|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,589 Year: 2,846/9,624 Month: 691/1,588 Week: 97/229 Day: 8/61 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It was laid down sequentially over SOME period of time DURING that one event that lasted after all a year and who knows how long it took the flood to recede, leaving many layers of stuff one at a time. one event, or many. take your pick.
Sequential doesn't mean it built up on the ridiculous principle of accumulated deposits for each long age of time. A layer was no doubt laid down all at once, and others laid down on top of it separately, after who knows how long a gap, but not years. why not? you're basically claiming that hundreds of feet of rock were made instantly, one at a time, selectively upturned and weathered and eroded, and the next layer deposited. lather, rinse, repeat. for MILES up MILES.
Angular unconformities occur sometime during the process. A bunch of layers are laid down, then a big bubble of magma displaces a block of layers and upends them, a whole nother bunch of layers slide over the uptilted ones, etc etc etc. Most unconformities, however, clearly happened AFTER the whole column was laid down. so you ARE arguing with the law of superposition then. explain to me how the bottomn layers would be shift, eroded back to level (cutting the strata off at an angle), and NOT disturbed the levels above even slightly?
IF the timeline theory is correct it would follow, but if it happened in a much shorter period of time there is no necessary relation. Those layers did not build up slowly and gradually over long aeons, sorry. It makes me laugh just thinking about it. if. if your idea is correct, there is no reason for why it matches and supports the scientific theory. and there is no reason given for why certain things are confined to certain strata. how do you explain that? This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-25-2005 04:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3940 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Sheesh - I'm trying to be retired.
A rather nice post, BUT badly off-topic. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
BUT all that is nothing but speculation. You don't KNOW any of that. It's sheer hypothesis. it's speculation that things entering the atmosphere heat up to very very hot temperatures? and it's speculation that really really hot things make water vaporize? and it's speculation that if something hit in an area that only has marine fossils that it hit underwater?
You see dead dinosaurs here and there in layers of sediments, you see an absence of dinosaurs in what is hypothesized to be the next layer up (since as a matter of fact this isn't how they show up everywhere in reality), layers above the k-t do not contain dinosaurs. or rather, as a point of fact, no dinosaur remains have ever been found above the k-t boundary. i challenge you to show me one (because i'd be really interested to know if i'm wrong). as for the "next layer up" bit, we can identify which layers are which. we don't randomly assign things. if a section of the tertiary layers are missing, the statement is still true. if a section of the cretacious layer is missing, the statement is still true. if both layers are there, the statement is still true, and there is a layer between them full of un-earthly elements like iridium.
you see a layer of iridium, you decide a big meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, big enough to wipe out 90% of life -- ONLY because you see all those dead reptilian creatures and you hypothesize the magnitude that would account for it. uh, no, it was a hypothesis for a long time. it predicted that we would find a crater of a certain size, in a particular layerof rock.
How do you KNOW it "hit deep water?" types of sediment and fossilized life.
And WHAT "hit deep water?" an asteroid, several miles across.
How big is its crater? about 111m (or 180km) across.
Can you show it to me? yes and no. 65mya is a long time. it's since been buried. but here's a gravity map of it.
Is it in the same layer the dinosaurs are in? yes.
You speak of this event as if it were a witnessed and documented reality, but it's NOTHING but an imaginative scenario put together to account for a bunch of other hypotheses about the scant actual facts of a bunch of dinosaur bones and a thin layer of iridium. And MAYBE a crater --? uh, no. it's strongly supported theories. there is still some debate as to what killed the dinosaurs (and not EVERYTHING). it's not really "BOOM everything dies" but more of the secondary effects and environmental catastrophes. and it's not imaginative. there's a layer strongly saturated in an element not usually found on earth, a 180km crater associated with it, and a mass extinction event at the same time. coincidence? wrath of god, maybe. but not a flood.
Sure, but this is a big planet. That itty bitty event really WAS itty bitty, very local, hardly worth mentioning. All this stuff about debris and dust saturating the atmosphere -- well, nobody has seen anything like that. yes. at tunguska in 1908. the atmosphere was 2% less transparent for the next few years. it was read on seismographs around the world. the shattered windows 400 miles away. the people in ENGLAND noticed.
I thought it was brought up to impress me with what a devastating effect such an event would have had on Noah and company. Now it turns out it's a big nothing. uh, no you're not getting it. we were trying to impress on you the devastating effects of something that didn't even end up touching the earth. this thing yeilded about the same effect as the bomb that dropped on hiroshima (which also didn't touch the ground, btw). and we're talking about stuff that not only HIT the ground, but vaporized 5000 cubic km of rock. this one was little, and people noticed as far away as england. imagine one several thousand times as big.
Even all the nuclear testing that was done above ground in the fifties didn't produce half the results we might expect. The effects were surprisingly local, or traceable by wind patterns, devastating to downwinders but nevertheless confined to that area, without the worldwide atmospheric effect some talked about. i'd be damned suprised in seismographs didn't pick those up. heck, we can triangulate were earthquakes epicenters are using data from the otherside of the planet. but we're talking about things that dropped with several thousand times the destruction of a nuke.
[qs]but the fact is there were 100 atmospheric (and 828 underground) bombs tested in a short period of time just at the one Nevada Test Site, the atmospheric ones all within the 50s, all in one location, and their effect seems to have been a lot less than dramatic. [/]qs tell that to the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki.
Any one of them COULD wipe out a city, or do a lot of damage, but if these meteors hit in uninhabited places or underwater in a worldwide flood, nobody's yet convinced me they'd do anything like you predict. again, we're talking about stuff that leaves craters 180km across.
What would you have predicted for these events? How do they compare with the meteors you are talking about? a lot smaller.
I don't get this steam idea either. So some great quantity of water turns to steam. Again the area may be quite large, a matter of oh a hundred or even two or three hundred square miles? Make it a few thousand. But that's NOTHING on this planet. AND the atmosphere would cool it. heat expands. we'd be dealing with thousand degree steam blasts and giant tidal waves. water just COMPLICATES the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sheesh - I'm trying to be retired. A rather nice post, BUT badly off-topic. originally, it was about establishing a connection between the k-t layer, the k-t event, and the dinosaur extinction. the problem arises because yec's tend not to believe the sequential nature of the geologic column, and so the k-t boundary does not have to be associate with the extinction. i was showing why this view is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
TSUNAMIS are created by movements of the sea floor. Rocks hitting water create GRAVITY WAVES. Gravity waves are felt by ships. With the Earth entirely covered by water, the only thing to dissipate gravity waves would be the internal friction in water. How large a rock would be required to create a gravity wave that could circumnavigate the globe before dissipating is WAY beyond my ability to calculate.
My understanding is that most of the damage caused by large meteors is due to the shock wave from a large object moving through the atmosphere at a high speed, not by the impact. This message has been edited by FormalistAesthete, 05-25-2005 07:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
What is the reference for the supposed change in climate after the Flood? I took a quick glance at my (Revised Standard Version) Bible and saw no mention of anything about climate change, or even changes in vegetation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 979 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Tsunamis are not only created by submarine earthquakes where the seafloor is vertically displaced, but also by submarine landslides, terrestrial landslides at continental margins (where land slides into the ocean), and well as impacts.
However, I do think there are fundamental differences between waves resulting from impacts vs. waves resulting from submarine displacement. I say 'think' because I don't really know for sure. Just a guess. Can anyone confirm or refute that opinion. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 07:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
My bad. The proper designation for waves created by rocks (or other objects) breaching the surface is "surface gravity wave".
Does a submerged submarine leave the same sort of wake at the surface as a surface submarine does? This message has been edited by FormalistAesthete, 05-25-2005 07:59 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Faith, it might interest you that tektites - resolidified molten rock that was ejected from the Chicxulub impact - are found at least as far as Haiti and Wyoming? That's a ways from the Yucatan.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5251 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Excellent post, arachnophilia, filled with calm, clean, substantive answers. I trust you'll excuse one minor quibble.
it's speculation that things entering the atmosphere heat up to very very hot temperatures? Yes. In fact, it's a myth; something that surprised me very much when I learned about it recently. The glow of a falling meteorite is not the meteor itself; but superheated air in the shock wave in front of the meteor. The immediate surface of the rock may heat up as well, but that usually melts and blows off. The falling meteor does not get all that hot, except a bit on the surface that is lost anyway. It is not in the atmosphere long enough to pick up much heat in total. A small meteorite will decellerate rapidly, and finally fall at terminal velocity for a few minutes before hitting the ground at a couple of hundred km/hr; during this time the surface cools again. The main bulk of the meteor remains at the frigid temperatures of deep space, and this rapidly cools the surface. If you are lucky enough to find a meteorite just after it has fallen, it is likely to be cool, and possibly even covered with frost. Check out this article by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, that deals with the matter in an addendum. Sorry... I'm off topic. You guys are talking about rocks a couple of kilometers across, which have a different dynamic. They are not slowed by the atmosphere, and hit the ground at enormous velocity. That impact is what generates all the heat. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:I know this was an older post as some pictures and calculations have been presented since but I wonder if you really have any comprehension of the energy released by these impacts. The Chixulub impact is estimated at around 100 million megatons of TNT. The Hiroshima bomb was about 20 kilotons. Thus the Chixulub impact released energy equivalent to about 5 billion Hiroshima bombs. The Sudbury and Vredefort impacts were bigger. I estimate they each released energy equivalent about 10-15 Billion Hiroshima A-Bombs so your analogy to nuclear testing doesn't mean much. If one looks at the impact database one can see that there were 6 impacts that were equivalent to 1 billion A-Bombs, 10 that were equivalent to about 400 million, 15 that were equivalent to about 100-200 million, 25 that were equivalent to 50-80 million and 60 that ranged from about 2 to 10 million A bombs in energy released. If you want to claim that these things rained down on the earth during the "flood year" you better have a really tough ark. Each of these impacts will produce enormous volumes of steam, filling the air with steam and molten rock. Blast waves in the air and massive waves in the water will spread from hundreds to thousands of kilometers from each impact. Ejecta will rain hot rock and ash all over the surface of the heaving global ocean. Massive fireballs will heat the atmosphere. The steam from vaporized water will condense in the air releasing its latent heat of vaporization almost certainly heating the atmosphere well above the temperature that air breathing life can survive and falling as scalding hot rain. It's one thing to have such an impact every few hundred million years. It's quite another to cram them into a young earth and really impossible to cram them into a "flood year". Now as I said before look at the moon. It is estimated that during the heavy bombardment of the moon 17-22 thousand objects ranging in size from 10 (Chixulub size) to 100 km in diameter would have rained down on earth. This is an unavoidable conclusion because of the craters on the moon and earth's much more massive gravity as has been pointed out. This would have vaporized the oceans and destroyed all life on the surface of the earth.
lunar bombardment From concentrations of metals in 3.9 billion years old lunar impact melts, Randy L. Korotev, in 2002, concluders that "objects that struck the moon were asteroids." This early bombardment is recorded by some 1,700 moon craters at least 20 kilometers wide during a period then lasting between 20 million and 200 million years. Given that flux, he and Barbara A Cohen, estimate that more than 22,000 similar objects impacted the Earth (6,400 Mars, and 3,200 Mercury). Even the tiny fraction of impacts that left craters that have survived to the present day would have destroyed the ark if they fell during the flood year and those that hit the earth during the bombardment of the inner solar system must have sterilized the surface of the planet if any life was around at the time only extreme thermophilic bacteria might have survived.Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:Right. It is mostly the rapid compression of the target by the impacting object that transfers kinetic energy into heat. This is what makes the fireball. If you want to look at equations used for the Impact Calculator You can find them Here In a pdf file. Added in Edit: It's not the fall that kills everything. It's the sudden stop at the bottom. Randy This message has been edited by Randy, 05-25-2005 09:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
Maybe I should just delete my whole post. I was just informed by someone who actually knows what he's talking about that my claim about the shock wave of a meteor passing thru the atmosphere causing most of the damage is WRONG.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 979 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
FA, it's all part of the learning process.
Nothing wrong with making mistakes - we all do - unless you don't alter your thinking when new information reaches you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
no. once a submarine reaches sufficient depth there will be no noticeable wake at all. makes satellite tracking difficult eh?
the reason for bulbous bows on large tankers is that the submerged bulb reduces the wake of the entire ship, thus saving energy otherwise lost to making waves. seePage not found - Ship Technology and Air Anti-Submarine Warfare ASW Sensors there is another difference between water and air: compressability
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024