Extraordinary or ordinary?: West responds to CBS about latest paper

 

 

We agree with them that glass could be formed a lot of different ways. We don’t have a problem with that,” said Allen West, a retired oil and gas executive who is one of the leading proponents of the theory.

“You can get them from grass fires but you also get melt glass from lightning, volcanic eruptions and you also get it from cosmic impacts. The trick is being able to tell them apart.”

West said house fires don’t explain why they found evidence of particles from the Syrian soil and in North America that contained rare minerals like suessite, which melts at 4,100 degrees, and corundum, which melts at 3,200 degrees.

No building fire can create those temperatures, a fact that refutes their hypothesis that this glass was produced in low-temperature building fires,” he said. “The sad thing is that these guys ignored all the high temperature evidence.”

So it’s clear the debate will go on.

West said he and several other supporters of the impact theory are readying papers that will provide further evidence of additional cosmic minerals at the sites, as well as more evidence shoring up the dates of the impact sites.

“The only time these melted minerals are seen in glass is when there was a cosmic impact or an atomic bomb blast,” West said of the new findings. “We can pretty much rule out an atomic bomb in Syria at that time.”

Questions raised over theory that an asteroid caused the Big Freeze, CBS, Michael Casey, Jan 7, 2015

Download (PDF, 3.75MB)

This week’s paper was in critique of this YDB team paper in PNAS:

Download (PDF, 12.61MB)

  • jim coyle

    Steve; In the job I have we have to flow alum powder which is down to 3-4 microns. We use vibrators to move the powder from hoppers to feeder screws then to vibratory screens. when the vibration is just right the powder flows like water. Without the vibrators it sticks or rat holes like crazy. Here on earth whenever there is a earthquake you’ll inevidibly have an avalanche or two. So you have figure that in lesser gravity it would take very little impact vibration to kick loose a rubble flow.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    Way cool stuff about 67P.

    Yes, during the period of accumulating information/data/evidence, it SHOULD be “surprise, surprise, surprise”. Why wouldn’t it be? Because there are so many ways that science thinks it has all the major stuff known. If they would recognize that we are at a point EARLY on the continuum, there would be no surprises, because it is a time of exploring the unknown, and surprises should BE the norm, not the other way around. What causes the “surprises” is the pressure to jump to conclusions, WAAAAAAAY too early. Hardly a paper exists in the last 10-20-30 years that doesn’t exhibit this (professionally dictated)NEED to jump to conclusions. And everyone is trying to ace out everyone else. Perhaps that existed in the days of the botanists collecting butterflies and birds and bugs, but I don’t think so. People were satisfied with the fact that it was early in the game and that conclusions would be premature.

    So, every time I hear of surprises I am myself NOT surprised. It is just new information, and that is all. It is ONLY the EXPECTATION that things will fit in with their premature “conjaculations” that brings surprises.

    No duh.

    The YDIH/YDB skeptics ridicule the YDB team for what they see as premature “conjaculations”, but they don’t see that the paradigms that they themselves hold to be true are every bit as premature.

    A NICE GET, TRENT.

    IMHO, It is another necessary step along the way.

    There is field called scientific history, or some such. I look at today’s science as part of that history, not the finishing chapter to “Ho, Hum, another piece to fit into our boringly finished science.” NEW PIECES, NEW PIECES, NEW PIECES. What is so hard about THAT?

    Techie comment to follow…

  • Steve Garcia

    From the article Trent posted a link to:
    The composition of the comet’s ice implies that comets like 67P could not have provided Earth with the water that filled its oceans billions of years ago (surprise).

    Dagnabit! Can’t these people EVER stop trying to make each and every new discovery into THE ABSOLUTE AND EVERLASTING ONLY WAY THINGS ARE OR COULD POSSIBLY BE?

    OY VEY!!!!!

    Thus really gets boring. Of COURSE 67P isn’t going to represent ALL comets. WHERE IN THE HECK did they get the idea that it WOULD? Aren’t they smart enough to realize that ONE comet may not represent all comets. WTF, PEOPLE?

    ¡Ai caramba!

  • Steve Garcia

    agimarc –

    He lists some 1187 dwarf planets (Kuiper and Oort bodies) down to 102 km in diameter.

    WHAAAT?! Did they actually claim “Oort bodies”?

    The Oort cloud as of a few months ago was seen as still a hypothetical that had no actual empirical proof to it. I’d think that someone here would have raised a big flag if in the last few months the Oort cloud had had some empirical evidence that it actually exists. In lieu of that missing commentary here, I have to ask if this guy is seeing something that isn’t really there.

    As to “someone being busy making all those smaller objects”, Tom van Flandern’s (and Lagrange’s) exploding planet explains those without batting an eye. In fact, IT PREDICTS THEM.

    If people are dealing with the wrong paradigm then much new evidence is a surprise” – i.e., NOT predicted. In the past that was a sign that the paradigm was wrong. If the paradigm is correct, then it PREDICTS new evidence correctly.

    I will let you guys take that from there…

  • Steve Garcia

    Hmmm… Agimarc, something doesn’t compute…

    You said the thing talks of Kuiper and Oort objects.

    A search of the caltech link shows no mention of Oort. Kuiper belt objects Mike Brown discusses to some extent, but has LOT of caveats about a lot of things, and he goes on about roundness, which doesn’t seem something to waste one’s time about. He mentions Oort not once. Not in that link, at least. Nor in the main sub-link.

    Not one of the three links you gave mention Oort, so I have to ask where that came from.

    At the moment I am thinking that Oort is NOT part of the discussion of Mike Brown’s list. That would suggest that the empirical evidence of the Oort cloud is still ZERO.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    ““A good signpost suggesting which worlds have likely experienced internal geology and which ones haven’t is whether the world is round.”

    THAT I would completely agree with, for what my opinion is worth.

    “If a world is round, that means it’s massive enough for the force imposed by its self-gravity to overcome the strength of its component materials, reshaping it.”

    We-e-e-e-el, I would give this one a partial thumbs up. “to overcome the strength of its component materials” is a rather vague phrase. Basically, I think that it is clear that much of the present “knowledge” of planetary formation is based on assumptions that are VERY difficult to empirically test, so, though they know more than you and I do, I wouldn’t take any specific rationale as the absolute reality of it all. IOW, I don’t see that as being the reason why a planet would or wouldn’t be round.

    Like I said, though, roundness per se doesn’t seem to be a real factor in much.

    As to the rest of that quote, it doesn’t address the presence of metamorphic materials like olivine and peridotite. I’d suspect that the NUMBERS are probably real and close to the solar system facts, though. Roundness does not equate with metamorphism, not necessarily, and perhaps not even necessarily directly proportionately. It sounds possible and maybe even reasonable, but not necessarily so.

    The last line you quoted sounds like b.s. and wishful thinking. A whole three round worlds – it sounds like they are ITCHING to jump to some really “paradigm friendly” conclusions.

    So I sound skeptical?

    Why the hell not? People are skeptical of the YDIH for a lot less reasons than I’ve just laid out.

    ***

    BTW, guys, IMHO this is a great thread. It’s directions and its participation.

  • jim coyle

    I believe I had read a long, long, long time ago that water came into being very early in the earths life from lightening strikes combining H and O2 to form water. I’m not sure if that scenario is valid anymore but I thought I would bring it out just to make more room in my crowded head. I would have to guess that the lightening was from another source of static electricity because–no water, no storms as we know them. The static would have had to come from the turbulence created by the thermally active earth and the gaseous atmosphere. Possible?

  • Trent Telenko

    Steve G,

    There are a lot of globe type objects that are lack a uniform density and a perfect center of mass.

    Geology doesn’t necessarily result in such things.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    I don’t disagree. I’ve often wondered at the roundness of planets.

    I’d also heard long ago that the true circularity/oblateness of the Earth is more perfectly round than a billiard ball. So I went and did the numbers, and damned if it isn’t right at the roundness of a billiard ball, just like they said. I looked up the standard tolerances for billiard balls and compared that to shirking the world to that size.

    I took the most extreme points on the surface of the Earth – the Mariana’s Trench and Chimboarazo, the highest peak on Earth (from the center). Using those, the tolerances versus a billiard ball are pretty much in the same ranges. Since those are such narrow points, when we look at more normal variations, the Earth is quite a bit more truly circular than a billiard ball.

    I won’t go into the numbers now, but if someone asks, I can show my work…

    Mars has much higher peaks and deeper canyons, I think I remember. So its sphericity is less true than the Earth or a billiard ball.

    As to what causes such circularity/sphericity, though, I am at a loss.

  • Steve Garcia

    As to CG being at the perfect center of objects, I also agree with you. And it SEEMS reasonable that at a certain size the forces will balance out to reconfigure – but getting to that size is my bugaboo.

    With impacts being destructive now, the laws of physics cannot have changed. Or could they? Not in my book.

  • Steve –

    My mistake. Good catch. Kuiper belt is defined as 30 – 55 AU. Oort cloud defined as 5,000 – 100,000 AU. I transposed Eris orbit (32 – 98 AU) brushing into the Oort cloud thinking it was a LOT closer than it is. Cheers –

    https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KBOs

  • Steve Garcia

    Pardon me, guys, but testing this out…

  • Steve Garcia

    Dang!

    Someone used an href over at WUWT, and I tried to use it here and it didn’t work.

    Try again…

    Ignore the actual link if this works…

  • Steve Garcia
  • Steve Garcia

    Okay… One more time…

    TESTING 123

  • Steve Garcia

    Hmmm…

    One more time?

    TESTING 456

  • Steve Garcia

    NOPE…

    And again?

    TESTING 789

    Testing 789

  • Steve Garcia

    OKAY. Perhaps I’ve got it.

    Now, to try here…

    agimarc’s comment from February 6, 2015 at 3:52 pm

  • Steve Garcia

    WOW, I got it.

    For those interested in inserting links to any text, that link was done with the following HTML string (no idea if this is actually going to display as I intend it):

    put your text here

    Where for the link the href VALUE – between the first two quotation marks is the full URL INCLUDING THE “HTTP://”, such as

    http://cosmictusk.com/extraordinary-or-ordinary-west-responds-to-recent-paper/comment-page-2/#comment-36522

    And put you text after the rel=”nofollow”>, such as:

    I FOUND THIS LINK

    For those who do HTML all the time, you have no idea how many times I’ve tried this <b?unsuccessfully in so many ways, over a very long period of time.

    No idea why my brain couldn’t manage to get it right before…

  • Steve Garcia

    Nope… it didn’t display like I was trying to get it to. And I have to go out for a good while. Back to it later. But at least I know how to do it now.

  • As it turns out, there is something called the inner oort cloud. Think of it as a connecting thick disk-ish region that connects the Oort cloud to the Kuiper belt, meanign it contains objects much closer than the 5,000 AU Oort inner limit. So far, at least 4 bodies including Sedna are thought to be Oort residents. Cheers –

    http://www.space.com/25695-sedna-dwarf-planet.html

  • Steve Garcia

    Inner Oort cloud… Not once have I ever seen the Oort cloud discussed without them mentioning that the Oort could itself is theoretical. Now we have people saying there is an inner Oort cloud, and I suppose an outer Oort cloud, or at least a Main Oort cloud. If it is theoretical they can divide it up any way they want to, I guess. And then also start giving it more qualities – anything to make things fit it or make it fit new observations.

    There is probably 10,000 times as much evidence for the Younger Dryas Impact event than there is the Oort cloud, but WOW are the two treated differently! The YDIH has to jump through hoops and prove the same empirical forensics over and over and over, but the Oort cloud – with not ONE empirical piece of evidence – is accepted as fact, even though they caveat it all over the place.

    In other words, if you present a uniformitarian hypothesis it is given an easy pass, but if you posit a catastrophist hypothesis, there is a long gauntlet to run though.

  • Steve – Everything is theoretical until you start piling up observations and data.

    You got a lot of largish bodies in the outer solar system that the planetary types are trying to shoe-horn into various boxes – Centaurs, Plutinos, KBOs and Oort Cloud Objects. The definitions are sufficiently malleable so that it drives everyone nuts at the beginning, and for my money, we are most certainly at the beginning of figuring out what is in the outer reaches of the solar system.

    Think the YD impact stuff is bad? Try being a manmade global warming skeptic for a while.

    The new guys, whomever they are or whatever they think they know will have to be bulletproof in order to upset the existing world view, or wait until all the opposition dies off like Wegner (plate tectonics) did. Either way, if we are right, we win. If not, we figure out why not and proceed to the next event and try to do it better. Cheers –

  • Steve Garcia

    agimarc –

    Hahahahahaha . . . about trying to be “a manmade global warming skeptic for a while”.

    That I AM, in spades.

    I think the CAGW* science is horribly weak. I started out accepting it all at face value. Then one day about 1999 I decided to start looking into it, just to see what the scientists had found. Ay caramba, they had NOTHING!

    They had never – and still have never – done a simple process of elimination to exclude NON-human causes.

    If you ever watch them debate this issue, all the supporters do is holler about “Most of the scientists believe it, so you should, too – and don’t listen to those either guys because they don’t know their science”. Then you hear the skeptics bringing up actual scientific data, over and over, and you can see that the skeptics are the ones using science, while the “warmists” are just saying, “Jump on the wagon with everyone else.”

    I have been, then about 15-16 years on that, and I haven’t seen ONE paper that I trust that supports it. I literally can talk all day on why it is bogus, and in that day I will bring in probably 100 different scientific points, that if asked, I can back up with data.

    From “The Divergence Problem” to “Climategate” to the Little Ice Age to the Medieval Warm Period to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to “the 17-year Hiatus (and counting…)”, and a lot more points, I can argue till I am blue in the face.

    In all the debates on it that I have been involved in (mostly one-on-ones), the warmist side still has yet to bring up an actual true piece of evidence. No, the oceans are not rising faster. No the storms are not getting more severe. No, the droughts are not worse. No, glaciers are not going to melt in the Himalayas by 2035. No, the Arctic Ocean is not more melted than before. No, the amount of ice at the poles is not less than before. No, no animals are going extinct in ways that can actually be tied to human activities. No, the oceans are not going to boil (Jim Hansen, back in about 1988). No, our grandkids will not have dead world. And NO, the global temps will not be 5.8°C higher in 2100.

    Global warming? It is a naturally occurring event. Humans have nothing to do with it. That is my well-informed opinion.

    Glad you agree! And don’t give up! The skeptical side will win out.

    *Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, to those who don’t know the abbreviation…

    If this was too much global warming stuff, my apologies.

    Agimarc, if you want to write me to compare notes, my email is [email protected].

  • PhysicsGroup

    The models are wrong because of the initial assumption that without GH gases the troposphere would have been isothermal. We know this assumption is made because we know the 255K temperature is at about 5Km altitude, and yet they say the surface would have been the same 255K. From there they get their sensitivity by assuming water vapor makes rain forests about 30 to 40 degrees hotter than dry regions and carbon dioxide adds a bit of warming also. In fact none of that happens.

    The assumption regarding isothermal conditions is inherently applying the Clausius “hot to cold” statement which is just a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane. That we know because it is clearly specified (as here) that the entropy equation is derived by assuming that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy can be ignored. It is those changes which actually cause the temperature gradient to evolve, so we must always remember that sensible heat transfers are not always from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field
    .
    So they cannot prove that the Clausius statement they use to get their assumed isothermal conditions is correct in a vertical column of a planet’s troposphere, and so they cannot prove the fundamental building block upon which they built the GH conjecture.

    Any questions are probably already answered here: http://climate-change-theory.com

  • Steve Garcia

    PhysicsGroup –

    I wrote that comment with trepidation, because this is not a global warming site or GW skeptic site. This is about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis and related impact and meteor phenomena. I erred in commenting to the extent I did. I do not want to hijack this to another topic. Or to encourage that to happen.

    Thanks for your feedback, though.

    And thanks for the link. Perhaps I will follow up on this there.

  • Steve Garcia

    I ran across something disturbing today…

    I found out that the USGS Geologic Time chart that I used in discussing the Michigan Basin’s missing deposits is not THE source to be used. At least I don’t think. There is an International Stratigraphy organization that puts out a geologic time chart, and that seems to be the standard.

    No big deal?

    Well, it FURTHER turns out that the two organizations’ charts don’t agree. For the end of the Pennsylvanian epoch of the Carbonaceous Age the USGS gives 286.0 Mya. The Int’l Stratigraphy group gives 298.9 Mya. That is a whopping 12.9 million years difference.

    I’d suspected that there was a sizable uncertainty range on dates given back that far into the deep past, but 12.9 million years is more than just a little uncertainty, IMHO.

    What flabbergasts me the most (well, maybe not THE most) is that I checked with the USGS, and they still have the same chart up that I’d used before. So it isn’t just a matter of some updates. One of the two groups is using wrong dates. Maybe both.