Moontanman Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Nope. it doesn't violate any of the of the empirical data produced in the lab. Only the interpretation of the results. I'm well aware that I am taking shots at an old theory. I've been talking to the usgs and they say there isn't any evidence of melt or partial melt because no one has looked for it yet. He is checking for to find the right test for the idea. It seems that radiometric tests can date lavas. but not the apalachians I think that evidence for a melt big enough to melt mountains would be pretty obvious, I've done a huge amount of rock collecting in those mountains and no evidence for melting is there, lots of sedimentary rocks but no melted rocks at all. Not to put too fine a point on it it but do you have any evidence for the idea that radiometric data doesn't work for the Appalachians? Or for the idea of a partial melt other than it hasn't be checked for? Not to mention that the idea of the cause of that melt doesn't hold "water" at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusDennis Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 If a theory doesn't fit what you see. Do you doubt your eyes? or the theory?And none the existing theories fit what we see from a few hundred miles up. What do you think you see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 If a theory doesn't fit what you see. Do you doubt your eyes? or the theory?And none the existing theories fit what we see from a few hundred miles up. What do you think you see? First off Dennis, i don't see what you see at all, i know of no one else who does either. To put this in context the impact that killed the dinosaurs was the result of a six mile object, it disrupted the environment of the entire earth and resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other animals and plants. Multiple impacts of that magnitude would have destroyed the ecology of the earth and most if not all animal life. there is no evidence of any such event in the time frame you are talking about. Yes there was an extinction but it was of no where near the magnitude of the one KT boundary impact much less what the result of multiple such impacts would have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I went to high school too. And was taught the same theories as everyone else. But the best theory, no matter how rational and logical it sounds, is still just a best guess. Radiometric dateing is a fairly new science that is already making significant changes to our understanding of the geochronology of the earth. If it can be applied to the Appalachians then it could either validate the old school of thought, or my own admittedly preposterous idea. Yes; your idea is preposterous. In support of it you denegrate all of geology, and science, as 'just a best guess'. :hyper: You are not even wrong. Post Script: You also too easily dismissed 'all these threads', claiming to have read them, which given the time interval of your posts I seriously call into question. :confused: Here's a tool you missed there and you may convince yourself no size/makeup/speed/angle of impacting comet/asteroid would/could leave the pattern you suggest for them. >> http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ Galapagos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusDennis Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Can you say "Younger Dryas"? ...Good, I thought you could. Now can say "Clovis Culture"?... Very good again. You're doing well. Now try "Holocene Extinction Event"... And then, "12,000 B.C" Wow! you can say all of those things! You see? I may be off on the scale. But I'm pretty sure the apparent descrepancy is a product of a feeble attempt at describeing an event of indescribeable magnitude to someone who lacks sufficient imagination to open his eyes and mind. Not whether or not it happened. This is starting to feel like trying to convince a blind man who won't accept that's daytime. Persistance is futile. I give up.You win. Have a nice life:shrug:. P.S. that impact simulation is like trying to simulate a bullet wound by shooting at a frozen cadaver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Can you say "Younger Dryas"? ...Good, I thought you could. Now can say "Clovis Culture"?... Very good again. You're doing well. Now try "Holocene Extinction Event"... And then, "12,000 B.C" Wow! you can say all of those things! You see? I may be off on the scale. But I'm pretty sure the apparent descrepancy is a product of a feeble attempt at describeing an event of indescribeable magnitude to someone who lacks sufficient imagination to open his eyes and mind. Not whether or not it happened. This is starting to feel like trying to convince a blind man who won't accept that's daytime. Persistance is futile. I give up.You win. Have a nice life:shrug:. P.S. that impact simulation is like trying to simulate a bullet wound by shooting at a frozen cadaver. I tried to explain to you why you were off scale by several orders of magnitude, ignoring this will not change the facts that such impacts would have global effect much worse than the KT impact. Possibly trying a few more mainstream geology sites might be in order. You of course are welcome to defend your ideas, but I would suggest you read the rules first. Simply ignoring the reality of the situation is not going to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.