That's good work on the craters. Some craters have two rings around them. One is on the rim, and one seems to form 1/3 to 1/2 the distance from the center.
I think they call that rebound in some cases where the ejected material rebounds from the walls of the crater as it is formed and ends up stacked back in the middle. Sometimes I think it's where harder rocks underly softer rocks so you get a smaller crater inside a much larger one. I'm only interested in geology, though, and not a geologist, or a geomorphologist, or whatever you have to be to understand that particular type of physics.
I love how map-mapping teaches us so much about so many things we might not have ever heard about otherwise - geology and cartography, of course, but also random bits of history, mythology, and more.
I was watching a Great Courses covering the dinosaur killer where they discussed the internal ring on earth as well on the moon. Otherwise I would not have thought to bring it up.
Loopysue remarked:I'm only interested in geology, though, and not a geologist, or a geomorphologist, or whatever you have to be to understand that particular type of physics.
Ah, don't worry over it! The physics of crater formation is endlessly being revised and experimented with, like most sciences, whenever something new and unexpected turns up. It's a particularly tricky field, because most of the impact craters easiest to examine in some detail are on the Moon, which isn't a helpful analogue for such craters on Earth, or other places where there's an atmosphere to alter how they look on various timescales, from original impact onwards, or how they can form when an impactor strikes a medium that isn't lunar regolith and rock. First approximation stuff is fine to give a crater that looks like a crater non-specialists can recognise and make use of!
Plus, what you have now will work nicely for both impact and (inactive) volcanic craters - though the latter will work best connected to a suitable mountain-top or area of suitably craggy rock, of course.
I watched some cool stuff on meteorites a little while ago. One that stunned me was an airburst meteor(didn't land on the surface) on Earth caused a big crater. Even though it didn't directly impact.
Also some cool effects when they hit planets or moons with no atmosphere. Super neat stuff.
@Don Anderson Jr. commented: I watched some cool stuff on meteorites a little while ago. One that stunned me was an airburst meteor(didn't land on the surface) on Earth caused a big crater. Even though it didn't directly impact.
No video, as it happened in 1908, but the big one was the Tunguska airburst (Armagh Observatory information page link). No large crater (the area's essentially a vast taiga swamp), but lots of flattened trees, and tiny particles embedded in tree trunks. Amazingly, the vegetation in the area was observed to have recovered faster afterwards than following the much commoner natural forest fires in the region, though nobody's quite sure why.
The forest grew back faster? I wonder if that might have something to do with a very abrupt cull of browsing animals, increased light at ground level for germinating seeds, and a slight enrichment of the soils?
Oh, there've been loads of suggestions over the decades - including nitrogen fertiliser either rained from the air affected by the explosion immediately afterwards, or from the impactor itself, or indeed both. The real curiosity is that the forest has adapted to cope with forest fires, but an airburst event like this damaged the taiga in a very different fashion. It does call into question some of the ideas about geological mass extinctions that have been associated with putative impact events as causes, at least.
Comments
Well, I don't know Joe. That actually sounds like a good idea.
I second that - so much more versatile!
That's good work on the craters. Some craters have two rings around them. One is on the rim, and one seems to form 1/3 to 1/2 the distance from the center.
Thanks Mike :)
I think they call that rebound in some cases where the ejected material rebounds from the walls of the crater as it is formed and ends up stacked back in the middle. Sometimes I think it's where harder rocks underly softer rocks so you get a smaller crater inside a much larger one. I'm only interested in geology, though, and not a geologist, or a geomorphologist, or whatever you have to be to understand that particular type of physics.
I love how map-mapping teaches us so much about so many things we might not have ever heard about otherwise - geology and cartography, of course, but also random bits of history, mythology, and more.
I was watching a Great Courses covering the dinosaur killer where they discussed the internal ring on earth as well on the moon. Otherwise I would not have thought to bring it up.
Is this one better?
I love them! Can't wait to turn them into a Wyvern's nest. 😉
Brilliant
Loopysue remarked: I'm only interested in geology, though, and not a geologist, or a geomorphologist, or whatever you have to be to understand that particular type of physics.
Ah, don't worry over it! The physics of crater formation is endlessly being revised and experimented with, like most sciences, whenever something new and unexpected turns up. It's a particularly tricky field, because most of the impact craters easiest to examine in some detail are on the Moon, which isn't a helpful analogue for such craters on Earth, or other places where there's an atmosphere to alter how they look on various timescales, from original impact onwards, or how they can form when an impactor strikes a medium that isn't lunar regolith and rock. First approximation stuff is fine to give a crater that looks like a crater non-specialists can recognise and make use of!
Plus, what you have now will work nicely for both impact and (inactive) volcanic craters - though the latter will work best connected to a suitable mountain-top or area of suitably craggy rock, of course.
I watched some cool stuff on meteorites a little while ago. One that stunned me was an airburst meteor(didn't land on the surface) on Earth caused a big crater. Even though it didn't directly impact.
Also some cool effects when they hit planets or moons with no atmosphere. Super neat stuff.
@Don Anderson Jr. commented: I watched some cool stuff on meteorites a little while ago. One that stunned me was an airburst meteor(didn't land on the surface) on Earth caused a big crater. Even though it didn't directly impact.
No video, as it happened in 1908, but the big one was the Tunguska airburst (Armagh Observatory information page link). No large crater (the area's essentially a vast taiga swamp), but lots of flattened trees, and tiny particles embedded in tree trunks. Amazingly, the vegetation in the area was observed to have recovered faster afterwards than following the much commoner natural forest fires in the region, though nobody's quite sure why.
The forest grew back faster? I wonder if that might have something to do with a very abrupt cull of browsing animals, increased light at ground level for germinating seeds, and a slight enrichment of the soils?
Oh, there've been loads of suggestions over the decades - including nitrogen fertiliser either rained from the air affected by the explosion immediately afterwards, or from the impactor itself, or indeed both. The real curiosity is that the forest has adapted to cope with forest fires, but an airburst event like this damaged the taiga in a very different fashion. It does call into question some of the ideas about geological mass extinctions that have been associated with putative impact events as causes, at least.