Talk:Alvarez hypothesis

"For comparison, the Martian moon Deimos is 12 km". Check out the page on Deimos. Assuming data on that page is correct the comparison here is wrong. Other objects (e.g. Phobos) are much closer in size to 12km than Deimos is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.63.49 (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The page Deimos says

Deimos has a mean radius of 6.2 km (3.9 mi)

Think back to high-school geometry. d = 2r: the diameter is twice the radius. Two times 6.2 is 12.4, close enough to 12 for the purpose. --Thnidu (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This came up in discussions at Katie. I have to hand a copy of The Great Extinction; What Killed the Dinosaurs and Devastated the Earth, by Michael Allaby and James Lovelock. (see ISBN 038518011X) which goes into some detail about the Alvarez hypothesis on the effect of a large lump hitting the Earth. On impact with the sea, rock and the sea where they met would be dissociated into atoms, stripped of electrons to form an extremely hot plasma cloud, a very dense gas which would then rise, not through convection but because there was nowhere else to go, forming a fireball carrying between 6,000 and 60,000 billion tonnes of matter into the atmosphere at about escape velocity so that some could have gone into orbit. The hot, dense, plasma would have been almost disc shaped, rising extremely quickly as a very wide barrel of fire. That, of course, is just the start. It's an ancient source, from the days before macs roamed the earth, but on that basis the image at Katie seems pretty reasonable. The info's not here, let me know if you'd like to add to it to expand the article ... dave souza, talk 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a lot of good evidence for this event, so is there any reason why it has not been upgraded from a hypothesis to a theory? 62.172.108.23 (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

In Organic Bio, I was told this is a theory, not a hypothesis. Im gonna go with my professor and say wikipedia is wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.66.121 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article says that the proposal was first suggested by Alvarez et al. in 1980, but in fact there was a book published in 1953 that first described the hypothesis/theory in considerable detail. Consider revising the phrase "who first suggested it in 1980" to "who popularized the theory in 1980". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:6811:C44E:7B65:692E:5595 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The pages states: "Iridium is extremely rare in the Earth's crust because it is very dense, and therefore most of it sank into the Earth's core while the earth was still molten."

This is a common misconception. Iridium is rare because it preferentially segregated into a phase (molten nickel-iron) that was dense, not because iridium itself is dense. Uranium, one of the densest elements, is enriched in the Earth's crust relative to the Earth as a whole, because the element tends to move into the low density silicate minerals of the continental crust. 75.145.141.58 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I suggest adding: Raup, David M. The Nemesis Affair: A Story of the Death of Dinosaurs and the Ways of Science. W. W. Norton & Company; revised enlarged edition 1999, original edition 1986. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Look, I have a question here but no answer. The sentence above is what I was taught in Science at school forty years ago. That is, the extraterrestrial nature is not due to either the presence of iridium or the amount of it; rather, it is indeed the isotope ratio that marks it as different. The problem is, from all that i have read in Wikipedia on this and related topics, this article here is the only one that says it. Pretty well all other articles either suggest, or state outright, that it is the sudden abundance of iridium that is the evidence of the ET impact.

Where to go from here? Is this still seen to be correct? The isotopic composition is the most suggestive of ET origin? And to a more practical point, should this (possibly very fine) point be propagated in other pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.78.119 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article discusses the iridium ratio as a method of determining whether it could have come from a nearby supernova as opposed to a local meteorite. http://earthscience.rice.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Alvarez_K-Timpact_Science80.pdf Lynn Ami (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alvarez hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215144945/http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=72 to http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=72

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 03:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tborges13 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tborges13 (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply