Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 101

Thread: The Carolina Bays are conic sections

Hybrid View

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

    The Carolina Bays are conic sections

    If you create an ellipse with axes proportional to the length and width of a Carolina Bay, the ellipse will fit exactly.

    img-bowmore-nc.jpg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,885
    Closed pending clarification.

    Clarified: this thread is intended to discuss the geomorphology and geometry of the Carolina Bays and Nebraska rainwater basins. Related discussion about their origins must be consistent with currently accepted mainstream model(s).
    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
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,188
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    If you create an ellipse with axes proportional to the length and width of a Carolina Bay, the ellipse will fit exactly.

    img-bowmore-nc.jpg
    Exactly? For tens of thousands of bays? It doesn't even fit exactly the ones in your illustration??

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,475
    I don't get the hoopla. They are elliptical, so I would expect them to be ellipses? Are you saying they all have the same proportions? That's not true across the whole breadth of the bays... for example, the ones in north Florida are nearly circular, I believe.

    CJSF
    "Flipping this one final switch I'm effectively ensuring that I will be
    Overcoming all resistance long after my remains have been
    Vaporized with extreme prejudice and shot into outer space.

    I'll be haunting you."

    -They Might Be Giants, "I'll Be Haunting You"


    lonelybirder.org

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    14,699
    So, is there some meaning to this "miraculous" geometry? Aliens? Gods? Or just coincidence? As Grapes points out, not even all of the ones in your picture are anywhere near eliptical.
    Lots of geometry occurs naturally. Beehive cells are hexagonal. Planets are spherical, or nearly so. So are soap bubbles. Crystals form lots of lovely geometric shapes. What's your point? Sounds a bit ATM, to me.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    So, is there some meaning to this "miraculous" geometry? Aliens? Gods? Or just coincidence? As Grapes points out, not even all of the ones in your picture are anywhere near eliptical.
    Lots of geometry occurs naturally. Beehive cells are hexagonal. Planets are spherical, or nearly so. So are soap bubbles. Crystals form lots of lovely geometric shapes. What's your point? Sounds a bit ATM, to me.
    I already had my say at an ATM Topic. This is strictly about the morphology. Planets are spherical for a reason, maybe the bays are elliptical for a reason also?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    This is strictly about the morphology.
    What about it?
    I see they are elliptical, but "exactly"? How do you define the exact location of the edges?


    I found this image which is an unmodified section of your picture.

    Looking at the craters that you obscured with your shading, we see that the lower (southern) edges of the craters have a gentle slope. How can you determine exactly where that edge lies?

    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    Planets are spherical for a reason, maybe the bays are elliptical for a reason also?
    For vastly different reasons.
    What shapes would you expect from a crater?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    What about it?
    I see they are elliptical, but "exactly"? How do you define the exact location of the edges?

    I found this image which is an unmodified section of your picture.

    Looking at the craters that you obscured with your shading, we see that the lower (southern) edges of the craters have a gentle slope. How can you determine exactly where that edge lies?
    Determining the edge of a figure, whether done by algorithms or by humans, is always difficult. Determining the borders of the Carolina Bays will have the same problems that are encountered in determining the borders of Moon craters. It would be necessary to use consistent criteria. For the Carolina Bays, I would define the edge as the line just inside the sandy rim. I would not include the sandy rim.

    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    For vastly different reasons.
    What shapes would you expect from a crater?
    I suppose this is a test question. For an impact crater, the shape would depend on many factors, including the type of target and velocity and composition of the projectile, see for example Melosh 1989. For a volcanic crater, there is a lot of variability. In general, craters have circular shapes, but not always. If you had a crater in the form of tilted cone, the crater edge would be an ellipse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    For the Carolina Bays, I would define the edge as the line just inside the sandy rim. I would not include the sandy rim.
    But you didn't do that. You interpolated the it in some areas.

    Let's take your 16x24 ellipse for example.
    The rim area to the direct left of the intersection of your axis flows farther into the crater than your circle.
    The rim area immediately clockwise from that flow, there is a large flat area level with the floor of the crater that extends past the rim.

    So; how can you say "exactly"?




    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    I suppose this is a test question. For an impact crater, the shape would depend on many factors, including the type of target and velocity and composition of the projectile, see for example Melosh 1989. For a volcanic crater, there is a lot of variability. In general, craters have circular shapes, but not always. If you had a crater in the form of tilted cone, the crater edge would be an ellipse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
    You don't have to explain conic sections to me. My question is why is this formation worth discussing if an ellipse is a valid shape?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    The bays that have well defined margins can be fitted with ellipses. Here is another example from around Fayetteville, NC.

    img-carolina34.850-79.205.jpg

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,188
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    The bays that have well defined margins can be fitted with ellipses. Here is another example from around Fayetteville, NC.

    img-carolina34.850-79.205.jpg
    Even the ones in that picture don't look like they could be fitted "exactly."

    Some look more like superellipses than ellipses.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Even the ones in that picture don't look like they could be fitted "exactly."

    Some look more like superellipses than ellipses.
    Working only in two dimensions, I am getting the images of the ellipses from Math Open Reference, which has an ellipse that can be adjusted:
    http://www.mathopenref.com/coordgeneralellipse.html

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    Working only in two dimensions, I am getting the images of the ellipses from Math Open Reference, which has an ellipse that can be adjusted:
    http://www.mathopenref.com/coordgeneralellipse.html
    I think most of us on this board know what an ellipse and conic sections are.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,188
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes
    Even the ones in that picture don't look like they could be fitted "exactly."

    Some look more like superellipses than ellipses.
    Working only in two dimensions, I am getting the images of the ellipses from Math Open Reference, which has an ellipse that can be adjusted:
    http://www.mathopenref.com/coordgeneralellipse.html
    So, instead of "exact", did you mean "approximately"?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,475
    Yes. Because they are elliptical. So? There are any number of natural processes that can do this. I happen to think water and wind erosion/sediment transport fit best with the evidence. Have you read the research on the bays? I'm not an expert, but I'm at least a little familiar with it, so the fact that some are nearly "perfect" ellipses isn't really a big thing.

    CJSF
    "Flipping this one final switch I'm effectively ensuring that I will be
    Overcoming all resistance long after my remains have been
    Vaporized with extreme prejudice and shot into outer space.

    I'll be haunting you."

    -They Might Be Giants, "I'll Be Haunting You"


    lonelybirder.org

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,435
    In areas where the bays are relatively unaffected by human activity, are they expanding or shrinking, becoming more round or more oval, more defined or less defined? Are new ones appearing where they did not exist before?
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    In areas where the bays are relatively unaffected by human activity, are they expanding or shrinking, becoming more round or more oval, more defined or less defined? Are new ones appearing where they did not exist before?
    Wind and water are mostly eroding the bays rather than crating new ones. In Nebraska, only the largest ones are still visible. Here is a LiDAR image of some bays in Nebraska. Without LiDAR they are almost impossible to see:
    nebraska-bays.jpg

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,084
    So, it's clearly true that while not perfect ellipses, the Carolina Bays are pretty close to elliptical. And they're all aligned in pretty much the same direction, with the long axis northwest to southeast. It's a fascinating land formation.

    Rather than quibble about how precisely elliptical they are or are not, my question is, what significance are you ascribing to this, citpeks? Why are you bringing it up here?
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    So, it's clearly true that while not perfect ellipses, the Carolina Bays are pretty close to elliptical. And they're all aligned in pretty much the same direction, with the long axis northwest to southeast. It's a fascinating land formation.

    Rather than quibble about how precisely elliptical they are or are not, my question is, what significance are you ascribing to this, citpeks? Why are you bringing it up here?
    The reason for my starting this thread in the Geology and Planetary Surfaces section is that the Carolina Bays do not receive much attention in geology courses. Many geologists are not familiar with the regular geometry and alignment of the bays.

    My own opinion is that the elliptical structures could have resulted from geological remodeling of oblique conical cavities. However, the mainstream hypothesis is that they were created by wind and water processes because the dates of the terrain span millennia (See for example Brooks 2010). So, I ask myself, how do the wind and water processes create almost perfect ellipses?

    ==
    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

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,336
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    So, I ask myself, how do the wind and water processes create almost perfect ellipses?
    Why do you ask yourself, citpeks - why do you not ask a geologist or geomorphologist ? Apparently they are comfortable with various wind and water processes creating almost perfect ellipses (the Bays).

    One reasonable scenario:
    • Carolina is covered with a sea.
    • The sea drains away - suddenly in some areas.
    • We know that receding water can create kettles. So it is reasonable to expect Carolina to have roughly circular depressions.
    • Wind could remodel the rims into approximate eclipses.


    Once formed by wind and water processes they could retain their shapes and orientations:
    Conference Paper: RAPID SCOUR, SAND RIM CONSTRUCTION, AND BASIN MIGRATION OF A CAROLINA BAY IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA, Moore et. at. Jun 30, 2014
    The fact that these landforms can migrate, yet maintain their characteristic oval shape, orientation, and rim sequences demonstrate that Carolina bays are oriented lakes shaped by lacustrine processes. Clear evidence of basin scour into the underlying Tertiary marine sandy clays reveal that Carolina bay are capable of creating, shaping, and migrating through their own basins while backfilling remnant basins with a regressive sequence of paleoshorelines.
    N.B. This conference paper may hint that Bays start as ovals however no date of formation of the bay is stated and the oldest date (32 ka) seems well after the date of Bay formations.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Why do you ask yourself, citpeks - why do you not ask a geologist or geomorphologist ? Apparently they are comfortable with various wind and water processes creating almost perfect ellipses (the Bays).

    One reasonable scenario:
    • Carolina is covered with a sea.
    • The sea drains away - suddenly in some areas.
    • We know that receding water can create kettles. So it is reasonable to expect Carolina to have roughly circular depressions.
    • Wind could remodel the rims into approximate eclipses.


    Once formed by wind and water processes they could retain their shapes and orientations:
    Conference Paper: RAPID SCOUR, SAND RIM CONSTRUCTION, AND BASIN MIGRATION OF A CAROLINA BAY IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA, Moore et. at. Jun 30, 2014

    N.B. This conference paper may hint that Bays start as ovals however no date of formation of the bay is stated and the oldest date (32 ka) seems well after the date of Bay formations.
    My reason for posting on this forum is not to answer my own question, but to ask the help of geologists or geomorphologists for references to the fluid mechanics calculations or numerical models that show how the elliptical or quasi-elliptical structures of the Carolina Bays are formed.

    Thus far, I have not come across a bay formation paper that specifies exactly the motion of the currents, or the motion of the wind, or whatever geological process is needed for the formation of precise ellipses. I don't demand 100% elliptical, I would settle for at least 98% elliptical.

    The scenario that you propose is similar to what I have read in many articles. Some depression is altered by water, wind and shifting sand and, voila!, you get elliptical bays. That is a very rough sketch for something that should be very precise.

    So it is reasonable to expect Carolina to have roughly circular depressions.
    It is reasonable, but I am not satisfied with "roughly".

    Wind could remodel the rims into approximate eclipses.
    I know that you intended to say ellipses, so I will not dwell on that, but I do not like the word "approximate". I would prefer 98% elliptical, or something like that.

    I have many questions, like how are the currents or wind regulated so that they stop when the ellipse shape is achieved? Why doesn't (or didn't) this happen with the kettle lakes in Alaska or Russia? What prevents the wind and water from deforming a perfect ellipse once it has been formed?

    All I would like is a reference to a paper that is not wishy-washy with information about prevailing winds or ocean currents. I would like something that has a numerical model that I could plug into my computer and shows me step-by-step how the precisely elliptical bays were formed, and how the overlapping bays managed to retain their elliptical shapes. By the way, the Carolina Bay ellipses are neither too elongated nor too circular. Why do they have a width-to-length ratio around 0.6?

    I know that these are hard questions, but a mainstream theory should have the answers.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,259
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    My reason for posting on this forum is not to answer my own question, but to ask the help of geologists or geomorphologists for references to the fluid mechanics calculations or numerical models that show how the elliptical or quasi-elliptical structures of the Carolina Bays are formed.
    You are welcome to ask, but you may have more luck on a geology forum.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    I don't demand 100% elliptical, I would settle for at least 98% elliptical.
    [...]
    It is reasonable, but I am not satisfied with "roughly".
    [...]
    but I do not like the word "approximate". I would prefer 98% elliptical, or something like that.
    That's what I have a problem with.
    I don't agree with your approximations of the shapes.
    To illustrate, I took my picture and used them as insets to yours. 1 is unaltered, the other has a rough blue outline of where I see the bottom of the rim of one of the craters.
    img-bowmore-nc2.jpg
    Even if I strayed a few pixels, it goes nearly 20 pixels off of an ellipse for a 100 pixel wide shape. No where near 98%, exact, perfect or whatever you want to say.
    On top of that, you only marked out 3 out of about 10 (depending if you want to count concentric ones).
    What about the one to the left of the 31x19 crater? The top of it is quite round while the bottom left is quite flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    Why do they have a width-to-length ratio around 0.6?

    Even among the 3 you marked there is a 10% variation in ratios.

    Besides, why would you expect a large deviation in a fairly uniform soil anyway?

    I, myself, would love to see some experimental re-creations, or simulations for it too. But; your issue about using the word "roughly" seems unfounded.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,336
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    My reason for posting on this forum is not to answer my own question, but to ask the help of geologists or geomorphologists...snipped lots of nitpicking...
    My point remains, citpeks - why have you not asked geologists or geomorphologists for references to your demand for "the fluid mechanics calculations or numerical models that show how the elliptical or quasi-elliptical structures of the Carolina Bays are formed"?
    These numerical models though might not exist. If they do not then you need to show that the mainstream scenarios are physically impossible before looking at other scenarios.
    It is also fairly hopeful to think that geologists or geomorphologists specializing in the Bays hang out in this forum!

    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    It is reasonable, but I am not satisfied with "roughly".
    It is well known physics, citpeks: You have a basin or water. You release the water from the basin. Turbulent flow creates eddies. Eddies are roughly circular and cut out roughly circular depressions in the basin.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,475
    That's because the bays are not so geological as geomorphological. And there have been extensive studies of the bays and their age, origins and how they might be changing. The orientations seem to correlate with prevailing wind patterns (or reconstructed wind patterns during and just after the last glaciation). Round ponds are actually fairly common - kettle ponds are a good example, though they tend to be smaller than the bays. These features become circular due to erosion and deposition along the shoreline or inner edge - small headlands or lumps are eroded away and any inlets or depressions are filled in, smoothing and circularizing the feature. It's the same process and smooths beaches and bays (proper bays). It's not mysterious or unusual.

    Now, I agree, the bays themselves are fascinating. There are theories on how they initially formed, but there is still much to learn about them. The comet fragment hypothesis is not well supported by the current evidence, but you'll still see serious work being done on that front.

    the elliptical structures could have resulted from geological remodeling of oblique conical cavities.

    ??? What does this even mean?

    CJSF
    "Flipping this one final switch I'm effectively ensuring that I will be
    Overcoming all resistance long after my remains have been
    Vaporized with extreme prejudice and shot into outer space.

    I'll be haunting you."

    -They Might Be Giants, "I'll Be Haunting You"


    lonelybirder.org

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    That's because the bays are not so geological as geomorphological. And there have been extensive studies of the bays and their age, origins and how they might be changing. The orientations seem to correlate with prevailing wind patterns (or reconstructed wind patterns during and just after the last glaciation). Round ponds are actually fairly common - kettle ponds are a good example, though they tend to be smaller than the bays. These features become circular due to erosion and deposition along the shoreline or inner edge - small headlands or lumps are eroded away and any inlets or depressions are filled in, smoothing and circularizing the feature. It's the same process and smooths beaches and bays (proper bays). It's not mysterious or unusual.

    Now, I agree, the bays themselves are fascinating. There are theories on how they initially formed, but there is still much to learn about them. The comet fragment hypothesis is not well supported by the current evidence, but you'll still see serious work being done on that front.


    the elliptical structures could have resulted from geological remodeling of oblique conical cavities.

    ??? What does this even mean?

    CJSF
    The remodeling of oblique conical cavities into shallow ellipses was discussed and illustrated in another thread. I will not discuss it here because it is not mainstream.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    That's because the bays are not so geological as geomorphological. And there have been extensive studies of the bays and their age, origins and how they might be changing. The orientations seem to correlate with prevailing wind patterns (or reconstructed wind patterns during and just after the last glaciation).
    And where are your links for this information. I found some. How come you cannot list them?

    rmfr
    Difference between a "best" friend and a good friend: A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail. A Best friend will be in jail with you saying, "Dude, we screwed up."

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,336
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    If you create an ellipse with axes proportional to the length and width of a Carolina Bay, the ellipse will fit exactly.
    Given that all of the Carolina Bays are roughly circular or elliptical then of course they are conic sections by definition.
    The reason would be that the mechanism of formation created them as roughly circular or elliptical: Carolina Bays: Theories of origin.
    The wide range of measured ages of the bays suggests that they were not created in one event. So an impact event is not that viable.
    The orientation of the bays being consistent with wind patterns suggests a mechanism that created roughly circular depressions that were then sculpted by wind. Maybe currents when the area was under the sea. Movement of ground water can also create circular depressions.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,990
    I suppose Google-earthers have closely examined the circular swath of land between Carolina and Nebraska? There ought to be at least a few of these elliptical features along that path, unless one wants to argue that they're the ends of rays.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    160
    RealityCheck,

    Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Even I have never read it. That Geomorphology excerpt is similar to some of the text in my text book for my class. My professor actually loved my hypothesis. Although I said theory above, I should have said hypothesis. My Geomorphology professor even said I could have used that hypothesis to write a dissertation. However, my main focus was into Geographical Information Science and Systems. I only took the Geomorphological Deformation class because the title sounded interesting. The class was also very interesting. I never knew it was going to cover such a broad range.

    However, as pointed out by RealityCheck, there are many good explanations of how geomorphological processes could have formed the Carolina Bays the way they did. In the excerpt, it briefly, very briefly, touches on all of the geomorphological processes that could have formed the Carolina Bays.

    Also think on this: In which direction is the semi-major axis oriented in all of the Carolina Bays? The same directional orientation of water drainage in eastern North Carolina? Yes, I know, some rivers actually loop around to the opposite direction at times, but the general overall flow of drainage is from the northwest to southeast. The same directional orientation of the semi-major axis of a Carolina Bay.

    There are many ways the Carolina Bays could have all been formed. My hypothesis is only one. Perhaps, my hypothesis is just a small part of the overall formation process. Even I do not fully believe my hypothesis. It was just a thought that popped into my head as I thought about the subsidence created by the massive ice sheets and the resulting uplift it would cause elsewhere.

    As mentioned in my previous post, since we know for a fact that the land that used to be under the ice sheets is rebounding upward, and the land south of there is subsiding, then logic could be used to show that the opposite is true. With the Carolina region being uplifted and the ocean levels lower, in my opinion only, this would seem that some karst erosion may have been occurring, possibly creating sink holes. However, before the sink holes could truly develop into true sink holes, the climate changed from an Icehouse Earth to a Greenhouse Earth. Thus, the ice caps melted, ocean levels rose which also rose the base level. Since the base level rose, that would mean ground water also rose, filling in those almost sink holes. Know what happens to a pond that does not drain? It fills in with silt, dirt, organic detritus, until the pond actually disappears and becomes land.

    As said, my hypothesis may have had a small part in the formation of the Carolina Bays. However, I tend to believe it was the combination of eolian and fluvian processes that simply formed parabolic dunes that later got filled in. Thus, you will have elliptical formations.

    Follow the link above to the wiki page. However, use the references links and external links for further research. It might not hurt much to visit the USGS site and some university geology sites.

    Of course, to take on your viewpoint, the Carolina Bays could have been formed by a comet that shattered into a shotgun blast. Thus, no evidence of meteors ever found. However, this is unlikely since a comet that shatters would almost also detonate in the atmosphere, much like the Tunguska Event. Remember that Russian meteor just a little while back? Look at how much damage that little thing caused by atmospheric detonation. To this day, I still firmly disbelieve that the Carolina Bays were caused by an impact(s) event. I most firmly believe the geomorphological explanations.

    rmfr

Posting Permissions

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