Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by iaee, Dec 16, 2008.
It requires installation.. can't you just take screenshot for us...?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
'The asteroid hitting the earth and stopping is a theory'
It should be noted that like all theories, the one you quote also started out as a hypothesis.
Pay attention - I am beginning to put forward the evidence!
From what I understand, you are saying that the impact site is the entire Gulf of Mexico and Carribean Sea region, and the exit site is in South America, which forms the Andes mountain ranges. Is that correct?
I have a question.. so there were 2 objects.. the earth and a high-speed solid object with diameter around gulf of mexico.. given the earth is not fixed onto something, why didn't it work like 2 bilyard balls?
how long is a bilyard?
Inzomnia: I think our posts must have crossed - have you seen my earlier explanation? If it wasn't clear enough, the impactor entered Earth at a shallow angle, travelling at high speed under the crust directly underneath what is now North America (western side). The upward force pushed up the entire (present-day) American continent, uplifting both the existing ocean floor ...and creating the rockies in the process. There is substantial, visual evidence of water drainage on a massive scale east of the rockies from the Gulf Of Mexico northwards into Canada.
Screenshots? Oooer - that sounds technical! I'll try and find a solution, because it is very important that you can see the evidence for yourself...
I've added a couple of pages to my website for starters. This should make things a lot easier from now on (for you, anyway!!)Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
...but I need to post another three messages before I'm allowed to include url links...
...so if I do this....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
...hopefully I will have reached the majic 20 post's required...
Nope. Apparently I need....
...two more posts!!
Take a look at the following two links (I have included my comments on each page):
Hi, I've just finished my dinner. Actually I don't have much time either as I have to finish all job before christmas holiday.
Anyway you seem very enthusiastic! Thanks for providing the screenschot, sorry I didn't read carefully earlier.
So basically you are saying that an object hit earth, with the impact site somewhere in Gulf of Mexico and Carribean Sea, traveled inside the earth, and came out of it with the exit site somewhere in China (at Takla makan), to form today's moon? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What jumps out at me right away is the lack of a time scale for this idea. A time scale is very important because the Earth is dynamic, a lot changes over millions or billions of years. For example, if the continental drift theory is right then just 250 million years ago there was only one super continent, Pangea. In order for the impact and exit areas to line up either continental drift theory is wrong or the impact happened in the last 250 million years. Obviously it can't be the latter.
I'd imagine an impact like this must have happened very early in the Earth's development, otherwise I just don't see how an asteroid could plow its way straight through the planet. We're talking a huge amount of kinetic energy focused into a very small area. All the asteroids we've observed so far have nowhere near enough velocity to achieve this.
Inzomnia: Yep - and lots more besides (you have no idea what else I have discovered!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
From the first page of my book to the last, everything is interlinked within one timeline of (terrestrial and stellar) cataclysmic events.
Uhm, I am no physicist, so I might not the right person to discuss this hypothesis with. However, I have a question about this statement:
As far as I know, in order for an object (say, object A) to be able to go through another object (object B), object A should have enough energy or speed AND should be denser than object B, right?
For example, if we shot a bullet through head, or if we hammer a nail through wall, the bullet should be harder (denser) than the head, and the nail should be harder/denser than the wall. Otherwise, if they are made from less dense object, no matter how high their speed is, they (the bullet or the nail) are the one that will be broken, right?
Well, earth density is about 5.5153 kg/m³, while moon density is 3 346.4 kg/m³ (smaller than earth's). So how is it possible that the moon pass inside the earth? :shrug:
Or, can you show me an example of an object (object A) that can enter another object (object B) which has higher density than A, even if A has very high speed?
The continental drift theory is absolutely correct, in my opinion. I discuss this in my book, 'The Impact And Exit Event'. It is what happened after Wegener proposed it in 1912 that bothers me. In the complete absence of an initiating mechanism, plate tectonics became the dominant (current) theory which 'explained' the causation of crustal deformity on Earth.
Also, I also touch on evidence which suggests that the Earth was significantly smaller at the time of the impact and exit event. Believe me, I have spent some years researching this (ask my wife) and the existing geology of Earth actually provides strong corroboration of my findings. For example, while acknowledging the evidence that sea-floor spreading does occur, I explain how past research provides much stronger evidence of rapid formation of our ocean floors than other evidence which implies excruciatingly slow movement.
Re: 'Plowing straight through the planet.' This is covered at length, whereby evidence is put forward that explains how it was we were very lucky that the impact occured via a shallow angle which allowed the impactor to pass just underneath the surface of Earth beofre its remnants reappeared out of the other side...
Inzomnia: I am not suggesting that the Moon passed through Earth. I am proposing that the material that eventually coalesced into the Moon was actually catapulted out from within Earth during the tumultuous exit event. This would explain the very strong similarities between the two that I outlined earlier, as well as explaining a number of other things including the surface characteristics of the Moon; the anomalous orbit of the Moon; the Moon's lack of rotation, and why the Moon is slowly moving away from Earth, all of which are covered in much more detail in my book.
Separate names with a comma.