Get Some
General => General Chat => Topic started by: dirtyape on May 08, 2008, 12:05:32 pm
-
If you are not interested in Geology or asteroidal impacts and their relation to super volcanoes then this thread is not for you.
I have a hypothesis about why super volcanoes, and potentially why other volcanoes exist.
I have called this the Asteroidal Impact Coaxial Volcanic Projection hypothesis (AICVP hypothesis).
I was reading a book, A Brief History of Everything, the book suggested that no one really knew why Super Volcanoes exist where they do or why they form. Perhaps I should say no satisfactory theories. I found this incredibly hard to believe, the answer was pretty glaringly obvious to me.
Impacts on the planet surface transfer force through the Earth's viscous interior and displace magma which is projected to the opposite side of the planet from the point of impact.
A sufficiently massive enough impact could displace enough of the viscous interior to produce a "bubble" of force that could take thousands of years to travel through the planets interior and bubble out the opposite side.
Now as impacts are not always "dead on" the bulge on the opposite side of the planet will depend in the angle of impact. Even a direct hit will unlikely cause a bulge on the exact opposite side as the planet has rotational motion and the coaxial impact/projection should be skewed in accordance with the that rotation.
Evidence:
I started by looking on Google earth, found Yellow Stone and then used a plugin to go to the exact opposite side of the planet. Guess what? Impact crater in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Somehow the crator got mis-labelled by Google after some crator that exists on Mars. Unsure of whether this was actually a crater at all I decided to look elsewhere.
So I thought of Olympus Mons, biggest volcano in the Solar System. And surfed to Google Mars. After some measuring I found that on the opposite side of Olmypus Mons is one of the largest Impact craters in the solar system. Excellent, this did not disprove the hypothesis.
Most of the criticism I received about this hypothesis have been related to the relative viscosity of the Earth's interior. Most have suggested that the Earth is just not viscous enough to allow that magnitude of energy transfer through it's core/mantle. But this is an uneducated opinion I think. Geologists have been well aware for a very long time that the core/mantle have qualities that suggest they are more liquid than a solid. I believe that part of seismological analysis used to locate the depth and location of earthquakes relies on the fact that shock waves from these events ripple through the Earth's Interior (citation needed).
Just the other day I read an article posted to Slashdot, about how "How Earth Resembles a Gooey Confection", ref: http://www.livescience.com/environment/080502-earth-inside.html
If the interior of the Earth is gooey than the transfer of impact energies to the opposite side of the planet has much more credibility.
This hypothesis does not mean to imply that asteroidal impacts are the only cause of volcanoes, It just suggests that this is one possible cause.
If you have any constructive arguments for or against then please post.
-
I'm reading 'A Brief History of Everything' too, but i mustn't have gotten up to this chapter yet.
-
Wholey shit, it's DirtyApe!
You're alive!
Interesting theory.
Ngati_Grimm should be along any time now...
-
dirtyape is that your theory or are you quoting?
what about the multiple impacts? surely they would just turn the inside of our planet to noise and it'd become hugely unstable?
what about gravity? I dont know how the insides of a planet effect gravity...
sounds like a good start though, I shal ponder further on this....probably when im standing in my store staring out into space...
-
They don't even know what causes gravity.
Maybe I'll suggest this to my astronomist flatmate when I get home...
-
/me twists your hypothesis slightly...
You are assuming that the impact is from a solid object ie an asteroid, what happens if the impact crater was caused by a different stellar event, ie black/worm hole passing though the planet ? would this explain the coaxial events better ?
To me, a shock wave through water (assume magma has similar properties) moves in a bell shape (ripples) as the energy dissipates. To have enough energy to effectively punch out a hole on the far side would require a bulk load of energy.
-
They don't even know what causes gravity.
Maybe I'll suggest this to my astronomist flatmate when I get home...
mass isn't the cause but it'll do for now.
gravity pulls towards the center of an atom right? (i think) so at what point does an object become a single object pulling stuff towards itself? because outer particles would stop pulling towards themselves and start pulling at a vector from the center of the object...
000
000
000
the middle 0 is pulling inwards but the outer ones are pulling towards the middle one...
-
If you have any constructive arguments for or against then please post.
Interesting theory. Taupo is a "super-volcano", it's last eruption was in 86AD. Perhaps there is a crater on the other side of the earth that corresponds to it's location?
-
I'm reading 'A Brief History of Everything' too, but i mustn't have gotten up to this chapter yet.
It's a good book, thought provoking.
dirtytape is that your theory or are you quoting?
what about the multiple impacts? surely they would just turn the inside of our planet to noise and it'd become hugely unstable?
what about gravity? I dont know how the insides of a planet effect gravity...
sounds like a good start though, I shal ponder further on this....probably when im standing in my store staring out into space...
Firstly, It's DirtyApe not DirtyTape. And yes this is my own hypothesis, although I'd be really surprised if no one else has ever considered it before. It seems so... obvious?
Yes, I have considered the gravitational effect of impact force projections and came to the realisation that if gravity is evenly distributed around the the centre of mass then the force can be nearly ignored.
As the force approaches the centre it's will velocity will be positively effected be gravity, and as it moves past (through?) the core it will have a negative effect. As there are not other serious gravitational influences (the moon and sun would be fairly negligible on this scale).
Now, I may not have been 100% clear on this, but this is very important. The initial force of the impact is not what actually causes the bulge on the other side. It is the disruption to the mantles equilibrium caused by the impact, much like a lava lamp that is idling. All it takes is a little bit of encouragement and it erupts. I'm saying that the asteroidal impact is the catalyst that causes the disruption of equilibrium and provokes a rising bubble of magma.
/me twists your hypothesis slightly...
You are assuming that the impact is from a solid object ie an asteroid, what happens if the impact crater was caused by a different stellar event, ie black/worm hole passing though the planet ? would this explain the coaxial events better ?
To me, a shock wave through water (assume magma has similar properties) moves in a bell shape (ripples) as the energy dissipates. To have enough energy to effectively punch out a hole on the far side would require a bulk load of energy.
I would imagine a black hole passing through the planet would either have no impact (for microscopic BH's) or it would completely obliterate the planet (for relativistic BH's). I'm not aware of any type of naturally occurring BH that is intermediary between the two.
But going by the available evidence, a crater can be confirmed as being caused by a asteroid by checking for the presence of Iridium in the surrounding soil (Iridium is not naturally occurring on Earth).
And I think black holes would either have no effect (microscopic BH) or completely destroy the earth (relativistic BH).
I'm not really sure how impact energy would be dissipated in a collision of this nature. But it would only have to upset the balance, it wouldn't have to punch through the core and out the other side.
Interesting theory. Taupo is a "super-volcano", it's last eruption was in 86AD. Perhaps there is a crater on the other side of the earth that corresponds to it's location?
If my hypothesis is correct then there definitely should be one. How long ago the collision occurred though needs to be established.
-
Book sounds interesting.
Who is it by?
I've read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, but this one sounds far more complete :D
-
Firstly, It's DirtyApe not DirtyTape.
my apologies dude, was a a bit sleepy still when i posted.
how long would you say it takes the disruption to well, disrupt? obviously it'd be very hard to predict but are we talking months, years, hundreds? millenia?
-
I've read the Bill Bryson one as well (good book btw).
As for your theory, I read recently that there is a scientist who believes the Permian-Triassic mass extinction may well have been caused by a massive asteroid/comet hitting the earth near Antarctica. This was the one before the mass extinction believed to be the cause of the dinosaurs being wiped out. Anywho, because of the amount of ice movement in Antarctica, it will be very difficult to prove (if it ever is provable) but he did also note that there were geological signs at the opposite side of the earth that would suggest the concentric rings that spread out from the impact site came together there. I know your theory (well I think your suggesting) that the energy not only went around the earth but also through it. That's possible, the impact, if it was an impact that caused the mass extinction was a whoppa (killing nearly 90-96% of all living beings on the planet and the only one to cause mass extiction amongst insects as well). I'm not sure about the time frame you seem to suggest, but there may be something to what you say.
-
If my hypothesis is correct then there definitely should be one. How long ago the collision occurred though needs to be established.
Hmm, didn't some dirty big asteroid hit Spain a long time ago? That would be about the location you'd need. Though i'm assuming that you don't take subduction (plate tectonics) into account, or do you think the asteroids exacerbate it's effects?
-
If the inside of the earth is viscous, then the force of the asteroid would not be projected straight through the earth, but would dissipate in much the same way as ripples in a pond.
Basically what Spig says.
Shoot a bullet into a tank of water and water doesn't bust a hole in the other side.
-
Hmm, didn't some dirty big asteroid hit Spain a long time ago? That would be about the location you'd need. Though i'm assuming that you don't take subduction (plate tectonics) into account, or do you think the asteroids exacerbate it's effects?
Great minds.
-
is there a super volanco that matches your hypothesis with the massive crater in mexico?
this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
and if plate tectonics are taken into effect is it possible that some asteroidal impacts are pushed into the molten earth if a corresponding volcano doesnt have a impact crater?
-
too tired to discuss in detail, but there was an interesting article in analog a year or 2 back about plumes in the magma, and the theory that these natural convection currents coincide with major volcanic activity.
I was going to try and explain but Wiki has already done it.. awesome!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume)
-
I have a hypothesis about why super volcanoes, and potentially why other volcanoes exist.
I have called this the Asteroidal Impact Coaxial Volcanic Projection hypothesis (AICVP hypothesis).
Impacts on the planet surface transfer force through the Earth's viscous interior and displace magma which is projected to the opposite side of the planet from the point of impact.
A sufficiently massive enough impact could displace enough of the viscous interior to produce a "bubble" of force that could take thousands of years to travel through the planets interior and bubble out the opposite side.
Given the rates at which the p and s seismic waves propagate through the Earth after an earthquake, it might well be a lot quicker
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/seismic-waves.html
http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/notes/waves_and_interior.html
Also, you get crustal thinning at the point of impact. That's another potential zone of weakness for magma to exploit.
So I thought of Olympus Mons, biggest volcano in the Solar System. And surfed to Google Mars. After some measuring I found that on the opposite side of Olmypus Mons is one of the largest Impact craters in the solar system. Excellent, this did not disprove the hypothesis.
I'm liking this so far. Good on you for getting motivated enough to do some research into this.
But going by the available evidence, a crater can be confirmed as being caused by a asteroid by checking for the presence of Iridium in the surrounding soil (Iridium is not naturally occurring on Earth).
Iridium isa naturally ocurring Earth element. It is one of the Rare Earth Elements, or REE.
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Ir/key.html
http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/77.html
However, it has been used to determine the dating of impact events because there are elevated levels in extraterrestrial satellites. The best known would be the Chixulub impact at the Yucatan Peninsula where a bloody big bolide smashed into the Earth and contributed to the downfall of the Dinosaurs. Iridium from that event has been found in such places as Woodside Creek, Mead Stream, Flaxbourne River, Waipara Gorge and other sites in New Zealand. Alvarez et al (who first published the theory) used New Zealand as one of the straws that broke the camel's back, in terms of the weight of the evidence presented.
Some other items of interest about Iridium, both for and against your proposition, so you're not alone!
QUOTE=Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 240, Issues 3-4, 15 December 2005, Pages 634-641]No impact-related materials have been identified at this horizon in the Blomidon Formation, therefore we cannot confirm an extraterrestrial source for the anomalous Ir levels. We consider, however, the possibility that regional basaltic volcanism is a potential source for the Ir in these sediments.[/quote]
Given a Phanerozoic time-integrated oceanic/continent crustal ratio > 2.5 and the difficulty in identifying oceanic impacts, I suggest the effects of large impacts on thin thermally active oceanic crust–capable of triggering regional to global mafic volcanic events and ensuing environmental effects–provide an essential clue for understanding the relationships between impacts and volcanic events which, separately or in combination, result in deleterious environmental effects, in some instances leading to mass extinctions.
In the search for a triggering mechanism for the Paleocene–Eocene (P–E) boundary event, 55 Ma, centimeter-resolution chemical (e.g., Ir, Os, Pt) and isotope (e.g., 187Os/188Os, 3He/4He, 87Sr/86Sr) records across this boundary have been established for six uplifted marine sections in Egypt, Spain and Denmark.....High-sensitivity analyses failed to uncover evidence of extraterrestrial element or isotope enrichments in the six sections, refuting the hypothesis of a major comet impact at the boundary....The environmental perturbations at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary appear to have been triggered by basaltic volcanism, but any model for the detailed causal relation remains speculative.
Volcanic contributions to the K/T boundary environment probably include increased Platinum Group Element (PGE) and acid rain fall out, particularly from large scale mantle upwellings e.g. Deccan, Cameroon and Coral Sea events. A previously proposed post-K/T Greenland starting plume apparently already existed in the Cretaceous. K/T features such as the Iridium (Ir) anomaly most likely include longer term volcanic as well as sudden meteoritic impact contributions. Volcanic contributions were greatest from Southern Hemisphere sources, whereas meteorite impacts featured in the Northern Hemisphere.
An oval shaped unusual positive gravity anomaly (10 000 km2 in area) near Bombay has attracted our attention during a search for an impact site near Deccan basalts. A detailed gravity interpretation indicates the presence of a fossil conduit structure of 12 km height extending from a shallow crust-mantle boundary (at 18 km) to an approximate depth of 6 km from the surface. The conduit structure, with a maximum diameter of about 35 km at its base, may originate from cracking of a weak pre-Deccan trap shallow upwarped mantle. The structure may have been caused by a bolide impact which triggered the eruption of massive flood basalts (Deccan traps) on the western margin of the fast-moving Indian plate. An impact in this locality can explain the sudden detachment of the arcuate Seychelles block from India as well as the large-scale reorganisation of plate boundaries in the Indian Ocean.
The gist is that impacts seem to be able to cause volcanism, but it appears to be 'local' than global/antipodal....but that could be an artifact of magnitude as well as plate tectonics, since the largest impacts would have occurred more numerously earlier in our planetary history.
There is a whole lot of literature out there about and around the topic. So much it makes my head hurt, but I'll see what else I can dig up because you've got me interested.
-
As for your theory, I read recently that there is a scientist who believes the Permian-Triassic mass extinction may well have been caused by a massive asteroid/comet hitting the earth near Antarctica.
Environmental and Biotic Changes during the Paleozoic-Mesozoic Transition]The prolonged and multi-phase nature of the Permo-Triassic crisis favours the mechanisms of the Earth's intrinsic evolution rather than extraterrestrial catastrophe. The most significant regression in the Phanerozoic, the palaeomagnetic disturbance of the Permo-Triassic Mixed Superchron, widespread extensive volcanism,and other events, may all be related,through deep-seated processes that occurred during the integration of Pangea. These combined processes could be responsible for the profound changes in marine, terrestrial and atmospheric environments that resulted in the end-Permian mass extinction. Bolide impact is possible but is neither an adequate nor a necessary explanation for these changes.
Though i'm assuming that you don't take subduction (plate tectonics) into account, or do you think the asteroids exacerbate it's effects?
http://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/paleomap/animation.html
Only the last 150 million years :(
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/
Better
http://www.scotese.com/
Yay!
is there a super volcano that matches your hypothesis with the massive crater in mexico?
this one:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater[/url]
and if plate tectonics are taken into effect is it possible that some asteroidal impacts are pushed into the molten earth if a corresponding volcano doesnt have a impact crater?
I think it is entirely possible that prehistoric impact sites have been subducted.
too tired to discuss in detail, but there was an interesting article in analog a year or 2 back about plumes in the magma, and the theory that these natural convection currents coincide with major volcanic activity.
I was going to try and explain but Wiki has already done it.. awesome!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume
Sorry about the wall of text....it seemed relevant at the time:
Antipodal hotspots and bipolar catastrophes: Were oceanic large-body impacts the cause?
One aspect of the hotspot distribution that has received little attention is its antipodal character. Of 45 ‘primary’ hotspots found in most hotspot compilations 22 (49%) form antipodal pairs within observed hotspot drift limits (≤ 20 mm/yr). In addition, the available ages, or possible age ranges, for both hotspots of an antipodal pair tend to be similar (≤ 10 Myr difference) or overlap. Monte Carlo simulations indicate that the antipodal primary hotspots' locations and ages are not due to chance at the > 99% confidence level (p < 0.01). All hotspot pairs include at least one oceanic hotspot, and these are consistently opposite those hotspots related to large igneous provinces (LIPs) and continental volcanism. A mechanism of formation is considered in which minor hotspot volcanism is induced at, and flood basalt volcanism is triggered by seismic energy focused antipodal to, oceanic large-body impact sites. Because continental impacts are expected to have lower seismic efficiencies, continents possibly acted as shields to the formation of antipodal hotspot pairs. Published numerical models indicate that large oceanic impacts (10-km-diameter bolide) generate megatsunami capable of altering coastal depositional environments on a global scale. Past impact-generated megatsunami, consequently, could have left widespread stratigraphic records, possibly misinterpreted as indicating large rapid changes in eustatic sea level, and widely disrupted continental and marine sediment reservoirs responsible for abrupt changes in the isotopic composition of seawater. Phanerozoic mass extinction events, therefore, might have resulted primarily from catastrophic megatsunami in a dominantly oceanic hemisphere and the near contemporaneous effusion of vast quantities of noxious gases from flood basalt eruptions in a dominantly continental one.
-
Hmm, didn't some dirty big asteroid hit Spain a long time ago? That would be about the location you'd need. Though i'm assuming that you don't take subduction (plate tectonics) into account, or do you think the asteroids exacerbate it's effects?
Yeah I did consider plate tectonics briefly. The plates move around but the magma underneath a super volcano is static, as in as the plates move around you can see the scorches left behind - like using a magnifying glass to burn paper and then moving the paper around. So the magma field is always in the same place.
The crater however... not sure how plate tectonics effect craters. I would actually expect a decent enough crater to create it's on faults, but then these would still move around over time... good point.
What happened to multi quote? mines broken...
-
maybe they aren't from the opposite side, maybe they are impacts themselves (or just weak spots) that have simply moved over magma through tectonic movement, the impact has weakened the crust and hey presto volcano.
The best way to test it would be to put a raw egg in your mouth and get someone to shoot the egg with a BB gun. press your tongue against the side thats not being shot.
-
I started by looking on Google earth plugin to go to the exact opposite side of the planet.
What do you know, I just confirmed with that plugin that china is at the bottom of the world!
-
Originally Posted by Global and Planetary Change
Volume 55, Issues 1-3, January 2007, Pages 1-20
Environmental and Biotic Changes during the Paleozoic-Mesozoic Transition]The prolonged and multi-phase nature of the Permo-Triassic crisis favours the mechanisms of the Earth's intrinsic evolution rather than extraterrestrial catastrophe. The most significant regression in the Phanerozoic, the palaeomagnetic disturbance of the Permo-Triassic Mixed Superchron, widespread extensive volcanism,and other events, may all be related,through deep-seated processes that occurred during the integration of Pangea. These combined processes could be responsible for the profound changes in marine, terrestrial and atmospheric environments that resulted in the end-Permian mass extinction. Bolide impact is possible but is neither an adequate nor a necessary explanation for these changes.
Well, the article I read did say he was a lone voice in that theory :( But hey! So were many other scientists who were subsequently found to be right. Just probably not on this occaision.
-
When regarding Mass Extinction Episodes (MEE), I tend to favour the multiproxy approach, whereby there are catalysts towards the Event, if you will, rather than One Sole Cause. This does not, however, rule out the possibility of a single impact event that would be of sufficient magnitude to cause a MEE such as the Permo-Triassic or Frasnian-Fammenian.
Factors such as eustasy, volcanism, plate tectonic configuration and migration, climate, orbital obliquity, evolution, and impact; all tie together and occur over various coincincidental, or not, times surrounding MEE. There is much evidence to support the multiproxy approach when regarding the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boundary Extinction Episode (KTBEE), with Flood Basalt volcanism in the Deccan Traps occurring for hundreds of thousands of years before the bolide impact at Chixulub, with supplementary climate change and an underbelly of local terrestrial and marine extinction events leading to the MEE. Interestingly, Ammonites continued to inhabit the oceans for at least three hundred thousand years after the KTBEE.
Anyway, Manicouagan:gooooogle earth
51degrees 27'12.38" N
68degrees 42'43.39"W
elev 1603ft
or same said program, go to Manicouagan (Canada), then directly North.
One of my favourites.:sly:
-
interesting thread, need more comments (not flames or smartasses, but proper comments, thought, ideas etc...)
Or I might start another thread about geological discussions...
if you want copies of any papers I have cited, please let me know how/where to upload pdf files 'cause I have access to lots of journals and they are damned interesting...go on, you know you want to!
-
Related:
Giant crater explains strange shape of Mars
http://stuff.co.nz/4598097a12.html
He said shock waves from the impact would have travelled through the planet and disrupted the crust on the other side, causing changes in the magnetic field. In a third report, Nimmo and colleagues said such magnetic anomalies have been measured in Mars' Southern Hemisphere.
"We haven't proved the giant-impact hypothesis, but I think we've shifted the tide. The majority of the evidence is now in favour of the giant impact," Andrews-Hanna said in a statement.
This adds significant weight to the AICVP hypothesis.
A disruption in the magnetosphere could be caused by an irregular dispersion of the planets liquid inner core (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030307071457.htm) possibly due to the injection of non-ferric matter into northern hemisphere of the core itself.
Perhaps the injection of matter into the core also caused disproportionate cooling of the core. If so this would have contributed to the death of the planet.
Perhaps this could be proven/disproven by examining the magnetosphere around Olympus Mons. If this hypothesis has any credibility at all there should be stronger magnetic fields around that vicinity.
(http://www.theallineed.com/astronomy/06012702.jpg)
These are not boils on Mars, but a way of depicting the surface magnetic fields on the planet to emphasize their ability to shield the surface from the solar wind. The greater the bulge, the stronger and more protective the magnetic field. Note that most of the remaining magnetic fields are in the southern hemisphere. (Photo: David Brain/SSL)
Source: http://www.theallineed.com/astronomy/06012702.htm
Unfortunately that is all the data I can find at the moment, and there is no correlation between the fields and the geology.
So the question still remains is the irregular magnetosphere of Mars caused by the magnetic properties of the soil (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/06/09/Mars-aurora050609.html), an irregular core, or something else.
-
what are you going to do with all this neat info you've gathered?
-
Interesting theory. Taupo is a "super-volcano", it's last eruption was in 86AD. Perhaps there is a crater on the other side of the earth that corresponds to it's location?
Taupo Is several super volcano's that have erupted at different intervals over 1000's of years. for this theory to be true it would mean that there would have had to of been many impacts in the same place multiple time's, wouldn't an impact of this size have a huge effect on the planets orbit?
Also for this theory to be true you are asuming that the potential energy has traveled through the earth without spreading...... as one would assume that normal physics laws apply. you would expect that energy to disipate through the entire core of the earth not just in a straight line..... but no doubt Grim or Simon will be here soon
-
A Reappraisal of the Caldera Structural Continuum: Insights into Supervolcano Formation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.V33C0685H)
Might be of interest to you.
Interesting theory. You've piqued my interest as well, so I will look into it more...
However, I don't think that impacts are a necessary prerequisite for supervolcano formation. They may have an affect on some, but there is also the possibility of synchronicity to take into account,, as well as the oft-spake topic of plate tectonics...
link (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb48369.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=nyas)
Sorry I don't have full access.
link (http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/00257/EGU05-J-00257.pdf)
It seems there are others working on the same/similar 'problems'.
link (http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/YELLOWSTONE.html)
I haven't read all of this, but you might like to try here first...it looks reasonably 'interesting'...
Sorry Mike, what did you say?....lol
-
what are you going to do with all this neat info you've gathered?
I'm going to print it all out and make a series of hats and paper boats.
Taupo Is several super volcano's that have erupted at different intervals over 1000's of years. for this theory to be true it would mean that there would have had to of been many impacts in the same place multiple time's, wouldn't an impact of this size have a huge effect on the planets orbit?
Personally I would consider Taupo as a single magma event that has manifested in a super volcanoe and a series of other volcanic events due to plate tectonics, crustal seams, weak spots, and uprising hot spots. I would be surprised if volcanologists considered it differently.
Your suggesting that "there would have had to of been many impacts" is simply not true, it is not a statement of fact at all. You are predicting the projection based solely on the impact and not taking into account all the other environmental factors involved. In short, you have over simplified the problem and dismissed it based on this over simplification.
The main idea in this hypothesis is that an impact upsets the cores equilibrium and triggers a magma projection. It is not the projectile that directly causes the projection, I am suggesting that it is the disruption to the core's equilibrium that allows for a bubble of magma to rise over time. Significant time. As in millions of years perhaps, I don't know.
This is not a hypothesis that simply states a asteroid hits and pushes out a volcano directly opposite. I thought I had made this clear... ?
Also for this theory to be true you are asuming that the potential energy has traveled through the earth without spreading...... as one would assume that normal physics laws apply. you would expect that energy to disipate through the entire core of the earth not just in a straight line..... but no doubt Grim or Simon will be here soon
Firstly, it's not potential energy, it's kinetic. And I think you will find that it is you that has made an assumption about what I am suggesting.
In a wave projection the strongest force is always directly in front of the wave.
Also, the dispersion wave would reflect internally of the differing densities of the crust and the mantles. This would be a concave reflection due to the Earth's curvature and would refocus the dispersion waves energy back towards the primary waves apex.
-
I'm going to print it all out and make a series of hats and paper boats.
Personally I would consider Taupo as a single magma event that has manifested in a super volcanoe and a series of other volcanic events due to plate tectonics, crustal seams, weak spots, and uprising hot spots. I would be surprised if volcanologists considered it differently.
Your suggesting that "there would have had to of been many impacts" is simply not true, it is not a statement of fact at all. You are predicting the projection based solely on the impact and not taking into account all the other environmental factors involved. In short, you have over simplified the problem and dismissed it based on this over simplification.
The main idea in this hypothesis is that an impact upsets the cores equilibrium and triggers a magma projection. It is not the projectile that directly causes the projection, I am suggesting that it is the disruption to the core's equilibrium that allows for a bubble of magma to rise over time. Significant time. As in millions of years perhaps, I don't know.
This is not a hypothesis that simply states a asteroid hits and pushes out a volcano directly opposite. I thought I had made this clear... ?
Firstly, it's not potential energy, it's kinetic. And I think you will find that it is you that has made an assumption about what I am suggesting.
In a wave projection the strongest force is always directly in front of the wave.
Also, the dispersion wave would reflect internally of the differing densities of the crust and the mantles. This would be a concave reflection due to the Earth's curvature and would refocus the dispersion waves energy back towards the primary waves apex.
Um question marks mean question not fact..... sorry but my terms are out cause its been a while. kinetic energy is? transfered energy ?. potential energy is stored energy?.... regardless of the name the theory of how the energy will transfere is the same. if the energy can spread it will. hence my statement of dispursion. I wasn't blowing holes in your theory more asking questions about it, names be wrong but theory be right..... Taupo is part (newZealand is part) of a tectonic fault line, and probably the main cause of most of the volcanos in Newzealand, it has several craters the biggest of which was the second to last eruption,
-
Is it possable that the core of the planet could change the coarse of the impact to create a volcano ... eg how gravity bends light
... so that the volcano isnt exactly opposite the impact sight .???
just wondering but surely the core would change the projected coarse
-
Is it possable that the core of the planet could change the coarse of the impact to create a volcano ... eg how gravity bends light
... so that the volcano isnt exactly opposite the impact sight .???
just wondering but surely the core would change the projected coarse
I was more wondering if the spherical shape combined with gravity etc etc would bend projected shock waves
-
Um question marks mean question not fact..... sorry but my terms are out cause its been a while. kinetic energy is? transfered energy ?. potential energy is stored energy?.... regardless of the name the theory of how the energy will transfere is the same. if the energy can spread it will. hence my statement of dispursion. I wasn't blowing holes in your theory more asking questions about it, names be wrong but theory be right..... Taupo is part (newZealand is part) of a tectonic fault line, and probably the main cause of most of the volcanos in Newzealand, it has several craters the biggest of which was the second to last eruption,
Your question was related to the orbit of the planet being altered by a series of large impact events, I did not address this as it is not relevant to the topic of this thread. Instead I explained why I considered it moot.
But now that you mention it, yes the orbit of the planet would be altered slightly. But then you also have to take into account the planets current orbital momentum, which is many magnitudes greater than that of the proposed impact object.
Also, a problem in even considering alteration of the Earth's orbit is this - we do not know how the Earth orbited prior to this collision. So as there is no data before the hypothetical event we can never accurately measure the orbital adjustment - even if it were measurable. So I think it's a moot point.
Kinetic energy is the energy of moving matter btw.
As for the faults, and volcanic activity, perhaps the asteroidal impact actually caused all this. Perhaps New Zealand exists because of an asteroid strike.
And yes I am waiting for geologists flames.
Is it possable that the core of the planet could change the coarse of the impact to create a volcano ... eg how gravity bends light
... so that the volcano isnt exactly opposite the impact sight .???
just wondering but surely the core would change the projected coarse
I thought I stated that above somewhere? Oh well, nevermind. You are 100% correct. The rotation of the planet would mean the magma rise would be skewed from the original impact. There are many many factors - most of which are invisible to us such as the non linear densities of the lithosphere and core, fractures and hot spots of the rising magma, etc.
As such, this hypothesis may be exceedingly difficult to prove. Especially seeing as how we don't really know what's going on inside our own planet...
-
As for the faults, and volcanic activity, perhaps the asteroidal impact actually caused all this. Perhaps New Zealand exists because of an asteroid strike.
Just a few links, some good stuff here. Hope it helps. There's some basic background too, ignore if you must
read this book (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/evolution-of-new-zealand/)
a recipe for microcontinent formation (http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/dietmar/Pdf/Muller_etal_microcont_geology2002.pdf)
NZ intraplate volcanism (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/410/2007/00000153/00000006/00000169)
Canterbury research (http://www.geol.canterbury.ac.nz/research/Pacific%20Rim.shtml)
NZ tectonostratigraphy (http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/246/1/179)
related (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6M-4BY3SB5-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9293ee97fae341e71d6e595b4e1d0b81)
Hotspots and Mantle Plumes
basic (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/hotspots.html)
USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/hotspots.html)
Hotspot reference frame (http://www.mantleplumes.org/Hotspots.html)
links between hotspots and plate tectonics (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000144.shtml)
more (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1991/90RG02372.shtml)
a lecture !!! (http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/ERTH50/Lect26_Hotspots.pdf)
deep origin of hotspots...the mantle plume model (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/300/5621/920)
Geomagnetism and Dynamism
realtime monitoring (http://geomag.usgs.gov/)
more (http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_geomag.html#top)
Earth's Core (http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html)
At the Earth's Core (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074157/)
geodynamo (http://www.ireap.umd.edu/ireap/theses/Ellingston-Masters.pdf)
powerpoint lecture!!! (http://www.astro.uu.se/visitors/CDP/courses/CDP_pedersen.ppt)
geodynamo etc (http://earthstudies.com/geodynamo.html)
Especially seeing as how we don't really know what's going on inside our own planet...
or alternately, we're beginning to get rather a decent handle on it.
-
Huge Meteor Strike Explains Mars' Shape (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/science/space/26mars.html?_r=1&em&ex=1214625600&en=e948268a678b129a&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin)
Just came across this, thought it was pertinent and that you might find it interesting.
-
Also,
I've just got this book out of the library: Geological and Biological Effects of Impact Events (Buffetaut & Koeberl, Eds.) Springer 2001
ISBN 3-540-422865-2
I've just looked through the contents and there is nothing about crustal displacement etc. Not to say that it;s not a valid hypothesis you have, just that no one seems to have considered it too much of an
a)item of interest to research
b)feasible theory
c)haven't got around to it.
Anyway, I'm interested, so I'll post whatever I can find. Maybe it will help?
-
Cheers Grim, you've provided a good deal of subject matter to consider and I appreciate it. Now, just need a chance to do some more research myself...
-
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-earth-center-sync.html
Well that fucks that hypothesis, or at least makes it impossible to prove. Or disprove... hmmmm
-
So you're telling me that this hypothesis has been deified?
-
I'm reading 'A Brief History of Everything' too, but i mustn't have gotten up to this chapter yet.
I still haven't finished.
I dispute the word 'Brief' in this context.