Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:17, 12 April 2012

India: Maharashtra / Geography Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as High-importance). More information: /  This article has been marked as needing an infobox. This article was last assessed in April 2012. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Geology Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Map

A map would be useful. -- Beardo 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the seabed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be located relative to India; further, the text makes it sound like the crater is fragmented and requires piecing together. I think a map showing spreading ridges and transform zones would be very interesting! Verisimilus T 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a picture giving elevation; I'm also going to try and get permission to use a map which shows how the feature has fragmented and drifted over the millenia. David Fuchs 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by the claim that the rise in the center of the crater is "higher than Mt. Everest." I see that this claim is in the cited source, but I don't understand what the claim actually is. Obviously an underwater feature is by definition not as high as Everest--or even as high as Mumbai. Do we mean that it rises as far above the floor of the crater as Everest rises above sea level? That it rises as far above the crater floor as Everest rises above the valley floors nearest to it? Or something else? My atlas seems to say that the ocean depths in the Arabian Sea west of Mumbai are in the 3500-to-4000-meter range. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the way I understood it from the Chatterjee paper: 'it rises as far above the floor of the crater as Everest rises above sea level'. Referring to the #4 Reference webpage, it has been updated and re-editted by the owner (12/06/10)!! Sorry. Also, I looked very hard on the net and could not find a map or even medium-resolution images, I will try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStarmon (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article gives undue weight to those who like to claim it is an impact crater and not something else. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

any evidence of people claiming it is "something else"? --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Iridium

It is a common misconception that asteroids, meteorites, and impact-related strata contain "high" levels of iridium. Iron meteorites typically contain only about 1 ppm iridium and never more than 100 ppm (0.01%). This is not a high level in absolute terms; it is only a high level relative to the extremely low occurrence in the Earth's crustal rocks, which average about 0.001 ppm iridium. I've tweaked the wording of the mention of iridium found in the Deccan Traps to reflect this fact. Piperh (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming news

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091016-asteroid-impact-india-dinosaurs.html

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009AM/finalprogram/abstract_160197.htm

84.188.163.177 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to be modified to reflect the current notion that the impacts may have been 300, 000 years apart, not the result of one multiple impact event. 71.125.151.8 (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Map Link

I added Google Map external link--correct me if this violates the Lex Wiki, which I did read. --Geojr1955 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Impacts

So it looks like more than one impact caused the extinction of dinosaurs? Maybe the meteorite was bigger and split or it had "siblings"? Is there an article on wikipedia about?--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Maharashtra articles
• Mid-importance Maharashtra articles
• Start-Class Maharashtra articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Maharashtra articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Maharashtra
• Start-Class Indian geography articles
• High-importance Indian geography articles
• Start-Class Indian geography articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian geography articles
• India articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in India
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class Geology articles
• Unknown-importance Geology articles
• Unknown-importance Start-Class Geology articles
• WikiProject Geology articles