Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 112

Thread: Stop ignoring the Carolina Bays

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    Stop ignoring the Carolina Bays

    Analyzing the craters on the Moon and on Mercury is worthwhile, but shouldn't we also be counting and classifying the Carolina Bays right here on Earth?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bays.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	44.1 KB 
ID:	19798 (LiDAR image of Carolina Bays)

    The Carolina Bays are approximately 500,000 elliptical, shallow lakes, wetlands and depressions, up to 10 km long which are found east of the Rocky Mountains and are concentrated mainly along the Atlantic seaboard. In the Midwest they are also known as Nebraska Rainwater basins. The major axes of the ellipses generally point toward the Great Lakes. The width-to-length ratio of the bays is 0.58 for the bays in Nebraska as well as those in the East Coast.

    The following YouTube video describes the hypothesis that the Carolina Bays were formed as the result of impacts of glacial ice ejected when a meteorite struck the Laurentide ice sheet in the Great Lakes region. The elliptical shape of the bays resulted from tilted conical craters created by the oblique entry of the glacier chunks. Thus, the bays are elliptical because they are conic sections.

    The Carolina Bays as evidence of a cosmic impact.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prW_mfQIyHk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,994
    Welcome to the CosmosQuest forums, citpeks.

    Although the origins of the Carolina Bays features aren't yet clear (based on a quick reading) it appears that your theory is still well outside of mainstream thought on the topic. I have therefore moved your thread to our Against The Mainstream forum where proponents can present, defend, and answer questions about their claims. Please read our rules and ATM advice linked in my signature line below. While you may reference your video and other offsite materials, your presentation and discussion must occur here. If you do not wish to pursue this topic in the ATM forum, please report this post to request that it to be closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,804
    Caveat: the video is about 40 minutes long. It also is very professional and makes a good case.

    So far, this is a refreshing change from the ordinary ATM.

    Regards, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnt a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    Are there bays spread across North America, and to those bays all point towards the same region?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,998
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Caveat: the video is about 40 minutes long. It also is very professional and makes a good case.

    So far, this is a refreshing change from the ordinary ATM.

    Regards, John M.
    It's also refreshing to see that he models the behavior of materials under the expected conditions of liquefaction (he does an experiment!), gives numeric values for key parts of the hypothesis and shows how he determined them, and makes specific predictions about the stratigraphy of the rims and the (slim) possibility of finding rocks at certain locations relative to the major axis of the bays.

    ETA: Thanks for posting this citpeks, and welcome to the forum.
    Last edited by Torsten; 2014-Aug-28 at 01:32 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    ... The following YouTube video describes the hypothesis that the Carolina Bays were formed as the result of impacts of glacial ice ejected when a meteorite struck the Laurentide ice sheet in the Great Lakes region. ...
    According to this Wikipedia article on the Carolina Bays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay) the Laurentide impact theory was discredited.

    This quote states: (Bold mine)
    A new type of extraterrestrial impact hypothesis was proposed as the result of interest by both popular writers and professional geologists in the possibility of a terminal Pleistocene extraterrestrial impacts, including the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis. It said that the Carolina Bays were created by a low density comet exploding above or impacting on the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago.[4] However, this theory has been discredited by OSL dating of the rims of the Carolina bays, paleoenvironmental records obtained from cores of Carolina bay sediments, and other research that shows that many of them are as old as, or older than, 60,000 to 140,000 BP (Brooks et al.1996, 2001, Grant et al. 1998, and Ivester et al. 2002, 2003, 2004b).
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    The Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins (which have similar characteristics) are located within a radius of approximately 1,400 km from the Great Lakes Region. The bays in the East Coast and in Nebraska point toward the Great Lakes region (around Michigan). The image in my original post shows some bays in the East Coast. The following is an image of the bays in Nebraska which also point toward the Great Lakes and have an orientation almost perpendicular to the bays in the East Coast. These Midwestern bays are at elevations ranging from 400 to 900 meters above sea level.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nebraska-40.5661-98.1235.jpg 
Views:	100 
Size:	83.7 KB 
ID:	19808
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Aug-30 at 03:05 PM. Reason: typo

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    OK, given my post #6, are you still claiming that the Carolina Bays are the result of an impact event in the Laurentide ice sheet in the Great Lakes region?
    Yes, the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis proposed by Firestone, et al. [1] was harshly criticized by Pinter et al. [2] because of the lack of an extraterrestrial impact crater and the lack of typical impact markers such as crystals with planar deformation features (PDFs), meteorite fragments, etc. The Pinter paper concluded that the bays could not have been caused by extraterrestrial impacts, and that is true. My proposal is that the Carolina Bays were created by terrestrial ejecta at ballistic speeds.

    The ballistic speeds of the secondary ejecta (glacier ice chunks) from an impact on the Laurentide ice sheet would have been in the range of 3 to 4 km/sec in order to reach the East Coast and Nebraska. At these speeds, and on soft ground, the impact pressures would not have been high enough to cause crystal deformation (See Melosh 1989). The glacier ice of terrestrial origin would not have left any traces of siderophile elements, meteorite fragments or or other typical impact markers, except for the raised rims around the impact cavity.

    With regard to the dates of the bays, I have no doubt that they are very accurate for the terrain on which the bays are found. However, I don't think that the age of the terrain corresponds to the age of formation of the bays. Impacts on liquefied soil part the ground, and viscous relaxation restores the stratigraphy by lateral centripetal flow as illustrated in the following pictures of one of my experiments. Only the surface layer of the conical crater is exposed to light, so during the impact and the subsequent modification, the subsoil remains unexposed to light. Thus, using OSL on the subsoil can determine the age of the terrain, but it cannot provide the date of the bay formation event because the subsoil of the bays was not exposed to light.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stratigraphic-restoration.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	89.9 KB 
ID:	19809

    Several problems with the Brooks proposal of water and wind processes for the formation of the bays are:

    1) The Brooks hypothesis provides no explanation for the bays in Nebraska which are at elevations ranging from 400 to 900 meters above sea level and have not been near the sea for 60 million years.

    2) The width-to-length ratio of the bays averages 0.58 for both, the Nebraska rainwater basins and the Carolina Bays. How could such regular elliptical shapes have been maintained for bays subjected to water and wind for 100,000 years as compared to those of more recent origin according to the OSL dating? Shouldn't the older bays show greater modification by these processes? The regularity in the eccentricity of the bays is more consistent with an oblique impact at 35 degrees.


    1. Firestone, R.B., West, A., Kennett, J.P., Becker, L., Bunch, T.E., Revay, Z.S., Schultz, P.H., Belgya, T., Kennett, D.J., Erlandson, J.M., Dickenson, O.J., Goodyear, A.C., Harris, R.S., Howard, G.A., Kloosterman, J.B., Lechler, P., Mayewski, P.A., Montgomery, J., Poreda, R., Darrah, T., Que Hee, S.S., Smith, A.R., Stich, A., Topping, W., Wittke, J.H., Wolbach, W.S., 2007. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 1601616021. (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.long)

    2. Pinter, Nicholas; Andrew C. Scott; Tyrone L. Daulton; Andrew Podoll; Christian Koeberl; R. Scott Anderson; Scott E. Ishman; The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: A requiem, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 106, Issues 34, June 2011, Pages 247264 ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.02.005
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Aug-30 at 12:19 PM. Reason: grammar and insertion of quote

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    The Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins (which have similar characteristics) are located within a radius of approximately 1,400 km from the Great Lakes Region. The bays in the East Coast and in Nebraska point toward the Great Lakes region (around Michigan). The image in my original post shows some bays in the East Coast. The following is an image of the bays in Nebraska which also point toward the Great Lakes and have an orientation almost perpendicularly to the bays in the East Coast. These Midwestern bays are at elevations ranging from 400 to 900 meters above sea level. ...
    OK, given my post #6, are you still claiming that the Carolina Bays are the result of an impact event in the Laurentide ice sheet in the Great Lakes region?
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    How the elliptical shape of the Carolina Bays relates to impacts

    How the elliptical shape of the Carolina Bays relates to impacts

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a case for proving that the impact origin of the Carolina Bays belongs in the "Geology and Planetary Surfaces" thread instead of the "Against the Mainstream" thread. I intend to do this by presenting scientific evidence to make you question the eolian and lacustrine processes that have been proposed for the formation of the Carolina Bays, and by proposing an impact model that more adequately fits the characteristics of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins.

    The idea that the Carolina Bays were created by secondary impacts of glacier ice ejected by an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide ice sheet in the Great Lakes region was published by Firestone in 2009[1], but he did not specify a mechanism by which the bays would have formed. This is an image from Firestone's paper:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firestone2009.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	83.7 KB 
ID:	19810

    The mechanism that I propose for the formation of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins is based on my study of impacts on viscous surfaces that create conical craters as illustrated in the following image:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-impact.jpg 
Views:	151 
Size:	23.8 KB 
ID:	19811

    Although the radial alignment of the Carolina Bays toward the Great Lakes region and the geometrical shape of the bays has been noted by many authors, no studies have characterized the shape of the bays. The following image presents data that I obtained using LiDAR imagery from Davias[2] and Google Earth for bays in the East Coast and in the Midwest.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	eccentricity.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	52.6 KB 
ID:	19812

    It is remarkable that for a larger sample of 23 bays, the width-to-length ratio averages 0.579 with a standard deviation of 0.045. Moreover, it is impossible to distinguish the Nebraska bays from the East Coast bays on the basis of their width-to-length ratios. This shared characteristic is an indication of their common origin.

    The model proposed for the formation of the Carolina Bays consists of oblique impacts that create conical cavities on viscous ground. The impact angle θ may be estimated from the width-to-length ratio using equations from forensic science ( sin(θ) = W/L ).[3] A value of 0.579 corresponds to an angle of 35.8 degrees.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ellipse.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	50.0 KB 
ID:	19813

    Oblique impacts that create conical cavities are guaranteed to create the elliptical shapes of the Carolina Bays.

    The Wind and Water hypothesis

    According to Mark J. Brooks and his co-authors[4], the Carolina bays formed during the Pleistocene epoch starting as shallow lakes along the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Florida. The distinctive shape and NW to SE orientation of the bays developed through stronger-than-present southwesterly winds blowing over water ponded in shallow depressions. The depressions were expanded and oriented by wave erosion, resulting in bay elongation perpendicular to wind direction and the formation of peripheral, downwind sand rims and shorelines on the eastern and southeastern margins.

    Questions:
    - How does the Wind and Water hypothesis explain the bays in Nebraska which are at elevations of 400 to 900 meters above sea level and were not close to the sea for 60 million years?

    - How does the Wind and Water hypothesis explain the elliptical regularity of the bays with a width-to-length ratio that averages 0.579?

    The Wind and Water hypothesis cannot answer these questions. If wind and water could create perfect ellipses, such features would not only occur in the United States radiating from the Great Lakes; they would be found all over the world. Impacts at 35.8 degrees on viscous ground offer a more reasonable explanation for the formation of the elliptical features.


    References:

    1) Firestone, R. B., The Case for the Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna, and Clovis Extinction, 12,900 Years Ago. Journal of Cosmology, 2009, Vol 2, pages 256-285. ( http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction105.html )

    2) Davias, M. [1], Carolina Bay LiDAR Imagery Viewer
    ( http://cintos.org/SaginawManifold/Go...wer/index.html )

    3) Determining angles of impact in forensic science
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodst...gles_of_impact

    4) Brooks, M. J.; B. E. Taylor; and A. H. Ivester, 2010,
    Carolina bays: time capsules of culture and climate change. Southeastern Archaeology. vol. 29, pp. 146163

    Additional images of Carolina Bays and Nebraska bays can be found here:
    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc...cal-shape.html
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-13 at 04:43 AM. Reason: added title

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    How the elliptical shape of the Carolina Bays relates to impacts

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a case for proving that the impact origin of the Carolina Bays belongs in the "Geology and Planetary Surfaces" thread instead of the "Against the Mainstream" thread. I intend to do this by presenting scientific evidence to make you question the eolian and lacustrine processes that have been proposed for the formation of the Carolina Bays, and by proposing an impact model that more adequately fits the characteristics of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins.

    The idea that the Carolina Bays were created by secondary impacts of glacier ice ejected by an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide ice sheet in the Great Lakes region was published by Firestone in 2009[1], but he did not specify a mechanism by which the bays would have formed. This is an image from Firestone's paper:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firestone2009.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	83.7 KB 
ID:	19810

    The mechanism that I propose for the formation of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins is based on my study of impacts on viscous surfaces that create conical craters as illustrated in the following image:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-impact.jpg 
Views:	151 
Size:	23.8 KB 
ID:	19811

    Although the radial alignment of the Carolina Bays toward the Great Lakes region and the geometrical shape of the bays has been noted by many authors, no studies have characterized the shape of the bays. The following image presents data that I obtained using LiDAR imagery from Davias[2] and Google Earth for bays in the East Coast and in the Midwest.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	eccentricity.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	52.6 KB 
ID:	19812

    It is remarkable that for a larger sample of 23 bays, the width-to-length ratio averages 0.579 with a standard deviation of 0.045. Moreover, it is impossible to distinguish the Nebraska bays from the East Coast bays on the basis of their width-to-length ratios. This shared characteristic is an indication of their common origin.

    The model proposed for the formation of the Carolina Bays consists of oblique impacts that create conical cavities on viscous ground. The impact angle θ may be estimated from the width-to-length ratio using equations from forensic science ( sin(θ) = W/L ).[3] A value of 0.579 corresponds to an angle of 35.8 degrees.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ellipse.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	50.0 KB 
ID:	19813

    Oblique impacts that create conical cavities are guaranteed to create the elliptical shapes of the Carolina Bays.

    The Wind and Water hypothesis

    According to Mark J. Brooks and his co-authors[4], the Carolina bays formed during the Pleistocene epoch starting as shallow lakes along the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Florida. The distinctive shape and NW to SE orientation of the bays developed through stronger-than-present southwesterly winds blowing over water ponded in shallow depressions. The depressions were expanded and oriented by wave erosion, resulting in bay elongation perpendicular to wind direction and the formation of peripheral, downwind sand rims and shorelines on the eastern and southeastern margins.

    Questions:
    - How does the Wind and Water hypothesis explain the bays in Nebraska which are at elevations of 400 to 900 meters above sea level and were not close to the sea for 60 million years?

    - How does the Wind and Water hypothesis explain the elliptical regularity of the bays with a width-to-length ratio that averages 0.579?

    The Wind and Water hypothesis cannot answer these questions. If wind and water could create perfect ellipses, such features would not only occur in the United States radiating from the Great Lakes; they would be found all over the world. Impacts at 35.8 degrees on viscous ground offer a more reasonable explanation for the formation of the elliptical features.


    References:

    1) Firestone, R. B., The Case for the Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna, and Clovis Extinction, 12,900 Years Ago. Journal of Cosmology, 2009, Vol 2, pages 256-285. ( http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction105.html )

    2) Davias, M. [1], Carolina Bay LiDAR Imagery Viewer
    ( http://cintos.org/SaginawManifold/Go...wer/index.html )

    3) Determining angles of impact in forensic science
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodst...gles_of_impact

    4) Brooks, M. J.; B. E. Taylor; and A. H. Ivester, 2010,
    Carolina bays: time capsules of culture and climate change. Southeastern Archaeology. vol. 29, pp. 146–163

    Additional images of Carolina Bays and Nebraska bays can be found here:
    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc...cal-shape.html
    That is all fine and dandy, but how do you explain an impact crater from about 13000 years ago being 100000 yeas old?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pontoise France
    Posts
    2,319
    Hi

    I remembered this has already been treated in the past. I try to use the search function of cosmoquest but no joy. So I switched to google and I found this old thread in the archive : http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/...p/t-80421.html
    It went quite wild ,in my opinion ,but it is interesting.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    That is all fine and dandy, but how do you explain an impact crater from about 13000 years ago being 100000 yeas old? - korjik
    I addressed this in post #8, but it is such an important point that I will elaborate further with some background because one of the arguments that has been used against the contemporaneous formation of the Carolina Bays from an extraterrestrial impact is the fact that the terrains where the bays are found have dates that differ by thousands of years. It would be impossible for the bays to have resulted from a single event if they were formed at different times.

    Brooks, et al. say the following[1]:
    Age estimates for Carolina bays range from 7–40 ka B.P. (Thom 1970) to 100–200 ka B.P. (Soller and Mills 1991). Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL, discussed below) dates from Flamingo Bay (SRS 3) on the SRS (Brooks et al. 2001a) indicate that the bay formed initially at 108.7 6 10.9 ka B.P. and was rejuvenated at 40.3 6 4.0 ka B.P. (Figure 2). A single date from SRS 40 indicates that it formed at 77.9 6 7.6 ka B.P.

    Based on 45 OSL dates, active shorelines and associated eolian deposition
    occurred during marine isotope stage (MIS) 2 to late MIS 3 (,12 to 50 ka), MIS 4 to very late MIS 5 (60–80 ka), and late MIS 6 (120–140 ka).
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dates-big-bay.jpg 
Views:	112 
Size:	58.9 KB 
ID:	19817

    How does OSL dating work? Cosmic rays and ionizing radiation from naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth can cause electrons to become trapped in the crystal structures of buried quartz and other minerals. OSL is able to free the trapped electrons and produce luminescence in proportion to how long the quartz has been buried. Exposure of quartz to sunlight eliminates the trapped electrons and resets the clock of the luminescence signal. In essence, OSL dating estimates the time since last exposure to sunlight for quartz sand and similar materials. Samples for OSL dating have to be taken in soil not exposed to light and they are processed in darkness.

    As I mentioned in post #8, I have no doubt that the OSL dates are very accurate for the terrain on which the bays are found, but I don't think that the age of the terrain corresponds to the age of formation of the bays due to the mechanism which I propose for their formation.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stratigraphic-restoration-experiment.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	57.7 KB 
ID:	19818

    Impacts on liquefied soil part the ground, and viscous relaxation restores the stratigraphy by lateral centripetal flow as illustrated in the above pictures of one of my experiments. Only the surface layer of the conical crater is exposed to light, so during the impact and the subsequent modification, the subsoil remains unexposed to light. Thus, using OSL on the subsoil can determine the age of the terrain, but it cannot provide the date of the bay formation event because the subsoil of the bays was not exposed to light.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-relaxation-and-dating.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	68.7 KB 
ID:	19819

    The stratigraphic restoration by viscous relaxation leaves a subsurface unaffected by sunlight; consequently, the OSL dates reflect only the age of the target terrain, but not the age when the bays were formed. If all the target material had been mixed and exposed to sunlight at the time that the bays were created, OSL would be an adequate method for testing the age of the bays, but this is not the case. Using OSL to determine the age of the bays is inappropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to try to determine the time when Stonehenge was built by measuring the age of its stones. Other methods of dating the bays, such as determining their rate of degradation due to erosion, may be more appropriate.


    1) Brooks, M. J.; B. E. Taylor; and A. H. Ivester, 2010,
    Carolina bays: time capsules of culture and climate change. Southeastern Archaeology. vol. 29, pp. 146–163
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Aug-31 at 01:17 PM. Reason: typo

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by galacsi View Post
    I remembered this has already been treated in the past. I try to use the search function of cosmoquest but no joy. So I switched to google and I found this old thread in the archive : http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/...p/t-80421.html
    It went quite wild ,in my opinion ,but it is interesting.
    Thank you for pointing this out. I had seen the thread in the archive. For historical perspective, that discussion took place in 2008 after Firestone's original publication claiming a comet airburst, but before his second publication proposing an impact on the Laurentide ice sheet with glacier ice ejecta.


    1) Firestone, R.B., et al., 2007. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 1601616021.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.long

    2) Firestone, R. B., The Case for the Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna, and Clovis Extinction, 12,900 Years Ago. Journal of Cosmology, 2009, Vol 2, pages 256-285.
    http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction105.html

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    I addressed this in post #8, but it is such an important point that I will elaborate further with some background because one of the arguments that has been used against the contemporaneous formation of the Carolina Bays from an extraterrestrial impact is the fact that the terrains where the bays are found have dates that differ by thousands of years. It would be impossible for the bays to have resulted from a single event if they were formed at different times.

    Brooks, et al. say the following[1]:


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dates-big-bay.jpg 
Views:	112 
Size:	58.9 KB 
ID:	19817

    How does OSL dating work? Cosmic rays and ionizing radiation from naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth can cause electrons to become trapped in the crystal structures of buried quartz and other minerals. OSL is able to free the trapped electrons and produce luminescence in proportion to how long the quartz has been buried. Exposure of quartz to sunlight eliminates the trapped electrons and resets the clock of the luminescence signal. In essence, OSL dating estimates the time since last exposure to sunlight for quartz sand and similar materials. Samples for OSL dating have to be taken in soil not exposed to light and they are processed in darkness.

    As I mentioned in post #8, I have no doubt that the OSL dates are very accurate for the terrain on which the bays are found, but I don't think that the age of the terrain corresponds to the age of formation of the bays due to the mechanism which I propose for their formation.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stratigraphic-restoration-experiment.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	57.7 KB 
ID:	19818

    Impacts on liquefied soil part the ground, and viscous relaxation restores the stratigraphy by lateral centripetal flow as illustrated in the above pictures of one of my experiments. Only the surface layer of the conical crater is exposed to light, so during the impact and the subsequent modification, the subsoil remains unexposed to light. Thus, using OSL on the subsoil can determine the age of the terrain, but it cannot provide the date of the bay formation event because the subsoil of the bays was not exposed to light.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-relaxation-and-dating.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	68.7 KB 
ID:	19819

    The stratigraphic restoration by viscous relaxation leaves a subsurface unaffected by sunlight; consequently, the OSL dates reflect only the age of the target terrain, but not the age when the bays were formed. If all the target material had been mixed and exposed to sunlight at the time that the bays were created, OSL would be an adequate method for testing the age of the bays, but this is not the case. Using OSL to determine the age of the bays is inappropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to try to determine the time when Stonehenge was built by measuring the age of its stones. Other methods of dating the bays, such as determining their rate of degradation due to erosion, may be more appropriate.


    1) Brooks, M. J.; B. E. Taylor; and A. H. Ivester, 2010,
    Carolina bays: time capsules of culture and climate change. Southeastern Archaeology. vol. 29, pp. 146–163
    do you have any actual evidence of this, or are you only assuming you are right? Do their ages take any of this into account?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    The thread topic caught my attention. Allow me to amplify citpeks plea. While the moderator at Wikipedia might suggest that the science is settled, if you ask for a consensus amongst geologists, you will not find one. After 80 years of tepid research, most offer little support for any current geomorphology. A wider net needs to be cast to identify new avenues of research. While I have serious doubts about any "excavation" mechanism for the bays, that certainly should not rule out other unique cosmic or catastrophic mechanism. And just because science has yet to identify it, science should not drop a cloak of pseudo-science over any attempts to offer novel speculation. So, let's Stop Ignoring the Carolina Bays.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    do you have any actual evidence of this, or are you only assuming you are right? Do their ages take any of this into account?
    My statement that Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating provides only the date of the terrain, but not the time of formation of the Carolina Bays is based on my impact experiments that demonstrate that only the surface of the conical cavity is exposed to light during the excavation and modification stages of the impact. Consequently, any test of the subsurface will find material that was not exposed to light during the creation of the cavity and therefore will not correspond to the date of formation of the elliptical structure. The following section describes the process of viscous relaxation in more detail.

    Viscous Relaxation - Transforming conical craters into Carolina Bays - Part I


    Viscous relaxation is a slow plastic deformation process powered by the force of gravity that decreases the vertical dimension of the features of a landscape. Prof. Melosh (1989, p. 146) describes some of the plastic deformations that occur during the modification stage of an impact.

    The following 5-second video shows the excavation stage of an oblique impact on a viscous medium consisting of equal amounts of sand and pottery clay with enough water to have a consistency of mortar. The impact creates a tilted conical crater like those proposed for the Carolina Bays.


    The following photographs document the transformation of the conical cavity into a shallow depression during the modification stage. It is important to note that during the modification stage only the new surface of the conical cavity is exposed to light but no additional soil is exposed to light. Any subsoil below the newly created surface will have the same OSL date characteristics as before the impact. In other words, the OSL clock is not reset to the time of bay formation as has commonly been assumed.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-relaxation01.jpg 
Views:	87 
Size:	82.4 KB 
ID:	19821Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-relaxation02.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	83.9 KB 
ID:	19822Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-relaxation03.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	82.1 KB 
ID:	19823Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viscous-relaxation04.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	78.4 KB 
ID:	19824


    1) Melosh, H.J., 1989, "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process", Oxford University Press
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Aug-31 at 11:37 AM. Reason: fixed url link to video

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Viscous Relaxation - Transforming conical craters into Carolina Bays - Part II


    A feature of the Carolina Bays that has been used to argue that the bays are not impact structures is that the stratigraphy beneath the bays is not distorted as might be expected after an impact. The explanation for this is that the excavation phase of a ballistic impact on a viscous surface is not an explosive event like that produced by a hypervelocity impact. A projectile impacting a viscous surface penetrates the medium and parts it in a plastic deformation that can be partially reversed by viscous relaxation as illustrated in this diagram.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stratigraphic-restoration-diagram.jpg 
Views:	102 
Size:	37.2 KB 
ID:	19826

    The following photographs show an experiment that I designed to demonstrate stratigraphic restoration. A viscous target surface was prepared with a red layer below the surface. The top left image shows the conical cavity made by an ice projectile that crossed the red layer and dragged along some of the red material.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stratigraphic-restoration-experiment.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	57.7 KB 
ID:	19827

    The image on the top right shows the reduction of the depth of the cavity from the bottom up, by centripetal lateral flow. At this stage, the projectile has already been covered. As viscous relaxation continues, the lateral flow of material reconstitutes the red layer until it is no longer visible. The images also illustrate the transformation of the overturned flaps created by the impact into raised rims around the final shallow cavity. This experiment provides a good model for the creation of elliptical bays with raised rims.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	overlapping-bays-lidar.jpg 
Views:	90 
Size:	43.1 KB 
ID:	19828

    The model of impacts on a viscous surface is also able to explain how overlapping bays are formed. In essence, adjacent conical impacts are transformed by viscous relaxation into overlapping bays and the chronology of the impacts determines how the bays overlap.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	overlapping-bays.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	47.6 KB 
ID:	19829

    Wind and Water hypotheses, such as those proposed by Brooks (2010) do not address the creation of overlapping bays.


    Brooks, M. J.; B. E. Taylor; and A. H. Ivester, 2010,
    Carolina bays: time capsules of culture and climate change. Southeastern Archaeology. vol. 29, pp. 146163

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    Raised rims and overturned flaps as impact features of the Carolina Bays

    In this post, I continue to present evidence that the impact origin of the Carolina Bays belongs in the "Geology and Planetary Surfaces" thread instead of the "Against the Mainstream" thread. If these posts seem to be coming too fast, it is because I only have 30 days to present these ideas, according to the rules for the ATM thread.

    Raised rims and overturned flaps as impact features of the Carolina Bays


    Some of the principal characteristics of the Carolina Bays are:

    - The bays occur only in unconsolidated sediments like sandy soil or gravel.
    - They are elliptical in shape.
    - They are oriented toward the Great Lakes region.
    - The bays have elevated rims which are larger at the terminal end of the ellipse.

    These features can be seen in the following LiDAR image:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	raised-rims.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	146.9 KB 
ID:	19832

    Prof. Melosh (Chapter VI) describes impact cavities as being encircled by a raised rim created by structural uplift during the excavation phase as well as ejected debris. The ejected material is thrown at such slow velocity that it frequently retains its stratigraphy and may be recognized as an "overturned flap".

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	melosh-overturned-flap.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	73.6 KB 
ID:	19833

    The following image shows the overturned flaps created by impacts on a viscous surface during the modification phase. The flaps at the rim of the cavity are still in the process of leveling by viscous relaxation. Once the material folds over, the raised rims will have inverted stratigraphy. The boundary layer, which is the original ground surface, is highlighted in the image on the right. The larger rim at the terminal end of the cavity is a characteristic of oblique impacts which tend to push surface material in the direction of the impact.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	overturned-flap-experiment.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	58.7 KB 
ID:	19834

    The resulting overlapping bays from the two impacts above was presented in post #18. (attached below)


    Finding evidence of inverted stratigraphy in the rims of the Carolina Bays would be a way to confirm the impact origin of the Carolina Bays independently of whether the site where the extraterrestrial impact occurred is found.

    The following image shows an overturned flap model and several Carolina Bays with the raised rims at the terminal ends that correspond to overturned flaps.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	overturned-flaps.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	57.3 KB 
ID:	19835



    Melosh, H.J., 1989, "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process" Oxford University Press
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	overlapping-bays.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	47.6 KB 
ID:	19836  
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-11 at 05:52 PM. Reason: added title

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,188
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    The stratigraphic restoration by viscous relaxation leaves a subsurface unaffected by sunlight; consequently, the OSL dates reflect only the age of the target terrain, but not the age when the bays were formed. If all the target material had been mixed and exposed to sunlight at the time that the bays were created, OSL would be an adequate method for testing the age of the bays, but this is not the case. Using OSL to determine the age of the bays is inappropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to try to determine the time when Stonehenge was built by measuring the age of its stones. Other methods of dating the bays, such as determining their rate of degradation due to erosion, may be more appropriate.


    1) Brooks, M. J.; B. E. Taylor; and A. H. Ivester, 2010,
    Carolina bays: time capsules of culture and climate change. Southeastern Archaeology. vol. 29, pp. 146–163
    I think you're going to have to address this dating issue a little more carefully, just saying that the researchers made an basic error in their technique (which would, as you say, be as bonehead as dating Stonehedge by the date of the rocks) is not good enough for me. What I read there, says that the orientation of the bays is strongly correlated with a perpendicular to the wind directions deduced from similarly dated sand dunes. The impact hypothesis wouldn't be able to explain that.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I think you're going to have to address this dating issue a little more carefully, just saying that the researchers made an basic error in their technique (which would, as you say, be as bonehead as dating Stonehedge by the date of the rocks) is not good enough for me. What I read there, says that the orientation of the bays is strongly correlated with a perpendicular to the wind directions deduced from similarly dated sand dunes. The impact hypothesis wouldn't be able to explain that.
    Grapes, first of all, I did not use the word "bonehead". Scientific theories are based on evidence. To support one hypothesis sometimes we have to point out the deficiencies of another hypothesis. History shows that the replacement of the Ptolemaic system after 1200 years of use was not without pain. If I am to propose an impact hypothesis for the Carolina Bays, I have to be able to point out the deficiencies of the eolian and lacustrine processes so that I can postulate the possibility that all the Carolina Bays were created contemporaneously. If the impact hypothesis is to be viable, we have to prove or at least show cause why all those OSL dates are wrong or not applicable.

    I addressed this point in my reply to korjik (post #17). My impact experiments on a viscous medium demonstrate that only the surface of the conical cavity is exposed to light during the excavation and modification stages of the impact. Any test of the subsurface will find material that was not exposed to light during the creation of the cavity and therefore will not correspond to the date of formation of the elliptical structure. My photographs document the transformation of the conical cavity into a shallow depression during the modification stage. During the modification stage only the new surface of the conical cavity is exposed to light but no additional soil is exposed to light. Any subsoil below the newly created surface will have the same OSL date characteristics as before the impact. For this reason, I think that the dates do not correspond to the time of formation of the Carolina Bays.

    If my experiments had shown turbulent mixing that exposed all the underlying soil to the light to reset the OSL clock, I would accept the dates. But that is not what the experiments show. Impacts on a viscous surface part the medium and only the conical surface of the cavity is exposed to light. No subsoil is exposed to light during the viscous relaxation process that decreases the cavity depth. OSL dating has to be done on the subsoil, which can only provide the date of the terrain.

    It would be futile to try to argue about the wind direction 40,000 to 140,000 years ago. What do we really know? That would be a polemical debate which would accomplish nothing. Something more tangible worth discussing is the elliptical shape of the bays having a width-to-length ratio that average 0.579 with a standard deviation of 0.045 that I discussed in post #10. I already raised the question earlier, how could the wind and water hypothesis explain that? Currently, there is no physical or theoretical model for the formation of the bays by wind and water processes that produces elliptical bays with raised rims with a width-to-length ratio of 0.58. The mechanism that I am proposing of oblique impacts that create conical cavities inclined at 35 degrees offer a more plausible explanation, and it is applicable to the Nebraska rainwater basins thus providing the basis of a more encompassing hypothesis.
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-01 at 08:24 PM. Reason: typo, minor addition

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    The KORJIK GRAPES experiment

    My assertion that the subsoil of an impact on a viscous surface remains unexposed to light throughout the modification phase has been a subject of discussion by korjik and grapes. For this reason, I designed what I call the KORJIK GRAPES experiment. My purpose is to demonstrate experimental support for the following statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    My impact experiments on a viscous medium demonstrate that only the surface of the conical cavity is exposed to light during the excavation and modification stages of the impact. Any test of the subsurface will find material that was not exposed to light during the creation of the cavity and therefore will not correspond to the date of formation of the elliptical structure. My photographs document the transformation of the conical cavity into a shallow depression during the modification stage. During the modification stage only the new surface of the conical cavity is exposed to light but no additional soil is exposed to light. Any subsoil below the newly created surface will have the same OSL date characteristics as before the impact. For this reason, I think that the dates do not correspond to the time of formation of the Carolina Bays.
    I used a target of equal parts sand and pottery clay with enough water to give a consistency of mortar. The surface was lightly sprinkled with colored green sand to get better contrast.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	korjik-grapes01.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	79.5 KB 
ID:	19838

    For expediency, I used a marble fired by a slingshot to create the conical cavity instead of an ice ball as I have done in other experiments.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	korjik-grapes02.jpg 
Views:	80 
Size:	85.6 KB 
ID:	19839

    Next, I sprinkled red sand on the conical cavity to indicate the surface area exposed to sunlight by the impact. My purpose was to see if any uncolored medium would be exposed by the viscous relaxation process. As you can see from the following three photographs, no new surface was exposed to the sunlight as the depth of the cavity decreased. This provides experimental confirmation that the subsurface would retain the OSL date characteristics as before the impact.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	korjik-grapes03.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	108.6 KB 
ID:	19840 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	korjik-grapes04.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	108.7 KB 
ID:	19841 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	korjik-grapes05.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	108.3 KB 
ID:	19842

    Physical experimentation is the foundation of science. I feel much more comfortable believing a process that can be demonstrated by experiment than one that just seems plausible but cannot be tested. The experiment that I conducted today is one that you can perform in your own backyard. If you have ideas for other experiments that might broaden our knowledge of impacts on viscous surfaces, I welcome your suggestions.
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-01 at 04:25 PM. Reason: typo

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    ok, so now show that the experiment correctly scales up large scale.

    The thing is, all of this is irrelevant. Even if you are right, you have to show exactly how the prior dating method is wrong, and what that would mean to the age of the sites involved.

    Can you show that the published age that disproves all of your work does not take into account your criticism? Do you know what their methodology was and where the error in that is?

    You can keep making nice pictures, and you can make them all the colors of the rainbow, but until you can show the exact error in the previous publications, show that they did in fact take contaminated or non-useful samples fpr there aging, you are still dead in the water.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    Kaczorowski's Wind & Wave

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    What I read there, says that the orientation of the bays is strongly correlated with a perpendicular to the wind directions deduced from similarly dated sand dunes.
    Raymond Kaczorowski's thesis (1977) is commonly referenced as the "wind and water" proof point. Unfortunately, it was never published except for a limited distribution by his institution's Geology Department. As such, it has never been held to any peer review, or open to a process of comment and rebuttal. With regard to the issue of wind direction and local dunes, he states this on p105:

    "Therefore, while the shape and orientation of the Carolina Bays are a function of the prevailing southwest and northeast winds, the predominant westerly and north-westerly winds appear to be mainly responsible for producing the well recognized southeast dune rims."

    Others have noted the disparity between the proposed normal-to-long-axis wind direction and that documented by local dunes. One explanation commonly given is that the dunes and the bays were created at different times.

    Kaczorowski performed a scaled experiment on a sand table using a fan to simulate the glacial-era wind proposed. Here is his Figure 40:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fig40.gif 
Views:	79 
Size:	76.2 KB 
ID:	19843

    This experiment has not been successfully repeated for confirmation in a public document. Note the wind direction shown on the graphic - it denotes an Alternating wind direction, reversing 180 at regular intervals during the experiment. In every reference I have seen to his "proof point" experiment, the alternating wind field is never referenced as Kaczorowski does in his explanation above (prevailing southwest and northeast winds). The current references are made to "Katabatic winds" flowing off the ice shield to the north, or cyclonic "Hurricane" winds, neither of which alternate in 180 patterns. It is conveniently overlooked, as such a regimen is hard to enforce. In any case, such a wind & wave regime requires (as in this experiment setup) a pre-existing shallow water-filled round depression. I witnessed one attempt at re-creation, where the experiment was set up with a single fan blowing across the center of the "pond", and indeed a current was set up crossing the pond and being steered left and right at the other side. I pointed out that wind does not blow as a plume of air, but as a parallel wind field. When a second fan was introduced so as to provide a more parallel field of air, the circulating pattern stopped and the far side simply eroded across the entire half circle, and the far side of the puddle migrated away from the fan, as in the clam-shell type oriented bays in Chili. And the experimenter never even considered the 180 wind direction shift regimen.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    ok, so now show that the experiment correctly scales up large scale.

    The thing is, all of this is irrelevant. Even if you are right, you have to show exactly how the prior dating method is wrong, and what that would mean to the age of the sites involved.

    Can you show that the published age that disproves all of your work does not take into account your criticism? Do you know what their methodology was and where the error in that is?

    You can keep making nice pictures, and you can make them all the colors of the rainbow, but until you can show the exact error in the previous publications, show that they did in fact take contaminated or non-useful samples for there aging, you are still dead in the water.
    According to Melosh (1989, p. 14), "the physics of excavation is nearly the same for both microcraters and larger craters. The main difference is that target strength dominates the excavation of microcraters whereas gravity plays the dominant role for most geologically important craters." There are scaling laws that can be applied which make a relatively small apparatus such as NASA's Ames Vertical Gun very useful in spite of the fact that it shoots only small beads.

    Since I only have 30 days to make my case and I am still preparing several other topics to describe my idea, I am not ready to engage in protracted discussions of which way the wind was blowing 100,000 years ago or to identify errors in OSL dating methodology. I actually expect the OSL dates to be very accurate for the terrain on which the bays are found, but I don't expect those dates to correspond to the date of formation of the Carolina Bays.

    The OSL dates may not matter at all since the wind and water hypothesis does not have a physical or theoretical model for the formation of the bays that produces elliptical bays with raised rims with a width-to-length ratio of 0.58. The specific aspect ratio of the Carolina Bays has been generally ignored, but it is a very important clue about the origin of the bays. If and when the wind and water hypothesis can account for the precise shape of the bays, then it may be appropriate to discuss the dates.


    Melosh, H.J., 1989, "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process", Oxford University Press
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	eccentricity.jpg 
Views:	65 
Size:	52.6 KB 
ID:	19844  

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    Physics of formation of the Carolina Bays - Ice Impacts

    One of the compelling aspects of the impact hypothesis of the Carolina Bays is that we can use well-established principles of physics such as Newton's laws of motion and the scaling laws relating yield energy to crater size as a foundation. The mathematical framework of physics makes it possible to deduce the conditions under which the Carolina Bays could have been created.

    Figure 3 of Firestone's 2009 paper, which I included in post #10 (thumbnail below), had excellent examples of Carolina Bays and their radial orientation converging at the Great Lakes near Michigan. Firestone suggested, based on Schultz's (2009) demonstration of an impact on ice with NASA's hypervelocity gun, that an extraterrestrial impact on a kilometer-thick ice sheet, such as the Laurentide ice sheet, would have ejected mostly ice.

    Having established experimentally that the elliptical Carolina Bays could have been created by oblique impacts that formed conical craters on fluidized ground, we can use the location of the Carolina Bays and their size to calculate the ballistic trajectories of the glacier ice chunks that created them, as well as the size of the projectiles.

    We can calculate that an ice boulder ejected at an angle θ of 35 degrees from Michigan to the South Carolina seashore would require a launch speed v of approximately 3.6 km/sec to cover the distance D of 1,220 kilometers using the following ballistic equation, where g is the acceleration of gravity.

    D = (v2/g)sin(2θ)

    At this speed, which is almost eleven times the speed of sound, the ice boulder would reach its target about 7 minutes after launch. The trajectory would take the boulder 213 kilometers above the surface of the Earth, which is more than a hundred kilometers above the atmosphere. The time of flight T and the maximum height H of the trajectories are given by the equations:

    T = (2v/g)sin(θ)
    H = v2sin2(θ)/2g

    Depending on the distances and launch angles, some ice chunks would have reached heights of 150 to 390 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The following image shows that the ballistic speeds would be in the range of 3 to 4 km/sec, depending on the distances to the target.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ballistic-trajectories.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	50.5 KB 
ID:	19845

    Having established the speeds of the glacier ice projectiles, we can use yield scaling laws to calculate the size of the projectiles. The mathematical foundation for correlating crater size to projectile size is provided in Melosh (1989). The University of Arizona has an online program for Computing Projectile Size from Crater Diameter (Melosh and Beyer, 1999). The size of a crater depends on the projectile's size, speed, and the angle at which it strikes. Factors such as the projectile's composition and the material and the structure of the target surface are also important.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	computing-projectile-size.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	53.9 KB 
ID:	19846

    According to the calculation, a spherical ice boulder with a diameter of 180 meters traveling at a speed of 3 km/sec would create a crater of 1 kilometer when impacting at an angle of 45 degrees. The energy of the impact would have been approximately 1.27 x 1016 Joules or 3.03 megatons.

    Using the formula for the volume of a sphere, the ice boulder would have a volume of 3 million cubic meters and would weigh 2.8 million metric tons. The ice boulder would be about the size of Yankee Stadium in New York City.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	yankee-stadium.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	36.2 KB 
ID:	19847

    The above image shows Yankee stadium in proportion to a bay in North Carolina (Lat. 34.841, Lon. -79.221) with a major axis of 942 meters. The size of the playing field and all the bleachers of Yankee stadium measure approximately 180 meters in diameter; this is about the same size as the glacier ice boulder that made the bay.

    If there are 500,000 Carolina Bays and each one was formed by an energy of 1.27 1016 Joules, then the total energy of the impacts was approximately 6.35 1021 Joules. This total energy provides a rough lower limit of the kinetic energy transferred to the ejecta by an extraterrestrial impact. Additional energy would have been converted to heat, seismic energy and fracturing of the target and projectile. The kinetic energy of 6.35 1021 Joules would correspond to a stony asteroid with a diameter of 3 kilometers or to an icy comet with a diameter of 2 kilometers.

    Using the same number of bays, we can calculate that approximately 1.5 1012 cubic meters of ice were ejected by the impact on the Laurentide ice sheet. This amount of ice is also a minimum since much of the ice may have fallen on ground too firm for the formation of bays. If the ice sheet had a thickness of 1 kilometer at the point of the extraterrestrial impact, the circular area containing this volume of ice would have had a diameter of 44 kilometers.

    An obvious question is: So where is the site of the extraterrestrial impact? We don't know. Several sites have been suggested, but no evidence has been found for the exact location. Michail I. Petaev and his colleagues from Harvard University published a paper (2013) announcing that they had found a platinum anomaly in the Greenland ice sheet that pointed to a cataclysm at the onset of Younger Dryas. The authors concluded that the combination of chemical compounds found in the Greenland glacier ice core hinted at an extraterrestrial source of platinum, possibly from an iron meteorite of low iridium content. The Younger Dryas is a cooling period that started about 12,900 years ago and is associated with the extinction of the North American megafauna, and thus it is a possible time for an extraterrestrial impact.

    Just like we can deduce the properties of an object from its shadow, the Carolina Bays as secondary impacts can help us to deduce the characteristics of the extraterrestrial impact that was responsible for their creation.

    References:

    Ballistic Trajectories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile

    Firestone, R. B., The Case for the Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna, and Clovis Extinction, 12,900 Years Ago. Journal of Cosmology, 2009, Vol 2, pages 256-285. http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction105.html

    Melosh, H.J., 1989, "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process"
    Oxford University Press

    Melosh, H.J; Beyer, R.A., 1999, Computing Projectile Size from Crater Diameter.
    http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/tekton/crater_p.html

    Petaev, Michail I.; Shichun Huang, Stein B. Jacobsen, Alan Zindler, Large Pt anomaly in the Greenland ice core points to a cataclysm at the onset of Younger Dryas, PNAS July 22, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1303924110

    Schultz, P.H. (2009) in "Last Extinction: Megabeasts' Sudden Death", NOVA, written and produced by Doug Hamilton, Public Broadcasting System.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firestone2009.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	83.7 KB 
ID:	19848  
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-03 at 03:25 PM. Reason: minor edit and addition

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    Formation of the Carolina Bays - Thermodynamics of Liquid Ejecta

    In post #26, I discussed the ballistic trajectories of ice ejecta resulting from an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide ice sheet, and determined that all the ice projectiles traveled many kilometers above the Earth's atmosphere.

    A hyperspeed impact is a very energetic event. An extraterrestrial impact on a rocky surface generates a lot of heat which melts, vaporizes and ejects pieces of rock (Melosh 1989). Something similar happens with ice. A hypervelocity impact on ice produces heat that melts and vaporizes great quantities of ice, but since ice is a bad conductor of heat and very brittle, many ice fragments are ejected from the impact site. The ejecta would consist not only of pieces of ice, but also liquid water accelerated by steam at high pressure. The following discussion focuses on the thermodynamics of the liquid water ejecta.

    Looking at the following phase diagram for water, we can see that below a pressure of 0.006 atmospheres (611.7 Pascals) water cannot exist in the liquid state. In the vacuum of space, water can only be gaseous or solid. Any liquid water ejected into space will boil, and the evaporation will cool some of the remaining water below the freezing point.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	triple-point.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	11.9 KB 
ID:	19849

    Above 35 kilometers from the Earth's surface, the atmospheric pressure is below the triple point of water and water cannot exist in the liquid state. Any water ejected above the atmosphere or carried along by the ejected ice chunks would have boiled vigorously and produced clouds of ice crystals.

    The following graph summarizes the effect of energy on the temperature of water in its solid, liquid, and gaseous phases. The heat for melting or freezing water, also called the Heat of Fusion, is 80 calories per gram at 0C. It is necessary to remove 80 calories of energy to freeze one gram of water at 0C. The heat for boiling or condensing water at 100C, called the Heat of Vaporization, is 539 calories per gram.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	waterphase1.gif 
Views:	74 
Size:	9.1 KB 
ID:	19850

    The water crystallization phenomenon is well known to astronauts when they vent their urine into space. The following is part of a 1976 transcript of astronaut Russel Schweickart talking to Peter Warshall about waste disposal in space:

    Schweickart:
    Well, actually, in Skylab we did something similar to that. But on Apollo the urine then would go outside, and you'd have to heat the nozzle because, of course, it instantly flashes into ice crystals. And, in fact, I told Stewart this, the most beautiful sight in orbit, or one of the most beautiful sights, is a urine dump at sunset, because as the stuff comes out and as it hits the exit nozzle it instantly flashes into ten million little ice crystals which go out almost in a hemisphere, because, you know, you're exiting into essentially a perfect vacuum, and so the stuff goes in every direction, and all radially out from the spacecraft at relatively high velocity. It's surprising, and it's an incredible stream of ... just a spray of sparklers almost. It's really a spectacular sight. At any rate that's the urine system on Apollo.
    For every 100 grams of water in the vacuum of space, the evaporation of 13 to 25 grams is enough to turn the remaining water into ice, depending on the water's initial temperature. For water ejected at 100C, it is first necessary to reduce the temperature to 0C. This requires 100 calories per gram. In addition, 80 calories are required to freeze one gram of water. Thus, we need to remove 180 calories to freeze 1 gram of water at 100C. For 100 grams of water, we can set up the following equation, where (100-X)180 is the number of calories required to freeze 100-X grams of water at 100C, and 539X is the number of calories removed by the evaporation of X grams of water.

    (100 - X) 180 = 539 X
    X = 18000/719 = 25.0 grams

    For water ejected into space at 100C, 25 grams will evaporate and 75.0 grams will turn into ice. This means that at least 75 percent of the water ejected above the atmosphere would have formed ice crystals.

    With the additional propulsion provided by evaporation, some ice crystals could have been sent into low Earth orbit where they would have blocked the light of the Sun for many years. This is a reasonable scenario for the onset of a cooling event, such as the Younger Dryas stadial.

    References:

    Melosh, H.J., 1989, "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process"
    Oxford University Press

    Schweickart, Russel (Astronaut) talking to Peter Warshall about waste disposal in space. "Watershed Issue" (Winter 76-77) of The CQ.
    http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/CoEvo...ook/SPACE.HTML

    Triple Point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-02 at 06:04 PM. Reason: minor edit

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    Formation of the Carolina Bays - The Glacier Ice Impact Hypothesis

    In the preceding posts, I have presented experimental evidence of a mechanism for creating slanted conical craters on viscous ground by oblique impacts, and for the modification of these conical craters into shallow elliptical depressions with raised rims under the influence of gravity. I have also applied ballistic equations and used scaling laws that relate yield energy to crater size to calculate the diameters of the projectiles that could have created the Carolina Bays. Here, I will try to integrate the previous topics into a Glacier Ice Impact Hypothesis to account for all the characteristics of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska rainwater basins.

    The main objective of the Glacier Ice Impact Hypothesis is to determine the effect that an impact would have had on the Laurentide ice sheet and to calculate whether the consequences of the impact could have contributed to the formation of the Carolina Bays. The Glacier Ice impact hypothesis does not depend on knowing the exact location of the extraterrestrial impact or the time when the impact occurred. The extraterrestrial impact could have happened at any time during the Pleistocene Epoch between 11,700 and 260,000 years ago when North America had a thick cover of glacial ice.

    The four main premises of the Glacier Ice Impact Hypothesis are:
    1) An asteroid or comet impact on the Laurentide ice sheet ejected glacier ice boulders of various sizes.
    2) Seismic shock waves from the main and secondary fluidized or liquefied unconsolidated ground close to the water table.
    3) Oblique impacts of glacier ice boulders on the fluidized viscous ground created slanted conical craters.
    4) Viscous relaxation reduced the depth of the cavities and restored the stratigraphy producing shallow elliptical bays.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	glacier-ice-impact-hypothesis.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	62.4 KB 
ID:	19853

    Impacts on an ice sheet eject pieces of ice.
    The following image shows an experiment conducted by Peter H. Schultz from Brown University using NASA's Ames Vertical Gun. A high-speed impact shatters the ice and ice chunks are ejected at high velocity radiating from the point of impact. The radial ejecta pattern is characteristic of impacts and can be observed on the surfaces of planets and moons throughout our solar system.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	schultz-impact-on-ice.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	62.9 KB 
ID:	19854

    Professor Schultz's experiment provides support for the first premise of the Glacier Ice Impact hypothesis by demonstrating that a hyperspeed impact on ice could have produced an ejecta curtain of ice fragments. The radial pattern of the ejected pieces could account for the alignment patterns of the bays in the East Coast and in the Midwestern states toward the Great Lakes region.

    Seismic shock waves liquefy saturated soil.
    The second postulate of the Glacier Ice impact hypothesis is that seismic shock waves fluidized or liquefied unconsolidated ground close to the water table. During the proposed scenario, there were two sources of seismic shock waves: the extraterrestrial impact itself, and the secondary impacts from the ejected glacier ice chunks, each of which could have had the energy of 3 megatons.

    Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which a saturated soil becomes like quicksand and behaves like a viscous liquid in response to the applied stress of soil vibrations. Liquefaction has been responsible for extensive damage to buildings and vehicles during earthquakes. These pictures show some buildings that toppled in Japan and some cars that submerged in New Zealand.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	soil-fluidization.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	81.9 KB 
ID:	19855

    Saturated soil occurs when ground water is close to the surface. Under these conditions, water fills the gaps between the soil grains and liquefaction occurs when the soil is subjected to a single or repeated change in stress. The vibrations from a seismic shock reduce the friction between the wet soil grains and decrease the load-carrying capacity of the soil and its resistance to shear. The following map of North Carolina shows that the coastal area on which the Carolina Bays are found has a water table within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of the surface.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	north-carolina-depth-to-water.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	63.2 KB 
ID:	19856

    Seismic shock waves travel with a velocity ranging from approximately 2 to 8 km/sec. Primary compression waves, called P-waves, travel at 5 km/s in rocks such as granite. The seismic waves generated by an extraterrestrial impact in the Great Lakes region would have taken from 3 to 5 minutes to reach the coastal areas of the United States. The shock waves would have fluidized the surface, and when the ejected ice reached its target 6 to 9 minutes after the extraterrestrial impact, the projectiles would have hit a surface liquefied by the seismic shocks. In addition, the fluidization would have been maintained under the intense bombardment of glacier ice chunks from the ejecta curtain, each with an energy of several megatons.

    Conical cavities and viscous relaxation
    The conical impact cavities and their modification by viscous relaxation has already been described in enough detail. Relating the elliptical shapes of the Carolina Bays to conic sections makes it possible to use mathematical formulas to determine the angle at which the ice boulders impacted the surface. Equations from forensic science relate the width-to-length ratio of an ellipse to the sine of the angle of impact. For most Carolina Bays, the angle of impact corresponds approximately to 35 degrees. The following image summarizes the properties of oblique glacier ice impacts on viscous ground.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	properties-of-glacier-ice-impacts.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	54.9 KB 
ID:	19857

    It is important to note that because the glacier ice projectiles are of terrestrial origin and traveling relatively slowly compared to extraterrestrial impacts, the Carolina Bays would have no signs of meteorite fragments, siderophile elements or shock metamorphism.

    Two ways to confirm the Glacier Ice Impact Hypothesis
    The use of conic sections makes it possible to calculate the position of the tip of the conical cavity, which is the location at which the ice projectile would have stopped. This mathematical analysis can facilitate geological exploration looking for stones that may have been carried within the glacier ice. The task will still not be easy since some of these glacier chunks may have buried themselves to depths of over 300 meters in bays with a major axis of one kilometer.

    The identification of overturned flaps in the raised rims of the Carolina Bays could also confirm their impact origin. Both of these ways of confirming the impact structures could be achieved even if the site of the extraterrestrial impact is never found.
    Last edited by citpeks; 2014-Sep-03 at 04:53 AM. Reason: minor edit

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97

    Formation of the Carolina Bays - The Extraterrestrial Impact

    In post #26, I used Newton's laws of motion and the scaling laws relating yield energy to crater size to calculate the size of the ice projectiles that created the Carolina Bays. In addition, using the number of bays, I obtained a rough estimate of the total energy of the extraterrestrial impact and the volume of ice ejected by the impact. The total energy indicated that the extraterrestrial impact could have been caused by a stony asteroid with a diameter of 3 kilometers or an icy comet with a diameter of 2 kilometers.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	et-impact.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	54.7 KB 
ID:	19858

    From the distribution of the Carolina Bays and Nebraska rainwater basins we can determine that chunks of glacier ice fell within a radius of 1500 kilometers from the point of impact in the Great Lakes region. This included the area from the Rocky Mountains to the eastern coast of the United States.

    Examine the following image of the area around Tatum, South Carolina. The saturation bombing by the huge ice boulders completely obliterated the landscape.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tatum-sc-bays.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	70.9 KB 
ID:	19859

    Using the ballistic equations and the clues provided by the Carolina Bays, it is possible to reconstruct the timeline of the events at the time of the impact.

    At T-minus-zero, an extraterrestrial object of 2 to 3 kilometers in diameter impacted the Laurentide ice sheet. The impact fractured the ice sheet and melted and vaporized large quantities of ice. Ice chunks and liquid water were ejected by clouds of steam under great pressure.

    Within two seconds after the impact, seismic shock waves radiated at 5 km/sec from ground zero.

    Twenty seconds after the impact, the water and glacier ice boulders ejected at 3 to 4 km/sec rose above the atmosphere.

    At T-plus 30 seconds, the water ejected above the atmosphere turned into ice crystals that went into low Earth orbit.

    Four minutes after the extraterrestrial impact, the seismic shock waves reached Nebraska and the Carolina coast liquefying the sandy terrain near the water table.

    Seven minutes after the impact, the ice boulders reentered the atmosphere and started crashing into the ground accompanied by sonic booms. The ice boulders penetrated the liquefied ground creating conical cavities. The high energy of the impacts also contributed to the soil liquefaction. Ice striking solid ground shattered upon impact covering the ground with ice pieces. The saturation bombing by the huge ice boulders killed fauna and destroyed their habitat.

    By ten minutes after the extraterrestrial impact, the ice bombardment has stopped. The solid ground was covered with half a meter of ice pieces and the fluidized ground was covered with conical cavities that were transforming into elliptical bays.

    Twenty minutes after the extraterrestrial impact, all was quiet again as the sonic booms became inaudible. From this time, the ice crystals in low Earth orbit diminished the light of the Sun and the ice pieces that covered the ground increased the albedo of the Earth, triggering a cold event.

    The following graphic summarizes these events.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	timeline.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	82.9 KB 
ID:	19860

    Although the events proposed by the Glacier Ice Impact Hypothesis could have occurred at any time during the ice ages in North America, the late Pleistocene, 12,900 years ago, provides the best fit. This is the time of the onset of the Younger Dryas cooling event, the time of the extinction of the North American megafauna, and the disappearance of the Clovis culture.

    Some scientists have proposed that the large mammals that inhabited North America, such as the saber-toothed tiger, the giant short-faced bear and the mammoths disappeared as the result of climate change or by overhunting by the newly arrived human population from Asia. However, if the Carolina Bays were made by impacts of glacier ice, the heavy bombardment would have had catastrophic environmental consequences for the eastern half of the United States. It is important to determine the mechanism by which the Carolina Bays were formed to really understand the history of North America.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	importance-of-carolina-bays.jpg 
Views:	107 
Size:	84.9 KB 
ID:	19861

    Many scientists worry that human civilization could be endangered if the Earth is hit by a meteorite in the future. The Carolina Bays hint that this may already have happened in our not so distant past. The extinction of the Clovis people in North America may have changed the course of history and allowed human culture in Eurasia to take the lead.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,398
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    Since I only have 30 days to make my case and I am still preparing several other topics to describe my idea, I am not ready to engage in protracted discussions of which way the wind was blowing 100,000 years ago or to identify errors in OSL dating methodology.

    I am sorry, but that cannot be.
    You are overwhelming any participant in this thread with numerous long posts.
    You will have to answer the questions that are put to you, no matter how much material you want to post here on CQ.
    So, you better start answering.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •