William sent in the links. Go to https://eos.org/article/huge-global-tsunami-followed-dinosaur-killing-as… … huge global tsunami followed the dinosaur killing asteroid impact – with waves up to 1500m high. Water then began to fill the gaping crater formed by the impact which triggered a secondary tsunami event. The Gulf of Mexico was effected the most – but its configuration was somewhat different in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. According to consensus Plate Tectonics there was a yawning gap between North and South America – and the isthmus did not exist. Hence, the tsunami wave had access to both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and supposedly both affected the NE Atlantic shoreline and the South Pacific region. See the video at the link for the extent of tsunami wave. Of course, if the ishmus was always in existence a different model might be required – but don't spoil the storyline. What is really interesting here is that the paper is suggesting that sedimentary layers from the Upper Cretaceous may have been laid down in the tsunami. This would presumably include the chalk – or at least the Upper Chalk layer (with its flint inclusions). Is this at all tenable?
See also https://eos.org/article/cores-crater-tied-dinosaur-demise-validate-impac… … and https://eos.org/article/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-impact-made-huge-dead-… …
Molly Range, a paleoceanographer from the University of Michigan, with a team of fellow researchers, did a global simulation of the impact. They calculated the tsunami would have been as high as 14m but on the approach to land they would have been considerably higher (moving up the continental shelf systems). They estimate the tsunami wave would have pooled water on the ocean floor and caused the sediments to be driven before the wave, throwing them onto the land. In concensus geology the chalk was formed on the sea bed of a shallow ocean environment and has since been raised above sea level by tectonic forces – a somewhat vague terminology. However, the chalk was laid down in at least three different phases, it is thought, and not all at once. Would that require three huge tsunami events. At this point the theory gets a bit complicated but at least the idea has now been aired in conventional journals. It was always obvious that sedimentary layers must have been laid down at the K/T boundary event – and it is only peculiar in that it has not been aired in a reasonable manner prior to this paper. One may also wonder what the Deccan Traps also achieved from a geological sedimentary perspective – in the surrounding environment. The results were presented at the AGU autumn conference (2018) in Washington DC. See https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/445502 …
This leads directly into the second link at https://scientificamerican.com/article/hot-dispute-emerges-over-first-la… … which I can remember posting on the news a couple of years ago. When did the land bridge between North and South America come into being? In an earth expansion model the ishmus has always existed – but not in Plate Tectonics theory. The consensus view is that the land bridge first emerged 3 million years ago – and this is based largely on the fauna and flora exchange between North and South America. The idea that the ishmus was already there but possibly submerged by a different global geoid is not part of the research – and it is perhaps far fetched in any case.
Well, when they were widening the Panama Canal a few years back geologists came up with some surprising results that completely miffed the 3 million year date. The land bridge existed at least as long as 15 million years ago – or even earlier. This fueled a massive circling of the wagons by the consensus geologists who claimed there was no evidence of animals crossing between the two pieces of the Americas prior to 3 million years ago. Perhaps they were washed away after submergence – but that is not an idea appealing to mainstream. After 4 years of study Camilo Montes and his team of evolutionary biologists and geologists thought they had amassed enough evidence to show the consensus model may not be strictly true – and more research was necessary. The age of the rocks and fossils retrieved seemed to show an older age for the ishmus. Perhaps it was all a matter of not enough imagination. Montes expected significant resistance, especially by those geologists that had devised the 3 million years ago consensus model – but he was surprised at the barrage of invective aimed at him and his team. Was it time to retreat – but too late. The paper had been published. What Montes did not expect was character assassination and the accusation of shoddy research aimed at his team – even ofter they had gone out of there way not to publish until they had accumulated a good case for their position. It just goes to show that such invective is not peculiar to climate science, as some maintain, but is endemic to science in general. What Montes never took into account was that the 3 million year date was a pillar holding up gradualist theories of the past, as once the land bridge formed the Ice Ages could begin. Without the 3 million years date for the ishmus forming they would have had to search around for a different mechanism than changing ocean circulation systems. This occurred when the seaway was shut by the forming of the ishmus – and the Ice Ages happened shortly afterwards. One may even wonder now if Ice Ages exist only in the imagination of mainstream. Do they really have evidence of multiple ice ages or is it just evidence of polar ice caps. The whole theory of the seaway between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans may just be wishful thinking – a false premise. In other words, Montes and his team hads not simply found evidence the ishmus had existed much earlier than previously allowed but they had caused a problem to the uniformitarian model in which the Ice Ages play an important part – especially in Plate Tectonics theory. Neither side has thought of submergence as a possibility – but one side has certainly tried to bully the other side and most geologists have subsequently steered clear of the debate in fear of being on the wrong end of the same kind of bile. Obviously, more research is necessary but it doesn't seem this is likely for awhile as one side has poisoned the debate (and perhaps that was what they intended all along). Preservation of the uniformitarian model at all costs seems to be the order of the day. In Plate Tectonics theory South America separated from Gondwanaland 180 million years ago – South America drifting to its current position, divided from Africa but yet to join up with North America. A large area of ocean water existed between the two sections of the Americas, it is thought – which gradually narrowed until they bumped into each other. Why this involved a narrow ishmus between the two is not adequately explained – but presumably there is a geological reason for this. In the expanding earth model it is much simpler – the ishmus has always been there (but not necessarily above sea level). The problem mainstream have is that it is thought an ocean as deep as 2km separated the two piece of the Americas – as part of the Tethys sea system. Is this an imaginary scenario?
Well done William for forwarding this interesting link. It raises some interesting anomalies that will require a mainstream re-assessment at some stage. Sooner the better. How fragile is the Plate Tectonics consensus theory?