lbiarge

Dinosaur extinction was probably by Sun particles

Recommended Posts

And?

And what? Right now, looking objectively, the comet/asteroid impact scenario seems more probable to me. There is at least evidence for it.

 

You have some unnamed magic particle whose properties you have defined as only killing what you personally think would have been killed, and presented no evidence for.

 

The scientific choice is obvious.

 

If I am unclear here or in my previous post, what I am saying is present evidence for your idea. Just because there may be a few open questions about the other idea that doesn't automatically promote your idea to best status. Right now, there is evidence for a large impact causing extinction. Where is the same evidence for your mystery sun particle?

Edited by Bignose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, a million years. Very good.

 

you are assuming the conditions of total darkness lasted million years? no one has asserted that and no evidence for that exists...

 

 

 

 

Also are evidences or many other impacts without extinction.

 

let us know about some of them...

 

 

Also are evidences of volcano explosions ,....

 

 

What is your point? A super volcano almost resulted in the extinction of the human race something like 50,000 years ago, trimmed us back to a few thousand individuals...

 

 

 

And?

 

And what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what? Right now, looking objectively, the comet/asteroid impact scenario seems more probable to me. There is at least evidence for it.

 

You have some unnamed magic particle whose properties you have defined as only killing what you personally think would have been killed, and presented no evidence for.

 

The scientific choice is obvious.

 

If I am unclear here or in my previous post, what I am saying is present evidence for your idea. Just because there may be a few open questions about the other idea that doesn't automatically promote your idea to best status. Right now, there is evidence for a large impact causing extinction. Where is the same evidence for your mystery sun particle?

 

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.

Edited by lbiarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

yes, there was some volcanic eruptions that had degraded the environment at the time and there is some idea that there was more than one impact at around that time... these things happen, volcanoes erupt, the environment degrades and comes back. I really don't see your point...

 

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).

 

Not being absolutely sure and knowing it is one of the things that makes science work so well...

 

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.

 

a error margin of 11,000 years is pretty good over 65,000,000 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?

 

No, in fact the Krakatoa explosion was many orders of magnitude smaller than the impact even thought to have doomed the dinosaurs...

 

"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"

 

Again not comparable to the asteroid impact that doomed the dinosaurs...

 

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?

 

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?

 

I know your answer: meteorite impact.

 

If so, I understand you belief, but please, don't try convert me at your belief.

 

If you have interest I also belief in none God.

 

 

Your belief or lack there of for god has nothing to do with this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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, ...

Edited by lbiarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand something, the K/T boundary extinction did not kill off everything, among land animals large creatures took the biggest hit. Small animals that could hibernate, crocodiles that could subsist on little food for long periods of time and NO, not everything was killed, not all plant life was killed, you are operating on a mistaken premise, I suggest you do a little more research...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand something, the K/T boundary extinction did not kill off everything, among land animals large creatures took the biggest hit. Small animals that could hibernate, crocodiles that could subsist on little food for long periods of time and NO, not everything was killed, not all plant life was killed, you are operating on a mistaken premise, I suggest you do a little more research...

 

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong on so many levels, it's almost not funny anymore.

 

You keep talking about Krakatoa as though it should have been able to wipe out all life just because an impact allegedly did. As Moontanman said, they're not even comparable. Further, Krakatoa wasn't even that big. Compare it to the eruption that caused the La Garita Caldera, what was once thought to be the biggest explosive eruption in the history of the planet. It yielded the same power as 240,000 megatons of TNT. Might sound like a lot, but the impact that caused the extinction is estimated to have been around 100 terratons. That's an insane difference, so you can cross your Krakatoa off the list of this repeating record.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Garita_Caldera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

 

You seem to be thinking that scientists say the extinction took place over 11,000 years. It might be because of the language barrier, but that's completely wrong. The 11,000 years is the accuracy we have of when the extinction took place. I don't have the exact number, but let's say they estimate it to have happened 65,000,000 years ago, with an accuracy of 11,000 years. That means it could have happened as early as 65,006,500 years ago, or as late as 64,993,500 years ago. It has NOTHING to do with how long it took, only the accuracy to when we can say it happened. So stop thinking anyone says it took 11,000 years.

 

The world isn't either black or white. There are loads of shades of gray inbetween (50 if I'm not mistaken). The volcanic eruptions that preceded the impact didn't blacken out the world entirely. Nobody is saying that, since that would be silly. Instead, they affected the climate by lowering the temperature by 2 degrees C. This might not sound like a lot, but averaging out all over the planet, the cooling put a lot of stress on the eco-systems. It's not like everything went black and all the plants died.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

 

The same thing can be said by the impact winter caused by the impact itself. Not only did it create earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, it also covered the surface of the planet with a layer of dust and particles that diminished plant life. The sun would be covered for a long period of time, causing the temperature to fall. But not everything simply died. The environment were stressed, and a lot of the life did die. But seeing as we're here, not everything did. As said before, some species (of both plants and animals) were able to pull through. And after the dust had settled, they managed to get back on their feet. There was no black cloud hiding the sun for hundreds of years!

 

Everything you're saying seems to be stemming from the fact that you simply don't understand the words used to explain things. You need to either get a much better understanding of the English language, or start reading the literature in your own language until you actually understand what's going on. Because you honestly have no clue right now, and you have no idea how wrong you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by lbiarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you need to write to Paul Renne and explain him that he has mistaken and that you have the TRUE.

Paul Renne? Are you serious? Because if you are, you once again prove that you have no idea what you're saying. Renne agrees with the impact theory but also said it might just have been the final blow.

http://www.dailycal.org/2013/02/11/uc-berkeley-researchers-find-further-evidence-linking-asteroid-to-dinosaur-extinction/

 

"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.

I wasn't talking about the extinction. I was talking about your interpretation of what has been explained to you. You seem to think that just because one species died, that means all of them did. Or that volcanic eruptions cover the skies with ashes, therefor the Sun disappears and all plant life dies. Both of which are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about the extinction. I was talking about your interpretation of what has been explained to you. You seem to think that just because one species died, that means all of them did. Or that volcanic eruptions cover the skies with ashes, therefor the Sun disappears and all plant life dies. Both of which are wrong.

 

I never say that, more probably you like say that I say that.

 

Died many species, but any species not, any birds, ... no one dinosaur.

 

"Or that volcanic eruptions cover the skies with ashes, therefor the Sun disappears and all plant life dies"

 

No. I say not that, I speak over the year without summer, and it's proved that in that year in many places not germinated the vegetables, then if the kakratoa was a little explosion, in a bigger that remain during 1000 years of more (the difference is from 11,0000 years and the period total is of 1 million years) the result would be many more fatals.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Do you understand "coup de grace", "final blow" and cause like the same thing?

 

According to this all animals die by a heart failure, and the only cause of dead is heart failure.

 

I here not speak over if that "coup de grace", "final blow" is real of subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see are perceived problems with the impact extinction model. That's fine and dandy. No scientist worth their salt will be able to tell wou with certainty what happened. They do have clues, though, like the crater, and the fact that the same layer of sediment was found in a very, very disperse locations. http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL107/KT.html

 

But,

 

I see no model proposed that does any better. You have mysterious, still unnamed, still undescribed sun particles that by some magic kill things off. And no evidence presented for it, either.

 

If I replaced 'sun particles' with 'despondent alcoholic murderous fairies', your idea is still exactly that same!

 

Science welcomes new ideas. But, for those new ideas to be accepted, evidence has to be provided that supports it.

 

Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model. Please, please, please cite evidence that matched your sun particle model. And please, please, please actually describe what your sun particle model is. Such as, exactly what particle or particles from the sun are responsible? Your model will never get any traction until you can answer these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see are perceived problems with the impact extinction model. That's fine and dandy. No scientist worth their salt will be able to tell wou with certainty what happened. They do have clues, though, like the crater, and the fact that the same layer of sediment was found in a very, very disperse locations. http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL107/KT.html

 

 

 

Good, very good note, thanks.

 

But this only has a few problems, like you say "the same layer of sediment was found in a very, very disperse locations" but if it's good the sediments need to be at all locations (supposing is global).

 

Also the sediment is later of the extintion: "the iridium occurs in a layer just above the last Cretaceous microfossils,"

 

The text is good but insufficient, but:

 

"The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point,"

 

"scientist say that this need to be quickly, but the extinction was so slowly that 1 million years."

 

"The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," - means nothing, because has not explanation of the begin and also can to be 11,000 later of the end of the extinction.

 

The sediment is true, but it's over the end of life of dinosuars, no with it.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

But,

 

I see no model proposed that does any better. You have mysterious, still unnamed, still undescribed sun particles that by some magic kill things off. And no evidence presented for it, either.

 

If I replaced 'sun particles' with 'despondent alcoholic murderous fairies', your idea is still exactly that same!

 

Science welcomes new ideas. But, for those new ideas to be accepted, evidence has to be provided that supports it.

 

Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model. Please, please, please cite evidence that matched your sun particle model. And please, please, please actually describe what your sun particle model is. Such as, exactly what particle or particles from the sun are responsible? Your model will never get any traction until you can answer these questions.

 

what you say is not true, same scientist that an impact only would to be a "coup de grace"

 

"Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model." - no, only a probably "coup de grace"

 

You say I say not true but really you say not true.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I never negate the impacts, I only say that an impact or not extinct or extinct all species.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

You have to understand something, the K/T boundary extinction did not kill off everything, among land animals large creatures took the biggest hit. Small animals that could hibernate, crocodiles that could subsist on little food for long periods of time and NO, not everything was killed, not all plant life was killed, you are operating on a mistaken premise, I suggest you do a little more research...

 

This idea of hibernate is good but any botanic can say you that hibernation is not free has costs.

 

The animals that hibernate need to have grease reserves, normally according to the winter duration, if the reserves are little the animal die and also the reserve is prepared for any months not any years or many years.

 

But plants normally can hibernate but really many of theirs dead, and it's according to this phrase "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."

 

So an impact cannot explain this, but sun particles can.

 

I don't deny the impact, volcanoes, .. but if extinct only extinct near species (a volcano in their near environment) or all the species.

 

Science welcomes new ideas. But, for those new ideas to be accepted, evidence has to be provided that supports it.

 

Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model. Please, please, please cite evidence that matched your sun particle model. And please, please, please actually describe what your sun particle model is. Such as, exactly what particle or particles from the sun are responsible? Your model will never get any traction until you can answer these questions.

 

Sorry, scientists today admit that the impact only can to be the "coup de grace.", nothing more , not put you the phrases.

 

"Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model" - no

 

"Please, please, please cite evidence that matched your sun particle model" - none, but it's near the only explanation possible, the extinction begin near a million years before the impact, animals and plants dead and many extinct but an impact only can not extinct or extinct all species, the so long duration is against the ideas of volcanoes and impacts.

 

The radiation like the radiation in Chernobil, ... can in long periods make extinctions, ...

 

Another proof against the volcanoes and impact is that a dark sky would given also a glaciation and the glaciations leave marks.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Really if the cause of extinction is not the impact, not vulcanoes, not glaciations, appart from Sun and Sun radiaction what another things can cause the extinction?

 

We know that the life is from the Sun and the day the Sun extinct all the life also will extinct.

 

Glaciations, season, ... all is by the Sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so no evidence to back your idea up, then? I mean, I've prompted you 3 times now.

 

Your idea is grossly unsupported by evidence. Come back with evidence, and then you'll get some attention. Otherwise, this isn't science. You're doing nothing more than story telling about magic sun particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so no evidence to back your idea up, then? I mean, I've prompted you 3 times now.

 

Your idea is grossly unsupported by evidence. Come back with evidence, and then you'll get some attention. Otherwise, this isn't science. You're doing nothing more than story telling about magic sun particles.

 

1 - the evidences of impact is zero. The same scientist say that may only to be a "coup de grace"

 

2 - the evidences in their time from impact is very low or null: "The asteroid-impact theory was first proposed in detail in 1978, by a team led by American geologist Walter Alvarez and physicist Luis Alvarez. The Alvarez team analyzed sediment collected in the 1970s from the K-T layer near the town of Gubbio, Italy. The samples showed a high concentration of the element iridium, a substance rare on Earth but relatively abundant in asteroids. Other samples of K-T boundary strata from around the world were also analyzed; excess iridium was found in these samples as well. Using the average thickness of the sediment as a guide, they calculated that a meteorite about 10 km in diameter would be required to spread that much iridium over the whole Earth" - http://www.universetoday.com/36706/asteroid-extinction-theory/

 

3 - the iridium study is very subjectiv, without compare other times, .... this is work in inverse mode, they find what they like, not information over iridium in other times.

 

4 - the proof of cause today is know but already remain in a false cause.

 

5 - Renne say "One cause of the climate variability could have been a sustained series of volcanic eruptions in India that produced the extensive Deccan Traps. Renne plans to re-date those volcanic rocks to get a more precise measure of their duration and onset relative to the dinosaur extinction." - Where are here the evidences?

 

6 - Why Renne not need evidences but I need evidences?

 

7 - Why Renne may use the common sense but not me?

 

8 - more evidences: "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane" - Here where are the evidences? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

 

Well, well, you consider a totally false cause good, and any other solution probably like error?

 

Against 0 probability any other solution has infinite more probabilities, less another false.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Well.

 

The iridium - "the iridium occurs in a layer just above the last Cretaceous microfossils," this probably means the solution to the impact in a probably 11,000 years after the extinction.

 

A probably: I see you understand that the impact is previous, later dead dinosaurs and later probably 1000 years later the iridium take land. This is near impossible, how any species survive the impact?

 

If would dead by the impact the iridium would to be at same level, the take of land would be like much 1 - 2 years later and probably less.

 

In that subjectiv study not find other probably layers with more iridium, asteroids impact near every time. And also not study (maybe they make this study, I have not find) if the layers correspond all at same time.

 

But may occur all at same time, we know that in a difference of + or - 11,000 years maximun a good asteriod impact.

 

The proof of the iridium for me is: the dinousaus extinct, then later in a time until 11,000 years or less have impact the asteroid, and without extinction effects, the animals in few number after o into that bad period of dead not are extincted.

 

In all form, the populations in time before the extinction are decreasing, probably in exctintion danger, but not only the dinosaurs, all the species, the dinosaurs extinct and other but not all.

 

And you say that I say false, all you say false.

 

False is to say that the extinction of the dinosaurs is by impact later that already the scientist with their subjectiv studies discover is false, but continue say that is true.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

If you like I can continue with the extinction in same time of the marine reptiles were the plants have few importance, the darks survive, the reptiles not and where big fish eat little fish

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I finish:

 

"Ok, so no evidence to back your idea up, then? I mean, I've prompted you 3 times now.

 

Your idea is grossly unsupported by evidence. Come back with evidence, and then you'll get some attention. Otherwise, this isn't science. You're doing nothing more than story telling about magic sun particles."

 

You and all scientist that say that dinosaurs extinct by impact really no have evidences, really have contrary evidences.

 

I don't speak over magic sun particles, ask to the "international spatial station" if the danger is by "magic sun particles" or show that aurora in poles are not by your magic sun particles.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - the evidences of impact is zero. The same scientist say that may only to be a "coup de grace"

Wrong. And why would anyone say "there is no evidence for it, but we think it was only the final blow". That doesn't make any sense.

 

2 - the evidences in their time from impact is very low or null:

I'm not sure what you mean "in their time", but what evidence they had "in their time" is irrelevant. Something is not untrue just because we didn't know better at some point in time.

 

3 - the iridium study is very subjectiv, without compare other times, .... this is work in inverse mode, they find what they like, not information over iridium in other times.

Are you actually saying they're just saying that specific layer has a lot of iridium? A lot compared to what, exactly? Of course they compare it to other layers.

 

5 - Renne say "One cause of the climate variability could have been a sustained series of volcanic eruptions in India that produced the extensive Deccan Traps. Renne plans to re-date those volcanic rocks to get a more precise measure of their duration and onset relative to the dinosaur extinction." - Where are here the evidences?

Evidence for what? You didn't quote a claim. It's like me saying'

"He thinks he put green sheets on the bed this morning, but he will have to check when he gets home." - Where is the evidences?

 

6 - Why Renne not need evidences but I need evidences?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html

The burden of proof is the same to everyone.

 

7 - Why Renne may use the common sense but not me?

Because he actually knows how to use it.

 

8 - more evidences: "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacialinterglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane" - Here where are the evidences? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

What in the world does an ice have to do with dinosaurs?

 

Well, well, you consider a totally false cause good, and any other solution probably like error?

 

Against 0 probability any other solution has infinite more probabilities, less another false.

You still haven't come up with a single solid piece of evidence other than "mainstream science is impossible". Nobody even knows what kind of sun particles you're talking about.

 

 

The iridium - "the iridium occurs in a layer just above the last Cretaceous microfossils," this probably means the solution to the impact in a probably 11,000 years after the extinction.

Please have someone translate the parts about 11,000 years for you, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, despite being told again and again and again. And it's impossible to make any progress when one party don't even understand what is being said.

 

A probably: I see you understand that the impact is previous, later dead dinosaurs and later probably 1000 years later the iridium take land. This is near impossible, how any species survive the impact?

Nobody's saying the iridium "landed 1000 years later". That's a really silly strawman.

 

In that subjectiv study not find other probably layers with more iridium, asteroids impact near every time. And also not study (maybe they make this study, I have not find) if the layers correspond all at same time.

So just because we're bombarded by small meteors all the time, Earth should be covered in iridium? That's wrong.

 

The proof of the iridium for me is: the dinousaus extinct, then later in a time until 11,000 years or less have impact the asteroid, and without extinction effects, the animals in few number after o into that bad period of dead not are extincted.

So the iridium, one of the rarest elements on the surface of the Earth, came before the impact?

 

In all form, the populations in time before the extinction are decreasing, probably in exctintion danger, but not only the dinosaurs, all the species, the dinosaurs extinct and other but not all.

So what? Species go extinct all the time. That doesn't mean every other species go extinct at the same time. Also remember that the dinosaurs were, by far, the dominant creature on the planet. When they died out, other animals had a chance to get back up.

 

If you like I can continue with the extinction in same time of the marine reptiles were the plants have few importance, the darks survive, the reptiles not and where big fish eat little fish

Did your sun particles penetrate deep enough in the water?

 

I have no hope at all that you'll be able to understand anything of what I've typed up here, so in your case it might be an exercise in futility. You really need to learn English better if you want to put out an attempt of a scientific hypothesis on an English language forum. Your ideas might not be as insane as you make them sound, but there's no way for anyone else to know, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - the evidences of impact is zero. The same scientist say that may only to be a "coup de grace"

Just because you don't know the evidence, doesn't mean it is nonexistent. Shouldn't you understand the current theory at least reasonably well before you jsut dismiss it out of hand? I'll never understand this all-too-common phenomena: someone decrying the current model as clearly wrong, misinterpreted, and garbage, but then demonstrating zero knowledge of it.

I don't speak over magic sun particles, ask to the "international spatial station" if the danger is by "magic sun particles" or show that aurora in poles are not by your magic sun particles.

You do, though, because you can't even name what kinds of particles they are. The solar radiation the ISS protects itself is known, and the properties are known, and how that radiation interacts is known -- hence they know how to protect themselves. Same thing with the aurora -- the particles that cause that are known, and hence predictions on how good the Northern Lights will be on any given night are possible.

 

I call your particles 'magic' because you still haven't even named them! Why can't you do that? And why support an idea that doesn't even something as simple as the type of particles responsible for the result named? I think it is rather amazing that you don't even see not being able to describe the particles as a giant gaping hole in the idea! Doesn't that seem like a big flaw? It sure does to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

n.

 

I have no hope at all that you'll be able to understand anything of what I've typed up here, so in your case it might be an exercise in futility. You really need to learn English better if you want to put out an attempt of a scientific hypothesis on an English language forum. Your ideas might not be as insane as you make them sound, but there's no way for anyone else to know, unfortunately.

In fairness, I don't agree that his English is the problem here. I think he has conveyed his ideas well enough that we can tell that they are wrong.

That must be rather difficult in a language that someone didn't grow up with.

 

As has been repeatedly pointed out, he has told us nothing of these "sun particles" except that they must be lethal.

That's the problem- not linguistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm preparing a more elaborated work with evidences, ... but an advance:

3 proofs or if you like 3 coincidences:

1 - At same time of dinosaurs extinction is the big marine reptile extinction, against this the sharks survive, reptiles need to go to surface to breathe but sharks have gill and by that not need.

The so called extinction by impact need that the Sun get dark by dust and this difficult the photosynthesis, eat of vegetables … but these reptile are carnivores and can eat sharks … and in sea there are not barriers.

In relation to Sun particles the big marine reptiles need to go to surface and receive more quantity of particles.

2 - Older species admit more radiation that new species.

3 - "Many scientists have suggested that ionizing radiation was responsible for mass extinctions” – this is according to Sun particles - http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm and not with impact.

More: “Much in the fossil record confirms this evolutionary scheme. Ionizing radiation is evident in the geologic and fossil records as irradiated minerals, such as iridium, tektites and microtektites, bones that are radioactive, mummified fossils, abrupt shifts in the levels of elements known as isotopes, and selective extinctions. The huge deposits of fossilized bones that make-up phosphate rock deposits is staggering, and they are often radioactive. The conditions under which these fossil bones were deposited do not exist today, as they appear to have been cut off from both sea and air, and no sedimentation took place as they were laid down. The chemical process that transformed the bones into phosphate is unknown and could have involved ionizing radiation, especially since the deposits are radioactive.” - http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm - here you can read also information over iridium

All this are in relation with Sun particles that is near to nuclear power and against impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm preparing a more elaborated work with evidences, ... but an advance:

 

3 proofs or if you like 3 coincidences:

 

No proofs here, only evidence which so far you have failed to give.

 

 

 

1 - At same time of dinosaurs extinction is the big marine reptile extinction, against this the sharks survive, reptiles need to go to surface to breathe but sharks have gill and by that not need.

 

many marine species went extinct at the K/T boundary, both small large in the sea as well as on land...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

 

The K-Pg extinction was a global event. The event appears to have hit all continents at the same time. Dinosaurs, for example, are known from the Maastrichtian of North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and Antarctica,[19] but are unknown from the Cenozoic anywhere in the world. Similarly, fossil pollen show devastation of the plant communities in areas as far flung as New Mexico, Alaska, China, and New Zealand.[12] The event also affected all seas and oceans. Widespread groups such as mosasaurs and ammonites disappeared around the world. Furthermore, the extinctions occurred at the same time on land and in the sea.

 

 

 

Coccolithophorids and molluscs (including ammonites, rudists, freshwater snails and mussels), and those organisms whose food chain included these shell builders, became extinct or suffered heavy losses. For example, it is thought that ammonites were the principal food of mosasaurs, a group of giant marinereptiles that became extinct at the boundary.[21]

Omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters survived the extinction event, perhaps because of the increased availability of their food sources. At the end of the Cretaceous there seems to have been no purely herbivorous or carnivorous mammals. Mammals and birds that survived the extinction fed on insects, worms, and snails, which in turn fed on dead plant and animal matter. Scientists hypothesize that these organisms survived the collapse of plant-based food chains because they fed on detritus (non-living organic material).[22][23][24]

 

 

 

The so called extinction by impact need that the Sun get dark by dust and this difficult the photosynthesis, eat of vegetables … but these reptile are carnivores and can eat sharks … and in sea there are not barriers.

 

And yet as I pointed out above both microbiota and large animals became extinct at that time not just sea reptiles...

 

 

In relation to Sun particles the big marine reptiles need to go to surface and receive more quantity of particles.

 

2 - Older species admit more radiation that new species.

 

citation needed for this

 

 

3 - "Many scientists have suggested that ionizing radiation was responsible for mass extinctions” – this is according to Sun particles - http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm and not with impact.

 

what sun particles exactly?

 

 

More: “Much in the fossil record confirms this evolutionary scheme. Ionizing radiation is evident in the geologic and fossil records as irradiated minerals, such as iridium, tektites and microtektites, bones that are radioactive, mummified fossils, abrupt shifts in the levels of elements known as isotopes, and selective extinctions. The huge deposits of fossilized bones that make-up phosphate rock deposits is staggering, and they are often radioactive. The conditions under which these fossil bones were deposited do not exist today, as they appear to have been cut off from both sea and air, and no sedimentation took place as they were laid down. The chemical process that transformed the bones into phosphate is unknown and could have involved ionizing radiation, especially since the deposits are radioactive.” - http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm - here you can read also information over iridium

 

All this are in relation with Sun particles that is near to nuclear power and against impact.

 

Not all dinosaurs bones are radioactive and their radioactivity is not connected with the K/T extinction event. the radioactivity comes from naturally occurring uranium and it's ionic affinity to phosphorous ..

 

http://www.quora.com/Science/Why-are-some-Dinosaur-bones-covered-in-heavily-leaded-paint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this are in relation with Sun particles that is near to nuclear power and against impact.

Look at all these particles we know, http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~dfehling/particle.gif, and yet you still can't even name the ones that supposedly fulfill your idea. Edited by Bignose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at all these particles we know, http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~dfehling/particle.gif, and yet you still can't even name the ones that supposedly fulfill your idea.

 

Sorry but I know the name, ... : "Every day we are hit by a blizzard of radioactive particles. It's called the solar wind and it carries about one million tons of electrically-charged gas particles, away from the sun every second" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/23degrees/2011/01/the_sun_and_the_solar_wind_ear.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

The solar wind is not a particle, and grasping at straws doesn't fulfill the requirement of backing your claims up. Fair warning that you are not in compliance with the rules of engagement here in speculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I know the name, ... : "Every day we are hit by a blizzard of radioactive particles. It's called the solar wind and it carries about one million tons of electrically-charged gas particles, away from the sun every second" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/23degrees/2011/01/the_sun_and_the_solar_wind_ear.html

 

 

BTW, your assertion about the radioactive dinosaur bones is falsified by your assertion that the solar wind is the origin of your "sun particles" The solar wind would not cause bones to be radioactive since the solar wind contains ions not neutrons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For example, the levels of ionizing radiation and radio interference can vary by factors of hundreds to thousands" - "Earth itself is largely protected from the solar wind by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles; however some of the charged particles are trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt." - "CMEs cause shock waves in the thin plasma of the heliosphere, launching electromagnetic waves and accelerating particles (mostly protons and electrons) to form showers of ionizing radiation that precede the CME" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

"From the European Space Agency’s Cluster mission, a new study has taken place that proposes it easier for the solar wind to infiltrate the magnetosphere than it had been previously believed" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

"What Problems Do Solar Winds Cause for Technology?" - "Problems Caused by the Solar Wind - In power systems especially, geomagnetic storms induce strong currents within transformers" - "Minimizing Solar Wind Impacts - Utility companies and other technology-based operations can minimize the impacts from geomagnetic storms." - http://www.ehow.com/way_5743486_prob...chnology_.html

The perfect solar storm? Sun eruptions to peak in 2013 - "A massive solar storm, like the one that knocked out radio communications all over the U.S. in 1958, is coming, and this time the devastation could total as much as $2 trillion, experts told FoxNews.com. Call it the perfect solar storm." - http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...-peak-in-2013/

etc, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now