True Creation's Culdra Theory

So basically we have,(1) Some craters are collapse structures, rather than volcanic or impact structures?(2) Some craters can increase in size through erosion?(3) Some craters seem larger than the impacts really were because of the nature of saturated Flood sediments?

[QUOTE][b]--Possibly, as I stated above, its a simply hypothesis. They could be from magmatic origin, or impact, possibly could be both. I'm not sure about this one, but it could have been a reservoir that collapsed by an impact, accounting for size and possibly shape.[/QUOTE][/b]If the size of the crater were caused by collapse of a magma structure, then why would the crater be round? Also, why would it have a raised rim that contained shocked minerals?(I may need to make diagrams to explain this) [QUOTE][b]"(2) Some craters can increase in size through erosion?"
--Possibly.[/QUOTE][/b]The diagram of strata around the Chesapeake Bay crater contained on one of the links I provided showed that the rim of the crater had collapsed into the basin, widening it slightly. But the problem with trying to grow a crater by erosion is that you are filling in the basin every time you try to widen it, until there's nothing left. Plus the upifted rims of the crater are the first thing to be lost to erosion. [QUOTE][b]After-all, it would matter whether it hit silt or titanium alloy would it not (analogetic)?[/QUOTE][/b]Same amount of energy unleashed at impact, if the crater were smaller in titanium we could still see more stress faulting in the metal. But remember, we're basically dealing with rock, silt, or wet silt.

Look at Quetzal's list and notice the direct relationship between crater size and age.Two reasons for this (1) as time passes the Solar System gradually gets cleared of big asteroids (2) small craters are erased by erosion on the Old Earth timescale. Looks like more indicators of an old Earth to me.Note with the Wetumpka crater that what we have is less of a hole in the ground and more of a ring of hills -- something that would not grow with erosion.Here's a link with pictures and some features of the Wetumpka impact crater in Alabama:
http://www.mindspring.com/~rwhigham/wetu.htmHere's some more "stuff" on Wetumpka, from Auburn University, and includes drill coring information, but takes forever to load.
http://www.auburn.edu/~kingdat/wetumpkawebpage3.htmWetumpka Virtual Field Trip
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/geology/docs/wetumpka/vft.htmSpeaking of erosion, here we can see the terrible effects it has on impact craters, using Odessa as an example. Odessa isn't widely known
and there isn't even a musuem there or much of an interpretive display, just a roadstop in the middle of an oilfield complete with an empty container for brochures. But hey, no entry fee. I could barely recognize the craters themselves, just low ridges and gullies in the rocky planes which could be walked down in to. "The Crater That Doesn't Get Any Respect" is a completely appropriate title for the webpage behind the second URL, lots of Odessans don't even seem to know it's there. http://marple.as.utexas.edu/~rocks/site/odessapix.htmlhttp://marple.as.utexas.edu/~rocks/site/OdessaCrater.htmlAnother problem with TC's Culdra Hypothesis is that impact crater / astrobleme ("Star Wound") impact site drilling often shows the craters to be near surface features, with deep layers unaffected. See this on the Sierra Madera complex in Texas. http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/GeologicalResources/West_Texas_Geology/Links/sierra_madera_astro.htm

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-19-2002]

And if you consider 120 craters formed over a YEC timescale you end up with one new crater every 40 years or so.

You're going to find that reasonable changes in atmospheric density aren't going to have that much of an effect on a significant impactor because the velocities at which the bodies are traveling are so great and the atmosphere is still a thin skin on the planet. You will also find that water saturation doesn't play a big role in crater formation (Nobody knows if Wetumpka impacted offshore or on land, the crater itself shows very little evidence either way).But this is a fascinating inquiry anyway. A recent SciAm magazine discusses geological indicators of impacts, have a look next time you're at a public library.Also, to answer your question, the dip usually erodes before the rim, so most surface-exposed craters and astroblemes are rings of hills rather than holes in the ground.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-02-2002]

[QUOTE][b]--Yes, though it still would slow it quite a bit, its just a speculation though.[/QUOTE][/b]Then we would need either bigger or faster impactors. I thought your intention was to get bigger craters out of smaller impactors as a result of pre-flood or flood conditions that do not exist today.
It seems to me that a thinner atmosphere would serve you better than a thicker one.I doubt very much any reasonable Earth atmosphere would slow it down significantly. Maybe you could check some of the papers on the SL9-Jupiter impact for information. It's the only "real" impact observed. The point I'll make here is that SL9 fragments exploded from overpressure rather than braking to their terminal velocity, generating impact plumes the size of Earth. Even if the atmosphere of Earth were thick enough to brake the fragments, you still have a catastrophic release of energy that will be there regardless of what is struck.Another thing to keep in mind is with a bigger atmosphere, other than the effects on biology and climate, and the lack of hypothesis-independant evidence for the presumption, is that a thicker atmosphere will propagate concussion and overpressure waves from the
impact faster and more effectively than our Earth-normal atmosphere would. In that sense, a bigger atmosphere actually makes the impact less survivable. As long as we speculate without requiring evidence we can change Earth's parameters all day but we can never overlook the vast amount of energy that must be released *somehow* when the impact occurs. If I had to be around for an impact on Earth, I would prefer that most of the shock go directly into the ground rather than into the air around me. Of course, depending on the size of the impact and my proximity to the site and to the antipodal point, it probably wouldn't much matter anyway. [QUOTE][b]I was thinking of the vapor saturation in the atmosphere. After the impact there would be massive dust clouds of sediment thrown into the air, I would think that as time passes this dust would be saturated and clumped together by the dense vapor in the atmosphere that it would fall as rain.[/QUOTE][/b]This is interesting. That the dust would function as condensation nucleii for rain is likely. The rain would probably be rather acidic though because of CO₂ liberated from vaporized carbonate deposits along with SO₂, the extent of acidity would be determined by the type of strata impacted. Particle size would play a role in how long it could persist in the atmosphere. Volcanic dust from large eruptions can persist for years. And we shouldn't forget that as Earth's biomass burnt away a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, including lots more CO₂.How saturated would the air be prior to the impacts, and why would it be so saturated?

​

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-02-2002]

I just used HTML, enclose sub and sup inside the greater than and less signs as you would any other HTML tag for subscripts and superscripts. Incidentally, I had to edit the post twice to find the closing tag I left out, making half the message a subscribt...

[QUOTE][b]So I don't believe it would be the atmosphere breaking the body up.[/QUOTE][/b]I meant "braking" rather than "breaking". Correct, SL9 was fragmented before it was even discovered. [QUOTE][b]--What would force its energy to be released directionally toward earth's core, or in the direction of the impacting body?[/QUOTE][/b]I'm confused. Do you mean, what would cause the energy to be absorbed primarily by the ground? If so, there are two reasons for that. The biggest drop in impactor velocity would occur when it contacts the ground because the ground is more rigid than air, imparting most of its energy into the ground. Also because the ground is a better carrier of shock, it will tend to contain most of the pressure waves imparted to it from impact rather than transfering them into the air. [QUOTE][b]--There would be a good amount of organic matter burnt producing these compounds though there would, I believe, be a bit less than we would think, assuming that such deposits were created durring the flood.[/QUOTE][/b]Depending on what is floating around at the time, including things that are alive, like your bugs, your flowering plants, and the residents of your ark. None of these are going to have a very happy time after an impact. At the least the steam bath would kill most of whatever was still alive. [QUOTE][b]There would have been an emense amount of oceanic water quickly evaporated from the outpouring of magma at ridges. I would estimate roughly 300metres of water being thrown into the atmosphere [/QUOTE][/b]Ok, your steam generator kicks in before me? 300m is a linear measurement, it doesn't do me much good in considering how much water we're talking about.My concern is that the atmosphere can be saturated with water at a certain point, but it will immediately rain out. It won't easily absorb any more past its point of saturation. [QUOTE][b]this would saturate the earth with vapor creating the effect of a global nuclear winter[/QUOTE][/b]Or perhaps a global pressure cooker, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. [QUOTE][b]For any impacting body into the earth would take into consideration this emense mass of vapor engulfing most of the earth's atmosphere would allow any sediment particles small enough to stay adrift in the atmosphere to condensate with the water and fall to the ground.[/QUOTE][/b]But you still have to deal with the energies of impact and whether the impacts would be survivable, and the heat of condensation has to be dealt with at the same time. And can the Earth's atmosphere hold enough water to rain continuously for 40 days? Would you have enough water to cover the planet?

[QUOTE][b]--Yes though I would speculate on the structure of the vapor. Clouds in the stratosphere will reflect light, the mesosphere above it is well below freezing, dropping from 10C to -90C (50F to -130F) with increasing altitude. At this point the vapor rizing would be cooling and then condensate easilly with the surrounding dense vapor and fall as rain. The drop if not transported away from the heat source area of the ocean, would again melt it untill it either hit ocean or vaporize into vapor, however, as a lower temperature as the surrounding so it would attempt to equalize. [/QUOTE][/b]Based simply upon temperature, this meteorological model works. But I'm afraid it's too simplistic to work in the real world, even under the extraordinary circumstances of Flood with the Earth's oceans boiling away. As you know, most of our weather occurs in the troposphere, the reason why becomes obvious when we compare the properties of the layers above with the requirements for convection to occur. These requirements for convection are the most obvious reason why this model will not work.We know that water vapor is carried to high altitudes by pockets of warm air, which rise because the pressure of the parcel of air is lower than the pressure of the surrounding air because it is warmer. So obviously, to continue to rise, the temperature must be lower outside the parcel than inside. So far your model is fine. But the reason it must be warmer to continue rising is that the parcel of air has to be warm enough that the internal pressure of the parcel is lower than ambient. At the 1000mb surface pressure of Earth, this isn't so difficult, the parcel is already at 1000mb and just has to be a little lower to begin rising. But the pressure at the mesosphere/stratosphere border is 1mb.We can do some back-of-the-envelope gas law calculations on how warm a parcel would have to be to reach the mesosphere. p = T*density*CI will take -5C as the temp of the mesosphere, as it is the average temp of the meso/strato boundary layer. The average pressure there is 1mb. 1 mb = 263*d*2.870.0013 kg/m³ is our densityNow to find the temperature our parcel much reach to have that density at sea level.T = 1mb / (0.0013 *2.87)T = 543C [QUOTE][b]I'm not too sure, however, what is the geologic data in fossils and strata of the surrounding areas of some of the various massive craters?[/QUOTE][/b]Tektite deposits hundreds of miles away from Chicxulub. What specifically are you looking for?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-04-2002]

[QUOTE][b]and ofcourse there is evidence that the earth was smooth enough to have the capability to be covered with water, its just a matter of when.[/QUOTE][/b]What evidence is that? Were you aware that there are Precambrian schists in the base of the Grand Canyon that are apparently the roots of a former mountain range? How do mountains vanish without millions of years of erosion, or even a Great Flood? [QUOTE][b]It couldn't be a range because this results from subduction, it couln't be volcanic on a continental plate because this results from a hotspot, etc.[/QUOTE][/b]Explain your reasoning for this. [QUOTE][b]Our planet is quite smooth, very smooth when compairing to other planets small and large, and smooth when you see it on a smaller scale such as a basketball.[/QUOTE][/b]Your knowledge contradicts my knowledge. The Earth is sharp and jagged with mountain ranges that are still growing. The Moon is rounded and its slopes are gentle. Mars has three large volcanoes but they slope gently, not steeply (Mons covers an area the size of Arizona) and there are no sharp mountain ranges. Venus doesn't have mountain ranges, it has smooth uplands like Ishtar Terra and blister-like rounded volcanoes. Mercury is a denser version of the Moon. Io has volcanoes but no escarpments or mountain ranges.

[QUOTE]Joz: [b]Actually because the impact velocity is greater than the maximum speed of propogation of a shock wave in the impacted material the energy "arrives" faster than it can dissipate. This means that only a small fraction is released in a shock wave, the rest is released as heat and light at the point of impact.....[/QUOTE][/b]Your post slipped my mind, sorry about that. Also when I think about craters I think about shock metamorphism and disturbed strata, not the transitory heat & light that, I concede, most of the energy is released as. Of course when we talk about what it would be like to be around an impact when it happens, this point is not trivial and I thank you for correcting me.

​

​

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-04-2002]

[QUOTE][b]If there were no water at all on earth, the ocean basins would still be depressed.[/QUOTE][/b]Venus has no oceans but has two apparently distinct types of crust, basaltic highlands that are comparable to our continents, and rest is lowland. But of course this is based upon RADAR data, last I heard the record (Soviet) for a probe's survival on the Venusian surface was about 40 minutes. http://www.msstate.edu/dept/geosciences/CT/TIG/Plan/Slides8.htm[QUOTE][b]It is due to composition of the different types of crust[/QUOTE][/b]Here's a comparison between oceanic and continental crusts http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/270/Lecccoc/Lecccoc.html[QUOTE][b]And why couldn't there have been old volcanoes that are now eroded? We do see evidence for these.[/QUOTE][/b]Devil's Tower (Wyoming) being one, Ship Rock (New Mexico) being another.

I'm offended by the fact that you call my argument, which I researched before posting, a strawman without explaining how it is such. All this image you have posted is is an expanded model of a convection cell with absolutely no meteorological calculations to support it, an apparent lack of knowledge of the thermodynamics of vapor condensation, and an ignorance of basic gas laws.Now, have you actually calculated how high water vapor would rise into the atmosphere as a product of heat content? If not, you're running completely in the dark and you'd find it in your best interests to check my work and consult a few meteorology texts.

[QUOTE][b]--So let us assume that the temperature of the rising plume were 200o celcius, we would not get very far. Increasing in altitude we would subtract 6oC every 1km. 0oC would be reached by (assuming a single parcel) 33.3km, though it is 40oC at this point. This at 22km temperatures start to decline so if it were a parcel it would seemingly reach equillibrium at about 40-45km.[/QUOTE][/b]You're still making the mistake of running by temperature when you should be running by density to determine if the parcel will continue to lift. This isn't a matter of "warm air rises" it is a matter of "less dense things rise". See page 336 of Peterson's. You have already noticed that warm air generally rises over cooler air and that's what you see first in this chart. Look over to the right column. As the altitude increases density falls off *and* it gets colder. The parcel will stop when it reaches equilibrium with the ambient density, and it will cool adiabatically as it increases in altitude up until it stops increases altitude and falls. This is why most weather happens in the troposphere and it's why you won't get vapor to condense up there without frying the rest of the Earth.You understand this; you're just overlooking something simple.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-15-2002]

[QUOTE][b]--This seems concievable, though through my research, it seems that the density does imply decrease or increase in altitude as you stated. Though this is effected by temperature, as well as pressure. The lower pressures, thus densities, are products of gravity pulling the higher linear spectrum of the atmosphere toward the surface. So what will happen when you have a parcel is that it itself will expand as it rises according to its surrounding pressure, the higher temperatures in the parcel of air would further give the lower density to continue to rise according to the adiabatic lapse rate principles.[/QUOTE][/b]When you expand the parcel to attempt to meet ambient density, you are dropping the temperature of that parcel. There are some obvious limits to how high a parcel can go from the surface. [QUOTE][b]Most clouds and rising vapors do not penetrate the tropopause I believe because of the large inversion.[/QUOTE][/b]Caps are an immediate cause for convection to cease, but if you could heat a parcel to hundreds of degrees there still would be limits to how high it would ascend, that is, ambient pressure. If memory serves me you want to place the CCL for the Flood downpour somewhere in the mesosphere without pressure cooking the surface. I calculated the convection temperature way back there and concluded it would not be survivable.