SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Around 13,000 years ago, giant animals such as mastodons, mammoths, saber-toothed cats and ground sloths disappeared from the Earth. Scientists have found evidence in sediment cores to support a controversial theory that an asteroid or a comet slammed into Earth and helped lead to this extinction of ice age animals and cooling of the globe.
It's called the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and was first suggested in 2007. The hypothesis included the idea that an extraterrestrial body impacted Earth 12,800 years ago. This led to an extreme cooling of the environment, which in turn helped cause more than 35 species of large animals to go extinct.
At the same time, human populations declined. The impact also has been suggested as the cause of large, raging wildfires that created enough smoke to block the sun and created an "impact winter," in which cold weather lasts longer than expected after Earth is impacted.
[...] Today, evidence of such an impact can be found in platinum spikes. Platinum can be found in asteroids, comets and meteorites. Researchers found them in sediment cores collected from White Pond in Elgin, South Carolina.
Sediment Cores from White Pond, South Carolina, contain a Platinum Anomaly, Pyrogenic Carbon Peak, and Coprophilous Spore Decline at 12.8 ka (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51552-8) (DX)
(Score: -1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @06:37PM (48 children)
It probably was more than an impact, likely lots of impacts from material, plasma and cosmic rays from the sun having a flare up. Some good info from a new project:
https://www.electricuniverse.info/safire-project/ [electricuniverse.info]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Wednesday October 30 2019, @07:43PM
Amazing what script kiddies can do these days. Take a few Tesla tricks that will wow the Burningman crowd. Then conceive a unified field theory that explains everything, all in one tacky web site.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by HiThere on Wednesday October 30 2019, @07:49PM (3 children)
So a solar flare is going to inject platinum?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:03PM (2 children)
How do you think platinum is formed if not at the center of a star? Solar flare is the wrong term for this type of event though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:48AM (1 child)
It is unlikely, indeed, to be formed at the center of the star, due to the iron peak [wikipedia.org] - which means the abundance of heavier-than-iron will be very low in stellar synthesis [wikipedia.org] and more (relatively) abundant by supernova nucleosynthesis [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:23AM
And TFA is about tiny extra amounts they detected, it produced much more iron.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:08PM (4 children)
Electric Universe is a hilarious combination of conspiracy theories and junk science.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe [rationalwiki.org]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:12PM
Use your mod points to mod down Electric Universe crap.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:38PM (2 children)
So I modded the comment above +1 Funny, because no-one really takes the Electric Universe theory seriously.
It's a joke, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Isn't it?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @01:39PM (1 child)
Heretic!
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday November 01 2019, @08:07PM
Are you referring to FSM or EU?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:00PM (37 children)
Yes, it was much more likely to be a solar micronova. Occams razor tells us the heavy elements come direct from the source, rather than some intermediate object like an asteroid. Also, the asteroid can't explain the widespread melting seen on the surface of the moon dated to the same timeframe. If anything the asteroids and comets were probably formed from the residue that didn't impact any planets.
Don't listen to the other idiots around here, all they can do is parrot back what they read in a textbook.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 30 2019, @11:05PM (12 children)
Is another pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo term, but makes for a really entertaining search term, I even came across this:
Which is, of course hilarious.
No it doesn't. That is not how that works.
Which does not exist.
Rather than parroting back nonsense they read on the Internet. OK then.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @11:44PM (11 children)
Here is a paper calling them "minor nova like outbursts":
Apollo 11 Observations of a Remarkable Glazing Phenomenon on the Lunar Surface. T. Gold. Science. New Series, Vol. 165, No. 3900 (Sep. 26, 1969), pp. 1345-1349. 10.1126/science.165.3900.1345 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/165/3900/1345 [sciencemag.org]
Here is a paper calling them "large amplitude flashes":
Flashes from normal stars. Schaefer, Bradley E. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 337, Feb. 15, 1989, p. 927-933 https://doi.org/10.1086/167162 [doi.org]
Here is a paper from this year using the term "Super flare":
Observation of a possible superflare on Proxima Centauri. Kielkopf et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 486, Issue 1, p.L31-L35. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz054 [doi.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @11:49PM
From the 2019 link:
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @11:54PM (9 children)
From the 1989 link:
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:35AM (7 children)
Are we calling solar flares "micro-novas" now? I guess that proves the electric universe theory then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:44AM (6 children)
No, we are not. Did you read any of those links?
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 31 2019, @01:41AM (5 children)
Yes. (Apart from the ones that require a login) None of them say what you seem to believe.
None of those links explain how the heavy elements got where they are if they didn't arrive on a comet or asteroid.
Nobody seriously believes the Moon was molten in "geologically recent times."
TFA is about The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and presents some evidence. The contention that Occams razor tells us the heavy elements come direct from the source is just stupid and has no basis in reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:10AM (4 children)
Why not? The arguments are all in the links provided, learn to use sci-hub to read it... And how can you claim to be interested in actual science and not know how to do that in this day and age? It is more evidence you only have textbook parroting knowledge, not actual understanding.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:52AM (3 children)
There is no evidence at all in any of those links that the Moon was molten 13,000 years ago.
There is also no evidence anywhere that the Sun has ever deposited heavy elements like Platinum directly on the Earth. There is plenty of evidence that meteors have, however.
Are you the Time Cube guy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @03:01AM (2 children)
Yes, there is. I will leave it to any reader to decide for themselves who is correct on that ridiculously obvious point. Anyone capable of comprehending a few paragraphs can see it...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:39PM (1 child)
No, that's not how rational argument works. It's your job to support your arguments. Not this ridiculous cycle of making unfounded assertions and then vacuously claiming that the right people will bother to research it and reach the right conclusions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @05:50PM
Wow. Who knew Trump comes to this site?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @03:31PM
This is the "widespread melting seen on the surface of the moon"? Interesting how paltry the supporting evidence is. And increasing solar influx from 1kW per meter to 100kW per meter for that length of time is going to screw up an entire hemisphere not merely a continent. Where's the evidence for that?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @01:34AM (23 children)
Several things to note. Why do solar micronovas product so much platinum, and not much of anything else, particularly iron? Why don't we see platinum and such in the Sun's photosphere now? What's the mechanism for producing platinum - the nuclear reactions are heavily endothermic? Why don't we see micronova in other stars? Why aren't we seeing a lot of evidence in the geological record for not just more micronovas from the Sun, but thousands of micronovas from the Sun?
Occams razor is going to strongly favor "intermediate" objects like asteroids where we actually measure platinum.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 31 2019, @01:43AM (8 children)
That is an excellent question, and I am going to propose that the answer is because "micronovas" are something made up by the Electric Universe weirdos.
It is entertaining, but has no basis in reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:05AM (7 children)
It was a strawman khallow made up. How does that make it an excellent question?
Obviously you are in denial about the multiple papers dating back to the 1960s I shared with you. None of those papers have anything to do with electric universe, and either do any of my posts here. The AC I originally responded to brought up electric universe.
Basically everything you said here is proven false by the sources provided above, and now you are trying to cover up your ignorance with snark: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=34388&page=1&cid=913919#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
You parrot text books instead of read the literature and think for yourself.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:21AM (6 children)
You didn't claim it solved anything else except a platinum surplus.
I'll also note with respect to the "iron-rich microspherules" and someone's previous appeal to Occams razor. Those spherules have been observed coming from meteorite impacts. They haven't been observed coming from any sort of solar activity. No one has observed iron-rich spherules coming from the Sun.
Where's the evidence? Sorry, this is garbage not matter that it goes back to the 1960s, allegedly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:26AM (5 children)
I already cited the most relevant quotes and linked you to the full documents that follow scholarly reference practices. Sorry, it is impossible to help you any further. The next step you must make on your own.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:24PM (4 children)
Quotes are not evidence.
"Scholarly reference practices" are weasel words for junk science. Again, not evidence.
Back at you on that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:21PM (3 children)
Nice denial. "Quotes from scientific literature describing evidence are not evidence". Wtf? What else could you possibly be asking for on an internet forum?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:24PM (2 children)
So you having "quotes from scientific literature" doesn't mean a thing in itself.
Evidence as I already did!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:06PM (1 child)
Actually read the sources I provided to you so you can stop talking out of your ass.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:20PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:01AM (13 children)
Who said this? The micronova obviously generated iron-rich microspherules:
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/E1903 [pnas.org]
The OP is about another less comment element found in the same ejecta. It will produce all heavy elements according to some distribution where some are more common than the others...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:15AM
*less common
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:24AM (11 children)
Let's not be idiots here. You have no evidence for micronova capable of driving large mammals to extinction, much less micronova that spew iron-rich microspherules. But we have plenty of evidence that meteorite impacts spew microspherules. Occams razor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:29AM (10 children)
Why would a micronova not generate more iron than platinum? Even that you brought that up shows you didn't think about this at all. Of course there was more iron, and that is what the evidence shows. Now explain how a meteor strike on Earth managed to melt the surface of the moon. Oh, I guess you deny that evidence for no apparent reason.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:30PM (9 children)
We're beyond that. You haven't shown that there are micronovas much less micronovas that spew iron-rich spherules.
There's more than one asteroid in the Solar System. The Moon, just like Earth, gets whacked by meteorites and such all the time. Those, even when minute, melt a part of the surface of the Moon (and did quite a job on the surface of the Moon 4.5 to 3 billion years ago). They also explain, unlike the micronova model, why there's a thick layer of regolith [wikipedia.org] rather than a thick layer of glass on the surface of the Moon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:23PM (8 children)
So, basically all you can do is totally ignore the new information I provided to you and keep parroting what you read in a textbook. Exactly like I originally said.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:43PM (2 children)
Truth is an absolute defense against such bullshit. Show the evidence or stop wasting my time.
Also, it's worth noting that textbooks are scientific literature from which one can quote. What makes them wrong and your sources right? Evidence distinguishes not the sciencey-ness of your citations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:01PM (1 child)
The "game" where someone quotes a scientific journal article that describes some evidence and you come up with excuses to ignore it? That is the only game I see here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:11PM
Where was the evidence in those quotes? I noticed for example a quote claiming that "glazing" (not melting of the surface of the Moon!) could be explained by a huge surge in solar influx for a few seconds. It could also be explained by billions of years of exposure to sunlight. Earth rocks can pick up a glaze with far shorter exposure than that!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:50PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:04PM (3 children)
Wtf are you talking about? The micronova model is perfectly consistent with regolith and every other observation about the moon. In fact, dating the micronova event assumes a constant rate of micrometeorite impacts.
Read the papers instead of making up a series of strawmen to argue with.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:17PM (2 children)
No, it's not. Even a single micronova capable of what you claim would have created a glassy crust on top of that regolith. It didn't. Thousands of recurring micronova over billions of years would have created a thicker glassy layer.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)
Sorry khallow, but you are too stuck in your ways to even allow yourself the opportunity to read the scientific literature at the risk you will absorb new ideas. All you had to do is read those papers for the answer to your question, you couldn't manage to do it. Good luck.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 01 2019, @12:06AM
So what? You've already decided "textbooks" are ruled out despite being scientific literature. Why aren't you ruling out your citations on the same grounds? One has to distinguish somehow. What is the evidence supporting your claims?