Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?

[spacecowboy342]

I just had to show that the moon has the largest impact crater in the solar system and the same size of the IOGL (Indian ocean geoid low)...

http://minerva.union.../background.htm

[/size]

We know that an impact between the two really occurred, in the distant past...

An expanding earth as consequence of an impact/accretion event of such size would definitely have the necessary energy to move continents around. That is why i commentated...

A recent moon impact with earth could have transformed our ancient ecosystem completely, 10.000 years ago...

Plato's Atlantis surely was (if the story is true) a tremendous environment for many living species, among them shells.

I ask is there any place close to Gibraltar with such characteristics? Are there any anomalies at all, in the area Plato posits Atlantis to have been located? Azores triple junction, Atlantic ocean geoid high, etc, etc.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Such an impact would have released enough energy to boil off the oceans and sterilize the planet. Since we still hve oceans and life I would say this probably never happened

[Mario Dantas]

Getting past the fact you used a non-existant moon impact for your calculations and conveniently ignored such items as the 14.6 magnitude earthquake, the fact that such an impact could only have happened between 4 and 4.5 billion years ago and finally the final crater which would have been 1580 miles in diameter and 1.95 miles deep. Yet there is no evidence that any such thing happened within human history.

Neither humanity nor much of anything else would survive such an impact. It should also be pointed out that both your non-existant impact with the moon as well as sciences theory of an impact with a Mars-sized object are several times larger in diameter than the Chicxulub Impactor commonly believed to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Which means that your understanding of the magnitude of either destruction scenario is underwhelming to say the least.

cormac

Cormac,

Yes, you are correct that i "underestimate" the effects of such a destruction. But the truth is that there isn't actual proof that an impact of these proportions on earth would invariably lead to the complete destruction of life on the planet, as you are arguing.

There existed a large mass of ice that could have "appeased" the explosive levels of heat and rushed the solidification of the now hard and cold crust. Magma could have cooled quickly, because of the influence of the Pleistocenic ice and ocean(s).

The 1580 miles (roughly 2500 km) crater you mentioned does exist in the Indian ocean floor. The Indian ocean geoid low and the geophysical characteristics of the nearby regions, are the evidences that an impact might have occurred there. It is coincidental but nevertheless true that the IOGL is very similar to an impact crater.

The impact consequences related in the simulator are very negative, but they sure allow plenty of life to continue on the planet...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[spacecowboy342]

Mario there is proof that an impact that you imagine would end all life. 65 million years ago earth was impacted by an asteroid about the size of Mt. Everest. This was not nearly as big as what you propose and yet it killed every land animal bigger than a cat that didn't live in a burrow in the ground. Even this wasn't enough to shatter the earth's crust and move continents. If you want to see the results of an impact like that look at conditions on Venus. Here is a link to a site that might give you a notion of the forces involved.

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

[Van Gorp]

Aquatus,

I will try to answer to your comments. But probably there is no point in doing so, as you all do not seem to be genuinely engaged in discussing this…

Yes, i understand that everything is against a large island, in front of Gibraltar. But i hope to be able to continue to post here the results of my research, even though the vast majority disagrees with my reasoning.

I have been trying to post for some days now and i just did not have the time to figure this out:

"An error occurred! You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community."

I changed all images links, and even got rid of them after a while, but i always get that same error message. This is a txt format, and i will answer the best way i see fit. I have now changed your comments to Italics:

Mario Dantas, on 16 January 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

How would the Atlantic floor be dated, if large parts the ocean floor got molten as a result of an impact, 10.000 years ago?

"I've answered this question at least twice already. If the ocean floor became molten 10,000 years ago, then the date of the ocean floor would be 10,000 years. Here's my original response on this thread:

Basalt is dated (again, working from memory here) using the Potassium/Argon method. The theory is that, when molten, argon (Ar) freely escapes because it is a gas, but potassium (K) sticks around because it isn't. The basalt solidifies, the argon is gone, and the potassium continues along its merry way of breaking down from potassium to argon, thus giving us the means to date it. So, what would happen if the basalt was re-molten? Well, asides from the previously mentioned point of anything organic and much of the inorganic stuff on the surface of the planet being reduced to their component molecules (including any Atlantians, Athenians, Egyptians, or anyone else anywhere on the planet), what we would get is whatever argon had formed from the potassium would, again, escape into the air. Basically, the clock would reset, and when the basalt cooled, it would start the whole potassium to argon thing again, with the argon count back at zero. The dating method wouldn't even be wrong; it would, after all, be giving us the date of when it formed. However, the age of the basalt would actually beyounger.

The second error is that oceanic basalt isn't primarily measured using radioisotope dating methods. Those are just used to support the data; multiple points of confirmation and all that. Oceanic crust tends to be dated more by the distance from the mid-ocean ridge that created it. The further away from the ridge, the older it is. The speed of movement varies depending on various factors, but there are physical limits. Too much magma coming out doesn't result in faster crustal plains; it results in volcanoes. Going back to your squooshed apple pie, the filling oozes out at a given rate; applying greater pressure results in a bigger glob, not a faster glob."

Is it not true that ocean floor age date is an approximation rather than an exact figure (of exactly 10.000 years) as you are suggesting?

“Absolute dating is the process of determining an approximate computed age in archaeology and geology. Some scientists prefer the terms chronometric or calendar dating, as use of the word "absolute" implies an unwarranted certainty and precision.[1][2]Absolute dating provides a computed numerical age in contrast with relative dating which provides only an order of events.”

http://en.wikipedia....Absolute_dating

If there is a degree of uncertainty (or inexactitude) regarding dating, then one can hypothesize that the real ocean floor chronology of the MAR region in the north Atlantic to be “younger” than predicted, as you put it. The youngest ocean crust can vary between 0 to 11 million years. A thousand hundred times a larger time period than the time elapsed, hypothetically, since Atlantis demise (10.000 years ago)...

Meaning that, in reality, the geologic time scale measurements are made using extremely wide periods of time, and that their accuracy might not be as sharp as one would expect, when it comes to measuring such a recent event. Furthermore, i am convinced that other indirect effects were also responsible in “disguising” a possible different geologic “truth”.

Mario Dantas, on 16 January 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

What about dating when a geologic metamorphism take place? Immense extensions of Atlantic oceanic crust could have been re-heated and thus altered to an unknown degree.

"This was also answered. Why do you keep repeating the same questions and never acknowledging any of the answers?

As far as the modern crust never having been pierced, yeah, lack of evidence is pretty massive on that one for a couple of reasons. The first is that anything massive or strong enough to actually pierce the crust would be packing so much energy that it would simply be an extinction level event. Heck, it doesn't even have to pierce the crust to get to that level; there are plenty of heavenly bodies that could destroy all life on Earth without getting close to piercing the crust. And, of course, the geological evidence would be massive, even after we evolved, millions possibly billions, of years later. Simply put, damage caused by internal pressure is much different than damage caused from external pressure. Go to McDonald's and get an apple pie. Crush one end with your hand. Compare the damage there with the damage on the other end. Tell the people staring at you that you are doing science.

Look, about 65 million years ago, something called the K-T Event occurred. A 6-mile wide asteroid struck the planet and set of a cataclysm that resulted in the death of 70% of life on Earth. How do we know? Because we found the crater. The Chicxulub Crater doesn't even come close to cracking the basalt underlayment of the Gulf of Mexico, let alone melting it. Anything that hit the Earth with enough force to melt the basalt would utterly cauterize the surface. I have my doubts even bacteria could survive such an event. Last time something of that magnitude happened, planet Earth ended up getting a moon out of it."

You made a pretty good point there (apart the doing science bit). But i have to say this: those are the actual information we possess and know now. What if another impact crater is found or any other evidence?

Regarding the violence of the havoc, i agree it is a grim scenario…

But how can you be so sure of a complete sterlization of the planet's surface? Have you considered the situation prior to the end of the Pleistocene? The water existing in oceans, rivers, the huge ice and atmosphere could have transformed and cooled down the whole crust...

Ice and liquid water could have stolen temperature from the event, leading to a rapid solidification of the recent hot magma spill, globally.

What about the amount of oceanic crust surface having been actually molten? Maybe just narrow bands of crust got really molten, while other parts got mingled with solid crust, permitting an instantaneous partial continental free buoyancy.

Mario Dantas, on 16 January 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

Radiometric dating must happen on the good faith that earthly things evolved quite slowly and smooth, when a legend tells us otherwise...

"Again, also answered. You have been parroting yourself since the very beginning of this thread:

Catastrophism is not mainstream, but it is recognized by pretty much all geologists, and I can't think of any that would deny it ever occurred, even if it wasn't a normal part of geological history. Heck, the theory that the moon was created by an impact on proto-Earth so massive it tore a chunk (glob?) out of the planet is still alive and well in academic circles."

Parroting, i just learned another word in English….

But speaking of the moon, i was recently reading about giant impacts on earth and one thing that got my attention was the fact that the largest impact crater on the moon, and actually of the entire solar system, measures the average size of the IOGL (Indian Ocean Geoid Low), that is roughly 2.240 km…

A coincidence no doubt, but true nevertheless. my point being that if the moon had hit us 10.000 years ago, at a rate of a slow impact of 4km/s, would leave an symmetric gravitational imprint on earth, very similar to the Indian anomaly. Ninety east ridge, could have been the "trail" ridge made during the impact, measuring 5.000 km and pointing exactly to the north pole...

Mario Dantas, on 23 January 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Theories of an expanding earth have been proposed before but the lack of a credible mechanism enabling such expansion was one of the major flaws in this system.

"Yes, it is a pretty major flaw. It's like saying that the reason people put something down, turn around, and then when they go to pick it up, it is gone, it is because magical faeries turn it invisible except that we can't show that faeries actually exist. A solution that doesn't exist isn't a solution; It's a bad excuse."

For what i understood, proponents of the expanding earth theory believe(d) that the earth expanded through most of earth’s history. I think it expanded when the demise occurred and, of course, during any other ancient ‘accretionary” event that might have taken place in the past.

I have to confront you with the fact that there seem to exist a perfect continental fit, on earth. Continental margins indeed look as if they matched one another, if reduced the earth’s radius.

I did not entirely understood this when i first read about it…

You might laugh, but for what reason would continents perfectly fit together, as a unique continental crust covering the whole planet, when projected onto a smaller radius earth model?

http://i1.ytimg.com/...E/hqdefault.jpg

In comparison, and consequently, the normal fit is actually an “incomplete” one?

http://classconnecti...23904870740.png

Mario Dantas, on 23 January 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

I understand that there were many geologic theories which were considered nonviable when confronted with the scientific academia skepticism.

"Yep. See above.

You try and make it sound like it is the skeptics that make the solutions non-viable. You like leaving out the part about the solutions failing because they could not stand up on their own merits."

You are wrongly assuming something that never crossed my mind…

Mario Dantas, on 25 January 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

It is fact that continents fit together if you reduce the earth radius. There are models that attest this!

"There are also models showing how the Earth fit together (and didn't fit together) using plate tectonics and continental drift, and those models actually have evidence and support behind them. Between two competing theories, the one with the empirical evidence beats the one...that doesn't have an actual mechanism beyond "It happened? Maybe?"

One of the most important elements in Plato’s tale, is in my opinion, the supposed event in which the son of Helios temporarily established contact with the earth’s crust, burning its surface…

In Plato's Timaeus, there is the first introduction to the theme of Atlantis demise, which starts with the description of a

tangential impact?

“There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals”

http://classics.mit....to/timaeus.html

As i stated earlier, what if an impact crater is found in geopotential models?

http://airy.ual.es/www/eigen.png

Mario Dantas, on 25 January 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

I do not care about any other previous continental configuration at the moment.

"Why not? What criteria forces you to exclude them?"

It is already difficult to manage the latest configuration alone, go figure several others before. I don’t want to sound rude but that is the truth.

Mario Dantas, on 25 January 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Officially, Plato's Atlantic ocean started to exist right after Pangaea breakup.

"Officially?

Officially according to whom? Plato certainly didn't have anything to say about it. Heck, he barely had anything to say about Atlantis to begin with."

What i meant was that the Atlantic ocean origin pertains much more to Pangaea than any other hypothetical continental configuration prior to that period.

I feel stupid enough to have commented all your posts now. Yes, i agree that there are a lot of points in my theory that are hard as hell to prove, or even simply wrong.

For as long as i am allowed i will continue to research and learn…

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Applause Mario.

Nice why in dealing with an overactive mod :-)

[cormac mac airt]

Cormac,

Yes, you are correct that i "underestimate" the effects of such a destruction. But the truth is that there isn't actual proof that an impact of these proportions on earth would invariably lead to the complete destruction of life on the planet, as you are arguing.

There existed a large mass of ice that could have "appeased" the explosive levels of heat and rushed the solidification of the now hard and cold crust. Magma could have cooled quickly, because of the influence of the Pleistocenic ice and ocean(s).

The 1580 miles (roughly 2500 km) crater you mentioned does exist in the Indian ocean floor. The Indian ocean geoid low and the geophysical characteristics of the nearby regions, are the evidences that an impact might have occurred there. It is coincidental but nevertheless true that the IOGL is very similar to an impact crater.

~SNIP~

The impact consequences related in the simulator are very negative, but they sure allow plenty of life to continue on the planet...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Going back and re-entering the relevant information for a Moon-sized object impacting the Earth you apparently messed up somewhere as here is what I got with minimum input as to velocity (11 km per second):

Distance from Impact: 10000.00 km ( = 6210.00 miles )

Projectile diameter: 3480.00 km ( = 2160.00 miles )

Projectile Density: 3346 kg/m³

Impact Velocity: 11.00 km per second ( = 6.83 miles per second )

Impact Angle: 45 degrees

Target Density: 1000 kg/m³

Target Type: Liquid water of depth 4.6 km ( = 2.8 miles ), over crystalline rock.

Energy before atmospheric entry: 4.45 x 10³⁰ Joules = 1.06 x 10¹⁵ MegaTons TNT

The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age.

Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago.

The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.

The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).

Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 12.4 hours.

The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

The crater opened in the water has a diameter of 8350 km ( = 5190 miles ).

For the crater formed in the seafloor:

Transient Crater Diameter: 5100 km ( = 3170 miles )

Transient Crater Depth: 1800 km ( = 1120 miles )

Final Crater Diameter: 15600 km ( = 9670 miles )

Final Crater Depth: 5.41 km ( = 3.36 miles )

The crater formed is a complex crater.

At this impact velocity ( < 12 km/s), little shock melting of the target occurs.

At this impact velocity ( < 15 km/s), little vaporization occurs; no fireball is created, therefore, there is no thermal radiation damage.

The major seismic shaking will arrive approximately 33.3 minutes after impact.

Richter Scale Magnitude: 14.7 (This is greater than any earthquake in recorded history)

Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 10000 km:

IX. General panic. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains, sand craters.

X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly.

Your position is in the region which collapses into the final crater.

The air blast will arrive approximately 8.42 hours after impact.

Peak Overpressure: 1.37e+08 Pa = 1370 bars = 19400 psi

Max wind velocity: 9410 m/s = 21100 mph

Sound Intensity: 163 dB (Dangerously Loud)

Damage Description:

Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.

Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.

Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme frame distortion, incipient collapse.

Highway truss bridges will collapse.

Highway girder bridges will collapse.

Glass windows will shatter.

Cars and trucks will be largely displaced and grossly distorted and will require rebuilding before use.

Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches and leaves.

The impact-generated tsunami wave arrives approximately 13.1 hours after impact.

Tsunami wave amplitude is between: 1.9 km ( = 1.2 miles) and 3.8 km ( = 2.4 miles).

Which means that your 1580 mile diameter Final Crater never existed, it would have been 9670 miles in diameter and 3.36 miles deep. Between the 14.7 magnitude earthquate, the 19,400 pounds per square inch peak overpressure (standard atmospheric pressure is approx. 14.7 psi IIRC), the maxumum wind velocity of 21,100 mph and the dangerous 163 dB sound intensity as well as the ensuing tsunami between 1.2 and 2.4 miles high that pretty much eliminates all life that would be ancestral to current forms.

Edit to note: The target density is a water impact at a depth of 15,000 feet (whether south or southwest of India)

cormac

Edited February 10, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[cormac mac airt]

Lets put this is perspective, shall we. This is what a 9670 mile diameter impact Final Crater would encompass:

cormac

Edited February 10, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[Mario Dantas]

Going back and re-entering the relevant information for a Moon-sized object impacting the Earth you apparently messed up somewhere as here is what I got with minimum input as to velocity (11 km per second):

Which means that your 1580 mile diameter Final Crater never existed, it would have been 9670 miles in diameter and 3.36 miles deep. Between the 14.7 magnitude earthquate, the 19,400 pounds per square inch peak overpressure (standard atmospheric pressure is approx. 14.7 psi IIRC), the maxumum wind velocity of 21,100 mph and the dangerous 163 dB sound intensity as well as the ensuing tsunami between 1.2 and 2.4 miles high that pretty much eliminates all life that would be ancestral to current forms.

Edit to note: The target density is a water impact at a depth of 15,000 feet (whether south or southwest of India)

cormac

Cormac,

Apologies for not having managed to copy my values e.g. impact angle, density, etc...

I had introduced these values:

Water depth: 4000 m

Projectile density: dense rock 3000 kg/m3

Angle of impact: between 0-10 degrees

Velocity: 11 km/s

The impact angle between the earth and the moon could have been tangential? meaning that the impact angle used was relatively low (i tried some angles below 0-10 degrees). Your 45 degree angle is much more "energetic" than a tangential impact.

The reason why i presume such an impact (angle) to have been tangential is the "supposed" trail left by ninety east ridge and other smaller ridge(s) in the Indian ocean, pointing, grosso modo, to the north pole:

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[cormac mac airt]

So you made it as slow as possible and as direct-hit as possible. Neither of which is normal for either an asteroid, which would include some planetoids, nor for a comet. Typical speed, per the program, for an asteroid being 17 km per second. All of which ignores the fact that even at your less than typical impact velocity it would destroy the moon which means that we wouldn't have one in the sky now. I think you're grasping at straws.

cormac

Edited February 10, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[+DieChecker]

A recent moon impact with earth could have transformed our ancient ecosystem completely, 10.000 years ago...

That is completely Mad. That is almost within recorded history of mankind and so the complete destruction of 99% of the environment would be noted. Also there would be a tremendous ash layer encircling the Earth which simply doesn't exist.

The 1580 miles (roughly 2500 km) crater you mentioned does exist in the Indian ocean floor. The Indian ocean geoid low and the geophysical characteristics of the nearby regions, are the evidences that an impact might have occurred there. It is coincidental but nevertheless true that the IOGL is very similar to an impact crater.

I am wondering if the fact that India is perhaps the fastest moving land mass on Earth (This is the reason for the Himalayas) is involved in the depression just south of it. Perhaps India moved so quickly that it left a low density depression behind it?

[Mario Dantas]

So you made it as slow as possible and as direct-hit as possible. Neither of which is normal for either an asteroid, which would include some planetoids, nor for a comet. Typical speed, per the program, for an asteroid being 17 km per second. All of which ignores the fact that even at your less than typical impact velocity it would destroy the moon which means that we wouldn't have one in the sky now. I think you're grasping at straws.

cormac

I just found the reference to a probable tangential impact on earth:

A similar approach was taken by Canadian astronomer Alastair G. W. Cameron and American astronomer William R. Ward, who suggested that the Moon was formed by the tangential impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars.

http://en.wikipedia....pact_hypothesis

Did another simulation...

The crater opened in the water has a diameter of 2350 km ( = 1460 miles ).

For the crater formed in the seafloor:

Transient Crater Diameter: 708 km ( = 439 miles )

Transient Crater Depth: 250 km ( = 155 miles )

Final Crater Diameter: 1670 km ( = 1040 miles )

Final Crater Depth: 2.76 km ( = 1.72 miles )

The crater formed is a complex crater.

At this impact velocity ( < 12 km/s), little shock melting of the target occurs.

https://www.purdue.edu/impactearth/

At a 1 degree impacting angle, a body, the size of the moon will leave a crater of 2350 km (very close to earth's IOGL's diameter - of ~2500 km). The results, of course, are the product of the least damaging scenario, but they also mean that the damage would not be as obliterating as one can think, at first (but that is just my opinion).

Giant impact hypothesis

The giant impact hypothesis states that the Moon was formed out of the debris left over from a collision between the Earth and a body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 Gya (four and a half billion years ago). The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, for the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon.^[1]

The giant impact hypothesis is currently the favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.^[2]Supporting evidence includes: the Earth's spin and Moon's orbit having similar orientations,^[3] Moon samples indicating the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's relatively small iron core, lower density compared to the Earth, evidence of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks), and that giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system. Finally, the stable isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.^[4]

There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant impact hypothesis, however.^[5]The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to heat Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of magma; yet there is no evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle. At present, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include when the Moon lost its share of volatile elements and why Venus, which also experienced giant impacts during its formation, does not host a similar moon.

http://en.wikipedia....pact_hypothesis

I have to warn you that i do not (yet) assume the moon struck the earth, 10.000 years ago. It is my "educated guess" that an impact occurred there and the moon is as good candidate as any other possible impacting body...

Even i am surprised at the outcome of these simulations. In most of the simulations with <10 degree angle there isn't significant tilt in the earth's axis, there is no thermal radiation, etc, etc.

This alone should prove that it is possible for biota to, supposedly, continue on living after such a dire event.

Thanks for discussing and forwarding such helpful insights.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited February 10, 2014 by Mario Dantas

[spacecowboy342]

I just found the reference to a probable tangential impact on earth:

[/size]

Did another simulation...

https://www.purdue.edu/impactearth/

At a 1 degree impacting angle, a body, the size of the moon will leave a crater of 2350 km (very close to earth's IOGL's diameter - of ~2500 km). The results, of course, are the product of the least damaging scenario, but they also mean that the damage would not be as obliterating as one can think, at first (but that is just my opinion).

http://en.wikipedia....pact_hypothesis

I have to warn you that i do not (yet) assume the moon struck the earth, 10.000 years ago. It is my "educated guess" that an impact occurred there and the moon is as good candidate as any other possible impacting body...

Even i am surprised at the outcome of these simulations. In most of the simulations with <10 degree angle there isn't significant tilt in the earth's axis, there is no thermal radiation, etc, etc.

This alone should prove that it is possible for biota to, supposedly, continue on living after such a dire event.

Thanks for discussing and forwarding such helpful insights.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

21,000 mph winds and 14.4 magnitude quakes which is 4400 times the theoretical maximum earthquake should be a hint Edited February 11, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[Mario Dantas]

Applause Mario.

Nice why in dealing with an overactive mod :-)

[cormac mac airt]

Deleted: Mario, you're going to ignore the severity of the devastation entailed in such an impact anyway so there's no need to go any further.

cormac

Edited February 11, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[aquatus1]

Applause Mario.

Nice why in dealing with an overactive mod :-)

Yep, just a matter of time...

[Mario Dantas]

Mario there is proof that an impact that you imagine would end all life. 65 million years ago earth was impacted by an asteroid about the size of Mt. Everest. This was not nearly as big as what you propose and yet it killed every land animal bigger than a cat that didn't live in a burrow in the ground. Even this wasn't enough to shatter the earth's crust and move continents. If you want to see the results of an impact like that look at conditions on Venus. Here is a link to a site that might give you a notion of the forces involved.

http://impact.ese.ic.../ImpactEffects/

Spacecowboy,

Thanks for your link for computing the earth impact effects!

Earth Impact Effects Program

Please note: the results below are estimates based on current (limited) understanding of the impact process and come with large uncertainties; they should be used with caution, particularly in the case of peculiar input parameters. All values are given to three significant figures but this does not reflect the precision of the estimate. For more information about the uncertainty associated with our calculations and a full discussion of this program, please refer to this article

Your Inputs:

Distance from Impact: 10000.00 km ( = 6210.00 miles ) Projectile diameter: 3500.00 km ( = 2170.00 miles ) Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m³ Impact Velocity: 11.00 km per second ( = 6.83 miles per second ) Impact Angle: 2 degrees Target Density: 1000 kg/m³ Target Type: Liquid water of depth 4.5 km ( = 2.8 miles ), over crystalline rock.

Energy:

Energy before atmospheric entry: 4.07 x 10³⁰ Joules = 9.73 x 10¹⁴ MegaTons TNT The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age. Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago.

Major Global Changes:

The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass. The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree). Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 16.1 hours. The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

Crater Dimensions:

What does this mean?

The crater opened in the water has a diameter of 2970 km ( = 1840 miles ). For the crater formed in the seafloor: Transient Crater Diameter: 901 km ( = 560 miles ) Transient Crater Depth: 319 km ( = 198 miles ) Final Crater Diameter: 2200 km ( = 1360 miles ) Final Crater Depth: 3 km ( = 1.86 miles ) The crater formed is a complex crater. At this impact velocity ( < 12 km/s), little shock melting of the target occurs.

Thermal Radiation:

What does this mean?

At this impact velocity ( < 15 km/s), little vaporization occurs; no fireball is created, therefore, there is no thermal radiation damage.

Seismic Effects:

What does this mean?

The major seismic shaking will arrive approximately 33.3 minutes after impact. Richter Scale Magnitude: 14.6 (This is greater than any earthquake in recorded history) Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 10000 km:

• 
  IX. General panic. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains, sand craters.
  X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly.
  

Ejecta:

What does this mean?

Little rocky ejecta reaches this site; fallout is dominated by condensed vapor from the projectile.

Air Blast:

What does this mean?

The air blast will arrive approximately 8.42 hours after impact. Peak Overpressure: 1.28e+08 Pa = 1280 bars = 18100 psi Max wind velocity: 9100 m/s = 20300 mph Sound Intensity: 162 dB (Dangerously Loud) Damage Description:

• 
  Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
  Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
  Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme frame distortion, incipient collapse.
  Highway truss bridges will collapse.
  Highway girder bridges will collapse.
  Glass windows will shatter.
  Cars and trucks will be largely displaced and grossly distorted and will require rebuilding before use.
  Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches and leaves.
  

Tsunami Wave:

The impact-generated tsunami wave arrives approximately 13.2 hours after impact.

Tsunami wave amplitude is between: 668.0 meters ( = 2190.0 feet) and 1.3 km ( = 0.8 miles).

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

If the moon impacted earth, why is it still up there ?

[aquatus1]

Mario is saying the moon side-swiped the Earth. Not possible with the known laws of physics, but hey, there you go.

[spacecowboy342]

Yeah, but even if it wasn't the moon, I still think any impact large enough to shatter the earth's crust would sterilize the planet.

[Atlantisresearch]

"Was Atlantis in Greenland?"

This is just so silly. The ancient Greeks (and Egyptians) had no geographical knowledge of Greenland, so trying to link Plato's Atlantis to this makes zero sense from the start.

Mario Dantas looks like a good example of Poe's Law. As someone else also noted, he doesn't respond to any criticism.

[+DieChecker]

Yeah, but even if it wasn't the moon, I still think any impact large enough to shatter the earth's crust would sterilize the planet.

Also there would be a debris layer across the whole Earth, which simply doesn't exist.

[spacecowboy342]

Also there would be a debris layer across the whole Earth, which simply doesn't exist.

Yeah, I think it would make the KT boundary seem like no big deal

[Mario Dantas]

Deleted: Mario, you're going to ignore the severity of the devastation entailed in such an impact anyway so there's no need to go any further.

cormac

Cormac,

I am not going to ignore anything (as you propose). Nevertheless, i am entitled to refuse to speak lightly and/or irresponsible way about this (not that you have done this). I don’t know what you all make of it, but, to me, it is an “indescribable” sad story...

You must at least respect this much…

I understand that your and others position about this, is that it is simply impossible. I will tell that i actually do not know how the impacting event could have evolved that got us this far, in evolution. But there are traces that something really weird happened.

Somehow, in all sincerity, your kindly provided impact simulator could be the explanation to Plato’s explicit indication of a large earthquake(s), followed by Atlantis disappearance!

It sort of downgraded the deadly explosive effects in the living biota, imo...

sunk by an earthquake…

(Critias)

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

(Timaeus)

What could one expect from an earthquake capable of “moving” Atlantis from where it once stood (Gibraltar), nowhere to be seen again? The impassable and impenetrable mud shoal in the Atlantic? Furthermore, caused by the “subsidence” of the island?

Atlantis was no metaphor…

I am open to discuss anything, but there aren’t sure answers. Again, if the event took place, then many scientific “preconceived” ideas could be inaccurate, e.g. assuming that a giant impact on earth could only have happened a long time ago (around 4 billion years), or that it would have been a complete “pulverization” of the earth’s surface.

Ocean floor crust account for sixty percent of the globe (more than half). Living “debris” could have escaped (buoying in extensive mud waves traveling coast to coast and upon continents). The mud/water invasions that such an event would provoke actually would have saved plenty of seeds and animals to repopulate the new continental and oceanic configuration.

From all times in “geologic” history, the Permian Triassic extinction, is considered to be the most dramatic one:

Causes of the extinction event

Pin-pointing the exact cause (or causes) of the Permian–Triassic extinction event is a difficult undertaking, mostly because the catastrophe occurred over 250 million years ago, and much of the evidence that would have pointed to the cause has either been destroyed by now or is concealed deep within the Earth under many layers of rock. The sea floor is also completely recycled every 200 million years by the ongoing process of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading, thereby leaving no useful indications beneath the ocean. With the fairly significant evidence that scientists have managed to accumulate, several mechanisms have been proposed for the extinction event, including both catastrophic and gradualistic processes (similar to those theorized for the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event). The former include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, or sudden release of methane hydrates from the sea floor. The latter include sea level change,anoxia, and increasing aridity. Any hypothesis about the cause must explain the selectivity of the event, which primarily affected organisms with calcium carbonate skeletons, the long (4– to 6-million-year) period before recovery started, and the minimal extent of biological mineralization (despite inorganic carbonates being deposited) once the recovery began.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

The demise of a large island in the north Atlantic would have similar characteristics?

It would have taken a certain unknown finite amount of water, ice and atmospheric low temperatures, to allow life in the limit of the deadly destructive heat generated by the extrusion of upper mantle, if the oceanic floor cracked open?

One of the possible scenarios not taken into consideration in the simulator is the possibility of fast continental movements. I hope you agree that an impact of such proportions could induce tectonic shifts as well.

Resuming, the aftermath effects of an ancient collision with our moon did not yield the expected 100% death rate you propose, rather, it showed that severe damage would occur and what would different structures behave like under gigantic stresses.

If Plato’s Atlantis was true, then the actual chronology of geologic events would be irremediably false. Unless, someone here says Plato’s Atlantis is impossible to have existed, and why.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

If the moon impacted earth, why is it still up there ?

Noteverythingisaconspiracy,

Actually, it wasn't the moon but a Mars sized body which is supposed to have impacted the earth...

The giant impact hypothesis states that the Moon was formed out of the debris left over from a collision between the Earth and a body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 Gya (four and a half billion years ago). The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, for the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon.^[1]

The giant impact hypothesis is currently the favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.^[2] Supporting evidence includes: the Earth's spin and Moon's orbit having similar orientations,^[3] Moon samples indicating the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's relatively small iron core, lower density compared to the Earth, evidence of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks), and that giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system. Finally, the stable isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

"Was Atlantis in Greenland?"

This is just so silly. The ancient Greeks (and Egyptians) had no geographical knowledge of Greenland, so trying to link Plato's Atlantis to this makes zero sense from the start.

OliverDSmith,

The fact(?) that Greeks and Egyptians did not know about Greenland location, does not mean they couldn't have heard that an island empire existed in the Atlantic ocean, even by another name...

I would wish you'd seriously engage in the discussion as you are solely trying to diminish an idea because it is not located in the Mediterranean sea.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

Also there would be a debris layer across the whole Earth, which simply doesn't exist.

DieChecker,

There is an iridium rich layer in our planet's crust:

From the amount and distribution of iridium present in the 65-million-year-old "iridium layer", the Alvarez team later estimated that an asteroid of 10 to 14 km (6 to 9 mi) must have collided with the earth. This iridium layer at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary has been found worldwide at 100 different sites. Multidirectionally shocked quartz (coesite), which is only known to form as the result of large impacts or atomic bomb explosions, has also been found in the same layer at more than 30 sites. Soot and ash at levels tens of thousands times normal levels were found with the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

Impact specialists have studied the claim and concluded that there never was such an impact, in particular because various physical signs of such an impact cannot be found.^[37]

Evidence supporting the theory however has been further suggested by the 2012 paper presented to the PNAS (T.E. Bunch et al.) which looked at apparent high temperature impact melt products found in multiple sites of the 'black mat' across three continents dating to 12 900 years ago.^[38] This is further indicated by the discovery (Kurbatov et al. 2010) of the presence of a rich layer of nanodiamonds in the Greenland ice sheet coinciding with this date.^[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

Regards,

Mario Dantas