Nothing to see here… Well, other than a “± 2 km long depression”, a “significant number of pockmarks” – “< 200 m in diameter and 10 m deep "with an average diameter of 100 m and an average depth of 10 m", and "abundant circular ring-like features" – "< 200 m in diameter and 10 m deep".
From when?
"The very good state of preservation of both the pockmarks and the ring structures and the fact that they attenuate iceberg scours suggest that they have been formed recently (after deglaciation, i.e., after ~8500 years)."
Cue Mark Boslough: "There's no evidence anything significant has hit the planet at any time in human history. Really. Huh? What? Why don't you believe me? "
Oh wait… There’s also the nearby “Submarine 4-km diameter Corossal Crater”, which “lies underwater at a depth of 40–208 meters (131–682 ft), it was created as a result of the impact of a meteorite of about 300 meters (980 ft) in diameter.
Formed when?:”An article recently published in the international journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science establishes that the age limits of this formation fall between 470 million years (Ordovician) and 12 600 years BP (Before Present).”
The Corossol structure: A possible impact crater on the seafloor of the northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Eastern Canada : Meteoritics & Planetary Science 48, Nr 12, 2542–2558 (2013)
doi: 10.1111/maps.12224
These “pockmarks” seem interesting. However, the author covers his lack of explanation with typical marble-mouth geographic garble. If you know nothing, say nothing! Why shoot seismic on a target that has already been drilled?
I would point out that on page 4, we find this passage:
“Subsequently, pockmarks were defined as circular or elliptical seafloor features with diameters varying from a few
metres to more than 300 m (Hovland et al., 1984).”
The problem with that paper is that it had nothing to do with Hudson Bay. It was a study on pockmarks in the NORTH SEA and the coast of Norway, suggested by its title, Characteristic features of pockmarks on the North
Sea Floor and Scotian Shelf.
***
Hovland et al 1988 listed in the References is somewhat sloppily misnamed. It should be Seabed pockmarks and seepages: impact on geology, biology, and the marine environment.
***
A perusal and some downloads lead us to this:
It seems like NONE of the four Hovland papers has anything to do with Hudson Bay.
It is a stretch, but the Scabland raging waters comment above may have some cause – kind of the OPPOSITE of an ice dam break.
The Storegga Landslide of the western shore of Norway was just to the north along the Norwegian coastline from the area of pockmarks there. Obviously a tremendous tsunami followed, much bigger than the landslide-induced 2004 Sumatran tsunami. Storegga I believe was the largest submerged landslide on record.
Which begs the question if tsunamis cause potholes/pockmarks.
Again, just sayin’, but the connection seems not IMpossible. Sometimes such similarities lead to interesting ideas.
But those pockmarks have nothing to do with Hudson Bay.
As to the paper’s detailing of anything scientific about the pockmarks other than the multibeam bathymetry, the paper is devoid of detail and long on geological descriptions of various parts of Hudson Bay – the latter not having ANYTHING to do with the pockmarks as I see it.
George, in reading this and following its descriptions and sources, I don’t think this paper is anything but speculation. It’s one of the lesser quality papers I’ve read in the last few years. It bases its speculations on nothing, for the most part. A couple of images. That’s about it.
I agree with Paul Repstock.
There is no substance, no meat, in this paper. If anything is there, this paper isn’t presenting any solid information.
He also presents those images and gives no source for each. Shame on him. And with the lengthy References list, are we supposed to go digging in all of those to find out who did them, when, and what the initial researchers thought?
All in all, with the Hovland mis-referencing, plus this lack of image references, this paper seems pretty poorly put together – and with careless footnoting, it gives little confidence in the technical interpretations.
At the same time, the images are low-res, and small roundish features don’t really show anything. Being a .jpg file, zooming in after copying the images to my hard drive doesn’t show anything clearly. The swaths seem to measure about 1-km wide.
Given that some of the swath images show dimpled areas, it gives the impression that the image processing might be creating artifacts in the processing – stuff that may or may not be there except after image processing. I don’t know.
Not much in this thing to go on.
The authors don’t even give coordinates for the images they purloined, either.
Yesterday, while reading a “new” book “Har-Moad”, I found out there was another person who has the same views. Rev. O. D. Miller D.D. via the Chinese, Sumerian, and Egyptian texts puts the dawn of Man at 12,500 yrs. BP plus 124 years since printing. Last paragraph of 371 : https://archive.org/stream/harmoadormountai00mill#page/370/mode/2up And at the top of page 373 states that Virgo was the solar constellation on the Vernal Equinox as my drawing on the chalkboard. https://sites.google.com/site/fromthedeepoceanabove/ Miller can be a bit hard to follow in the way he portrays the way precession works, he superimposes the signs on the constellations with one static and the other regressing. Also, at the end of 281 https://archive.org/stream/harmoadormountai00mill#page/280/mode/2up he alludes to Creation and the Deluge in the same general time period. In another part he actually states it as a fact as I have said that the Younger Dryas Impact Catastrophe precedes Creation, even though there may have been a second flood. The ancient cosmogonies speak of utter chaos and then the sky separating from Earth as the atmospheric veil cleared so to speak. Beyond that, about all Man can recall is that it was like paradise and there were ten antediluvian kings which most probably are the original ten constellations. Anyhow, I find it fascinating that some figured this out before the modern age and still far too many haven’t a clue today or glaze over as soon as one talks about it. Must be Earth Vapors that cause those complex craters under water. Can’t possibly be from the sky as the pockmarked face of the Moon stares at us.
As there was another paper (Australian) about how Man ate the Late Pleistocene Extinction animals, how is it that one can possibly believe this theory? I just can’t help but to imagine Man swimming into giant beaver dens to kill off every last one of there kind! Or catching and hunting down every last towering stork to extinction with obsidian and branches. When the white Man came to America there were seas of buffalo, yet the Clovis killed off all the really large ones because they were more of a challenge! Plus the climate got warmer which would provide more verdure which certainly would help to reduce the numbers, right? I for some reason can not imagine how the cogs and wheels turn in others, it is as if everyone knows what really happened and as soon as someone brings the truth up they retort with some obscure notion to mislead and stand by it with maybe a mathematical equation and a poker face.
The space debris intersecting with the Earth and the world wide ancient stories that we were being killed from above along with the Carolina bays and other craters, plus many other indicators all seem to fit and support each other yet the majority stand by their theory with as many holes as a tin can at a gun range. It bends the mind at how obtuse some can be. Some if not most of the ancient stories are basically verbatim of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and dates that line up to the evidence that none could have known would be found that correlate to the exact time! I bet time travel back to make the stories fit would have a greater following.
Been awhile doesn’t mean I’m not keeping track of you people. Can’t let you scientist get to far off the beaten trail of b……t. OH, sorry, back to the real world. The theory (that’s what it is) about eating themselves to death gets me in trouble with others as I always bring up the “other” critters like the “short face bear”, the “dire wolf”, the “sabertooth”, etc. Didn’t they have to eat to. I would think also, the arkies and anthros just refuse to talk about the 30 or so plant species that disappeared at the same time….just my thinking. Did they get shortshifted on the story also. You notice now that the comment is out there that goes like this “of course, we know humans were in the America’s before the Clovis barrier but we needed the proof and were forced to trash a goodly number of our own before changing our story……”
Speaking of which I have David’s book “The Undying Stars”. the first 45 pages have me completely 100% hooked…..
I lived in the Scabland area for about 20 years (Columbia River valley, etc). The area is just breathtaking when you know the real story. Graham’s video is wonderful but then reading the Roadside Geology books and touring the area is an experience one never forgets. Standing beside 20 ft high rocks in the middle of a grain field is such an OMG moment…Its a vacation into itself.
Especially the break out point in Lewiston/Clarkson area. The scale is huge which is probably why it took the 20th century space pictures to see the whole story….
These features are referred to as “pingo like” or “underwater pingo”, and are caused by underwater methane eruptions. AFAIK many/all shallow silted arctic sea bottoms boast these features.
Keep up the good work. This particular thread is a dead end, but the Black Mat extends from at least California to Black Water Draw in Texas, and from the Mexican border south of Murray Springs to north of Las Vegas, and I may have found samples from the north shore of Lake Erie.
New to your site, but i will stay in touch.
Terry
Well, at least we struck oil! Good to have you Terry, please comment often. In fact, tell us as much as you can about your investigation of the black mat. Pics appreciated.
Question for Terence:
If these features are merely submarine pingoes, why do you suggest the paper concludes? :
“The presence of ring-like features is puzzling. Without additional subsurface information, their
precise origin remains uncertain. Salt-related and reef-related formation mechanisms could be
two possibilities. The subtle iceberg scours in the area of ring-like features suggests they were
formed after deglaciation.”
To my eye, the topology of these formations (both in terms of the surrounding rings and the central core area) doesn’t quite seem to match either erupted or unerupted ‘submarine pingos’. Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, which is precisely why I’m asking.
Bard: “Can’t possibly be from the sky as the pockmarked face of the Moon stares at us.”
Damn, that actually puts a possible explanation for that into my head. It MIGHT even connect with why the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth.
Yeah, yeah, the uniformitarians have their explanation, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah…
Try this one, guys (probably ridiculous):
Michael Davias and Tim Harris have their 780,000ya Australian Tektite/Saginaw Bay/Carolina bays idea, and in that, the first stage ejecta goes WAAAAY high. They have it ejecting at just below escape velocity. I thought that last perhaps was a bit too GOldilocks – ejecta at just the right velocity to NOT escape, and to come back down, way around on the othe side of the planet.
Now, their ejecta went like REEEEEEEAAAAALY high, like super way out in space, before coming back down.
1.) Okay, now let’s conjure up another impactor (maybe more than one over time) that had enough energy to impart MORE than escape velocity.
2.) That shouldn’t be outside rational possibility – since we find rocks that are said to have come from Mars or the Moon.
3.) Now size the impactor big enough to do that – send a LOT of ejecta out of Earth’s gravity well.
4.) Now have that happen when the moon is passing on an intercept course.
5.) And let us posit a ROTATING Moon
6.) Craters on the moon – from Earth rocks?
7.) Now, make the impact energy sufficient that a LOT of Earth rocks hit the rotating Moon – all at pretty much the same time.
8.) Would there be a chance that all those hitting the moon at once could STOP the Moon’s rotation?
Just thinking. . .
And MAYBE the event happened WITH the Davias-Harris tektite impactor, in such a way that SOME of the ejecta was below the escape velocity of Earth and some was faster.
I’d suspect that perhaps such an impactor would need to be traveling at comet velocities (max 70km/sec), rather than a meteor (max velocity about 40 km/sec), just to impart that much energy into the ejecta.
How’s that for a wild idea? Kill two birds with one stone – three, in fact. Explain why the Moon’s craters predominate so much on the side facing earth. And also provide a possible mechanism for the Moon’s facing the Earth all the time. I don’t really accept that the tidal theory could provide such a perfect rotation of the Moon of one rotation to one revolution. I don’t see tides working on the solid Moon. No other moon in the solar system does that. This catastrophic explanation gets rid of the Goldilocks “just right” balance of forces and roatations.
Having all those many thousands of craters on pretty much only the side facing Earth DOES mean we have to explain how the impactors came past the Earth to get to the Near side of the Moon.
Did they hit the other side of Earth, too? The side facing away from the Moon at the time? The side from which they would have approached.
If they hit the Earth, too, where are all of our craters? Do we posit the event moved conveniently back into the dim recesses of time, so that all the craters on Earth got eroded away? Sure, we can do that. Hide it in the WAY past.
It is certain that if the craters are only on one side that some side that the Earth wouldn’t SCREEN the Moon would be much more likely, wouldn’t it? But WHY is the crater side THE side facing Earth?
“Standing beside 20 ft high rocks in the middle of a grain field is such an OMG moment…”
In the Scablands, it is a given that water moved those 20-foot rocks.
There are many “erratic boulders” in various places in Europe and other places, some even bigger, but many thousands and probably millions of fist-sized ones. Up until Agassiz and his ice ages, the Euro-centric scientific world had a really big problem with those erratic boulders. In fact, the erratic boulders posed a SERIOUS problem for Lyell and the uniformitarians. The catastrophists could point at “erratics” and say, “SEE? WATER! FLOOD!” Erratics were one of the very last pieces of the current geological victory over the Church and Noah’s Flood.
Ice did it.
That is accepted as a total given now.
But when we see that the Scabland flood moved those 20-foot boulders, it gives some of us pause. Did the Euro-centric geologists latch onto ice moving over flat ground too precipitously. I think neo-catastrophism will one day show that the European erratics were – like the Scablands boulders – moved by water, too.
But that is just me.
BTW, by Euro-centric, I do not mean THE euro, the currency. LOL
Terence – VERY good info about the black mat, sir!
The pingos – are those methane hydrate outbursts?
It’s ironic, that those are from underneath. Some theories of the Carolina bays talk about subsurface processes. There is still no universally accepted explanation for the CBs, though.
Pingo-Like features are still forming, particularly as arctic waters warm. S&S (Semiletov & Shakhova), have written extensively about their expeditions to the ESAS (East Siberian Arctic Shelf) searching for, and finding, evidence of massive methane plumes that had been reported in recent years by skippers and crews plying those waters. Most of the features are presumed to form from relatively slow seepage as opposed to clathrate (hydrate) blowouts. Most of S&S’s publications provide illustrations that explain the process in depth.
The only thing similar that I’ve seen was about a year ago when a rather explosive methane blowout occurred at a golf course water hazard about 100 k from me. By the time I arrived the fireworks was over, and the only evidence left was some very deep holes no larger than a golf ball. I’d planned to return this winter to see if I could locate, (and ignite) any methane bubbles frozen into the ice. Unfortunately we had a very warm winter, without ice.
Perhaps next winter?
FWIW a backhoe had dug a pit at least 6 m (20′) deep close to the pond, so I’ve assumed that the methane forced itself up through a minimum of 6 m of the very thick clay that the backhoe exposed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYum6v48S8
Last night I watched a terrible old western named “The Deadly Companions”, it was filmed in Arizona and in a scene with drunken Indians driving a wagon through a dry wash the black mat strata was evident. First time I’ve noticed it in a film. I can’t tell you how many min. in the scene is because I refuse to knowingly watch that movie again, it really was that bad.
Steve you are not dealing with the waters marks on the Moon or how so much nearly “sterile ” ( except thin layers of megafauna ) just under the moon dirt and debris from the moon. How all that got on the earth 6 ft down from one side to the other plus parts of Europe out to Catalina an then How that same moon dirt was then washed over by 6 ft or so of nearly sterile sand ( except thin layers of megafauna .
all this based on three bad lies..
one lie
by christians, that there was only one flood .
by scientism theories of uniformitarianism based only on what they think their eyes see.
and lies http://03a9ef9.netsolhost.com/duanemcc/atlanstry.htm by historians or maybe it’s was linguist that made the lie about Plato time tables. it was the historians who made lies about Sumerian tablets and linguist who mistranslate the Mayan so called calendar . so it could be either of them spur on by bad anthropologist and their magic time machines. .
Lies created usually by people who mock Plato’s story but believe firmly only in the lie the mockers created about His supposed time lines of 9000 years and that was not what was told to Plato and not what Plato quoted either or just maybe maybe it was all so innocent and that has just been mistranslated and not on purpose . I will guess it would be 900 years not 900 months. and certainly not 9000 years ! which 900 years would put it squarely in the time range of the bronze age collapse.
all these ignorant men did it on purpose or not but were these helping each other to created the biggest lies and cover ups and down right thievery ever.
Thank you, David, BTW, I’m curious on how you ran across that other book, maybe key search terms that I maybe don’t utilize…?
Steve – My first guess is that the Moon was basically almost always locked in facing us from when it cooled from the latest theory of its formation, being that the iron formed off center toward the gravity of the Earth. Second guess would be the huge crater on the back side, but still I wouldn’t think that would be enough of an impact to alter any spin. I was just trying to say that it seems to me when any terrestrial looking crater is found the mainstream puts the possibility of a spacefall causation at the very end of the list instead of at the forefront. At least that is how I would go about determining the cause, rule that out first and then volcanic, gas, wind, water, fish fins, beavers, LOL. Just seems like they go out of the way to reinforce their denial of a very plausible possibility. How long did it take Man to come to a consensus that the moon is covered with space debris craters? Or believe that things fall out of the sky? Nope, it has to be volcanic, gas, or maybe cheese! We have worshiped meteorites for ages, witnessed bolides, plotted wandering planets, and known of comets forever, but no the ether is devoid of any objects.
Terence – Fantastic video, when the little block advertisement popped up and I went to close it I stopped for a second from instinct cause any little spark would alight that (as if a mouse click would set it off.), no way would I get that close. Reminds me of that huge one in India IIRC, that one is truly fascinating and probably still active.
One estimate of tidal locking of the moon has about 16 million years after its formation. Closer to earth means shorter time to lock. Slower initial rotation means shorter time to lock.
Interesting points you make…
“My first guess is that the Moon was basically almost always locked in facing us from when it cooled from the latest theory of its formation, being that the iron formed off center toward the gravity of the Earth”
With all the other system moons having rotation, you gotta know that that doesn’t satisfy me. Layers form by gravity during the molten stage, when the less dense ones float to the top and the more dense ones sink – which is why we don’t have Iridium at the Earth’s surface. Too dense.
But to have it be ROUND, that all has to happen while it is spinning, no? And why would the iron settle in off-center? I am guessing that is someone else’s speculation that you prefer. No problem with you preferring one idea over another. It helps to settle on one to then plop facts into and see if it can hold all of the facts.
I am totally in a ???? open mind on this.
The one paper I read after finding the Allende meteorite info, it told that it apparently takes X km radius for a planet to differentiate (settle into layers and form a core and mantle. That was the moment in time when I saw the flaws in the planetary nebula theory. And I read up on peridotite and how its existence MUST be from having a narrow range of both pressure and temperature – neither of which can exist in the nebula. None of the differentiation things seems to fit your thing about the iron core being off center. Did you get that from someone else? (I think so)
Steve – Really never gave it much thought until you mentioned it, was just winging it. You surely know about the Giant-Impact Hypothesis, I can’t seem to find a good spinning simulation video that doesn’t bring up too much of the accretion tangent. This video shows it more solidified alike some kind of lava lamp experiment : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7QdA3SaTKg The rock would float on the surface and the iron (metal) would be toward the center so when it cooled there would be deeper rock on the backside because the Earth would be pulling harder on the more dense metal core… Then (and during) the rest of the debris would accrete to both bodies because of their already sufficient mass, providing a gravity trap, and some to the other planets and the Sun plus probably some still not finding ‘home’. This video is good for the later part : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msFzwil5HM So the result would be as an hard boiled egg with the yoke not exactly centered. All of this (just thought of) tips the scale toward the “Big Spalsh” than to the capture theory. I really haven’t put much effort into educating myself on moons, but my favorites are the ones around Mars with massive trauma, I couldn’t tell you if they spin or not. Re-reading your post about “ROUND”, maybe the lava lamp and liquid in zero gravity concepts will help. I’m with you on the small side of the accretion problem, but once a mass achieves enough gravity then 51%+ of 51%+ of in-comings would not escape unless there is a tragic stike. What that threshold of gravity is, is beyond my math skills, somewhere smaller than the smallest ROUND known moon. Or, isn’t Apotheosis mostly round? Here’s a great one ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn5KuSHguUE Now, if they would do one with say mercury and water together! I would think the water would surround the mercury as the rock would to the metal…
Bard; There is more in play here than we humans know about. The three “bounces” of the Philea Lander off of 67P, which did not result in “Escape”, proves that Gravitational Science is incomplete.
Steve; One thing to remember about the massive erratics, is that they were probably not suspended in water. A catastrophic flood (call it a “Hydro Clastic Flow”- my invention) might have a specific gravity of 2, or even more. That could halve the effective weight and inertia of loose stones??
As for the author of the original article; I have some sympathy. Scientists, specially early in their careers, but often later as well, end up seeking relevance to gain employment or funding. Slapping text and paper over every possible topic might someday give them a small claim. Or perhaps the government employee was just told to “write something” to justify expenditure. I think we all know how awkward that is..
Bard – Not sure what you mean by this: “Giant-Impact Hypothesis”. Can you clarify?
Yeah, they push the accretion 100%, and steer everybody there. So you can’t get far into anything without having to deal with that and hopefully glean something of value that they don’t realize they are giving away.
***
FYI, I discovered something new – to me, anyway – that most moons in the solar system are “tidally locked” to the parent, and have one side facing the parent at all times. Like the Moon. I had thought that the Moon was unique. Evidently I was way wrong on that. I stand corrected. So, take my silly idea (and I knew it had almost no chance of being right, but wanted to give it a test flight.
Bard – Be cautious with stuff online using the term “theory”. That Moon-Drop idea? It’s not a theory from a scientist whatsoever. The “Menchen Moon-Drop Theory” is by one Manuel Menchen – who appears for all the world to be a (probably professional) graphics artist with plenty of skill at crating videos.
He is ALSO stealing this idea from astronomers. There is nothing new about the idea of the Earth being impacted and giving birth to the Moon.
That is another one that I can’t accept at face value, BTW. You can see in his video – which is quite artistic – that the Moon’s blob-drop has supposedly enough escape velocity (Goldilocks velocity – not too fast and not too slow). Well, since the Moon was PART of the Earth at that moment of impact, the total gravity was somewhat greater. Let’s estimate the escape velocity at about 11.5 km/sec. To be ejected into space and NOT fall back, the Moon must have driven off at AT about that velocity. BUT as soon as the Moon was no longer part of the Earth, guess what? The escape velocity of Earth immediately became 11.0 km/sec.
Not counting the coefficient of expansion for a molten Earth vs a cooled Earth, the effective radius of the Earth-Moon would have been slightly larger, at 6407.44 km. The Earth alone is 6373.55 km radius, so the Moon would have given the blob Earth-Moon combo a 33 km radius bigger. The mass we will assume to be the calculated simple sum of their masses = 6.0474773E24 kg. The escape velocity would be 11.22 km/sec, vs 11.0 km/sec.
Now, the PULL of that snot string between the two would have been a detriment to the Moon’s velocity, yes? Who knows how much. Let’s assume zero, though. Now, the Moon had to not only SEMI-ESCAPE by leaving the surface, but it THEN had to find EXACTLY the right angular orbital velocity at EXACTLY the right orbital radius. It had to STOP moving away from Earth radially – dropping that outward velocity to essentially ZERO. At THAT orbital radius AND NO OTHER. AND THEN it had to manage to change its outward vector to a tangential vector – while on a ballistic path (meaning no secondary forces allowed after launch).
We have THREE Goldilocks factors to put the moon into, plus a left turn at the Goldilocks orbital radius.
The three bears must have asked THAT Goldilocks if she would go with them to pick out a SINGLE lottery ticket that would be, of course, a winner.
None of that holds water. Miracle stacked upon miracle.
Crapola. I almost forgot. IF the Moon had escaped at 11.22 km/sec, then once the Earth’s mass dropped down to its lonely mass and its escape velocity dropped to 11.0 k/sec, then the Moon would have had enough velocity to escape completely. There would be no Moon up there for us to see. That mass would have ended up either circling the Sun somewhere else, or crashing into the Sun or Jupiter.
Bard – “…I’m with you on the small side of the accretion problem, but once a mass achieves enough…”
But it’s the early part that I contend can’t happen. Small objects = micro-infinitesimal gravity.
As Paul mentions, the Philae lander landing at only 1.0 meter/sec all but escaped, never to return. 1.0 m/sec = 0.001 km/sec. There is NOTHING out there going to impact another moving body at less than that. And, HELL, the body it was trying to land on was NOT a fellow ~5-foot body. Shrink the target to 5 kilograms. See how well the Philae lander does. Then try 5 grams.
The EARLY period is when it is all DUST. Like micrograms. Like pico-G gravity. There is no way that dust not only aggregates. Nothing would land on anything else. They’d all be either bouncing off each other or smashing each other to smithereens – into even SMALLER dust motes. And smaller does not at all translate into larger.
Paul – The massive erratics don’t get “supended” in the water. The big-uns get rolled mostly.
But for every massive one – 10-20 feet across – there are millions of smaller ones. Google “Estonia erratic boulders Baltic” and look at the shorelines accompanying the massive erratics. A gajillion small ones. Probably down to thumbnail size and smaller, but plenty to see that are in the 3″ to 12″ range..
And did the tiny erratics get pushed around and even lifted off the bottom by high-velocity water? Probably. Any water traveling fast enough to push 10- or 20-footers is going to have PLENTY of spare energy to move small rocks around, anywhere it wants to. This happens even with hurricanes, BIG ones moved up onto beaches (one in the Philippines from Typhoon Haiyan, for example).
‘Earth is 4.5 billion years old’ is a theory that can never, ever be proven. It is ABSURD to claim it as fact, yet, like chattering parrots, everyone does. And true archaeological discovery is being buried in the same complex, theoretical, geological bulls*it. Why? Who benefits? That’s easy: The long-reigning status quo that supports all ruthless acts: DARWINISM.
I’m sorry, I meant to add: Thank you for your passionate devotion to scientific truth, Mr. Howard. When the truth finally prevails, your research will enlighten a darkened world.
Linda – anything over 1 million years ago is +/-100,000 years, maybe +/-250,000 years. Billions? It’s based on sedimentary rock layers physically counted – but only up to a point (like tree-rings can only take you back so far).
Yes, Darwinism is a sticking point. When Lyell et all found out they had a nearly unlimited amount of time in which to “put” everything, they probably had mental gasms of ecstasy. So they just kept pushing things back and back and back. After all, who could prove them wrong?
Now, the ages ARE really freaking old, yes. There are no archbishop Ussher “last week” silly dates, either, though, like 4004 BC. There are COUNTED millions of years of sediments. So Ussher is as wrong as he is dead.
For now, we can only roll our eyes at 4.5 billion. Some put it at 4.6 billion, and some at 4.3 billion, but what’s a 100 million years or three among pals?
(My own bugaboo is when they repeat in EVERY comet or asteroid article that “We are seeing a object that dates back to the very beginning of the solar system”. I 100% disagree, for reasons people here are tired of listening to, probably. The entire planetary nebula thing is utter CRAP, from a Newtonian POV.)
My native friends do your families have stories of this recent one ? or at this date since it also hit in( Venezuela?) did it hit anyplace else about 200 years ago ? about 200 years ago? unless they start to understand these things and their real “laws”and how it alters other laws , then they will just continue to do their tea leaves and magic time machines that tells them exactly everything they ever wanted to hear. .
Steve – We have been through this on a larger scale with the solar system and you flatly disagree, which I find very plausible. I’ve never liked the dust thing unless the surrounding space was very hot which gets me into a dilemma of not understanding such phenomena as the Horsehead Nebula type images looking alike a resistance in space with boundary layers. Astrophysics must be very interesting yet I haven’t had the pleasure of being that privileged. Your description of a multiple Goldilocks scenario to achieve orbit of the Moon or the planets would seem to me to be essential or they would escape or collide with the remainder that achieved such existence. In other words the Sun was stuck alike the ‘Drop’ idea in clean space and the two provided the imputus to ignite and threw out the iron centered planets which would eventually stop between the gravity of the Sun and escape. Got me, it will probably be one of those great unknown and never coming to a consensus. So if it isn’t dust or drops what else could it be? The Iron drops would be a great attracter… And provide the 51% house advantage. I’m really not so enthralled in knowing where inner solar system space debris originated as in the human history of such interactions.
Physically counting geologic layers to determine ages in the millions (even billions) of years is like counting the pages of a book and arriving at a similar conclusion (e.g. 4500 pages = 4500 years to write) There’s far too much assumption, and more conflicting evidence than supporting evidence, in modern planetary sciences.
Nothing to see here… Well, other than a “± 2 km long depression”, a “significant number of pockmarks” – “< 200 m in diameter and 10 m deep "with an average diameter of 100 m and an average depth of 10 m", and "abundant circular ring-like features" – "< 200 m in diameter and 10 m deep".
From when?
"The very good state of preservation of both the pockmarks and the ring structures and the fact that they attenuate iceberg scours suggest that they have been formed recently (after deglaciation, i.e., after ~8500 years)."
Cue Mark Boslough: "There's no evidence anything significant has hit the planet at any time in human history. Really. Huh? What? Why don't you believe me? "
Oh wait… There’s also the nearby “Submarine 4-km diameter Corossal Crater”, which “lies underwater at a depth of 40–208 meters (131–682 ft), it was created as a result of the impact of a meteorite of about 300 meters (980 ft) in diameter.
Formed when?:”An article recently published in the international journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science establishes that the age limits of this formation fall between 470 million years (Ordovician) and 12 600 years BP (Before Present).”
The Corossol Crater’s Origins Are Slowly Revealed:
http://www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/infoceans/201312/article5-eng.html
The Corossol structure: A possible impact crater on the seafloor of the northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Eastern Canada : Meteoritics & Planetary Science 48, Nr 12, 2542–2558 (2013)
doi: 10.1111/maps.12224
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=553D2089FA5C8167155C91F65E27CD9E?doi=10.1.1.715.2068&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Also:
The Submarine 4-km diameter Corossol Crater, Eastern Canada: Evidence for an impact origin
Geophysical Research Abstracts
Vol. 16, EGU2014-4190, 2014
EGU General Assembly 2014
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2014/EGU2014-4190.pdf
These “pockmarks” seem interesting. However, the author covers his lack of explanation with typical marble-mouth geographic garble. If you know nothing, say nothing! Why shoot seismic on a target that has already been drilled?
I see similarities for some of them with the “potholes” of the Scablands of Harlan Bretz. I think from the linked image, the sizes are in the same range. Maybe not, but they look about the same size. e.g., https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/48/d7/53/48d7534c44c247625f2ec04f07d3b917.jpg
Those potholes are asserted for now to have been carved by vortices in the aging waters of the ice dam break at Lake Missoula.
How the two could be connected, I have no good suggestion. Raging waters in one region and WHAT? in the other.
Just sayin’ . . .
I would point out that on page 4, we find this passage:
“Subsequently, pockmarks were defined as circular or elliptical seafloor features with diameters varying from a few
metres to more than 300 m (Hovland et al., 1984).”
The problem with that paper is that it had nothing to do with Hudson Bay. It was a study on pockmarks in the NORTH SEA and the coast of Norway, suggested by its title, Characteristic features of pockmarks on the North
Sea Floor and Scotian Shelf.
***
Hovland et al 1988 listed in the References is somewhat sloppily misnamed. It should be Seabed pockmarks and seepages: impact on geology, biology, and the marine environment.
***
A perusal and some downloads lead us to this:
It seems like NONE of the four Hovland papers has anything to do with Hudson Bay.
WTF?
Just following a tangent…
It is a stretch, but the Scabland raging waters comment above may have some cause – kind of the OPPOSITE of an ice dam break.
The Storegga Landslide of the western shore of Norway was just to the north along the Norwegian coastline from the area of pockmarks there. Obviously a tremendous tsunami followed, much bigger than the landslide-induced 2004 Sumatran tsunami. Storegga I believe was the largest submerged landslide on record.
Which begs the question if tsunamis cause potholes/pockmarks.
Again, just sayin’, but the connection seems not IMpossible. Sometimes such similarities lead to interesting ideas.
But those pockmarks have nothing to do with Hudson Bay.
As to the paper’s detailing of anything scientific about the pockmarks other than the multibeam bathymetry, the paper is devoid of detail and long on geological descriptions of various parts of Hudson Bay – the latter not having ANYTHING to do with the pockmarks as I see it.
George, in reading this and following its descriptions and sources, I don’t think this paper is anything but speculation. It’s one of the lesser quality papers I’ve read in the last few years. It bases its speculations on nothing, for the most part. A couple of images. That’s about it.
I agree with Paul Repstock.
There is no substance, no meat, in this paper. If anything is there, this paper isn’t presenting any solid information.
He also presents those images and gives no source for each. Shame on him. And with the lengthy References list, are we supposed to go digging in all of those to find out who did them, when, and what the initial researchers thought?
All in all, with the Hovland mis-referencing, plus this lack of image references, this paper seems pretty poorly put together – and with careless footnoting, it gives little confidence in the technical interpretations.
I had to look around at the tracks mapped by the research ship, and it took me a while to find any pockmark possibilities. I found some in this image: http://www.omg.unb.ca/Projects/Arctic/basemaps/62_00_N_88_00_W_BATHY.gif
And: http://www.omg.unb.ca/Projects/Arctic/basemaps/61_45_N_88_00_W_BATHY.gif
http://www.omg.unb.ca/Projects/Arctic/basemaps/61_30_N_88_00_W_BATHY.gif
At the same time, the images are low-res, and small roundish features don’t really show anything. Being a .jpg file, zooming in after copying the images to my hard drive doesn’t show anything clearly. The swaths seem to measure about 1-km wide.
Given that some of the swath images show dimpled areas, it gives the impression that the image processing might be creating artifacts in the processing – stuff that may or may not be there except after image processing. I don’t know.
Not much in this thing to go on.
The authors don’t even give coordinates for the images they purloined, either.
Ooops! With regard to the link I posted above, I should have realised/expected that the Corossal Crater would be old news at the Cosmic Tusk.
Yesterday, while reading a “new” book “Har-Moad”, I found out there was another person who has the same views. Rev. O. D. Miller D.D. via the Chinese, Sumerian, and Egyptian texts puts the dawn of Man at 12,500 yrs. BP plus 124 years since printing. Last paragraph of 371 : https://archive.org/stream/harmoadormountai00mill#page/370/mode/2up And at the top of page 373 states that Virgo was the solar constellation on the Vernal Equinox as my drawing on the chalkboard. https://sites.google.com/site/fromthedeepoceanabove/ Miller can be a bit hard to follow in the way he portrays the way precession works, he superimposes the signs on the constellations with one static and the other regressing. Also, at the end of 281 https://archive.org/stream/harmoadormountai00mill#page/280/mode/2up he alludes to Creation and the Deluge in the same general time period. In another part he actually states it as a fact as I have said that the Younger Dryas Impact Catastrophe precedes Creation, even though there may have been a second flood. The ancient cosmogonies speak of utter chaos and then the sky separating from Earth as the atmospheric veil cleared so to speak. Beyond that, about all Man can recall is that it was like paradise and there were ten antediluvian kings which most probably are the original ten constellations. Anyhow, I find it fascinating that some figured this out before the modern age and still far too many haven’t a clue today or glaze over as soon as one talks about it. Must be Earth Vapors that cause those complex craters under water. Can’t possibly be from the sky as the pockmarked face of the Moon stares at us.
As there was another paper (Australian) about how Man ate the Late Pleistocene Extinction animals, how is it that one can possibly believe this theory? I just can’t help but to imagine Man swimming into giant beaver dens to kill off every last one of there kind! Or catching and hunting down every last towering stork to extinction with obsidian and branches. When the white Man came to America there were seas of buffalo, yet the Clovis killed off all the really large ones because they were more of a challenge! Plus the climate got warmer which would provide more verdure which certainly would help to reduce the numbers, right? I for some reason can not imagine how the cogs and wheels turn in others, it is as if everyone knows what really happened and as soon as someone brings the truth up they retort with some obscure notion to mislead and stand by it with maybe a mathematical equation and a poker face.
The space debris intersecting with the Earth and the world wide ancient stories that we were being killed from above along with the Carolina bays and other craters, plus many other indicators all seem to fit and support each other yet the majority stand by their theory with as many holes as a tin can at a gun range. It bends the mind at how obtuse some can be. Some if not most of the ancient stories are basically verbatim of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and dates that line up to the evidence that none could have known would be found that correlate to the exact time! I bet time travel back to make the stories fit would have a greater following.
Been awhile doesn’t mean I’m not keeping track of you people. Can’t let you scientist get to far off the beaten trail of b……t. OH, sorry, back to the real world. The theory (that’s what it is) about eating themselves to death gets me in trouble with others as I always bring up the “other” critters like the “short face bear”, the “dire wolf”, the “sabertooth”, etc. Didn’t they have to eat to. I would think also, the arkies and anthros just refuse to talk about the 30 or so plant species that disappeared at the same time….just my thinking. Did they get shortshifted on the story also. You notice now that the comment is out there that goes like this “of course, we know humans were in the America’s before the Clovis barrier but we needed the proof and were forced to trash a goodly number of our own before changing our story……”
Speaking of which I have David’s book “The Undying Stars”. the first 45 pages have me completely 100% hooked…..
and from amazon, I picked up Bard’s book – Ocean Deep…
I’m slowly getting there…and thanks to all for just a great website…..
Thanks David Ulrich, that does sound good! But then I’ll be reading three books at one time or maybe just that one and get back to the others later.
I lived in the Scabland area for about 20 years (Columbia River valley, etc). The area is just breathtaking when you know the real story. Graham’s video is wonderful but then reading the Roadside Geology books and touring the area is an experience one never forgets. Standing beside 20 ft high rocks in the middle of a grain field is such an OMG moment…Its a vacation into itself.
Especially the break out point in Lewiston/Clarkson area. The scale is huge which is probably why it took the 20th century space pictures to see the whole story….
These features are referred to as “pingo like” or “underwater pingo”, and are caused by underwater methane eruptions. AFAIK many/all shallow silted arctic sea bottoms boast these features.
Keep up the good work. This particular thread is a dead end, but the Black Mat extends from at least California to Black Water Draw in Texas, and from the Mexican border south of Murray Springs to north of Las Vegas, and I may have found samples from the north shore of Lake Erie.
New to your site, but i will stay in touch.
Terry
Well, at least we struck oil! Good to have you Terry, please comment often. In fact, tell us as much as you can about your investigation of the black mat. Pics appreciated.
Question for Terence:
If these features are merely submarine pingoes, why do you suggest the paper concludes? :
“The presence of ring-like features is puzzling. Without additional subsurface information, their
precise origin remains uncertain. Salt-related and reef-related formation mechanisms could be
two possibilities. The subtle iceberg scours in the area of ring-like features suggests they were
formed after deglaciation.”
To my eye, the topology of these formations (both in terms of the surrounding rings and the central core area) doesn’t quite seem to match either erupted or unerupted ‘submarine pingos’. Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, which is precisely why I’m asking.
Just a thought. . .
Bard: “Can’t possibly be from the sky as the pockmarked face of the Moon stares at us.”
Damn, that actually puts a possible explanation for that into my head. It MIGHT even connect with why the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth.
Yeah, yeah, the uniformitarians have their explanation, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah…
Try this one, guys (probably ridiculous):
Michael Davias and Tim Harris have their 780,000ya Australian Tektite/Saginaw Bay/Carolina bays idea, and in that, the first stage ejecta goes WAAAAY high. They have it ejecting at just below escape velocity. I thought that last perhaps was a bit too GOldilocks – ejecta at just the right velocity to NOT escape, and to come back down, way around on the othe side of the planet.
Now, their ejecta went like REEEEEEEAAAAALY high, like super way out in space, before coming back down.
1.) Okay, now let’s conjure up another impactor (maybe more than one over time) that had enough energy to impart MORE than escape velocity.
2.) That shouldn’t be outside rational possibility – since we find rocks that are said to have come from Mars or the Moon.
3.) Now size the impactor big enough to do that – send a LOT of ejecta out of Earth’s gravity well.
4.) Now have that happen when the moon is passing on an intercept course.
5.) And let us posit a ROTATING Moon
6.) Craters on the moon – from Earth rocks?
7.) Now, make the impact energy sufficient that a LOT of Earth rocks hit the rotating Moon – all at pretty much the same time.
8.) Would there be a chance that all those hitting the moon at once could STOP the Moon’s rotation?
Just thinking. . .
And MAYBE the event happened WITH the Davias-Harris tektite impactor, in such a way that SOME of the ejecta was below the escape velocity of Earth and some was faster.
I’d suspect that perhaps such an impactor would need to be traveling at comet velocities (max 70km/sec), rather than a meteor (max velocity about 40 km/sec), just to impart that much energy into the ejecta.
How’s that for a wild idea? Kill two birds with one stone – three, in fact. Explain why the Moon’s craters predominate so much on the side facing earth. And also provide a possible mechanism for the Moon’s facing the Earth all the time. I don’t really accept that the tidal theory could provide such a perfect rotation of the Moon of one rotation to one revolution. I don’t see tides working on the solid Moon. No other moon in the solar system does that. This catastrophic explanation gets rid of the Goldilocks “just right” balance of forces and roatations.
Having all those many thousands of craters on pretty much only the side facing Earth DOES mean we have to explain how the impactors came past the Earth to get to the Near side of the Moon.
Did they hit the other side of Earth, too? The side facing away from the Moon at the time? The side from which they would have approached.
If they hit the Earth, too, where are all of our craters? Do we posit the event moved conveniently back into the dim recesses of time, so that all the craters on Earth got eroded away? Sure, we can do that. Hide it in the WAY past.
It is certain that if the craters are only on one side that some side that the Earth wouldn’t SCREEN the Moon would be much more likely, wouldn’t it? But WHY is the crater side THE side facing Earth?
David:
“I would think also, the arkies and anthros just refuse to talk about the 30 or so plant species that disappeared at the same time”
It is not often mentioned, but lots went extinct on the Eurasian side of the pond, also.
David, nice comment about the Scabland.
“Standing beside 20 ft high rocks in the middle of a grain field is such an OMG moment…”
In the Scablands, it is a given that water moved those 20-foot rocks.
There are many “erratic boulders” in various places in Europe and other places, some even bigger, but many thousands and probably millions of fist-sized ones. Up until Agassiz and his ice ages, the Euro-centric scientific world had a really big problem with those erratic boulders. In fact, the erratic boulders posed a SERIOUS problem for Lyell and the uniformitarians. The catastrophists could point at “erratics” and say, “SEE? WATER! FLOOD!” Erratics were one of the very last pieces of the current geological victory over the Church and Noah’s Flood.
Ice did it.
That is accepted as a total given now.
But when we see that the Scabland flood moved those 20-foot boulders, it gives some of us pause. Did the Euro-centric geologists latch onto ice moving over flat ground too precipitously. I think neo-catastrophism will one day show that the European erratics were – like the Scablands boulders – moved by water, too.
But that is just me.
BTW, by Euro-centric, I do not mean THE euro, the currency. LOL
Terence – VERY good info about the black mat, sir!
The pingos – are those methane hydrate outbursts?
It’s ironic, that those are from underneath. Some theories of the Carolina bays talk about subsurface processes. There is still no universally accepted explanation for the CBs, though.
Thanks for the kind welcome!
Pingo-Like features are still forming, particularly as arctic waters warm. S&S (Semiletov & Shakhova), have written extensively about their expeditions to the ESAS (East Siberian Arctic Shelf) searching for, and finding, evidence of massive methane plumes that had been reported in recent years by skippers and crews plying those waters. Most of the features are presumed to form from relatively slow seepage as opposed to clathrate (hydrate) blowouts. Most of S&S’s publications provide illustrations that explain the process in depth.
The only thing similar that I’ve seen was about a year ago when a rather explosive methane blowout occurred at a golf course water hazard about 100 k from me. By the time I arrived the fireworks was over, and the only evidence left was some very deep holes no larger than a golf ball. I’d planned to return this winter to see if I could locate, (and ignite) any methane bubbles frozen into the ice. Unfortunately we had a very warm winter, without ice.
Perhaps next winter?
FWIW a backhoe had dug a pit at least 6 m (20′) deep close to the pond, so I’ve assumed that the methane forced itself up through a minimum of 6 m of the very thick clay that the backhoe exposed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYum6v48S8
Last night I watched a terrible old western named “The Deadly Companions”, it was filmed in Arizona and in a scene with drunken Indians driving a wagon through a dry wash the black mat strata was evident. First time I’ve noticed it in a film. I can’t tell you how many min. in the scene is because I refuse to knowingly watch that movie again, it really was that bad.
Terry
Steve you are not dealing with the waters marks on the Moon or how so much nearly “sterile ” ( except thin layers of megafauna ) just under the moon dirt and debris from the moon. How all that got on the earth 6 ft down from one side to the other plus parts of Europe out to Catalina an then How that same moon dirt was then washed over by 6 ft or so of nearly sterile sand ( except thin layers of megafauna .
all this based on three bad lies..
one lie
by christians, that there was only one flood .
by scientism theories of uniformitarianism based only on what they think their eyes see.
and lies http://03a9ef9.netsolhost.com/duanemcc/atlanstry.htm by historians or maybe it’s was linguist that made the lie about Plato time tables. it was the historians who made lies about Sumerian tablets and linguist who mistranslate the Mayan so called calendar . so it could be either of them spur on by bad anthropologist and their magic time machines. .
Lies created usually by people who mock Plato’s story but believe firmly only in the lie the mockers created about His supposed time lines of 9000 years and that was not what was told to Plato and not what Plato quoted either or just maybe maybe it was all so innocent and that has just been mistranslated and not on purpose . I will guess it would be 900 years not 900 months. and certainly not 9000 years ! which 900 years would put it squarely in the time range of the bronze age collapse.
all these ignorant men did it on purpose or not but were these helping each other to created the biggest lies and cover ups and down right thievery ever.
Thank you, David, BTW, I’m curious on how you ran across that other book, maybe key search terms that I maybe don’t utilize…?
Steve – My first guess is that the Moon was basically almost always locked in facing us from when it cooled from the latest theory of its formation, being that the iron formed off center toward the gravity of the Earth. Second guess would be the huge crater on the back side, but still I wouldn’t think that would be enough of an impact to alter any spin. I was just trying to say that it seems to me when any terrestrial looking crater is found the mainstream puts the possibility of a spacefall causation at the very end of the list instead of at the forefront. At least that is how I would go about determining the cause, rule that out first and then volcanic, gas, wind, water, fish fins, beavers, LOL. Just seems like they go out of the way to reinforce their denial of a very plausible possibility. How long did it take Man to come to a consensus that the moon is covered with space debris craters? Or believe that things fall out of the sky? Nope, it has to be volcanic, gas, or maybe cheese! We have worshiped meteorites for ages, witnessed bolides, plotted wandering planets, and known of comets forever, but no the ether is devoid of any objects.
Terence – Fantastic video, when the little block advertisement popped up and I went to close it I stopped for a second from instinct cause any little spark would alight that (as if a mouse click would set it off.), no way would I get that close. Reminds me of that huge one in India IIRC, that one is truly fascinating and probably still active.
I came up with using “Hamlet’s Mill”. He has several books out there, all dealing with mythology. Also, look at “the lost light – ancient scriptures”.
One estimate of tidal locking of the moon has about 16 million years after its formation. Closer to earth means shorter time to lock. Slower initial rotation means shorter time to lock.
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1859/when-did-the-moon-stop
Possible crater created by 30 km diameter object in Greenland.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2166589/The-oldest-biggest-asteroid-crater-discovered-Greenland–suggesting-huge-impact-billion-years-ago.html
It may be we are just starting to discover the really huge LHB craters on the earth that were mostly lost due to plate tectonics. Cheers –
Bard –
Interesting points you make…
“My first guess is that the Moon was basically almost always locked in facing us from when it cooled from the latest theory of its formation, being that the iron formed off center toward the gravity of the Earth”
With all the other system moons having rotation, you gotta know that that doesn’t satisfy me. Layers form by gravity during the molten stage, when the less dense ones float to the top and the more dense ones sink – which is why we don’t have Iridium at the Earth’s surface. Too dense.
But to have it be ROUND, that all has to happen while it is spinning, no? And why would the iron settle in off-center? I am guessing that is someone else’s speculation that you prefer. No problem with you preferring one idea over another. It helps to settle on one to then plop facts into and see if it can hold all of the facts.
I am totally in a ???? open mind on this.
The one paper I read after finding the Allende meteorite info, it told that it apparently takes X km radius for a planet to differentiate (settle into layers and form a core and mantle. That was the moment in time when I saw the flaws in the planetary nebula theory. And I read up on peridotite and how its existence MUST be from having a narrow range of both pressure and temperature – neither of which can exist in the nebula. None of the differentiation things seems to fit your thing about the iron core being off center. Did you get that from someone else? (I think so)
Terence – Yeah, I agree with Bard that that video is amazing.
Steve – Really never gave it much thought until you mentioned it, was just winging it. You surely know about the Giant-Impact Hypothesis, I can’t seem to find a good spinning simulation video that doesn’t bring up too much of the accretion tangent. This video shows it more solidified alike some kind of lava lamp experiment : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7QdA3SaTKg The rock would float on the surface and the iron (metal) would be toward the center so when it cooled there would be deeper rock on the backside because the Earth would be pulling harder on the more dense metal core… Then (and during) the rest of the debris would accrete to both bodies because of their already sufficient mass, providing a gravity trap, and some to the other planets and the Sun plus probably some still not finding ‘home’. This video is good for the later part : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msFzwil5HM So the result would be as an hard boiled egg with the yoke not exactly centered. All of this (just thought of) tips the scale toward the “Big Spalsh” than to the capture theory. I really haven’t put much effort into educating myself on moons, but my favorites are the ones around Mars with massive trauma, I couldn’t tell you if they spin or not. Re-reading your post about “ROUND”, maybe the lava lamp and liquid in zero gravity concepts will help. I’m with you on the small side of the accretion problem, but once a mass achieves enough gravity then 51%+ of 51%+ of in-comings would not escape unless there is a tragic stike. What that threshold of gravity is, is beyond my math skills, somewhere smaller than the smallest ROUND known moon. Or, isn’t Apotheosis mostly round? Here’s a great one ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn5KuSHguUE Now, if they would do one with say mercury and water together! I would think the water would surround the mercury as the rock would to the metal…
Bard; There is more in play here than we humans know about. The three “bounces” of the Philea Lander off of 67P, which did not result in “Escape”, proves that Gravitational Science is incomplete.
Steve; One thing to remember about the massive erratics, is that they were probably not suspended in water. A catastrophic flood (call it a “Hydro Clastic Flow”- my invention) might have a specific gravity of 2, or even more. That could halve the effective weight and inertia of loose stones??
As for the author of the original article; I have some sympathy. Scientists, specially early in their careers, but often later as well, end up seeking relevance to gain employment or funding. Slapping text and paper over every possible topic might someday give them a small claim. Or perhaps the government employee was just told to “write something” to justify expenditure. I think we all know how awkward that is..
Bard – Not sure what you mean by this: “Giant-Impact Hypothesis”. Can you clarify?
Yeah, they push the accretion 100%, and steer everybody there. So you can’t get far into anything without having to deal with that and hopefully glean something of value that they don’t realize they are giving away.
***
FYI, I discovered something new – to me, anyway – that most moons in the solar system are “tidally locked” to the parent, and have one side facing the parent at all times. Like the Moon. I had thought that the Moon was unique. Evidently I was way wrong on that. I stand corrected. So, take my silly idea (and I knew it had almost no chance of being right, but wanted to give it a test flight.
Bard – Be cautious with stuff online using the term “theory”. That Moon-Drop idea? It’s not a theory from a scientist whatsoever. The “Menchen Moon-Drop Theory” is by one Manuel Menchen – who appears for all the world to be a (probably professional) graphics artist with plenty of skill at crating videos.
See his site at http://www.manuelmenchen.com/lunagota/
And then the link to his home page at http://www.manuelmenchen.com. This one is all a bunch of ART.
He is ALSO stealing this idea from astronomers. There is nothing new about the idea of the Earth being impacted and giving birth to the Moon.
That is another one that I can’t accept at face value, BTW. You can see in his video – which is quite artistic – that the Moon’s blob-drop has supposedly enough escape velocity (Goldilocks velocity – not too fast and not too slow). Well, since the Moon was PART of the Earth at that moment of impact, the total gravity was somewhat greater. Let’s estimate the escape velocity at about 11.5 km/sec. To be ejected into space and NOT fall back, the Moon must have driven off at AT about that velocity. BUT as soon as the Moon was no longer part of the Earth, guess what? The escape velocity of Earth immediately became 11.0 km/sec.
Well, I don’t have to guess. There is an escape velocity calculator online at http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1360310353
Not counting the coefficient of expansion for a molten Earth vs a cooled Earth, the effective radius of the Earth-Moon would have been slightly larger, at 6407.44 km. The Earth alone is 6373.55 km radius, so the Moon would have given the blob Earth-Moon combo a 33 km radius bigger. The mass we will assume to be the calculated simple sum of their masses = 6.0474773E24 kg. The escape velocity would be 11.22 km/sec, vs 11.0 km/sec.
Now, the PULL of that snot string between the two would have been a detriment to the Moon’s velocity, yes? Who knows how much. Let’s assume zero, though. Now, the Moon had to not only SEMI-ESCAPE by leaving the surface, but it THEN had to find EXACTLY the right angular orbital velocity at EXACTLY the right orbital radius. It had to STOP moving away from Earth radially – dropping that outward velocity to essentially ZERO. At THAT orbital radius AND NO OTHER. AND THEN it had to manage to change its outward vector to a tangential vector – while on a ballistic path (meaning no secondary forces allowed after launch).
We have THREE Goldilocks factors to put the moon into, plus a left turn at the Goldilocks orbital radius.
The three bears must have asked THAT Goldilocks if she would go with them to pick out a SINGLE lottery ticket that would be, of course, a winner.
None of that holds water. Miracle stacked upon miracle.
Miracle stacked upon miracle – but they’ve got nothing else.
Some religion they’ve got going there. At least they keep their priests in line! LOL
Crapola. I almost forgot. IF the Moon had escaped at 11.22 km/sec, then once the Earth’s mass dropped down to its lonely mass and its escape velocity dropped to 11.0 k/sec, then the Moon would have had enough velocity to escape completely. There would be no Moon up there for us to see. That mass would have ended up either circling the Sun somewhere else, or crashing into the Sun or Jupiter.
It wouldn’t be HERE anymore.
Bard – “…I’m with you on the small side of the accretion problem, but once a mass achieves enough…”
But it’s the early part that I contend can’t happen. Small objects = micro-infinitesimal gravity.
As Paul mentions, the Philae lander landing at only 1.0 meter/sec all but escaped, never to return. 1.0 m/sec = 0.001 km/sec. There is NOTHING out there going to impact another moving body at less than that. And, HELL, the body it was trying to land on was NOT a fellow ~5-foot body. Shrink the target to 5 kilograms. See how well the Philae lander does. Then try 5 grams.
The EARLY period is when it is all DUST. Like micrograms. Like pico-G gravity. There is no way that dust not only aggregates. Nothing would land on anything else. They’d all be either bouncing off each other or smashing each other to smithereens – into even SMALLER dust motes. And smaller does not at all translate into larger.
Paul – The massive erratics don’t get “supended” in the water. The big-uns get rolled mostly.
But for every massive one – 10-20 feet across – there are millions of smaller ones. Google “Estonia erratic boulders Baltic” and look at the shorelines accompanying the massive erratics. A gajillion small ones. Probably down to thumbnail size and smaller, but plenty to see that are in the 3″ to 12″ range..
And did the tiny erratics get pushed around and even lifted off the bottom by high-velocity water? Probably. Any water traveling fast enough to push 10- or 20-footers is going to have PLENTY of spare energy to move small rocks around, anywhere it wants to. This happens even with hurricanes, BIG ones moved up onto beaches (one in the Philippines from Typhoon Haiyan, for example).
‘Earth is 4.5 billion years old’ is a theory that can never, ever be proven. It is ABSURD to claim it as fact, yet, like chattering parrots, everyone does. And true archaeological discovery is being buried in the same complex, theoretical, geological bulls*it. Why? Who benefits? That’s easy: The long-reigning status quo that supports all ruthless acts: DARWINISM.
I’m sorry, I meant to add: Thank you for your passionate devotion to scientific truth, Mr. Howard. When the truth finally prevails, your research will enlighten a darkened world.
Linda – anything over 1 million years ago is +/-100,000 years, maybe +/-250,000 years. Billions? It’s based on sedimentary rock layers physically counted – but only up to a point (like tree-rings can only take you back so far).
Yes, Darwinism is a sticking point. When Lyell et all found out they had a nearly unlimited amount of time in which to “put” everything, they probably had mental gasms of ecstasy. So they just kept pushing things back and back and back. After all, who could prove them wrong?
Now, the ages ARE really freaking old, yes. There are no archbishop Ussher “last week” silly dates, either, though, like 4004 BC. There are COUNTED millions of years of sediments. So Ussher is as wrong as he is dead.
For now, we can only roll our eyes at 4.5 billion. Some put it at 4.6 billion, and some at 4.3 billion, but what’s a 100 million years or three among pals?
(My own bugaboo is when they repeat in EVERY comet or asteroid article that “We are seeing a object that dates back to the very beginning of the solar system”. I 100% disagree, for reasons people here are tired of listening to, probably. The entire planetary nebula thing is utter CRAP, from a Newtonian POV.)
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3796
http://researchpublish.com/journal/IJIRI/Issue-3-July-2016-September-2016/0
My native friends do your families have stories of this recent one ? or at this date since it also hit in( Venezuela?) did it hit anyplace else about 200 years ago ? about 200 years ago? unless they start to understand these things and their real “laws”and how it alters other laws , then they will just continue to do their tea leaves and magic time machines that tells them exactly everything they ever wanted to hear. .
Steve – We have been through this on a larger scale with the solar system and you flatly disagree, which I find very plausible. I’ve never liked the dust thing unless the surrounding space was very hot which gets me into a dilemma of not understanding such phenomena as the Horsehead Nebula type images looking alike a resistance in space with boundary layers. Astrophysics must be very interesting yet I haven’t had the pleasure of being that privileged. Your description of a multiple Goldilocks scenario to achieve orbit of the Moon or the planets would seem to me to be essential or they would escape or collide with the remainder that achieved such existence. In other words the Sun was stuck alike the ‘Drop’ idea in clean space and the two provided the imputus to ignite and threw out the iron centered planets which would eventually stop between the gravity of the Sun and escape. Got me, it will probably be one of those great unknown and never coming to a consensus. So if it isn’t dust or drops what else could it be? The Iron drops would be a great attracter… And provide the 51% house advantage. I’m really not so enthralled in knowing where inner solar system space debris originated as in the human history of such interactions.
Physically counting geologic layers to determine ages in the millions (even billions) of years is like counting the pages of a book and arriving at a similar conclusion (e.g. 4500 pages = 4500 years to write) There’s far too much assumption, and more conflicting evidence than supporting evidence, in modern planetary sciences.