[meteorite-list] Neutron freeing in large hypervelocity impacts

From: Mexicodoug <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:13:33 -0400
Message-ID: <8CC275863C223DD-4FA4-34AF_at_webmail-d056.sysops.aol.com>

"Excuse me for being blunt, but I always try to combat junk science and
I think this is junk science without even an attempt of a proof."

Hello G?ran, Chris, Rob, Ed,

I don't think Ed has ever claimed to be a scientist so I am not sure it
is fair to judge his statements (or book) on scientific merit. My first
physics teacher drubbed us dreamy adolescents saying the scientific
method is a universal process, and not a conjecture (such as Ed's of
Carbon 14 graph shapes).

Like Intelligent design, it is one of those things with the misnomer of
"science", that ultimately relies on a critical link that is a leap of
faith. There is nothing morally wrong with this - as long as no one in
the party tries to pass cats for hares (dar gato por liebre - how to
say in English?) it all promotes interesting conversation from many
points of view when administered in moderation.

For those Carl Sagan (who would be 75 years old in ten days) groupies,
one might argue that a skeptic can only consider the 14C stuff (and
Ed's book) science if Ed:

- Spins more than one hypothesis - doesn't simply run with the first
idea that caught his fancy.
- Tries not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's
his.
- Quantifies, wherever possible.
- Is sure every link in the chain of his arguments works.

So no need to label it as "junk science". Ed is a brilliant and
creative muckraker intent on giving scientists a run for their money.
Before assuming any of the remarkable conjectures are the result of
scientific deduction ... let me quote from the forward where he
discusses the motivation for writing his Book, "Man and Impact in the
Americas", and you can be the judge if some of the skeptic's guidelines
register:

"... suffice it to say that at the time I was stunned by the rejection.
This first rejection was followed by multiple succeeding rejections ...
with words such as "absurd". But I was certain, da*n it, that there
were ancient writings that described these hits[impacts] ..."

I don't want to spoil the fun nor quote more than my fair use, or get
too blasted for taking anything out of context, so you can read more of
this exciting stuff in "Man and Impact in the Americas". It is a great
companion around the campfire when the coyotes are howling (a moment of
silence for sweet Taylor Mitchell, please) although a Kiowa Indian's
novel, "House Made of Dawn" would be my first choice ;-) .
http://www.naturesongs.com/coyote2.wav
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780060931940

Best wishes
Doug





-----Original Message-----
From: G?ran Axelsson <axelsson at acc.umu.se>
To: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 11:17 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Neutron freeing in large hypervelocity
impacts


I have tried to find any sources of the calibrating curve but I always
ends up on a publication server that tells me I have to pay to read the
article.?
As you seems to have found it, could you tell me where to find it or
show us the curve and dataset??
?
The closest thing I found was this quote on
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-2.htm?
"4) Despite these efforts, it remains difficult to calibrate periods
older than 22,000 14C years B.P., because residual concentrations of
14C in such samples are extremely low (a few percent of the
concentration found in modern samples). In addition, old samples have
often been altered by geochemical processes. In particular, most corals
that grew before the sea-level minimum at 21,000 calendar years B.P.
suffered intense meteoric alteration, precluding their use for 14C
calibration. The only two published reconstructions with satisfactory
analytical precision and low overall data scatter are the Lake Suigetsu
record (4,5) and the Bahamian speleothem (speleothems are cave
carbonates such as stalagmites and flowstones). However, these two
records strongly disagree. Hence, at least one of them provides an
inaccurate picture of the true calibration curve."?
?
Which of the curves do you base your theory on??
?
How can you trust the dating of the Barringer crater (which seems to be
quite inaccurate) when you think that the dating of the much smaller
Odessa crater is so wrong??
?
Describe how infra red (long wave heat radiation) could lead to proton
release and how it could be "concentrated in a small enough region".?
?
In which way would protons released create a spike in 10Be??
?
You have reserved the right of being wrong and I think you are.
Whenever some data doesn't match your theories you try to come up with
an imaginary process that in a magical way will make it fit.?
Excuse me for being blunt, but I always try to combat junk science and
I think this is junk science without even an attempt of a proof.?
?
But even I reserve the right of being wrong...?
?
:-)?
?
/G?ran?
?
E.P. Grondine wrote:?
> Hi Rob - >?
> Yes, I have read through all that before, but the spike that gets to
me is that huge spike in the INTCAL98 data right around the time of the
Barringer impact. >?
> I don't think the neutron release is related to what hits, or what is
hit, but rather just the total impact energy. I wonder what the big
ones like Chicxulub or Shiva or Zamanshin will show. If part of the
impact energy in the form of infra-red is concentrated in a small
enough region, then releases could occur. >?
> Take the IR measured from Tunguska for example, then scale massively
and localize to points. Do we hit freeing energies??
>?
> Speaking of Beryllium, the protons released at the same time as the
neutrons should be causing spikes in 10Be as well.?
>?
> In closing, I have been wrong before, and reserve the right to be
wrong both now and in the future.?
>?
> E.P. Grondine?
> Man and Impact in the Americas?
> ( a damn fine book, really, despite all its flaws)?
>?
> "Matson, Robert D." <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>?
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Odessa?
>?
> E.P. wrote:?
>?
> >> Take a look at the INTCAL98 14C calibration chart. Major spikes
appear?
>> to map to impacts.?
>> >?
> "Spikes" in the C14 calibration chart can be caused by a number of?
> factors (including measurement uncertainty/error). But the main cause
of?
> variability in the production rate of atmospheric C14 is simply
variation in the flux of cosmic rays. Cosmic ray intensity is modulated
by both the strength of the earth's magnetosphere and the sun's solar
wind, neither of which is constant.?
>?
> "From the other side of the equation, atmospheric C12 is ALSO
modulated?
> by earthly processes (e.g. volcanic eruptions, ocean temperature?
> changes)which can produce regional anomalies in the samples used to
build the radiocarbon calibration curves.?
>?
> "There is no evidence that large impacts can cause nuclear reactions
that?
> release neutrons. There isn't sufficient energy or fissionable
material,?
> so I have difficulty coming up with a mechanism which could cause a?
> large spike in neutrons. I suppose if an impactor had an anomolously?
> high beryllium content and it happened to hit an earth location with
rich?
> uranium deposits, then you could get a small neutron hiccup. But?
> siderites are very low in berrylium (< 10 parts per billion), so
that's a no-go on Odessa. Even chondrites typically have only a few
hundred parts per billion.?
>?
> --Rob?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> > ______________________________________________?
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com?
> Meteorite-list mailing list?
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com?
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list?
>?
> ?
______________________________________________?
http://www.meteoritecentral.com?
Meteorite-list mailing list?
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com?
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list?
Received on Fri 30 Oct 2009 05:13:33 AM PDT