Message 46 of 75 (3976) 02-10-2002 7:52 AM

Reply to: Message 32 by lbhandli 02-09-2002 10:08 PM

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

Message 47 of 75 (3993) 02-10-2002 1:19 PM

Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus 02-10-2002 1:38 AM

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.

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

Message 48 of 75 (3999) 02-10-2002 2:01 PM

Reply to: Message 37 by TrueCreation 02-10-2002 12:27 AM

[/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.

Message 49 of 75 (4000) 02-10-2002 2:06 PM

Reply to: Message 39 by TrueCreation 02-10-2002 1:03 AM

[/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.

Message 50 of 75 (4001) 02-10-2002 2:10 PM

Reply to: Message 47 by TrueCreation 02-10-2002 1:19 PM

[/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.

Message 51 of 75 (4004) 02-10-2002 2:19 PM

Reply to: Message 40 by KingPenguin 02-10-2002 1:13 AM

[/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.

Message 52 of 75 (4005) 02-10-2002 2:20 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by KingPenguin 02-10-2002 1:26 AM

Get to it, then.

Message 53 of 75 (4013) 02-10-2002 4:49 PM

Reply to: Message 52 by gene90 02-10-2002 2:20 PM

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

Message 54 of 75 (4026) 02-10-2002 7:55 PM

Reply to: Message 50 by gene90 02-10-2002 2:10 PM

"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.

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

Message 55 of 75 (4031) 02-10-2002 9:01 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by KingPenguin 02-10-2002 4:49 PM

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

Message 56 of 75 (4056) 02-10-2002 10:43 PM

Reply to: Message 55 by gene90 02-10-2002 9:01 PM

"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?

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

Message 57 of 75 (4067) 02-10-2002 11:07 PM

Reply to: Message 56 by TrueCreation 02-10-2002 10:43 PM

[/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]

Message 58 of 75 (4076) 02-10-2002 11:36 PM

Reply to: Message 57 by gene90 02-10-2002 11:07 PM

"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.

---

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

Message 59 of 75 (4077) 02-10-2002 11:41 PM

Reply to: Message 57 by gene90 02-10-2002 11:07 PM

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

NASA's drilling at Chessie.

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

Message 60 of 75 (4078) 02-11-2002 12:03 AM

Reply to: Message 58 by TrueCreation 02-10-2002 11:36 PM

[/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.