The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
traps.
We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
Passage.
Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
(sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 8.12.2021. 6:45, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the
> Deccan traps.
>         We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan
> asteroid impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact
> is Drake Passage.
>         Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it
> intensified at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake
> Passage opened (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of
> Drake Passage could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on
> Antarctica:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Around that time Australia also separated from Antarctica:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana#Australia%E2%80%93Antarctica_separation

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
<mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:

> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>traps.
> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>Passage.
> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>(sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
activity regardless of where they were on Earth.

On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
>> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>> traps.
>> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>> Passage.
>> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
>
> Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
> you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
> things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
> between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
> cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
> show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
> equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
> the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
> likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
> activity regardless of where they were on Earth.

My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
darkness of not knowing.
Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
point and its antipode.
Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
direction of outer ridges.
And so on, and so on...
Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:50:20 PM UTC-8, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
> > <mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
> >
> >> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
> >> traps.
> >> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
> >> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
> >> Passage.
> >> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
> >> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
> >> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
> >> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
> >
> >
> > Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
> > you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
> > things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
> > between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
> > cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
> > show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
> > equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
> > the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
> > likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
> > activity regardless of where they were on Earth.
> My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
> darkness of not knowing.
> Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
> Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
> Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
> orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
> directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
> Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
> much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
> the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
> like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
> pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
> Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
> crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
> point and its antipode.
> Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
> was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
> points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
> If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
> shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
> while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
> antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
> probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
> direction of outer ridges.
> And so on, and so on...
> Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
> ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
> Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
> will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
> less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
> of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
> Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
> Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
> pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

An orange is a VERY poor model for the structure of the earth. So poor, in fact
that there is no use in pointing out the misconceptions you have. You need to read
more about what is known (lots, but definitely not all) about the earth's internals. It'll
take a while.

On 9.12.2021. 4:36, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:50:20 PM UTC-8, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>>> <mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>>>> traps.
>>>> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>>>> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>>>> Passage.
>>>> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>>>> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>>>> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>>>> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
>>> you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
>>> things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
>>> between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
>>> cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
>>> show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
>>> equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
>>> the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
>>> likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
>>> activity regardless of where they were on Earth.
>> My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
>> darkness of not knowing.
>> Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
>> Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
>> Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
>> orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
>> directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
>> Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
>> much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
>> the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
>> like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
>> pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
>> Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
>> crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
>> point and its antipode.
>> Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
>> was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
>> points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
>> If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
>> shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
>> while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
>> antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
>> probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
>> direction of outer ridges.
>> And so on, and so on...
>> Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
>> ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
>> Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
>> will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
>> less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
>> of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
>> Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
>> Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
>> pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.
>
> An orange is a VERY poor model for the structure of the earth. So poor, in fact
> that there is no use in pointing out the misconceptions you have. You need to read
> more about what is known (lots, but definitely not all) about the earth's internals. It'll
> take a while.

As we can see, unexplained happenings from our geo-past can be
explained by this model. It is me who explained them, not you.
All that you said is that you have the knowledge, and that I don't
have it. Which is true, no problem with that. But, the thing is that I
have enough knowledge to understand something, while I didn't hear you,
with all your knowledge, that you managed to understand something.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 02:50:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
<mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:

>On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>>> traps.
>>> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>>> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>>> Passage.
>>> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>>> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>>> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>>> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change..png
>>
>>
>> Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
>> you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
>> things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
>> between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
>> cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
>> show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
>> equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
>> the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
>> likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
>> activity regardless of where they were on Earth.
>
> My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
>darkness of not knowing.

While there are people who fit your description above, you should read
the book and its cites before you declare Douglas Erwin to be one of
them.

While the Chicxulub impactor was large, about 7×10^15 kg, the Earth is
much, much larger, about 6×10^24 kg. The Earth would not have
deformed as you describe below, except as a gross exaggeration.
Instead of slow-motion plastic deformation, the Earth rang like a
church bell hit by a bullet, with a clearly defined impact crater.

Also, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is at least 200 myo, and so its shape was
well-established before Chicxulub struck 66 mya.

Finally, there are explanations based on evidence, and there are
just-so stories based on made-up facts. People who live in the
darkness of not knowing prefer the latter.

> Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
>Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
> Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
>orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
>directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
> Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
>much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
>the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
>like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
>pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
> Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
>crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
>point and its antipode.
> Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
>was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
>points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
> If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
>shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
>while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
>antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
>probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
>direction of outer ridges.
> And so on, and so on...
> Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
>ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
> Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
>will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
>less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
>of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
>Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
> Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
>pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.

On 10.12.2021. 2:32, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 02:50:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
>> On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>>> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>>>> traps.
>>>> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>>>> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>>>> Passage.
>>>> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>>>> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>>>> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>>>> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
>>> you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
>>> things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
>>> between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
>>> cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
>>> show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
>>> equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
>>> the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
>>> likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
>>> activity regardless of where they were on Earth.
>>
>> My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
>> darkness of not knowing.
>
>
> While there are people who fit your description above, you should read
> the book and its cites before you declare Douglas Erwin to be one of
> them.
>
> While the Chicxulub impactor was large, about 7×10^15 kg, the Earth is
> much, much larger, about 6×10^24 kg. The Earth would not have
> deformed as you describe below, except as a gross exaggeration.
> Instead of slow-motion plastic deformation, the Earth rang like a
> church bell hit by a bullet, with a clearly defined impact crater.
>
> Also, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is at least 200 myo, and so its shape was
> well-established before Chicxulub struck 66 mya.
>
> Finally, there are explanations based on evidence, and there are
> just-so stories based on made-up facts. People who live in the
> darkness of not knowing prefer the latter.

In books I only read few sentences of data that interests me, I am not
interested in literacy. You can represent any idea with few sentences,
you don't need to sell a book for that. You sell book for money. Or, of
course, if that book is a collection of data, than the whole book has value.
I was talking about crust, not about whole Earth. Crust flows above
liquid magma. It is pretty unstable, as we can see. And also, features
on it fit my view.
Determining the age of such geologic features is very difficult. I
still remember reading about some impact crater on Tibet plateau.
Scientists aren't quiet sure if it is few tens of thousand years old, or
possibly few million years old. Recently I found some paper that claims
that Red Sea is 13 my old, while definitely it is something like 30 my old.
The problem with explanations based on evidence is that evidence is
problematic, and very prone to interpretation. We do have big brain, but
is this the evidence of intelligence? The second thing, you cannot have
evidence for everything, you only have partial evidence. If you don't
take into account that majority of truth lies on things that you don't
have evidence for, then your theory based only on what you have the
evidence for is completely bogus. You, simply, have to account
*everything* into your theory, both parts, the much smaller part that
you have evidence for, and the much larger part that you don't have
evidence for.
Plus, every evidence can be put into question by anybody. You do an
experiment, and you present the result. But, what is this evidence for?
A global force? No, it is just your interpretation that this represents
something that is global, but actually, this is only the evidence for
this particular event. This is why they mention all those "materials and
procedures" in papers. If you change only one of about 20 things that
you are dealing with, the outcome of the experiment can be completely
different. Change the temperature, altitude, magnetism, the time of day,
or anything else, and the result will be more or less different. This is
why you need to mention everything that you use and do. Change the
version of the program that you are using, and the result can be different.
So, everything is prone to interpretation. And, of course, smart
people interpret things differently than stupid people. But, smart
people are in minority, so the interpretation of stupid people is taken
into account.
And so on, and so on...
Once I wrote something like 3 sheet of paper numbering all the faults
of scientific way. Saying that, science is extremely useful, and the
best thing we have, but to claim that it is god-like perfect, that it is
never wrong, and always right, is just a religious view on science.
Science is earthly thing, with a lot of faults.
But, if you ask me, logic is the god-like, perfect thing. Logic works.
See this:
https://youtu.be/H9PY_3E3h2c

>> Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
>> Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
>> Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
>> orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
>> directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
>> Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
>> much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
>> the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
>> like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
>> pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
>> Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
>> crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
>> point and its antipode.
>> Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
>> was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
>> points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
>> If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
>> shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
>> while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
>> antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
>> probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
>> direction of outer ridges.
>> And so on, and so on...
>> Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
>> ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
>> Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
>> will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
>> less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
>> of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
>> Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
>> Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
>> pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 03:35:53 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
<mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:

>On 10.12.2021. 2:32, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 02:50:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>>>> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>>>>> traps.
>>>>> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>>>>> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>>>>> Passage.
>>>>> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>>>>> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>>>>> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>>>>> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change..png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
>>>> you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
>>>> things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
>>>> between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
>>>> cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
>>>> show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
>>>> equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
>>>> the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
>>>> likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
>>>> activity regardless of where they were on Earth.
>>>
>>> My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
>>> darkness of not knowing.
>>
>>
>> While there are people who fit your description above, you should read
>> the book and its cites before you declare Douglas Erwin to be one of
>> them.
>>
>> While the Chicxulub impactor was large, about 7×10^15 kg, the Earth is
>> much, much larger, about 6×10^24 kg. The Earth would not have
>> deformed as you describe below, except as a gross exaggeration.
>> Instead of slow-motion plastic deformation, the Earth rang like a
>> church bell hit by a bullet, with a clearly defined impact crater.
>>
>> Also, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is at least 200 myo, and so its shape was
>> well-established before Chicxulub struck 66 mya.
>>
>> Finally, there are explanations based on evidence, and there are
>> just-so stories based on made-up facts. People who live in the
>> darkness of not knowing prefer the latter.
>
> In books I only read few sentences of data that interests me, I am not
>interested in literacy.

Read the book before you criticize it, else you end up sounding like
someone living in the darkness of not knowing.

>You can represent any idea with few sentences,
>you don't need to sell a book for that. You sell book for money. Or, of
>course, if that book is a collection of data, than the whole book has value.
> I was talking about crust, not about whole Earth. Crust flows above
>liquid magma. It is pretty unstable, as we can see. And also, features
>on it fit my view.

Liquid magma is not part of the crust, it's part of Earth's gooey
insides.

> Determining the age of such geologic features is very difficult. I
>still remember reading about some impact crater on Tibet plateau.
>Scientists aren't quiet sure if it is few tens of thousand years old, or
>possibly few million years old. Recently I found some paper that claims
>that Red Sea is 13 my old, while definitely it is something like 30 my old.

Since you deny my evidence-based facts, how do you know about the
facts you posted about Antarctica and the Drake Passage and the Deccan
Traps? It's not logical for you to present evidence-based facts and
then criticize me for doing the same.

> The problem with explanations based on evidence is that evidence is
>problematic, and very prone to interpretation. We do have big brain, but
>is this the evidence of intelligence? The second thing, you cannot have
>evidence for everything, you only have partial evidence. If you don't
>take into account that majority of truth lies on things that you don't
>have evidence for, then your theory based only on what you have the
>evidence for is completely bogus. You, simply, have to account
>*everything* into your theory, both parts, the much smaller part that
>you have evidence for, and the much larger part that you don't have
>evidence for.

Whatever problems there are with evidence, the problems with made-up
facts are magnitudes worse.

> Plus, every evidence can be put into question by anybody. You do an
>experiment, and you present the result. But, what is this evidence for?
>A global force? No, it is just your interpretation that this represents
>something that is global, but actually, this is only the evidence for
>this particular event. This is why they mention all those "materials and
>procedures" in papers. If you change only one of about 20 things that
>you are dealing with, the outcome of the experiment can be completely
>different. Change the temperature, altitude, magnetism, the time of day,
>or anything else, and the result will be more or less different. This is
>why you need to mention everything that you use and do. Change the
>version of the program that you are using, and the result can be different.
> So, everything is prone to interpretation. And, of course, smart
>people interpret things differently than stupid people. But, smart
>people are in minority, so the interpretation of stupid people is taken
>into account.
> And so on, and so on...
> Once I wrote something like 3 sheet of paper numbering all the faults
>of scientific way. Saying that, science is extremely useful, and the
>best thing we have, but to claim that it is god-like perfect, that it is
>never wrong, and always right, is just a religious view on science.
>Science is earthly thing, with a lot of faults.
> But, if you ask me, logic is the god-like, perfect thing. Logic works.
>See this:
>https://youtu.be/H9PY_3E3h2c
>
>>> Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
>>> Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
>>> Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
>>> orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
>>> directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
>>> Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
>>> much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
>>> the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
>>> like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
>>> pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
>>> Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
>>> crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
>>> point and its antipode.
>>> Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
>>> was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
>>> points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
>>> If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
>>> shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
>>> while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
>>> antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
>>> probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
>>> direction of outer ridges.
>>> And so on, and so on...
>>> Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
>>> ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
>>> Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
>>> will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
>>> less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
>>> of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
>>> Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
>>> Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
>>> pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.

On 10.12.2021. 5:30, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 03:35:53 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
>> On 10.12.2021. 2:32, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 02:50:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>>> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8.12.2021. 23:20, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:45:19 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>> <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The term "traps" I am using here only to make parallel with the Deccan
>>>>>> traps.
>>>>>> We see that Deccan traps were at the opposite side of Yucatan asteroid
>>>>>> impact. Well, at the opposite side of Popigai asteroid impact is Drake
>>>>>> Passage.
>>>>>> Ice began to collect on Antarctica some 45.5 mya. But it intensified
>>>>>> at the time of Popigai impact. They don't know when Drake Passage opened
>>>>>> (sometime 47 to 17 mya), but they take that opening of Drake Passage
>>>>>> could have a role in intensifying the collection of ice on Antarctica:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#History
>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you mention the Deccan Traps and Yucutan asteroid aka Chicxulub,
>>>>> you might find interesting some things Douglas Erwin wrote about these
>>>>> things in his book "Extinction". Apparently there is a correlation
>>>>> between earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that earthquakes tend to
>>>>> cause nearby volcanoes to erupt, depending on distance. Calculations
>>>>> show that the Chicxulub impact had the energy at the epicenter
>>>>> equivalent to exceeding magnitude 11, and so almost certainly caused
>>>>> the entire Earth to shake violently. Although the Deccan Traps were
>>>>> likely already erupting, the impact would have increased their
>>>>> activity regardless of where they were on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> My view is that such a theory produces the one who lives in the
>>>> darkness of not knowing.
>>>
>>>
>>> While there are people who fit your description above, you should read
>>> the book and its cites before you declare Douglas Erwin to be one of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> While the Chicxulub impactor was large, about 7×10^15 kg, the Earth is
>>> much, much larger, about 6×10^24 kg. The Earth would not have
>>> deformed as you describe below, except as a gross exaggeration.
>>> Instead of slow-motion plastic deformation, the Earth rang like a
>>> church bell hit by a bullet, with a clearly defined impact crater.
>>>
>>> Also, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is at least 200 myo, and so its shape was
>>> well-established before Chicxulub struck 66 mya.
>>>
>>> Finally, there are explanations based on evidence, and there are
>>> just-so stories based on made-up facts. People who live in the
>>> darkness of not knowing prefer the latter.
>>
>> In books I only read few sentences of data that interests me, I am not
>> interested in literacy.
>
>
> Read the book before you criticize it, else you end up sounding like
> someone living in the darkness of not knowing.

Good enough for me. This "argument" reminds me on Bible. You cannot
criticize it if you didn't read it altogether. Nice "argument" you have.
I was talking about what you said about the book, I don't care about the
book, I care about ideas, not about books or their authors. My ideas are
never about me.

>> You can represent any idea with few sentences,
>> you don't need to sell a book for that. You sell book for money. Or, of
>> course, if that book is a collection of data, than the whole book has value.
>> I was talking about crust, not about whole Earth. Crust flows above
>> liquid magma. It is pretty unstable, as we can see. And also, features
>> on it fit my view.
>
>
> Liquid magma is not part of the crust, it's part of Earth's gooey
> insides.

Well, didn't I say that crust is above magma, or something?

>> Determining the age of such geologic features is very difficult. I
>> still remember reading about some impact crater on Tibet plateau.
>> Scientists aren't quiet sure if it is few tens of thousand years old, or
>> possibly few million years old. Recently I found some paper that claims
>> that Red Sea is 13 my old, while definitely it is something like 30 my old.
>
>
> Since you deny my evidence-based facts, how do you know about the
> facts you posted about Antarctica and the Drake Passage and the Deccan
> Traps? It's not logical for you to present evidence-based facts and
> then criticize me for doing the same.

I was talking about a lot of evidence, you were talking only about one
evidence, or some narrow field of evidences.
BTW, it isn't about the evidence, it is about the logic that connects
different evidence, that explains all the different things. I said, this
is the same mechanism as in orange. You say, I have the exact photo of
what happened, my single evidence, which is only loosely connected to
some other evidence, is the exact photo, is all the evidence that you
need, no need to connect it to other things, this evidence is everything
that you need. It doesn't need bonds to other things, it is
self-explanatory. You don't say, this logic connects this evidence to
some other evidence, you just said that this evidence is the key that
explains everything. Something like circular thinking.

>> The problem with explanations based on evidence is that evidence is
>> problematic, and very prone to interpretation. We do have big brain, but
>> is this the evidence of intelligence? The second thing, you cannot have
>> evidence for everything, you only have partial evidence. If you don't
>> take into account that majority of truth lies on things that you don't
>> have evidence for, then your theory based only on what you have the
>> evidence for is completely bogus. You, simply, have to account
>> *everything* into your theory, both parts, the much smaller part that
>> you have evidence for, and the much larger part that you don't have
>> evidence for.
>
>
> Whatever problems there are with evidence, the problems with made-up
> facts are magnitudes worse.

Oh, definitely. This isn't for fools, this is only for smart people.
Evidence-based explanations are tailored so that every idiot can easily
"understand" it. When you have a movie shot 45 kya with Neanderthals on
it, every idiot sees how Neanderthals looked like. But, when you lack a
lot, now this is when only smart people can give some credible (more or
less) answers. Idiots will be completely lost.

>> Plus, every evidence can be put into question by anybody. You do an
>> experiment, and you present the result. But, what is this evidence for?
>> A global force? No, it is just your interpretation that this represents
>> something that is global, but actually, this is only the evidence for
>> this particular event. This is why they mention all those "materials and
>> procedures" in papers. If you change only one of about 20 things that
>> you are dealing with, the outcome of the experiment can be completely
>> different. Change the temperature, altitude, magnetism, the time of day,
>> or anything else, and the result will be more or less different. This is
>> why you need to mention everything that you use and do. Change the
>> version of the program that you are using, and the result can be different.
>> So, everything is prone to interpretation. And, of course, smart
>> people interpret things differently than stupid people. But, smart
>> people are in minority, so the interpretation of stupid people is taken
>> into account.
>> And so on, and so on...
>> Once I wrote something like 3 sheet of paper numbering all the faults
>> of scientific way. Saying that, science is extremely useful, and the
>> best thing we have, but to claim that it is god-like perfect, that it is
>> never wrong, and always right, is just a religious view on science.
>> Science is earthly thing, with a lot of faults.
>> But, if you ask me, logic is the god-like, perfect thing. Logic works.
>> See this:
>> https://youtu.be/H9PY_3E3h2c
>>
>>>> Per my view, things are pretty simple. Take an orange as a model for
>>>> Earth. It has soft inside, it has crust.
>>>> Put it on a table, and press it from above. You will compress the
>>>> orange in a vertical direction. The compression will be the biggest
>>>> directly up, but this force will act vertically down.
>>>> Now, since it has crust, as much as it is compressed vertically, that
>>>> much it will dilute horizontally. The dilution will be the biggest at
>>>> the half way point between upper pressure point, and it6s antipode (so,
>>>> like, on the equator, a temporal, like, equator, in regards to the
>>>> pressure point, not in regards to the axis of rotation).
>>>> Now, the crust at this "equator" would dilute so much, that it would
>>>> crack. Cracks will be in vertical direction pointing to the compression
>>>> point and its antipode.
>>>> Now, exactly this happened on Earth after asteroid impacts. 35 mya it
>>>> was asteroid impact at Popigai, north Siberia. African Rift valley
>>>> points in that direction, and it started to emerge 35 mya.
>>>> If you take a look at the mid-Atlantic ridge, you will see that it is
>>>> shaped like "Z". The middle part of that "Z" points towards Yucatan,
>>>> while the outer two parts point roughly towards Popigai and its
>>>> antipode. "Roughly" just because the ridge that pointed to Yucatan
>>>> probably already existed before the Popigai impact, so it messed up the
>>>> direction of outer ridges.
>>>> And so on, and so on...
>>>> Maybe to point on that we have two types of crusts, dense and brittle
>>>> ocean floor, and more sparse mainland, which is elastic.
>>>> Now, those two will react differently on dilution. Brittle ocean floor
>>>> will crack like glass, while mainland will start to inflate (just like
>>>> less dense area of balloon, when you inflate it), pushed by the pressure
>>>> of magma. During Popigai impact Kenya was at the half way point, and
>>>> Kenya, which was a lowland at that time, started to inflate at that time.
>>>> Of course, ocean floor cracks would eject a lot of lava, which will
>>>> pollute ocean water, so this is why animals in ocean go extinct.