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

[R.A.F.]

Is it your intention to simply dismiss Pangea as an explanation?


A simply "yes or no" will suffice.

[Shaula]

You seem to be under the impression that each layer of the Earth is a homogenous, and unbroken layer? No, it's more complicated than that. Volcanoes are holes in a layer of the Earth, where materials from the layer beneath can seep through. So there's no problem "getting through a layer".

This is akin to arguing that because you can makes holes/cracks in ice you can do the same to the water underneath. You also seem to be tied up with the idea that there has to be a reason for something being where it is. If I throw a pack of cards in the air do you believe there must be an external event that drives where the ace of clubs ends up? The mid-Atlantic ridge is where it is because that is where it is. In enough time it will not be there any more. Ditto the subductive zones around the Pacific, the Arfican rift valley gap and so on. Plate tectonics means everything changes, that is why we don't see identical patterns of super-continent formation repeated over and over.

I genuinely do not see any viable mechanism for the plate boundaries to stay subductive and where they are over the timescales in question. So a simple series of questions: What measurements would you take to prove your idea? What effects would you expect this hard material to have and how would you observe it? What materials do you believe make up this layer and what properties do you think they have?

[AstroRockHunter]

OK.

As I recall, the theorized impact event that formed the moon took place about 500 million years after the solar system formed. This means that our planet was considered to be in the proto state, meaning that the crust as we know it wasn't formed yet.

In other words, the Earths crust didn't exist.

So, how could the impact form the "ring of fire" in a crust that didn't exist???

[CaptainToonces]

So, how could the impact form the "ring of fire" in a crust that didn't exist???

The argument is that the ring of fire results from a deeper scar, below the crust.

[AstroRockHunter]

The argument is that the ring of fire results from a deeper scar, below the crust.

Direct Question 1:
How can a scar form "below the crust" if the crust hasn't formed?

Direct Question 2:
What are the properties of the material in which your "scar" formed?

[CaptainToonces]

How can a scar form "below the crust" if the crust hasn't formed?

I don't know what you mean by "forming" exactly. Even in the very early days of the Earth, there was some material making up the outer part of the planet, in some state. Materials with high melting points may already have been solid by the time of the proposed Moon Creating Impact. Also, materials below the surface of the planet could possibly have been made solid by the increased pressure, despite a high temperature.

What are the properties of the material in which your "scar" formed?

High melting point

[AstroRockHunter]

I don't know what you mean by "forming" exactly. Even in the very early days of the Earth, there was some material making up the outer part of the planet, in some state. Materials with high melting points may already have been solid by the time of the proposed Moon Creating Impact. Also, materials below the surface of the planet could possibly have been made solid by the increased pressure, despite a high temperature.


High melting point

High melting point doesn't really quantify the materials in question.

Direct Question 3:
What temperature, in Kelvin, are you calling "high"?

Direct Question 4:
What materials that fit your definition of having a "high melting point" are present in the crust today?

[R.A.F.]

The argument is that the ring of fire results from a deeper scar, below the crust.

So you are dismissing Pangea as an explanation??

[CaptainToonces]

So you are dismissing Pangea as an explanation??

An explanation for what, the circular shape and size of the Ring of Fire?

[CaptainToonces]

What temperature, in Kelvin, are you calling "high"?

The material would need a high enough melting point such that it would remain solid under the conditions of the layer of the Earth it resides in for the entire course of Earth's history. So whatever the temperature/pressure situations are in the mantle, the melting point of these materials would be higher than that. So I would say over 1,000K is what i'm referring to as "high" here, to give you a rough actual number.

What materials that fit your definition of having a "high melting point" are present in the crust today?

Well iron has a melting point of something like 2,000K, so I don't think it's hard to find materials that fit the bill.

[slang]

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

Going through the thread, it appears that the "circular shape" of the ring of fire is paramount to your idea, as you use it to dismiss questions implying that it might just have formed as the result of tectonic plate movement. Yet if I look at several depictions of this geographical feature, to me it looks more like a distorted lowercase letter 'n' than a circle. Apparently the alleged impact zone is subject to deformation. Why is this deformation so much slower than the tectonic plate movements?

*) I reserve the right to open an ATM thread that the ring of fire might be formed when we were hit by only the last letter of the Moon.

[CaptainToonces]

Going through the thread, it appears that the "circular shape" of the ring of fire is paramount to your idea, as you use it to dismiss questions implying that it might just have formed as the result of tectonic plate movement. Yet if I look at several depictions of this geographical feature, to me it looks more like a distorted lowercase letter 'n' than a circle. Apparently the alleged impact zone is subject to deformation. Why is this deformation so much slower than the tectonic plate movements?

Hi Slang,

To answer your question, the deformation of the important materials preserving the shape of the ring happen much slower because they are deeper down in the Earth, in the mantle, where deformation is slower because of increased pressure.

Regarding the circular shape, have you looked at it holding a physical globe, or just looked at 2d maps?

[slang]

To answer your question, the deformation of the important materials preserving the shape of the ring happen much slower because they are deeper down in the Earth, in the mantle, where deformation is slower because of increased pressure.

How deep?

Regarding the circular shape, have you looked at it holding a physical globe, or just looked at 2d maps?

I have looked at several different map projections. To me the term 'circular' only vaguely applies.

[Tensor]

Because this is the way that volcanic pressure works. Materials with lower melting points get heated below, expand into a liquid and bubble up through the path of least resistance. The location of these volcanically active regions is determined by deeper features. What else could it be determined by, you are saying pure randomness? Seems doubtful.

Actually, no. If you read the paper I linked to, the volcanic regions near subduction zones also have to do with water being subducted, the angle of subduction, and several other things. Of course, you haven't refuted anything in the paper. And, until you do, that paper destroys your contention that there are cracks below subuction regions, due to an impact.

For the 2nd time, I'm not purporting that the Moon Creating Impact causes all volcanic activity on Earth. Why would you infer that? All I'm saying is that impacts from space objects have the possibility of influencing where volcanic activity can occur on Earth. There have been a lot of impacts over the history of Earth, but even if there hadn't been, I am not proposing an alternate explanation to the cause of all volcanic activity on Earth which is influenced by a great number of things including its mass and the materials it's made of, I am suggesting the possibility that impacts can leave remnants detectable by the location of volcanic activity.

That's why I'm asking what the difference is between the "ring of fire" volcanic subduction zones and the other volcanic areas that form subduction zones. You keep saying there are cracks lower down that come from the collision, but you don't provide any kind of support for that, except by assertion. And the paper I linked to shows there aren't any such cracks. So, what is the difference and what actual physical evidence do you have for such a difference?

For the 3rd time, no, I am not saying that all subduction zones have to be where the Moon Creating Impact occurred. Why do you keep inferring this as my position for no reason?

Because other than your incredulity at the fact that a round "ring of fire" is not likely(and it isn't round anyway, see below), you haven't provided any good evidence that the "ring of fire" subduction zones are different in operation than any of the other, non-ring of fire subduction zones. And your lack of refutation of the paper I linked to, which provides evidence that there isn't any difference, means there isn't a need for your contention that a collision with the moon is the reason.

What does this mean? You've not written this in a way that makes any sense to me.

Yeah, that was a mess, sorry about not putting that together better, or editing it better before submitting it. The current Cascade volcanoes(the High Cascades) are to the east of the older Cascade volcanoes(The Western Cascades). The Western Cascades erupting up to 40 million years ago. Not to mention the Canadian Cascades have their own history. Why all these different histories, if the subduction zone is in the same place, relative to the North American Plate?

I brought up Yellowstone and Hawaii to show how the crust can slide around over a hotspot, proving that hotspots are related to geological features that are deeper than the crust that slides over them.

Yes, that's been known for a while. But, if there was a large collision, that would destroy the convection in one spot, eliminating the hotspot where the Hawaiian hotspot is. So, why is there a hotspot there?

Instead of refuting this, you make a nonsensical statement about lava fields in New Mexico.

Nope, there is a rift running through New Mexico, which thins the crust, which allows lava flows. But, there are many rifts in the pacific, which wouldn't be there if there was a collision as a collision would destroy the convection patter. Cause, if the collision can leave traces of itself through the subduction zones, it would leave traces of itself by destroying the rifts.

Now you're just twisting my words.

I'm not twisting anything. Did you, or did you not explain how there could be a hotspot in the middle of the collision area?

You asked how the Pacific Ocean could be influenced by impact history if it has a hotspot like Hawaii. I pointed out a number of possibilities for Hawaii just for the sake of conversation. I was not proposing some comprehensive reason for all hotspots.

Which was precisely my point. You gave different explanations as to why there may be a hotspot in the center of the collision area. If there are other hotspots, why are the explanations for those hotspots different from the one in the center of the collision area?

As far as I can tell, there existence seems to prove how volcanic features can be caused by something underneath the sliding crust, because in Hawaii the crust slides over the underlying cause of the hotspot.

But why do we need two different mechanisms to explain the same feature? According to you it because....

The proof is in the giant circular shape, as mentioned in the OP.

But, there isn't a giant circular shape. The Plates of the Pacific don't form any kind of circular shape, unless you are willing to put them together to force them into a circular shape. And by your logic, the circular shape should cut Austrailia in two, before reconnecting with the southern part of the Pacific plate. Not to mention the Pacific plate is a rift boundary with the Nazca (actually, the Nazca plate doesn't fit anywhere in there) and the Antarctic plates. Which should be subduction boundaries, according to your idea. How do those two work?

Because that's the path of least resistance for pressurized magma to bubble up at.

So, according to you, there could be a hotspot under Hawaii because that's the path of least resistance, but prior to this, you said there could be a hotspot under Hawaii because there's a build up of pressure, due to the dent in the mantle. Hmmmmm..... That seems contradictory.

[CaptainToonces]

How deep?

An interesting question. Deep enough to deform slowly, while shallow enough to be able to cause crust features like subduction zones.

I have looked at several different map projections. To me the term 'circular' only vaguely applies.

The area around Australia is a bit troublesome in making the circle a bit deformed, however from japan around alaska to the tip of Chile I would say there is an undeniable circular pattern.

[CaptainToonces]

Which was precisely my point. You gave different explanations as to why there may be a hotspot in the center of the collision area. If there are other hotspots, why are the explanations for those hotspots different from the one in the center of the collision area?

If I poke a watermelon with an ice pick and juice comes out, does that mean that the cause of all leaks a watermelon could have must be ice picks? You seem to think that proving such a thing is critical to my argument, but obviously it isn't because such logic is just bad. Why did Hawaii hotspot form? Not germaine but again I'll throw out a number of ideas, how about a large impactor after the Moon Creating Impact, how about the fact there are no other hotspots near it for the Earth to release pressurized contents from, how about whatever reasons other hotspots form, etc, etc, etc. Why do i have to repeat myself? You need to just drop this bad line of logic.

But, there isn't a giant circular shape. The Plates of the Pacific don't form any kind of circular shape, unless you are willing to put them together to force them into a circular shape. And by your logic, the circular shape should cut Austrailia in two, before reconnecting with the southern part of the Pacific plate. Not to mention the Pacific plate is a rift boundary with the Nazca (actually, the Nazca plate doesn't fit anywhere in there) and the Antarctic plates. Which should be subduction boundaries, according to your idea. How do those two work?

I never said that the features have to be subduction zones, I'm only saying they are volcanically active, indicating SOME kind of trauma in the mantle beneath, that could manifest itself as subduction zones or rifts or all manner of "cracks" inside the Earth. As far as the fact that it's not a PERFECT circle, well I allow for some deformation of the crater over 4 billion years, but the cool part of the idea is that perhaps that deformation has been so slow that indeed we are looking at a remnant of a possible great collision that created the Moon.

So, according to you, there could be a hotspot under Hawaii because that's the path of least resistance, but prior to this, you said there could be a hotspot under Hawaii because there's a build up of pressure, due to the dent in the mantle. Hmmmmm..... That seems contradictory.

That isn't contradictory in the least. Why can't there be more than one way to create a "hotspot" in the Earth's crust. I'm fascinated by this idea you seem to hold of there being only one way to do this. You know i can shoot the watermelon with a bullet too? or I could heat it until it explodes, or get a beetle to bore in there, etc.

[R.A.F.]

An explanation for what, the circular shape and size of the Ring of Fire?

Yes to both.


How were you able to eliminate Pangea as a reasonable explanation? How does your claim explain observations better than the accepted theory?

How do you explain the FACT that the continents "fit" together in a fashion exactly as Pangea predicts.

[R.A.F.]

If I poke a watermelon...snip...i can shoot the watermelon..

I can't believe I have to point out the following, but the Earth is NOT a watermelon.


Real bad analogy.

[CaptainToonces]

Yes to both.


How were you able to eliminate Pangea as a reasonable explanation? How does your claim explain observations better than the accepted theory?

How do you explain the FACT that the continents "fit" together in a fashion exactly as Pangea predicts.

Because the title of the thread is not "Captain Toonces refutes Pangea."

Go back and read the OP. Where does it say anything about continents fitting together?

[R.A.F.]

Where does it say anything about continents fitting together?

? Do you understand what Pangea "is"??


Can you answer the questions I asked?

[CaptainToonces]

? Do you understand what Pangea "is"??

yep

Can you answer the questions I asked?

as soon as you phrase them in a way that makes some sense, i will be happy to

[R.A.F.]

...as soon as you phrase them in a way that makes some sense...

Mainstream science has accepted Pangea as the explanation behind the present position of the continents.

How were you able to eliminate Pangea as a reasonable explanation?

How does your claim explain observations better than the accepted theory?

How do you explain the FACT that the continents "fit" together in a fashion exactly as Pangea predicts?



Yes, my questions have not changed in any way. Please explain why these questions "make no sense".

[CaptainToonces]

Mainstream science has accepted Pangea as the explanation behind the present position of the continents. How were you able to eliminate Pangea as a reasonable explanation?

Because I am not arguing anything about the position of continents. My theory is about cracks in the Earth's mantle.

How does your claim explain observations better than the accepted theory?

Because accepted theory believes that the Moon formed from a large impact event, but the location of this impact on the Earth's surface has not been determined. So my claim explains a potential answer to this question better by offering an observation to this accepted theory where there was not observed data before (that being the circular nature of the feature)

[/b]How do you explain the FACT that the continents "fit" together in a fashion exactly as Pangea predicts.[/b]

I have no quarrel with the theory of continental drift as it exists to describe the formation of land continents on the outer crust of the Earth. Why do you keep thinking that I do?

Yes, my questions have not changed in any way. Please explain why these questions "make no sense"....and make it good.

Because they are about some other topic than my OP. You asked "how can you dismiss pangea as an explanation"? That makes no sense because Pangea was never an explanation to anything the OP was about. You saw me use the term Ring of Fire and took that to mean Pangea, but in reality I'm referring to an area of the Earth below the crust. Pangea theory is about the crust, not what's underneath. My theory isn't mutually exclusive with Pangea theory even though you seem to think it is. That's why it doesn't make sense to me, because it's not "an explanation" to dismiss or support. What I'm talking about isn't explained or disproved by Pangea theory.

[R.A.F.]

You asked "how can you dismiss pangea as an explanation"? That makes no sense because Pangea was never an explanation to anything the OP was about.

From the OP...

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.

This strongly implies that the continents were in their present positions when this supposed impact happened...Pangea theorizes that the continents were once all clumped together and moved apaart over time. That is the reason for the circle known as the ring of fire.

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

No, it is simply the consequence of the continents moving apart that gives us the circular shape.

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.

No, it is "so big" as a consequence of the continents once being together, then moving apart over time to form this "big circular feature".

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.

...and this just makes no sense whatsoever.


Pangea has nothing to do with invalidating your claims??? Pangea has everything to do with invalidating your claims.

Why would you ignore that simple fact, unless you realize how damaging it is to your ideas??

[Tensor]

If I poke a watermelon with an ice pick and juice comes out, does that mean that the cause of all leaks a watermelon could have must be ice picks? You seem to think that proving such a thing is critical to my argument, but obviously it isn't because such logic is just bad. Why did Hawaii hotspot form? Not germaine but again I'll throw out a number of ideas, how about a large impactor after the Moon Creating Impact, how about the fact there are no other hotspots near it for the Earth to release pressurized contents from, how about whatever reasons other hotspots form, etc, etc, etc. Why do i have to repeat myself?

Because it's not just the hotspots, as much as you want to ignore the other parts of the argument. Why do we need your idea if there are other subduction zones? Why do we need your idea if there are other rift zones? Why do we need your idea if there are other hotspots? See, you keep saying the reason those features formed in the "ring of fire" (which isn't all subduction or rift zones, there are also strike-slip faults, no vulcanism, but you seem to ignore that) because of the cracks in the mantle under these features. But, there are other examples of these features, no where near the "ring of fire". Your defense for this is "Well, there can be different ways to form". My point, and the one you keep ignoring is, why do we need your idea, if there is another way to form the same features? They only thing I've seen you come up with is incredulity. Nothing more than you can't believe that there is a "ring of fire", which, as has been pointed out by multiple posters, isn't a ring, isn't circular, and isn't even alway fire.

You need to just drop this bad line of logic.

It's not a bad line of logic. Bad logic is "I don't believe it's possible". Now where have we heard that?

I never said that the features have to be subduction zones, I'm only saying they are volcanically active, indicating SOME kind of trauma in the mantle beneath, that could manifest itself as subduction zones or rifts or all manner of "cracks" inside the Earth.

Speaking of which, when are we going to see your refutation of the paper I linked to? You know, the one that doesn't show the cracks you say are there in the mantle below the subduction zones?

As far as the fact that it's not a PERFECT circle, well I allow for some deformation of the crater over 4 billion years,

But that's not what you said. You didn't even say a perfect circle. In post #19:

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

And I didn't say the rifts are on the "ring of fire", I said they are in the middle of the plates, not near the "ring of fire". Are you now claiming anything volcanic in the pacific is part of the ring of fire? Or that anything volcanic, in the pacific is due to the cracks from the collision? Either way, you're moving the goalposts on this.

but the cool part of the idea is that perhaps that deformation has been so slow that indeed we are looking at a remnant of a possible great collision that created the Moon.

What is the difference between those regions on the "ring of fire" and those that are not? That's your whole argument. What is the difference between the need for cracks in the ring of fire and no need in other areas? Other than the fact that you don't believe that a circular patter is possible? Why do we need anything other than plate tectonics?

That isn't contradictory in the least. Why can't there be more than one way to create a "hotspot" in the Earth's crust. I'm fascinated by this idea you seem to hold of there being only one way to do this. You know i can shoot the watermelon with a bullet too? or I could heat it until it explodes, or get a beetle to bore in there, etc.

Well than explain to us why we need another method to produce subduction zones and rift zones around the "ring of fire" if we already have one. You keep saying we can have more than one way, but you don't say why we need one, which is the important part. If it's just to sooth your disbelief, than that's neither a good or a very scientific reason.

I also noticed you to seemed to have missed this one:

You keep saying there are cracks lower down that come from the collision, but you don't provide any kind of support for that, except by assertion. And the paper I linked to shows there aren't any such cracks, what actual physical evidence do you have for such cracks? And if you say the subduction zones are the evidence, how are subduction zones based on cracks in the "ring of fire" different from other subduction zones? And why doesn't the paper show these cracks you claim are there?

[CaptainToonces]

Why do we need your idea?

Because we don't yet know where the potential Moon Creating Impact occurred on the surface of the Earth, and if we did we would be better able to prove that that is indeed the way the moon formed, and would gain understanding of that interesting impact, etc.

It's not a bad line of logic.

It is bad logic. You are asserting that hotspots and subduction zones etc. can have only one cause, which is silly. That's like saying a cave can form in only one way.

You keep saying there are cracks lower down that come from the collision, but you don't provide any kind of support for that, except by assertion. And the paper I linked to shows there aren't any such cracks, what actual physical evidence do you have for such cracks?

The very first diagram in the paper you cite shows a crack stretching from the Outer Core zone of the Earth, through the mantle, to the crust.

[R.A.F.]

You are asserting that hotspots and subduction zones etc. can have only one cause, which is silly. That's like saying a cave can form in only one way.

I think your argument could only "benefit" from fewer bad analogies.

[cjameshuff]

Because I am not arguing anything about the position of continents. My theory is about cracks in the Earth's mantle.

The mantle isn't something that can "crack". It's plastic. On a small scale it's more or less solid, but on a planetary scale it flows.

Because accepted theory believes that the Moon formed from a large impact event, but the location of this impact on the Earth's surface has not been determined.

Once again, there is no location on Earth's surface where the impact occurred...that location simply no longer exists. Where on an omelette were the eggs struck to crack them? Earth's surface was completely obliterated by the impact. Both bodies were severely disrupted and large amounts of material, considerably more than a lunar mass, were ejected into a disk while the two bodies merged together and settled once again into hydrostatic equilibrium, much of the ejected material raining back to form Earth's new surface. Your conception of two rigid spheres bouncing off each other is completely at odds with the physics of two planet sized masses impacting at several km/s.

So my claim explains a potential answer to this question better by offering an observation to this accepted theory where there was not observed data before (that being the circular nature of the feature)

You have yet to say why an explanation is necessary. With continents merging into supercontinents and splitting again, wandering all over the globe, roughly circular areas like the Ring of Fire are an expected occurrence, not an unusual one.

[R.A.F.]

...there is no location on Earth's surface where the impact occurred...that location simply no longer exists. Where on an omelette were the eggs struck to crack them?

Now that is an excellent analogy.


Darn, I should have thought of it.

[Tensor]

Because we don't yet know where the potential Moon Creating Impact occurred on the surface of the Earth, and if we did we would be better able to prove that that is indeed the way the moon formed, and would gain understanding of that interesting impact, etc.

Again, because you want it to be, not because you have any kind of evidence for it.

It is bad logic. You are asserting that hotspots and subduction zones etc. can have only one cause, which is silly. That's like saying a cave can form in only one way.

No, I'm not saying it can only form one way. I'm asking why do we need your way. We already have an explanation that does not require cracks in the mantle, which isn't solid anyway, despite your unsupported assertions. The only reason we need another way for those features to form, is support for your idea, that's it. If we don't have your idea, we don't need unseen cracks in the mantle. I really don't care if there is another way or not, as long as there is a good scientific reason and actual physical support for the other way. In your case, there is neither.

The very first diagram in the paper you cite shows a crack stretching from the Outer Core zone of the Earth, through the mantle, to the crust.

LOL, where exactly is the crack? There is oceanic crust. There is a mantle plume. And besides, diagrams aren't all that useful. Why don't you look at actual observations. For instance, check out Fig 6, where the P-wave speed is shown. If there was a crack, the P-wave speed would show up as different somewhere on there. So, where exactly is the crack? And, I suggest you actually read the paper, in addition to looking at the pictures. The paper points out, supported by seismic data, that the subducted crust is cool, but the mantle surrounding it isn't. The subducted crust, especially oceanic, can stay solid down through the mantle, but the mantle itself is not solid.(see figure 7, especially the color enhanced version below the references).

Speaking of which, when are we going to see your refutation of the paper I linked to? You know, the one that doesn't show the cracks, in the actual observations, you say are there in the mantle below the subduction zones? (just to make it clear, I bolded the part about using actual observations (such as P-wave speed, and

But that's not what you said. You didn't even say a perfect circle. In post #19:

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

And I didn't say the rifts are on the "ring of fire", I said they are in the middle of the plates, not near the "ring of fire". Are you now claiming anything volcanic in the pacific is part of the ring of fire? Or that anything volcanic, in the pacific is due to the cracks from the collision? Either way, you're moving the goalposts on this.

So, which one is it? Anything is the "ring of fire" or anything in the pacific is from cracks?

What is the difference between those regions on the "ring of fire" and those that are not? That's your whole argument. What is the difference between the need for cracks in the ring of fire and no need in other areas? Other than the fact that you don't believe that a circular pattern is possible or to help your idea, why do we need anything other than plate tectonics?