Great Flood, Catastrophism & Miles' Saturn Theory

I read Miles' Saturn Theory in his April addendum to his history paper on The Holy Grail recently and I posted it in 3 parts with my comments on the Thunderbolts forum at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=553 . No one else has posted any replies on that thread so far. I hope some folks here will be interested in discussing.

PLAN.
1. MILES' SATURN THEORY. My plan for now is to post my part 2 and part 3 of his addendum here first, along with my comments.
2. GREAT FLOOD. Then I want to post some of the best evidence that there was a Great Flood.
3. MY THEORY. Then I want to cover the best evidence for my own theory of Ancient Global Cataclysms.

I invite discussions of any of those here.

1. MILES' SATURN THEORY.

Here's the second part of Miles Mathis' Addendum to his paper on The Holy Grail at http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf with my reference numbers in brackets and comments at the bottom.

At any rate, though Talbott and Velikovsky were generally right about that [magnetic fields etc helping prevent planets from colliding], it doesn't even come close to saving the Saturn myth. As perhaps the biggest clue this was another huge conjob, just notice what Talbott chose to name his book: The Saturn Myth. If you had written the book, would you have chosen that title? I wouldn't. You would call it the Saturn Theory, or the Saturn Hypothesis, or at worst the Saturn Revolution. Calling it the Saturn Myth is to admit it is still no better than a myth: that is, not true.[12] Our next clue is found in Talbott's chapter and subchapter list for the book, which you can see here http://defendgaia.org/bobk/velidelu.html . You would expect him to lead with some historical evidence, then proceed to at least an outline of the physics. But he never does, and you can see that just from his chapter headings. In his conclusion, he is still repeating the same broad generalities of his preface: he had made no progress in his argument in 306 pages.[13]

For instance, to convince any real scientist that his theory had any merit at all, he would need to pretty quickly explain how a star could devolve into Saturn so quickly, where the extra mass went, where the heat went, why Saturn's other moons weren't affected, how the asteroid belt fits into this or how the Earth traversed it, how Jupiter fits in, and so on. You would have expected Jupiter to be the second sun in this system, not Saturn, so where was Jupiter in the previous configuration? Which sun was he circling? A planet that size caught between two suns would be very conflicted, to say the least. And since Saturn is so much like Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune in current composition, those three must also have been stars recently. Or if not, why not? If Saturn was recently a star, why does he have so much unfused hydrogen and helium? Why did he stop fusing and why does he not fit the profile of a dwarf? A burnt-out star should be neutron rich, but we have no evidence Saturn fits that profile.[14]

Also, the move from one star to another and from one orbiting position to another would actually be far more traumatic than what the Earth is known to have experienced in the recent past. We can see that just from things like the ice core samples, which proceed like clockwork for millions of years. We see no evidence of a total overhaul of the mechanisms there. And that is just one example of thousands.[15]

Occam's razor tells us that the myths and stories Talbott and Velikovsky quote are much more likely to be explained by comets, asteroids, or volcanic eruptions, so why would they rush to hypothesize such outlandish things, upon so little evidence?[16] As far as the main contention of the Saturn myth, a firsttime reader thinks up much better explanations without much effort: if there was indeed a bright object at the pole assigned to the primary god of ancient peoples, it was probably a supernova or similar object, not Saturn. After the object faded, it somehow got conflated with the planet Saturn.[17] But Talbott never considers other possibilities: because these people called something at the pole a name we now associate with Saturn, he tells us the current planet must have been there. We have never seen a faster or less logical rush to a conclusion.[18]

Another theory Talbott ignores is this interesting one, which I haven't seen anywhere: What if these ancient stories are actually retellings of stories from when our ancestors lived on Titan? Maybe that is the golden age. If you lived on Titan, Saturn would look more than eleven times larger than the Moon looks to us now. And since Titan is in tidal lock, like our own Moon, if you lived on the Saturn side of Titan, Saturn would never set. He would seem to hang in the sky, motionless. From that near, the brightness of Saturn would be incredible, making him seem like a second star even though he wasn't. This would explain Talbott's data, without moving Saturn at all. Neither Saturn nor the Earth moved. . . WE DID.
- It would also explain other ancient stories, like the ones concerning night. Night would be very different depending on which side of Titan you lived on. If you lived on the far side, away from Saturn, your night would be dependent on the Sun, and so would last about eight days. If you lived on the near side, your night would be dependent on reflection from Saturn, so night would come only when the Sun was behind you and Saturn was in a new phase. Since that is impossible, there would be no night on the near side.[19]

We have even more data in favor of this hypothesis. The mainstream now admits that Titan has liquid water oceans, though it thinks they are very cold. Cassini confirmed liquid oceans with the reflection of ELFs. According to the latest theories, this liquid ocean is supposed to be supercooled down to -97C by being mixed with ammonia, but they actually have no evidence for that. That theory was created only to explain the cold they assume is there, based on old gravity-only models. Those are the same models that can't explain the burning atmosphere of Uranus or the ice on the poles of Mercury. But given a unified field, charge, and magnetic reconnection, we can explain much higher temperatures at the distance of Titan. So the temperature of the liquid ocean on Titan could be anything, including being warmer than the Earth's oceans. In fact, I have shown the mechanism for that in my paper on the Moon (http://milesmathis.com/moon.html), where I showed that the Moon has a denser charge field than the Earth, simply because it is smaller. The charge field gets more compressed by moving through a smaller body. Unlike Talbott or Velikovsky, I do the math there. Since Titan is smaller than the Earth, there is a straightforward mechanism for charge compression, and therefore for heat generation. Plus, Titan is recycling charge from both the Sun and and a very near Saturn, while the Earth is only recycling charge from the Sun (and very distant planets). Raising Titan's charge profile again. And since Titan is also known to have a heavy atmosphere of 1.5 bars, 50% higher than on the Earth, we have a mechanism for heat trapping. This indicates the mainstream theory of a thick layer of ice on the surface of Titan is probably wrong. In fact, composite pictures of Titan in infrared from NASA do not confirm it.
- A layer of surface ice 62 miles thick would look nothing like that, in false color or not. I would say the choice to use white as their main false color is suspicious, since it automatically pushes you to seeing snow or ice there. But they had no physical reason to choose white or orange, and could have just as easily used blue and brown like the earth. Why didn't they? That would be bit revelatory, wouldn't it?
- Cassini also found significant shifting of those surface features, indicating the continents on Titan are moving. In other words, they are floating freely in the oceans, unconnected to the mantle. That would explain other curious comments in the ancient stories.
- NASA also admits mountains and volcanoes exist on Titan. What? On a surface of miles-thick ice? Also a few impact craters? Impact craters on a shifting surface of ice? We seem to have a lot of contradictions there. Like the CIA, NASA needs to hire a continuity editor. Or, to deal with me, maybe a large team of continuity editors.
- And at Wikipedia, we actually find this astonishing admission, taken straight from NASA: The climate — including wind and rain — creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle bears a striking similarity to Earth's water cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle).
- Again, surface features including dunes, rivers, seas, and deltas, on a surface of ice? If the seas are liquid methane, what are the dunes made of? What are the continents made of? And if the atmosphere is robustly nitrogen, like here on Earth, with huge amounts of oxygen (in the form of water) present, why do they go out of their way to hide any oxygen in the atmosphere? I think you know.
- A reader also pointed out that there is a hexagon on Titan, though not at the pole. But he was wrong: there are actually two. Blow that last image up and you will see a larger one in the inset at 4 o'clock, and another smaller one in the inset at 6'clock.
- But, I will be told, if Titan's atmosphere is so thick, inhabitants couldn't have seen out at all. Saturn itself would have been invisible. Yes, assuming that atmosphere was there thousands of years ago. But if we assume the atmosphere was created by environmental degradation of the sort currently happening on the Earth, that too is answered. That atmosphere is precisely why our ancestors had to leave. Not coincidentally, Titan's orange smog is hydrocarbons, just like you see in Los Angeles. We are told it is caused by methane being broken up by sunlight, but that is ridiculous. It is much more likely that it was created in the way it is created here, by pollution from industry. That pollution then somehow destroyed the oxygen content of the atmosphere, making the place uninhabitable for us.
- The atmosphere of Titan provides many clues of this, including the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, created by the burning of coal or oil deposits. Even the high levels of methane on Titan are a clue, since if the hydrocarbons were created by decomposing methane, sunlight would have long since decomposed all the methane. Indicating the methane is also residual from just a few thousand years ago. Meaning it too was released by the inhabitants somehow. We may assume it wasn't from farting cows, so again it was probably from burning fossil fuels. On the Earth, human industry creates far more methane (https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions) than cows, termites, wetlands, and the oceans put together.
- We are told that high winds exist on Titan, with the atmosphere moving much faster than here. Except that Cassini also contradicted that, getting specular reflections from lakes. This indicates calm waters.[20]

12. A lot of people were okay with the title, Saturn Myth, since the theory is based on ancient eye-witness reports handed down in myths.
13. It's okay for an introductory work like The Saturn Myth not to have the answers yet.
14. Talbott figured that Jupiter was behind (from Earth's perspective) or in front of Saturn (from the Sun's perspective) in the lineup of planets. There have been many published discussions of the Saturn theory and some of them have considered questions like those.
15. The ice core dating method has gotten lots of good criticism from Catastrophists and Creationists.
16. Myths name Saturn, Venus and Mars as the primary players in the skies in ancient times and seldom mention comets etc, besides Comet Venus.
17. If stars and planets form from imploding galactic filaments, which are linear, it's very possible that they would move linearly at first, thus polarly aligned.
18. They/we only go where the evidence leads, IMO. Talbott didn't rush to a conclusion. Velikovsky had already suggested that Earth had been a satellite of Saturn in the 1950s, I think. He first read Velikovsky's books in 1968. He published his book, The Saturn Myth, in 1980.
19. Many Thunderbolts readers would be open to your theory. If the evidence leads there, we'll follow.
20. Good theory, but so far myths don't support it, as far as I know.

1. MILES' SATURN THEORY. (continued)

Here's the 3rd and last part of Miles Mathis' Addendum to his paper on The Holy Grail at http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf with my reference numbers in brackets and comments at the bottom.

If you read all the theories of Titan at a place like Wikipedia or NASA, you soon get the impression of a cover-up. Nothing makes any sense and most of it reads like misdirection. It contradicts itself and mainstream physics in a thousand places. Even now that the data has been sitting around for a while, nothing sensible is ever said about. The scientists seem to go out of their way to misread it or push it.

I trust you see what all this means: my theory isn't a theory of aliens.[21] There are no aliens in this Saturn theory. WE ARE THE ALIENS. It doesn't get any weirder than . . . us. We are the outsiders, and it looks like we are doing the same thing to the Earth that we did to Titan. So the big question is, why didn't we learn our lesson? In the time it took us to reinvent industry, did we really forget our old mistakes? Or are we just incapable of anything better?

So why did these guys like Velikovsky and Talbott rush to such idiotic conclusions? I have already told you in that previous paper: they did it in order to blackwash any non-mainstream theories. They purposely made their non-mainstream theories as ridiculous as possible, in order to bolster the mainstream.[22] It is just one more in a line of controlling the opposition. They saw people like me coming and they didn't want to have to address me directly. So they manufactured these people like Velikovsky, Talbott, Icke, and many others, so that they could lump me in with them and dismiss me by kind. NASA does the same thing with its creation of Flat Earth and other projects. It wants to lump all critics in with Flat Earth, dismissing them as a group. This prevents any and all discussion of real theory.[23]

Anyone can see I have almost nothing in common with these people. My output alone should tell you that. I have published over 10,000 pages on my science site alone. That's 33 volumes of groundbreaking research. And my papers are dense with math and page-by-page, line-by-line critiques of mainstream theories and equations. I show specific cheats and mistakes in math by Feynman, Einstein, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Maxwell, Bohr, Newton, Keppler, Landau, and dozens of current and living physicists. This is something Talbott, Velikovsky, Icke, and all the rest have never done.[24]

My critics dismiss me as they dismiss Velikovsky: neither of us have the right degrees, the right framed papers on our walls. So they don't have to respond to my line-by-line mathematical destructions of Landau, Feynman, or anyone else. These destructions PROVE I am a better mathematician than these famous mathematicians, but my critics are paid to say that because I don't have a PhD in math or physics, I can't possibly be either a mathematician or a physicist. Argument by misdirection. Notice that they dodge me far more fully than they dodge Velikovsky. Lots of people have responded directly to his arguments, but no one has ever responded to mine. Yes, they respond, but only by ad hominem or other misdirection. I have never once seen a sensible response to my mathematical critiques of Bohr, Feynman, Landau, Maxwell, or anyone else. Just total radio silence. This while my papers are ranking on the front page of the search engines, sometimes above Wikipedia.[25]

And, like the Grail Myth, the Saturn Myth misdirects by taking you close to the truth but then dodging you back out into the bushes. As I said, I do think there is something going on with Saturn. The ancients were telling us something about Saturn, but nothing like what Talbott, Icke, or Velikovsky would have you believe. I don't know exactly what that something is yet, but it is much more likely to be a colonizing or a genetic experiment than Worlds in Collision.[26] Assuming we can already send probes to Saturn, it wouldn't take much of a technological advance to transport live beings back and forth. It doesn't take near-light speeds or time-dilation or hibernation — a la Planet of the Apes or Alien — to imagine travel from here to there. It would only be a matter of months. Plus, travelling toward the Sun should be much easier than travelling away from it, since we can use its gravity to move toward it. Everything not in orbit will move directly at the Sun, and accelerate while doing it. So travel from Titan to the Earth would have been a lot easier than travel from the Earth to Titan.
- And, as I said above, the high temperatures we are discovering on planets far from the Sun make this all the easier to propose. Life on the moons of Saturn was pretty hard to sell a few years ago, when we thought it was necessarily bitter cold out there. But now that we know more about how heat can be generated by planets and moons, via my charge field (http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf), the possibility of life goes way way up.[20]

One more thing, on the way out. Anyone claiming I have jumped the shark or outed myself with this paper is immediately suspect, in my opinion. My enemies have been champing at the bit for any new reason to dismiss me, and we see them pissing themselves in elation over this one. But I have bad news for them: the attempts to blackwash me will fail like all the ones before. At this point, I couldn't jump a shark if I tried. What's done is done, and my work up to now is unassailable. Even if I lost my mind tomorrow and began publishing absolute gibberish, it wouldn't matter. People do get old and they often do lose their minds (especially these days, in the time of fluoride, aluminum, and glyphosate), but that doesn't justify jettisoning their life's work. My papers up to now can be answered only by cogent critique, not by any broadbrush dismissals. Which is to say I am not too worried.[27]

And as for outing myself, there is nothing to out. I am exactly what I claim to be, so there is nothing for anyone to “catch” me at. The only thing anyone has ever caught me at was a misspelling or a typo or a bad hair day, which I can live with. Which is precisely why I feel free to say anything about Saturn or anything else I like. Besides, those who wish to blackwash me for saying things they don'tlike hardly need any new ammunition. My comments about the Phoenicians, Hitler, serial killers, trannies, or a thousand other things are far more controversial than Saturn or aliens. If I were worried about saving my physical theories from knee-jerk dismissal, I would have kept quiet about any number of things. But that isn't my way. In the future, it will be appreciated how all my revolutions hang together, but for now that is hard to see, I know.

As this has unfolded, we have seen something droll. My peanut gallery and opposition really should have kept their mouths shut here. That was their only hope. Every little peep from them only made me look at this longer and harder, which was the last thing they wanted. We have seen that same progression play out over and over, so I don't know why they can't learn that lesson.[28]

21. The Saturn theory isn't about aliens either. Velikovsky did think, though, that the Nephelim mentioned in the Bible as giants may have come to Earth from Mars, where they would have grown taller due to weaker gravity. That could apply to Titan as well.
22. Velikovsky rushed to his wrong conclusions because it's a complex subject to analyze as a maverick. I believe Talbott did better research and I don't think his conclusion was wrong so far.
23. Intel may have supported Velikovsky and even Thunderbolts, with or without their knowledge, but who knows if Intel wants to suppress or expose the truth? If Intel has opposing parties within it, then one party may want to expose at least some truth.
24. Talbott, Velikovsky and colleagues have helped expose many instances of mainstream irrationality and Thunderbolts even supported your friend, Steve Crothers, in arguments against black hole theory etc.
25. You and Crothers seem to have a thorough grasp of math and few of the rest of your readers are able to comprehend your findings well. Some can, but most, like me, probably cannot, at least not readily.
26. The Saturn theory does not much support Velikovsky's theory from Worlds in Collision. They agree on close encounters with Mars and Venus, but over a millennium earlier than Velikovsky thought. And he got a lot of details wrong. As for colonization of Earth, Velikovsky did consider the possibility of something like that, as I said above. Sitchin promoted the genetic experiment theory of human origin, but Sitchin was greatly misreading the Sumerian tablets, possibly intentionally to oppose the Saturn theory.
27. Many folks appreciate your findings. That includes me. Speaking of losing one's mind, Talbott recently suffered a stroke and it seems he may no longer be able to advocate for the Saturn Theory. I'm wondering if he got a Covid injection which caused the stroke.
28. I think many of us are glad your opponents didn't keep their mouths shut (though I'm no sycophant).

I just noticed the following at http://milesmathis.com/pole.pdf
__Pole Reversals as Proof of my Charge Field by Miles Mathis
First published February 1, 2018
_The mainstream now admits that the Earth's poles reverse about every half million years [each period is called a chron]. This admission was necessary due the reversed magnetism found in volcanic rocks. It is also admitted there is no known schedule to the reversal, with periods generally running from 10,000 years to 1 million years. But in the last glacial event 41,000 years ago, there was a flip and a flip-back in a period of only 440 years (the Laschamp event). Another clue to this mystery is that during these flips the total magnetic field weakens greatly, falling to 5% of its normal strength. Also important is that these flips do not correspond to Solar magnetic flips, which occur every 9-12 years. And during Solar flips, total magnetism increases.
_If we ask the mainstream to explain all this, we get very little of use. We are told that pole reversals are explained by fluid dynamics in the Earth's molten core—the standard dodge. It is a dodge since there is no possible way to confirm that, and since the given theories make no sense. However, I have nonconfirmed the core dynamics answer in many previous papers using only logic, and I will do so again here.
_The most widely proposed trigger of reversals is an impact event, but the mainstream admits no reversal was triggered by the impact event that caused the Cretaceous extinction. So there appears to be no connection of reversals to major impacts, pretty much destroying that theory.

The explanation of magnetic fields I find most understandable and plausible is Charles Chandler's at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10862 , but his model doesn't entirely satisfy me either. Both his and Miles' models accept conventional dating of magnetic field reversals, but I agree with Mike Fischer at https://www.newgeology.us that the reversals were apparently due to an asteroid impact that broke up the former supercontinent, Pangaea, just four or five thousand years ago. The impact caused the Americas to break away from west Africa and Europe and Australia and part of Antarctica to break away from southeast Africa. Each continent received enough momentum from the impact to slide a few thousand miles over the plasma Moho layer etc. So the magnetic striping on the ocean floors was due to the impact causing the field to rock back and forth during the short time of the continental sliding.

Dating methods are known by Creationist and catastrophist scientists and others to be totally inaccurate for the most part, with Carbon-14 being the least inaccurate. The latter has found that dinosaur fossils, coal etc date to only a few tens of thousands of years ago. Some scientists have also dated the amount of helium in zircons in granite and found it to be only six to eight thousand years old. Likewise re radioactive argon.

.
Lloyd wrote.

PLAN.
1. MILES' SATURN THEORY. My plan for now is to post my part 2 and part 3 of his addendum here first, along with my comments.
2. GREAT FLOOD. Then I want to post some of the best evidence that there was a Great Flood.
3. MY THEORY. Then I want to cover the best evidence for my own theory of Ancient Global Cataclysms.

Airman. I’ve been patiently waiting to hear your theory since you first mentioned them several years ago. Blazing Saturn or Great Flood? Single event or what? Miles merely points out that while mainstream or thunderbolts (or I’ll add CC for that matter) haven‘t provided any good explanations, the Charge Field can.

First, planetary brightness. Here’s a quote from More on Enceladus and Albedo*.

I published a longish paper on the moon Encedalus, brightness, and albedo a couple of days ago, showing that all Solar System bodies are far brighter than they should be. It took me a couple of days to realize that Enceladus' bond albedo number of 99+% is actually misdirection itself. After running my own numbers, I could see that Enceladus' “reflectivity” is well above 100%. And the mainstream even admits this, although it misdirects you away from that admission. Bond albedo includes viewing angle, so it can be brought down considerably by that angle. If we want just the brightness at opposition, we use geometric albedo, not bond albedo. Turns out Enceladus has a geometric albedo way over unity, with a value of 1.4. That means it is actually reflecting more light than is falling on it, by the current rules of scattering. My theory explains that easily, since I have shown the source of light creation locally:

Airman. While the Sun emits the most visible light in our corner of the galaxy, sufficient to illuminate the planets, referring to any planet’s visible light emissions as “reflected” is wrong. At the atomic level and higher, the planets are recycling charge and must be the source of the light by which we see them. It is a charge field fact that the planets emit more direct photons then they receive since they also taking in non-direct, vorticular charge into their poles.

I believe what we observe as the brightness of a planet is actually caused by the interaction of both received and emitted charge spinning up photons directly above the planet’s surface, brightening the sky whether there’s an atmosphere or not; just as the sun’s brightness is caused by charge interaction in the photosphere, high above the sun’s surface. Over the poles there’s a much greater variation in the distribution of charge, resulting in aurora. Miles has written papers on that subject too.  

The charge/anticharge 2:1 ratio the earth is currently receiving is not a constant. Over the course of “chrons”, the Sun and planets spin like a rolling wheel about the galaxy’s center, each member of the helio system will be receiving cyclic and sporadic variations in the volume and intensity of both the direct and non-direct, charge and anticharge received and recycled. That charge field based theory easily explains why, over time, magnetic fields change intensity or flip.

As far as a blazing Saturn goes. Given the cyclic charge variations, I would add the fact that Saturn’s orbit is on the wrong side – above, Jupiter. Saturn will always work to drop below Jupiter’s orbit, while Jupiter will always push to rise above Saturn. Miles has a paper on that Jupiter/Saturn orbital instability as well. The point is that Saturn will therefor receive extraordinary large variations of charge/anticharge from Jupiter, which can greatly increase Saturn’s brightness.    

Great Floods sound relatively passe. Of course they occur and for good reason. Since you’ve been so generous with your catastrophes, I’ll share my own cherished world belief. Again, please pardon my repetitions. The earth is growing, easily explained with the charge field. Earth’s radius has doubled in the last 65 million years. Back in the “super-continent” days the earth’s surface formed a spherical crust. Sure, an impact occurred or the crust merely fractured, but as the earth groes, the broken fragments of the crust’s original spherical curvature – the pangea shell - keeps fracturing and falling along the edges causing all kinds of floods. New material continually rises to fill the expanding earth’s surface, see Sea Floor Spreading.


*
NEW PAPER, 3/10/2013. More on Enceladus and Albedo. http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf  I show several large fudges in the albedo math, proving a cover-up of brightness.
.

AIRMAN'S EXPANDING EARTH THEORY
Hi Airman. I did a review of several Expanding Earth theories a few years ago at https://cnps.boards.net/thread/33/review-requests-expansion-tectonics where I made requests for specific evidence for each theory on behalf of CNPS. Maybe I'll have to make similar requests of you for your theory, if I get time soon. It was part of my Geology project for CNPS in which I reviewed a number of other Earth theories as well as Expansion. And I made requests for each theory. Mike Fischer's model at http://newgeology.us/ and Charles Chandler's at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6199 were the ones I chose as most thorough and best supported by evidence.

I also wanted to post the following. See you tomorrow or so.

MORE MILES MATHIS THEORY
http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/1-110/

PS, the magnetic field varied, causing magnetic striping on seafloors etc, because of an asteroid impact that broke up Pangaea and caused rapid continental drift, as explained at
http://newgeology.us/

On Titan...they are saying the lakes are frozen hydrocarbons:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/13214/lakes-on-titan/

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/the-mysterious-lakes-on-saturns-moon-titan

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/planetary_news/2019/04/30/deep-hydrocarbon-lakes-on-titan/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0714-2

I haven't had time to reply earlier. Miles says the hydrocarbons were produced on Titan the same way as here, by industry burning fossil fuels. He's skeptical of the reports of hydrocarbon lakes etc, but hydrocarbons float on water, so they could be oil covered lakes or something like that. I don't consider his theory probable, but it's possible.

Airman said:

1_Great Floods sound relatively passe. Of course they occur and for good reason.
2_The earth is growing, easily explained with the charge field.
3_Earth’s radius has doubled in the last 65 million years.
4_Back in the “super-continent” days the earth’s surface formed a spherical crust.
5_Sure, an impact occurred or the crust merely fractured, but as the earth gro[w]s, the broken fragments of the crust’s original spherical curvature – the pangea shell - keeps fracturing and falling along the edges causing all kinds of floods.
6_New material continually rises to fill the expanding earth’s surface, see Sea Floor Spreading.

LK reply
1. See 5.
2. Do all physical bodies similarly grow? If not, then which types do grow? Does this mean a certain percent of charge entering a body transforms into matter? If so, what percent? And how is charge transformed into matter within bodies and in what parts of such bodies?
3. 65 million years is said to be the K/T boundary in the sedimentary rock record. How were the sedimentary rock strata deposited? And how were they separated into the 3 main rock types, shale, sandstone and limestone? Why does the carbon in dinosaur fossils, coal, diamonds etc show ages of under 50,000 years by C14 dating? Why do you favor mainstream dating methods?
4. Where did the continental granite crust come from?
5. Why do some strata cover nearly entire continents? Did each flood deposit just one rock type, such as mud (shale), sand (sandstone), or lime (limestone)? If so, where did each rock type come from?
6. How does lighter continental crust sink into the denser mantle?