New evidence found in northwestern Australia suggests that a massive asteroid, 20 to 30 kilometres in diameter, struck Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. This impact would have dwarfed anything experienced by humans, and dinosaurs, releasing as much energy as millions of nuclear weapons. Impacts this large can trigger earthquakes and tsunamis, and change the geological history of Earth.

CrazyNeutrino said:

New evidence found in northwestern Australia suggests that a massive asteroid, 20 to 30 kilometres in diameter, struck Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. This impact would have dwarfed anything experienced by humans, and dinosaurs, releasing as much energy as millions of nuclear weapons. Impacts this large can trigger earthquakes and tsunamis, and change the geological history of Earth.

Is that what created our Uluru type features?

No.

Divine Angel said:

No.

I wish people would qualify their no answers…….

Misleading headline. We don’t know which part of Earth this asteroid struck. The evidence found in Australia would have been distributed globally in sediments of the same age.

Uluru and surrounds are estimated at 550-530 ma (ref”)
3.5 billion years ago, the Earth would have been about a billion years old (ref)

30 KM WIDE ASTEROID IMPACTED AUSTRALIA 3.4 BILLION YEARS AGO

Bubblecar said:

Misleading headline. We don’t know which part of Earth this asteroid struck. The evidence found in Australia would have been distributed globally in sediments of the same age.

The Australian continent is old and has some interesting geological features, the particular nature of which might be connected to this early impact.

Divine Angel said:

Uluru and surrounds are estimated at 550-530 ma (ref”)
3.5 billion years ago, the Earth would have been about a billion years old (ref)

Could up-rise features created by the original impact have taken this long to develop?

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

Uluru and surrounds are estimated at 550-530 ma (ref”)
3.5 billion years ago, the Earth would have been about a billion years old (ref)

Could up-rise features created by the original impact have taken this long to develop?

“This is not the first evidence of impact events that Glikson has uncovered. In 2015, Glikson discovered evidence of another massive asteroid strike in the Warburton Basin in Central Australia. At that site, buried in the crust 30 kilometers deep, in rock that is 300 to 500 million years old, Glikson found evidence of a double impact crater covering an area 400 kilometers wide.”

I will leave that to the geology people :)

However my 2c is that it is an awfully long time between estimated impact and the formation of Uluru et al. I don’t discount that the impact may have contributed to conditions necessary for their formation, but I’m thinking that formation was more likely dictated by other factors such as climate. But, I’m no geo :p

Divine Angel said:

I will leave that to the geology people :)

However my 2c is that it is an awfully long time between estimated impact and the formation of Uluru et al. I don’t discount that the impact may have contributed to conditions necessary for their formation, but I’m thinking that formation was more likely dictated by other factors such as climate. But, I’m no geo :p

I’m thinking that possibly the 3.5 billion impact hardened the continent and the 500 million impact created bubbles in it………

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

I will leave that to the geology people :)

However my 2c is that it is an awfully long time between estimated impact and the formation of Uluru et al. I don’t discount that the impact may have contributed to conditions necessary for their formation, but I’m thinking that formation was more likely dictated by other factors such as climate. But, I’m no geo :p

I’m thinking that possibly the 3.5 billion impact hardened the continent and the 500 million impact created bubbles in it………

All things are interconnected, but some things are much more connected than others.

When we are talking about events on Earth, you can’t get much more disconnected than an event that happened 3.5 billion years ago, and one that happened 0.5 billion years ago.

So a reasonable answer to the original question would be:

no.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

I will leave that to the geology people :)

However my 2c is that it is an awfully long time between estimated impact and the formation of Uluru et al. I don’t discount that the impact may have contributed to conditions necessary for their formation, but I’m thinking that formation was more likely dictated by other factors such as climate. But, I’m no geo :p

I’m thinking that possibly the 3.5 billion impact hardened the continent and the 500 million impact created bubbles in it………

All things are interconnected, but some things are much more connected than others.

When we are talking about events on Earth, you can’t get much more disconnected than an event that happened 3.5 billion years ago, and one that happened 0.5 billion years ago.

So a reasonable answer to the original question would be:

no.

How so? 3.5b impact hardens surface surrounding impact zone. 0.5b impact subsequently creates bubbles in that hardened surface. Seems plausible even with a significant period between events. I will point out that our uplift features are dated to approximately 0.5b.

Uluru isn’t an uplift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru

https://www.environment.gov.au/topics/national-parks/uluru-kata-tjuta-national-park/natural-environment/geology

Postpocelipse said:

How so? 3.5b impact hardens surface surrounding impact zone. 0.5b impact subsequently creates bubbles in that hardened surface. Seems plausible even with a significant period between events. I will point out that our uplift features are dated to approximately 0.5b.

Because in between the 3.5 billion year event and the 0.5 billion year event there were a whole load of other events which had a much more direct effect on these features, and before the 3.5 billion year event there were a whole load of other events which led to the state of the Earth at the time of impact, so to single out this one event as the sole “cause” of the uplift features just doesn’t make any sense.

ChrispenEvan said:

Uluru isn’t an uplift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru

Are you certain?

“The rock was originally sand, deposited as part of an extensive alluvial fan that extended out from the ancestors of the Musgrave, Mann and Petermann Ranges to the south and west, but separate from a nearby fan that deposited the sand, pebbles and cobbles that now make up Kata Tjuta.

The similar mineral composition of the Mutitjulu Arkose and the granite ranges to the south is now explained. The ancestors of the ranges to the south were once much larger than the eroded remnants we see today. They were thrust up during a mountain building episode referred to as the Petermann Orogeny that took place in late Neoproterozoic to early Cambrian times (550–530 Ma), and thus the Mutitjulu Arkose is believed to have been deposited at about the same time.

The arkose sandstone which makes up the formation is composed of grains that show little sorting based on grain size, exhibit very little rounding and the feldspars in the rock are relatively fresh in appearance. This lack of sorting and grain rounding is typical of arkosic sandstones and is indicative of relatively rapid erosion from the granites of the growing mountains to the south. The layers of sand were nearly horizontal when deposited, but were tilted to their near vertical position during a later episode of mountain building, possibly the Alice Springs Orogeny of Palaeozoic age (400–300 Ma).”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

How so? 3.5b impact hardens surface surrounding impact zone. 0.5b impact subsequently creates bubbles in that hardened surface. Seems plausible even with a significant period between events. I will point out that our uplift features are dated to approximately 0.5b.

Because in between the 3.5 billion year event and the 0.5 billion year event there were a whole load of other events which had a much more direct effect on these features, and before the 3.5 billion year event there were a whole load of other events which led to the state of the Earth at the time of impact, so to single out this one event as the sole “cause” of the uplift features just doesn’t make any sense.

I’m just juggling the various factors around. Ruling it an event of such proportions as a 400km wide asteriod impact from the results also seems extremely pre-emptive.

Postpocelipse said:

Ruling it an event of such proportions as a 400km wide asteriod impact from the results also seems extremely pre-emptive.

I don’t know what that means.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Ruling out an event of such proportions as a 400km wide asteriod impact from the results also seems extremely pre-emptive.

I don’t know what that means.

*fixed…..

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Ruling out an event of such proportions as a 30km wide asteriod impact from the results also seems extremely pre-emptive.

I don’t know what that means.

*fixed…..

needed a second go……

yes, uplift in the sense as that is why they are above the general surface today and not because of erosion.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Uluru was created at the beginning of time by 10 ancestors, or spirit people, of the Aboriginal people…

http://uluru-australia.com/about-uluru/aboriginal-uluru-dreamtime/

ChrispenEvan said:

yes, uplift in the sense as that is why they are above the general surface today and not because of erosion.

What other meaning does uplift have (in a geological context)?

stumpy_seahorse said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Uluru was created at the beginning of time by 10 ancestors, or spirit people, of the Aboriginal people…

http://uluru-australia.com/about-uluru/aboriginal-uluru-dreamtime/

Where does that fit in with the creation of the Earth by God 6000 years ago? Moreover did these spirit people know Adam and Eve? So many questions, so little time…

like the himalayas i guess.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what that means.

*fixed…..

needed a second go……

I’m not ruling out anything, other than stating that an event of 3.5 billion years ago is the cause of an event of 0.5 billion years ago.

It may or may not have been a significant event in the sequence that lead to the formation of these rock structures in Australia.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

*fixed…..

needed a second go……

I’m not ruling out anything, other than stating that an event of 3.5 billion years ago is the cause of an event of 0.5 billion years ago.

It may or may not have been a significant event in the sequence that lead to the formation of these rock structures in Australia.

I expect more data could be compiled to rule one way or the other. Not likely to get that far without a list of hypothesis to guide data collection.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Uluru was created at the beginning of time by 10 ancestors, or spirit people, of the Aboriginal people…

http://uluru-australia.com/about-uluru/aboriginal-uluru-dreamtime/

10 people?

Must have taken them a few billion years.

I bet they were happy when it was finished.

CrazyNeutrino said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Uluru was created at the beginning of time by 10 ancestors, or spirit people, of the Aboriginal people…

http://uluru-australia.com/about-uluru/aboriginal-uluru-dreamtime/

10 people?

Must have taken them a few billion years.

I bet they were happy when it was finished.

Why that particular shape through?

Were they aiming for something else?

It kinda looks like a loaf of bread.

CrazyNeutrino said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Uluru was created at the beginning of time by 10 ancestors, or spirit people, of the Aboriginal people…

http://uluru-australia.com/about-uluru/aboriginal-uluru-dreamtime/

10 people?

Must have taken them a few billion years.

I bet they were happy when it was finished.

They hand-glued every grain of sand and individually signed each grain.

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Uluru was created at the beginning of time by 10 ancestors, or spirit people, of the Aboriginal people…

http://uluru-australia.com/about-uluru/aboriginal-uluru-dreamtime/

10 people?

Must have taken them a few billion years.

I bet they were happy when it was finished.

They hand-glued every grain of sand and individually signed each grain.

I admire their work.

A loaf of bread that large in the desert is very abstract.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

10 people?

Must have taken them a few billion years.

I bet they were happy when it was finished.

They hand-glued every grain of sand and individually signed each grain.

I admire their work.

A loaf of bread that large in the desert is very abstract.

It’s original title: “What’s better, hot or sliced?”

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

They hand-glued every grain of sand and individually signed each grain.

I admire their work.

A loaf of bread that large in the desert is very abstract.

It’s original title: “What’s better, hot or sliced?”

But they went with “Time is loaf-like”

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I admire their work.

A loaf of bread that large in the desert is very abstract.

It’s original title: “What’s better, hot or sliced?”

But they went with “Time is loaf-like”

They had a lot of time, on their hands, very spiritual.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I admire their work.

A loaf of bread that large in the desert is very abstract.

It’s original title: “What’s better, hot or sliced?”

But they went with “Time is loaf-like”

Space has more substance than matter at the sub-atomic quantum level. The air pockets in bread represent the gravity wells of amassed particles pretty neatly.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

It’s original title: “What’s better, hot or sliced?”

But they went with “Time is loaf-like”

They had a lot of time, on their hands, very spiritual.

It took at least three impacts to prepare that particular feature. The moon’s creation left surface features on our globe that were subsequently barraged by the smaller bodies associated to the impact body that left us with the moon is my guess. The entire natural history of earth is a work of art it’s human’s who have obscured it.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

It’s original title: “What’s better, hot or sliced?”

But they went with “Time is loaf-like”

Space has more substance than matter at the sub-atomic quantum level. The air pockets in bread represent the gravity wells of amassed particles pretty neatly.

Deep

Did all three largest Asteroid impacts break the crust causing plates to move?

if there were no impacts would the earth have one plate?

if there was just one plate how would that change everything else

more volcanoes?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

But they went with “Time is loaf-like”

Space has more substance than matter at the sub-atomic quantum level. The air pockets in bread represent the gravity wells of amassed particles pretty neatly.

Deep

One of the reasons I have some issue with the term space-time measuring properties of particle mass without measuring the properties of vacuum against it.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Did all three largest Asteroid impacts break the crust causing plates to move?

if there were no impacts would the earth have one plate?

if there was just one plate how would that change everything else

more volcanoes?

The first impact was the one that created the moon. My guess is that the Australian continent marks the point the impact body punched through and exited to form the moon. My other basic guess here is that Challenger Deep may have been the surface point of this impact. If you follow the paths of each point from when the super-continent split apart these points seem to originate close to each other.

I assume the original impact planetlet might have formed with associated largish orbital masses that later impacted as the catastrophic sized impacts that have redirected evolution since.

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Did all three largest Asteroid impacts break the crust causing plates to move?

if there were no impacts would the earth have one plate?

if there was just one plate how would that change everything else

more volcanoes?

The first impact was the one that created the moon. My guess is that the Australian continent marks the point the impact body punched through and exited to form the moon. My other basic guess here is that Challenger Deep may have been the surface point of this impact. If you follow the paths of each point from when the super-continent split apart these points seem to originate close to each other.

I assume the original impact planetlet might have formed with associated largish orbital masses that later impacted as the catastrophic sized impacts that have redirected evolution since.

Somewhere in the interior of the moon you should be able to find sandstone exactly matching that of Uluru, were I to hazard the guess.

Plate tectonism is not mainly driven by impacts.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Did all three largest Asteroid impacts break the crust causing plates to move?

if there were no impacts would the earth have one plate?

if there was just one plate how would that change everything else

more volcanoes?

The first impact was the one that created the moon. My guess is that the Australian continent marks the point the impact body punched through and exited to form the moon. My other basic guess here is that Challenger Deep may have been the surface point of this impact. If you follow the paths of each point from when the super-continent split apart these points seem to originate close to each other.

I assume the original impact planetlet might have formed with associated largish orbital masses that later impacted as the catastrophic sized impacts that have redirected evolution since.

Somewhere in the interior of the moon you should be able to find sandstone exactly matching that of Uluru, were I to hazard the guess.

The critical nature of the angle of impact not only provided slower rotation and stable tides it put the Earth’s rotation in line somewhat with the plane of the solar system. There isn’t a suitable antonym to catastrophic available with a quick search of google.

dv said:

Plate tectonism is not mainly driven by impacts.

I didn’t imply that. I simply pointed out that the moon impact is responsible for the particular features of our globes surface and suggested that smaller bodies associated to the first followed that one up.

Postpocelipse said:

Somewhere in the interior of the moon you should be able to find sandstone exactly matching that of Uluru, were I to hazard the guess.

Conditions for producing marine sandstones probably never existed on the moon, as the period in which liquid water existed was brief.

There might, on the other hand, be some chunks of terrestrial sandstone that have ended up on the moon due to impact events…

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Plate tectonism is not mainly driven by impacts.

I didn’t imply that.

I was just answering a question.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Somewhere in the interior of the moon you should be able to find sandstone exactly matching that of Uluru, were I to hazard the guess.

Conditions for producing marine sandstones probably never existed on the moon, as the period in which liquid water existed was brief.

There might, on the other hand, be some chunks of terrestrial sandstone that have ended up on the moon due to impact events…

Impact pressure stabilisation will have played a significant part in the geological features of our globe’s surface and that of the interior of the moon. I’ve assumed the impact and punch through developed distinct features created by high pressure oscillation crystallisation of matter immediately associated with impact pressures.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Plate tectonism is not mainly driven by impacts.

I didn’t imply that.

I was just answering a question.

One I must have missed. Sorry.

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Somewhere in the interior of the moon you should be able to find sandstone exactly matching that of Uluru, were I to hazard the guess.

Conditions for producing marine sandstones probably never existed on the moon, as the period in which liquid water existed was brief.

There might, on the other hand, be some chunks of terrestrial sandstone that have ended up on the moon due to impact events…

Impact pressure stabilisation will have played a significant part in the geological features of our globe’s surface and that of the interior of the moon. I’ve assumed the impact and punch through developed distinct features created by high pressure oscillation crystallisation of matter immediately associated with impact pressures.

Might be a question MV would enjoy……

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Somewhere in the interior of the moon you should be able to find sandstone exactly matching that of Uluru, were I to hazard the guess.

Conditions for producing marine sandstones probably never existed on the moon, as the period in which liquid water existed was brief.

There might, on the other hand, be some chunks of terrestrial sandstone that have ended up on the moon due to impact events…

Impact pressure stabilisation will have played a significant part in the geological features of our globe’s surface and that of the interior of the moon. I’ve assumed the impact and punch through developed distinct features created by high pressure oscillation crystallisation of matter immediately associated with impact pressures.

O … kay…

Just to make sure we are still talking about the same thing: Uluru is a small part of a large arkose sandstone formation. The sandstone was originally sand, laid down in an alluvial fan adjacent to an ocean by many streams. The sand was formed by the erosion of previously existing rock, mainly igneous and metamorphic rocks.

“High pressure oscillation crystallisation” had nothing to do with it.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Conditions for producing marine sandstones probably never existed on the moon, as the period in which liquid water existed was brief.

There might, on the other hand, be some chunks of terrestrial sandstone that have ended up on the moon due to impact events…

Impact pressure stabilisation will have played a significant part in the geological features of our globe’s surface and that of the interior of the moon. I’ve assumed the impact and punch through developed distinct features created by high pressure oscillation crystallisation of matter immediately associated with impact pressures.

O … kay…

Just to make sure we are still talking about the same thing: Uluru is a small part of a large arkose sandstone formation. The sandstone was originally sand, laid down in an alluvial fan adjacent to an ocean by many streams. The sand was formed by the erosion of previously existing rock, mainly igneous and metamorphic rocks.

“High pressure oscillation crystallisation” had nothing to do with it.

The question of how the sand was laid down is not settled AFAIC. The original chunk that punched through will have left a large portion of it’s partially vaporised follow through matter as immediate splashback. The associated Great Artesian Basin, in my estimation is made up of matter left behind by the impact body that was too heavy to punch through.

… if you look at google earth you can still see the swirl lines left in the re-conglomerating globe as it settled in it’s new rotation.

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Impact pressure stabilisation will have played a significant part in the geological features of our globe’s surface and that of the interior of the moon. I’ve assumed the impact and punch through developed distinct features created by high pressure oscillation crystallisation of matter immediately associated with impact pressures.

O … kay…

Just to make sure we are still talking about the same thing: Uluru is a small part of a large arkose sandstone formation. The sandstone was originally sand, laid down in an alluvial fan adjacent to an ocean by many streams. The sand was formed by the erosion of previously existing rock, mainly igneous and metamorphic rocks.

“High pressure oscillation crystallisation” had nothing to do with it.

The question of how the sand was laid down is not settled AFAIC. The original chunk that punched through will have left a large portion of it’s partially vaporised follow through matter as immediate splashback. The associated Great Artesian Basin, in my estimation is made up of matter left behind by the impact body that was too heavy to punch through.

The formation that Uluru is part of is about 500 million years old.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

O … kay…

Just to make sure we are still talking about the same thing: Uluru is a small part of a large arkose sandstone formation. The sandstone was originally sand, laid down in an alluvial fan adjacent to an ocean by many streams. The sand was formed by the erosion of previously existing rock, mainly igneous and metamorphic rocks.

“High pressure oscillation crystallisation” had nothing to do with it.

The question of how the sand was laid down is not settled AFAIC. The original chunk that punched through will have left a large portion of it’s partially vaporised follow through matter as immediate splashback. The associated Great Artesian Basin, in my estimation is made up of matter left behind by the impact body that was too heavy to punch through.

The formation that Uluru is part of is about 500 million years old.

look at google earth, look at the original super continent and it’s transition to this day. Until you can point out from this analysis how this isn’t correct I’m fairly convinced.

Has anyone worked out a computer program to simulate what it takes for objects breaking right through

and objects which hit and bounce back ?

or bounce off on an angle

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The question of how the sand was laid down is not settled AFAIC. The original chunk that punched through will have left a large portion of it’s partially vaporised follow through matter as immediate splashback. The associated Great Artesian Basin, in my estimation is made up of matter left behind by the impact body that was too heavy to punch through.

The formation that Uluru is part of is about 500 million years old.

look at google earth, look at the original super continent and it’s transition to this day. Until you can point out from this analysis how this isn’t correct I’m fairly convinced.

I might be as wrong as the Yellowstone hotspot and Siberian Traps sharing the basic site of impact and Australia and Challenger Deep sharing site of punch through.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Has anyone worked out a computer program to simulate what it takes for objects breaking right through

and objects which hit and bounce back ?

or bounce off on an angle

Yes

The directions of tectonic movement are still following the swirl pattern left by the original impact afaic.

Postpocelipse said:

The directions of tectonic movement are still following the swirl pattern left by the original impact afaic.

You won’t like DV when he’s angry…

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

The directions of tectonic movement are still following the swirl pattern left by the original impact afaic.

You won’t like DV when he’s angry…

If he can go there in song I’d be happy.

Postpocelipse said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

The directions of tectonic movement are still following the swirl pattern left by the original impact afaic.

You won’t like DV when he’s angry…

If he can go there in song I’d be happy.

the way CD has traced a path back toward the Siberian traps makes me believe this latter would be the impact site which transferred energy through the core in it’s glancing blow to create the Yellowstone zone. The Marianas Trench would measure the tidal wave-height the impact created and CD should be about the centre of the punch through zone’s centre of momentum. The Australian continent I would associate with most immediate splash-back debris

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You won’t like DV when he’s angry…

If he can go there in song I’d be happy.

the way CD has traced a path back toward the Siberian traps makes me believe this latter would be the impact site which transferred energy through the core in it’s glancing blow to create the Yellowstone zone. The Marianas Trench would measure the tidal wave-height the impact created and CD should be about the centre of the punch through zone’s centre of momentum. The Australian continent I would associate with most immediate splash-back debris

I guess that would make the mediteranean zone a measure of the trough of the impact wave.

Okay well I’ve given the answers. If there’s anything more you want to know, just ask.

dv said:

Okay well I’ve given the answers. If there’s anything more you want to know, just ask.

You have given dates associated to non-specific tests. Provide your comparative analysis as indicated or lose the patronising tone…….. lazy ass punk!

This isn’t the best I’ve found but I’ll keep looking.

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

ChrispenEvan said:

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

there would have been silicate quartz around of some sort…..

sandstone is more than just quartz.

ChrispenEvan said:

sandstone is more than just quartz.

There seems to be a large amount of iron in the sandstone of Uluru and the rest of Australia. As you would expect to have been left behind by an impact that deflected off the core.

ChrispenEvan said:

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

Was there any liquid to transport the grains? Sand dunes are wind blown, but the grain size would be generally small and more consistent than water transported materials.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

Was there any liquid to transport the grains? Sand dunes are wind blown, but the grain size would be generally small and more consistent than water transported materials.

You are also forgetting the materials the impactor was originally made from.

i doubt any impactor, since maybe Theia, has had enough momentum to hit the core.

Postpocelipse said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

Was there any liquid to transport the grains? Sand dunes are wind blown, but the grain size would be generally small and more consistent than water transported materials.

You are also forgetting the materials the impactor was originally made from.

So how would they be deposited in such a uniform manner?

the impactor wouldn’t have been made of sandstone.

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

Is it really necessary to reach that level of expertise when simple logic will do?

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

pfft…
google earth and wiki beat DV anyday…

:P

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

It has never been assessed through this hypothesis. There is no data for him unless he had specific maps of below surface features.

i go for facts rather than commonsense.

stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

pfft…
google earth and wiki beat DV anyday…

:P

no just this once….

There is no data for him unless he had specific maps of below surface features.

seeing as those are exactly the type of maps he looks at for his living maybe he does. or maybe he knows enough about the physical processes to be able to give an expert reply. if he doesn’t know then he will say so.

ChrispenEvan said:

There is no data for him unless he had specific maps of below surface features.

seeing as those are exactly the type of maps he looks at for his living maybe he does. or maybe he knows enough about the physical processes to be able to give an expert reply. if he doesn’t know then he will say so.

okey-doke Erkle……..

ChrispenEvan said:

i go for facts rather than commonsense.

Especially if you are deficient in the latter.

and you PF, are just deficient.

ChrispenEvan said:

and you PF, are just deficient.

Having seen your good-self, you are just decrepit. :)

who worries about what a deficient person thinks?

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

there would have been silicate quartz around of some sort…..

I am starting to think the root of the problem is that you don’t know what sandstone is.

ChrispenEvan said:

who worries about what a deficient person thinks?

Apparently only the decrepit.

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

I’ve been trying but I think my explanations aren’t magical enough.

I am starting to think the root of the problem is that you don’t know what sandstone is.

well, that was my thrust.

:-)

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

I’ve been trying but I think my explanations aren’t magical enough.

try using CAPS

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

was there even any sandstone about when this impactor struck?

there would have been silicate quartz around of some sort…..

I am starting to think the root of the problem is that you don’t know what sandstone is.

If you took a look at the same 3D pangea animation I did originally I think I could sway your opinion(not on my particular knowledge of sandstone), but I haven’t yet turned it up.

stumpy_seahorse said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if only we had a geophysicist, like say DV, about to explain stuff.

I’ve been trying but I think my explanations aren’t magical enough.

try using CAPS

don’t go wearing a hoody in my neighbourhood. I’ll get off on standing my ground against a pirate…….

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

dv said:

I’ve been trying but I think my explanations aren’t magical enough.

try using CAPS

don’t go wearing a hoody in my neighbourhood. I’ll get off on standing my ground against a pirate…….

he might try to set you on fire.

pangea was about 3 billion years after this impactor.

and LOL, someone has got to wiki

Pangaea or Pangea (pronunciation: /pænˈdʒiːə/) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 6000 years ago, and it began to break apart about 4000 years ago. In contrast to the present Earth and its distribution of continental mass, much of Pangaea was in the southern hemisphere and surrounded by a super ocean, Panthalassa. Pangaea was the last supercontinent to have existed and the first to be reconstructed by geologists. The flood broke it apart.

wiki pangea.

poikilotherm said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

try using CAPS

don’t go wearing a hoody in my neighbourhood. I’ll get off on standing my ground against a pirate…….

he might try to set you on fire.

If I tried to set someone on fire they would burn to ashes before anyone knew they were gone……

ChrispenEvan said:

pangea was about 3 billion years after this impactor.
.

yes and the assemblage of Pangea was the point where the impact energy had become most dissipated after being swirled and slopped about and re-congealing.

a 30km wide asteroid just wouldn’t have that amount of energy. plus there have been quite a few supercontinents around before pangea. try again.

ChrispenEvan said:

a 30km wide asteroid just wouldn’t have that amount of energy. plus there have been quite a few supercontinents around before pangea. try again.

Who said anything about this asteroid? I am talking about the impact that created the moon. I’m going to have a serious conversation with my guitar which will probably sob violently after that assumption.

ahhh, sorry missed the goalpost move. well in that case i doubt there were any tectonic plates as such when theia struck. maybe by a billion years.

still, good to see you back on your old hobby horse of impactors. even if you don’t have a clue.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

a 30km wide asteroid just wouldn’t have that amount of energy. plus there have been quite a few supercontinents around before pangea. try again.

Who said anything about this asteroid? I am talking about the impact that created the moon. I’m going to have a serious conversation with my guitar which will probably sob violently after that assumption.

I thought you were talking about Uluru?

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

a 30km wide asteroid just wouldn’t have that amount of energy. plus there have been quite a few supercontinents around before pangea. try again.

Who said anything about this asteroid? I am talking about the impact that created the moon. I’m going to have a serious conversation with my guitar which will probably sob violently after that assumption.

I thought you were talking about Uluru?

ChrispenEvan said:

still, good to see you back on your old hobby horse of impactors. even if you don’t have a clue.

Anything but that smug bastard Rumpole.

Anyway, I don’t think your ideas are evidence based, Postpoc, but I’ll just give a few notes on the many topics you have raised here and then bow out for good.

• It’s fair to say that there is not a universal view on the exact dynamics of the moon’s creation but there is general agreement, based on isotope comparisons, on the fact that it was caused by very large impact in the early period of the solar system (around 4.4 billion years ago). At this stage, the proto-Earth would have been in its infancy in terms of separation into layers and cooling.

*The impact referred to in the thread title occurred about a billion years after the creation of the moon.

• Sandstone, speaking most broadly, is created over millions of years from sand. Sand can either be lain down by moving water or by moving air. The sand itself is created by the destruction of pre-existing rocks through weathering/erosion.

• Uluru is a small part of a large sandstone formation created in an alluvial fan (described previously in this thread) about 500 million years ago.

• Plate tectonics are ultimately driven by thermal gradients, which in turn are ultimately caused by the heating of the earth by radioactive decay and the transfer of heat through conduction and convection.

• There have been several supercontinents that contained most of the land: most recently Pangaea which existed from 300 to 180 million years ago. Before that, Pannotia existed from 600 to 550 million years ago, Rodinia existed from about 1200 to 800 million years ago, Hudsonland existed from about 2500 to 1500 million years ago. Things get less certain before that as the evidence starts to fade, as much of the land that would have existed prior to 2000 million years ago has since been destroyed through subduction: many, but not all, writers include at least two supercontinents before 2000 million years ago.

dv said:

• There have been several supercontinents that contained most of the land: most recently Pangaea which existed from 300 to 180 million years ago. Before that, Pannotia existed from 600 to 550 million years ago, Rodinia existed from about 1200 to 800 million years ago, Hudsonland existed from about 2500 to 1500 million years ago. Things get less certain before that as the evidence starts to fade, as much of the land that would have existed prior to 2000 million years ago has since been destroyed through subduction: many, but not all, writers include at least two supercontinents before 2000 million years ago.

Thanks for that. Will follow that up and get back to you.

dv said:

• Plate tectonics are ultimately driven by thermal gradients, which in turn are ultimately caused by the heating of the earth by radioactive decay and the transfer of heat through conduction and convection.

I didn’t state tectonics are driven by the moon impact. I pointed out that you can still see the swirls it left and that this has somewhat directed tectonics since.

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

• Plate tectonics are ultimately driven by thermal gradients, which in turn are ultimately caused by the heating of the earth by radioactive decay and the transfer of heat through conduction and convection.

I didn’t state tectonics are driven by the moon impact. I pointed out that you can still see the swirls it left and that this has somewhat directed tectonics since.

Like any gunshot wound there is an entry and exit. The pacific’s sparsity is the portion of the exit wound which exhibits the net energy loss the earth suffered. The continents exhibit the net energy gained from the moon impactor.

the pacific ocean has nothing to do with Theia’s impact.

ChrispenEvan said:

the pacific ocean has nothing to do with Theia’s impact.

wibble-wobble-wibble…….. get a life or provide data. You are worse than a woo-doctor for fuck sake!

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the pacific ocean has nothing to do with Theia’s impact.

wibble-wobble-wibble…….. get a life or provide data. You are worse than a woo-doctor for fuck sake!

The largest event in the globes history left no distinguishable features? You are a cretin!

you made the claim you back it up. maybe you need to do some research before coming out with you rubbish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Pacific_Ocean

ChrispenEvan said:

you made the claim you back it up. maybe you need to do some research before coming out with you rubbish.

I am in that process now dv has supplied a list to follow up. Try offering anything other than the drool off your chin and your little terrible two’s tantrums about other peoples discussions. Dribbling bloody drooler you are!

ChrispenEvan said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Pacific_Ocean

That isn’t data dick, except that it shows a distinct thinning of the crust as would be confluent with my analysis of it as the area of the globe displaying the Terran loss of energy to the moon impact. You don’t even try mate.

off the meds again postie?

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Pacific_Ocean

That isn’t data dick, except that it shows a distinct thinning of the crust as would be confluent with my analysis of it as the area of the globe displaying the Terran loss of energy to the moon impact. You don’t even try mate.

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor. The rest of the globe exhibits the fall/splashback materials that account for the energy added to the globe at impact.

If you can only provide meaningless reference and no specific discussion this isn’t your discussion……

ChrispenEvan said:

off the meds again postie?

Not at all. You wished to continue your waffling attempts to disparage my efforts to discuss a subject of interest yet again. You can’t help yourself because you are just a sad ass who’s only popularity came from being your class clown.

ChrispenEvan said:

off the meds again postie?

How can you tell? :-)

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

off the meds again postie?

How can you tell? :-)

quite, he seems to be the same whether he takes them or not.

Postpocelipse said:

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor.

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor.

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

yup……

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor.

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

Didn’t the impactor that formed the moon turn our planet to molten slag that lasted for millions of years wouldn’t all water have been vapourised

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor.

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

yup……

it will have been the back end of the wave that broke on the other side and has taken some time to settle.

Cymek said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor.

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

Didn’t the impactor that formed the moon turn our planet to molten slag that lasted for millions of years wouldn’t all water have been vapourised

the core of both retained much of their original form if the data is examined.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

yup……

it will have been the back end of the wave that broke on the other side and has taken some time to settle.

No.

The Pacific Ocean formed when a continent called Rodinia split up.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

Didn’t the impactor that formed the moon turn our planet to molten slag that lasted for millions of years wouldn’t all water have been vapourised

the core of both retained much of their original form if the data is examined.

my suggestion here is that you do a bit of research on the fundamentals of plate tectonics as well as the evidence that supports it.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

yup……

it will have been the back end of the wave that broke on the other side and has taken some time to settle.

No.

The Pacific Ocean formed when a continent called Rodinia split up.

Yeah I am stil going through the pre pangea swirl of the wave but I’ll get to all that eventually thanks to your list.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The pacific ocean represents the face of the impact wave that lost energy to the moon impactor.

That’s insane.

The Pacific Ocean is less than 800 million years old.

Don’t worry. It’s all part of the plot of a piece of musical theatre.

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Did all three largest Asteroid impacts break the crust causing plates to move?

if there were no impacts would the earth have one plate?

if there was just one plate how would that change everything else

more volcanoes?

The first impact was the one that created the moon. My guess is that the Australian continent marks the point the impact body punched through and exited to form the moon. My other basic guess here is that Challenger Deep may have been the surface point of this impact. If you follow the paths of each point from when the super-continent split apart these points seem to originate close to each other.

I assume the original impact planetlet might have formed with associated largish orbital masses that later impacted as the catastrophic sized impacts that have redirected evolution since.

oh lordy…

just reading back through the thread and I find this gem…

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Did all three largest Asteroid impacts break the crust causing plates to move?

if there were no impacts would the earth have one plate?

if there was just one plate how would that change everything else

more volcanoes?

The first impact was the one that created the moon. My guess is that the Australian continent marks the point the impact body punched through and exited to form the moon. My other basic guess here is that Challenger Deep may have been the surface point of this impact. If you follow the paths of each point from when the super-continent split apart these points seem to originate close to each other.

I assume the original impact planetlet might have formed with associated largish orbital masses that later impacted as the catastrophic sized impacts that have redirected evolution since.

oh lordy…

just reading back through the thread and I find this gem…

oh lordy is my phrase…… NOW WE FIGHT!!!!

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

oh lordy…

just reading back through the thread and I find this gem…

oh lordy is my phrase…… NOW WE FIGHT!!!!

I see you need time to prepare. Mind if I tap in a sub and go do some other things?

Who have I gotta beat up to get Boris’s love back around here?

I believe Witty may have put his hand up your Munchliness……….