Author Topic: 3 = [1-2b] The Great Flood: Asteroid Bombardment  (Read 67 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
3 = [1-2b] The Great Flood: Asteroid Bombardment
« on: January 07, 2017, 07:18:20 pm »

- Can you explain though how Earth could get hit by asteroids for 5 months? Did the Earth move through the asteroid belt? ...

... I believe a large planetoid or comet came into tidal proximity to the earth causing widespread upheaval and accretion of mass to the earth in the form of the "matar" -- the Chicxulub was just one of many; in my imagination, the body would have broken up and send bits tumbling to earth.
=========================Postby Lloyd » Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:35 pm
- Asteroid Bombardment
- Webb said: Astroblemes ... can be associated stratum by stratum with the geologic column from the Cambrian forward ... [but none] in the Pre-Cambrian
- It would be good to have a table of astroblemes with coordinates and strata locations. Here's a list in French:

=========================Postby Lloyd » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:34 pm
- Looks like this site may be the best list online of global astroblemes etc: It shows Ages attributed to each crater, which I assume means what strata they are located in. I looked through the numbers a bit and they seem to cover a long period of Ages, which I think means most of the sedimentary strata on the continents, as Gordon said.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:31 pm
- The list does include some Precambrian aged sites, which is convenient since in my scenario, the initial "matar" impacts would have been on the "Precambrian" pre-flood supercontinent. ... long epochs are the backbone of the standard model, yet virtually all the [non-existent] evidence for them lies in the hiatus between otherwise conformable strata!

LK: Do you think it's possible that the apparent Asteroid Bombardment (matar) during the Great Flood was due to Earth crossing the Asteroid Belt? What would preclude that?
- Don't you think the Bombardment would have caused the flood and continental drift?
GW: I think the flood and drift event [singular] was directly connected with earth interacting with planetoidal bodies. A glimpse at the the earth's placement with respect to the present known asteroids shows that no exotic explanation about the earth's transposition is necessary [like Earth crossing the Asteroid Belt? - LK]. Several possibilities here:
a. A planet swung by Earth (perhaps Venus, which is currently in a tidally phased rotation pattern with Earth), knocking Earth's rotation into a wobble
b. A planet swept through the asteroids, disrupting whatever was there and sending bits streaming by Earth
c. A comet collided with the earth breaking up as it neared, causing the preponderance of the "matar" to fall over the 5 month time
LK: Wouldn't the same event have been the cause of the bombardment on the Moon and possibly on Mars and many other bodies? So, if so, that suggests that they all went through the Asteroid belt to me. Not you?
GW: Why not? My studies have mainly been terrestrial, but the evidence abounds elsewhere in the solar system! But again, the asteroids are really all around us, and a major disruption in the belt could have affected earth as I suggested, but that's just one of many possible scenarios.
CC: I'm not sure I agree that the flood was caused by ET events, but I agree that something came through and upset a lot of apple carts. Recently I've been studying the similarity between the mares on the Moon and on Mars. I rather think that both of them got re-melted by something, instead of the mares filling up with lava flows. But the chance of two different bodies undergoing the exact same process, at exactly the same time (i.e., toward the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment) is relatively slight. So I think that something triggered them both. It could have been the thermalization of the impacts of the Bombardment, or gravitational deformation from a large body passing by.
- By "Late Heavy Bombardment", I'm just referring to all of the impact craters on the Moon and on Mars, and the fact that there are many of them in the highlands, but only a few in the lowlands. This means that the lowlands on both the Moon and on Mars were both molten at the same time.
LK: What's the evidence for melting on the mares and on Mars?
CC: It's just the flatness of the mares, and the absence of source volcanoes.
LK: Do you know of evidence of melting in the Moon rocks?
CC: Ummm... I don't know. What would be the difference between my "melting" and the volcanism in the standard model?
LK: Conventional vulcanism comes through volcanoes, except for flood basalts.
CC: So in megaflow eruptions, there isn't going to be an extinct volcano left afterwards, is that correct?
GW: The highly fluid nature of flood basalt is such that no cones were formed and the originating vents are left submerged and invisible to the investigator.
CC: Gordon, what would be the make/break telltale signs that the mares on the Moon and on Mars would definitely be megaflows, and not just general re-melting of the bodies due to some other energy source (such as tidal deformation)?
GW: An astronaut geologist needs to observe the basalt flows to see columnar jointing below and vesicular pattern above, then I would know the maria are mega flows; until then I'm open to any good explanations, such as yours:-)
CC: Is the columnar jointing a result of crystalization, or is it something else?
GW: Cooling of the flow is approximately uniform over the entire surface of the flow, causing a shrinkage pattern that produces the roughly hexagonal columns. The sides of the columns are conchoidal, but the tops are relatively flat where the top part of the flow [vesicular basalt] gets eroded away. Since there is no erosion on the Moon, this structure would have to be exposed in profile somewhere for the astro-geologist to see.
LK: Aren't there closeup images of any of the mares, or aren't there even Apollo landing sites there, which would be clear enough to tell what caused the flat surface?
CC: It sounds like the make/break evidence that I'm looking for would then be just the vesicular pattern. Is basalt too low in viscosity for this? In other words, I can understand air bubbles being trapped in felsic magma, and still being in the ejecta, leaving such characteristics after cooling. But what if the lava had plenty of time to out-gas -- would it still be vesicular?10
GW: Right, no it would not be vesicular, but the rapidly cooling top surface of each flow is more brittle than the columnar "underbelly"... The analogy I use for students is like pouring coke into a glass, then rapidly freezing the glass...the crystals would be characteristic in the bottom of the glass, but full of airpockets above. This is a different picture than what you are describing I think?
CC: Well, I was just trying to see if there was any way of ruling out any of the various possibilities. BTW, as you know, without much of an atmosphere on either the Moon or Mars, the lava wouldn't have cooled quickly, because there wouldn't have been much thermal conduction, nor much convection to transport the heat away. So it sounds like the lava (if that's what it was) would have had plenty of time to out-gas.
GW: I agree with you on the convection point. Regardless, the columnar pattern should show up if it's basalt.
LK: Charles said the Moon is made of granite, like the Earth's continents.
CC: Actually, they have found both granite and basalt on the Moon, is that correct?
- BTW, I'm currently reconsidering whether or not I actually believe that the Moon impacted the Earth. The reason is because of the remelting that occurred at the same time as Mars (if that's what it was). This would mean that the Moon couldn't have been involved in such a catastrophic collision, or it would have been totally remelted, and there wouldn't be any highlands left.
LK: Charles, you said in your papers that Earth's and the Moon's granites are a lot alike, more than any other planets. Didn't you? What would account for that?
CC: Yes, but I'm just no longer sure that it's necessarily quite that simple. If there are basalts on the Moon, especially in the mares, then it isn't that the Moon is made entirely of the same stuff as the Earth's continents.
LK: Maybe Earth's basalt and granite ALL came from the protoMoon.
CC: Yes, that's possible.
GW: I'm on the side of Charles' mind change; I don't accept the collision theory of Moon and Earth, nor for that matter the ejected Moon theory.
LK: I linked to some lunar images. Check them out a few lines below. See the links?
- Charles, do you have a very clear idea how a close approach between "planets" would cause melting of the surfaces?
CC: I don't know what you mean by "very clear", but I was thinking that the thermalization of tidal deformation might do it. This is generally considered to be elastic deformation, which doesn't produce heat, but in my model, it is driving telluric currents, which could remelt the crust.
LK: Okay, that makes plenty of sense.
- And could Mars have approached closely to the Moon, as EU theorists sometimes speculate, and could that produce melted surfaces?
GW: Due to the tidally syncopated rotations of Earth and Venus, I suspect this was the near approach involved, which could have thrown Mars into its highly elliptical orbit as well as disrupting both the surfaces of Mars and the Moon.
LK: Gordon, can you tell anything about melting from this lunar mare image?
Or this one?
GW: Not really...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 06:28:59 pm by Admin »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter