Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 156

Thread: The Pacific Ring of Fire is a remnant of the Moon-creating impact event

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492

    The Pacific Ring of Fire is a remnant of the Moon-creating impact event

    My assertion is that the geological feature on the surface of the Earth known as "The Ring of Fire" was caused by the same impact event that created the Moon.

    The evidence for this idea is the following:

    1. The circular shape of this feature implies it may have been formed by the collision of two spherical objects

    2. The size of this circular feature implies the colliding object must have been so big it could only be the collision that also formed the Moon.

    3. The strength of this impact was so great that it dented the mantle of the Earth, allowing crust features like the plates to slide around above it while maintaining the circular impact remnant.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    My assertion is that the geological feature on the surface of the Earth known as "The Ring of Fire" was caused by the same impact event that created the Moon.

    The evidence for this idea is the following:

    3. The strength of this impact was so great that it dented the mantle of the Earth, allowing crust features like the plates to slide around above it while maintaining the circular impact remnant.
    Then how do you explain the other crustal features that are the same as those in the pacific, but located elsewhere? Such as subduction zones, mid-ocean ridges, etc. Especially the volcanoes of the Mediterranean, which are due to African plate sliding under the European plate or the volcanoes of the Caribbean, due to the subduction in that area?. Exactly when did this collision occur? What was the positioning of the continental plates at that time? Why, if the mantle was dented, is the Hawaiian Hotspot almost in the middle of the dent? Shouldn't it be somewhere other than in the deepest part of the dent?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    You think the moon may have broken up Pangea?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    My assertion is that the geological feature on the surface of the Earth known as "The Ring of Fire" was caused by the same impact event that created the Moon.
    How did you eliminate the Pangea explanation?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,286
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    My assertion is that the geological feature on the surface of the Earth known as "The Ring of Fire" was caused by the same impact event that created the Moon.

    The evidence for this idea is the following:

    1. The circular shape of this feature implies it may have been formed by the collision of two spherical objects

    2. The size of this circular feature implies the colliding object must have been so big it could only be the collision that also formed the Moon.

    3. The strength of this impact was so great that it dented the mantle of the Earth, allowing crust features like the plates to slide around above it while maintaining the circular impact remnant.
    The only evidence you state is the circular nature of the Pacific basin. The rest is conclusory.

    Can you tell us a little about your own qualifications that would allow you to properly evaluate geologic evidence? I assume you have familiarized yourself with the mainstream explanation for the ring?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,171
    OK, as I said in the other thread: There have been about 4-5 supercontinent cycles we have any evidence for since the impact. There may have been more as the proposed Wilson cycle is about 500 million years in length so there is room for about 8-9 of them since the impact. The Pacific was formed from the Panthalassic ocean which in turn was formed from a rift opening in Rodina. In other words either the entire supercontinent idea is wrong or you are wrong.

    So two big questions:
    How do you explain the evidence which has led up to the supercontinent ideas (rock and fossil formations spanning now widely separate continents) in your model?
    How do you explain the fact that no part of the seafloor has been dated to older than about 200 million years?

    Edit: third and fourth questions
    The Pacific ocean is shrinking and will be gone in less than 4.5 gigayears. Do you propose it was once much larger or are you proposing a cyclic grow/shrink model to keep it the size and shape it is now on average?
    How do you propose that the impact cause the subduction zones at the edge of the ocean to form?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    The idea has some small merit. That I can put aside easily.

    Your points... 3."The strength of this impact was so great that it dented the mantle of the Earth,
    allowing crust features like the plates to slide around above it while maintaining the circular impact remnant." end quote..

    Do we know that ? I am considering that a molten state of the crust just after this event would have resulted..
    and dented might better have been smashed like a egg.

    I do like the challenging aspect of this proposal. I am concerned we can not resolve all the aspects of it.

    We can make statement like; The proto Earth took many collisions and many smaller planetoids were ejected..

    All of these things can be run on programs and I expect some surety of convictions made.. are not possible..

    I really do think that this subject is just beyond our history... but do not stop enquiring.. you could still be on to something..

    I shall call it the Toonces theroum..

    on reading 'Shaula's post.. You must see that the science of the Earth's crustal formation is a large complex subject..

    That is well understood. Your proposal does not meet the facts we know does it ?

  8. #8
    This was a theory that predated continental drift, based on the basalt rocks in the Pacific matching to the moon. My kid's encyclopedia in the 1960s presented it as a speculative hypothesis, that a Mars size blob hit the earth and spun around separating as earth-moon system leaving Pacific ocean as scar. Wrong.

    Moon is four billion years old. Continents have been skating around the earth with the Pacific much younger.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea to explain why the Pacific-Moon hypothesis is disproved. "The forming of supercontinents and their breaking up appears to be cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion year history. There may have been several others before Pangaea."

    If there have been several supercontinents, then the world oceans would have formed and erased several times.

    Myth Busted.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    Deep time can be difficult to grasp. But, a lot of changes have occurred since the formation event of more than .004 trillion years ago.

    Austin is located on the Edwards Plateau, a karstic Cretaceous formation, re Balcones Canyonland. It is common to find shark teeth in the area on the surface testifying to its ocean origin. To the northwest, towards Lubbock, is the Llano Escatado. At its base are red Permian rocks which are older than the Pacific Basin. The oil underlying the area is older still.

    Please see:

    Bedrock Geology of Round Rock and Surrounding Areas, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas by Housh, T. B.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Then how do you explain the other crustal features that are the same as those in the pacific, but located elsewhere? Such as subduction zones, mid-ocean ridges, etc. Especially the volcanoes of the Mediterranean, which are due to African plate sliding under the European plate or the volcanoes of the Caribbean, due to the subduction in that area?
    The onus not on me to answer this or explain general geology to you. No one is denying the existence of plate techtonics or purporting a non-mainstream explanation of volcanic activity. The assertion is that the moon-creating impact affected the Earth's mantle in such a way as to cause a circular pattern of higher-than-average volcanic activity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Exactly when did this collision occur?
    Again this is off topic and a waste of time, but the time that the collision is already expected to have taken place in the mainstream view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    What was the positioning of the continental plates at that time?
    It is not important because the plate and continent system as greatly altered by the impact event.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Why, if the mantle was dented, is the Hawaiian Hotspot almost in the middle of the dent?
    I can think of two possibilities for this. 1, that as with most craters you get a little tower in the center, or 2, that there will be a build up of pressure there. I don't think this makes or breaks the original assertion though, my friend.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    You think the moon may have broken up Pangea?
    I have no idea, some people here apparently think I am making claims about continent forming and ocean forming. I'm not.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    How did you eliminate the Pangea explanation?
    I'm not familiar with the "Pangea Explanation". If it has something to do with the Ring of Fire or the Moon Impact, please illuminate me

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by geonuc View Post
    The only evidence you state is the circular nature of the Pacific basin. The rest is conclusory.

    Can you tell us a little about your own qualifications that would allow you to properly evaluate geologic evidence? I assume you have familiarized yourself with the mainstream explanation for the ring?
    I've not heard an explanation for the circular nature of the ring. Go ahead and tell me if you like.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    How do you explain the evidence which has led up to the supercontinent ideas (rock and fossil formations spanning now widely separate continents) in your model?
    I'm suggesting that there are fault lines deep in the Earth caused originally by the Moon Impact Event. I'm suggesting that the plates in the Earth's crust are shallower than these fault lines and can slide over them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    How do you explain the fact that no part of the seafloor has been dated to older than about 200 million years?
    Because the sea floor slides around as mainstream has it. I'm making no claims about the sea floor. What I'm talking about is miles and miles below the sea floor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The Pacific ocean is shrinking and will be gone in less than 4.5 gigayears. Do you propose it was once much larger or are you proposing a cyclic grow/shrink model to keep it the size and shape it is now on average?
    I'm not making any claims about the Pacific ocean. Where in my OP does it say Pacific Ocean? All I'm proposing is an explanation for the circular pattern of intense volcanic activity on the surface of the Earth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    How do you propose that the impact cause the subduction zones at the edge of the ocean to form?
    Trauma in the Earth's mantle, deep fault-lines in materials that could only be cracked by a giant impact event.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Moon is four billion years old. Continents have been skating around the earth with the Pacific much younger.
    I'm not arguing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea to explain why the Pacific-Moon hypothesis is disproved. "The forming of supercontinents and their breaking up appears to be cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion year history. There may have been several others before Pangaea."
    Nowhere in that article do you find the words Ring of Fire. Let's stay on topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    If there have been several supercontinents, then the world oceans would have formed and erased several times.
    Yeah they probably would've. What in the world does this have to do with the Ring of Fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Myth Busted.
    No, you're just totally off-topic. Nice try, though.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
    Deep time can be difficult to grasp. But, a lot of changes have occurred since the formation event of more than .004 trillion years ago.

    Austin is located on the Edwards Plateau, a karstic Cretaceous formation, re Balcones Canyonland. It is common to find shark teeth in the area on the surface testifying to its ocean origin. To the northwest, towards Lubbock, is the Llano Escatado. At its base are red Permian rocks which are older than the Pacific Basin. The oil underlying the area is older still.

    Please see:

    Bedrock Geology of Round Rock and Surrounding Areas, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas by Housh, T. B.
    I find it very touching that you looked up the geology of my home area.

    But where in my OP does it say anything about the Earth's crust remaining static?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    I am considering that a molten state of the crust just after this event would have resulted..
    and dented might better have been smashed like a egg.
    Yes, in hindsight i would've preferred the term "cracked" to dented in my OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    All of these things can be run on programs
    Yes, computer simulations are what i do for a living.
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    Your proposal does not meet the facts we know does it ?
    Well as far as I know I haven't contradicted any known facts yet.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,171
    The reason that the Pacific is important is that if it is gone and the associated subduction zones changed to orogenic zones then by your model the ring of fire should still be there, as I understand it. I am trying to tease out exactly what you ascribe to be the defining characteristics of the ring of fire.

    Do you agree that destructive plate collisions are linked with volcanoes via currently fairly well understood mechanisms?
    Do you believe that the volcanoes are an excess over what we would normally see in an active subduction zone (or series of them)?

    I also have a question about the mechanism for the preservation of these faults. Generally it is thought that the entire lithosphere is subducted. So are your faults deeper than this? The athenosphere deforms plastically in response to stress, so are you proposing that the characterisation of this a ductile material is wrong?

    Are you basically saying that magma comes up through these faults to create the volcanism?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Shaula, I dunno dude what does it mean to deform "plastically"? I am well-educated but some of your terms are just making your prose a bit dense for me.

    What I'm saying is the big collision happens, and leaves cracks in the mantle. Imagine a sphere underneath the crust, that is a lot like the crust, that is to say it has cracks where the hotter, more pressurized matter oozes up from deeper in the Earth. There may be fissures in this sphere of the Earth, underneath the crust, that is crust-like, but were formed during the Moon Impact and have lingered there since.

    And those cracks lie below what we see today as The Ring of Fire.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,286
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I've not heard an explanation for the circular nature of the ring. Go ahead and tell me if you like.
    You didn't answer my question.

    ETA: Don't bother, though. Your responses so far have provided me with sufficient information.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    What in the world does [Pangaea] have to do with the Ring of Fire?
    Do you see Pangaea as irrelevant to the ring of fire?

    The subduction zones around the Pacific Ocean rim are the cause of the Ring of Fire. Several hundred million years ago, all the continents of the earth were joined together in one continent called Pangaea. Before that, the continents split and reformed many times, according to mainstream science. It appears probable from this scenario that continents drifted randomly, including across the zones that now form the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean.

    Do you agree?

    Does your hypothesis propose that through all these splits and joinings of continental drift, an original ring of fire caused by the moon separation was constant?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Shaula, I dunno dude what does it mean to deform "plastically"? I am well-educated but some of your terms are just making your prose a bit dense for me.
    Plastic means in a sense, flowing, whereas elastic means deformable, in geological jargon.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    What I'm saying is the big collision happens, and leaves cracks in the mantle. Imagine a sphere underneath the crust, that is a lot like the crust, that is to say it has cracks where the hotter, more pressurized matter oozes up from deeper in the Earth. There may be fissures in this sphere of the Earth, underneath the crust, that is crust-like, but were formed during the Moon Impact and have lingered there since.
    my bold

    That should show up seismically if true, it isn't, it doesn't.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Robert, yes, the theory requires that there is an underlying feature in the Earth's mantle, beneath the crust, that has remained static since the impact.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
    That should show up seismically if true, it isn't, it doesn't.
    Are you going to provide some proof of that, a citation, or just say it?

    I should think it's hard to rule out geological features beneath the crust, isn't that pretty much beyond our surveying capabilities at this point?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Are you going to provide some proof of that, a citation, or just say it?

    I should think it's hard to rule out geological features beneath the crust, isn't that pretty much beyond our surveying capabilities at this point?
    Ahh..you would have to show that it does exist as proof of your assertion.

  26. #26
    CaptainToonces. Do you have any support for your speculation? I don't see you offering anything at all so far?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    893
    I can see the OP's point now, but if the collision caused lasting structures in the mantle area of the earth, wouldn't we see a pattern of collected hot spots? The various layers of the earth have been explored through mapping earthquake waves, and I don't recall seeing any mention of a difference on a particular part. Are you saying it's above or below the asthenosphere, as that is fluid and wouldn't retain structures.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    CaptainToonces. Do you have any support for your speculation? I don't see you offering anything at all so far?
    I'm sorry, am I under some kind of pressure here? Why are moderators breathing down my throat on this site?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaedas View Post
    Are you saying it's above or below the asthenosphere, as that is fluid and wouldn't retain structures.
    It is somewhere there below the crust, where there are materials that can remain solid at high temperatures and pressures. In fact these materials can only be liquified by extraordinary events like impacts from space.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    The onus not on me to answer this or explain general geology to you.
    As it fits in with your idea, yes it is, and yes you are. If you have a question on this, I would suggest you PM a moderator. As for Geology, that was my major, all the astronomical knowledge was picked up in the minor and after the Geology. So general geology knowledge is not a problem on this end.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    No one is denying the existence of plate techtonics or purporting a non-mainstream explanation of volcanic activity.
    Actually, yes you are. The mainstream plate tectonics explains exactly why there is a "ring of fire". Your idea isn't needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    The assertion is that the moon-creating impact affected the Earth's mantle in such a way as to cause a circular pattern of higher-than-average volcanic activity.
    You missed my point completely. Those features in the other areas, of the world, are doing precisely what features in the "circle of fire" are doing, so why do we need your idea? Much less the point that the Northwest US part of the "ring of fire"(specifically, the Cascades) didn't even exist more than 40 million years ago, as subduction wasn't occurring at that particular spot. But, the volcanic arcs of eastern Washington, Oregon, etc have volcanoes, where subduction was occurring, but they haven't reached the ring of fire area yet.

    Exactly when did this collision occur?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Again this is off topic and a waste of time,
    If you think so, report the post, otherwise, this is very pertinent to your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    but the time that the collision is already expected to have taken place in the mainstream view.
    Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    It is not important because the plate and continent system as greatly altered by the impact event.
    Why? If the current plate boundaries were not near the collision point, nor, in fact even in existence (see the Farallon plate, which used to cover much of the area of the pacific plate), why would they be altered? Much less the point that the Northwest US part of the "ring of fire"(specifically, the Cascades) didn't even exist more than 40 million years ago, as subduction wasn't occurring at that particular spot. But, the volcanic arcs of eastern Washington, Oregon, etc have volcanoes, where subduction was occurring, but they haven't reached the ring of fire area yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I can think of two possibilities for this. 1, that as with most craters you get a little tower in the center,
    Yes, but that tower either cools, and stays as the tower, or sinks back down. Neither of which explains the hotspot, nor in fact explains any of the other hotspots around the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    or 2, that there will be a build up of pressure there.
    Why? And, again, why the other hotspots around the world?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I don't think this makes or breaks the original assertion though, my friend.
    No, but there are a lot of other weak points. Mostly the fact that you want the behavior of the Pacific features of plate tectonics to be the result of something different than the behavior of the same features in other parts of the world.

Similar Threads

  1. Ring of Fire! Annular Solar Eclipse on May 20
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-17, 11:30 PM
  2. The K-T Impact event - How Bright in the Sky??
    By beethovenspiano in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-11, 09:46 PM
  3. What Impact Would Set the World on Fire?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-10, 11:30 AM
  4. Deep Impact: Extinction Event
    By Zarkov in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 2005-Jun-20, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: