The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

It just doesn't make sense. Consider the gravitational constant, 6.673×10−11 N·(m/kg)2. Now consider that the meteor that killed the dinosaurs was estimated to hit with the force of 100 million megatons. Obviously, modern scientists can't be trusted, since they're lying to us about the Earth's shape, but if we assume that they're telling the truth and right about all their calculations, the math still doesn't check out. I ran some numbers a couple nights ago and figured out that an Earth as thick and round as Round Earthers claim should have easily absorbed an asteroid impact like that. In fact, the kinetic force should have transferred to the supposed hot core and slowed down continental drift to the point that Pangea wouldn't have broken up.

On a Flat Earth, however, the force would be about as devastating as needed to exterminate the dinosaurs. Please leave thoughts and comments below

P.S. I've believed in FET for a long time, and lurked here, but I never had need to post. Now I've finally decided that I want to jump in.

Please post your calculations and analysis.

Um, the asteroid threw up a large amount debris. This caused severe and quick cooling of the Earth.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

Effects of impact[edit]
Such an impact would have inhibited photosynthesis by creating a dust cloud that blocked sunlight for up to a year, and by injecting sulfuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere, which might have reduced sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by 10–20%. It has been argued that it would take at least ten years for such aerosols to dissipate, which would account for the extinction of plants and phytoplankton, and of organisms dependent on them (including predatory animals as well as herbivores). Small creatures whose food chains were based on detritus would have a reasonable chance of survival.[80][96] The consequences of reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere would include a brief (hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation, killing exposed organisms.[50] Global firestorms likely resulted from the heat pulse and the fall back to Earth of incendiary fragments from the blast. Recent research indicates that the global debris layer deposited by the impact contained enough soot to suggest that the entire terrestrial biosphere had burned.[114] The high O
2 levels during the late Cretaceous would have supported intense combustion. The level of atmospheric O
2 plummeted in the early Cenozoic era. If widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO
2 content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect once the dust cloud settled, and this would have exterminated the most vulnerable organisms that survived the period immediately after the impact.[115]
The impact may also have produced acid rain, depending on what type of rock the asteroid struck. However, recent research suggests this effect was relatively minor, lasting for approximately 12 years.[96] The acidity was neutralized by the environment, and the survival of animals vulnerable to acid rain effects (such as frogs) indicate this was not a major contributor to extinction. Impact theories can only explain very rapid extinctions, since the dust clouds and possible sulfuric aerosols would wash out of the atmosphere in a fairly short time—possibly within 10 years.[116]
The shape and location of the crater indicate further causes of devastation in addition to the dust cloud. The asteroid landed in the ocean and would have caused megatsunamis, for which evidence has been found in several locations in the Caribbean and eastern United States—marine sand in locations that were then inland, and vegetation debris and terrestrial rocks in marine sediments dated to the time of the impact. The asteroid landed in a bed of gypsum (calcium sulfate), which would have produced a vast sulfur dioxide aerosol. This would have further reduced the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and then precipitated as acid rain, killing vegetation, plankton, and organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate (coccolithophores and molluscs). In February 2008, a team of researchers used seismic images of the crater to determine that the impactor landed in deeper water than was previously assumed. They argued that this would have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, which could have made the impact deadlier by altering climate and by generating acid rain.[117]
Most paleontologists now agree that an asteroid did hit the Earth at approximately the end of the Cretaceous, but there is an ongoing dispute whether the impact was the sole cause of the extinctions.[36][118] There is evidence that there was an interval of about 300 ka from the impact to the mass extinction.[119] In 1997, paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee drew attention to the proposed and much larger 600 km (370 mi) Shiva crater and the possibility of a multiple-impact scenario.
In March 2010 an international panel of scientists endorsed the asteroid hypothesis, specifically the Chicxulub impact, as being the cause of the extinction. A team of 41 scientists reviewed 20 years of scientific literature and in so doing also ruled out other theories such as massive volcanism. They had determined that a 10-to-15-kilometre (6.2 to 9.3 mi) space rock hurtled into Earth at Chicxulub on Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. The collision would have released the same energy as 100 teratonnes of TNT (420 ZJ), over a billion times the energy of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[7]

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Um, the asteroid threw up a large amount debris. This caused severe and quick cooling of the Earth.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

Effects of impact[edit]
Such an impact would have inhibited photosynthesis by creating a dust cloud that blocked sunlight for up to a year, and by injecting sulfuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere, which might have reduced sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by 10–20%. It has been argued that it would take at least ten years for such aerosols to dissipate, which would account for the extinction of plants and phytoplankton, and of organisms dependent on them (including predatory animals as well as herbivores). Small creatures whose food chains were based on detritus would have a reasonable chance of survival.[80][96] The consequences of reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere would include a brief (hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation, killing exposed organisms.[50] Global firestorms likely resulted from the heat pulse and the fall back to Earth of incendiary fragments from the blast. Recent research indicates that the global debris layer deposited by the impact contained enough soot to suggest that the entire terrestrial biosphere had burned.[114] The high O
2 levels during the late Cretaceous would have supported intense combustion. The level of atmospheric O
2 plummeted in the early Cenozoic era. If widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO
2 content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect once the dust cloud settled, and this would have exterminated the most vulnerable organisms that survived the period immediately after the impact.[115]
The impact may also have produced acid rain, depending on what type of rock the asteroid struck. However, recent research suggests this effect was relatively minor, lasting for approximately 12 years.[96] The acidity was neutralized by the environment, and the survival of animals vulnerable to acid rain effects (such as frogs) indicate this was not a major contributor to extinction. Impact theories can only explain very rapid extinctions, since the dust clouds and possible sulfuric aerosols would wash out of the atmosphere in a fairly short time—possibly within 10 years.[116]
The shape and location of the crater indicate further causes of devastation in addition to the dust cloud. The asteroid landed in the ocean and would have caused megatsunamis, for which evidence has been found in several locations in the Caribbean and eastern United States—marine sand in locations that were then inland, and vegetation debris and terrestrial rocks in marine sediments dated to the time of the impact. The asteroid landed in a bed of gypsum (calcium sulfate), which would have produced a vast sulfur dioxide aerosol. This would have further reduced the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and then precipitated as acid rain, killing vegetation, plankton, and organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate (coccolithophores and molluscs). In February 2008, a team of researchers used seismic images of the crater to determine that the impactor landed in deeper water than was previously assumed. They argued that this would have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, which could have made the impact deadlier by altering climate and by generating acid rain.[117]
Most paleontologists now agree that an asteroid did hit the Earth at approximately the end of the Cretaceous, but there is an ongoing dispute whether the impact was the sole cause of the extinctions.[36][118] There is evidence that there was an interval of about 300 ka from the impact to the mass extinction.[119] In 1997, paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee drew attention to the proposed and much larger 600 km (370 mi) Shiva crater and the possibility of a multiple-impact scenario.
In March 2010 an international panel of scientists endorsed the asteroid hypothesis, specifically the Chicxulub impact, as being the cause of the extinction. A team of 41 scientists reviewed 20 years of scientific literature and in so doing also ruled out other theories such as massive volcanism. They had determined that a 10-to-15-kilometre (6.2 to 9.3 mi) space rock hurtled into Earth at Chicxulub on Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. The collision would have released the same energy as 100 teratonnes of TNT (420 ZJ), over a billion times the energy of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[7]

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Who says they went extinct,   I see plenty of surviving dinosaurs.    Happily flapping their wings.

Who says they went extinct,   I see plenty of surviving dinosaurs.    Happily flapping their wings.

You know what I mean. Also, scientists are beginning to doubt that birds are even descended from dinosaurs. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1192019/Why-birds-NOT-descended-dinosaurs.html

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Indeed, please let me see your calculations for this idea. Also cooling is heavily related to surface area so heat dissipating from the entire surface of the globe would be radiated much more quickly than that of a small ring from the edge of a disc. It would of course also radiate from the top surface of the disk and bottom.

Here is some info about the impact.
Estimated Chicxulub Parameters:

Projectile diameter: 12.00 km ( = 7.45 miles )
Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m^3
Impact Velocity: 20.00 km per second ( = 12.40 miles per second )
Impact Angle: 90 degrees
Target Density: 2700 kg/m^3
Target Type: Liquid water of depth 500.0 meters ( = 1640.0 feet ), over crystalline rock.
Energy: Energy before atmospheric entry: 5.43 x 10^23 Joules = 1.30 x 10^8 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 1.0 x 108years
Major Global Changes: The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
(from http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/Chicxulub.html)

That is a lot of energy. But super heating? Lets see what effect it would have had on ocean temperature. We will assume the energy was quickly evenly distributed across the entire ocean mass. Just to give us a quick back of the envelope idea.

A calorie is the energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 Kelvin or degree Celsius at 1 atmosphere.
1 calorie = 4.2 Joule    so calories were 5.43 x 10^23 joules/4.2 = 1.293 x 10^23 calories
Total ocean mass of Earths oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg = 1.4 x 10^24 grams

So  calories/mass = temp change

1.293 x 10^23 calories / 1.4 x 10^24 grams = 0.0924 degree temperature change.
Not even a degree! What was the main problem was all of the material thrown up into the atmosphere, and of course the devastation near the impact.  In 1816 there was essentially no summer as a result of the 1815 eruption of  Mount Tambora. This event had substantially less energy and was still able to wreak havoc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora)

There is still a great deal of debate as to whether this event was the cause, was a co-cause, or just a coincident of the extinction. But the evidence for it having occurred is substantial.

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Indeed, please let me see your calculations for this idea. Also cooling is heavily related to surface area so heat dissipating from the entire surface of the globe would be radiated much more quickly than that of a small ring from the edge of a disc. It would of course also radiate from the top surface of the disk and bottom.

Here is some info about the impact.
Estimated Chicxulub Parameters:

Projectile diameter: 12.00 km ( = 7.45 miles )
Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m^3
Impact Velocity: 20.00 km per second ( = 12.40 miles per second )
Impact Angle: 90 degrees
Target Density: 2700 kg/m^3
Target Type: Liquid water of depth 500.0 meters ( = 1640.0 feet ), over crystalline rock.
Energy: Energy before atmospheric entry: 5.43 x 10^23 Joules = 1.30 x 10^8 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 1.0 x 108years
Major Global Changes: The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
(from http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/Chicxulub.html)

That is a lot of energy. But super heating? Lets see what effect it would have had on ocean temperature. We will assume the energy was quickly evenly distributed across the entire ocean mass. Just to give us a quick back of the envelope idea.

A calorie is the energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 Kelvin or degree Celsius at 1 atmosphere.
1 calorie = 4.2 Joule    so calories were 5.43 x 10^23 joules/4.2 = 1.293 x 10^23 calories
Total ocean mass of Earths oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg = 1.4 x 10^24 grams

So  calories/mass = temp change

1.293 x 10^23 calories / 1.4 x 10^24 grams = 0.0924 degree temperature change.
Not even a degree! What was the main problem was all of the material thrown up into the atmosphere, and of course the devastation near the impact.  In 1816 there was essentially no summer as a result of the 1815 eruption of  Mount Tambora. This event had substantially less energy and was still able to wreak havoc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora)

There is still a great deal of debate as to whether this event was the cause, was a co-cause, or just a coincident of the extinction. But the evidence for it having occurred is substantial.

No, Round Earth would have absorbed it.

Quote from: Fack Ballins on April 27, 2015, 11:04:02 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Well, yes, of course it is. Your original argument was based on the Round Earth model. There is no aetheric whirpool in the RE model. Did you forget what we were talking about?

Quote from: Fack Ballins on April 27, 2015, 11:04:02 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Why would the Spherical Earth not be biased towards gravity? 

Also in response to your response to Donald's temperature change:
Why do you think that the spherical Earth did not absorb the impact, he showed you there was no huge difference in tilt, rotation, or orbital revolution of the Earth in response to the impact.  So yes it did absorb the impact.  The surface material of the Earth, i.e. dirt and rock, however was almost vaporized (meaning much of it was blasted into particulate matter) and launched into the atmosphere blocking the sun.  This cooled the Earth due to less of the energy from the sun reaching the surface of the Earth. 
So what is you problem with the explanation of how this happened anyway? 

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 28, 2015, 06:46:14 AM

Quote from: Fack Ballins on April 27, 2015, 11:04:02 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Well, yes, of course it is. Your original argument was based on the Round Earth model. There is no aetheric whirpool in the RE model. Did you forget what we were talking about?

Did you? I'm arguing that, in a Round Earth, the excess energy from the impact would be trapped in the atmosphere in the form of heat for millennia. Your model is still biased.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 27, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 28, 2015, 06:46:14 AM

Quote from: Fack Ballins on April 27, 2015, 11:04:02 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Why would the Spherical Earth not be biased towards gravity? 

Also in response to your response to Donald's temperature change:
Why do you think that the spherical Earth did not absorb the impact, he showed you there was no huge difference in tilt, rotation, or orbital revolution of the Earth in response to the impact.  So yes it did absorb the impact.  The surface material of the Earth, i.e. dirt and rock, however was almost vaporized (meaning much of it was blasted into particulate matter) and launched into the atmosphere blocking the sun.  This cooled the Earth due to less of the energy from the sun reaching the surface of the Earth. 
So what is you problem with the explanation of how this happened anyway?

The problem is, it should have either absorbed the impact completely, without causing any damage, or superheated the atmosphere for several millennia.

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:12:06 PM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 27, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Didn't find them, but I obviously used calculations taken from those very same supercomputers 

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 28, 2015, 06:09:44 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:12:06 PM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 27, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Didn't find them, but I obviously used calculations taken from those very same supercomputers 

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

What are the "numbers that [you] found for the impact"?  Where did you find those numbers, and can you post them?

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 28, 2015, 06:46:43 PM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 28, 2015, 06:09:44 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:12:06 PM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 27, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Didn't find them, but I obviously used calculations taken from those very same supercomputers 

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

What are the "numbers that [you] found for the impact"?  Where did you find those numbers, and can you post them?

Online. I don't have the exact sources, but a few minutes of Google searching should lead you to them. I remember using the estimated force of the impact, the estimated period of time that it took for the dinosaurs to die off, and the estimated energy release of the impact.

The problem is, it should have either absorbed the impact completely, without causing any damage, or superheated the atmosphere for several millennia.

Uhhhh, what? You think an asteroid 12 miles in diameter travelling at 12.5 miles/ second is going to strike the earth at a 90 degree angle (that means head on, not a glancing blow) and be absorbed without causing any damage? What do you even mean by this? Or super heated the atmosphere for millennium. To what temps and how would the energy in the atmosphere  not be radiated off into space? The Earth's atmosphere radiate off quite a bit of energy each night.

Lets see some calculations. I shared mine. Your turn.

Ignoring the obvious fact that a giant asteroid hitting the Earth doesn't make sense in FET, it actually makes perfect sense on a round Earth.  You clearly don't know much about meteor impacts, so let me explain a few things:

Meteor impacts are deadly for many of the same reasons as volcanos, although the impact is easily absorbed it kicks up a lot of debris.  The bigger pieces fall in other parts of Earth and when they hit they create smaller debris which combined with the debris created by the big asteroid will block out the Sun and some will settle down and burry things.  All the impact breaking Earth's crust causes the global temperature to rise a lot followed by a dramatic temperature drop caused by the lack of sunlight.  This lack of sunlight would last long enough for plants to die and animals to starve.  That is why asteroid impacts are deadly.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 27, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 28, 2015, 06:09:44 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 27, 2015, 08:12:06 PM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 27, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Didn't find them, but I obviously used calculations taken from those very same supercomputers 

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

I'll bold a couple of possible conflicting statements.  You may have just misstated earlier.  Just a friendly reminded of how things may be used against you.

Notice that you estimated then force of the impact, estimated the time it took for the dinosaurs to die off, and estimated the energy released from the impact.  Donald gave you the calculation of what that energy would have done to temperatures, some of us basically explained to you how surface material was blasted into the air and blocked sunlight reaching the surface.  The energy would not have been enough to super heat the entire Earth's atmosphere, or even a significant portion of it, maybe just maybe in the immediate area.  Plus with the sunlight being blocked out the and the heat absorbed by the Earth itself, it would cool down pretty quickly in the immediate area of the impact. 
The impact, was small enough that as far as the Earth's movements in space are concerned, it didn't have an effect.  The surface however had to deal with the material ejected into the atmosphere.

Did you?

I'm not the one who suddenly tried to apply FE characteristics to a RE model.

I'm arguing that, in a Round Earth, the excess energy from the impact would be trapped in the atmosphere in the form of heat for millennia. Your model is still biased.

First of all, no it most certainly would not and secondly, biased towards what?? What is the bias here? Biased towards sound logic?

What are the "numbers that [you] found for the impact"?  Where did you find those numbers, and can you post them?

You are never, ever going to see those numbers. Never, ever, ever.

The problem is, it should have either absorbed the impact completely, without causing any damage, or superheated the atmosphere for several millennia.

Ok so................ show us how you arrived at these conclusions.
I can say that tornadoes aren't real (I've never personally seen one, so obviously they're fake  ), and that spinning air will either condense into a black hole or dissipate into cotton candy, but it means nothing if I don't show you how or why...

Anyways, to address your claims:
1. A 20 km meteor striking the Earth at above hypersonic speed hits the Earth, and you think it just gets absorbed? Good luck with that claim.
2. An impact of that magnitude would certainly kick up a lot of debris into the atmosphere and block out the sun, causing severe cooling. And our atmosphere has only trace amounts of CO2, compared to 96% of the atmosphere on Venus, so no greenhouse effect for us. I don't see where you are getting "superheated the atmosphere" from.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on April 28, 2015, 06:50:41 PM

Quote from: EmbracePhysReality on April 28, 2015, 06:46:43 PM

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

What are the "numbers that [you] found for the impact"?  Where did you find those numbers, and can you post them?

Online. I don't have the exact sources, but a few minutes of Google searching should lead you to them. I remember using the estimated force of the impact, the estimated period of time that it took for the dinosaurs to die off, and the estimated energy release of the impact.

If I go online and search, I probably won't find exactly the source that you found.  So please do the "few minutes of Google searching" yourself and post what you find. 

Online. I don't have the exact sources, but a few minutes of Google searching should lead you to them. I remember using the estimated force of the impact, the estimated period of time that it took for the dinosaurs to die off, and the estimated energy release of the impact.

So a few minutes of Googling leads you to concrete evidence? My turn, I'm going to go Google something......

Well would you look at that! Turns out there are thousands of sources that support the fact that the Earth is round. Thanks Google!