Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Yosemite Valley

The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (96% of Full)


Advanced

Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 02:52PM
Although any T. Rex–enthralled kid will tell you that a gigantic asteroid wiped the dinosaurs off the planet, scientists have always regarded this impact theory as a hypothesis subject to revision based on further evidence gathered from around the globe. Other possible causes, such as volcanism and smaller, multiple asteroid strikes, never actually went away, and over the years researchers raised important points that did not fully jibe with a history-changing celestial impact near the Yucatan peninsula one awful day some 65.5 million years ago.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=asteroid-killed-dinosaurs
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 05:05PM
This is just another trick from those climate change scientists. It's all part of the same conspiracy.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 05:09PM
I don't remember it happening that way.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 05:11PM
Quote
Frank Furter
I don't remember it happening that way.

How long have you been extinct?
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 05:26PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
Frank Furter
I don't remember it happening that way.

How long have you been extinct?

According to my kids, fossilized for many years.
On a related topic:
I wonder it the asteroid also killed off all the moderate Republicans as well as the dinosaurs.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 05:34PM
Quote
Frank Furter
I don't remember it happening that way.

Actually it's because you were in your dotage already.smiling smiley



Old Dude
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 05:45PM
A few dinosaurs survived:

Chickon Boo
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 06:21PM
Quote
Dave
This is just another trick from those climate change scientists. It's all part of the same conspiracy.

Hey Dave - I don't see any conspiracy here, just a lot of people trying to further our knowledge of the history of our planet. Having said that, we have been fed the 'asteroid killed the dinosaurs' line for some time now without anything new appearing that supports the theory. However, I have recently downloaded an interesting new hypothesis that does appear to move things along somewhat. Its called 'the impact and exit event' and the main focus of the theory is that an asteroid (or something like that) penetrated earth, travelled through its sub-surface at a shallow angle, bursting out of the other side of earth at the site of the himalayas. I know that at first this sounds incredible, but the images produced as evidence within the book (and on the website) IMO definitely make the idea credible, as does the hypothetical geologic 'timeline of events' that is also suggested. The source of the suggested impact is at the site of the gulf of mexico (sounds familiar?), so this really could be the 'next step' as far as Chixculub and the Dino's are concerned. For your information I downloaded the book from a site called www.theimpactandexitevent.com. Cheers, Finchy.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 06:59PM
By the way, everybody realizes that the continents were not in the same relative or absolute positions on the globe 65MY ago that they are now...right?


[Aside to Finchy: Dave is being sarcastic. There are a few contrbuters to this forum that see conspiracies in everything, but especially in global warming and firearm regulation.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2010 07:00PM by szalkowski.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 07:26PM
Quote
szalkowski
By the way, everybody realizes that the continents were not in the same relative or absolute positions on the globe 65MY ago that they are now...right?

Interesting graphic that puts some of the locations in perspective:

http://www.odplegacy.org/PDF/Outreach/Education/BlastfromthePast.pdf

eeek's article mentions tsunami in southern illinois and missouri, makes sense from the shape of continents at that time.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 08:23PM
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2010 08:24PM by szalkowski.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 07:35PM
Quote
Finchy
Quote
Dave
This is just another trick from those climate change scientists. It's all part of the same conspiracy.

Hey Dave - I don't see any conspiracy here, just a lot of people trying to further our knowledge of the history of our planet. Having said that, we have been fed the 'asteroid killed the dinosaurs' line for some time now without anything new appearing that supports the theory. However, I have recently downloaded an interesting new hypothesis that does appear to move things along somewhat. Its called 'the impact and exit event' and the main focus of the theory is that an asteroid (or something like that) penetrated earth, travelled through its sub-surface at a shallow angle, bursting out of the other side of earth at the site of the himalayas. I know that at first this sounds incredible, but the images produced as evidence within the book (and on the website) IMO definitely make the idea credible, as does the hypothetical geologic 'timeline of events' that is also suggested. The source of the suggested impact is at the site of the gulf of mexico (sounds familiar?), so this really could be the 'next step' as far as Chixculub and the Dino's are concerned. For your information I downloaded the book from a site called www.theimpactandexitevent.com. Cheers, Finchy.

Finchy,

Anything large and/or fast enough to penetrate all the way through a rocky body planet such as Earth would do a lot more than make dinosaurs extinct. It could literally split and pulverize the planet. I'm not aware of any evidence pointing towards the incredible amount of damage that would result from such an impact. For that matter, I can not imagine any object hard enough to survive penetration of the planet without totally disintegrating itself. This sounds like another edition of "Bad Astronomy".
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 07:57PM
Quote
tomdisco
Anything large and/or fast enough to penetrate all the way through a rocky body planet such as Earth would do a lot more than make dinosaurs extinct. It could literally split and pulverize the planet. I'm not aware of any evidence pointing towards the incredible amount of damage that would result from such an impact. For that matter, I can not imagine any object hard enough to survive penetration of the planet without totally disintegrating itself. This sounds like another edition of "Bad Astronomy".

The laws of physics were specifically suspended for the impact & exit event... another fine example of Sparksian (or Vincian) Physics.


Quote
tomdisco
For that matter, I can not imagine any object hard enough to survive penetration of the planet without totally disintegrating itself.

New animal in the cosmic zoo... a neutino asteroid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2010 08:27PM by szalkowski.
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 06, 2010 04:52AM
Quote
tomdisco
Anything large and/or fast enough to penetrate all the way through a rocky body planet such as Earth would do a lot more than make dinosaurs extinct. It could literally split and pulverize the planet. I'm not aware of any evidence pointing towards the incredible amount of damage that would result from such an impact. For that matter, I can not imagine any object hard enough to survive penetration of the planet without totally disintegrating itself. This sounds like another edition of "Bad Astronomy".

tomdisco,

Yeah - this has been discussed on a few other sites. It has been suggested that, rather than an impactor passing straight through earth (which would clearly have the potential to destroy it) the force of the initial impact had instead passed through earth (with the impactor disintegrating almost as soon as it entered earth), forcing outwards the crust at the site of the himalayas until it 'popped' under the huge pressures involved.
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 06, 2010 06:00AM
I have also explored some of the claims made within the impact and exit event - especially the potential for shockwaves passing through earth. IMO the geography of earth appears to indicate that a 'force' of some kind did propogate across the northern hemisphere towards the himalayas. I have just spent a bit of time putting some images on photobucket: http://s829.photobucket.com/albums/zz214/finchcliff/
If you click on an image you'll see my thoughts below each one - for whatever they are worth!! LOL winking smiley
Cheers, Finchy
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 06, 2010 08:30AM
Quote
Finchy
Yeah - this has been discussed on a few other sites. It has been suggested that, rather than an impactor passing straight through earth (which would clearly have the potential to destroy it) the force of the initial impact had instead passed through earth (with the impactor disintegrating almost as soon as it entered earth), forcing outwards the crust at the site of the himalayas until it 'popped' under the huge pressures involved.
It just doesn't work that way. Yes, an impact on one side of a planet, or moon, can cause an effect on the other side, it could not create something like the Himalayas. India created the Himalayas by ramming, at a high rate of speed for a moving continent, into the Asian Plate. And that happened about 15 million years AFTER the Chicxulub impact.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 05, 2010 08:29PM
Quote
Finchy
Quote
Dave
This is just another trick from those climate change scientists. It's all part of the same conspiracy.

Hey Dave - I don't see any conspiracy here.......

Sorry, I forgot to put the [/sarcasm] function at the end of my post. I understand enough about this current change in climate to realize that humans have either caused it all by ourselves, or greatly contributed to a natural trend.

And, as were many boys, I was fascinated by dinosaurs. I was reading college level geology and paleontology texts in the 7th grade. The almost global iridium layer at the K-T boundary, and the absence of fossils above it, is pretty much the final say in the matter.

That book you downloaded, you got what you paid for. The meteor could not have come out near the Himalayas since they did not exist at that time. It is not possible for a meteor to travel through the Earth as that author claimed. Put that book right next to Velokovsky and forget about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2010 08:46PM by Dave.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 06, 2010 07:27AM
I haven't had my coffee yet so I haven't looked for any backup material but it seems to me that some not to complex ballistic studies have been done on the effects of entry, exit, and shock waves.



Old Dude
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 14, 2010 05:52PM
Quote
Dave
...The meteor could not have come out near the Himalayas since they did not exist at that time. It is not possible for a meteor to travel through the Earth as that author claimed....

I have also read the impact and exit event theory and have to say that it is a fascinating read. A couple of comments... the theory asks the reader to put the entire event into the 'context of an impact and exit event'. I did this and even though it was sometimes difficult (because of what I have been taught about plate tectonics etc) the overall effect was to make me question some of my learning. I have tried being objective and relate what I have read with what we know, but the fact remains that the content of the hypothesis and the way the context pulls together much of the geology of earth is, well difficult for me to ignore. For example whenever I look at the himalayas I cannot see anything else but a huge 'hole' in the earth where the takla makan desert is situated. Add to this the observations made that the geology of the surrounding region also appears to resemble huge flows of 'ejected magma'. Has anyone any comment on the authors claims about the similarities between the coastlines of many islands and continents and how they relate to the hypothesis? I'd be interested to hear them. Finchy, the pics on the photobucket link you posted earlier might help those who haven't read the book. spinning smiley sticking its tongue out
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 15, 2010 09:26AM
Quote
Lal
I have also read the impact and exit event theory and have to say that it is a fascinating read. A couple of comments... the theory asks the reader to put the entire event into the 'context of an impact and exit event'. I did this and even though it was sometimes difficult (because of what I have been taught about plate tectonics etc) the overall effect was to make me question some of my learning. I have tried being objective and relate what I have read with what we know, but the fact remains that the content of the hypothesis and the way the context pulls together much of the geology of earth is, well difficult for me to ignore. For example whenever I look at the himalayas I cannot see anything else but a huge 'hole' in the earth where the takla makan desert is situated. Add to this the observations made that the geology of the surrounding region also appears to resemble huge flows of 'ejected magma'. Has anyone any comment on the authors claims about the similarities between the coastlines of many islands and continents and how they relate to the hypothesis? I'd be interested to hear them. Finchy, the pics on the photobucket link you posted earlier might help those who haven't read the book. spinning smiley sticking its tongue out
The hypothesis may seem to pull together some geology, but it completely ignores the physics. A bolide around 6 miles across is not going to tunnel through anything and come out the other side intact. It just doesn't work that way. Like I said earlier, take this guys book and put it on the shelf right next to Velikovsky and von Däniken.
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 28, 2010 01:19PM
Regarding your reference to "a bolide around 6 miles across is not going to tunnel through anything and come out the other side intact"...
I'm not really sure what this comment has to do with the impact and exit event theory? The book does not mention the size of the impactor. In fact the size of the impactor has yet to be established, and the speed of impact is also open to further research. The shape of the impactor could also effect the outcome.
I also find your reference to physics puzzling. It may be that on the face of it the physics 'doesn't work', but no-one really knows the internal composition of earth. How solid is the mantle? Are there several densities in the mantle - and if so which part of the mantle did the impactor pass through as suggetsed? How deep is the mantle? How large is earth's core?
In my opinion the high number of variables invoved do not provide sufficiently accurate infomation to enable someone to state with certainty that "the physics doesn't work".
Prior to reading this theory I also believed that it shouldn't be possible for an impact and exit event to occur, but the examples of geology quoted within the book are consistent and do appear to be connected . Then there is the substantial geometric evidence relating to the relationship between the earth, the moon and the plane of the ecliptic. I have looked into this and again, the arguments made int the theory appear coherent.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 28, 2010 02:54PM
For the impact/exit theory to be feasible one would have to be able to downscale the idea into a demonstration that projected a marshmallow through a very large clump of marshmallow cream.



Old Dude
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 28, 2010 04:13PM
Quote
Lal
Regarding your reference to "a bolide around 6 miles across is not going to tunnel through anything and come out the other side intact"...
I'm not really sure what this comment has to do with the impact and exit event theory? The book does not mention the size of the impactor. In fact the size of the impactor has yet to be established, and the speed of impact is also open to further research. The shape of the impactor could also effect the outcome.

First, it's a bolide, or a meteor, not an "impactor." It does not matter if that book mentions the size or shape. There are ways to extrapolate the size and density of the meteor by the size of the crater left behind. Close to 6 miles across is the accepted scientific consensus. If the author of your book wants to go against that consensus; he has a lot of explaining to do.

Quote

I also find your reference to physics puzzling. It may be that on the face of it the physics 'doesn't work', but no-one really knows the internal composition of earth. How solid is the mantle? Are there several densities in the mantle - and if so which part of the mantle did the impactor pass through as suggetsed? How deep is the mantle? How large is earth's core?

A quick study of geology will show you that much of what you question above is already known. As for the physics, well.... you, or that author, claim it happened, you guys have to explain the physics of how it could happen. Just making "we don't know" claims is not good enough.

Quote

In my opinion the high number of variables invoved do not provide sufficiently accurate infomation to enable someone to state with certainty that "the physics doesn't work".

Then explain how it would work. The burden of proof is on you, or the author of that book.

Quote

Prior to reading this theory I also believed that it shouldn't be possible for an impact and exit event to occur, but the examples of geology quoted within the book are consistent and do appear to be connected . Then there is the substantial geometric evidence relating to the relationship between the earth, the moon and the plane of the ecliptic. I have looked into this and again, the arguments made int the theory appear coherent.

From what I've seen, they are not coherent at all.
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 02:33PM
Quote
Dave
From what I've seen, they are not coherent at all.

Dave - there are over 200 pages in the book covering the impact and exit event hypothesis, many of which contain interesting supporting images. From what you have said it appears that you are basing your "From what I have seen" comments on the content of the website (which has clearly been set up to generate sales) - and that alone. This is unfair. If you had written a paper lets say 200 or so pages long, how would you feel if someone judged your work having glanced at pages one, two ...and maybe page three? This is an interesting hypothesis with some very good points, and some points which stretch the imagination quite a bit (there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion). I've read it so I can honestly pass my judgement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2010 02:34PM by Finchy.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 04:11PM
Quote
Finchy
Dave - there are over 200 pages in the book covering the impact and exit event hypothesis, many of which contain interesting supporting images......
Unless they are photographs of the actual events, they're nothing but his hypothesis. Look, I'm not falling for this BS. Try someone else. I went to the website, and the authors name was nowhere to be found. He has some other bizarre stuff there and is nothing more than a kook that has convinced some people that his wild claims are valid. They're not. They go against physics and geology. Sorry, I just can't throw out all of modern science just to believe ONE person with a crackpot idea.

And, no, my mind is not closed. I'm open to new ideas. It's just that if one wants to go against settled science, then they have to do better than some fancy drawings and fantastical claims.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 05:18PM
Quote
Dave
I went to the website, and the authors name was nowhere to be found.


It is asylum policy that the names of the patients guests can not be released.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 05:36PM
Anyone familiar with what I like to refer to as "The Great Central Valley Nuthouse Clearing Center?"
Almonds, walnuts, etc. are not the only types of nuts to be found in the GCV:
http://www.earthmountainview.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2010 05:38PM by szalkowski.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 05:42PM
Quote
szalkowski
Anyone familiar with what I like to refer to as "The Great Central Valley Nuthouse Clearing Center?"
Almonds, walnuts, etc. are not the only types of nuts to be found in the GCV:
http://www.earthmountainview.com/
You gotta love those "chemtrail" people. Anyone believing that stuff needs all the love, and psychological help, they can get.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 05:31PM
Read a few pages of this book and you'll draw a quick conclusion. You needn't read the whole thing.

"The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications"

You don't have to watch the whole crappy movie to know it's crappy.



Old Dude
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 05:40PM
Quote
mrcondron
...You don't have to watch the whole crappy movie to know it's crappy.

Yet someone will claim it is the best movie ever made. People still read "Chariots of the Gods" and believe every word of it. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 04:04PM
Dave, Finchy, mrcondron and all - this whole impact and exit event discussion is being skewed because although I find all the comments interesting it appears that it is taking place in the wrong place! The impact and exit event website suggests that this particular impact may have killed off the dinosaurs, but the author writes in the book that he has no idea when the apparent impact/exit event took place and makes no mention of the extinction of the dinosaurs. I suspect that this is because a lot of his research centres around the gulf of mexico - and maybe he got a little excited when putting his website together (as Finchy says it is his first attempt at selling a book, after all). As we all know, this is also the area where the chixculub crater was discovered. I quickly came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that an impact and exit event could have occured and might have caused earth to almost split apart. If Dave is correct and 6 mile wide rocks don't go flying through rocky planets then Finchy's suggestion that earth might not have been a fully formed rocky planet at the time of impact might be worth exploring. ...Or maybe an unusual set of circumstances came together during which something did happen that enabled a rock to pass through earth in its present state.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 04:46PM
Quote
Lal
Dave, Finchy, mrcondron and all - this whole impact and exit event discussion is being skewed because although I find all the comments interesting it appears that it is taking place in the wrong place! The impact and exit event website suggests that this particular impact may have killed off the dinosaurs, but the author writes in the book that he has no idea when the apparent impact/exit event took place and makes no mention of the extinction of the dinosaurs. I suspect that this is because a lot of his research centres around the gulf of mexico - and maybe he got a little excited when putting his website together (as Finchy says it is his first attempt at selling a book, after all).

He should have spend a bit more time actually reading up on the crater, and geology. The dating techniques used by real scientists dates the Chix crater at about 36 million years ago. That's the same time given to a layer of iridium found around the world. Below that layer; lots of dinosaurs. Above that layer; none. And that iridium layer, well.... THAT is the meteor! It vaporized upon impact.

Quote

As we all know, this is also the area where the chixculub crater was discovered. I quickly came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that an impact and exit event could have occured and might have caused earth to almost split apart.

There was no "impact and exit event." At best the correct term to use is "fanciful impact and exit conjecture."

Quote

If Dave is correct and 6 mile wide rocks don't go flying through rocky planets then Finchy's suggestion that earth might not have been a fully formed rocky planet at the time of impact might be worth exploring. ...Or maybe an unusual set of circumstances came together during which something did happen that enabled a rock to pass through earth in its present state.

If the Earth was molten, or not as solid as it is today, then there would be no crater and no mountains formed by such an event. They would have been melted or eroded by now.

Again, the whole thing is nothing but pure conjecture based on a complete ignorance of science, geology, and physics. What I find amazing is that anyone is taking this guy seriously.Pounding head on desk
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 06:07PM
...Just 'for the record', the comments of Dave, mrcondron, szalkowski etc. are embarrassingly repetitive.

For those of you who have dropped by... None of the above have read the hypothesis at all, yet feel compelled to say conclusively that it is incorrect!

THIS is why science has such a bad reputation today. And yesterday. And yesteryears.

Science continues to move forward despite the efforts of such people. It did in the 1800's. It did in the 1900's and it will throughout thus century. Despite what might be suggested by Dave & his co-posters, the work of countless individuals across the world continues to produce new ideas (and sometimes new sciences) from (relatively speaking) nowhere.

History reveals that it simply doesn't occur to these people that they might actually be wrong. In their arrogance they see themselves as individuals who are 'superior' simply because of what they believe they have been taught. Read their posts again and you will see that they truly lack objectivity and are absoloutley bereft of any ability to grasp the concept of individuality when it comes to confronting the accepted 'norms' in todays science.

If it was not for people like these guys science would be light years ahead of where we are today. And they are not alone...

I always enjoy posting the following!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* George S. Ohm (Ohm's Law). Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal. His work was called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. ten years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance.

* Doppler (Doppler effect). Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.

* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope). Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues.

* Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes in 1930, squashed by Eddington). Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics, major recognition after only fifty years. Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington.


…And of course, my favourite:

* Alfred Wegener (continental drift). Look this one up, guys!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finchy...
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 06:49PM
Excuse me Finchy but the science of ballistics has been around for a long time and is undisputed by anyone anywhere that I can find plus you have taken all of your lovable examples out of context.

Your guy has a cool notion but the ballistics don't work. If you can get me around the ballistics part then we can move on to some other point perhaps.



Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2010 07:06PM by mrcondron.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 07:20PM
Quote
Finchy
...Just 'for the record', the comments of Dave, mrcondron, szalkowski etc. are embarrassingly repetitive.
Repetitive, but true.

Quote

For those of you who have dropped by... None of the above have read the hypothesis at all, yet feel compelled to say conclusively that it is incorrect!
I will say conclusively that it is incorrect. When someone tells me that clouds are made out of marshmallows, I can say conclusively that they are wrong.

Quote

THIS is why science has such a bad reputation today. And yesterday. And yesteryears..

Yes, science has had a long time bad reputation for not accepting crackpot ideas.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 06:47AM
Quote
Finchy
...Just 'for the record', the comments of Dave, mrcondron, szalkowski etc. are embarrassingly repetitive.

For those of you who have dropped by... None of the above have read the hypothesis at all, yet feel compelled to say conclusively that it is incorrect!

THIS is why science has such a bad reputation today. And yesterday. And yesteryears.

Science continues to move forward despite the efforts of such people. It did in the 1800's. It did in the 1900's and it will throughout thus century. Despite what might be suggested by Dave & his co-posters, the work of countless individuals across the world continues to produce new ideas (and sometimes new sciences) from (relatively speaking) nowhere.

History reveals that it simply doesn't occur to these people that they might actually be wrong. In their arrogance they see themselves as individuals who are 'superior' simply because of what they believe they have been taught. Read their posts again and you will see that they truly lack objectivity and are absoloutley bereft of any ability to grasp the concept of individuality when it comes to confronting the accepted 'norms' in todays science.

If it was not for people like these guys science would be light years ahead of where we are today. And they are not alone...

I always enjoy posting the following!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* George S. Ohm (Ohm's Law). Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal. His work was called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. ten years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance.

* Doppler (Doppler effect). Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.

* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope). Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues.

* Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes in 1930, squashed by Eddington). Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics, major recognition after only fifty years. Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington.


…And of course, my favourite:

* Alfred Wegener (continental drift). Look this one up, guys!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finchy...

This book is why science has such a bad reputation today. It is not science!
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 31, 2010 04:59PM
Perhaps (and I don't wish to generate sarcastic replies here), it would be better if some kind of (...and I don't know how to properly describe what I mean, but here goes) 'openminded, reverse thinking' should be taking place.
Elsewhere on the internet people are beginning to understand the value of 'looking back', and to be prepared to 'look back' has helped many fields of science to look toward the future with a completely different outlook.
I recognise that having spent a couple of days here at Yosemitenews.info that this is a vehicle not to be used in this way - from what I can see there are maybe 4, 5 or even 6 'clique' - and arrogant - contributors.
Come on guys, open up and stop the bullying, ridiculing jokes.
I bet you don't.
Individually, I bet you cannot wait to enhance your 'superiority' as you (and yours) often do ...by ignoring everything I have just written and 'having another go' with demeaning comments.
We will see from what you post next just how 'professional' and/or 'respectful' you actually are.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 31, 2010 05:58PM
Quote
Finchy
Perhaps (and I don't wish to generate sarcastic replies here), it would be better if some kind of (...and I don't know how to properly describe what I mean, but here goes) 'openminded, reverse thinking' should be taking place.
Elsewhere on the internet people are beginning to understand the value of 'looking back', and to be prepared to 'look back' has helped many fields of science to look toward the future with a completely different outlook.
I recognise that having spent a couple of days here at Yosemitenews.info that this is a vehicle not to be used in this way - from what I can see there are maybe 4, 5 or even 6 'clique' - and arrogant - contributors.
Come on guys, open up and stop the bullying, ridiculing jokes.
I bet you don't.
Individually, I bet you cannot wait to enhance your 'superiority' as you (and yours) often do ...by ignoring everything I have just written and 'having another go' with demeaning comments.
We will see from what you post next just how 'professional' and/or 'respectful' you actually are.

Finchy,

I'm sorry you feel a bit offended. If you really knew us you would know we are actually quite an easy bunch to get along with.
I don't have a problem with openmindedness or reverse thinking as long as it does not stray from real science. What really pushes us over the edge is speculation purely for the point of speculation while abandoning proven scientific principals. This entire impact nonsense ignores basics of physics, geology, astronomy, and other scientific disciplines. I agree that it makes for an intriguing theory but lots of things do that until you start to look at the science. Then these kinds of thoughts get dismissed. I'm an avid amateur astronomer and advisor to one of the top natural science museums in the country. This impact theory falls right into the field of astronomy, coupled with what we already know about the formation of the Earth and its internal structure going all the way back to its initial creation 4.5 billion years ago. This impact theory is just simply off the wall. There is nothing to support it. You are being duped by a writer with a little bit of knowledge who is taking advantage of the very openmindedness you so highly value. I'm sorry but you have to hear that. The level of sarcastic and acerbic replies this thread has generated is directly proportional to the level of bad science it invokes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2010 12:06AM by tomdisco.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 31, 2010 09:37PM
Quote
Finchy
....We will see from what you post next just how 'professional' and/or 'respectful' you actually are.
If you would stop insulting us by expecting us to believe such a cock and bull story you might get some better replies. Whining that people don't believe you is not a valid argument.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 29, 2010 07:26PM
Finchy,
There may be some hardball played on this forum (sorry). To your credit I will admit that when I first heard the "meteor impact killed all the dinosaurs" theory years ago, I thought it pretty whacky and unlikely.

However, what strikes me about the site you reference on the impact-exit theory is that it seems to make a lot of casual associations and statements that are unproven from the very beginning. For example, that all the mountain ranges were created at once seems to contradict a lot of science and leaves one to wonder why there wasn't huge release of heat and energy to cause vitrification of stone along the fault lines. He refers to the Rocky Mountains as though they are a single fault created range. In actuality, "the Rocky Mountains" are just a collection of various mountain ranges of different ages apparently. The images and arrows at http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/takla_makan_screenshot.html struck me as an optical illusion where the viewer tends to create associations more related to the arrows than any actual data. I found myself thinking, well that doesn't sound quite right but I will come back to that issue later--- but I find that the thing I distrusted is used to prove another point. It becomes a kind of intellectual "Ponzi Scheme" built on an unproven foundation.

The capacity of the human mind for creativity does not mean that all theories are equal. There is science and there is science fiction. Consider the series of "theories" proposed to disprove Darwinian evolution. They are "created" and then ambiguous information or unknowable statements are used to "prove" the theory. The central task of science is to collect and organize data looking for patterns, exceptions and anomalies that will be explained by a simpler and more comprehensive explanation. Generally science progresses by baby steps with each new set of data added to the pre-existing body of knowledge. Radically new ideas appropriately meet with skepticism and testing. We remember the vindicated scientists but forget the thousands of failed theories (because they proved to be incorrect).

When I have listened to someone discuss a macrobiotic diet or acupuncture or homeopathy, for example, I realize I have had to make a bunch of subtle assumptions in the course of learning about the subject that should have been challenged from the very beginning. There may be some science to these unusual concepts, but it is buried behind a bunch of poorly constructed assumptions with terminology that must be "believed" as opposed to "proven" to understand the concept. In a way, it can be a form of propaganda because it starts with a bunch of unproven small details that are woven together to create a logical theory (that is actually profoundly flawed).



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2010 08:25PM by Frank Furter.
Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 03:26PM
Frank... I don't mind a bit of hardball - its harmless fun, and I agree totally with your comments. My previous post was put there just to remind others that rushing to an instant judgement over something so 'new' is not a healthy way to proceed, hence my examples of similar, well known misjudgements that have been made in the past. At the beginning of the impact and exit event book the author concedes that what he believes he has discovered will be difficult for others to accept, especially as this is his first attempt at writing a book (he did admirably IMO). The images on the website actually reveal quite a lot about the rest of the hypothesis, and I guess I understand that after spending so long researching and writing his work he is not going to make it all available without gaining at least some reimbursement. I'd do the same. There are guys out there funded quite well for doing similar work as we read these posts.
The point about ballistics that mrcondron makes is an interesting one. Does anyone know whether anything can pass through another object and exit out of the other side (or at least the force of impact passing through and exiting out of the other side) on such a scale? Because if there are, then the impact and exit event must be considered a possibility. Maybe we are all basing our initial 'it's impossible' assumptions on our belief that earth was a solid mass when the impact-exit event is said to have occured. If the internal and/or external structure of earth wasn't what it is today, then what would it need to be for an impact and exit event to occur? confused smiley
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 03:39PM
Quote
Finchy
...The point about ballistics that mrcondron makes is an interesting one. Does anyone know whether anything can pass through another object and exit out of the other side (or at least the force of impact passing through and exiting out of the other side) on such a scale?

Not possible. The velocities and energies are just too great.

Quote

Because if there are, then the impact and exit event must be considered a possibility.

It never was considered a possibility and never can be. Six mile wide rocks just don't go flying through rocky planets. One of the gas planets, maybe, but definitely NOT the Earth.

Quote

Maybe we are all basing our initial 'it's impossible' assumptions on our belief that earth was a solid mass when the impact-exit event is said to have occured.

The Earth was solid enough for dinosaurs to be walking on it. The Earth is as solid now as it was 36 million years ago.

Quote

If the internal and/or external structure of earth wasn't what it is today, then what would it need to be for an impact and exit event to occur? confused smiley

The structure of the Earth is no different now than it was 36 million years ago. Even asking the question shows the questioner is completely ignorant of geology and physics. I can assure you that this guys conjecture is entirely BS and should not be considered, in any way, a scientific hypothesis.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 05:12PM
Even the gas planets are not entirely gas. They have solid cores deep within them.

Anyway, the writer is ignorant of basic physical properties. Let's say for arguements sake the object is a solid diamond, the hardest substance known. Let's also say for arguements sake the Earth was a ball of molten lava with no solid structure anywhere. The speed necessary to penetrate the Earth only a few miles would vaporize that 6-mile wide diamond as well as much of the lava it hit. If the speed was insanely high enough for the energy of the impact to pass through the Earth it would explode the entire planet. Please note I said the "energy" of the impact, not the object itself. At high impact speeds any fluid (molten lava or ocean water) will have the net effect of a solid.

I don't think the writer has any useful concept of speed, mass, or inertia. If he did he would not be dumb enough to toss around such idiosy, pretending it was theoretically possible. Perhaps it would be beneficial if the writer would literally belly jump off a 20' high diving platform into a swimming pool and write about how soft the landing was.

This entire BS is all about making money selling a book. Maybe I should write a book detailing my theory that the rings of Saturn are made up entirely of lost airline luggage! Then I could post the theory on this forum and test your reactions. Cocktail
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 05:54PM
Quote
tomdisco
This entire BS is all about making money selling a book. Maybe I should write a book detailing my theory that the rings of Saturn are made up entirely of lost airline luggage! Then I could post the theory on this forum and test your reactions. Cocktail


If needed, I have a fairly good idea where you could find three coauthors.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 30, 2010 07:21PM
Quote
tomdisco
....This entire BS is all about making money selling a book. Maybe I should write a book detailing my theory that the rings of Saturn are made up entirely of lost airline luggage! Then I could post the theory on this forum and test your reactions. Cocktail

I think you've stumbled onto something there.... but it's not luggage.... those rings are made up of all the socks that disappeared in the dryer. A clump formed in the ring, making it off balance, and that clump was spun out at a high rate of speed. It hit the Earth and caused the Himalayas. That's not snow on those mountains; it's the lint from the socks.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 31, 2010 11:50AM
Quote
Dave
Quote
tomdisco
....This entire BS is all about making money selling a book. Maybe I should write a book detailing my theory that the rings of Saturn are made up entirely of lost airline luggage! Then I could post the theory on this forum and test your reactions. Cocktail

I think you've stumbled onto something there.... but it's not luggage.... those rings are made up of all the socks that disappeared in the dryer. A clump formed in the ring, making it off balance, and that clump was spun out at a high rate of speed. It hit the Earth and caused the Himalayas. That's not snow on those mountains; it's the lint from the socks.

Dave, I though everyone knew that.
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
March 31, 2010 07:39PM
Quote
tomdisco
Quote
Dave
Quote
tomdisco
....This entire BS is all about making money selling a book. Maybe I should write a book detailing my theory that the rings of Saturn are made up entirely of lost airline luggage! Then I could post the theory on this forum and test your reactions. Cocktail

I think you've stumbled onto something there.... but it's not luggage.... those rings are made up of all the socks that disappeared in the dryer. A clump formed in the ring, making it off balance, and that clump was spun out at a high rate of speed. It hit the Earth and caused the Himalayas. That's not snow on those mountains; it's the lint from the socks.

Dave, I though everyone knew that.

I am glad to read some sound logic has entered this thread! (I always wondered what happened to those socks and gloves, too)
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
April 01, 2010 06:27AM
I suspect that the moon would have many examples of entry/exit episodes. Plus no erosion or plate tectonics to get in the way. Anybody got an example of one?



Old Dude
avatar Re: A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All
April 01, 2010 01:54PM
Quote
mrcondron
I suspect that the moon would have many examples of entry/exit episodes. Plus no erosion or plate tectonics to get in the way. Anybody got an example of one?

Not sure, Mike. I'll have to read up on the Moon. We are pretty sure the Moon was created by a very large object striking Earth when it was indeed mostly in a molten state. The resulting mess, basically one large blob + one smaller blob + uncountable smaller debris, eventually coalesced into the new Earth and the Moon. The Moon was much closer to Earth back then. From Moon rocks brought back we know the Moon is made basically of the same stuff as Earth because it came from our planet. It just never experienced the morphing caused by weather, wind, and water erosion.

The Earth has experienced the same frequent early bombardment as the Moon did when the solar system was young. Once the Moon hardened it began collecting a permanent record of all its hits which we still see today. The size of some craters certainly indicates some significant impacts on the Moon but again I doubt there were any entry/exit episodes. Obviously, the energy created by such impacts was felt all over the Moon but once it hardened into a solid sphere the prospect of an entry/exit episode is no more likely than on Earth. Solid rock hitting solid rock makes for a hellish sound and light show but penetration and exit isn't part of it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login