Ice impacts on Viscous and Solid Targets - The Story of the Carolina Bays
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 фев 2025
- This video discusses the mathematical model for calculating the size of the Younger Dryas comet and analyzes impacts of ice on various targets.
Dr. Martin Sweatman's book "Prehistory Decoded" amzn.to/3pmWLDi
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's encouraging to know that other "experts" are looking at your work and asking questions. You're making them think.
Thinking is good. :-)
As a person who has very weak mathematical skill , thanks for making these videos so understandable that even I can understand your theory !
I was wondering about this after watching one of your other videos. I though the harder ground must be why you don't see them in some places. Nicely done.
It makes me happy that there are still some true scientists left in the world.
The "terra firma" result at 15:56 was sort of shiver-inducing. Great work! Of course, skeptics may ask you the details of the material you used for "terra firma" to probe if it really is analogous to typical soil.
The target is the same mixture that I use for the viscous impacts: equal parts of sand and pottery clay, but in this case it was dry. I usually add enough water to get a consistency like bricklayer's mortar to prepare the target for viscous impacts.
Thank you for sharing your fascinating work!
Thank you for posting interesting ideas on a cold winter night.
The energies involved are so mind-boggling that it makes sense to compare them to nuclear explosions.
Nuclear blasts begin as concentrated spikes of extreme thermal energy with expand and dissipate as atmospheric shock waves, seismic waves and displaced ground (craters).
All the energy in a falling supersonic ice boulder is kinetic and gravimetric potential energy, but is still cold at the center. It is fascinating to imagine how all of that energy would be converted on impact. Would the atmospheric shock wave be strong enough to kill every animal even if they were not crushed? It would seem most of the kinetic energy would be transfered to the ground as shock waves and 'lifting' the material from conical cavity, which would convert to heat as it relaxed. Were the Carolina bays steaming or boiling immediately after impact? The density of impacts was so high, the whole area could have been cooked? If one knew the heat capacity of the ground and the volume of the conical cavity, it seems like the temperature rise could be estimated.
I don't think that the ground had a chance to warm up with all that ice coming down. But you are right, the generated heat probably contributed to faster melting of the ice boulders. I discussed this melting in another video. ruclips.net/video/VkJZdCkuzP8/видео.html
I wish I could see the event Hear it. It had to be amazing
If you could see an hear it, it would be unlikely that you would survive !?
Hard to comprehend giant chunks of ice, some as big as office buildings being launched on a ballistic curve, and land 1,500 miles away. That beats artillery easy. Many of these icy boulders reached altitudes comparable to Low Earth Orbit. If they were traveling faster (17,500 miles per hour), they would have orbited around Earth. We might have had rings like Saturn.
All your methodologies are very reasonable, and the math works well. When Oklahoma Federal Building was blown up, the FBI measured the crater (diameter and depth) and used similar charts. They came up with a yield of the bomb. It turned out to be within 5 percent of actual amount used by Timothy McVeigh.
I love this scientific exploration. Thanks for your work!
While one can say that your experiment with shooting ice cubes with a slingshot is far from the aspect of an ice boulder moving with ballistic speed it is still a relatable presentation. It is also an attempt that tries to find some answers rather than just theories that hold no or little water. Perhaps you could invest in or design an "ice cannon" to bring your experiments with shooting ice at various substrates up to sufficient velocities to get better data?
Ice balll cannons already exist for testing the strength of windows and solar panels against hail storms.
Fascinating results. Thank you for your work.
Thank you sir.
Is it fair to say that the research is never completed?
Like a piece of art, it is only ever abandoned.
I can't speak to the energies involved.
I do ponder at the terminal velocity of a chunk of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
What fraction of the launch velocity is retained after apogee?
I have some knowledge of bullet trajectories.
I seem to recall that perhaps some of the impact debris reached sub-orbital heights?
The chunks changing state prior to, at or near apogee?
Maybe those Star Wars DARPA programs re Rods From God might help re energies involved.
All the ice projectiles that made Carolina Bays had suborbital space flights above the atmosphere. Some of your questions are answered in this video: ruclips.net/video/KUKM3CYsOlE/видео.html
One factor that is usually not considered during re-entry is that this was a saturation bombardment and clusters of ice boulders followed each other using slip-streaming to reduce re-entry ablation.
@@Antonio_Zamora Thank you. I had a look. Cheers.
Thanks Antonio, muchas gracias por el duro trabajo!
A comet hitting the ice sheet would melt an unbelievable amount of ice. Have you found any evidence of massive flooding associated with this time period?
The draining of Lake Agassiz coincides with the time of the impact. ruclips.net/video/cawrBvT1MHM/видео.html
This just amazing work 🙏🙏🙏
If glacial ice also contained rocks, is it possible to find, out of place rocks, left behind by ice boulders on hard ground? If we can find a piece of rock in areas of hard ground that have geologic indicators that the rock is of similar conglomeration of rocks found in Michigan, then this evidence could help to prove the theory. As long as there is no other way (like rivers) that the rock could have got to that area.
Thus far we have only looked for rocks from Michigan in a small Carolina Bay. ruclips.net/video/2IjnWHqa_0U/видео.html
@@Antonio_Zamora I have searched for years to find stories or legends handed down through native american tribes, with the hope of uncovering a tribe that is related to the Clovis. The best i have found is the Waccamaw who supposedly call themselves, the people of the falling star. Which is supposed to be how the carolina bay Waccamaw lake was formed. If they truly have a story or legend of a time when this occured, i have yet to confirm this, i hope you might be able to find out.
@@yardsaleuw3075 When I visited the area in 2017, I heard the same story about the people of the falling star from a park ranger. However, from the number of Carolina Bays, I am sure that the area would not have had any survivors. Whoever occupied the land after the cataclysm had to come from west of the Rockies or from Mexico.
ruclips.net/video/WLk5c5iaxrM/видео.html
@@Antonio_Zamora I always assumed that any survivors would have lived in Mexico or Central America and migrated north, along with the Buffalo and most of the animals we have today. That would explain the Mound builders along the River systems. I did manage to find a cherokee folklore that talked about some of them going into an underground village. Probably in one of Kentuckys cave systems, but i cant prove it was that far back in time. I dont give up hope that someday DNA research might tell us if anyone in N. America survived the Y.D. Thank you very much.
@@yardsaleuw3075 you may want to check the obijua( hope I spelled it right) tribes that populate all of michigan
Could any erratic boulders from the iceberg impactors be identified at lower latitudes with no other geological explanation for their location? That would support the hard ground impact theory.
I participated in the first field excavation to look for clasts at the location where an ice boulder might have ended. Here is a video about that: ruclips.net/video/2IjnWHqa_0U/видео.html
I'd expect an ice projectile to shatter and vaporize upon contact with solid ground.
Consider how a snow ball disintegrates when contacting a hard surface.
Ice is a poor conductor of heat. The mechanical energy of an impact is not readily transformed into heat. The impact of an ice projectile results in breakage and the kinetic energy is transferred to the pieces. The vaporization of the projectile would require two phase transitions. Converting solid ice to water requires 80 calories per gram, and changing water to vapor requires 540 calories per gram.
Shoot a block of ice at a block of ice. There will be ice cubes raining everywhere and not all will be vaporized.
Hey Antonio, I got a few puzzling questions for you and would really like to hear your thoughts. In the deep sandy soil of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, is it possible that during emplacement into the soupy/viscous ground the ice boulders didn't need to be as large as currently theorized (e.g. 1/5 the diameter of the "bay")? I'm not saying the ice boulders didn't penetrate the soil, I'm suggesting that maybe the impacts into the viscous medium created a "shockwave" that propagated outward like a stone thrown into a pond and once enough energy dissipated, the shockwave "rim" was left frozen in place. After all, a very small stone can leave a huge "ripple". Thoughts?
Also, although this theory might have difficulty accounting for the inverted rim stratigraphy as replicated by your ice projectile experiments, it may explain why the bays in the Mid-Atlantic (and northward) appear MUCH smaller than the bays in the Atlantic Coastal Plain despite those areas being presumably inundated with similarly sized ice boulders. I just find it curious that the largest bays we see just happen to be located in flattest terrain in America and ideal for creating a soupy viscous soil, and maybe deriving your energy density requirements from an average area of the SE is giving you a falsely high calculation. Have you performed an energy density calculation on an average 1 km x 1 km bay-covered area in DE, for instance? I'm willing to bet there is probably an order of magnitude difference in energy density compared to the calculations derived from the 1 km x 1 km area in SC you used to derive the energy density. If so, this could reduce the minimum size of the comet, glacial ice thickness, and glacial ice boulder mass required for your scenario to be feasible.
Austin, my use of the projectile diameter as 1/5 the length of the Carolina Bay is a simplification of multiple examples of using the yield law equations correlating crater size to projectile diameter. The results vary depending on the density of the projectile, target, etc.
See: pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~rbeyer/crater_p.html
Also check out the video where I relate the size of the projectile to the crater size: ruclips.net/video/jVv4GPoGnS4/видео.htmlsi=cUrKLd5exuqoIkrS&t=172
@@Antonio_Zamora hey, thank you for the resource, I'm playing around with it now. Respectfully speaking, isn't the commonly used 1:5 impactor-to-crater ratio based on impacts onto solid terrestrial and non-viscous soil, whereas your hypothesis relies on impacts onto viscous liquified soil? I know this scenario is unprecedented and no one knows exactly what would happen, but my mind tells that the more soupy and viscous the soil was at time of emplacement, the more exaggerated in diameter the "crater" rim would appear, much like how a stone thrown into a pond would ripple outward. I may be way off the mark here, but just wanted to run that by you.
@@AustinKoleCarlisle You are not way off, but there is a difference between being able to displace material to form a cavity and transmitting energy to form a wave. Pay close attention to this video: ruclips.net/user/shortsTxehkX69mqo
You will notice in the slow-motion part that a circular shock wave emanates from the impact site and it leaves a slight circular mark just beyond the crater rim of the penetration funnel. There is a partition of energy between crater formation and seismic wave generation.
@@Antonio_Zamora please be aware that i'm not trying to call into question your hypothesis and real-life experiments, but given that small scale experiments don't always perfectly extrapolate to a large scale, is it possible the ice boulders actually exploded immediately upon emplacement into the viscous soil, sending shockwaves laterally and creating the raised "rims"? of course the impactor's (much smaller) "penetration funnel/crater" would have still been subsequently filled in by viscous relaxation per your hypothesis and experiments.
i realize it would be impossible to replicate this scenario at any scale given the more powerful dynamics required to explode the impactor, but it's just something to consider. one of the biggest criticisms against your hypothesis seems to be the required mass of the comet (and glacier ice boulders). i'm really curious to know the calculated mass of the comet and glacier ice if you used the energy density of the "New Jersey band" and extrapolated that to the entire 1500 km radius instead of using the "Carolina band" which may be resulting in falsely high energy and mass requirements. Just a thought!
@@AustinKoleCarlisle I have mentioned in the past that I don't know how the ice boulders maintained their integrity after hitting the target surface. It is possible that they didn't, but the crushed ice mass continued its trajectory due to its momentum.
Would it be just a block of ice from the glacier, or would it be more of a slush ball of ice, rock, and dirt? Exiting the atmosphere then reentering should first break it apart then consolidate it to a degree or melt it upon reentry, right?
The projectiles that made the Carolina Bays were chunks of glacier ice, not slush balls. The ejected ice avoided ablation during launch because the explosion that followed the ET impact lifted the ice along with the atmosphere to high altitude. Then, the ice boulders traveled in a vacuum which eliminated any water. During re-entry some ice boulders broke apart and suffered ablation, but they reached the ground. It is explained here: ruclips.net/video/KUKM3CYsOlE/видео.html
@@Antonio_Zamora you really think the glacier pieces ejected from the impact were able to maintain solidity despite the huge forces on them and velocities when they were launched out? Ice surely isn't that resilient under such pressures to maintain a unified body. It has to shatter into smaller pieces and be grouped together in larger and smaller conglomerations during its launch and reentry
@@Antonio_Zamora There was of course soil and rock embedded in the ice, right? Wouldn't a worthy goal to be a survey of enough bays in the area the impactor to find these remnants?
@@neoclassic09 Hypervelocity impacts on an ice sheet eject large chunks of ice. This has been demonstrated experimentally many times. The expansion of the vapor plume carries the ice, so it is not exposed to huge forces like you say. See the video with Prof. Schultz: ruclips.net/video/tv3jxaZVjFM/видео.html
@@Antonio_Zamora Would it be possible for the Bays to contain rock debris from the original site that traveled with the ice, or some of the pieces could have just been rock or earth, although most were Ice? The glacier could have been of varying thickness at the impact location, and surely some earth was ejected.
Antonio, by which e-mail adress can we contact you?
i've found some interesting features on a LOT of bays, and compiled sort of a database that 'proves' that method for creating these bays, was by impactors and not eolian/lacustrian. Basically they are marks of where the impactor came to rest. Always the same portion of a bay, and largely scale invariant.
You can contact me through my consulting web site at the bottom of the page: www.zamoraconsulting.com/
*Mark Rober
Perhaps Martin is equating the energy calculations with a mushroom cloud, when really we are looking at more of a splash if your assumption of the ground being liquefied is correct. I would assume that a lot of the energy would be absorbed/converted into motion of the surface, rather than an explosive detonation.
The boulder fields in the Appalachians look to be the result of large floods, which could be the result of ice, snow and rain landing on rock.
Perhaps a full scale demonstration of an impact might convince habitual skeptics.
LOL!
Wait, where did the drum-roll come from?
The drum-roll is used to cue the impact... br.br.br.br.br.br.br.br.. POW!
I suggested these were impacts in 96 and my boss laughed at me. There is no other logical explanation.
You should have pursued your idea. Firestone did not publish about it until 2006. However, the impact ideas had been around since 1933 as vague speculations.
Have you worked out how many potential Tsar Bomb equivalent blasts that occurred in the Carolina blast ring/radius across the whole continental blast zone?
That would look awesome as an animation, nothing can come close to the spectacular nature of this event, nothing I can think of, I mean you haven't even gone into what happened off the N-E Atlantic coastlines, just imagine the waves of tsunamis rolling across the ocean from the event.
It was a really terrifying event. The seismic vibrations liquefied the ground. You sank to your knees in the muck, and then a large ice boulder pushed you 400 meters into the earth while grinding your body into a paste.
@@Antonio_Zamora Amazing work. Can you detect if any rivers changed course?
@@ZiggyDan The ice bombardment that created the Carolina Bays caused subsequent flooding when the ice melted. This video discusses that: ruclips.net/video/VkJZdCkuzP8/видео.html
@@Antonio_Zamora ...Thank you.
That was a big-ass space rock. I wonder when the next one arrives?
Mark Roper would be interested in making a cannon that could shoot ice. probably even ballistically. He is an x nasa engineer. or he could direct you in the right direction. might cost 100,000's , but hey what is $ for?
There are industrial guns that shoot ice balls. They are used for testing the resistance of solar panels and car windshields to hail. I mentioned them in a previous video. ruclips.net/video/94km3ZKiPSE/видео.html
How about for ice boulders and damage done look, at that iceberg and what it did to the Titanic. Joking aside, there are regular events of icebergs in Antarctica, running aground or colliding with each other. You might be able to gleen shock effects or tensile mechanisms. Cheers!
Tony I would be very interested in a online collaboration including yourself, Graham, Ben(UnchartedX), Brien Forester, Randall, Ben(SuspiciousObserver), George Howard, Chuck(cf-apps-7865) and Robert Schoch. The title and focus of “conference” could be: Advanced Catastrophism - 2021 , An honest discussion. Thanks for vlog ...
why not add, bigfoot, the man in the moon, the loch ness monster and the ghost of DB Cooper to further discredit Antonio's truly scientific stand alone theory.
@@frankielananna4831 has nothing to do with discrediting Antonio, in fact quite a compliment and he knows it ...it’s to encourage and share knowledge. There are areas of catastrophism that are mutual to all of the YD “theories”. As someone who is fascinated and drawn to the this wide subject of catastrophism- I would welcome such an event. NONE of us know the answer - We are all learning ...if you are threatened by collaboration then stay in the basement...
DB Cooper is still alive too ...he lives with tribe of hairy dudes with big ass feet ..
Be sure to get a good professional recording of your meeting including a spell checked cc.
could this impact have created a shift in the position of the north pole? It would make sense since the northern siberian coastline populated by millions of mammoths, mastodonts etc ( temperate zone dwellers)fell suddenly in the northern siberian climate we now know and would explain the millions of dead mega fauna found there in the permafrost. the temperature drop must have been so fast as to maintain fresh the food found in the mouths of those dead animals.
The shifting of the North Pole was suggested by Hapgood. See this video: ruclips.net/video/hF0QLeuF5yg/видео.html
The largest ice impact I’ve found is at Kantubek, Uzbekistan... the old Russian bio-weapons lab site. Then look at Meyghan, Iran & see what turned Lot’s wife into a “pillar of salt.” You’ll be surprised at what created the “Carolina Bays.”
So it means that 50 megatons kinetic energy boulder would just bounce several times from hard ground, and this prevents from leaving one huge creater? And energy transferred to ground on one such bounce was just not enough to form a creater which can be detected after 12k years?
I mentioned in the video that "This bouncing behavior would not be expected for large ice projectiles." An ice projectile with a diameter of 400 to 500 meters hitting hard ground at 3000 m/s could not hold together upon impact. I quoted Prof, Erland Schulson, who said that the brittle failure of ice under compression is marked by sudden material collapse after shortening less than about half a percent.
@@Antonio_Zamora so some energy(not very big fraction) will be spent on splitting initial projectile to lot of small pieces, little energy will be transferred to ground to form a little creater, a most part of the initial energy will be kinetic energy of "secondary" projectiles flying away from impact point at low trajectories (as i see from your experiments) and losing energy because of atmospheric friction and series of smaller and smaller impacts with earth. Am I right?
By the way, this seems to be even worse scenario for local megafauna, then carolina bays. Everyone will be killed by low-flying high speed small ice pieces like buckshot
@@pavlikkk101 Your description is basically correct. From the impact of ice on concrete we noticed that as the ice projectile contacted the surface it started to disintegrate creating a broader area of contact. As the remainder of the projectile advanced, it disintegrated over the large area of ice debris, which deflected ice shards laterally. The dissipation of energy over a large area is the reason why ice impacts on hard ground cannot make deep craters. This is very different from impacts by iron meteorites which remain fairly cohesive during contact and compression and transfer all their energy in a very localized area, thereby penetrating the target and creating a crater during the excavation phase.
@@pavlikkk101 Impacts that created Carolina Bays trapped fauna in the liquefied ground and then buried them in the muck while grinding them to a pulp. The high speed ice shards from impacts on hard ground probably resulted in incidents such as the Orleton Farms mastodon. The reason for extinction of the megafauna becomes clear when you understand the high energy of the secondary ice impacts.
The shape of the bays is facing the direction of the wind.
The bays are all near sand.
Quartz eroding turns to sand.
If a comet hit Earth and chucked shrapnel up, it would be in all directions, not just one way.
I don't know why you are so obsessed to prove your theory.
You are completely ignoring the Nebraska Rainwater Basins that are oriented almost perpendicular to the Carolina Bays. Their orientations converge by the Great Lakes. Please don't be so eager to discard a theory that you have not studied properly. ruclips.net/video/O1bus2zHf7s/видео.html
You don't have to be rude.
A quick look at surface wind patterns for the Continental US is contrary to what you've asserted. In fact the direction of the 'Carolina Bays' all along the southern Dixie area, to the Carolina and up the coastline all converage at a point somewhere around Michigan State.
The low level or surface wind patterns, driven by the prevailing winds, are actually opposite of the measured bays Convergence.
If your assertion was correct, the direction the bays beyond North Carolina should be facing North Easterly. They don't, they actually face far more Westerly than the bays in South Carolina.
As the Dr also pointed out, the Rain Basins also converge on the same center point somewhere in the MI state vicinity, which again shows that their orientation is opposite of what is expected considering surface wind patterns. The bays there are facing East North/East despite the wind patterns from Blue Notherns clearly blowing southerly or south/easterly due to the common placement of the Jet stream.
Further more, I'd question that the absence of evidence through out the continental US in other regions with very similar soil as itself, possible evidence. If these are certain to be of aeolian origin, we would expect to see them everywhere else where the proper surface conditions would apply. We in fact, do not. This is suspicious, especially since the Continental topology framed by large North/south mountain ranges provides ample year round wind generation. In fact, it's odd we see so many bays at all in the Carolinas and especially south Carolina and Geogia, considering that the average surface wind patterns in that south east Dixie region is not only going the opposite direction expected of the bays, but the winds there on average are typically rather slow.