Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

one event, or many. take your pick. why not? you're basically claiming that hundreds of feet of rock were made instantly, one at a time, selectively upturned and weathered and eroded, and the next layer deposited. lather, rinse, repeat. for MILES up MILES. so you ARE arguing with the law of superposition then. explain to me how the bottomn layers would be shift, eroded back to level (cutting the strata off at an angle), and NOT disturbed the levels above even slightly? if.if your idea is correct, there is no reason for why it matches and supports the scientific theory. and there is no reason given for why certain things are confined to certain strata. how do you explain that?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-25-2005 04:31 PM

---

אָרַח

Sheesh - I'm trying to be retired.A rather nice post, BUT badly off-topic.Moose

it's speculation that things entering the atmosphere heat up to very very hot temperatures? and it's speculation that really really hot things make water vaporize? and it's speculation that if something hit in an area that only has marine fossils that it hit underwater? layers above the k-t do not contain dinosaurs. or rather, as a point of fact, no dinosaur remains have ever been found above the k-t boundary. i challenge you to show me one (because i'd be really interested to know if i'm wrong).as for the "next layer up" bit, we can identify which layers are which. we don't randomly assign things. if a section of the tertiary layers are missing, the statement is still true. if a section of the cretacious layer is missing, the statement is still true. if both layers are there, the statement is still true, and there is a layer between them full of un-earthly elements like iridium. uh, no, it was a hypothesis for a long time. it predicted that we would find a crater of a certain size, in a particular layerof rock. types of sediment and fossilized life. an asteroid, several miles across. about 111m (or 180km) across. yes and no. 65mya is a long time. it's since been buried. but here's a gravity map of it. yes. uh, no. it's strongly supported theories. there is still some debate as to what killed the dinosaurs (and not EVERYTHING). it's not really "BOOM everything dies" but more of the secondary effects and environmental catastrophes. and it's not imaginative. there's a layer strongly saturated in an element not usually found on earth, a 180km crater associated with it, and a mass extinction event at the same time. coincidence?wrath of god, maybe. but not a flood. yes. at tunguska in 1908. the atmosphere was 2% less transparent for the next few years. it was read on seismographs around the world. the shattered windows 400 miles away. the people in ENGLAND noticed. uh, no you're not getting it. we were trying to impress on you the devastating effects of something that didn't even end up touching the earth. this thing yeilded about the same effect as the bomb that dropped on hiroshima (which also didn't touch the ground, btw). and we're talking about stuff that not only HIT the ground, but vaporized 5000 cubic km of rock.this one was little, and people noticed as far away as england. imagine one several thousand times as big. i'd be damned suprised in seismographs didn't pick those up. heck, we can triangulate were earthquakes epicenters are using data from the otherside of the planet. but we're talking about things that dropped with several thousand times the destruction of a nuke. [qs]but the fact is there were 100 atmospheric (and 828 underground) bombs tested in a short period of time just at the one Nevada Test Site, the atmospheric ones all within the 50s, all in one location, and their effect seems to have been a lot less than dramatic. [/]qstell that to the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki. again, we're talking about stuff that leaves craters 180km across. a lot smaller. heat expands. we'd be dealing with thousand degree steam blasts and giant tidal waves. water just COMPLICATES the matter.

---

אָרַח

originally, it was about establishing a connection between the k-t layer, the k-t event, and the dinosaur extinction. the problem arises because yec's tend not to believe the sequential nature of the geologic column, and so the k-t boundary does not have to be associate with the extinction.i was showing why this view is wrong.

---

אָרַח

TSUNAMIS are created by movements of the sea floor. Rocks hitting water create GRAVITY WAVES. Gravity waves are felt by ships. With the Earth entirely covered by water, the only thing to dissipate gravity waves would be the internal friction in water. How large a rock would be required to create a gravity wave that could circumnavigate the globe before dissipating is WAY beyond my ability to calculate.My understanding is that most of the damage caused by large meteors is due to the shock wave from a large object moving through the atmosphere at a high speed, not by the impact.This message has been edited by FormalistAesthete, 05-25-2005 07:18 PM

What is the reference for the supposed change in climate after the Flood? I took a quick glance at my (Revised Standard Version) Bible and saw no mention of anything about climate change, or even changes in vegetation.

Tsunamis are not only created by submarine earthquakes where the seafloor is vertically displaced, but also by submarine landslides, terrestrial landslides at continental margins (where land slides into the ocean), and well as impacts.However, I do think there are fundamental differences between waves resulting from impacts vs. waves resulting from submarine displacement.I say 'think' because I don't really know for sure. Just a guess. Can anyone confirm or refute that opinion.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 07:36 PM

My bad. The proper designation for waves created by rocks (or other objects) breaching the surface is "surface gravity wave".Does a submerged submarine leave the same sort of wake at the surface as a surface submarine does?This message has been edited by FormalistAesthete, 05-25-2005 07:59 PM

Faith, it might interest you that tektites - resolidified molten rock that was ejected from the Chicxulub impact - are found at least as far as Haiti and Wyoming? That's a ways from the Yucatan.....

Excellent post, arachnophilia, filled with calm, clean, substantive answers. I trust you'll excuse one minor quibble. Yes. In fact, it's a myth; something that surprised me very much when I learned about it recently. The glow of a falling meteorite is not the meteor itself; but superheated air in the shock wave in front of the meteor. The immediate surface of the rock may heat up as well, but that usually melts and blows off.The falling meteor does not get all that hot, except a bit on the surface that is lost anyway. It is not in the atmosphere long enough to pick up much heat in total.A small meteorite will decellerate rapidly, and finally fall at terminal velocity for a few minutes before hitting the ground at a couple of hundred km/hr; during this time the surface cools again.The main bulk of the meteor remains at the frigid temperatures of deep space, and this rapidly cools the surface. If you are lucky enough to find a meteorite just after it has fallen, it is likely to be cool, and possibly even covered with frost.Check out this article by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, that deals with the matter in an addendum.Sorry... I'm off topic. You guys are talking about rocks a couple of kilometers across, which have a different dynamic. They are not slowed by the atmosphere, and hit the ground at enormous velocity. That impact is what generates all the heat.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

I thought it was brought up to impress me with what a devastating effect such an event would have had on Noah and company. Now it turns out it's a big nothing.

​

Even all the nuclear testing that was done above ground in the fifties didn't produce half the results we might expect. The effects were surprisingly local, or traceable by wind patterns, devastating to downwinders but nevertheless confined to that area, without the worldwide atmospheric effect some talked about. I would never want to minimize those tests, including the effects of the underground testing afterward, but the fact is there were 100 atmospheric (and 828 underground) bombs tested in a short period of time just at the one Nevada Test Site, the atmospheric ones all within the 50s, all in one location, and their effect seems to have been a lot less than dramatic.

​

Any one of them COULD wipe out a city, or do a lot of damage, but if these meteors hit in uninhabited places or underwater in a worldwide flood, nobody's yet convinced me they'd do anything like you predict.

---

I know this was an older post as some pictures and calculations have been presented since but I wonder if you really have any comprehension of the energy released by these impacts. The Chixulub impact is estimated at around 100 million megatons of TNT. The Hiroshima bomb was about 20 kilotons. Thus the Chixulub impact released energy equivalent to about 5 billion Hiroshima bombs.The Sudbury and Vredefort impacts were bigger. I estimate they each released energy equivalent about 10-15 Billion Hiroshima A-Bombs so your analogy to nuclear testing doesn't mean much. If one looks at the impact database one can see that there were 6 impacts that were equivalent to 1 billion A-Bombs, 10 that were equivalent to about 400 million, 15 that were equivalent to about 100-200 million, 25 that were equivalent to 50-80 million and 60 that ranged from about 2 to 10 million A bombs in energy released.If you want to claim that these things rained down on the earth during the "flood year" you better have a really tough ark. Each of these impacts will produce enormous volumes of steam, filling the air with steam and molten rock. Blast waves in the air and massive waves in the water will spread from hundreds to thousands of kilometers from each impact. Ejecta will rain hot rock and ash all over the surface of the heaving global ocean. Massive fireballs will heat the atmosphere. The steam from vaporized water will condense in the air releasing its latent heat of vaporization almost certainly heating the atmosphere well above the temperature that air breathing life can survive and falling as scalding hot rain.It's one thing to have such an impact every few hundred million years. It's quite another to cram them into a young earth and really impossible to cram them into a "flood year".Now as I said before look at the moon. It is estimated that during the heavy bombardment of the moon 17-22 thousand objects ranging in size from 10 (Chixulub size) to 100 km in diameter would have rained down on earth. This is an unavoidable conclusion because of the craters on the moon and earth's much more massive gravity as has been pointed out. This would have vaporized the oceans and destroyed all life on the surface of the earth.
lunar bombardment
Even the tiny fraction of impacts that left craters that have survived to the present day would have destroyed the ark if they fell during the flood year and those that hit the earth during the bombardment of the inner solar system must have sterilized the surface of the planet if any life was around at the time only extreme thermophilic bacteria might have survived.
Randy

quote:

---

Sorry... I'm off topic. You guys are talking about rocks a couple of kilometers across, which have a different dynamic. They are not slowed by the atmosphere, and hit the ground at enormous velocity. That impact is what generates all the heat.

---

Right. It is mostly the rapid compression of the target by the impacting object that transfers kinetic energy into heat. This is what makes the fireball. If you want to look at equations used for the
Impact Calculator You can find them Here In a pdf file.Added in Edit: It's not the fall that kills everything. It's the sudden stop at the bottom.RandyThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-25-2005 09:08 PM

Maybe I should just delete my whole post. I was just informed by someone who actually knows what he's talking about that my claim about the shock wave of a meteor passing thru the atmosphere causing most of the damage is WRONG.

FA, it's all part of the learning process.Nothing wrong with making mistakes - we all do - unless you don't alter your thinking when new information reaches you.

no. once a submarine reaches sufficient depth there will be no noticeable wake at all. makes satellite tracking difficult eh?the reason for bulbous bows on large tankers is that the submerged bulb reduces the wake of the entire ship, thus saving energy otherwise lost to making waves.see
Page not found - Ship Technology
and
Air Anti-Submarine Warfare ASW Sensorsthere is another difference between water and air: compressability