The Impact And Exit Event.

[Turtle]

Boerseun - The scenario you describe is not something that had occurred to me when exploring the theory and IMO is a very good observation. If seismic waves did as you suggest and travel around the planet, meeting up again to rip open the far side of Earth then would that explain the numerous crescent-shaped geological features that exist between the 'impact site' and the Himalayas, which interestingly are also crescent shaped?

 

 

I know, I know ...the above 'shockwaves' could represent anything from shockwaves to a woman being cut in half. :doh:

 

However, the 'crescent' features mentioned above might be clearer below:

 

 

oh flinchcrisp! this is why i have so little confidence in your integrity and thouroughness. ;) first again, your visual impressions ignore any and all investigation into the already studied geology of the features you key in on. did you look on google for "geologic formations of asian plateau" or anything even remotely like that?

 

anyway, if you read this thread, boerseun you too, you will find me referencing the antipodal shockwave, the preeminent physicists studying it, and the discoveries that have followed. i think you dismissed this part when you told zythryn "i can't explain it" when he challenged you, yet again, on the physical impossibility of an impactor passing through earth.

 

this is a science site and silly claim section or no, we intend to proceed in a manner consistant with the scientifc method. i have posted additional information on the antipodal focussing in the Interesting Geology and Supervolcano threads; it is illustative of how the science of geology actually advances. :) :phones:

;) :hihi:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Finchcliff]

oh flinchcrisp! this is why i have so little confidence in your integrity and thouroughness. :doh: first again, your visual impressions ignore any and all investigation into the already studied geology of the features you key in on. did you look on google for "geologic formations of asian plateau" or anything even remotely like that?

 

Tw**tle - Don't hold back, will you :eek:

 

I think you are missing a large point here. If something as unique and powerful as the impact and exit event did occur (calm down...), then assumptions and observations made based upon an acceptance that Earth has not been impacted by anything larger than say, Chixculub are very likely to be erronious. By definition, this would include existing perception relating to the geological history of our planet.

 

With regard to your comments about my integrity. I recently watched a documentary on National Geographic channel which explored the geological timescales and processes involved in the formation of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. During the documentary, a prominent geologist was taken very seriously when he 'explained' that his research had revealed that "the Tibetan Platuea was formed when the force of the collision between India and the Himalayas turned the landscape of the region into a form of liquifation".

 

How did he present this for the viewer? He poured syrup onto a white surface and proceeded to push the flattening syrup backwards, creating a high front (the Himalayas) ...and a long, wide flat area behind (the Tibetan Plateau). This guy was lauded and not an eyelid blinked.

 

"So there you have it. That was how the Tibetan Plateau was created" the commentator informed the viewers.

 

On the face of it, and with all the technology presently available, the use of a spoon and some syrup seems ludicrous. Yet thats how he decided he should present his findings.

 

If I had sat in front of you and put a blob of syrup onto the table, whipped out a spoon and said "Let me educate you..." I suspect the door would have been swinging shut behind you before I'd finished asking the question.

 

Yet his explanation was accepted not just because of his background research, but also because he was capable of using his creativity to present to others what he believed he had discovered in a highly visual manner what (to everyone else but him at the time) was seen as a wild idea.

 

There are countless examples of individuals who's ideas have been tossed on the scrapheap by 'informed' individuals (such as yourself) only to see the presenter of the original idea totally vindicated later.

 

My comment above regarding the potential for a planetary shockwave scenario was simply a response to an earlier post by Boerseun that put forward what I think is a very good point; a proposal that would not require an impactor to penetrate Earth's mantle - let alone pass through the planet, yet create an outcome such as that shown above.

[Turtle]

Tw**tle - Don't hold back, will you

 

I think you are missing a large point here. If something as unique and powerful as the impact and exit event did occur (calm down...), then assumptions and observations made based upon an acceptance that Earth has not been impacted by anything larger than say, Chixculub are very likely to be erronious.

 

calmly, it's physically impossible...still. moreover, there is evidence of larger impacts and if you had gone to read those links i just proffered you would know that. :eek:

 

By definition, this would include existing perception relating to the geological history of our planet.

no; this is where your lack of education/study of basic geology shows lacking. geology is an extremely complex discipline, calling on chemistry, physics, cosmology, biology, climate, as well as others. impacts play but one small, albeit attention grabbing, part.

 

With regard to your comments about my integrity. I recently watched a documentary on National Geographic channel which explored the geological timescales and processes involved in the formation of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. During the documentary, a prominent geologist was taken very seriously when he 'explained' that his research had revealed that "the Tibetan Platuea was formed when the force of the collision between India and the Himalayas turned the landscape of the region into a form of liquifation".

 

How did he present this for the viewer? ...

 

i agree that many of the presentations for the layperson are at times poorly presented and at other times downright wrong. when you see these, follow up on the web. in the old days we had to schlup our way to a library, if not many libraries to track down the kind of information that is now a few clicks and ponts away. there is no excuse for not using the fabulous tool now at your disposal.

 

My comment above regarding the potential for a planetary shockwave scenario was simply a response to an earlier post by Boerseun that put forward what I think is a very good point; a proposal that would not require an impactor to penetrate Earth's mantle - let alone pass through the planet, yet create an outcome such as that shown above.

 

if you note, i gently admonished my buddy boerseun to have a look at the real science being done on such shockwaves. if you had yet done so, following my links as i have been on the trail a good long time & know where to go, then you would know that the fella mark boslough i keep mentioning has access to the fastest super computer available & also necessary to do the kind of calculations necessary to model by physical laws the consequences of very large impacts. cutting edge. best in the world. none better to date. . (Big Red at Sandia National Labs)

A $15 million upgrade to Sandia’s Red Storm computer has increased its peak speed from 41.5 to 124.4 teraflops in a computing terrain in which a single teraflop was a big deal only 6 years ago.

>> Red Storm upgrade lifts Sandia supercomputer to 2nd in world, but 1st in scalability, say researchers

 

there is no point speculating when there is already work done that elucidates some nuance, feature, or mechanism of geology. i challenge you to go read my links, come back & say you read them, and respond with some point or question that leaves no doubt that you did indeed read them and further that you understood them. there are plenty of reasons for ignorance, but there are no excuses. :doh:

[Finchcliff]

 

 

 

 

The highlighted areas shown above could be shockwaves from The Impact And Exit Event that is described within the theory. Each circular region is located along a linear direction emanting from the site of the proposed impact event at the Gulf Of Mexico.

 

The theory can be freely downloaded in its entirety at www.theimpactandexitevent.com

[Moontanman]

Theory? I think silly claims is giving it far too much respect.

[lemit]

For what it's worth, I don't think the use of silly names by anybody involved in this debate accomplishes anything but to make the namecaller look childish. Finchcliff, I know you didn't start that crap and I give you credit for it. Having said that,

If something as unique and powerful as the impact and exit event did occur (calm down...), then assumptions and observations made based upon an acceptance that Earth has not been impacted by anything larger than say, Chixculub are very likely to be erronious. By definition, this would include existing perception relating to the geological history of our planet.

 

The same applies to your assumptions.

 

With regard to your comments about my integrity. I recently watched a documentary on National Geographic channel which explored the geological timescales and processes involved in the formation of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. During the documentary, a prominent geologist was taken very seriously when he 'explained' that his research had revealed that "the Tibetan Platuea was formed when the force of the collision between India and the Himalayas turned the landscape of the region into a form of liquifation".

 

How did he present this for the viewer? He poured syrup onto a white surface and proceeded to push the flattening syrup backwards, creating a high front (the Himalayas) ...and a long, wide flat area behind (the Tibetan Plateau). This guy was lauded and not an eyelid blinked.

 

"So there you have it. That was how the Tibetan Plateau was created" the commentator informed the viewers.

 

On the face of it, and with all the technology presently available, the use of a spoon and some syrup seems ludicrous. Yet thats how he decided he should present his findings.

 

If I had sat in front of you and put a blob of syrup onto the table, whipped out a spoon and said "Let me educate you..." I suspect the door would have been swinging shut behind you before I'd finished asking the question.

 

Yet his explanation was accepted not just because of his background research, but also because he was capable of using his creativity to present to others what he believed he had discovered in a highly visual manner what (to everyone else but him at the time) was seen as a wild idea.

 

I don't give NatGeo, as they now like to call themselves (perhaps an example of self-trivializing by namecalling), much credit for presenting serious science. Even if I did, I wouldn't think of the syrup as being anything more than an attempt, possibly very awkward and stupid, at illustrating something that might or might not have merit. Some illustrations work on a subliminal level to make connections for us we could not have imagined; some don't. Just because the parlor trick is cheap, that doesn't mean the parlor is.

 

You are trying to present something completely new to all of us, something that flies in the face of all the evidence we can find. You don't seem to understand that, or at least you haven't presented your case in a way that would have accounted for it. If you had tried to see the world through our eyes, you might have been able to make us see the world through yours. If you had made concessions, offered compromises, and generally acted like someone who is genuinely testing a theory in a scientific forum, your theory might have got a genuine test in a scientific forum. You have taken a different route. I don't know that your destination would have been different, but the journey might well have been a lot more pleasant for all of us.

 

As you might be able to tell from my wistful tone, I think your case here is lost. I wish you better luck in your next endeavor, and that you may somewhere in the intervening time have learned how to make your own luck.

 

--lemit

[Finchcliff]

 

You are trying to present something completely new to all of us, something that flies in the face of all the evidence we can find. You don't seem to understand that, or at least you haven't presented your case in a way that would have accounted for it. If you had tried to see the world through our eyes, you might have been able to make us see the world through yours. If you had made concessions, offered compromises, and generally acted like someone who is genuinely testing a theory in a scientific forum, your theory might have got a genuine test in a scientific forum. You have taken a different route. I don't know that your destination would have been different, but the journey might well have been a lot more pleasant for all of us.

--lemit

 

Thanks for your thought, Lemit - and your reticent tone. Discussing this is a challenge and the subject clearly does rankle. This can't be avoided I'm afraid. Maybe its because the theory flies in the face of all the evidence you refere to that the journey has not been as pleasant as it might. I maintain, though that this theory has its merits - even if the evidence (for the time being) is primarily visual. All the theory is trying to do is take the common practice of field observation and scale things up (just a bit!).

 

As far as concessions go, I thought the latest few posts were just that. I was exploring a suggestion that an impactor may not need to pass through Earth to generate the scenario described in the impact and exit event theory. This would partially eliminate some of the criticism levelled at the theory in this thread, while opening up the possibility that the theory was indeed 'on the right track'...

 

...Further input such as that posted about seismic shockwaves are hugely welcomed. There may be other explanations for the apparently connected series of geological features I have been discussing throughout this thread.

 

BTW - I totally agree about the namecalling - it is childish, but rather than start inflaming the situation I hope I succeeded in keeping things calm with a bit of humor. (You may have to refer to Turtle's earlier post when he first decided to change my name - for whatever reason....)

[Turtle]

Thanks for your thought, Lemit - and your reticent tone. Discussing this is a challenge and the subject clearly does rankle. This can't be avoided I'm afraid.

 

not only won't you avoid it, it's your whole intention. you wanted rankle, you got it.

 

Maybe its because the theory flies in the face of all the evidence you refer to that the journey has not been as pleasant as it might. I maintain, though that this theory has its merits - even if the evidence (for the time being) is primarily visual. All the theory is trying to do is take the common practice of field observation and scale things up (just a bit!).

 

Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

5. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned

9. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!

 

BTW - I totally agree about the namecalling - it is childish, but rather than start inflaming the situation I hope I succeeded in keeping things calm with a bit of humor. (You may have to refer to Turtle's earlier post when he first decided to change my name - for whatever reason....)

 

 

if you had stuck around long enough you would have figured out that i change everyones' names. just ask lemming. ;)

 

for those of you thinking this thread is trolling and that fishtalk is violating our rules, the way to stop it is to click the little red button(s) at the top right of the entry and report the post(s).

[Buffy]

Maybe its because the theory flies in the face of all the evidence you refere to that the journey has not been as pleasant as it might. I maintain, though that this theory has its merits - even if the evidence (for the time being) is primarily visual.

What's important at this point is to step back for a moment and understand how the scientific method is applied in cases like this:

1. You make an observation and formulate a hypothesis around it. In this case you see circular shapes and propose that they are caused by impacts and/or exit events. Perfectly reasonable hypothesis on its own.
   
2. You are challenged on two bases: the correlations you cite are not statistically significant enough to form any basis of relationship, and the geological data that would be required to back up your claim in fact directly contradicts it.
   

According to the scientific method, the fact that your theory is directly contradicted by the data would--without any prejudice--be enough to completely reject your hypothesis, and requires you to modify your hypothesis so that it explains the data.

 

I realize that you think that it's "visually obvious", but quite frankly that does not matter.

 

Ignoring these objections is both self-deception and contempt for those who could potentially educate you and result in a hypothesis that is more supportable.

 

You need to realize that the point of contention here has nothing to do with people being too blind to see the visual evidence, and everything to do with the fact that the geological formations and dating are not at all ambiguous, they directly contradict the hypothesis, and unless you address these issues, simply throwing up more pictures that are "visually obvious" does nothing to refute the argument that the hypothesis should not be taken seriously.

 

By continuing to ignore the objections and present more visual evidence that does not address them does nothing but annoy and offend, even if you avoid calling people names, and in fact results in that name calling because of the implication that these people who clearly have more knowledge of the data than you have been willing to invest time in implies that their knowledge is irrelevant and worthless.

 

There is no conspiracy against you here, but the scientific method is brutal and does not provide much leeway for "appearance" precisely because of the fact that appearance is so misleading (as the links that I and others provided above discuss).

 

There may in fact be "something" to some of the visual images you have gathered here, but they may have nothing to do with impacts, and in fact once you get in to the actual geology, they prove far more interesting.

 

If you want to investigate some of this more (including some of the features you've pointed out as evidence) you might want to start with some John McPhee, who does not dive directly into numerical analysis, but is far more enlightening for non-experts than the NatGeo program you mentioned.

 

But please do spend some time learning about the data that has been referred to here before coming back with more visual images: you need to fit this data into your hypothesis before you will be taken seriously.

 

More things in politics happen by accident or exhaustion than happen by conspiracy,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Finch, your pasted pictures refer:

 

As to the one about the Himalayas, that spectacular mountain chain is the result of the Indian tectonic plate crashing into the Asian plate. It's still going on, and can be measured. The fact that the Southern edge is roughly circular and might look like the edge of an oblique impact crater, is completely coincidental. India is still crashing into Asia, and the mountain chain is still rising.

 

As to the one about the Aleutians, they are the result of tectonic shift and movement, where a chain of islands is formed in the wake of these tectonic shifts resulting in volcanic action. The fact that they form a section of a circle and might thus let the uninformed observer think that they are the result of another oblique impact, is coincidental.

 

The one about the Rockies in North America I don't understand. There is a mountain chain running up and down the Western edge of both the Americas, yet you choose the one in North America as evidence for your impact event. And the only reason I can think of, is because the discoloration you notice in the drier Western part of North America. The fact that the Rockies might cause a rain shadow and result in a roughly circular dry area which might look to the uninformed mind as an impact crater, is, once again, coincidental, and simply points to humans having a knack for recognizing patterns. Look! There's a brown circle in an otherwise green continent! What, at planetary scales, are circular? Yes - impact craters! Thus, the brown circle is an impact crater - ignoring all meteorological evidence to the contrary.

 

Sorry, finch. No dice.

[lemit]

My best friend and I have a lot of very strange conversations. It's 4:30 a.m. as I'm writing this and we just spent three hours on the phone discussing things a couple of teenagers might talk about but which should cause two old retired guys to be reminded to act their own age.

 

A couple months ago we got to talking about the Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean. After an hour or two of dumb, distracted, non sequitur-filled conversation we came up with a theory that they are shaped the way they are because they are in effect catch basins for the oceanic conveyor belts. I know that theory doesn't work very well because as far as I know they don't have the surface trash islands, but they do have the warmer temperatures that make them good weather makers.

 

I don't present that as a viable theory, but as an example of a theory with about as much supporting evidence as the Impact and Exit Event has, possibly more. We could attach a lot of graphics and self-promotion and start hawking our theory. (When Stephen Hawking comes up with a new theory, do people use that term for his promotion of the theory?) But we realize there are a lot of other potential theories about the shape of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, and we're lazy.

 

So there are two things I want to convey. First, in the manner of Jeff Foxworthy, if your theory sounds like what a couple of guys could come up with talking on the phone at three in the morning, then you might need to get a better theory. Second, it's five o'clock now and I don't know what I'm typing. It makes sense now, but what it looks like in the light of day is the only thing that matters.

 

The Impact and Exit Event isn't an event; it's a half-baked theory that can find dozens of equally half-baked opponents.

 

Finchcliff, I offered you an opportunity to retire from this debate with some dignity. In your response, I saw some of what I needed to see to have a lot of respect for you, but not enough. I will defend you as a person--your Original Post showed great promise--but I can't defend your tenacity in supporting something that doesn't work. Let go. Move on. Find a different fight. It's over.

 

(You may be too young to know Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch. Does it work with a dead horse? But anyway, having mentioned The Dead Parrot Sketch, I'm sure I'll elicit a response from some other old guys who haven't yet grown up. We are a sizeable demographic for science forums, as are teenage boys.)

 

I still wish you well, although not necessarily here.

 

--lemit

[Lally]

I'm no more (or less) persuaded than I was before the recent announcement by a group of scientists regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, the recently announced 'impact and exit event' theory that has been mentioned here has increased my belief that the dinosaurs were made extinct by an asteroid impact at Chicxulub. As far fetched as it sounds I really 'get' the concept of an impact and exit event - especially when I reviewed the evidence presented in the theory - even if the 'old boy' scientists don't like the thought of it!

I downloaded the theory at this website: The Impact And Exit Event: "Rewriting History, changing Science and re-inventing Geology." (I'm not sure where you guys got your information from), and I'd be interested in reading comments from students new to the Sciences - before they go on to (perhaps) being influenced by other, 'accepted' past scientific assumptions and even some of the comments made on this forum. This is something that the author of the impact and exit event actually asks for, so it'll be interesting to see the views of these individuals once they have read the theory.

Lally

[JJUK]

 

...but it's not what this book claims it to be. These canyons clearly show slow and progressive growth of the channels over well-documented time spans.

 

In deference to you I did just look through the entire length of the book, and I was surprised to see that there are few references to time scales or dates or quite frankly any data or math to back up the claims other than lots of pictures that basically are accompanied by text that says something of the form "if you just look at this it's obvious."

 

Hey Buffy - let us both go through your comments one by one...

As someone who has researched geology worldwide for over 45 years I am STILL encouraged by the ability of individuals to question what ...becomes... accepted science. Challenging past findings is an absoloutely necessary process. It eventually leads to the truth (insofar as the technology of the day allows). I too purchased the book and frankly, I see things quite differently to you. I see some genuinely interesting points raised. I also see a lack of math or data - but that certainly does NOT negate the argument put forward by the author.

 

"These canyons clearly show slow and progressive growth of the channels over well-documented time spans"

Really? Slow? Progressive? There really is no absolute proof of slow, rapid formation of the channels. The channels could, in the absence of other solid scientific evidence have been created during a brief period, as suggested in the impact and exit event.

 

"So, the theory is that the entire Andes mountain range consists of ejecta from this collision. You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking."

Buffy - to be taken seriously one needs to accept the ideas of others maturely, while avoiding temptation to become what could be perceived as 'condescending'. Your answer here diminishes your argument, and adds to what is simply a discussion of the impact and exit event. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the impact and exit event take a look at this link: http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/takla_makan_screenshot.html . There is a link at the bottom of that page to information about the "Andes argument" Buffy has mentioned.

 

"Any decent geological work on the Andes has ample evidence of uplift of sedimentary rock."

The book/hypothesis actually accepts that there would be evidence of uplift, morphism AND sedimentary rock. Could I suggest that you try to read it with less 'blinkered' eyes :rolleyes:

 

"Don't you want to ask the question why the book does not even address this?"

I did - but further than this the author asks the readers to question his findings quite a lot throughout the book. Again, in an apparently 'blinkered' mindset you have chosen to ignore this.

 

"Did you know that the Sierra Nevada mountain range which is west of the Rockies "flows" in the opposite direction, towards the west? They show similar "huge drainage channels"--some of which you've heard of like Yosemite" which go the opposite direction."

Has it occurred to you that any corresponding disturbance to Earth's crust would occur during and after such an event? In fact, as the author suggests it is quite likely that unusual oceanic/sea/lake/river ...and for that matter land deformation WOULD occur. "Flowing in the opposite direction" would be extremely likely, and not such a big deal.

 

"...I guess I have to point out that you claimed the similarity before I thought about it!"

Maybe that was the case - but, being objective and open minded I do see a very strong similarity between the north/south Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa. Do you not see the argument against plate tectonics here? I'll give you an example: Your argument relating to the whereabouts of oil and its relation to "subduction". Show me any evidence of subduction in the Gulf of Mexico. Show me where there is a voluminous concentration of oil extraction facilities anywhere around the entire ring of fire. In fact your argument suggests that all extracted oil deposits of any note SHOULD be located in these areas. They are not.

 

"Unfortunately so many of these silly claims seem to come loaded with such a distaste for science, that they go out of their way to avoid any scientific grounding, data or other proof. "

Yet, Buffy you seem intent on vilifying this particular hypothesis without spending some time (weeks, months?) actually studying the detail of the hypothesis. This, from a scientist's point of view is unsatisfactory. I have indeed spent the past 6 months exploring many of the ideas put forward. Some I disagree with, but most have left me in a confused state of mind. Since I first attended school I have simply not needed to question my edicators in this way. Now I am questioning myself :o :o

 

"In reading through this book I have to say that I seriously got more scientific content from my last visit to the Tate Modern..."

This comment adds nothing. :blink:

 

"Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,"

I am a Geologist and I believe I am qualified to call myself a Scientist. The opening passages in the impact and exit event make it cear that the author has spent at least five years researching his ideas - then writing the book. It is very sad to see a response such as "Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,"

Buffy - have you ever focussed so much of your life into something that you believe in? Have you ever had the courage to lay bare your belief for others to discuss (and yes - criticise)?

 

I am not suggesting for one minute that the impact and exit event is the next 'big thing' but at the very least the hypothesis deserves respect, if only to acknowledge that the author - like so many others in the past - has been prepared to share his ideas, regardless of the critics.

 

I appluad that wholeheartedly.

[Moontanman]

Hey Buffy - let us both go through your comments one by one...

As someone who has researched geology worldwide for over 45 years I am STILL encouraged by the ability of individuals to question what ...becomes... accepted science. Challenging past findings is an absoloutely necessary process. It eventually leads to the truth (insofar as the technology of the day allows). I too purchased the book and frankly, I see things quite differently to you. I see some genuinely interesting points raised. I also see a lack of math or data - but that certainly does NOT negate the argument put forward by the author.

 

"These canyons clearly show slow and progressive growth of the channels over well-documented time spans"

Really? Slow? Progressive? There really is no absolute proof of slow, rapid formation of the channels. The channels could, in the absence of other solid scientific evidence have been created during a brief period, as suggested in the impact and exit event.

 

"So, the theory is that the entire Andes mountain range consists of ejecta from this collision. You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking."

Buffy - to be taken seriously one needs to accept the ideas of others maturely, while avoiding temptation to become what could be perceived as 'condescending'. Your answer here diminishes your argument, and adds to what is simply a discussion of the impact and exit event. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the impact and exit event take a look at this link: http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/takla_makan_screenshot.html . There is a link at the bottom of that page to information about the "Andes argument" Buffy has mentioned.

 

"Any decent geological work on the Andes has ample evidence of uplift of sedimentary rock."

The book/hypothesis actually accepts that there would be evidence of uplift, morphism AND sedimentary rock. Could I suggest that you try to read it with less 'blinkered' eyes :rolleyes:

 

"Don't you want to ask the question why the book does not even address this?"

I did - but further than this the author asks the readers to question his findings quite a lot throughout the book. Again, in an apparently 'blinkered' mindset you have chosen to ignore this.

 

"Did you know that the Sierra Nevada mountain range which is west of the Rockies "flows" in the opposite direction, towards the west? They show similar "huge drainage channels"--some of which you've heard of like Yosemite" which go the opposite direction."

Has it occurred to you that any corresponding disturbance to Earth's crust would occur during and after such an event? In fact, as the author suggests it is quite likely that unusual oceanic/sea/lake/river ...and for that matter land deformation WOULD occur. "Flowing in the opposite direction" would be extremely likely, and not such a big deal.

 

"...I guess I have to point out that you claimed the similarity before I thought about it!"

Maybe that was the case - but, being objective and open minded I do see a very strong similarity between the north/south Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa. Do you not see the argument against plate tectonics here? I'll give you an example: Your argument relating to the whereabouts of oil and its relation to "subduction". Show me any evidence of subduction in the Gulf of Mexico. Show me where there is a voluminous concentration of oil extraction facilities anywhere around the entire ring of fire. In fact your argument suggests that all extracted oil deposits of any note SHOULD be located in these areas. They are not.

 

"Unfortunately so many of these silly claims seem to come loaded with such a distaste for science, that they go out of their way to avoid any scientific grounding, data or other proof. "

Yet, Buffy you seem intent on vilifying this particular hypothesis without spending some time (weeks, months?) actually studying the detail of the hypothesis. This, from a scientist's point of view is unsatisfactory. I have indeed spent the past 6 months exploring many of the ideas put forward. Some I disagree with, but most have left me in a confused state of mind. Since I first attended school I have simply not needed to question my edicators in this way. Now I am questioning myself :o :o

 

"In reading through this book I have to say that I seriously got more scientific content from my last visit to the Tate Modern..."

This comment adds nothing. :blink:

 

"Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,"

I am a Geologist and I believe I am qualified to call myself a Scientist. The opening passages in the impact and exit event make it cear that the author has spent at least five years researching his ideas - then writing the book. It is very sad to see a response such as "Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,"

Buffy - have you ever focussed so much of your life into something that you believe in? Have you ever had the courage to lay bare your belief for others to discuss (and yes - criticise)?

 

I am not suggesting for one minute that the impact and exit event is the next 'big thing' but at the very least the hypothesis deserves respect, if only to acknowledge that the author - like so many others in the past - has been prepared to share his ideas, regardless of the critics.

 

I appluad that wholeheartedly.

 

If you were a scientist you should see this idea is easily falsifiable. Several nails have already been driven into the coffin this speculation should have been buried in. I like odd theories, it's really my fav thing, i happen to think that Thomas Gold was right and we will eventually have the evidence to show it, if not then it is just more BS but Golds Deep Hot biosphere theory does not violate the laws of physics but if we just dismissed anything we didn't like or that disagreed with current theories all we would really have is dogma.

 

So I'll add yet another nail to this coffin, the supposed impact spread around lots of rocks, some formed the Andes mountains, the rocks of the Andes mountains contain fossils this means this event happened at some point since the evolution of complex life, such an impact event would have sterilized the earth completely, turned the entire surface into magma and left the earth with an atmosphere of gaseous rock. A 300 miles in diameter object is big enough to sterilize the planet down to several miles, boil off the entire oceans of the world, evaporated the salt as well and heated the earth to a dull red heat down to several miles, to have ejected enough material to have formed the moon would have released far more energy than a 300 mile wide object impacting the Earth.

[Moontanman]

Hey Buffy - let us both go through your comments one by one...

As someone who has researched geology worldwide for over 45 years I am STILL encouraged by the ability of individuals to question what ...becomes... accepted science. Challenging past findings is an absoloutely necessary process. It eventually leads to the truth (insofar as the technology of the day allows). I too purchased the book and frankly, I see things quite differently to you. I see some genuinely interesting points raised. I also see a lack of math or data - but that certainly does NOT negate the argument put forward by the author.

 

"These canyons clearly show slow and progressive growth of the channels over well-documented time spans"

Really? Slow? Progressive? There really is no absolute proof of slow, rapid formation of the channels. The channels could, in the absence of other solid scientific evidence have been created during a brief period, as suggested in the impact and exit event.

 

"So, the theory is that the entire Andes mountain range consists of ejecta from this collision. You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking."

Buffy - to be taken seriously one needs to accept the ideas of others maturely, while avoiding temptation to become what could be perceived as 'condescending'. Your answer here diminishes your argument, and adds to what is simply a discussion of the impact and exit event. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the impact and exit event take a look at this link: http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/takla_makan_screenshot.html . There is a link at the bottom of that page to information about the "Andes argument" Buffy has mentioned.

 

"Any decent geological work on the Andes has ample evidence of uplift of sedimentary rock."

The book/hypothesis actually accepts that there would be evidence of uplift, morphism AND sedimentary rock. Could I suggest that you try to read it with less 'blinkered' eyes :rolleyes:

 

"Don't you want to ask the question why the book does not even address this?"

I did - but further than this the author asks the readers to question his findings quite a lot throughout the book. Again, in an apparently 'blinkered' mindset you have chosen to ignore this.

 

"Did you know that the Sierra Nevada mountain range which is west of the Rockies "flows" in the opposite direction, towards the west? They show similar "huge drainage channels"--some of which you've heard of like Yosemite" which go the opposite direction."

Has it occurred to you that any corresponding disturbance to Earth's crust would occur during and after such an event? In fact, as the author suggests it is quite likely that unusual oceanic/sea/lake/river ...and for that matter land deformation WOULD occur. "Flowing in the opposite direction" would be extremely likely, and not such a big deal.

 

"...I guess I have to point out that you claimed the similarity before I thought about it!"

Maybe that was the case - but, being objective and open minded I do see a very strong similarity between the north/south Andes mountain range and the west coast of Africa. Do you not see the argument against plate tectonics here? I'll give you an example: Your argument relating to the whereabouts of oil and its relation to "subduction". Show me any evidence of subduction in the Gulf of Mexico. Show me where there is a voluminous concentration of oil extraction facilities anywhere around the entire ring of fire. In fact your argument suggests that all extracted oil deposits of any note SHOULD be located in these areas. They are not.

 

"Unfortunately so many of these silly claims seem to come loaded with such a distaste for science, that they go out of their way to avoid any scientific grounding, data or other proof. "

Yet, Buffy you seem intent on vilifying this particular hypothesis without spending some time (weeks, months?) actually studying the detail of the hypothesis. This, from a scientist's point of view is unsatisfactory. I have indeed spent the past 6 months exploring many of the ideas put forward. Some I disagree with, but most have left me in a confused state of mind. Since I first attended school I have simply not needed to question my edicators in this way. Now I am questioning myself :o :o

 

"In reading through this book I have to say that I seriously got more scientific content from my last visit to the Tate Modern..."

This comment adds nothing. :blink:

 

"Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,"

I am a Geologist and I believe I am qualified to call myself a Scientist. The opening passages in the impact and exit event make it cear that the author has spent at least five years researching his ideas - then writing the book. It is very sad to see a response such as "Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,"

Buffy - have you ever focussed so much of your life into something that you believe in? Have you ever had the courage to lay bare your belief for others to discuss (and yes - criticise)?

 

I am not suggesting for one minute that the impact and exit event is the next 'big thing' but at the very least the hypothesis deserves respect, if only to acknowledge that the author - like so many others in the past - has been prepared to share his ideas, regardless of the critics.

 

I appluad that wholeheartedly.

 

If you were a scientist you should see this idea is easily falsifiable. Several nails have already been driven into the coffin this speculation should have been buried in. I like odd theories, it's really my fav thing, i happen to think that Thomas Gold was right and we will eventually have the evidence to show it, if not then it is just more BS but Golds Deep Hot biosphere theory does not violate the laws of physics but if we just dismissed anything we didn't like or that disagreed with current theories all we would really have is dogma.

 

So I'll add yet another nail to this coffin, the supposed impact spread around lots of rocks, some formed the Andes mountains, the rocks of the Andes mountains contain fossils this means this event happened at some point since the evolution of complex life, such an impact event would have sterilized the earth completely, turned the entire surface into magma and left the earth with an atmosphere of gaseous rock. A 300 miles in diameter object is big enough to sterilize the planet down to several miles, boil off the entire oceans of the world, evaporated the salt as well and heated the earth to a dull red heat down to several miles, to have ejected enough material to have formed the moon would have released far more energy than a 300 mile wide object impacting the Earth.

[joekgamer]

The spreading of the Earth's plates has been measured. The plates have been shown to move in a manner consistant with the theory of Plate Tectonics. Subduction has been observed. Ocean-floor spreading has been observed.

 

Isn't this proof for Plate Tectonics, and consequently, against your theory?

[JJUK]

The spreading of the Earth's plates has been measured. The plates have been shown to move in a manner consistant with the theory of Plate Tectonics. Subduction has been observed. Ocean-floor spreading has been observed.

 

Isn't this proof for Plate Tectonics, and consequently, against your theory?

 

In relation to plate tectonics there isn't really an issue, in my opinion. It is the ability to 'shelve' current belief so one can begin to honestly and objectively explore a new idea. Take the impact and exit event; the author constantly acknowledges that what he is proposing will be described by many as 'off the wall'. But, he also asks the reader for careful objectivity combined with a willingness to look at the issues he raises within the context of an impact and exit event. I did, and I can see the value in much of what has been suggested. Even to the extent of re-examining plate tectonics; the current scientific evidence and how this might just as easily be viewed as evidence supporting the impact and exit event. Imagine if the guy is correct and an impact and exit event did indeed occur. What would we expect to find? Plate tectonics! In other words plenty of movement of large sections of the earths crust over an indefinite period of time; collisions between sections of the crust and subsequent uplift etc, etc.

 

That is why, in my view the impact and exit event has quite a lot going for it.