folder Filed in Random Tusks
Library Fire
event November 7, 2014 comment 123 Comments

Library_Fire_4

Update: I have now re-uploaded another half dozen publications to recent posts. Slowly but surely…

A disaster befell our favorite blog late this summer and for weeks I have cowered under my digital bed, pained and confused about what is to be done. While still tender, I have summoned the courage to speak of it now, will try to characterize the forward challenge, and perhaps gain some assistance from readers in plotting a course home — walking as I must.

The entire “Scribd” library of publications embedded in over 350 posts by the Cosmic Tusk has been lost. On the basis of copyright infringement the Scribd service summarily canceled my account without the opportunity to retrieve my uploads or otherwise mirror the files to my own computer. The PDF’s embedded in hundreds of posts, as commenters have noted, are all now dead ends.

I have struggled to re-embed one lonely PDF — the most recent one — in a previous post regarding Napier and Wickramasinghe. Only 300 or so uploads to go.

I am tentatively committed to working myself back through the Tusk, determining along the way what documents were originally posted to Scribd (no easy task), obtaining the paper from my own or others’ files, and reposting the PDF text to a server with no intermediary service — all while keeping a reliable copy on my own machine in case such a catastrophe should occur once more.

Woe, oh, woe. All is lost and in ashes.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Cancel Post Comment

  1. George –

    I’d wondered about how Scrib’d was managing to post some of the things they did. Evidently they were crossing a line, kind of like what Napster and Google Books ran into in their time.

    I can imagine that they were gang-dumping stuff, and you got caught in the purges.
    There ARE websites that archive old web pages. I never paid any attention to mention of those, though, so I can’t immediately help out, other than to suggest that those lost pages MAY be somewhere and able to be recovered.

    I will begin tomorrow to see what I can find on that front. Do not hold your breath – Scrib’d may not be a site that was ever included.

    On the other front, I HAVE saved any number of papers – some from Scrib’d – as pdfs to my hard drive. Which are the ones you are trying to reconstitute? I don’t have a way of knowing. Most of them I have renamed to a Author-Date-Title theme. I may have 100 or so.

  2. George; Sorry to hear of your loss. I’ll go back through my stuff and see if there is anything that can be sent back to you for use. Is there any way to contact the authors of these articles and ask for reprint permission. I was wondering why all of a sudden all these articles were disappearing in there entirety or in parts. I’m not sure how much help I can be, but if you need a hand searching around I’m game and in.

  3. Thank you so much kind friends. Best to just start hammering away at repair with resilience — but it is hard for me. I was so proud of the Scribd library, a peer of Alexandria in so many ways.

  4. I have pdf’d a few of your documents. I will email what I have. I will do some digging

    I’m thinking of the loss of the library at Alexandria.

  5. George,
    That’s too bad, I know I tracked down many of the original papers, I’d be glad to forward any to you.
    I’ll go through a compile a list of what I’ve got.

  6. Most helpgul thing is to match the paper to the particular post or link. If I have both, I am in business. I need to start a list of posts with a number and the status of the PDF retrieval.

  7. George; I’ve been going over your list of recent posts that have been deleted and found that if you click them the arrticle will come up partially with the notice that the owner has deleted the file. If you click on the tag line just before the deletion notice it will ssend you to the scribd site that tells you the paper haas been deleted. If you copy the paper title to your search engine it will send you directly to the paper and you should be able to bring it back to the tusk. I’m not sure if I conveyed this well enough but I’ll be here on and off all night to night and tomorrow night if you have any questions.

  8. I have many of them backed up on dropbox.com. The public links to any I have can be made available on request.

    The nice thing about dropbox.com is that the files you put on there can be mirrored on multiple devices. And there’s no intermediary between you, and anyone you’d like to share with.

  9. Yeah, DB is nice and it will be my backup. But the trick from there is have them “embed” into your post..

  10. Embedding DB items into a post is a piece of cake.

    All you need to do is embed the public link to a journal reference in the text of its title.

    For example:

    One of the major complaints we hear from the other side about Firestone 2007 is the four mile wide asteroid estimate they came up with citing Toon et al. It’s pretty much agreed now though, that in 2007, they weren’t working from a valid astronomical model for the nature, and origin of the theoretical impactor/s. This was pretty much corrected though when W.M. Napier published Paleolithic Extinctions, and The Taurid Complex in 2010

  11. Thanks, Dennis, but not that kind of embed, I call that a “link: What I want (and had) is the kind where you can see the entire text as published within the post and scroll through it. People are much more likely to take a look if they can see it don’t have to click. Actually, I think I just found a way to do just that from DB! See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya_5N0a8eas

  12. Just came across this and thought it might be of interest to everyone herehttps://public.nrao.edu/news/pressreleases/planet-formation-alma

  13. @Cosmic Billards… I just saw your name in ‘Death By Black Hole’ by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Any chance you have read it?

  14. In the chapter “Goldilocks and the Three Planets”, there is this paragraph:

    The relative habitability of Venus, Earth, and Mars would intrigue Goldilocks, but the actual story of these planets is somewhat more complicated than three bowls of porridge. Four billion years ago leftover water-rich comets and mineral-rich asteroids were still pelting the planetary surfaces, although at a much slower rate than before. During this game of cosmic billiards, some planets had migrated inward from where they had formed while others were kicked up to larger orbits. And among the dozens of planets that had formed, some were on unstable orbits and crashed into the Sun or Jupiter. Others were ejected from the solar system altogether. In the end, the few that remained had orbits that were “just right” to survive billions of years.

  15. CB –

    In reading your last link (from contrarybooks.com), it became apparent that the critique – of the “non-critiquer” – is written by an electrical universe guy. Almost all of his criticisms are in essence that because Firestone doesn’t adhere to the electrical universe concept he and his co-authors are behind the times in astrophysics.

    A typical electrical universe assertion – and a complete error:

    “Meteors detonate far above the atmosphere. So they do not “heat up,” they explode electrically.”

    Meteors according to this, never hit the ground, which means that meteorites are figments of everyone’s imagination.

    In addition, according to him, they do not heat up, though there is plenty of evidence that they DO heat up due to ABLATION. Ablation is a perfectly adequate explanation for the sloughing off of materials during passage through the atmosphere. No electrical phenomena need be included.

    They “explode electrically” is about as silly of a notion as I’ve seen lately. WHat exactly is an electgrical explosion? Like a trasnformer exploding from heat build-up in one or more components? And what “electrical components” exist within the rocks of a meteor? Quartz grains? Carbon chondrites? My favorite one, peridotite?

    And what is it that causes such components to explode?

    So far as I can see, the ablation of the stony matter in meteors/asteroids is completely sufficient – that it compresses the air ahead of the object, which heated air then adds heat energy (by heat conductance) to the front face of the body, which ends up hot enough to melt the materials, which then slough off and quickly vaporize and then flow around to the sides of the object where the vapors are subject to the (relative) flow of air around the sides of the object, which we then see as the “tail” of the bolide. This vaporized material then cools down enough that it is no longer incandescent, and it falls to the surface as a fine dust.

    Only an electrical universe person would make such an assertion.

  16. The whole Electric Universe thing from Thunderbolts group, AKA The Electric Universe authors, and their devoted fans, is simply the latest iteration of the Church of the Grand Velikovskian Delusion.

    Don’t look for supportive science from the electric universe folks for their electric crater fantasies, there isn’t any. Theirs is a believe based system of pure pseudoscience. For example, in the world according to them the only thing that’s required to thoroughly invalidate, or debunk 50 0r 60 years of impact research at NASA’s Ames Research Center is the blanket statement that "Ballistic impacts can’t believably account for the morphology we see in the craters on the Moon and Mars."

    They claim that interplanetary electric discharges are a more likely culprit. And never mind that no one has ever produced a valid mathematical model of how such a discharge might come about, or how it might produce the material movement, or geomorphology we see in a crater; much less scalable experiments in the real world that demonstrate the possibility that the geomorphology of a multi-megaton explosion can be produced by a large electric discharge event.

    They simply don’t "believe" the real science that’s been done by NASA. But that’s all they need for the incentive to fabricate "Electric Universe" theory. And the beauty of it all is that the whole ramshackle thing is built on imaginary constructs, and pseudoscience. All that’s required of it’s adherents is belief. That ain’t science. That’s a cult.

    They’ve re-written the script for V’s Worlds in Collision scenario too. But their revised view of the solar system as they claim it was before the break up of the so called “Polar Configuration” is no less fantastical, or impossible than V’s own WIC. They’ve given electromagnetic forces a more prominent role than V did. But never the less their so called "Polar Configuration" with the Earth held in a fixed position relative to that of Jupiter by electromagnetic forces completely ignores the laws of physics, and everything we know about well studied things like orbital dynamics. 

    Fortunately, there is A Cure for Velikovskian Delusions like the ones the Thunderbolts Group are infected with. 

  17. well I am sure that all theories are just some form of delusional ego driven bs and all are many times more wrong than right.
    that is why I will always side with eye witnesses, I truly love eye witnesses and am so thankful for their faithfulness to somehow record what happened to them ! have fun fellas..

  18. Gentlemen; I do not believe in the electrical universe persay but there are a few minor concepts that might hold some water. When a person is arc welding he is controlling an electrical explosion of plasma between his rod and the subject material. I have witnesse electrical explosions on occassion and they are awesome and scarey. The instantaneous release of heat and uncontrolled power is extremely distructive. The power needed to cause an electrical explosion big enough to create a crater of any size is astromical. Also there is the problem of crater creation. If the power is going away from the body then you should only see a conical riser at the point of discharge. If the charge is incoming you may get a more typical crater but without the central rebound. Everything is blown to the outside in a more or less liquid state. Not much solid ejecta like a solid impact would produce.

  19. Dennis –

    Thanks for your take on it, plus the info you provided here.

    I can see there being SOME effect of electric in the univerese (what I don’t personally have any idea about) because the electrical force is so much stronger than gravity. However, I draw the line somewhat short of thunderbolts between planets.

    And I ESPECIALLY draw the line when they assert that electrical discharges created the cratering. There have been witnesses to meteors coming down and then those witnesses finding craters. Such as the one in Peru a few years back (4 or so). In addition if they don’t spell out mechanisms for the creation of impactites, screw ’em.

    Cult or not cult, it is the physical evidence and the specific proposed mechanisms that will convince me. And to do that on THIS particular subject they will FIRST have to show me EXACTLY where the physical/mechanical theory is wrong.

  20. CB –

    There is a reason in courtrooms why eyewitness testimony is given such low credence:

    It is wrong so often.

    What is given the HIGHEST credence in courts?

    Forensic (scientifically measured) evidence. Such as has been given many times over in the YD impact research. And such as is given in geology, and as is so replicatable in astronomy, too.

    I think it is a little silly the way CB tried to sneak that in.

  21. Jim –

    Good points, especially the one about the liquid state of the out-flung materials (if there even ARE out-flung materials – or materials flung at all).

    One exception is that I wouldn’t call the electron flow of an arc welder an “explosion” myself. I am not a welder, but I have seen welders at work many a time, and the arc is continuous and non-explosive. (Don’t look directly at the arc, though, of course!)

  22. “There is a reason in courtrooms why eyewitness testimony is given such low credence:”
    I am just so sick of that lie from liars !
    you all keep telling us that lie and that is why we let 97% rapist and child molesters get off and they get no punishment ?
    I just really wonder why they have court systems at all now days. when it is the judges who do the raping and pillaging !
    those courts must be there just to vindicate the guilty !

    you know Steve God makes 10 laws no one but him has ever kept them
    But mankind he makes warehouses on warehouses with volumes and volumes he never plans to keep why? maybe so he can wiggle out of all of them!
    ” like eyes witnesses that don’t know what they see! ”
    that is just another lie of the liars that like to wiggle out of simple truth!

    until men love the truth as much as they now love lies and wiggle room..bucket.. because the guilty go free!

    In the mean time until someone explains what has been seen and recorded no jackass sophist and other forms of intellectualism.. and all other isms…..has any right to tell anyone what happened yesterday!

  23. Steve; The arc is a controlled explosion. If too much flow is present you get spatter and burn through. Too little flow and the rod grabs and sticks at the base material. I would think that any explosion is an uncontrolled release of energy be it thermal, electrical, physical, chemical, or atomic or any combination of the list. In the case of electron flow if when you strike an arcthe initial result is that a crater is created from the flow liquifying the base metal and causing it to be repeled from the flow. when the rod is held in place the flow starts to fill in the gap and deposit metal into the gap. The faster you move the rod the thinner the weld becomes and the less penetration there is. I had a lightning bolt strike a wooden fence post at home during a storm. The post exploded from steam release and voltage build up from the woods resistance to electron flow to ground. Of a 5″ dia , 4′ long post all the was left was a handfull of large splinters and a smoking stump sticking just out of the ground. The rest was vaporised. My electric fence charger was toast and the grounding rod 3/8″ copper rod 6′ in the ground 100′ away was melted off at the ground. I have one question; Can static be generated in the vacumm of space? If not then the whole notion of thunderbolts in space is moot.

  24. CB; Just one point here. It has been proven many times over that multiple people in a close group witness an event and have no personal contact with each other will produce multiple versions of the same event. All will be extremely close and have the same ending but they will all differ due to our individual perceptions of reality. That is why courts do not like to lean heavily on eyewitness accounts It’s too easy to maninpulate the responses. Hard proven facts are the only solid evidence that can be excepted.

  25. tests run by human can and do have inaccuracies and are thus wrong also to some degree because humans are involved. and thousands of guilty have and do walk.

    but no investigation is even started with out first eyewitnesses testimony!

    GOD has said
    “the number of man is 6″
    not 5. so now hold up your hands , guess what you have de- evolved!
    and from ignorance they have guessed wrong.

    SO Now Behold Pakal greatness ! and what of his European mtdna ?
    because it was six fingers on the 6th day 6000 years ago !
    two rows of teeth created to chew forever, created to live forever !

    the truth is simple !
    Now men prefer their versions to be served COMPLICATED
    and in volumes with escape clauses .
    that is how careers and their priesthood’s are created
    all that slithering and wiggling , it has it’s own economy..”

    it is simple the moon hit us in recorded history about 3200 years ago
    until they explain that they are all fools in priestly garb..
    but then to throw out eyed testimony or mock it is foolish and unproductive.

  26. CB said:

    GOD has said
    “the number of man is 6″

    not 5. so now hold up your hands , guess what you have de- evolved!

    and from ignorance they have guessed wrong.

    Really? When, and where did God say that? Who tranlated the original text? Where did that person study to become proficient, and fluent in the ancient, forgotten language of that text?

    SO Now Behold Pakal greatness ! and what of his European mtdna ?
    because it was six fingers on the 6th day 6000 years ago !

    two rows of teeth created to chew forever, created to live forever !

    the truth is simple !
    Now men prefer their versions to be served COMPLICATED

    and in volumes with escape clauses .

    that is how careers and their priesthood’s are created

    all that slithering and wiggling , it has it’s own economy..”

    it is simple the moon hit us in recorded history about 3200 years ago
    until they explain that they are all fools in priestly garb..

    but then to throw out eyed testimony or mock it is foolish and unproductive.

    Horse hockey! What eyed testimony?

    If there is anything worse than pseudo-science parading as the real, experimental data driven, thing. It’s seeing pseudo religious, and delusional, gobbledygook that’s excreted, and then presented as if it were the true and unfiltered wisdom of the ancients that’s been passed down through the ages unchanged by a long line of true believers.

    Reality check:

    There is no real science whatsoever that would be supportive of the claim that the moon collided with the Earth 3,200 years ago. As for the claim of someone who says someone else has translated an eyewitness account from that time, that too is nothing more than the smelliest of fermented horseshit.

    Ahhh,  Yes! Take me back to my childhood, and cleaning out the stables. Oh how I miss the heady aroma of steaming ammonia in the morning!

    In order for a linguist to do an accurate translation from a 3,200 year old text that linguist must first resurrect the ancient language of that well enough to be reasonably fluent in it. Linguistics at that level are as tough as it gets. And you could probably count the number of living scholars today who are capable of such a feat on the fingers of one hand.

    So who’s your scholarly source? Who’s the brilliant, and esteemed, speaker, reader, and translator, of ancient tongues that came up with the ridiculous idea of a lunar collision with the Earth 3,200 years ago anyway? And what does this brilliant linguist and historian know about things like astrophysics, planetary geology, and orbital mechanics?

  27. Jim –

    Thanks for the details about welding. Much I knew or had surmised, but not all, so I appreciate the extra info.

    The main point about explosions, IMHO (and only in IMHO), is the uncontrolled release of energy. (Control does not in any way mean human-controlled, either does it? Not in my book.)

    About static in space – static energy release? Or static charge? The answer to that should lie in vacuum tubes and such, where static is present and arcs or current does jump across gaps. Maybe not, but that is my first thinking on it.

  28. CB –

    If you don’t think that courtrooms don’t have a hierarchy of evidence you are, frankly, monumentally ill-informed. That assertion by me (and whoever else told you) is not a lie, and you need to educate yourself with something other than what you WANT to be true.

    Your other assertion that lab results are often wrong is equally ill-informed (evidently also due to what you want to be true). In some uncommon cases lab results are wrong, but those are few and far between. Science as it applies to courtrooms is about measuring effects and distances and weights and volumes and PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY – quantitative sciences, based on direct MEASURABLE observations.

    After decades, I still recall one lawyer in the Warren Report (which I disagree with), who asked one witness about a doctor’s measurement of where a bullet entry wound was found. The lawyer asked the witness, “Do you think that the doctor doing the measurement can read a ruler?” The answer, of course, was, “Yes”.

    The thing about labs and scientists is that they actually are TRAINED and attain a high level of reading rulers and scales and beaker volumes and thermometers and to count objects.

    Part of that hierarchy of evidence is that TRAINING – is the observer TRAINED in observing? If so, that person’s eyewitness accounts are given higher weight than an UNtrained eyewitness. Policemen and soldiers and doctors and scientists are given HIGH credence, while housewives and passersby are given low credence. If a cop says he saw green and you as a lay person say that you saw orange, the cop’s version is given higher credence in court. WHY? Because he is trained to observe more closely and what to look for (license plates, doors being tampered with, conditions of the soil due to rain, etc.) – things that most lay people won’t see, unless they are Sherlock Holmes (who is, of course, fictitious).

    One last thing is this: Today MANY of the measurements are NOT made by people. If you think that, you are living in the past. The measurements are made by lab testing equipment that runs thousands and thousands of identical tests annually. The machines are calibrated on a VERY regular schedule. If you’ve ever worked in ANY kind of a lab you would know this. An out-of-date calibration is in itself cause for rejecting results, whether they can be shown to be correct or wrong. Therefore, it is a BIG deal in labs that the equipment is kept calibrated.

    I happen to know a woman who is in charge of vetting ALL medical and forensic labs in the state of Illinois, to make sure their equipment is calibrated on schedule (long before errors will crop up), and that the people are properly trained. I assure you, the errors are indeed very few and very far between.

    But you won’t take my word for it, because your mind is closed to anything you do not want to hear.

    As far as I know there is no cure for that debility. You either HAVE objectivity or you don’t.

    Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. Sorry, CB, but here you are barking up the wrong tree. If you think anyone here is changing their minds because of some magical phrase from you (hocus pocus, anyone?), then you are sadly deluded. If you want to change someone’s mind, then produce actual DATA, actual direct empirical evidence.

    THAT is exactly what is wrong with the Daulton Gang, because they DO NOT want something to be true, so they pretend that the volumes of forensic, directly measured, empirical lab test results by the YD team doesn’t exist. They refuse to admit that REAL WORLD evidence into their minds, so they distort their arguments and pick on what the perceive is the weakest piece of evidence – AND IGNORE ALL THE REST.

    So, put your tinfoil hat on and dream any reality you want. None of it has a place here or in any scientific discussion.

  29. As an AWA certified welding inspector, and welding certified instructor, I think I might be qualified to weigh in on the welding comment.

    First of all. To say that a welding arc is a “controlled explosion” is a mistake. It would be more accurate to think of the arc as a controlled plasma flame.

    The weld itself is nothing more than small puddle of molten metal that is produced by the heat of the arc, and which is made to migrate progressively along a weld seam by moving the arc, and producing a weld. And since in the case of a stick weld the welding stick is a consumable electrode, it shortens continuously as it melts into the weld puddle. Push it into the fire faster than it can melt, and you short out the arc, making the rod stick.

    But that process is in fact referred to as a “short circuit arc” welding process, or “Short Arc”. Because as each droplet of molten metal drips from the welding stick it momentarily connects the tip of the electrode to the weld puddle shorting out the arc. The arc re-lights as the droplet merges with the puddle, and the cycle repeats. In practice it produces a sound like frying bacon.

    The whole process is a very poor metaphor for any theoretical electric cratering process; much less to describe any kind of explosive discharge event.

  30. Dennis; Thanks for the clarification on the welding analogy. You difffinately explained it better than myself. Any time you’re in the Chicago area even if just passing through and have a little time let me know and I’ll pick you up and bring you to my place for some fresh childhood memories. Fresh poop or fresh Hay— Ain’t nothin like it!!!

  31. Steve; My thinking on charges in space was of the static generating capabilities. Can statis be generated in space? If charges are accumulated to the point of discharge between cosmic bodies I would venture that there would be somekind of prior notice like every person on the planet would have hair standing on end, all electrical systems would collaspe, just things of that nature. I have never heard of or read about any of these things ever happening through out history.

  32. Dennis; I have a stone that I believe to be a meteorite. It shows signs of ablation but they’re hard to see as they are almost the same coloration as the base stone. Is there any to bring out the color differences for better identifacation.

  33. If it’s the real deal, you probably wouldn’t want to do anything to change the color of the surface. You could get it sliced, and polished at a rock shop though. A cross section is as definitive as it gets. And if it turns out to be something other than a meteorite, even a meteor-wrong sliced, and polished, on one face like that often makes a really pretty paper weight.

    As for imaging the thing, you can do a pretty good job of it with an ordinary flat bed scanner. Just lay the side you want to image on the scanner face down, and covered with a dark towel. Most scanners can easily hit 2400 dpi so it’s as god as a wide scan microscope image.

  34. Program notes: I think I have the PDF embed thing worked out, again. I had a code that was working really well, then it began showing error. Coincidentally, the SAME widget stopped working on my professionally managed company site, after working for years, which let me know I needed another fix entirely.

    Anyway, check out the embed feature here — and let me know if it works well for readers!:
    https://cosmictusk.com/university-of-chicago-nanodiamonds-prove-cosmic-impact-responsible-for-ancient-climate-change/

  35. I checked my daughter’s computer and the paper embed seemed to be there. The page load speed seemed painfully slow, however.

    Any insights appreciated….

  36. Dennis; I’ve already made a small cut on the backside of the stone and polished it with a 200 grit emery (all that I had) I’m going to try and find a 800-100 grit diamaond disk and gloss it out. Do you know what strength Nitric acid is needed to bring out any crystal structure on the cut dimension?

  37. Dennis on welding –

    Thanks. I believe that your explanation says the same thing I said, but I totally bow to your superior explanation and experience and knowledge. Thanks! And I totally respect anyone who works with welding at any level.

  38. Dennis and Jim (on Jim’s possible meteor) –

    Dennis, it occurs to me that the ablated surface might show up with polarization.

    Yes? No?

    Worth trying?

  39. George –

    I see the embed and it seems to look just fine. Actually, it looks better than the old ones, it seems to me.

  40. The improvement: I used to NOT be able to read the Scribd’s embeds (if that was what they were), and I usually had to use the links to find the pdf and open that. This embed I don’t need to do that.

    I hope that most or all of the future embeds will be as easy to read.

  41. Jim Coyle, you should check with the meteorite specialists. Dave Gheesling is one of them, and is in Georgia.
    His website is fallingrocks.com He is also on Facebook.
    Joanne

  42. Steve; Thanks for the links to the meteorite sites they were deffinitely way cool. The skydiver is one lucky SOB. I wonder how many times that exact same thing has occured and nobody knew it. With as much debris raining down on the p[lanet each day it’s a wonder that people aren’t killed or wounded more often. I guess if we did know then the government would have to outlaw meteorites and ban their existance or tax them into oblivion, which ever was easier.

  43. Jim –

    That Greenland Camp Century link had some useful information for me, about ice flowing in a basically flat region, which I have been critical of.

    This part gave me pause:

    “The ice-cap of Greenland must to some extent be considered as a viscous mass, which, by the vertical pressure in its interior, is pressed outwards and slowly flows towards the coasts, just as a mass of pitch placed on a table and left to itself will in the course of time flow outwards towards all sides.

    The Encyclopaedia Britannica – Eleventh Edition”

    I had not considered that within the ice sheet the might be flowing plastically at elevations perhaps at a high enough elevation to flow over the tops of rough or hilly terrain.

    Thus, perhaps the Laurentide and Wisconsinan ice sheets COULD HAVE flowed as thought.

    I will consider it all as possible.

    I know better than this, because I have been involved in the flow of literal plastic within flow passages. In my work I was made aware that the plastic along the internal walls of the passages barely moves at all, while the plastic away from the walls (toward the center of the flow) moves progressively more easily.

    If applied to ice sheets, the basal ice (bottom) might not need to move at all for ice 100 feet up (as an example) could move quite easily, if sufficient force is able to be applied horizontally. In hydrocarbon plastics the pressure is applied by a ram upstream.

    In an ice sheet is there sufficient horizontal force provided by the VERTICAL weight of ice in the higher portions of the ice?

    That is the assertion, and it seems reasonable. “Reasonable” does not, though, necessarily mean that it is true. And it might be more reasonable in Greenland where it is hilly/mountainous and still not be true in eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. where it is almost the same terrain altitude at the periphery as it is at the center (highest ice thickness).

    Greenland might be a middle ground between, say, the Alps, and the Laurentide region. The Alps, where Agassiz came up with the Ice age concept, are prototypical mountainous terrain, where the steep slopes provide a great deal of lateral vector force to any ice on the slopes. Eastern Canada provides essentially NO lateral vector force. Greenland I had understood to be quite mountainous, but perhaps I am wrong on that.

    I think it comes down to actual numbers as derived empirically (in Greenland and the Alps) and numbers as derived through calculations (for the Laurentide for which we have no capacity to measure, since it is long gone).

    Right now I am thinking maybe it is more likely/possible than I’d thought, but it is not a won case for my opposition’s ideas quite yet.

    All of this has been me thinking out loud in public, and I apologize if some may not care to follow along…

  44. maybe this is why only really big stuff hits us, stuff that can and does move the crust and make turtle islands move !

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/11/27/scientists-discover-earths-star-trek-style-invisible-shield/

    Scientists have gained insight into the Van Allen belts in recent years. In 2012, for example, two NASA probes found that the belts alter more rapidly than previously thought, with particles in the areas undergoing swift changes in energy, time and spatial distribution.

  45. Steve; When I saw that pic of the ice flow and saw in the ice I thought Steve needs to see this. Now if my memory sesrves me right the laurentean ice sheet had reached a height of 3mi an whether that is enough to cause the ice to flow I don’t know. Also to consider as the ice moves further south the temp should moderate noticeably making the ice more pliable lending to ease of flow. Greenland is mountanous all aropund the coastal areas but it is a huge basin in the middle. The snow ice accumulation reaches the tops of the coastal ranges then comes of the top and heads for the sea. Gravity at its best. I was surprised at the fact that the ground under the glacier was frozen. I was thinking the mass of the ice would be an insulating factor and the ground would be thawed causing some bottom melting for glacial lubrication. Maybe yea, maybe nay. Continental glacier maybe a whole nother animal. If the ice rolls over the ground then your idea of the end morraines being created by ice fracture and travel gains quite a bit of momentum. An impact on the ice is going to move a lot of debris suddnely and that could be the source of the morraines. This the terminus of the sudden ice movement. I like your thinking out loud. I do it myself. If I see the words or hear them it’s clearer to me.

  46. Tuskees; I’ve lost the date for Hans Kloosterman’s television debut. If anyone has the time date and channel please repost it. Thanks

  47. Jim – Greenland’s Grand Canyon news article from Aug 2013: http://www.sott.net/article/265620-Grand-Canyon-of-Greenland-discovered-under-ice-sheet

    To me all of this complicates the issue a lot. The “ring” of mountains around the basin that they are calling the Grand Canyon of Greenland is not complete, and it also crests many miles from the coast.

    This brings up the question as to whether the interior ice is cresting the mountains and continuing on to the sea. Perhaps not. I can easily see that the coastal slopes have their own regional flow of ice, while perhaps the interior just sits there and does nothing but melt on the bottom and drain liquid water to the ocean.

    The article doesn’t address this in the way I see might be happening.

    If the interior and coastal ice act separately (and I think that is a GOOD chance), then the thing I referenced above doesn’t hold true. ESPECIALLY because Greenland doesn’t even seem to HAVE flat regions of terrain under the ice (or if so, they are very small and probably not representative).

    Thus, I don’t need to revise my thinking, from what this is telling me. Greenland IS mountainous, so its ice flow is like Alpine glaciers on steep slopes, not like the Laurentide that was on flat terrain for many hundreds of miles south to Michigan (as well as other directions).

    It pays to have an open mind but to keep on gathering information. What SEEMS like it might contradict may not do so, after all.

    This all pleases me to no end.

  48. Jim –

    Han posted this:

    Han Kloosterman
    November 19, 2014 at 4:43 pm
    From Brian Garson, History Channel:

    The episode is tentatively titled “The Great Flood” and is scheduled to air on 12/19 on H2 (History Channel 2).
    Airdates are always subjected to change, so please keep an eye on the History Channel website at http://www.history.com

  49. Steve: I clicked on the link and it took me to the topo maps I had found. You can type in Greenland deiced topographical maps and your search engine will send you there also. There are also some sidebar articles with the topo maps some about Greenland ice shrinking and some about ice expanding. Take your pick. All this info gets confusing.

  50. Here’s a li’l bit of a fun ya’ll might get a chuckle out of.

    Remember back before the election, and all the flack Senator Udall took over his stand on abortion rights? At the height of the campaign, some of his detractors started calling him Senator Uterus.

    Now here’s where it gets good.

    The good Professor Boslough was a devoted supporter of Senator Udall’s campaign. He was so devoted, that in a heroic show of solidarity, and support, in the heat of campaign fervor, he changed his Facebook name to “Mark Uterus Boslough”.

    His plan was to change it back after the election. Unfortunately somebody forgot to tell him that anytime you change your Facebook name you can’t change it back again for 60 days. So he’s stuck with it for a couple of months.

    We can only pray he doesn’t screw around and get knocked up while waiting for that 60 day deadline to pass so’s he can get himself fixed.

  51. George; Is there any way to post a photo in the comment section here? I have a meteor-maybe that’s in the process of being evaluated and I thought I might throw it out there for perusing.

  52. http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-great-greenland-snow-job-06-the-64000-question/ Steve; Here is some more info on Greenland glaciers. Some of it is possibly useful.They talk about the depth of ice needed to become plastic and then that depth has to be at least maintained to have flow.So the North American Ice sheet center region had to be at least I believe 3-4 KM thick and there had to be continueous monumental snow at that location to keep the ice flow moving. A question that comes to mind is: Where did enough moisture come from to make enough ice to cover the earth basically down to 45 degrees north? What would reroute the oceanic moisture carrying curents to bring this amount of moisture north to be precipitated as snow? This concept kicks butt compared to 40 days and 40 nights of rain for the geat flood.

  53. For Drake Passage, sediments indicate the opening occurred ~41 million years ago while tectonics indicate that this occurred ~32 million years ago.
    The above quote is from Wiki-pedia. I was looking for any info on the landmass positions 334mya and this came up in reference to the opening of the circumpolar current.
    This seems to be a bit confusing and contrary. But I believe that the cosmic impact that I believe happened in the area of Drake passage happened on the Pacific side of South America and dragged the sea floor into the Atlantic ocean basin creating the Drake Passage. The tectonic evidence is from the impact fracturing the earths crust creating the numerous plates in that area of the world and the sediment evidence is from the sea floor being dragged from the Pacific into the Atlantic ocean more or less intact. Another concept is that The Drake Passage has northern siberia as its antipode. This area is known to have had cosmic impacts in the 34mya era. This is mostly speculation but any comments or critiques are appreciated

  54. Jim –

    Good link on Greenland. Am busy but what I’ve seen so far has some intriguing inferences. The 3-4 km thick thing is damned important.

  55. Steve; You’re retired!! How could you possibly be busy? That 3-4km is interesting because that number has to be kept or exceeded to maintain flow. In one of your other replies you asked about the Greenland Icecap flowing over the coastal ranges or just stationary. From what I have read the main body is pretty much stationary with just 2 tongues to the sea. The rest of the glaciers are of the alpine variety flowing off the coastal sides of the ranges. Now the central ice cap originally flowed into the interior basin from the coastal ranges and filled the central basin almost to the tops of the ranges. My last post about Drake Passage was kind of disjointed. I’ll have to write more to clarify my train of thought (rerail it).

  56. Jim –

    I am at the coast, chillin’, and with a lovely lady. THAT is being busy… working on a tan and – finally – learning to snorkel, as a step to scuba (doubtful but still possible). And MANY new friends to hang with.

    So, bear with me. . . When life is good, ride the crest. . . and learn how to make all of life “the crest”.

  57. Jim –

    Still at the coast, but have a little time. That last comment was supposed to go hours ago, but got stalled. I re-sent, even though it is not totally applicable now.

    Greenland being stationary except for the coastal slopes and a couple of tongues to the sea sounds exactly right. It looked to me that Camp Century was on an “alpine” coastal slope, too. Making its record not at all comparable to GISP and GRIP.

    ALL of this seems exactly consistent with my arguments about the Canadian ice sheets – alpine ice slopes act completely differently than ice whose movement is restricted. In Greenland it is by containing mountains, and in Canada by rough, flat ground and hills and cross valleys.

  58. […Sorry for posting this here. A more than dursory search for my previous mention of strntghless bodies turned up nothing. I’d rather have continued the discussion on one of those, but can’t find them….]

    …On Google Books at http://tiny.cc/ivctqx, “Asteroids III (edited by Frederick Bottke)” includes several articles on asteroids and the study of asteroids, including Pravec et al.: Asteroid Rotations beginning on page 113 (not all pages are available for viewing).

    On page 188, Pravec writes the following:

    “In general, the rotational properties of asteroids with 0.15 < D < 10 km suggest that they are collisionally derived fragments, mostly with negligible tensile strength. Most of them are rubble piles or shattered bodies according to the definitions of Richardson et al. (2002). They mostly gain angular momentum through collisions (see also Paolicchi et a., 2002) but are also affected by noncollisional effects. Their rubble-pile and shattered internal structures are likely a result of collisions that shattered either original parent bodies from which the small asteroids were derived or the small asteroids themselves but did not disperse them (e.g., see Love and Ahrens, 1996). We cannot, however, rule out the possibility that the rubble pile structure could be primordial in some cases.”

    This is mainly (IMHO) discussion of this topic at a NON-well-understood level, so I won’t point at it as proof of anything (always a bad idea).

    But I will point out that serious researchers in this field talk about collisions as being “shattering” events – events that turn asteroids into rubble piles. This seems to agree with recent observations of some comets and asteroids as rubble piles – and even ones that have solid bodies seem to have rubble (regolith) on their surface.

    It also seems to agree with my interpretations regarding the planetary nebula theory, in which I argue two things: 1.) that collisions at asteroidal velocities will not fuse materials into larger bodies but will break them up into smaller bodies, and 2.) particles at whatever size (less than planetary) can only be “rubble piles” (their term not mine, but one I agree with), because the microgravity is many orders of magnitude too small to make particles adhere to each other.

    I believe that the “shattered interiors” mention in the quote above is further support for the skeptical viewpoint on the plaetary nebula theory. Shattered interiors” implies – like shatter cones at impact sites on Earth – that hyper-velocity impacts are destructive events, not constructive events. The shattered interiors certainly suggest impacts that very nearly – but not quite – pulverized the bodies in question. (How they arrived at “shattered interiors” I do not yet know; hopefully, further reading will enlighten me.)

    Basically, the more I read, the more I find that argues against aggregation of smaller bodies into larger bodies. This principle is left vague in all discussions I’ve been able to find – going straight from “there are collisions” to “these collisions eventually make planets”. The middle portion of that process is what I question.

    If uniformitarianism is based on the principle that “The present is the clue to the past”, then the hyper-velocity collisions>full-shattering/partial-shattering that occurs today must be – MUST BE – used by uniformitarians to inform them of what happened in the distant past eons. They can’t have hyper-velocity shatterings NOW and then turn around and declare hyper-velocity fusions/aggregations in the past. What are strengthless bodies built by such collisions now must be seen as analogs for that distant past.

    I.e., no such aggergations of small particles into larger ones and progressively larger ones, up to planetary level, can be read into the record.

    And while I WILL admit that – once planetary size is achieved – some of their processes make sense, it does not explain the smaller bodies that exist now, such as asteroids and comets – or even most moons.

    When peridotite and olivine found in the Allende meteorite (and others), their theory simply cannot be correct. Those two need ultra-high pressures and temperatures in order to form (similar to their near neighbor on earth – diamonds). Neither of those requirements are possible in deep space – with one excpetion. And that exception is hyper-velocity impacts. And I would accept THAT hyper-velocity impacts destroy/shatter, instead of aggregate. The statement at the beginning of that quote says that clearly:

    “…the rotational properties of asteroids with 0.15 < D < 10 km suggest that they are collisionally derived fragments, mostly with negligible tensile strength."

    Once a body is a rubble pile, what possible process could be invoked to explain that rubble turning into a solid body asteroid or solid-body comet? There IS no relative velocity between particles within that rubble pile. They simply rest against each other and can be flung off at the slightest nudge (and almost certainly ARE).

    Question: How can sufficient pressure exist there to force the particles together?

    Answer: It can’t.

    Question: How can an ultra-high temperature exist out there to melt them together?

    Answer: It can’t.

    But there they are – peridotite and olivine – the bare facts that such an explanation as the planetary nebula theory cannot be correct.

    Take away that theory, and then what is left?

    THAT is the real question to be asking.

    Right now we are stuck with wrong questions, and wrong questions can never lead to right answers.

    Efforts to CROWBAR that peridotite into uniformitarian processes will only be speculative, and mangling of logic and principles, and the throwing in of incredibly unlikely “but-what-ifs”. Once people have gone down the wrong path, the proposed “explanations” become sillier and sillier, and less connected with reality.

  59. NOTE: 2.) above is not meant to explain what happens that gives us the present rubble pile asteroids (apparently most of them between 0.15km and 10 km), but to target what is wrong about the present theory.

  60. Steve; I was reading some more on the Mt Ashmore impact crater and decided to draw a line from there to Drake Passage on a flat global map. I also drew a line from Chesapeake Bay, Toms Canyon to Popigai Russia. They appeared to be perfectly parallel. I continued each line to the edge of the map and proved out to continuous. All 4 of these 34-35 mya sites are on the same pass. This must of have been one hell of an impactor to have a 5km impactor at Mt Ashmore, multiple large hits at Drakes Passage, A 84km crater at Chesapeake Bay with a smaller one at Toms Canyon and the monsters at Popigai Russia. I’m not sure how to continue the line around the globe again to see if there are any more crater sites in that alignment.

  61. Jim –

    When you say a flat map, do you mean a Mercator projection map? If so, I would recommend caution regarding any “straight lines”. IMHO it really is necessary to use a true 3D globe.

    On GE I plotted a straight-line path from Chesapeake Bay crater to Popigai. The heading is 357.61°.

    I also plotted a straight-line path from Chesapeake Bay crater to Toms Canyon crater and got a heading of 52.40°.

    The two paths on GE are 54.79° different.

  62. Mackenzie River outflow . . . background:

    Plan A of global warming as a trigger for the Younger Dryas (a review):

    Most of you have most of this in your heads.

    If any of you recall the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” in 2004, at about the height of the one-sided Global Warming scare, the idea was in full swing that the oceanic conveyor hypothesis was going to some day spin us off into a new ice age, because of global warming. The mechanism of this was that the oceanic conveyor (which reaches around the entire world through the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans) is driven by the sinking of waters in the North Atlantic northeast of Iceland. Among other things – and particularly – this sinking is argued to be what drives the Gulf Stream. No consideration is given for the Coriolis effect or winds. The Coriolis effect is what in the past was determined to be the driver of the Gulf Stream, and winds are now generally considered to be the main drivers – except for those who sign onto the cold water sinking NE of Iceland. The hypothesis needed a trigger – an influx of cold and FRESH water. This cold fresh water was argued to be so low in density that if it traveled over the sinking point NE of Iceland, the Gulf Stream would stop, thus stopping the transport of warm waters to Europe and begin to change the climate of the entire globe – triggering an ice age.

    This cold water influx was argued by Wally Broecker in his book “The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change” to be a surge from Lake Agassiz when an ice dam failed, ala the Scablands Flood.

    As Rodney Chilton summarizes in his book “Sudden Cold”, the Lake Agassiz>St Lawrence River hypothesis failed to cooperate, since – among other things – the timing was all wrong.

    I quote from a blog page, http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-conveyor-belt-dismissed:

    M. Susan Lozier, of Duke University,

    “the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well.”

    . . .This spate of recent discoveries serves to underline a fundamental tenet of science — that no theory, no matter how elegant or widely believed, is sacrosanct. As the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, stated, science progresses by moving from one false theory to another, still false theory that is nonetheless closer to the truth. There is nothing wrong with dismissing the conveyor belt model for another, more correct model. In fact, a scientist incapable of realizing that a cherished, comfortable old theory is false and must be discarded is not capable of doing good science at all. Keeping that in mind, here is Lozier’s summary of the case against the conveyor belt:

    Though appealing in its simplicity, the ocean conveyor-belt paradigm has lost luster over the years, precisely because it has overdistilled the complexity of the ocean’s overturning. This complexity has slowly been revealed as the ocean has increasingly been observed at finer scales in space and time and in places previously only sparsely sampled. As discussed, the ocean’s eddy field, unaccounted for just decades ago and now uncovered by measures at appropriate scales, figures prominently in the dismantling of the conveyor-belt paradigm. Another player in this dismantling is the ocean’s wind field. The traditional assignation of surface ocean gyres to wind-forcing and overturning to buoyancy forcing has ignored the vital impact of winds on overturning pathways and mechanics. As the study of the modern ocean’s role in climate continues apace, the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well— not because it is a gross oversimplification but because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning.

    But, as one would expect, some scientists continue arguing that the conveyor belt hypothesis is still valid, and even without the St :aerence outlet available to them, they have insisted on what I call their

    “PLAN B” – to find some other way Lake Agassiz could get its waters suddenly to the top end of the Gulf Stream. And thus was born the Mackenzie River hypothesis. Unfortunately – and they still ignore this – the outlet of the Mackenzie is completely on the other side of the 3 million square country known as Canada. In addition, there are several of the largest islands in the world in the way – not the least of which is Greenland. On top of that, there is dilution. Also the oceanic currents at the mouth of the Mackenzie River are westward flowing. and partially exit the Arctic Ocean through the Being Strait.

    I noted immediately that the article stated, “In one core just west of the river delta, the scientists found a layer.” Yes, that is exactly where they should find the residue for an outflow from the Mackenzie – WEST of the mouth.

    At the same time, I will give them credit for finding the thick layers deposited at the “amazing” rate of 12 meters per thousand years.

    At the same time, such thick layers are also present on dry land, in places such as Han’s Usselo layer. They are also present on either side of the YDB black layer in several other locales – something whihc is very significant, to have these un-layered homogeneous layers. Every one of them argues for a sudden deposition.

    What, then, does the one at the mouth of the Mackenzie River mean? It is too early to say, but assigning it to the stoppage of the now-doubtful oceanic conveyor belt is very premature – and wishful thinking.

    * * * *

    I will add in here my own two cents. Though the above is the one side of the story, as chosen by me, it is not my own two cents.

    The following IS:

    The conveyor belt folks do not seem to understand how weak a force convection is, especially in a non-gas fluid. They also do not seem to understand how much resistance to sinking there is in the surrounding waters. That resistance comes in the form of friction – friction which reduces the already weak flow that comes from density differences, called convection.

    On top of all that, they don’t seem to understand how suction works. And suction IS what their “overturning” of the Atlantic conveyor belt is based on. It assumes that the sinking water sucks in water and that that is what drives the Gulf Stream. This is patently impossible, because suction caused by sinking water would draw water in from all directions – it would NOT be able to selectively only suck in water from the southwest. Water from north and east would also be drawn in.

    And one final issue I have with the conveyor belt hypothesis is that suction only works when there is a difference of pressures, an that leakage in a suction system is a KILLER. At each point of leakage the pressure differential is reduced. Given that the pressure differential created by the (already very weak convection, which is itself reduced by friction with surrounding waters) sinking waters is very small to begin with, any leakage AT ALL will reduce the suction to zero within a few kilometers, if not within a few hundred meters. Without that suction, the conveyor belt hypothesis is a physics-impossible hypothesis. They cannot have a valid hypothesis if they ignore basic physics that is present in the principles of suction and leakage. Ask any HVAC installer or engineer how leakage affects a system.

    Take a straw and try to suck water through it when there are a lot of pinholes above the water’s surface. Good luck with that. It is easy to suck without the holes, and with just a few holes the water will not suck up the straw at all. Why? The suction preferentially sucks in whatever is easiest to suck.

    Sucking all the way down to the beginning of the Gulf Stream just can’t happen. (That water is PUSHED, not pulled.)

    That last is my two cents added to the other weaknesses of the oceanic conveyor belt.

    NOW take all of that and apply it to the YDB, and the Mackenzie River hypothesis is a patch pasted on top of several weak or faulty hypotheses, all piled on top of one another.

    Guys, I only discuss this again because it is important that folks here be able to distinguish between what can work within physics principles and what cannot. If someone here can poke holes in what I’ve said, please do. But please don’t shoot it down with a vague “Steve, you have no credentials, and therefore it is all in your imagination.” People here are better than that. I have tried to argue based on what I know of the specific physics errors made or ignored by researchers.

    If my points are wrong, single out the faulty ones and let’s discuss it.

  63. Steve; I believe that Toms Canyon and Chesapeake bay are two pieces of the same impact location, similar to Drake Passage and Popigia. Take Toms Canyon off the table and the line from Drake Passage through Mt Ashmore, Chesapeak Bay to Popigia should run true. I did use a Mercator projection map and came up with 2 parralell lines, but I continued the lines to the edge of the maps and the beginning of the top line was the same latitude as the end of the bottom line going left to right. I do agree that a physical globe would be preferential but I’m not in procession of one at this time. When a comet or asteroid breaks up in orbit as it comes in could it or would it make slight changes in it’s trajectory at each breakup? My thinking on this is that it would.

  64. Barry –

    Good link, but I found one failure in their fact checking:

    “This is troubling considering an asteroid only 30 miles (50 meters) across could destroy a large city, said Souheil Ezzedine, an applied mathematician and statistician at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory…”

    I would agree with a city being destroyed by one 50 meters across, but 30 miles does not equal 50 meters! LOL

    THAT is very bad fact checking.

    The opening line is also VERY sloppy and nonsensical, IMHO:

    “An asteroid impact 100 miles (170 kilometers) off the coast of Maryland would send waves up to 50 feet (15 meters) high onto the shore an hour later and massive flooding would occur three hours after impact…”

    Two issues with this: First, it doesn’t say what SIZE of an asteroid. Secondly, the author seems to not understand that the “waves up to 50 feet (15 meters) high” are IN THEMSELVES flooding. Ask the people of Japan and Sumatra/Thailand/Sri Lanka. Three hours later the tsunami run-up is mostly over and done with. (The author also did not mention the run-up versus the intrinsic wave height at the shoreline).

    If the model had some sort of a wave three HOURS late, I have to questtion the maths underlying the model. Honestly.

    * * *

    My source of Hills and Goda in their “computer data” calculated that the DEEP water wave from a 50 meter stony object would be 32 meters. That is deep water.

    Hills and Goda also say this:

    An average tsunami. . . is 40 times higher than the deep-water wave that created it in the first place. [Gerrit L. Verschuur. Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids (p. 153). Kindle Edition.]

    Hills and Goda further calculate that that 32 meter wave for a stony object is at ONE THOUSAND KILOMETERS AWAY.

    Obviously, the two groups are not in agreement. Which one is right? At this point we amateurs may not be able to distinguish. Also obviously, the modelers clearly have not used Hills and Goda as a resource. Not so with Edward Teller or David Morrison, current Chief of NASA:

    David Morrison posted a summary on the World Wide Web which made it clear that Edward Teller and colleagues were paying increased attention to the work of Hills and Goda, referred to in the previous chapter… [Gerrit L. Verschuur. Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids (p. 163). Kindle Edition.

    It is not clear to me which Hills and Goda paper this is all from. Verschuur does not fotnote the Hills and Goda information, and I find two papers (1998 and 1999) for the two of them. The 1999 one seems more likely, judging from its abstract.

    The fact that the Ezzedine doesn’t even mention tsunami run-up is troubling. Anyone who has read up on the Sumatran tsunami is aware that the run-up was considerably higher than the wave height at the coast, and THAT wave height was many times larger than the deep water height. So the real problem is not deep water height (as Ezzedine discusses according to the article’s author) but the run-up height. (FYI, the Japanese and Sumatran tsunamis had relatively the same run-up height – about 10-12 meters.)

    And what in the HECK the 3-hour thing is, I can’t even envision. The wave velocity being about 700-800 km/hour, the wave from 100 km away would get to the coastline in like 4-5 minutes. Then it would run-up for some multiple of that time, but not 35-45 times longer. I am truly puzzled at what they could be referring to. I stand ready to be educated… 🙂

    The article doe not mention the paper by name, nor does it provide a link, so it is not possible at this time to inquire more deeply into the work of Ezzedine. A Google Scholar search using “Ezzedine asteroid” turns up nothing about this paper/presentation. So, for the moment, it isn’t possible to get into this any deeper…

  65. I saw the sloppyness in the article. Even if any of the work was valid nobody would give it any credence after reading it. Or maybe he is just really bad at math.

  66. Steve, the science the author in Barry’s link is oh so feebly attempting to describe isn’t regarding an actual impact. But simply some simulations, and models run by Souheil Ezzedine, a civil engineer at Lawrence Livermore National lab, for FEMA so they can do a little worst case catastrophe planning. The folks over at AGU’s Blogosphere seem to have fixed most of the major typos in the article though. So you might want to re-read it.

    For the sake of comparison, the Barringer crater in Arizona is thought to have been produced by an iron asteroid something like 45 meters wide., and coming down dang near vertical. On the other hand, the Chelyabinsk object was an ordinary chondrite about 18 meters wide that hit the atmosphere at a very low angle traveling in the neighborhood of 19kps, and produced an airburst. So to get the kinds of effects they’re implying you’d have to assume an iron asteroid, or something with enough density and structural integrity to make it through atmosphere with most of it’s kinetic energy intact as it impacts the water. So you get something heavy, and dense, and coming in close to vertical.

    The object the folks at LLNL simulated for FEMA was 50 meters. Now compare that to an estimate of 45 meters for the iron meteor the blew out the 3/4 mile wide hole in the ground in called Barringer crater.

    So the idea that in an ocean impact a 50 meter wide object’s transient crater would almost instantly displace something like a cubic mile or more of water doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch. And only a 50 foot wave? Really? In deep water out beyond the continental shelf it might settle down to only 50 feet tall 100 miles away from the point of impact. But the initial impact wave would be a monster.

    You’re right to bring up tsunami run-up height though. It’s not mentioned in the article. But in terms of destruction of infrastructure it would be a major force multiplier.

    The Tsunami run-up height as a wave comes from deep water beyond a continental shelf into shallower waters is something like 37 to 1. So a 50 foot impact tsunami wave in deep water off the continental shelf a hundred miles off shore, and can be expected to rise up to something like 1850 feet as it comes ashore. And considering that the waves would still be sloshing for a good long time after the initial impact, there’d still be flooding inland for quite a few hours afterwards. And the devastation would effect the entire Atlantic basin, not just the US east coast.

    Their hearts may be in the right place. But I’m afraid FEMA attempting to plan for an impact catastrophe of that magnitude would be an exercise in futility.

  67. Wow. I tried posting essentially the same comment THREE TIMES without it showing up.

    Then this “testing 123” showed up.

    Something weird is going on.

  68. Dennis –

    Yeah, I am fully aware that Ezzedine’s work was a model. That is a good part of my skepticism toward that effort. But thanks for making sure I knew that.

    As to AGU correcting the typos, I did go look at it, and they STILL left the lied (opening line) without a meteor size. They corrected the “30 miles (50 meters)“. Well and good.

    But that opening line STILL says this:

    An asteroid impact 100 miles (170 kilometers) off the coast of Maryland would send waves up to 50 feet (15 meters) high onto the shore an hour later and massive flooding would occur three hours after impact…

    NO! It would not take an hour for the wave to travel 100 miles. Deep ocean tsunami waves travel about 500 mph or something close to that. So the tsunami wave would arrive about 12 minutes later, not 60 minutes later. They don’t seem to have their basic tsunami information straight. OY VEY!

    And they STILL include that ridiculous wave 3-hours later – with no explanation about what would cause such a late-arriving wave. (Bouncing off the far side of the Atlantic?)

    So, basically AGU let a non-fact-corrected article get out to the public, and then they don’t check more than one pathetically wrong conversion/misstatement. That is not a very high-quality fact-checking department they have over there.

    Add to all of that the fact that they only talk about deep water wave height – and leave out run-up altogether – makes this an absolutely and atrociously misleading and incorrect article.

    And I need to jump on THIS statement as further proof that the author did not know his behind from a hole in the ground:

    When an asteroid smacks the ocean, the magnitude of the resulting wave depends on two things: the depth of the water and the size of the asteroid.

    NO! As anyone who has read the least up on it knows, the configuration of the seafloor near the coastline is a MAJOR factor in what happens with “the resulting wave.” “The resulting wave” is more than just the physical hump of energy out in deep water – the most important thing is what does the wave do when it hits land. We all know that. The author doesn’t know sheit. It is NOT clear wherther Ezzedine himself knows anything, either, since this is not based on an actual PAPER, but some presentation which is not in the literature yet.

    At this point this seems to be a possible classic case of a modeler putting code in that is not connected to the real world – only his assumptions, plus the missing elements that he doesn’t even know to put into the code. Garbage in, garbage out. GIGO. This is why one should not accept models at face value. THEY MUST show in real terms that the model holds true to reality, before we accept their output.

  69. (More about that article…)

    Dennis –

    “Only a 50 foot wave?” EXACTLY! The paper author or the article author (OR AGU’S EDITOR) are showing themselves to not knowing WTF they are talking about.

    Thanks for the agreement on the run-up. THAT is the bad news thing. 37 times is a LOT. The Sumatran tsunami wave at the shoreline was only about the height of a man – maybe less. Look at the videos. It was only 6-10 feet as it roared into the Thai resorts which were only 70 miles away or so. Yet it climbed the very hilly region up to about 45 meters, in northern Sumatra. This all more or less agrees with your 37X.

    Yeah, if FEMA based any planning on that, we can all see “FAIL” written all over that one.

  70. Thinking out loud, mathematically and physics-wise, the run-up is simply the volume of water being “braked” by the land, slowing down, while at the same time having more water piling in behind it. What does that mean? The water either has to speed up, or it has to increase in height.

    The normal surf on a beach does the same thing: The front edge slows down, the back edge slows down less, and the wave length gets shortened, while the volume stays the same. If V = L x H, then when V is constant and L decreases, H must increase.

    Air masses also are subject to such processes – with one exception: Air is compressible, while water is not. What we SEE, then is air speeding up as an air mass bumps up against mountains. I say “SEE” because wind speed is the one thing we pay attention to when air masses come up against mountains. The air flows over the mountains, but with the air mass behind pushing and the air above weighing down oon it, the air mass has nothing to do but try to compress going through the narrower “opening” between the overlyign air and the up-thrusting land. The air does compress, but its main thing is to speed up. This is why Mt Washington in New Hampshire has the hignest wind speeds in N America – almost 3 times the average at weather stations (35 mph vs about 11-13 mph). The air has nothing to stop it as it comes across the plains of Canada and the northeastern USA. So all of that air mass pushes from behind ads the air tries to slow down.

    Water, though, is not compressible. It doesn’t speed up. After all, it is the friction with the land that is slowing down the base of the water flow. This braking affects the entire water depth – closer to the bottom is slowed the most. But each volume-per-lineal-meter has the force of the water behind it pushing it.

    The 37X height factor seems to imply that the 500 mph (800 kph) velocity is slowed by 37X by the friction and vertical shape of the shore, or to an average of about 22 kph, before the run-up comes to a halt at 0 kph.

    Why that number? One can suppose that the vertical shape of the shore will vary it, and that that value might be up to 45kph or so or as little as 30kph or so in some cases.

    I think Hills and Goda’s work is more correct.

  71. Oops! Brain fart…

    “One can suppose that the vertical shape of the shore will vary it, and that that value might be up to 45kph or so or as little as 30kph or so in some cases.”

    should read

    “One can suppose that the vertical shape of the shore will vary it, and that that value might be up to 45X or so or as little as 30X or so in some cases.”

  72. The average tsunami run up ratio is a measured thing, not an estimate, or theory. It does vary a bit though according to the slope of the bottom as the wave moves onto the continental shelf. And the wave height can also be locally amplified as it comes ashore by topography such as bays, or inlets that might funnel it into a river channel.

    The important point to keep here is that the article was written by a science communication graduate student at UC Santa Cruz named Lisa Potter. She’s just a wanna be science writer, not a scientist. And she is not one of the co authors of the study she wrote about. She probably did the article for a grade in a journalism class. I’d give it a resounding fail because a high school senior could do better.

    As she clearly has no clue about the science she’s writing on. And I’m thinkin’ that the field of impact science is one she should leave for others to report on altogether. As to her poorly vetted Op Ed piece on AGU’s Blogosphere, I’m afraid it would be better suited to a cheap tabloid than AGU.

    Her numbers do make a little bit of sense though when you recognize that at 1 to 3 hours after impact she’s talking about remaining wave energy as the wave is headed out across the Atlantic. And not the wave energy that would’ve come ashore in Maryland in just a few short minutes while the people of Maryland were still reeling from being just outside the 100% lethal zone of a blast wave from a big bad, many hundreds of megatons KaBOOOM more powerful than anything ever witnessed by man. There might be time to warn the rest of the Atlantic basin before the impact tsunami arrives. But the Maryland coast would be done for.

  73. The scary part here is that we are talking about the impact of something that should be a fairly common size of object.

    And any ocean impact will produce an impact tsunami

  74. Dennis –

    I cannot imagine how AGU is having unqualified people write articles being presented to the general public. And then for them to not run it past an editor and a fact-checking department does NOT give me ANY confidence in their process or management. Seriously.

    Yeah, that 3 hour thing had to have been something elsewhere across the Atlantic, not on the US side. I even wonder if that is something Ms Potter misunderstood. Because the timing across the Atlantic would be MORE than 3 hours, for the most part – and the timing would vary widely, too.
    I wonder if the paper was talking about how long the wave would batter the American shoreline, and perhaps she took it as a secondary wave locally. If so, she has even less business being a science reporter than YOU believe. How does one get less than FAIL? FAIL MINUS?

    * * *

    She kind of reminds me of an author on a science blog, who chastised a VERY solid statistical guy for disagreeing with the methods of a big-time climatologist (whose blog had won both BEST SCIENCE BLOG IN THE WORLD and BEST CANADIAN BLOG in the recent past). It is all a very long story, but in short the big-time guy used some stat method variation that he basically invented himself, and which the critical stat guy had shown, step-by-step a long time ago to be faulty. The critic’s work was vetted and found to be correct. The author on the science blog decided to rip into him at this late date, and the stat guy posted an account of it on his blog.

    The arguments the author came up with were so amazingly imprecise and ignorant of basic scientific method and also logic, that he left me shaking my head, asking how ANYONE would hire that guy to write about science.

    So, I’ve been active on two similar ongoing events on two different blogs. Both about people who are an embarrassment to science, to science journalism, and to science blogs.

    If you want details or links, Dennis, ask me in an email. I don’t think you do, but just in case you do, the offer is on the table.

  75. To All on the TUSK: HAPPY HOLIDAY TO ALL AND FAMILIES. May we all be blessed with new and positive findings.

  76. Jim –

    Colima volcano is about 6 hours away for me, maybe 7. It is also called the “Vulcan del Fuego” – the Volcano of Fire.

    Back in about 2006 it erupted, too. And that time I was down at the coast south of there and didn’t hear about it. But our route back to Guadalajara took us right past it. It was covered in clouds, so we couldn’t see anything. I was saying to my friend, “I wish I could see it sometime when it is erupting”. Only when we got back to Guadalajara did we find out of the eruption. I’d gone right past it when it was erupting and didn’t know it was happening. BUMMER!

    BTW, there is another volcano right next to it to the north, Nevado de Colima. On a clear day they make a very picturesque sight together.

    ***

    A little tale, about Peru travels, if I may…

    Long story short, the city of Arequipa in Peru is a million people and has three volcanoes lined up north to south just east of the city. After visiting it in 2000, we left early in the morning, headed west toward the coast. The highway was flanked on both sides by 10-20 feet of what I thought were mining tailings. After sundown we were stuck at a standstill in a traffic jam in the middle of nowhere, due to some insurrection thing having to do with what is now called “The Water War, in neighboring Bolivia. When I went off behind some of the “tailings” I realized it was volcanic ash. We’d driven all day and into the night – perhaps 10 hours – and the ash was basically the same depth all that distance. When we arrived at the coast the next morning, 10-20 feet of ash was sitting on top of the hills above the coast road. It was also there all the way to the last valley south of the Nazca lines. At Nazca and in some locations north of there (including some in California) there are lines and figures drawn on the flat plains. But they do not extend past, to the south. I still wonder if Nazca lines exist under some of that ash. We will probably never know, because that area gets so little rain that it will possibly be millennia before the ash is washed away. It will probably have to be blown away by wind.

    I asked and was told that those three volcanoes east of Arequipa have not erupted since before Columbus, when all three went off. So, the ash has been sitting there more than 500 years already.

    ***

    Another, sillier, one…

    On my first trip to central Mexico we were driving south out of Mexico City. The city is in a bowl at about 7200 feet, so it is necessary to climb out of the bowl, even higher, to go further south, toward Acapulco and Cuernavaca – and Iguala. The road climbing out of the city “bowl” has a number of switchbacks. As we climbed, the terrain and the flora began to look amazingly like northern California, perhaps up near Tahoe. Evergreens were the dominant tree, and that simply amazed me. We were so far south of such areas in the U.S., and yet, there we were in a conifer forest.

    I was so absorbed in the tree thing that I missed something very cool. One of the switchbacks is actually at the top of the ridge, on the eastern end, and the curve provides a magnificent view of the famous volcanoes Popocatepetl (20,000 feet) and Iztaccihuatl (17,000 feet), off to the east. I missed them every bit as much as I missed the Vulcan del Fuego.

    So I may not be the guy to send out to find volcanoes…LOL

  77. Steve; You’ve been close so any times surely you’ll get your shot at it. Make THE MOST OF IT!! I had a fellow post on Malaga Bay that the craters at drake Passage and popagai, Chesapeake Bay etc are all electrical discharge scars. I know I’m off the wall a lot but that was just a little too much.

  78. Steve; The meteor-maybe I have is being checked out. I did notice that there is a small area of greenish material on the bottom of the stone. I thought it was algae and scrubbed the crap out of it trying to clean the rock up. After drying it for a couple of days I saw the green was still there. I took some photos including the bottom and sent then out for verification. I started looking at the pic on the computer and noticed that there appears to be some green possible crystals in the green spot that couldn’t be scrubbed away. I’m still looking for a magnifying glass or some thing to bring those spots out clearer. When I use the compute about the time I’m getting close I lose resolution and can’t see a thing. I’m hoping for a touch of olive maybe, Not too tall an order. If you’re going to dream, might as well do it big.

  79. Hey Jim, here’s a trick you might try:
    Using a ordinary flatbed scanner, place your rock on it with the side you’re interested in facing down. Cover it, and your scanner with a dark towel. Then scan the area on question at the highest possible resolution.

    2400 dpi is pretty common. And some of the high end scanners can hit 9600 dpi. Whi h is effectively a pretty good microscope.

  80. Thanks Dennis; I tried that but couldn’t get enough resolution that way either. Plus the wife was nor happy about me using her scanner to photograph rocks.

  81. Dennis; I did send you copies of the pics I took of my meteor-maybe. I sent them to your crater hunter email. If you look at the one with my hand in it you will see the green area just to the right and low of center of the pic. if you zoom in you can begin to see the possible crystals in the green zone. If you can look at the other pics do you think that I’m looking at ablation on that stone.

  82. I am going to post a comment here on mammoths. This is maybe the least non-appropriate thread to post this on, since a library fire is somewhat akin to early people losing their mammoths. LOL

    I found this at http://history-world.org/Agrarian%20Revolution.htm:

    …Though most humans lived in small hunting-and-gathering bands until well into the era of the agrarian revolution between 8000 and 5000 B.C., some prefarming peoples worked out a very different strategy of survival. They managed to devise more intensive hunting-and-gathering patterns that permitted them to establish semipermanent and even permanent settlements and support larger and more complex forms of social organization. Among the most spectacular of the Paleolithic settlements are those of central Russia.

    Apparently there was an abundance of large but slow woolly mammoths in the region some 20,000 years ago. The hunting techniques of the local peoples produced a supply of meat that, when supplemented by wild plant foods gathered in the area, made it possible for them to live in the same place throughout much of the year. Their dependence on the mammoths is suggested by the bones found in refuse pits at the settlement sites and by the bones of the larger mammoths that were used extensively for the walls and roofing of dwellings.

    The storage pits for food and the other materials found at the sites of the central Russian settlements suggest that the mammoth-bone dwellers
    participated in trading networks that involved groups in the Black Sea region nearly 500 miles away.
    Burial patterns and differing degrees of bodily decoration also indicate that there were clear status differences among the groups that inhabited the settlements. Mammoth-bone communities lasted from about 18,000 to 10,000 B.C., when they suddenly disappeared for reasons that are still unknown.

    The highlighted passages caught my eye.

    The first one, “…refuse pits… Their dependence on the mammoths is suggested by the bones found in refuse pits at the settlement sites and by the bones of the larger mammoths that were used extensively for the walls and roofing of dwellings.

    For the life of me, I have never heard of ONE instance of Clovis Man in North America using the bones of mammoths for anything. With 80% of Clovis sites (meaning at least one Clovis point) being in the SE USA, one would think that SOMEWHERE in that area there would be some account of mammoth bones used to make shelters.

    In fact, over at WUWT I made a big point about there being no “buildings” before the advent of the Natufian culture after the YDB. Do mammoth bones stuck in the ground so as to make a lean-to or two lean-tos together constitute a building? After some serious reading the last three days, I have to say that, no, I don’t think so. A lean-to is not a building.

    But the point NOW is this: Mammoth hunters USED mammoth bones for things. We already KNOW that mammoth bones survive well. They’ve been found widely in the USA and Mexico, including areas of Mexico that were warm and fairly moist. So we should not expect mammoth bones to disintegrate over only 13,000 years.

    Which means: Where are the mammoth-bone structures in N America? Especially where the Clovis artifacts were mostly found? If Clovis Man was mainly a mammoth hunter, where are the bone shelters? Where are the refuse pits?

    There are only 12 solid mammoth kill sites in N America, and all of them are in areas outside the SE USA. This suggests that mammoth kill sites were the exception rather than the rule. All those Clovis points spread all over the Southeast of the USA point not toward mammoth hunting but hunting of other animals. Otherwise we should find mammoth dwellings; no hunter society would leave such unique and useful bones and tusks un-used. ESPECIALLY if Clovis Man came from over Beringia, then their use of mammoth bones would be already part of their culture – because across Beringia was. . . SIBERIA.

    According to that link above, the Siberian mammoth hunters were at least in part fairly well in settlements of some sort. Does this mean that Clovis Man may also have been, up until the moment when HE also had his mammoths “suddenly disappeared for reasons that are still unknown”.

    2.) The highlighted portion about storage pits seems important also because some of the earliest claimed dwellings in the Near East are at a site 70 km east of Amman called Kharaneh IV (see http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031447). The paper that asserts them to be “huts” I think is wrong. The “huts” seem more likely to be a cache or storage pit.

    Clovis Man used caches all over the western USA. They would carry Clovis points and other necessities with them to a good place to hide and store things, and then find or dig a pit and put as much stuff as they didn’t want to carry into the pit and cover it.

    That is damned near exactly what the photos show: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0031447.g006&representation=PNG_I

    On beginning to read this paper, I thought that I’d been caught out – that there actually were dwellings somewhere near Abu Hureyra – and I was preparing myself to go back to WUWT and confess that I’d been ignorant and wrong. But after reading what flimsy evidence there is about the “huts” it is obvious that the authors are stretching credulity, more than a little bit.

    All of this is significant. It is because the picture of the deep ancient past – of the beginnings of man, of the beginnings of civilization and agriculture – are tied in time-wise with the YDB, in some way or another. at some point we need to ask this:
    Of ALL the times when humans could have developed agriculture and begun living in dwellings and settling down to begin civilization, WHY was it just at the end of the YDB?

    The YD itself was an ice age, according to what we all think we know. As such it did NOT lend itself to humans developing anything. That lasted 1300 years. 1300 years of humans doing nothing much more than trying to stay alive – at least in the north. Some anthros tell us it was the hardships that caused humans to develop – “Develop or die”, I guess is their thinking. If so, why didn’t it happen during the OTHER ice ages? And why, when it happened, did it happen in the areas that were NOT terribly affected by the YD ice age?

    Do I know the answers? No. But there are enough holes in the mainstream concept big enough to drive Mack trucks through, so I don’t think they have a very good handle on it.

    Now, add in the possibility of a YDB impact just 1300 years earlier. Does that add another level of complexity to the puzzle? Or did it mean nothing?

    The IMMEDIATE development of agriculture and writing and civilization – all at the same time – at the end of the YD should tell us something.

    We need to be asking what that something is. Eventually we will.

  83. This post seems to be a catch-all, so I am posting this tidbit here, just because the dates are REALLY interesting…

    I am able to read the first two pages of “Manifestation of the gothenburg geomagnetic field excursion in sediments on the northwestern Central Russian Upland
    E. G. Gus’kova et al 2009” (link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793212050076)

    Abstract
    A paleomagnetic study of sediments at the Baranova Gora and Podol III/1 archaeological sites, located near Lake Volgo on the northwestern Central Russian Upland (56.9°N, 33.2°E), was performed. The paleomagnetic studies at both sites for the first time revealed the development of the Gothenburg geomagnetic excursion (dated 13000-12350 BP) in this region. This made it possible to specify the time interval when the Alleroed climatic phase started developing on the Central Russian Upland.

    I don’t think I agree with the last sentence…

    But I am typing out what I found on the first page (can’t copy-clip):

    … approximately 14-8 ka ago. The Goethenburg geomagnetic excursion, which for the first time was discovered in cores of lacustrine sediments in Sweden (Mörner et al., 1971; Mörner and Lanser, 1974), developed in this time interval. These researchers subsequently managed to reveal the Goethenburg excursion in Canada and Atlantic sediments (Mörner, 1977). According to the lacustrine sediments in Sweden, the excursion developed from 13750 to 12350 BP (Mörner, 1977). According to sediments at the margin of the South CHina Sea, the excursion occurred in the 12960 ± 390 BP interval.

    The magnetic field variations… Further paleomagnetic studies revealed the Goethenburg excursion in different regions of the globe, which made it possible to speak about the global excursion development (Petrova et al., 1992).

    Okay, so now we have geomagnetic excursions (partial reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field) dated to 12,960 ya.

    I have no idea what dating system Petrova et al 1992 used, but for the most part we have to consider the 12960 ya date as coincident with the YDB. Before 2013 the C14 calibrations all put the YDB at 12,900 ya. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong on that!) That pretty much says that the Gothenburg geomagnetic excursion happened at the same time as the YDB.

    What does that say and not say to us?

    It says to us that a possible impact occurred at the same time as a geomagnetic excursion.

    It says to us that the climate changed VERY QUICKLY at the same time as a geomagnetic excursion.

    Three things happened at the same time.

    Questions have to be:

    1. How can a geomagnetic excursion change the climate?

    2. How can an impact and geomagnetic excursions be connected, physics-wise, geology-wise, planet-wise?

    The mind goes into overdrive a bit. . .

  84. It didn’t show up as a URL link, but that if you copy-clip that URL it DOES work.

    Also, after “12960 ± 390 BP interval.” there should be a credit to Wang et al, 1991.

  85. It took me a while, but I think this is the place to comment on comet origins and the planetary nebular theory again…

    “Comet springs surprise: Rosetta and Philae find Comet 67P not magnetised” at http://phys.org/news/2015-04-comet-rosetta-philae-67p-magnetised.html

    Once again scientists find that their assumptions are incorrect. The article follows the orthodox meme that the comets and asteroids and meteoroids are these pristine things that were around in the beginning of the solar system but never aggregated onto planets, which is where the magnetic expectations came from.

    They have yet to understand now aggregation worked, as this article notes. Here they think larger magnetic particles drew in smaller ones, but that the larger ones would have enough “leftover” magnetism at this time in their history. But this expectation was thwarted by 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which has no magnetism.

    They needed magnetism (are you Electric Universe guys listening?…LOL) to account for certain aspects of the ability of comets to hold together with the spin they have. Given their mandated starting point, it was a good try.

    ROMAP measured a magnetic field during these sequences, but found that its strength did not depend on the height or location of Philae above the surface. This is not consistent with the nucleus itself being responsible for that field…

    …Instead, the magnetic field that was measured was consistent with an external one, namely the influence of the solar wind interplanetary magnetic field near the comet nucleus. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that variations in the field that were measured by Philae closely agree with those seen at the same time by Rosetta.

    Once again, a standard truth of science is that wrong theories predict wrong things and right theories predict things that are found to be true. But as is common with so many theories these days, wrong predictions are not seen to negate overall theories – AS THEY SHOULD – and people just stay within the same main ideas and fiddle with them. Such as when they pull out their “crowbars” to force the new evidence to fit the often-failing main theories.

    They do that in this article, too, and don’t even allow themselves to think that the “comets and asteroids are from the beginning of the solar system” theory might be incorrect.

    I am not surprised, but would wish that at some point someone would begin to question the overall theory…

  86. @Steve Garcia

    Oh yeah, I’ve been following the whole comet stories for awhile. And irregardless of what side of the cosmology fence you fall on, the [i]”top billing gravity causes everything with help from other things which make us uncomfortable, yada yada”[/i] answer is getting stretched more and more thin these days by institutional science.

    Being so stuck on “gravitational accretion” as the mechanism results in increasingly desperate theories and you never hear the “mainstream scientists” question their underlying assumptions.

    —————————-

    Rosetta Mission Update | 67P—The Violent Birth of a Comet
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdfDcVXeKHo

    Rosetta Mission Update | Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkjPeeVYU

    Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P — Failed “Explanations”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceZqIXkX3u0

  87. A new accretion model
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422104434.htm

    “Working with colleagues from the USA, Denmark and Germany, Anders Johansen has developed a computer simulation for what the process may have looked like. They assumed that the asteroids were formed in a kind of cosmic ocean of chondrules and that the asteroids started out much smaller than they are today.

    According to the computer simulations, the asteroids grew quickly to a diameter of up to 1,000 km, the same size as those found today in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The largest asteroids continued to grow to the same mass as the planet Mars, which has ten per cent of the mass of Earth.

    “We suddenly realised that this rapid process could say something about the formation of the Earth as well,” explains Anders Johansen.

    The research community had previously believed that the Earth was formed through collisions between protoplanets, of the size of Mars, over a period of 100 million years. However, the researchers have not yet understood how the protoplanets themselves were formed.

    “Our study shows that protoplanets may have formed very quickly from asteroids, by capturing chondrules in the same way as the asteroids did,” says Martin Bizzarro, an expert on chondrules from Copenhagen University and also co-author of the paper.

    The researchers’ theory is supported by studies of meteorites from Mars. These studies have previously shown that Mars was formed over a period of only 1-3 million years, which is within the same time span as the researchers have obtained in the computer simulation.

    “Traces of this process remain in asteroids that still contain intact chondrules. The terrestrial planets, however, have all melted after their birth and therefore do not show any direct traces of their original building blocks,” concludes Anders Johansen.

  88. @CevinQ

    Yup, They are really trying hard to get gravity to do everything they “need” it to do.
    —————————————————————
    “…computer simulation for what the process may have looked like..”
    “According to the computer simulations, the asteroids grew quickly…”
    —————————————————————
    Ah, computer modeling!

    By insisting that asteroids and comets are somehow different things, and then ignoring the composition of the objects; things start to get really dicey when it comes to explaining how these objects came about by “gravity”. And this is even when they set the stage by foisting “millimeter-sized particles” upon their very select and complex scenario.

    Yet, somehow, the process is not reflected in observational evidence or in any current process.

    Astronomers Have No Idea How Planets Form (much less asteroids/comets)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypyHEgEYzw

  89. CevinQ and REH –

    Thanks for all the links, guys.

    CevinQ – “Our study shows…” No. A model is not “a study”. A model is a manufactured set of equations, translated into code. The equations are based on assumptions, which may or may not be correct. The output is solely based on the assumptions. NO model in frontier science is reality. They are, at best, reasonable outcomes based on the thining of the people behind them.

    I draw a VERY clear distinction between frontier science models and, say, architectural models, which have EVERY equation proved IN REALITY, over and over, many many times, by the real world experiences of engineers and architects. I am not God here, judging all models, but when models are projected out into the future or into a science that is not at all well, known, the model has NOTHING to tie ALL its equations to reality.

    This is obvious in climate science where the scores of models all come up with different results. If the science behind them was solid, then the results would all be identical. But they aren’t. The case for models is not helped when NONE of them can hindcast any of the recent climate history.

    Beware of ANY paper or article based on models.

  90. REH – Wed are on the same page about models and the planetary nebula “fails”, but I am not into the EU stuff. That is okay. We can agree to disagree.

    I am an exploded planet guy. THAT one says that comets and asteroids came from the planet that used to be where the asteroid belt is. And if THAT is true , then the comets and asteroids are not remnants of the early solar system but are instead pieces of that planet which no longer exists.

    Yet, somehow, the process is not reflected in observational evidence or in any current process.

    I wouldn’t go THAT far, but they DO keep on getting surprised by new observations – and that ain’t good for their side. It is just a bad scorecard. I know that they keep on adjusting, and that part of the science is good – that they adjust their thinking to new info. But their main theory should be able to predict more of these things than it does. They are locked into that main theory and t hampers their ability to move the science forward. THEY think that adding the new thing in with new tweaks IS good science. I say it should have predicted these observations and not caught them with their pants down, not once but several times.

  91. My comment added to the 67P “Rubble” video on YouTube:

    “I am not an EU kind of guy, but good points are made about the attractive capacity of a comet such as 67P, about the failed “dirty snowball” ad hoc idea. Without looking at the exact makeup of the comet, the assertion that the material of 67P came from a “planetary surface” has no basis. The Allende meteorite, on the other hand, is made up partially of olivine and peridotite – both of which MUST be created at the ultra-high pressures (4 million psi) and temperatures existing about 60 km to 100 km BELOW the surface of a planet such as Earth. One study determined that – gravitationally – such materials need a planet of minimum radius of 2,000 km. That the peridotite and olvine are in a solid matrix similar to granite (but larger crystals) points out the NEED for metamorphic conditions or some equivalent.

    The regoliths – which here are called “debris” – are a common artifact, it seems, on the surface of comets and asteroics. See Itokawa for example. But no one explains HOW solid rocks exist as loose cannons out in space in the first place. They can’t aggregate together, because the relative velocities between impactors out there are too high and are DEstructive rahtr than CONstructive. Even ONE km/sec is 3600 km/sec – higher than even the most destructive military bullets. But impacts out there far exceed even that delta-V. Ergo, collisions out there are tearing things apart, not building them up. The entire aggregating idea is wrong on the most fundamental level.

    Yes, the correct question is, “Where did the regoliths come from?”

    Also, look up “strengthless bodies”. The point about super low gravity is valid. HOW could a solid rock body COMPRESS into a solid rock with the almost zero gravity? It can’t. Invoking impacts is silly, because of the destructive velocities above 1 km/sec I mentioned above. And typical impact craters on Earth have 250 times as much excavated as arrived. It is a negative gain – meaning a loss. You do NOT need to be a rocket scientist to figure these failings out.”

    If the EU guys haven’t gotten all of this (or found reasons to reject it in part or in full), they are missing the boat.