• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DangeRuss

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Earth Science
  1. Now we're talking, this is exactly what I am looking for as challenges to my theory are far more productive than praise. Mantle Penetration: Thank you for referring to Kring 1995 as that is renowned and respected paper. I have not challenged Kring's findings for 3 reasons: 1. Kring refers to "impact melts" which are only created when a projectile hits the Earth's surface and is destroyed, leaving a meteorite crater. Quote the Planetary Science Institute: "...so much melt is produced that it forms in the central parts of an impact crater to form cater-fill deposits." My theory is Chicxulub is not a classic impact crater but an "entrance wound" where the comet punched through the Earth's crust. The material in the centre of the Chicxulub crater is not classic impact melt but more closely resembling basalt that cooled over a long period of time. This, to use simple analogies again, is more similar to a wound healing than the surrounding Earth being melted and re-solidifying. 2. To quote your quote: "... the intensity of the shock decays as it moves away from the impact point...". Fring accepts this line of research because the benchmark is the impactor hit the Earth, was destroyed, created a crater and the shock waves moved away from the impact point through 360 degrees. Only if the comet pierced the Earth, entered the mantle and stopped inside the planet could it then have obeyed the laws of ballistics whereby instead of shock waves decaying as they moved away from a central impact point the projectile's momentum was converted into a pulse of energy that moved forward and through the centre of the Earth. 3. More recent research, my paper quotes Hector Durand-Manterola and Guadalupe Cordero-Tercero's research but there are other examples, has discovered the meteorite/asteroid/comet that hit the Earth at Chicxulub was bigger, traveling faster and of a more dense material than thought by Kring. This research points to the projectile penetrating the Earth's crust. The Deccan Traps: The general consensus today for the creation of the Deccan Traps is a giant magma plume from deep within the Earth. There have been questions around the Deccan Traps beginning 1 million years before the Chicxulub impact. However, more recent modeling by internationally known Dr Paul Renne at Berkeley has pushed the impact back a million years so both events did occur at the same time, 66 million years ago. The exact science of how and why magma plumes are created deep within the planet and then find their way to the surface, as at Hawaii today, are inconclusive. There are many theories. I am just adding another theory. If, as the research suggests, a comet did pierce the Earth's crust and enter the mantle then it would obey Newton's laws. Ballistics is clear: when a high speed projectile comes to a stop inside an object the kinetic momentum is transferred directly forward. Not out in all different direction like a meteorite impact but straight ahead. This is a pressure wave. For me, the pressure wave in this case created the magma plume by traveling through the centre of the Earth and pushing up the magma from below. So while the Chicxulub impact could be seen as an entrance wound so the Deccan Traps can be viewed as where the pressure wave exited. Style: Thank you for identifying this. The real problem is a solution. Yes, some of the language is sensationalist but there is years of research, backed up by research from renowned scientists around the world, in this paper. But here's the problem. You can only be published one of two ways: By being a world renowned name - which I am not. Or by grabbing people's attention. The theory could easily be The Kinetic Energy Transfer from the Chichxulub Impact created the Deccan Traps. If I could co-operate with a leading geophysicist then it may become so but at the moment I need the sensationalism so people read the paper and I can work with their feedback, like yours, that is so essential at present. Thanks again, all best Edit: Cheers Studiot. Some of your points are discussed in the paper but you are correct that the "Earth Assassination Theory" needs to change as it is, in fact, the "Earth Assassination Hypothesis". Any better title suggestions welcome....
  2. Cheers Argent, that's exactly the feedback I'm looking for. The existing theories for the KT boundary asteroid impact centre on the projectile hitting the Earth and disintegrating on impact. If you take this as your starting point, which all modern research on the event does, then the Deccan Traps, occurring on the other side of the world about the same time, can only have been created by "antipodal shock waves", energy waves traveling out from a single point (similar to a bomb) pulsing around the world to then meet up at another point, antipodal to where they were created. When the shock waves meet they push magma up through convergent pressure, similar to squeezing a zit. This theory is completely new as it takes as its starting point the asteroid/comet did not explode on impact but was traveling so fast and with so much momentum that it pierced the Earth's crust and entered the mantle. Acknowledged research points to this but the hypothesis has never been proposed before. The analogies of a bomb, bullet to the head, "zit" or assassination are crude but simple so the hypothesis can be quickly visualized. God help me if this is seized upon by conspiracy theorists. Not sure what I could do to stop that happening tho. Cheers again Argent, top stuff
  3. Anyone fancy some "light" reading? I have just finished this research paper and would love any, honest feedback. The theory is new although based on established research: the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs did not just hit the Earth like a nuclear bomb but was more like a bullet to the head: "The Earth Assassination Theory". Had some excellent pointers from a Nobel Prize winner but what is that compared to the forum. Earth Assassination Theory: