Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 34702

Directory

> This is a gross misattribution.  None of the participants in
> this thread has denied that such impacts occur or that they
> have dramatic effects.  The argument has been over the
> specific effects claimed by RDB.    C.K.
My argument is that large impacts occur, that they produce large effects on
Earth like they have on other planets, and that they are the principal
cause of biological and geological change on Earth.  The Hawaii impact
illustrates this so nicely because it is the most recent very large impact
on Earth.  Impacts have performed a comprehensible role in the formation of
the planet, a comprehensible role in the creation of continental crust, a
comprehensible role in mountain building on Earth, a comprehensible role in
oceanic crustal motions, a comprehensible role in the creation of life on
Earth, and a comprehensible reason to establish an Earth Protection System
instead of using our space-related resources to go off on a multi-billion
dollar hunt for fossilized bacteria on Mars (which are actually from
Earth)!  I've been polite to those who have been polite to me.  I've
doubled the ante for anyone who has been rude or foolish.  RDB.
> 
> >(2) Your response was that it would require a 500 km diameter impactor
to
> >do the job.  Any focus on the impactor's "diameter" as a PRIMARY
attribute
> >is less than adequate (except for defining Phys 101 problems for
> >individuals who have no comprehension of the energetics of large
impacts). RDB, previous post.
> 
> More sloppy distortion.  He outlined his calculation of the amount of
energy
> needed to produce the effects RDB claimed, and gave an impactor
> diameter and velocity that would be a plausible source of that
> amount of energy. C.K.
I've already responded to his impactor diameter calculation (he grossly
over-estimates the size needed).  He did not provide a plausible
description of the velocity factor, which has a square function consequence
for the kinetic energy (given the constraints on the size).  Of all the
people who are contributing to this post, Jim Head is the only one (I know
of) who actually deals with the larger dimensions and properties of the
cosmos.  He understands that there really ARE 500 km diameter impactors out
there as well as 10 km impactors moving very very fast relative to the
solar system.  Instead of using his very substantial brains and hard-won
knowledge, he tried to limit the situation to an implausible set of
circumstances by mis-quoting me and taking my comments out of context.   
> >(3) There is no other reasonable explanation (other than an impact) for
the
> >organization of the peri-Pacific Mountains as a near perfect circle. 
> 
> They don't form a "near-perfect" circle now and didn't 65 million
> years ago, unless one uses an odd definition of "near".
Simply not true.  One CAN pass a single plane through 80% of ALL of the
mountains named and explain all other "off the circle" ranges by reference
to the Earth's non-spherical geoid, the close-in pre-impact position of the
Australian-Indian continental plate, and the global tectonic motions that
have occurred in the time since the impact occurred.  Give me your
explanation for the central plate position of the Rockies and the
edge-of-plate position for the Andes using a common mechanism.  The impact
model does this well, and provides internally consistent explanations for
many other observations and mechanisms that are not explained using
alternative models of Earth's geophysical behavior, to say nothing of the
"incidental" origin of life mechanisms explained using the same theoretical
mechanisms.  This is how it should be because life is Earth's most
distinctive and GEOLOGICALLY-RELEVANT attribute.  Geologists should demand
that everyone understand that life WAS created from the "dust of the
Earth".  The TLL reveals an internally consistent physical explanation for
HOW this did, in fact, occur.  RDB  
> 
> >Mountain SYSTEMS on planets forming perfect circles must be considered
> >impact artifacts until proven otherwise.  RDB, prior post.
> 
> There's plenty of proof, but some of us choose to ignore it.
This is because of your concerns, which I share, re matters beyond the
realm or province of scientific equerry.  RDB
> 
> Much of the Rocky Mountain uplift, for example, took place some
> twenty million years after the end of the Cretaceous. CK
No doubt about it.  I just doubt the usefulness of the rock dates (as
presently employed) in making these time-linked estimates. RDB
> 
> >> Incidently, the energy one can store "tectonically" is limited by the
> >> strength of rocks.  CK, prior post.
> >
> >Every impact that occurs weakens the "strength" of the rocks. RDB,
earlier post.
> 
> All the more reason to doubt whether there is any such reservoir
> of elastic potential energy.  CK
Are you denying that the plates are rigid structures?  RDB
> 
> >The plasma
> >deposition technique of the TLL forms the densest, strongest rock known
> >(this "rock forming" technique is being studied as a way to preserve
> >nuclear wastes). RDB
> 
> I don't believe it.  Vitrification research for nuclear waste
> disposal relies on heating in conventional furnaces or by
> electromagnetic induction.  Plasma deposition would be outlandishly
> expensive, aside from the fact that it's incapable of producing
> rocks or dense glasses. CK
It is strange, the limits we have gone to in our efforts to deal with
nuclear wastes.  All that I can tell you is that I have read the proposals
in the past and, no, it isn't worth my time or your time to go find the
references.  As for the last clause of your last sentence of the last
paragraph: you're simply wrong.  Hard rock-like materials can be made via
plasma deposition and it is a very inefficient way to dispose of nuclear
wastes.  RDB
> 
> >The observed limiting magnitude of earthquakes is
> >> consistent with this theoretical point.  
> >
> >Most modern earthquakes reflect the gravitational relaxation that is
> >occurring as a consequence of the Hawaii impact.  The relaxation is
> >occurring around/along fracture zones created by that impact.  RDB
> 
> If this were the case, there would be a recognizable isostatic
> gravity anomaly covering half the planet.  It isn't there. CK
Please explain this better, I don't understand what you're asserting. 
Sounds interesting.  I have the best possible sources for Earth's known
gravitational anomalies using 58 orbital mechanical parameters.  Please
restate the effect you expect and how/where you think it should be located.
 RDB
> 
> >You have done the calculation?  CK or JH?
> 
> Plenty of people have, and published the results.  It's not very
> complicated. CK
See response below. RDB
> 
> >No, just the estimate.  Most of the time I'm either seeing patients or
in
> >the lab doing my "origin of life" work (impact fusion of mononucleotides
in
> >iron matrix to cause polymerizations and magnetite formation, see other
> >posts this board).  The accurate calculation of the energy requires far
> >more time than you or I have available to us in this life.  RDB
> 
> All you'd have to do would be to multiply the strength of the
> rock by the area of the hypothetical fault surface.  Such a
> calculation was referred to in the article you responded to.
OK, how strong was the Earth's continental rock prior to the Hawaii impact?
 What is the lateral viscosity of the rock residing beneath the continental
plates?  What is the variability for both of these parameters for all of
the plates adjusted for site-specific geoidal non-conformities?  I don't
think the calculation is that simple.  It is not impossible to do using a
(very large) matrix of assumptions.  The group best positioned to do this
(because they have the best reasons to do so) would be the United Nations
sponsored folks over at SAIC and the Center for Seismic Monitoring in
Arlington who are charged with the development of a global seismic
monitoring system for the precise localization of nuclear weapons
explosions as part of the verification program for the Reagan-Gorbachov
SALT agreements.  It is my understanding that the existing multi-billion
dollar system doesn't perform to specs.... but this is getting into the
science of politics and the politics of science...  RDB
Robert D. Brown, M.D.

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Giuliano Carlini wrote:
>
> Did Pangaea exist for a "real long time" and then
> suddenly break up. If so, why didn't plate tectonics
> break it up sooner? If not, what happened?
>
> So, were the continents apart before Pangaea, and only
> through chance crashed together for a while before they
> broke up again?
>
> It seems kind of weird that the continents should by
> chance come crashing together into Pangaea. The chances
> of that seem remote. On the other hand, the chances
> for Pangaea existing for a long time and then breaking
> up seem even more remote.
>
>
>
Yes, the continents were apart before Pangea (the spelling differs
depending on the source). In fact they came together more often than that
also.
There's a very interesting article on the subject of a somewhat old copy
of Scientific American that your local librarian might be able to help you
find. The magazine issue is Jan. 1995. The article was calld "Earth Before
Pangea" and was written by Ian W.D. Dalziel. The article has a pretty
detailed illustration of where the continents were at different times.
Good luck!
Bonnie

--- quoting in part, SCIENCE 13SEP96, pp1524-1527 ---
Iridium in Natural Waters
 Iridium, commonly used as a tracer of extraterrestrial material, was
measured in rivers, oceans, and an estuarine environment. The
concentration of iridium in the oceans ranges from 3.0 (+-1.3) x 10^8
to 5.7 (+-0.8) x 10^8 atoms per kilogram. Rivers contain from 17.4
(+-0.9) x 10^8 to 92.9 (+-2.2) x 10^8 atoms per kilogram and supply
more dissolved iridium to the oceans than do extraterrestrial sources.
In the Baltic Sea, ~75% of riverine iridium is removed from solution.
Iron-manganese oxyhydroxides scavenge iridium under oxidizing
conditions, but anoxic environments are not a major sink for iridium.
The ocean residence time of iridium is between 2 x 10^3 and 2 x 10^4
years.
.......
... Iridium is less abundant in seawater than Pt, Pd, Ru, Rh, Os, or Au
(15,17). Apparently, Ir is the rarest stable element in the oceans.
.........
... A large amount of organic material enters the Baltic Sea as humic
substances in river waters, and about 75% of this material accumulates
in sediments in brackish waters (13). The similarity between this
figure and the removal of riverine Ir suggests a connection between Ir
and organics.
.......
...The similarity of the ratio of 232Th to Ir in oxic and anoxic waters
(Fig. 3) indicates that Ir and Th are not strongly fractionated by this
process and implies that Ir is as particle-reactive as Th. If true,
this is a surprising result.
--- end quoting in part, SCIENCE 13SEP96, pp1524-1527 ---
  I wrote a long time ago, 1995, that there needs to be a detailed
science reporting of iridium poisoning for the KT extinction. Of course
that extinction was multifactorial, still, the role played by iridium
poisoning , however small is an important factor to know. Science
leaves no holes in its quest for knowledge, total knowledge, not
partial knowledge.
  I am glad to see some researchers report on iridium. It is helpful,
although no discussion of the toxicity of Ir or the other PGE such as
Os was given in this report. Maybe someone can supply a detailed report
of PGE metal toxicity in water. Could it also be that some of these PGE
metals made dinosaur eggs nonviable, just in a drink of water? As I
said before, the KT extinction was a multifactor cause and even if PGE
poisoning did not kill all the dinosaurs, perhaps it killed a number of
them. 
  Recently a science report was given about the Permian extinctions
caused largely due to a CO2 suffocation of the oceans and waters. And
the Permian extinction was a more widespread extinction than was the
KT.
  Is it possible that the KT extinction in the waters was contributed
by both a CO2 and iridium suffocation?
  Bravo, that scientists are answering these questions.

In article 
rayvt@comm.mot.com (Ray Van Tassle) writes:
>Why would you expect them to think about this any more than you would
>expect a dentist to do so?  Ever heard about division of labor?  Nobody
>has the time/interest/expertise to "think seriously" about every possible
>topic!
Why shouldn't dentists think seriously about ethics, morality, religion,
etc.? Or lawyers, sportstars, musicians, housewives, accountants, or
anyone? These are, by definition, areas involving one's own soul,
character, being; letting the specialists worry about those issues
isn't going to do a bit of good. This isn't like building a highway or
develop a new vaccine: the many will not benefit from the work of a
few in morality, ethics, philosophy. In order to benefit, one has to
put in the work and thought oneself.
>> Science is neither above or below religion, anymore than golf is above
>or below bowling.
I don't know if a person who takes religion seriously could make that
statement. After all, science deals with the physical world, religion
with the spiritual. If one believes that both worlds exist, and respects
them equally, I don't know if one could put the physical world on
equal footing with the spiritual.
>> Can scientific
>> inquiry not even be informed by religion and philosophy? Are scientists
>> to be the only ones who have a say as to which direction scientific
>> research should move in?
>Actually, YES.  Whoever does the work gets a strong say in what he does.
>If "religious leaders" (or whatever) want research in certain areas, they
>are free to do (or fund) that research.
>Note, however, that choosing a direction to research in does NOT allow you
>to pick what the answers of that research will be!
I think I need to clarify/change my statement. It might not be wise to
allow the philosophers and theologians to choose the route of the
research (since, as several people have pointed out, they don't have the
scientific expertise), but I think it would always be wise to include
spiritual and philosophical questions along with the scientific ones.
Yes, that might be a difficult or impossible task for a single person,
but this debate is leading me to believe that there needs to be greater
communication and cooperation among scientists, philosophers, and
theologians.
>
>> But where did
>> man's curiosity about the origins of the universe come from? Religion
>> and philosophy. The same goes for the probing into the nature of
>> life.
>I think you have it backwards.  I think it's that religion/philosophy came
>from man's curiosity about himself and the world.
Ah, but now we're to the question, "Where did man's curiosity come from?"
>
>"The mistake is often made that science explains, or endeavors to explain,
>phenomena.  But that is the business of philosophy.  The task science
>attempts is the simpler one of the correlation of natural phenomena, and
>in this effort leaves the ultimate problem of metaphysics untouched."
>   Dr. H. Stanley Redgrove
A good quote.
>Morals ARE in the area of expertise/study of religion/philosophy.  Morals
>are the study of how people should behave and live their lives in
>interacting with other people.  This has NOTHING to do with the questions
>of science (what happens if you drop a feather and a rock from a tall
>tower).  It has EVERYTHING to do with how one should behave (what happens
>to the human community if people help themselves to to the property of
>others).
That's a fairly, well, ambiguous definition of morals. I'm really
cautious about putting morals so close to sociology and psychology.
Furthermore, scientific statements do include _implicit_ statements
of what proper behavior is. I've never seen a psychology textbook
that can describe behavior in truly neutral terms. There always seems to
be a strong bias towards extrovertion, for instance. While that
may not be a "hard science," it is a science.
Mike Hickerson

On 12 Sep 1996, Brian P. Oliver wrote:
> In <32359329.5BE2@cadvision.com> Steve Cummings
>  writes:
> >
> >> Learn how to make "Kufta"
I am sorry, but whatta hell is kifta preparation is doing here? By the
way, Kifta is Azerbaijani food and not Armenian, so that you know.
    A      BBBB    CCC       Adil Baguirov
   A A     B   B  C          University of Southern California
  AAAAA    BBBB   C
 A     A   B   B  C          baguirov@scf.usc.edu
A	A  BBBB	   CCC	     baguirov@aludra.usc.edu
			     http://www-scf.usc.edu/~baguirov/

     A group promoting the gradual adoption and greater use of some
simpler spellings is the Simplified Spelling Society.  You can visit
their Web site at:
          http://www.les.aston.ac.uk/simplspel.html
     The organization has a current proposal, and is also asking for
ideas and opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Kimball
cornell3@ix.netcom.com
-----------------------------------------------------
"What is the real function, the essential function,
 the supreme function of language?  Isn't it merely
 to convey ideas and emotions?"
      -- Mark Twain

Random Thoughts:
Circular basins produced by very large impacts, such as the Orientale
basin, tend to show two sets of impact fractures. Concentric rings and
radial spokes that diverge from the foci of the impact. The oceanic
lithosphere on Earth is charaterized by spreading ridges and transform
faults tha laterally offset these spreading zones due to local
differences in the rate of magma production and perhaps other
geometric considerations I am unaware of. The margins of the oceanic
plates are usually thrusted underneath less dense sialic continental
crust, as you already know. Occasionally portions of oceanic
lithosphere along with the sedimentary wedge along the continental
margin overthrust the continental plate (abduction). Numerous theories
as to why this is sometimes the case, how graywacke melange
assemblages, and how other exotic terrains become abducted have
emerged. These tectonic models usually appeal to thrust angles and
rates of subduction. They sometimes get complex and are forced to make
special appeals.
The most spectacular debates surround the origins of serpentinites.
One of these days I'll get around to following up on this thought..
Ophiolites, which include thick crosssectional representation of
oceanic crust along with depleted mantle material occure along the
"suture" zones (a thrusted exotic terrain associated with an orogeny).
Do other planetary surfaces, the moon for example, that have circular
mountain systems that rim impact sites, show evidence of plate
mechanics as spectacular as these. I saw photograpghs of Venus
(although I've never been there personally) that showed landforms,
that appeared to me to visually resemble metamorphic belts (regional
features produced by tectonic thrusting). I think my professor said,
"yeah..uh right.." when I pointed it out (not that he necessarily was
violently opposed to the idea).

Hi.
My name is Ray, and I am looking for some answers for my questions.
1.   Based on what evidence scientist believe that the core of the
earth is full of iron and nickol.
2.   What makes the earth spin around itself.
3.   Why does the earth spin in its given orbit around the sun.
If you know any of these answers, please e.mail them to my address and
type your name or nickname along with your profession.
Thanks.

> No exotic assumptions are needed to answer my question.  The impact
> model as presented by RDB says that the 65 MYBP impact caused an
> abrupt movement of the Pacific Ocean crust away from the impact.
> If it moved away far enough to shove mountains up several miles,
> there'd have to be a hole at the spot it moved away from.  I
> don't know where there is such a scar in the plate.
SEE PRIOR POST, RDB
> 
> >I believe that there has been a uniformitarian "bias" in geology that
has
> >allowed some researchers to comment re impacts in a sporadic manner, but
> >prevent anyone from fully integrating the consequences of these
> >"non-linear" events into a cohesive and comprehensive understanding. 
> 
> But impact events by their very nature OCCUR spoadically.  Their well-
> accepted effects are superimposed on the continuous processes that
> we can see in action today.CK
I don't see "Hawaii: Tombstone of the Dinosaurs" and all of its
implications out there in any of the existing "accepted" models.  This is
why we are having this prolonged discourse.  BTW, the interval between very
large Hawaii-style impacts should be getting longer because of the
expansion of the universe and the temporal/statistical effect this has on
solar system interactions with supernovae debris spheres. RDB
> 
> >Within this context, my response to the above is this:  there has been a
> >net movement of Pacific oceanic crust from the southeast to the
northwest,
> >a movement of crust that has almost completely erased the effects of the
> >Hawaii impact from the floor of the Pacific Ocean.  RDB, prior post.
> 
> There are plenty of rocks available to be examined on the sea
> floor both older than and younger than this supposed event.  There
> is no dramatic event recorded where they adjoin.  In short,
> if the evidence for this event ever existed on the sea floor, it
> would still be available for study. CK
IT IS CALLED HAWAII!!!!  The evidence is in the peri-Pacific Mountains and
the "outside-the-rim" distribution of dinosaur fossils in sedimentary
rocks.  RDB
> 
> >The volcanic Hawaiian Emperor Chain is the proof that this crustal
motion
> >has occurred.  RDB, prior post.
> 
> Your acceptance of this movement conflicts with your claim that
> an impact occurred at the present site of Hawaii to cause the
> effects you describe.  CK
Not at all, how is this so?  I do still occasionally muse about a string of
impact craters ending at Hawaii, but always talk myself out of it.  (There
are arguments/observations consistent with this notion, but I don't really
want to get into those at this point in time). You have, however,
identified an interesting area for discussion much later down this road. 
Even I can only tolerate so much "revolution".  We can still talk relative
time (sequences) for now, absolute time later.  RDB
> 
> >The impact of a large,
> >fast-moving iron asteroid at this site explains why the Hawaiian magma
is
> >literally streaked with iron, has a net iron content much higher than
the
> >Pacific rim volcanoes, why the magma is iridium-enriched, and why the
> >mantle spot from which this magma erupts is highly regionalized over the
> >course of many millions of years.  RDB, prior post.
> 
> This doesn't answer the question of why the enrichment in iron and
> iridium would be so high when the material from the impactor has
> been diluted several thousandfold.  I find the conventional
> explanations for differences in volcanic rock compositions to be
> more convincing. CK
OK, what was the concentration of iridium in the asteroid/rock that created
Hawaii?  How do your "more convincing" explanations explain the
mid-continental position of the Rockies?  How do they fit into the origin
of life on Earth?  These TLL/CME/Hawaii models provide integrated and
internally consistent explanations for these process that otherwise seem
unrelated, even though we know they ARE related.  RDB
> 
> >It also provides an integrative route to
> >the reality that the cosmos is filled with potential impactors and
actual
> >impactors. RDB, prior post.
> 
> Again, I've never heard anyone deny that this is the case. CK
No, just that they don't happen to collide with Earth, or that there is no
evidence that they have collided with Earth, or that Hawaii is the
consequence of a deep mantle plume, or that land on Earth wasn't created by
a stunningly large impact. I do think there are several modest differences
between my models and the one's you find "more convincing".  I think you're
just unfamiliar with some of these concepts but that when you fully grasp
them, you'll find them very useful in many other geological circumstances. 
We haven't hardly touched on the "other" mountain systems of the Earth. 
RDB
> 
> >The original "scar" in the oceanic crust was probably not much larger
than
> >the impactor itself because the oceanic crust will not readily propagate
> >the shock forces.  RDB, prior post.
> 
> Then you don't have a mechanism for abrupt subduction of enough oceanic
> lithosphere to raise the mountain chains. CK
See the: "A Brain Teaser" post for my response to this.  RDB
> 
> >The debris that was formed by the impactors penetration
> >of the crust would have been the very "first" material to have been
dumped
> >into the Aleutian Trench,  RDB, prior post.
> 
> So the debris from the impact all fell on the trenches, leaving a bare
> sprinkling of tektites on the Pacific Ocean floor. CK
As I previously noted, the "tektites" argument was a cheep shot on my part.
 Having said this, yes, that's basically correct.  RDB
> 
> >Please note that the Pacific
> >Plate DOES have a "sinking" effect immediately over the Hawaiian hot
spot. RDB, prior post.
> 
> Caused by the weight of the Hawaiian Islands pressing down on the
> lithosphere on which they're built. CK
If one neglects Newton's laws and orbital mechanic considerations in the
extremely complex calculations, your explanation works. I have previously
stated that the surface defect was not large (your stipulation/assumption),
most of the energy transitions occur below the level of the crust, and the
transitions occurring above oceanic crust level are largely isotropic and
due to the effects of water pushing on the oceanic plates and continental
shorelines. RDB 
> 
> >See all of the above.  The impact perforation scar was probably a
roundish
> >structure not much larger than the impactor itself.  RDB, prior post.
> 
> This contradicts every model extant about how a meteor impact affects
> a planet's surface.  It's also very different from what one
> would expect on the basis of observations of astroblemes on the Earth
> as well as on the Moon and on other planets. CK
We're talking oceanic impacts, Chuck.  The impact in the Congo that
fractured Pangaea was a land-based impact.  The other structures to which
you have referred here do not have huge oceans of water on their surfaces
that dramatically change the whole situation.  One cannot explain a Pacific
Ocean impact using the Moon as one's reference (except to contrast the
differences as I am and have been all along).  Are you ready to discuss the
fracturing of Pangaea and the mountains THAT impact created?  RDB
> 
> It still doesn't explain what replaced the oceanic crust that was
> abruptly subducted. CK
The lateral (mostly east-west) motions of the oceanic basalts causes their
under-surfaces to melt.  This dense, degassed, basalt flows back toward the
impact site (usually in a path parallel to a line of latitude), forming a
MORB by the collision of the magma fronts moving in opposite directions.  I
went into detail on this subject in an earlier post to "Scott". RDB
Robert D. Brown, M.D.

In article <324a8d8a.87070460@news.nrl.navy.mil>, cherkis@hp8c.nrl.navy.mil (Cherkis) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 18:28:46 +0200, Olaf Janssen
> wrote:
>
>>l.s,
>>
>>I would like to know the following:
>>
>>are there any places on Earth, where 4 or more countries (or states) 
>>have a commom borderpoint.
>
As far as  states goes...Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah all meet at 
one point (called "4 Corners" of course).