Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

As I pointed out previously, the Alamo breccia appears to represent a near-shore (Late Devonian marine carbonate shelf) extraterrestrial impact of moderate size with associated ejecta and megatsunami deposits. Empirical evidence suggesting such an interpretation consists of the following significant properties of the Alamo Breccia:1. Possibly the most voluminous outcropping of carbonate megabreccia in the world amounting to ~4000 km2 scattered across 11 mountain ranges, with an average thickness of ~70 m, and containing a volume
of 250+ km3;2. The presence of structually-intact and locally deformed limestone megaclasts up to 80 x 500 m in size and a turbidite;3. Trends of decreasing thickness landward (east)and decreasing clast and matrix sizes (normal grading) upward;4. Deformed bedrock underlies portions of the Alamo Breccia and is cut by breccia- and clastic-filled dikes and sills; while the strata above the breccia is undeformed;5. The presence of shocked quartz grains;6. The presence of iridium;7. The presence of displace conodonts (indicating reworking and redistribution).Final model of what the impact might have looked like{ Source:Warme and Sandberg, 1996, Alamo Megabreccia: Record of a Late Devonian Impact in Southern Nevada, GSA TODAY, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1 - 7.Online link: The Many Faces of the Alamo Impact BrecciaThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 11:30 AM

I just finished that link...I wouldn't have guessed that evidence of meteor induced, tsunami caused strata was possible. Thanks ABB

"Appears to represent" is not empirical evidence. It is conjecture, hypothesis at best, imaginative construction of a possibility. Empirical evidence is being able to test what you think happened by actual observation. This kind of thinking is not replicable, testable or falsifiable. You are only generating models, possibilities. You are working backward from mere hints to mere possibilities. You cannot call this process EMPIRICAL.But if you and others keep posting here I will never get to catch up.

The link about the Alamo breccia seemed pretty clear cut to me. Its interpretation of visual, physical information indicate an impact and successively thinner rings of outlying material probably formed by wave action. As the Bible has little to say about extraterestrial impacts, I'll go with the scientists here.You bought that freshman geology text yet?ABB

Your point being? Do you only accept empirical evidence in real life? Is there something wrong with using circumstantial evidence? Is there something wrong with forming models? I do not understand what you are saying here. Yes, a hypothesis based on evidence. What have you got? Perhaps you have a better explanation. We'd love to hear it (oops, check that, I think we have already). Yes, direct observations, best if repeated. So what? What is your point here? Replicable, no. Testable, certainly: By independent lines of evidence. Falsifiable, perhaps: You should maybe go out and collect some kind of evidence refuting a tsunami. And what is wrong with this? Actually, there is some empirical evidence. For instance, we have formed high-pressure quartz pseudomorphs in the laboratory by impact methods. If you have a better way of doing that, this would be a good time to let us know. If your statements were more coherrent and supportable you wouldn't get so far behind. Although your usual method of simply ignoring information should go a long way to helping you catch up.As to impacts causing tsunamis, I think the relationship is that the amplitude is a measure of total energy. A wave created by a hole in the ocean could be expected to be larger than any earthquake- generated tsunami; which is all we have ever seen. Unless you are saying that the water was very shallow. In that case, indeed: no tsunami. I think the point people are making here is that piling one calamity on top of another, all in the space of a year, or even a hundred years, would sterilize the earth.

This is why you drive people nuts. The reason I said what I did is because, although the evidence points to an impact, the crater has not been found. And until Area 51 starts letting civilian researchers onto the base, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.Look at the evidence, Faith, not my word use. No it is not conjecture nor an imaginative construction. The interpretation is not guesswork. The field data is clear:1. The megabreccia and reworked conodonts are CLEAR evidence of a large catastrophe;2. Iridium and shocked quartz are CLEAR evidence of an extraterrestrial impact;3. The presence of stromatolites and dessication cracks immediately below the breccia are indicative of a shallow platform facies;4. The presence of massive limestone breccia clasts are CLEAR evidence of a marine impact;If you don't think an impact-induced tsunami was possible or that this evidence represents and impact, how would YOU interpret the evidence?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 02:50 PM

no. she's proposing that all those meteors etc hit in a period of 41 days. that's sheer insanifty. if that many things hit all at once... jesus, how many are there? there are 172 on that website that jar linked way back on the first page. so 172 in 41 days is 4 every day. does anyone recall the volcano that erupted near/in india that covered the whole world with dust and stuff and clouded the sky for some number of years?mildly off-topic but think of it this way.you know all those crazy scenes in movies with starships crashing? like in riddick when that one lands and it sens up a huge cloud of dust that then engulfs the whole are. now, noting two things. first, that's a planet with what looks like a fossilized dessert something like the southwest united states. so the particulates that would enter the air are bound to be very small and thus float longer. and two that it is a movie... generally they do this big fantastic things in movies as only a slight exaggeration of reality.stay with me.what happens when you're riding a bike and wou fishtail in the dirt? it builds a one sided crater and sprays particulates into the air. imagine if your tire was instead a big hunk of flaming rock. like really big. like big like half the moon big. hell even a tenth of the moon big. big like australia rolled into a ball. that's a really big piece of rock. and it's flaming. like big gay al flaming. we have an atmosphere on this planet to try to protect us from this stuff... friction is amazing. anyways. so yeah big gay australia-in-a-ball. it's gonna hit earth and go way past the soil level. there's only squishy organic stuff for what 10 maybe 100 feet was it? yeah, our little pet rock is way bigger than 100 feet. it's prolly going to whack into the planet and make a whole a few miles deep at LEAST. then it builds up this big ring from the gunk it's pushing out from under it and the rest is thrown into the air. the bigger chunks of now displaced earth are going to bounce way up then fall and make their own little craters and displace their own earth. ever see an avalanche? think of it that way only horizontal. if there's hills around god help us all.i know this was long and meandering, but you really can't pass this off as throwing a little ock at the earth and having it squish around in the mud. you seem to have no concept of the enormity of these things.http://www.nature.nps.gov/...tates/Arizona/NNL/BMC/index.cfmgo there. it's an amazing place. there's a big F hole in the ground. i know someone already mentioned it... i've been there. it's unfathomable. yeah. a mile wide. had there been any water around to "slow it down" or "absorb the force" as you suggest, and it hadn't completely evaporated before the thing even hit, it would have to be way more water than your worldwide flood to even begin to displace that size of a rock.that's a really big rock. think of how fast it would have to be going. first, it was probably travelling along in space minding it's own big Fing rock business when oh crap there's a planet. anyone know how fast stuff generally travels in space? at any rate (pun intended), it then met up with this big crazy blue squish we live on which has a nice little thing called cgravity. 32 feet per second squared accelleration. that's not speed, that's crap getting faster and faster. that big old rock is not gonna hit terminal velocity before it hits us, there's no way there's enough reistance to relift. it's just gonna keep getting faster and faster until it punches a huge hole in the middle of arizona. just like it did. a mile may not seem like a lot. but think about a mile big hole in the ground. that's really big. like four times as big as the biggest football arena you can imagine. holy crap.and this wasn't even a really big one. the crater in the yucatan is 112 miles wide. that's really big.Page not found | Lunar and Planetary Laboratory & Department of Planetary Sciences | The University of Arizonatsunamis of only 100 meters. only.editted to fix some typos and to remove the calculations. i left the exaggerations which were intentional as such.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-25-2005 02:48 PM

A = pi x r² = 3.14 x .5² = 0.785 mile²etc.Mooseps: Spelling not to good either. Added by edit: All in all, it looks like you're off on an semi-coherent rant.Also, for some reason, the beginnings and endings of your sentences are a bit unclear. This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-25-2005 02:07 PM

typos punk. stop being so critical.but no. unless my calculator is broken. half a mile is 2640 ft. squared is 6969600 by 3.14 is 21884544. then i oopsed and divided by only 5280 instead of twice because it's sqare. lol oh well. it's still really big. arithmetic is fucking hard.just tell me you're not gonna go around this board and make note to me of every time i screw something up because then i'll have to get mad. it's really bad form.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-25-2005 02:05 PM

You have your facts exaggerated and some errors in what occurs.The australia in a ball thing is way out of line. The biggest impactors that we have a hint of are somewhere over 10 kms across. Only during the major bombardment at the formation of the earth has there (it seems been bigger). The moon was formed by a mars sized body hitting and essentually ripping the forming planet apart.The size of the crater formes is much bigger than the impacting body. The meteor was only about 150 feet across and perhaps 300,000 tons. A comparitive "baby". However, traveling at some where around 10 miles per second it packs a wallop.If a 50 meter wide rock does this much damage it becomes just a tiny bit possible to wrap your head around a 1,000 or 5,000 meter wide rocks impact.A mile wide hole does not have 4,000 sq miles of surface area. It is more like 1 sq mile.

http://www.barringercrater.com/science/The diameter of the meteor was much less than the diameter of the crater.There is also other good stuff on meteor impacts at the above cited.Moose

You were significantly off on your calculations. They needed to be corrected. Out by 3 orders of magnitude is waaay out.You are posting a misconception about the relationship between the crator size and the size of the hole. A BIG misconception that needed to be corrected.The correct thing to do is to thank Moose for helping you out.It is NOT bad form to correct errors. It is bad form to react defensively when you have a significant mistake pointed out.

congrats.

done.

Common now, don't tell me that your only rebuttal is "You're not 100% certain!". For one thing, the scientific point of view is much more certain and based on evidence than yours . Unless you try and argue otherwise.