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

The purpose of this email is to begin to address the question put forth by Kimmer. That is: How could such a small impact object (Chicxulub, with an impact object only six miles in diameter) have moved tectonic plates on the other side of the Earth?

This email will deal with the subject of mantle plumes and transference of energy. A future email will deal with specific mechanisms for moving tectonic plates and the implications of the Chicxulub impact, in particular.

So, here goes.

In previous discussions of impact effects, ChuckB noted that the liquid mantle is a non-Newtonian liquid and that most of the energy from an impact would be refracted throughout the interior of the Earth, leading to a non-directional result (as opposed to my original hypothesis, which stated that there would be a directional pulse as a result of the impact). He also noted that my analogy between impact heading and a transfer of impact energy to the opposite side of the Earth was flawed because the impact heading situation was a near field phenomenon, whereas the transfer of energy over 8,000 miles (the Earth's diameter) from a small impact (relatively speaking) would not be a near field phenomenon and would be, instead, calculated in the effects of refracted s and p pressure waves and the resulting energy would be scattered rather than focused.

So, if I believe that the evidence points to a transfer of directional impact force, which I do, where do I go from here?

Well, if the overall impact theory of antipodal effects has validity, then there must be a mechanism that makes it work. It's my job to find that mechanism.

It's time to reevaluate the possible mechanisms of energy transference. The logical place to start is with The Standard Theory.

The Standard Theory offers two types of energy transfer:

1. Convection Currents Within the Mantle -- Supposedly, these convection currents are responsible for moving tectonic plates, causing one end to be subducted, while creating an upwelling of new crust at a mid-ocean ridge at the other end. The idea behind the mechanism is that the process releases heat energy that had been trapped in the interior.

2. Mantle Plumes -- There is another type of heat energy release, according to The Standard Theory ... mantle plumes. These mantle plumes originate deep within the mantle and travel upwards through the non-Newtonian liquid mantle to spew forth magmatic material and heat. There are big plumes, small plumes and huge plumes. They occur infrequently and without discernible cause, other than heat release. There is no pattern to their size or rate of occurrence.

Since I have already disagreed with many of the tenets of The Standard Theory in my book www.solvingthemajorextinctions.com, it won't come as much of a surprise that I have disagreements with both the Convection Current Model and the Mantle Plume Model of The Standard Theory.

When it comes to convection currents, I believe that, while convection currents might help to sustain a continuing subduction process, they are not the cause of the process. Rather, the process is initiated by directional motion of a tectonic plate, almost always as a result of the effects of the impact of a cosmic object.

However, the disagreement over The Convection Current Model is not important to this email, because it does not relate to the direct transference of energy.

Mantle plumes are an entirely different matter. It seems to me that the proper understanding of mantle plumes is key to a new model of impact energy transfer. So, let's look at mantle plumes.

The first big surprise for me was the fact that there is not a single, unitary theory of mantle plumes. Rather, there are several competing versions. These versions even include a version which questions the very existence of mantle plumes (are they merely phenomena of the middle and upper mantle?). It's like the Wild West out there.

One of the biggest areas of contention among those who question the most popular versions of mantle plume theory is the lack of doming in the two biggest plume events on record (the Siberian traps 250 MYA and the Deccan traps 65 MYA). According to the most popular version of Mantle Plume Theory, the mantle plumes are stationary and the plates ride over them, which causes doming of the land and eventual eruption. However, there is no doming in the cases of the Siberian traps or the Deccan traps.

If the two biggest examples of plume events don't exhibit doming, then how good can the theory be? This leads to questions about whether the Siberian traps and the Deccan traps were truly plume events and much more squabbling.

Should it surprise you to find out that I am going to propose my own variation of Mantle Plume Theory? Of course not!

My mantle plume theory will focus on the transfer of compressive impact energy to a layer of hot liquid Newtonian mantle at the boundary of the non-Newtonian liquid mantle and the Earth's liquid center. This new theory will explain the origin, size and rate of occurrence of mantle plumes, as well as their initial virulence and their eventual demise. It will also explain why there is no doming in the cases of the Siberian traps or the Deccan traps, while there is doming in subsequent events relating to those hotspots.

In my new theory, mantle plume activity occurs in the area that is antipodal to a very large impact. If the force of the impact can be effectively transferred, that is where the force would naturally end up.

The big question is whether or not the force from a very large impact is actually transferred to the area that is antipodal to that impact.

The major difference between my mantle plume theory and the most popular mantle plume theories is the fact that I propose that there is an entire layer of hot liquid Newtonian rock next to the liquid center, whereas the most popular mantle plume theories propose that there are just pockets of this hot liquid Newtonian rock.

How thick is the layer? I don't know. But, then, how thick are the supposed pockets? They don't know. All they know is that the mantle plumes supposedly knife through the non-Newtonian liquid of the upper mantle and that these mantle plumes must come from somewhere. They presume "hot pockets." I presume a full layer.

Why is it important to have a full layer of hot liquid? Because, if there is not a full layer of hot liquid rock, then the transfer of compressive force becomes much less likely.

But, with a full layer of hot liquid rock at the boundary of the mantle and the liquid center, then a substantial portion of the compressive force of more than 2,000,000 H-bombs (from the Chicxulub impact per the Princeton 2011 study) could be transferred along the liquid layer to the opposite side of the Earth, where all of these forces would meet. This massive concentration of squeezed hot liquid rock would cause the eruption of a mantle plume in the area that was antipodal to the impact (with minor variations depending upon the angle of the impact and the off-center nature of the impact ... but that's a subject for another day).

One very important effect of the new theory is the change of the point of initial impact effect. In my original theory, the point of initial impact effect was 8,000 miles away (the Earth's diameter). In this new theory, the point of initial impact effect is at the border of the mantle and the liquid center of the Earth ... only 1,800 miles away from the impact. If pressure waves behave similarly to light and sound waves (intensity varies inversely with the square of the distance), then this change should result in more than an order of magnitude more force being brought to bear on the point of initial impact effect.

One would expect that the effect of this mantle plume hurtling towards the Earth's surface (well, hurtling in a geological time sense) would be initially massive and then diminish over time ... a long time ... and then die.

The mantle plume head would cover a large enough area that, even if it were off-center to the impact's antipode, it would still include the impact's antipode within its boundaries. Since the lithosphere at the impact's antipode would have been pulverized by the concentration of giant earthquake waves at that location, this antipode would provide an easy escape exit for the rising mantle plume ... no doming needed. This would explain the lack of doming at the Siberian traps and the Deccan traps and then the subsequent doming at other, later locations along the mantle plume's path.

Therefore, I am arguing that mantle plumes are the direct result of large impacts and that mantle plumes occur in the area that is antipodal (allowing for angled and off-center variances) to the impact.

In a future email I will discuss the directional movement of plumes, as well as continental uplift through crack propagation. I will also present a "lite" version of my antipodal impact theory for those who have trouble with the idea of uplift of any sort ... kind of a theory with training wheels.

But first, I am eager to find out if the mechanism that I have outlined in this email would seem to provide a plausible explanation of the facts involved with impacts, energy transfer and mantle plumes ... or are there landmines that I have unwittingly stepped on?

I ask for comments. Is this a viable possibility?

Regards,

Ben Fishler

From: Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com>
To: "geology2@yahoogroups.com" <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:54 AM
Subject: 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!