HomeEarthworksCarolina Bays; A Peek Into a Violent, Prehistoric World

Comments

Carolina Bays; A Peek Into a Violent, Prehistoric World — 5 Comments

  1. Q: Why does quartz sand seep hydrogen? (not to mention, what’s the isotope ratio for deuterium amid that hydrogen?, among other possible further quantifiers)

    Q: Does the Yasothon Series sand of N.E. Thailand also seep hydrogen or other strangeness from its grains, melt crusted or otherwise?

    Q: How do the compositional profiles and statistics of grain morphology compare between these two possibly related regional-scale allochthonous depositional units from opposite sides of Earth?

    A: Time to study the sand….

  2. There is no biogenic detritus in any of the massive and expansive shallow subsurface sand layer where the structure of the bays and their rims are expressed. The monotonously uniform pure quartz sand grains are also angular to sub-angular in shape. Both of these well documented facts are in direct opposition to any wind and wave theory of origin for the Carolina bays, since conventional transport causes erosion and rounded surfaces on sand grains. There is also a set of these strange oval depressions in Nebraska, expressed in the same subsurface sand layer. Further, the 46,500 Carolina bays mapped so far using LiDAR all conform to just six archetype shapes, each of which is described identically by Suborbital Analysis. This is a clear indication of a suborbital transport mode for the sand.

      • Not “meteors”. That’s the whole point. The Carolina bays are not craters. The blanket of sand in which they are expressed certainly looks like an ejecta blanket, and their shapes are identical to suborbital ballistic targeting diagrams. This is because the governor of their transport and emplacement process was undoubtedly suborbital mechanics. The problem is that the scale of energy for that transport and emplacement figures to be as big or bigger than the Chixulub event that helped extinguish the dinosaurs (~10^22 to 10^25 J for the sand, vs 10^23 J for Chixulub: see http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/Chicxulub.html).

        The Carolina bays sand blanket is ~100 times more recent in history than Chixulub, during hominid evolution, which poses a major mystery: where is the giant impact structure or crater? The explanation is contained in the geographic range of the sand blanket and the orientation of the Carolina bays within. There is a large horizontal component in their distribution relative to the area that they all point back to. This implies a nearly horizontal or highly “oblique” impact, with an intermediate player in the transport of the quartz from the impact region to the vast area of sand emplacement (at least 400,000 sq. km). Ice sheet coverage of the impact area explains these details. Ice absorbs a high degree of kinetic energy (KE) upon astronomic impact, picking up very high temperatures and high velocities. This is especially true in a more oblique impact, where excavation is reduced but surface involvement is increased.

        The Carolina bay sand is also seeping hydrogen (https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-015-0062-5) as would be expected after entrainment within a steam plasma expansion plume. Notice in that reference that the hydrogen concentration is greatest where the sand is thickest. The shocked ice sheet imprinted itself within the sand because hydrogen dissolves in solid quartz. The rate of that diffusivity depends on temperature, so it only takes a brief exposure at very high temperature (several seconds at tens of thousands of degrees K) to infuse the quartz with the fast moving ions (several or tens of km/s). If this were a simple story it would have been explained long ago.

        Only by embracing and reconciling the most confounding and counter-intuitive elements of the geologic imprint do we have any hope of decoding the processes that produced that imprint. The imprint is a snapshot of the process. We must simply be humble enough to accept the truth encoded within. As a further indicator, suborbital transport is also the only model that explains adjacent overprinting observed throughout the Carolina bays (see https://www.google.com/search?q=carolina+bays+adjacent+overprinting&rlz=1C5ACMJ_enUS559US561&oq=carolina+bays+adjacent+overprinting&aqs=chrome..69i57.11238j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

        Craters, not at all. Ejecta blanket, yes. It is not easy to accept, but the evidence is plainly available within the imprint. The matter is simply one of accepting the truth as nature presents it.

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>