On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:27:27 -0400, "Pete Pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >While critical thinking and skepticism are healthy in science, so is a >certain amount of objectivity. <snip> >scrutiny (see current issue of "Astronomy"), I think I'll wait for a more >detailed paper before judging Mr Firestone's conclusions. There is such a thing as having your mind so open that your brain falls out your ear. I am NOT willing to entertain the possibility that Let's look at the numbers as given by the article and assume for the moment that the article isn't orders of magnitude incorrect on any of the figures. The supernova was supposed to be 250 light-years away and happen 41,000 years ago. The multiple-kilometer comet was supposed to have hit North America 13,000 years ago. So that means that this multiple-kilometer comet, which coalesced while speeding outward from the supernova from dust and gas, traveled 250 light years in 28,800 years. Which is 0.00868 light years per year, so thus 0.00868 of the speed of light. Around 300,000 kilometers per second times 0.00868 is about 2600 kilometers per second. Anyone care to calculate the amount of kinetic energy in a 10 kilometer object hittingng the Earth's atmosphere at 2600 kilometers per second? Or even a 1 kilometer object at 260 kilometers per second? A ten kilometer "comet" traveling at 2600 kilometers per second strking the Earth's atmosphere 13,000 years ago would be somewhat more noticable than a few grains of metal left in the soil. Such things as, oh, I donno, the atmosphere stripping away, the oceans of the world boiling and the continents melting, for example. Even if the story were off by orders of magnitude on any of the figures, it would still be crackpottery. ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
