Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Thanks, Obama!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JonF

1
Using this map of the Canadian Shield (which matches several other maps I looked at):



I managed to match small areas of it (one area at a time) with Morris's map to see where Morris thinks there's sandstone on the Canadian Shield.



Obviously the red areas are where Morris's map is wrong. 

It's not a large percentage of Morris's total area, but it does call all the unverified portions of his map into question.

So, Davie-doodles, you need to confirm or modify ALL of Morris's map before you can claim there is such a layer of sandstone.

2
Quote
Y'all ever heard of NASA's E-sail to catch solar wind and eliminate the need for fossil fuel propulsion?

https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-wants-to-catch-the-solar-wind-to-sail-the-solar-system/

Apparently Walt Brown uses this solar wind thing to explain how the asteroids got blasted from earth and ended up in their present circular orbit between Mars and Jupiter.

Dave, you really are terrible at evaluating evidence.

Solar wind blew enormous lumps of ice from the surface of the earth, huh?
No, the superheated steam of the fountains of the deep breaking through the crust blew out tremendous chunks of the Earth and quintillions of gallons of water into Solar orbit.  All in random planes containing the Sun but obviously ery few of them in the Solar System plane..  Then magic moved all those orbits into the plane of the Solar System.

(Changing the plane of an orbit needs some major delta-V).
3
Hugely important read ...

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/16/science/venus-s-remade-face-offers-hints-of-cataclysm.html

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Did you take a picture of your computer screen with your phone? 
We have a bright bulb here.
Dave, ProTip: you are being mocked for your incompetence.
You are startlingly un-selfaware.

He is startlingly unaware more generally.  He's been told about Prnt Scrn dozens of times, but his High Speed Mind runs right past it.
Well it's not the PrtSc key I have trouble with.  Works well with Word or Powerpoint.  But I don't know how to get the image into a post.
AltPrtScr, click Start, type:

paint

Open it.  (The first time, stretch the white rectangle to almost nothing).  Ctrl-V, save.

Upload.

Paste link in message.
4
Well it appears to me from searching the literature that Morris' map is pretty darn accurate in areal extent AS FAR AS THE RAW DATA IS CONCERNED
Except for the fact that some of his "sandstone" is the Canadian Shield, with no sandstone.  As I posted before. That's a big problem, since it call the entire map into question.

It appears his map is some weird projection that doesn't match any of the Canadian Shield maps exactly, but I still may be able to come up with some kind of overlay.
5
He is startlingly unaware more generally.  He's been told about Prnt Scrn dozens of times, but his High Speed Mind runs right past it.
Alt-Prt-Scrn is obviously unattainable.
6
Way off topic, but I can't help myself.

Y'all ever heard of NASA's E-sail to catch solar wind and eliminate the need for fossil fuel propulsion?

https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-wants-to-catch-the-solar-wind-to-sail-the-solar-system/

Apparently Walt Brown uses this solar wind thing to explain how the asteroids got blasted from earth and ended up in their present circular orbit between Mars and Jupiter.
Yes, I already pointed out how insanely stupid that is.

NASA's E-sail is a solid (albeit thin) object.  It exerts force on its payload through physical connections. Waltie's "solar sail" is not solid.  It's dust and water molecules.  The only way that "sail" can affect an asteroid is through gravitation. So he's saying that a particle of the solar wind hits a water molecule, which then pulls the asteroid along with it by gravity.

Waltie's "typical" asteroid is 200m diameter, or 4.19E6 m^3 or 4.19E12 cm^3.  An average asteroid density is around 2 g/cm^3 or so it is about 8.4E9 kg.

Water's mass is 2.9915E-26 kg/molecule.

So the gravitational attraction between his asteroid and a water molecule an infinitesimal distance off the surface is:

F = 6.67E-11 m^3/(s^2 kg) * (8.4E9 kg * 2.9915E-26 kg)/100^2 m^2) = 1.7E-30 N or 2.2E-31 lbf.. Awfully small to be pulling a 8.4E9 kg asteroid along..

The escape velocity from the surface of the asteroid of this water molecule is:

V = sqrt(2*8.4E9 kg*(6.67E-11 m^3/(s^2 kg))/100 m) = 0.1 m/sec

A water molecule moving at that velocity has a momentum of:

Pw = 2.9915E-26 kg*(0.1 m/sec)^2 = 3E-28 kg m^2/s^2

The minimum velocity of a solar wind particle is 400 km/sec (it must be at least Solar escape velocity) or 4E5 m/sec.  So that's as favorable to Waltie as we can be.  The mass of a proton is 1.67E-27 kilograms.  So the momentum of one such proton is:

Pp = 1.67E-27 kg *(4E5 m/s)^2 = 2.7E-16 kg m^2/s^2

The ratio of these two momentums is:

(2.7E-16 kg m^2/s^2)/(3E-28 kg m^2/s^2) = 1.1E-12

So if a solar wind proton hits a water molecule just at the surface of the asteroid and transfers 0.000000000001th or more of its momentum to that water molecule, that water molecule is long gone.  As are molecules farther away.

Not a very efficient' way of moving an asteroid!


7
I'm wondering how long till Dave starts expanding the definition of "sandstone". :D

This whole banter back and forth about Dave's failure to define this "basal sandstone layer" is pretty tedious. However I'm quite interested to see where he goes with this argument.

Therefore, Dave, because I'm interested in seeing where your "argument" goes, I'm going to accept your claims that "continent-sized, super flat, super thin sandstone like the one in N. America which contains the Tapeats Sandstone". exists. It doesn't. Certainly not in the way you imagine, or desire it to exist, but lets pretend it does. This would be the part of the Sauk megasequence, yes?

So what's next?

PS. Don't you dare quote-mine me.
I've already told you where my argument goes.  I've stated from the beginning that IF ... IF ... Morris' map is even close to being correct ... that is, if this sandstone layer really is this flat and this thin and this extensive ...
Then that is highly interesting.

Because NO process operating today that we know of has any chance of being able to produce such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness - over millions of years.

And you know it.

Maybe leave out the bullshit, Dave. It doesn't work with me. If your argument is going to consist of negative arguments against mainstream geology, derived from your ignorance and incredulity, then you aren't going to get very far with me.

So ignoring the bullshit, your argument amounts to "it's highly interesting". I'm not even sure that counts as an argument.

So what comes after "It's highly interesting", Dave?
well we have to come up with an explanation. The most promising explanation I know of would be some sort of catastrophic Global resurfacing event such as what happened on Venus. We have now discovered Subterranean water on other bodies within the solar system and we've even discovered evidence of catastrophic bursting forth of these Waters. So why not explore the possibility of the same thing happening on Earth in the past?

Cool.


all I personally have at this point as far as something firm that we can stand upon scientifically is that a Sandstone layer of this nature could in no way be formed by any process we have operating today no matter how many millions of years are allowed.
What did I say about the bullshit negative arguments?

So the only place I even know to start trying to come up with something that resembles a hypothesis would be with the general term "catastrophic resurfacing event."

We know that this happened on Venus and I have read bits and pieces of something similar happening on Mars where I think water burst forth catastrophically from underground and I know that I read one time about one of Saturn's moons, Enceladus I think it's called, that has Subterranean water  that shoots out like Old Faithful, but that's about all I know.

So now we have a hypothesis and can set forth some testable predictions?
Yup.

Go check out Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

It's better than ever.
Oh, yeah.

Now he's postulating asteroids surrounded by clouds of gravitationally bound water and dust, which act as a solar sail to move the asteroids outwards.

Of course, the fact that the gravitational attraction between his water molecule and his asteroid is orders of magnitude too small to keep the solar wind from blowing the molecule away from the asteroid with no noticeable effect on the asteroid is just one of those pesky details he leaves out. 

I posted some calculations in an Amazon review thread which was deleted because of excessive YEC trolling and I don't seem to have them around here. But anyone with a clue can see it.
8
Quote
Over billions of years, countless comets and asteroids have collided with Earth, enriching our planet with water. Chemical markers in the water of our oceans suggest that most of the water came from asteroids. Recent observations hint that ice, and possibly even liquid water, exists in the interiors of asteroids and comets.
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/ocean-worlds/
Hmm ... or perhaps comets are composed of water which came from "fountains of the deep" on Earth as Walt Brown thinks.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Waltie's so loony the loonies recognize him as a loony.  I've told you of his latest hallucination.
9
I'm wondering how long till Dave starts expanding the definition of "sandstone". :D

This whole banter back and forth about Dave's failure to define this "basal sandstone layer" is pretty tedious. However I'm quite interested to see where he goes with this argument.

Therefore, Dave, because I'm interested in seeing where your "argument" goes, I'm going to accept your claims that "continent-sized, super flat, super thin sandstone like the one in N. America which contains the Tapeats Sandstone". exists. It doesn't. Certainly not in the way you imagine, or desire it to exist, but lets pretend it does. This would be the part of the Sauk megasequence, yes?

So what's next?

PS. Don't you dare quote-mine me.
I've already told you where my argument goes.  I've stated from the beginning that IF ... IF ... Morris' map is even close to being correct ... that is, if this sandstone layer really is this flat and this thin and this extensive ...
Then that is highly interesting.

Because NO process operating today that we know of has any chance of being able to produce such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness - over millions of years.

And you know it.

Maybe leave out the bullshit, Dave. It doesn't work with me. If your argument is going to consist of negative arguments against mainstream geology, derived from your ignorance and incredulity, then you aren't going to get very far with me.

So ignoring the bullshit, your argument amounts to "it's highly interesting". I'm not even sure that counts as an argument.

So what comes after "It's highly interesting", Dave?
well we have to come up with an explanation. The most promising explanation I know of would be some sort of catastrophic Global resurfacing event such as what happened on Venus. We have now discovered Subterranean water on other bodies within the solar system and we've even discovered evidence of catastrophic bursting forth of these Waters. So why not explore the possibility of the same thing happening on Earth in the past?

Cool.
So now we have a hypothesis and can set forth some testable predictions?

all I personally have at this point as far as something firm that we can stand upon scientifically is that a Sandstone layer of this nature could in no way be formed by any process we have operating today no matter how many millions of years are allowed.
"Scientifically" means "with no data or analysis, just the voices in Dave's head"?

Wow.
10
Dave, lots of that sandstone isn't "basal Cambrian". "Basal Cambrian" would be rocks dated to the early Cambrian.

But Morris seems to just be talking about sandstone that directly overlies the Precambrian basement. Much of which isn't Cambrian in age, and even the stuff that is, is of different ages from each other.

Those might well be as widely distributed as Morris claims. But that doesn't make them the same thing as what you're talking about in the case of specific formations.
Much of the basal Cambrian Sandstone isn't Cambrian age? That's a new one. You guys get loonier every day.
How the fuck did you manage to Davinate that from what he wrote?  There's no connection whatsoever.
11
But keep going.

The more you lie, the more people will see what a fraud you are.

You're not a "doctor" of science.
You're a fraud.

Where are the billionzofdeadthingzs Dave?
I think I've mentioned before that this is a great question but not for this thread.

In this thread I'm focused on one thing... Basal Cambrian sandstone in North America.
So where are the billionzofdeadthings in the basal Cambriain sandstone of North America?
12
Because NO process operating today that we know of has any chance of being able to produce such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness - over millions of years.
Your ignorant and unsupported opinion is noted and rejected.

Show us the data and the analysis.

What's happening today is irrelevant to whether or not known processes could produce what we see in the stratigraphic column we see.
13
You don't work with idiots. You use idiots.
Yeah, but you don't tell the plan to idiots.
14
Oh yeah ... an overlay map with the states and provinces would be awesome!
No reaction to the error? It's obvious looking back and forth between the maps.
15
I agree. I doubt Trump is personally guilty; the Russians know he's an egomaniacal blabbermouth attention whore. They're too smart to work with him directly. But a lot of highly placed people around him are toast.
16


This is Morris's map of basal Cambrian sandstone. The question to ask is ... "is there actual basal Cambrian sandstone in the locations indicated by the map?"
Pulling forward bc the page rolled over.
I see one problem. The area to the Northwest of Hudson's Bay, not including the offshore islands, is the Canadian Shield. No sandstone. But a little of Morris's map up there is definitely on the Canadian Shield.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Canadian-Shield

Maybe I'll knock off an overlay map tomorrow.

17
Guys.

Chill.

Morris made a map.  He claims it represents Basal Cambrian Sandstone in N. America. 

I have no reason to doubt him ... do you?

Yes. He failed to list his sources and he's been caught in many lies.

Quote
I will keep slogging through the extremely hodge podge literature to try to verify it though. 

If his map is fairly accurate ... and if the thickness is indeed 100 feet to 2000 ft or even 3000 feet ... and it's all pretty much continuous ... then that is extremely interesting ...
Ah, now it's not continuous, it's "pretty much" continuous. In your scientific lexicon, how do you define "pretty much".

And if it is there, it's mildly interesting and fully compatible with the mainstream scenario. I.e. Not evidence for Das Fludde.

BTW, what laid down the Precambrian layers?
18


This is Morris's map of basal Cambrian sandstone. The question to ask is ... "is there actual basal Cambrian sandstone in the locations indicated by the map?"
The question is "is there one basal Cambrian sandstone layer as shown on the map?".

What I've seen so far indicates no. You're doing a pis-poor job of digging up data.
19
Hawkins needs to second-law all those questions until he finishes assembling maps of all the Basal Cambrian Sandstone on the planet.

Afdave's Second Law:
One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.


We have to maintain a narrow focus if we want to make progress, doncha know! 
Except when we should be looking at the big picture.
20
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
[/spoiler]

It doesn't mean NECESSARILY that the data is "wrong" - but provides no assurance whatsoever that the map is based on any actual data.

Why do you think that time after time, ICR fail to give any references for their claims?  It's not as though Morris doesn't provide SOME references.  He does.  To Berthault for instance.

But not to this.

BTW, the book is a religious book.  It tells the reader that if scientists are right, then that means that God lied.

It's a tract, Dave.  That map is from a religious tract.
you are at least as religious as he is because you are constantly preaching. Just stop the preaching and stick with actual data and accurate statements. An accurate statement regarding his book and those Maps is that we don't know his sources. But the sandstones I have investigated give me no reason to doubt that his map is accurate.[/quot]
Nor do they give any reason to believe his map.

Quote
Do you see any section of his map where basal Cambrian Sandstone obviously does not exist? I don't.
Do you see any section of his map where basal Cambrian sandstone obviously exists and is obviously part of one huge layer?  I don't.  Without sources the map is useless.
21
I noticed that Your Buddy Sundance does not talk about NK that much, btw. How come?
nothing much to talk about. Trump did what he said he would do and it's going well.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/notice-regarding-continuation-national-emergency-respect-north-korea/

Quote
The existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, expanded in scope in Executive Order 13551, addressed further in Executive Order 13570, further expanded in scope in Executive Order 13687, and under which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13722 and Executive Order 13810, and the measures taken to deal with that national emergency, must continue in effect beyond June 26, 2018.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to North Korea declared in Executive Order 13466.[/quqote]
I.e. nothing so far.

22
Oh - about Trump's stupid 'scuffed shoes' remarks. There is no tariff on American made shoes in Canada.
There's is the tiniest smidgen of truth in it.  In the particular incident the shoes were Italian. Explaining Trump's Claim About Canadians  Smuggling Shoes Because of 'Massive' Tariffs.
23
Looks as if the Mt. Simon varies quite a bit in thickness, some significantly thicker than 2,000 feet.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583616308003
Excellent map.  I wish we had one like this for all of N. America.  Why is ICR the only organization that has produced such a map?  (Which you guys say is bunk, which I doubt) (One of the best signs that something is true is if TR members say it's bunk)
A logical question to ask when looking at this map would be ...

"What about Wisconsin?  It's sitting right there atop Illinois.  We should find some basal Cambrian sandstone there, should we not?"

But I can't find a decent map.

All I can find is stuff like this ...
Quote
Geologic units in Wisconsin (state in United States)
Cambrian, undivided (Cambrian) at surface, covers 31 % of this area
Sandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations

...

Cambrian, undivided
Sandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
State Wisconsin
Name Cambrian, undivided
Geologic age Cambrian
Lithologic constituents
Major
Sedimentary > Clastic > SandstoneSandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
Minor
Sedimentary > Clastic > Mudstone > ShaleSandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
Sedimentary > Carbonate > DolostoneSandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
References
Mudrey, M.G., Jr., Brown, B.A., and Greenberg, J.K., 1982, Bedrock Geologic Map of Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey, scale 1:1,000,000.

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?state=WI
There's a map in the article to which I linked.  Moron.

Also, from reference 13 in that article:

Quote
The Upper Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation (0-65 m thick) is a basal quartz arenite exposed in westcentral Wisconsin. A detailed field investigation of the physical and biogenic sedimentary structures of the Mt. Simon has led to the recognition of three distinct lithofacies. The lower one unconformably overlies Precambrian basement rocks. It consists of medium- to very large-scale sets of tabular and trough cross-bedded, medium- to very coarse-grained sandstone and pebbly sandstone with minor intercalated horizontal beds of very fine- to medium-grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Sparse examples of Skolithos and Arenicolites are present. This facies consists of a very thin sequence of possible braided-fluvial and marine foreshore deposits, overlain by probable marine shoreface and tidal channel deposits. Much of the facies seems to represent shallow subtidal deposition in a relatively high-energy regime. The middle lithofacies consists of two distinctly different subfacies, which probably were deposited in a low tidal flat setting. The higher-energy subfacies consists of small- to medium-scale sets of tabular and trough crossbedded, fine- to coarse-grained sandstones containing distinct zones dominated by Skolithos and Arenicolites . This subfacies probably represents deposition in meandering tidal channels. The lower-energy subfacies consists of thinbedded, horizontally-laminated and ripple cross-laminated, very fine- to medium-grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale, with common specimens of Cruziana, Rusophycus, and Planolites . This subfacies probably represents deposition on lower-energy tidal flats adjacent to the tidal channels. The upper lithofacies consists predominantly of structureless, densely bioturbated, very fine- to coarse-grained sandstone containing abundant specimens of Skolithos . The upper few meters of the facies consists of small- to medium-scale sets of trough cross-bedded, very fine- to coarse-grained sandstone with layers of disarticulated valves of the brachiopod Obolus . The upper facies probably represents deposition on tidal flats, perhaps in a midtidal flat setting, characterized by slower sedimentation rates, a correspondingly higher degree of bioturbation, persistent reworking of shelled macrobenthos, and periodic subaerial exposure. The Mt. Simon Formation is interpreted as a largely progradational (regressive), shoaling- and fining-upward tidal sequence. A marine interpretation is supported by the widespread occurrence of marine trace fossils within this unit. Evidence for a tidal origin is seen in the presence of unimodal cross-strata associated with reactivation surfaces, compound cross-strata, numerous scour and truncation surfaces lined with intraformational conglomerates, common clay drape laminae separating sets of cross-strata, interference and flat-topped ripple marks, and desiccation cracks. Sedimentation continued without apparent interruption as the overlying Eau Claire Formation was deposited. also under tidal influence. Recent reinterpretations of other basal Cambrian cratonic quartz arenites, together with this new interpretation for the Mt. Simon Formation, suggest that the long-held concept of basal transgressive sandstones deposited as blankets across the craton may be too simplistic, for deposition in braided-fluvial, marginal marine (tidal flat-tidal channel), and marine foreshore and shoreface environments seems indicated.
Incompetent moron

See also http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/000317/, although you'll probably need major help to download the information.

And https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_a/gif/A022.gif. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SMENET/1b517024-bb1c-4b2c-b742-0136ce7a009c/UploadedImages/TCjointConference/J%20Brian%20Mahoney%20-%20Cement%20in%20Camb.%20Sandstone%20Potential%20Respirable%20Silica.pdf looks intersting but takes forever to download. Oh, and:



Incompetent lazy moron.  You'll never see the map you want to see unless you pay someone to generate it; you can't make any progress on your own.
24
http://isgs.illinois.edu/ilstrat/index.php/Mt._Simon_Sandstone:



Quote
The Mt. Simon Sandstone, although not exposed, underlies all of Illinois except in local areas where it failed to cover hills on the Precambrian surface. It ranges from less than 500 to 2600 feet thick, with the greatest thickness in northeastern Illinois.
So the ICR article Dave adores so much made at least a 23% error in the thickness range of the magical layer. Excellence in scholarship.
Another nice map.  Again ... I wish I had one like this for all of N. America.
Glossed right over ICR's major error, hum?

Why didn't a great Googler and scientist such as you find this map already?
25
Is this the same "propaganda video" that dave dismissed previously, or a different one? Can't be bothered to check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uoh6tAI1qg
I suspect this video is largely correct ...

HOWEVER ...

2 things ...

1) If we look at actual ocean margins, I seriously doubt that the sediments we find will be cemented sand grains - i.e. sandstone.  I know I've asked to be shown sandstone at ocean margins for years and have got nothing
That's because sandstone doesn't form until it's buried under great pressure.

Duh.

Quote
2) If anyone ever did come up with sandstone at ocean margins, it would not be anything close in thickness, flatness or width-to-thickness-ratio of the basal Cambrian sandstone(s) in N. America
Show the math.