New Educational Project starting - the KT Asteroid Impact

[fsgregs]

Hi everyone:

I am excited to announce the commencement of a new educational project that will use Celestia to take the viewer back in time 65 million years ago, to witness the impact and devastation that occurred when an asteroid smashed into Earth to end the Cretaceous Period. 70% of all life was snuffed out.

The project will be dramatic, not static, with animation effects, changes in Earth over time, etc. It needs the help and support of lots of us, if it is to be accurate and worthy of Celestia viewers. If we do it right, it could become the definitive free resource for educators, governments and news organizations worldwide, to show what the impact did to Earth.

I have posted its main thread in the Celestia Education section here http://shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12117 Please go there for all future postings. I also have a similar thread posted on the CelestiaMatters forum here . http://forum.celestialmatters.org/viewtopic.php?p=3936#3936

FYI

Frank

[t00fri]

...new educational project that will use Celestia to take the viewer back in time

65 million years ago,

...It needs the help and support of lots of us, if it is to be accurate and worthy of Celestia viewers.

FYI

Frank

What are your sources for "accuracy"?

F.

[fsgregs]

What are your sources for "accuracy"?

Fridger:

While I am initiating this effort in the name of education, I really want it to be a joint project of the Celestia community. I hope lots of forum members can contribute both ideas, reference sites and accurate info over the next several weeks. This will be a long process, if we are to achieve the accuracy you and I both want.

In that light, I would welcome your valuable input and contribution to the project.

Regards

Frank

[t00fri]

What are your sources for "accuracy"?

Fridger:

While I am initiating this effort in the name of education, I really want it to be a joint project of the Celestia community. I hope lots of forum members can contribute both ideas, reference sites and accurate info over the next several weeks. This will be a long process, if we are to achieve the accuracy you and I both want.

In that light, I would welcome your valuable input and contribution to the project.

Regards

Frank

Frank,

Yes, I understood, but before kicking off such an ambitious project you must surely have carefully collected the available sources of information about what happened 65 million years ago.

What are they???

Since our young generation should be brought up with an alert, critical mind, let me simply ask on THEIR BEHALF.

F.

[scaddenp]

There is international effort going into the shape of world but I will have to ask my colleagues whether there is anything that really integrates everything. Getting a plate reconstruction at 65 million year should be too bad. While always under revision, there is good data. Getting a worldwide shoreline data set for that time will be a much tougher proposition and getting paleogeography as the basis for a texture will be tougher still. Not my field, but I have colleagues working closely on this. I will ask them about data sources.

[scaddenp]

you may have found this, but if not:
http://serc.carleton.edu/research_educa ... raphy.html

For your needs, I think you will have to go back to the sources though.

The PLATES program is sort of clearing house that we are involved with but using the data is tricky.

[buggs_moran]

Climate and Orography can be found here starting on p481, but the whole book is not there...
http://books.google.com/books?id=7tKWEE ... #PPA481,M1

US during Cretaceous
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... l%26sa%3DN

Dr. Ron Blakey made the globes on the top on this next one. They look to be wrapped on a sphere, perhaps the Cartesian maps exist... I have contacted him regarding it...

[buggs_moran]

Dr. Blakey has agreed to furnish a 1500x 3000 rectangular projection of his map if you are interested Frank...

[fsgregs]

Scaddenp:

Thanks for the link to the Plates program page. I had already visited Dr. Blakley's map page, but the other pages referenced in the links are excellent.

Buggs:

Thanks for the reference to Dr. Blakley and his maps. He is recognized as one of the experts in the field of plate tectonic mapping, and has several maps in use in education. I have one of his higher resolution Cretaceous maps in rectangular projection but I am not sure if it is his highest resolution. I am so glad he has agreed to share his highest res version with us. I would be grateful if you could please contact him and email it to me ASAP.

Regarding the details of what Earth looked like 65 million years ago, the one thing I have learned so far is that there is a lot of controversy regarding such things as shoreline topography, sea level heights, climate, etc. One scientist will argue one point, and another researcher will argue another, all based upon interpretation of geological evidence. I have tried to follow the consensus, but obviously there are viewpoints to understand further. It will not be an easy task.

Please feel free to share anything you can, particularly if you locate what you consider the most definitive sources of information that tell the story of the end of the Cretaceous.

In the meantime, I will be reading up on what the Plate links have to offer. Thanks again for the reference.

The story I have identified so far, is one I informally sifted from a variety of websites, texts, publication articles and even TV documentaries over the last two years. TV documentaries and many general science magazines may or may not have their facts completely straight, but they form the basis of a good starting point for developing this story. In particular, I have read Dr. Blakley's opinions about the Cretaceous, and I am working with two Geology professors at two of Virginia's universities to sort through some of the information. I welcome everyone's contribution to making the story as accurate as we can.

Runar will be posting a thread soon to discuss the optimization of the main cretaceous map we will use for the activity, using Dr. Blakley's map as a starting point.

Frank

[t00fri]

Frank & friends,

how do you exclude this alternative to the meteorite
impact story around the K-T boundary:

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/ ... cause.html

-----------------cited----------------------
The high concentrations of Iridium in the boundary layer
has also been attributed to another source, the mantle of
the earth. It has been speculated by some scientists
that the Iridium layer may be the result of a massive
volcanic eruption, as evidenced by the Deccan Traps
- extensive volcanic deposits laid down at the
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary - of India and Pakistan.
These lava flows came about when India moved over a
"hot spot" in the Indian Ocean, producing flows that
exceeded one hundred thousand square kilometers in
area and one hundred and fifty meters in thickness. Such
flows would have produced enormous amounts of ash,
altering global climatic conditions and changing ocean
chemistry. Evidence that volcanism was a primary
extinction agent at this boundary is also relatively
strong. In addition, and the presence of spherules and
shocked quartz worldwide in the boundary layer may also
have been the result of such explosive volcanism. Thus
at present, both the volcanic and meteorite impact
hypotheses are both viable mechanisms for producing
the Cretaceous mass extinction, although the latter is
more popular.
---------------------------------------------

Some serious questions/issues:

• Perhaps the meteorite impact story is mainly preferred
  by the media because of it's higher PR "value"?
  
• Time resolution is crucial yet pretty bad:
  Determining the age of rocks or fossils that are millions
  of years old is not easy; carbon dating only has a
  reasonable resolution when used with organic material
  that is less than about 50,000 years old, so it is useless
  with the 65 million year old K-T material!
  
• Falsifiability: Sad but true: many hypotheses
  about dinosaur extinction sound quite convincing and
  might even be correct, but, as you know, are not really
  science if they cannot be proven or disproved. Even with
  the best hypothesis, such as the impact hypothesis, it is
  very difficult to prove or disprove whether the dinosaurs
  were rendered extinct by an event that occurred around
  the K-T boundary, or whether they were just weakened
  (or unaffected) by the event.
  
  
  cited from University of California Museum of
  Paleontology (UCMP):
  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html
  
• Buggs and Frank seem to speak of different people:
  Buggs: Dr. Ronald C. BLAKEY, Northern Arizona Univ.
  http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/
  
  Frank: Dr. John D. BLAKLEY, 2001 Phd Thesis from Idaho State Univ.
  
  http://geology.isu.edu/dml/thesis/Blakl ... 01_ISU.pdf
  
  

  ...reference to Dr. Blakley and his
  maps. He is recognized as one of the experts in the field
  of plate tectonic mapping
  

  
  Frank, obviously Ron BLAKEY is the right map guy, NOT your friend, BLAKLEY...
  
  Could someone please quote a refereed scientific
  journal, where Ron Blakey's Cretaceous maps have
  been published? Which article in his publication list
  http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/rcb_refs.html
  contains the maps in question? I am sure you guys have checked all that out already!?
  
  Only material published in peer reviewed scientific
  journals guarantees /to some extent/ that the scientific
  paleogeography/geology community has accepted the
  results presented! Although original material on webpages may
  be useful for various purposes, it cannot form the basis for
  science-based projects...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In my eyes: altogether a pretty shaky scientific basis
for such an ambitious and laborious rendering project...

In the name of critical education::
Think of all the students that might be mislead by
a poorly founded project!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

F.

[buggs_moran]

I understand your angst regarding the dissemination of knowledge Fridger.
There are a number of different scenarios regarding the mass extinction
event. We, as educators, are supposed to convey knowledge with the
different scientific possibilities in mind. Frank's project can visually show
one of the possibilities (and at the same time give an approximation of
what a large impact can do to a planet).

We all know there are years of data and research that have been done
with no conclusive evidence for an impact. There are numerous
publications for both supporting an impact and supporting volcanoes. One
that I read by Dr. Richard Cowen, Univ of Calfiornia at Davis, (
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/ ... wen3b.html ) possibly
links both in a short talk. I think that the responsible thing to do from
Frank's end is to introduce his addon with the knowledge (or lack there of)
regarding the impact. We should discuss the possibilities with the
students/users and let them know that there is much TO know.

Dr. Blakey's set of maps here,
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/globaltext2.html, had about thirty references
listed for the work done with the maps (including work from people other
than himself ). I did not find publications which used the map,
albeit I have not combed the libraries looking for them either. I (and yes,
this is bad) "assumed" that his hard work and references in building the
map was sufficient for Frank's needs...

I agree hard science is important, especially when Celestia is used in the
"real" world of science. Many of us strive to make add ons as close to
reality as possible. I know I tried to get exit velocities and plume heights
close in my Io volcanoes. When I show them to my students I have to
explain that the timing, color, visibility, composition, and parabolic motion
of the particles is wrong in my add on.

For educators, garnering interest in science and mathematics is a very
hard thing to do in the flashy multimedia society we live in. We have to
make science interesting to kids that "see" so many things that we had to
use our imaginations for years back. We must keep them interested
enough to have some pursue science. Otherwise I fear we are destined
for a world of sports glorification, televised singing competitions and
glamorized war, to put it succinctly.

The key to this type of education is making sure that we explain the other
possibilities and our limits of knowledge while exciting and engaging a
student enough to learn more. If I were to use Frank's add on in a class, I
would probably give an assignment requiring my students to write an
essay on other possibilities surrounding the KT event, thereby rounding off
their basic education on the subject, and possibly lighting the fire
under a future paleogeologists toes...

[t00fri]

buggs,

The key to this type of education is making sure that we explain the other
possibilities and our limits of knowledge while exciting and engaging a
student enough to learn more. If I were to use Frank's add on in a class, I
would probably give an assignment requiring my students to write an
essay on other possibilities surrounding the KT event, thereby rounding off
their basic education on the subject, and possibly lighting the fire
under a future paleogeologists toes...

I can full-heartedly agree with the view you were
exposing above. There are many mysteries in nature
where scientists have little chances ever to provide a
unique conclusive explanation. As long as other equally
probable explanations are ALWAYS presented and
contrasted with each other, the result is highly
educational, nevertheless.

But unfortunately, my previous experiences with
so-called "educational material" in this community and
elsewhere (in the media) have been far less positive in this regard!

Apparently, many people simply have never been trained
to be critical and to use their common sense, as to all
this nicely presented BUT incorrect information on so
many websites...

Often the teachers involved may have lacked the
necessary broad background knowledge to be able to
present a balanced view of the alternatives at stake.

Also, perhaps, some have a tendency to exclusively
focus on scenarios that involve most "graphical action"
for a number of NON-scientific reasons...

F.

[ajtribick]

Further questions, which should be addressed given the nature of the Celestia program...

Is there any evidence as to the rotation period of the Earth at the K-T boundary? What about axial tilt and orientation? What about the magnetic field (if you are thinking of depicting aurorae)...

Is the Moon's orbit 65 million years ago well known? How chaotic is the system - do we know which side of the planet it would have been located on?

Similarly, can reasonable predictions be made for the positions and orbital parameters of the planets and their satellites be made for a time 65 million years before the present?

What is known about the trajectory of the impactor through the solar system, its origin, etc? Are they known well enough to depict them with reasonable accuracy?

Are any of the major craters, e.g. on the moon, planets or their satellites known to have formed in the last 65 million years (apart from Chicxulub)? Such craters should not be depicted.

What do you plan to do about the stars? 65 million years is about a quarter of a galactic orbit, the solar neighbourhood is going to have been very different.

Have you researched whether stellar evolution models predict any significant differences in the properties of the Sun?

[ElChristou]

Andrew's point above are the reasons of my silence till now, personally I think there is too much unknown to depict this event.
Finally a solution would be to do a complete fictional event (earth like planet) and use it to illustrate the effect of and impact AND what "possibly" happens on Earth 65M years ago...

[t00fri]

Andrew's point above are the
reasons of my silence till now, personally I think there is
too much unknown to depict this event.
Finally a solution would be to do a complete fictional
event (earth like planet) and use it to illustrate the effect
of and impact AND what "possibly" happens on Earth
65M years ago...

Christophe,

be assured that Andrew's points and quite a few more
bother me since Frank's first announcement.

While I am initiating this effort in the name of education...

In the name of critical education I felt it
was better NOT to remain silent, though...

After doing some more in-depth research about that
project, I also think such a rendering within Celestia would
be largely phantasy, at best with a few "half-solid" corner
stones. Let me add that according to Ron Blakey himself, ALL
elevations displayed on his maps from 65M years
ago, have been "cloned" from present days USGS
elevation maps of Earth!

In my view all this is definitely NOT a sufficiently solid basis
for making such a detailed "educational project" out of it!

I can't help the impression that at this badly researched
early stage, the enthusiastic announcement by Frank above, has little
solid foundation and thus is basically hot air:

I am excited to announce the commencement of a new
educational project that will use Celestia to take the
viewer back in time 65 million years ago, to witness the
impact and devastation that occurred when an asteroid
smashed into Earth to end the Cretaceous Period. 70% of
all life was snuffed out.

While -- with familiar rhetorics -- you take the meteor impact
scenario for granted, it is of course JUST one of several
unmentioned, about equally probable speculations!

The project will be dramatic, not static, with animation
effects, changes in Earth over time, etc. It needs the help
and support of lots of us, if it is to be accurate and
worthy of Celestia viewers. If we do it right, it could
become the definitive free resource for educators,
governments and news organizations worldwide, to show
what the impact did to Earth.

Sorry, Frank, I am definitely NOT out to offend
you, but what I could read from you so far about your
plans indeed has VERY little substance.
(Even forgetting about your "Blakey <=> Blakley" mixup)

F.

[chris]

Further questions, which should be addressed given the nature of the Celestia program...

Is there any evidence as to the rotation period of the Earth at the K-T boundary? What about axial tilt and orientation? What about the magnetic field (if you are thinking of depicting aurorae)...

Is the Moon's orbit 65 million years ago well known? How chaotic is the system - do we know which side of the planet it would have been located on?

Similarly, can reasonable predictions be made for the positions and orbital parameters of the planets and their satellites be made for a time 65 million years before the present?

What is known about the trajectory of the impactor through the solar system, its origin, etc? Are they known well enough to depict them with reasonable accuracy?

Are any of the major craters, e.g. on the moon, planets or their satellites known to have formed in the last 65 million years (apart from Chicxulub)? Such craters should not be depicted.

What do you plan to do about the stars? 65 million years is about a quarter of a galactic orbit, the solar neighbourhood is going to have been very different.

Have you researched whether stellar evolution models predict any significant differences in the properties of the Sun?

I think it's safe to say that we'd have no idea what was in the sky at the time of the Chicxulub crater was made . . . The bright stars in our sky are bright because they're close--in which case they're proper motions would take them far from the Sun over 65 million years--or they're far away and intrinsically bright, and thus likely to have formed considerably less than 65 million years ago.

I know of no attempt to integrate the positions of planets so far back. From the recent work I've done on long-period precession, I gather that while we might be able to model the evolution of the eccentricity and perihelion of planetary orbits over millions of years, we'd never be able to know where they were in the sky. The Earth's rotation is unpredictable even over time spans of a few thousand years. From the HORIZONS documentation:

As one progresses to earlier times, particularly those prior to the 1620 telescopic data span, uncertainties in UT determination generally (though not always and not uniformly) increase due to less precise observations and sparser records. At A.D. 948, uncertainty (not necessarily error) can be a few minutes. At 3000 B.C., the uncertainty in UT is about 4 hours.

(italics mine)

...so, I don't think we'll every know whether it was day or night in Chicxulub when the impactor hit.

Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to explain to students that the positions of stars, planets, and the Moon at the end of the Cretaceous are not known exactly, but a few phenomena are depicted approximately:

- The faster rotation of the Earth
- The closer average distance between Moon and Earth
- The size of the impactor (10km seems to be a widely accepted estimate)
- The size and location of the crater
- The location and shape of the continents

I'm not sure whether that's enough to justify an educational add-on. If it was me, I'd only be interested in making the add-on if there was something known about the possible trajectory of the impactor, but that may merely be reflective of my own fascination with celestial mechanics.

An interesting thing to do might be to present multiple hypotheses: one impact vs multiple, show the location of the Deccan Traps, etc. This would illustrate to students some of the questions that remain with the K-T asteroid impact extinction hypothesis.

--Chris

[t00fri]

I think it's safe to say that we'd have no idea what was in the sky at the time of the Chicxulub crater was made . . . The bright stars in our sky are bright because they're close--in which case they're proper motions would take them far from the Sun over 65 million years--or they're far away and intrinsically bright, and thus likely to have formed considerably less than 65 million years ago.

I know of no attempt to integrate the positions of planets so far back. From the recent work I've done on long-period precession, I gather that while we might be able to model the evolution of the eccentricity and perihelion of planetary orbits over millions of years, we'd never be able to know where they were in the sky. The Earth's rotation is unpredictable even over time spans of a few thousand years.

While it can't hurt to spell this out explicitly, our ignorance in these crucial areas should be quite obvious.

...so, I don't think we'll every know whether it was day or night in Chicxulub when the impactor hit.

Certainly...

Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to explain to students that the positions of stars, planets, and the Moon at the end of the Cretaceous are not known exactly, but a few phenomena are depicted approximately:

- The faster rotation of the Earth
- The closer average distance between Moon and Earth
- The size of the impactor (10km seems to be a widely accepted estimate)
- The size and location of the crater
- The location and shape of the continents

Right! But this is a quite different (and certainly sensible) task from what has been laid out above by Frank!

An interesting thing to do might be to present multiple hypotheses: one impact vs multiple, show the location of the Deccan Traps, etc. This would illustrate to students some of the questions that remain with the K-T asteroid impact extinction hypothesis.

--Chris

As we discussed earlier: the point is to display and compare the diversity of mass-extinction scenarios that remain plausible given the state-of-the art of today's geology research.

F.

[fsgregs]

Fridger:

I am not at all surprised by your reply. Based on the confrontational tone of the postings, from the moment the project was proposed, you have been prepared to desparage it.

how do you exclude this alternative to the meteorite
impact story around the K-T boundary:

Who said such a theory would be excluded? You did apparently. I certainly did not. I am aware of the volcanic eruption alternative, but it is not widely accepted because it does not have the scientific support that the impact theory has. In fact, I am unaware of virtally any discovery in science that does not have some detractors and gadflies. Over 30% of people on Earth actually still believe the Earth is the center of our solar system, according to a poll taken by an American research foundation. That does not stop scientists from telling another story. The nebula theory of the formation of our solar system, the collision theory to explain the formation of the moon, the life cycle theory of star and galaxy formation, global warming, evolution ... are all well extablished theories with opponents and critics. If we refused to publish or explain these theories in our schools or outline them in Celestia because there were other less accepted theories to counter them, we would have no science to teach!

To suggest that the existance of some alternative theory should be an argument to derail and stop an effort to depict the K-T Impact theory in Celestia, is counter-productive to the advancement of science education.

Perhaps the meteorite impact story is mainly preferred
by the media because of it's higher PR "value"?

It sure sounds like we are all fools for falling for some crackpot theory that "the media" likes for its PR value. Instead, as you should know, volcanic eruptions covering much of the Earth with ash and dust are not exactly a walk-in-the-park media story. In fact, it has been the subject of several of its own documentaries. The media cover the impact event primarily because it is the most supported by the facts, and most widely accepted by the astronomical and geological scientific community! Since you hold my work in such low regard, if you don't believe me ... ask them!

Falsifiability: Sad but true: many hypotheses
about dinosaur extinction sound quite convincing and
might even be correct, but, as you know, are not really
science if they cannot be proven or disproved

This statement is an attempt to desparage my credibility by suggesting that by seeking to believe in the impact theory, I can easily fall for false or unproven statements. I have heard similar claims about the volcanic eruption scenerio and the climate change scenerio, with lava flows and climate records claiming to be of a similar time frame but possibly false. Bending claims to match a theory is true in any scientific endeavor and in every theory, and it is ludricous to suggest that the presence of possible falsified facts by a few people who support a theory, is a rationale for rejecting or refusing to depict any theory on its face. If we all did that, there would be no presentation of anything!

Buggs and Frank seem to speak of different people:
Buggs: Dr. Ronald C. BLAKEY, Northern Arizona Univ.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/

Frank: Dr. John D. BLAKLEY, 2001 Phd Thesis from Idaho State Univ.
Frank, obviously Ron BLAKEY is the right map guy, NOT your friend, BLAKLEY...

I have no idea where you got this idea. The map I referenced came from Ron Blakeley, not some PhD student. You need to get your facts straight, particularly if you intentionally try to highlight them in bold print to suggest I have no idea what I'm doing!!!

In the name of critical education::
Think of all the students that might be mislead by
a poorly founded project!

I also think such a rendering within Celestia would
be largely phantasy, at best with a few "half-solid" corner
stones.

I can't help the impression that at this badly researched
early stage, the enthusiastic announcement by Frank above, has little
solid foundation and thus is basically hot air:

Sorry, Frank, I am definitely NOT out to offend
you, but what I could read from you so far about your
plans indeed has VERY little substance.
(Even forgetting about your "Blakey <=> Blakley" mixup)

You sure had me fooled! As a Scientist, given the overwhelming evidence posted above from your quotes, I can conclude with scientific certainty that offending and ridiculing me to prove your own points is exactly the purpose of your postings! In fact, you are perhaps the most offensive professional I have ever conversed with.


Buggs:

Thanks for your reply to Fridger's ill-researched comments. I obviously would include some note in the Activity that there are several other theories to explain the K-T extinction. In fact, I had already begun writing the opening paragraphs which state just that.

I "assumed" that his hard work and references in building the
map was sufficient for Frank's needs...

The middle and high school kids I will be doing this Activity for don't care if the north pole has more or less ice than it used to, or whether some of the moon's craters today were not present back then. Most of them have NO IDEA that the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago, let alone what India's land mass or the Gulf of Mexico's shoreline might have looked like. Hell, many of them have been taught in Christian schools that man and dinosaurs co-existed together and we used to hunt them with bows and arrows. As such, if we can bring them the story of the K-T extinction as one plausible (the most plausible) theory of what happened, we will most definitely teach them some good science and enrich their lives.

I am not publishing to "Nature" here. Dr. Blakeley is just one of several recognized authorities in the field that I am studying, and in fact, he has been cited as such in numerous other educational sites. I presume that his maps were reasonably researched to depict the look and feel of Earth's land masses over the last several hundred million years. I am in no position to critique them, nor do I intend to do so. Rather, I am summarizing the prevailing theory of the K-T extinction in an educational activity that will be used primarily in high schools. It was my hope that we could get the story accurate enough to also be used by collegiate and government agencies, since Celestia is an ideal visual means of depicting the story. While the story certainly has standards to meet regarding accuracy, let's not make this such a burden that the entire effort is dropped. Celestia is a visual aid here. It can do a nice job of depicting THIS theory, or several others. I suggest we not overlook the purpose of this project ... to visually depict what things might have looked like.

Ajtribick's questions regarding the state of the solar system 65 million years ago are good questions, but do not have to be answered in this activity. Aside from some work on the rotation rate of Earth, I believe we can tell this story without knowing the orbital state of all of the planets, or the distance the Moon was from Earth at the time, or which craters on the moon are newer than 65 million years. Most of those things are totally unimportant to the purpose of the Activity, which is to convey to high school kids what that impact might have looked like, and how it may have wiped out most life on Earth.


Given the postings so far, I am withdrawing my offer to make this activity collaborative. I will give kids all over the world an opportunity to see what that impact might have done to Earth. They will find it provocative, fascinating and exciting, and if I include some caveats that many of the events depicted are speculative only (since we were not there), and that there are other possible explanations not as accepted for the extinction of the dinosaurs, I feel that both science and good education will be amply met.

Anyone willing to work with me on this privately, please email me.

Consider the topic closed.

Thanks for your concerns and comments

Frank

[t00fri]

Frank,

...

how do you exclude this alternative to the meteorite
impact story around the K-T boundary:

Who said such a theory would be excluded? You did apparently. I certainly did not.

You must agree that the volcanic eruption scenario was NOT part of your above project definition, which necessarily does create a huge bias! At the present high level of uncertainty only a comparative presentation of BOTH competing scenarios represents a sound educational strategy.

I am aware of the volcanic eruption alternative, but it is not widely accepted because it does not have the scientific support that the impact theory has.

Who says so? YOU? You might have overlooked that ALL my citations were literally taken from very authoritative places:

So further below you did NOT criticize my wordings, but those of
Hooper Virtual Paleontological Museum (HVPM)
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/ ... cause.html
and
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP):
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html
E.g. once more the essence of my literal HVPM citation above:

...
Evidence that volcanism was a primary
extinction agent at this boundary is also relatively
strong. Thus at present, both the volcanic and meteorite impact hypotheses are both viable mechanisms for producing the Cretaceous mass extinction
...

See e.g. also buggs' reference to the paper by Dr. Richard Cowen/UC Davis.
Or this paragraph literally taken from UCMP that you incorrectly attributed to me although I quoted clearly the reference:

Falsifiability: Sad but true: many hypotheses
about dinosaur extinction sound quite convincing and
might even be correct, but, as you know, are not really
science if they cannot be proven or disproved

This statement is an attempt to desparage my credibility by suggesting that by seeking to believe in the impact theory,...

Altogether it seems that you read my post very superficially.

These sentences that you considered agressive from my side were literal citations from the above museum URLs.

Even after your second try, you failed to write the name of the author of the Cretaceous maps correctly! This does NOT exactly add to the soundness of your project research. I am sorry!

Buggs and Frank seem to speak of different people:
Buggs: Dr. Ronald C. BLAKEY, Northern Arizona Univ.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/

Frank: Dr. John D. BLAKLEY, 2001 Phd Thesis from Idaho State Univ.
Frank, obviously Ron BLAKEY is the right map guy, NOT your friend, BLAKLEY...

I have no idea where you got this idea.

I quoted you, didn't I . Here is the quote once more:

...reference to Dr. Blakley and his
maps. He is recognized as one of the experts in the field
of plate tectonic mapping

You used that wrong spelling consistently in various places...

The map I referenced came from Ron Blakeley, not some PhD student. You need to get your facts straight, particularly if you intentionally try to highlight them in bold print to suggest I have no idea what I'm doing!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your spelling is AGAIN incorrect!!!

All you got to do is click his WEBsite
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hence I seriously doubt you have read in depth any of Ron Blakey's original papers,
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/rcb_refs.html
where he discusses all the crucial assumptions he made to generate the maps in question...

Neither of the two is a PhD student, both -- John D. Blakley and Ron Blakey -- have PhD's in Geology since > 7 years!

ONCE MORE: the correct guy is called (cf also buggs_moran's post):

Ron BLAKEY, certainly NOT Ron Blakeley as you claim in your insulting reply! Never forget, professional scientists know pretty well how to do literature searches .

I do expect an apology here!

In fact, I am unaware of virtally any discovery in science that does not have some detractors and gadflies. Over 30% of people on Earth actually still believe the Earth is the center of our solar system, according to a poll taken by an American research foundation. That does not stop scientists from telling another story. The nebula theory of the formation of our solar system, the collision theory to explain the formation of the moon, the life cycle theory of star and galaxy formation, global warming, evolution ... are all well extablished theories with opponents and critics. If we refused to publish or explain these theories in our schools or outline them in Celestia because there were other less accepted theories to counter them, we would have no science to teach!

My God, what sort of weired arguments...

In fact, you are perhaps the most offensive professional I have ever conversed with.

It is NOT the first argument we are having about your approach to presenting scientific results in education. As you know very well, I am generally critical about your tendency to mix facts and fiction in your "educational activities". Your present unbalanced layout of the mass-extinction issue is just another example...

Last not least, you might have noticed from the replies by a number of other people that I am not alone with the conclusion that it will be VERY hard to separate the facts from the fiction about what happened 65 million years ago!

Buggs:

Thanks for your reply to Fridger's ill-researched comments.

This is again an unfounded insult. Unlike your reply, Buggs' reply to my post was well reflected and carefully written. I agreed to 100% with what he wrote!

Given the postings so far, I am withdrawing my offer to make this activity collaborative.

A good idea, indeed...


F.

[ajtribick]

Ajtribick's questions regarding the state of the solar system 65 million years ago are good questions, but do not have to be answered in this activity. Aside from some work on the rotation rate of Earth, I believe we can tell this story without knowing the orbital state of all of the planets, or the distance the Moon was from Earth at the time, or which craters on the moon are newer than 65 million years. Most of those things are totally unimportant to the purpose of the Activity, which is to convey to high school kids what that impact might have looked like, and how it may have wiped out most life on Earth.

Given this, might I ask why you are considering using Celestia to demonstrate the K-T impact?

Celestia is a tool which allows you to navigate through the universe to high accuracy, which in ignoring the issues I have raised you are essentially throwing away. However its rendering engine has several significant limitations, and it is this rendering engine you are using to show "what that impact might have looked like".

I think Celestia is clearly the wrong tool for the job you want to do. Your idea seems to be ignoring aspects that Celestia is good at in favour of aspects which Celestia is not particularly good at.

While I support the idea of an educational resource about the K-T extinction, a Celestia add-on is probably the wrong way to do it.