lbiarge

"I'm drawing from ~80 years of physics theory and experiment. I learned it in school and used to teach it. You can, if you choose, become familiar with it, but it will take more than 10 minutes of reading wikipedia articles." Sorry, but this not means that you have the TRUE. "In any beta decay of a bound neutron, i.e. it's in a nucleus. The neutron is attracted to other nucleons in its vicinity. That's the (residual) strong force. While that is happening, it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino. That's the weak interaction. Both happening at the same time." No. I look so: "In any beta decay of a bound neutron," - weak "The neutron is attracted to other nucleons in its vicinity. That's the (residual) strong force." - impact not strong, neutron - neutron is not strong force "While that is happening, it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino. That's the weak interaction" - transformation probably by weak. Strong would be for example that with the impact with other neutrons not change the neutrons, according to strong in smaller scale "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons" , but transformation is by fault of strong power. But like you say change to proton ,.... (here I not see strong in any moment) "Both happening at the same time" - no - the neutron in none moment has strong interaction. In none moment occurs the strong interaction, "The strong interaction is observable in two areas: on a larger scale (about 1 to 3 femtometers (fm)), it is the force that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the radius of a nucleon), it is the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction other neutrons and protons in same atom can have strong. neutron - neutron is not strong and impact also are not strong interaction, if an impact were strong the accelerators created strongs interactions.

Please not explain me more. Now you need to write to Paul Renne and explain him that he has mistaken and that you have the TRUE. "The world isn't either black or white" - the extinction only can to be by this cause or not, if only is a "coup of grace" the cause is other and "coup of grace" is subjectiv.

In same form you need to understand: Plants not germinate without heat, this happens the year without summer, with a very low explosion. Plants not make photosynthesis without light. That an animal can hibernate not means that the animals that subsits was by this. That a crocodiles can live with live food not means that subsist, at the end of the period what eat? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the page of "New Evidence Suggests Comet or Asteroid Impact Was Last Straw for Dinosaurs" - http://paleontoriano...r-asteroid.html because they only speak over "coup de grace."

I have added more info at before text saying another time a probably form of the extinction. But I don't according with you, know you speak over several impacts, there are proof for 1 not for several in that time. "a error margin of 11,000 years is pretty good over 65,000,000 years... " - no, an error margin of 11.000 years is like to say that we can dead by anything ocurs in near 11,000 years past and future. More, the impact is in 11,000 years, but the effects are incorrect. In other times are been other impacts without extinction, and the result of many volcanoes and dead or more and more animals with an end by meteorites has a probability of near 0. "No, in fact the Krakatoa explosion was many orders of magnitude smaller than the impact even thought to have doomed the dinosaurs... " At last, you say then that many more impact that not admit germination of plants is the end of dinosaurs, say me, How an vegetarian animal survive? I know a carnivorous can eat dead animals (in doubt after a time of dead) but a vegetarian not eat meat. "Again not comparable to the asteroid impact that doomed the dinosaurs... " - repeat, scientist say that this need to be quickly, but the extinction was so slowly that 1 million years. "Again you assuming that everything died and it took 50 years before there was anything for any animal to eat... how do you figure that? " not, I assume that any animals and plants life, that carrion only is useful a few days. And really not all animals die and plants germinate in all the period and vegetarian animals and carnivorous continue like in all times eating and hunting. Is very probably that hunter and reservoir both lose forces so the hunting with less power can yet hunter. "Your belief or lack there of for god has nothing to do with this... " This has also relation, impossible is impossible, who affirm anything need to prove it. It's impossible to proof God and dinosaur by impact, is probably and substancial with a extinction slowly in time that permit that any animals and plants survive. Not all animals and plants have the same resistence at radiations, depend in species, and into any species in radiation total, defense, ...

If you consider that an impact and a million years is good, well, you and your ideas. There are not evidence of your impact, there are evidence of 1 impact near that time, but also there are evidence of lose of species (or less animals) in 1 million years. You like joint theirs, well, but I say, really the scientists are not sure, they say "yes" but also say that like a quick extintion and is not so, (I don't say this, is say by scientists) (I not put the phrases because moderator say that I have write it 3 times). Any can think what like but think that Titanic was unsinkable not make real. But you say "Right now, there is evidence for a large impact causing extinction", this is false, there are evidence from an impact in a time of near 11,000 years, in all form that impact cannot to be the cause, the cause take 1 million years. Many impacts make big crater without term in life, Do you consider the near lose an island of kakratota equivalent to a big impact? "Around 100 cubic kilometers of rock was blasted into the air, eclipsing the estimated 10 cubic kilometers by its counterpart in Italy" - is sufficient for you an equivalent - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambora_volcano_eruption_in_1815 and this say in relation with low emission solar. "areas within a 500 km radius saw a 5 cm phoenix cloud ash fall" If your are so sure, can you to be 50 years without eat?, how do you understand that in 1 million years each time have less animals until end at the end of the period by extintion of all dinosaurs? I know your answer: meteorite impact. If so, I understand you belief, but please, don't try convert me at your belief. (sorry but believe in an impossible for me is only possible by belief). There are people that belief in Gods, in UFOs, astrology, ... If you have interest I also belief in none God. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In other part you are according mainstream and I'm against. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I don't know really who is more obstinate. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I go to repeat what I say You say that what I say is impossible, look: I don't say a big emission, I say a little emission, this during near 1 million years. In first time only any animals dead, other get sick and other are good, but also slowly the generations are worse, the eggs have errors, ... and so o, so little the species are losing the healt. During this period the dinosaurs are extinc but other animals not, but affect at all animals and plants. This would be a probably cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. But repeat, volcanoes and impact is impossible, not is impossible that happens, but it's impossible make that in 1 million years. Againts that the Sun has large periods, probably of million years.

Sorry my bad english. I cannot write better.

Good, a million years. Very good. Also are evidences or many other impacts without extinction. Also are evidences of volcano explosions ,.... And?

Then if have not importance 1 of the 4 forces then the other 3 also. Gravity is 1 of the 4 forces, if weak and strong are differents also need to consider the rest, I affirm another time that in a neutron act only strong or weak (only 1 of theirs) but in both act the gravity and electromagnetism. Look: I not say in the nucleus, I say in the neutron, so in a nucleus any neutrons can to be with strong and other with weak, but 1 neutron only is affected by 1 of the 2 forces. I consider the rest is repeated 1 and more times. In your note I only read : "no" "no" "no" "no" "no" always no to all without proofs, ... By other side mainstream today is according with you. Show me where a neutron is using both forces at same time.

Supposing I’m wrong and you have reason and dinosaurs extinction is by meteorite: Why a lower emission of particles to the atmosphere in kakratoa take not germination of plants in year and a very more big emission has not problem and permit dinosaurs life until 1 million years more? This can you admit with volcanoes and end with impact or like you prefer. Why an impact extinct all dinosaurs and same also so little like 30 cm and not extinct crocodiles, and other animals of more size? – consider that also extinct other animals. Why birds that descent of the dinosaurs would not extinct and extinct all the other dinosaurs? How can to be that the sky would dark, plants not make the photosynthesis and from that dead all dinosaurs and not other animals? What eat the other animals that million years that are without photosynthesis and only dead all the dinosaurs? Can to be volcanoes and impact without dead plants and without end photosynthesis and to be many dead and all the dinosaurs and not all live? How is possible that not all plant are extinct with a dark sky? How is possible that kakratoa explosion difficult the germination by the year without summer with the risk of lose vegetal species and many years of emission not take this risk and only extinct dinosaurs and few more? Why the evidence and proofs are insufficient to understand and impossible? Why kakratoa explosion is not useful to understand what happen in an explosion or impact? Why none evidence is an evidence of existence of impact? Why if volcanoes or impact over 1 million years could extinct all life, is probably consider for only extinct an specie? Why if an impact would be in a court period and studies show that the extinction was in a very large period yet consider the most probably an impact that is impossible the relation impact and extinction in large period? Why an impossible say by people with reputation not reduce their reputation and yet is considered a good possibility? How much animals you know that can exist 1 year without eat? 100 years? a million years? Note 1: An emission of particles of the Sun could explain all this but not an impact. In a emission the big animals would receive more particles, also it would have more difficult to take a ceiling for protection, against the animals that go into den, nest. Also is probably that one specie would be more sensitive to radiation and no others. Note 2: I can’t find any explanation to all this with impact or volcanoes that dark the sky.

It's clear: if you bombard a stable nucleus remain stable? and make weak? induced is near the same that bombard "Not sure how gravity comes into play here." If in nuetrinos affect gravity, do you believe not affect to neutrons? - "Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and gravity, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino In your note you not say that after bombard the nucleus remain stable and weak, before bombard is stable and strong, after bombard is unstable and weak xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Supposing I’m wrong and you have reason, these are different forces: Why only 1 force is on each neutron? Why the strong forces act in stable neutrons and weak in unstable? Why strong foce “holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons” and also weak force decay neutrons? Why in few atomic number nucleus act strong forces and in very large atomic number and also in very different quantity between neutrons and protons act weak forces? Why in a decay neutron act gravity, electromagnetic and weak force only? Why in a stable nucleus act gravity, electromagnetic and strong force only? Why atoms with very large atomic number and also in atoms with very different quantity between neutrons and protons are unstable or radioactive? Why are elements with isotopes stable and isotopes unstable? And why the isotopes stable have strong forces? And why unstable have weak forces? Only weak force has flavor, then Do you understand that a strong and stable force could have decay (i.e., of changing one type of quark into another)?

Don't work. Look: "If all goes well, the first plutonium-based reactor, PFBR, will start to produce 470 MWe power by March 2015, according to him." in a note of 13th Feb 2013 in http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130213/news-current-affairs/article/kalpakkam-reactor-runs-fast-track Over this probably only say that is "bla bla bla" The cost are growing, I read a little reactor in proof with many problems. Same that fusion reactors. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More information: If the probability of 2 advanced civilization of 1000 years at same time is only 8.13 e-8, then the probability of 3 is near e-12, 4 of e-16, …. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Supposing I’m wrong and you have reason: Why none signal until now? And imagine the costs of all the seti proyects. If there is any advanced civilization: Why not treat to contact with us?, probably we are not the needed technology but they would be? Why not spend the same money to searching Gods? Why not for UFOs? Why the people that affirm anything not give the proofs and need to give who say is false? Do you understand that GODS need to be considered true until anything proof that not exist? The probability of contact, GODS and UFOs are probably the same. Why the evidence and proofs are insufficient? Why the mathematical calculus is insufficient? Why none evidence is an evidence of existence? Why any scientists say that probably a million societies in Milky way and after no result change the idea to very strange the life and not resign and not obtain total discredit? Why a electromagnetic signal from many distance could to be captured without a big attenuation in relation to the star lights? In Earth any signal transmitted to the universe is probably 1 trillion less that the sunlight and by that the signal received need also to be also of 1 trillion less. Why the proofs and evidences always are insufficient against what we like or desire or belief? And in this case there are proofs against and there are not proof according to.

Sorry. But this confirm that really scientists not believe that they say. They would like a quick impact but all proof show this is not the reality. Against this all say that scientists say true with impact. Sorry another time.

Really scientist accept that impact cannot to be the cause of extinction: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Any scientists also like a quick extinction: "“The length of time taken for the extinction to occur is a controversial issue, because some theories about the extinction's causes require a rapid extinction over a relatively short period (from a few years to a few thousand years) while others require longer periods.” - http://en.wikipedia....xtinction_event xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A big extinction with vulcanism and impact with the dark sky and according to that without germination of plants would be the end of all life. Or: Do you know any animal than can life 1 year without eat?, any that can admit 10 years without eat? 100 years? 1000 years? In the sea there are animals that live in dark, but this animals live from eat that fall down from the upper sea by gravity. This in a dark land cannot occur.

Ok. I say when act weak not act strong, in both act gravity, ... Look: Strong interaction is in 2 areas : “is the force that binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of an atom” and also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” - from wikipedia Weak nuclear force: “It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction both act with neutrons, in stable nucleus act only strong, if the nucleus is unstable (many difference proton - neutron or many atomic number) any neutrons lose the strong force and decay by weak force, also a neutron only decay. In the same neutron only act or strong or weak force, but at same time can act the other forces. Normally any advance in science is agaisnt the assumption known before.

Is your opinion only against other opinions. According with you all without proofs, but this without proofs is also only your opinion. Thorium "Canada, China, Germany, India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States have experimented with using thorium as a substitute nuclear fuel in nuclear reactors" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium this is a probably future, but only probably, At actual time is not usefull. Also use of other radiactive elements making reactors but not useful none today and with great costs. I would remember that the other energies that you say already are use in actual time, an example: you have 2 salary and you use all, after a time you lose 1 of theirs. Do you believe you can spend the same with half salary? I can speak also over fusion from hidrogen, better that thorium, but both are today only theoretical without aplication and without obtain energy. All you say is your opinion, against that are many, the realitiy is not always like you desire. The peak oil is near agree you or not.

http://peakoil.com/consumption/enough-energy-after-peak-oil-to-rebuild-and-repair-concrete-infrastructure http://www.oildecline.com/ http://www.google.com/search?q=energies+petroleum#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=energies+after+peak+oil&oq=energies+after+peak+oil&gs_l=serp.3...7821.11252.1.11522.15.15.0.0.0.0.156.1724.3j12.15.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.serp.e0gxrNdOwsc&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.ZG4&fp=ce5d43a4985ebd88&biw=1280&bih=560 and many, many more ..... Not only energy, also many materials that are from petroleum. How much plains use electricity? How much interplanetary rockets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium Nuclear power is energy from the future, or: How do you believe that the pools of Spent nuclear fuel would to be freeze by many thousand years?

Please say errors, I can say the same of your phrase.

Sorry is the opposite, who affirm anything is who need give proofs, you affirm that we can contact with other civilization, give the proofs. Really is the opposite, you and none cannot show that our technology could run out of oil. And I not say that our technology civilization has only 100 years, really has 0 days, our technology not permit relation with civilization out of our solar system. Example: the fans that create electricity are made with metals, transported by trucks, up with crane, all that only can give the oil. And when I speak over 80 millions barrel I say only the oil, our civilization consume this and many more (all the generated by fans, gas, ...) More: why you believe that our technology society begin after the oil era? Why we cannot make a technology civilization with horses in the 14 century? There are many studies that doubt if any alternative energy to oil has return any energy more that the cost of their construction. Maybe you need to reconsiderer that the unique energy source is the petroleum, all the rest are only combustibles that cost more energy obtain that really give.

I'm against that. look: make a few years "maybe a million civilization in Milky way, we go to make contact with theirs. Later, some year later, no contact, answer: we are only, miracle of life in Earth. I say all against this, maybe be a million civilization in Milky way but it's impossible make contact, No with our technology. We neither can know if there are life in any part out of our solar system

(hypothesis against the mainstream) The strong nuclear force and weak nuclear forces are considered two of the four fundamental interactions of nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction ) Strong interaction is in 2 areas : “is the force that binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of an atom” and also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Weak nuclear force: “It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx weak or unstable: “Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron strong or stable: “However, inside a nucleus, protons can also transform into a neutron via inverse beta decay.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron - also “The transformation of a proton to a neutron inside of a nucleus is also possible through electron capture:” and “The same reasoning explains why protons, which are stable in empty space, may transform into neutrons when bound inside of a nucleus.” Non stable ““free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino to become a proton, a process known as beta decay” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron We can make a translation, so “strong” for stable and “weak” for unstable. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So really only is the difference of stable or unstable in the same force. Look that in this definition all are same both: strong is “also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles”, and also weak is “Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable” the same neutrons is stable according to quarks and unstable according to decay” Nucleus stable and unstable : “When certain combinations of protons and neutrons form an atomic nucleus, there is the possibility that the nucleus may be unstable. There may be too few or too many protons for the number of neutrons present, or there may be too few or too many neutrons for the number of protons present. In any case, if the nucleus is unstable, that nucleus is said to be radioactive. There is another case in which a nucleus can be unstable, and that is that it is simply too large to be able to stay together” and “Recall that atoms of the same element that have differing numbers of neutrons in them are isotopes of that element.” - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Under_which_conditions_is_a_nucleus_unstable Xxxxxxxxxxxxx From here I can say that an stable nucleus is strong nuclear and a unstable nucleus is weak nuclear or radioactive and this is normally by difference in number between protons and neutrons. Another form is that nucleus too large is always unstable and against it the short are stable. So weak and strong force only can to be the same. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is stable (strong) and unstable (weak)?: I go to make example with magnet and magnetism but the example is not complete because all magnet we know have both poles. The magnet has both poles (+ and -) and by that can to join to other poles of other magnets or only to charges + and also charges -. A stable nucleus has protons and neutrons and this means that have magnets with both poles (+ and -) and charges only +. Imagine then that you have magnets bipolar and charges +, according to this the magnets can to be null charge total and join with charges +, in a stable relation. When the nucleus has many neutrons bipolar or many protons + or many in total become unstable but not excessively and by that say that the force is weak (slowly) by decay or radioactivity. Against the weak (slowly) by a few difference in charges, the so called strong is strong because a stable relation the magnetic is quick. So stable is quick or strong like the union of 2 magnets by the contrary poles and unstable lose the stability and by that has a few fail in the form (we cannot make with magnets where were a excess of one of the 2 charges in form that many + charges reject theirs without compensation of – charges). Look that we not have in our common life charges of only one sign, all are bipolar. There are many examples of stable and unstable: for example more with magnets, if you take a magnet any time with the correct polarity, later in any connections you put other perpendicular go losing stability. Another example making a wall, if you put the correct brick all go well, but if sometimes you introduce an irregular brick the wall go taking unstable, and many other examples. Remember that a + nucleus is stable because the atom is neutral with the electrons around the nucleus. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx All this you can also by study at lower level, protons and neutrons are combination of quarks and this also say “strong force” but really this are the combination final in the nucleus to make strong union or weak decay. Also, really neutron has charge in bipolar form “Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero because it is a composite particle containing three charged quarks” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More: free neutrons are not stable, against the example of magnet, in the magnet the combination is bipolar but in charges are from one only pole and by that neutrons out of the nucleus is unstable and the 2 charges end separates. Non stable ““free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino to become a proton, a process known as beta decay” – this is a decay to separate the charges. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx weak interaction a property is "It is the only interaction capable of changing the flavor" so according to this no flavor is not weak, in same form that if a property of light is dispersion, like laser light has not dispersion is not light or in the building, like a strong building not lose pieces and by that if decay or lose pieces is not a building. An example of strong (stable) and weak (unstable) : you can consider a good made building, the structure is good, the cement is firmly, this is stable, but after years, .. the building begin to be unstable by crack, lose of elements and cement, ... the bricks not take out full, but lose part of its structure. So, this example may to be a solution to the strong (stable) and weak (unstable). In same form an unstable (weak) has flavor, ... that only exist in weak interaction. While the building is strong not lose parts or decay nothing, only when is unstable or weak. I make a new ask: How is possible the same elements in strong (stable) form use stron nuclear forces and in weak (unstable) form manifest weak forces. According to wikipedia : strong “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” but weak make decay neutrons in quarks, ... Also look that when strong forces appear not exist weak forces in same particles and viceversa. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now it’s moment to understand that the neutron is the particle that permit the universe like we know, without neutrons the protons could not join and by that only would exist the hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron). And also for the antineutron. This is well asked in the history of the page of strong interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction): “It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart.” – the proton with their double charge is what admit this combination. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks. © Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

It's correct, but the same occurs with Copernic, many scientist could not fail against one person. Same with all the scientifist advances, a scientist advance always is against the consensus, Earth not flat, Earth not the center of the universe, expecies evolution, ... Sorry, that you say is against proofs: Any scientists also like a quick extinction: "“The length of time taken for the extinction to occur is a controversial issue, because some theories about the extinction's causes require a rapid extinction over a relatively short period (from a few years to a few thousand years) while others require longer periods.” - http://en.wikipedia....xtinction_event But “fossil-bearing rock which cover a time range from several million years before the K–Pg extinction to a few million years after it” - http://en.wikipedia....xtinction_event This make a probably extinction duration of: "“during the last 10 million years of the Cretaceous” - http://en.wikipedia....xtinction_event xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the planet considered in periods of million or millions years would be all very vulcanism, but this not extinct species, probably any moments the vulcanism is more but if dark the sky all the animmals die if the period is long, for this I put the example of the year without summer (1 only year). It's totally impossible a very hight activity (volcanoes or impacts without a total extintion of all life. And like it's totally impossible I only can to say that "Correct. But a consensus of informed scientific opinion is more likely to be correct than misininformed and misinterpreted opinion expressed by an individual." only means that this consensus of informed scientific is only a consensus over an impossible. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Another example: During Carboniferous period many mountains were created, but I think you not understant any animal would to run from the land because in that moment a mountain grow in his legs. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Maybe I would made 2 topics, my hypothesis is only a hypothesis, maybe true or false but actual admitted theory only can to be false, so my hypothesis always has more probabilities to be true that another option 100% false.

That you and many "are moving towards a consensus" not means that is true. What you say is only impossible: "This was exacerbated by the extensive volcanic activity that produced the Deccan Traps. The Chicxulub impact" imagine their probability, years of extensive volcanic and end with a impact, the probability probably is 1 between trillions. I have put the example of kakratoa, a simple volcanic explosion with duration effect of near 1 year, and you speak over million years. "You might want to look into the proliferation of ferns after the KT event and tell me how your unfounded 'sun particle' theory explains that." - I can, but: Do you can? A easy explanation is that with the lower activity and dead of other plants you give a new posivility to plants without a problem. Now give me you explanation with volcanoes and impact.

(hypothesis against the mainstream) The probability of 2 advanced societies needed for the seti proyects is near 0: To give an approximation we need consider the live of the star, our star (the Sun) has 4.57 billion years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ) and with estimated live total of 12.3 Billion years (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_longer_do_scientists_think_the_sun_will_live) Our advanced society has only 100 years (really many less) and probably will have few years more (oil peak, …). In all forms we can consider 1000 years of advanced civilization for connect with other civilizations in the universe, this means that 1000/12,300,000,000 = 8.13 e-8 or 0,0000000813 (other stars have more years of life, so the division would be less – until estimated 10 trillion years - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_are_stars) Searching live extraterrestrial and the very low probability of 2 advanced civilization at same time, this is of 8.13 e-8 x 8.13 e-8 = 64 e-16. This is near infinite impossible. Well, we are at present in supposed advanced society, so to take in count with other civilization in Milky way the relation would to be only of 8.13 e-8 and like “The Milky Way contains at least 100 billion stars[23] and may have up to 400 billion stars” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way this means supposing total of 400 billion stars a probably of 400 billion x 0,0000000813 = 32,520 possibilities. But this 32,520 is far of the good answer, in our Milky way only are visible near to “5000 visible "stars"” - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070619192110AAkkCVp Also can speak over 84 millions of stars http://www.space.com/18193-milky-way-photo-84-millions-stars.html , this would be a better approximation but 84 millions x 0,0000000813 = 6.82 considering near 1000 years of advanced society in both planets. Now our next question would be if we are really advanced to contact with other civilization and the answer is “NO” Do you believe we could obtain signal from all this planets with probably live in the 84 millions of stars visible in the Milky way? Really you believe we can only listen their signals? More problems are with send signals. Our actual technology permits us near the limit to contact with our satellites a few more that our solar system “the voyager” or the satellite send to Pluto. This technology is according to know where is the satellite, … Probably our actual technology cannot take contact neither with the nearest start to us (“Proxima Centauri is the nearest star to the Sun” - Proxima Centauri is the nearest star to the Sun.) with a distance of about 4.24 light years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri). “Pluto is about four light-hours from Earth” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071120195143AAcI3bi and “Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigation difficult. Many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 2015,” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto so Proxima Centauri is only 24/4 = 6 x 365 x 4.24 = 9285.6 more distance that Pluto. You can read the Communication system with voyager 1 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 that “includes a 3.7 meter diameter parabolic” Really the Hubble telescope cannot give details from Pluto and that it have “Surface area of 1.665×107 km2 - or 0.033 Earths” and pretend to obtain signal of planets to many more distance. If Hubble telescope cannot give signal of a body so big and at so low distance: Do you believe we can receive so little signal from so big distances in electromagnetic waves? Radio telescopes may help for stars and other universe signals but not for societies signals : “Just as optical astronomers make images using the light emitted by celestial objects such as stars and galaxies, radio astronomers can make images using the radio waves emitted by such objects” - http://www.nrao.edu/index.php/learn/radioastronomy/interference The radio telescope signal are very attenuated (speaking over the star signal) “The radio signals arriving on Earth from astronomical objects are extremely weak -- millions (or billions) of times weaker than the signals used by communication systems.”- http://www.nrao.edu/index.php/learn/radioastronomy/interference , so imagine the power of a society signal infinitely less that the big strong signal of stars. Imagine the big power to send a signal for to be a strong near to star signal, probably all the energy of the planet would not be enough. Also we need to add the interferences in waves for stars (“Satellite Interference By The Sun” in http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/9 ) because any planet need to be around a star and that star would make interferences to the society signals. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Maybe in the future a new advanced society in Earth admit connection with other planets in the universe but our advanced society is below the requirements for connect in same form that primitive man cannot contact to the antipodes. In relation to send signal the problem is many more, we would need with actual technology transmit with a power near of a star to obtain a so little quantity of signal like stars are visible with telescopes and also transmitted in an exact direction and only in the direction of the parabolic antenna. More, also need admit a big dispersion in actual antennas by a big radio. An example: Soho satellite lost communication with the Earth from June 24 to August 4 of 1998 by an error in “antennas were no longer angled toward Earth” - http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9808/04/soho/index.html and with not so big distance from Earth. Distance of “1,500,000 km 1% of the distance to the Sun” - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_distance_of_SOHO_satellite_from_the_earth Probably the scientists could obtain a solution to see a probably oxygen atmosphere but this will be probably the only relation with probably live in other planets. In same relation that with advanced societies we can make the relation with live, considering the Earth live of “life date to 3.85 billion years ago” - http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/when-did-life-on-earth-begin-ask-a-rock So the relation with life is 3.85 billion/12.3 Billion years = 0.313 but in relation to live, not necessary of oxygen and without technology. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Probably we make to consider the big quantities of money spend in live in other planets and seem near to a fraud. The probability to obtain contact with live or know existence of life is infinitely low, so near 0 in all form, same in all stars would have life. Our advanced society probably cannot take constant neither with a civilization in Proxima Centauri. This seems only a FRAUD. An entertainment. More information over positive result can to be show for example in: Seti of nasa - http://history.nasa.gov/seti.html seti@home - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI@home For example, “The price tag for the Cyclops array was $10 billion USD” (radio telescope) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence , maybe be good for universe signals, fraud for life signals. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Really connecting with other advanced civilitacion is near impossible or more. We need to add the low probability of 2 advanced societies in same time, the interferences from the star of each solar system, the antenna, the very big atenuattion with universe distances, the very big signal in relation to stars, … But seem a good tale and in good relation to fraud or machination like UFO, … xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks. © Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

Any scientists also like a quick extinction: "“The length of time taken for the extinction to occur is a controversial issue, because some theories about the extinction's causes require a rapid extinction over a relatively short period (from a few years to a few thousand years) while others require longer periods.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event But “fossil-bearing rock which cover a time range from several million years before the K–Pg extinction to a few million years after it” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event This make a probably extinction duration of: "“during the last 10 million years of the Cretaceous” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event So a so long extinction would need a big impact efective near to 10 million years. Joining this with the "year without summer" say that extinction by impact only is impossible.

Is clear, but according to this theory that was many years and darkness the sky. The krakatoa was only a year, not make darkness but snow in summer, hunger, dead, not harvest, not seeds, in only 1 year, imagine many years with the sky darkness. I believe remember that also was extinctions of any vegetables by end of theirs seeds. You can read over that year without summer, there are information, and this is a real and documented information over the effect of a few dust in the atmosphere without darkness of Sun but with result of a year without summer. If a very simple explosion of a volcano was so many difficult, a big impact would to be many more, so much that the unique probably result is the total extinction of all life. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Over this year without summer "old farmers in the state referred to 1816 as "eighteen hundred and starve to death." - http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/The-Year-Without-A-Summer.htm " It is estimated that 100,000 Irish perished during this period" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer "European fatality total of 200,000 deaths." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer And the impact for dinosaurs would to be infinitelly bigger and many more years. (probably thousand of years).