Always a laugh

See 37 For reply

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"To have a volcanic caldera, you must first have a volcano. If there are no volcanic rocks present, that eliminates it being a caldera.

Even if volcanic rocks are present, impact structures show characteristics such as high pressure formed minerals and related fracture patterns."
--Actually, you don't have to have a 'volcano', that is, it does not have to have come to the point of eruption, but it must have had a resevoir that was once a holding tank of magma and have it drain by some mechenism, this mechenism is one I currently can't think of as of yet.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]
--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.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

You have quite a lot to read about regarding impact geology, but there are many layman's books on the market right now.

(1) Erosion does not widen craters, it fills them up. We know craters have not grown by erosion because the edges are compose of uplifted strated, not broken horizontal strata.

(2) At the velocity of the impactor, water might as well be rock anyway.

(3) There usually is no lava fill in craters, therefore the possibility volcanic activity playing a major role in widening the craters is greatly diminished.

[QUOTE][b]--Personally, I would expect a hit by my 'Caldera impact theory'. As possible remnants of the reservoir[/QUOTE]

[/b]

And where is the evidence of the existance of that reservoir?

And why is there a general lack of volcanic products around known impact craters?

This theory is contradicted by the evidence.

[QUOTE][b]which would intern trigger the cause of this collapse, caused either by Meteor impact or was itself a cause on its own without celestial devestation[/QUOTE]

[/b]

The presence of coesite, along with other forms of shocked mineralization, at impact sites (and generally absent at volcanic sites) again helps us rule out your theory.

[QUOTE][b]Though I would also speculate that such a remnant would never had been considerd, thus examined the possibility.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Actually your "theory" was made obsolete years ago, by the impact hypothesis. It was once believed that impact craters were all volcanic, but there were holes throughout the idea.

[QUOTE][b]--Actually, you don't have to have a 'volcano', that is, it does not have to have come to the point of eruption, but it must have had a resevoir that was once a holding tank of magma and have it drain by some mechenism, this mechenism is one I currently can't think of as of yet.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

You can't drain a reservoir without having a volcano. You can't even have a reservoir without metmorphosizing local rocks, and drilling of craters, magnetometry, gravimetrics, and seismic profilings should have detected those reservoirs. Again your theory is disproven by the evidence.

[QUOTE][b]is there anyway to confirm this by testing the craters for recent volcanic activity from now to before the flood?[/QUOTE]

[/b]

The lack of volcanic products inside impact craters is conspicuous, and was often cited during the earlier part of the 20th century when the origin of craters was in debate.

----a lot. it can prove that dinosaurs existed during man's time and were possibly wiped out in the flood. it can prove that the flood actually occured. it can prove that "earth life destroying" comets have never hit the earth or at least not while man was in creation, which could be the first days of earth's creation, by God, or anytime before man in an evolution viewpoint.

Get to it, then.

do you have any proof that they dont have any volcanic material? any proof that there is?

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"You can't drain a reservoir without having a volcano."
--Thats my problem, for that theory to be considerable I would need this mechenism, and I would rather not start blabbing off possibilities on what I don't even know about fully yet.

"You can't even have a reservoir without metmorphosizing local rocks, and drilling of craters, magnetometry, gravimetrics, and seismic profilings should have detected those reservoirs."
--You can have a reservoir if preasure is exerted upwordly by the mantal towards the lithosperic crust in such a way that it would reach a point where it can build a holding tank like structure under the crust. By some mechenism by which it could drain out of the reservoir and get 'sucked' back into the mantle, but again I can't think of a plausable mechenism by which this could happen. I do have another theory on the large impact craters, which havent been addressed yet. Also, as I stated previously, I didn't expect my Impact culdra theory to take off like a rocket, or be a big hit or anything.

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

A long response I wrote was devoured by the posting process.

The impact sites I have personally visited (Odessa, Barringer) contained no volcanics. The lack of volcanics inside craters was cited early in crater research (by D.M. Barringer) as evidence against volcanic origin.

I recommend the following simple introduction to impact craters.

http://www.barringercrater.com/science/

Also see the following for an incomplete list of craters, demonstrating how common they are on Earth:
http://www.meteorite.ch/crater.htm

"A long response I wrote was devoured by the posting process."
--Its allright, happens all the time with many of my posts.

"The impact sites I have personally visited (Odessa, Barringer) contained no volcanics. The lack of volcanics inside craters was cited early in crater research (by D.M. Barringer) as evidence against volcanic origin."
--Very plausable, this is quite what I would expect, did they take core samples in any impact sites?

"I recommend the following simple introduction to impact craters."
--I read the barringercrater one a couple days ago, its allright, but I guess I would really be looking for more detailed information.

"Also see the following for an incomplete list of craters, demonstrating how common they are on Earth:"
--Things were quite in a ruckuss during that flood. I would expect about half from Flood origin.

--Have you considered my other theory I posted?

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

[QUOTE][b]--Very plausable, this is quite what I would expect, did they take core samples in any impact sites?[/QUOTE]

[/b]

I think so but I don't know where they're located. I do know that Barringer drilled several times in costly (and futile) attempts to find the meteorite. Mention of the findings of the boring can be found in the 1988 reprint of "Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona" by Shoemaker and Kieffer, page 8. (Center for Meteorite Studies at ASU) Between 300-650 ft crushed sandstone and meteoritic material, 600 ft abundant meteoritic material and meteoritic metal inclusions in natural glass. 700 ft and down ordinary Supai formation sandstone.

I'm sure that craters are cored on a regular basis but I don't think I have any discussions of the cores or the findings.

[QUOTE][b]--Have you considered my other theory I posted?[/QUOTE]

[/b]

I haven't read it, could you tell me where it's posted?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-10-2002]

"I think so but I don't know where they're located. I do know that Barringer drilled several times in costly (and futile) attempts to find the meteorite. Mention of the findings of the boring can be found in the 1988 reprint of "Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona" by Shoemaker and Kieffer, page 8. (Center for Meteorite Studies at ASU) Between 300-650 ft crushed sandstone and meteoritic material, 600 ft abundant meteoritic material and meteoritic metal inclusions in natural glass. 700 ft and down ordinary Supai formation sandstone."
--I remember reading this, somewhere on the same site that you gave me the link to on your last post. Odd how they didn't find the meteor to verify their calculations and all, though I would agree it probley would have drilled through alot of sedement, probably more than they would expect if the area of impact was not solidified.

"I'm sure that craters are cored on a regular basis but I don't think I have any discussions of the cores or the findings."
--Hm.. I'll have to look around, if you find any information on core samples, i'd like to see the results.

"I haven't read it, could you tell me where it's posted?"
--My second part of post #37, I'll quote myself:

quote:

---

--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.

---

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

Here's some interesting reading though. It also confirms ongoing research at Chessie, which includes coring.

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/fs49-98/

NASA's drilling at Chessie.

http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/crater/OFR_01_87.html

[QUOTE][b]Odd how they didn't find the meteor to verify their calculations and all, though I would agree it probley would have drilled through alot of sedement, probably more than they would expect if the area of impact was not solidified.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Barringer's investors called in Moulton, an astrophysicist, to explain why there wasn't an asteroid buried there in the desert. His two conclusions were that the original impactor was 3% of the mass Barringer thought it was, and that most of that was vaporized on impact. It was small and fast, not big and slow. Barringer died of a heart attack within weeks. In a way, H.H. Nininger "found" the meteorite by dragging magnets across the surrounding desert, thousands of tiny-grains of nickel-iron, grains that recondensed from the cloud of metal vapor left after the impact and were laying around in the sand for Barringer's truckloads of equipment to drive right over without notice.

[QUOTE][b]if you find any information on core samples, i'd like to see the results.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Ok, but it'll be from the 'net, and information there usually does lack detail.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--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.
[/QUOTE]

[/B]

My opinion here is different. First, we know that there was a rocky foundation for the impact to occur over because that's what shattercones are: rocks that were crushed by impact forces. Plus you have the crushed sandstones found in Barringer which are stratigraphically correlated with "solid" sandstones elsewhere in the general area.

I'm not sure how wet sediments would respond to an impact load compared to dry sediments. But we all know how water is when you slap it with the palm of your hand, it seems hard. I don't know this for sure but I'm confident that a rock traveling at 40,000 MPH is going to respond to water or mud the same way it would a layer of rock.

Finally, I think that erosion will tend to fill up a crater more than widening it--at which point widening ceases. You should notice though that Chessie seems to have been eroded slightly in the way you mention, with the walls slumping into the crater. (first URL, the factsheet from the USGS) That's why it doesn't have the usually tilted rims we expect to find in a crater. But the telltale shocked minerals are still found.