The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Scientific Discoveries and Advancements

Huge asteroid strike could mark birth of Antarctica, say ANU

The newest revelations in the scientific world -- post articles, discussions and your own ideas.

Postby rath » Sun May 30, 2010 12:01 am

May 28, 2010

~ Giant crater found under Timor Sea
~ Could be world's biggest asteroid hit
~ Marked birth of Antarctica


A GIANT crater found under the Timor Sea could turn out to be the biggest known to have hit the Earth and may even have been responsible for creating Antarctica.
The crater was discovered by scientists from the Australian National University.

A crater in Siberia currently weighs in as the largest asteroid strike on Earth, at 100km wide.

However, the crater discovered by the ANU has so far only been measured according to the width of the base of the mountains surrounding it.

The biggest - Mount Ashmore - measures 50km at its base, according to ANU extraterrestrial impact specialist Dr Andrew Glikson.

"The minimum size of the Mount Ashmore dome ... is 50km at the base, but the full size of the impact crater - not yet defined - may be significantly larger, " Dr Glikson said.


Only one other crater compares to the pair - the 85km wide Chesapeake Crater in the ocean floor off Virginia, USA.

Dr Glikson said the asteroid hit the Earth during a period of intense bombardment 35 million years ago.

Its strike coincided with a sharp fall in global temperatures which in turn preceded the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Both the Siberian and Chesapeake asteroids hit at roughly the same time.

And a million years later, the Drake Passage cut South America off from the Antarctica land mass, providing a constant flow of water around the ice sheet already forming as the Earth cooled.

Dr Glikson said the Antarctic has since acted as a "'thermostat' for the Earth’s climate”.

His research has been published in the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquatank » Sun May 30, 2010 6:29 am

Only one problem with that paleontological evidence places Antarctica at over 245 million years old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 232647.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... dinos.html

Your article should say 'asteroid creates Antartic ice sheet'.
Aquatank
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Midwest USA

Postby rath » Mon May 31, 2010 10:51 am

Aquatank wrote:Only one problem with that paleontological evidence places Antarctica at over 245 million years old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 232647.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... dinos.html

Your article should say 'asteroid creates Antartic ice sheet'.



your superstition is wrong, and based on facts not in eveidance.

Oh ..... you mean where the article sez ....

Its strike coincided with a sharp fall in global temperatures which in turn preceded the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.


:oops:

Also ...

In your link where you quote another person's words, stating
Antarctica at over 245 million years old.


You left out the fact that 245 million years ago .....

Antarctica was not a stand alone continent!


It was part of the supercontinent, Gondwana

Image

& part of pangea, before that.

Image


Australia began to separate from Antarctica perhaps 80 million years ago (Late Cretaceous), but sea-floor spreading between them became most active about 40 million years ago during the Eocene epoch of the Tertiary Period.

New Zealand probably separated from Antarctica between 130 and 85 million years ago.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205357.htm
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquatank » Mon May 31, 2010 3:05 pm

Actually I was working from the supposition from title that the impact in Siberia caused a shockwave that resulted in a mantel magma spew that form Antarctica was wrong, when I read the title. That I knew to be wrong since the land mass preexisted impact. So all I'm saying is the article's title is wrong, and one actually must read the article to know they're only talking about ice.
Aquatank
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Midwest USA

Postby rath » Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:00 pm

Aquatank wrote:Actually I was working from the supposition from title that the impact in Siberia caused a shockwave that resulted in a mantel magma spew that form Antarctica was wrong, when I read the title. That I knew to be wrong since the land mass preexisted impact. So all I'm saying is the article's title is wrong, and one actually must read the article to know they're only talking about ice.


one actually must read the article


Read the article first, Aint that the truth.

This idea might just catch on.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am


Return to Scientific Discoveries and Advancements

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests