[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Missing the point of Nemesis

Randy,

Your approach to the problem offers no solutions and simply serves to make a
difficult situation worse.

>  The point I was trying to make with my "ramblings" is that the sun could
>  very well be a multiple sun system, not a lone star, thereby increasing
the odds
>  for extinction periodicity.

Sorry, but it would not work that way.

If the Sun has a single companion then we could possibly expect periodic
extinctions. However, if there is more than one companion then each would
impose its own extinction period on the geologic record, so the periodicity
would not be as clear as R&S claim. In fact, it would look quite random.
Furthermore, these other companion stars would also be in unstable orbits
and would gravitationally affect one another leading to early ejection from
the Solar System. Hence the pattern of extinctions would not have occurred.

> Nemesis is too small, too far away, and too
>unstable an orbit to be causing these 13, 26 and 65 M.Y.  extinction
periods.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Too small? Certainly not compared to
the negligible mass of comets! To far away? What, in a heliocentric,
elliptical orbit with an ever changing distance? That's a new one on me!

>Nemesis was coined by the media to fit the 26 M.Y. cycle seen by R & S.


Again, I'm not sure where you got this idea from as Muller makes it quite
clear that it was he who came up with the Nemesis hypothesis, certainly not
the media.

Phil Bagnall
www.ticetboo.demon.co.uk



----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------