Kalopin, clearly you have an interest in geological processes. I'm concerned, however, with a few of your statements. No geologist claims that "coal can build itself into mountains over millions of years." The claims is far more nuanced than that, and if this is your impression of current understanding of geological processes, then you are flat wrong. You also repeatedly refer to a "Lunar impact". I do not suppose you mean to say that the moon collided with the Earth, however, I am curious to what you mean. Are you proposing a chunk of the moon collided with the Earth and set in motion the chain of events you claim otherwise impossible?
While sman's response may seem to you to be dismissive, and undoubtedly you have received similar replies before in other forums, I'd invite you to consider the frame of reference from which sman's response was made. You have provided no evidence, no models, no mechanisms; indeed, you have provided nothing other than your own speculation in your attempt to refute damn near the entire body of geological sciences. Certainly you can appreciate why a random stranger would be at least skeptical of your claims.
What sman appears to me to be hinting at, and what I'd like to reiterate, is a function of our common failing in reason. We typically seek evidence to support our hypotheses. This is an error in reason, but it is an error that has served us well over the years. Far better to see a panther in the leaves when none exists, then to fail to see the signs of a deadly predator. In many cases, this is a fool's errand, as our quest is easily fulfilled. However, if we are more concerned with accuracy than with confirmation of beliefs, a more appropriate approach would be to seek evidence that disproves our hypothesis. This is a convenient way of escaping the logical trap of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to prove your hypothesis, I'd like to see what evidence you've accumulated that your hypothesis cannot be incorrect.
Though you may find other avenues more fruitful, I'd be specifically interested in what calculations you've done regarding the mass of the impactor required to produce the effects you attribute to the impact.
Yes, but does anyone else really care about the actual geological process?
Yes, I believe the Moon impacted the Earth and on more than a couple/few occassions [probably very similar processes with Vindian, Rodinia, Nuna,...]. It appears the impactor in this case would need that amount of circumference, [approx.] and in Earth's orbit [explains details]. It just matches the amount of force needed. I have supposed it could have been a comet or large asteroid, but the size of the eastern coast of the U.S., the length of The Smoky and Appalachian Mountain Ranges, the size of The Mediterranean all points to a Lunar [Moon] impact.
How are youall missing the evidence that I am presenting?
Every geological detail backs my hypothesis and not current theory, sorry.
And, the evidence was all noticed before the hypothesis was realized.
The crater rim is The Appalachians that are coal and could not have been piled up in this manner by any other means.
The western basin rim is the eastern coast of the U.S., showing the curve of the impactor.
The Mediterranean Sea shows every sign of being a crater. There is no land mass available to fill in its space when forming Pangaea and all land masses surround this same location.
Brazil matching Ghana, New England and Eastern Canada matching with Great Britain, Scandinavia, France,.. and no volcanism here or mainly throughout the breaking coastline argues for an impact and not slow convection. Mountains were broken apart. The Marianas Trench is proof that this was an instant force.
Then I must ask: What is the more "nuanced" answer? Tell me what the process/es were to create The Appalachian and Ozark Ranges? What is it that geologists "claim"?
Do you not think that I have already given this study?
Yes, I am more concerned with accuracy. That is the reason for this discussion. And, if YOU have any concern for accuracy you may want to give further study into this hypothesis, as there is NO other mechanism available that will produce the structures presented!
This, then gives me concern over a couple of your statements. Can you not understand that this had to be an instantaneous catastrophic event? Huge amounts of solid tectonic plate can not be slowly seperated in this manner by convection. I do not claim that convection is not another driving force, but it was NOT the initial mechanism...
Calculations are currently vague estimates [-get a study group!!!]
If you put in the study [think outside 'the little box'], you will all see that every detail points to an impact scenario :-]
["...attempt to refute damn near the entire body of geological sciences..."] :-] I like that!
Then, help me to find the evidence "...that disproves our hypothesis...", as I have been unable! ;-]
Edited by Kalopin, 02 October 2013 - 10:00 AM.