Видео

this makes the most sense. all of these bays formed at the same time.

When you find a pristine bay over the top off a heavily eroded bay it is clear verification for the several dating methods which agree these features were formed over a long period …not simultaneously like pseudoscience conspiracy proponents would have you believe.

Probably for decades and decades after a supposed impact event there wasn't much vegetation between the bays and Sand Dunes did form

@@doomoo5365 EXACTLY! the impacts obliterated all vegetation and this explains the "paleo winds" that created dunes during this time.

@@doomoo5365 even though we already know there was little vegetation during glacial periods? This is not evidence supporting impact fantasy.

In Google Earth, please look at Barrow, Alaska. Also look at the Falkland Islands. These features are thermokarst lakes. Also, please note that in the eastern United States, many Carolina Bays have a nice elliptical geometries and consistent orientations in North Carolina and South Carolina, but geometries and orientations are less consistent farther north and south (e.g., New Jersey, Georgia).

@@user-ix7bm6jx1c the nice elliptical geometries of the Carolina Bays in the SE are a direct result of the deep sandy soil, high water table, and extremely flat terrain in that region. whereas the soil from the Mid-atlantic northward isn't nearly as deep, the water table isn't as high, and the terrain isn't as flat--all of these variables reduce the probability of creating perfectly elliptical CBs. as for the orientations, that is the result of multiple impacts.

@@AustinKoleCarlisle In Google Earth, please look at Barrow, Alaska. Also look at the Falkland Islands. These features are thermokarst lakes.

@@user-ix7bm6jx1c thermokarst lakes are not morphologically comparable to the Carolina Bays. why do you push the wind and water hypothesis for Carolina bay formation when experiments have failed to reproduce elliptical geometry and the associated 1977 paper by Kaczorowski was never peer-reviewed? last time i checked, that is not "following the science". we should be following the science, right?

⁠​⁠@@AustinKoleCarlislethermokarst lakes are far more morphological comparable to the bays than impact craters (which correlate depth to width and have entire rims) Why are you obsessed with pushing pseudoscience in conspiracy form?

Interesting...have to check that out. Do the lunettes present alignment or any suggestion of structural control on near-surface groundwater?

That's a good one...combination of glacial ice movement and overall tectonics. I will custom make you a vid if you will watch it!

So the erosion is predominantly water erosion, but its integrated effects over a long period of time. It's an arid setting, but when it does rain it can be flashy and move a lot of material. You can check this area out and see big sediment fans carrying the ridges, broken up into small sediment pieces, down into the low basin areas at the foot of the mountains.

The real-life rainbow mountains were compressed against the thicker "core" of the Tian Shan Mountains to their north. The core of the mountain range is a thicker zone of the mountains that underlies the highest peaks and is composed of deeper continental crust pushed up on top of itself. The Rainbow Mountains are formed from shallower sedimentary layers being scraped up against the thicker core of the range.

@@TheGeoModels Thanks for the detailed replies, it answers my questions perfectly! In another comment on this video you said that "as long as the rock is deforming under brittle conditions with expected pore fluid pressure" then it can be modeled well by sand on the kilometer scale. Is the rock being brittle primarily determined by the type of rock or by the pressure/heat/depth of it? What are the limitations of the sand model and are there geologic processes it fails to model?

@@PenguinMaths brittle regime is indeed mostly a depth-related sort of thing...appropriate temp/pressure conditions. A couple of rock types sort of don't obey it--evaporites (salt, gypsum, etc.) and some types of shale. These will behave in a more ductile fashion at depths where any other rock type would be brittle. They can be modeled with "gooey" substances like a weaker form of silly putty, cold honey, etc. The glass microbeads I used for weak layers sometimes approach the ductile behavior, but aren't quite there.

@@PenguinMaths sand models are certainly best for the brittle, "external" parts of mountain ranges, like fold thrust belts, as well as brittle regime rift basins, etc. Basically anything in the upper ~12 km of Earth's crust. Sand-based models won't do the ductile core of mountain ranges where metamorphism is occurring and plutons are forming and rock deforms well into the ductile regime due to temp/pressure. Sand models can address overall Coulomb Wedge geometry questions that speak to entire mountain range structure, but ductile-controlled processes like extension in the core of huge mountain ranges are beyond sand or similar materials' capacity. Sand models also don't do too well making very thin fault planes. A "fault" in a sand model is a smeared-up zone of sand grains that is much thicker than a real fault, so capturing the finer details of the zone where one rock mass has been pushed over another is tough. This gets worse in the deeper parts of the brittle zone where behavior might be flirting with ductile. In these areas, rock masses develop "penetrative" or small-scale deformation that doesn't really develop in sand, with other complications surrounding fault behavior. So...sand is good for shallow stuff and the very big picture, I guess you would say.

Now that's cool. I'll have to read up on that. Davy's childhood home on the Nolichucky got messed up by a huge flood, which likely produced landslides up in the mountains. I'd love to track some of those down, but it's likely impossible.

well you can argue with folks on my bays videos that the dunes really are dunes! Most of them in SC are parabolics. I was trying to use Lencois Maranhenses as an analog but that's mostly barchans. Good to know there is some barchan action in the old Coastal Plain

@@TheGeoModels Let me guess: it's a bunch of comments about how they were all created catastrophically. I've tried debating against this viewpoint before to no avail. But I will check it out, thanks for replying!

@@testbenchdude I can see you are not new to this one... There's like 140 comments on the vid about "what folks won't show you" where the sand dunes are brought up. Toss your two cents in and you are guaranteed to get a bite...I would think, anyway!

@@TheGeoModels I suspected as much. I'm not fishing for "bites" though. I'm a strong proponent of "the truth is both stranger and more fascinating than the fiction." Giving this one a watch now. :)

be back with yall soon

@@TheGeoModels no worries!

Big Bay in Sumter County, South Carolina, is a Carolina Bay into which eolian dunes have migrated (eolian dunes overlie the western part of the Carolina Bay). These eolian dunes that overlie the western part of this Carolina Bay have yielded luminescence ages ranging from ~74,300 to 29,600 years (see Swezey, 2020, p. 38; and references cited therein).

@@user-ix7bm6jx1c yes, i was talking to zamora about this particular bay, and he believes during the ice boulder bombardment that a giant tidal wave of mud washed over the landscape and this was responsible for most of the mass of the dune. i'm curious to know the particle sizes located in those dunes. if the particles were too large to be carried by the wind, then that would support antonio's theory. i'm also curious to know if the soil is stratified and if the OSL age correlates with sample depth, does he say specifically at what depth the dates were obtained and how many samples were taken?

@@AustinKoleCarlisle The low-relief hills that overlie the western side of Big Bay near the confluence of the Wateree River and the Congaree River are composed primarily of fine to medium sand (most grain size diameters range from 0.13 mm to 0.50 mm). I have been to this location and observed the sand sizes myself. There is really no mud here. Stratification is not visible in shallow pits dug into the sand, but that is consistent with many (most) other vegetated dune fields in river valleys of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. It would have been no problem for winter winds to move these grain sizes during the last glaciation or previous glaciations (with colder air temperatures, a given wind velocity can move larger grain sizes). Ivester et al. (2002) and Brooks et al. (2010) have reported three published luminescence ages from these sands. Each of these three ages is from a sample collected at a different location, although the authors do not specify the depth below the surface at which the samples were collected. The first sample (Wateree 01) was collected at 33.7900 latitude/-80.4852 longitude, and yielded an age of 74.3 +/- 7.1 thousand years (in other words, 81.4-67.2 thousand years). The second sample (Wateree 02) was collected at 33.7866 latitude/-80.4891 longitude, and yielded an age of 29.6 +/- 2.4 thousand years (in other words, 32.0-27.2 thousand years). The third sample (Wateree 03) was collected at 33.8008 latitude/-80.4989 longitude, and yielded an age of 33.2 +/- 2.8 thousand years (in other words, 36.0-30.4 thousand years).

General trace of the zone of surface deformation that backed up Reelfoot Lake, disturbed the Mississippi River, etc. This vid is more about the landscape disturbance associated with shaking--particularly the sackungen on the river's east side. Aulacogens and late Cenozoic-modern stress regimes are probably best left for another vid! Thanks for watching!

I do what I can...I try to make sure I don't completely miss the mark with local ways of saying things. For the 1901 landslide video on my page I spent a whole lot of time trying to find a video with someone saying "Gouge" as a place name in western North Carolina. Apparently it is pronounced "goodge," not "gouge" as in jabbing a hole in something. I nearly messed that one up but figured it out in time! I have spent plenty of time in Virginia as well, which is the capital of places that aren't pronounced like you'd think.

Yep, same features! Very interesting...I drove by some around Lubbock when they were full of water and had no clue what they were until I ended up on Lidar in the area.

Fantasy land. Impact ejecta curtains over 90% of the ejecta falls within 5 crater radii. Antonio Zamora is a nutcase

@@swirvinbirds1971 You personal attack on Mr. Zamora is revealing on your ignorance. Attack his science instead.

@@celicalostandfound I did. Did you only read 1/2 of what I wrote? Meanwhile silent while the other side uses personal attacks. You attacked anyone that doesn't agree with Zamora in your OP. Let's not be a hypocrite. Nevermind your post is literally in a video that brings up issues with Zamora's claims as well.

@@swirvinbirds1971 I did read the other 1/2, and I will answer that one later. Having said that you do realize people called Telsa a nutcase and other worse things? That doesn't mean his science wasn't sound. I have read all of Mr. Zamora's works, and his YT videos and his science and hypothesis is more in line with the evidence that we see. His work is worthy of recognition and consideration in this arena and not the personal attack that you levied. Now to get to your 90% ejecta mention. I think that ratio is dependent on other factor, such as trajectory, mass and velocity. Another thought to take into consideration is if the impact happened on the ice sheet then that said ejecta would have landed within the icesheet and has since melted. Thus erasing evidence. What are your thoughts on that?

@@celicalostandfound For every Tesla there are scores of nutcases. Zamora's science isn't sound. Wtf are you talking about? You 'think'. Key words there. That takes everything into account. It's literally a study of cratering. So you think all the bays only account for 10% of the material ejected? Come on... That ice would have been peppered with impact markers and be left behind in the bays... There are none. Heck, there isn't even material from Michigan in the bays and all materials are local. Glaciers are not pure water ice.

…said no scientist ever

​@@gravitonthongs1363Antonio Zamora uses mathematics and geology to explain it, he's a geologist

@@doomoo5365 Zamora is a computer technician you fool. The mathematics of ejecta blanket law is far from compatible with his fantasy

@@gravitonthongs1363 that law was based on meteor strikes onto terrestrial soil.

@@AustinKoleCarlisle again… it encompasses all known impacts on earth including many type of terrain, and water. Ignorance of evidence to suit your ideology is pseudoscience.

Greatest truth on RUclips. I'd like to quote you on that one.

I don't think anyone, anywhere is ever ready because of the amount of energy released in a large quake, eruption, etc. It's just at a scale beyond anything that is really relatable to humans... Did you come across this channel through a search or was it suggested?

@@TheGeoModels suggested by the great RUclips algorithm. I first learned of LIDAR after the Oso landslide in 2017 near Arlington, WA State. There have been MANY slides in that area over the ages!

Geology proves it is the natural way of things!

Welllllll,GRAVITY!

Ow. My first earthquake was near a construction site. I thought a dump truck had tipped over. I missed another earthquake because I was getting up and turning around when the single jolt hit.

I hear you. I like their pancake machine!

Never under estimate the power of nature. Thanks for sharing.

If they are in the southeast it is possible!