Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Impact And Exit Event.


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 08:31 AM

This new theory describes evidence relating to an impactor passing through Earth and bursting out the other side, creating the Moon. Some existing scientific research relating to the composition of the Moon appears to correlate with the 'exit' element of the theory.
Also, the existing gelology of Earth does indeed appear to have left supporting evidence which new, satellite-based technology has now revealed.
There is a free .pdf explaining the theory in detail here.
The theory has already attracted scorn from certain elements of the scientific community. However, having read the theory I think it is something I'd recommend to those interested in such new ideas.

#2 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 08:39 AM

Anything big enough and fast enough to punch a hole right through a planet, would have obliterated it. Yet here we are.

#3 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 07:31 PM

Anything big enough and fast enough to punch a hole right through a planet, would have obliterated it. Yet here we are.


I agree. That was my original thought, too - but don't rush to condemn this too hastily.

The theory suggests that the impactor did not actually pass straight through the 'meat' of Earth, which would undoubtedly have created the scenario you describe. It merely suggests that the impactor collided with Earth at an angle that enabled it to pass just underneath Earth's surface (think of it as 'skimming' underground, 'hugging' the interior of the crust of the planet), forcing upwards the crust before disintegrating as what was left of it burst outwards at the site of the exit event.

An impact at such a shallow angle is entirely plausible and thats why I started this thread - to explore the possibilities surrounding such an impact. As you pointed out, an event such as this would indeed have left major signs of destruction and geological change across the world, which the theory identifies and places along a timeline of events within the whole impact and exit catastrophe.

Take a look at the maps in the .pdf - they certainly do appear to indicate 'something' has happened. To me, the most telling piece of supporting evidence is the obvious similarity between the entire Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa as described in the theory (p.112). How can this similarity be explained other than the way it is within the impact and exit event? This observation has the potential to undermine the current plate tectonics theory as tectonics cannot be used to explain the similarities described.

Yet the similarities are there for all to see.

Also, another intriguing observation is that of the image shown on page 126, which indicates the site of the exit event and the huge expanse of areas upon which the resulting debris is said to have fallen. How else can such huge amounts of dispersed sand, rock etc be explained? The image clearly shows the content of the entire area is interconnected, and that the source of the debris is where the theory places the exit event.

#4 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 10:52 PM

Welcome to hypography, Finchcliff. :phones:

This new theory describes evidence relating to an impactor passing through Earth and bursting out the other side, creating the Moon.

As most astrophysics enthusiasts are familiar with mainstream theories, as an aid to understanding, can you summarize how your theory differs from the currently favored mainstream hypothesis that the moon was formed by a glancing impact with a mars-size body about 4.53 billion years ago, during the hadean era?

The wikipedia article “giant impact hypothesis” has a short encyclopedic article about this hypothesis.

#5 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 11:40 PM

The theory suggests that the impactor did not actually pass straight through the 'meat' of Earth, which would undoubtedly have created the scenario you describe. It merely suggests that the impactor collided with Earth at an angle that enabled it to pass just underneath Earth's surface (think of it as 'skimming' underground, 'hugging' the interior of the crust of the planet), forcing upwards the crust before disintegrating as what was left of it burst outwards at the site of the exit event.

An impact at such a shallow angle is entirely plausible and thats why I started this thread - to explore the possibilities surrounding such an impact. As you pointed out, an event such as this would indeed have left major signs of destruction and geological change across the world, which the theory identifies and places along a timeline of events within the whole impact and exit catastrophe.

I agree with the above, but as far as I understand, that's the generally accepted idea of how the moon formed, as it is.

As Craig asked above, how does this theory differ from our current understanding?

Although another thought just occurred to me (slightly off-topic... sorry!):

Tank armor have long been compromised by kinetic anti-tank shells, where the shell is expressly designed not to penetrate the armor. It's designed to flatten out on impact, transferring all its kinetic energy to the armor plate. On the inside of the tank, however, the inside of the armor reacts to the immense energy transfer on the outside, and shatters and fly off, killing anything inside the tank, without the armor actually being penetrated.
Could it be possible that if an impactor with enough energy slams into the Earth, a seismic wave ripples outward from the impact site, gradually lowering in height as the circumference of the Earth grows bigger (as the wave travels), only to substantially grow again on the other side of the planet as the wave now has a continuously shrinking area up to the point where it meets again at the exact opposite side of the impact, with one hell of a constructive-interference wave ripping a hole out the far side of the planet, without the impactor actually having even penetrated past the upper mantle?

I've never actually thought of this, nor heard of the scenario being analysed. To the best of my spitballin', it would require an impactor of sufficient mass and speed hitting at almost exactly 90 degrees, dead-on - otherwise the wave won't meet perfectly on the other side. It should also penetrate deep enough for the mass of the wave to travel through the mantle and not the crust - because I suppose the mantle is much more uniform, and will allow the wave to meet perfectly on the other side, whereas the crust is broken up and will distort the wave and not allow for a simultaneous meet-up of the dispersed wave on the other side.

Curious...

#6 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 12:13 AM

B, are you familiar with antipodal impacts?
Turtle's the local "expert" on the subject, but until he comes around, here's a link to a paper describing antipodal effects and different configurations based on impact angle etc.

Shock Dynamics: Antipodal effects

Some are staunch supporters of antipodal vulcanism from impact events and some are against the idea. In either case, we would be talking about something orders of magnitude greater than the event that formed the Chicxulub crater (which is the leading explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs). Knocking that much material into orbit at the antipode would seem impossible.

[Does anyone know how to pronounce Chicxulub? It seems like it would be "cheek-shoe-lube".]

I'm not sure how to begin calculating this. Perhaps we can calculate the force required to move a mass the same as the moon into orbit (escape velocity). From there we could work backwards and use the energy at the antipode to estimate the size of the impactor, assuming different impact angles? :phones:

Finchcliff, I haven't read the paper yet, but should have some time tomorrow to go through it. I'll get back to you on it.

#7 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 12:15 AM

...
Could it be possible that if an impactor with enough energy slams into the Earth, a seismic wave ripples outward from the impact site, gradually lowering in height as the circumference of the Earth grows bigger (as the wave travels), only to substantially grow again on the other side of the planet as the wave now has a continuously shrinking area up to the point where it meets again at the exact opposite side of the impact, with one hell of a constructive-interference wave ripping a hole out the far side of the planet, without the impactor actually having even penetrated past the upper mantle?

I've never actually thought of this, nor heard of the scenario being analysed. To the best of my spitballin', it would require an impactor of sufficient mass and speed hitting at almost exactly 90 degrees, dead-on - otherwise the wave won't meet perfectly on the other side. It should also penetrate deep enough for the mass of the wave to travel through the mantle and not the crust - because I suppose the mantle is much more uniform, and will allow the wave to meet perfectly on the other side, whereas the crust is broken up and will distort the wave and not allow for a simultaneous meet-up of the dispersed wave on the other side.

Curious...


:phones:

Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #10197028

We present the results of shock physics and seismological computational simulations that show how energy from a large impact can be coupled to the interior of the Earth. The radially-diverging shock wave generated by the impact decays to linearly elastic seismic waves. These waves reconverge (minus attenuation) along the axis of symmetry between the impact and its antipode. The locations that experience the most strain cycles with the largest amplitudes will dissipate the most energy and have the largest increases in temperature (for a given attenuation efficiency). We have shown that the locus of maximum energy deposition in the mantle lies along the impact axis. Moreover, the most intense focusing is within the asthenosphere at the antipode, within the range of depths where mechanical energy is most readily converted to heat. We propose that if large impacts on the Earth leave geological evidence anywhere other than the impact site itself, it will be at the antipode. ...



#8 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 12:27 AM

Interesting!

That's why I love Hypo. Ask, and ye shall receive.

I don't think an impactor could cause an antipode mass-exit sufficient to form the moon without being big enough to destroy the Earth, though. Although it could be possible that it did indeed obliterate the planet, and over a few million years the debris cloud fell together to form two separate bodies, I suppose.

I'm not too familiar with all the theories regarding the formation of the moon save the one about an impactor blasting it off the Earth. But as far as my knowledge goes about that proposed event, it was a glancing impact, not much different than what is proposed as a "new theory" by the OP.

So how does the OP differ from our current understanding?

#9 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 01:02 AM

Hmmm...this doesn't bode well.

The Science Forums - A new impact hypothesis...

#10 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 01:47 AM

From the author's site:

For the past two hundred years the very foundation upon which much of today's Science was developed has been seriously flawed.

It is acknowledged that this is a major statement to make. However, it is also acknowledged that a statement such as this requires extraordinary supporting evidence.

When reviewing the wealth of evidence presented within the pages of The Impact and Exit Event you will learn and more importantly see how the geology of Earth was formed in an instant; what Tectonic Plates really are; why some planets have ring systems (and why others do not); what created the 'scar on Mars'; how Earth's Moon was formed; why (and how) the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans emerged extremely rapidly; how these oceans saved our planet from complete destruction ...and much, much more.

You will also see for yourself how it is that these apparently disparate events of devastation and rebirth are actually connected to each other via an amazing series of cataclysmic events.

With over 230 pages, 100+ colour images sourced from the Internet, 50+ author sketches and numerous hyperlinks to external supporting information, The Impact and Exit Event offers the reader a fully illustrated timeline of interlinked catastrophes that shaped the Solar System we see today.

Why does it sound like book-spam? Why do I see visions of McCutcheon's "Final Theory"?

Why does it sound like a 30-minute tv ad? "But wait! Order now, and you get a moon impactor for free!"

You're right, Freez - it does not bode well at all.

#11 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 01:54 AM

From the author's site:

Why does it sound like book-spam? Why do I see visions of McCutcheon's "Final Theory"?

Why does it sound like a 30-minute tv ad? "But wait! Order now, and you get a moon impactor for free!"

You're right, Freez - it does not bode well at all.


...maybe its because there is nothing for sale. The information is free to download.

#12 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 02:12 AM

...maybe its because there is nothing for sale. The information is free to download.


At 230 pages, it would be best if you could pull the pertinent bits into this thread for discussion. I'm not willing to commit to reading 230 pages if we can disprove 2 right off the bat. At least, can you point us to certain pages to look at?

#13 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 02:15 AM

Very well, Finch, I'll grant you that. I might have been a bit quick on the draw - we do see lots of crazies on these forums, peddling wares that bear no fact or evidence. So, apologies all 'round for jumping to conclusions after reading the first few paragraphs of the site.

But seeing as my bandwidth sucks a bit, I can't download a 7Mb file within any reasonable amount of time. Oh, the joys of Third World connectivity. Would it be possible for you to give us a quick rundown of the main points regarding this theory, and how it differs from our current understanding?

#14 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 07:09 AM

There are several elements within the theory that 'jump out' - e.g. are different than what I've seen or read elsewhere on the subject of impact events. I could be wrong, though.

Take the similarities between the Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa (p.112): try superimposing one over the other as shown and you will see that there is a definite correlation.

The theory also suggests that the aftermath of the impact event was a huge amount of falling ejecta that, as it fell back to Earth created downward pressures which split the Earth's crust along a similar profile further to the east (where the west coast of Africa is today).

A couple of (what we all see as unconnected) major geological features appear to add weight to both of these observations. Firstly, the north/south profile of the Mid Atlantic Ridge is also almost identical to that of the Andes and the west coast of Africa (p. 87 & 88). This would suggest that a single cause created each.

Secondly, on page 117 the northernmost segments of the Andes in Columbia are described as the 'base' of the material ejected from the impact site. Upon closer inspection (using NOAA's imagery here), the suggestion that the Andes mountain range eminates from the undersea region close to Cuba is an observation worthy of further discussion, IMO.

Unlike plate tectonics, this concept has the potential to link each of the Africa/Mid Atlantic Ridge/Andes profiles together within one event.

I hope the above link works...

#15 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 11:00 AM

There are several elements within the theory that 'jump out' - e.g. are different than what I've seen or read elsewhere on the subject of impact events. I could be wrong, though.

Take the similarities between the Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa (p.112): try superimposing one over the other as shown and you will see that there is a definite correlation.

The theory also suggests that the aftermath of the impact event was a huge amount of falling ejecta that, as it fell back to Earth created downward pressures which split the Earth's crust along a similar profile further to the east (where the west coast of Africa is today).

A couple of (what we all see as unconnected) major geological features appear to add weight to both of these observations. Firstly, the north/south profile of the Mid Atlantic Ridge is also almost identical to that of the Andes and the west coast of Africa (p. 87 & 88). This would suggest that a single cause created each.

Secondly, on page 117 the northernmost segments of the Andes in Columbia are described as the 'base' of the material ejected from the impact site. Upon closer inspection (using NOAA's imagery here), the suggestion that the Andes mountain range eminates from the undersea region close to Cuba is an observation worthy of further discussion, IMO.

Unlike plate tectonics, this concept has the potential to link each of the Africa/Mid Atlantic Ridge/Andes profiles together within one event.

I hope the above link works...


yep; you're wrong to not even wrong. have you ever formally studied geology? if not, you're not likely to understand why this is wrong. :)

#16 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1539 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 11:15 AM

Let's look at this from a more basic level.
If the base concept is that another mass impacted the earth, passed through it an out the other side (along with some material from the earth) wouldn't the size of the impact be larger than is apparent?
I mean, that is a lot of energy involved, I would think it would have caused a crater closer to the size of all of North America?
Please note, for the time being I am ignoring the whole timeline, continental drift issue as those continents were not on opposite sides of the earth when the moon formed. For now, lets just take one concern at a time.

#17 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 11:19 AM

yep; you're wrong to not even wrong. have you ever formally studied geology? if not, you're not likely to understand why this is wrong. :)


'Formally' - no. I just find the subject fascinating. For some reason all things 'impact related' attract my interest.

With regard to the theory being 'wrong', which part(s) of it are you relating to? Please provide a page reference so I can look again. Thanks.

Also (Freeztar), there is mention of antipodal effects at some point - but this is in relation to the Hellas Basin on Mars.