The age of Hawaii

@livinglava,

Thanks Livinglava, I enjoyed that response.

PS just one item, the idea that a shock wave will travel through the earth and cause damage on the other side is based on one of the theories for why Mars is "lower" on one side than the other. It is theorized that a major impact on one side of Mars blew off the crust on the other side and blew it into space.

So the actual bolus (of Vredefort) will be a few hundred meters under the surface in SA. It is only the shockwave that travelled through the earth. The inside of the earth being liquid, makes this very plausible.

C

2 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

Thanks Livinglava, I enjoyed that response.

PS just one item, the idea that a shock wave will travel through the earth and cause damage on the other side is based on one of the theories for why Mars is "lower" on one side than the other. It is theorized that a major impact on one side of Mars blew off the crust on the other side and blew it into space.

So the actual bolus (of Vredefort) will be a few hundred meters under the surface in SA. It is only the shockwave that travelled through the earth. The inside of the earth being liquid, makes this very plausible.

So the meteor impact causes expanding spherical 'shells' like ripples in water, but which move away from the meteor impact in three dimensions?

So would you then think that the shockwave was so great that it blew off the crust like you describe with Mars, or do you just think it pushes the interior magma enough in that direction to start a mantle plume rising in that direction?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I think it actually blew a hole through the mantle, this created both the hotspot (a tunnel through the mantle) and the "bulge" below the mantle.

But that is just my uninformed view, and yes I based it on what I knew about the Mars theory.

C

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

PS just one item, the idea that a shock wave will travel through the earth and cause damage on the other side is based on one of the theories for why Mars is "lower" on one side than the other. It is theorized that a major impact on one side of Mars blew off the crust on the other side and blew it into space.

This is utter bullsh*t. There is an hypothesis that the impact which created the Hellas Basin in the southern hemisphere of Mars created the Tharsis Plateau, where three of the four giant volcanoes of Mars are found: Arsia Mons, Pavonis Mons and Ascreaus Mons. The only problem with that is that the planetesimal which created the Hellas Basin came in low and from the east. The evidence for this is that almost all of the ejecta is on the west side of the basin. So looking for a correspondence on the other side of the planet would not answer. Furthermore, the Tharsis Plateau sits astride the equator--Pavonis Mons, the middle of the three volcanoes, has the southern edge of its caldera right on the equator. I don't know where you got that BS (some youtube video?), but it's false. By the way, I can't think why you use the word bolus. This is how that word is defined by Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

1: a rounded mass: such as
a: a large pill
b: a soft mass of chewed food
2 medical
a: a dose of a substance (such as a drug) given intravenously
b: a large dose of a substance given by injection for the purpose of rapidly achieving the needed therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream

What, Mars got hit by a big pill? I think the word you wanted was bolide. Once again from Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

: a large meteor : FIREBALL
especially : one that explodes

There is an hypothesis for why a broad band in the northern hemisphere of Mars is from 10,000 to 20,000 feet lower than mean surface level in the southern hemisphere. It is called the "Big Hit" hypothesis. You can read about that in this article at Physic-dot-org.

You really came to the wrong site to post just any old BS that comes to mind when you make a review of odds and ends you picked up here and there.

1 Reply

There is a popular song - "They paved Mars and made it into a parking lot."

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is utter bullsh*t.

If you would just leave this aggressive introductory sentence out of your post, it would sound neutral in pleasant. Because you begin with vulgarity, it makes the whole post read like an aggressive rant.

Quote:

There is an hypothesis that the impact which created the Hellas Basin in the southern hemisphere of Mars created the Tharsis Plateau, where three of the four giant volcanoes of Mars are found: Arsia Mons, Pavonis Mons and Ascreaus Mons. The only problem with that is that the planetesimal which created the Hellas Basin came in low and from the east. The evidence for this is that almost all of the ejecta is on the west side of the basin. So looking for a correspondence on the other side of the planet would not answer.

Why couldn't an impact coming in at an angle produce both debris at the surface where it impacted, as well as penetrating down and sending shockwaves through the interior to the other side? Wouldn't it depend on the overall geometry of the impact?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Typical LL bullsh*t. (I hope you found that aggressive.) The planetesimal that created the Hellas Basin, as I've pointed out, came in low and from the east. (Most, although by no means all, objects in the solar system move from left to right, from west to east.) We know this about the impact which created the Hellas Basin (you apparently weren't paying attention when you read my post) precisely because the overwhelming majority of the ejecta are on the west side of the basin. It can reasonably be inferred that the planetesimal came in low because there is no ejecta on the east side of the impact basin.

Really, you seem to think that you can just idly muse about something and come up with an explanation. So, hotshot, show where the alleged shock wave had an undeniably obvious effect on the surface of the planet.

This is an image of the Barringer meteor crater in Arizona. It came almost straight down onto the surface of our planet. Even more than three quarters of a million years later, one can see that the ejecta were evenly distributed around the crater.

https://anotherimg-dazedgroup.netdna-ssl.com/900/azure/another-prod/340/5/345708.jpg

The planetesimal which created the Hellas Basin was about 140 miles in diameter--the basin is 1400 miles from east to west, and astronomers consider a 10 to 1 ration of crater diameter to impact object diameter to be reasonable. It is harder to show the difference between the crater and the surrounding terrain, because the impact was about four billion years ago, and objects have been hammering Mars ever since.

But once again, if you're so clever, point out what surface feature on Mars is unambiguously the product of the Hellas impact. Put up or shut up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Typical LL bullsh*t. (I hope you found that aggressive.)

Not only do I find it aggressive, I have the impulse to bark back at you like another dog; and I suffer that much more having to repress that bark-back urge and maintain polite demeanor instead.

If you cared about others reading what you sh*t out of your obnoxious mind/mouth on the internet, you would have some empathy and refrain from posting provocative vulgarities.

Quote:

The planetesimal that created the Hellas Basin, as I've pointed out, came in low and from the east. (Most, although by no means all, objects in the solar system move from left to right, from west to east.) We know this about the impact which created the Hellas Basin (you apparently weren't paying attention when you read my post) precisely because the overwhelming majority of the ejecta are on the west side of the basin. It can reasonably be inferred that the planetesimal came in low because there is no ejecta on the east side of the impact basin.

Isn't there an angle of impact that would only push surface material in one direction, but which could still penetrate deep enough and send out a shockwave that would go all the way through the interior?

Quote:

Really, you seem to think that you can just idly muse about something and come up with an explanation. So, hotshot, show where the alleged shock wave had an undeniably obvious effect on the surface of the planet.

I can think about topics and ask questions. I question your point because I think you too casually and uncritically assume that ejecta on one side of a crater and not the other unequivocally proves none of the energy from the impact could have resonated through the interior as a shockwave.

In short, your assumptions are assumptive and not grounded. You back them up by adding insults as punctuation to you claim.

Quote:

This is an image of the Barringer meteor crater in Arizona. It came almost straight down onto the surface of our planet. Even more than three quarters of a million years later, one can see that the ejecta were evenly distributed around the crater.

You are assuming that there are only two possibilities:
1) straight down and through; or
2) at an angle and not through
What about:
3) and an angle and through?

Quote:

The planetesimal which created the Hellas Basin was about 140 miles in diameter--the basin is 1400 miles from east to west, and astronomers consider a 10 to 1 ration of crater diameter to impact object diameter to be reasonable.

Doesn't it ultimately depend on the momentum of the impact and/or the makeup/shape/density of the meteor as it hits?

Quote:

But once again, if you're so clever, point out what surface feature on Mars is unambiguously the product of the Hellas impact. Put up or shut up.

I don't know that much about it, but I can read what you or anyone else says about such things and ask questions without "putting up or shutting up."

Questions shouldn't be taken as fight-provocations. They are opportunities to think further and engage in critical discussion about a topic.

When you take questions as fight-provocations, it makes you seem like a liar who is trying to protect a lie from being discovered. If you are really interested in the truth, you just admit that what you think is the best you can figure out so far based on what you've studied, and then you welcome critical questions and give serious thought to answering them, either because you can based on what you already know, or because you are figuring out what further information you would need to address them.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

scholarship doesnt involve "empathy" Its all about evidence and facts.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Show where the alleged shock wave had its effect. Put up or shut up. I have zero empathy for you because you run your big mouth and whine when people slap you down for it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

scholarship doesnt involve "empathy" Its all about evidence and facts.

I'm not talking about anything scholarly you wrote in your post.

I'm talking about the liberty you take in tossing in your personal obscenities, which you seem to feel you have the right to do as some kind of privilege that comes with posting something relevant.

It's like having a smart consultant who nevertheless sh*ts in your office because he thinks he's worthy of doing so.

Why can't you just clean up your language and not offend people? Is it that important to you to post obscenities? I use "BS" all the time, but I just leave it as letters. Potty mouth is not pleasant to listen to.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Show where the alleged shock wave had its effect. Put up or shut up. I have zero empathy for you because you run your big mouth and whine when people slap you down for it.

It's quite obvious that you lack empathy; but don't worry, someone with the power to hurt you with a similar lack of empathy will reach your heart one day and you will weep in sorrow for all the empathy you've withheld in your cruel power trip you indulged in.

I don't have to show anything because it wasn't my claim. I read the OP's claim, which you refuted, so I was trying to critically evaluate your claim to see if I should in fact reject his.

What you want is to post some aggressive rude trash talk and have readers automatically accept what you are saying and thus disregard the possibility that another poster might be right and you wrong, but that's only how it works for people who stop thinking when they're scared of questioning someone whose not afraid to use obscenities in their posts.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Keep your snotty remarks to yourself. I have empathy, for thsoe who genuinely deserve it. You don't.

If you think I'm wrong, show where the alleged shock wave had its effect. Put up or shut up.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Keep your snotty remarks to yourself. I have empathy, for thsoe who genuinely deserve it. You don't.

Who are you to judge who genuinely deserve empathy or not. You just take the liberty of hating whomever you want to have an outlet for your uncontrolled hate.

Why should I keep my 'snotty remarks' to myself when you can't leave the obscenities out of your posts? You think you deserve me censoring what you don't want to hear while you just spout whatever obscenity you feel like?

Quote:

If you think I'm wrong, show where the alleged shock wave had its effect. Put up or shut up.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You failed to explain why there are only two possibilities 1) straight-down impact with deep penetration; or 2) angled impact without deep penetration.

Did you know there are 180 degrees in a semi-circle? That's a lot of different possible angles of impact.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The hell of it is, we do have some really strong theories about the 3 major mi Pacific hotspots that seem to all take a 37 degree turn and all date around atime from 81 to 4.5 million years ago. Weve been able to seismically locate a shallow core thermal anomaly and the movements of the pacific plates. Everything here posted by OP and whatever Ll is talking about is not a "theory" its sorta like stuffing LOTR with some science so as to "sound like ones been scientifically analyzing this". Yet since the days of J Tuzo Wilson and the more recent lit I recommended,(Rogers and Santosh), there has been some really good work on the implacement of several hotspots, including the Emperor/Hawaiian, yet all we seem to be harvesting here is rancor because somepeoplle want to play with geology without anything other than"I have this idea, but I have no evidence, can I find someone to agree with me?"
Im kinda disgusted at what weve turned out in many of our schools , and mistake what passes for analysis and critical thinking.
I can unerstand our President thinking like this, but in his case I defer to what R Tillerson said of him>

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The hell of it is, we do have some really strong theories about the 3 major mi Pacific hotspots that seem to all take a 37 degree turn and all date around atime from 81 to 4.5 million years ago. Weve been able to seismically locate a shallow core thermal anomaly and the movements of the pacific plates. Everything here posted by OP and whatever Ll is talking about is not a "theory" its sorta like stuffing LOTR with some science so as to "sound like ones been scientifically analyzing this". Yet since the days of J Tuzo Wilson and the more recent lit I recommended,(Rogers and Santosh), there has been some really good work on the implacement of several hotspots, including the Emperor/Hawaiian, yet all we seem to be harvesting here is rancor because somepeoplle want to play with geology without anything other than"I have this idea, but I have no evidence, can I find someone to agree with me?"
Im kinda disgusted at what weve turned out in many of our schools , and mistake what passes for analysis and critical thinking.
I can unerstand our President thinking like this, but in his case I defer to what R Tillerson said of him>

It's that there is a disconnect between public interest, critical thinking, and access to expert information.

Ask yourself why it is the the information you mention from the books that you mention is not available in the same way the information that the OP posted or the information I got from Youtube Physicsgirl.

Obviously Physicsgirl and the people in her video were putting in effort to make good information publicly available were doing THEIR jobs . . .

But what about someone like you who seems to know what they're talking about, yet who only cites sources that are available to paid subscribers and/or to people who enroll in and/or pay to attend universities?

If the point of academia is to create a more educated, informed, and intelligent public; are they really doing enough by keeping to themselves in the ivory tower and only coming out to criticize people like us who are doing the best we can with the information available to us?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

you often have to disconnect rom the DOT COM world and visit a libraries facilities. All those papers I mntioned are available if , when read, there was alrady a foundation of the basic knowledge of that science. like" Hot spots can be mapped wrt midocan ridges an landward fractures. The "Hot spots we talk of manifest some degree of deformation. (The understanding of which is usually given at a scond term geology program)

There was really NOTHING that your physics girl said that eviated from what I said, you just seem to have a bug up your ass to pick a fight with a retired geology tacher.
If you understood how we can map with seismic traces and how we have , for years, known the structure of the core mantle boundaries youd not ask so many irrrational questions. When you ask an rrational question and then go into a rant when you dont like what I tell you, dont make me the bad guy. Set started out in scholarly fahion to which you reacted irrationally. I think your problems may go beyond your worldview.
You wish to have your worldview argued on an equal footing with science. AINT GONNA HPPEN, when you pick up subjects and , because our understanding is at an elementary level, you start insulting those who , to you , sound rude but are only tht way becau you dlivr a basic denial of the answers youd gotten. You hve left a trail of consistent denial of basic knowledge here on a2k, and you continue to poorly defend your poitions with neither evidence nor good solid facts .
Your use of qord salad technique is easily seen through and , after 1 or 2 ttempts at setting your unerstanding strait, I found that you jut get more and more childlike and petulant.

I unerstand you are a senior citizen (from reading a another post). All I can do is hope you dont dismiss the writings of some of th giant of our field and like the OP, state that "not many geologists know what Im t;lking about"

We dismiss thoughts of a moon made of green cheese , or a planet where events 2 billion years apart can have mutual cause and effect relationships. We dismiss the first of these in our pre academic years and , the second, early in them.

Ive read how youve been insulting others (most recently set, who has apparently been doing several other things while he was mentally eviscerating you.) Your MO is that, as academic discussions proceed you feel that you deserve some kind of thinking "alike" . It doesnt work that way. If you cannot learn from somone calling your mistakes, but instead begin to whine and name call and insult. Then your going to hve to endure critical analyses used against you. So, you will need to larn to deal with it all cause noone is going to give you a pass when you keep coming up with rather vapid arguments.
gday again

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

If the point of academia is to create a more educated, informed, and intelligent public; are they really doing enough by keeping to themselves in the ivory tower and only coming out to criticize people like us who are doing the best we can with the information available to us?

Youre whining again. When I was early doing an MS inchemistry I wa 19 and I was working 12 hours a day as a lab tech in a med lab. I badlyflunked my first test cause I underestimated what I needed to know and only had a low set of skills. Nobody jumpd in and pitied me cause I neededrent mony in Conncticut. My advisor told me to apply for a fellowship and get a cheaper apartment but just keep up with the work or get out. I learned that, if I needed a friend in science, I should get a dog. SO I sorta took his advice and aced the course. My advisor taught the core courses in analytical analyses and micro sampling. He just figured I could do it but needed the discipline of how highr ed works.You are all you got so dont be wasting time on silly hypotheses that you should have learned the case against much earlier . He called me a collague hen he handed me my degree and we bcame great friends till his death 10 yars ago
Your problem is based on assuming the internet is based on truth. trouble with the internet is everyone is a genius in their own mind. Ive workd with REAL geniuses and am always impressed t how great the good ones are . I hadda work harder but when I finished, I quickly passed many of those self aggrandizing ones who would never make a right turn and give up their original hypotheses and start over. Theyd wind up quitting and settle , saying that every one else was wrong, not them.

As far as a "well informed public", I really have no interest in that. Im a teacher of a professional core, not a bunch of hobbyists who collect rocks or memorize names of faults. If you dont accept the discipline needed, and want to contribute, youre a hobbyist, nd Id suggest you join a geology club where there are mentors of HS retired earth science teachers who know about geology, wather, cosmology etc.

2 Replies

Livinglava, just give it up, some people are just too clever to have a rational conversation with the likes of us. Sigh!!!!

Let me tackle one or two items. An early theory for the unique geology of Mars postulated that an impact near the South pole caused a shock wave which blew off enough matter from the North side of the planet to create the two close moons of Mars.

Yes, this theory has been superseded by a more robust and probably more likely proposal. That is irrelevant. The point here is that scientists were quite comfortable with the CONCEPT that the shock wave of an impact COULD cause enormous amounts of matter to be ejected from the opposite side of the planet!!! And that is all that I was referring to. Science recognizes that impacts can cause shockwaves to travel through a planet. Therefore it is an acceptable scientific theory!!!!

Farmerman has no intention of discussing the matter, all he does is to keep telling me to do more research. Then we get a guy telling me NOT to pose silly theories here? Really!! And I thought this was a DISCUSSION FORUM!!!! Obviously my interpretation of what a discussion looks like differ from other people's perceptions. I must be really dumb.

I have news for you guys. You haven't shaken my belief in my theory by one whit. Not that you care, or should care now is it?

C

T

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I would love to hear what you think about Eric Weinstein...
Here check this interview:

0 Replies

The age of Hawaii

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know