A large “dent” in Earth’s geoid

[Polar]

I started a thread back in 2014  which was then closed (if you care to read):

 

But now there has been new information on that region i proposed an impact event took place:

Seismologists Search for the Indian Ocean’s “Missing Mass”

[...] Geophysical studies over the past few decades have found an extremely low geoid anomaly in the Indian Ocean. This low-gravity region, which shows up as a 106-meter “dent” in the geoid, is referred to as the Indian Ocean Geoid Low (IOGL) [Sreejith et al., 2013; Ghosh et al., 2017]. Why is Earth’s mass in this region so low? The dominant hypotheses are based on seismological investigations [Čadek and Fleitout, 2006; Reiss et al., 2017] and viscoelastic modeling [Ghosh et al., 2017]. However, because of inherent methodological limitations and an almost complete lack of offshore seismological observations from this region, the mystery of this perplexing anomaly remains unsolved.[...]

https://eos.org/science-updates/seismologists-search-for-the-indian-oceans-missing-mass

 

 

I remembered Stereologist dent explanation, as i read the article above:

 

Quote

One of the main mistakes we see here is that Mario Dantas continues to think or pretend that the gravity data represents a dent in the Earth. There is no dent. These images are created with what is termed redundancy. The colors depict the distribution of the gravitational forces. The same information is also portrayed as a radial 3D plot. Placing the 2 together, color, and 3D plot, we obtain a presentation which shows the same information twice. Such graphing methods make it easier for most people to understand the information. Unfortunately, the information can be misinterpreted. That is happening here in that the force distribution is seen as a physical shape.

Mario Dantas has already posted information showing that the "dent" idea is not a dent. That has been posted in the form of actual images, not plots. It has been posted in the form of articles. Others have also posted articles showing that the sum total of the evidence makes it clear that this is an area with lower gravity due to ancient plate pieces.

Another issue Mario Dantas refuses to address is that any large crater would be due to a large impacting bolide. Such events lead to tell tale signs such as increased osmium in rock layers formed from the impact, tsunamis leaving behind jumbled layers such as those seen in Texas, and evidence of world wide extinction.

Here is an article that will begin to teach you about the varied effects of an impact.

http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-star-cleaners-119078/fossil-evidence-for-dinosaur-extinction-foundin-12350789

 

 

[jaylemurph]

This thread was closed when you asked the mods yourself to close it when you couldn’t handle any negative feedback. Didn’t you learn anything?

Save us all your cheap dramatics and go ahead and get this one closed, too. Just because you’re a masochist doesn’t mean we want to watch. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Jon the frog]

It's  near one of the Indian ocean ridges, and near the conjunstion of the 3 Indian ocean ridges. Where the crust is thin...so less mass. And the sea floor crust is mainly geologicaly new... cannot be an ancient impact. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Jon the frog

[Hanslune]

2 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

It's just on the conjunction of the 3 Indian ocean ridges where the crust is thin...so less mass.

Yes this image shows it being slightly higher

The possibility that the Earth's equator is better characterized as an ellipse rather than a circle and therefore that the ellipsoid is triaxial has been a matter of scientific inquiry for many years. Modern software developments have furnished new and rapid methods for data collection and projection and, since the use of satellites, orbital data have been used to investigate the theory of ellipticity More recent results indicate a 70 meter difference between the two equatorial major and minor axes of inertia. The image above greatly exaggerates these minor difference

s

[Polar]

Here is another lie perhaps? 

Quote

"Most of the existing theories have tried to explain this negative anomaly with the help of cold, dense oceanic plates that sank into the mantle in the past," says Prof Ghosh. "Our study explains this low with hotter, lighter material stretching from a depth of 300 km, or 186 miles, up to ~900 km, or 559 miles, in the northern Indian Ocean, most likely stemming from the African superplume."

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-masswhat-geoid-indian-ocean.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

 

Looking at the most important earth gravity field anomalies we can clearly see that a disturbance occurred there that lead to a less denser mass around a huge area in the Indian ocean (a clear negative anomaly in form of a crater or cavity), where in the Atlantic ocean, it is the opposite, a red mark protruding from where Plato said Atlantis to be located indicates there to reside the highest positive anomaly. But i will not extend further on the Atlantic ocean nor Atlantis, although the topic of this thread is connected to Plato's Atlantis. I genuinely want to know your opinion on this. Forget about the timing for a minute please?

What does anyone have to say about that? 

This could be an instantaneous cause and effect scenario on a planetary scale. I know that there is no evidence indicating that it is, but the coincidence is there still. I ask, how come there isn't a scientific agreement on the matter, and nevertheless, it is like all the proposed causes for the anomaly are true? namely a sort of crustal slabs graveyard and abnormally hot temperatures in mid and upper mantle...

Geoid of the moon

https://www.iag-aig.org/doc/5cb337dca626d.pdf

Just look at those craters, they are there because impacts must leave a gravitational trace, is it not? The same thing goes for the Chicxulub crater geoid:

 

https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/177075/view

It must be undeniable that any sizable impact will gravitationally scar the surface of planets and produce the outcome result we observe when looking at the earth geoid information.

 

[Swede]

1 hour ago, Polar said:

Here is another lie perhaps? 

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-masswhat-geoid-indian-ocean.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

 

Looking at the most important earth gravity field anomalies we can clearly see that a disturbance occurred there that lead to a less denser mass around a huge area in the Indian ocean (a clear negative anomaly in form of a crater or cavity), where in the Atlantic ocean, it is the opposite, a red mark protruding from where Plato said Atlantis to be located indicates there to reside the highest positive anomaly. But i will not extend further on the Atlantic ocean nor Atlantis, although the topic of this thread is connected to Plato's Atlantis. I genuinely want to know your opinion on this. Forget about the timing for a minute please?

What does anyone have to say about that? 

This could be an instantaneous cause and effect scenario on a planetary scale. I know that there is no evidence indicating that it is, but the coincidence is there still. I ask, how come there isn't a scientific agreement on the matter, and nevertheless, it is like all the proposed causes for the anomaly are true? namely a sort of crustal slabs graveyard and abnormally hot temperatures in mid and upper mantle...

Geoid of the moon

https://www.iag-aig.org/doc/5cb337dca626d.pdf

Just look at those craters, they are there because impacts must leave a gravitational trace, is it not? The same thing goes for the Chicxulub crater geoid:

 https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/177075/view

It must be undeniable that any sizable impact will gravitationally scar the surface of planets and produce the outcome result we observe when looking at the earth geoid information.

 

What are you babbling about? And why? Perhaps you would, yet again, wish to read your own references:

The gal is a derived unit, defined in terms of the centimeter–gram–second (CGS) base unit of length, the centimeter, and the second, which is the base unit of time in both the CGS and the modern SI system. In SI base units, 1 Gal is equal to 0.01 m/s².

The acceleration due to Earth's gravity (see standard gravity) at its surface is 976 to 983 Gal, the variation being due mainly to differences in latitude and elevation. Mountains and masses of lesser density within the Earth's crust typically cause variations in gravitational acceleration of tens to hundreds of milligals (mGal). The gravity gradient (variation with height) above Earth's surface is about 3.1 µGal per centimeter of height (3.1×10⁻⁶ s⁻²), resulting in a maximal difference of about 2 Gal (0.02 m/s²) from the top of Mount Everest to sea level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal_(unit)

Now, what does the above have to do with Plato's Atlantis or Greenland plowing through the Mid-Atlantic ridge and mysteriously moving from one tectonic plate to another?

And no, there are no credible indications of asteroid/meteor impacts resulting in your desired "effects".

And, as has been previously noted by other worthy contributors, your figures are proportionately exaggerated for the sake of illustration.

.

 

[Polar]

11 hours ago, Swede said:

What are you babbling about? And why? Perhaps you would, yet again, wish to read your own references:

The gal is a derived unit, defined in terms of the centimeter–gram–second (CGS) base unit of length, the centimeter, and the second, which is the base unit of time in both the CGS and the modern SI system. In SI base units, 1 Gal is equal to 0.01 m/s².

The acceleration due to Earth's gravity (see standard gravity) at its surface is 976 to 983 Gal, the variation being due mainly to differences in latitude and elevation. Mountains and masses of lesser density within the Earth's crust typically cause variations in gravitational acceleration of tens to hundreds of milligals (mGal). The gravity gradient (variation with height) above Earth's surface is about 3.1 µGal per centimeter of height (3.1×10⁻⁶ s⁻²), resulting in a maximal difference of about 2 Gal (0.02 m/s²) from the top of Mount Everest to sea level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal_(unit)

Now, what does the above have to do with Plato's Atlantis or Greenland plowing through the Mid-Atlantic ridge and mysteriously moving from one tectonic plate to another?

And no, there are no credible indications of asteroid/meteor impacts resulting in your desired "effects".

And, as has been previously noted by other worthy contributors, your figures are proportionately exaggerated for the sake of illustration.

.

 

Not babbling at all, and especially not lying...

Are you not aware that very recently it was accidentally discovered that earthquakes can leave a trace in the gravity data?

Quote

ESA's GOCE satellite has revealed that the devastating Japanese earthquake of 2011 left its mark in Earth's gravity - yet another example of this extraordinary mission surpassing its original scope.

GOCE mapped Earth's gravity with unrivalled precision for over four years, but nobody really expected the data to show changes over time.

Now, careful analysis shows the effects of the 9.0 earthquake that struck east of Japan's Honshu Island on 11 March 2011 are clearly visible in GOCE's gravity data.

https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/earth-topics/solid-earth/geoid/-/asset_publisher/f5jO/content/earth-s-gravity-scarred-by-earthquake;jsessionid=77FC876F9C076051C0949699E39F5B21.jvm2?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fearth.esa.int%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fearth-topics%2Fsolid-earth%2Fgeoid%3Bjsessionid%3D77FC876F9C076051C0949699E39F5B21.jvm2%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_f5jO%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D2

 

Would you then not agree that earthquakes can alter gravity data? In that sense isn't it possible for an impact generated earthquake to leave a gravitational "print" in the affected area?

This thread is actually about the IOGL not Atlantis per se. There are so many subjects relating to Atlantis in my theory that i have to deal with them separately. 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Polar
underline, correction

[Trelane]

@Polar, does this have any bearing on your outlandish idea of Greenland cruising across the Mid-Atlantic ridge and then impossibly moving from one tectonic plate to another?

[cormac mac airt]

7 hours ago, Polar said:

Not babbling at all, and especially not lying...

Are you not aware that very recently it was accidentally discovered that earthquakes can leave a trace in the gravity data?

https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/earth-topics/solid-earth/geoid/-/asset_publisher/f5jO/content/earth-s-gravity-scarred-by-earthquake;jsessionid=77FC876F9C076051C0949699E39F5B21.jvm2?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fearth.esa.int%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fearth-topics%2Fsolid-earth%2Fgeoid%3Bjsessionid%3D77FC876F9C076051C0949699E39F5B21.jvm2%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_f5jO%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D2

 

Would you then not agree that earthquakes can alter gravity data? In that sense isn't it possible for an impact generated earthquake to leave a gravitational "print" in the affected area?

This thread is actually about the IOGL not Atlantis per se. There are so many subjects relating to Atlantis in my theory that i have to deal with them separately. 

 

From your own link:

Quote

Large earthquakes not only deform Earth’s crust, but can also cause tiny changes in local gravity.

Tiny changes ARE NOT relevant to a discussion of Atlantis and have no bearing on your fantasy of Greenland traipsing along the Atlantic from in front of the PoH/SoG to its current location. 

cormac

[Polar]

On 11/10/2020 at 3:40 PM, Jon the frog said:

It's  near one of the Indian ocean ridges, and near the conjunstion of the 3 Indian ocean ridges. Where the crust is thin...so less mass. And the sea floor crust is mainly geologicaly new... cannot be an ancient impact. 

I agree that it can't be an ancient impact. Definitely a very recent one... 

i know i will get slapped for saying this but my theory proposes that a large impact, was the culprit of catastrophic tectonic changes, including Plato's Atlantis demise. And since you mentioned:

 

 

[Jon the frog]

11 minutes ago, Polar said:

I agree that it can't be an ancient impact. Definitely a very recent one... 

i know i will get slapped for saying this but my theory proposes that a large impact, was the culprit of catastrophic tectonic changes, including Plato's Atlantis demise. And since you mentioned:

 

 

Atlantis ??? You are entering troubled water sir !

[Polar]

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

@Polar, does this have any bearing on your outlandish idea of Greenland cruising across the Mid-Atlantic ridge and then impossibly moving from one tectonic plate to another?

The IOGL is already outlandish enough, so why would you not try to focus on the subject. I knew this would not help me, but it does have... obviously. It is related, but no i will not discuss it here.

The IOGL is related to India's fast move northwards. What made India move north that fast? 

 

[Swede]

10 hours ago, Polar said:

Not babbling at all, and especially not lying...

Are you not aware that very recently it was accidentally discovered that earthquakes can leave a trace in the gravity data?

https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/earth-topics/solid-earth/geoid/-/asset_publisher/f5jO/content/earth-s-gravity-scarred-by-earthquake;jsessionid=77FC876F9C076051C0949699E39F5B21.jvm2?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fearth.esa.int%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fearth-topics%2Fsolid-earth%2Fgeoid%3Bjsessionid%3D77FC876F9C076051C0949699E39F5B21.jvm2%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_f5jO%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D2

 

Would you then not agree that earthquakes can alter gravity data? In that sense isn't it possible for an impact generated earthquake to leave a gravitational "print" in the affected area?

This thread is actually about the IOGL not Atlantis per se. There are so many subjects relating to Atlantis in my theory that i have to deal with them separately. 

 

1) Only in a quite limited sense. Study your own figures. Even the Chicxulub impact did result in an anomaly significant enough to appear in your oft-utilized Wiki reference. It should also be noted that Hudson's Bay evidences an anomaly as intensity-significant as your IOGL. There are no indications that Hudson's Bay is associated with an impact event.

2) You have no theory. Nor do you have a sound hypothesis. Merely disjointed and unsupported ramblings.

.

.

[Swede]

24 minutes ago, Polar said:

The IOGL is already outlandish enough, so why would you not try to focus on the subject. I knew this would not help me, but it does have... obviously. It is related, but no i will not discuss it here.

The IOGL is related to India's fast move northwards. What made India move north that fast?

Fast? Only comparatively.The major movement of the Indian Plate took some 50 million years beginning ~100 mya, and at a rate of 20 cm/ yr. The movement, though much slower, continues.

.

.

[Trelane]

26 minutes ago, Polar said:

The IOGL is already outlandish enough, so why would you not try to focus on the subject. I knew this would not help me, but it does have... obviously. It is related, but no i will not discuss it here.

The IOGL is related to India's fast move northwards. What made India move north that fast? 

 

Well you are the one making points for both. Obviously, there is a reason for this. As you are known for your claims of Atlantis being Greenland, it stands to reason you are trying to tie this anomaly into your theory somehow.

Unfortunately, your proposals are not backed by any kind of science.

[Polar]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Tiny changes ARE NOT relevant to a discussion of Atlantis and have no bearing on your fantasy of Greenland traipsing along the Atlantic from in front of the PoH/SoG to its current location. 

cormac

What do you mean tiny changes?

Quote

"The existence of the Indian Ocean geoid low is one of the most outstanding problems in Earth Sciences," said Attreyee Ghosh, an assistant professor at the Centre for Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, in Bangalore, India. "It is the lowest geoid/gravity anomaly on Earth and so far no consensus existed regarding its source. It is remarkable as it means that there is some mass deficit in the deep mantle that's causing the low."

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-masswhat-geoid-indian-ocean.html

Why do you not stick to the point? Let us assume Greenland does not have anything to do with the geoid low.

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, Polar said:

The IOGL is already outlandish enough, so why would you not try to focus on the subject. I knew this would not help me, but it does have... obviously. It is related, but no i will not discuss it here.

The IOGL is related to India's fast move northwards. What made India move north that fast? 

 

Lie: see below.

12 minutes ago, Polar said:

What do you mean tiny changes?

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-masswhat-geoid-indian-ocean.html

Why do you not stick to the point? Let us assume Greenland does not have anything to do with the geoid low.

--Jaylemurph

[Polar]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

1) Only in a quite limited sense. Study your own figures. Even the Chicxulub impact did result in an anomaly significant enough to appear in your oft-utilized Wiki reference. It should also be noted that Hudson's Bay evidences an anomaly as intensity-significant as your IOGL. There are no indications that Hudson's Bay is associated with an impact event.

2) You have no theory. Nor do you have a sound hypothesis. Merely disjointed and unsupported ramblings.

.

.

1) You are right, the Hudson Bay is also a low gravity. But not as intense as the IOGL since it barely shows in the Grace static geoid, i would suppose:

http://indico.ictp.it/event/a07174/session/78/contribution/43/material/0/0.pdf

2) Thanks, I can live with that! 

[Trelane]

12 hours ago, Polar said:

 

This thread is actually about the IOGL not Atlantis per se. There are so many subjects relating to Atlantis in my theory that i have to deal with them separately. 

 

Ok so what's your "so what" of this thread? What are you hoping to spur conversation about other than posting items regarding this? You've posted it in Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History, so obviously you are driving this somewhere.

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Polar said:

What do you mean tiny changes?

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-masswhat-geoid-indian-ocean.html

Why do you not stick to the point? Let us assume Greenland does not have anything to do with the geoid low.

What part of "Large earthquakes not only deform Earth’s crust, but can also cause tiny changes in local gravity." from your previous link did you NOT understand. It makes any claim of an earthquakes effect on local gravity irrelevant to the discussion because the rest of us know, from past experience with you, that you are trying to tie the whole geoid theme into your Atlantis is Greenland fantasy. 

Let us also assume, correctly, that you don't remotely understand anything about gravity and its representation on said geoid since you make it painfully obvious. 

cormac

[Polar]

14 hours ago, Swede said:

Fast? Only comparatively.The major movement of the Indian Plate took some 50 million years beginning ~100 mya, and at a rate of 20 cm/ yr. The movement, though much slower, continues.

.

.

Yes, i agree. But i will also quote an article just for the record:

Quote

Pangea breakup and northward drift of the Indian subcontinent reproduced by a numerical model of mantle convection

 

[...] Since around 200 Ma, the most notable event in the process of the breakup of Pangea has been the high speed (up to 20 cm yr(-1)) of the northward drift of the Indian subcontinent. [...]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272189491_Pangea_breakup_and_northward_drift_of_the_Indian_subcontinent_reproduced_by_a_numerical_model_of_mantle_convection

[Polar]

22 hours ago, Trelane said:

Well you are the one making points for both. Obviously, there is a reason for this. As you are known for your claims of Atlantis being Greenland, it stands to reason you are trying to tie this anomaly into your theory somehow.

Unfortunately, your proposals are not backed by any kind of science.

True. The IOGL is already an important part of my theory. But is it not possible to discuss this issue, without other subjects interfering in the conversation?

I don't want to sound rude, but there is a ton of material ready to be scrutinized by you guys. If permitted, that is to say, by the mods. I am not complaining or anything, but i know perhaps sometimes i get carried away and posts end up being closed. Although, for the sake of correctness, i have asked mods regarding a couple of my threads to be closed myself... 

But back to the point of the thread, i am supposing that if the IOGL was a crater, this would represent a large event. There would be many other consequences once a body managed to penetrate the crust:

Quote

Effects of planetesimal impacts

During its accretion, Earth is thought to have been shock-heated by the impacts of meteorite-size bodies and larger planetesimals. For a meteorite collision, the heating is concentrated near the surface where the impact occurs, which allows the heat to radiate back into space. A planetesimal, however, can penetrate sufficiently deeply on impact to produce heating well beneath the surface. In addition, the debris formed on impact can blanket the planetary surface, which helps to retain heat inside the planet. Some scientists have suggested that, in this way, Earth may have become hot enough to begin melting after growing to less than 15 percent of its final volume.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Earth/Effects-of-planetesimal-impacts

The IOGL shows that, among other things, there is an abnormally hot region below. Not upon it but instead well below the surface. 

Another important aspect of this thread is: where else should be located the grand impact region that gave birth to our moon, according to science?

Where is the evidence on earth that the impact really took place? DId all mantle evidence vanished from the geodetic "radar"? 

Quote

Among the planetesimals striking the forming Earth, at least one is considered to have been comparable in size to Mars. Although the details are not well understood, there is good evidence that the impact of such a large planetesimal created the Moon. Among the more persuasive indications is that the relative abundances of many trace elements in rocks from the Moon are close to the values obtained for Earth’s mantle. Unless this is a fortuitous coincidence, it points to the Moon having been derived from the mantle. Computer simulations have shown that a glancing collision of a Mars-size planetary body could have been sufficient to excavate from Earth’s interior the material that would form the Moon. Again, the evidence for such large collisions suggests that Earth was very effectively heated during accretion.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Earth/Effects-of-planetesimal-impacts

If the IOGL represented an impact on earth, it would be without a doubt a massive one. These questions are in my mind, you know...

This is in fact is very interesting to me. It is telling me a lot and helping me as i go deeper into my "research". All parts of my story are now linked to the moment that produced the IOGL anomaly, although the region of the geoid might have grown over time, i must say that it apparently formed at once, and by means of the said impact. 

 

 

[Swede]

21 hours ago, Polar said:

1) You are right, the Hudson Bay is also a low gravity. But not as intense as the IOGL since it barely shows in the Grace static geoid, i would suppose:

http://indico.ictp.it/event/a07174/session/78/contribution/43/material/0/0.pdf

2) Thanks, I can live with that! 

One wonders if you even understand what a geoid is:

The geoid (/ˈdʒiːɔɪd/) is the shape that the ocean surface would take under the influence of the gravity and rotation of Earth alone, if other influences such as winds and tides were absent (emphasis added). Thus, a construct of value to geophysicists.

The actual gravity is best illustrated in the figure prior to your own:

http://indico.ictp.it/event/a07174/session/78/contribution/43/material/0/0.pdf

Note similarity in gravity intensity between Hudson’s Bay and the IOGL. This similarity is also evident in your fore mentioned Wiki figure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

.

Edit: Typo.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Swede

[Polar]

21 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

What part of "Large earthquakes not only deform Earth’s crust, but can also cause tiny changes in local gravity." from your previous link did you NOT understand. It makes any claim of an earthquakes effect on local gravity irrelevant to the discussion because the rest of us know, from past experience with you, that you are trying to tie the whole geoid theme into your Atlantis is Greenland fantasy. 

Let us also assume, correctly, that you don't remotely understand anything about gravity and its representation on said geoid since you make it painfully obvious. 

cormac

Please, we should not argue over small things. Also to remotely understand something is close to plain ignorance, but that is your opinion. 

Large earthquakes on the Richter scale, meant to measure the magnitude of earthquakes, are nothing compared to what we are talking about.

[jaylemurph]

17 minutes ago, Polar said:

This is in fact is very interesting to me. It is telling me a lot and helping me as i go deeper into my "research". All parts of my story are now linked to the moment that produced the IOGL anomaly, although the region of the geoid might have grown over time, i must say that it apparently formed at once, and by means of the said impact.

...at least you seem to understand what you do cannot with a straight face be called real research.

--Jaylemurph