 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / June 2004The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!!
This theory is bogus, only morons believe in such nonsense. There are much better theories : A) The dinos were killed by aliens from outer space B) The dinos became homosexual C) The dinos were hunted and killed by cats. C) is the best theory AFAIK, because cats still exist and dinos not. But "asteroid hit the earth" or "earth hit the asteroid", this is CRAP, BOGUS, NONSENSE. One of the reasons I enjoy subscribing to news groups is the opportunity to learn from the reasoned arguments of other like minded individuals. I have always felt, myself, that the asteroid collision hypothesis, regardless of the overwhelming evidence and the careful debate that has continued in the scientific community, just lacked enough "pizzazz"! I suggest that the evidence for an impact -- iridium and charcoal deposits at the KT boundary, tektite radiation patterns from the central American impact site, etc. -- has all been manufactured by a secret consortium of influential paleontologists who were simply tired of their decades-long inability to explain dinosaur extinction. I offer as conclusive proof, of course, the fact that an entire class of avetheropods are still among us (although my ex-wife got the African Grey in our divorce!) Thus I am glad to see your bold exposé of this obviously contrived and poorly fabricated lie!!! Everyone knows that asteroids, like the Galilean moons of Jupiter, and all Class G stars, are made of Mass-repelling Element X21, a form of cosmic rubber, and that any celestial body approaching earth would first be driven away by the ant-gravity fields produced by X21 (whose force, naturally, follows the inverse triangle rule) and, second, even if it managed to elude the earth's mass, would, as a type of frictionless rubber, simply bounce harmlessly away on impact. Keep up the good work. Well researched and well thought out and well presented arguments like yours will always be welcome on this news group. I only wish everyone could follow your example!!! Earl > This theory is bogus, only morons believe in such nonsense. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But "asteroid hit the earth" or "earth hit the asteroid", this is > CRAP, BOGUS, NONSENSE. That, of course, should be anti-gravity ("...driven away by the ant-gravity fields..."). Sorry for the typo! I am not ready, yet, to publicly announce my discovery that the entire gravitational field of the earth (and by implication, all the other objects in the visible universe) is generated by hymenoptera super-colonies only now being discovered in South America and around the Mediterranean. I believe, naturally, that once I amass sufficient evidence to support this theory, it will not only lay to rest any doubts about the universal existence of life (what I like to call the pan-cosmic myrmidons) but will also make SETI irrelevant (see my brilliant theories on emergent behaviors, swarm intelligence, insect IQ measurements and their relationship to the Bush Administration). The implications for paleontology are only too obvious! Earl > One of the reasons I enjoy subscribing to news groups is the opportunity to > learn from the reasoned arguments of other like minded individuals. I have [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > But "asteroid hit the earth" or "earth hit the asteroid", this is > > CRAP, BOGUS, NONSENSE. >Subject: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >From: rest_ampere@yahoo.com (Ted Harvard) >Message-ID: <f89143b2.0406191730.7e01d1b6@posting.google.com> >This theory is bogus, only morons believe in such nonsense. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >C) is the best theory AFAIK, because cats still exist and dinos not. Actually, in trying to play the part of an incendiary livewire--and perhaps inspire jocularity through the instigation of risibles--the poster actually comes close to unintentionally advocating what was once, and might still be, considered a fruitful avenue of investigation into the demise of the dinosaur. See the poster's letter "B)" idea, and then read the following from a web page at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3051.asp : "More Focus Articles from 1988 "Did Dinosaurs disappear because they had no Mate? The latest theory on dinosaur extinction is that they started producing young of all the same sex and thus could find no mates. Professor David Crews, professor of zoology at the University of Texas in Austin, and Professor William Gutzke, of Memphis State University, found during three years of research with leopard geckos (I 5 cm lizards from the Middle East) that the sex of geckos, like many reptiles, is decided during incubation - not (as in mammals) by genes. The mechanics are not completely understood, but the professors found that warmer conditions produced males and cooler eggs became females. Even if a warm gecko hatched as a female, she behaved like a male and repelled males. If dinosaurs hatched this way, it is thought, changes in the earth's temperature long ago could mean that all the eggs hatched into dinosaurs of the same sex. "Nature, 28 April, 1988 (pp. 832-4), The Australian, May 3, 1988 (p. 7)". "Eight Miles High"--my solo, acoustic, instrumental rendition of the famous Pop/Rock song by The Byrds (Clark/Hillman/Mcguinn composers) http://members.aol.com/geowrs/music/eightmileshigh.html >Subject: Re: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >From: geowrs@aol.com (Inyo) >Message-ID: <20040619215734.25561.00000297@mb-m29.aol.com> >See the poster's letter "B)" idea, and then read the following from a web >page >at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3051.asp : That'll learn me. I just took another look at the web page I quoted from. The quote is accurate, of course, but the web page itself is actually run by creationists. While I am indeed a Christian, I am in no way a Creationist, nor do I advocate or propogate their ideas. I simply did a quck Google search for the phrase, "dinosaur single sex theory of extinction," because I recollected somewhere in the dim recesses of my memory that there had been a provocative idea proposed several years ago regarding the effect that tempertaures might have had on the development of gender in dinosaurs. Without even checking thoroughly the pedigreed of the web page, I rushed off the quote and the URL. Of course, the dinosaur extinction idea I referenced was originally written up in the respected journal Nature in 1988. "Eight Miles High"--my solo, acoustic, instrumental rendition of the famous Pop/Rock song by The Byrds (Clark/Hillman/Mcguinn composers) http://members.aol.com/geowrs/music/eightmileshigh.html Gators and their kin have the same problem. Some years most are boys and some years most are girls. > >Subject: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! > >From: rest_ampere@yahoo.com (Ted Harvard) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Pop/Rock song by The Byrds (Clark/Hillman/Mcguinn composers) > http://members.aol.com/geowrs/music/eightmileshigh.html >>Subject: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >>From: rest_ampere@yahoo.com (Ted Harvard) [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > The Australian, > May 3, 1988 (p. 7)". I prefer the "cats" theory, myself. Problems with the temperature theory: 1. The earth is a big place. It has lots of different temperatures in different locations. 2. Global mean temperatures changed several times over the lifetime of dinosaurs without causing them to become extinct. 3. The end-Cretaceous was not particularly a time of global temperature change. 4. We have no information on the sex-determination system of any dinosaurs other than certain derived theropods, and these don't have a temperature-dependent system. 5. Groups that we know have a temperature-dependent sex-determination system didn't become extinct. 6. The K-T event involved the extinction of all sorts of other things in addition to dinosaurs. It would be nice to have a theory of mass extinctions that actually explains the extinction of the species that went extinct, rather than a tiny proportion of them. Why is it that Nature will publish any ridiculous, speculative notion as long as it has "dinosaur" in the title? This is a subset of the charismatic megafauna problem. >Subject: Re: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >Message-ID: <40D6DAC5.4040406@pacbell.net> >From: John Harshman jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011130 >Netscape6/6.2.1 >Problems with the temperature theory: I am, of course, not the designated, formal advocate of the "temperature theory." I do believe, though, that i's an interesting idea, even a provocative one--an idea that certainly deserves more intensive, serious investigations. So, just to play "devil's advocate", and perhaps stimulate some additional thought on the subject, here are brief rebuttals to the objections: >1. The earth is a big place. It has lots of different temperatures in >different locations. Mid Cretaceous was a period of overall global warmth to begin with (no Polar ice caps, for exampe), with a topical to subtropical climate--but, by later Cretaceous there was greater seasonality, plus wider extremes between equatorial and polar temperatures. Clearly, the dinosaurs had adjusted to the greater extremes in seasons and temperatures as the Cretaceous closed. So, perhaps even a slight, dramtic global push in either direction--colder or warmer conditions for a critical duriation--could have precipitated a widespread dinosaurian embryonic sex-determination. Also, it is quite possible that dinosaurs preferred to lay their eggs in a select few ecological niches--localities that were then easily subjected to the critical change in temperatures, creating same-sex gender identities. >2. Global mean temperatures changed several times over the lifetime of >dinosaurs without causing them to become extinct. But, that does not mean that a temperature change did not finally cause dinosaurian collapse. An analogy comes to mind: While a person may have driven for years without incurring a fatal accident--having survived many close encounters with vehicular collisions--that pattern could well change anytime in the future. >3. The end-Cretaceous was not particularly a time of global temperature >change. My understanding is that the supposed bolide impact alone near the KT boundary could have easily caused global temperature disruptions--either a so-called "nuclear winter," or a super-heated "greenhouse" effect. Either way, the dinosaurs were subjected to radical gradients in thermal extremes. One also needs to factor in the enormous amounts of dust and gasses vented by the Deccan Traps volcanics in latest Cretaceous times. >4. We have no information on the sex-determination system of any >dinosaurs other than certain derived theropods, and these don't have a >temperature-dependent system. Absence of evidence is of course never evidence of absence. Nontemperature-dependant tendencies we might find in derived creatures do not necessarily predict what kinds of biological mechanics operated in the dinosaur system. >5. Groups that we know have a temperature-dependent sex-determination >system didn't become extinct. Just because some creatures survived the temperature change does not preclude the idea that dinosaurs were especially sensitive to that change and thus perished from the Earth. >6. The K-T event involved the extinction of all sorts of other things in >addition to dinosaurs. It would be nice to have a theory of mass >extinctions that actually explains the extinction of the species that >went extinct, rather than a tiny proportion of them. An important point to note is that the temperature-change scenario of same-sex gender orientation in dinosaurs was only one symptom of the overall chaos precipitated by the end-time Cretaceous extinction mechanism. The temperature change alone was likely not the cause of the great mass extinction; rather an entire chain of events, including a lethal (to dinosaurs) temperature alteration, was set in motion by the killing mechanism. >Why is it that Nature will publish any ridiculous, speculative notion as >long as it has "dinosaur" in the title? This is a subset of the >charismatic megafauna problem. Automatically labeling the temperature-change scenario of dinosaur demise as a "ridiculous, speculative notion" seems very much counterproductive. One must recollect that when first proposed, the KT bolide collision was similarly dismissed as speculative and ridiculous. There is of course great controversy whether the bolide directly caused the mass extinction, but there is pretty much universal acceptance in the scientific community--through the careful research of many independent investigators--that the extraterrestrial collision occurred during the latter stages of the Cretaceous. All I'm suggesting here is that perhaps such old "odd-ball" theory of dinosaur disappearance needs a seious, thorough reeamination. Sometimes "crazy" scientific proposals--like the concept of Continental Drift (once labeled "seriously deranged")--turn out to be true after all when scientists decide to disregard collective ridicule and persue original lines of investigation. "Deep Night"--my solo, acoustic, instrumental 6-string guitar rendition of a song co-written by 1920-30s crooner Rudy Vallee. http://members.aol.com/geowrs/music/deepnight.html >>Subject: Re: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >>Message-ID: <40D6DAC5.4040406@pacbell.net> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > "seriously deranged")--turn out to be true after all when scientists decide to > disregard collective ridicule and persue original lines of investigation. Consider the scenario you suggest. The bolide impact causes a global "nuclear winter effect". Now all or almost all terrestrial plant life dies. The rapidly starving dinosaurs lay clutches which due to the extreme temperatures result in single sex hatchings. So rather than starvation being the cause it is some sort of drawn out affair involving reproductive failure. Now if any significant number of pre impact individuals survive till the ecosystem recovers (what is breeding if they don't?) why don't they mate with the younger single sex individuals? Isn't it much more probable that the impact caused global disruptions to the ecosystem which resulted in the die off of almost all terrestrial plants and phytoplankton which directly crashed the food chain which killed most of the larger animals and many of the smaller ones? Ken The asteroid theory is good. You are a fartass. Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com > The asteroid theory is good. > > You are a fartass. What? Oh, AOL. And, I think, a candidate for a WebTV account. >Subject: Re: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >Message-ID: <40D726FC.5020209@pacbell.net> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1087842020 ST000 66.126.169.52 >Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com >> The asteroid theory is good. >> >> You are a fartass. > >What? Oh, AOL. And, I think, a candidate for a WebTV account. Curious Usenet behavior, indeed. If one is so clearly prejudiced in cyberspace toward folks who post from specific Internet Service Providers--one can only speculate with concern how such a person treats other human beings of differing race, ethnicity or social status. >>Subject: Re: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >>Message-ID: <40D726FC.5020209@pacbell.net> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > speculate with concern how such a person treats other human beings of differing > race, ethnicity or social status. All right, all right. Present company excepted. How totally bogus. Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com > How totally bogus. > > Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com Present company not excepted. > The asteroid theory is good. > > You are a fartass. > > Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com Well I'm glad you had such a well thought response to my points. You might want to read you terms of service agreement with aol before starting a flame war. Ken Now wait a minute. I did NOT address my response to any identifiable person. There are other good theories as well. Chris Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com >>Subject: Re: The "asteroid theory" is BOGUS !!!! >>Message-ID: <40D6DAC5.4040406@pacbell.net> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cretaceous there was greater seasonality, plus wider extremes between > equatorial and polar temperatures. Sure, but as I understand it, there weren't any polar ice caps then either. Just a bit more seasonality, and not a big thing. "Nuclear winters" and such are another matter. > Clearly, the dinosaurs had adjusted to the > greater extremes in seasons and temperatures as the Cretaceous closed. So, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > niches--localities that were then easily subjected to the critical change in > temperatures, creating same-sex gender identities. That's another pile of speculation on top of the rest of it. At some point we must reach the level of special pleading. >>2. Global mean temperatures changed several times over the lifetime of >>dinosaurs without causing them to become extinct. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > encounters with vehicular collisions--that pattern could well change anytime in > the future. I don't think your analogy is valid. You can't really dodge a temperature change through chance. It happens, it has predictable effects. You might claim that the temperature change in question was of greater magnitude than any previous one, but I don't see another out. >>3. The end-Cretaceous was not particularly a time of global temperature >>change. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > needs to factor in the enormous amounts of dust and gasses vented by the Deccan > Traps volcanics in latest Cretaceous times. Still, the length of time proposed for any of these scenarios is fairly short, much less than the probably reproductive lifetime of a big animal. >>4. We have no information on the sex-determination system of any >>dinosaurs other than certain derived theropods, and these don't have a >>temperature-dependent system. > > Absence of evidence is of course never evidence of absence. I disagree with that as a general rule, but never mind. > Nontemperature-dependant tendencies we might find in derived creatures do not > necessarily predict what kinds of biological mechanics operated in the dinosaur > system. True. We have in fact absolutely no data upon which to make a decision. I don't consider that a virtue of the theory, though. >>5. Groups that we know have a temperature-dependent sex-determination >>system didn't become extinct. > > Just because some creatures survived the temperature change does not preclude > the idea that dinosaurs were especially sensitive to that change and thus > perished from the Earth. True, but it introduces another layer of speculation: not only was their sex-determination system temperature-dependent, but it was also temperature-dependent in a different way than similar systems in other such organisms. >>6. The K-T event involved the extinction of all sorts of other things in >>addition to dinosaurs. It would be nice to have a theory of mass [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Automatically labeling the temperature-change scenario of dinosaur demise as a > "ridiculous, speculative notion" seems very much counterproductive. Only if failing to do so would be somehow productive, and I don't see how. > One must > recollect that when first proposed, the KT bolide collision was similarly > dismissed as speculative and ridiculous. Ridiculous, perhaps. Speculative? It was, after all, based on actual data, as opposed to most theories of dinosaur extinction. > There is of course great controversy > whether the bolide directly caused the mass extinction, but there is pretty > much universal acceptance in the scientific community--through the careful > research of many independent investigators--that the extraterrestrial collision > occurred during the latter stages of the Cretaceous. During the latter stages? At the end, I would say. > All I'm suggesting here is that perhaps such old "odd-ball" theory of dinosaur > disappearance needs a seious, thorough reeamination. Sometimes "crazy" > scientific proposals--like the concept of Continental Drift (once labeled > "seriously deranged")--turn out to be true after all when scientists decide to > disregard collective ridicule and persue original lines of investigation. Not a bad defense. The death blow to this theory, as a scientific theory, is that I can't think of any way that we could ever devise an actual test for it. (Well, it's only a death blow if nobody else can come up with a test either. But I'm feeling pretty confident on that.) In this it has a lot in common with many other theories of dinosaur extinction. My theory is that iridium was like kryptonite for dinosaurs. >This theory is bogus, only morons believe in such nonsense. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >But "asteroid hit the earth" or "earth hit the asteroid", this is >CRAP, BOGUS, NONSENSE. There really is abundant evidence for an asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous. What's missing is a mechanism for that impact to selectively kill off critters cheerfully munching plants on the other side of the planet. C. seems unlikely as seagoing mosasaurs and flying pterodactyls seem to have vanished about the same time as the dinosaurs. As is well known, cats don't much like to swim and rarely fly very far without human assistance. Their their attitude seems to be unsatisfactory for marine predation and their aerodynamics are not all that good. > >This theory is bogus, only morons believe in such nonsense. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > selectively kill off critters cheerfully munching plants on the other > side of the planet. I don't remember who wrote the ariticle but you would not have wanted to be on the exact opposite side of planet earth when the rock hit. All the earthquake waves crossed at that point. Estimates I've read went as high as 30 for the quake. Big tidal waves on all shores. You also got acid rain over the entire planet and then lots of dust in the upper atomosphere keeps the heat up high and the temps at the surface low. Not much light. Try growing plants of any kind in viniger in your frig. Then things heat up due to carbon dioxide a few years later for a decade maybe but the dust does settle out sooner or later and life goes on. > C. seems unlikely as seagoing mosasaurs and flying pterodactyls seem > to have vanished about the same time as the dinosaurs. As is well > known, cats don't much like to swim and rarely fly very far without > human assistance. Their their attitude seems to be unsatisfactory for > marine predation and their aerodynamics are not all that good. I say the acme food processing company showed up and turned them all into cat food. Either that or maybe they developed birth control and everybody went on the pill. ?8^) <snip> > I don't remember who wrote the ariticle but you would not have wanted to be > on the exact opposite side of planet earth when the rock hit. All the > earthquake waves crossed at that point. Estimates I've read went as high as > 30 for the quake. Big tidal waves on all shores. 30? I highly doubt that. Energy released from earthquakes = 31^R Thats 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules Enough energy to vaporise 92,592,592,592,592,592,592,592,592 litres of water from 20 degrees. There is about 1,358,827,280,837,056,256,168 litres of water in the world. This means that the energy would be enough to vaporise the earths water more than 68,000 times over. The sun only evaporates 1,167,090,916,056,367 litres daily from an average of 20 degrees. It would take the sun 79,336,229,353 days to evaporate that much water or 217,359,532 years. Now an asteroid can travel at 40Km/s. For it to create that much energy from a sudden impact it would need have a mass of 155,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg The earth weighs 5,980,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg That means the asteroid would be over 250 times as massive as the earth. Logic tells me this simply isn't the case. You would be hard pressed to find many earth quakes over 10 on the richter scale. An asteroid could reach 12 or 13 if large enough. > You also got acid rain over the entire planet and then lots of dust in the > upper atomosphere keeps the heat up high and the temps at the surface low. > Not much light. Try growing plants of any kind in viniger in your frig. > Then things heat up due to carbon dioxide a few years later for a decade > maybe but the dust does settle out sooner or later and life goes on. Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? <snip> > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You would be hard pressed to find many earth quakes over 10 on > the richter scale. An asteroid could reach 12 or 13 if large enough. I hope he meant 13. I seem to remember an article making that claim. >>You also got acid rain over the entire planet and then lots of dust in the >>upper atomosphere keeps the heat up high and the temps at the surface low. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? small very fecund animals , like primitive mammals, are very hard to drive to extinction if any food remains in the environment. small very mobile animals, like birds, can move fairly large distances seeking food and shelter even in really bad conditions. Crocodilians are amazingly starvation resistant and many may have just hunkered down and outwaited the bad conditions. In the oceans the phytoplankton crash would have decimated the larger animals since they relied on large quantities of phytoplankton either directly or indirectly. The smaller a marine animal gets the better the chance that a population could survive simply by being lucky in one way or another. Ken > > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ken True that these animals can survive harsh conditions. Does anyone know exactly where this theory came from? I have a hard time believeing that (apart from ground zero) an asteroid could cause this much dust to be suspended (I would think asteroids create chunks that dont tend to want to stay suspended for too long). Call me wrong I don't know but I don't think its a really good model of how so much life was wiped in one go. Any other theories kicking around? >>>Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > know but I don't think its a really good model of how so much > life was wiped in one go. Any other theories kicking around? We know that when a large object strikes the earth a great deal of material is ejected from the impact site. This includes both small and large pieces. Mechanically an impact is not dissimilar to exploding a bomb at or near ground level. The Chicxulub crater is in excess of 200 km in diameter. The estimate is that the asteroid that caused it was about 10 km in diameter. This asteroid would have vaporized more than 200k km^3 of the earth's crust which is going to mean an awful lot of dust in the atmosphere. There are a few competing theories which simply don't have enough evidence to support them as well as the impact. Some researchers claim that dinosaurs were nearly extinct before the impact but even if true doesn't account for the rest of the extinction. Another theory involves the Deccan Traps eruptions but the eruptions went on for at least 5 million years and the extinction event doesn't appear to have been a long drawn out affair but instead a quick event and a fast global recovery. Ultimately I think the impact theory will prevail with the acknowledgment that the global environment was already heavily stressed and that the 10 km asteroid was simply the coup de grace. Ken > >>>Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? > >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Ken Agreed. People of the jury I maintain the victim was already in ill health when the defendent, space rock, entered his hospital room and bludgened him to death. The more things going wrong at the time the and the worse they were the bigger the extinction event. > We know that when a large object strikes the earth a great deal of > material is ejected from the impact site. This includes both small and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > acknowledgment that the global environment was already heavily stressed > and that the 10 km asteroid was simply the coup de grace. There is another theory involving vast amounts of water which would of course be supported by sudden extinction. I am not so sure this is the generally accepted model though... > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I hope he meant 13. I seem to remember an article making that claim. It could have been a brain drain on my part or a typo on their part but I seem to recall looking at the number and going huh? I don't always check the next months corrections. > >>You also got acid rain over the entire planet and then lots of dust in the > >>upper atomosphere keeps the heat up high and the temps at the surface low. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ken You still have to wonder why some things made it and others didn't and I might not understand if I had been able to observe the process. Extinction occurs. > <snip> > > I don't remember who wrote the ariticle but you would not have wanted to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You would be hard pressed to find many earth quakes over 10 on > the richter scale. An asteroid could reach 12 or 13 if large enough. Off South America and in Alaska were 9. something. That number did seem kind of larger when you know how the scale works. The point is still on they would have crossed so it would have been a really bad place to be for a short span of time. Please consider that lightening can be hotter than the sun without being the size of the sun or having anything like as large an energy source rock may well have turned liquid. > > You also got acid rain over the entire planet and then lots of dust in the > > upper atomosphere keeps the heat up high and the temps at the surface low. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? Because for some organisms in some places it wasn't that bad. If you can go without food for a long time and live on very little like amphibians then the odds are good for the species. Other kinds of things have eggs or seeds that could wait till the bleep in conditions cleared up. I think some lotus seeds were found in China that were sprouted with an age I doubt but the claim was over 1,000 years. The seed was found in peat. They did it in nutrient dish after removing the seed coat so I'm not sure if that should count anyway. Many desert plants have seeds that can last 20 years or more and that I do trust. Some bacteria may have liked it. If you were a big creature or plant that needed a lot of resources and may have had fewer total numbers to start with the odds were worse. The whole situation may have been agravated by volcanic eruptions going on in India for some time before and after the rock hits. > <snip> > <snip> >> I don't remember who wrote the ariticle but you would not have wanted [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > average of 20 degrees. It would take the sun 79,336,229,353 days to > evaporate that much water or 217,359,532 years. Where do you suppose the water they are finding on the moon and Mars came from? <splish splash> Kidding aside, you are assuming 1) all the energy is released as thermal energy, 2) all the energy goes into vaporizing water (and not stuff like rocks, trees, dinosaurs). But I agree the amount of energy seems excessive. > Now an asteroid can travel at 40Km/s. > For it to create that much energy from a sudden impact it would need [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You would be hard pressed to find many earth quakes over 10 on > the richter scale. An asteroid could reach 12 or 13 if large enough. You are assuming all the energy is coming from the asteroid, and not any from pent up energy in the earth's crust. (If you were to chuck a bomb in the San Andreas fault, the amount of energy released would not be due only to the amount in the bomb). >> You also got acid rain over the entire planet and then lots of dust >> in the upper atomosphere keeps the heat up high and the temps at the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > <snip> Life is tenacious? > Where do you suppose the water they are finding on the moon and Mars came > from? <splish splash> What aliens didn't put it there? > Kidding aside, you are assuming 1) all the energy is released as thermal > energy, 2) all the energy goes into vaporizing water (and not stuff like > rocks, trees, dinosaurs). But I agree the amount of energy seems > excessive. I was not assuming complete thermal conversion, I was comparing. Water is much more uniform that rocks/trees/dinosours and a little more understandable when it comes to vaoprisation. > You are assuming all the energy is coming from the asteroid, and not any > from pent up energy in the earth's crust. (If you were to chuck a bomb > in the San Andreas fault, the amount of energy released would not be due > only to the amount in the bomb). The energy is calculated from the meterorites kinetic energy. When it comes to massive asteroids that would obliterate even part of the world potential energy in the crust would become negligable. > > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? > > > > <snip> > > Life is tenacious? Life is fagile. >> Where do you suppose the water they are finding on the moon and Mars >> came from? <splish splash> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Water is much more uniform that rocks/trees/dinosours and a little > more understandable when it comes to vaoprisation. You gave an energy figure and calculated how much water could be vaporized by it. You ignore such things as the amount of (non-thermal) energy required to move a tectonic plate (I assume that sort of thing happens in an earthquake) and the amount of energy absorbed by things other than water. You can get away with treating trees and dinosaurs as water, but 1 mL of granite (27 g/cm^3 * .294 J/gC) requires almost 2 times as much heat as water (1 g/mL * 4.187 J/gC) to increase temperature 1 C, so I assume rocks etc are a non-neglible factor. But like I said before, the amount of energy (which I did not check) still seems excessive. >> You are assuming all the energy is coming from the asteroid, and not >> any from pent up energy in the earth's crust. (If you were to chuck [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the world > potential energy in the crust would become negligable. Sure, if you want a contruct a scenario where your asteroid does all the damage. I wonder what sort of calculation you have for the size of meteor that put some of the craters on the moon. >> > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Life is fagile. Clearly you have never tried to kill something. If live is so fragile or "fagile", you'd think Australians would have an easier time getting rid of all the rabbits infesting the country. <snip> > Sure, if you want a contruct a scenario where your asteroid does all the > damage. I wonder what sort of calculation you have for the size of > meteor that put some of the craters on the moon. Do you understand what a comparison is? When the earthquake is measures as 30 on the richter scale things become a little impossible. I did not count rocks/trees/animals for the single fact that for the equivalent energy given by the earthqake the asteroids energy would make it over 250 times the size of the earth. Now if an asteroid that massive did hit the earth do you think that plate techtonics would mean jack? I was showing absurdidty in the scale given which was corrected shortly after. If however there were an asteroid that was only 10Km accross yes then obviously it wouldnt destroy the earth completely you would take into account densities and I suppose vegitation if you wanted to be completely anal. The craters on the moon are alien bases. > >> > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "fagile", you'd think Australians would have an easier time getting rid > of all the rabbits infesting the country. Funny didn't a disease run through the country over the last few years decimating the population to 30% or something (don't quote me on the figure) I used to live in the country and know first hand what it is like. The problem with your little analogy is the number of animals you are considering. With a vast population of course they can spring back from near extinction. Now aren't we talking about how dinosaurs became extinct in this thread? They don't seem to be so resilient. > <snip> >> Sure, if you want a contruct a scenario where your asteroid does all [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I suppose vegitation if you wanted to be completely anal. > The craters on the moon are alien bases. Alright, now I see your calculations were as unbelievable as the original claim. I was assuming 30 was a reasonable or at least plausible earthquake magnitude. >> >> > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > extinction. Now aren't we talking about how dinosaurs became extinct > in this thread? They don't seem to be so resilient. Yeah, the thread was about dinosaurs, but you asked why did *any* life survive. If you are still going by the monster asteroid and 30 scale earthquake then I'll agree that life would not survive or would at least be significantly different than it is today (bacteria clinging to planetary debris). However, if you're going by a reasonably sized asteroid, then you only need 2 (or 1 for parthenogenesis, already pregnant or sperm stored for delayed conception) regardless of the size of the previous population or concurrent presence or absence of other members the species. With a single event extinction, there is no recurring disease loss, so what's to stop the surviving populations from progressing once environmental conditions recover? Even if your disease had killed every rabbit except 1 pregnant female, eventually you would still have a rabbit problem (99% percent population loss from myxomatosis in the 1950s). Perhaps Australian rabbits are a bad example, as the initial population could have proceeded from the 19th century importation of hundreds rabbits, but if you consider the population of iguanas or finches on the Galapagos islands, certainly, their current population was not due to a percentage of a vast number immigrants but probably the offspring of a handful of survivors. (Or an alien spaceship replicated them). > <snip> > > Sure, if you want a contruct a scenario where your asteroid does all the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > vegitation if you wanted to be completely anal. > The craters on the moon are alien bases. The number 30 was only suggested for a tiny portion of the planet where the earthqauke waves created by the impact would have converged. It occured to me at the time that differences in the density of the medium the waves traveled through might have prevented this from working as envisioned. However just as waves in water crossing in the correct manner can take from and reenforce each other I'm sure those traveling through the crust can as well. > > >> > Why did any life survive at all if conditions were so bad? > > >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Now aren't we talking about how dinosaurs became extinct in this thread? > They don't seem to be so resilient. SEX Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.