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-monster-tsunami-created-madagascar-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/XJNX8qOhttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 864899.jpgIn 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.jpgI 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_JordanThe 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#jCpTiffany 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."
