Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[seasmith]

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
perpetual motion

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/clas ... t_age.gif/

Linky no worky.


Subduction, overriding, uplift, upwelling, crumpling, twisting, etc...
Probably all the above, given the variety of crustal thicknesses and densities around the globe.

If there was a space intruder that provided the impetus for the movements, with maybe some incidental impacts, maybe consider a gyrostat scenario:

Take a weighty, rapidly spinning top (thus having lots of rotational momentum). Give it a quick poke with your finger tip and note how it take a deep dip (precesses) and then a couple of progressively shallower ones, as its momentum reestablishes its original vertical spin axis.

That is what i think would happen with an ESG - ElectroStatic Gyroscope. The charged-magnetic sphere is spinning freely in space, a bit like the toy solar powered globes one can buy on line, but of course Earth has the additional momentum of a Spin-Orbit trajectory.

Another electro-magnetically charged body passes close by. Their fields interact and Earth is given an ESG nudge.
Earth then performs a dizzying, but brief series of maneuvers (remember all the myth stories about the Sun appearing to disappear or go retrograde for a day or two?); before righting itself on its axis again and resuming the spin-orbit cycle that has entrained it for ages.

A complex set of maneuvers and a complex set of g-forces, with correspondingly complex crustal adjustments.

Did you all have that kid powered merry-go-round thingeroo in your elementary school playground that spun on some kind of pivot in the middle, and would take these radical side-dips up and down as it rotated ?,
I'm sure that that thing has gone the way of 'jungle-gym bars' and teeter-totters by now, to be replaced by snowflake shelters and 'safe zones'.

[perpetual motion]

http://www.science.smith.edu/geoscience ... spread.htm

Sorry. So if these mappings are some of the best that they have, I thought that there was a 1996
date on it, they may let us have better information in say 15 to 20 years. This is the so called lead
time that they have on information that they give out to the civilian population for their " security
reasons mumbo jumbo".

[sketch1946]

I just had a look at the link,
I've read of an impact much further south that was the theoretical source of those tectites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

"The scientists investigated sets of dunes located along the southern coast of Madagascar. These V-shaped dunes are often nested together like the chevron stripes on a military uniform — the largest of these dunes rise up to about 600 feet (185 m) above sea level and are more than 25 miles (40 kilometers) long.

http://www.livescience.com/53352-monste ... dunes.html

"Its position was determined in 2006 by the same group using evidence of its existence from prehistoric chevron dune formations in Australia and Madagascar that allowed them to triangulate its location."

"....we investigate two sets of probable oceanic impact events that occurred within the last 5000 years, one in the Indian Ocean about 2300-2800 BC, [Burckle Crater] and the other in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Northern Australia) in 536 AD. [Kanmare and Tabban craters

"If validated, they would be the most energetic natural catastrophes occurring during the middle-to-late Holocene with large-scale environmental and historical human effects and consequences. The physical evidence for these two impact events consists of following sets of data: (1) remarkable depositional traces of coastal flooding in dunes (chevron dunes) found in southern Madagascar and along the coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria, (2) the presence of crater candidates (29-km Burckle crater about 1500 km southeast of Madagascar which dates to within the last 6000 years and 18-km Kanmare and 12-km Tabban craters with an estimated C14 age of 572±86 AD in the southeast corner of the Gulf of Carpentaria)..."

"...and (3) the presence of high magnetic susceptibility, quench textured magnetite spherules and nearly pure carbon spherules, teardrop-shaped tektites with a trail of ablation, and a vitreous material found by cutting-edge laboratory analytical techniques in the upper-most layer of core samples close to the crater candidates. V-shaped chevron dunes were first described as a wind-blown formation by Maxwell and Haynes (1989) in south-western Egypt and the northern Sudan, where they consist of sinuous, parallel, blade-shaped deposits of sand, 10-30 cm high and 0.13-1.2 km in length."

"Later they were found widely distributed along many parts of the World Ocean coastline and especially well-developed around the Indian Ocean coastline and in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Although some propose a wind-blown ori-gin for all coastal chevron dunes, we have evidence in favor of their mega-tsunami formation. In southern Madagascar we have documented evidence for tsunami wave run-up reaching 205 m above the sea-level and penetrating up to 45 km inland along the strike of the chevron axis. The orientation of the dunes is not aligned to the dominant wind direction, but to the path of refracted mega-tsunami originating from the Burckle crater candidate area. The Carpentaria crater candidates have several lines of evidence in favor of their bolide impact origin."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010avh..confE..13A

I read that the double impacts in the Gulf of Carpentaria were heard in China in 535 AD and dated, and probably caused a period of nuclear-winter-like crop failures in Europe, and were possibly associated with a major volcanic event which split the Island of Java in two... but I can't really see them causing the effects described in the Shock Dynamics website, mmm I dunno..

The idea is interesting but there are from memory 127 impact sites on Australia alone, plus others, Nordlinger Ries in Europe, and others in North America which haven't seemed to cause these resonant effects, if they did, the entire earth nearly would have these secondary effects?

This statement from their paper might be cause for caution

"...its size, origin depth, and ***even presence remain controversial."

Here's two maps of the Pacific Ocean sea floor, I just can't see their supposed 6-700 m feature as significant
http://imgur.com/XJNX8qO
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 864899.jpg

In this map, all I can see is evidence for sea floor spreading, with the definite appearance of North America being shifted somehow to the west, right over the spreading zone that is such a prominent north-south feature that extends from just east of the Shock Dynamics peoples so-called effect near the Tuamotus and Tahiti right up to and then underneath Mexico/Southern California...
http://www.kolarsky.com/family/cookbook ... -large.jpg

I can't help but take issue with a statement there:
This is not a fair criticism of Dirac's Expanding Earth.

"Expanding Earth - Offers only generalizations. Precise measurements show Earth is not expanding. Cannot explain Himalayas or ocean trenches (Marianas and Tonga). Some of its continental motion does not follow transform faults, as with Australia. No rational source for new additions to Earth's mass, inside Earth!"

(Some comments about 'precise' measurements are below) ...

This may be true of several ***other theories of expanding earth where dubious processes are invoked to explain the apparent pressure underneath the crust, but Dirac's declining G, definitely gives a full quantified explanation of his reasons and the maths, and Pascual Jordan a very well known scientist who worked with and was well respected among the great names of Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, Bohr, Gamov etc, put his reputation behind writing a book explaining the consequences expected if Dirac's declining G theory were valid, e.g. spreading rift valleys, explosive vulcanism, juvenile water, earthquakes as the crust adjusts to each new earthquake or volcanic or spreading event, wandering poles, mountain folding, two-level altitudes and the relatively uniform thickness of granitic continental crust compared to denser thinner basaltic oceanic crust, changes in historical atmospheric density, solar system orbital changes, effects on other planets etc...

Jordan in his book 'The Expanding Earth, Some Consequences of Dirac's Gravitational Hypothesis', writes carefully about the physics 'constants' and how they may not be constant, and how many of the major thinkers had considered whether they were constant or not...

"Together with Max Born and Werner Heisenberg, Jordan was co-author of an important series of papers on quantum mechanics.[3] He went on to pioneer early quantum field theory[3] before largely switching his focus to cosmology before World War II.

Jordan devised a type of non-associative algebras, now named Jordan algebras in his honor, in an attempt to create an algebra of observables for quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Today, von Neumann algebras are also employed for this purpose. Jordan algebras have since been applied in projective geometry, number theory, complex analysis, optimization, and many other fields of pure and applied mathematics, and continue to be used in studying the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings of quantum theory.

In 1966, Jordan published the 182 page work Die Expansion der Erde. Folgerungen aus der Diracschen Gravitationshypothese (The expansion of the Earth. Conclusions from the Dirac gravitation hypothesis)[4] in which he developed his theory that, according to Paul Dirac's hypothesis of a steady weakening of gravitation throughout the history of the universe, the Earth may have swollen to its current size, from an initial ball of a diameter of only about 7,000 kilometres (4,300 mi). This theory could explain why the ductile lower sima layer of the Earth's crust is of a comparatively uniform thickness, while the brittle upper sial layer of the Earth's crust had broken apart into the main continental plates. The continents having to adapt to the ever flatter surface of the growing ball, the mountain ranges on the Earth's surface would, in the course of that, have come into being as constricted folds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan

The speed of light is defined as a certain number of ticks of an atomic clock, from which other units are derived, including the unit of length....
if the speed of light is not a constant, then how will we ever be able to measure a difference in its speed?

But the Big Bang theory says space itself is expanding, primeval light is being stretched out, ie the distance covered by a second of light is stretching out according to that theory, therefore a measurement of distance based on the speed of light will change with time....

If the fundamental force of gravity declines with time, as proposed by Dirac, then presumably the atomic clock will tick slower with time... how could this ever be measured, since the ticking itself is defined as the measure of time?

If the earth expands not steadily, but intermittently by each earthquake, or by the intermittent spreading of the expanding cracks in the crust, driven by the declining force of gravity, where all the gravitationally compressed mass of the core and mantle which was compressed under gravity which was stronger in the past, is inexorably and slowly expanding due to relaxing the previously compressed magma with time, pressing outwards from beneath the lithosphere, then the diameter of the earth will gradually increase, but not at a steady rate, sometimes more here than there, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly... measurements will be always corrected with more 'precise' measurements.. each succeeding measurement of the earth will be presumed to be more correct...

The forces necessary for orogeny or mountain building in this model are extremely simple, the expansion causes a crumpling in the crust as it settles and adapts to the larger radius of curvature of an expanded earth.

This theory, the slow decline of G (gravitational constant, not g gravity at the earth's surface) with time, was quantified by Dirac, and a book written by Pascual Jordan, both these scientists are in the very top league of the smartest mathematical brains that ever lived....

Is G really a constant, and so is Dirac's theory possible?

"The constant G is essential for our understanding of gravity, appearing in both Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's general relativity. G is not an intuitive concept, and not the same as the acceleration of an object due to gravity, g, of 9.81 m/s2.

The official value of G is 6.673889 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, but the 13 measurement values analyzed in this study range from approximately 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, which is a percentage variation of about 10-4. The variations in G are generally thought to result from measurement inconsistencies because G is very difficult to measure...

Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitati ... y.html#jCp

Tiffany Hutchin · University of Vermont:

"I submitted a file that is part of a paper that deals with the fundamental question of whether G is a constant. The history of variable G is interesting. In 1937 Dirac published his Large Number Hypothesis, reasoning that the near equality between the electro/gravitational force ratio and the Hubble/subatomic size ratio must be more than a coincidence. He hypothesized that G should vary inversely with Hubble radius R. A lot of people like this idea, including me. I can't believe that G would be the same for a pebble sized universe as it is for Hubble sized universe. The problem is that long term studies of planetary and lunar orbits indicate they are extremely stable. This puts severe limitations upon the Brans-Dicke scalar tensor theory of gravity mentioned in a previous post. However, the paper I submitted points out the dependence of orbital parameters on the MG product, rather than G alone. This is also the case for many other gravitational phenomena. So if the inertia M of the existing matter content of the universe increases as G diminishes, it would not be noticed."

[Lloyd]

Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc bullony. Take that stuff to the appropriate boring threads.

[Grey Cloud]

Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc bullony. Take that stuff to the appropriate boring threads.

Or at least just provide a link and stop this contstant thread-spamming with walls of text.

[sketch1946]

Hi Grey Cloud and Lloyd,

Lloyd wrote:
Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc bullony. Take that stuff to the appropriate boring threads.

Or at least just provide a link and stop this constant thread-spamming with walls of text.

Sorry, if I'm giving the wrong impression here.... must be raining up there... down here the sun is shining, and I'm having fun discussing some ideas, not only my own, but stuff I've seen here...
I thought my last post was reasonably logical

I've read of an impact much further south that was the theoretical source of those tectites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

"The scientists investigated sets of dunes located along the southern coast of Madagascar. These V-shaped dunes are often nested together like the chevron stripes on a military uniform — the largest of these dunes rise up to about 600 feet (185 m) above sea level and are more than 25 miles (40 kilometers) long.

http://www.livescience.com/53352-monste ... dunes.html

I looked at the Shock Dynamics site, was not convinced, and showed why with a quote and two links
One to the Burckle crater, and one to the two impacts in the Gulf of Carpentaria with the reasons they might be the real sources for the tectites...

Then I provided links to three maps to show the sea floor spreading marks and rock age

Here's two maps of the Pacific Ocean sea floor, I just can't see their supposed 6-700 m feature as significant
http://imgur.com/XJNX8qO
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitati ... y.html#jCp
In this map, all I can see is evidence for sea floor spreading, with the definite appearance of North America being shifted somehow to the west, right over the spreading zone that is such a prominent north-south feature that extends from just east of the Shock Dynamics peoples so-called effect near the Tuamotus and Tahiti right up to and then underneath Mexico/Southern California...
http://www.kolarsky.com/family/cookbook ... -large.jpg

People can look at these maps and see if they fit the Shock Dynamics or Expanding Earth, or 'standard' Plate Tectonics better, we're discussing three models, rationally I hope, so we can compare them and decide which fits the observable evidence best? Isn't that what science is about?

In 1937 Dirac published his Large Number Hypothesis, reasoning that the near equality between the electro/gravitational force ratio and the Hubble/subatomic size ratio must be more than a coincidence. He hypothesized that G should vary inversely with Hubble radius R. A lot of people like this idea, including me.

Then I defended Jordan's theory and provided some reasons to doubt the physical constants are really constants, and provided links

Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitati ... y.html#jCp

I understand some people don't like lots of text, but maybe others do...
If people don't like long posts, they can simply not read them.

The reason some posts are longish is if someone is interested, they can read the most pertinent info quickly without having to follow a link

To overcome long patches of text, I usually separate the meaty bits into simpler sentences or paragraphs to let people absorb one idea at a time,
some people just glaze over at a long block of text without pictures...
and sometimes the interesting info is buried deep in documents, so I have to read quite a lot sometimes to find what may be relevant to the point I'm making.

If I select the meat from a paper or article, I am saving people time, allowing people to read some pertinent information quickly,
***if they want to.

I think it's quicker and easier to have a long post, than to have a one-liner which requires sending someone looking through a whole bunch of information which may or may not be immediately relevant, I try to provide the link after the quoted snippets, so people can check out the full text of the quoted link as they feel necessary.

For example, that open letter about challenging some basic assumptions was long, but nowhere near as long as the whole web page... the letter I posted was 3043 words long, at approx 1000 words per page, approx 3 pages, the average science paper is between 6 to 14 pages or longer...

The reason I posted the full letter was it was an organic whole, and interesting for its relevance to this thread...

the source web page had all sorts of irrelevant comments and even some quite nasty ones... I posted just a subset of all the words on the page which comprised the full letter from Mr Ostrovskii.
If the whole purpose of this forum is to discuss catastrophism, and possible implications and to test different models, what is not relevant here?

Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc

Making a point about shooing away someone with an odd idea, isn't that what mainstream academia does to alternative theories and the people who propose them, like Wegener, Velikovsky, Robitaille et al? Surely we are more tolerant and open minded?:

Mainstream chookyard - Wegener:

"German geologists piled on, too, scorning what they called Wegener’s “delirious ravings” and other symptoms of “moving crust disease and wandering pole plague.”

The British ridiculed him for distorting the continents to make them fit and, more damningly, for not describing a credible mechanism powerful enough to move continents.

At a Royal Geographical Society meeting, an audience member thanked the speaker for having blown Wegener’s theory to bits—then thanked the absent “Professor Wegener for offering himself for the explosion.”

"But it was the Americans who came down hardest against continental drift.
A paleontologist called it “Germanic pseudo­-science” and accused Wegener of toying with the evidence to spin himself into “a state of auto-intoxication.”

Wegener’s lack of geological credentials troubled another critic, who declared that it was “wrong for a stranger to the facts he handles to generalize from them.”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 1jDDSPG.99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Popper:

"When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?"

"The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth."

" Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")"

"One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pop ... ation.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did I bring up Dirac/Pascual Jordan again?
As I stated before, I needed to correct a false statement about Jordan's Expanding Earth theory that was on the front page of the Shock Dynamics home page, which claimed:

"Expanding Earth - Offers only generalizations. Precise measurements show Earth is not expanding. Cannot explain Himalayas or ocean trenches (Marianas and Tonga). Some of its continental motion does not follow transform faults, as with Australia. No rational source for new additions to Earth's mass, inside Earth!"

Jordan's Expanding Earth Theory offers quantitative analysis with equations, and a full explanation and scientific analysis. The claim about not 'following tranform faults' has no application to anything that I know of in the Expanding Earth hypothesis, if it means the visible stretch marks in the ocean floor maps, then by default they show how the earth has moved. They do *not show radial expansion from north of Madagascar.

The discussion about precise measurements, and how distance is not measured by reference to the speed of light, is relevant to the claim that measurements have and will be changed, and the expansion will be undetectable unless specifically looked for.. it's a fact that satellite technology led to a need to reinvent the measures of space and time.

The cosmic expansion of the entire universe then the special 'inflation' proposed by the Big Bang is even more radical than challenging the constant G or universal coefficient of gravity.

Neither Dirac nor Jordan propose new mass! Other EE theories do, but that's not relevant to my argument.

[sketch1946]

Sorry typo last post:

The discussion about precise measurements, and how distance is not measured by reference to the speed of light

should have been distance is 'now' measured by the speed of light...."

[nick c]

Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc

Making a point about shooing away someone with an odd idea, isn't that what mainstream academia does to alternative theories and the people who propose them, like Wegener, Velikovsky, Robitaille et al? Surely we are more tolerant and open minded?:

I do not think that Lloyd and Grey Cloud are trying to repress discussion of alternative theories in a general sense, but rather are concerned with the focus and direction of this thread in particular. I get the impression that they feel the thread is being unnecessarily diverted from the topic of "Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm."
Discussion of "declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth" have their place on the TB forum, and indeed there are existing threads already devoted to those and similar topics.

[Lloyd]

Sketch, like Nick and GC say, we'll all gladly tolerate your discussion on another thread. Do you know how to start another thread? If not, I'll be glad to start it for you. What do you want to call it? Alternative Models of Catastrophism? Or do you want to call it a Catastrophism Debate? Or An Alternative Models Debate? Then you could invite the various model supporters to come there and debate all they want.

[seasmith]

S, they're fibbing. They actually want you to keel over backwards and your toes curl up.

[sketch1946]

Hi Lloyd, Nick, Grey Cloud
No worries, I can see your concerns, I'll try to be good.

From my point of view, this is ironic, since I've been maligned at odd times by experts for holding views about catastrophism, since at least the late 70's...

You see in my lifetime, the whole world of science has moved from uniformitarianism to a better understanding of the complexities of our own solar system, and all the stuff rocking around the sun.

How many new earth-crossing objects have been discovered recently? Thousands... Shoemaker Levy 9 was only discovered very shortly before it crashed into Jupiter with apocalyptic power... some have said a combined force in the series of impacts adding up to about 300 gigatons...
On earth that would be certain to leave some visible evidence of global cataclysm.. it's unlikely that anybody would be left to view the evidence.

As people discussing Ancient Global Cataclysm evidence, I think we should all be open-minded and listen to each other, for instance I followed Lloyd's link and tried to reflect on what these Shock Dynamics people are suggesting. I guess I got started with a defence of Expanding Earth because the Shock Dynamics people had an incorrect statement about an opposing model to their own...
The Shock Dynamics people have a model of a single event that created all the evidence seen today of shifting continents, mountains, rift valleys etc, placing it some time about the YD...

The animations are impressive, the explosion sound certainly helps to focus the mind with each new point... my problem is that I could make such animations myself, but that wouldn't satisfy my mind, I would want to know the model was scientifically feasible...

That's why I'm also attracted to the idea that Earth might have had a close encounter with a planetary size object like say Venus, it presents some radical 'new physics' for shifting huge blocks of crust like North America over the top of the previous spreading oceanic ridge in the North Pacific.. and Venus is hot, and all the other evidence that Velikovsky presented in "Worlds in Collision"...

As I understand it, the major impact event about the time of the Shock Dynamics model was proposed by some is supposed to have been a bigger version of Tunguska:

"The current impact hypothesis states that the air burst(s) or impact(s) of a swarm of carbonaceous chondrites or comet fragments set areas of the North American continent on fire, causing the extinction of most of the megafauna in North America and the demise of the North American Clovis culture after the last glacial period.[9] The Younger Dryas ice age lasted for about 1,200 years before the climate warmed again. This swarm is hypothesized to have exploded above or possibly on the Laurentide Ice Sheet in the region of the Great Lakes, though no impact crater has been yet identified and no physical model by which a such a swarm could form or explode in the air has been proposed. Nevertheless, the proponents suggest that it would be physically possible for such an air burst to have been similar to, but orders of magnitude larger, than the Tunguska event of 1908..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_D ... hypothesis

The impact event suggested by the Shock Dynamics model is claimed to have 'vaporized' a 500 mile diameter section of earth's crust, sent shock waves through the whole earth, causing the sedimentary layers of the continental crust sliding all over the earth as liquid bodies, crashing into each other, folding up the Himalayas and Andes etc... a very catastrophic event indeed
So here we have two models explaining similar evidence.. something analogous to Popper's explanations of how science was profoundly changed from certainty to uncertainty with Einstein replacing Newton by proposing a totally and imcompatible but more exact interpretation of the ***same visible evidence. He astutely pointed out that we could no longer rest on the principle of certainty, since a third genius could come along with a totally different but more convincing theory.

To be convinced of the Shock Dynamics model, I would need to see some sort of quantitative analysis of the forces involved, to me it seems the energy of the impactor has been largely absorbed in the vaporizing of a block of crust 500 miles in diameter in this model, being turned into thermal energy, so thinking from a purely intuitive, non-professional, geometric sort of view, there wouldn't be enough energy left over from this single impact to move all the continents, and if the energy was available, ie if the impactor was massive enough, nothing on earth would have survived...

Trying to stay on topic here: Since the visible evidence of cracks in the earth's crust, as the mid-oceanic ridges seem to show, are active today, and the graduated ages of the ocean floor spreading seems to suggest the oceans have been spreading for 200 million years, with the youngest rock nearest to the ridges, and progressively older rock further away, this pattern seem to suggest a process that's been going on for 200 million years...

That's where I discussed EE as a better model to explain the visible evidence today... remember it has sound scientific reasons to suggest causes for orbital changes, and implications for changes in the sun and solar system.. nuff said...

Recently it was proposed that a pretty big impact happened in Australia but maybe 300 million years ago... it didn't seem to send bits and pieces of Australia floating in radial directions, maybe it wasn't big enough? I appears to have left little visible evidence that you can see today, it was discovered while doing mining seismic soundings...

"Scientists in Australia have discovered a 400-kilometer-wide (250-mile-wide) impact zone from a huge asteroid that broke into two chunks moments before it slammed into the ground millions of years ago. It’s the largest impact zone ever found on Earth. The findings appear in March, 2015 issue of the geology journal Tectonophysics."
http://earthsky.org/earth/largest-aster ... -australia

[sketch1946]

Evidence of Cataclysms, large impacts, besides Northern Madagascar:

"...the Carolina Bays that are all orientated, towards the Great Lakes (image by Davias). And that is true of wildly separated Bay populations across the USA. Which is difficult to explain, other than by the secondary projectile hypothesis. I should point out that this image is slightly selective, as there is another focal point, just to the north of this one."

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rdcdg9 ... NC1Yq0RX0o

Proposed secondary impacts, orientated to the Great Lakes:
"https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/19/ ... te-theory/

This seem to be a well-written page:
"Toon et al. suggest that an impact capable of continent-wide damage requires energy of 10^7 megatons, equivalent to an impact by a 4-km-wide comet . Although an impactor that size typically leaves an obvious large crater, no such late Pleistocene crater has been identified. The lack of a crater may be due to prior fragmentation of a large impactor, thereby producing multiple airbursts or craters. Hypervelocity oblique impact experiments (Peter. H. Shultz , unpublished data) indicate that a low-impedance surface layer, such as an ice sheet, can markedly reduce modification of the underlying substrate if the layer is equal to the projectile’s diameter. These results suggest that if multiple 2-km objects struck the 2-km-thick Laurentide Ice Sheet at 30°, they may have left negligible traces after deglaciation."

"...So any evidence whatsoever of a geologically recent surface melting event is a major red flag.
"...We don’t have to look very far to find our geologically young, surface melt formations. Just northeast of Upper, and Lower Red Lakes, Minnesota we see clearly legible patterns of movement, and flow, in surface melted stone. And the flows are almost in perfect condition. It’s the lighter pink, almost white stone. And it’s the marks of titanic hydrothermal explosions in the ice sheet. The heat source was hot enough to burn all the way down through the ice and partially melt the surface of the stone below. And the story told in the rivers of flowing stone as easy to read as following spilled paint back to the can."
https://craterhunter.wordpress.com/the- ... act-event/

[Lloyd]

Sketch, we've discussed problems with conventional dating methods on this thread before. Do you want me to present Walter Brown's references again that show that radioactive decay speeds up billions of times faster than normal in matter that's highly ionized? And need I repeat his suggestion, which is entirely reasonable, that sliding continents would greatly increase ionization? So the claims about events happening 200 millions years ago or more are wrong. The continental drift event occurred less than 5,000 years ago and so did the megatsunamis of the Great Flood, which were caused by a close-passing planet. Asteroids fell all during the several-month long sedimentary rock formation process of the Flood, including the Michigan impact that formed the Carolina Bays. Or the latter may have happened during or after the Shock Dynamics impact.

You apparently failed to notice Fischer's energy calculations page on the http://NewGeology.us website. He showed that there would be plenty of energy left over after heat dissipation to move all of the continents that moved to their present positions from positions at the former supercontinent.

[Lloyd]

Two New Papers Suggest a Catastrophic Extraterrestrial Impact Event Occurred 12,000 Years Ago
http://www.dailygrail.com/Hidden-Histor ... pact-Event
... The first, published late last week in Nature's "Scientific Reports", notes the discovery of "a distinct platinum anomaly spread widely across North America and dating to the Younger Dryas (YD) onset", supporting the conclusions of previous papers that have provided evidence for an impact event at that time. The presence of platinum is a strong indicator of an impact event: as lead author Christopher Moore has pointed out, the element "is very rare in Earth’s crust, but it is common in asteroids and comets"; and previous studies have also found "a rise in platinum concentrations over 14 years and subsequent drop during the following 7 years" that is consistent with "the known residence time of stratospheric dust".
- Christopher Moore says that his team's finding on elevated levels of platinum...
- ...is a confirmation of data previously reported for the Younger-Dryas onset several years ago in a Greenland ice-core. The authors for that study concluded that the most likely source of such platinum enrichment was from the impact of an extraterrestrial object.
- Our data show that this anomaly is present in sediments from U.S. archaeological sites that date to the start of the Younger-Dryas event. It is continental in scale - possibly global - and it's consistent with the hypothesis that an extraterrestrial impact took place.

The other new paper has just been published in the journal Geomorphology ("A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays). It also provides evidence for an impact event around that time, suggesting that the Carolina Bays may be the remains of "oblique conical craters formed on ground liquefied by the seismic shock waves of secondary impacts of glacier ice boulders ejected by an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide Ice Sheet".

[sketch1946]

Hi Lloyd,

Do you want me to present Walter Brown's references again that show that radioactive decay speeds up billions of times faster than normal in matter that's highly ionized?

mmm I haven't read anything about that, I'll check it out...

And need I repeat his suggestion, which is entirely reasonable, that sliding continents would greatly increase ionization?

Nup, sorry, haven't read that one either... I'll check it out too...

...So the claims about events happening 200 millions years ago or more are wrong.

So far I've not really been contesting or discussing dating methods here so far, that's another huge subject .. I've only been using the conventional dating of the ocean seafloors as being geologically much more recent and deficient in sediment, and that the continents are relatively older...

...megatsunamis of the Great Flood, which were caused by a close-passing planet. Asteroids fell all during the several-month long sedimentary rock formation process of the Flood, including the Michigan impact that formed the Carolina Bays.

I've been thinking about the planetary fly-by, it's a great way to move very heavy things around... like Ayers Rock in Australia, or the entire North American continents westwards over the ridge in the north pacific... the oceans and spreading features of the midoceanic ridges still seem to suggest pressure beneath the crust, expanding earth, and other associated features, so I'm still deliberating on the possible events... the very clear visible signs of uplifted and folded sedimentary layers suggests to me that the sedimentation occurred before the folding, with the visible cohesion of the sedimentary layers already 'glued' together before folding took place...

so I'm still attracted to the idea of first flood (A) then expanding earth next (B), forming oceans and spreading ridges, 'drifting' continents that don't have to go anywhere, they just stay where they always were, the earth itself growing, the oceans expanding and causing the apparent 'drifting' of the continents, pole wandering here too, as the crust is stretched, folded and buckled under the incredible forces of the earth itself caused by declining gravity, making the mountains bend and compress to fit the flatter geometry of an expanding ever flatter geometry of a larger diameter earth, along with explosive vulcanism as the pressurised magma lets off steam under the crust, earthquakes, then (C) passing planet Velikovsky style, fits in with Venus so hot and retrograde its axial motion spin-coupled to earth 13:8, recent detection of cometary 'magnetotail', no magnetic field of Venus, yet solar wind induced magnetosphere... North America shifted left, right on top of previous ocean ridge, leaving Yellowstone etc on top of old ocean expansion ridge, deeply 'subducted' ***nearly horizontal 'plate' under Mexico and northwards, evidence in Grand Canyon of marine incursions...
and yeah, impact events all the time in the past, present, and future, even predicted ones, just like in the bible book of Revelations, a great star fell from Heaven and a third of the Earth is wiped out, if your a Roman Catholic it all happened in the time of Nero, and it shouldn't be taken literally, don't worry as long as you pay your tithes, if you're a protestant it's still coming and you'd better believe it ...
So you can see it's all as easy as A,B,C....

you apparently failed to notice Fischer's energy calculations page on the http://NewGeology.us website

Sorry, guilty as charged, I didn't see it, I counted 38 links on the front page, and read quite a few, but I keep getting distracted with a new subject, I'll try to be more diligent...

I still feel from a geometrical intuition that physically it's a bit hard to believe, but I'm trying to give it a fair go... I recently watched a 'hydroplate' theory on youtube, with a different set of proposals, and similarly I'm trying to be fair minded and not immediately cast nasturtiums on new ideas...