True Creation's Culdra Theory

[QUOTE]Joz: [b]Actually because the impact velocity is greater than the maximum speed of propogation of a shock wave in the impacted material the energy "arrives" faster than it can dissipate. This means that only a small fraction is released in a shock wave, the rest is released as heat and light at the point of impact.....[/QUOTE][/b]Your post slipped my mind, sorry about that. Also when I think about craters I think about shock metamorphism and disturbed strata, not the transitory heat & light that, I concede, most of the energy is released as. Of course when we talk about what it would be like to be around an impact when it happens, this point is not trivial and I thank you for correcting me.

​

​

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-04-2002]

[QUOTE][b]If there were no water at all on earth, the ocean basins would still be depressed.[/QUOTE][/b]Venus has no oceans but has two apparently distinct types of crust, basaltic highlands that are comparable to our continents, and rest is lowland. But of course this is based upon RADAR data, last I heard the record (Soviet) for a probe's survival on the Venusian surface was about 40 minutes. http://www.msstate.edu/dept/geosciences/CT/TIG/Plan/Slides8.htm[QUOTE][b]It is due to composition of the different types of crust[/QUOTE][/b]Here's a comparison between oceanic and continental crusts http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/270/Lecccoc/Lecccoc.html[QUOTE][b]And why couldn't there have been old volcanoes that are now eroded? We do see evidence for these.[/QUOTE][/b]Devil's Tower (Wyoming) being one, Ship Rock (New Mexico) being another.

Also the release of heat causes vaporisation of the impacted (and impacting) material thus forming the crater itself, also the hard crater floor is a result of heat metamorphism....

Here is my theory on how things would have been going with the reactions in the atmosphere to the condensation nuclei of the dust kicked up by the impacts. It isn't to scale and is rather rudementary, in the process of construction and there isn't much text explination on how it would have went thought the illustrations speak volumes. It also shows how gene90's calculations are a bit of a straw man and doesn't consider other variables rather than pressure I believe. Along with my modifications such as the need for mesospheric activity.--After you view it, I would be appreciative if it were downloaded so that it would not take up too much of my bandwidth as it is relatively a large image. Http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/Atlantic-AtmosphericHeatCorruption.jpg

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-11-2002]

I'm offended by the fact that you call my argument, which I researched before posting, a strawman without explaining how it is such. All this image you have posted is is an expanded model of a convection cell with absolutely no meteorological calculations to support it, an apparent lack of knowledge of the thermodynamics of vapor condensation, and an ignorance of basic gas laws.Now, have you actually calculated how high water vapor would rise into the atmosphere as a product of heat content? If not, you're running completely in the dark and you'd find it in your best interests to check my work and consult a few meteorology texts.

"I'm offended by the fact that you call my argument, which I researched before posting, a strawman without explaining how it is such."
--Please excuse me, it was not meant to be at all offensive. I will explain other factors in a momment."All this image you have posted is is an expanded model of a convection cell with absolutely no meteorological calculations to support it, an apparent lack of knowledge of the thermodynamics of vapor condensation, and an ignorance of basic gas laws."
--No actually, it was a platform hypothesis on what I would theororize would be to happen, It is no where near complete, I have given it so that we could see what my relative idea was."Now, have you actually calculated how high water vapor would rise into the atmosphere as a product of heat content? If not, you're running completely in the dark and you'd find it in your best interests to check my work and consult a few meteorology texts."
--There is a calculation used for 'singular parcels', that is, a single bubble of air that is in and of itself, without contact with a facillity of reproduced heat, (the energy/heat changes are confined to that particular parcel) or forced by the process of a convection cell. If the air is/becomes saturated (air temperature=dew point temperature), this rate is roughly halved in the lower troposphere, due to the release of latent heat upon condensation. This rate is known as the Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rate/SALR or moist adiabatic Lapse rate.--So let us assume that the temperature of the rising plume were 200^o celcius, we would not get very far. Increasing in altitude we would subtract 6^oC every 1km. 0^oC would be reached by (assuming a single parcel) 33.3km, though it is 40^oC at this point. This at 22km temperatures start to decline so if it were a parcel it would seemingly reach equillibrium at about 40-45km. Also must take into account the tropopause. At some level, there is usually an abrupt change in the lapse rate from positive (decrease with height), to isothermal (no change), or a slight rise. This level is the tropopause.
Typical heights of the tropopause, (though quite variable) and therefore thickness of the troposphere, are:High arctic/antarctic latitudes: 6 to 8 km (20000-25000 ft)
On/near the equator: 16 to 18 km (50000-60000 ft)--Now we would take into account other properties, such as self convection, this would have obviously been a massive plume of such heated ascending. Another account is the loss of kenetic energy in converstion to heat by condensation to a nucleus, called latent heat, as shown above, this decrease from the dry adiabatic lapse rate is about 10 to 6, though this is an estimate from naturally occuring heat. I cannot find more detail on this and I am quite sure it is very relevant as it may very well lower the lapse rate. Another thing to take into account is the ozone layer, which would have been 'healthier' at this time, so temperatures at these heights would be warmer.(added by edit) - It also may be important to note that water vapor as was described before is a greenhouse gas in most forms, absorbing heat.Reference:1. - http://www.booty.demon.co.uk/metinfo/uswfaq.htm
2. - Peterson Field Guids - Atmosphere; Vincent J. Shaefer/John A. Day------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-14-2002]

[QUOTE][b]--So let us assume that the temperature of the rising plume were 200o celcius, we would not get very far. Increasing in altitude we would subtract 6oC every 1km. 0oC would be reached by (assuming a single parcel) 33.3km, though it is 40oC at this point. This at 22km temperatures start to decline so if it were a parcel it would seemingly reach equillibrium at about 40-45km.[/QUOTE][/b]You're still making the mistake of running by temperature when you should be running by density to determine if the parcel will continue to lift. This isn't a matter of "warm air rises" it is a matter of "less dense things rise". See page 336 of Peterson's. You have already noticed that warm air generally rises over cooler air and that's what you see first in this chart. Look over to the right column. As the altitude increases density falls off *and* it gets colder. The parcel will stop when it reaches equilibrium with the ambient density, and it will cool adiabatically as it increases in altitude up until it stops increases altitude and falls. This is why most weather happens in the troposphere and it's why you won't get vapor to condense up there without frying the rest of the Earth.You understand this; you're just overlooking something simple.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-15-2002]

"You're still making the mistake of running by temperature when you should be running by density to determine if the parcel will continue to lift. This isn't a matter of "warm air rises" it is a matter of "less dense things rise". See page 336 of Peterson's. You have already noticed that warm air generally rises over cooler air and that's what you see first in this chart. Look over to the right column. As the altitude increases density falls off *and* it gets colder. The parcel will stop when it reaches equilibrium with the ambient density, and it will cool adiabatically as it increases in altitude up until it stops increases altitude and falls. This is why most weather happens in the troposphere and it's why you won't get vapor to condense up there without frying the rest of the Earth.You understand this; you're just overlooking something simple."
--This seems concievable, though through my research, it seems that the density does imply decrease or increase in altitude as you stated. Though this is effected by temperature, as well as pressure. The lower pressures, thus densities, are products of gravity pulling the higher linear spectrum of the atmosphere toward the surface. So what will happen when you have a parcel is that it itself will expand as it rises according to its surrounding pressure, the higher temperatures in the parcel of air would further give the lower density to continue to rise according to the adiabatic lapse rate principles. Most clouds and rising vapors do not penetrate the tropopause I believe because of the large inversion. We are forumulating and working things out here which is enjoyable, I am hoping to increase my hypothesis to a testable theory, and work out its kinks, lest of course it be tossed out.
--I don't believe that my other statments are invalid also in this process:

quote:

---

--Now we would take into account other properties, such as self convection, this would have obviously been a massive plume of such heated ascending. Another account is the loss of kenetic energy in converstion to heat by condensation to a nucleus, called latent heat, as shown above, this decrease from the dry adiabatic lapse rate is about 10 to 6, though this is an estimate from naturally occuring heat. I cannot find more detail on this and I am quite sure it is very relevant as it may very well lower the lapse rate. Another thing to take into account is the ozone layer, which would have been 'healthier' at this time, so temperatures at these heights would be warmer.

​

(added by edit) - It also may be important to note that water vapor as was described before is a greenhouse gas in most forms, absorbing heat.

---

------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-16-2002]

A few observations:1. Craters do not generally enlarge by erosion, any more than a hole in your lawn can be expected to get larger by itself. The shape of a crater, however, will change, and give a clue as to its date. The walls will tend to slump into the crater, blurring its outline. Eventually, it fills in, big ones take many millenia. Really big ones take many millions of years.2.Calderas like Crater Lake in Oregon, are the result of the collapse of large magma chambers, but are easily distinuishable from impact craters.

"1. Craters do not generally enlarge by erosion, any more than a hole in your lawn can be expected to get larger by itself. The shape of a crater, however, will change, and give a clue as to its date. The walls will tend to slump into the crater, blurring its outline. Eventually, it fills in, big ones take many millenia. Really big ones take many millions of years."
--In a uniformitarian framework, I am aware."2.Calderas like Crater Lake in Oregon, are the result of the collapse of large magma chambers, but are easily distinuishable from impact craters. "
--This is one thing that I have found to be quite true, though possibly instead of a magma reservoir culdra in origin, some of the few such as chixclub (if that is how you spell it) could be sinkholes, in this hypothesis, it would be more difficult to determine that it wasnt.
--Also, somthing interesting I have found is that my previous second hypothesis was in the most part, indeed correct:Craters, Caverns and Canyons - Delving Beneath the earth's suface; The Changing Earth Series. 1993 Jon Erickson, pg 30.

quote:

---

The crater diameter varies with the type of rock that is impacted due to the relative differences in rock strength. A crater made in crystallyne rock can be twice as large as the one made in sedimentary rock. Simple craters such as Meteor Crater form deep basins and angle up to 2.5 miles in diameter. Large craters, called complex craters, are much shallower and up to 100 times wider than they are deep. They generally have an uplift structure in the center surrounded by an annular trough and a fractured rim similar to the central peaks inside craters on the moon as well as those on the seafloor.

---

------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-16-2002]

[QUOTE][b]--This seems concievable, though through my research, it seems that the density does imply decrease or increase in altitude as you stated. Though this is effected by temperature, as well as pressure. The lower pressures, thus densities, are products of gravity pulling the higher linear spectrum of the atmosphere toward the surface. So what will happen when you have a parcel is that it itself will expand as it rises according to its surrounding pressure, the higher temperatures in the parcel of air would further give the lower density to continue to rise according to the adiabatic lapse rate principles.[/QUOTE][/b]When you expand the parcel to attempt to meet ambient density, you are dropping the temperature of that parcel. There are some obvious limits to how high a parcel can go from the surface. [QUOTE][b]Most clouds and rising vapors do not penetrate the tropopause I believe because of the large inversion.[/QUOTE][/b]Caps are an immediate cause for convection to cease, but if you could heat a parcel to hundreds of degrees there still would be limits to how high it would ascend, that is, ambient pressure. If memory serves me you want to place the CCL for the Flood downpour somewhere in the mesosphere without pressure cooking the surface. I calculated the convection temperature way back there and concluded it would not be survivable.

Have you considered how much limestone would have to be dissolved to create a "crater" and how long it would take, and why the structure didn't collapse little bits at a time rather than all at once? Why aren't there caverns the size of New Jersey today? And how do you account for the shock metamorphism at the site?