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

Calling all scientific authors, researchers, and proponents of ERRATICS, what's preventing you from correcting this blatant ERROR?

With modern technology and advance science, why are you still holding to an 1840 explanation/assumption?

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.

It's not ICE or GLACIER that is/was responsible for transporting "huge boulders weighing thousands of tons" over long distances, BUT by WATER.

Note: many of these boulders are deposited in areas where glaciers can't exist - due to warm weather.

www.lucernevalley.net...

Here are just a few examples of the force exerted by water:













Now if we include tsunami, the power is multiplied 10x.

So other than speculation, there's no physical/actual evidence of ice carrying boulders like the above vids.

Mathematics can also confirm the force exerted by water on an object - such as boulders.

In addition, when the soil is mixed with water, it becomes hydrophobic.

www.wired.com...

There are also the "balancing rocks" carved and deposited by water.

en.wikipedia.org...

nostalgia.esmartkid.com...


The evidence is solid as a rock - water is the MAIN force.

a reply to: edmc^2

No. I've seen glacier deposited boulders. They look different. I've also had to identify the difference between glacial deposited boulders and water deposited ones on both the grround and from aerial photos.

Where I live was buried in ice until fairly recently geologically. There's lots and lots of examples of glacial deposition and erratics. Ocean rocks don't just climb mountains and water doesn't flow uphill.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: edmc^2

No. I've seen glacier deposited boulders. They look different. I've also had to identify the difference between glacial deposited boulders and water deposited ones on both the grround and from aerial photos.

Where I live was buried in ice until fairly recently geologically. There's lots and lots of examples of glacial deposition and erratics. Ocean rocks don't just climb mountains and water doesn't flow uphill.

Hey dug88, would you mind posting some videos or pictures showing boulders being moved or transported over long distances - not at just at the base of a mountain where avalanches are common.

BTW - when ice is formed they go over or around boulders - then stay frozen. They lack the power to transport large objects like boulders - especially uphill due to its low locomotive power and granularity.

Oops... forgot to post this:

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4cba8f9437b1

a reply to: edmc^2

Here is a picture of a fresh erratic. It's at the base of a glacier.
There was no global flood.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: edmc^2

No. I've seen glacier deposited boulders. They look different. I've also had to identify the difference between glacial deposited boulders and water deposited ones on both the grround and from aerial photos.

Where I live was buried in ice until fairly recently geologically. There's lots and lots of examples of glacial deposition and erratics. Ocean rocks don't just climb mountains and water doesn't flow uphill.

Hey dug88, would you mind posting some videos or pictures showing boulders being moved or transported over long distances - not at just at the base of a mountain where avalanches are common.

BTW - when ice is formed they go over or around boulders - then stay frozen. They lack the power to transport large objects like boulders - especially uphill due to its low locomotive power and granularity.

Oops... forgot to post this:

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4cba8f9437b1

I don't think that you understand the sheer raw power of a glacier. Still less the vast glaciers that existed during the last ice age. Imagine a vertical wall of ice a mile high.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Thanks.

No argument there since there's still ICE in the area (Alaska) but what I was hoping for is a live video or pictures of it being carried over long distances.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: edmc^2

No. I've seen glacier deposited boulders. They look different. I've also had to identify the difference between glacial deposited boulders and water deposited ones on both the grround and from aerial photos.

Where I live was buried in ice until fairly recently geologically. There's lots and lots of examples of glacial deposition and erratics. Ocean rocks don't just climb mountains and water doesn't flow uphill.

Hey dug88, would you mind posting some videos or pictures showing boulders being moved or transported over long distances - not at just at the base of a mountain where avalanches are common.

BTW - when ice is formed they go over or around boulders - then stay frozen. They lack the power to transport large objects like boulders - especially uphill due to its low locomotive power and granularity.

Oops... forgot to post this:

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4cba8f9437b1

I don't think that you understand the sheer raw power of a glacier. Still less the vast glaciers that existed during the last ice age. Imagine a vertical wall of ice a mile high.

Sure I do. I can even give you calculations but comparing it to a fast-moving body of water, the result is unmistakable.

In addition - we're talking about long distances where glaciers can't reach. Unless of course, we speculate an earth-wide glaciation rather than an earth-wide flood.

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


There was no global flood.

There most certainly was. My family lived in Turkey at the base of mount Ararat until 1910. My grandfathers uncle was Minister of Finance for Turkey. He was like royalty. People from out village have not only seen the Ark, they have been in and on it from time to time over the centuries. Grandfather said it was still in one piece, petrified to stone, super thick walls, enormous, partitioned inside, super tall, and with only a portion of the stern hanging out, maybe once a century after at least 15 years consecutive drought.

My father is a top US scientist. A genius with many titles,( Chemist, Microbiologist, engineer, parasitologist, Director of Research for a fortune 500 company, medical background from Stanford, and attended 5 colleges and has even been summoned to the White House by a Vice President, in order to advise the Vise President, and Secretary of Agriculture. They then sent him over seas on US business, and I got to go.

He is a very moral and honest man. He told me that his Dad would never lie to me. The Ark is still there, and my family knew where it is, and so did everyone else that lived there. Super high on the mountain. Very sensitive area to Turkey/ Russia, and people are not allowed to wander there.

There!
You all were just treated to a inside family story . Not some old wives tale either

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

Thanks.

No argument there since there's still ICE in the area (Alaska) but what I was hoping for is a live video or pictures of it being carried over long distances.

Do you understand how slowly glaciers move?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Speed

The speed of glacial displacement is partly determined by friction. Friction makes the ice at the bottom of the glacier move more slowly than ice at the top. In alpine glaciers, friction is also generated at the valley's side walls, which slows the edges relative to the center.

Mean speeds vary greatly, but is typically around 1 m (3 ft) per day.[25] 

originally posted by: visitedbythem

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


There was no global flood.

There most certainly was. My family lived in Turkey at the base of mount Ararat until 1910. My grandfathers uncle was Minister of Finance for Turkey. He was like royalty. People from out village have not only seen the Ark, they have been in and on it from time to time over the centuries. Grandfather said it was still in one piece, petrified to stone, super thick walls, enormous, partitioned inside, super tall, and with only a portion of the stern hanging out, maybe once a century after at least 15 years consecutive drought.

My father is a top US scientist. A genius with many titles,( Chemist, Microbiologist, engineer, parasitologist, Director of Research for a fortune 500 company, medical background from Stanford, and attended 5 colleges and has even been summoned to the White House by a Vice President, in order to advise the Vise President, and Secretary of Agriculture. They then sent him over seas on US business, and I got to go.

He is a very moral and honest man. He told me that his Dad would never lie to me. The Ark is still there, and my family knew where it is, and so did everyone else that lived there. Super high on the mountain. Very sensitive area to Turkey/ Russia, and people are not allowed to wander there.

There!
You all were just treated to a inside family story . Not some old wives tale either

But was it the fabled Ark made by Noah to survive a literal global flood sent by God? Have tests confirmed every angle of the legend?

Look up Lake Missoula and Dry Falls sometime. There certainly were floods. Erratics can be found all over Eastern Washington and what they call the "scablands." To ask "were they carried by ice or water" misses the point. They were carried by both. Large chunks of ice containing boulders were carried by the water. The massive amount of water surely pushed some boulders around. This is all well-documented. Just one of many good books on the subject is "Cataclysms of the Columbia; the great Missoula floods." Notice the word "floods" is plural. There is evidence to support as many as 80 floods tearing through the scablands every few thousand years as the glaciers melted and refroze.

But was there one Big Flood as well? My guess is probably. What caused it is anyone's guess, but the "Younger Dryas" is also well documented. The Earth was coming out of a prolonged Ice Age an suddenly, Bam! It got colder again. John Hancock as worked on this issue. Then there is the newly discovered Greenland crater. And we know the dinosaurs bit the dust in a similar cataclysm at the end of the Cretaceous period 66 million years ago. Whatever. Something big happened and as the ice melted again the seas rose 300 feet and inundated any coastal civilization that was then extant. There's your world wide flood about 12,000 BC right on schedule to get incorporated into myth in hundreds of cultures worldwide, including an unimportant small desert tribe in the Middle East that tells the story of Noah.

Does that mean Noah actually existed? No.
Did Noah build an Ark that carried every creature on Earth? No.
Was the entire Earth covered in water? No.
Did God bring the flood as punishment? No.

That we are increasingly discovering the evidence of flooding DOES NOT JUSTIFY crazy religious beliefs that mislead everyone. It just shows that the flood mythology reflects something that happened a long time ago and was reflected in the stories handed down since that time.

a reply to: dug88

No doubt, glaciers move

1 m (3 ft) per day

But at this speed, can it transport a 10-ton boulder at an angle of say 5 degrees - uphill?

How about a water stream - say from a flash flood traveling at speeds of 5mph, can it transport a 10-ton boulder at an angle of say 5 degrees - uphill?

Without speculation which one has great potential?

I'd say water.

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a4b0e039ed2a



Warning!

"We know there was a global cataclysm that almost wiped out the entirety of life on the planet, but we know it was DEFINITELY not a global flood as described by the Hebrews, The Chinese, The Incas, The Sumerians, The Greeks, The Hindus, etc, etc, etc"

-A horse with blinders

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: dug88

No doubt, glaciers move

1 m (3 ft) per day

But at this speed, can it transport a 10-ton boulder at an angle of say 5 degrees - uphill?

How about a water stream - say from a flash flood traveling at speeds of 5mph, can it transport a 10-ton boulder at an angle of say 5 degrees - uphill?

Without speculation which one has great potential?

I'd say water.

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a4b0e039ed2a

Warning!

en.m.wikipedia.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I recommend reading through a geomorphology textbook. So many threads on ATS over things that one could easily learn about by reading some fairly basic material on the subject matter.

a reply to: schuyler

Sure, I'm well aware of the Glacier Lake as well as the Ice Age, but quoting you:

Large chunks of ice containing boulders were carried by the water.

If there were no water to carry the chunks of ice, will the boulders moved/be transported to its current location - hundreds/ thousands of miles away?

I'd say no. Hence, my point, "erratics" is a misnomer because water is the main vehicle for transporting VLBs.

Also, ice has no power to scoop up boulders. It forms on top of it and around it - slowly - thereby encapsulating it, making immovable for hundreds/thousands of years - until something breaks it apart.

Couple that with low speed (1 m (3 ft) per day) and viscosity, the mechanical power to move boulders over long distances is just not there.

But water does, especially in the form of a tsunami with speeds up to 500mph.

The velocity of a tsunami can be calculated by obtaining the square root of the depth of the water in metres multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (approximated to 10 m/s2). For example, if the Pacific Ocean is considered to have a depth of 5000 metres, the velocity of a tsunami would be the square root of √(5000 × 10) = √50000 = ~224 metres per second (735 feet per second), which equates to a speed of ~806 kilometres per hour or about 500 miles per hour

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, the record shows:

On the rocky shores of a windswept island just west of Ireland, the 620-ton boulder looks almost at home. But careful analysis of its position over the last few years has revealed something odd: between the summers of 2013 and 2014, the boulder shifted a couple meters toward the sea. That discovery is causing scientists to rethink what they know about the impacts of powerful storms. In fact, the rock is one of more than a thousand boulders—including a handful of Very Large Boulders (VLBs and yes, that’s a technical term) weighing over 50 metric tons—shuffled around by the powerful storms that pounded Ireland’s west coast during the winter of 2013-2014, the stormiest in decades. Described in a new paper in the journal Earth Science Reviews, these boulders offer some of the first concrete evidence that storm waves, not just tsunami waves, can pack enough punch to hurl giant chunks of Earth around. (For comparison, 100 metric tons is about half the weight of a Boeing 747.)

earther.gizmodo.com...

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.06bf307148b1

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

Sure, I'm well aware of the Glacier Lake as well as the Ice Age, but quoting you:

Large chunks of ice containing boulders were carried by the water.

If there were no water to carry the chunks of ice, will the boulders moved/be transported to its current location - hundreds/ thousands of miles away?

When the glaciers are expanding, sure. The ice is moving. It incorporates the boulders and drags them along as it moves forward. When it melts, the boulders are exposed. I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. Both methods are fairly well established. There is no mystery.

a reply to: dug88

Do you understand how slowly glaciers move?

yes, very sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow and sloooooooooooooooowlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy moving.

Sorry, I can't help it.

originally posted by: schuyler

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

Sure, I'm well aware of the Glacier Lake as well as the Ice Age, but quoting you:

Large chunks of ice containing boulders were carried by the water.

If there were no water to carry the chunks of ice, will the boulders moved/be transported to its current location - hundreds/ thousands of miles away?

When the glaciers are expanding, sure. The ice is moving. It incorporates the boulders and drags them along as it moves forward. When it melts, the boulders are exposed. I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. Both methods are fairly well established. There is no mystery.

erratics is the fuss.

All the mechanics just don't add up when comparing it to water locomotion and it's all based on speculation NOT actual science and engineering.

"Erratics" take their name from the Latin word errare (to wander), and are carried by glacial ice, often over distances of hundreds of kilometres. Erratics can range in size from pebbles to large boulders such as Big Rock (15,000 tonnes or 17,000 short tons) in Alberta.

No empirical evidence or mathematical evidence but just pure speculation. It's almost like blind faith.

originally posted by: cooperton
"We know there was a global cataclysm that almost wiped out the entirety of life on the planet, but we know it was DEFINITELY not a global flood as described by the Hebrews, The Chinese, The Incas, The Sumerians, The Greeks, The Hindus, etc, etc, etc"

-A horse with blinders

Not a horse with blinders, but maybe a horse who can read and has done it's homework on prehistory and the collective cultures of post ice age civilization, particularly in the black sea/ Mediterranean region. Not to mention the complete lack of geological record indicating a flood encompassing the entire world.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: schuyler

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

Sure, I'm well aware of the Glacier Lake as well as the Ice Age, but quoting you:

Large chunks of ice containing boulders were carried by the water.

If there were no water to carry the chunks of ice, will the boulders moved/be transported to its current location - hundreds/ thousands of miles away?

When the glaciers are expanding, sure. The ice is moving. It incorporates the boulders and drags them along as it moves forward. When it melts, the boulders are exposed. I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. Both methods are fairly well established. There is no mystery.

erratics is the fuss.

All the mechanics just don't add up when comparing it to water locomotion and it's all based on speculation NOT actual science and engineering.

"Erratics" take their name from the Latin word errare (to wander), and are carried by glacial ice, often over distances of hundreds of kilometres. Erratics can range in size from pebbles to large boulders such as Big Rock (15,000 tonnes or 17,000 short tons) in Alberta.

No empirical evidence or mathematical evidence but just pure speculation. It's almost like blind faith.

Your flimsy criticism of glacial erratics hardly qualifies as research in support of the infamous flood. You need to do more than just discredit the competition to earn your spot in the race, ya dig?