Christopher Ball Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Mankind Wondered … 'How long did it take that pebbled beach to look like that sandy beach? Science put a time-span to the erosion process and the conclusion was … aeons. They quote' nature took 'A Thousand Million Years' to turn solid rock into boulders' boulders into pebbles' and pebbles into all the sand in the world. This geological time-span was used as a baseline for dating everything from evolution to the laws of physics, and the time-span is wrong, clearly wrong because Beach Pebbles' get 'Bigger' not smaller. Beach pebbles are formed by the process of 'Tidemark' … a tidal layering process. It's the same process as a wash basin when a thin layer of grime builds up around the inside; albeit sea-basin or wash-basin the process is the same. 'Dirty water bigger tidemark'. Correct the baseline and you will find that six thousand years ago, when the Pyramids were built, limestone was soft, very similar in density to today's lightweight building blocks? You could cut limestone with a piece of wood, let alone a piece of copper, and remember there was no iron or steel in those days, our pyramids were built using only copper tools. At the time' limestone was the perfect building material, a bit like huge lumps of dense dried cuttlefish that has hardened over the years, like the baking of a cake. Correct this geological error and you will also find the planet is not old enough to mould modern man from a monkey let alone from absolutely nothing? Reverse your 'pebble to sand equation' and Evolution' ie' Monkey to Man' …becomes the 'Reverse Theory' and thus revealing a path to another dimension Tidemark + Tidemark = Pebbles Each dirty mucky salty tide leaves behind a layer of dirty mucky salty seawater, as this dirty mucky salty seawater dries it glues itself to the shore. The pebble building process starts when three or four grains of sand bond together, the next incoming tides fill the divots, again, with dirty mucky salty seawater, which again dries. Next incoming tide leaves behind another coating, which again dries. The process continues until small grit is formed. Again' the same thing happens until large pieces of grit are formed, until shingle is formed, until small pebbles are formed. Eventually the larger pebbles get pushed up the beach away from the grinding waves where input becomes greater than output. Nature building its own sea defense, I call it 'nature'stoilet'. Edited October 22, 2011 by Christopher Ball
TonyMcC Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 If what you say is true then cutting through a pebble should should show evidence in the form of rings as the material accumulated. Does this happen?
Christopher Ball Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) If what you say is true then cutting through a pebble should should show evidence in the form of rings as the material accumulated. Does this happen? Yes, however, the symmetrical rings are broken rings because of the grinding of the waves between each layer. Pebbles at the top of the beach show the rings clearer than those at the water's edge. Pebbles a meter above the tide-line are the most interesting because they're starting to become perfectly shaped pebbles whereas those at the water's edge show pebbles bonding together. The mechanism is fantastic Edited October 22, 2011 by Christopher Ball
TonyMcC Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Yes, however, the symmetrical rings are broken rings because of the grinding of the waves between each layer. Pebbles at the top of the beach show the rings clearer than those at the water's edge. Pebbles a meter above the tide-line are the most interesting because they're starting to become perfectly shaped pebbles whereas those at the water's edge show pebbles bonding together. The mechanism is fantastic I would like to see photographs showing this. Also I Presume that you have evidence to show the mixture of materials in each pebble. These are tests that I would think easy to do.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 This geological time-span was used as a baseline for dating everything from evolution to the laws of physics, and the time-span is wrong, clearly wrong because Beach Pebbles' get 'Bigger' not smaller. This is observationally incorrect. What evidence do you have to support this? Beach pebbles are formed by the process of 'Tidemark' … a tidal layering process. It's the same process as a wash basin when a thin layer of grime builds up around the inside; albeit sea-basin or wash-basin the process is the same. 'Dirty water bigger tidemark'. Again, observationally untrue. How do you explain those flat pebbles we all love to skip on the water? Accretion does not explain these pebbles; erosion does. Correct the baseline and you will find that six thousand years ago, when the Pyramids were built, limestone was soft, very similar in density to today's lightweight building blocks? You could cut limestone with a piece of wood, let alone a piece of copper, and remember there was no iron or steel in those days, our pyramids were built using only copper tools. At the time' limestone was the perfect building material, a bit like huge lumps of dense dried cuttlefish that has hardened over the years, like the baking of a cake. We don't need to "correct the baseline" to know that Egyptians built with limestone. What do pyramids in the desert have to do with pebbles on the beach? Correct this geological error and you will also find the planet is not old enough to mould modern man from a monkey let alone from absolutely nothing? This is like saying, "Pretend it's really 8:45 am instead of 7:30 am and you'll see that you don't have time for breakfast." Reverse your 'pebble to sand equation' and Evolution' ie' Monkey to Man' …becomes the 'Reverse Theory' and thus revealing a path to another dimension "A path to another dimension"?! Where are you observing this? Is this a dimension like height or time, or do you mean a parallel universe? Do you have any evidence you can point to? You're going to have to provide something to at least partially offset the mountains (not pebbles) of evidence that supports evolution. Tidemark + Tidemark = Pebbles Again, observationally incorrect. A pebbled beach is typically fairly steep, causing a strong swash, or forward movement, coupled with a weak backwash. This action facilitates more longshore transport of larger materials like pebbles, and less sand which is mainly affected by breaking waves. Pebbles have more surface area for the strong swash and winds to push against, leaving them higher than gravity would normally compensate for. Each dirty mucky salty tide leaves behind a layer of dirty mucky salty seawater, as this dirty mucky salty seawater dries it glues itself to the shore. The pebble building process starts when three or four grains of sand bond together, the next incoming tides fill the divots, again, with dirty mucky salty seawater, which again dries. Next incoming tide leaves behind another coating, which again dries. What beaches are you observing these things at?! I would like to see a glue that bonds grains of sand together three or four at a time but not to other grains or clumps. The process continues until small grit is formed. Again' the same thing happens until large pieces of grit are formed, until shingle is formed, until small pebbles are formed. Eventually the larger pebbles get pushed up the beach away from the grinding waves where input becomes greater than output. Nature building its own sea defense, I call it 'nature'stoilet'. If your idea is correct, why don't we see pebbles studded with grains of sand that have glued themselves to it to increase its size? And if your answer is that the grit is too small to see or feel, then how could that grit possibly survive the grinding action of the sand? Is your dirty mucky salty seawater glue really that strong? If so, why doesn't it gum up a lot of other things?
Christopher Ball Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 << Again,observationally untrue. How do you explain those flat pebbles we all love toskip on the water? Accretion does not explain these pebbles; erosion does.>> Our flatter pebbles are found on calmer shores, and less steep << Observationally incorrect >> An optical illusion has befallen mankind on an unprecedented scale and sent our thoughts tumbling in the wrong direction. Its discovery will answer some of the world’s greatest mysteries. It will uncover previously hidden and untold truths and, as a result, all current thinking around the age of this planet will be questioned. << I would like to see a glue that sticks grains ofsand together >> Sandstone
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 << Again,observationally untrue. How do you explain those flat pebbles we all love toskip on the water? Accretion does not explain these pebbles; erosion does.>> Our flatter pebbles are found on calmer shores, and less steep This analysis disagrees. It says that flat pebbles can occur on steeper shores, and that the flatness is due to increased transport, which suggests a longer period of abrasion. << Observationally incorrect >> An optical illusion has befallen mankind on an unprecedented scale and sent our thoughts tumbling in the wrong direction. Its discovery will answer some of the world’s greatest mysteries. It will uncover previously hidden and untold truths and, as a result, all current thinking around the age of this planet will be questioned. Oh, I see. Is this an optical illusion only you can see? Is your immunity something derived naturally or does it require some sort of technological mechanism, like special glasses or a hat? << I would like to see a glue that sticks grains ofsand together >> Sandstone Please don't do that. If you're going to quote what I say, use the whole sentence, not cherry-picked portions. That is intellectually dishonest. "Sandstone" is an insufficient answer. Why would sandstone only work on three or four grains of sand and not more? What mechanism accounts for gluing together four grain clumps, then multiple bigger clumps to eventually form a pebble? Why are pebbles then not essentially made of sandstone?
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Phi, there is a hidden agenda. Creationism always has an agenda. But since it is religion attempting to wear the cloak of scientific validity, it needs to be answered lucidly, rationally and persistently, so others don't get caught up by its deception.
Christopher Ball Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 << This analysis disagrees. It says that flat pebbles can occur on steeper shores, and that the flatness is due to increased transport, which suggests a longer period of abrasion. >> They're flat because they're not rolling around, they just get wet and dry Creationism always has an agenda. But since it is religion attempting to wear the cloak of scientific validity, it needs to be answered lucidly, rationally and persistently, so others don't get caught up by its deception. DECEPTION ... Hopefully you are joking << What beaches are you observing these things at?! I would like to see a glue that bonds grains of sand together three or four at a time but not to other grains or clumps. >> Sandstone and every tidal beach has a water mark, some dirtier than others
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Moved to Speculations, since, er, this is clearly not what most Earth scientists would say. Do you have any geological analysis or systematic collected evidence to support your hypothesis? You have explanations, but you don't back them up.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 << This analysis disagrees. It says that flat pebbles can occur on steeper shores, and that the flatness is due to increased transport, which suggests a longer period of abrasion. >> They're flat because they're not rolling around, they just get wet and dry If they're not rolling around, how did they get up on the beach? DECEPTION ... Hopefully you are joking I've never heard an argument for young earth creationism that wasn't rooted in some kind of misinformation, outright lies or previously refuted pseudo-science. << What beaches are you observing these things at?! I would like to see a glue that bonds grains of sand together three or four at a time but not to other grains or clumps. >> Sandstone and every tidal beach has a water mark, some dirtier than others You failed to answer my question. I'll repeat it. Why are pebbles not essentially made of sandstone? 1
tomgwyther Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 May I share with you some observational data. I've lived by the sea all my life (32 years). not long by geological standards but still significant. On the pebble beach where I live there are a number of derelict structures left over from world war II (The D-Day flotilla left from the shores in and around Portsmouth, UK.) Over the many years I have walked past these structures, made of flint aggregate concrete, brick, limestone etc, I have seen once sharp jagged stones become more rounded and pebble like. And on observation of old photographs can gauge how the ebb and flow of the tides has worn these structures down over time. One can effectively watch large stones turning into pebble by erosion QED 2
mooeypoo Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 This geological time-span was used as a baseline for dating everything from evolution to the laws of physics, and the time-span is wrong, clearly wrong because Beach Pebbles' get 'Bigger' not smaller. That's a strawman. That timespan has much more evidence for it than the existence of pebbles. For that matter, even if your statement is true that doesn't disprove the time-span. Beach pebbles are formed by the process of 'Tidemark' … a tidal layering process. It's the same process as a wash basin when a thin layer of grime builds up around the inside; albeit sea-basin or wash-basin the process is the same. 'Dirty water bigger tidemark'. Excellent, so you cut through a pebble and you see evidence for your statement, and you published a paper explaining and showing this process. I'm sure you have done all this because you speak with such authority on the matter. All that's missing is sharing these evidence pieces with us. Geologists have actual evidence to prove their theory. Surely, you don't expect us to abandon factual theories without proper suitable facts that prove otherwise. I await your evidence eagerly. Correct the baseline and you will find that six thousand years ago, when the Pyramids were built, limestone was soft, very similar in density to today's lightweight building blocks? Again, even *if* your theory about the pebbles are true, it's far from disproving the whole timeline. You ahve some reading to do, my friend, the time line is hardly done because of pebbles, we use many many other geological phenomena to corroborate this timeline. You could cut limestone with a piece of wood, let alone a piece of copper, and remember there was no iron or steel in those days, our pyramids were built using only copper tools. Evidence. At the time' limestone was the perfect building material, a bit like huge lumps of dense dried cuttlefish that has hardened over the years, like the baking of a cake. Evidence. Correct this geological error and you will also find the planet is not old enough to mould modern man from a monkey let alone from absolutely nothing? Strawman; man did not "mould" from "monkey". Read what evolution *ACTUALLY* says before you dismiss what is convenient for you to dismiss. And, I repeat, your logic does not follow. Even if we do accept your pebble hypothesis it will not affect the geological timeline in the least. We have other evidence (a MOUNTAIN of evidence, pun intended) for that 'timeline'. We're not here to listen to preaching -- we are skeptical by nature, as scientists should be. We want to see actual evidence along with the explanation. Explanations alone are insufficient, not to mention yours can clearly be shown wrong by examining what we *do* have as evidence. Provide evidence, and separate the discussion of evolution and geology. You're not making a good enough argument to dismiss evolution even if you are right. ~mooey << This analysis disagrees. It says that flat pebbles can occur on steeper shores, and that the flatness is due to increased transport, which suggests a longer period of abrasion. >> Funny, you dismiss science until you find a particular piece of scientific literature that might have something you can remotely relate to. First, read the article; it's about a unique phenomena in a specific place. It's not about all pebbles, so this doesn't help you much. The idea that some pebbles might be created a certain way does not mean all do. They're flat because they're not rolling around, they just get wet and dry Perhaps, but they weren't created flat. Read the entire paper you're quoting, Christopher. "This difference in shape is attributed to two processes, namely, wear and selective transportation. It is proved that angular pebbles become round, and round pebbles become flat. By laboratory experiments it is shown that flat pebbles travel more readilt by wave action than round pebbles because of differences in behavior due to differences in shape, and to the fact that round pebbles seek deeper water and are consequently more readily buried" Clearly, the pebbles became flat after they were transported to the beach, and that was done in 2 main stages (angular to round, round to flat) each stage affecting the transportation. They weren't always flat, and they weren't always there. This paper proves exactly the opposite of what you're saying. ~mooey 2
JohnB Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 You could cut limestone with a piece of wood, let alone a piece of copper, and remember there was no iron or steel in those days, our pyramids were built using only copper tools. Beware the half truth. Limestone for the pyramids was probably cut with a piece of string on equipment similar to a bow. However it wasn't the string that cut the limestone, but the sand used in the cut. Sand, with a hardness of 7 is quite suitable for cutting Limestone which is a 3. It's the same principle as is used on modern "Rodsaws" except that we glue the grit to the rod and they simply poured sand into the cut. DECEPTION ... Hopefully you are joking No, he's not. Any argument that uses half truths and outright lies is deception.
Christopher Ball Posted October 23, 2011 Author Posted October 23, 2011 My dear learnedfriends … Move this thread back to where it should be, Earth Science, and I willanswer all your questions, failing this I suggest you read ‘Reverse Theory’which I think you can find on Amazon books GoodLuck xx -4
John Cuthber Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 My dear learnedfriends … Move this thread back to where it should be, Earth Science, and I willanswer all your questions, failing this I suggest you read ‘Reverse Theory’which I think you can find on Amazon books GoodLuck xx LOL You have got it the wrong way round. if you can show some evidence then you might convince us that it is science.
Phi for All Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 My dear learnedfriends … Move this thread back to where it should be, Earth Science, and I willanswer all your questions, failing this I suggest you read ‘Reverse Theory’which I think you can find on Amazon books GoodLuck xx Speculations is where we put threads that have un-reviewed claims that aren't part of accepted science. That's the way science works; your ideas must be testable and make predictions. So far, the predictions your idea suggests (rings in pebble interiors, sand stuck to pebbles, limestone accretion of sand) are all demonstrably false. Your reverse theory fails. With this much being falsified, I wouldn't count on being moved to the accepted science areas anytime soon, nor would I count on any of our members being interested enough to buy your book.
Psycho Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Speculations is where we put threads that have un-reviewed claims that aren't part of accepted science. That's the way science works; your ideas must be testable and make predictions. So far, the predictions your idea suggests (rings in pebble interiors, sand stuck to pebbles, limestone accretion of sand) are all demonstrably false. Your reverse theory fails. With this much being falsified, I wouldn't count on being moved to the accepted science areas anytime soon, nor would I count on any of our members being interested enough to buy your book. Lets be fair now, not even the publishers were interested in publishing it and they will chuck out any old crap that will make a buck, he had to self-publish.
mooeypoo Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 My dear learnedfriends … Move this thread back to where it should be, Earth Science, and I willanswer all your questions, failing this I suggest you read 'Reverse Theory'which I think you can find on Amazon books Amazon is not the source for mainstream science. Being in Speculation isn't "Limbo" and it's not a slight on your ego. You're proposing an idea that is not, at the moment, considered mainstream science. Maybe in the future you can prove it enough and publish proper science literature, making the entire community accept it and teach this in colleges and schools -- making it mainstream. At that point, we'll move the thread back to mainstream science. It's up to you if you want to participate in your own discussion or not, but we're not going to change our own rules just because you don't like them. ~mooey
Christopher Ball Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Thank you for your compliment The moderators, who are speaking for science, seem very frightened of the Reverse Theory. On the science forum.com, they, like you, pushed my thread out of sight, away from Earth Science to Pseudoscience, and when I started another thread on the religion forum I was instantly banned, not for a matter of a few days but forever. This forum,science forum.net, is doing the same; you have pushed my theory out of sight, again from Earth Science to Speculations, and when I started a new thread on the religion forum, ie, nothing to do with science, it was instantly closed down. I can only presume therefore that the moderators are sweeping my theory under the table because they are frightened of it. And I'll say it again' there is nothing to be frighten of as both theories tell their own story, although both paint a different picture. If pebbles are formed by erosion' it tells the story that we all live by today, ie, evolution, and if pebbles are formed by the process of tidemark' then that tells another story. The latter however, explains how the pyramids were built, and solves many other mysteries, whereas your erosion theory leaves questions unanswered. Again' thank youfor your compliment … albeit in a strange way Edited October 28, 2011 by Christopher Ball
Klaynos Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Thank you for your compliment The moderators, who are speaking for science, seem very frightened of the Reverse Theory. On the science forum.com, they, like you, pushed my thread out of sight, away from Earth Science to Pseudoscience, and when I started another thread on the religion forum I was instantly banned, not for a matter of a few days but forever. This forum,science forum.net, is doing the same; you have pushed my theory out of sight, again from Earth Science to Speculations, and when I started a new thread on the religion forum, ie, nothing to do with science, it was instantly closed down. I can only presume therefore that the moderators are sweeping my theory under the table because they are frightened of it. And I'll say it again' there is nothing to be frighten of as both theories tell their own story, although both paint a different picture. If pebbles are formed by erosion' it tells the story that we all live by today, ie, evolution, and if pebbles are formed by the process of tidemark' then that tells another story. The latter however, explains how the pyramids were built, and solves many other mysteries, whereas your erosion theory leaves questions unanswered. Again' thank youfor your compliment … albeit in a strange way On closing your other thread I sent you a message clearly explaining that we only allow one thread on a topic at a time. This is that thread. I also told you that you needed to address the comments of other community members. You have not done so, that is certainly not within the spirit of a discussion forum, perhaps if you participated instead of ignoring problems that people highlight to you, you might have a better time discussing things in science.
Christopher Ball Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) I thought I had answered all the questions, even the most stupid ones. It's a theory that you can take on board or not. Please don't say 'not' because even the most obstinate critique eventually aspires to the tidemark = pebbles scenario, or at least it opens a sealed shut mind Edited October 28, 2011 by Christopher Ball
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I thought I had answered all the questions, even the most stupid ones. When asked if pebbles have rings inside if they were built up from accreted sandstone, you replied, "Yes, however, the symmetrical rings are broken rings because of the grinding of the waves between each layer." I find this answer inadequate. If the waves grind up the pebble between layers of accreted sandstone, how would pebbles get any bigger? Are you suggesting that the waves erode the pebbles enough to break up the rings but not enough to hinder their growth through sandstone attachment? Also, you failed to answer my last question. If your idea is true, why are pebbles not essentially made of sandstone? I hope you don't consider this question one of "the most stupid ones".
Spyman Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I thought I had answered all the questions, even the most stupid ones. There is no such thing as stupid questions, only stupid answers.
Recommended Posts