Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Impact And Exit Event.


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#35 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 02:51 AM

....yes africa & s. america once joined as part of a super-continent, but their separation is through adding new lava along the spreading center (atlantic ridge)...


So the profile of the Andes is not similar?? You fail to address this point. (See p. 107 thru 118).

Despite the arguments put forward against this theory, the undeniable fact remains that there is a similarity between each of the geologic features I have mentioned (bathymetric imagery also supports this); there is a definite area of debris which looks to have been dispersed westwards from the site of the suggested exit event (click on the Himalayas to see it on this map and then look westwards from the Tibetan Plateau), and there is evidence of corresponding damge to the Earth's crust ..exactly where one would expect to find it following such an event.

Clearly, the Mid Atlantic Ridge is the reult of Africa and America seperating - you won't find many arguments against that - but what initiated the separation? And, why is the said separation so similar in shape to the Andes mountain range?

There are other clues visible on the above map which add weight to the theory, all of which complement the suggestion that the formation of Andes was the catalyst for the widening of the Atlantic Ocean basin. Trace the shape created when one follows the geological features throughout the route from Swaziland (on Africa's south coast) up through Mozambique and along the Rift Valley; along the Red Sea and then westawrds along the Meditteranean Sea back towards the Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic.

The Rift Valley is clearly a result of tremendous forces that have attemptied/are attempting to split the surface of the Earth along its length, as is the Red Sea. Given what is included elsehwere in the theory about the tensions created by the Impact and Exit Event on the surface of Earth it can reasonably be assumed that any such tensions - released or otherwise - would leave some evidence of its origin.

Re: the profile created by tracing the outline I mentioned above. What you will find is that the profile created by the west coast of Africa, the Rift Valley, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea is a profile that is reminiscent to that of the overall coastline of South America.

This would appear to be a logical outcome to the series of corresponding splits, similar in profile that would have been generated by the fallout from the impact event.

Further to the east, there is evidence of another 'split' in the Earth's crust. This lies upon an axis that suggests it was also created via the same event as that which created the Mid Atlantic Ridge etc, albeit on an understandably diminishing scale. This is referred to as the Persian Gulf (further info on this is on p. 114 of the pdf) .

Finally, where along the Mid Atlantic Ridge is the Gulf Of Mexico respresented? If the Mid Atlantic Ridge is one continuous formation that runs the north/south length of Earth (which it is), then why isnt the profile of Gulf of Mexico apparent anywhere along the ridge (p. 85-89)?

The ONLY explanation for this must surely be that the geologic anomaly that is the Gulf of Mexico has a different origin than the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

...the impact event?

#36 jab2

jab2

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 05:10 AM

Finchcliff, could you supply any info on the author of the initial pdf "The impact and exit event" you linked to earlier.

I find it rather curious that for such a "ground breaking" opinion Google return exactly ONE reference when the following search are run: +"Peter McRae" +"impact and exit"

Also one should expect the author to have at least some geology knowledge to find himself qualified to challenge plate tectonics as the shaping agent of the continents. Yet it seems from his murmurings in his e-book he does not have any geology knowledge. I cannot speak for others but I sure as hell ain't going to believe a word Mr McRae writes.

This e-book was published in 2008. Surely someone should have written, pro or con his theory, if it was in the least a remote possibility. Yet none I could find had even bad things to say about Mr McRae's theory.

#37 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 05:58 AM

Finchcliff, could you supply any info on the author of the initial pdf "The impact and exit event" you linked to earlier.

I find it rather curious that for such a "ground breaking" opinion Google return exactly ONE reference when the following search are run: +"Peter McRae" +"impact and exit"

Also one should expect the author to have at least some geology knowledge to find himself qualified to challenge plate tectonics as the shaping agent of the continents. Yet it seems from his murmurings in his e-book he does not have any geology knowledge. I cannot speak for others but I sure as hell ain't going to believe a word Mr McRae writes.

This e-book was published in 2008. Surely someone should have written, pro or con his theory, if it was in the least a remote possibility. Yet non I could find had even bad things to say about Mr McRae's theory.


No. :shrug:

#38 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 10:11 AM

So the profile of the Andes is not similar?? You fail to address this point. (See p. 107 thru 118).


it simply doesn't matter. your physics is flawed from the git go. :shrug:
...

The ONLY explanation for this must surely be that the geologic anomaly that is the Gulf of Mexico has a different origin than the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

...the impact event?


no that's not the only explanation. clearly you have not studied geology and continuing your bent without addressing the serious errors in your theory is nothing less than trolling.

what date do you ascribe to your event and how did you arrive at it?

how's about we move this to Strange Claims and cut to the chase staff? you know what they say about wrestling with a troll. :kuku:

#39 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 10:25 AM

I think it needs to be said again that there is no physical object made of normal matter this is capable of hitting the earth and traveling through the planet, even a small cross section of it and exiting out the other side. A Neutron star hitting the earth would have an effect very much like the picture i posted earlier. no other material could do the job.

#40 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 10:35 AM

I think it needs to be said again that there is no physical object made of normal matter this is capable of hitting the earth and traveling through the planet, even a small cross section of it and exiting out the other side. A Neutron star hitting the earth would have an effect very much like the picture i posted earlier. no other material could do the job.


:fan: no moonman, a neutron star approaching earth would rip earth to shreds with its gravity before it ever made contact. no object would go through earth like a bullet. :shrug: period. :kuku:

#41 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 10:44 AM

:fan: no moonman, a neutron star approaching earth would rip earth to shreds with its gravity before it ever made contact. no object would go through earth like a bullet. :shrug: period. :kuku:


Actually I was trying to show that this entire idea is impossible. As I said there is no material object capable of hitting the earth and exiting the other side not even if it was just a small cross section of the Earth. The entire idea of the OP is impossible under any circumstances!

#42 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 10:54 AM

Actually I was trying to show that this entire idea is impossible. As I said there is no material object capable of hitting the earth and exiting the other side not even if it was just a small cross section of the Earth. The entire idea of the OP is impossible under any circumstances!


the problem i saw was that your satire was so veiled as to leave the appearance that you support the idea. frenchcrest is, no offense frenchcrest, an internet troll and we all know better than to feed a troll.

next floor; Strange Claims. :shrug:

#43 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 11:17 AM

what date do you ascribe to your event and how did you arrive at it?

how's about we move this to Strange Claims and cut to the chase staff? you know what they say about wrestling with a troll. :shrug:


Firstly, the theory does not give any estimated dates, although there is mention of this topic.

Secondly, I have to say this - I am happy to discuss this theory, and would like to continue doing so because there are other parts of it that I am interested in too. If you do not agree with it then can I suggest that you simply do not visit this thread? For you to ask for it to be terminated (which I think you are) seems to be a bit harsh considering that you don't really have to participate. I am certain others might feel like you do - but then again there may be others who might like to see the theory explored further, which I see as healthy.

I am genuinely interested in your comments, and those of others who have posted since the OP and I think its safe to assume that some will have returned to see the differing views shown here. However, I look forward to learning of the science that debunks this as much as when looking into the geological examples provided in the theory.

What is this section entitled? 'Alternative Theories : A place for all theories which don't fit anywhere else'.

In an earlier post I was asked to highlight various elements of the theory and provide page references, which is exactly what I am doing.

So, in the interest of moving things along I'll ask again - Does anyone agree that the geological similarities I have quoted from the impact and exit event theory are there? Can anyone explain why the Andes is so similar to the west coast of Africa and the Mid Atlantic Ridge?

Does anyone have a view about the suggestion that a large portion of the northern hemisphere was blanketed by debris from the exit event as seems to be indicated emanating westwards from the region of the Himalayas (the light biege area's)? ..Or is there another explanation which provides a solution to why this increasingly wide extent of wasteland is there?

#44 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 11:49 AM

Firstly, the theory does not give any estimated dates, although there is mention of this topic.


Dates are important because we could use these dates to match it with geological evidence.

So, in the interest of moving things along I'll ask again - Does anyone agree that the geological similarities I have quoted from the impact and exit event theory are there? Can anyone explain why the Andes is so similar to the west coast of Africa and the Mid Atlantic Ridge?


Origins: Antarctica: Ideas: Continental Drift: Interactive Animation

Check out that link on continental drift. It is a well supported theory that accurately explains the similarities between the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa.

Does anyone have a view about the suggestion that a large portion of the northern hemisphere was blanketed by debris from the exit event as seems to be indicated emanating westwards from the region of the Himalayas (the light biege area's)? ..Or is there another explanation which provides a solution to why this increasingly wide extent of wasteland is there?


I'm not sure what you are asking here exactly and how it relates. :shrug:

#45 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:03 PM

I'm not sure what you are asking here exactly and how it relates. :shrug:


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.

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

Is the above link to NOAA's map working ok at your end? Here it is again:

http://veimages.gsfc...3x5400x2700.jpg

If not I'll try to post a picture of it which should clarify things a bit...

#46 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:11 PM

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.

#47 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:13 PM

what date do you ascribe to your event and how did you arrive at it?
how's about we move this to Strange Claims and cut to the chase staff? you know what they say about wrestling with a troll. :kuku:


Firstly, the theory does not give any estimated dates, although there is mention of this topic.


then the theory is worthless. QED

Secondly, I have to say this - I am happy to discuss this theory, and would like to continue doing so because there are other parts of it that I am interested in too. If you do not agree with it then can I suggest that you simply do not visit this thread? For you to ask for it to be terminated (which I think you are) seems to be a bit harsh considering that you don't really have to participate. I am certain others might feel like you do - but then again there may be others who might like to see the theory explored further, which I see as healthy.


yes, you misunderstood. no surprise there. :shrug: i was suggesting it be moved from alternative theories to strange claims. silly claims would work too.
i am more than a bit harsh and i will post to this or any other thread i care to in a manner consistant with the site rules.

I am genuinely interested in your comments, and those of others who have posted since the OP and I think its safe to assume that some will have returned to see the differing views shown here. However, I look forward to learning of the science that debunks this as much as when looking into the geological examples provided in the theory.


you have yet to actually discuss any of the evidence presented that debunks your claim of an object striking earth and passing through and out the other side. it is a physical impossibility, we have shown it, and you must address our evidence.

What is this section entitled? 'Alternative Theories : A place for all theories which don't fit anywhere else'.


yep; but don't expect to hide behind it like a child behind their mother's legs. :kuku:

Does anyone have a view about the suggestion that a large portion of the northern hemisphere was blanketed by debris from the exit event as seems to be indicated emanating westwards from the region of the Himalayas (the light biege area's)? ..Or is there another explanation which provides a solution to why this increasingly wide extent of wasteland is there?


again, your visual impressions have no correlation whatsoever the the actual rock types in the region you have keyed in on, let alone how they arrived there and how long it took.

foisting this kind of crap on people as science, especially the uninformed, is going to get nothing but harsh & continued criticism from this troubled corner. :fan:

#48 kipper

kipper

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:25 PM

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`

#49 Finchcliff

Finchcliff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:25 PM

Check out that link on continental drift. It is a well supported theory that accurately explains the similarities between the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa.


Thanks, Freeztar. The information at the site about continental drift is something that the theory discusses (p. 95 - 99). It is proposed that the process of continental drift was initiated by the both the impact event and the exit events as they unfolded.

#50 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:37 PM

Thanks, Freeztar. The information at the site about continental drift is something that the theory discusses (p. 95 - 99). It is proposed that the process of continental drift was initiated by the both the impact event and the exit events as they unfolded.


Well, this might be good support for the theory if it were not found that supercontinents form and unform cyclically throughout Earth's history.

The breakup and formation of supercontinents appears to be cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion year history. There may have been several others before Pangaea. The next-to-last one, Pannotia, formed about 600 million years ago (Ma) during the Proterozoic eon, and lasted until 540 Ma. Before Pannotia, there was Rodinia, which lasted from about 1.1 billion years ago (Ga) until about 750 million years ago. The exact configuration and geodynamic history of Rodinia are not nearly as well understood as for Pannotia and Pangaea.

Pangaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#51 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:43 PM

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.


I think water is the key. In highly anaerobic environments, plant and animal material does not decay, or does so very slowly. As sediment builds upon these layers, they are compressed and the added weight from above pushes these layers downward as more material is added on top. This is why oil deposits are found in 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`


I don't see how your "test" proves anything about ancient oil deposits. :shrug:

Also, oil is found in many different parts of the world, not just the areas covered by this idea.