Supernovae and the Rise and Fall of Man

For the past few decades, there has been a lot of speculation, and
some proof, that things in or from the heavens can and do radically
and materially affect things here on Earth. It was around 1980 that
Luis Alvarez tied the extinction of the dinosaurs to the impact of a
sizeable asteroid striking the Earth about 65 million years ago. Now
another, more recent sequence of events has come to my attention, and
I thought I would share this with those who have an interest.

For the past week or so, I have been reading "The Cycle of Cosmic
Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World
Culture" - by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith. The
authors attribute the extinction of the wooly mammoth, and other north
american megafauna, and the paleo-american Clovis culture, to a
probable comet strike at what is now Lake Michigan.

All of this began, they propose, when a supernova exploded about 70
parsecs away, some 41,000 years ago. The initial flash of radiation
killed many people, animals and plants outright, in the areas of
Australia and southeast Asia. Of course, many more died of acute
radiation poisoning shortly thereafter. And while most of the induced
genetic mutations were harmful, the authors note that it was shortly
after this event that mankind developed larger brains, and made huge
strides in technology and culture. There was a related reduction in
the human population, and several large species in Australia went
extinct.

About 7000 years after the supernova flash, the material shockwave hit
the solar system. This weakened the earth's magnetic field, disrupted
the ozone layer, and caused massive solar flares. This increased the
exposure to ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, again resulting in
reduced population and more species going extinct.

Finally, about 13000 years ago, one of the comets which had been
knocked into the inner solar system, came crashing down to earth. The
impact, or arial explosion wiped out millions of animals and people in
North America, set grasslands and forrests ablaze, dislodged and
melted the ice sheet that was over the northern part of the contenent,
and debris splashing into the ocean started tsunamis that ravaged the
coasts of Europe and Africa.

Perhaps the most distrubing conclusion that these authors derive, is
that while the human race owes its swift rise to this supernova
(killing off competing predators, giving us larger brains, etc.) we
are still imperilled by its consequences. There are two factors that
they cite:
1. Our success has led to overpoplulation (which has led to the
current slew of problems we face globally). And the overpopulation is
always a temporary state, usually accompanied by a swift and
unavoidable depopulation.
2. The Earth is under greater meteor and comet bombardment now than we
were a billion years ago. It is nearly as high now, as when the
dinosaurs disappeared.


So, the next time you are out under the stars, contemplating the
serene beauty of the heavens, take heed that they may harbor both
terror and death as well.

Cheers,
Larry G.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:17:31 -0700 (PDT), LarryG
wrote:

For the past week or so, I have been reading "The Cycle of Cosmic
Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World
Culture" - by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith. The
authors attribute the extinction of the wooly mammoth, and other north
american megafauna, and the paleo-american Clovis culture, to a
probable comet strike at what is now Lake Michigan...

The science is generally poor. A few people claim to have found evidence
of a Holocene impact, but this is weak and not well supported. Most of
the events the authors attribute to external influences have simpler and
more widely accepted possible causes. Their approach reminds me a lot of
Velikovsky: start with the assumption of an event, and then try to make
history (and prehistory) match it- even if the fit is often poor.

That said, it is obvious that we are vulnerable to the effects of
supernovas, comets, and any number of other extraterrestrial events.
What we don't really understand yet is the actual frequency of these.
They have probably had significant influence on the path life has taken,
but most likely not on the immediate evolution of humans.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:17:31 -0700 (PDT), LarryG
wrote:

For the past week or so, I have been reading "The Cycle of Cosmic
Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World
Culture" - by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith. The
authors attribute the extinction of the wooly mammoth, and other north
american megafauna, and the paleo-american Clovis culture, to a
probable comet strike at what is now Lake Michigan...

The science is generally poor. A few people claim to have found evidence
of a Holocene impact, but this is weak and not well supported.

It is my understanding that there is a widespread layer of magnetic
spherules marking the end of the Clovis period. That seems to me to be
somewhat more than "weak and not well supported." I know that there is
no evidence for an impact crater, but there was a thick ice sheet at the
time. The idea that the impact was on the ice seems reasonable, at
least at first glance. Has anyone done any modeling of this sort of
impact? Are you aware of a simpler alternative explanations for the
magnetic spherules?

Greg

P.S. I have not read the book yet. So if anyone out there is feeling
particularly insecure in themselves today, feel free to attack me for
that now. I take on all comers! ;-)

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:17:31 -0700 (PDT), LarryG
wrote:

For the past week or so, I have been reading "The Cycle of Cosmic
Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World
Culture" - by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith. The
authors attribute the extinction of the wooly mammoth, and other north
american megafauna, and the paleo-american Clovis culture, to a
probable comet strike at what is now Lake Michigan...

The science is generally poor. A few people claim to have found evidence
of a Holocene impact, but this is weak and not well supported. Most of
the events the authors attribute to external influences have simpler and
more widely accepted possible causes. Their approach reminds me a lot of
Velikovsky: start with the assumption of an event, and then try to make
history (and prehistory) match it- even if the fit is often poor.


You mean like this guy here -

"What is "our"? If you mean the Earth, its speed can be defined
relative
to anything we can see. It's generally most useful to define it with
respect to the Sun (and the value in that case is determined by
gravity-
specifically Newton's law of gravity and Kepler's extension of it to
orbital motion)."
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


Considering you use a framework where the Earth's orbital motion is
constant to the Sun,I would say your technical views let alone the
historical are far worse than 'poor' -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png









That said, it is obvious that we are vulnerable to the effects of
supernovas, comets, and any number of other extraterrestrial events.
What we don't really understand yet is the actual frequency of these.
They have probably had significant influence on the path life has taken,
but most likely not on the immediate evolution of humans.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:01:51 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
wrote:

It is my understanding that there is a widespread layer of magnetic
spherules marking the end of the Clovis period.

That is not correct. Spherules have been found in a few locations, but
their positioning, as well as mineralogical analysis, are far from
consistent or conclusive. Most meteor and impact specialists remain very
skeptical.

That seems to me to be
somewhat more than "weak and not well supported." I know that there is
no evidence for an impact crater, but there was a thick ice sheet at the
time. The idea that the impact was on the ice seems reasonable, at
least at first glance. Has anyone done any modeling of this sort of
impact?

Most people who study impacts are of the opinion that the North American
ice sheets were not thick enough at this time to prevent an impact from
leaving a scar. Some of those supporting a Holocene impact deal with
this problem by supposing a glancing impact, or some sort of air burst
similar to Tunguska.

Are you aware of a simpler alternative explanations for the
magnetic spherules?

It remains to be seen if there actually are widely spread spherules that
can be linked chemically and temporally to a single event. It is
possible there was a North American impact 12,000 years ago, but
_currently_ the evidence is weak. At this point, those interested in
this possibility should be out collecting evidence, not writing books
trying to explain the extinction of mammoths. Too many conclusions are
being drawn from far too little evidence. IMO that's not good science.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sep 2, 12:42*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:17:31 -0700 (PDT), LarryG
wrote:

For the past week or so, I have been reading "The Cycle of Cosmic
Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World
Culture" - by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith. *The
authors attribute the extinction of the wooly mammoth, and other north
american megafauna, and the paleo-american Clovis culture, to a
probable comet strike at what is now Lake Michigan...

The science is generally poor. A few people claim to have found evidence
of a Holocene impact, but this is weak and not well supported. Most of
the events the authors attribute to external influences have simpler and
more widely accepted possible causes. Their approach reminds me a lot of
Velikovsky: start with the assumption of an event, and then try to make
history (and prehistory) match it- even if the fit is often poor.


Have you actually read the book and examined the authors' thesis, or
are you pontificating and conflating their theory with the sensational
pseudoscience of the past?

You and other readers may be interested in the news conference on the
impact evidence. Video can be found on Youtube.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o

The book is divided into three parts.
I. The mystery of the Clovis layer - traces the steps the investigator
made from being faced with the inexplicable black mat just above
Clovis culture layers through to the formation of the explanation.
(Note: The researcher did NOT start with the cosmic intervention as
his premise or assumed cause.)

II. The Event - A technically accurate rendition of what the authors
believe happened in association with this series of events. (Very
good descriptions of the catastrophes and their mechanisms.)

III. The Evidence - An in depth presentation (for scientifically
literate lay people) supporting the authors' hypothesis. Included are
sections on radioisotope concentrations at the clovis sites, ice
cores, and tree rings; chemical analyses of the black mat and the
glassified carbon; the location and axial orientation of Carolina Bays
and other shallow, elliptical craters, the changes in and migrations
of the human genome as traced through the time periods in question;
and a number of paleoamerican accounts of the event in myth and
legend.

It should be noted that some of the evidence presented in the first
section involves the imbedding of small grains of iron in mammoth
tusks and clovis spear points (made of flint). The researcher tried
to blast small iron pellets into the tusk material using a shotgun at
close range. The pellets only dented the tusk, but did not
penetrate. From this the authors calculate that the iron which did
penetrate, was traveling at 2,000 to 3,000 miles per hour at the time
of impact. (High speed iron is not a generally recognized hazard of
ice age environments! It had to come from a rare circumstance, or
similar special event.)


That said, it is obvious that we are vulnerable to the effects of
supernovas, comets, and any number of other extraterrestrial events.
What we don't really understand yet is the actual frequency of these.
They have probably had significant influence on the path life has taken,
but most likely not on the immediate evolution of humans.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:34:04 -0700 (PDT), LarryG
wrote:

Have you actually read the book and examined the authors' thesis, or
are you pontificating and conflating their theory with the sensational
pseudoscience of the past?

I have the book (and I've read it). I've also read the original
Firestone, West, et al publication, and have followed the scientific
debate closely (my own specialty is meteoritics, although not
specifically impact studies).

As I said before, the evidence remains thin. There is a layer of
ash-like material found at many sites. But the evidence for component
materials that are of likely extraterrestrial origin is lacking in most
sampled sites. Also, common dating of the layer in different areas is
not established.

The book makes links to certain other things (the iron in tusks is just
ludicrous- widely recognized as completely misinterpreted, but the idea
that the Carolina Bays is related to an impact is very weak, as is the
association between the Younger Dryas and an impact. In addition, I read
a paper just a few weeks ago that rather solidly demonstrated no common
time of population decline in North American cultures between 9 and 15
thousand years ago. That is, no evidence of a single event causing
population loss.

In any case, the possibility that the Younger Dryas was caused by an
impact is a viable theory that is currently being investigated, but is
not well accepted by the majority of the meteoritical, impact,
archaeological, or paleontological communities. That doesn't mean it's
wrong, only that it needs a lot more work, and a few people are getting
way ahead of themselves in pushing the idea- in particular, trying to
connect it to geophysical and archaeological elements that are much
better explained by other things. What's needed isn't speculation (in
some cases wild speculation), but a lot more raw data, mainly in the
form of material samples.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

As I said before, the evidence remains thin. There is a layer of
ash-like material found at many sites. But the evidence for component
materials that are of likely extraterrestrial origin is lacking in most
sampled sites. Also, common dating of the layer in different areas is
not established.

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com


Intreresting discussion, folks. However, the statement above is
incorrect. The black mat has been dated at 12,900 on most of the
known Clovis sites, by the dean of Clovis Archeaology, C. Vance
Haynes. He also makes some interesting comments regarding the comet
theory in general:

Vance Haynes on the Black mat:
http://georgehoward.net/Vance%20Haynes'%20Black%20Mat.htm

Also, some new info and a great deabte has been placed on YouTube
he
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...566C328E999E76

Of the 97 geoarchaeological sites of this study that bridge the
Pleistocene-Holocene transition (last deglaciation), approximately
two thirds have a black organic-rich layer or ‘‘black mat’’ in the
form of mollic paleosols, aquolls, diatomites, or algal mats with
radiocarbon ages suggesting they are stratigraphic manifestations
of the Younger Dryas cooling episode 10,900 B.P. to 9,800 B.P.
(radiocarbon years). This layer or mat covers the Clovis-age landscape
or surface on which the last remnants of the terminal
Pleistocene megafauna are recorded. Stratigraphically and
chronologically
the extinction appears to have been catastrophic,
seemingly too sudden and extensive for either human predation or
climate change to have been the primary cause. This sudden
Rancholabrean termination at 10,900
50 B.P. appears to have
coincided with the sudden climatic switch from Allerød warming to
Younger Dryas cooling. Recent evidence for extraterrestrial impact,
although not yet compelling, needs further testing because a
remarkable major perturbation occurred at 10,900 B.P. that needs
to be explained.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
It remains to be seen if there actually are widely spread spherules that
can be linked chemically and temporally to a single event. It is
possible there was a North American impact 12,000 years ago, but
_currently_ the evidence is weak. At this point, those interested in
this possibility should be out collecting evidence, not writing books
trying to explain the extinction of mammoths. Too many conclusions are
being drawn from far too little evidence. IMO that's not good science.

You make a good point there about more data. But I don't think a
popular book is necessarily a bad thing in itself. After all, a lot of
good scientists have found the time to write them.

Speaking of books (and Geology) I'm mostly through "Supercontinent" by
Ted Neild. It's a pretty good read. In addition to what appears to be
a thorough telling of an interesting scientific history, he is unusually
eloquent about the process of science in general.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
It remains to be seen if there actually are widely spread spherules that
can be linked chemically and temporally to a single event. It is
possible there was a North American impact 12,000 years ago, but
_currently_ the evidence is weak. At this point, those interested in
this possibility should be out collecting evidence, not writing books
trying to explain the extinction of mammoths. Too many conclusions are
being drawn from far too little evidence. IMO that's not good science.

You make a good point there about more data. But I don't think a
popular book is necessarily a bad thing in itself. After all, a lot of
good scientists have found the time to write them.

Speaking of books (and Geology) I'm mostly through "Supercontinent" by
Ted Neild. It's a pretty good read. In addition to what appears to be
a thorough telling of an interesting scientific history, he is unusually
eloquent about the process of science in general.

Oh right,Wegener died in Greenland all but ostracised for proposing
that investigators take a wider view of matters to reach working
principles and conclusions for geological evolution -

"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of
our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only
be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the
information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to
determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets
out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore
has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared
always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what
science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Wegener

There was and remains nothing eloquent about 'scientific
progress',not with Wegener,not with 'Piltdown Man',you had to wait
until the old guard dies to make changes but that was then and this is
now.

Wegener was right in finding different disciplines that mesh which is
why rotational dynamics works so well with crustal geodynamics.The
supposed hold-up in accepting Wegener's surface correlations for
tectonic motion was finding a mechanism and when they did,they chose
a stationary Earth 'convection cell' mechanism .While I accept it
was an ad hoc mechanism,the orientation of the mid -Atlantic ridge
with in the direction of the geographical poles and the tendency of
crust to spread apart from the ridge should have alerted people to a
rotational dynamic notwithstanding planetary sphericity.Then even
study the generalised principle of rotating bodies(such as stars) in
a viscous state without applying it to the Earth's interior and the
Earth's shape.

In all the years since I proposed a common mechanism for planetary
shape and crustal motion I never pressurised geologists to accept or
even discuss it but it is there nonetheless..












Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye