True Creation's Culdra Theory

--This is from post #37 in the 'Its always a laugh' forum. My 'Culdra impact theory' or Culdra theory' (depending on whether the impact of some sort of celestial body is needed) truthfully, I would yave to say would be more accuratelly depicted as a hypothesis, rather than theory. Though like I sustain, my other explination seems more readilly plausable in explination. If you feel something seems to be missing in the the hypothesii, then we can discuss it.

quote:

---

--Well if you seriously just wan't a theory, ok, I was giving you the ability to tell me what you want the theory to be about. But lets see, a creationist theory. There has been much discussion, for instance, on the theory of Impact craters, I presented my own rudimentary theory on a plausable reason we may find some 'craters', I will present two views. My first theory, I would call the impact culdera theory, now I have not put this through much discussion, I have just given a basic presentation. I'll quote myself.

​

quote:

---

Also, a another plausable explination for the emense size of craters is from collapse of magma reservoirs creating hollow chambers the collapse under the weight, which was eroded by a factor of the global flood covering the collapsed magma reservoir. Just a thought form some reading I've been doing on Marine Geology.

---

​

quote:

---

This is an image of the Halemaumau Volcano in Hawaii, this is a Caldera formed by this action.

​

​

--As you can see in the image it is quite relativelly circular and is vastly emense. If this crater were to have the effects of erosion from a large amount of water as if a lake, at its rim, it would turn out much more circular than it currently is.

---

​

--My other plausable theory on this would be, that at the point of impact by the celectial object, whether comet, meteorite, or some other body that hit the earth. It would be that by the effects of a possible factor in the initial impact, would have been greatly effective in the calculation in the velocity or size of the impacting body. The factors quantifying the characteristics of the crater we observe today could be from different causes, for instance, viscosity of the compound impacted, the material that was impacted, its fluid saturation, amount of solidification and depth by which it is solidified.
--A conclusion at this point in this theory is that factors in the initial impact would have been much more 'leanient' if such a word would be used. That is, the impacted material, in theory would have been a time during the flood or shortly after in where non-solidified/lithified sediments were impacted and this Water saturated sediment was thrown into the air. Continuing to remain saturated by the effects of emense clouds of vapor covering a high portion of the earth, and simply returned to earth within a still large radius from impact.
--After impact a crater could have possibly, if impacted while flooding was still occuring or in an area where flood waters had not receeded, some erosion would have taken place, possibly widening the crater.

​

--These are my two theories on the Creation of the various impact craters, within the realms of science of a different interperetation. These are my rudimentary, non-peer reviewed as-of-yet theories.

---

------------------

"(1) Some craters are collapse structures, rather than volcanic or impact structures?"
--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."(2) Some craters can increase in size through erosion?"
--Possibly."(3) Some craters seem larger than the impacts really were because of the nature of saturated Flood sediments?"
--Not exactly, unless I missunderstood. the Impact would have produced a larger crater by the factor of characteristics of the ground hit. After-all, it would matter whether it hit silt or titanium alloy would it not (analogetic)?------------------

So the impacted material makes no effect in size. So, considering my analogy, if a crater were to hit a earth-sized sphere of titanium alloy, vs. a sphere of sand creates no variance in the characteristic of the crater?------------------

"The size of the crater varies by the maximum speed that a compression wave can travel through the material and by the amount of energy needed to vapourise a given volume of the material....your titanium alloy example implied a belief that an ability to resist deformation mattered...."
--Compairing your two statments, it seems as if it does matter, does it not?------------------

"So TC any of these candidates for explanation by your theory?"
--Truelly, I think my culdra theory is not an adequate explination. Possibly an impact into such an empty chamber, but I greatly doubt this hypothesis. My suspition on the physics of the impact is still speculative to me though, its a subject I would like to do some research on after I'm finished with my Bio book. Also I could wonder even if the blast were to spread such an amount of dust in the sky with such a vapor saturated atmosphere at the time, how long it would actually be such a global cloud.------------------

"If you want to learn the basic physics of impact crater formation try doing a search for hypervelocity, impacts, craters, or a mixture thereof (I recomend ask jeeves.com) NASA have some great sites on this sort of modelling. (the research is primarily to do with safety specifications for space craft) however the physics of cratering do not change with the scale of the bodies...."
--Thanx, I'll have to do that, I was planning on taking a little trip to a local university library for some reference on this. Though I'm still working in biology, I might be able to squeeze it in there possibly. I am starting to speculate on whether such an impact would effect it in the way that most scientists would speculate, as some conditions of the time of the Flood such as vapor saturation and condensation, and atmospheric density. I am quite sure atmospheric pressure would effect your calculation. Also, has the dip erroded or have I not looked close enough at the impact on many of them such as the barringer.------------------

"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."
--Yes, though it still would slow it quite a bit, its just a speculation though."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)."
--I'm not sure If it would make much of an effect as you thought I presumed, that is, an effect in crater formation for water saturation in the sediment that was hit. 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."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."
--I'll have to write that one down, sounds like an interesting read."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."
--IC, thanx much.------------------

"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."
--Yes, though the atmosphere as a whole would not make such a difference, being that atmospheric pressure would require some sort of preasure by some force, there by reducing the size of the atmosphere. Unless you would take into consideration that some of the atmosphere has separated from the gravitational force of the earth into space by some force or another during the flood. Either way, I would doubt it would make much of a significance, as joz mentioned, it would not decrease below a hypervelocity."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."
--Yes you would defanantly have the same catastrophic event with roughly the amount of energy (though not the same because of rapid atmospheric particles ripping away at the surfaces of the supposed broken up body, being able to have contact with a larger surface area). Also, did we see the real impact from the meteor that was broken up, I believe by Jupiters tidal force on shoemaker nearing the planet at 2.44 its radii, the roche limit. Seeing jupiter is composed of practically nothing but gas accept theoretically at its core. We may have spotted a slight effect from collision with the dense gasious atmosphere, though I don't know about the impact (if it did impact before being ripped appart). So I don't believe it would be the atmosphere breaking the body up."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."
--What would force its energy to be released directionally toward earth's core, or in the direction of the impacting body?"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."
--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. It was a bit of a hypothesis I was considering other effects as results from the catacalysmic reactions and effects during the Flood."How saturated would the air be prior to the impacts, and why would it be so saturated?"
--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, this would saturate the earth with vapor creating the effect of a global nuclear winter which would also as this persisted while introducing your 40 days of rain. After most of the polar ice sheets were melted, would then be reproduced by this effect. 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.------------------

​

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

"I meant "braking" rather than "breaking". Correct, SL9 was fragmented before it was even discovered."
--IC, thanx for the clarification."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."
--I see what you mean."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."
--In the surrounding area it would produce a vast amount of heat and would kill on instant from the shockwave at least within a wide radius I think."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."
--Hm.. Well we can figure this by knowing the approx radius of earth, being 6378 (you could do more if you like, the difference would not be drastically significant, though significant in the least). So the Volume of Earth=1086781292542.9608km³, now take approx .5 off of your initial variable and your volume=1086525719613.2539³, thus you subtract and get roughly 255572929.7069km³ of water I believe if my calculations are correct."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."
--I'm not sure exactly how much the atmospheric layers would be holding, though most would be suspended and rising into the atmosphere because of heat, this supply would be given for a good while."Or perhaps a global pressure cooker, water vapor is a greenhouse gas."
--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."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."
--No doubt this would kill very much, this could be the point either activating the cause of the P-T extinction, or being itself the cause. 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?"And can the Earth's atmosphere hold enough water to rain continuously for 40 days? Would you have enough water to cover the planet?"
--I don't believe there is a problem with enough water to cover the planet (though it would be possibly be denser in some areas), though the cause of the heat being released from the earths mantle is well able to contribute toward a continuous flow for a good amount of time, mabye 5-15 days of magmatic activity at ocean ridges and depending on viscosity and friction at subduction zones would contribute.------------------

"Um bud if you mean the water (liquid state) would be denser you are wrong, fluids are incompressable, thats how come such gadgets as hydraulics work...."
--Water 'vapor' to be specific, I believe that I made reference to water as vapor in an earlier sentance so I thought it wouldn't hurt to simply say 'water'. Though in areas around where there would be higher concentrations of vapor, it would condensate with other H₂O molecules and fall as rain, unless the drop were to be heated to evaporate and expand itself into more vapor before it hits the world ocean.------------------

​

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

"Can the atmosphere accomodate that much water before reaching saturation? I have my doubts....."
--I highly doubt that the atmosphere would account such an amount of vapor, as the point of saturation would be easilly reached, this is when the molecules would consense and condensate to fall as rain, in which what would fall would again become vapor if heated.------------------

"The problem with the vapor canopy is that you need enough water to cover the earth from current sea level to the top of mount everest, roughly 9 km worth of water. If you know anything about water, 10 m is roughly equivelent to one atmosphere at sea level (14.5 lbs per square inch) . This would mean that at sea level, the pressure would have been nearly 900 times that of the current pressure at sea level. Then to accomadate that much water within the atmosphere , we need to dramatically increase the temperature dramatically to boiling boiling point to prevent condesation. The result is a pressure cooker that would have been very inhospitable to life."
--I'm not speaking any relevance toward the vapor canopy theory. :/"Also, just curious, where did all that water go?"
--Right where it is now, in the oceans. Though a very small quantity (I would estimate no more than 1-5 meters in volume that would be to cover the earth's surface if smoothed), present in the asthenospheric mantle by the factor of subduction, though you would have much more saturating the lithospheric mantle. These factors would not make much relevance at all to the question of 'where did all the water go'. Its right where it is today.------------------

"I'm confused. How is the water in the oceans currently enough to flood the world ? Even with total polar icecap meltdown, there isn't enough water to flood the planet completely ( though alot of beach front property would be gone. ) Is there something I am missing here?"
--Plate tectonics and the asumption of strict uniformitarianism.------------------

"There is no evidence that the earth was ever smooth enough to be covered by the present water supply. Even in the bible. And we do have evidence of mountains on earth going back as far as we can see in the geological record. Perhaps you could explain how plate tectonics supports your position on this. We certainly don't have a smooth planet now, so I don't see how could uniformitarianism supports you, either. Do you understand that there is a reason why we have depressed ocean basins and higher continental land masses? I think you are reaching here, TC. "
--I have read much about it, it is a product of buoyancy, 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. Also, what mountains would those be that have existed since the beginning of the earth. 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. 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. A more depressed ocean basin is a possible effect of plate tectonics during the flood, mountain ranges such as the himilayas, andes, rockies and such are results from subduction caused by the same. I do not think there is any reason to believe that this could not have been the case.------------------

​

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

Here is my theory on how things would have been going with the reactions in the atmosphere to the condensation nuclei of the dust kicked up by the impacts. It isn't to scale and is rather rudementary, in the process of construction and there isn't much text explination on how it would have went thought the illustrations speak volumes. It also shows how gene90's calculations are a bit of a straw man and doesn't consider other variables rather than pressure I believe. Along with my modifications such as the need for mesospheric activity.--After you view it, I would be appreciative if it were downloaded so that it would not take up too much of my bandwidth as it is relatively a large image. Http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/Atlantic-AtmosphericHeatCorruption.jpg

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-11-2002]