Quote# 143152

Origin of the moon

If the current understanding of the origin of the moon is that the Earth was struck by a large Mars-like object wouldn't there be some large scale evidence of that? Even a glancing blow would still impart a tremendous amount of energy.

South Pole Aitken Basin is approximately 2500 km across.The semi-square semicircular plate of land near Taiwain is around 2500 km across.

There appear to be energy waves rippling out from that location in the features of Earth's surface. If you follow the direction of the "cracks" you generally end up at u shaped bends of land like near Alaska, Panama, Chile, between south America and Antarctica doesn't have a Continent behind it like the rest of the Americas so that energy wave isn't dissipated and sweeps all the way up to india.

The Himalayan Mountains were created by the backward energy wave propagating through the land.

Plate tectonics were created by this event. They follow fracture analysis patterns indicating a impact near Taiwan.

The orientation of the Lunar Plane makes sense with a hit in that location in that direction.


[...]

Be_Genuine: Is this a question, a fan fiction theory...?


Ktownkemist: It's an observation based on geological and chemical data.

Using the scientific principles of fracture analysis in regards to our planet. (Earth is basically a giant piece of glass.)

There is too much compelling evidence to deny there is not something interesting going on here.


Be_Genuine: No, Earth is certainly not like a giant piece of glass. It's not even half SiO2 and most of that is in crystal form or non-solid state anyway. The other posters have already made short work of this (conspiracy) "theory." The observations you made have are spurious and have other causes. The Himalayas, for example, were (created from the indo-euroasian collision, not, what you said, a backripple of energy?


Ktownkemist: Actually it is like a giant piece of glass. In what ways is it not? Glass doesn't have to be 50% SiO2. Glass can be crystalline, liquid or amorphous.

There isn't a lot of evidence to back up your claims unfortunately.

I'm still not sure why you use such inflammatory language besides trying to make me look "stupid". If you want to comment with science do it, but don't call me a conspiracy theorist because that's just not nice and it has a very bad connotation associated with it.


Be_Genuine: Glass cannot be crystalline, that is against the very geologic definition of the word. glass: an amorphous, non crystalline solid. Most glass we refer to is primarily SiO2, thus why I brought up the composition percentages. As for a lack of evidence, I'd be happy to link you some papers about the Tibetan uplift, Himalayan orogeny, subduction zone/island arc volcanology (which explains the "U-shaped" land around Alaska and Chile, and evidence that the moon was formed from an impact early on after the earth had zoned. As for the "inflammatory language" I guess it was a gut response to what I interpreted as someone trying to use pseudo science (or a lack of understanding) to promote an idea that looks plausible but, when the evidence is examined, is not. In the age of anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, I may be a bit hair triggered with clamping down on misinformation.


Ktownkemist: Glass can be crystalline. It can have crystalline grains embedded in a noncrystalline matrix. That is what glass means: as long as there is no observable macroscopic pattern you can have as many microcrystals as you want.

Go ahead and link the papers I'm sure they are fundamentally lacking some concept.


Be_Genuine: Yes. Microcrystalline particles in an amorphous matrix does not constitute a crystalline structure. And bingo! There's the conspiracy theorist showing itself. I won't bother sending the papers - you've decided anything that could disprove your "theory" must be fundamentally flawed. Real science looks for ways to disprove theories, especially our own, not to ignore evidence that would contradict our ideas. That is the mentality I hope to help people overcome, and the reason I call out posts like this.


[...]

Ktownkemist, r/geology 2 Comments [4/6/2019 10:37:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: dxdydz

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Kanna

Plate tectonics weren't "created" by an impact. You really need to look at something like a bubbling pot of hot oatmeal, where you can see how plates rise and subside at their edges.

4/6/2019 2:14:59 PM

DarkPhoenix

This is so absolutely stupid that it gives me a headache. Why aren't there any impact signs of the collision that created the Moon? Probably because the surface was molten rock at the time...

And that doesn't even bring the Late Heavy Bombardment into this, which re-melted the surface for another few million years and is why we have trouble finding rocks older than 3.9 billion years...

4/11/2019 8:45:55 AM

1 | top: comments page