Slashdot Mirror


Antarctic Blast Made Australia, Room For Dinosaurs

Agent Provocateur writes "Posted on the Science Daily site is a story from Ohio State University about a massive Antarctic blast that may have contributed to the Permian-Triassic extinction." From the article: "Its size and location -- in the Wilkes Land region of East Antarctica, south of Australia -- also suggest that it could have begun the breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent by creating the tectonic rift that pushed Australia northward. Scientists believe that the Permian-Triassic extinction paved the way for the dinosaurs to rise to prominence. The Wilkes Land crater is more than twice the size of the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan peninsula, which marks the impact that may have ultimately killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The Chicxulub meteor is thought to have been 6 miles wide, while the Wilkes Land meteor could have been up to 30 miles wide -- four or five times wider."

122 comments

  1. hollywood disaster movies by macadamia_harold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is what always gets me about those Hollywood disaster movies. The BBC calls this The Day the Earth Nearly Died. And yet, as we can see, it didn't. Somehow, The Day After Tomorrow seems kind of pathetic in comparison.

    1. Re:hollywood disaster movies by owlstead · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fact that these disasters don't "kill the earth" is widely understood. Bacteria for instance can endure almost anything, and for the earth to be fysically destroyed, you would need a *very* big boulder. The problem is that more complex life does not take nearly as much abuse. So as long as you don't care about billions of people dying, if not extinction of the human race, then you can keep sleeping in total comfort. But for me that complex, self-aware life would have to start again would not be a comforting thought. This *did* bring a very complex eco-system to a grinding halt, and I don't think the human race would be able to survive such a disaster.

    2. Re:hollywood disaster movies by Cicero382 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "...for the earth to be fysically destroyed, you would need a *very* big boulder."

      Even bigger than you think. Current theory (speculation/whatever) says that the Earth-Moon system was created a few billion years ago when something the size of Mars smacked into the (pre) Earth. And it still wasn't destroyed - just changed a bit.

      Of course, if that happened now even the bacteria would be *severely* upset about it.

      Spelling Nazi alert: You mean "physically".

    3. Re:hollywood disaster movies by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      Even bigger than you think. Current theory (speculation/whatever) says that the Earth-Moon system was created a few billion years ago when something the size of Mars smacked into the (pre) Earth. And it still wasn't destroyed - just changed a bit.

      Of course, if that happened now even the bacteria would be *severely* upset about it.


      I for one would be slightly pissed as well.
      This is my home too.

    4. Re:hollywood disaster movies by bladesjester · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You can't destroy the Earth! That's where I keep all my stuff!!" - The Tick

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    5. Re:hollywood disaster movies by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Actually, an impact that size would actually 'kill the Earth', in the sense that it would likely sterilize the planet of all life. A Mars-sized impactor would recreate the magma ocean that covered the planet when it first formed. Bacteria are hardy, but none of them can live in molten rock.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    6. Re:hollywood disaster movies by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > Of course, if that happened now even the bacteria would be *severely* upset about it.

      Forget the bacteria. It's the mice that would be absolutely FURIOUS about such a monumental cock-up.

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    7. Re:hollywood disaster movies by EvanED · · Score: 1
      You might enjoy this link about "geocide". It's a HOWTO on how you can destroy the Earth.

      This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. ... If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison.

      This is a guide for those who do not want the Earth to be there anymore.
    8. Re:hollywood disaster movies by netwiz · · Score: 1

      alt.destroy-the-earth calculated that it takes on the order of 10^38 joules to shatter a world roughly the mass of Earth. A Mars-sized object could do it, if it was moving 110,000 km/sec, a significant fraction of lightspeed. (the above is a ballpark, i.e., should be accurate within one order of magnitude.)

    9. Re:hollywood disaster movies by SamSim · · Score: 1

      alt.destroy-the-earth calculated wrongly. The gravitational binding energy of planet Earth is only about 2.24E32 Joules, six orders of magnitude smaller than the value you quote. Still a pretty large value though.

    10. Re:hollywood disaster movies by netwiz · · Score: 1

      actually, they didn't. I'd remembered it wrong. oh well. Take that velocity down to about 110km/sec...

    11. Re:hollywood disaster movies by abb3w · · Score: 1
      The fact that these disasters don't "kill the earth" is widely understood.

      Perhaps true; on the other hand, the P-T extinction event wiped out better than 90% of sea species, and 70% of land species. It didn't kill the planet, but it came closer than anything since the formation of Luna.

      On the gripping hand, getting rid of the extremophile bacteria as well would pretty much requires re-liquification of the entire planetary crust for a multi-century timescale.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  2. Antarctic Blast Made Australia, Room For Dinosaurs by talkingpaperclip · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...the Wilkes Land meteor could have been up to 30 miles wide..."

    Wow, I knew some dinosaurs were big, but I didn't realize they were that big!

  3. Age of impact by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are guessing that it was in the last 250 million years because they can still detect a mass concentration. I wonder if it is possible to drill to the bottom of an ice cap and then drill into the underlying crust. Doing that may make it possible to accurately date the impact.

    Ice drills in my experience melt a hollow cylinder of ice and then extract the core. Presumably they would have to do this down to the surface and send a traditional drill down.

    1. Re:Age of impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's far easier to wait for global warming to melt the ice cap, and then drill from there.

      1. Melt Ice caps.
      2. Do research.
      3. Profit!

    2. Re:Age of impact by kdougherty · · Score: 0

      Lets just hope they don't dig too deep and find an ancient temple infested with aliens.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
    3. Re:Age of impact by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. The dating is completely arbitrary. All that we know is that it is not very old.

      It may in fact end up being simultaneous with Chicxulub which by most recent estimates was not enough in itself to kill of the dinosaurs. Something else helped it.

      So the "mummy dinosaur says to toddler dinosaur: what goes around comes around" joke will have to wait for now.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Age of impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's far easier to wait for global warming to melt the ice cap, and then drill from there.


      Yes, Al Gore is simply trying to keep us from determining the facts behind this "meating yore" that seems to have extinctionated [sic] the diner-sores by encouraging ice stasis at the poles through less driving around and stuff.

      Please come visit me and my friends at Fré Republique, the premier online dicussion site for right wing 'tards. We're convinced that Al Gore was on the swift boat in Cambodia and helped Kerry hurt himself to get a purple star or cross or something.

    5. Re:Age of impact by Drakonite · · Score: 1

      I'd be more worried about a possible super-disease which may be laying in wait, as I'm sure any ancient building under antarctica would be well equiped to defend against aliens, assuming we can find enough power for the chair.

      --
      Shoot Pixels, Not People!
    6. Re:Age of impact by lw54 · · Score: 1

      Have a URL to the joke by chance? My search came up short.

    7. Re:Age of impact by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I wonder if it is possible to drill to the bottom of an ice cap and then drill into the underlying crust.

      It's been done in the Arctic Ocean, Nature reported recently.

      "The results are unexpected. Not only did the Arctic heat up to an extent that is inexplicable by current climate models, say the researchers, it also seems that the North Pole began to cool at about the same time as the Antarctic. This timing suggests that climate was being driven by a global factor, such as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, rather than something more local, such as geological upheaval."

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    8. Re:Age of impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are those scientists doing? My god! Haven't they been warned about the shoggoths?

    9. Re:Age of impact by Warg!+The+Orcs!! · · Score: 1

      Surpisingly, though Shoggoth Studies might seem to be useful and relevant, the subject is rarely taught outside of selected New England universities. This is most probably due to the tastiness and crunchiness of aspiring Shoggoth experts.

      --
      Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
    10. Re:Age of impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think youre implying that Al Gore is trying to get to the truth and that he's completely altruistic, trying to save the earth, while all the republicants are self-serving ignoramuses. You can go on believing that, but people on /. are generally smart enough to realise that Dems and Repubs alike are doing whatever they can to get people to vote them into office so they can sit around and be powerful and tell us how great they are without actually doing anything (i.e., passing legislation)

    11. Re:Age of impact by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Uhmm, the Artic ice cap is only about two feet thick. The Antarctice ice cap is 2 MILES thick. A teenie, weenie difference there...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    12. Re:Age of impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they didn't exactly drill through the ice in the ACEX project, considering they drilled off of a boat... That doesn't mean it wasn't challenging and cool; getting the drilling vessel to stay in one place in drifting ice is not exactly trivial.

    13. Re:Age of impact by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      I think youre implying that Al Gore is trying to get to the truth and that he's completely altruistic, trying to save the earth, while all the republicants are self-serving ignoramuses.

      One does not have to beleive that Gore is completely altruistic and all Republican self-serving ignoramuses, to believe that Gore is somewhat (relatively to the population of politicians) altruistic, and the current Reublican leadership are self-serving ignoramuses and/or sociopaths .

      Just because they're both shades of grey doesn't mean they aren't distinctly lighter and darker.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  4. Destroying or creating life? by kdougherty · · Score: 0

    Everyone can speculate that such events would cause life to die. I always wondered if during impact the force wouldn't shift organisms and other forms of life around causing the creation of new life. Of course, I wouldn't want a chunk of rock, metal and ice landing in my backyard in hopes of creating new forms of life.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
    1. Re:Destroying or creating life? by RsG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd tend to assume that any impact that size would be extremely unlikely to genreate the right conditions for the formation of life. We're talking about the kind of kinetic energy here that can boil oceans on impact, which would tend to foul up any chances of life emerging.

      The conditions we currently think led to abiogenesis (the pre-evolutionary formation of life) weren't cataclysmic, they were merely improbably chemical reactions that might have arisen on the primordial earth - just a matter of something with a low probability having a few hundred million years to occur by chance in, in an environment with no pre-existing competeing lifeforms and plenty of potential habitat.

      Now mind you, any major change in the ecology will open up new niches for creatures to evolve into, so in that sense an impact "creates new life", but that is exactly what the article is talking about. The mass die off precipitated by such an impact let the dinosaurs get started. The cretaceous die off got rid of the dinosaurs in turn, and let mammals take the top spot.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Destroying or creating life? by cptgrudge · · Score: 1
      The mass die off precipitated by such an impact let the dinosaurs get started. The cretaceous die off got rid of the dinosaurs in turn, and let mammals take the top spot.

      Great. I'm baked out of my mind and paranoid that we're all next.

      Thanks a lot.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    3. Re:Destroying or creating life? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah! What other dominant species did you expect the next comet to kill off next, if not us?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Destroying or creating life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss getting baked and reading slashdot; for reasons I could never quite pinpoint duplicates never bothered me then... I figured it out one and wrote it down, but i forgot where exactly

    5. Re:Destroying or creating life? by vought · · Score: 1

      The conditions we currently think led to abiogenesis (the pre-evolutionary formation of life) weren't cataclysmic, they were merely improbably chemical reactions that might have arisen on the primordial earth

      Yeah. Like you were there.

    6. Re:Destroying or creating life? by Decaff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cretaceous die off got rid of the dinosaurs in turn, and let mammals take the top spot.

      It wasn't quite like that. The die-off simply got rid of most large animals (probably the ones that couldn't burrow or hide in some way to avoid several hours of intense heat after the impact). Some small dinosaurs carried on fine - today we call them birds! Also, for some periods in wasn't mammals that took the top spot - large birds have often been the major predators. Things are far, far more interesting that suggested by this statement.

    7. Re:Destroying or creating life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Captain Obvious!

    8. Re:Destroying or creating life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you watched your parents conceive you.

    9. Re:Destroying or creating life? by RsG · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that birds were thought to have split off earlier than that. The way I'd been taught it, dinosaurs and birds became distinct groups in the Jurassic, and birds survived the extinction due to factors such as warm blooded metabolism and their relatively small size.

      But OTOH, it's been a long time since I was learning this, so new evidence might have emerged since then, or my memory could be wrong.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    10. Re:Destroying or creating life? by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that birds were thought to have split off earlier than that. The way I'd been taught it, dinosaurs and birds became distinct groups in the Jurassic, and birds survived the extinction due to factors such as warm blooded metabolism and their relatively small size.

      It is still very much debated, but my impression is that birds are basically therapod dinosaurs - the bone structures are very close. There is considerable evidence that dinosaurs has warm blood as well.

      My interpretation is that dinosaurs split into several groups, and birds were probably one of them.

  5. more importantly by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1, Funny

    How did the dinosaurs get here? It is my theory that they rode in on that meteor, bringing with them the advanced technologies that our government is still unearthing today (Al Gore "invented" the internet by digging it up from an ancient dinosaurian city). Also, "rawr" I'm a dinosaur.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    1. Re:more importantly by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Funny

      How did the dinosaurs get here? It is my theory that they rode in on that meteor, bringing with them the advanced technologies that our government is still unearthing today (Al Gore "invented" the internet by digging it up from an ancient dinosaurian city). Also, "rawr" I'm a dinosaur.

      Mr. President, shouldn't you be working on a plan to get us out of Iraq, rather than posting on slashdot?

    2. Re:more importantly by Centurix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      George is my favorite, Peppa is an attention whore.

      --
      Task Mangler
  6. Bullshit. by EvilCabbage · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's just what God wants you to think.

    1. Re:Bullshit. by RsG · · Score: 1

      You reminded me of a sig I saw once, which went something like this:

      "I never said Thou Shalt Not Think."

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  7. Someone to study it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not send Captain Copyright down there to have a good long look?

    1. Re:Someone to study it by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Because we're trying to get information from a hole on the ass end of earth, not getting information from an asshole.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  8. not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Interesting
    At this point, it's pretty clear that the dinosaur extinction was caused by an asteroid/comet impact. First, they found an iridium signature suggesting an extraterrestrial object, then shocked quartz suggesting an impact, and finally the Chicxulub crater. Dating of the crater and the ash layer it has produced place them at the same time the dinosaurs (as well as many other animals, such as ammonites) go extinct.

    But the situation is much murkier with the Permian extinctions. Last I'd heard, we have yet to find clear evidence of an impact in the form of iridium, a dust layer or shocked quartz. So that sheds some doubt on the idea of an impact. Even if this is an impact crater, we don't know for certain that it dates to the time of the end-Permian mass extinctions: obviously, if it didn't occur at the same time as those extinctions, it couldn't have caused them. Given that the researchers are using radar and gravitometry, how do they know how old it is? You need to either do radiometric dating or look at the fossils to tell how old the underlying and overlying rocks are.

    There is also some evidence that the Permian extinctions may have been drawn out, with several bouts of extinction occurring over the course of a million years or so, again that doesn't fit with an meteorite/comet impact. Anyhow, it might have been an impact, and it might not have been. It's still a mystery and probably will be for quite a while.

    1. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Informative
      But the situation is much murkier with the Permian extinctions. Last I'd heard, we have yet to find clear evidence of an impact in the form of iridium, a dust layer or shocked quartz.

      Xu and Yang, 1993 and Yang et al. 1995 have reported Iridium spikes and Stishovite microspherules in non-marine P/T sediments in Australia and Antarctica. There's no Permian oceanic crust left since all of it has been subducted, and the Iridium and Stishovite levels are an order of magnitude smaller than C/T sediments, but it is still evidence of some type of major impact.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall watching a documentary regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs and they said that although an impact may have been the final straw that lead to their extinction, the numbers of dinosaurs and other animals in areas were already declining way before the impact. So I wouldn't exactly say that it was "pretty clear that the dinosaur extinction was caused by an asteroid/comet impact."

    3. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by Ugly+American · · Score: 2, Informative

      This article from the BBC was a little more in-depth.

      --
      For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
    4. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the number of dinosaurs was declining before the K/T event is regarded as a possibility; that there is an incredibly sharp boundary between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene with an iridium layer that indicates that there was an impact event and that none of the extinct species survived that event is very likely.

    5. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by geobeck · · Score: 1
      At this point, it's pretty clear that the dinosaur extinction was caused by an asteroid/comet impact.

      No, it's not. It's pretty clear that there was a significant impact that coincided with the decline of the dinosaurs, but coincidence is not the same as causality.

      The asteroid did not cause the continents to continue their drift, widening the gap that would become the Atlantic Ocean. It did not cause the drainage of the shallow inland seas that enhanced a dinosaur-friendly climate. The asteroid did accelerate the extinction of the dinosaurs, but it did not cause it.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    6. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might also note that the iridium-rich (relatively speaking) layer lead to the discovery of the Chicxulub crater, not the other way around. Not all extraterrestrial bodies are iridium-rich so the lack of such a layer is not necessarily evidence that Wilkes Land crater was not due to an extraterrestrial body impact.

    7. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      What are the odds of this being a coincidence, however? Think about it. The extinction of the dinosaurs was one of the five largest mass extinctions of all time, an event which occurs on the order of once every hundred million years. The Chicxulub impact is the largest confirmed asteroid impact for the past 200 million years; again we're dealing with an event which occurs on the order of once every 100 million years. The odds that two such phenomenally rare events occurred simultaneously and had nothing to do with each other are extremely low.

      As for a decline of dinosaurs, there is no evidence that dinosaurs were declining in abundance in the last few million years. There is evidence for a decline in number of species, but only in North America (we don't know enough yet about China, Mongolia, or Argentina). A couple sub-families (lambeosaurine duckbills, short-frilled ceratopsians) appear to drop out in the Latest Cretaceous in North America, but most major groups (horned dinosaurs, duckbills, tyrannosaurs, etc.) persist and at least one group actually makes a first appearance towards the end (Alvarezsauridae). So there's evidence for a modest decline, in one part of the world, but nothing comparable to what happens at the end of the Cretaceous, when all large land animals die out.

      As for "dinosaur friendly climates" those have nothing to do with shallow seas, since dinosaurs lived in all kinds of environments- inland, coastal, equatorial and polar. In, fact dinosaurs coped much better with polar environments than conventional reptiles like turtles and alligators, which did not live near the poles at the time. All climates were "dinosaur friendly", and dinosaurs did perfectly well with cool climates throughout the Cretaceous. Finally, cooling and warming, and expansion and retraction of the Western Interior Seaway occurred throughout the Cretaceous. They probably did influence dinosaur diversity, but the dinosaurs persisted throughout these.

    8. Re:not as clear-cut as the article makes it out by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, Benton says they're full of shit with their impact evidence. But then, maybe Benton is full of shit when he says they're full of shit- not being an expert in impacts, I have no clue (he's who I'd been relying on for the bit about little evidence of impact, but after doing a bit of searching on Google Scholar he sounds like he may be standing alone out in left field on this one). There are a number of studies which date the Siberian Traps to the Permian-Triassic boundary. The Siberian traps were formed by enormous lava outpourings, which covered 1.6 million square kilometers at depths of up to 3 kilometers.

      At any rate, there's still a lot of questions. Does this structure sit on the Permian-Triassic boundary? What about the 100km Bedout crater off Australia- is that an impact crater, and if so, does it coincide with the Permian? Could they both be impact craters, part of a series of impacts like the comet that hit jupiter? Are an impact and lava even mutually exclusive mechanisms or could an impact actually cause eruptions? If an impact is involved, why is there less evidence for it, even though the extinction appears to have been much more severe than the Cretaceous one?

  9. Ho hum. More fabricated evidence by phonewebcam · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just to thwart the Darwinists.
    Nothing to see here, move along...

  10. Thanks by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Thank you mr meteor for making sure my home is toasty and warm.

    --
    Task Mangler
  11. Prehistoric Math by Dial-Up · · Score: 1

    The Chicxulub meteor is thought to have been 6 miles wide, while the Wilkes Land meteor could have been up to 30 miles wide -- four or five times wider.

    It bothers me that that calculation isn't quite as definate as it should be. I've yet to see 30/6 = 4.

    1. Re:Prehistoric Math by Sique · · Score: 1

      But's easy to see that 30 ~ 28 = 4 * 7 ~ 6. So if the estimated size for the Wilkins meteor ranges between 28 and 32, and the one for the Chicxulub meteor between 6 and 7 miles, then the factor 4 up to 5 looks pretty close.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Prehistoric Math by Lorkki · · Score: 1

      Note the wording, up to 30 miles is an estimate, not a definite reading. Making a definite calculation from that starting point would make little sense.

    3. Re:Prehistoric Math by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      He never said the asteroid was 30 miles wide - he said it was up to 30 miles wide.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    4. Re:Prehistoric Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore the other replies. You're right, and they're gay.

    5. Re:Prehistoric Math by nether · · Score: 1

      It says _up to_ 30. So, 24/6 =4. Considering they do not know the diameter of the possible impact site, this is perfectly acceptable.

    6. Re:Prehistoric Math by Tycho · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about for small values of 30 or for large values of 6?

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    7. Re:Prehistoric Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dial-Up: It bothers me that that calculation isn't quite as definate as it should be

      It bothers me that your spelling isn't quite as correct as it should be.

  12. Re:Antarctic Blast Made Australia, Room For Dinosa by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny
    Wow, I knew some dinosaurs were big, but I didn't realize they were that big!

    You know Clippy, that sort of non-sequiter was why we kicked you out of the Office help system. Don't make us do it again...

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  13. Obligatory Anime Reference. by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I see that we've found Adam. Crap, now the world's going to end in the dumbest imaginable way and we're all going to melt.

    1. Re:Obligatory Anime Reference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not if Asuka dodges that fucking pseudospear of longinus instead of looking at it charmed

    2. Re:Obligatory Anime Reference. by wh173b0y · · Score: 2, Funny

      They found the geo-front too. We're Doomed!

    3. Re:Obligatory Anime Reference. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Not if Asuka dodges that fucking pseudospear of longinus instead of looking at it charmed

      Never mind Asuka. She'd done her bit: chopped up all nine Mass Production Evas and run out of power. Nothing she could have done against a spear out of nowhere.

      Now Shinji, on the other hand... he finally gets into EVA-01, comes out of HQ in a massive explosion taking out the entire top of the pyramid - and proceeds to just stand there screaming. Doesn't lift a finger to even try to stop the Evas skewering him and initiating Third Impact.

      EVA-01 could have nailed the lot of them. Shinji's quite capable of it, especially since the Evas are already severely damaged thanks to Asuka's rampage, and EVA-01 absorbed the S2 engine from that Angel a few episodes back so it doesn't even need to worry about the five-minute limit. Shinji can chop these guys up into dogfood and then jump up and down on them indefinitely. But no, he just takes one look at the bloody chunks of EVA-02 and starts screaming. Shinji, you suck.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  14. I never got it by SlashSquatch · · Score: 1

    What did it kill to pave the way for the dinosaurs? Orcs? Oompah Loompahs?

    Do the chickens have large talons?
    Boy, I didn't understand a word you just said.

    --
    Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
    1. Re:I never got it by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      The Permo-Triassic mass extinction killed most of the so-called mammal-like reptiles (to be cladistically correct, they were actually reptile-like mammals), which were the dominant land herbivores and carnivores.

  15. September 13, 2000 by wormuniverse · · Score: 1

    Finally! proof that Neon Genesis Really happened! Now to figure out what happened to Rei

    1. Re:September 13, 2000 by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean more specifically Second Impact.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  16. Re:Antarctic Blast Made Australia, Room For Dinosa by ChiPHeaD23 · · Score: 1

    I bet Clippy could spell non sequitur, though.

  17. Ecological niches by Flying+pig · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Conventional wisdom is that species evolve to fit particular ecological niches. It is difficult for another species to arise to fill that niche because the one already in it is well adapted to it, therefore a less well suited species will fail to take over - unless there is a change which leads to extinction of the current niche occupier or its becoming less fit. This applies to all sorts of things, even the population of bacteria in our intestines which will adjust to suit changes in diet, or as a result of antibiotics.

    So the answer is "lots of existing species of animals", many of which would have been amphibians, reptiles, crossopterygians. Dinosaurs have more sophisticated circulatory systems than ordinary reptiles, so if the atmospheric oxygen percentage went down (for instance) as a result of vegetation changes, they might be at a selective advantage.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  18. It didn't create Australia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather it created Antarctica by pushing it southward. I call on the governments of the world to right this wrong by a concerted effort to use nuclear explosives to push Antarctica northward to its original location!

  19. Thank you! by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Chicxulub meteor is thought to have been 6 miles wide, while the Wilkes Land meteor could have been up to 30 miles wide -- four or five times wider.

    Thank you for for adding that! Saved us all the trouble of pulling out slide rules to work out that ugly divison problem ourselves!

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:Thank you! by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was a question, I would hazard a guess and say...not 4 but 5 times wider!

      (seriously though, 30 miles sounded more interesting than 24 miles, so they used the bigger number?)

    2. Re:Thank you! by Malor · · Score: 2, Informative

      The actual interesting part would be that if the composition were the same, a spherical object six times as wide would have 216 times as much mass.

      In other words, if it hit at anywhere close to the same speed, this one was A LOT more destructive.

    3. Re:Thank you! by DemonThing · · Score: 1

      More like 125 times.

    4. Re:Thank you! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Slide rules? You don't get out much, do you?

    5. Re:Thank you! by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 1

      More like 125 times.

      Nope, Malor specified "six times as wide", which leads to 216 times as massive, ceteris paribus.

    6. Re:Thank you! by yusing · · Score: 1

      Now, if someone could do the volume problem so we could estimate relative mass, I wouldn't have to try to remember how to do cubes on my sliderule. (Damn, cube of 3, cube of 15...)

      My sliderule which is made of bamboo, I might add, not your shitty plastic substitute. No, alas, it's not a Versalog.

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    7. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a spherical object six times as wide would have 216 times as much mass.

      Oh perfect.

    8. Re:Thank you! by Malor · · Score: 1

      I DID screw up... I did 6 times as wide instead of 5. 216 is correct for 6, but it's still the wrong answer. :-)

    9. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, cubes are easy on a slide-rule; it's pretty well what they were designed for.

    10. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite but not so: Is it four, or five ? Please, help me !

  20. Re:Antarctic Blast Made Australia, Room For Dinosa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like you are trying to be funny. Would you like some help?

  21. Notes by hunte · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    about me A - B
    1. Re:Notes by hunte · · Score: 1

      and

      30 miles = 48.28 :)

      --
      about me A - B
    2. Re:Notes by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how many Libraries of Congress is that?

      --
      -David
  22. First Impact by adolfojp · · Score: 0

    In related news:

    A scientific organization named GHERIN has established a base in Antartica to study the phenomenom that they call "the first impact".

    1. Re:First Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they call it the First Impact before a second impact? Wouldn't they just call it The Impact for now? It's like calling it Great War "World War I", before WWII.

  23. Is gravimetrics really this efficient? by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am jut a bit lost here, how do they use gravimetric data to say with the certainty the article seems to suggest that this is an impact crater?

    As far as I know from my the few classes I have had on gravimetric data without the help of other data you are usually pretty lost. It would be very difficult to say how deep, what size and what weight anamoly the gravimetric anomily has and even more make out it's shape.
    Furthermore with these gravimetric data taken from a satelite and not from the surface you get even more "meaned data" (less precise) being further away from the anamoly I can figure, of course they probably have a huge data set and also extremely precise instrumentation at the satelite in space, maybe that makes up for the distance in some ways, but for now I remain very sceptical.

    Another thing that makes me wonder is why they don't talk about doing seismic or seismologic checks to confirm their theory. I actually thought that there was a few seismic stations places in this region, if this anamoly is as huge as the article suggests then I would think it should be pretty clearly visible in the seismic data.

    Anyhow gravimetrics is certainly not my area of expertise. I would if someone out there is able to show me where I go wrong if that is the case, then I'd be grateful.

    1. Re:Is gravimetrics really this efficient? by blackdropbear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They used the gravity fluctuations to identify the anomoly and then used airborne radar data to define the extent. I would hazard a guess that radar wasn't the only set of electronices that airborne survey was doing and that it would have included high res gravity and magnetics as well

  24. Problems with drilling by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 3, Informative

    Drilling through ice is a difficult process with lot's of problems.
    One of the problems is that the ice is not lying still during the time that you are drilling, the ice creeps. That is once of the reasons why all the major drillings through ice are done on the top of the ice sheets where the movements are the least there.
    The problem with Ice creep is pretty big, it is for example not possible for scientist to come back to the hole's they drilled before, like you do with holes in the earth, the holes shut pretty fast, depending on the speed of the ice crawl.
    So I geuss it would be possible to drill the hole, but you would have to be pretty fast to get down there after you drilled the hole and get up some material of the underlying rock.
    You would get very little material up and I think that present some problems also, how would you know if the rock sample you get up is alien to the enviroment from where it came when you don't have the rock in the vicinity of the sample to compare with and look for patterns etc. on.

    1. Re:Problems with drilling by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Drilling through ice is a difficult process with lot's of problems.

      Its not easy, I agree. Glaciologists I used to work with would drill a hole then drop instruments down it to measure differences in ice flow at different depths. I am sure that eventually a hole would become unusable as shear forces moved it away from vertical.

      The RTG powered "mole" devices being planned for Europa might work in this environment. It would certainly be a good test, but developing something like that can take > 10 years.

    2. Re:Problems with drilling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god. How the hell can anyone write such an informative comment and yet not have the grammar skills of a 3rd grader? See if you can spot the errors and correct them:

      1- lot's of problems.
      2- the ice is not lying still during the time that you are drilling, the ice creeps
      3- That is once of the reasons
      4- on the top of the ice sheets where the movements are the least there.
      5- The problem with Ice creep
      6- Ice creep is pretty big, it is
      7- it is for example not possible
      8- come back to the hole's they drilled
      9- like you do with holes in the earth, the holes shut pretty fast
      10- So I geuss

      Ugh, I can't go on. That last sentence is radioactive garbage.

      Hey, better yet, just use the Preview button a little more next time, dumbass!

      (Go ahead and mod me Flamebait. It's not like I'm making any valid points here.)

  25. it missed... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
    When the scientists overlaid their gravity image with airborne radar images of the ground beneath the ice, they found the mascon perfectly centered inside a circular ridge some 300 miles wide -- a crater easily large enough to hold the state of Ohio.
    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:it missed... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      a crater easily large enough to hold the state of Ohio.

      Freudian slip from an evil scientist with scary plans? Time to sell my Ohio real estate.

  26. Thinking.... by ThePengwin · · Score: 1

    *remembers neon genesis*

    didnt a "explosion" happen due to the first angel?

    OH NO!! build EVAs!!

  27. Flash of light by RNLockwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Slashdoters are technical sorts so I don't think it's too pendantic to note that a meteor is a flash of light caused by a meteorite.

    Comparing the widths of the meteorites is a lot less interesting than realizing that the mass ratio is about 125:1. Actually I suspect that the mass was estimated first from the size of the crater and then the diameter calculated, converted from metric to American, and the word "diameter" changed to the more easily understood "width".

    --
    Nate
    1. Re:Flash of light by quacking+duck · · Score: 2, Informative
      Slashdoters are technical sorts so I don't think it's too pendantic to note that a meteor is a flash of light caused by a meteorite.

      If we're going to be pedantic, something is a meteorite only if it strikes the earth. A meteor is merely an object from space (man-made satellites usually excluded) that enters the Earth's atmosphere, and may or may not become a meteorite--most meteors are too small and completely burn up/disintegrate before hitting land.

    2. Re:Flash of light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the flash of light is caused by a meteoroid. If and when a meteoroid gets to the ground, then it becomes a meteorite.

  28. Link to OSU research by KwKSilver · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article posted above seems to be based on this from Ohio State University, which is better illustrated, etc.

    If you want to "experiment" with results of various impacts, Arizona State has an online calculator.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  29. Math Whiz by jense · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad they closed the post by doing the complex math for us.My brain was feeling foggy this morning. G'day...

    --
    Touting MyEclipse AJAX Tools
  30. What A Wonderful Time It Was To Be Alive ... by Melllvar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A couple of years ago an entirely different impact crater was discovered in Australia, with preliminary dating indicating that it happened at about the same time as this one. It, too, is huge -- not as monstrous as this here Antarctica sockdollager, but apparently about as apocalyptic as the one that reputedly KO'd the dinosaurs. Considering the history of our Solar System, I don't think that a multiple-impact armaggedon is at all out of the question. Hell, maybe we'll find even more impact craters, and have to come to the conclusion that it was some kind of supersized rain of fire that reset the planetary ecology switch.

    And then, of course, we shouldn't forget about the largest volcanic eruption in the history of the planet that sparked up at just about the same time, too. An area roughly the size of Scandinavia simply melted into a mass of sulfurous, poisonous, volcanic goo for a couple of million years before settling down. I'm not terribly firm on my Permian Era geography, but I'd be willing to bet that the Siberian Traps event was pretty close to the opposite side of the planet at the time of the impacts.

    1. Re:What A Wonderful Time It Was To Be Alive ... by sp67 · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about geology, but 30 miles across, that's pretty freaking huge... could it be that the huge shockwaves the impact sent, have actually caused the Siberian Traps?

      --
      Tuff that Smatters.
  31. OAQ by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

    Of course, if that happened now even the bacteria would be *severely* upset about it

    That may be true, but the bacteria didn't pay for it, now did they?

  32. Four or five? by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 0
    "The Chicxulub meteor is thought to have been 6 miles wide, while the Wilkes Land meteor could have been up to 30 miles wide -- four or five times wider."

    6... and 30... it's definitely five times wider. Not four.

    1. Re:Four or five? by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      Up to 30. </pedant>

    2. Re:Four or five? by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 0

      Coulda then been zero to five times bigger, yes?

  33. Atlantis taking off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was no meteor, it was just the exhaust from Atlantis's Stardrive as it left Antarctica!

  34. Re:Antarctic Blast Made Australia, Room For Dinosa by talkingpaperclip · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm sorry, I can't find "non-sequiter" in my dictionary. Perhaps you meant "non sequitur"?

  35. What about my Hummer theory? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    My theory is trilobites grew large brains and built Hummers, which caused greenhouse gasses that killed a bunch of stuff, including themselves.

  36. Bushveld Complex by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    These 500 click sized craters are not all that uncommon. There is for example the Bushveld Complex in South Africa (the source of much of it's mineral wealth), which could have been an impact crater. Since it is so old, it is not possible to tell whether it was an impact crater, or a gigantic volcano, or an alien experiment with anti-matter gone wrong - either way, it is friggen huge. Despite it's size, the continent of Africa just shrugged it off and is none the worse for it. Also, a glance at the enormous craters on the moon indicates that similar events must have happened on earth. So, a 500 click crater causing a continent to rift? Don't think so - not nearly big enough.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  37. March 30 2001 by wormuniverse · · Score: 1

    look, all I am saying is that Asuka should be about 5 years old by now. just old enough to be my second ex-wife in about 15 years

  38. another interesting fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some guy studying the history of the earth put together the land masses like pieces of jigsaw puzzle and guess what he found - that the major coal/oil fields formed a circular arc. much like a ring of debris around an explosion and this ring is HUGE. what are the cances that the ring was formed 'cuz of this impact?

  39. Erwin's book Extinction by danny · · Score: 1
    A great read for anyone curious about the P-T extinction is Douglas Erwin's book Extinction . He doesn't come to any definite conclusions, but thinks the balance of evidence is against an extraterrestrial impact as a cause.

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews
  40. Double-Edged Disasters by VernonNemitz · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Mariner 10 mission to Mercury revealed a key data item that Earthly geophysicists need to pay more attention to.
    This is the Caloris Basin and, on the opposite side of Mercury, some very strange topography that is usually called "weird terrain".
    The explanation is the the shock waves from the impact that created Caloris converged on the opposite side of Mercury and tore the landscape to pieces.
    Well, Mercury is small and internally much cooler than Earth, so Mercury has a thick crust while the Earth's crust floats on magma.
    A giant meteor impact like the one in what is now Antarctica should have the same sort of effect on Earth that happened on Mercury -- except when the Earth's crust gets shattered by converging shock waves, the magma can pour out. Thus the "Siberian Traps", which formed at about the same time as the Permian Extinction. All we need to solidify that speculation is to study the positions of the continents at that time (not where they have drifted to, today).
    More evidence for this sort of Double Disaster comes from the Chixulub impact, which, when it happened, it is known that India was on the opposite side of the world, and the "Deccan Traps" were formed at the same time as the K-T boundary.
    For one more example that I'm aware of, but which happened much longer ago than even the Permian extinction, is the Vredefort (sp?) Ring in South Africa, among the biggest known impact craters on Earth, and the Columbia Plateau magma outpourings of Oregon/Idaho/Washington, also among the biggest on Earth, and, I think, about the same age.... Life on Earth was only bacterial then, and it is difficult to know how little of it suvived that Double-Edged Disaster.

    1. Re:Double-Edged Disasters by RockDoctor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thus the "Siberian Traps", which formed at about the same time as the Permian Extinction. All we need to solidify that speculation is to study the positions of the continents at that time (not where they have drifted to, today).
      I think the two areas were (approximately) at quadrature - 90 degrees apart, not in opposition.

      More evidence for this sort of Double Disaster comes from the Chixulub impact, which, when it happened, it is known that India was on the opposite side of the world, and the "Deccan Traps" were formed at the same time as the K-T boundary.
      Both the end Cretaceous extinctions and the Chixulub impact occurred after the start of the Deccan traps episode. Dinosaur skeletons (too complete to be re-worked bones) have been known from palaeosol horizons (literally ancient soil) between lava flows since the 1890s. Similarly, evidence of the Chixulub impact has been reported from between other lavas.
      The "contre coup" theory of Large Igneous Province triggering doesn't get much support from my fellow geologists. It's theoretically possible, but no reasonable clear examples have been reported. Meanwhile a considerable number of examples of long-drawn-out internal processes leading to Large Igneous Province formation without extraterrestrial input have been documented.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  41. Dinosaurs are not so easy by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Mad Americans keep finding T Rexes and the like with intact skin and flesh over their bones. That kind of puts the lie to a 60- or 70-million-year gap since their death, and it's not all.

    Toss in a few things like Coelacanth and dinosaur ages start to get seriously murky. A friend of mine accidentally bought one of those in an Indonesian fish market, it was on the table with everything else and (apparently) often is, there.

    Then we have this new crash-bang which would be difficult to label a non-meteor, and behold: it's much larger than Chicxulub (so, more dominant) and falls about when the dinos were due for sudden retirement (on conventional scales).

    What are we to make of all of this? Was Chicxulub a dud? Or did it only get a few? Did this kerplonk get the rest? Or only a few more? What other crater-candidates are available? What else could have happened? And when?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing