Slashdot Mirror


Sun's Dark Companion 'Nemesis' Not So Likely

TravisTR passes along a story about the death of Nemesis. "The data that once suggested the Sun is orbited by a distant dark companion now raises even more questions... The periodicity [of mass extinctions] is a matter of some controversy among paleobiologists but there is a growing consensus that something of enormous destructive power happens every 26 or 27 million years. The question is what? ... another idea first put forward in the 1980s is that the Sun has a distant dark companion called Nemesis that sweeps through the Oort cloud every 27 million years or so, sending a deadly shower of comets our way. ... [Researchers] have brought together a massive set of extinction data from the last 500 million years, a period that is twice as long as anybody else has studied. And their analysis shows an excess of extinctions every 27 million years, with a confidence level of 99%. That's a clear, sharp signal over a huge length of time. At first glance, you'd think it clearly backs the idea that a distant dark object orbits the Sun every 27 million years. But ironically, the accuracy and regularity of these events is actually evidence against Nemesis' existence."

306 comments

  1. Only one logical explanation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Reapers are real.

    1. Re:Only one logical explanation: by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      That's just a lie; it was all the geth's doing.

    2. Re:Only one logical explanation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay. Commander Shepard will send them back to dark space.

    3. Re:Only one logical explanation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, "reapers": we have dismissed that claim.

    4. Re:Only one logical explanation: by VernonNemitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the alternate explanations, which is associated with long-term regularity, involves the orbit of the Sun in the Galaxy. Every so often it passes through a dense "arm", and then the Oort Cloud accompanying the Sun gets mixed up with the equivalent clouds surrounding other stars....

    5. Re:Only one logical explanation: by thescreg · · Score: 1

      You dont understand. I saw Vanguard!!! We played clever word games!!!

  2. How long since last time by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Funny

    How long has it been since the last apocalypse? Basically is the odometer rolling around its 27 millionth year? If so can we see something coming? Dust cloud?

    1. Re:How long since last time by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the Fine Article.

      We've got lots of time -- we're only 11 million years into this cycle.

    2. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I may be just a lowly anonymous coward, but if you even GLANCED over the fucking article, there at the bottom is this little gem:

      "The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago so, in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from."

    3. Re:How long since last time by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh...I sit corrected - I don't know how I missed it.

      Here's hoping the universe isn't in a 1% mood, then.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    4. Re:How long since last time by vakuona · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Fine". Seriously!? And here I thought it was...

    5. Re:How long since last time by cheesee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From FTA:

      There is a smidgeon of good news. The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago so, in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from.

      --
      Got Shadowrun? Awakened Worlds
    6. Re:How long since last time by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      How long has it been since the last apocalypse?

      From TFA: The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago.

    7. Re:How long since last time by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I predict a nuclear holocaust before then, honestly.

    8. Re:How long since last time by steelfood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn, and here I was, holding out that it would be December 21st, 2012.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As in, "read the fine manual". "Fine" being a euphemism.

    10. Re:How long since last time by anorlunda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Better still, read the comment to the article by Torbjorn at the same URL as the article. Torbjorn calls it "Bad research, worse article" and he makes a pretty strong case.

    11. Re:How long since last time by ibsteve2u · · Score: 4, Funny

      And, in a stunning display of randomness (or a 1% solution, depending upon your perspective), nemesis sent meteors crashing down into the keyboards of everybody who modded me down...

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    12. Re:How long since last time by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Better still, read the comment to the article by Torbjorn...

      I quit reading when I got to "stealth creationist". That's the sort of ad hominem crap that's typical of Slashdot comments.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    13. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did the dinosaurs...

    14. Re:How long since last time by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from.

      ... or make our own, with blackjack and nukes.

    15. Re:How long since last time by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      As has already been suggested - read TFA. Then, read the comments. The article seems to be largely about bogus science. There isn't any real periodicity to the extinctions.

      But, even if TFA were accurate, and provable - we'll miss the next regularly schduled extinction anyway, I'm sure. We'll probably kill ourselves off first.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:How long since last time by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

      I quit reading when I got to "stealth creationist". That's the sort of ad hominem crap that's typical of Slashdot comments.

      I quit reading after I got to the word "the". That's the sort of crap that's typical of Slashdot comments.

    17. Re:How long since last time by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      I'm predicting something other than nuclear - probably biological.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    18. Re:How long since last time by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope. It's always been fine. Read the fine article. Read the fine manual. Your wife and I were fine last night. Always just been fine.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    19. Re:How long since last time by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      From FTA: There is a smidgeon of good news. The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago so, in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from.

      Great. The suspense is going to kill us.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    20. Re:How long since last time by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      But not of Slashdot commenters: you looked at the article.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    21. Re:How long since last time by EdIII · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I dunno. I really thought it was Read The F***ing Article. Seemed natural to me. Does that make me an uncouth BOFH? Possibly. What sounds better when your telling somebody to read the manual or the article? "Read The Fine Article", or "Read the F****** Article!"?

      I learned something today, and something about myself too......

    22. Re:How long since last time by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wooosh

    23. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know... but imagine how insane the movie 27002012 will be!

    24. Re:How long since last time by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Excellent! You, sir, have done a wonderfully good job of presenting the fine concept involved in certain TLAs.

      Now there is only the problem of getting foo and bar out of apps written in C or C++. While that would probably lead to fewer fine apps, the world would be a better place.

      --
      Will
    25. Re:How long since last time by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      I think the key phrase there is "philosopher of biology" (quotes in original). I don't think the author of the comment thinks much of philosophers in general. And a little google will show you that Michael Ruse is quite controversial among evolutionists. Personal attacks have been part of the evolution-creationism debate since the beginning. But to dismiss an argument because the author made a mild (for these debates) personal attack in a parenthetical is not playing by the rules of logic, either.

    26. Re:How long since last time by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny

      I quit reading after I got to the word "the". That's the sort of crap that's typical of Slashdot comments.

      I quit reading after I got to Slashdot

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    27. Re:How long since last time by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

        I am very curious as to what exactly a "stealth creationist" is. It seems to be the sort of term defined by "oxy moron"; at least in my understanding of biological socio-cultural memes.
       

    28. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm predicting the end of all plant life, followed by the end of all life, courtesy of Monsanto.

    29. Re:How long since last time by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stress and nervous tension are now serious social problems in all parts of the Galaxy, and it is in order that this situation should not in any way be exacerbated that the following facts will now be revealed in advance.

      The Sun's dark companion is in fact the legendary Magrathea.

      The deadly shower of comets that will pass near Earth in a few million years will result merely in the breakage of three coffee cups and a micecage, the bruising of somebody's upper arm, and the untimely creation and sudden demise of a bowl of petunias and an innocent sperm whale.

      In order that some sense of mystery should still be preserved, no revelation will yet be made concerning whose upper arm sustained the bruise. This fact may safely be made the subject of suspense since it is of no significance whatsoever.

    30. Re:How long since last time by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      Ruse is apparently a philosopher who is an evolutionist but has shown sympathy to creationists. Or something. Got him a warning card from the Dawkins crown, anyway.

    31. Re:How long since last time by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      o yeh uwell i qwit reedeeng AND riting YEERS beefoor i got too slashdawt.

    32. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Nuclear warfare will be outdated within the next 100 years, let alone million.

    33. Re:How long since last time by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Wooosh^2

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    34. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't GameFAQs, you're allowed to say fuck

    35. Re:How long since last time by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I'm predicting some holocaust predictor will go nuts and kill us all.

      Atleast he'll be the first one being right!

      "... told you so!" *evil grin*

    36. Re:How long since last time by deniable · · Score: 1

      So you're saying everything's fine.

    37. Re:How long since last time by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Better use them now before they go out of style, then.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    38. Re:How long since last time by oldhack · · Score: 1

      That sounds pretty improbable...

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    39. Re:How long since last time by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Haha, missed m..*(#$&*@#_$*_(&*(_#@*$

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    40. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact forget the nukes and the blackjack hell just forget the whole thing.

    41. Re:How long since last time by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Don't make me woosh you.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    42. Re:How long since last time by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      If so can we see something coming? Dust cloud?

      We already know what it looks like:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5onyywptm0
      (Sorry, couldn't find a better link.)

    43. Re:How long since last time by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Would that make you happy?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    44. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not of Slashdot commenters: you looked at the article.

      Ah, but he didn't read it. The Way of the Slashdotter says "thou shalt not read the articles", it says nothing about loading the page and glancing at them. 'Cause we still have to produce the Slashdot Effect, see.

    45. Re:How long since last time by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Personal attacks have been part of the evolution-creationism debate since the beginning.

      True, but that doesn't make it right. And are you descended from a monkey on your mother's side of the family, or your father's side?

      But to dismiss an argument because the author made a mild (for these debates) personal attack in a parenthetical is not playing by the rules of logic, either.

      The person making the attack was a commentator on a blog which discussed the paper, not the authors of the paper (Melott and Bambach) itself, and the commentator was talking about a joint organiser of a conference at which the present authors presented/ published other related work.
      In the context of putting Dawkins and Behe (or "Soapy" Wilberforce and Darwin's Bulldog) into the pit together, this wouldn't even need a box of Elastoplast on site ("Band-Aid" in American English).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    46. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but please could somebody think of the children?

    47. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Cups*? In a few million years?

      Madness!

    48. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but not when you're saying 'fuck.'

    49. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly do you pronounce "f***ing"? I've always read it as "Read The Fucking Article".

      What sounds better? That is entirely situational, you use whatever seem the most appropriate for the situation.

    50. Re:How long since last time by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Forty years ago I would have agreed with you. I remember "duck and cover" drills in grade school in the late 50s and early 60s, but with the death of the Soviet Union and our friendliness with Russia and China, there's almost no chance of a nuclear apocalypse. The Soviets and we had thousands of nukes aimed at each other; in 1975 I was in the USAF stationed at a SAC base that had more B-52s than I could count, all loaded with nukes and ready for armageddon. Now, there is no longer a Strategic Air Command; it isn't needed.

      Sure, a terrorist may get hold of a nuke and bomb a city, or India and Pakistan could wipe each other out, or North Korea could lob one at us or Japan and we'd turn North Korea into a sheet of radioactive glass, but it wouldn't cause the havok that a war between the US and the Soviets would have. These days it looks like the biggest threat would be runaway global warming turning the planet into another Venus, or a stray space rock smashing into the Earth.

      There's little chance of any of those things happening in your lifetime.

    51. Re:How long since last time by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, the worrld as I know it will surely end then -- that's the date I'm eligible to retire!

    52. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, that F actually stands for Joerg Fjaerklioaoeenge(pronounced /fuh king/) which was a Swedish man working at the Unix section of AT&T. He was infamous for pestering the other developers about the interfaces for functions that were properly documented. They always told him to "shut up and Read The Manual, Fjaerklioaoeenge"[1]. Eventually, they shortened it to the acronym RTMF.

      Rampant lysdexia among developers and folk etymologies gave us the phrase in its current form.

      [1] Kernighan, Brian. How I became a millionaire. ISBN 0-13-937681-X

    53. Re:How long since last time by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope. It's always been fine. Read the fine article. Read the fine manual. Your wife and I were fine last night. Always just been fine.

      You must be new here. Geeks don't have girls in their lives... and to marry one???? ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    54. Re:How long since last time by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I quit reading after I got to Slashdot

      So, you just come for the pictures?

    55. Re:How long since last time by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, you can say fuck on slashdot. There is no filter being applied on the messages.

      --
      -- dnl
    56. Re:How long since last time by operagost · · Score: 1

      I remember "duck and cover" drills in grade school in the late 50s and early 60s, but with the death of the Soviet Union and our friendliness with Russia and China, there's almost no chance of a nuclear apocalypse.

      Iran is about two years away from a nuclear ICBM and their leader believes in hastening the return of the Twelfth Imam.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    57. Re:How long since last time by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      the children are going to be fine


      err, maybe sometimes we shouldn't think of the children...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    58. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They forgot the obvious, the Nqhutralic are making their rounds. They make a circuit of the milky way every 26/27 million years.

      They stop in a planet, suck as much living stuff as their computer models say the planet can take and not have all life parish, go to sleep and drift to the next planet....

      We'd better get our planetary defense working for the next visit....

    59. Re:How long since last time by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Iran is another country we could turn into a sheet of radioactive glass long before they could build enough nuclear weapons to seriously threaten US.

    60. Re:How long since last time by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They would be MAD to attack us with nukes; we have thouusands of them and could completely wipe them off the face of the earth without dipping very far into our arsonal, whereas they have nowhere near enough nukes to threaten us, let alone the whole planet. The Soviets had literally thousands of nukes as well, and an exchange between us and the Soviets could well have made mankind extinct, or at least put us back in the stone age.

      Nobody but us, Russia, and China has enough nukes to threaten mankind.

      If they launched an ICBM at us, Iran would be a sheet of radioactive glass before their second missle was launched and possibly before the first was fueled; we have them in submarines mere hundreds of kilometers away from Iran.

      Iran is no threat.

    61. Re:How long since last time by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And just what would happen with a small nuke on top of the Yellowstone calderon.

      Humans are still very capable of wiping themselves off the face of the earth.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    62. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? I quit reading before I got even got here...

    63. Re:How long since last time by DougF · · Score: 1

      SAC is back, only it's called "Global Strike Command" now.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    64. Re:How long since last time by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

        The apparent misspelling in your last sentence, second to last word, suggests all sorts of humorous word byplay. I will assume that you meant it neither literally nor humorously.

        In the literal case I fail to see where the person in question would have any real expertise to bear on the subject. From my understanding, philosophers, at this point in your societal evolution, generally lack any sort of deep knowledge of any subject other than what is considered the "gestalt" of "the human condition" - given that there is no evidence of any individual ever being completely similar in mental makeup - although there is plenty of similarity in "herds" as it is termed, there doesn't seem to be any rational construction to any of the arguments made by the people falling under that definition.

        That said, I do assume that the error you made was in saying "crown" and not "crowd".

        The other part of what you wrote, concerning "evolutionists" and "creationists" is puzzling, since it seems that both sides argue the extreme ends of their respective positions, how can one from one side "show sympathy" to the other, while being vilified by at least one side?

        Apparently the gaming here is deeper than my analysis has shown.

    65. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reading is OK. it's the thinking that's the problem

    66. Re:How long since last time by dwye · · Score: 1

      While they would be mad (in the English sense, not the usual American sense) to launch against the USA, that has nothing to do with Mutual Assured Destruction, but is rather initiating the earlier doctrine of Massive Retaliation against themselves. OTOH, they are more likely to ship it somewhere with crappy security, relabel it as something innocuous like Mengele tractors, and reship it to the US via container ship. Alternately, just wrap it in cocaine and let the Columbians smuggle it in.

    67. Re:How long since last time by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, you're correct -- the destruction would be one way only.

    68. Re:How long since last time by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And just what would happen with a small nuke on top of the Yellowstone calderon.

      I don't know, you'd have to get a nuclear physicist and a geologist together and ask them, but even if a nuke at Yellowstone would trigger the giant volcano, I don't think it would make humans extinct, just kill a lot of Americans (and other people, since it would likely cause a "nuclear winter"). But mankind has survived catastrophes as great as that before.

      And yes, if the US unleashed all its nukes that could possibly extinct humans, but that's an incredibly unlikly scenario.

    69. Re:How long since last time by AigariusDebian · · Score: 1

      A "stealth creationist" is a creationist, but does not confess in being such. Instead he tries to provide a basis for the creationists by selectively ignoring parts of the science that disagrees with creationism and embellishing parts of the science which could look to be proving creationism, if you don't actually understand the more complex mechanics that are working underneath.

    70. Re:How long since last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm reading the graph wrong, but I see a huge peak 50 million years ago, then another at 100 million years, then another at 150 million years, then a huge one at 200 million years, then 3 huge peaks around 250 million years. This seems to be a 50 million year cycle, not a 27 million year cycle. And it seems the last large peak occurred 50 million years ago. I'm not sure where they are getting 27 million years, but I see a 50 million year cycle, and we're right on top of the next event. Perhaps the Mayans were right?

  3. How long until it's due again? by artifactual · · Score: 1

    Should I start digging my bunker now, or can I wait until I have a bigger backyard?

    1. Re:How long until it's due again? by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      There is a smidgeon of good news. The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago so, in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from. You can dig a big motherfucking bunker. Might I interest you in one of these classy Vault-Tec Vaults.

    2. Re:How long until it's due again? by artifactual · · Score: 1

      That sounds good. I'll take the 11 million dollar model if I can pay it off in installments.

    3. Re:How long until it's due again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question isn't how long until it's due again. The question is how long until the next apocalypse movie. They're just winding you up for profit. No real scientists go around publishing papers on this stuff.

    4. Re:How long until it's due again? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      arent bunkers more about how deep you go, rather then how much surface area they have?

      a two story bunker with x square meters is preferable to the same surface area in a single floor bunker even, as it reduces the surface area exposed to forces from above, which is where your threats are, bunker-wise.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    5. Re:How long until it's due again? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Seen Tremors?

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    6. Re:How long until it's due again? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      If you walk without rhythm, it won't attract the worm.

    7. Re:How long until it's due again? by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      The interest on that is going to kill you...

  4. Cue the 2012 theories by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    All I can think reading this is great another stupid theory that the 2012 nut jobs can latch onto.

    1. Re:Cue the 2012 theories by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      That's not really the expertise of 2012 nut jobs - you'll need some 11002012 nut jobs.

  5. period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Kvasio · · Score: 5, Interesting

    isn't this the most simple explaination? Most stars in Mily Way arms are known to bounce up and down the ecliptic.

    1. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This. The closer we get to the central plane, the more likely we are to hit awful periods of random rocks in space, and possibly exploding stars, that would be the worst, huge increase in cancer rates in most animals across the board.
      Random stardust in general will be more prevalent up there too, leading to increased cosmic rays.

      I, for one, will be building an underground city, you are welcome to join me Slashdot.
      LifeVault 100, Ayrshire, Scotland, over and out.

    2. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, will be building an underground city, you are welcome to join me Slashdot.

      Hey, cool, thanks! I can bring guns, ammo, survival rations, a four-wheel-drive vehicle, electrical power generators and radio equipment and a Caterpillar D-9. But you're not allergic to cats, are you? Because I can't go anywhere without Fluffy...

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 1

      How exactly would that work?

      The orbital period of Sol around the Galaxy seems to be almost ten times this extinction period.

    4. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because I can't go anywhere without Fluffy...

      Okay, do I know you?...

      *sips coffee*

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by sunspot42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sun doesn't just orbit the center of the galaxy, though. It also moves up and down relative to the galactic plane. Some have suggested that whenever the solar system reverses direction in that oscillation, very bad things happen, possibly due to the Oort Cloud experiencing some lag in reversing direction relative to the rest of the system. The sun essentially winds up off-center in the Oort Cloud, and in comparison to normal periods a lot of comets get kicked into the inner solar system as a result of this imbalance.

    6. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      isn't this the most simple explaination? [sic]

      No, the most simplest explanation is that it's all an imagined phenomenon. A statistical anomaly due to selection bias, miscalculation, or vastly incomplete data-set... A ghost. Occam's Razor says so.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right you don't leave the cat behind. Those critters have a parasite that make women and men horny breeders and we will need to repopulate the earth.

      Don't forget the edible lube in your survival supplies.

    8. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by deniable · · Score: 1

      He's the guy that took you for the special trip to the vet.

    9. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Mily Way? Any relation to Felicia Day? I'd like to see HER bouncing up and down.

    10. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miley way?

    11. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I can't go anywhere without Fluffy...

      You can't because you're in the clutches of its powerful mind. The cat race is the shadow overlord of the humans' and you are actually just acting as programmed. It's not about your survival, it's about Fluffy's. Tell me, are there by any chance lots of tuna cans among those supplies?... Thought so.

    12. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and a Caterpillar D-9.

      Sorry, but we don't accept anything less than a D-11T. Better luck next time.

    13. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by captainpanic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some movement like that (through the galactic plane) could be a reason for some instability in the Oort cloud. The galaxy is chaotic. So many objects, all influencing each other. Lots of motion around several centers of gravity and oscillations through the galactic plane too. Sure, I can see that some (galactically speaking) relatively small objects such as a 10 km rock can change orbit a little.

      We would have to prove that the instability sort of peaks every 27 million years. I hate statistics, so I am not going to try that :-)

    14. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      I thought she has collapsed into black hole ...

    15. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it fucking doesn't. Just because there's something you don't like doesn't mean you can pretend like it's not really there. "And their analysis shows an excess of extinctions every 27 million years, with a confidence level of 99%.". We're talking about hard statistical analysis, there's absolutely nothing that goes in the way of your bullshit "anomaly/bias/incomplete data" explanation.

      If your interpretation of Occam's Razor is "if I can't see why things are the way they are then they mustn't be like this" you need to do some reading.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    16. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by justthisdude · · Score: 1

      isn't this the most simple explaination? [sic]

      No, the most simplest explanation is that it's all an imagined phenomenon.

      Don't be such a skeptic. If you don't believe that 19 correct guesses proves a pattern, just come ask my favorite octopus. Now that he is retired from world-cup football he's free to predict the next mass-extinction for you.

      --
      "I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
    17. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The sun doesn't just orbit the center of the galaxy, though. It also moves up and down relative to the galactic plane. Some have suggested that whenever the solar system reverses direction in that oscillation, very bad things happen, ...

      That's close to a conventional explanation, but off by 1/4 cycle. The extreme high/low points of the solar system's bobbing orbit are outside the galactic plane, and would be the low-danger points. The rough parts of the (approx. 60 million year) cycle are the two crossings through the central part of the galactic plane, which are the densest portions. During the crossings, the solar system is zipping through the galactic plane at a few hundred km/s, producing lots of collisions with whatever rubble happens to be there.

      Part of the explanation from the astronomers who've done the studies is that, although we're about in the middle of the galactic plane right now, we're actually in a "Local Bubble" about 300 light years across, so there's not much galactic rubble in the solar system right now. There are low-density bubbles like this scattered around, the results of things like supernova explosions in the distant past.

      Stick around for another million years or so, and we'll exit the local bubble. There might be some nice fireworks then, and perhaps another mass extinction.

      Of course, we are going through a mass extinction event right now, but it's an unusual one with a known causative agent that's not astronomical. It seems that a new top-level predator has recently evolved, which has been devastating the ecosystem all over the planet. This will probably confuse the paleontologists in the future, since they'll see a mass extinction during a crossing of the galactic plane, but won't see any evidence at all of the impact that presumably caused it. They'll also see the evidence of a species with high intelligence, but of course that couldn't be the cause, because you wouldn't expect a highly-intelligent species to destroy its own ecosystem, right? So the extinction event will remain a mystery.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    18. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      perhaps the neighboring object (star or whatever) that slings Oort cloud objects at us also bobbs, with different period?
      And then Sun's pace has little to do with it ....

    19. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      That's probably correct, in the sense that almost everything in the galaxy does some "bobbing". It would be unusual for any massive object to orbit exactly in the galactic plane, and even then, a distant encounter with another massive object (such as a star only a light year away) would add a vertical component to the orbit. Galactic mechanics are rather chaotic over periods of millions of years.

      OTOH, even at its densest, the galactic plane is still pretty low density. The mean density is below one atom per cubic cm (and the Local Bubble is roughly 10 times thinner than that).

      But each time we pass through the galactic plane at roughly 30-million-year intervals, there's a small chance that we'll meet a much denser cloud, and perhaps even a lot of rocks.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    20. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, the most simplest explanation is that it's all an imagined phenomenon. A statistical anomaly due to selection bias, miscalculation, or vastly incomplete data-set... A ghost. Occam's Razor says so

      I disagree. If you have a pair of dice that hits sevens every other throw, is it a statistical anomaly or are the dice milled? Occam's razor says the dice were milled, and it points to the liklihood that this, too, isn't a statistical anomaly, since the sun's periodic movement explains it elegantly and without statistical hand waving.

    21. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it fucking doesn't. Just because there's something you don't like doesn't mean you can pretend like it's not really there. "And their analysis shows an excess of extinctions every 27 million years, with a confidence level of 99%.". We're talking about hard statistical analysis, there's absolutely nothing that goes in the way of your bullshit "anomaly/bias/incomplete data" explanation.

      Yeah! And all those studies back in the 50's that showed that the rich, sweetly pungent smoke of tobacco statistically makes you more attractive, a better American, and helps your disposition were all spot on the money too!

    22. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      This will probably confuse the paleontologists in the future, since they'll see a mass extinction during a crossing of the galactic plane, but won't see any evidence at all of the impact that presumably caused it. They'll also see the evidence of a species with high intelligence, but of course that couldn't be the cause, because you wouldn't expect a highly-intelligent species to destroy its own ecosystem, right? So the extinction event will remain a mystery.

      Nah, you're thinking too positively. They'll see the mass (and subsequent self-) extinction caused by technological civilization, they'll rally the support of their society to fight it (sort of like current global warming thing), yet they'll end up destroying themselves anyway, despite their best efforts.

      Exponential population growth is a bitch, when the things that can keep it in check (disease, predators, starvation...) can be temporarily staved off by technology.

    23. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't think extinction is coming for humans. Massive population decrease maybe, but not extinction. Extinction requires all humans to die at once, so they can't reproduce. The only thing that could cause that is complete habitat destruction; if that happened, it'd also kill most other species on the planet too.

      All the other things that might happen wouldn't result in extinction.

      Superflu? That could wipe out lots of people if a vaccine isn't found, but virtually no disease kills all lifeforms it affects. Usually there's a small percentage with a natural immunity. Or a few in a remote location aren't exposed to it.

      Major climate change (like ice age or heat wave)? Unless it's severe enough to kill everything on the planet, some people would survive. Maybe not many, but some.

      Starvation? Not a problem. It's not hard to grow food, so some people would survive, just not the ones who can't grow their own food.

      As long as some humans survive, they'd be able to repopulate, and hopefully not make the same mistake of overpopulating.

    24. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      The big thing is atmosphere. If it changes too fast (poisonous level of CO2 or too low level of O2), human species is done for, especially considering that whatever triggers the atmospheric change would likely first decimate human population and obliterate technological civilization.

    25. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You've got a point there.

      Oh well, I guess any alien archeologists who stumble across our planet will see an important lesson here: intelligence in a species is dangerous. For the species to survive, it has to be very intelligent, enough so that it can understand the consequences of its actions. Unfortunately, humans aren't that intelligent. They're smart enough to make some clever inventions, and create technology, but not smart enough to take care of their environment.

    26. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      No it fucking doesn't. Just because there's something you don't like doesn't mean you can pretend like it's not really there.

      You know, it's idiots like you that give science a bad name. Ooh, a scientific paper! It must be true! Never mind how shaky the evidence is, or the lack of confirmation. No.

      "I must go out and buy a sports car, because a scientific survey showed that people who own sports cars, stay healthier and live longer."

      "And their analysis shows an excess of extinctions every 27 million years, with a confidence level of 99%.". We're talking about hard statistical analysis, there's absolutely nothing that goes in the way of your bullshit "anomaly/bias/incomplete data" explanation.

      Right, nothing at all... Because of course "growing consensus" (from TFA) means "irrefutable fact".

      And never mind all scientific the evidence that "The apparent periodicity is probably due to a statistical fluke or subjective bias."

      http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(89)90017-1

      Or that: "Only 25% of these fish and echinoderm extinctions are real (disappearance of a monophyletic group). The remaining 75% is noise, chiefly 'extinctions' of non-monophyletic groups, mistaken dating, and 'families' containing one species only. The signal-to-noise ratio is very similar in echinoderms (27:73) and fishes (23:77). Periodicity in our sample is a feature of the noise component, not of the signal."

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v330/n6145/abs/330248a0.html

      If your interpretation of Occam's Razor is "if I can't see why things are the way they are then they mustn't be like this" you need to do some reading.

      As opposed to your belief that, if you like what the paper says, it must be true, despite all evidence to the contrary.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      That's close to a conventional explanation, but off by 1/4 cycle. The extreme high/low points of the solar system's bobbing orbit are outside the galactic plane, and would be the low-danger points. The rough parts of the (approx. 60 million year) cycle are the two crossings through the central part of the galactic plane, which are the densest portions. During the crossings, the solar system is zipping through the galactic plane at a few hundred km/s, producing lots of collisions with whatever rubble happens to be there.

      I've actually seen both mechanisms suggested - that crossing the plane is somewhat more disruptive than average, or that it's the change in motion at the end of each cycle which causes the Oort Cloud to be disrupted. There is I believe still some debate on the exact timing of when we hit the peak on the Z axis and when we cross the galactic plane (maybe not though - been awhile since I did any reading on the subject).

      Of course, the density of matter in the region around us during the period of peak disruption, how close neighboring stars are, etc. etc., probably also plays a big role. If we're in the middle of a relatively empty patch there's less chance of hitting something, or of a nearby system or systems causing additional disruption to the Oort cloud on top of galactic tides and such. If we're in a more densely populated region, seems to me that would only increase the disruption to the Oort Cloud.

    28. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by dwye · · Score: 1

      > and a Caterpillar D-9.

      Just make sure that the meteors don't make the D-9 go sentient (like in the TV movie Killdozer based on a Sturgeon novella), because in a confined space that would really suck.

    29. Re:period of passing through the galaxy ecliptics? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen both mechanisms suggested - that crossing the plane is somewhat more disruptive than average, or that it's the change in motion at the end of each cycle which causes the Oort Cloud to be disrupted.

      It'd be interesting to read about a mechanism that would cause the solar system to feel a change in motion at the peak of the oscillation through the galactic plane. That's pretty much a sinusoidal motion, and there's no change of motion at an orbital peak. The orbit looks like a long, straight, horizontal line to the orbiting thing. Similarly, the Earth's orbit around the sun is slightly eliptical, and the Earth feels no change of motion at the point where it's most distant from the sun (which happens to be in late December, a few days away from the solstice, in this epoch).

      There couldn't be anything with mass sitting and waiting for us at the peaks of the solar system's oscillations, which are roughly 200 ly above/below the plane. (Some estimates say 230 ly, but that probably still has a large error bar.) An object in a fixed position there wouldn't be a stable orbit, because it would feel a slight pull from the galaxy's mass, which would all be slightly off to one side of the position. The only way there could be something consistently 200 ly above/below the galactic plane when the solar system reaches a peak position would be if something in the galaxy were specifically aware of our solar system and were firing off projectiles to reach our extreme orbital points at the same time we did. This seems unlikely. Granted, there could be stuff there, but in general, it would be thinner than where we are right now, and would be a couple of orders of magnitude thinner than the mean density of the galactic plane.

      Of course, wandering rocks are found everywhere in (and around) the galaxy. But the farther you get from the galactic plane, the less likely you are to encounter them. Unless you're in the trails left by the Magellanic Clouds, but our orbit takes us nowhere near that stream of litter.

      The real danger would be passing through the galactic plane in the middle of a spiral arm. But the solar system's orbit seems to be such that this hasn't happened for at least a couple of billion years.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  6. What they haven't told us is... by gcerullo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    the next anniversary date is...2012.

  7. "Bad research, worse article": RTFC by mangu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is a case when we should be reading the comments to the article.

    1. Re:"Bad research, worse article": RTFC by ewn1453 · · Score: 1

      And 99% confidence is not that high. Not high enough to believe something so ridiculous. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    2. Re:"Bad research, worse article": RTFC by beckett · · Score: 1

      99% confidence means 99% of the data falls within 2 standard deviations of the mean. 99% is a perfectly cromulent confidence interval.

    3. Re:"Bad research, worse article": RTFC by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      This is a case when we should be reading the comments to the article.

      So... Not only did you read the fine summary, AND the fine article, but you actually read the fine comments UNDER THE FINE ARTICLE AS WELL!? The only higher heresy is reading the original fine publication, deviant! Purge, cleanse and purify in the name of the Taco!!

    4. Re:"Bad research, worse article": RTFC by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, he makes an excellent point. The claims of the paper are neatly put aside by their failure to demonstrate their claims with simple signal analysis. Autocorrelation? Fail. Spectral analysis instead of a useless time-domain graph? Not present. They only get this "amazing 27 million year signal" when they correlate the new data with the old, it's basically data manipulation and a fishing expedition.

  8. Two times 27 by icebike · · Score: 1

    Are we not somewhere around two standard deviations out from the mean time between events since the last major extinction at the end of the Cretaceous? /me - thrashes for my copy of the Mayan calendar...

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  9. Second comment debunks by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The second comment under the article seems to be a pretty serious debunking. I'm not going to take sides or tell you who's right and wrong because I don't know, but I will note that arXiv (the source for the claims) is for pre-prints and is not peer-reviewed.

    1. Re:Second comment debunks by Randle_Revar · · Score: 5, Informative

      that's the third comment.

      Here is a bit from the second comment:

      The fact is that with modern and better paleontological data any peridocity is rejected, as easily checked with autocorrelation [Alroy, 2008]:

      "Quantitatively, extinction rates in the Fossil Record 2 family data (3) and Sepkoski’s family and genus data (1, 2) are not correlated with themselves at any time lag (49), which is a necessary condition for periodicity to hold. That said, analyses of origination rates in all three datasets (49, 50) suggest short-term autocorrelation. However, the current dataset shows no autocorrelation in either kind of rate (Fig. S1), and a standard spectral analysis (Fig. S2) also suggests purely random variation through the time series (i.e., white noise)."

    2. Re:Second comment debunks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know with the seas ever deepening that alone puts pressure on the core.. maybe with the ice caps melting this will add extra pressure..

      This is a complete fucking joke, and it's pathetic that you people are taking it seriously. Let's put things into perspective. The Earth's crust is about 5km thick under the oceans. It's about 3000km down to the outer core, with another 3000km down to the inner core. To say that this ridiculously thin crust is putting any significant pressure on that core is laughable, and shows that the comment writer really has no idea about basic geology at all.

    3. Re:Second comment debunks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, the water in the "ever deepening" ocean was already on the crust. Different location, spread out over a larger area, etc etc etc, but still on the crust, so any pressure it's exerting has been there all along.

    4. Re:Second comment debunks by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The preprint has been peer reviewed and has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, one of the most prestigious astrophysics journals on this planet.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    5. Re:Second comment debunks by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 2, Interesting

        I read the comment. It seems to be mostly composed of reused commentary from the articles in question, unsubstantiated (and grammatically nonsensical) personal attacks on the authors involved in those articles;

        [Not to poison the well, but Bambach published lately in Ruse and Sepkoski eds "Paleontology at the High Table." One must take a dim view with the abilities of anyone that choose to cooperate with "philosopher of biology" and known stealth creationist Ruse.]

        and very little information supporting the comment author's position other than what appears to be mostly speculative musing;

      First off, there is likely no "growing consensus that something of enormous destructive power happens every 26 or 27 million years". It is an old idea, probably originated with the terrible paper by Raup and Sepkoski 1986, which I have criticized on the web several times; it defines peak in an ad hoc and inappropriate manner (as noise), claim to but doesn't really use a null hypothesis et cetera. That it would have growing support outside the community who looks for pattern identification in data I seriously doubt.

        I did not find it a rational nor compelling rebuttal.

    6. Re:Second comment debunks by GeoGreg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Peer-review does not guarantee accuracy. In areas of evolving science, many papers are published in good journals whose conclusions are later determined to be in error. Some journals (I don't know if MNAS is one) are particularly willing to publish papers with novel or contentious conclusions in order to further debate on the matter.

    7. Re:Second comment debunks by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      If you google around, you'll find stuff from Torbjorn Larrson (he's a Swedish ecologist, apparently) criticizing the data analysis in the original papers. He doesn't think they meet good statistical criteria.

    8. Re:Second comment debunks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different location, spread out over a larger area, etc etc etc, but still on the crust, so any pressure it's exerting has been there all along.

      The force it is exerting is the same (more or less given gravitational effects of altitude). If the surface area the ocean covered was halved, the pressure it exerts (as a measure of force per unit area) has doubled.

    9. Re:Second comment debunks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you consider that, due to water flowing downhill and all, this would require a movement of rock 'uphill' to create the extra room for water, the pressure on the magma under the oceans would actually *de*crease while the pressure on the magma under dry land would increase markedly.

    10. Re:Second comment debunks by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Actually most of it wasn't even in a different location, the "ever deepening ocean" is mainly due to thermal expansion.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Second comment debunks by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Indeed! Peer-review is about judging the method of inquiry, not validating conclusions. There will always be alternative conclusions but it's the authour's perogative to choose the one they think best fits the evidence. The proper way to attack a particular conclusion is by presenting new evidence or better methods/logic in an opposing paper.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Second comment debunks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we keeping the volume constant or the depth, retard?

    13. Re:Second comment debunks by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Even more amusing, the commenter seems to assume that ice weighs nothing, or magically floats above the surface of the earth, and only becomes subject to gravity (thus developing weight) after it melts.

      One wonders what he thinks clouds weigh. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Second comment debunks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The preprint has been peer reviewed and has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, one of the most prestigious astrophysics journals on this planet.

      And the paper itself says the paleontology in it is not any good.

    15. Re:Second comment debunks by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

        If he does indeed believe that, then perhaps he should not assume that others find as readily apparent as he seems to, and put forth his reasoning as to why he doesn't.

        Beginning a sentence with an inflammatory metaphor, ie "Not to poison the well" does not lend to his counter arguments, as scarce as they are.

  10. Wait it's ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having RTFA I can answer my own question. We have 16 million years to get ready. Start saving for the deluxe model.

  11. 11 million years by kf6auf · · Score: 1

    11 million years, so we have about 16 million years to figure out what happens and then do something about it.

    1. Re:11 million years by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Crap, we're screwed. We are not good at planning ahead. If only we'd had more time.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My plan is to leave, one way or another, before it comes around again.

    3. Re:11 million years by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      That might be enough if we have to run the simulations in Windows.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    4. Re:11 million years by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>If only we'd had more time.

      Ach, why bother? In about 100 billion years all the stars will run out of fuel, and there will be nothing left but glowing embers (red dwarfs). The 'verse will be so dark you won't even be able to see, and any humans still left alive will be clinging to the embers like flies on poo, just waiting for the inevitable extinction. So why even bother to try? We're all doomed.

      "It's depressing just thinking about it." - Marvin the Robot

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:11 million years by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      We could create a commision to study the problem, that surely will create subcommission for each alternative and so on till we die in 16 millon(?) years in the black hole created by that massive weight of burocracy.

      Anyway, so far we where the first ones smart enough to build weapons capable to extinguish ourselves, while still being stupidity enough to think in using them. If we survive to ourselves the next 160 or 1600 years, we could start to think in what will come so much further.

    6. Re:11 million years by jamesh · · Score: 1

      11 million years, so we have about 16 million years to figure out what happens and then do something about it.

      Yep. Just like we're tackling global warming now.

    7. Re:11 million years by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe BP is working on a solution?

    8. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, average life-expectancy of a species is 5-million years. Homo Sapience has already doubled that putting us at the extreme end of the scale that gives this average.
      In short, the chances of us being around long enough to need to do something is statistically negligible. Life will be around. Probably even intelligent life. Perhaps this time even life intelligent enough to do something, probably not.

      If we were wiped out tomorrow, it's quite likely that zero evidence of our existence would even be around to be found 10 million years from now. There were entire species that we know existed because we have fossils, that were around longer than us - and where we know this because we have two bones. Not two skeletons - two bones.

      The assumption that we're the first technologically intelligent species on this planet is just as unscientific as to assume we aren't. The absence of evidence in this case can be just as easily explained by deep time as that there wasn't anything to leave it. But we do have absolute proof that technological societies CAN evolve on earth - because we're here. Thus Occam's razor suggests it's more likely that it has happened before - probably several times than that it hasn't. ...sheez, and I just wanted to expand on your joke by mentioning how low the odds are of our species (or even of the entire class mamalia) still being around in 16 million years...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Anyway, so far we where the first ones smart enough to build weapons capable to extinguish ourselves

      And your scientific basis for this assertion is?

      We have no proof that we're the first, and frankly if we were extinguished tomorrow the statistical odds are that in 5 million years time there will be no single trace of evidence left that we were ever here. To assume that no species in the billion years or so prior to our arrival reached this level is... well it's absurd.
      Class mamalia has been around for about 20 milion years. Class dinosauria was around for just shy of 70 million years. On what basis are you assuming that none of the millions of species that made them up over that period ever had a technologically advanced society ? We know Tyranosaurus existed because we have 10 fossils. Prior to 1993 we had 3 of them. Three bones. For a species that was around longer than ours have been. We had the right bones to know what they ate and roughly how big they were and even their approximate shape. We have no idea how smart they were, if they were social creatures ... and no means of finding out either.

      It's just human arrogance to think we're the first creatures to dig up the ancient bones of our ancestors (or at least the cousins of our ancestors) and talk about how they evolved into us who are smart. Science does not agree.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:11 million years by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Fortunately we've left evidence external to the Earth hopefully proving forever after that there was once intelligent life on this planet. Although I'd say the likelihood of these artifacts surviving long enough is fairly negligible.

    11. Re:11 million years by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have no proof that we're the first, and frankly if we were extinguished tomorrow the statistical odds are that in 5 million years time there will be no single trace of evidence left that we were ever here. To assume that no species in the billion years or so prior to our arrival reached this level is... well it's absurd.

      For a geologist it would be pretty trivial to figure out. Merely analyze the distribution and size of mineral deposits of various ages. Why thats odd, all of the coal that was near the surface 5 million years ago is missing, although the stuff thats buried "too deep" 5 million years ago is still here. Same game for oil/gas, oddly enough all the large deposits that were onshore or close to shore 5M years ago are gone, how odd. Another fun one would be our trash heaps. WTF is all this indium ore near all this relatively pure glass ore? How come we find silicon deposits from 5 million years ago that are occasionally ridiculously pure except for commercially useful P-type and N-type semiconductor impurities? Finally, assuming the highly evolved cockroaches that have taken over have advanced beyond us, they'd also notice that certain technologies that they use have not been exploited, 5M years ago they were obviously pretty good at burning this "oil" stuff but they clearly never figured out how to refine boron into anti-matter reactor shielding, or mined graphite to make monocrystaline carbon fiber space elevators, much like a hundred years ago hyperpurified silicon and large lumps of pure uranium metal were not industrially produced.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:11 million years by bsane · · Score: 1

      I'd say things like voyager will be around a _long_ time...

      Unless it comes back to kill us all, good luck finding it though.

    13. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If doing something about it involves not being around in this solar system by then then 16 million years might not be enough.

    14. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you assume a previous intelligent society would have used the same fuels as us (really ? Fossil fuels used by the "people" whose time fossil fuels were LAID DOWN IN... think about that for a second).

      More than that, the very surface of the earth has been reshaped a few times. There was mass vulcanism in Siberia that covered whatever was there originally under about 2 miles of magma round about the same time as the KT event - in fact some scientists believe that the KT event could have CAUSED this... so if our hypothetical intelligent dinosaurs had been living there ... no trace we could find may have survived.

      More-over all the stuff you mention are what, 100 years old ? So if we'd died out just a century sooner than right now - no evidence would have survived. We were a pretty advanced technological society even then though.

      If what you say is so obvious - and so easy for a geologist to prove - then how come none has ? And no - they haven't. The vast majority of paleontologists and geologists believe it entirely likely that previous societies as technologically advanced as ours could have existed.
      Carl Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is true - though of course the corollary is too - it's not proof either.

      Here's a little suggestion for you. Whenever you hear "there's no evidence for" as an argument against something being possible - ask three questions:
      1) Has anybody looked ?
      2) If they did - would they have expected to find anything ?
      3) Is the odds of evidence simply being missing bigger or smaller than the odds of it never having existed ?

      Here we have:
      1) No
      2) Maybe - depends who looked.
      3) Definitely. So even if somebody looks expecting to find, they may find nothing despite it having once existed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True but voyager is only 30 years old. More-over - it takes a society who has reached space-travel MORE advanced than ours to find it. If the moon can avoid a meteorite in the are where we left stuff - that has much better odds -but again, would only be discovered by a society the develops far enough to GET to the moon.

      Right now - we could have missed it by just 40 years. 40 years out of 3 billion (the age of the earth) is a pretty damn small window and we don't have ANY evidence to believe we will still be here next year - though right now the most likely cause if we're not would be ourselves. Considering we had the most viable means of destroying ourselves BEFORE we went to the moon nearly 50% longer actually)... well you see what I'm getting at?

      The corollary is, a society more advanced than ours from the past may have left us a nice little "we were here note" somewhere else - perhaps we'll find it on the surface of Mars or one of Jupiter's moons waiting for our great great grandchildren. Mars would have looked like an ideal candidate even a few decades ago when we thought it had little weather and no major geological activivity - now some scientists believe it has periods of mass vulcanism on a fairly regular basis that basically resurfaces the planet (like what happens on Venus but not so regularly) - so that would make it a less suitable choice.
      Even then, unless we go look, we won't know -and even if we look and find nothing it doesn't mean there was nobody to leave a note - it could just mean they weren't bothered to.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:11 million years by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      They'd have to use some fuel that burns. That means, exactly the same that we use. The same holds true for ore.

      Don't you think it is funny that the entire surface has been reshaped several times, yet we are able to locate bones of creatures that survived hundreds of milions of years ago, and calculate their age? That is because your statement doesn't imply what you think it does. The surface changed, but under it, lots of places are still the same. Space derbris (like somebody already pointed) also won't go away in a few milion years, the ones in highter orbits will stay there until some rock puts them away, there will probably be some there when the Sun turns into a giant star. Of course, none of them will work anymore.

      But you are right on a point. If we were extinct two hundred years ago, nearly no evidence would remain. Future geologist would be very luck to gather a piece of glass, nothing else would remain. We'd probably disapear by then.

    17. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More time would just make us ignore the problem longer. We'd be more likely to work out a solution to preserve at least a sample of the human race if we knew the next event was 25 years than if we knew it was 250 years away. Every order of magnitude after that just makes us care even less.

    18. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we cannot figure out how to leave this solar system in the next 16 million years, we deserve to become extinct.

    19. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >They'd have to use some fuel that burns. That means, exactly the same that we use. The same holds true for ore.

      Would they ? Prove it? Those technologies are not ALL technologies. Were we NOT a technological civilization when we started farming ? Would that not be significant if it existed ? What if we'd based our technologies on other sources all along. What if we had reached a level of society equivalent to ours with other technologies ? We're moving AWAY from those technologies even now !
      More-over - even those won't leave evidence. There are MANY ways ore moves from deep to shallow. Volcanos do it, earthquakes do it. All the gold we've ever mind weighs less than the basalt that one volcano moves from the mantle to the surface. Volcanic basalt btw. is by far the richest sources of diamonds in the world... how did that carbon get INTO the mantle in the first place ? Stop assuming science already knows everything - it's a disgrace to what science is all about.

      >Don't you think it is funny that the entire surface has been reshaped several times, yet we are able to locate bones of creatures that survived hundreds of milions of years ago, and calculate their age? That is because your statement doesn't imply what you think it does. The surface changed, but under it, lots of places are still the same. Space derbris (like somebody already pointed) also won't go away in a few milion years, the ones in highter orbits will stay there until some rock puts them away, there will probably be some there when the Sun turns into a giant star. Of course, none of them will work anymore.

      I answered the space debris issue. We're talking over a 10 million or more year timeperiod here, something that we didn't even INVENT until 50 years ago is frankly.. irrelevant. Humans have been around for about 5 million years, and had real technological civilizations for around 8000 of those. You are saying "but the last 50 years includes things that would be easy to find" - what if we'd have died out in the 19th century - would it mean that we wouldn't prove a technological past civilization to archeologists in another 10 million years ? Of course not.
      And you miss the very major point - we get some bones yes. We have all of 10 Tyranosaurus fossils in the world. Not skeletons - bones. Single bones. Out of an entire SPECIES that was around for longer than we were - 10 BONES survived. If the T-rex'es had had a civilization we'd have NO way of knowing from 10 bones bearing 70 million years of of time on them - their not even bones anymore, they are rocks shaped liked bones.
      You really don't GRASP what deep time means do you ... let me put this way. If the entire history of the planet was compressed into a single day... we've been around for the past 20 seconds.

      >But you are right on a point. If we were extinct two hundred years ago, nearly no evidence would remain. Future geologist would be very luck to gather a piece of glass, nothing else would remain. We'd probably disapear by then.

      And glass doesn't prove much, even if it survives chemically intact, it can form naturally (it's rare but not unheard off -all you need is the right bit of "salt" on lying on some sand on a very hot day).

      Your last paragraph and my first here does agree - and I consider that pretty significant. But I would venture that even the things we did create in the past 200 years won't be around for ever. Space debris is not eternal it lasts a long time but not forever (the odds of a satellite being hit by an asteroid is small but non-zero, on a long enough timeframe, they all come crashing down - and there are enough asteroids sucked into earths gravity well to keep that timeframe way below the life expectancy of the sun).

      But lets assume there was a species that died out AT roughly our level about 20 million years ago - we would not have been ABLE to discover their space debris until the last 50 years (we may have seen it in telescopes but we likely would not have identified it for what it was till w

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    20. Re:11 million years by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Class dinosauria was around for just shy of 70 million years.

      More like 170 million (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous)

    21. Re:11 million years by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Tyranosaurus existed because we have 10 fossils. Prior to 1993 we had 3 of them. Three bones. For a species that was around longer than ours have been. We had the right bones to know what they ate and roughly how big they were and even their approximate shape. We have no idea how smart they were, if they were social creatures ... and no means of finding out either.

      I'm sure if they had made large objects out of steel (skyscrapers?) we would have seen some evidence of that.

    22. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >I'm sure if they had made large objects out of steel (skyscrapers?) we would have seen some evidence of that.

      Well that's very brave of you because paleontologists aren't sure at all. Steel MELTS. At relatively low temperatures compared to what the earth has gone through at times. Steel RUSTS and forms iron oxide which flakes away and spread over vast areas because it's easily wind-carried.

      The KT event alone would have had enough impact to turn every skyscraper we have no into nothing swirling bit's of the dustcloud that covers the earth for a few million years... when it all came down...

      Sure the evidence would be there - but in a form recognizable as such by a species 60 million years later who
      1) Isn't really looking for it
      2) Wouldn't know WHAT to look for (I find the suggestion that a society of equivalent technology would have the SAME technology and materials used utterly stupid - they would have evolved in a different environment, with different resources available and different challenges to face in taming that environment)
      3) Would be able to find enough in one place that even if we DID find it we could be sure that it was actually what we found.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yep, you're right. That was a typo.

      *glares at 1-key*

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:11 million years by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, average life-expectancy of a species is 5-million years. Homo Sapience has already doubled that putting us at the extreme end of the scale that gives this average.

      How are you doing your math? The genetic evidence shows that Homo Sapiens can be traced back 200,000 years. Nowhere near the 5 million you are stating as an average for species longevity. If you are counting Australopithecus anamensis, that would get you back to 4 million years, but I would hardly consider it to be the same species as us.

      Furthermore, the actual average longevity of a species is 1 million years, not 5 (as evidenced here. Just because 10 million years appears to be an extreme upper limit does not make the average 5 million.

    25. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Scientists don't always agree. My sources and your sources disagree on the average.
      More-over the genetic clock and the fossil record are not in agreement and this is well known - it's one of the major unanswered science questions of our time which on will prove accurate.

      Personally, my money is on the paleontologists not the geneticists.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highly evolved cockroaches aren't going to be the next big species. I can almost guarantee you that it will be Cephalopods. In the World Cup, the Octopus emissary demonstrated his power over fate. We are in for an interesting couple of years.

    27. Re:11 million years by warrior · · Score: 1

      Nah, the Big Crunch is going to make things hotter than hell ever was.

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    28. Re:11 million years by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Wow. That made me feel small all of a sudden.

    29. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fossil fuel use isn't the most obvious thing that would be left behind. Bones aren't either.

      Unless this past civilization never moved into the industrial age and never refined metals even if they were in a pre-industrial state, and never spread over a significant area of the Earth (e.g., they were confined to a single valley), the geochemical evidence of their presence would be flagrantly obvious to any geologist hundreds of millions of years later. And if they ever did anything with nuclear materials, it would be so obvious that the relevant instant in time would probably already be selected as a major boundary in Earth history, even if we didn't know what was responsible for it. It would *scream* "Someone has done this before" (in reference to nuclear power/weapons).

      "There was mass vulcanism in Siberia that covered whatever was there originally under about 2 miles of magma round about the same time as the KT event - in fact some scientists believe that the KT event could have CAUSED this... so if our hypothetical intelligent dinosaurs had been living there ... no trace we could find may have survived."

      You're mixed-up a bit. The flood basalts in Siberia are Permian in age and are suspected as one of the possible factors in the Permian/Triassic extinction. The flood basalts associated with the KT event are the Deccan Traps in India. Similar massive volcanism events and associated mass extinction, but different timing. It's a minor point, but burial isn't the issue

      The real issue is: only if dinosaurs were intelligent enough to never have moved beyond stone tools could they escape detection. Industrialization is too messy.

      Geologists have looked for any and all kinds of geochemical anomalies in Earth history, both stable isotopes and radioactive ones. Sure, they haven't specifically studied them in the hope of finding signs of civilization, but geochemical effects of industrial activity are the sorts of things that survive long after constructions have weathered away, and when geologists analyze this stuff they're typically surveying many different trace elements, so they would notice whether looking for it or not.

      Do you know how archaeologists figure out when in a succession of recent sediments corresponds to the arrival of European industrialization in North America? They start seeing increasing amounts of lead in the sediment as people were mining and smelting the stuff. Likewise at much earlier times in Europe (for example). Similar trends exist for other metallic elements such as copper, mercury, etc.: onset of industialization is marked by metal contamination of coeval sediments. And at some time younger than that, you would see a spike in Caesium-137 and Lead-210 marking the 1950s increase in atomic testing -- a world-wide marker due to radioactive fallout. These are short-lived isotopes, but there are longer-lived ones that would be just as distinctive. And you wouldn't have to explode bombs. Just mining and processing radioactive materials would leave a signature.

      Yes, we do see unusual geochemical signatures in Earth history such as the Ir spike at the K/T boundary. But how an industrial civilization might manage to refine and spread, say, iridium all over the planet, but not do the same thing for copper, nickel or lead, which are far more abundant and easier to extract, defies common sense. Civilizations probably vary, but they still deal with the physics and chemistry of the same universe as we do, and if they were on the same planet they have

    30. Re:11 million years by operagost · · Score: 1

      By allowing our economy to be taken over by huge multinational corporations via progressive government policies?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    31. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "2) Wouldn't know WHAT to look for (I find the suggestion that a society of equivalent technology would have the SAME technology and materials used utterly stupid - they would have evolved in a different environment, with different resources available and different challenges to face in taming that environment)"

      They're on the same Earth with access to the same materials developed by the same geological processes. Unless you're suggesting an industrialized civilization could have had an aversion to metals, no, they almost certainly would move through a stage similar to us, and the process of mining, refining, and using those metals would leave an obvious indication even if the whole lot rusted or otherwise corroded away subsequently.

      More specifically, the person you were responding to specifically referred to development of nuclear weapons and we being the first to use them on this planet. Nuclear activities leave even more obvious and persistent signatures in the Earth's stratigraphy.

      "3) Would be able to find enough in one place that even if we DID find it we could be sure that it was actually what we found."

      Geochemists deal with ppm and ppb of elements all the time. We would not need to find a heap of collapsed and rusty steel. And if we did find a heap of rusty iron its chemistry would be quite different from naturally-occurring iron oxides unless the industrialized civilization never learned the wonders of alloys with other, more exotic metals (e.g., vanadium and molybdenum). It would look very strange to a geologist compared to natural mineral deposits.

    32. Re:11 million years by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Well, average life-expectancy of a species is 5-million years. Homo Sapience has already doubled that putting us at the extreme end of the scale that gives this average.

      Huh? Homo Sapiens, as a species, are only around 500,000 years old, quite young as far as species go. Our particular lineage as primates (hominidae) is quite old (15 million years, or so), but family is not species.

      The absence of evidence in this case can be just as easily explained by deep time as that there wasn't anything to leave it. But we do have absolute proof that technological societies CAN evolve on earth - because we're here. Thus Occam's razor suggests it's more likely that it has happened before - probably several times than that it hasn't.

      Your probably very, very, wrong. While the Earth is somewhere around 5 Billion years old, complex life only existed for around 3 billion of those, things didn't really start getting complex enough to be intelligent (in the human sense) for around 1 billion or so. Meaning there has to be one hell of a gap in both geology and paleontology, that is universal across the whole geography of the planet. Even if they didn't lithify, there still would be some lasting effects, artifacts, atmospheric changes trapping in ice cores, large amounts of geographic change from mining and cities. Civilization is a rather large impact development. Sure a lot of it gets erased by time, but bits of it would still be around (plastic, glass, giant earth works), and things properly buried by natural events.

      Odds are we are it. There might be something following us, if there is time (the sun will go in 5 billion years, or so, but things will get a bit tough here much earlier), but it is doubtful something preceded us. Obviously it is possible, but not probable.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    33. Re:11 million years by jythie · · Score: 1

      This is why I want immortality. I want to see this state of the universe ^_^

    34. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Okay likely or unlikely is a lot more subjective than possible or impossible. When KT hit it left a layer of clay about inches thick that covered the entire surface of the earth. It's still there, it's a whole long way down and buried but the scientists studying the meteorite who predicted it should exist went and looked- and found it, in every major landmass, there it was, the right type of clay (identifiable by it's particularly high nickle content) the right age.

      That was just ONE of the big rocks the sky has thrown at us. It doesn't even consider vulcanism, tectonic plates. 3" doesn't sound like much but it would be silly to assume it was also the largest. K/T wasn't a once-off event. It's just the famous one. This planet has been struck by disasters that make civilization pale in comparison by multiple orders of magnitude.

      Life survives, any particularly species usually doesn't.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    35. Re:11 million years by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Well that's very brave of you because paleontologists aren't sure at all. Steel MELTS. At relatively low temperatures compared to what the earth has gone through at times. Steel RUSTS and forms iron oxide which flakes away and spread over vast areas because it's easily wind-carried.

      So whatever killed your fictional civilization would have raised the temperature of the earth enough to melt all the steel? That would leave a rather impressive geologic record, AND sterilize most of the planet, which is something we'd notice. As for rust/wind, that only works if something is exposed, if there was some form of upheaval, it is doubtless that a lot of things would be buried, and thus mostly persevered. You still ignore things that have a higher probability of surviving.

      The KT event alone would have had enough impact to turn every skyscraper we have no into nothing swirling bit's of the dustcloud that covers the earth for a few million years... when it all came down...

      No. The KT event didn't suddenly destroy everything on earth, it destroyed things in a localized area, and its climate effects (probably) killed the rest, most of which were already weakened by causes pre-existing the KT event. We have fossils a plenty from immediately before, and immediately after the event, so it obviously didn't erase soft bones, so why would it erase all advanced construction materials?

      To add to my previous comment to you about fossilization: the odds of a species leaving fossils can be seen as a combination of their population, and geographic spread. If this previous species was anything like humans, they maximized both, and thus have a higher probability of leaving individual fossilized remains than species with a limited population and spread. Over the same time period, obviously. The longer they exist the greater the odds of one of them sticking around it, as well. So your species was either existent for a limited time, had no population, or never spread outside of a localized area, or any combination of those three.

      Another thing, while I'm in a ranty mood, you realize that there are vast swaths of land that haven't seen any volcanism for billions of years, right? The Canadian shield, for example.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    36. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You still ignore a crucial point. What about 500 years ago ? What about 1000 years ? What would we have left behind then ? Were we not a technological society then ? Just because the wheels were made from wood doesn't mean they weren't wheels.

      The point is that there is no evidence either way. We may be the first, or we may not - but we have NO proof on which to base an answer, and frankly nobody really looked so there may be plenty. If nobody who ever found any thought it worth a second look - who cares ?

      Also you're assuming such a prior civilization - not living under the conditions we lived in, not of the same species... would somehow for some reason have had a history even REMOTELY similar to ours ?
      Who says we're talking about bipeds ? That alone radically changes what type of technology you could expect them to develop. Who says we're talking creatures that developed writing ? They may have had a radically different form of information storage we've never even IMAGINED.

      We have absolutely nothing on which to base any assumptions about such a hypothetical species. What their society would have been like, nor the technology it would have led to. So how can you assume anything ? Hard-wooded trees have only been around a fairly short while.
      So any species before that would have found their first building materials in stones and ferns because there wasn't anything else - soft-wooded plants fossilize far less often, and besides how would you tell either way ? Except for rare cases where trees fossilized whole, a chunk of fossilized wood looks no different than one that had been a wheel - and to the eyes of almost everybody who might find it, no different from any other piece of rock. I've stood on top of a whole fossilized tree and I am telling you it was hard to see any resemblance to a tree. It was just a long circular (very cracked) red rock lying on it's side.

      A scientist whose an expert could probably recognize a small chunk - but he had to be the one to find it. People only report fossils when they know that's what they found and even then many collect them for themselves instead (ever wonder how much more our paleontologists would know if every private fossil collection was instead kept in a museum for study ?) you and I would not be able to. And even the scientist would be hard pressed to say it had been chopped down and worked on before it rotted and got petrified millions of years ago.

      And we've only even thought about hot stuff. Some scientists believe that in the superglacial periods the polar ice-caps actually reached the equator.
      Remember water (alone of all known matter) expands when it solidifies - it's vollume increase.
      We're talking about every major landmass on earth covered in huge layers of ice.

      Every seen what a riverbed looks like after a glacier's gone down it ? Every single tiny bit of evidence could be lying scraped, crushed and mangled and deeply buried beneath the challenger depth...

      Now of course most glacial periods aren't superglacials and even the scientists who suggest the superglacials were THAT bad are deemed a bit on the outside of possibility by the majority of the climate scientists - but even one of them could have done all needed to remove all traces - and it needn't even be shortly after this civilization - it could be anywhere in the gap between us and them. That could be 2 million years for all we know.

      Yes I know this sounds illogical since we think of melting polar ice-caps as flooding the earth - but that's because ice FLOATS. if ALL the water froze it would take up a HUGE amount more space than it does now. Water expands around 10% when frozen - for salt water it's harder to calculate as the salt doesn't freeze - but it decreases the overall density a lot by causing air bubbles - so let's say 20% The earth is 70% water on the surface -a 20% increase in volume obeying gravity (e.g. it spreads sideways before it goes up) will thus cover 90% of the surface... 2/3 of all landmass covered by gigantic glaciers.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    37. Re:11 million years by Urkki · · Score: 1

      But you are right on a point. If we were extinct two hundred years ago, nearly no evidence would remain. Future geologist would be very luck to gather a piece of glass, nothing else would remain. We'd probably disapear by then.

      Hardly. Just think of the buried stuff archaeologists are digging up today. If there were no archaeologist now, most of that stuff would still be very recognisable after millions, even billions of years, assuming it didn't get eroded, destroyed by a volcano or subducted into the mantle.

      And already a few hundred years ago we had littered the planet with stone buildings, increasingly more precisely shaped stone blocks (and bricks and concrete counts as stone here), unnatural pieces of not only glass (which you mention) but also gold and other jewellery. And it's not just in small spots here and there, just think about the sprawling fortifications and sewer and canal systems for instance, dating back much more than a few hundred years. Not to mention all kinds of large blocks of iron, such as cannons and ship anchors, which I'm pretty sure will get fossilized much in the same way as biological remnants can get fossilized (except they rust to nothingness much more slowly than even bone, so there's much more time for them to get buried). Then there are mines and other tunnels, which often are in pretty stable places geologically, and very clearly created with tools, and would be preserved pretty much until eroded all away or subducted.

    38. Re:11 million years by vlm · · Score: 1

      If we were extinct two hundred years ago, nearly no evidence would remain.

      Very American perspective dude. Plenty of mines in the old country go back thousands of years. Yes thousands not merely centuries.

      The bizarre re-distribution of gold would certainly be a sign for geologists. Gold is and always will be industrially useful in addition to being quite the artistic metal, so future prospectors will certainly develop all kinds of crazy theories about the geologic past of Ft Knox, etc.

      I would imagine abandoned mines suffer the same fate as caves after millions of years, and I bet they would look pretty interesting on a seismic survey. They all seem to have a branching structure with one high point, and after a certain geologic age, two high points. They all seem to follow paths in otherwise worthless rock, roughly where our geological theories indicate very high chance of some valuable substance.

      Weirdly shaped lumps of iron ore aka rusted steel swords found laying the the most geologically unlikely locations around the world would probably launch a thousand super-cockroach PHD thesis.

      Fields of equally sized and shaped blocks of granite and limestone (graveyards)

      I would imagine sedimentary deposits laid down before and after humanity in Egypt area would be noticeably different.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    39. Re:11 million years by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, the more identifiable element in the KT layer is Iridium, IIRC. It's extremely rare in the Earth's crust, but the KT layer has lots of it.

      The KT layer is directly observable in many, many places, due to erosion. Places like the Grand Canyon and other places affected by erosion readily show geological layers.

      As for previous civilizations, I think it's extremely unlikely. Due to paleontology, we understand a lot about the previous species that inhabited the Earth, and their evolution. If there were a prior civilization that achieved any kind of significant technology, we'd have found evidence of it somewhere.

    40. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We can only guess how representative our fossil record is, but we do know that the vast, vast majority of creatures that die don't leave fossils. Fossils require some or other special circumstance. With the time we have and the amount of creatures it happens often enough to give us pieces of the puzzle - but we have no idea how big the puzzle actually is.
      Chances are it's much, much bigger than our pieces show.

      Humans having gone out of way to create our own fossils at times may well be over-represented in future (well I'm guessing mummyfication would up the odds of fossilization, especially where we did it in things like peat - but I may be wrong) even so - I doubt we'd even appear to be dominant species on the planet right now to a future onlooker.

      The only clue he would have is our very wide distribution - but frankly there's an entire species of beetle for every 12 of us. Bees have as wide a range as we do and there is no way the future onlooker would know it's because we farmed them. Rats outnumber us and live everywhere we do -they'll probably be more likely to appear the most successful mammal around when you think about it.

      You say we'd find evidence - but the fact is, nobody has been looking (it's hard to get a grant for - we may very well find nothing but if we do it would be groundbreaking although we have no idea what to look for or where to start).
      Every response to this thread has been filled with the same assumption. That another civilization's technology would resemble ours - but that's ludicrous.
      We developed technology to adapt the world to our needs - that makes it's very nature dependent on two things. The world as it was before technology (it would have been VERY different - remember grass didn't even EXIST until well after the K/T event). And the needs of the species - not us, probably not bipedal possibly not even a landliving creature.
      Where would you look ?

      An aquatic civilization would NOT have based their technology on heat and electricity since these energy varieties are very hard to work with and maintain under water. But there are other energy varieties there. Light (if not too deep anyway), volcanic vents, the currents themselves... how would a computer look that used photons instead of electrons ? What would it be made off ? Would it be biodegradable ?
      How can we know ?

      Answer to all the above - we don't have a clue.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    41. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Erm small correction my maths failed me. It's species of beetle for every 12 million humans, not 1:12 ...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    42. Re:11 million years by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. I think some technologies are going to be universal across societies. If we want electricity, we're gonna need some metal to conduct it. If we happened to evolve on a planet that didn't have metal, then we wouldn't have electricity. Simple as that. Doesn't mean we're stupid - we just don't have the resources we need to make "technology."

      People 3,000 years ago weren't any less intelligent overall than we are, even though they were mainly building stuff out of wood. That wood is not going to survive the next global mass-disaster, and any fossil remains or ceramic evidence is likely to get obliterated .. Or buried under a mile of dirt.

      And our technology isn't much better long-term. The buildings will rust and crumble, the concrete will be overgrown. Probably our longest-lived evidence would be nuclear waste, since it's designed to be stored for an unfathomably long time. But even the biggest anti-nuclear pessimist sets the hazard duration at 300,000 years.

      If we went extinct tomorrow, the next species would have, at most, 300,000 years to gain sufficient intelligence to recognize nuclear waste as a sign of a (then) ancient civilization. And considering that anything that makes us go extinct is likely to leave only cockroaches behind, that's a lot of evolution that has to happen very quickly. I think it's entirely possible that if another Earth civilization rises up a few million years after we're gone, they'll find little to no trace of us at all.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    43. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Yes and no. I think some technologies are going to be universal across societies. If we want electricity, we're gonna need some metal to conduct it. If we happened to evolve on a planet that didn't have metal, then we wouldn't have electricity. Simple as that. Doesn't mean we're stupid - we just don't have the resources we need to make "technology."

      Electricity is the only form of energy technology can be based on ? It's the one we used, there is no reason to assume that others couldn't have done the same. Perhaps it would be harder, perhaps MUCH harder - all THAT would mean is slower progress, it would mean zero progress, and once the problem is solved once -everything becomes easy again anyway.
      Even electricity isn't bound to metal - it's just a convenient conductor, there are many others and the best electrical advances we've made were made when came up with semiconductors - most of which aren't metallic.

      >People 3,000 years ago weren't any less intelligent overall than we are, even though they were mainly building stuff out of wood. That wood is not going to survive the next global mass-disaster, and any fossil remains or ceramic evidence is likely to get obliterated .. Or buried under a mile of dirt.

      You imagine that if there were no metals - they would have remained at that level of progress (which btw ALREADY meets the criteria of technological civilization) - I assume they would have found other sollutions, or made better things out of wood and ceramic than we ever dreamed off - because we didn't NEED to.

      >And our technology isn't much better long-term. The buildings will rust and crumble, the concrete will be overgrown. Probably our longest-lived evidence would be nuclear waste, since it's designed to be stored for an unfathomably long time. But even the biggest anti-nuclear pessimist sets the hazard duration at 300,000 years.

      That I certainly agree on. The pyramids made it 3000 years and that impresses us, but it's a blink of an eye in geological terms and they are eroding as we speak. Their sandstone at that... sooner or later all they will be is sand.

      >If we went extinct tomorrow, the next species would have, at most, 300,000 years to gain sufficient intelligence to recognize nuclear waste as a sign of a (then) ancient civilization. And considering that anything that makes us go extinct is likely to leave only cockroaches behind, that's a lot of evolution that has to happen very quickly. I think it's entirely possible that if another Earth civilization rises up a few million years after we're gone, they'll find little to no trace of us at all.

      Thank you - that's exactly the point I was making and getting flak for. I think it's an obvious corollary that it means if a previous civilization HAD existed sufficiently far back - that it may not have left any traces we could recognize.
      In both cases it's pure conjecture. We can't predict at this level with accuracy because there's too much. One microchip that survives could be more evidence of a previous advanced civilization than a future one would ever need. But don't assume it will tell them anything about us.
      We had the Antikethera mechanism for nearly 70 years before we figured out what it was, and that's a fairly simple technology made by humans. Until that point though, we had absolutely no reason to believe humans had such technology that long ago.
      It's forced us to reevaluate a lot of our ideas about the history of technology. Would one microchip possibly survive ? Maybe - one in an underground military bunker perhaps -there's plenty, would it be found by a scientist before some kid thinks it's a funny rock and chucks it in a pond ? Would he realize it's worth ? Would they possibly understand what it was or what it did ?

      If they had built dataprocessing devices using something completely different photons would they recognize it as similar ? If they had HAD quantum computers for a thousand years when they find it, would they remember their own electronic computers

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    44. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May we have your liver, then?

    45. Re:11 million years by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You still ignore a crucial point. What about 500 years ago ? What about 1000 years ? What would we have left behind then ? Were we not a technological society then ? Just because the wheels were made from wood doesn't mean they weren't wheels.

      People have been mining and refining metals for thousands of years now. Ever heard of the bronze age? Refined metals look completely different from unrefined ores.

      Concrete has also been around for roughly 2000 years. It was invented by the Romans.

      This may be news to you, but people have been making things out of materials other than (and more durable than) wood for a long time.

      If one of that magnitude gave us a direct hit now the EMP would eradicate all our electrical and electronic technology instantly. Back to the stone-age... it wouldn't kill us, but it would probably have us tearing down our very own cities over the next few thousand years to use them as raw materials for survival.

      Don't be ridiculous. Lots of electronics are shielded from EMP (esp. military stuff), and it wouldn't be hard for engineers and technicians to repair everything else. They'd just have to get the semiconductor factories running again.

    46. Re:11 million years by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'd need to recognize the microchip as a microchip. They'd just need to recognize it as "hey, this thing could not have formed naturally - it had to have been made."

      Just like the Baghdad Battery - for years after we found it, no one knew what the hell it was. Oh sure, it LOOKED like some sort of capacitor-like-thing, but they didn't have electricity back then so there's no way that's what it really is (a great example of preconceived notions screwing up interpretation of historical evidence). But we knew it was something that was made by an intelligent being. That's the basic criteria I'm going after for future civilizations to figure out that we were here. As long as something we made survives, then no matter what it is, it'll be evidence that something intelligent was on this planet at some time.

      Of course, there are problems with this - - How does the FutureGuy know that whatever he found was made by something living on earth? Maybe it was dropped off by an alien. How does he know that it wasn't made by a member of his own species? It'd be an easy assumption to make. He'd find it, date it, and then figure "oh, well that's proof we were around 800,000 years ago."

      These are the same problems we would face if we ever unearthed ancient technology.

      BTW, regarding the wood example - Yeah, I agree that if wood was the best they had to work with they'd make better use of it than we ever did. But wood is still wood, and if civilization were to collapse in a global fireball, it would still burn. And even if the catastrophe was not directly harmful to wood, the wood widget would eventually rot away and leave us no evidence.

      I agree with you that building stuff satisfies the definition of technological society - my point was that unless you're making your technology out of very hardy materials, it's unlikely that evidence of your technology will survive your extinction long enough for the next intelligent civilization to find it.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    47. Re:11 million years by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      There weren't a lot of mines and graveyards before the industrial revolution. Maybe those were enough, I really don't know. Those lumps of iron won't probably be there in some milions of years, but yeah, the gold is quite a big cue.

    48. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carl Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

      And here is poor old naive me thinking that it was Donald Rumsfeld who we have to thank for that particular gem.

    49. Re:11 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't the roaches be surprised when the RIAA shows up to sue them for copying tracks off an iPod for "research" purposes.

    50. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >People have been mining and refining metals for thousands of years now. Ever heard of the bronze age? Refined metals look completely different from unrefined ores

      And your evidence that this remains true after 10 million years is... what exactly ? I would love to see the experiment that proved that one. Considering also it isn't laboratory conditions we're talking about here. What happens to refined metals after being hit by a glacier ? How do they look after being drowned in magma ? You don't know do you ? Nobody does. I don't recall ever reading of bronze things found in pompey and there wasn't even much magma there, that was mostly ash.

      >Concrete has also been around for roughly 2000 years. It was invented by the Romans.
      And your evidence that concrete can survive for a million years is ?

      >This may be news to you, but people have been making things out of materials other than (and more durable than) wood for a long time.
      I don't deny that - I just think "more durable than wood" and "10 million years later durable" are a VAST difference.

      >Don't be ridiculous. Lots of electronics are shielded from EMP (esp. military stuff), and it wouldn't be hard for engineers and technicians to repair everything else. They'd just have to get the semiconductor factories running again.

      And what the hell will they do that with after every power station on earth get's fried ?

      Somebody earlier reminded me of another Carl Sagan quote: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      But I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. You are the one claiming anything of human (or even "life-form") construction is so durable that it can survive tens of millions of years and remain in a form recognizable as having been constructed.
      To me - THAT is an extraordinary claim and not only does it not have extraordinary evidence- you have NO evidence whatsoever to back it up.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    51. Re:11 million years by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >I don't think they'd need to recognize the microchip as a microchip. They'd just need to recognize it as "hey, this thing could not have formed naturally - it had to have been made."

      I said that myself. But you know -we used to say the same thing about living organisms. It was the heart of the watchmaker argument and it remains the heart of the intelligent-design argument today. It was wrong. Whoever finds it, if they are scientific at all will spend perhaps centuries arguing about whether it's a fossil or a constructed thing - some will genuinely believe it to be evidence of a time when there were silicon based life-forms on this planet.

      >Just like the Baghdad Battery - for years after we found it, no one knew what the hell it was. Oh sure, it LOOKED like some sort of capacitor-like-thing, but they didn't have electricity back then so there's no way that's what it really is (a great example of preconceived notions screwing up interpretation of historical evidence). But we knew it was something that was made by an intelligent being. That's the basic criteria I'm going after for future civilizations to figure out that we were here. As long as something we made survives, then no matter what it is, it'll be evidence that something intelligent was on this planet at some time.

      I agree that this is likely - I even postulated as much. The question here is deep time. I have no doubt 5000 years from now a civilization, even a non-earth-born one would find plenty of evidence of our existence even if we went extinct tomorrow. But 30 million years ? We can't (economically at least according to GM) build a car that lasts 5 years... what makes us think anything we build have such durability as to survive for millions through every natural catastrophe (up to and including future life-forms digging things up and making them collapse long before there is anything that could be called sentient - a future class of animals as big as dinosaurs could trampled every bit of concrete we have into fine dust millions of years before the next technological society exists).
      I think the idea of our constructions being THAT durable is... well rather far-fetched.

      >Of course, there are problems with this - - How does the FutureGuy know that whatever he found was made by something living on earth? Maybe it was dropped off by an alien. How does he know that it wasn't made by a member of his own species? It'd be an easy assumption to make. He'd find it, date it, and then figure "oh, well that's proof we were around 800,000 years ago."

      If we found something like that what would we say ? It's not a very GOOD metric, but it's the only one we have. I can tell you what we would probably say. We'd insist it can't be as old as it looks and assume a flaw in our dating methodology and reuse as many of the others as we can till something gives us a believable figure (anything after humans made fire would be more easily accepted).
      About the only way around that was if it was undeniably old. Say the military bunker lay underneath a volcanic flow and they knew from multiple sources of other evidence that this volcanic eruption happened that long ago, and what it buried must have been older
      than that. Again, there'd be arguments. If it was just one microchip especially. If the whole bunker somehow survived it would be absolute proof - as much so as finding caves with rock-art proves our ancestors could paint. One microchip... as I said above, there would be a lot of argument about what it actually WAS and it may never be recognizable enough to become consensus.

      >These are the same problems we would face if we ever unearthed ancient technology.

      Yep. We wouldn't know what we found - and we may not recognize it. We use silicon in our microchips because it's the most efficient material we know off. What if their technology was as advanced as ours but went in a completely different direction. Even if they had something doing the job of computers - it may be made from something completely different (silicon is

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    52. Re:11 million years by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Well, average life-expectancy of a species is 5-million years. Homo Sapience has already doubled that putting us at the extreme end of the scale that gives this average.

      In our defence, we've done a good job of balancing out that average.

    53. Re:11 million years by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Then I'd feel even smaller!

    54. Re:11 million years by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, non-naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere will provide evidence of a species capable of building nuclear weapons for a few million years. By the same logic, we know by isotope measurements taken prior to the first nuclear tests that no other species on this planet performed an aboveground nuclear detonation in the last few million years.

  12. The cycle cannot be broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organic civilizations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished. The Protheans were not the first.

  13. And my first thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...was that Oracle is, in fact, pretty damned likely.

  14. If you RTFA... :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You'd see this: "There is a smidgeon of good news. The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago so, in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from."

    Another thing to keep in mind - even if it's "dark" it will still have some non-zero temperature. So one of our long wavelength satellites (including the newest crop: Herschel, Planck, and WISE) would have or will eventually see it.

    WISE, especially, according to projections based on pre-launch specs will be able to identify the following:
    * Gliese 229B to 150 lightyears
    * A brown dwarf warmer than 200 K to 4 lightyears
    * A freefloating planet like Jupiter to 1 lightyear.

    1. Re:If you RTFA... :) by mcvos · · Score: 1

      WISE, especially, according to projections based on pre-launch specs will be able to identify the following:
      * Gliese 229B to 150 lightyears
      * A brown dwarf warmer than 200 K to 4 lightyears
      * A freefloating planet like Jupiter to 1 lightyear.

      Nice, but how do you figure out where to look?

  15. Thank God! by mangu · · Score: 4, Funny

    11 million years

    At first I read "1.1 million years" and was really worried

    1. Re:Thank God! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was hoping I could see DN4E first, too.

    2. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cancelled it, you know. Game/joke over man.

    3. Re:Thank God! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as cancelled. It's just been postponed indefinitely.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Mass Effect is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's the Reapers.

    1. Re:Mass Effect is right by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Well, then, as soon as I'm done slugging this pesky reporter I'll have a little chat with Mr. Sheen on how we're going to solve this...have no fear.

      Unless I get distracted by a shiny planet that needs scanning of course...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  17. What happened to the theory about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The periodicity of the Solar system traveling parallel to the axis of the galactic center up and down through the arm of the galaxy. This, I thought, was close the the time frame for mass extinctions and was presumed that our traveling through the more cluttered parts of the arm were to blame for us coming in contact with debris.

    1. Re:What happened to the theory about... by outofoptions · · Score: 1

      I've read the same.

  18. It's obvious, isn't it? by mt1955 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -- Ming the Merciless

    1. Re:It's obvious, isn't it? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -- Ming the Merciless

      And of course, the true nature is that the episodes of the TV show "Earth" are 27 million years long. Since the episodes are designed to be standalones rather than a story arc, they hit the magic reset button at the end of each one.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  19. What a bunch of hooey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We cannot even tell what really happened thousand years ago let alone two or twenty-four million. It is all conjecture.

  20. Cause by ebonum · · Score: 1

    A massive keg party held every 27 million years with everyone in the Milky Way invited! :)

    "Either way, the origin of the 27 million year extinction cycle is hotting up to become one of the great scientific mysteries of our time. Suggestions, if you have any, in the comments section please."

    1. Re:Cause by catmistake · · Score: 1

      We're not hosting an intergalactic kegger.

    2. Re:Cause by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Right. The last one was on Mars, and look at the place now.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  21. I think I understand by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sun's Dark Companion 'Nemesis' Not So Likely

    "Nemesis" is the codename for the next MySQL release, to which Oracle is giving the ax. After the 5.1 debacle, I'm not surprised the database is being touted as a "Sun's Dark Companion."

    Odd, I just got this weird feeling that I'm being offtopic.

    1. Re:I think I understand by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I've read this far down the comments without anyone mentioning the Isaac Asimov novel

  22. According to the Sumerians by neptunusmaris · · Score: 1

    ...They knew of some sort of death star/planet and they called it "Nibiru" which means "Planet of the Crossing" (why would they name it that?!) and they drew it on one of their tablets along with the other planets. BUT the Sumerians said it takes a 3600 year orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_(Babylonian_astronomy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision I've read books about it... very interesting stuff.

    1. Re:According to the Sumerians by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      ...They knew of some sort of death star/planet and they called it "Nibiru" which means "Planet of the Crossing" (why would they name it that?!) and they drew it on one of their tablets along with the other planets.

      But ...
      But ...
      According to the books I've read, there is some poor guy chained to the Caucasus mountains and getting his liver ripped out by eagles every morning. Shouldn't we be sending out an expedition to free him first?
      My source is probably newer than yours, so it's more likely to be accurate. And we could pick up the Ark of Utnapishtim (Noah) on the way, because that's just next door (according to an even newer book).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:According to the Sumerians by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Holy cow, 3600 goes perfectly into 27 million.

  23. No Sh1T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really...So none of this sh1t really matters and I did just waste three minutes of my life! BTW that roughly 54000000000 generations! WTF!!! can't you author something meaningful?

  24. BadAstronomer said something similar by magsol · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...only it was a larger multiple: somewhere in the vicinity of every 150-180 million years. However, in this case, it's due to our solar system's z-axis oscillation with respect to the rest of the Milky Way galaxy. The dust and gas of the galaxy acts as a shield against cosmic radiation, but every 150-180 million years, our solar system reaches the z-edge of the galaxy and is maximally exposed to the elements.

    What accounts for the 5-7 other mass extinctions within that time frame, however, I defer to TFA.

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:BadAstronomer said something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you reference the article??? I like the BA's postings & haven't read this one.

      I find this one -
      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/06/bobbing-for-extinctions/

      But he says ~32 million years

    2. Re:BadAstronomer said something similar by magsol · · Score: 1

      It was actually in his book, Death from the Skies. A tad morbid, given that it discusses all the ways in which our world could perish, but once you move beyond that it's exceptionally well-written and quite humorous. I highly recommend it.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
  25. By the way.... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's been 26,999,998 years since the last mass extinction.

    1. Re:By the way.... by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      How do you run 'uptime' on the planet? I presume Earth is running Linux at its core?

      Oh, here's a thought, maybe god installed Windows and the planet needs regular rebooting to keep it stable?

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    2. Re:By the way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

  26. Patterns by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 1

    Patterns are evident throughout the "natural world" (including space) - from same level (e.g., similar human-social development from groups that never cross each other) to different levels (e.g., cell formations and a bird's eye view of rural housing layouts).

    In this natural world, many systems "clean" themselves. Examples include living cells, natural water filtration, and even "social systems" (e.g., jails).

    What if we are the particulate matter collecting on the "mucous" layer of the Earth and the Earth ... clears its throat every 26 million years or so?

    (puff - puff - pass)

    --
    L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
    1. Re:Patterns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool story bro

    2. Re:Patterns by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Oy, talk about human pattern recognition run amok. You're imputing motivations to inanimate things. In the first place, there is no such thing as 'clean'. When a human being says to themselves 'this is clean and that is dirty' what that really means is 'this is something adapted to me and that is something which is not'. To a human, a pile of poop is not clean, but to the flies and other organisms that consume it, it's a meal. The difference between an apple and a pile of shit is the perspective of the organism assessing it and the needs of that organism. That there are organisms that consume poop is not an example of 'cleaning' because that is only a conceit of perspective.

      So, where this applies to one of your examples, natural water filtration is a coincidence. There are processes by which water is made naturally 'dirty' as well (which is also a matter of perspective, the high concentrations of sulfur and other 'undesirable' minerals dissolved in a hot spring are actually necessary and beneficial to some microorganisms that live in those environments).

      As this scales up, there is no 'clean' or 'dirty' planet or system. If a star emits some huge gamma ray burst or something, and there's no life in range for it to kill, does it make a sound? In other words, the gamma ray burst would happen whether there was life for it to affect or not. Whatever is happening at 27 myr intervals to this planet has likely been happening since before there was life, and would likely still happen if all life here were to suddenly end. Anthropomorphisizing inanimate processes and projecting your own standards and interpretations of value (another thing that doesn't exist except in a given animal's perception) onto mechanical interactions of matter is irrational and unproductive.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:Patterns by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You're imputing motivations to inanimate things.

            But then will a mayfly (which lives at most a single day) ever understand that a blade of grass is a living thing?

            Our classification of "animate" and "inanimate" might not be as accurate as we think. The Earth is certainly a dynamic thing even in our frame of reference. From the trembling of its crust to the currents in its oceans and atmospheres, the Earth is not static at all.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Patterns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life itself is a mere definition. Meaning itself is a human abstraction to enable the utility of perception becoming conception through memory, comparison, and categorization. With that in mind, static vs. dynamic in the first place is not the same as dead vs. alive, and in the second place are completely illusory. No known physical thing is truly static, they're all moving through space and time, excited to various degrees of relative temperature etc. Does all this dynamism, such as it is, equate to some sort of anthropomorphic motivation? You might as well be arguing for the Great Spirit or some such nonsense. If you look for meaning long enough and hard enough, you'll find it whether it's there or not.

      Further, if the mayfly tried to understand the grass in terms of itself and its motivations, (assuming it can understand anything, which it can't, being little more than a machine of instinct), it would likely fail. You might think I'm arguing against myself, but the point is that trying to project human concepts of 'clean' and 'dirty' onto a 5.98 × 10^24 kg ball of metals and gas is ludicrous, regardless of how much it moves.

    5. Re:Patterns by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      AC box was checked somehow... that was me.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    6. Re:Patterns by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No problem with respect to AC. I read at -1 anyway.

      As to your answer, it is good. I am not trying to anthropomorphise. My original answer to OP also was not intended to "answer" a "question". I am also a very scientific, very rational atheist. So no "great spirit" either. However my point was that because of our scale - either in size or time-span, there are a great many things about the universe that we will never be able to know with the same certainty as, for example, something closer to home which we can measure, predict, interfere with and corroborate that it behaves according to our assumptions.

      On a universal scale however all we will ever have is supposition, theories that come and go with current fashion, and doubts. And that is not counting all the things that are so large, or happen so slowly, that we will never be able to understand them or even perceive them - just like an ant is completely unaware of what a galaxy is, or even their existance.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Patterns by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I think that's more pessimistic than realistic. A millennium ago we didn't know what a galaxy was either. We are simply incapable of knowing what we're capable (or incapable) of knowing. ;-p Even our present capacity isn't necessarily germane to the issue because, if we avoid extinction, it is guaranteed that we will speciate further at some point, and those successor species will have a different capacity than we do now.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:Patterns by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I agree that you seem to be more of an optimist than me. I just believe in boundaries - although they are not necessarily absolute, the universe is full of them on every scale. Places where the electron goes, and places where it doesn't go. Places where you have (more) galaxies, and places where you don't (have as many). While I think you're right in that our capacity to learn is always changing, I also believe that the exponential growth in our knowledge simply cannot be sustained. At one point we will start tapering off, and hit an age of "diminishing returns". I think that in the end our total "knowledge" of the universe is finite, or at least approaches some arbitrary level asymptotically at one point. We're smart, but we're not THAT smart. If we were, we wouldn't be plagued with all the social problems we have here and now even in this "englightened" age.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Patterns by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The capacity for knowing may be finite, but so is all the physical material in the universe. We are in the habit of becoming over-awed and start conflating near-infinite with infinite. (Not to mention we don't need to know every individual atom to understand important patterns. I don't need to see every chair first hand in order to understand what a chair really is.)

      Really, all we need to be smart enough to do is to make ourselves smarter. This will happen through genetic manipulation, cybernetic enhancement, and probably eventually through some kind of wholly mechanized consciousness.

      Also I cannot accept that contemporary problems are symptomatic of an inherent/intrinsic failing. It's like somebody a few centuries ago saying 'we'll never walk on the moon because we have slavery.' Social problems come and go, technology always improves, knowledge always increases (diminishing returns notwithstanding).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  27. Read Articles Second Comment ! by RichMan · · Score: 1

    The articles second comment discusses in detail the idea of a 26M year extinction cycle.

    1. Re:Read Articles Second Comment ! by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      But wait, isn't the Earth only 6000 years old?

  28. Could they be ice ages? by nermaljcat · · Score: 1

    Is there any correlation between these mass extinction events/periods and regular ice ages?

    1. Re:Could they be ice ages? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      No. Glaciation epsiodes have been happening fairly regularly for the past two million years or so. Before that the planet appears to have been free of ice ages for a few hundred million years.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  29. Well, I'm relieved. by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    I'd hate to think there was an 'orrible cunt out there seeking retribution against Sol.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    1. Re:Well, I'm relieved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might even cut 'is fucking jacobs off.

  30. Debunked nicely in the comments by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read the comment "Bad research, worse article" in the comments section. "Melott has made an arxiv carrier of various kinds of pattern searches and catastrophism scenarios in data. (What I would like to call "pseudoscience conspirationism".) " To sum it up, this article is probably sensationalist psuedoscience and there is nothing to see here.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
    1. Re:Debunked nicely in the comments by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      As another commenter here has noted, it's being published in a very high-profile journal. It may be contentious, but that doesn't mean it's pseudoscience. It may turn out to be wrong, but that alone doesn't make it pseudoscience. And conspirationism? Does he believe Melott is looking for conspiracy theories? Or merely drawing an analogy to the various types of data manipulation that conspiracy hunters use to "prove" their theories. I guess the latter, but it is something of a stretch. Rather than Torbjorn Larrson's debunking, it's probably better just to go to the Alroy paper he cites. Alroy doesn't find a statistically significant peak in the frequency spectrum at a period of 27 My. I'd call this a scientific controversy rather than "pseudoscience". Sensationalist is probably a fair assessment, as it's the sort of thing that gets notice in places like Slashdot. But it is being published in a respectable journal, which means it passed at least the smell test of some reviewers.

    2. Re:Debunked nicely in the comments by RockDoctor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To sum it up, this article is probably sensationalist psuedoscience and there is nothing to see here.

      Melott is a perfectly respectable palaeontologist ; Bambach I've read less of. But having RTFP, I don't find it hugely convincing, nor hugely badly presented. Without spending a few days at least on reading up the background and working the statistics myself, I remain unconvinced in either way. (Which in no way reflects on Melott, Bambach, or Torbjorn Larsson.)
      Executive summary : different workers can't agree on whether there is any significant periodicity to extinction events (that hasn't changed in the 25 years that I've been listening to this discussion) ; amongst those who think that there is a periodicity, there is only a weak majority putting the period at ~27Ma over those claiming ~11Ma or ~50Ma (another sign that the raw evidence isn't terribly strong).

      Without even a good estimate of the periodicity (if there is one), then trying to work out the causative mechanism is resting a hypothesis on a house of cards built on a sand castle in the Bay of Fundy. Which might make an interesting spectator sport, but not a terribly successful career.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Debunked nicely in the comments by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      which means it passed at least the smell test of some reviewers.

      ... whose purpose is to assess the described methodology ("Can I replicate this experiment from this description ; was the equipment used appropriately?"), not to agree with the conclusions presented.
      Unlike Slashdot, "I disagree" is something that they can put in their comments on the paper they review ... and they would still be expected to discount their lack of agreement and answer the questions they've been asked : does the purported statistical "B" follow from the asserted data "A", and was the use of inverse mode on the Flange Sprocket Analyser ("C") valid when the Moon was in the Seventh House?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  31. I thought Suns dark companion was by mevets · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oracle, who are probably going to cause an extinction much earlier than this....

  32. Caused by the Sun itself? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    This question is more directed toward all you helio astronomers and astro physicists.

    Could it be caused by a solar event? Say, something like a Mini Nova where the sun undergoes a cyclical "hiccup".

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Caused by the Sun itself? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Could it be caused by a solar event? Say, something like a Mini Nova where the sun undergoes a cyclical "hiccup".

      I don't know of anything that would make this impossible. Which doesn't mean that it's true.
      Equally, I don't know of any astronomical evidence for any cyclical events in a (Sol-like) star's life with periods anything like this long. Which also doesn't mean that it's impossible.
      So, you're certainly in the area between "impossible" and "not impossible". And that is pretty much the best answer that you're going to get. If you do get any better answers, drop me a message with the journal name, volume number, page number and article title (a redundant cross-check datum).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  33. Only 4% of the universe is detectable by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    What is 96% of the universe made of?

    Everything we see in the Universe, from an ant to a galaxy, is made up of ordinary particles. These are collectively referred to as matter, forming 4% of the Universe. Dark matter and dark energy are believed to make up the remaining proportion, but they are incredibly difficult to detect and study, other than through the gravitational forces they exert. Investigating the nature of dark matter and dark energy is one of the biggest challenges today in the fields of particle physics and cosmology.

    The ATLAS and CMS experiments will look for supersymmetric particles to test a likely hypothesis for the make-up of dark matter.

    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/WhyLHC-en.html

    The 27 million year period is interesting. Could be any of a myriad forces drawing large chunks of rock towards the earth.

  34. Next week on the sci-fi channel the sun nemesis wi by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Next week on the sci-fi channel the sun nemesis will strike!

    Why does this sound like that kind of movie but our super spy sat with a laser will save us!

  35. Re:There is worse... by openfrog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some more debunking in the second comment:

    First off, there is likely no "growing consensus that something of enormous destructive power happens every 26 or 27 million years". It is an old idea, probably originated with the terrible paper by Raup and Sepkoski 1986, which I have criticized on the web several times; (...) [Not to poison the well, but Bambach published lately in Ruse and Sepkoski eds "Paleontology at the High Table." One must take a dim view with the abilities of anyone that choose to cooperate with "philosopher of biology" and known stealth creationist Ruse.]

  36. I thought ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... Sun's dark companion was called Oracle. When did they change their name to Nemesis?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:I thought ... by teknopaylasim · · Score: 1

      tbax yy nice ostsss

  37. Ask the global warming crowd by jvillain · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why not ask the AGW crowd. They know every thing about what affects the earth. They have graphs to prove these extinctions events didn't happen and they have all come to a consensus on it. What more do you need.

    1. Re:Ask the global warming crowd by RockDoctor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They [Anthropogenic Global Warming non-deniers] have graphs to prove these extinctions events didn't happen and they have all come to a consensus on it. What more do you need.

      Given your evident attitude to the well-established science about anthropogenic global warming, I'm utterly un-astonished that you don't know (or are trying to conceal) the facts such as

      • study of events surrounding the Palaeocene-Eocene mass-extinction (discovered in the late 19th century) including
      • the discovery of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (around 2000 - I had the ink-on-paper version of the paper land on my previous door mat)
      • the carbon isotope excursions that indicate the release of large amounts of methane,
      • the magnetostratigraphy which reveals the Milankovich cyclicities that provide the local relative dating,
      • the micropalaeontology that provides the absolute dating (and which I use several times each year to ensure that oil wells are efficiently positioned to exploit Palaeocene reservoirs).

      But I'm sure that all of those fields of research are overweighed by your fear of facing the consequences of your, my, and our parent's burning of fossil fuels. Does that make you feel better, or do you want to put your head under a security blanket now?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  38. Mix Up by uncholowapo · · Score: 0

    Who else thought of Oracle having a business competitor when reading the headline? More importantly, whole else thought Oracle had a business competitor?

  39. at first glance... by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    At first glance, you'd think it clearly backs the idea that a distant dark object orbits the Sun every 27 million years.

    No, I wouldn't think that at all. All it backs (or would back if the data were any good) is the idea that something is happening roughly every 27 million years. A dark companion star is just one of many possible explanations of what.

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  40. dark nemesis headed for earth? by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    If Bruce Willis can find the fifth element in time, we'll all be saved.

  41. Saw this on ScyFy by TheStatsMan · · Score: 1

    I was watching the Scyfy channel at my fiance's parent's house (why else?) and saw this idea represented in a ridiculous drama called Eureka. They even called it Nemesis. This article reads like it was ripped right from the show. Admittedly I don't know who took what from who, but I find the idea completely foolish.

  42. Leave? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    The Universe:

    - Imports: None. It is impossible to import things into an infinite area, there being no outside to import things in from.

    - Exports: None. See Imports.

    - Population: None. It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there most be a finite number of inhabited worlds. And finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any person you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

    1. Re:Leave? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Your logic is truly mind-boggling.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Leave? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      It's a Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy quote.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  43. Ve vill select only ze finest female specimenz by nickdwaters · · Score: 1

    A 10 to 1 ratio of women to men vill do nicely. Prepare ze bunkerz! (based on Dr. Strangelove...)

  44. Debunking Slashdot moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The weirdest thing is that the same comment two minutes before was modded "Redundant".

  45. I am doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    CAn you point us to a paper on that lag ? Because for a force supposed to go at light speed, that would get some pretty nasty lag to destabilize enough of the oort cloud to change orbit to go toward the inside of the solar system as opposed to orbit around on their wide wide ecliptic.

    1. Re:I am doubtful by sunspot42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check out the Wikipedia article on the Oort Cloud. The Oort Cloud is thought to be well over a light year across. Out on its fringes the influence of the sun's gravity isn't much stronger than the pull of nearby stars, or the galactic core itself. So whenever the oscillation reverses direction and the sun begins moving back toward the galactic plane, a lot of stuff out on the fringes doesn't move neatly with it. Some of it will become gravitationally unbound from the solar system, but some of it will find its orbit perturbed and start heading inward. Whether that's enough stuff to lead to mass extinctions here on Earth is another matter.

      This article mentions disk tides, encountered most strongly as the Sol system passes thru the galactic plane, as the possible culprit in disturbing the Oort Cloud on a regular basis:

      http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/perturbing-the-oort-cloud

    2. Re:I am doubtful by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      So whenever the oscillation reverses direction and the sun begins moving back toward the galactic plane, a lot of stuff out on the fringes doesn't move neatly with it.

      Why? Wouldn't the same forces that caused the sun to reverse direction be acting on the Oort Cloud? If not, what's the origin of the gradient?

      I could RTFA but I'd rather discuss it here, if that's OK.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  46. Read Asimov's Nemesis by xx01dk · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it's a hella good book. Wiki has a good synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(Isaac_Asimov_novel)

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
  47. I are a proofreading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I no it's not very Web 2.0, butt does none prof-read these stuff?

    (...)it turns out that this can't explain the extinctions because the motion doesn't have had the right periodicity

    First, the orbit could have changed suddenly so that instead of showing as a single the peak, the periodicity would have two or more peaks.

    I stopped reading long before the (apparently) controversial comments section.

  48. Re:There is worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the debunker a political scientist?

  49. Pffffffft by BigBadRich · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, we all know the planet is only 6,000 or so years old!

    I laugh disdainfully at your so-called "science"

  50. Re:Vote! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The Republicans would never have let it come to
    this!

    All joking aside, we tend to have a recession every decade around the start of the next decade. It's been this way since about 1960. It varies a year to two, but has been fairly constant, at least in the US.
         

  51. Not out of the woods yet. UFO activity around Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just amazing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD_5_PWtq9Q&NR=1&feature=fvwp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k42rjGqfPg&feature=related

    There is so much more to watch and learn from, that it would be worthwhile to retire to a remote mountain cave. It'll be worth it, because there is no entertainment that could match what happens in the Solar System.

    All this UFO activity occuring around our Sun, yet NASA employees report nothing. Absolutely NOTHING from NASA, as though they only have experience with arranging actors on a Sound-Stage above a remote desert region in Arizona to re-enact unproven Moon landings that require hundreds of billions of US dollars to pay-off private companies that have not contributed anything of value.

  52. Nemesis by ockegheim · · Score: 1

    As far as I can tell, a "small" body orbiting the sun at a period of 27 million years would have a semi-major axis of 1.4 light years. The Oort Cloud is supposed to extend to nearly 1.0 light years. A body with an elliptical orbit and large enough to seriously disrupt the Oort Cloud might perturb the sun to a measurable degree, or occlude stars such that it probably would have been detected by now, if it existed. IANAP though, and so probably have something wrong there.

    --
    I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
  53. thank by byrocco · · Score: 1

    thank you very good blog

  54. Re:Not out of the woods yet. UFO activity around S by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Really? You buy that shit?

  55. Alternative explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it takes exactly 26 million years for another intelligent species to develop after the old one has wiped itself out after a few hundred thousand years. ;-)

  56. That Thing Is Huge.... by rabidjoe · · Score: 1

    It's actually a Death Star running on economy, damn Imperial eco-fascists

  57. Game Over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every 27 million years a big black screen appears with big white letters reading, 'GAME OVER.'

  58. For those who won't read the article by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    From the article :

    There is a smidgeon of good news. The last extinction event in this chain happened 11 million years ago so, in theory at least, we have plenty of time to work out where the next catastrophe is coming from.

  59. I don't accept the periodicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    IAAP (I am a paleontologist), and I've actually met Bambach, one of the guys mentioned in the article. He's a very good paleontologist.

    However, these claims of periodicity in extinctions have been considered for a long time, ever since the pioneering work of Raup and Sepkoski in the 1980s. It is not an exaggeration to say that the question of periodicity is controversial.

    A basic problem with the claims back then, and with the claims based on improved data sets now, is that this statistically difficult data to work with. It's trivial to do a Fourier transform of the data and pluck out dominant frequencies to a certain confidence level, but the underlying data has issues. Geologists are constantly revising the timescale to ever greater levels of refinement, which slightly changes the numerical timing of the events in question (it's like the time of your sample points keeps shifting around by a few percent). The extinction and other data is typically collected over intervals of geological time that are *not* equal in duration (i.e. it's unevenly aliased). Extinctions in the interval are assumed to have occurred at the end of the interval. This is most often the case for most of the extinctions, but not all of them. This is tricky stuff to work with when doing frequency analysis. And although the data compilations now are much better than a few decades ago, they inevitably have issues due to the vagaries of fossil preservation (some sites/times have much better fossil preservation than others), and of the rock record itself (e.g., the rise and fall of sea level that causes shifts in environment and depositional rates, so some times can be almost unrepresented whereas other times can have plenty of rock).

    My guess is that if the frequency signal is real it will say more about some kind of cyclicity that affects terrestrial depositional and climatic processes which in turn affect fossil preservation (something analogous to Earthly Milankovitch cycles or maybe tectonic cycles), rather than some kind of entirely external process that specifically or only drives extinctions. Failure to preserve fossils at certain points in the rock record would be read as an "extinction", even if the creature survived for a bit longer. Either that, or it's some kind of numerical artifact/resonance frequency derived from hitting the practical limits of sample spacing. You're basically trying to pick a frequency signal out of data that is sampled only a few times higher than the signal (the mean sample spacing is ~3.6 to 11 million years depending on the datasets they're using).

    Honestly, looking at their plot of extinction rates overlain with the 27Ma frequency (their Figure 2), I'm not all that impressed with the correspondence. Some major extinctions are 180 degrees out of phase (e.g., the Late Devonian extinction at ~372Ma and the Early Carboniferous extinction at ~326Ma) and some extinctions are doubled (e.g., the two towards the end of the Permian near 250Ma).

    1. Re:I don't accept the periodicity by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      Honestly, looking at their plot of extinction rates overlain with the 27Ma frequency (their Figure 2), I'm not all that impressed with the correspondence. Some major extinctions are 180 degrees out of phase (e.g., the Late Devonian extinction at ~372Ma and the Early Carboniferous extinction at ~326Ma) and some extinctions are doubled (e.g., the two towards the end of the Permian near 250Ma).

      I doubt anyone is claiming that, whatever this hypothetical 27m killer is, it is the only historical cause of mass extinctions. For all we know, the ones that happen at other times are due to completely unrelated causes.

  60. Not again by gracesdad · · Score: 1

    This movie sucked bad enough the first time, no need for a sequel please.

  61. Switzerland and/or France by HogGeek · · Score: 1

    I believe it will all begin here...

  62. My Wife's Dark Companion by OIIIIO · · Score: 2, Funny

    At my house, Nemesis shows up about every 28 days.

    1. Re:My Wife's Dark Companion by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Interesting, only one day and a few orders of magnitude off. But then, whoever tried to apply logic to women ... and survived.

  63. TFA doesn't think this is it either by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Informative

    Evidently the motion of the sun through the arms doesn't have the correct periodicity.

  64. Oh, please. by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Emergence of "anatomically modern humans": 200,000 years ago. If you have some other reputable source that places the age of Homo sapiens" more than 25 times older than this, well... [citation needed].

    Or more than likely, you're just making this stuff up.

    1. Re:Oh, please. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Jack Cohen and Ian Kirby good enough sources ? That's what these actual SCIENTISTS say in their books.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Oh, please. by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean Ian Stewart, and there are better sources for your scientific education than Discworld books.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:Oh, please. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes I meant Ian Steward but you know - he and Jack Cohen didn't ONLY write Science of the Discworld books (good as they are) - ever read "evolving the alien" ?

      I also own a copy of "a brief history of time" and I several of Carl Sagan's books both fiction and non-fiction. I've actually READ all of Isaac Asimov's non-fiction essays... you know I don't just base any idea on a single source.

      This particular idea I used their wording for because it was so well put, but the fact is it was also backed by real science - and I've read most of that science as well.
      Just because a scientist writes non-fiction chapters in a fictional book, or even a whole science-fiction revolution (like Asimov and Sagan both did) they don't STOP being scientists.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  65. Dude, you are just making stuff up by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of paleontologists and geologists believe it entirely likely that previous societies as technologically advanced as ours could have existed.

    Ok, name one. That's ok, we'll wait.

    So you assume a previous intelligent society would have used the same fuels as us (really ? Fossil fuels used by the "people" whose time fossil fuels were LAID DOWN IN... think about that for a second).

    Ok, then. What DID these hypothetical advanced civiliations burn? What sort of technology did they use? How come we haven't' recovered ANY of it, ANYWHERE (although we have recovered evidence of even such relatively ephemeral things such as dinosaur feathers via their impressions in the fossil matrix).

    More-over all the stuff you mention are what, 100 years old ? So if we'd died out just a century sooner than right now - no evidence would have survived. We were a pretty advanced technological society even then though.

    Then the hypothetical future cockroach civilization would have found things like railroad tracks, rail cars, steamships, large masonry building, the first automobiles, pottery, primitive electrical devices, silverware, etc, etc. All of which were made in profusion by 1910 and would be a lot more easily fossilized than bones.

    Carl Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

    This one takes the cake - quoting Carl Sagan to support this fantasyland. You know what else Carl Sagan said? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dude, you want to make claims like this - you need to cough some up.

    1. Re:Dude, you are just making stuff up by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Jack Cohen, Ian Stewardt.

      That line was a direct quote from "Evolving the alien" - so there's your names since you seem to think a call to authority is NOT a fallacy.

      There's quite a big chapter about it, I gave a fairly brief summary but please do read the book and get some actual information. Yes - we got a lot of fossils, in reality they probably represent less than a billionth of the species that actually have existed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  66. Mass Effect by Tolkien · · Score: 1

    Come on! Mass Effect already covered this topic as part of it's plot.

  67. Henh? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    That's because Nemesis' orbit would certainly have been influenced by the many close encounters we know the Sun has had with other starsin the last 500 million years.

    Sorry, what? The Sun has had close encounters with other stars recently? Really? I am not an astrophysicist and I might be completely mistaken, but this seems kind of totally made up.

    Also, as another paleontologist has pointed out the periodicity is rather more than just a little controversial. Actually, there are several things which sound wrong in this article. I'm inclined to think that it is some of that mud used to make waters unclear. Typical obfuscation techniques used in counter-intelligence; flood the channel with noise and cranks and half-right theories. All you do is beam some "manic crazy" into the head of a targeted researcher, whisper directly to his ear canal via EM transmission, (all technology known to have existed more than thirty years ago and thus impossible to not have been refined down to the idiot-proof hand-held version level), and voila! Counter-intelligence without fingerprints, crowbars or a paper trail.

    Now, I happen to think that there certainly is a cyclical destruction in effect and that it is based on a dark companion star, the Oort cloud and comet clusters. But, I think it happens a lot more regularly than 27 million years, (more like a couple hundred thousand), and that when the comet cluster knocked into lower solar orbit has finished pelting the Earth, it doesn't just vanish. It keeps on orbiting on a 2500 or so year period, losing material each time around, but pelting the Earth repeatedly nonetheless. So the cyclical disaster thing is a fair bit more frequent. We just happen to have a Dark Star showing up in. . , well right now actually, to recharge the system, as it were.

    But I could be wrong. I'm on shaky ground wrt astrophysics; I've not done the work to really figure out the maths and dates, so it's pretty armchair hearsay I'm afraid.

    -FL

  68. I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this had something to do with the Shriekback song.

  69. Methane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here I thought that the current doom n gloom group think about the methane being released from the BP oil leak was going to be the one to wipe out life.

  70. Sun's Dark Companion 'Nemesis' Not So Likely by z4pp4 · · Score: 1

    So, I guess Brick-top was wrong then. Who is going to tell him?