Pothead discovers worlds largest impact crater

[modest]

Good stuff Modestor! I have a bone to pick with the article on earth-grazers though. (Big surprise eh? :shrug:) They say:

...Earth-grazing fireballs are a very rare kind of fireball[7] caused by a meteoroid that collides with the Earth but survives the collision by passing through, and exiting, the atmosphere. ...

The Great Daylight 1972 Fireball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Looking at the chart that follows we see that none of these struck the ground, so saying 'collides with the Earth' is in my view a misnomer.

 

I agree, they word that badly.

 

This reminds me of how astronomers talk about stellar collisions in globular clusters. An astronomer would say two stars collided, but this would refer to a "gravitational collision" where the two exchanged energy via gravity without ever physically touching.

 

I think this is the same kind of thing where a collision "with the earth" need not involve the ground but they should have realized it would imply that

 

~modest

[Jack Hughett]

The dynamics of meteoroids when interacting with the atmosphere and ground are extraordinarily complex. The program I linked above is the best a person can do without having an expert in the field do a complete simulation. However, you're looking at this a bit backwards I think.

 

First off, you don't have anything to simulate. I mean, you are not at a point in an investigation where you have data (or even an educated guess) with which to do a complex simulation. If you were to confirm an impact in the area (such as by finding shocked quartz) and identify its composition directly (such as by finding spherules). You could add that to whatever you learn about the deformation of the geology in the area. You'd then be closer.

 

Secondly, as confirmation of an impact, simulating a possible scenario is more difficult and less conclusive than going there and finding direct evidence. No matter what the simulation shows - you have not confirmed a meteorite. However, something simple like shocked quartz would. So, as CraigD indicates in his post a road trip is needed.

 

~modest

 

Hey again Modest,

 

Off subject but my son claims he's the king of modesty.

 

 

"However, you're looking at this a bit backwards I think."

 

The story of my life!

 

By the way that is a fun program for figuring impacts, but it seems to be designed strictly for circular impacts. Once you get below 45 degrees the dynamics doesn't change. It maintains that the impact is circular in shape, or did I miss something in the calculation?

 

As far as finding shocked quartz and spherules. They may be extremely hard to find and is it possible that they may not even exist with this impact. The dynamics would be totally different from what we think of a "normal" impact.

With this (ok I'll use it) "alleged" impact zone being over 100 miles long, and the first point of contact with the earth being considered more of a grazing instead of a direct strike, would the pressures be the same?

 

Jack

[Turtle]

...By the way that is a fun program for figuring impacts, but it seems to be designed strictly for circular impacts. Once you get below 45 degrees the dynamics doesn't change. It maintains that the impact is circular in shape, or did I miss something in the calculation?

 

As far as finding shocked quartz and spherules. They may be extremely hard to find and is it possible that they may not even exist with this impact. The dynamics would be totally different from what we think of a "normal" impact.

With this (ok I'll use it) "alleged" impact zone being over 100 miles long, and the first point of contact with the earth being considered more of a grazing instead of a direct strike, would the pressures be the same?

 

Jack

 

Again...there is not grazing, not ploughing, not scraping, not skipping, or otherwise any contact with the ground with a main body except explosion. :shrug: Nada.

Read the entire article Modest linked that describes how the software works. I found for runs of a 50 meter solid stone meteoroid at low angles, it burns up and/or explodes high in the atmosphere.

 

Perhaps the discussion of scraping, skipping, what-have-you, is for another thread, and it has come up elsewhere, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence for such an event. On the contrary, the minimum speed for any incoming meteoroid is ~12 kilometers/second (7.2 miles-per-second) and that is a fireball waiting to happen and nothing less will do.

[Jack Hughett]

Again...there is not grazing, not ploughing, not scraping, not skipping, or otherwise any contact with the ground with a main body except explosion. :shrug: Nada.

Read the entire article Modest linked that describes how the software works. I found for runs of a 50 meter solid stone meteoroid at low angles, it burns up and/or explodes high in the atmosphere.

 

Perhaps the discussion of scraping, skipping, what-have-you, is for another thread, and it has come up elsewhere, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence for such an event. On the contrary, the minimum speed for any incoming meteoroid is ~12 kilometers/second (7.2 miles-per-second) and that is a fireball waiting to happen and nothing less will do.

 

Obviously I don't have the background, evidence, or knowledge to back-up this claim, and I definitely haven't seemed to win over any supporters for this theory. So there doesn't seem to be much need in dragging it out any longer. I've enjoyed the exchanges, but I think I am going to take my big three mile wide iron ball and go home. It's been fun.

 

Jack

[REASON]

Obviously I don't have the background, evidence, or knowledge to back-up this claim, and I definitely haven't seemed to win over any supporters for this theory. So there doesn't seem to be much need in dragging it out any longer. I've enjoyed the exchanges, but I think I am going to take my big three mile wide iron ball and go home. It's been fun.

 

Jack

 

Jack,

 

It isn't people that you need to support your theory, it's empirical evidence. I think you'll discover that the more empirical evidence you find to support your theory, the more legitimate supporters of it you'll draw. It's just part of the scientific method.

 

I hope you don't feel discouraged. It is not unusual to face objections when making an extraordinary claim that is intended to supplant an accepted scientific theory. It's part of the process. But if every time someone who was trying to define or alter a new theory were to pick up their ball and go home at the first or fifth objection, science would never advance.

 

If you truly believe you are correct about what you are seeing, then take some time and try and come up with some supporting evidence that not only helps to define why your theory is correct, but that can demonstrate why existing theories are incorrect.

 

This is the only way to find the kind of support you're looking for. But if you're truly objective about this, than you also have to be open to the possibility that you were mistaken all along.

 

 

By the way, even if you choose to stop posting on this topic, I hope you continue you participate here with other subjects. :)

[Jack Hughett]

Jack,

 

It isn't people that you need to support your theory, it's empirical evidence. I think you'll discover that the more empirical evidence you find to support your theory, the more legitimate supporters of it you'll draw. It's just part of the scientific method.

 

I hope you don't feel discouraged. It is not unusual to face objections when making an extraordinary claim that is intended to supplant an accepted scientific theory. It's part of the process. But if every time someone who was trying to define or alter a new theory were to pick up their ball and go home at the first or fifth objection, science would never advance.

 

If you truly believe you are correct about what you are seeing, then take some time and try and come up with some supporting evidence that not only helps to define why your theory is correct, but that can demonstrate why existing theories are incorrect.

 

This is the only way to find the kind of support you're looking for. But if you're truly objective about this, than you also have to be open to the possibility that you were mistaken all along.

 

 

By the way, even if you choose to stop posting on this topic, I hope you continue you participate here with other subjects. :)

 

Thanks for the reply, Reason,

 

The ball comment was nothing more than a bad attempt at a joke.

 

Honestly I'm getting to old to waste time chasing down something that may or may not exist. Of course in my mind I'll always believe that it does. I came to this forum just from the excitement of finding that someone else on the web thought that this was an impact crater. I didn't really mean to get as involved with the discussion as I did. It's just that I tend to rattle off to much sometimes.

 

As far as participating in discussions about other topics. If I happen on to one that I feel I can offer my two cents worth of advice I certainly will, but more than likely I will probably just stick to reading the posts for now. There are definitely some interesting topics here.

 

Jack

[REASON]

There are definitely some interesting topics here.

 

Now I'll support you on that 100%. :)

[modest]

Hey again Modest,

 

Off subject but my son claims he's the king of modesty.

 

:hihi:

 

He may be the king of modesty, but I'm the best at it. I'm the most modest person ever! :evil: Actually, my nick "modest" started about 10 or 12 years ago. One of the first times I logged in to IRC, I picked a random word not thinking it would matter in the least. :eek:

 

By the way that is a fun program for figuring impacts, but it seems to be designed strictly for circular impacts. Once you get below 45 degrees the dynamics doesn't change. It maintains that the impact is circular in shape, or did I miss something in the calculation?

 

Yes, it only calculates circular craters. The program makes a lot of simplifications and circular craters is one of them. It is not fully known at what angle of attack a meteor starts making elliptical craters. It seems to be somewhere around 5 - 12 degrees, below which craters start becoming non-circular(1).

 

As far as finding shocked quartz and spherules. They may be extremely hard to find and is it possible that they may not even exist with this impact. The dynamics would be totally different from what we think of a "normal" impact.

With this (ok I'll use it) "alleged" impact zone being over 100 miles long, and the first point of contact with the earth being considered more of a grazing instead of a direct strike, would the pressures be the same?

 

Jack

 

If an event can make a large crater then it can make shocked quartz. If it is iron/nickel then you would expect to find little BB sized bits of metal that have vaporized then condensed like rain falling out of the sky. No event other than a large meteorite (that I can think of) will cause these two things, so they would be good things to look for.

 

Again...there is not grazing, not ploughing, not scraping, not skipping, or otherwise any contact with the ground with a main body except explosion. :doh: Nada.

Read the entire article Modest linked that describes how the software works. I found for runs of a 50 meter solid stone meteoroid at low angles, it burns up and/or explodes high in the atmosphere.

 

I agree that the program doesn't handle those things, but I don't think we should rule them out completely.

 

Perhaps the discussion of scraping, skipping, what-have-you, is for another thread, and it has come up elsewhere, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence for such an event.

 

This is briefly discussed here:

Are impact craters always circular?

(or

here

if that link is down)

And they're not always circular, says astronomer Fred Watson.

"Occasionally you see craters that are elongated and sometimes you see canyons that have been excavated by incoming meteorites.

"You even see lines of multi-ringed craters as if something has bounced over the surface, says Watson.

Here's one that bounced on the moon:

FIGURE 115 [above & below].-Messier (1) and Messier A (2) are a pair of unusual craters in northwestern Mare Fecunditatis. Messier is elliptical and has bright walls and light rays of ejecta extending at right angles to its long axis (approximately 16.5 km). Messier A is a doublet crater having two very long rays or filaments of ejecta extending westward from it. The east part of the doublet has steep, bright walls, whereas the west part is dark and appears mantled... Both Messier and Messier A resemble some small experimental impact craters produced in sand by projectiles following shallow trajectories (4° or less from the horizontal) at velocities of approximately 1.7 km/s. In separate experiments using single projectiles, both elliptical craters with lateral ejecta lobes and doublet craters have been produced. Thus, it can be inferred that these lunar craters were produced by high velocity projectiles following shallow trajectories.

-

source

And, I'm sure Jack Hughett will get excited by the "butterfly crater" (looking canyon-like).

 

 

 

Obviously I don't have the background, evidence, or knowledge to back-up this claim, and I definitely haven't seemed to win over any supporters for this theory. So there doesn't seem to be much need in dragging it out any longer. I've enjoyed the exchanges, but I think I am going to take my big three mile wide iron ball and go home. It's been fun.

 

Jack

 

:eek: Are you trying to sneak off to Sequatchie Valley? :) Wait a minute... You're going down there with a three mile wide iron ball, huh? I see what's going on here. You're taking a giant fake meteor down there, huh? Maybe drop it in the bottom of the lake and "stumble upon it" with some scuba gear. Well... ok, but you're gonna have to cut me in on the find.

 

Amateur explorers find giant skipping meteor at the bottom of Guntersville Lake

 

:hihi: :hyper: :hihi:

 

Stick around Jack, we're all just trying to figure out this world we live in - all trying to make sense of what we see - we're learning and having fun. :D

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Again...there is not grazing, not ploughing, not scraping, not skipping, or otherwise any contact with the ground with a main body except explosion. Nada.

Read the entire article Modest linked that describes how the software works. I found for runs of a 50 meter solid stone meteoroid at low angles, it burns up and/or explodes high in the atmosphere

 

I agree that the program doesn't handle those things, but I don't think we should rule them out completely.

~modest

 

:hyper: Interesting stuff MostModest. I think we have other links on circularity of craters in the other impact threads I have pointed to here at Hypog. Looking at you images, I have a couple thoughts: 1) No atmosphere on the Moon, so a meteor strike there is a different animal from one on Earth or other planet with an atmosphere, and 2) even the longest crater you show is only about twice as long as wide and not the kind of scraping that Jack & Others have theorized.

 

Honestly I'm getting to old to waste time chasing down something that may or may not exist. Of course in my mind I'll always believe that it does. I came to this forum just from the excitement of finding that someone else on the web thought that this was an impact crater. I didn't really mean to get as involved with the discussion as I did. It's just that I tend to rattle off to much sometimes.

 

:hihi: I do understand your excitement Jack. The information I have presented is what I have learned the last year or so in trying to make a case for my own discovery of what I think is a very large impact crater in Mexico. :eek: :D If you follow the links I gave earlier to the other threads here on the subject, much of this is discussed. You're not alone in having the idea that meteors scrape along or bounce, I simply disagree based on what I have learned about the physics of high energy impacts.

 

Anyway, I'm starting to rattle myself again so that's a wrap. Duck & cover! :)

[Jack Hughett]

:hyper:

If an event can make a large crater then it can make shocked quartz. If it is iron/nickel then you would expect to find little BB sized bits of metal that have vaporized then condensed like rain falling out of the sky. No event other than a large meteorite (that I can think of) will cause these two things, so they would be good things to look for.

 

Are you trying to sneak off to Sequatchie Valley?

 

Stick around Jack, we're all just trying to figure out this world we live in - all trying to make sense of what we see - we're learning and having fun. :)

 

~modest

 

I tried all kinds of searches on Google to see if anyone has found Shocked Quartz anywhere along the path from Guntersville to Grassy Cove at the upper end of Sequatchie. I had no success. A road trip is obviously the only way to be sure.

 

I'm thinking late fall, early winter, when the foliage is gone, I might make a trip to the upper end of Sequatchie, and also on into Grassy Cove and hike around Black Mountain located at the upper end of the Cove. This is where I believe the big three mile wide iron ball went under. If I can't find anything there then there's not much chance of finding anything anywhere along the path. Or at least anything to support this theory.

 

There is thought to be some low angled craters located in Argentina. They are called 'The Rio Cuarto craters' You'll have to do a Google search to find them.

 

Stick around Jack, we're all just trying to figure out this world we live in - all trying to make sense of what we see - we're learning and having fun.

 

You are not making it easy to leave

 

Jack

[Jack Hughett]

:hyper: Interesting stuff MostModest. I think we have other links on circularity of craters in the other impact threads I have pointed to here at Hypog. Looking at you images, I have a couple thoughts: 1) No atmosphere on the Moon, so a meteor strike there is a different animal from one on Earth or other planet with an atmosphere, and 2) even the longest crater you show is only about twice as long as wide and not the kind of scraping that Jack & Others have theorized.

 

 

 

:hihi: I do understand your excitement Jack. The information I have presented is what I have learned the last year or so in trying to make a case for my own discovery of what I think is a very large impact crater in Mexico. :eek: :D If you follow the links I gave earlier to the other threads here on the subject, much of this is discussed. You're not alone in having the idea that meteors scrape along or bounce, I simply disagree based on what I have learned about the physics of high energy impacts.

 

Anyway, I'm starting to rattle myself again so that's a wrap. Duck & cover! :)

 

Trying to prove a theory is like swimming two miles an hour against a four mile an hour current.

 

Jack

[Jack Hughett]

Could this be a possible impact crater? It is located in the mid western part of New Mexico, and is about a third of a mile wide and a little over a hundred feet deep and is just outside the Cibola National Forest. The odd thing about it is, that it's located on the very top edge of a mesa. Could just be caused by erosion.

 

Here are the coordinates: 34.5224N 107.5320W

What do you think? :lol:

 

Jack

[Turtle]

Could this be a possible impact crater? It is located in the mid western part of New Mexico, and is about a third of a mile wide and a little over a hundred feet deep and is just outside the Cibola National Forest. The odd thing about it is, that it's located on the very top edge of a mesa. Could just be caused by erosion.

 

Here are the coordinates: 34.5224N 107.5320W

What do you think? :lol:

 

Jack

 

Definitely a breach on the cliff side that's eroded. Judging by 2 similar structures ~5 miles WSW, I'd say they are man made excavations. 34.5224N 107.5320W 107°27'18.74"W Mining of some kind? Irrigation reervoirs? :hihi:

[Jack Hughett]

Definitely a breach on the cliff side that's eroded. :hihi: Judging by 2 similar structures ~5 miles WSW, I'd say they are man made excavations. 34.5224N 107.5320W 107°27'18.74"W Mining of some kind? Irrigation reervoirs? :lol:

 

Hey Turtle,

Yeah, there are several of those rectangular pits around the area. Looks like they haven't been used in years. I'm curious to what was mined there.

 

Jack

[TheBigDog]

I love threads like this one. I remember seeing a program about the meteor which his Russia in the early 1900's. Left a weird pattern on the ground and it was proven that it actually never hit the ground but exploded in the atmosphere from the pressure. This somehow caused a counterintuitive pattern on the ground.

 

It seems to me that "hitting the earth" is a relative thing for bodies of such incredible energy levels. To simplify the variables we choose to consider many of them as static. But let us think about some other variables which may make a difference to the behavior of a large body in close encounter with the earth.

 

Survivable Construction: we make reentry vehicles that survive in ways that we do not expect from most natural objects. It seems plausible to me that an object in space could become sedimentary in nature over years of random encounters and as a result behave in the atmosphere in ways that our models may not expect.

 

Spin: Look at the dynamics of pitching a baseball. Now apply those dynamics to a high energy object coming into the atmosphere. How might spin affect the behavior and path of such an object?

 

Follow the Leader: This is inspired by Shoemaker-Levi where the comet broke into smaller parts that hit Jupiter. Imagine that they are closer together; seconds apart. The lead object burns a hole through the atmosphere acting like a kamikaze blocker. The next object is passing through a disturbed part of the atmosphere that no longer fits the model. What would it be capable of?

 

Non-Impact Bounce: An object entering the atmosphere creates a huge pressure wave ahead of itself. The energy needed to create this wave is usually what overcomes the object and destroys it. Imagine that the object survives the pressure wave (Survivable Construction) but gets low enough to complicate the whole thing with a Ground Effect with the pressure wave bouncing off the surface of the planet. So the object never actually touches the earth even as it scars it. The ground effect echo slows the object, but also pushes it back up and away from the earth. The object might skip like a rock on the surface of a lake in this ground effect before finally slowing enough to make impact. Just like skipping a stone it would need a very low angle of impact.

 

Food for thought.

 

Bill

[Jack Hughett]

It looks like several mine entrances may be dug in the side of the mesa just below the pit at the top of the mesa. Could possibly be old gold mines. They built a lot of diversion dams, I'm thinking they used the diverted water to clean their ore.

[Jack Hughett]

 

It seems to me that "hitting the earth" is a relative thing for bodies of such incredible energy levels. To simplify the variables we choose to consider many of them as static. But let us think about some other variables which may make a difference to the behavior of a large body in close encounter with the earth.

 

Survivable Construction: we make reentry vehicles that survive in ways that we do not expect from most natural objects. It seems plausible to me that an object in space could become sedimentary in nature over years of random encounters and as a result behave in the atmosphere in ways that our models may not expect.

 

Spin: Look at the dynamics of pitching a baseball. Now apply those dynamics to a high energy object coming into the atmosphere. How might spin affect the behavior and path of such an object?

 

 

Food for thought.

 

Bill

 

Hello Bill,

 

I agree! You mentioned Survivable Construction. Considering that our atmosphere is relatively thin. I would think if an object is large enough only the surface layer of the object would burn away. I would be willing to bet (I usually don't bet but how can I be proved wrong) that the interior of the object wouldn't even change temperatures.

 

:graduate:Spin: I haven't thought of this before, but I agree with you, it would appear that spin could play a part in the trajectory. With this in mind, the bottom of the object would be the first to make contact with the atmosphere causing a drag to be on the bottom surface. It would seem that this would put a top spin on the object driving it down. Which makes it more difficult for me to prove this theory.

 

Jack