Finally a foe worthy of Texas

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Time for the Rangers to saddle up and deal with hombre. Now I know what those Department of Education shotguns are for.

http://www.news.com.au/features/invisible-star-shooting-comets-at-earth/story-e6frflor-1225840140357

Invisible star 'shooting comets at Earth'
By Paul Sutherland at The Sun From: NewsCore March 12, 2010 5:07PM

AN invisible star responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs may be circling the Sun and causing comets to bombard the Earth, scientists said.

The brown dwarf - up to five times the size of Jupiter - could be to blame for mass extinctions that occur here every 26 million years, The Sun reports.

The star - nicknamed Nemesis by NASA scientists - would be invisible as it only emits infrared light and is incredibly distant. Nemesis is believed to orbit our solar system at 25,000 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun.

As it spins through the galaxy, its gravitational pull drags icy bodies out of the Oort Cloud - a vast sphere of rock and dust twice as far away as Nemesis.

These "snowballs" are thrown towards Earth as comets, causing devastation similar to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Now NASA scientists believe they will be able to find Nemesis using a new heat-seeking telescope that began scanning the skies in January.

The Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer - expected to find a thousand brown dwarf stars within 25 light years of the Sun - has already sent back a photo of a comet possibly dislodged from the Oort Cloud.

Scientists' first clue to the existence of Nemesis was the bizarre orbit of a dwarf planet called Sedna. Scientists believe its unusual, 12,000-year-long oval orbit could be explained by a massive celestial body.

Mike Brown, who discovered Sedna in 2003, said: "Sedna is a very odd object - it shouldn't be there.

"The only way to get on an eccentric orbit is to have some giant body kick you - so what is out there?"

Professor John Matese, of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said most comets come from the same part of the Oort Cloud.

He added: "There is statistically significant evidence that this concentration of comets could be caused by a companion to the Sun."

**legoburner**

I propose we launch Ben Affleck towards this brown dwarf (regardless of if it is there or not).

**WarOne**

Sorry, but I took care of Nemesis 20 years ago:

It was a harrowing fight through monster infested caverns filled with Easter Island heads that shot stuff at me.

After hours and hours of killing random things, I encountered and defeated the giant crab claw cracker behind the evil Nemesis.

And thus ended the threat to the Department of Education. I saved the dinosaurs...er...dinosaur. He lives in Denver today and plays guitar. His name?

Hail to the King Baby.

**Commissar Molotov**

Well, you guys need a decent foe after the spanking you gave Israelis in 1999:

I'd have to say that the most entertaining part of that war was the Texas heavy cruiser Judge Roy Bean firing its 16" guns in the defense of Galveston...

**warpcrafter**

http://www.sitchin.com/

This guy knows what's going on.

**Corvus**

Commissar Molotov wrote:Well, you guys need a decent foe after the spanking you gave Israelis in 1999:

I'd have to say that the most entertaining part of that war was the Texas heavy cruiser Judge Roy Bean firing its 16" guns in the defense of Galveston...

What in the HELL?!

**filbert**

I want to move to Texas and buy a shotgun and a pickup truck.

**Frazzled**

Don't forget the hammerhead sharks with friggin laser beams that guard our shores from the evil Hun.

**ShumaGorath**

With luck texas will get hit by a meteor just big enough to destroy it, but just small enough not to cross state lines.

**dietrich**

legoburner wrote:I propose we launch Ben Affleck towards this brown dwarf (regardless of if it is there or not).

I propose that he take Owen Wilson with him!

**Khornholio**

warpcrafter wrote:http://www.sitchin.com/

This guy knows what's going on.

Sitchin

It's Nibiru. The Earth will

**Mannahnin**

I like that the other brown dwarf is Sedna.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:With luck texas will get hit by a meteor just big enough to destroy it, but just small enough not to cross state lines.

Allthough thats trolling I won't have you banned for your statement.
We Texans are above such petty vindictiveness. Plus we're confident no meteorite smaller than a continent would even disturb the bluebonnets.

**Albatross**

I'm inclined to blame Tyranids for this. The Muslims WILL be relieved...

**Frazzled**

Its Klendathu, in league with the Liechtensteinians, again.

**generalgrog**

Invisible star 'shooting comets at Earth'
By Paul Sutherland at The Sun From: NewsCore March 12, 2010 5:07PM.....
...." could be to blame for mass extinctions that occur here every 26 million years".....
..... "causing devastation similar to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago."

Got to love how journalists have no clue what they are talking about. And toss out numbers and psuedo facts as though they were reality. If he had inserted words like "believed to be" or "hypothesized to be" he would have some credibility.

GG

**dogma**

When all you understand is belief, all you see is belief. Which, oddly enough, fundamentally alters the nature of belief such that it becomes tantamount to knowledge; funny how that works.

**generalgrog**

dogma wrote:When all you understand is belief, all you see is belief. Which, oddly enough, fundamentally alters the nature of belief such that it becomes tantamount to knowledge; funny how that works.

I know what you meant. But really Dogs, do you reallly have to try and make yourself sound all deep and mystical on the internet?

I mean, you really didn't have to clould your message behind all that psycho babble.

I think you should take some lessons from the Al Gore's "How to talk down to people. For idiots" book.

By the way, to counter your psycho babble. The reporter from the sun was acting more on lazy research than belief. He probably read somewhere in some journal that there are mass extinctions every 26 million years and just went with it, with out checking it out.

GG

**Albatross**

@GG - And you're taking it for granted that Mass Extinction is 'just a hypothesis'. Or should I assume that you are an archeologist who has studied the subject in depth?

**generalgrog**

Albatross wrote:@GG - And you're taking it for granted that Mass Extinction is 'just a hypothesis'. Or should I assume that you are an archeologist who has studied the subject in depth?

I take exception the notion that it hapened "every 26 million years". There is no way anyone can know that for certainty.

We know a mass extinction happened at least once.

GG

**Albatross**

Well, mass extinctions occur periodically - that much is fairly certain. As far as I'm aware the controversy only really centers around the exact period of time between each one.

**dogma**

generalgrog wrote:
I know what you meant. But really Dogs, do you reallly have to try and make yourself sound all deep and mystical on the internet?

Would you rather I explained the nature of epistemology with technical terminology?

generalgrog wrote:
I mean, you really didn't have to clould your message behind all that psycho babble.

You seem to use the phrase 'psycho babble' as a collective euphemism for 'words I don't understand'. Nothing I mentioned necessarily has anything to do with psychology.

generalgrog wrote:
I think you should take some lessons from the Al Gore's "How to talk down to people. For idiots" book.

Talking down to someone is primarily dependent upon tone. There is no tone in text, so I really have no idea why you would infer such a thing.

Well, I know why you would, but you shouldn't. You don't have enough information to do so.

generalgrog wrote:
By the way, to counter your psycho babble. The reporter from the sun was acting more on lazy research than belief. He probably read somewhere in some journal that there are mass extinctions every 26 million years and just went with it, with out checking it out.

Actually, there isn't enough information provided to produce that conclusion. All we know is that he referenced the notion that mass-extinction is cyclical. That could mean that he believes his words, it could mean that he believes his words will produce a superior article, or it could mean that he knows the statement is true. And of course the list of possibilities goes on.

generalgrog wrote:
I take exception the notion that it hapened "every 26 million years". There is no way anyone can know that for certainty.

Carbon dating is accurate within that range; ie. within 1 million years.

**Nurglitch**

At least we don't have to fight Thread...

/obscure?

**generalgrog**

Albatross wrote:Well, mass extinctions occur periodically

Prove it.

GG

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Actually, there isn't enough information provided to produce that conclusion. All we know is that he referenced the notion that mass-extinction is cyclical. That could mean that he believes his words, it could mean that he believes his words will produce a superior article, or it could mean that he knows the statement is true. And of course the list of possibilities goes on..

Yes and this is precisely my gripe. He reported the 26 million year figure as though it were fact. Anyone not knowing any better and notwilling to question the article might just go, "Oh neat, every 26 million years...ok"

generalgrog wrote:
I take exception the notion that it hapened "every 26 million years". There is no way anyone can know that for certainty.

dogma wrote:
Carbon dating is accurate within that range; ie. within 1 million years.

Flatly false.

Radiocarbon dating is based on carbon 14 wich has a 1/2 life of 5,370 years. This means it's only really good for dating things to around 60,000 years.

Also carbon dating and, any type of radio isotope dating method, relies on assumptions. Such as assuming that decay rates have always been the same, and specifically for radiocarbon dating that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as what it is now.

GG

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:With luck texas will get hit by a meteor just big enough to destroy it, but just small enough not to cross state lines.

Allthough thats trolling I won't have you banned for your statement.
We Texans are above such petty vindictiveness. Plus we're confident no meteorite smaller than a continent would even disturb the bluebonnets.

When you bring up a state fighting a meteor with its fists don't be surprised when someone places the mike tyson bet.

**dogma**

generalgrog wrote:
Yes and this is precisely my gripe. He reported the 26 million year figure as though it were fact. Anyone not knowing any better and notwilling to question the article might just go, "Oh neat, every 26 million years...ok"

It is a fact as defined by observational data. Extinction events occur, roughly, every 26 to 34 million years.

generalgrog wrote:
Flatly false.

Radiocarbon dating is based on carbon 14 wich has a 1/2 life of 5,370 years. This means it's only really good for dating things to around 60,000 years.

Yeah, my mistake. I was thinking of radiometric dating and spit out carbon dating.

generalgrog wrote:
Also carbon dating and, any type of radio isotope dating method, relies on assumptions. Such as assuming that decay rates have always been the same, and specifically for radiocarbon dating that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as what it is now.

Yes, because the data being collected applies to the context in which it originates; that being the present environment in which radio isotopes decay at the rate as observed. The resultant utility of the models thus derived serves to validate the requisite assumptions. Basically, if they weren't true, then they wouldn't be useful.

**Wrexasaur**

dogma wrote:It is a fact as defined by observational data. Extinction events occur, roughly, every 26 to 34 million years.

I am really not sure exactly what it is GG is driving at, but if he denies the information found in the fossil record as admissible, then there is really no point in having this conversation.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

It is a quick read, but that is the basic breakdown. I really can't say that the fossil record is perfect, but it is a fantastically easy puzzle to put together.

**dogma**

Wrexasaur wrote:
I am really not sure exactly what it is GG is driving at, but if he denies the information found in the fossil record as admissible, then there is really no point in having this conversation.

Given his history, I would say that he'd driving at a young Earth model. Of course, I could be wrong, as he hasn't announced any specific sort of intent.

**generalgrog**

Wrexasaur wrote:
I am really not sure exactly what it is GG is driving at, but if he denies the information found in the fossil record as admissible, then there is really no point in having this conversation.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

It is a quick read, but that is the basic breakdown. I really can't say that the fossil record is perfect, but it is a fantastically easy puzzle to put together.

According to the lnik presented, those dates are from John J Sepkoski of University of Chicago. I would need to read his work to find out what his bias's were. Sometimes these guys use fossils to date rocks and then turn around and use rocks to date fossils in the quest to validate their uniformitarianism.

GG

**dogma**

Sometimes these guys use fossils to date rocks and then turn around and use rocks to date fossils in the quest to validate their uniformitarianism.

That's acceptable practice insofar as the dates established via differing methods are not proximal. You sound like the people who defend Star Trek physics.