Is it time to make the needed corrections about - ERR-atics?

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Fact: Glacial erratics are a thoroughly researched and documented natural phenomena.

"thoroughly researched and documented" based on what?

Assumptions. That's all you have.

There's not even a mathematical and physical illustration or presentation of it! i.e. how an ice sheet is able to carry a VLB and transport it over long distances.


F = ma will even show you that an erratic object (VLB) is not possible.

But water does.

To illustrate:

Below is one of the widely accepted ICE AGE maps. Notice the boundary. It didn't even reach the African continent,...

... yet we have the so-called "erratics" (VLBs) over there.

Iona Park, Angola Africa - just a sample.

So, how did these "erratics" get there- traveled over to this continent?

The clear answer is the dynamic power of a wave!

So can you even cite just one documented study of your claim - explaining the mechanics of erratics? I'm eager to read it.

I think I would rather just let this dead horse rot.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Fact: Glacial erratics are a thoroughly researched and documented natural phenomena.

"thoroughly researched and documented" based on what?

Assumptions. That's all you have.

There's not even a mathematical and physical illustration or presentation of it! i.e. how an ice sheet is able to carry a VLB and transport it over long distances.


F = ma will even show you that an erratic object (VLB) is not possible.

But water does.

To illustrate:

Below is one of the widely accepted ICE AGE maps. Notice the boundary. It didn't even reach the African continent,...

... yet we have the so-called "erratics" (VLBs) over there.

Iona Park, Angola Africa - just a sample.

So, how did these "erratics" get there- traveled over to this continent?

The clear answer is the dynamic power of a wave!

So can you even cite just one documented study of your claim - explaining the mechanics of erratics? I'm eager to read it.

I think I would rather just let this dead horse rot.

Oh well. Tried my best.

Au revoir

a reply to: edmc^2

www.sciencedirect.com...

Avalanches can deposit rocks on glaciers.

www.tandfonline.com...

www.nature.com...

Glacier movement can be measured and determined by a whole myriad of indicators.

Therefor both can happen in succession. It's not that crazy to consider. You don't need a video to know it happens. Scientific research has been extensively done on this.

And of course it's not just glaciers, it's also floods, combined with storms, earthquakes, tsunamis and tons of other things. Nobody's denying floods are part of it. Floods can cause chunks of glaciers to break off, and float away with big rocks on them often depositing them hundreds of miles away or further. We know that earthquakes, tsunamis and flash floods happen. Global floods on the other hand... NOPE.

Can you please link us to a study of those Angola rocks that shows they are considered glacial erratics? Pictures aren't good enough, we need information on where they are from and how far they traveled.

And by the way, all the videos you are posting showing water moving rocks is evidence against a global flood. If water in relatively small amounts can do that stuff, why would you need a global flood to explain any erratics?

a reply to: cooperton

The article explained how they determine such things.

a reply to: edmc^2

Oh no, where did Ed go? I was totally excited for his expert analysis here.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh no, where did Ed go? I was totally excited for his expert analysis here.

Nothing you said in your reply refuted his empirical evidence that erratics occur in environments where theoretical ice age glaciers would not have reached. Explain how these phenomenon could have occurred in areas where glaciers could not have reached... Until then you have not successfully responded to the evidence he presented.

originally posted by: cooperton
Nothing you said in your reply refuted his empirical evidence that erratics occur in environments where theoretical ice age glaciers would not have reached. Explain how these phenomenon could have occurred in areas where glaciers could not have reached... Until then you have not successfully responded to the evidence he presented.

What? I explained how and why that can happen. He didn't post any empirical evidence that suggests glaciers can't move rocks. He didn't post any empirical evidence of a global flood. His request is unreasonable because he wanted a 5 minute video that shows glaciers moving rocks when that usually takes thousands of years. He's appealing to ignorance as usual and didn't prove a single thing here except how inconsistent you guys are with your standard for believing things.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
Nothing you said in your reply refuted his empirical evidence that erratics occur in environments where theoretical ice age glaciers would not have reached. Explain how these phenomenon could have occurred in areas where glaciers could not have reached... Until then you have not successfully responded to the evidence he presented.

What? I explained how and why that can happen. He didn't post any empirical evidence that suggests glaciers can't move rocks. He didn't post any empirical evidence of a global flood. His request is unreasonable because he wanted a 5 minute video that shows glaciers moving rocks when that usually takes thousands of years. He's appealing to ignorance as usual and didn't prove a single thing here except how inconsistent you guys are with your standard for believing things.

Well, first off - if you're not able to debunk what I posted about the power of water, then I rest my case.

Second, since you can't provide proof of erratics happening via pictures or videos, then it confirms what I posted. That the claim (of erratics) was solely based on assumption.

Third, you don't need thousands of years to prove/disprove my claim - about erratics. You can use math instead. Similar to what I posted above.

As for Global Flood - as I said, different topic and thread. The topic here is correcting the error made concerning the definition of erratics.

Erratic, glacier-transported rock fragment that differs from the local bedrock. Erratics may be embedded in till or occur on the ground surface and may range in size from pebbles to huge boulders weighing thousands of tons. The distance of transportation may range from less than 1 km (0.6 mile) to more than 800 km (500 miles); those transported over long distances generally consist of rock resistant to the shattering and grinding effects of glacial transport. Erratics composed of unusual and distinctive rock types can be traced to their source of origin and serve as indicators of the direction of glacial movement. Studies making use of such indicator erratics have provided information on the general origins and flow paths of the major ice sheets and on the locations of important mineral deposits. Erratics played an important part in the initial recognition of the last ice age and its extent. Originally thought to be transported by gigantic floods or by ice rafting, erratics were first explained in terms of glacial transport by the Swiss American naturalist and geologist J.L.R. Agassiz in 1840.

No such scientific studies conducted how glaciers can transport VLBs over long distances, specifically:

"The distance of transportation may range from less than 1 km (0.6 mile) to more than 800 km (500 miles); those transported over long distances generally consist of rock resistant to the shattering and grinding effects of glacial transport."

The speed (1m/day), ice viscosity, weight, friction on objects, shattering, grinding, melting point are all counter to stable transportation.

BTW - transportation is different from rolling/falling from mountains due to avalanches - per your links.

"Effects of rock avalanches on glacier behaviour and moraine formation"

Glaciation/Glacier Movement doesn't explain the mechanics of how boulders are picked up by ice sheets and transported over long distances.

"Dynamics of the last glaciation in eastern Svalbard as inferred from glacier-movement indicators"

"Glacier Movement measured with a Radio Echo Technique"

www.nature.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.tandfonline.com...

originally posted by: edmc^2
Well, first off - if you're not able to debunk what I posted about the power of water, then I rest my case.

You haven't made any case at all. I never said water can't move rocks. I'm saying it's not the only way and scientists KNOW THIS because they can study the erosion patterns. Your denial is based completely on not having a video of a thousand+ year process and that is absurd. Do you have a video of a bolder being moved hundreds of miles by a flood? Yeah, didn't think so.

Second, since you can't provide proof of erratics happening via pictures or videos, then it confirms what I posted. That the claim (of erratics) was solely based on assumption.

Evidence >>>> pictures and videos. Sorry.

Third, you don't need thousands of years to prove/disprove my claim - about erratics. You can use math instead. Similar to what I posted above.

What math?

As for Global Flood - as I said, different topic and thread. The topic here is correcting the error made concerning the definition of erratics.

WHAT ERROR? You only accept videos and not actual scientific research.

No such scientific studies conducted how glaciers can transport VLBs over long distances, specifically:

I linked you to multiple studies.

BTW - transportation is different from rolling/falling from mountains due to avalanches - per your links.

LMAO! How do you think the boulders get on top of the glaciers in the first place? Are you REALLY not even paying attention to your claims?

Glaciation/Glacier Movement doesn't explain the mechanics of how boulders are picked up by ice sheets and transported over long distances.

Avalanches are the mechanic of how boulder get on top glaciers. Glacier movement itself is well documented and verified. I'm sure there are other ways ice can move big rocks. You forget that a glacier is much much much bigger and heavier than a bolder.

a reply to: Barcs

LMAO! How do you think the boulders get on top of the glaciers in the first place? Are you REALLY not even paying attention to your claims?

exactly my point! - glaciers have no power to uproot/scoop up a boulder. The boulders came to rest on top due to outside forces coming from avalanches/earthquakes/landslides. As to transporting them over long distances, 800 kilometers is a different story. There's no scientific evidence of this happening, no picture of it happening, no videos of it happening and no mathematical evidence to support it.

The links you've provided lack the evidence.

You're just proving my point and you're not even aware of it.

a reply to: edmc^2

I was wondering if the expansive force of water as it freezes has ever been tested or taken into account. Water as it freezes can expand by as much as nine percent at a maximum force between about 25,000 and 114,000 psi. Is it possible that large boulders could be displaced as ice was forming? Ice forms a variety of crystal structures and creates pockets of air during the process - that's why glaciers float. But during the formation of the glacier, the density of water doesn't change uniformly. In other words, the ice forms where the temperature/pressure meet the standard for ice formation (yee old gas laws - PV = nRT). For instance, if an extreme change in temperature occurred, a very rapid expansion of water to ice could possibly displace large boulders.

Just wondering if anyone has tested or has taken into account this phenomenon.

a reply to: Phantom423

I was wondering if the expansive force of water as it freezes has ever been tested or taken into account. Water as it freezes can expand by as much as nine percent at a maximum force between about 25,000 and 114,000 psi. Is it possible that large boulders could be displaced as the ice was forming?

Yes, this is possible IF it's an enclosed area. This is the reason why we're advised to wrap water pipes for winter or it will burst when water freezes. But out in the open, the pressure is distributed hence - low. At low pressure, there's no way for the ice sheet to push or scoop a boulder out of its place. One thing to note about pressure - it will always seek for equilibrium. The pressure needs to overcome the weight of the rock for it to move. In addition, the movement or creep of ice sheets occurs at the edge as it accumulates more ice. But then it gets beaten by warming, melting point. There's also the weight. As ice accumulates on top of a boulder, the weight increases, de/pressing anything under it further down, immobilizing it. This is also the reason why we have grounds bouncing back during warmer seasons.

Iceland is rising. Or, more precisely, the island’s “ice” part is shrinking, causing the “land” part to rebound from the Earth’s crust—a process that’s happening at a pace much faster than scientists had previously realized. In fact, its glaciers are melting so swiftly that parts of Iceland are rising as much as 1.4 inches (35mm) a year.

qz.com...

its very amusing to read the persistance - that the OP has - in thier delusion

the crux of thier claim =

a moving solid mass - cannot move a smaller solid mass - drom one point to another

but a liquid -moving mass - and ONLY a liquid moving mass can

go figure ............................

a reply to: edmc^2

I found an interesting article about "ice lenses" - could this be a factor in large boulder movement:

Ice lenses You might think that all water in permafrost is frozen and immobile. But small amounts of liquid water do exist at sub-zero temperatures and move slowly through permafrost, driven by differences in soil temperature. The water heads towards local sites of freezing, where it forms lenses or layers of ice, typically a few millimetres thick. The result looks like the black and white stripes of a zebra, with the white representing the ice lenses and the black representing the soil between them. As the ice lenses grow, they force apart the soil and heave up the ground surface, often helping to produce striking geometrical patterns on the tundra surface. The same process should also happen in porous bedrock. To test this idea we grew permafrost in large blocks of limestone. The lower half of each block remained below zero (permafrost) while the upper half cycled above and below freezing, simulating about 20 Arctic winters and summers. Ice lenses fracture permafrost bedrock, and hot summers melt some of the ice, triggering rock subsidence. During the experiments ice lenses grew in the permafrost. Paradoxically, the ice grew most in summer, as the upper layer of rock thawed, releasing meltwater that moved down into the underlying permafrost, where it supplied ice lenses that fractured the rock and heaved up the surface.

But then came the European heatwave of summer 2003. This was bad news for ice lenses. As temperatures in our cold rooms soared, we measured the rock surface collapse by about ten millimetres as ice lenses melted in the upper layer of permafrost. The permafrost recovered during the next few winters, and the ice lenses quickly started to grow again. Groundbreaking science By the end the permafrost had become fractured and rich in ice lenses. The ice and fractures resembled those in limestones, shales and sandstones in Arctic permafrost. The fractures also resembled those in ancient weathering profiles from places where ice age permafrost previously existed, for example, beneath the chalklands of southern England and northern France.

Our experiments showed that ice lenses fracture permafrost bedrock, and hot summers melt some of the ice, triggering rock subsidence. Melting releases rock fragments to hillslopes, rivers and glaciers in Arctic and alpine regions. We can imagine permafrost thaw on a much bigger scale, say at the end of ice ages. As climate warms and permafrost disappears, this would cause major disturbances to the upper metres of icy fractured bedrock. We can see the evidence for this disturbance all over the chalklands, in the form of thick rocky, slope deposits, contorted weathering profiles and myriads of soil deformation structures. Now plan for the future: the predicted warming of the Arctic will thaw ice-rich bedrock, destabilising rocks beneath the surface that have been fractured and heaved by ice lenses. Rockfalls and landslides will become more common in mountain permafrost, and many rocky surfaces will subside in the Arctic. So the next stage of our research must be to monitor rock fracture and stability in Arctic permafrost and mountain permafrost in the European Alps.

nerc.ukri.org...

a reply to: edmc^2

What about those angola rocks? I thought you were going to show me how they couldn't be there.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
its very amusing to read the persistance - that the OP has - in thier delusion

the crux of thier claim =

a moving solid mass - cannot move a smaller solid mass - drom one point to another

but a liquid -moving mass - and ONLY a liquid moving mass can

go figure ............................

No the crux of the claim is that erratics occurred where glaciers would not have reached in the supposed ice age. Therefore, water is the most logical solution as to how they occurred.

originally posted by: cooperton
No the crux of the claim is that erratics occurred where glaciers would not have reached in the supposed ice age. Therefore, water is the most logical solution as to how they occurred.

Give a specific example of one of those rocks with the corresponding data. Funny just like Ed, you fail to even make an argument. He literally just posted a picture of rocks in Angola without any data whatsoever and said it can't be there.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
its very amusing to read the persistance - that the OP has - in thier delusion

the crux of thier claim =

a moving solid mass - cannot move a smaller solid mass - drom one point to another

but a liquid -moving mass - and ONLY a liquid moving mass can

go figure ............................

hehehe, go figure. Obviously, you have no understanding of how F=ma works.

There's also the 3 laws of motion then add viscosity, friction, temperature - melting point of ice, instability, the angle of elevation, etc. When you overcome these forces, you might be able to move boulders like this:


Big Rock of Canada "erratics"

en.wikipedia.org...(glacial_erratic)

Any idea how fast glaciers move vs a stream of water - like tsunami?





Judging from your comments above - I say 0, zip, nada.

Now if u can provide data to support your claim - of erratics - then, I'll stand corrected.

Until then, you might need to refrain from commenting so as not to reveal the weakness of your childish argument.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
No the crux of the claim is that erratics occurred where glaciers would not have reached in the supposed ice age. Therefore, water is the most logical solution as to how they occurred.

Give a specific example of one of those rocks with the corresponding data. Funny just like Ed, you fail to even make an argument. He literally just posted a picture of rocks in Angola without any data whatsoever and said it can't be there.

Data?

hehehe, looks like the Rocks of Angola got to you.

Well, here's some more:

The famous erratics of India - the Krishna Butter Ball:



www.atlasobscura.com...

www.google.com...'s+Butter+Ball/@12.6177355,80.1926422,3a,75y,6.14h,70.73t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMvmf8R0NFm16fNCsYxgkEqhdt SSH422Gy3gKer!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMvmf8R0NFm16fNCsYxgkEqhdtSSH422Gy3gKer%3Dw211-h120-k-no-pi0-ya1.5000076-ro 0-fo100!7i6896!8i3448!4m5!3m4!1s0x3a53acabfb593dc9:0xa46885d3ff1b36e2!8m2!3d12.6191034!4d80.192369

The Giant Rock/s of the Mojave Desert California:



www.google.com...@34.3326521,-116.3886216,3a,75y,10.71h,101.92t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOyHQlbWGtRLDy7kG0AxKP1HIX8D0n ju5vo_mEM!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOyHQlbWGtRLDy7kG0AxKP1HIX8D0nju5vo_mEM%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-22.512308-ya1.28741 06-ro-0.555228-fo100!7i7776!8i3888!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c52ae948ca0c67:0xccbe0399887db9b3!8m2!3d34.3328127!4d-116.3887541

Any idea how these boulders got there if the ice age never got there?

Any idea what the common denominator is/was?

erratics? ice rafting

Hint:
Power of water



www.huffingtonpost.com...

BTW - do you know that volcanoes have the power to transport boulders too?

The amount of force generated by volcanoes can be compared to the power of a megatsunami.

a reply to: edmc^2

You literally posted NO data. Just google maps locations. Where is the corresponding scientific research on those rocks that shows where they came from?

Stop posting the same tireless videos over and over. You have NONE that show rocks moving hundreds of miles, so by your terrible logic that means it can't happen and it's just a guess that water did it. LOL! A big rock alone is not evidence, where are the studies that prove they don't belong there?