Abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history
Pardon my sense of humor, but reading the phys.org article about those particles brought back by Stardust made me think of priests arguing over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin…
It also reminded me of the ongoing concern (and forehead smacking) about science learning more and more about less and less…
Yes, the solar wind exists. To say it is too small to create any force or pressure capable of doing anything like creating solid rocks is an overstatement of massive proportions. Wiki:
“Solar wind pressure
The wind exerts a pressure at 1 AU typically in the range of 1–6 nPa (1–6×10−9 N/m2), although it can readily vary outside that range.
The dynamic pressure is a function of wind speed and density. The formula is P = 1.6726×10−6 * n * V^2,
where pressure P is in nPa (nano Pascals), n is the density in particles/cm3 and V is the speed in km/s of the solar wind.”
Wheras a pressure applied cannot exceed 100% efficiency, the solar wind could not deliver more pressure than those 6 nPa at Earth’s orbit (proportionally less than that at >1 AU). Converting 6 nPa to PSI, 1 pascal = 0.000145037738 pounds per square inch. A nanopascal is one millionth of that, or 0.000000000145 psi. Seeing as olivine and perododite need like 4 million psi, one can see that the solar wind is 2.75×10^16th times too weak to contribute to forming rocks.
Can that force push particles around? Yes, that is what it does with comets to make tails. But notice that with 1950AD spinning around every couple of hours, each revolution its particles are exposed to the solar wind on one side, and yet no one is talking about solar wind as a possible force to contend with in terms of pushing those rubble rocks away. They are only talking about centrifugal force or van der Waal’s force. (If they are not mentioning the solar wind, it is probable that they considered it as a possibility and then rejected it as worth worrying about.)
As to the heat, the body is rotating every couple of hours so the heat is spread over the entire surface pretty well. And no one is talking about heat build-up or heat-induced out-gassing as forces to contend with. Did they consider that, too, and then reject it also? I don’t know for sure, but I’d suspect that that is the case.
Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Since we have a pretty good space craft set to actually observeaexactly what effects the sun has on a comet as it gets closer to the sun, I’m in data acquisition mode at for the next few months.
I’m expecting that many of my own preconcieved notions disregarding comets are going to need to be reconsidered.
I expect to have a lot to say when the Rosetta mission has followed the thing through perihelion.
I hate autocorrect. Not sure how “regarding” got changed to “disregarding” in that last post.
I totally agree with you. I also expect quite a bit of what I am thinking to be tested and probably be wrong. I’ve been enjoying thinking about this stuff, but I’d prefer seeing what is really real, too.
Let’s hope the sampling mechanism works.
Howdy all –
The Daily Mail has some pretty good close in photos of 67P/C-G. Cheers –
And a phys.org article on igneous activity on early asteroids. Cheers –
I wanted to comment on the 67P/C-G article, but comments were closed.
This paragraph is just WRONG:
“The comet itself is about 2.5 miles (4km) long and orbits the sun every six-and-a-half years. It is heading towards the sun, so as it nears the star it will begin to melt more.”
A 6.5 year orbit can NOT get close enough to the Sun to melt anything. A 6.5 year orbit is fairly circular by definition. And it is also by definition going to mainly – if not mostly – going to be OUTSIDE the orbit of Earth.
Even the orbital animation confirms this.
If it never gets closer to the Sun than the Earth does, just what IS it that is supposed to be “melting”?
It was a good and informative article, but that part simply isn’t correct.
Gases can SUBLIMATE in that low near vacuum, but MELT? As in LIQUID?
Somebody show me I am wrong on this.
On that last – If anyone thinks, “Well, water is liquid here on Earth, so why is it so strange to say that water on a comet between Mars and Earth could be liquid?”
THAT has to do with atmosphere and the famous/infamous “greenhouse effect.”
Without the Earth’s atmosphere, the surface temperature would be far lower than it is.
[Wiki] If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.
For the metrically challenged, ~18°C equals ~(-0.4)°F. ~14°C = ~57.2°. That is ~57.6°F difference.
And the perihelion of 67P/C-G is a good bit further out, so the -18°C would be a good deal colder, with its lack of atmosphere.
So, you can rule out liquid water. (As stated above, melting is very much affected negatively by the lack of pressure, too…)
As to the igneous rock found within the ALM-A meteorite, again, this reiterates my points about rocks forming in space. The authors are invoking early on in the evolution of the solar system, assuming that it was all originally hot and molten. This is actually in contravention of the rules of uniformitarianism (that only processes currently seen can be invoked). But where out in space do we see molten rocks flying around? They might be hypothesized to currently exist, but IMHO they are supremely doubtful.
Before I get too far astray from this:
Molten rocks flying around does NOT equal vulcanism. Extrusive igneous vulcanism is EXTRUDING, from VERY HIGH subsurface pressures. It is magma coming up and being extruded onto the surface.
As with seemingly so many other effects, vulcanism is again called up when nothing else comes to mind. Howver, in this case igneous means exactly what it says – but no vlcanism is possible or WAS possible.
Invoking terrestrial processes requires terrestrial (planetary) forces and terrestrial MAGNITUDES of forces, with the capacity to deliver such forces (pressures and temps) that can create vulcanism. Being molten is not enough. Insufficient PRESSURES (I say, again) cannot be found.
They argue that small object in space can have sufficient causes because they have been broken off of larger objects. As the one paper I recently linked to, it takes a planetoid of at least 6000 km to create peridotite I argue that something very nearly that size is necessary to produce magmatic chambers and vulcanism, too.
Let’s most of all not lose sight of the fact that all of this revolves solely on the gradualist assumption that the asteroids and comets all are remnants of the early solar system. This is itself mainly or solely based on the denial of any possibility of an exploded planet – which was only even first considered possible by – you named it – the existence of comets and asteroids. All of the mainstream beliefs about asteroids and comets is that, “They COULDN’T have come from an exploding planet, so what else do we have in our bag of explanations?”
And there the planetary nebula begins its hypothesized existence – even if the heavier elements are traveling past us at velocities FAR in excess of the escape velocity of the Sun. If the material couldn’t STOP, it couldn’t be part of any planetary nebula.
And for each “new” revelation about asteroids and comets and meteorites, the planetary nebula theory has to be modified – OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Again, think of MicrSoft Windows and all it patches upon patches. At the same time, each of those same “new” discoveries is a natural outfall of an exploded planets. NO new inventions need to be dreamed up. No surprises when things are found on comets and asteroids.
You want igneous rocks within comets? You got ’em with the exploding planet.
You want metamorphic rocks within asteroids? You got ’em with the exploding planet. They didn’t get squeezed into what they are while in deep space; they were formed – and HAD TO FORM – deep under the surface of a full-sized planet.
You want solid space rocks? You got ’em with the exploding planet. They didn’t agglomerate in space; they are debris from a full-sized planet.
You want a source for the comets? You got ’em with the exploding planet. You don’t have to invent an Oort cloud (for which no observational astronomical evidence exists, 82 years later).
You want a source for all the cratering all over the solar system? Look no further than an exploding planet.
Instead of inventing new explanations ad hoc the exploding planet naturally explains them all. Continental rocks blew out, and so did water and oceanic crust – as well as its iron/nickel core. We have the asteroids, the comets, the cratering history, the catastrophes on Earth (both immediately and periodically), the Rings of Saturn and the other big planets. And it likely explains the Kuiper Belt, too.
We certainly have found igneous and metamorphic rocks “out there.” But how about sedimentary rocks? No, we have not. And why not? One must say it is because there was no liquid surface water with which to lay down sediments. But that is not proven – just what sounds reasonable to me. Water underground is a certainty, because of the ice in comets and occasionally seen on asteroids.
I argue strenuously that
A.) If that water as is spewing from Ceres and those others began spewing 4 billion years ago, the asteroids would have run out of water long ago.
B.) We will find MANY, MANY more with water ice. We just NOW are beginning to ENTER the asteroid Belt, and already as we have gotten close, we are finding it, over and over again.
“It gives a whole new view of how the solar system was formed.”
No duh. But what they will do is patch the old, now dysfunctional paradigm, ala MicrSoft Windows. . .
Did the solar system was formed by agglutination of gases (simple and complex molecules), dust, gravel and rocks (olivine, metal) from the debris of supernovae of the first generation stars (stars formed by hydrogen)?
67P has an elliptical rather than a circular orbit. From the Wiki (yeah, I know it is a Wiki, but these are pretty close to what I have seen other places and it was quick to get). It is basically bounded by Jupiter on the far end and earth on the close end. Cheers –
Aphelion 5.6839 AU (850,300,000 km)
Perihelion 1.2429 AU (185,940,000 km)
Semi-major axis 3.4634 AU (518,120,000 km)
Orbital period 6.45 yr
I think you get a combination of ice and gas underneath the crust of the comet. It is possible for the ice underneath to liquify locally if the crust is insufficiently porous and keeps the lid on. Once heating of the crust is sufficiently high and melts enough ice, or the local pool gets large enough, the mixture will expand into vacuum as it disrupts the crust at some point, decompresses and forms the jets. We know we get sublimation of ice in a vacuum, though that is not sufficiently vigorous to supply jets. Don’t think we know enough yet about the dynamics of jets to rule out liquids. Cheers –
Yes, that is the standard theory. But I don’t accept that the agglutination (agglomeration) is a viable step in the process.
The gravitational attractions are far too small, and impacts are more destructive than creative. And when igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks that need millions of pounds of pressure are found solidly embedded in them, then I think their process is absurdly wrong. For example, how did olivine get inside them? It needs to be under kms of overburden, while being heated from below. That cannot happen in deep space on an object 3 feet across. And in order to be made up of rocks, the rocks have to exist beforehand. And iron-nickel meteors – where did the melting heat come from?
If they have answers to these questions, I don’t find it anywhere.
In the article linked, the “explanations” appear to be no more than ad hoc guesses, even in the way they are phrased. They even propose three alternative “explanations.” it sounds like they aren’t sure of what is going on.
In any event, the formation of stars in birthing nebula is several steps removed from the creation of rocks in a planetary nebula. That is the beginning of the lives of stars. Heavy elements (above carbon) are created and thrown out by supernovae, which is the end of the life of a massive star. That part I have no problem with. But the ejecta velocities are about 3,000 km/sec, which is far, far too fast for a star to slow them down and put them into an orbit at 20-70 km per hour. The escape velocity is just too extreme. Where does the kinetic energy go? And what mechanism slows them down? And once small debris is going in orbit, the attraction is only enough to create “strengthless bodies.” Collisions? All they do is break up hundreds of times more mass than they contribute to a main accumulating body. And all that ejecta either exceeds the escape velocity (which is really low to begin with), or it returns as small debris or regolith sitting on the surface of the main accumulating body.
It seems that it should all should end up as dustballs. Astronomers seem to be realizing how common such loosely bound material is. But finding rocks lying on the surface of main bodies does not explain how the solid bodies formed in the first place. With the micro-gravity out there, sufficient pressure cannot exist.
There are so many steps in the process that seem to just be accepted on faith. From what I am finding, the planetary nebula theory falls apart on several levels.
I imagine that the dust clouds of the galaxy are formed by annihilation of the stars of the first generation, when temperatures in the core of the explosion is enough to expel the outer layers (chemical elements, such as a distillery), cast iron, forming olivine, large rocks, boulders and fine dust. ………. gravity does the rest.
Despite the explosive forces, the stars are there in the middle of the nebulae, planets exist in most stars, comets are out there ……….. gravity is powerful, even on a small scale, there seen placing a probe in orbit around a mountain …… ops, comet …
But if there is not enough gravity, it may be because of the dark matter.
I think you are approaching this wrong, using every discrepancy – observed or otherwise – as a vehicle to toss out a theory – accretion – that you disagree with. You propose to replace it with exploding planets. There a few huge problems with the latter: lack of out of plane mass, process that will explode a planet, and most importantly precisely what process creates the planet that explodes?
I prefer to build based on what we see. What are they?
1. We know via Space Station experiments that dust will tend to clump in a weightless vacuum.
2. We have observed planetary disks.
3. We think we have observed planets forming in some of those disks.
4. We have observed dust globs collapsing to form stars and in turn planetary systems.
5. We know that gravity is not the only force keeping small bodies intact (1950 DA).
6. We know that there was a Late Heavy Bombardment in the Solar System.
7. We have observed many small (300 mi or smaller in diameter) bodies in the solar system that are differentiated – indicating internal melting and separation into layers.
There’s a lot we don’t know. This is a short and simple list:
1. If the accretion starts as a rotating volume of stuff, how does it progress to a disk with a proto-star in the center?
2. When does accretion switch over from additive to destructive (we have observed at least a single system with dust where bodies ought to be – why is this?)?
3. Why does accretion switch over to destruction? What does that mean?
4. How fast does the early stages of accretion progress, and why?
Today, I demonstrated that you were incorrect about 67P’s orbit and not necessarily correct about the presence of liquid in it. Is it possible you are incorrect about other stuff?
Like I said previously, I adhere to theories because they are placeholders for the best description of what we see. We see different stuff, and we modify those theories, which is the way the argument ought to proceed.
As long as we are locked into the “this disproves that” paradigm, we make no progress. A better question would be “what can we prove?” and whittle the festivities down to whatever is left over and figure out how to prove or disprove that part, which in turn may or may not make the entire house of cards fall down.
Finally, based on your location in the hot country, I don’t think you give enough weight to how things work in the cold country. Granted we don’t have any experience with space temperatures or their swings, but we deal with melting, sublimation, ice and snow for 7 months every year and know how and why it works. Take advantage of that experience in your arguments. Cheers –
Do not think that I invented the exploding planet. Others did, and I see strengths and weaknesses in that one, too, as it has been presented. I’ve mentioned on here before that the late Tom van Flandern had a list that went on page after page, addressing the pros of the subject.
One at a time (first group):
1. I don’t argue against dust clumping. In fact, I keep on pointing at it on the comets and asteroid close-ups – pointing out that they are just lying there. And in low-G I argue that that is ALL they are going to do. Going from dust clumping in low-G is one thing. Making solid rocks is another story altogether.
2. They assert that we have observed planetary disks, yes. We have not observed the disks we’ve seen for a long enough period to determine if they will become planets. It is asserted that they will. I humbly and respectfully disagree that such will happen. What I DO see as possible is that if enough dust accumulates LOOSELY – I’ve seen the size of 6000 km and that sounds possible to create enough gravity – then the weight of thousands of km of dust would weigh enough to begin compressing the interior enough to make more solid rocks and even heat up the interior. However, the planetary nebula theory does not go directly from dust to large planet. I DO. They argue for intermediate rock forming. I DO NOT. Low-G = strengthless bodies. Comet size = insufficient gravity. Asteroid size = too little gravity.
3. Can you point me at planets forming in planetary nebulas? I know of EXISTING small bodies that delineate the rings of Saturn, by (assuming) that their gravity attracts close by ring bodies. Is this what you are talking about? Also, the ones you talk of – are they already flattened out into rings?
4. If you state your case clearly, I think you are mistaken. I don’t believe that we have been observing star nebulas long enough to see them collapsing AND ALSO “in turn planetary systems.” It sounds like you’ve seen somewhere where they think they have noticed a planetary system forming. Can you point me to it?***
5. Actually, that isn’t correct. (I was going to agree with you, but then I remembered this.) They seem to be finding out RIGHT NOW that gravity is NOT the only thing holding them together. This one now 67P/C-G is spinning too rapidly, and they do NOT know yet why the thing isn’t coming apart at the seams. They are suggesting several possible other forces at work, but none has been accepted as THE answer for the additional “gluing” force.
6. No. That does not appera to be the case. It is NOT “known”. It seems that the Late Heavy Bombardment is a hypothetical event.
According to Written by G. Jeffrey Taylor of Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology (footnote 1 on Wikipedia):
There may have been a dramatic event early in the history of the Solar System–the intense bombardment of the inner planets and the Moon by planetesimals during a narrow interval between 3.92 and 3.85 billion years ago, called the late heavy bombardment, but also nicknamed the lunar cataclysm. The evidence for this event comes from Apollo lunar samples and lunar meteorites. While not proven, it makes for an interesting working hypothesis. If correct, what caused it to happen?
7. I know that small solid bodies exist. Can you point me to where someone discovered that they are layered? And that they are layered from MELTING? If you can, I’d very much appreciate that information.
Your second group of questions – some of what we don’t know – are great. Thanks! Yes, those are great and unknown and great unknowns.
agimarc: “Today, I demonstrated that you were incorrect about 67P’s orbit and not necessarily correct about the presence of liquid in it. Is it possible you are incorrect about other stuff?”
I must be dense. What is it exactly that you said that makes me wrong about 67P’s orbit. That it was elliptical? I don’t believe that I ever said it was not.
I take it your point about liquids was your comment a 3:02. You talked about “ice and gas under the surface.” Then “It is possible for the ice underneath to liquify locally if the crust is insufficiently porous and keeps the lid on.”
This I would disagree on. The surface without an atmosphere would have no greenhouse effect to raise the surface temperature above the -18°C I pointed out that Earth has. At less than 18°C, the ice could not become liquid. That makes your following sentence invalid – “Once heating of the crust is sufficiently high and melts enough ice, or the local pool gets large enough,…”
Unlike you, on this I WOULD rule out liquid water
Shall we agree to disagree?
I do agree with you on thories and hypotheses as placeholders.
However: I would INSIST that the status of placeholder be CLEAR TO ALL. Far too much of asronomy on all sorts of levels is put out as, “WE KNOW SUCH AND SUCH” – like the bit about the Late Heavy Bombardment, which you asserted we “know.” But we DO NOT know.
If researchers would just tell the public honestly and clearly that, “This is what we think we know SO FAR about this,” I would think that is a GOOD THING. I would mention lots of other areas where this is not done, but I don’t want to open up those cans of worms…
As to proving things or disproving things, I side with Steven Hawking and Richard Feynman, who both INSIST that nothing can actually be PROVEN, but it IS certainly possible to DISPROVE something. That is what falsification is all about. If something does not stand the test of empirical lab or field test/observation (Feynman called it “experience or experiment”), then that is falsified and should never enter the discussion again. It is “WRONG.” (Feynman’s emphasis, not mine.)
*** I totally can see where some of you may think that I think that I’ve got this all figured out. I don’t think I do, not at all.
I DO see serious problems in the existing theories, and I am questioning those points of weakness. I do NOT know what the final answers will be. I am trying to get a discussion going to see if some things begin to look more sensible. I am quite happy you’ve joined the discussion. I challenge them and you challenge me – FINE! (If I ask dumb questions, PLEASE set me straight.)
Please do not be dismissive of me because I presently live in central Mexico (where I assure you it is NOT “the hot country” you assume…LOL).
I got a real belly laugh out of this misunderstanding of yours about me.
“…in the cold country….”
Hmmm. . . Does Maine count as cold country, where I lived through a record annual snowfall (150 inches)?
How about NE Ohio, where I lived in the Snow Belt?
How about Chicago, where I lived for 37 years, and experienced MINUS 34°F and lots of minus temps? I still cringe at having lived through January 1977, when the average temp for Chicago was only 10°F. HECK! I even MOVED that month, on a day when it was -15°F.
Even Denver, where they use sand instead of salt on the roads, but otherwise do a creditable job of snow removal… Hahahaha Sorry, but you pegged me wrong on that one! OH, have I been through some blizzards, Señor Agimarc…
And I assure you that I KNOW cold. Why do you think I came HERE, when I finally could?…LOL
I’ve only been down here for 2 years. In that two years, we’ve had zero days of 100°F. We have had about 15 days of 90°F – all but one of them last year, when CHICAGO had 7 days of 100°F or more. This year? ONE day of 90°F, and that one was ONLY 90°. Not exactly the “hot country”. In its history, this town has had exactly ONE day of 100°F. So, hot it’s not.
In fact, I am quite certain that my town here has the very best climate in the entire world. Not too hot and not too cold. Just like the Earth is in the “Goldilocks zone”, so is Steve…LOL Other cities can claim they are the best, too, like Nairobi and Honolulu and Guadalajara – or Viña del Mar, Chile, which one group deleared the best climate in the world.
PIFFLE! AND DOUBLE PIFFLE!
Here is what they say about VDM:
1. Viña del Mar, Chile
With an average annual high temperature of 66.2°F and yearly average nighttime low of 55.1°F, and with only slight variation in temperature throughout all of the months of a given year, Viña del Mar, on the central coast of Chile, ranks as the best weather place in the world for humans. Flushed by the cold Humboldt current of the Pacific Ocean, Viña del Mar sees an average daily high temperature of just 75.2°F during its warmest month of January, with an average nighttime low of 59°F in that month. The coldest month at Viña del Mar, July, experiences a mean daily high of 59°F and an average nighttime low of 50°F. Each year, Viña del Mar receives just under 19 inches of rain, with most falling in the winter months of June and July. Globally renowned for its white sand beaches (and absolutely beautiful weather), and free from the threat of ferocious cyclonic storms and tornadoes, Viña del Mar is not quite an Anthro-Weathertopia, however, as fog can occasionally envelop the region.
Who in the WORLD wants to go to the beach when the temps are in the 60s?
I don’t agree with THAT at all.
First of all, the guy has his numbers wrong.
Jan Avg low: 53° Avg hi: 86°
Feb Avg low: 53° Avg hi: 85°
Mar Avg low: 50° Avg hi: 81°
Apr Avg low: 45° Avg hi: 73°
May Avg low: 41° Avg hi: 65°
Jun Avg low: 38° Avg hi: 60°
Jul Avg low: 36° Avg hi: 58°
Aug Avg low: 39° Avg hi: 62°
Sep Avg low: 42° Avg hi: 65°
Oct Avg low: 45° Avg hi: 72°
Nov Avg low: 48° Avg hi: 78°
Dec Avg low: 52° Avg hi: 83°
Viña del Mar has NOTHING on My town:
VDM average annual high temperature: 66.2°F
VDM average annual low temperature: 55.1°F
VDM average high in its hottest month: 86°F
VDM average low in its hottest month: 59.0°F
VDM average high in its coldest month: 59.0°F
VDM average low in its coldest month: 50.0°F
GTO average annual high temperature: 79.1°F
GTO average annual low temperature: 52.3°F
GTO average high in its hottest month: 87.1°F
GTO average low in its hottest month: 58.2°F
GTO average high in its coldest month: 72.1°F
GTO average low in its coldest month: 44.4°F
VDM is EIGHT degrees F colder on winter nights.
SUMMER: VDM’s 86°F and 53°F vs GTO’s 87°F and 58°F.
WINTER: VDM’s 58°F and 36°F vs GTO’s 72°F and 44°F.
I rest my case. It is a virtual tie for summer highs, but awfully chilly at night.
Winter highs? GTO’s 72°F versus 58°F? NO CONTEST.
Winter lows? GTO’s 44°F versus 36°F? NO CONTEST.
SO, my fellow Americans, my town has a better climate than the best climate in the world.
Maybe I live on a comet…
Re: Exploding planet hypothesis.
I note that in spite of many many pages of word salad I have yet to read a plausible explanation for what makes it go kaboom.
Dennis – Have you asked that same question of the Big Bang?
Nice strawman argument Steve. Exploding planet hypothesis has nothing whatsoever to do with big bang theory.
Hahaha. . .
That’s not good enough for you? Then try Dark Energy. That is the NAME of the mysterious force that is supposedly causing the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. They don’t know what it IS, but they still gave it a name – dark energy. And is everyone running around screaming at them? “That’s not FAIR! You can’t just give it a name and then walk away without at least saying SOMETHING about it!” No, no one says a thing about it. They just accept that it isn’t explainable right now.
So, if I call it “Exploding energy” will that give me the Nobel Prize, like the 3 guys who “discovered the acceleration”? Or at least the Cox Prize?…LOL
But it is WONDERFULLY ironic that you should pull that “You have to fully explain the cause before we will consider your evidence” argument HERE at CosmicTusk, where WE (and th researchers we support) are asked to show the crater for the YDB before anyone will look at any of the evidence.
BTW, me pointing out that another explosion has not required a spelled out cause is NOT a Straw Man argument/logical fallacy. Look up the definition.
My argument is:
WHY SHOULD I GAVE TO GIVE A 100% EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE(S)WHEN THOSE GUYS DON”T HAVE TO?
I can STILL point to my evidence. And you can listen or ignore. It’s all the same, Dennis.
What I am TRYING to do here is engage people in a discussion on it. You sit back and kibitz, without actually commenting constructively on the points being made. That is pretty much the approach of Boslough and Pinter et al toward Firestone and the Kennetts and Schultz et al.
PLEASE: Pick out some of the points I’ve made about comets and asteroids and peridotite and add to the conversation.
Or not. Take your pick.
Cryptic comments that go nowhere is Ed’s style. Don’t fall into that one…
More word salad and strawman bullshit. Without a plausible explanation, or mechanism, of what can make a planet explode, your exploding planet hypothesis is just another pile of pseudoscience.
P.S. no one said you have to “fully explain“ it. But the simple fact is that you haven’t provided any explosion mechanism whatsoever.
Seriously, then, dude – throw out the Big Bang.
As to possible mechanisms, go look up Tom van Flandern. He says it well enough and better than I can.
That is, if yuou actually want to know. If you don’t, then what is your point? And if you say to see if I know, that isn’t a valid question. Unless you are going to ask Hawking about his Big Bang. You would not ask him just to test him. What is your goal with me?
I can answer a question with a question. That is not a straw man. A straw man is me changing it AND then claiming that that other is proof that you are wrong. Changing it because you asked ME is not as straw man. It is if YOU had stated something and I switched and tehn proved YOURS wrong inappropriately. Since you didn’t put up an argument but only asked a question, it can’t be a straw man.
You don’t even have a horse in the race yet. Therefore a straw man argument is not possible on my part. In fact, YOUR challenging me to present an explanation is a form of straw man, because I had not broached that point. And YOU haven’t addressed MY points – but put up something else. Not ONE point of min have you addressed.
The cause of the explosion was not what I was addressing. I was talking about how THEIR theory fails on several points. Do you have any response to ANY of those points?
I am not in this to win an argument with anyone here. I am trying to get at the thruth of the matter – and if you come up with that, I will applaud you.
Logical fallacies (such as straw men arguments) are used by people who will try to win a debate anyway they can. I am not out to win any debate. I wish you would actually contribute to the discussion. I think you have good ideas to put into it, and I for one would like to hear what you have to say, on the science, not on scoring points in a debate.
I’ve been reading up and reading up and reading up, and the more I read, the more their planetary nebula as it stands does not seem to be capable of creating some of the rocks that are found within at least some asteroids.
Any thoughts on any of that?
The best source of information on some of the topics you claim you are interested in may be found here. Your best bet for reliable information on planetary astrophysics would not be on crackpot websites. There are lots of recent papers on the topic of planetary dust nucleation and eventual accretion into bodies.
TLE says: “Your best bet for reliable information on planetary astrophysics would not be on crackpot websites.”
TLE, FYI I go straight to the primary source papers, literally every time they are available. And almost every time they are. I search them out assiduously. And I go to NASA and NOAA and such sites. I do not go to websites written by Joe Main Steet guys. I consider them the lowest of the low – SLOPPY THINKERS.
The weakest source material I will do is Wikipedia, and then never on anything controversial. And whatever they say, if it is footnoted I go look at the source material the best I can.
Many papers I end up going to are just Abstracts, so being too poor to pay $40 US for papers, I do my best with the abstract information.
I’ve probably accessed 75 papers in the last month or two, with abstracts being about half of those.
And I don’t go to blogs.
I WILL access scientific articles, but do my best to keep those to NASA and such. I look at articles on Phys.org and cringe at how sloppy the articles are written. The majority make me shake my head at the conclusions people jump to.
Like I said, I try hard to get the most primary source papers I can.
If my direction isn’t to your liking, be aware that all scientists are not one homogeneous pile of humanity. There ARE many pieces of evidence upon which scientists come to differing opinions about.
Just because the conclusions others come to doesn’t agree with your POV doesn’t make them crackpots.
No, the might be giants. But if their views widely diverge from discernible reality as I see it, or consensus science as it is seen by the vast majority of workers in the field of their specialty, then probably they are safe to ignore.
So far Steve your “points” have been nothing more than your own personal opinions of peer reviewed science.
Did I miss something, or did you present a peer reviewed source that debunks, or refutes, the accretion theory of planetAry formation?
I note that the universe folks use a similar tactic in their argument for crater formation by giant interplanetary electric discharges. They casually dismiss decades of impact research, and peer reviewed literature, claiming that impacts can’t believably account for the features we see in the craters on the Moon, and Mars. But as rediculous as their electric cratering model may sound, at least they’ve got an alternative to the real science they’re pissing on with nothing more than personal opinions.
Simply put, your personal opinions of peer reviewed science, whether pro or con, and no matter the subject, are useless unless in any valid scientific debate supported by more peer reviewed science. And as screwed up as it is, the peer review process is the only thing that separates real science from pseudoscience, and science fiction.
As for debating the validity of your peronal opinions regarding plantary accretion theory, scince they are belief based, it’d be just about as pointless as debating your religious, or political views.
P.S. Typing on one’s phone an be a bitch. “Universe” above should read “Electric Universe”.
TLE: “No, the might be giants. But if their views widely diverge from discernible reality as I see it, or consensus science as it is seen by the vast majority of workers in the field of their specialty, then probably they are safe to ignore.”
No. What it means is that the two of you don’t agree. By saying “they are safe to ignore” simply because they disagree with you or what side you think is the majority, that is hubris of the most ridiculous kind on your part – “if their views widely diverge from discernible reality as I see it“. Thinking that only the side YOU think is right is right. Piffle. Who set you up as the arbiter of what is correct?
Remind me to check with you before I think about anything.
Steve, I don’t do science to make you happy, I do science to make myself happy. In science, my opinion is the only one that counts … to me. The fact that my opinion of science may change often and rapidly, is nobody’s problem but my own.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it … until I change my mind.
Yes, Dennis. This is a BLOG. On blogs, people express opinions. Duh.
As to the accretion theory, I am tniking out loud here, which I have stated nmore than once. What is wrong with that?
It would be lovely if instead of attacking me, you actually addressed specific points. That is the point of this, to elicit responses to the questions I m asking and the shortcomings I believe are there.
Instead, you want to avoid any discussion of the points and attack me. Why? playing Ed Grondine now?
Let’s see if I can spell this out clearly: If you have some specific point to make about what I am pointing out, can you please make your point? If not, what is the purpose in your attacking. If you disagree, say so, and please: Specific would be good. You don’t have to worry about using too many words. The internet is big enough. It can handle it.
As to links, I’ve provided numerous links. I’ve commented scores of times with links on this. On Itokawa, on 67P, blah, blah, blah. And quoted many other sources. If you aren’t actually reading my comments…
As to opinions, when YOU express an opinion, am I supposed to jump up and down and point at Dennis and say, “NOPE! Not fair! That’s an opinion, not a fact!“?
Of course not. Express all the opinions you want – but please, make them about the science I’ve tried to discuss.
If you totally disagree, then shoot my points down. All you’ve done is blanket accusatinos with nothing to respond to.
And as I’ve said at the end of several comments:
“Tell me where I am wrong.”
Telling me in a blanket statement that others disagree is not useful, and you know it.
Hell, Dennis, I was one of the few who saw your cerros in NM and northern Mexico and who said, “Yeah, I think you’ve got something there.” I even added my own two cents. I DO think you’ve got something there.
And your area up in N Minnesota – Dude! That is awesome stuff. And the details – the specifics – is what makes it all super interesting.
So, I am asking you: Tell me what it is, detail-wise, that you disagree with, of what I’ve been asking and questioning.
For the record: I am not an electrical universe kind of guy. That cratering by electrical discharge is silly season stuff.
But I DO have to ask you also: WHY do you keep saying that what I am saying is a “belief”? Have I not quoted and linked extensively, and haven’t I expressed logical reasons for what I am questioning? If you don’t see that, I have to think you didn’t pay attention.
Again, not ONE of your points is about the exact and specific points I question. You’ve said nothing about regoliths, strengthless bodies, pressures, heat, micro-gravity, peridotite, olivine, Allende meteorite, Itokawa, 67P, velocities, asteroid collisions. I’ve researched at length on all of this, reading scores of papers, and you call everything I’ve said “BELIEFS.”
Dennis – That my logic comes up with observations that the current paradigm fails on several points – I am entitled to come to different conclusions.
Dennis – TLE just expressed an opinion. Do you want to jump down his throat, too? (“That’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it … until I change my mind.“)
I don’t have BELIEFS about any of this stuff. I have tentative understandings. I do not think that what I think at any given moment is the truth and all of the truth. I ask questions. I TRY to engage in a discussion (which is what CosmicTusk is all about). If you don’t agree, fine. I myself don’t agree. I am just thinking out loud (as I’ve said many times), pointing at things that don’t seem to make sense. That is not belief. It is the pursuit of knowledge. I invite you to join in.
Ok Steve you tell us you’ve read a lot of abstracts. The problem with basing one’s opinions on abstracts though is that abstracts never contain any actual data, only the researcher’s opinions of what they think their data reveals.
If you don’t go into the body of a paper, and parse the actual data, then any hypothesis that comes of it is built on a subjective opinion of someone elses opinion, not data, and mired in the cognative bias of one’s own personal belief system. What’s more, without that actual data, there’s nothing but unfounded, sciencey sounding, words, and assumptions to debate. AKA pseudoscience.
Geez, Dennis – Careless reading on your part. I said I read scores of papers and about half were abstracts. I get the best info I can.
Give me a freaking break.. AGAIN with the ad himiem instead of dealing with what I actually SAY.
NOT ONCE here have you addressed ANY POINT I’VE MADE. It’s all personal attacks.
Shall I begin calling you Dennis Grondine?
I apologize for not having $0 I can plunk down several times a week because of paywalls.
And I suppose you’ve never read or quoted abstracts, either. Right? If you’ve got all that kind of money, more power to you. I don’t.
But many times I am able to get the entire papers, and I DO read the data and methods and do grasp about 99% of what I read. Even if it is rocket science, I have sufficient intelligence and education to understand and comprehend. I’ve been reading science stuff now for about 50 years, so I am no newbie at it.
But WHAT IS WITH THE PERSONAL AD HOMINEM CRAP?
Talk the science or shut the hell up.
Dennis – Are you acting as Bos’ own personal pet attack dog?
Yeah, complain of non existant ad hominem, and then call me someones “attack dog”.
The only point I have problem with is the one you haven’t made; a non existant explosion mechanism.
Gentlemen; I’ve been following your discussions and think that a change of direction is due. My opinion on planetary explosion is that the most likely candidate for causation is MAJOR impact destroying both the planet and the impactor. Now whether the impactor was a moon object or monster asteroid or comet will take some time and $$$ to investigate. But my feeling is that once more sampling of comets etc can be accomplished a pattern of compositions wll become apparent and a much clearer picture can be had. Is there any known data about the approx total mass of the debris in the asteroid belt. This could be a starting point to see if there was sufficent mass to be called a planet and produce the heat and psi’s needed to produce olivine, periodite etc. Damn, I wish I was retired and rich I’d be having a whole lot fun with this stuff and so would alot of you.
Many interesting links about star and planet forming
Am I the only one who has read up on the formation of extra terrestrial dust? The olivine group of minerals have been found in very young star systems, systems that have yet to form planets, but do have planetary nebulae. It is likely that the shock wave, from star ignition , passing through the nebula provides the heat and pressure to form the minerals.
Shockwaves from star ignition, passing through the nursery nebula, provide enough heat and pressure to ignite fusion, in sufficiently dense nodes od the nebula. This has been observed just recently.
The minerals can also be formed in the atmospheres of silicon and oxygen rich nova, as the expanding gasses cool the minerals precipitate out.
Keep in mind that these grains are extremely small, just enough molecules to form a crystal.
With particles as finely divided as we are talking about, brownian motion is all the energy needed to make the particles stick together, permanently, as they are now sharing electrons.
Also don’t forget that by the time out solar system formed, the universe had alread run through two thirds of is current age, leaving plenty of time for substantial amounts of these refractory materials to be formed.
Cevin Q –
All very good points. Thanks for the input. I will go read up on all of that. I can see points of difficulty in some of it, tying it into asteroid and comet formation, but it’s the best thing I’ve seen on it so far. And I’ve been looking assiduously, believe me.
I will respond later…
Hi Steve –
“Shall I begin calling you Dennis Grondine?”
While it is a free country, and you can say whatever you like, please don’t.
I can’t begin to tell you how upset I am to see the two of your fighting like this.
Please do not involve me in it.
The Bill Napier Interview
Kennett et al. 2015 on dating the YDB
Updated: A Catastrophist Bibliography from Thompson
Cosmic Tusk All Post Archive
Harvard Platinum spike at Younger Dryas in PNAS
Napier: Not So Fast Bos...
The Bos Files
YDB team in their own words on data replication - 2012!
With Google+ plugin by Geoff Janes