The Impact And Exit Event.

[lemit]

For what it's worth, I don't think the use of silly names by anybody involved in this debate accomplishes anything but to make the namecaller look childish. Finchcliff, I know you didn't start that crap and I give you credit for it. Having said that,

Originally Posted by Finchcliff

If something as unique and powerful as the impact and exit event did occur (calm down...), then assumptions and observations made based upon an acceptance that Earth has not been impacted by anything larger than say, Chixculub are very likely to be erronious. By definition, this would include existing perception relating to the geological history of our planet.

The same applies to your assumptions.

With regard to your comments about my integrity. I recently watched a documentary on National Geographic channel which explored the geological timescales and processes involved in the formation of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. During the documentary, a prominent geologist was taken very seriously when he 'explained' that his research had revealed that "the Tibetan Platuea was formed when the force of the collision between India and the Himalayas turned the landscape of the region into a form of liquifation".

How did he present this for the viewer? He poured syrup onto a white surface and proceeded to push the flattening syrup backwards, creating a high front (the Himalayas) ...and a long, wide flat area behind (the Tibetan Plateau). This guy was lauded and not an eyelid blinked.

"So there you have it. That was how the Tibetan Plateau was created" the commentator informed the viewers.

On the face of it, and with all the technology presently available, the use of a spoon and some syrup seems ludicrous. Yet thats how he decided he should present his findings.

If I had sat in front of you and put a blob of syrup onto the table, whipped out a spoon and said "Let me educate you..." I suspect the door would have been swinging shut behind you before I'd finished asking the question.

Yet his explanation was accepted not just because of his background research, but also because he was capable of using his creativity to present to others what he believed he had discovered in a highly visual manner what (to everyone else but him at the time) was seen as a wild idea.

I don't give NatGeo, as they now like to call themselves (perhaps an example of self-trivializing by namecalling), much credit for presenting serious science. Even if I did, I wouldn't think of the syrup as being anything more than an attempt, possibly very awkward and stupid, at illustrating something that might or might not have merit. Some illustrations work on a subliminal level to make connections for us we could not have imagined; some don't. Just because the parlor trick is cheap, that doesn't mean the parlor is.

You are trying to present something completely new to all of us, something that flies in the face of all the evidence we can find. You don't seem to understand that, or at least you haven't presented your case in a way that would have accounted for it. If you had tried to see the world through our eyes, you might have been able to make us see the world through yours. If you had made concessions, offered compromises, and generally acted like someone who is genuinely testing a theory in a scientific forum, your theory might have got a genuine test in a scientific forum. You have taken a different route. I don't know that your destination would have been different, but the journey might well have been a lot more pleasant for all of us.

As you might be able to tell from my wistful tone, I think your case here is lost. I wish you better luck in your next endeavor, and that you may somewhere in the intervening time have learned how to make your own luck.

--lemit

[Finchcliff]

Originally Posted by lemit

You are trying to present something completely new to all of us, something that flies in the face of all the evidence we can find. You don't seem to understand that, or at least you haven't presented your case in a way that would have accounted for it. If you had tried to see the world through our eyes, you might have been able to make us see the world through yours. If you had made concessions, offered compromises, and generally acted like someone who is genuinely testing a theory in a scientific forum, your theory might have got a genuine test in a scientific forum. You have taken a different route. I don't know that your destination would have been different, but the journey might well have been a lot more pleasant for all of us.
--lemit

Thanks for your thought, Lemit - and your reticent tone. Discussing this is a challenge and the subject clearly does rankle. This can't be avoided I'm afraid. Maybe its because the theory flies in the face of all the evidence you refere to that the journey has not been as pleasant as it might. I maintain, though that this theory has its merits - even if the evidence (for the time being) is primarily visual. All the theory is trying to do is take the common practice of field observation and scale things up (just a bit!).

As far as concessions go, I thought the latest few posts were just that. I was exploring a suggestion that an impactor may not need to pass through Earth to generate the scenario described in the impact and exit event theory. This would partially eliminate some of the criticism levelled at the theory in this thread, while opening up the possibility that the theory was indeed 'on the right track'...

...Further input such as that posted about seismic shockwaves are hugely welcomed. There may be other explanations for the apparently connected series of geological features I have been discussing throughout this thread.

BTW - I totally agree about the namecalling - it is childish, but rather than start inflaming the situation I hope I succeeded in keeping things calm with a bit of humor. (You may have to refer to Turtle's earlier post when he first decided to change my name - for whatever reason....)

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Finchcliff

Thanks for your thought, Lemit - and your reticent tone. Discussing this is a challenge and the subject clearly does rankle. This can't be avoided I'm afraid.

not only won't you avoid it, it's your whole intention. you wanted rankle, you got it.

Originally Posted by flinchclip

Maybe its because the theory flies in the face of all the evidence you refer to that the journey has not been as pleasant as it might. I maintain, though that this theory has its merits - even if the evidence (for the time being) is primarily visual. All the theory is trying to do is take the common practice of field observation and scale things up (just a bit!).

Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

Originally Posted by Hypography Rules

5. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned
9. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!

BTW - I totally agree about the namecalling - it is childish, but rather than start inflaming the situation I hope I succeeded in keeping things calm with a bit of humor. (You may have to refer to Turtle's earlier post when he first decided to change my name - for whatever reason....)

if you had stuck around long enough you would have figured out that i change everyones' names. just ask lemming.

for those of you thinking this thread is trolling and that fishtalk is violating our rules, the way to stop it is to click the little red button(s) at the top right of the entry and report the post(s).

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Finchcliff

Maybe its because the theory flies in the face of all the evidence you refere to that the journey has not been as pleasant as it might. I maintain, though that this theory has its merits - even if the evidence (for the time being) is primarily visual.

What's important at this point is to step back for a moment and understand how the scientific method is applied in cases like this:

1. You make an observation and formulate a hypothesis around it. In this case you see circular shapes and propose that they are caused by impacts and/or exit events. Perfectly reasonable hypothesis on its own.
2. You are challenged on two bases: the correlations you cite are not statistically significant enough to form any basis of relationship, and the geological data that would be required to back up your claim in fact directly contradicts it.

According to the scientific method, the fact that your theory is directly contradicted by the data would--without any prejudice--be enough to completely reject your hypothesis, and requires you to modify your hypothesis so that it explains the data.

I realize that you think that it's "visually obvious", but quite frankly that does not matter.

Ignoring these objections is both self-deception and contempt for those who could potentially educate you and result in a hypothesis that is more supportable.

You need to realize that the point of contention here has nothing to do with people being too blind to see the visual evidence, and everything to do with the fact that the geological formations and dating are not at all ambiguous, they directly contradict the hypothesis, and unless you address these issues, simply throwing up more pictures that are "visually obvious" does nothing to refute the argument that the hypothesis should not be taken seriously.

By continuing to ignore the objections and present more visual evidence that does not address them does nothing but annoy and offend, even if you avoid calling people names, and in fact results in that name calling because of the implication that these people who clearly have more knowledge of the data than you have been willing to invest time in implies that their knowledge is irrelevant and worthless.

There is no conspiracy against you here, but the scientific method is brutal and does not provide much leeway for "appearance" precisely because of the fact that appearance is so misleading (as the links that I and others provided above discuss).

There may in fact be "something" to some of the visual images you have gathered here, but they may have nothing to do with impacts, and in fact once you get in to the actual geology, they prove far more interesting.

If you want to investigate some of this more (including some of the features you've pointed out as evidence) you might want to start with some John McPhee, who does not dive directly into numerical analysis, but is far more enlightening for non-experts than the NatGeo program you mentioned.

But please do spend some time learning about the data that has been referred to here before coming back with more visual images: you need to fit this data into your hypothesis before you will be taken seriously.

More things in politics happen by accident or exhaustion than happen by conspiracy,
Buffy

[Boerseun]

Finch, your pasted pictures refer:

As to the one about the Himalayas, that spectacular mountain chain is the result of the Indian tectonic plate crashing into the Asian plate. It's still going on, and can be measured. The fact that the Southern edge is roughly circular and might look like the edge of an oblique impact crater, is completely coincidental. India is still crashing into Asia, and the mountain chain is still rising.

As to the one about the Aleutians, they are the result of tectonic shift and movement, where a chain of islands is formed in the wake of these tectonic shifts resulting in volcanic action. The fact that they form a section of a circle and might thus let the uninformed observer think that they are the result of another oblique impact, is coincidental.

The one about the Rockies in North America I don't understand. There is a mountain chain running up and down the Western edge of both the Americas, yet you choose the one in North America as evidence for your impact event. And the only reason I can think of, is because the discoloration you notice in the drier Western part of North America. The fact that the Rockies might cause a rain shadow and result in a roughly circular dry area which might look to the uninformed mind as an impact crater, is, once again, coincidental, and simply points to humans having a knack for recognizing patterns. Look! There's a brown circle in an otherwise green continent! What, at planetary scales, are circular? Yes - impact craters! Thus, the brown circle is an impact crater - ignoring all meteorological evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, finch. No dice.

[lemit]

My best friend and I have a lot of very strange conversations. It's 4:30 a.m. as I'm writing this and we just spent three hours on the phone discussing things a couple of teenagers might talk about but which should cause two old retired guys to be reminded to act their own age.

A couple months ago we got to talking about the Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean. After an hour or two of dumb, distracted, non sequitur-filled conversation we came up with a theory that they are shaped the way they are because they are in effect catch basins for the oceanic conveyor belts. I know that theory doesn't work very well because as far as I know they don't have the surface trash islands, but they do have the warmer temperatures that make them good weather makers.

I don't present that as a viable theory, but as an example of a theory with about as much supporting evidence as the Impact and Exit Event has, possibly more. We could attach a lot of graphics and self-promotion and start hawking our theory. (When Stephen Hawking comes up with a new theory, do people use that term for his promotion of the theory?) But we realize there are a lot of other potential theories about the shape of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, and we're lazy.

So there are two things I want to convey. First, in the manner of Jeff Foxworthy, if your theory sounds like what a couple of guys could come up with talking on the phone at three in the morning, then you might need to get a better theory. Second, it's five o'clock now and I don't know what I'm typing. It makes sense now, but what it looks like in the light of day is the only thing that matters.

The Impact and Exit Event isn't an event; it's a half-baked theory that can find dozens of equally half-baked opponents.

Finchcliff, I offered you an opportunity to retire from this debate with some dignity. In your response, I saw some of what I needed to see to have a lot of respect for you, but not enough. I will defend you as a person--your Original Post showed great promise--but I can't defend your tenacity in supporting something that doesn't work. Let go. Move on. Find a different fight. It's over.

(You may be too young to know Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch. Does it work with a dead horse? But anyway, having mentioned The Dead Parrot Sketch, I'm sure I'll elicit a response from some other old guys who haven't yet grown up. We are a sizeable demographic for science forums, as are teenage boys.)

I still wish you well, although not necessarily here.

--lemit