Arizona Meteorite Crater Mystery Solved

AP via Yahoo ^ | 3/9/05

[ZGuy]

It's a mystery that has puzzled scientists for years but researchers said Wednesday they have discovered why there isn't much melted rock at the famous Meteor Crater in northern Arizona.

An iron meteorite traveling up to 12 miles per second was thought to have blasted out the huge hole measuring three-quarters of a mile across in the desert.

The impact of an object at that speed should have left large volumes of melted rock at the site. But British and American scientists said the reason it didn't was because the meteorite was traveling slower than previously estimated.

"We conclude that the fragmented iron projectile probably struck the surface at a velocity of about 12 km (7.5 miles) (per second)," said Professor H. Jay Melosh, of the University of Arizona, in a report in the science journal Nature.

Meteor Crater, which was formed about 50,000 years ago, was the first terrestrial crater identified as a meteorite impact scar.

Melosh and Gareth Collins, of Imperial College London, used a simple model to calculate the speed on impact. They showed the meteorite had slowed when it hit the Earth's atmosphere and broke into fragments before it struck the Earth.

They calculated the impact velocity was about 26,800 miles per hour.

"Even though iron is very strong, the meteorite had probably been cracked from collisions in space," Melosh said in a statement.

"The weakened pieces began to come apart and shower down from about 8.5 miles high. As they came apart, atmospheric drag slowed them down, increasing the forces that crushed them so that they crumbled and slowed more," he added.

The scientists said that at about 3 miles altitude, most of the meteorite was spread in a large cloud.

[Nick Danger]

view from space:

[Strategerist]

And the failure to account for a global flood

Don't need to account for one because there isn't a scrap of evidence that at any point there was a flood covering the entire world at the same time.

[Strategerist]

You are kidding aren't you?

I'm just astonished that there are actual people that basically consider scientific inquiry and curiousity worthless and uninteresting.

[dennisw]

smoking crater ping

[tx_eggman]

So it's nothing more than an educated guess. And the failure to account for a global flood and/or it's aftermath, or even a bad projection in sediment rates could cause 50,000 to be a bad date.

Your obsession with 6 days, 6000 years ago probably cause you to be a bad date too.

[ThinkPlease]

The ages from three different aging tests: from: Nishiizumi, K. Kohl, C.P., Shoemaker, E.M., Arnold, J.R., Klein, J., Fink, D. and Middleton,R. 1991 In situ 10Be-26Al exposure ages at Meteor Crater, Arizona. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 55, pp. 2699-2703.

A new method of dating the surface exposure of rocks from in situ production of 10Be and 26Al has been applied to determine the age of Meteor Crater, Arizona. A lower bound on the crater age of 49,200 ± 1,700 years has been obtained by this method.

from: Phillips, F.M. Zreda, M.G., Smith, S.S., Elmore, D., Kubik, P.W., Dorn, R,I. and Roddy, D.J. 1991 Age and geomorphic history of Meteor Crater, Arizona, from cosmogenic 36Cl and 14C in rock varnish. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 55, pp. 2695-2698.

Using cosmogenic 36Cl buildup and rock varnish radiocarbon, we have measured the exposure age of rock surfaces at Meteor Crater, Arizona. Our 36Cl measurements on four dolomite boulders ejected from the crater by the impact yield a mean age of 49.7 ± 0.85 ka, which is in excellent agreement with an average age of 49 ± 3 ka obtained from thermoluminescence studies on shock-metamorphosed dolomite and quartz. These ages are supported by undetectably low 14C in the oldest rock varnish sample. There are many more here:

Barringer papers listing

[PA Engineer]

Meteorite Crater was one of the primary reasons I visited Arizona while in college. I remember traveling to Montezuma's Well (another great place to visit including the irrigation canals on the lower mesa) that same trip. Both places are generally well off the beaten tourist path.

[Larry Lucido]

So, instead of getting hit by a slug, the earth was struck by buckshot in a tight pattern. Would that explain the lack of metallic residue at the site? Pieces bounced off every which way?

[PatrickHenry]

You must be one of those Crater-ite "Rocks-from-the-Sky" cultists. If you cultists can get people to start believing that rocks fall from the sky, then life has no meaning. Why shouldn't we all run around raping and killing each other? Where will it all end?

[LadyPilgrim]

I didn't call scientific inquiry or curiosity worthless.
Those are your words.

I just think that the explanations given on this are very laughable and don't make a lot of sense.

I'm evidently not the only one thinking that.
Some folks here on FR could probably come up with a better explanation than this study! LOL!!!

[Logic n' Reason]

I wonder if you would be able to convince the folks that live on the moon of your silly 16 points.

I believ not.

[newgeezer]

Two thoughts here:
1. It reminds me of what Mecca should look like if there's another 9-11 type attack.
2. Danny and geezer - go pick your fight on one of the evolution/creation threads.

1. Good one! Unoriginal, certainly, but satisfying nonetheless.
2A. I responded in part because it looked as if this was becoming one. If you don't like seeing my response and/or you don't want a fight, you're welcome to simply move along. Since it wasn't addressed to you, you needn't feel obligated to reply.
2B. It appears you may have unknowingly strayed outside your little sphere of influence. Maybe when you find your way back there, you'll have better results when telling others where to go.

[DannyTN]

The Evolutionist case for Crater Evolution

1. All crators evolved from earlier primitive crators.
2. Some crators are more similar than other crators and are therefore closer on the crator tree than the other crators. The creator tree PROVES crator evolution is true.
3. Creationists are liars.
4. Any competing theory of how the crator got there is not science.
5. Crator Design theorists are Creationists in hiding and are liars.
6. All scientists believe in the evolution of crators.
7. People who don't believe in crator evolution are not real scientists and do not publish in peer reviewed journals.
8. Science can only consider natural causes for crator design.
9. Giants rocks falling out of the sky are supernatural and therefore aren't science.
10. Creationists bear false witness.
11. That debree collects at the bottom crators as predicted by crator evolution PROVES that crator evolution is true.
12. The CRASS - Crator Rectal Association of Sarcastic Scientists has issued a statement that Crator Design is not science.
13. Creationists are liars.
14. That big crators with big rims evolved from small crators with small rims is a fulfillment of crator evolution theory and PROVES crator evolution is true.
15. Crator evolution is a fact. Crator evolution is a theory and in science a theory is stronger than facts.
16. All reputable scientists believe in crator evolution.
17. Everything fits as predicted.
18. Creationists are liars.

[Gideon7]

I thought it was just a bad problem with gophers.

[SlowBoat407]

Oh yeah?

[tx_eggman]

Danny,

As I pointed out to Shubi (AKA Fo-foe) here: Link: One Side Identified

Fo-Foe, you've got your facts, they've got theirs. It ceased being about the truth a long time ago.

It has devolved (damn, I crack myself up sometimes) into a pissing contest to establish who is smarter - which, incidentally, does nothing to advance the Gospel of Christ.

A bit further down on that thread I also drew attention to you: Link: The Other Side Identified

[McGruff]

Didn't Al Gore invent this?

[SlowBoat407]

So it's nothing more than an educated guess.And the failure to account for a global flood and/or it's aftermath, or even a bad projection in sediment rates could cause 50,000 to be a bad date.

Key word here being "educated". My faith does not interfere with my ability to observe the world and my desire to understand its nature.

By the way, I use a Mac. Why don't we start up the whole Mac versus PC thing while we're at it. Or we could settle in and talk about a really fascinating hole in the ground.

[longshadow]

If this theory is correct, wouldn't we find smaller impact sites from the pieces which broke up and would have different points of impact along the same trajectory?

And are there any?

Before or after the main impact site? Any astrophysicist(s) out there that can enighten me?

I'm neither an astrophysicist, nor do I play one on TV, but the simplest explanation would likely be the smaller fragments burned up in the atmosphere, or were so small by the time they struck the surface, they made relatively small impacts that have filled in over time (wind, erosion, etc.)

[tx_eggman]

I responded in part because it looked as if this was becoming one ...
... Since it wasn't addressed to you, you needn't feel obligated to reply.

I simply grow weary of the dogmatic lurkers from both sides of the equation swarming in like hornets every time a FR thread references something in the universe as being older 6000 years +/-

I seriously doubt that a single mind out there has been changed by the constant braying that invariably accompanies both sides of this subject matter.

As I said in my previous post and repeated on this thread, it (IMHO) ceased being about the truth long ago and has become nothing more than a pissing contest to establish, PeeWee Herman-like, who is smarter.