VOLCANO MADNESS: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved

Dear Kimmer,

I agree that I need to address this. And I believe that I need to be fairly specific, in that the mechanism for this to work has to be at least as plausible as that of the Standard Theory.

I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together, but we right in the middle of our busiest season, so it may take me a little longer to refine this so that it is clearly understandable. I'll be back with a well defined answer reasonably soon.

Thanks for the input.

Regards,

Ben Fishler

From: Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com>
To: Geology2 <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved

Ben,

You have not given us a workable explanation of how such a relatively tiny bolide could move continents around on the opposite side of the planet given the mechanism of plate tectonics.

Kimmer

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is a correction to my post on May 9, 2013. I got my east and west mixed up in three places.

In the ninth paragraph, I stated that the large impact 250 MYA would cause Old Australia to move to the south and west. It should be to the south and east.

In the 13th paragraph, I write of Siberia's tail moving to the north and east. It should be to the north and west.

In the 14th paragraph, I write of the tail section of Eastern North America being fractured and moved to the south and east to form Mexico and Central America. It should be to the south and west.

Sorry about that

Ben Fishler

From: Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com>
To: "geology2@yahoogroups.com" <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:59 PM

Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved

Dear Lin,

Actually I wasn't referring to you when I asked about areas where my theory appears to conflict with geological reality. I thought that I had already explained the differences between my view of the location of the Deccan traps (at the antipode) and the view of the Standard Theory.

I had assumed that my reference to the exhaustive treatment of India's location in chapter 8 in www.solvingthemajorextinctions.com provided enough of a picture of my model for India's movement and the reason for its location at the antipode 65 MYA. I didn't want to create an overly long and detailed exposition of this subject in my email.

The reason for my asking about areas where my theory appears to clash with geological reality was based upon the useful comments that I have already received. I was wondering if there are any more geological processes, characteristics or mechanisms that are incompatible with what I have presented.

I have already been confronted with two of them:
1. The non-uniform nature of the Earth's crust (thanks Eman).
2. The problem of directly equating cold heading impact extrusion processes to a large impact on Earth, without the consideration of pressure waves, due to differences between "near Field" and more distant pressure situations (thanks ChuckB).

I was wondering if there are any more land mines out there that I should be made aware of.

The Princeton study that you cited was a useful summary of the view of the Chicxulub impact as seen through the lens of the Standard Theory. This study does not say that it assumes a dead center vertical impact rather than an angled impact, but it seems that this is the case. The study also uses the Standard Theory's location of India and the Chicxulub impact 65 MYA.

Apparently it would be useful for me to provide a condensed version of how I view India's location and movement, going back to just before the impact that caused the Permian extinction 250 MYA.

Before the Permian extinction, the world's continents had coalesced into one giant land mass called Pangaea. In my view, 250 MYA there was a very large impact on a continent that I call "Old Australia," which had nestled up next to the east coast of Africa through the process of subduction. Old Australia looked very much like an upside down version of South America. It consisted of Eastern Antarctica, Australia and a tail section comprised of today's India, New Guinea, Borneo, The Philippines and Taiwan.

This very large angled impact occurred 250 MYA in the Eastern Antarctica area of Old Australia and caused the continent to break free of Africa and move to the south and west. Later, torsional stress from the Coriolis effect as Eastern Antarctica neared the south polar region, caused Eastern Antarctica to start splitting away from the rest of the continent.

This movement from 250 MYA to 65 MYA led Old Australia to the position where the largest part of its tail section was antipodal to the Chicxulub impact 65 MYA. The Indian Continent was uplifted (not uplifted much, but uplifted enough to shear the perimeter rock) from the middle of the tail area of Old Australia (and perhaps including some sea floor to the west and north) and moved to the north as directed by the new underlying plume. The plume was soon (geologically speaking) left behind and formed the Indonesian Island chain as the Indian Continent raced ahead (pulling Australia and the scattered tail remnants behind it, but not nearly as fast) and slammed into Asia.

The shape and position of Old Australia just before the Chicxulub impact and graphic illustrations of subsequent movement up to the present day are shown in illustrations 8-A through 8-J at the end of chapter 8 in my book., www.solvingthemajorextinctions.com.

I should also note that this very large impact in the Eastern Antarctica area of Old Australia was not the primary cause of the Permian extinction. Rather, the primary cause was the Siberian traps, created at the antipode of this impact, which included the directional uplift of Siberia, as well.

I will be modifying my original account of Siberia to reflect the fact that Siberia must have been continental material already (as opposed to raised up sea floor as I originally assumed). Siberia was carved out of land that was to the west of Eastern North America and to the east of the San Andreas fault area. Eventually Siberia's tail (moving north and east) was trapped and held by the westward movement of Eastern North America, causing the uplift of the high plains area and the formation (by normal subduction methods) of the Rocky Mountains (normal subduction from the east, not weird subduction from the west).

I should also note that I believe that the Chicxulub impact occurred at 30 degrees north and that both the separation of most of the tail of Eastern North America (creating Mexico and Central America) caused by the impact, as well as the impact's general effect on the direction of Eastern North America and augmented by the Chesapeake Bay impact 35 MYA (both moving it to the south and east) brought the crater to its location today, which is circa 21 degrees north.

The Standard Theory has India connected to Africa, Antarctica and Australia prior to the break up of Pangaea. Then India moves off the coast of Africa, over the Reunion hotspot (which could never have produced lava reflecting a 30 degree south origin without "polar wander") to create the Deccan traps (even though there is no doming of the land strata) and on up to its current position.

As long as there is no real need to question the Standard Theory's version, who cares?

But once the question of antipodal impact effects comes into play, it becomes important to get it right.

Dr. Hetu Sheth examined the Standard Theory's version of events and found it wanting in several areas. I summarize his work extensively in chapter 8 of my book.

Sure, the Princeton study says that the Deccan traps were not at the antipode of the Chicxulub impact, but that study merely accepts the Standard Theory at face value.

Although my theory does not agree with the Standard Theory regarding the location of the Deccan traps in relation to the antipode of the Chicxulub impact, I regard this disagreement as a disagreement based upon reasoned and knowledgeable analysis, rather than disagreement based upon ignorance of other relevant arguments.

Let me suggest that you go to my book, read chapter 8 and look at the illustrations at the end of the chapter. I think you will then understand why I believe that, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, the Standard Theory has some 'splaining to do.

Regards,

Ben Fishler

From: Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com>
To: Geology2 <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved

Ben,

As owner of this group, I will always defend your right to state a case, even if I think it is absurd. While your book has garnered a lot of discussion, which I greatly appreciate, I still stand by my original statement. I was always terrible in College Algebra in that I had the right answer almost every time, but was constantly fussed at by the teacher for not showing my work. The same applies here.

You have yet to respond to the paper I posted earlier in this discussion which is what I have been searching for all along: evidence that shows that the Deccan Traps were not antipodal to Chicxulub. Although I do not possess a seemingly male quality of looking beneath the hood to examine everything that ticks, I made a leap in judgment because, again, I'm very blunt and to the point. Sometimes brutally so. In a male dominated world of geology, I have had to make my point in such a way.

So, regardless whether you think my ideas work within the realm of "geological reality," I do have a paper to back up my beliefs, because I am aware that that comment was directed towards me. Whatever. I realize that I am by myself in sticking to my original belief, but it's not the first time I've been out on a lonely limb before and it won't be the last. :-)

Thanks again for bringing fascinating interaction to our group. I do mean that.

Lin

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:

I, too would like to thank the moderator for putting my theory into discussion.

Although my position on geological activity at the antipode of a large impact has been a lonely experience, the discussion about this has been quite useful and and enlightening.

I have been advised of two significant areas where my lack of geological expertise led to an unrealistic exposition (thanks to Eman and ChuckB for the education).

I will be able to modify my theory to either accommodate this different version of reality or to dispute some of the conclusions. I realize that no serious student of geology would seriously consider the validity of my theory with these two blunders staring them in the face. They would likely cease consideration as some of the blunders became apparent, and the blunders would become the sole focus of attention.

In the long run, my theory will rise or fall based upon its ability to successfully deal with the facts. If the theory, modified to account for my initial geological errors, is truly descriptive of reality, it will be able to withstand my bouts of geological ignorance.

I am still interested in receiving comments about areas where my theory appears to clash with geological reality.

Later on, as a final version, I hope to have a theory that can be evaluated based upon the true differences between my theory and the standard theory, rather than an incomplete exposition that contains distracting errors (as opposed to having well stated areas of disagreement).

If, at some point, my theory becomes untenable, I may have to cast it aside ... or take it to the History Channel, attributing any disputed mechanisms to ancient aliens ... with cryptozoology as a fall back position. I'll be bucking for a slot right after Pawn Stars and just before Swamp People.

Regards,

Ben Fishler

From: roger.steinberg <roger.steinberg@btinternet.com>
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 6:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved

I agree with our worshipful moderator. I do not contribute much to the group other then reading with great interest the various articles. Although I am not in Bens corner I find his ideas of interest and the arguments against I find endorse my own interpretations of geological events. So good call Kim, and Ben do not be deterred to voice your opinions. Hey I remember being on a field trip at uni summer school some time back and our two leaders (both geo lectures) had a difference of opinion regarding some rock identification. We all learnt more from that discussion then the whole weeks course. Mind you being old and decrepit I have forgotten what the argument actually was

Lol

Rog Steinberg

From: geology2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:geology2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Noyes
Sent: 06 May 2013 07:47
To: Geology2
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved

As a moderator I made an executive decision to approve Ben's original posting even though I doubted his hypothesis. I did this not to put him in a position to be ridiculed but I felt this might be a vehicle for some interesting discussion here as we usually just post articles and reports here. It appears this was a good call as there has been a respectful and intelligent discussion here which has allowed people to learn new things or refresh the memory on things they knew but had forgotten or see things they already know but worded in a different way thus furthering their understanding. I thank all who have posted in this thread.
Kim Patrick Noyes ~ One Of The Mods

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for the explanation ... and the lookup reference to "isostasy."

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

--

Vei8-Volcanoes of the World Webcams
Roxxfoxx~~Adventures in Geology
Penguin News Today
Penguinology: The Science of Penguins
Gentoo Penguins of Gars O'Higgins Station, Antarctica
Canis lupus 101
Through Golden Eyes
Follow me on Pinterest!