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

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Xactly my point - people are so used to "erratics" that pretty much any boulder found in out of places are considered "erratics'. Ask any geologist - the default is "erratics'.

Because most of the evidence points to that. Again, just showing pictures of rocks is not backing up your claim. You have yet to give a single example of an erratic that is out of place, you just keep arbitrarily stating it with no evidence. For all you know that rock above came from a mountain nearby, not hundreds of miles away.

All I'm saying is the definition of glacial boulder "erratics" is wrong! hence needs to be corrected. The boulders I've posted were deposited by none other than water. The data BACKS IT UP.

Prove it then. You are being extremely dishonest. There is no data that backs your conclusion, you have yet to post any confirming evidence at all. You are using double standards in everything you say.

Lay down a rock on the ground, point a hose in front of it then turn on the spigot - if the force of the water is greater than the weight of the object the result will be very obvious. That's your own data.

Dumbest statement yet.

"Dumbest statement yet."

Hahaha, proves my point. You don't have even an idea of how experiments are conducted and lead to data.

Simple laws of gravity and simple physics that even a child can understand. Too bad you can't.

Lay down a rock on the ground, point a hose in front of it then turn on the spigot - if the force of the water is greater than the weight of the object the result will be very obvious. That's your own data.

a reply to: edmc^2

Wrong, it's you that has no clue and this has been demonstrated by your posts here. Once again, you give NO data, no research, no facts. You talk about spraying a goddamn garden hose on a pebble and call that evidence. You can't make this stuff up, people. Spraying a hose with a pebble vs hard testable facts about glacier moments and erratic studies of erosion and movement.

You want an experiment? Put that same pebble on top of several sheets of ice that are on an angle and thaw them halfway, then refreeze multiple times. The rock will be in a different place. Just incredible! Who could have imagined?

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

Wrong, it's you that has no clue and this has been demonstrated by your posts here. Once again, you give NO data, no research, no facts. You talk about spraying a goddamn garden hose on a pebble and call that evidence. You can't make this stuff up, people. Spraying a hose with a pebble vs hard testable facts about glacier moments and erratic studies of erosion and movement.

You want an experiment? Put that same pebble on top of several sheets of ice that are on an angle and thaw them halfway, then refreeze multiple times. The rock will be in a different place. Just incredible! Who could have imagined?

Sorry, but the depth of your knowledge is so lacking. First off F = ma confirms my simple experiment. Like I said -

"if the force of the water is greater than the weight of the object the result will be very obvious."

There's no debunking it. Your experiment, however, is pathetic.

First off, you don't place the "pebble" on an ALREADY FORMED ICE SHEETS - that's dumb.

Second - you form the ICE SHEET on top of the "pebble" to simulate glaciation, then observe what happens.

Will it:

a. Scoop the pebble.
b. Stay put.

The answer will be obvious if you don't know.

In my case, you don't even need to lay the "pebble", just find a pebble ALREADY laying on the ground (even at an elevated angle) then turn on the hose on it. The result is predictable!

"if the force of the water is greater than the weight of the object the result will be very obvious."

Now, try that using your "experiment" - do you think the "pebble" will move in an elevated angle?

TIP:
Try not to embarrass yourself.

a reply to: edmc^2

In my case, you don't even need to lay the "pebble", just find a pebble ALREADY laying on the ground (even at an elevated angle) then turn on the hose on it. The result is predictable!

so that means sufficient water pressure would enable a glacier to push a rock a hundred miles from its home. especially if the glacier is providing its own lubrication for the journey.

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's no debunking it. Your experiment, however, is pathetic.

You have given no numbers, no research, no geological data, and no evidence at all to support your position. The point of my "experiment" was that it didn't prove anything, JUST LIKE YOUR SILLY GARDEN HOSE analogy.

Where is the data? How much water pressure is needed to move a several ton boulder hundreds of miles, and what are the known mechanics for such a process, including the necessary pressure to push it up hills and over mountains? How does that affect the erosion? How much water pressure would a flood caused by rain create? You have to give some kind of data or information here.

A several ton boulder moving hundreds of miles underwater would have taken a major beating and should be pretty evident based on the geological studies. I don't think you comprehend how an ocean moves or what causes tsunamis and flash floods.

Anyways I'm waiting for just one boulder that backs your claim and the corresponding data. Just give me one that has been researched and shown to travel hundreds of miles from its origin point and we can discuss it. You aren't giving any info at all. There is nothing to discuss but anecdotes.

First off, you don't place the "pebble" on an ALREADY FORMED ICE SHEETS - that's dumb.

That is dumb? I already posted research that supports avalanches depositing rocks on glaciers. That is proven, not dumb.

originally posted by: Barcs
no evidence at all to support your position.

Come one man, you should google the definition of hyperbole, because you are constantly guilty of it. He presented evidence, you just ignore it and continue on your tirade as per usual. Here was the summary of his explanation:

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

There's not even a mathematical and physical illustration or presentation of glacial erratics! 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.

So do you have a rebuttal? Besides personal attacks on him rather than his research? Can you show evidence of how glacial movement could have caused erratics in Africa? Until then stop saying absurd claims such as "no evidence at all to support your opinion". It is repeatedly demonstrating your lack of objectivity.

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

In my case, you don't even need to lay the "pebble", just find a pebble ALREADY laying on the ground (even at an elevated angle) then turn on the hose on it. The result is predictable!

so that means sufficient water pressure would enable a glacier to push a rock a hundred miles from its home. especially if the glacier is providing its own lubrication for the journey.

The irony.

Do you even know what you said?

Here, let's look at it again:

so that means sufficient water pressure would enable a glacier to push a rock a hundred miles from its home.

So what was the force behind the locomotive power of the glacial?

Without "it", will the glacial move?

originally posted by: cooperton
So do you have a rebuttal? Besides personal attacks on him rather than his research? Can you show evidence of how glacial movement could have caused erratics in Africa? Until then stop saying absurd claims such as "no evidence at all to support your opinion". It is repeatedly demonstrating your lack of objectivity.

My rebuttal has been made already. Most of that is just conjecture and anecdotes, no research supporting anything he posted. Some are just pictures and youtube videos. I asked for supporting research for his Angola rock claim as well as the one in India, and all I got was crickets. The claim is that glaciers are an insufficient explanation for how the rocks got there, so that means there must be data about the origin of those said rocks. Without it you might as well be shouting into the wind. Mere pictures of rocks don't refute the research on how glaciers can move boulders. Give me an origin point for any example and then we can look at the data and find an explanation that best fits. Obviously glaciers are not the only way rocks move, but asking for the geological data shouldn't be too much to ask.

a reply to: edmc^2

Still no research or analysis on any of your rocks? Typical. Unwilling to agree with science because there is no video, yet blindly loyal to old outdated mythology and ancient text despite being backed by NOTHING.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

In my case, you don't even need to lay the "pebble", just find a pebble ALREADY laying on the ground (even at an elevated angle) then turn on the hose on it. The result is predictable!

so that means sufficient water pressure would enable a glacier to push a rock a hundred miles from its home. especially if the glacier is providing its own lubrication for the journey.

The irony.

Do you even know what you said?

Here, let's look at it again:

so that means sufficient water pressure would enable a glacier to push a rock a hundred miles from its home.

So what was the force behind the locomotive power of the glacial?

Without "it", will the glacial move?

its not ironic at all. there is massive difference between a global flood and glaciers skating on their own melted substance.

a reply to: edmc^2

Well, it sounds like your claims ended up being ERRoneous. I wasn't kidding, I would like to investigate one of these out of place erratics as you call them. I'm not doing this to take the piss. I want to check out the research done on these rocks and where the origin point is in order to even begin to postulate an explanation of how it got there. You are asking us to go blind based on random pictures of rocks. I don't roll like that.

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

Well, it sounds like your claims ended up being ERRoneous. I wasn't kidding, I would like to investigate one of these out of place erratics as you call them. I'm not doing this to take the piss. I want to check out the research done on these rocks and where the origin point is in order to even begin to postulate an explanation of how it got there. You are asking us to go blind based on random pictures of rocks. I don't roll like that.

If you can't see the obvious, there's no investigating you can do that can help you.

a reply to: edmc^2

Neighour, sadly for you, you can say that all you like. BUT you need to bring testable, verifiable information to the table. Otherwise you are just waving your hands and relying on gnoses.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Well, it sounds like your claims ended up being ERRoneous. I wasn't kidding, I would like to investigate one of these out of place erratics as you call them. I'm not doing this to take the piss. I want to check out the research done on these rocks and where the origin point is in order to even begin to postulate an explanation of how it got there. You are asking us to go blind based on random pictures of rocks. I don't roll like that.

If you can't see the obvious, there's no investigating you can do that can help you.

The obvious? Why are you completely unwilling to give me an example and origin point? You literally just keep repeating these rocks are out of place without any explanation or research. Here, I'm going to take a picture of a glacier and claim I proved snowball earth. Come on, bro. If you can't even make a case you got nothing.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Well, it sounds like your claims ended up being ERRoneous. I wasn't kidding, I would like to investigate one of these out of place erratics as you call them. I'm not doing this to take the piss. I want to check out the research done on these rocks and where the origin point is in order to even begin to postulate an explanation of how it got there. You are asking us to go blind based on random pictures of rocks. I don't roll like that.

If you can't see the obvious, there's no investigating you can do that can help you.

I might have missed it, but I don't think you ever explained why out-of-place erratics could not have been carried by chunks of glacier floating in the waters of a regional (i.e., not global) cataclysmic flood.

One scenario I could see is an ice damn during a time near the end of the last glacial period, with a huge reservoir of water with boulder-laden chunks of glacier behind it. That ice dam breaks, sending water and chunks of boulder-laden glaciers hundreds of miles beyond the broken ice damn. The ice melts, leaving behind the out-of-place erratic far beyond the original ice sheet.

What makes that implausible to you? We know several of these cataclysmic regional flooding events have occurred, especially near the end of the last glacial period -- or perhaps during one of the many other glacial periods that have occurred over the past several hundred thousand years or so.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
What makes that implausible to you? We know several of these cataclysmic regional flooding events have occurred, especially near the end of the last glacial period -- or perhaps during one of the many other glacial periods that have occurred over the past several hundred thousand years or so.

What makes it implausible to him is that there isn't a 5 minute youtube video documenting it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Well, it sounds like your claims ended up being ERRoneous. I wasn't kidding, I would like to investigate one of these out of place erratics as you call them. I'm not doing this to take the piss. I want to check out the research done on these rocks and where the origin point is in order to even begin to postulate an explanation of how it got there. You are asking us to go blind based on random pictures of rocks. I don't roll like that.

If you can't see the obvious, there's no investigating you can do that can help you.

I might have missed it, but I don't think you ever explained why out-of-place erratics could not have been carried by chunks of glacier floating in the waters of a regional (i.e., not global) cataclysmic flood.

One scenario I could see is an ice damn during a time near the end of the last glacial period, with a huge reservoir of water with boulder-laden chunks of glacier behind it. That ice dam breaks, sending water and chunks of boulder-laden glaciers hundreds of miles beyond the broken ice damn. The ice melts, leaving behind the out-of-place erratic far beyond the original ice sheet.

What makes that implausible to you? We know several of these cataclysmic regional flooding events have occurred, especially near the end of the last glacial period -- or perhaps during one of the many other glacial periods that have occurred over the past several hundred thousand years or so.

Unfortunately, there's no amount of explanation or research that can be done if the person can't see or will not see the obvious.

Take for example what you said:

...have been carried by chunks of glacier floating in the waters...

Which one do you think is the MAIN CARRIER, chunks of glacier or water?

Without water, will the chunks of ice move?

No. So what happens to the boulder? It will not move.

In addition, the weight of a boulder will break the ice sheet - especially when it's in locomotion.


Mechanically speaking, a boulder (sitting on a level plane/graded plane) the size of a house can't be moved by a very slow moving (5' /day) ice sheet. The mechanical forces (low pressure) are not just there.

But a fast-moving stream of water can.

And that's where my contention is at. Erratics, as currently defined is incorrect/plain wrong.

originally posted by: edmc^2

And that's where my contention is at. Erratics, as currently defined is incorrect/plain wrong.

Flood water from occassional catastrophic regional flooding events in the past (especially at the end of the latst glacial period) are part of the current thinking of how at least some of the erratics that are far from the known edges of the ancient ice sheet got there.

Also, current thinking is that anciet lakes had formed from glacial melts at the end of the last glaial period -- lakes that might have spread beyond the ice sheet and were formed due to the geology of the land. Large icebergs carrying boulders could have broken off the glacier and floated for many miles from the glacier before melting and depsiting the boulder/erratic. Then the lake dried up, leaving the erratic exposed and far from the location of the edge of the ancient ice sheet, and even farther from the boulder's place of origin.

So water (flood waters and ancient lakes formed by melting glaciers) is part of the curent thinking about erratics. I'm not sure what you are saying needs to be redefined.

a reply to: edmc^2

Give me the data on one of your rocks, please. Been asking for a long time.

Glaciers are much bigger than houses, so your assumption about breaking the ice is 100% unfounded. Some glaciers are bigger than The USA and during the last glacial period they were even larger than that.

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

Give me the data on one of your rocks, please. Been asking for a long time.

Glaciers are much bigger than houses, so your assumption about breaking the ice is 100% unfounded. Some glaciers are bigger than The USA and during the last glacial period they were even larger than that.

Like I said, there's evidence out there that can help if you if can't see or refused to see the obvious.

Let's examine what you just said.

"Glaciers are much bigger than houses"

- undeniably accurate and true. But they accumulate SLOWLY - over a period of time. Hence they have no power to move a boulder the size of a house.

Remember F=ma?

Unless you can overcome the forces exerted / present on the boulder, there's no way it will move. Simple Newtonian physics.

In addition, since glaciers form ever so slowly, they tend to COVER and GO AROUND whatever in its path. Thus enveloping it. The added weight of ice on TOP of a boulder will further push the object downward, hence doubling or even tripling the forces exerted upon it - in a downward direction.

continuing...

"...so your assumption about breaking the ice is 100% unfounded. Some glaciers are bigger than The USA and during the last glacial period they were even larger than that."

- not true. The discussion was (a glacier) floating on water (apparently moving water). Understanding the mechanics of how ice forms and exposures to fluctuating temperatures, environments, the ice will over time break apart. Hence, whatever is on the surface of that glacier - a boulder the size of a house - will eventually break the ice apart. This is the reason why we don't see icebergs floating towards warmer areas. This is a fact. In addition, for a boulder, the size of a house LANDING on top of a glacier implies that the boulder came from a higher elevation. If the impact doesn't break the ice, then other forces will.

So your 2nd statement is not accurate.

Like I said, no evidence can help you if the obvious is you refuse to see obvious - F=ma.