Theory of the earth's inclination

[coquina]

About the impact craters - here's a link to the home page of the Earth Impact Database from the Planetary and Space Science Centre - University of New Brunswick:

 

 

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images.html

 

You can click on the name to see graphic information - including pictures, and gravity and magnetic anomaly maps.

 

Here's Chicxulub, which is thought to be the one that caused mass dinocide:

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/chicxulub.htm

 

It is buried, as are many of the older craters, but the seismic, gravity, and magnetics define it clearly.

[coquina]

Somehow (maybe my current case of the flu) I didn't notice that this thread went to 3 pages - I was still back on page 1. Sorry if the above post is irrelavent to the current discussion.

[coquina]

Somehow (maybe my current case of the flu) I didn't notice that this thread went to 3 pages - I was still back on page 1. Sorry if the above post is irrelavent to the current discussion.

[us.2u]

There is so much speculation of metors wiping out dinosaurs & all life that prevailed at that given time to be quite honest I see that as the only explanation,I believe a meteor or meteors absoloutely huge in size caused an upset as large as a massive nuclear war which destroyed anything that lived maybe excepting incredibly small bug like animals but as the cold black contaminated atmosphere took it's long course to clear so life evolved again & flourished as evolution matured & eventually life became as it is now also space debris i.e. huge comets or meteors have had massive impacts on this planet every 50-100 million years so I guess we could be looking at danger but I hope not. Not now we've advanced this far,as for the tilt of our planet I always thought in the summer our part of the world tilted naturally towards the sun & gradually tilted into the opposite direction explaining why we have different seasons at least they taught me that at school I don't know if that is correct...I hope so otherwise I don't understand the 4 different seasonal changes.....us.2u

[Ophiolite]

,as for the tilt of our planet I always thought in the summer our part of the world tilted naturally towards the sun & gradually tilted into the opposite direction explaining why we have different seasons at least they taught me that at school I don't know if that is correct...I hope so otherwise I don't understand the 4 different seasonal changes.....us.2u

Not quite, but very close. The pole stays tilted towards the same point in the heavens - currently occupied by Polaris, the Pole Star. During the summer (northern hemisphere) that means the northern continents are facing the sun more directly. Six months later the tilt of the pole is exactly the same, but the earth is on the other side of the sun, so that the northern continents are angled away and receive less sunnlight.

OVer the course of 26,000 years the direction of axial tilt slowly changes, making a complete revolution. Not something we motice on a day to day basis!

[us.2u]

Is there proof the sphinx was submerged for a valid period of time? I don't know but everyone seems to wonder how the dinosaurs got wiped out here's a suggestion pherhaps the polar caps melted & caused a global flood the reason I'm thinking this way is.. there dosen't seem to be substanial evidence of impacts etc....but what of a flood wouldn't that leave all fossils intact & history remains of what once was? I can't see any other real explanation is there any way of proving or disproving this theory?...us.2u

[Ophiolite]

Is there proof the sphinx was submerged for a valid period of time? I don't know but everyone seems to wonder how the dinosaurs got wiped out here's a suggestion pherhaps the polar caps melted & caused a global flood the reason I'm thinking this way is.. there dosen't seem to be substanial evidence of impacts etc....but what of a flood wouldn't that leave all fossils intact & history remains of what once was? I can't see any other real explanation is there any way of proving or disproving this theory?...us.2u

Hell, us.2u, look up the definition of mercurial will you? Can we try too stay on one topic. It's entertaining jumping all over the place but I am getting dizzy.

 

Is there proof the sphinx was submerged for a valid period of time?

I'm not sure where this one came from, but, no there is no proof the Sphinx was ever submerged. Nobody that I know of has ever claimed it was. It has been claimed that it show signs of erosion by water, as in rainfall.

The projection from that is that since it is eight thousand(?) years plus since the Western Desert was not a desert, then the Sphinx must be that old. I find the erosion information moderately convincing. However, the Sphinx was quite possibly carved from an existing natural rock formation that had the general outline of the final statue, so that the bulk of the body was already in place. It is then quite reasonable that it would show signs of water erosion.

 

I don't know but everyone seems to wonder how the dinosaurs got wiped out here's a suggestion pherhaps the polar caps melted & caused a global flood the reason I'm thinking this way is.. there dosen't seem to be substanial evidence of impacts etc....but what of a flood wouldn't that leave all fossils intact & history remains of what once was?

No. Definitely not. A global flood would have left global flood deposits, filled with drowned dinosaurs, exactly as you suggest it should. They aren't there.

 

there dosen't seem to be substanial evidence of impacts etc...

There is very clear evidence of a major impact that is almost certainly involved to some extent with the end of the dinosaurs. Here is the key one for the dinosaurs again (with thanks to Coquina)- http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/chicxulub.htm

It is possible that it was not the impact alone that was responsible. Huge volcanic eruptions occuring at around the same time (in geologic terms) may have been equally to blame.

[Artorius]

I'm not sure where this one came from' date=' but, no there is no proof the Sphinx was ever submerged. Nobody that I know of has ever claimed it was. It has been claimed that it show signs of erosion by water, as in rainfall.

The projection from that is that since it is eight thousand(?) years plus since the Western Desert was not a desert, then the Sphinx must be that old. I find the erosion information moderately convincing. However, the Sphinx was quite possibly carved from an existing natural rock formation that had the general outline of the final statue, so that the bulk of the body was already in place. It is then quite reasonable that it would show signs of water erosion.

 

No. Definitely not. A global flood would have left global flood deposits, filled with drowned dinosaurs, exactly as you suggest it should. They aren't there.

Knowing your usual posts which i find interesting,im not sure you worded this one as you probably meant to ophi.Are you saying that only part of the sphinx(head and shoulders) has been actually carved.Or are you saying the structure was carved from eroded natural rock.It appears to me the second however you realise your mistake with this explanation.

As for global flooding,well there is a lot of literature that propose this scenario as actually happened, though i dont want to commit to saying the data is correct.

[Ophiolite]

While channel hopping about a year ago I stumbled on to a program that was, at least in part, about the Sphinx. Regretably I cannot remember the program name or even the channel, so I can't prove this. They showed natural rock formations, produced by erosion, in the Western Desert that bore an uncanny resemblance to the Sphinx. It would have taken only minimal carving of these objects to have created another Sphinx. The program makers argued that this was exactly what had happened at Giza. So those who thought there was evidence [the water erosion]that the Sphinx was very old were correct: the basic form was old. Those who thought it was young [comparatively], constructed at the time of the Great Pyramid, were also correct.

I find this explanation plausible and preferable to ignoring the erosion evidence or positing that Giza is a much more ancient site than conventional wisdom would hold to be the case.

 

Edit: Artorius, could you point me in the direction of the data supporting a global flood at the KT boundary. There are certainly disputed flood deposits in the vicinity of the Mexican crater [i'm not going to try to spell it], but I am not aware of global data.

[Artorius]

Perhaps it would be better if i reword my egregious sentence.I meant to convey there is geological evidence for localised flooding on a worldwide scale around the KT boundary,they are many ancient stories that pertain to global flooding such as the mahabharata,book of the dead,old testament,Gilgamesh,among hundreds of others.But unless geologists wish to research every flood myth im afraid i would be foolish to commit.

I have read books on the subject and the sphinx,which your post refers.My own believe is it was carved as Mr Hancock suggests around 10,500 bc and depicts a lion.Only around the time of Khafre it was recarved(head),whilst i do not think aliens from the planet Zog carved them,i do think that our data about civilisation is incorrect.

[Artorius]

Rightly or wrongly my experience and judgement of facts comes from a lifetime of reading literature,I do not always refer to sites on the web which is 99% crap,rather my library in my spareroom which is only around 3% crap lol.

[Ophiolite]

Did civilisation begin earlier than is currently believed by authorities? Possiby. Have authorities gneraly underestimated the skills and knowlege of early civilisations? Probably. Are the more radical views, such as those espoused by Hancock and those even farther out, likely to be true? Alas, probably not. Hancock, more than most of that school, asks good critical questions. It's his answers which lack same critical examination.

I'm comfortable that the various global flood myths may well relate to the sea level rise at the end of the last ice age. I see no connection between these and any flooding at the KT boundary. Would you cite one of your books that mentions extensive KT events please. Are these flood events or marine incursions?

[Artorius]

yes double checked they are marine incursions due to global climatic changes as i corrected myself in post 57

[us.2u]

I do apologise for zig-zagging on various subjects...but staying with floods & the extinction of dinosaurs I presume when one quotes the KT boundry they are referring to 65 million years of history I am ignorant of what KT stands for & appreciate to be enlightened. I have read "for & against arguments" that a huge meteorite that impacted in Mexico approx 65 million years ago was the perpatrator or reason of the extinction of Jurassic life; then others think not. I'm told the crocodile is a living descendant today & other terrastial anomalties were proberly the cause...The reason why I thought of global flooding is as far as I know fossil of dinosaurs have been found worldwide & I presume likened species from one end of this world to another. Some of you say there would've been a lot of drowned dinosaurs I feel this was proberly the case how can we tell? if we can't date a global flood of that period then I feel the Mexican meteorite must have been the cause unless anyone out-there has a more reasonable explanation...us.2u

[Ophiolite]

KT is shorthand for Cretaceous-Tertiary, which is where the extinction event occured.

 

The objective truth is that we still do not know with certainty what eliminated the dinosaurs. I find it convenient to remember that science moves towards truth, but may not necessarily be truth. It is common for a new theory to be refined, adapted and finall either accepted or discarded, based on the evidence.

I think it is a fair statement that most scientists in this specific field feel that an impacting body made a major contribution to the demise of the dinosaurs. Some of them undoubtedly feel this was the sole cause, while some cite other factors, such as massive volcanic episodes, or climatic change, perhaps associated with the latter, perhaps independent of it. A small proportion think the impactor had no more than a local effect in space and time. The numbers in these different camps varies almost daily, as it should, in response to new evidence and re-interpretation of the old.

That's what makes science exciting.

Artrorius has noted the evidence for marine incursions at the KT boubdary. That is somewhat different from global flooding. Floods could and would be generated by a large ocean impact. This would yield a single layer of sediment in the effected areas. The marine incursions represent an actual rise in sea level, so would not be associated with an impact.

[us.2u]

Thank you Ophiolite,are you stating that a global flood was unlikely after the meteorite imapacted in Mexico? do we have evidence of that? all I'm asking which I think is correct we have the same species of dinosaurs worldwide is it likely they traveled this far in communitys or far more likely they were washed up & delivered by our oceans? I don't know this is just my hunch but maybe I'm off course...us.2u

[Ophiolite]

We have some, disputed, evidence of flooding in the vicinity of the Mexico impact. There is no evidence of global flooding. Most dinosaurs were restricted in their range, just as modern mammals are, apart from man and his pets. There may be a handful of types that had global range, but the majority did not. Equally, the vast majority of dinosaurs remains that have been discovered were deposited earlier than the KT boundary. There is nothing to suggest in the types, distribution or enviroment of dinosaur finds that those at or near the KT boundary were deposited by a flood.

[us.2u]

Thank-you again for your insight but I was not referring to a large oceanic impact but the evidence of the huge impact in Mexico dated back to the time of the KT boundry I just wondered if it was possible after a savage & fericous pounding from a metorite that size equivalant to approx 6 nuclear world-wars I believe would've caused a chain of reactions i.e. storms beyond our imagination volcanos with savage ferocity immedite chemical heating breaking of the ice-caps global flooding etc would this be normal planet activity in the event of a mass meteorite impacting with our planet? So then I thought put all these catastrophes together & life expectancy after that would be extremely minimal indeed. Mind you that's only my theory which I've sort of put together with reading various subjects & beliefs on the extinction of the jurassic animals...us.2u

[swansont]

chemical heating breaking of the ice-caps global flooding etc

 

What flooding? There don't seem to be polar landmasses at the time (from maps of the Cretaceous I've run across), and melting icebergs/icecaps don't raise the water level at all - they already displace their mass.

[Ophiolite]

Half correct. There wer no KT icecaps to melt. Hoever, ocean water levels rise if the ice is on land, as most of the Antarctic ice is today, and most of the N.Hemisphere ice was 12000 years ago.

[us.2u]

Why I come to an understanding of a probable global flooding are for logical reasons:- If the mexican metorite was as damaging as one might suggest then oxygen would be completely cut off hence my earlier question....was it possible for life to exist? before the KT boundry that did not rely on oxygen to breathe? My other theory is this... I presume most reptiles or some of them are swimmers so maybe just maybe if a global flood did occur then snakes & crocodoles (decendants) maybe from our jurassic past.I don't know; I'm not daring to say "this is the way it is" I'm just looking at probabilitys.The reason why I said of the ice-caps melting I was taught at school that if our ozone hole increased the ice-caps would melt & eventually cause a major flood,or global flood So I presumed with a fantastic melt down or displacement of mass, my mentors were correct.However if I've misunderstood my mentors I'm keen to correct this thank-you...us.2u

[Artorius]

The global warming scenario arising from a cataclysmic event which has happened in the earths past,would melt icecaps to an agreed min of 60m(modern calculations could be 100m),thus submerging a huge amount of landmass.Although its sketchy,there are strata were a hodge-podge of dino's are jumbled together as if deposited from flooding.

[swansont]

If the mexican metorite was as damaging as one might suggest then oxygen would be completely cut off

 

How would oxygen be "completely cut off" ?

[us.2u]

Thank-you Artorius the other reason I do have a belief in global flooding is this.....when the mexican metorite impacted I presume above water level there would've been no oxygen at all but reserves of oxygen deep ito the depths of our terrestial waters proberly enough for minmal life to surviv. Then in years to come as our planet resolved slowy back to normality & land masses increased I would think it logical for evolution to start all over again do you think this could make sense or does anyone have absolute proof this was not possible?...us.2u

[Ophiolite]

A lot of misinterpretation is going on here. Let me try to clarify some points:

1. The current ice age (we are in an ice age as a quick look at Greenland and Antarctica will tell you) is not the norm for our planet. There have been ice ages in the past, but they are less common than no ice age. In most geological epochs the global temperatures have been significantly higher than today. Changes in the position of the continents and the consequent effect upon patterns of oceanic and atmospheric circulation are most likely responsible. Therefore whatever catastrophe occured at the end of the Cretaceous it did not cause a massive rise in sea level because of melting ice caps. There were no ice caps to melt.

2. The rocks on either side of the KT boundary have been studied globally probably more than those representing any other comparable period of time. In these rocks there is no evidence of 'drowned dinosaurs' on a global basis. There is sufficient evidence to say with confidence that the dinosaurs were not wipred out by a global flood.

3. The Mexico impact did not remove oxygen from the atmosphere. The resultant fire storm (partly caused by incandescent fragments from the impact falling back to earth) may or may not have been global in extent (this is the subject of current debate). Burning a substantial part of the biosphere would have reduced the oxygen content by an amount, but more sigificant would be the temporary reduction of photosyhthesis by the 'nuclear winter'. Neither mechanism, however, would eliminate the bulk of oxygen from the atmosphere.

4. Evolution did not tart all over again, it continued as always, working with the gene pool it had (which was now missing dinosaurs and so elevated some little furry fellows in importance) and within the environments that existed.