|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 9, 2022 8:49:52 GMT -5
Had someone speak at the Mt Hood rock club meeting about the many annual floods as the ice dam and giant lake in Canada flooded and formed the Columbia gorge as the current warming cycle began many years ago. You can find rocks in Portland area and the gorge gravel beds that clearly traveled hundreds of miles. Could be that some meteor activity could have been mixed in with it, as one of the largest Rhodium deposits around is in northern Montana near the ice dam assumed site. I was fortunate to get a chunk of the ore from there that somehow had come home with a former mine worker I bought a saw from.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 9, 2022 9:14:05 GMT -5
By the way the Wright Brothers discovered the Carolina Bays on one of their early flights.
No one knew they were standing in the midst of elliptical depressions be them 100 feet or 20,000 feet across until early 1900's.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 9, 2022 9:37:39 GMT -5
Well there you go vegasjames . It just ain't that simple. I agree with many of your points. Ice may make different types of impacts...how many meteorite impacts struck a mile thick plate of a recent ice age ice ? Not a regular event...results a mystery. These depressions are on the surface of dozens of different types of geological bases. I spent half my life roaming over karst and the other half over granite - two different worlds. Granite doesn't do sinkholes. They well may not be impacts. Not going to debate that point. My point is that they are laying on top of 10 states and in open view and we don't know how they got there ! Quite embarrassing if we think we know so much about the formation of the earth. Drop the geological lingo for just a second and consider the mathematics of the situation. How did 500,000 to 1 million shallow elliptical shaped depressions with a .6 width to length ratio all aligned to the northwest even come into existence ?! Hello ! Sounds more like a high velocity impacted blood scatter problem to solve. The mathematical approach is critical to the analysis of these depressions. Most impact sites are one-off events however their scatter becomes a similar mathematical situation. The splatter of thousands of various sized 'particles' with directional elliptical impact shapes sure points to a distant impact. Let's see what a statistician would say. He will turn this problem on end guaranteed. Not one of the dozen+ videos I watched on these bays was a mathematical analysis performed. Found an interesting PDF that also provided more solid evidence that this was not an impact event. artsandsciences.sc.edu › cege › resources › scmaps › manual › chap8.pdf
One point they bring up says:
"Many geologists have conducted surveys trying to substantiate this theory. In
1952, Prouty carried out magnetometer surveys in an attempt to locate magnetic
properties associated with meteorite material. His data were not conclusive. He also
conducted projectile experiments using a .38 caliber bullet to determine if elliptical
8-5
depressions could be made at a small angle of impact. The conclusion of his data was
that a meteorite could produce an elliptical depression, but it would be 2-3 kilometers
deep with an uneven bottom. The Bays, on the other hand, are flat-bottomed
depressions only a few feet below the surface of the surrounding ground. After
comparing the Carolina Bays with craters known to have been caused by meteorite
impacts, most geologists now believe that the Carolina Bays were not caused this
manner."
More importantly, they have found the ages of the bays to vary between 6,000 to 60,000 years old. What are the odds that the same exact event hit over and over in the same exact spot, in the same exact direction with the same not meteor material over that 54,000 year period?
By the way, sinkholes can form in different ways, and from what I read the area around there is prone to them.
Regardless, let's say they are not sinkholes. Could they be something similar. Ever hear of decomposed granite? Use to find this crumbly textured granite quite a bit around Reno and in Yosemite. So granite does not always remain solid. It can crumble down in a coarse sand like consistency. Now, from what I have read on this area it is mainly bog-like, which would be mainly a lot of decomposed organic material. Could the acids from these materials contribute to granite breakdown? And since this is bog-like in the area, where is all the sand associated with the walls of the bays coming from? Could it be the result of the granite decomposing? Then it gets pushed away from the areas somehow leading to the depressions? In the PDF there is also a part where they say:
"The currently preferred theory hypothesizes a terrestrial origin for these Bays.
Natural depressions in the Coastal Plain caused circular lakes to form. The prevailing
winds over a lengthy period elongated the lakes into their present elliptical basin shapes.
The winds also caused sand to be deposited on the perimeter of the Bays with the
greatest amount deposited on the southeastern rim where the wind velocity decreased.
This occurred before heavy vegetation covered the Bays. One piece of evidence that
substantiates this theory is that radioactive Carbon-14 dating indicates the Bays are not
all the same age. These ages vary from 6,000 to 60,000 years, although other estimates
suggest the Bays are much older. Using the terrestrial origin of circular depressions,
coupled with prevailing winds, the Bays could very well have been formed over a long
period of time."
So again, it is possible the granite surface simply decayed from the acids from rotting vegetation then something like wind created these depressions by pushing the granite sand, similar to the large number of wind shaped bowls we see in the sandstone formations out West here? Such as in this photo:
Or this one:
Notice the similarity in shapes?
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 9, 2022 9:41:36 GMT -5
Had someone speak at the Mt Hood rock club meeting about the many annual floods as the ice dam and giant lake in Canada flooded and formed the Columbia gorge as the current warming cycle began many years ago. You can find rocks in Portland area and the gorge gravel beds that clearly traveled hundreds of miles. Could be that some meteor activity could have been mixed in with it, as one of the largest Rhodium deposits around is in northern Montana near the ice dam assumed site. I was fortunate to get a chunk of the ore from there that somehow had come home with a former mine worker I bought a saw from. We were watching Youtubes discussing the ice dams in the Great Northwest when a Carolina Bay video popped up Lee. The flood gates really open mega energy when those dams break loose. Talk about mass erosion and geologic forces at work. Satellite telemetry really shows the results. The damage those dam breaks did dwarfed the log dams at Mt St Helen. The shape of the erosion that resulted seemed logical in appearance, similar to a small beaver dam washed out by a flood. The amount of erosion dwarfing the largest of open pit mines. Hurricane Opal parked itself over Georgia and dumped huge amounts of rain breaking many man made dams of some large lakes, namely Lake Blackshear. Even on flat land the outrush was devastating below the dam. 8700 acres of shallow water is a drop in bucket compared to the size, depth and slopes backed up by some of those ice dams. The belly of these bays in many cases continue to serve as fine farmland fields with a planting surface lowered in level to the water table for ultimate root access to water. Or level bottomed wetlands and shallow ponds with high warm water metabolisms. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 9, 2022 9:46:08 GMT -5
If a meteor did strike the Great Lakes why isn't there an existence of geologic debris from the Great Lakes found in these bays ? Perhaps the ice was so thick that the meteor did not reach the ground below to scatter it. And why is there a patch of them over in Oklahoma but with ellipsoids aligned SW to NE toward the theoretical meteor impact site ? Certainly the scatter that went north-northeast-northwest would have landed on the ice age plate and left no depressions. A meteor large enough to send ice flying that far South would have created a humongous crater when it hit, and would definitely gone through very thick ice very easily.
Meteors enter the atmosphere at around 10,000-30,000 miles per hour on average. If they come in shallow they will often burn up, break up, skip back out in to space or will slow down to terminal velocity then simply drop from the sky. If they come in steep then they can hit the Earth with tremendous force. For example, the Sikhote-Alin meteorite did not even come in that steep and they still found pieces that went right through trunks of trees and were driven 20 feet in to the ground. So again, an impact sufficient to throw ice that far South would have no problem going right through even a thick ice sheet.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 9, 2022 10:28:33 GMT -5
Well there you go vegasjames . It just ain't that simple. I agree with many of your points. Ice may make different types of impacts...how many meteorite impacts struck a mile thick plate of a recent ice age ice ? Not a regular event...results a mystery. These depressions are on the surface of dozens of different types of geological bases. I spent half my life roaming over karst and the other half over granite - two different worlds. Granite doesn't do sinkholes. They well may not be impacts. Not going to debate that point. My point is that they are laying on top of 10 states and in open view and we don't know how they got there ! Quite embarrassing if we think we know so much about the formation of the earth. Drop the geological lingo for just a second and consider the mathematics of the situation. How did 500,000 to 1 million shallow elliptical shaped depressions with a .6 width to length ratio all aligned to the northwest even come into existence ?! Hello ! Sounds more like a high velocity impacted blood scatter problem to solve. The mathematical approach is critical to the analysis of these depressions. Most impact sites are one-off events however their scatter becomes a similar mathematical situation. The splatter of thousands of various sized 'particles' with directional elliptical impact shapes sure points to a distant impact. Let's see what a statistician would say. He will turn this problem on end guaranteed. Not one of the dozen+ videos I watched on these bays was a mathematical analysis performed. Found an interesting PDF that also provided more solid evidence that this was not an impact event. artsandsciences.sc.edu › cege › resources › scmaps › manual › chap8.pdf One point they bring up says: "Many geologists have conducted surveys trying to substantiate this theory. In
1952, Prouty carried out magnetometer surveys in an attempt to locate magnetic
properties associated with meteorite material. His data were not conclusive. He also
conducted projectile experiments using a .38 caliber bullet to determine if elliptical
8-5
depressions could be made at a small angle of impact. The conclusion of his data was
that a meteorite could produce an elliptical depression, but it would be 2-3 kilometers
deep with an uneven bottom. The Bays, on the other hand, are flat-bottomed
depressions only a few feet below the surface of the surrounding ground. After
comparing the Carolina Bays with craters known to have been caused by meteorite
impacts, most geologists now believe that the Carolina Bays were not caused this
manner." More importantly, they have found the ages of the bays to vary between 6,000 to 60,000 years old. What are the odds that the same exact event hit over and over in the same exact spot, in the same exact direction with the same not meteor material over that 54,000 year period? By the way, sinkholes can form in different ways, and from what I read the area around there is prone to them. Regardless, let's say they are not sinkholes. Could they be something similar. Ever hear of decomposed granite? Use to find this crumbly textured granite quite a bit around Reno and in Yosemite. So granite does not always remain solid. It can crumble down in a coarse sand like consistency. Now, from what I have read on this area it is mainly bog-like, which would be mainly a lot of decomposed organic material. Could the acids from these materials contribute to granite breakdown? And since this is bog-like in the area, where is all the sand associated with the walls of the bays coming from? Could it be the result of the granite decomposing? Then it gets pushed away from the areas somehow leading to the depressions? In the PDF there is also a part where they say: "The currently preferred theory hypothesizes a terrestrial origin for these Bays.
Natural depressions in the Coastal Plain caused circular lakes to form. The prevailing
winds over a lengthy period elongated the lakes into their present elliptical basin shapes.
The winds also caused sand to be deposited on the perimeter of the Bays with the
greatest amount deposited on the southeastern rim where the wind velocity decreased.
This occurred before heavy vegetation covered the Bays. One piece of evidence that
substantiates this theory is that radioactive Carbon-14 dating indicates the Bays are not
all the same age. These ages vary from 6,000 to 60,000 years, although other estimates
suggest the Bays are much older. Using the terrestrial origin of circular depressions,
coupled with prevailing winds, the Bays could very well have been formed over a long
period of time." So again, it is possible the granite surface simply decayed from the acids from rotting vegetation then something like wind created these depressions by pushing the granite sand, similar to the large number of wind shaped bowls we see in the sandstone formations out West here? Such as in this photo: Or this one: Notice the similarity in shapes?
The flat bellies certainly point to a non-impact site vegasjames yet the elliptical shape and higher southeast rims do. Some of the depressions do have standing water on the southeast side suggesting impact but they are not the norm. If there is a depth difference it is usually on the southeast side of the depression though. The 6000 to 60,000 age sure seems logical but a variation of age from 6 to 60 thousand years sure kills the impact theory. Dating has it's shortcomings too, especially with the large amounts of organic debris with a wide range of ages in the fertile east. Wind patterns and forces are a big consideration since most of these depressions are in the sand country of the coastal plain. It is common to find a 3000 year old Native campsite to have 3 to 4 feet of sand covering it in a a heavy forest of virgin oaks. Historical man never moved or redistributed the sand(virgin trees prove that) yet there is 4 feet of sand laying on top of an old campsite in only a few thousand years ? This has to be a wind deposit. Add the more powerful prevailing winds are from the northwest. Wind blowing in a prevailing direction from the northwest over a 2 mile diameter lake often has overburden removal on the southeast lands around the lake. The sand blown from the northwest sinks into the lake, never makes it to the southeast side. Only removal(for the most part) occurs on the southeast side. Just saying wind has powerful effects on sand with little rock in it. To form close ended ellipsoids may be a challenge though. But look at the granite photos you linked... And it is a surprise that the rims have not been blown flat. Filling a depression is a big task. Having a roundish rim of soil on flat ground doesn't require much soil movement. To create a flat bottomed depression requires massive soil removal making them deceptively ominous structures. |
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 9, 2022 10:31:28 GMT -5
I agree that there are holes in our logic Scientist come up with all kinds of Place makers for our ignorance The great unconformity or dark mater ect cetra The human brain doesn’t like to believe its puny in the great immensity. Hence, the tendency to over- imaginate Even delude ourselves on all sort of levels Some of it leads to mental pathology Such a puny thing with grand illusions Nonetheless I did wonder what causes these matate holes in Salt River Granite outcrop.  First I thought they were giant Hohokam that made those- grinding grains Butte then my logic kicked in The Salt River was flowing then-- so it was improbable that giants were in the deep rushing waters grinding grains Even giants have more sense than that So it remains a mystery I don’t take for granite ,,,m |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 9, 2022 10:55:51 GMT -5
If a meteor did strike the Great Lakes why isn't there an existence of geologic debris from the Great Lakes found in these bays ? Perhaps the ice was so thick that the meteor did not reach the ground below to scatter it. And why is there a patch of them over in Oklahoma but with ellipsoids aligned SW to NE toward the theoretical meteor impact site ? Certainly the scatter that went north-northeast-northwest would have landed on the ice age plate and left no depressions. A meteor large enough to send ice flying that far South would have created a humongous crater when it hit, and would definitely gone through very thick ice very easily.
Meteors enter the atmosphere at around 10,000-30,000 miles per hour on average. If they come in shallow they will often burn up, break up, skip back out in to space or will slow down to terminal velocity then simply drop from the sky. If they come in steep then they can hit the Earth with tremendous force. For example, the Sikhote-Alin meteorite did not even come in that steep and they still found pieces that went right through trunks of trees and were driven 20 feet in to the ground. So again, an impact sufficient to throw ice that far South would have no problem going right through even a thick ice sheet.
I get you. Ice launched 1000 miles would require a serious impact. We don't really know the thickness of the ice back then, certainly an unknown. Some estimates are 1 to 2 miles thick. Unknowns abound and their effects are even more of an unknown. About 7 inches stopped a 9mm with long reaching fragments in this video. I know, much slower/smaller comparison. If it was a solid block consider a shorter stoppage. It might be that 2 miles of solid ice would have serious stopping power. The heavier rock matter would likely have fallen short and fallen out well before where the ice hit. Or vice-versa... Consider high altitude winds, how high did the debris go and did wind carry it ? Not being argumentative here, just pointing out how difficult it is to prove many natural occurrences. We still have a well preserved basic looking newer age geologic anomaly forcing a difficult situation to analyze. Granted we are two smart people and copied the findings capable geologists but we all remain mystified by the cause after 50 years when technology and tools are at a pinnacle. It points to the complexity of many natural occurrences. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 9, 2022 11:11:34 GMT -5
I agree that there are holes in our logic Scientist come up with all kinds of Place makers for our ignorance The great unconformity or dark mater ect cetra The human brain doesn’t like to believe its puny in the great immensity. Hence, the tendency to over- imaginate Even delude ourselves on sort of levels Some of it leads to mental pathology Such a puny thing with grand illusions Nonetheless I did wonder what causes these matate holes in Salt River Granite outcrop. First I thought they were giant Hohokam that made those- grinding grains Butte then my logic kicked in The Salt River was flowing then-- so it was improbable that giants were in the deep rushing waters grinding grains Even giants have more sense than that So it remains a mystery I don’t take for granite ,,,m You make a truthful point Ed. It is our nature to explain away theories and hold fast to our research and conclusions. The guy that is wrong about a theory often reveals the truth regarding a theory and only gets punished for being wrong. Finding what is not the answers may eventually end up finding the answer. Perhaps those difficult-to-make holes in the granite were put there by Hohokam people being punished for disagreeing with the Chief's opinions on a given theorem. Politics never change, the boss is always correct. Disagree and you get punished ! |
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 9, 2022 12:18:47 GMT -5
Yo James Were in deep with our theories We have been warned that causal implications are not necessarily linearly followed “A” doesn’t always cause “B” and “A" can’t be self-caused eeeeekkkk its a paradox a Heglelian triad the horns of a dilemma wait tho! ….this may be true in social theory butte certainly its not true in physics I mean some-thing - caused something It only logical Its deep- deeper than midnight Some philosophical gent said that once one those late night insomnia solitudes thoughts About why there is something instead of nothing at all No end to the infinitum regressum I like the natives approach Very practical folks in my estimation Try to live sparingly off what the land/ nature provides They may have even purposely resisted metallurgy For they may have had the foresight to see it just leads to more efficient killing weapons well don't want to overly romanticize the past modern humans with technology rule & we have always been a rapacious species ya knohs= i always go way far afield in these discussions my brain just collapses under well thought out algorithmic explanations like to think its a logical wave/ particle collapse buute its just a collapse,,,mostly travel lightly= try to skip over life like a stone looking back that what I did well not really I sunk like a rock Butte some force kept me buoyed  bobbing next discussion will be on the master/slave dialectical that will get us into the cave quickly interesting discussion guys ! thanks for the pleasure !  |
|
|
|
Post by RickB on Apr 9, 2022 12:33:46 GMT -5
The Carolina Bays here in Horry County SC provide a home for Venus Fly traps, Sundews and Pitcher Plants, all carnivores.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 9, 2022 19:37:12 GMT -5
Found an interesting PDF that also provided more solid evidence that this was not an impact event. artsandsciences.sc.edu › cege › resources › scmaps › manual › chap8.pdf One point they bring up says: "Many geologists have conducted surveys trying to substantiate this theory. In
1952, Prouty carried out magnetometer surveys in an attempt to locate magnetic
properties associated with meteorite material. His data were not conclusive. He also
conducted projectile experiments using a .38 caliber bullet to determine if elliptical
8-5
depressions could be made at a small angle of impact. The conclusion of his data was
that a meteorite could produce an elliptical depression, but it would be 2-3 kilometers
deep with an uneven bottom. The Bays, on the other hand, are flat-bottomed
depressions only a few feet below the surface of the surrounding ground. After
comparing the Carolina Bays with craters known to have been caused by meteorite
impacts, most geologists now believe that the Carolina Bays were not caused this
manner." More importantly, they have found the ages of the bays to vary between 6,000 to 60,000 years old. What are the odds that the same exact event hit over and over in the same exact spot, in the same exact direction with the same not meteor material over that 54,000 year period? By the way, sinkholes can form in different ways, and from what I read the area around there is prone to them. Regardless, let's say they are not sinkholes. Could they be something similar. Ever hear of decomposed granite? Use to find this crumbly textured granite quite a bit around Reno and in Yosemite. So granite does not always remain solid. It can crumble down in a coarse sand like consistency. Now, from what I have read on this area it is mainly bog-like, which would be mainly a lot of decomposed organic material. Could the acids from these materials contribute to granite breakdown? And since this is bog-like in the area, where is all the sand associated with the walls of the bays coming from? Could it be the result of the granite decomposing? Then it gets pushed away from the areas somehow leading to the depressions? In the PDF there is also a part where they say: "The currently preferred theory hypothesizes a terrestrial origin for these Bays.
Natural depressions in the Coastal Plain caused circular lakes to form. The prevailing
winds over a lengthy period elongated the lakes into their present elliptical basin shapes.
The winds also caused sand to be deposited on the perimeter of the Bays with the
greatest amount deposited on the southeastern rim where the wind velocity decreased.
This occurred before heavy vegetation covered the Bays. One piece of evidence that
substantiates this theory is that radioactive Carbon-14 dating indicates the Bays are not
all the same age. These ages vary from 6,000 to 60,000 years, although other estimates
suggest the Bays are much older. Using the terrestrial origin of circular depressions,
coupled with prevailing winds, the Bays could very well have been formed over a long
period of time." So again, it is possible the granite surface simply decayed from the acids from rotting vegetation then something like wind created these depressions by pushing the granite sand, similar to the large number of wind shaped bowls we see in the sandstone formations out West here? Such as in this photo: Or this one: Notice the similarity in shapes?
The flat bellies certainly point to a non-impact site vegasjames yet the elliptical shape and higher southeast rims do. Some of the depressions do have standing water on the southeast side suggesting impact but they are not the norm. If there is a depth difference it is usually on the southeast side of the depression though. The 6000 to 60,000 age sure seems logical but a variation of age from 6 to 60 thousand years sure kills the impact theory. Dating has it's shortcomings too, especially with the large amounts of organic debris with a wide range of ages in the fertile east. Wind patterns and forces are a big consideration since most of these depressions are in the sand country of the coastal plain. It is common to find a 3000 year old Native campsite to have 3 to 4 feet of sand covering it in a a heavy forest of virgin oaks. Historical man never moved or redistributed the sand(virgin trees prove that) yet there is 4 feet of sand laying on top of an old campsite in only a few thousand years ? This has to be a wind deposit. Add the more powerful prevailing winds are from the northwest. Wind blowing in a prevailing direction from the northwest over a 2 mile diameter lake often has overburden removal on the southeast lands around the lake. The sand blown from the northwest sinks into the lake, never makes it to the southeast side. Only removal(for the most part) occurs on the southeast side. Just saying wind has powerful effects on sand with little rock in it. To form close ended ellipsoids may be a challenge though. But look at the granite photos you linked... And it is a surprise that the rims have not been blown flat. Filling a depression is a big task. Having a roundish rim of soil on flat ground doesn't require much soil movement. To create a flat bottomed depression requires massive soil removal making them deceptively ominous structures. There is just way too much evidence against this being an impact event. Same reason virtually all scientists researching this have ruled an impact event out.
As for the testing for age, carbon dating would be more accurate if they were doing core samples, which they likely did.
And that being said, you are looking at this from a modern day perspective. What is now is not necessarily what was then. It is very possible that between the 6,000 to 60,000 years that these are believed to have developed over there could have easily been dry periods where wind erosion and deposition of the sand in the way I hypothesized could have happened. Keep in mind that you also brought up the sand. Sand is an erosion product. Bogs are not really conducive to erosion. Therefore, it is highly likely that that area either experienced very dry conditions in the past allowing for wind erosion, or the area was covered by running water leading to water erosion and thus was still not a bog state. Things can change drastically over time. Even here in the desert of Las Vegas this was once lush tropical land. And when people first started settling here there was a lot of green, which is why Las Vegas means "the meadows". It is not lush, tropical anymore, and we do not even have meadows anymore. We do have a lot of fossils such as petrified wood, wooly mammoth, sabertooth, horses and camels, etc, that tell us that yes, this once was covered by vegetation allowing all this existence. Again, things change with time though. Lush becomes desert, rivers change course or dry up, dry areas turn in to wetlands........
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 9, 2022 19:50:20 GMT -5
A meteor large enough to send ice flying that far South would have created a humongous crater when it hit, and would definitely gone through very thick ice very easily.
Meteors enter the atmosphere at around 10,000-30,000 miles per hour on average. If they come in shallow they will often burn up, break up, skip back out in to space or will slow down to terminal velocity then simply drop from the sky. If they come in steep then they can hit the Earth with tremendous force. For example, the Sikhote-Alin meteorite did not even come in that steep and they still found pieces that went right through trunks of trees and were driven 20 feet in to the ground. So again, an impact sufficient to throw ice that far South would have no problem going right through even a thick ice sheet.
I get you. Ice launched 1000 miles would require a serious impact. We don't really know the thickness of the ice back then, certainly an unknown. Some estimates are 1 to 2 miles thick. Unknowns abound and their effects are even more of an unknown. About 7 inches stopped a 9mm with long reaching fragments in this video. I know, much slower/smaller comparison. If it was a solid block consider a shorter stoppage. It might be that 2 miles of solid ice would have serious stopping power. The heavier rock matter would likely have fallen short and fallen out well before where the ice hit. Or vice-versa... Consider high altitude winds, how high did the debris go and did wind carry it ? Not being argumentative here, just pointing out how difficult it is to prove many natural occurrences. We still have a well preserved basic looking newer age geologic anomaly forcing a difficult situation to analyze. Granted we are two smart people and copied the findings capable geologists but we all remain mystified by the cause after 50 years when technology and tools are at a pinnacle. It points to the complexity of many natural occurrences. A 9mm bullet does not even come close to the mass, velocity or enormous energy released of a deep impact from a meteor hitting at a steep angle. So even if the ice was a couple miles thick a hit like this would go extremely deep. Also keep mind that natural ice caps are not as solid as blocks of ice. They contain bubbles of trapped gases and crevices that would allow an impact to do much more damage than a cast block of ice.
More importantly though is where is the evidence of a massive flood from this impact? Impact events like this generate tremendous amounts of heat. In fact, enough to even melt rock. Therefore, if this sheet of ice was a couple miles thick or even half a mile thick there would have been a massive and very instantaneous melting of the ice resulting in an enormous flood that would coincide with the ejecta. So, if this was really an impact event on an ice cap, then where is the evidence of the massive flood that would have ensued as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 9, 2022 20:02:01 GMT -5
Yo James Were in deep with our theories We have been warned that causal implications are not necessarily linearly followed “A” doesn’t always cause “B” and “A" can’t be self-caused eeeeekkkk its a paradox a Heglelian triad the horns of a dilemma wait tho! ….this may be true in social theory butte certainly its not true in physics I mean some-thing - caused something It only logical Its deep- deeper than midnight Some philosophical gent said that once one those late night insomnia solitudes thoughts About why there is something instead of nothing at all No end to the infinitum regressum I like the natives approach Very practical folks in my estimation Try to live sparingly off what the land/ nature provides They may have even purposely resisted metallurgy For they may have had the foresight to see it just leads to more efficient killing weapons well don't want to overly romanticize the past modern humans with technology rule & we have always been a rapacious species ya knohs= i always go way far afield in these discussions my brain just collapses under well thought out algorithmic explanations like to think its a logical wave/ particle collapse buute its just a collapse,,,mostly travel lightly= try to skip over life like a stone looking back that what I did well not really I sunk like a rock Butte some force kept me buoyed bobbing next discussion will be on the master/slave dialectical that will get us into the cave quickly interesting discussion guys ! thanks for the pleasure ! Correct, A does not always cause B. There are always so many variables. When there are so many things that do not add up, such as all the flaws in the impact hypothesis, then we can reasonably assume that the hypothesis is incorrect.
And science is in large part about questioning, which is what I am doing and supplying other possible hypotheses to stimulate thinking as noone is going to think of every possibility on their own. Ironically, there is a post where it states "Politics never change, the boss is always correct. Disagree and you get punished !" Exactly how I feel. I feel like I am being attacked (punished) in some of these posts for presenting alternative hypotheses and going against the impact hypothesis that is so highly flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 9, 2022 20:50:33 GMT -5
Yohs James2 !  In this discussion two very reasonable Explanations are on the table That good how incremental progress is made On a Butte shooting sunsets Must get shooting I will remark that there was a statement made About a certain “hypothesis that is so highly flawed" that a bit of an overreaction Rhetorically it would cause a sideward glance From my p.o.v. both hypothesis have merit well argued w/ insight And Maybe neither is fleshed out completely or both are flawed and third hypothesis is forthcoming I’m not sure what it is about Internet correspondence I’ve read alot books And I listen to allot of these authors interviews Many of them are on twitter ect al many of them talk about animosity and getting flamed on the net This fast instantaneous form of communication Lends itself to that sort of behavior, I suppose understand bitter scholarly disputes have gone on since time immoral. Just listen to a interview about geologists getting into fist fights over some 3 billion year old theory I think I can understand that on certain level On another level it seems ludicrous anyway the sunset wasn’t so great butte it was gneiss evening to be out mostly |
|
RWA3006
Cave Dweller
Member since March 2009
Posts: 4,625 
|
Post by RWA3006 on Apr 9, 2022 22:57:02 GMT -5
Question. During the ice ages did permafrost ever form in the area in question? I've seen some odd permafrost patterns that sometimes are quite homogenous over a large area. I can conceive that the consistent oval shapes could be explained by subsequent drifting dune action by prevailing winds at certain times. Drifting sand dunes in permafrost areas are a common phenomenon in the arctic today.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 10, 2022 0:31:51 GMT -5
Yohs James2 ! I will remark that there was a statement made About a certain “hypothesis that is so highly flawed" that a bit of an overreaction Then we will have to agree to disagree because as the evidence has shown it is highly flawed and I stand by my statement.
And it is no more of an "over reaction" as you put it than the various times I have been told I am wrong in this post with no evidence presented to the contrary. For instance, the comment "Granite doesn't do sinkholes". Why not? Does this person know that sinkholes occur for various reasons, not just limestone erosion? For instance, I already mentioned the possibility of a once underground river which could have run from up North to the Gulf of Mexico like the Mississippi does today. In fact i is rather interesting that the Mississippi River follows along a lot of the area where the satellite image in the first post shows the bays occur. So some people really think that a massive underground river could not cut through granite over time? Look at the original map then look at the path of the river 4.bp.blogspot.com/-vVHpAMrvUxU/Uc4TOxeJ8UI/AAAAAAAABKM/f7xwTqv1LEY/s1476/RWNET_Route2.jpg
And let's not forget the fact that I made no mention of granite. I did point out the fact that the area does does contain karst, which I posted evidence to, which guess what? That makes the area prone to sinkholes, which as I also pointed out I read was a common problem in the area. Yet, every time I make a suggestion and post evidence to I get jumped on as being wrong as an actual over reaction because only the impact hypothesis apparently is to be accepted. So why are you singling me out?
As for the highly faulty hypothesis. Here are some reasons"
-If you look at the supposed trajectories they are multi-directional, but pay attention here. Most are going North to South. And a few are going East and West. So let's consider the physics here. If this was truly an impact up by the Great Lakes a straight downward impact would send ejecta in all directions. Did not happen so not a straight down impact. So lets assume this was an angled impact coming in from the North. Most ejecta would go South, which kind of looks like this at first except a few things. The ejecta should have spewed out in a half circle, which is not the image shows. And there is some lines suggesting some impact North of the crater. How can this happen if coming in at a Southern angle. Can't.
-Again, such a major impact in to an ice pack would have led to massive flooding. Where is the evidence of this flooding? I see none.
-Ice chunks flung that far South would have had enough energy to leave depressions much deeper than the couple of feet to 10 feet of these depressions. And especially chunks large enough to create depressions a mile or more in radius would certainly leave a massively deeper depression.
-If you look at the photos of the bays, not all are elipitcal and not all are going in the same direction. Along the same lines, if you go back to the original post they show lines of suspected ejecta, which include lines in Eastern and Western directions. So where are the eliptical impressions of the ice impacts going in the Easternly and Westernly directions.
-Where is the evidence of impact zones such as high nickel content, shocked minerals, shatter cones, etc? Have not seen a single piece of evidence to any of these either.
-Why are they dating these depressions from 6,000 to 60,000 years old showing all these depressions DID NOT form at one time? This means for these to be formed from ice ejecta the same ice would have exist, be hit in the same area at the same angle over and over throughout that 54,000 year span. You would have a better chance of winning the Lotto 20 times in a row.
So once again, I stand my original statement of the impact ejecta hypothesis is highly flawed. Same reason most scientists studying the bays have also dismissed the ejecta hypothesis.
Now, if people would like to actually provide some evidence to back their claims, like I have been doing, instead of simply jumping on me telling me that everything I am bringing up is wrong just because I disagree with what so far appears to be a highly faulty hypothesis, then maybe I will change my mind.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 10, 2022 0:41:43 GMT -5
I apologize vegasjames. Were we not having a constructive debate ? I said black and you said white with grey somewhere in the middle. Yes indeed the impact theory has flaws. Well it has merits too. Just the way it is. Thanks for your inputs. The reference to a boss had to do with the treatment a scientist often received by his authorities if and when he is wrong. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 10, 2022 0:48:13 GMT -5
In this discussion two very reasonable Explanations are on the table This was my interpretation mohs. Nothing else. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 10, 2022 1:19:33 GMT -5
This theoretical video describes the first 60 minutes of a 1.6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the 2 mile deep laurentide ice formation.
Many strange events occur to the water and ice ejecta as it rises high above the earth and returns back to earth.
Other unexpected events are described.
|
|
bobbing 
