Posted on 03/04/2010 1:37:39 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
LONDON (Reuters) - A giant asteroid smashing into Earth is the only plausible explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, a global scientific team said on Thursday, hoping to settle a row that has divided experts for decades.
A panel of 41 scientists from across the world reviewed 20 years' worth of research to try to confirm the cause of the so-called Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) extinction, which created a "hellish environment" around 65 million years ago and wiped out more than half of all species on the planet.
Scientific opinion was split over whether the extinction was caused by an asteroid or by volcanic activity in the Deccan Traps in what is now India, where there were a series of super volcanic eruptions that lasted around 1.5 million years.
The new study, conducted by scientists from Europe, the United States, Mexico, Canada and Japan and published in the journal Science, found that a 15-kilometre (9 miles) wide asteroid slamming into Earth at Chicxulub in what is now Mexico was the culprit.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Where?
But don't worry about it. The science is settled, and the discussion is over. Move along; nothing to see here. </sarc>
Or perhaps they simply tumbled to the floor after stowing away in a crate of oranges.
I was feeling generous today. Probably not a good idea.
That picture is going in my “OH SH*T” file.
Could it be that the asteroid impact triggered the volcanic activity? I imagine a big impact would have sent shock-waves all the way to the other side of the Earth.
When scientists say the science is settled it means they don’t know and are making up ‘marchen’.
I wish I could find a picture of homer simpson sneezing on them and then all of them dropping dead LOL
***”hellish environment” around 65 million years ago and wiped out more than half of all species on the planet.***
According to the math - half the species survived whatever cataclysmic event supposedly occurred. It is not clear that all areas of the Earth were impacted...only those areas inhabited by the creatures that died off.
Considering that most insects’ life span is only a few days - their replacement rate may not have been affected at all.
I suspect that gases and chemicals spewed out in the limited areas that dinosaurs inhabited - may also have caused a type of sterility by absorption into the food chain.
Only God knows.
Sorry, but an asteroid strike is a known and observed phenomena that tends to explain the data.
“gravity increase” is an unknown and unobserved phenomena that doesn’t even have a plausible mechanism suggested by theoretical physicists.
That you think your “gravity increase” speculation is just as plausible is ludicrous.
Not to be argumentative, but do you believe that gravity has been constant throughout time? If so, how do you explain dinosaurs weighing in excess of 30 tons with a skeletal structure of a bird? I have heard all the supposition regarding astroids/meteors, and yes it is logical and could have happened that way, but the fact remains there were creatures that weighed multiple tons with bird skeletons that could not have possibly withstood todays gravity, so the assumption is that gravity would have exerted less force thus allowing this pattern of growth. Your view is gravity is a fixed energy that has never changed. Not sure that is intuitive given the size, weight, and load bearing skeletal structure of dinosaurs, it is, however, an assumption.
Theoretical physicists (string theory) posit that gravity is weaker in our 3 dimensions relative to the other 3 energies because it is more powerful in the other 8 dimensions. They theorize 11 dimensions. Now if anyone of these dimensions consume/demand more gravity, then the amount of gravity in our 3 dimensions will lessen. I know this is “far out” but it is theoretically possible. Don’t know how they prove 11 dimensions, but they do.
So I may be “ludicrous”, but I don’t stand alone. If you recognize other dimensions consuming and sharing original energy then you have a real possibility that gravity could in our measureable dimensions could in fact change over time. What would cause one dimension to demand more gravity energy is unknown at present, but assuming a growing universe grew at a constant rate in a linear manner over time rather than what we can actually observe about growth (non-linear and displays fits and starts (see fibonacci and chaos theory)) then the probabilities are with the non-linear concept versus the linear, recognizing that most of the phenomena of our world and universe is unanswerable because “linear” minds can detect no linearity. The universe, viewed through 3 dimensions, only reveals a finite number of linear, predictable, patterns. I believe Einstein said that “God dispises straight lines”, meaning they don’t exist in nature. So why base all your theories on straight lines?
But this is typical of creationists. They think any old speculation, no matter how outlandish, involving however many unobserved phenomena, is equivalent to a well reasoned hypothesis with data that supports it involving a well observed and understood phenomena.
Yes. I couldn’t quite see it before I zoomed in. Where did you get that image? It’s beautiful.
The debate is over!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
