Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sun's Movement Through Milky Way... Comets Hurtling...Life Extinctions
Science Daily ^ | 5-2-2008 | Cardiff University

Posted on 05/02/2008 8:53:50 AM PDT by blam

Sun's Movement Through Milky Way Regularly Sends Comets Hurtling, Coinciding With Mass Life Extinctions

A large body of scientific evidence now exists that support the hypothesis that a major asteroid or comet impact occurred in the Caribbean region at the boundary of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods in Earth's geologic history. Such an impact is suspected to be responsible for the mass extinction of many floral and faunal species, including the large dinosaurs, that marked the end of the Cretaceous period. (Credit: Art by Don Davis / Courtesy of NASA)

ScienceDaily (May 2, 2008) — The sun's movement through the Milky Way regularly sends comets hurtling into the inner solar system -- coinciding with mass life extinctions on earth, a new study claims. The study suggests a link between comet bombardment and the movement through the galaxy.

Scientists at the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology built a computer model of our solar system's movement and found that it "bounces" up and down through the plane of the galaxy. As we pass through the densest part of the plane, gravitational forces from the surrounding giant gas and dust clouds dislodge comets from their paths. The comets plunge into the solar system, some of them colliding with the earth.

The Cardiff team found that we pass through the galactic plane every 35 to 40 million years, increasing the chances of a comet collision tenfold. Evidence from craters on Earth also suggests we suffer more collisions approximately 36 million years. Professor William Napier, of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology, said: "It's a beautiful match between what we see on the ground and what is expected from the galactic record."

The periods of comet bombardment also coincide with mass extinctions, such as that of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Our present position in the galaxy suggests we are now very close to another such period.

While the "bounce" effect may have been bad news for dinosaurs, it may also have helped life to spread. The scientists suggest the impact may have thrown debris containing micro-organisms out into space and across the universe.

Centre director Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe said: "This is a seminal paper which places the comet-life interaction on a firm basis, and shows a mechanism by which life can be dispersed on a galactic scale."

The paper, by Professor Napier and Dr Janaki Wickramasinghe, is to be published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Adapted from materials provided by Cardiff University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: asteroidday; asteroids; catastrophism; comet; extinction; godsgravesglyphs; impact; milkyway; panspermia; soundsbadreallybad; spirograph; sun; weareindeepdoodoo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: onedoug
"But the moon does rotate. It’s that it’s rotation is geosynchronous with the earth. If it didn’t we’d see its other side."

No, you assume that it rotates because you assume that the universe does not.

The point being that the guy basing his rotating earth argument on Occam's Razor now has more assumptions in his model and therefore can't use Occam's Razor as an argument.

41 posted on 05/02/2008 11:09:22 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
YouTube Video Explains 'Global Warming' Like it or not, we are all in God's hands.

Off topic. The article was not about global warming or atheistic scientism.

42 posted on 05/02/2008 11:16:09 AM PDT by Huber (And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huber
"Off topic. The article was not about global warming or atheistic scientism."

Scientism is, by definition, atheistic.

43 posted on 05/02/2008 11:17:44 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

“Days of Future Passed”. It still sounds pretty good after all these years!


44 posted on 05/02/2008 11:19:40 AM PDT by Huber (And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Scientism is, by definition, atheistic.

Agreed, the modifier was probably unnecessary. However the article was science, (in terms of research, analysis and a theory) not scientism.

45 posted on 05/02/2008 11:23:38 AM PDT by Huber (And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Huber
"Agreed, the modifier was probably unnecessary. However the article was science, (in terms of research, analysis and a theory) not scientism."

You're the one who correctly but inadvertently invoked scientism.

Not me.

46 posted on 05/02/2008 11:32:40 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
But the moon does rotate. It’s that it’s rotation is geosynchronous with the earth. If it didn’t we’d see its other side.

I don't think that is correct. The moon does not rotate. If it did, we would see the other side of the moon regularly. It does orbit the earth, but it is not in geo-synchronous orbit. If it were, only the people on the part of the earth that the moon follows would ever be able to see it, and it would be visible 24/7 (except during an eclipse).
47 posted on 05/02/2008 11:46:26 AM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thanks for the ping


48 posted on 05/02/2008 11:53:14 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

“OK, so how is assuming that there is no difference between the earth and rotating bodies we observe less an assumption than assuming that there is a difference between the earth and the rotating bodies we observe and therefore an argument for Occam’s Razor?”

It wasn’t “less of an assumption”, however it was a simplifying assumption.

BTW, one of the basic precepts of all science is that there are no “special” places in the Universe where things work differently than elsewhere. It would take a lot of good evidence to overturn that one. Occams Razor also applies there.

“What about objects that aren’t observed to rotate, like the moon. You assume they do rotate even though they appear not to? Where is Occam’s Razor now?”

What do objects that don’t rotate have to do with those that do? (Another poster made the point about the Moon rotating so I’ll leave that alone.)

I made no “assumption” about non-rotating bodies rotating... I was simply speaking of the numerous rotating bodies we do observe.


49 posted on 05/02/2008 12:03:41 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

“I don’t think that is correct. The moon does not rotate.”

Yes it does, as any basic astronomy text would tell you.

“If it did, we would see the other side of the moon regularly.”

No, if it DID NOT rotate we’d see the other side as it orbited the Earth. The Moon is tidally locked and rotates once per orbit, always keeping the same side facing the Earth.

I hope that cleared things up for you. If not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Two_sides_of_the_Moon


50 posted on 05/02/2008 12:09:45 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

LOL


51 posted on 05/02/2008 12:31:00 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“I don’t think that is correct. The moon does not rotate.”

Yes it does, as any basic astronomy text would tell you.

“If it did, we would see the other side of the moon regularly.”

No, if it DID NOT rotate we’d see the other side as it orbited the Earth. The Moon is tidally locked and rotates once per orbit, always keeping the same side facing the Earth.


I stand corrected. From what I gather on the wikipedia page (good write-up, by the way), they are defining rotation as movement about the moon's axis, which, I'm sure is the correct astronomical definition. However, relative to the Earth, the moon does not rotate, which is what I was trying to say.
52 posted on 05/02/2008 12:32:22 PM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tet68

Not so. Math is real, that is, not a matter of opinion..


53 posted on 05/02/2008 12:38:43 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
Where is Occam’s Razor now?”

Ockham never actually enunciated the Principle of Parsimony and it wouldn't apply to the empirical anyway.

54 posted on 05/02/2008 12:40:45 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
"BTW, one of the basic precepts of all science is that there are no “special” places in the Universe where things work differently than elsewhere. It would take a lot of good evidence to overturn that one. Occams Razor also applies there."

This may be where you are having the problem. You think that there are fewer assumptions in a rotating earth model than in a rotating universe model. There are not and Occam's Razor does not apply.

You assume that the moon rotates because you assume that the universe does not. I observe that the universe rotates and observe that the moon does not.

There are fewer assumptions in a rotating universe model and Occam's Razor cannot be used as an argument in favor of a rotating earth.

55 posted on 05/02/2008 1:13:56 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

How many other moons are “tidally locked” with their parent bodies? What are the chances that a captured body would have the precise trajectory and rotation to become captured and tidally locked? Why is the Earth and all other planets not tidally locked with the sun?


56 posted on 05/02/2008 1:18:03 PM PDT by Yollopoliuhqui
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
"However, relative to the Earth, the moon does not rotate, which is what I was trying to say."

Well, that's the whole of the argument. What standard of fixity will be used, the earth or the universe? That the universe does not rotate is an assumption that the astronomers make, not an observation.

The result of this assumption is the conclusion that the moon rotates once per orbit. If the universe is rotating, then the moon does not, as you note.

57 posted on 05/02/2008 1:34:36 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Imagine your head is Earth and semi-circle your hand from one side to the other. If it wasn’t rotating you’d see each side with 1/4 rotation.


58 posted on 05/02/2008 1:34:51 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: blam

59 posted on 05/02/2008 1:42:56 PM PDT by Salamander (And don't forget my Dog; fixed and consequent......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Sorry, fr_f: "Geosynchronous" is the wrong term. However, I'm sure I'm right overall. This is from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1970: "The moon always presents nearly the same face to the earth, from which it follows that, when referred to a fixed direction in space, it revolves on its axis in the same time in which it performs its revolution." (emphases mine)

Sorry for the confusion.

60 posted on 05/02/2008 2:15:49 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson