Antarctic Fossils

12 Dec 2013

Therre is a nice piece at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050404antarctic-fossil.htm ... which tells us about a petrified forest in Antarctica. It is dated to Late Permian - which is a long time ago. Some 260 million years on conventional geo-chronology. At that time in i) Plate Tectonics theory, Antarctica was probably still joined up with India and Australia (depending whose computer was moving the little globs of plate and land mass around different parts of the computer screen), while in ii) the expanding earth theory, the planet at that time was somewhat smaller and Antarctica was probably nowhere near the South Pole, and in iii) a catastrophist standpoint the Poles might have changed on a number of occasions subsequently to the Permian (and therefore a Late Permian forest would not be a particular oddity). None of this really takes us anywhere - it is what it is, a fossilised forest that has been preserved due to unusual circumstances. The Thunderbolts piece appears to suggest the date of the forest has been moved willy nilly, and currently sits at Late Permian after being said to date somewhat earlier. What they are really addressing is the radiometric dating systems - are they as reliable as scientists claim. Probably not.

The author provides a link to Ian Tresman's Catastrophism CD at www.catastrophism.com (which can be purchased on this web site - just click on the Book Service link). More importantly, it also links to an article by SE Schnoll, a Russian researcher into radiometric dating methodology - see www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html

Schnoll claims the constant decay rate is affected by celestial cycles - such as Moon rise and Moon set, eclipses, the sidereal and synodic day, and the sun spot cycle, etc. The implication is that the decay rate is affected by electromagnetic factors - and cosmic rays. The latter is particularly interesting when we take into account Tim Cullen's recent posts on lunar luminosity, and cosmic rays in general. In addition, solar activity seems to affect decay rates - such as solar flares and CMEs.

The point being made by the Thunderbolts author is that catastrophism involving EU factors (electricity in space) may have changed decay rates in the past. In other words, the Earth could be much younger than mainstream allows. On the other hand it could also mean the Earth is even older than mainstream allows. It works both ways.

Schnoll appears to be talking about small movements in the decay rate. Thunderbolts seems to be suggesting there have been very big changes as a result of plasma discharge phenomena. The two are separated by a great chasm.