can appeal to the general community, but if you want to publish in English, you will do better with a style guide and a comprehensive understanding of English grammar and effective communication ... perhaps if you publish in your native language, and then employ a ghost writer or translator?

you may well gain a strong following ... especially if you focus on the doom and the catastrophes yet to happen ... who knows, you might become the next Von Daniken?? ...

No ... and in many ways ... but that is a whole new species of debates ...


I'll take that as a compliment, Margiani ... though I'm not trying to be anyone's opponent ... like most of us here, I'm simply trying to reconcile people's ideas with known laws and accepted science ...

the amazing thing about our society is that we know so much ... just enough to know that we know so little ... and that important and exciting discoveries are yet to be made ... but the lesson which is reinforced every time is "to build something that will last, you need strong foundations" ...

we enjoy the benefits of at least 10,000 years of exploration, experiment, and established records ... we ignore that at our peril ...

__________________

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY CRAN.
Thanks Cran for your attention. Now I'm busy and have a lot of problems. I'll develop my theory and next year we can try to reconcile My Theory with known laws and accepted science ... Tectonic of the Earth is only small part of my theory, and I need a lot of time to develop all my theory. I'll try to study English...
We will meet next year again...
Thanks,
Margiani.

Are you wanting this thread closed until you come back? You should PM a Moderator.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

well ... unless someone is willing to take up the gauntlet on Margiani's behalf ... I think this discussion will likely fade into obscurity ... don't you?

__________________

Readers and posters, M has edited the initial post in this thread and has definitions for many of his terms. It's worth rereading.

Edit: Whoops, sorry, forget that last. This thread has lengthened beyond all reason. I am several days cold on it.

John! Welcome back!
So, having done the re-read, are you wanting to take up Margiani's flag ...
and wade into the smoky field of geocosmological debate?

__________________

I'll buy that. But I think the quote is ". . . interspersed with moments of sheer terror."

In a lighter vein, I discussed the Mammoth Caves/Giant Worms hypothesis with Donna, my business partner, originator of the Theory of Accumulating Gravity, the Comprehensive Continental Collision Insurance Policy, and other ideas too painful to mention. Donna says the Mammoth Caves/Giant Worms idea is nonsense; everyone knows that the Mammoth Caves were dug by mammoths as nests for their babies. But when they were finished and tourists started arriving to gawk, the mammoths cleverly hired humans to run the tours and souvenir shops, while they stayed in the background and raked in the money. She says if you visit Mammoth Caves look carefully in the shadows and around the corners; sometimes you can glimpse the mammoths.

Sigh. Another setback to 250 years of careful work.

You could be right about that quote ... I think I got mine from reading Spike Milligan's war memoirs, which described life some distance from the front line ...

as for the rest ...

__________________

Unbelievable 560km underground job... Mammoth Caves were dug by mammoths as nests for their babies...
there is underground river into Mammoth caves. In the river fishes without eyes. On the walls of the caves you can find beetles without eyes...
Into the crust a lot of deep and long free volume. There was not formed intrusion bodies during strong and rapid interaction of lithosphere tiles(during "unknown" EVENTS).
All deep and long free volume into the crust are additional evidences for my theory. Slowly drift never formed such deformations.

Margiani, you continue to refute slow tectonic drift as capable of forming high, folded mountain ranges.

Geology 101 teaches that rock deformations have a certain elastic limit, which is determined by the type of rock, the strength, and the duration of the tectonic pressures upon it.

If these pressures are "mild" and short, rocks can deform slightly but then return to their original state. If applied mildly and over a long period of time, rock can bend like toffee.

If, as you say, only sudden, violent events can form mountains, they wouldnt be folded, just a series of reverse faults, caused by the elastic strain of the rock being exceeded.

You seem to lack basic geological understanding, so are unable to comprehend slow deformation of a convergent boundary. This doesnt mean you can throw out convention geologic theory because it doesnt feel right.
If you think sudden catastrophic tectonics can fold mountain chains, please explain it to me. I'm sure my Geology professor would be interested.

Am I to believe you've published a book on this subject? And you didnt even know about the Yukatan depression? Or are you using this forum to expound your ideas, to try to correct and refine your concept before publication (wise idea).

Cosmogeology, catchy phrase, planetary geology, planetary geomorphology, .... time will tell.


I find the formation processes on other planets very interesting. Does your hypothesis discuss the formation of other planets or just Earth?