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: 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?