New Educational Project starting - the KT Asteroid Impact

[BobHegwood]

If I might interject a calm, rational thought here?

Obviously, there are going to be arguments concerning what is
right and wrong in trying to discover the facts behind almost any
of the things we are all interested in here.

Why does this have to be so negative though? Frank is trying very
hard to uncover some of these facts in his research, and the good
Doctor is well known for his strict adherence to the known facts
and the proof of those facts.

I think that Frank should be commended for his continuing efforts to
enlighten those of us without brains, and the Good Doctor should
likewise be commended for his undying efforts to keep the Celestia
environment built from hard science.

With that said, however, hasn't either of you noticed that there
is still a lot of fiction involved in Celestia as it exists today?

In my opinion, Frank should again be commended for his attempts
to educate the rest of us with his add-ons. However, I might
suggest that a simple caveat be added to each add-on with an
explanation of what is real versus what is assumed and/or
entirely fictional.

In this manner, the potential user can readily see whether he or
she wishes to rely upon the add-on for strictly educational
purposes.

Sorry, but them's my Brain-Dead thoughts on this matter.

Please understand that I am VERY grateful to you BOTH for all
of your hard work on my favorite program here.

Thanks, Bob

[buggs_moran]

"Let's just pause... Lets just take a step back. No I was wrong I'm sorry. Take a step forward. Now take a step back, and take a step forward and a step back and now we're cha-cha-ing."

-Real Genius (movie quote)

[scaddenp]

Looking at Franks' other work (eg origins of moon), I would say that his work DOES present alternative hypotheses, and so why not engage the student with graphic demonstration of what is the leading hypothesis.

Unlike physics, hypotheses in geology are hard to constrain. The asteroid theory has multiple lines of support but it is also dangerous to jump on "single cause " theories. The volcanic argument isnt necessarily a separate alternative as rheologists have speculated that a sufficiently large impact might cause magmatic outpouring on other side of world. Timing obviously is crucial to this explanation.

Impact, volcanism and other factors like disease could work together to turn bad into catastrophe.

The lines of evidence that support an asteroid impact at that time though are pretty compelling. The relationships with extinction are more complex.

Frank - re PLATES data etc. This kind of thing is also going to be ongoing with new evidence causing reevaluation of other evidence. Dating techniques available for 90my have poor resolution compared to how fast geography can change to futher complicate matters. I think you are best to put it in with statement like:
"Synthesis of paleogeographic data for the KT boundary is a complex and ongoing task. The reconstruction here is based on xxxxxx at time yyyy"

This is presumably for astronomy class not a geology class so details on how on earth do geologists figure this out would be inappropriate. A sidetrack on the different hypotheses and lines of evidence would be good but I suggest you can get an adequate treatment from Uni 101 level geology text book.

[fsgregs]

OK, let's step back.

The purpose of this educational add-on announcement was to solicit the help of scientists in the Celestia community to help me tell the story of the K-T Impact theory to school children in a reasonably accurate manner, using the power of Celestia to hover above a planet, show dynamic changes to that planet and its atmosphere over time if impacted by a 10 km wide asteroid, demonstrate the trajectory of an incoming asteroid, etc.. The fact is that the theory is an exciting one, is a popular theory and is supported by extensive evidence. While it is not the only theory, it is the prevailing one.

This is just my opinion, but I suspect that the K-T impact event is not even known to most of the 9th through 12 graders in the world today. As I mentioned in an earlier post, surveys have found that 30% of the world's population think the Earth is the center of our solar system, and over 50% of kids in America today are taught in their bible schools that dinosaurs and men lived together only a few thousand years ago, until drowned in the great biblical flood. Thus, giving school kids an opportunity to learn the basics of the "leading theory" of what really killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is a good thing, is it not?

I knew from the onset that I was not enough of an expert in the theory, nor had I read extensively on it, to serve as a definitive source. That is why I invited participation by others to help me get the facts straight.

In short, I was and still am trying to create an "educational" activity that will try to identify the facts as we know them, and avoid mixing too much fact with fiction ... to avoid the exact problem that Fridger claims he has had with some of my other activities.

TV documentaries do the same thing. The producers of these shows sometimes get their facts wrong. Sometimes, they leave out the complete story, in the interest of time. Sometimes, they favor one theory over another ... intentionally. Typically, since the story documents an ever-changing world of science, the story told in the documentary becomes outdated within months, as new facts pop up to alter what has been said. Nevertheless, and in spite of these potential faults, the power of documentaries as visual aids in schools cannot be stressed enough. Every secondary school and middle school with the resources in the world uses them because they can capture the interest of kids and keep that interest for an entire hour.

Educational websites and science magazines fall into the same category. They too tell the story of some topic, frequently become obsolete within months to years, and may miss, overlook or leave out some competing theories. Yet the power of the internet and print media to educate us all is obvious and vital to world education.

Celestia is a visual aid of great magnitude. Hundreds of teachers, perhaps thousands of teachers now, use it around the world to demonstrate and teach topics in Astronomy. While the program certainly needs to be accurate, its cabability to teach a concept does not always need that level of accuracy. For example, if I wanted to show a student what the North Star was, where it was located, and how to locate it via the constellations, I would need Polaris to be placed in Celestia in the right spot, but I would not need its radius or spectral class or age or elemental composition to be quite so accurate. It is nice that there are accurate, but I would not NEED them to be, at least for that topic. As another example, in one of my activities on the solar system, I invented and placed a comet positioned in the outskirts of the Oort cloud. I called it comet Oort, and took students to look at it. I colored it dark blue-gray with ice, no coma and no tail, as would be the case for a comet far out in space. They got to discover what a representative comet in the dark frozen Oort cloud looked like, and the characteristics it did not have (coma, tail). I made no mention one way or the other that the comet was fictional. Frankly, the students would not have cared. The purpose of the comet add-on was to show that Oort comets differ from near-earth comets. It served that purpose very well. One could call it educational license.

I can understand the demand of scientific purists like Fridger that if an add-on in Celestia is fictional, it MUST be declared so in any references to it. I could even agree that it would probably not have hurt me to say that comet Oort is fictional. However, for the purpose of educating the student about comets, it really made no difference whether we called it comet Oort, or called it "Sedna". The kids got to see what it looked like, and that was why I used it at all.

Regarding the K-T extinction educational add-on, I certainly agree that there are many things that we do not know. Separating fact from fiction is difficult when outlining a theory of a 65 million year old event. However, if we let such uncertainties stop us from presenting the theory at all, science teaching would totally collapse. As I said earlier, 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, the existance of dark matter and dark energy ... 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 their facts were still a bit uncertain and/or there were other less accepted theories to counter them, we would have no science to teach!

It is my goal to demonstrate to an educationl audience of school kids what the K-T impact theory MAY have looked like. I am concerned primarily about it. While I am doing that, I certainly can state that this theory is not the only one. In fact, I had every intention of doing so from the beginning. It might even be possible to write the story so that both the impact theory and the Decca traps eruption theory can be depicted together. I have no problem with that suggestion.

It is the tone and specific wording of Fridger's criticism of my proposals that have demeaned this effort, intentionally belittled my efforts and has served no purpose but to alienate two good contributors to Celestia. When a professional colleague (Fridger) uses such terms as "mislead, poorly founded, largely phantasy, half-solid, badly researched, little solid foundation, basically hot air, VERY little substance, mixuped, in the name of critical education, so-called "educational material, altogether a pretty shaky scientific basis", to describe another's efforts, I most certainly can and will take offense. Fridher even pointed out mis-spellings I made, as if I were some undergraduate in need of a good lesson! I think most readers on this forum will agree that such terms are demeaning, uncalled for and insulting, and should not be used under the circumstances of discussing a new Celestia project.

Fridger, if you had reservations about the project, you could simply have stated them in a polite, civil manner, like everyone else in the thread. Choosing instead a scornful and belittling tone throughout your posts served you poorly, and did me an injustice I do not deserve.

Perhaps I was in error in suggesting that we could get the story so accurate as to serve a collegiate or government audience as well. Perhaps the alignment of the moon on the day or night side on impact day, or the strength of the magnetic field, or the exactl layout of the shoreline of India on that day is demanded of some academic institutions. However, since no one really knows these things and can only surmise about them, we would either NEVER tell this story to anyone, or we simply must include some caveats in the story that "a lot about that day is not known". From the beginning, I had no objection whatsoever with including such a statement.

In summary, I am going to do the project, with the willing help of several folks on the forum who have an interest in making this add-on a good one. Students around the world need to learn about the K-T extinction, and Celestia can do it well. If you are interested in working with me, I would welcome your input. There are lots of things we do need to try to get as correct as feasible. Aside from the texture maps (we are using Dr. Ron Blakey's 4k Cretaceous map as a foundation), Chris's list posted earlier is a good one. Rotation speed and distance from Earth to moon still need to be researched, as does the effects that might be reasonable to expect in the atmosphere when the impact occurred. Impact crater has been located precisely and asteroid size is estimated at 8 - 10 km. Obviously I am just going to guess as to time of year of impact and exact date. Since the texture map shows a summer scenario, we'll go with that.

Frank

[t00fri]

Frank,

...so did your "Ron Blakeley" tacitly change name again, after you accused me incorrectly and offensively without apologizing?

Did you meanwhile note that those "agressive" wordings by myself were largely literal citations from renowned museum pages?

etc...

Of course you are free to do whatever you please with your "educational activities". I have absolutely nothing to do with these.

Yet I honestly tried to express my opinion as an experienced professional scientist about your project as it was originally exclamated with "glowing words" by yourself... I spent quite a bit of time in doing so and in researching the literature. Well you collected already some of my resulting impressions that I felt unable to hide ...

mislead, poorly founded, largely phantasy, half-solid, badly researched, little solid foundation, basically hot air, VERY little substance, mixuped, in the name of critical education, so-called "educational material, altogether a pretty shaky scientific basis",

F.

[fsgregs]

Fridger:

Did you meanwhile note that those "agressive" wordings by myself were largely literal citations from renowned museum pages

Not a single desparaging term that I highlighted in red was a quote from a renouned museum page. Rather, they were ALL your own words to describe my efforts. I suggest you read them again.

I am saddened by all of this. Scientists who choose to insult others with rudeness without cause in a public forum as you did here, using the number and extent of the terms you used here (and which you chose to highlight yet again by copying my list just now), plus the fact that in no case have you apologized yourself for stepping way over the line here, does not serve you well.

I suggest we put this to bed, or this thread will go on forever!

Frank

[t00fri]

Fridger:

Did you meanwhile note that those "agressive" wordings by myself were largely literal citations from renowned museum pages

Not a single desparaging term that I highlighted in red was a quote from a renouned museum page. Rather, they were ALL your own words to describe my efforts. I suggest you read them again.

Come on, you know which ones I am referring to!
You don't want me to quote them once more, do you??

mislead, poorly founded, largely phantasy, half-solid, badly researched, little solid foundation, basically hot air, VERY little substance, mixuped, in the name of critical education, so-called "educational material, altogether a pretty shaky scientific basis",

You have deliberately cut these words out of their original environment! I fully stand behind the proper content in which I used them. They were in NO way used offensively against yourself, but rather characterized the facts. Despite English being not my mother tongue, I think this is a correct statement.

Scientists who choose to insult others with rudeness without cause in a public forum as you did here,...

You failed to see the difference between comments about your project and your person!

F.

[scaddenp]

I would certainly rather this argument was excised. While I can see the point of the criticism about phrases out of context, I would have to agree with Frank, that unless closely read, it DOES sounds like personal criticism. Likewise, while pedantry is professional quality, it can sound like fight-picking to an English speaker. Call it cultural misunderstanding combined with mistaking your criticism of educational work in general as an attack on Frank's efforts in particular.

On the other hand...

I do think the science is well enough researched and based to support a major impact at KT time. I think it would be brilliant idea to construct it as an educational activity.

The impact hypothesis IS the leading theory though hardly settled science for the KT mass extinction. Examination of evidence and the controversies is good teaching and I am sure Frank is presenting the others.

Published paleogeographic reconstructions are presented in a form that is not exactly visually appealing because of need to show the uncertainty. I think it is acceptable to use one of the textural form based on PLATES and other refereed collections as a basis for visual presentation, provided the issues are addressed in the work book.

Frank is calling for data and input. Lets help him.

[buggs_moran]

Just read an interesting paper/article on the size of the KT impactor. I have heard of using iridium data to estimate the time of the impact but never the size. This marine osmium data lends more support to an event, and information on the size that was only an estimate based on the crater size before, not isotope records...

For the K-T event, a carbonaceous chondrite (11, 28) is the likely culprit, and analogous calculations yield diameter estimates of 4.1 to 4.4 and 6 km, based on Os isotopes (23) and Ir fluence (27), respectively. The smaller size of the Os-based estimates (as compared with Ir is a direct consequence of the relative magnitude of the Os and Ir inventories given above. The most recent simulations of impact-crater formation yielded projectile-size estimates of 15 to 19 km for the K-T Chixulub crater (2), 8 km for the Late Eocene Popigai crater (2), and 3 km for the Late Eocene Chesapeake Bay crater (29, 30).