From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject:  A confirmation from Ted... and its implications
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 18:42:21 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


From: macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca (R. Andrew MacRae)

>> >>csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)   

>> >>2) were the animals on the                                   

>> >>southern hemisphere considerably smaller than they are now? 


>> >news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)                                

>> >There were no animals on the southern hemisphere.  I mean, why
>> >live in darkness when you could live in light [?]                  


>>macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca (R. Andrew MacRae)        

>>       WHOA!  Hold on a second.  I can't see how else this could be    

>> interpreted, but I'll give you the chance to clairify anyway: Are
>> you really saying there were no animals living in the southern
>> hemisphere during the time of "reduced felt effect of gravity" -
>> the time of dinosaurs and Pangea - i.e. the early Mesozoic
>> (Triassic) in conventional geology - because there was no light?

> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)
> No light, and no land to live on.  Think about it.  All the land
> was in one place, Pangaea, anmd all the land was directly under
> whatever had pulled it all into one place, the which location
> coincided with the North magnetic pole, since the whole thing was
> electromagnetic.
  

> Only a fish with a love of darkness would have been living in the
> southern hemisphere.
  

>Naturally, given such conditions, magnetic and geological poles were    

>the same.     


>--      

>Ted Holden  

>HTE        


	Thanks for answering promptly, clearly, and concisely.  I  
just wanted to be sure you clairified your statement, before I  
pointed out the implications.
	Wow.  I think I am starting to really understand what Ted is  
saying.... and.... (retrains laughter).  I could not help it.  This  
is so utterly ridiculous.  I did not want you to put me into the same  
category as you have put many of the other "t.o regulars", but I am  
afraid you may have to.  This just stretches things too far for me.   
I am available to discuss any geology-related subjects you like, but  
you may as well ignore my remarks until you have modified the  
geological part of your theory substantially.  There is very little  
in it that does not conflict with basic geologic observations, and  
the predictions your theory makes are wrong:
	Two simple tests of Ted's theory:
	1) evidence of paleomagnetic poles pointing towards the  
centre of Pangea, roughly the Middle East, during the time of Pangea  
- i.e. the early Mesozoic, approximately Triassic.
	2) absence of all life dependent upon light in the hemisphere  
opposite Pangea (the "paleo" Pacific Ocean) in the same time period.
	
	The fact is, 1) paleomagnetism is used in part to determine  
the position of the continents forming Pangea in the first place, and  
all the data points to poles (north and south) roughly 90 degrees  
latitude away from the Middle East during the Triassic, i.e. the  
Middle East was at the paleoequator.  However, if the poles are  
wrong, then Ted cannot use Pangea as evidence for his theory, because  
the recognition of Pangea depends in part upon the paleomagnetism.
	Alternatively, Ted can come up with a magnetic field geometry  
that produces the observed paleomagnetic inclinations, but the  
support for Pangea would have to be considerably revised.
	Incidentally, the paleomagnetic inclinations in the area of  
the Middle East should be close to vertical if it is close to the  
paleomagnetic pole of Ted's theory.  The data indicates they are  
nearly horizontal (i.e. near the equator in the conventional  
explanation) in the Triassic.
	However, if you look at the path of the _south_ paleopole  
through the Paleozoic (predating the Triassic), it does a wander  
across the western edge of Africa in about the Ordovician (about 450  
million years).  Of course, Pangea is not around at this time  
(although Gondwanaland is - Africa, South America, Antarctica,  
Australia, India), and North America, Europe, and Asia are sort of  
strung along the paleoequator in the conventional geologic  
explanation [1].
	2) "The other hemisphere": Deposition is preserved in the  
ocean floor of the Pacific as far back as the Triassic, and there are  
plenty of ocean-floor drillholes.  Guess what - plenty of  
photosynthetic planktonic organisms (including dinoflagellates and  
coccoliths), as well as many other organisms were perfectly happy  
living in complete darkness.  Strange, isn't it?
	
	These points do not begin to address the SERIOUS problems of  
an Earth with one hemisphere continually heated, and the other  
continually dark.  I suspect the meteorological effects would be  
drastic, due to the huge temperature gradient.  In fact, I suspect  
the Pacific might freeze completely.  Someone with more physics  
background can tackle this one.
	Ted, the one thing I still do not understand is the choice  
you have made.  Why do you choose the theory you believe when there  
is so much evidence against it, and the conventional explanation  
works so much better (at least for geology)?  I am not qualified to  
assess the historical arguments you have presented, but as a  
"conventional" geologist, I am this far off from the real geologic  
explanation?
	I just don't get it.
	Reply via e-mail if you like.
	-Andrew
	macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca


[1] Smith, A.G.; Hurley, A.M.; and Briden, J.C., 1981.  Phanerozoic  
paleocontinental world maps.  Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,  
102p.