Dinosaur extinction was probably by Sun particles

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by lbiarge, Feb 23, 2013.

  1. lbiarge Registered Member

    (hypothesis against the mainstream)

    Actual theory accepted today says that dinosaur extinction is by a meteorite but this has many problems.

    A meteorite could to kill all animals or big animals but extinct all dinosaurs (less birds). Dinosaurs was big and also little (“Dinosaur size” in wikipedia not say the moment but say that was so little like 30 cm).

    Dinosaurs only exist on land, in the sea were reptiles.

    After the extinction not exist none dinosaur, only the birds that are a branch considered a branch of the dinosaurs (“birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs” in wikipedia )

    So, ask: How is possible that all dinosaurs disappear from a meteorite, same that of 30 cm but not birds and not other little animals?

    “the new extinction and impact dates are precise to within 11,000 years, the researchers said” - in “New Evidence Suggests Comet or Asteroid Impact Was Last Straw for Dinosaurs” in other web : this is to say that we today can extinct by a meteorite impacted in Earth made 11,000 years?

    In other words: What is the possibility that a total specie extinction by a meteorite and not the rest including any sub-specie like birds?


    My hypothesis:

    So is near or more probably that dinosaurs extinct by a big Sun particles eruption and more in time where the polarity magnetic is changing or with very low intensity in the magnetic field of the Earth.

    In this situation an specie not well prepared for particles emission can extinct, against this specie others species that live in burrows have more protection and also any species like bird that may accept the radiation.

    That there are species that admit radiation is true, for example in the poles of the Earth there is not protection against the Sun particles eruption and live animals, also there are live bacteria that live in water of the nuclear reactors.

    Is probably that birds by admission of radiation or by making their nest in places with protection and very little animals that live in burrows could survive at Sun particles that cannot the dinosaurs that not make burrows. (also consider that not all species of birds and little animals need to survive for survive their specie).

    It’s known that in time of the dinosaur extinction survive many little animals include mammals (look with these terms: survive dinosaur extinction). Also it’s known that the Earth change the magnetic polarity and the magnetic field has variations and also that the Sun emission also has variations.

    This hypothesis maybe true o false, but it’s more probably that extinction by an asteroid.

    A criminal proof could to be proof Sun particles emission on birds, but maybe not because it’s probably that actual birds not admit theirs.


    Now consider the extinction is by asteroids?


    Why are extinct all dinosaurs and same that little of 30 cm? Also flying dinosaurs different from birds?

    Why not extinct the birds?

    Why other little animals not are extinct in that time? All not extinct animals were less of 30 cm?

    Why from a asteroid collapse to Earth from until 11,000 years old only an specie disappear and not all or none?


    (this post has relation with : Life in Earth is by Moon and 3 articles more over Moon and Earth in this forum) I can't post links.

    © Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Gigantic asteroid impact and Deccan traps' eruption killed all the dinosaurs.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. lbiarge Registered Member

    Really scientists are near to admit that is impossible, look:

    (I cannot put links)

    Sorry, that you say is against proofs:

    Any scientists also like a quick extinction: "“The length of time taken for the extinction to occur is a controversial issue, because some theories about the extinction's causes require a rapid extinction over a relatively short period (from a few years to a few thousand years) while others require longer periods.” - wikipedia

    But “fossil-bearing rock which cover a time range from several million years before the K–Pg extinction to a few million years after it” - wikipedia

    This make a probably extinction duration of: "“during the last 10 million years of the Cretaceous” - wikipedia

    (all in wikipedia, this is not say by me)


    In the planet considered in periods of million or millions years would be all very vulcanism, but this not extinct species, probably any moments the vulcanism is more but if dark the sky all the animmals die if the period is long, for this I put the example of the year without summer (1 only year).

    It's totally impossible a very hight activity (volcanoes or impacts without a total extintion of all life. A proof near is the year without summer by kakratoa

    And like it's totally impossible I only can to say that "Correct. But a consensus of informed scientific opinion is more likely to be correct than misininformed and misinterpreted opinion expressed by an individual." only means that this consensus of informed scientific is only a consensus over an impossible.


    Another example: During Carboniferous period many mountains were created, but I think you not understant any animal would to run from the land because in that moment a mountain grow in his legs.


    A big extinction with vulcanism and impact with the dark sky and according to that without germination of plants would be the end of all life.

    Or: Do you know any animal than can life 1 year without eat?, any that can admit 10 years without eat? 100 years? 1000 years?

    In the sea there are animals that live in dark, but this animals live from eat that fall down from the upper sea by gravity. This in a dark land cannot occur.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Lots of stuff all over the place here. Let's start by saying that it's likely that it was a combination of things, over a short geological time period, that caused this particular extinction. Why some animals but not others is a good question, but it doesn't invalidate the theory overall, it just means we don't have the whole picture. Certainly throwing the entire theory out and replacing it with your Sun cause doesn't change the fact that some species seemed to have gotten through with little effect while others completely disappeared.

    But to replace a theory you have to have a better one, and the idea of the Sun doing something different in just that one area doesn't measure up. For one, magnetic field and solar cycles are very frequent, so why just these isolated periods? At least we have several impact areas and volcanic disruptions in the time period discussed that lead to the possibility that they had contributing factors.
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Do you really think if that were a problem with the model you're the first person to think of it?

    Anyway, this is (as the openning post states) against the mainstream so it is going to the alternative theories section.
  9. lbiarge Registered Member

    No. I disagree totally with you.

    That the extintion is by volcanoes and impact is totally impossible.

    That the extintion is by sun particles is totally possible.

    All their occurs many times, meteorites fall down all days, volcanoes also, volcanoes explosion we only know 1: kakratoa, big impacts some but an impact like say is impossible.

    An impact that would extinct the dinosuars would be true if would be in a short period, 1 day probably and less days or month, but an impact or combination in 1 million years is totally impossible.

    Against that, emission of the sun are totally possible, need to be a big rare period but this periods exist.
  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    So the dinosaurs died of a sunburn?
  11. lbiarge Registered Member


    Do you think there are not problem with the model?

    Do you believe that really scientists believe in it? it so what is this phrase “The length of time taken for the extinction to occur is a controversial issue, because some theories about the extinction's causes require a rapid extinction over a relatively short period (from a few years to a few thousand years) while others require longer periods.” - wikipedia

    Why cannot to be me the first in put against that impossible theory?
  12. lbiarge Registered Member

    Supposing I’m wrong and you have reason and dinosaurs extinction is by meteorite:

    Why a lower emission of particles to the atmosphere in kakratoa take not germination of plants in year and a very more big emission has not problem and permit dinosaurs life until 1 million years more? This can you admit with volcanoes and end with impact or like you prefer.

    Why an impact extinct all dinosaurs and same also so little like 30 cm and not extinct crocodiles, and other animals of more size? – consider that also extinct other animals.

    Why birds that descent of the dinosaurs would not extinct and extinct all the other dinosaurs?

    How can to be that the sky would dark, plants not make the photosynthesis and from that dead all dinosaurs and not other animals?

    What eat the other animals that million years that are without photosynthesis and only dead all the dinosaurs?

    Can to be volcanoes and impact without dead plants and without end photosynthesis and to be many dead and all the dinosaurs and not all live?

    How is possible that not all plant are extinct with a dark sky?

    How is possible that kakratoa explosion difficult the germination by the year without summer with the risk of lose vegetal species and many years of emission not take this risk and only extinct dinosaurs and few more?

    Why the evidence and proofs are insufficient to understand and impossible?

    Why kakratoa explosion is not useful to understand what happen in an explosion or impact?

    Why none evidence is an evidence of existence of impact?

    Why if volcanoes or impact over 1 million years could extinct all life, is probably consider for only extinct an specie?

    Why if an impact would be in a court period and studies show that the extinction was in a very large period yet consider the most probably an impact that is impossible the relation impact and extinction in large period?

    Why an impossible say by people with reputation not reduce their reputation and yet is considered a good possibility?

    How much animals you know that can exist 1 year without eat? 100 years? a million years?

    Note 1: An emission of particles of the Sun could explain all this but not an impact. In a emission the big animals would receive more particles, also it would have more difficult to take a ceiling for protection, against the animals that go into den, nest. Also is probably that one specie would be more sensitive to radiation and no others.

    Note 2: I can’t find any explanation to all this with impact or volcanoes that dark the sky.
  13. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    That's fine.

    It's happened numerous times in different degrees. Check the geological record and its correlation with the fossil record.

    Firstly, you talk of sun particles. You need to explain what you mean by that. What evidence do you have of sudden release of radiation or some other things from the Sun that correspond with mass extinctions?

    Nonsense. We have scars from both large impacts and volcanic explosions that did have huge effects on the Earth's climate. And again we have correlating evidence from some of these events and impacts on life on Earth, as well as some recent ones that affected humanity itself.

    No it's not impossible. Impacts themselves are brief, but their effects can be long term. Volcanic disruptions don't have to be quick, but can slowly affect the environment.

    Again, for your idea to have any validity to be preferred over current understanding, it has to be at least as good of an explanation, and it has to fit the data. What data do you have? What emissions? What periods?
  14. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Okay, let's take your emissions theory at face value. You still have to explain the same things. Extinctions didn't happen based on size, so that explanation is out. You can't use the problem of which species died out against the impact theory and not answer it in yours. It's a valid question, but it doesn't help your case.

    What evidence of more emissions do you have that correlate with mass extinctions?
  15. lbiarge Registered Member

    True, many impacts but not many extinctions.

    Probably all days have impacts, but here speak over impact that dark the sun (or not) and that extinct a specie.

    Why say impossible? a explosion or impact that extinct an specie in 1 million years would need dark the sky by that million years. Kakratoa explosion show that a few emision of only 1 year make not germination of plants in near of all the planet, without germination of plants there is not eat, problem in seeds, ... if only 1 year is so problem imagine in 1 million years. For 1 years not need dark the sky but for 1 million impossible extinction so many time without dark the sky, no photosynthesis and all life end.

    A so big impact will be the end of life total.

    I thinked I was writen.

    A attack of Sun particles is like the possible attack to the astronauts, it's know that without the protection of the magnetic field the particles of the Sun are dangereous.

    In a period with low magnetic field defend and with big solar activity this can occur. The combination admit very much options, low field and low emission, big emission and big field, big emission and low field, ....

    It's possible that this exist during 1 million years and by that it's possible the extinction were by this.

    The animmals that have not protection (den, nest into trees, ...) receive more radiation, more big is also more radiation, the land is a good protection for all.

    The radiation would affect to dinosaurs and many other animmals, also vegetables and sea animmals, ... in relation with more or less protection and the resistence of each specie.

    My hypothesis maybe or not, the impact only is impossible for many years (millions), would be better for a short period, but this extinction was not a short period.

    I have none evidence, but the particles of sun can to be dangereous, the magnetic field has variations in time, is a probability, but impact has 0% probabilities.

    When anything occurs need to study probabilities, this is probably, do you know any better?

    Yes, but in short periods, not million years, or before animals, ... none with relation to the extintion of 1 specie.

    That affect human not during 1 million years.

    This is proved false by kakratoa volcano explosion, if this explosion effects (by a bigger explosion) would during more years would be the end of life. How many time can you not eat? 10 years, 1000 year, 1 million years?

    Imagine: I day without oxigen would be the end of animal life. 100 years with dark side and without photosynthesis would represent the end of life in land. Maybe this 2 not affect at the sea or affect also
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    I don't have the time to go through your list of questions in detail but I'll make a few remarks. We do have evidence of a meteorite strike 65 million years ago. The crater is in the Gulf of Mexico, discovered a few decades ago by oil prospectors. Furthermore there is a layer of Iridium deposited globally in sediment dating back to that period. Such an element is found in higher concentrations in asteroids than on the Earth and to globally deposit a layer of sediment enriched with Iridium would require an event of global magnitude involving an Iridium source, namely an Iridium enriched asteroid hitting the Earth.

    Not all animals died (obviously) but the reason the dinosaurs were so badly affected was the fact they were cold blooded, so a sudden cooling in global temperatures due to dust and debris in the atmosphere would impact them pretty badly compared to mammals. Some did survive, leading to birds and reptiles but the vast majority didn't have time to adapt.

    Even with a global decimation of plant life due to reduced solar flux because of the aforementioned dust that wouldn't mean all the oxygen is used up. It took hundreds of millions of years for early life to oxygenate the atmosphere to 21% oxygen (I think it was higher back then too, about 25%?) and even if all plants stopped photosynthesising it'd take a long time to remove all of the oxygen. Consider humans producing carbon dioxide via fossil fuels. We put into the atmosphere 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, burning through fossil fuels which are formed from millions of years worth of organic material, and in the 150 years since the Industrial Revolution we've changed the fraction of carbon dioxide in the air from 0.32% to 0.38% with a corresponding drop in oxygen levels. To remove 21% of the air, to de-oxygenate the atmosphere, would require respiration by animals on a scale which is hundreds, even thousands, of times greater than our entire civilisation burns fossil fuels at the moment. Unless every single tree was burned to the ground overnight this wasn't happening.

    You don't seem to have much of an understanding of the asteroid strike evidence or process described by palaeontologists, I suggest you learn something about it before making what about to dishonest assertions about it.
  17. lbiarge Registered Member

    Look that say theirs actually (that say that you not say the true):


    In the page of "New Evidence Suggests Comet or Asteroid Impact Was Last Straw for Dinosaurs" - http://paleontoriano...r-asteroid.html

    "The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," - so, this affect at the begin of the extinction in near to 1 million years, is like I death today by a gunshot that any make me in a future 10 years.

    "The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," - means nothing, because has not explanation of the begin and also can to be 11,000 later of the end of the extinction.

    "the impact clearly played a major role in extinctions, but it probably wasn't just the impact." - they same affirm that the extinction is not by the impact.

    "The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction" - the problem is time before or later

    "Renne cautions that this doesn't mean that the impact was the sole cause" - another time

    "Dramatic climate variation over the previous million years, including long cold snaps amidst a general Cretaceous hothouse environment, probably brought many creatures to the brink of extinction, and the impact kicked them over the edge." - what can make this dramatic climate variation? a probably Sun particles?

    "These precursory phenomena made the global ecosystem much more sensitive to even relatively small triggers, so that what otherwise might have been a fairly minor effect shifted the ecosystem into a new state," he said. "The impact was the coup de grace." - in this phrase the "coup de grace" is not necessary to the impact, is say by subjectiv link to the impact.

    "One cause of the climate variability could have been a sustained series of volcanic eruptions in India that produced the extensive Deccan Traps. Renne plans to re-date those volcanic rocks to get a more precise measure of their duration and onset relative to the dinosaur extinction." - very few probably, this would to be like many years without summer and dark sky.


    Then here where affirm that exctition by impact, they only affirm that is the "copy de grace" and this is subjectiv.



    More: if many scientists search many years in any direction probably find anything, like the same article say they search from 1980 "The extinction of the dinosaurs was first linked to a comet or asteroid impact in 1980", this means that they are 32-33 years searching until this discovery.



    More: this impact only show that really impacts have not relation with extinction, the impact would be 11,000 after the exctintion, there are more impacts also big without extinction, in case of relation would dead 1% to 10% of dinosuars, the 90% probably dead before the impact, ...

    Really this maybe the begin for a new post saying that meteorites impact has none relation with extintions.

    According to "10 Greatest Major-Impact Craters on Earth" in http://www.environme...s-on-earth/1403

    "Some 49,000 years ago" - "It measures 0.75 miles (1.2 km)" - no extinction

    "1.3 million years ago, opened up hole in the ground with a 6 mile" - no extinction

    "Some 212 million years ago, a 3 mile (5km) wide asteroid hit the earth, to causing a 62 mile (100km) wide giant hole. " - near in size and probably not extinction - "They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago," (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) - so dinosaurs appear probably 18 millions year before and no exctition.



    More: seem that they not study the effects of the year without summer and probably effect at long time with bigger explosion, so they consider that a big impact can extinct a species and not the rest.



    More: Today maybe many near to that period, today all the nature is attacked by polution, by chemistry, by waves (probably bee dissapear), by radiactivity, by fertilizer.

    Imagine the effect of all this attack in short and long periods. Eggs with less calcium, animals with 2 heads, ...



    More, I believe you have not read my before note that I was added to other message, by that I repeat here:

    You say that what I say is impossible, look:

    I don't say a big emission, I say a little emission, this during near 1 million years.

    In first time only any animals dead, other get sick and other are good, but also slowly the generations are worse, the eggs have errors, ... and so o, so little the species are losing the healt.

    During this period the dinosaurs are extinc but other animals not, but affect at all animals and plants.

    This would be a probably cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. But repeat, volcanoes and impact is impossible, not is impossible that happens, but it's impossible make that in 1 million years.

    Againts that the Sun has large periods, probably of million years or the relation of Sun with orbit, ... like glaciations.



    According to this "A 110-mile-wide" is the "coup de grace." of dinosuars and "62 mile (100km) wide giant hole" has no effect in extinction


    more: I need say you that if you remain saying that dinosaur extinct by collision that first you need to convince of that to the writers of the "New Evidence Suggests Comet or Asteroid Impact Was Last Straw for Dinosaurs" - http://paleontoriano...r-asteroid.html because they only speak over "coup de grace."
  18. david Registered Member

    Really exciting one.
  19. lbiarge Registered Member

    Yes, and all people say that I lie when scientists only speak over a "coup de grace." (and this last is subjectif by any that like to join both events.
  20. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Dinosaurs died by harakiri...all of them have seen the light of the days flash before their eyes and felt the irrelevancy of existence fall heavy upon them.
  21. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Most of that you quoted says exactly what I said. We don't think it was JUST an impact, but a combination of things. But there's no denying that the impact 65 mya was global, and would have been devastating by itself. Enough for an extinction, maybe, maybe not, but if there were other contributing factors before, during, or after, the impact would have helped in sealing the dinosaurs' destiny. And keep in mind, something that takes thousands of years to actually occur is just a blink of an eye geologically, and that is exactly what we find in the strata.

    Maybe it's the scale of things that you have trouble with. Compare what happened in Russia recently, and that was from a minuscule rock. Take something 30 times the size...or just look at the crater that was left. Imagine was was through into the atmosphere from that. It's not hard to see that even by itself, it wouldn't have been a minor event. But then throw in other problems, and many species could not adapt quick enough, therefore, they disappeared. Maybe it was the pace in adaptability that did the dinosaur species in, while other species could to survive past the worst points.

    You still haven't answered anything about your theory of emissions. Why is it such a better theory, when you don't even have any data to support it?
  22. lbiarge Registered Member

    An impact only can not extinct or extinct all species, by that the impact can not make nothing, only in the near enviroment like kakratoa in the island or global in all the world and all species.

    The kakratoa and the year without summer explain why is local or global, not other solutions, global is not extinction or complete extinction, imagine a extinction, the sky become dark, glaciation, the plants cannot grow and germinate, ....

    The same scientist say that the impact only would be the "coup de grace", and need other causes, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73153-dinosaur-extinction-was-probably-by-sun-particles/page-2

    They also say that the impact would to take effect in a short time period, but the time period is from near 1 million years and by that only can to be a probably "coup de grace", no more.

    Like if a specie is ending and only remain 5 units, I with a gun kill him, .. .then The cause of the extinction of that species is me with my gun?

    Easy, the impact cannot answer nothing, is not the cause, only a probably "coup de grace"

    Then a probably cause, volcanoes no, impact no, .... what is the rest.

    Sun make glaciations, without any proof we know that any day not more light emit and we die.

    Chernobil maybe near the solution, emissions make that the animals lose healt, that in generation by generation the eggs are worse, the species are in less quantity and in worse condition until any and more extinction.

    The extinction also is for plants, the emission affect also to plants, in winter many plants hibernate, not seem a solution.

    What other probabilities are different to sun particles?
  23. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    The magnetic field flips on average every 450,000 years. Dinosaurs were the dominant life for for 135 million years. So...

    ...did you even check wikipedia when you formulated your "theory"?

Share This Page