The Impact And Exit Event.

[Finchcliff]

Having read this ebook I find it fascinating, in that questions I have not been able to get a satisfactory or reasonable answer to are addressed. Let me briefly explain. Working in the Oil and Gas exploration industry for the last thirty years, NO-ONE has given a valid explanation as to how millions upon millions of tons of rock, thousands of feet thick, instantly smothered huge forests thus trapping the carbon we now know as Hydra-Carbon deposits ie., oil and gas.

An ice age or similar would occur over such a long period, that these forests etc would die off and slowly decompose (because of temperature)over such a long period and carbons would be dissipated into the atmosphere thus making it impossible to become carbon impregnated sedimentary rock. The Impact and Exit event supports my belief that a catostrophic event must have occurrred, a simple test such as putting a paving stone into a container of similar dimensions which has been filled with freshly mown grass and leaving for maybe just one month does show startling similarities to instant formation of oil and gas fields as discussed in this book. Also noted are the locations of these same fields when viewing the `fallout areas`

 

Kipper. For those not familiar with the theory (I hadn't made reference to the various fallout areas described in the theory), it is suggested that both the impact and exit event produced what, in effect were 'super eruptions' of Earth's internal magma. These are constantly referred to as 'magma columns' throughout the theory.

 

Apparently, each 'magma column' fell in a manner consistent with either event, creating large areas of mountainous terrain while at the same time burying similar amounts of existing landmass. I think you (kipper) may be referring to the suggested landmasses that were buried underneath the fallen 'magma columns'?

 

Your observations are interseting (to me, anyway - but maybe not to others!). I hadn't made the connection between the extrusion of gas and oil from beneath such large amounts of rock... Can anyone else explain how this decomposing matter came to be buried down there? How did it get there?

[Turtle]

Can anyone else explain how this decomposing matter came to be buried down there? How did it get there?

 

did you even try & find such information yourself?

 

:shrug:

 

or you kapper?

 

EIA Energy Kids - Oil (petroleum)

...Oil was formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ago in a marine (water) environment before the dinosaurs. Over millions of years, the remains of these animals and plants were covered by layers of sand and silt. Heat and pressure from these layers helped the remains turn into what we today call crude oil. The word "petroleum" means "rock oil" or "oil from the earth." ...

 

oil formed in oceans - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,200,000 for oil formed in oceans. (0.17 seconds)

 

without even a basic understanding of geology there is absolutely no content of this 'theory' that is worthy of the title. pure word salad and trolling.

[Finchcliff]

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

So, the theory suggests that an impactor hit the gulf of Mexico, and exited the area north of the himilayas and spread debris westward from that area, extending over the middle east into northern Africa, correct?

 

If so, what evidence is supplied for this? Is it purely visual evidence of the desert areas west of the himilayas? If so, then that is hardly conclusive evidence. What geological evidence exists for this (such as the same iron-rich content in the debris from all regions sampled from the himilayas to northern africa)? This is also why a date is important. If this happened 3 billion years ago, we would expect that any evidence would have long eroded or been covered up. If it happened 100mya, then there's a better chance of finding geological evidence to support the theory.

 

The theory relies quite a lot on visual evidence (it says so at the beginning) so I guess in that sense it is hardly conclusive. But...

 

There is reference within the pdf to research undertaken by individuals across a broad range of sources, the results of which appear to complement what is being proposed.

 

For example, Wegenr (as mentioned earlier) on page 62; Wikipedia p. 171 - 172 (referring to the Deccan Traps); the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (p. 175); the South West Research Institute & the University of California at Santa Cruza nd researchers at ETH Zurich, who had collectively undertaken research into the composition of (and similarity between) the iron content and isotopic composition of the Moon and Earth (p. 200 - 203, 214 & 215).

 

Also, although once again visual, the questions raised by the content of pages 153 - 161 are IMO worth pursuing. Why is it that the 'footprint' of so many islands (whether small or large) are arranged - and aligned - in such a manner as described in the theory? I have to admit that I had no idea of the ways in which the orientation and geological 'layout' Ireland, Corsica, the Peleponese, England & Wales and Turkey (to name a few) were so similar.

[Zythryn]

If the main evidence is visual, and the theory does not contest plate techtonics, why is the impact and exit points so close to each other?

After all, at the time of the moon's formation, both points were much closer to each other.

[Finchcliff]

 

"Am I kipper?"

 

No. But if it makes you happy call me Finchkippercliff.

 

Thanks for surfing the 'Net for me, T**tle, you really shouldn't have.

 

How long ago did the animal and plants live ...and die? Then, 'over millions of years they were covered by silt and sand' - without undergoing the natural process of complete decomposition before or during that time???

 

An earlier post by Freeztar stated: In highly anaerobic environments, plant and animal material does not decay, or does so very slowly. Yet decompose it eventually does, one presumes?

 

How long would it take for sufficient silt and sand to be deposited (undisturbed) over the said material to prevent any further decomposition (and therefore loss of future oil and gas deposits) from occurring?

 

Some talk of the erosion of mountain ranges 'over millions of years'. Surely the remains of plants and animals cannot be as durable as mountain ranges?

 

Look that up for me, T**tle please while I go and make my wife a cuppa.

[Finchcliff]

If the main evidence is visual, and the theory does not contest plate techtonics, why is the impact and exit points so close to each other?

After all, at the time of the moon's formation, both points were much closer to each other.

 

The theory does contest plate tectonics throughout (while embracing continental drift), referring to many examples of bathymetry. It also suggest that the Earth was smaller when the impact and exit event / moon formation occurred (so the theory goes), which might explain your comment about the impact and exit points being close together. Also, the proposed angle of impact may contribute to the close proximity of each event.

 

Still no solution to the similarities between the Andes and the Mid Atlantic Ridge and the west coast of Africa anyone?

[Turtle]

 

"Am I kipper?"

 

No. But if it makes you happy call me Finchkippercliff.

 

Thanks for surfing the 'Net for me, T**tle, you really shouldn't have.

 

that's right; i shouldn't have. i won't again. this is trolling plain & sdimple & we won't have it.

~T**tle

[modest]

The theory suggests that the exiting mass (whatever size or shape it was) left Earth's interior at the site of the Taklmakan Desert, which is a large portion of the oval shaped geological feature located directly north of the Himalayas. The theory further suggests that debris from the 'exit event' fell in the direction in which the trajectory of the exit event took place (in a westerly direction). It would appear that this left a huge expanse of deposited debris across much of the northern hemisphere from China, across the middle east and onto north Africa.

 

A brisk speed for a meteor is 40 km/s. The distance from the gulf of Mexico to Taklamakan (assuming a slightly curved path rather than directly through the planet from point to point) is approximately 11,000 km. Assuming the meteor impacted at 40 km/s and exited at 10 km/s the total transit time is:

 

[math]T = \frac{2D}{V_i + V_f} = \frac{2 \ times 11,000 \ km}{40 \ km/s + 10 \ km/s} = 440 \ \text{seconds} = 7.33 \ \text{minutes}[/math]

 

Your proposed impactor must stay roughly intact for more than 7 minutes of underground transit. This is impossible and falsifies your theory. The impactor would be vaporized in just a few seconds.

 

I'll avoid the temptation to explain the characteristics of meteors and impacts. It would make this post too long and I can point you to a really-well written post by Craig that I think you should find helpful: Rough energy estimates, interpretations, and science dream vacations

 

It looks plausible to me, given the visual evidence used.

 

Meteors and collisions must follow the laws of science. They are set out very well in this document:

 

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/CollinsEtAl2005.pdf

 

Which explains and derives the extraordinary amount of good work and good science that went into this program which simulates the effects of meteor impacts:

 

Earth Impact Effects Program

 

which I think Turtle has already linked With this tool at your fingertips it is not necessary to imagine what the evidence of an impact should look like. For example. the Gulf of Mexico is roughly 900 km in diameter. If your paper presumes this is an impact crater then use this simulator to test the hypothesis.

 

An aged crater of roughly 900 km will be originated by a meteor with a 60 km diameter moving at 40 km/s. How deep will something this size penetrate into the earth? The answer is 149 kilometers (when it happened—it would no longer be that deep). Investigating the case of a smaller meteor with a greater velocity that leaves a crater of the same diameter, you should find that the depth would be the same.

 

It is reasonable, then, to conclude that a crater the size of the Gulf could never have penetrated deeper than roughly 150 km. If it had penetrated deeper (if either the meteor were larger or moving faster) then the crater would be wider today.

 

~modest

[Buffy]

Still no solution to the similarities between the Andes and the Mid Atlantic Ridge and the west coast of Africa anyone?

 

Would you mind explaining what the "similarities" are?

 

Sure each has an "angle" in it and a "curve" but the degree of the angles and the radius of the curves are significantly different.

 

And as freeztar pointed out, their ages are significantly different, so they could not have been caused by the same "event."

 

Logic would dictate that just these points is a more than adequate disproof of the theory.

 

Is there a reason you ignore these points?

 

I am sure hanging's the way of winking,

Buffy

[Finchcliff]

Thanks for the information, Mod.

[Turtle]

If the main evidence is visual, and the theory does not contest plate techtonics, why is the impact and exit points so close to each other?

After all, at the time of the moon's formation, both points were much closer to each other.

 

while i appreciate your challenging fishbait, i am disappointed that you even allow such a thing as an entering & exiting impactor. as we have shown, it is a physical impossibility and so any conclusion drawn on it is a non sequitar. qed

 

~Tippler

[Zythryn]

I realize that Turtle, but since Finchcliff seems to be ignoring those factors, I figured I would address the ones he raised.

[Finchcliff]

Would you mind explaining what the "similarities" are?

 

Sure each has an "angle" in it and a "curve" but the degree of the angles and the radius of the curves are significantly different.

 

And as freeztar pointed out, their ages are significantly different, so they could not have been caused by the same "event."

 

 

Buffy - I'm afraid I will have to strongly disagree with you regarding your comment "the degree of the angles and the radius of the curves are significantly different". They are not. In fact the actual Andes mountain range (not the coastline) and the west coast of Africa are almost identical. Superimposing one over the other does indeed result in a startling 'similarity'. If you can, take a look at page 112 of the pdf here and maybe you'll reconsider. Maybe not, though

[Turtle]

I realize that Turtle, but since Finchcliff seems to be ignoring those factors, I figured I would address the ones he raised.

 

good to hear you say it. ;) in general i find this reason to press the issue harder, not jump away to some other.

 

non sequitar is as non sequitar does. . . . . . .

[Buffy]

Maybe not, though ;)

 

You're right! Take a look!

 

I find that techniques that are a bit more sophisticated than squinting your eyes and hoping are more enlightening!

 

Eyes that see do not grow old,

Buffy

[Finchcliff]

I realize that Turtle, but since Finchcliff seems to be ignoring those factors, I figured I would address the ones he raised.

 

Sorry, Zythryn. I'm not ignoring what you are saying - I just don't have an answer. What I can't reconcile with the comments relating to the impossibility of an impactor passing through Earth is what is clearly visible - especially on the (clickable) detailed NOAA map of Earth. Dammit. It even looks like an exit event has taken place westwards from China.

 

The geology north of the Gulf Of Mexico supports the suggestion that an impactor passed underneath, forcing up the Earths crust. Following the 'route' of the geologic upheaval suggested, an 'exit' site can be found.

 

I understand what's being put forward as strong debunking evidence by Turtle et al., yet there they are; the obvious anomaly that is the Gulf Of Mexico (no-one has yet explained why it is not represented along the Mid Atlantic Ridge); the corresponding uplift of the Earth's crust in a northerly direction; the (suggested) impact event magma column remnants complete with 'sinew-like starnds' at the base (described as such in the pdf); a significant - in fact unique - depression where an associated exit event should have occured (the site of the Taklamakan Desert); additional geologic features west and south of the exit event that strongly resemble the magma column at the 'impact' site; a huge area of what does seem to be debris fallout to the west of the 'exit' site ...and those pesky 'profile similarities' of the Andes mountain range, the west coast of Africa and the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

 

..and there's more of the same, too.

 

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't - just yet - rush to agree with the debunkers.

[Moontanman]

This thread is so out there I am amazed it hasn't come down in flames. My support of Golds Deep Hot biosphere was shot down much quicker than this completely and totally impossible idea. The original idea of an impactor traveling through the earth and exiting is completely impossible. All things resulting from this idea are equally impossible!