4 ms·

I'm no scientist, but I do think it's interesting that the theory of a massive asteroid destroying the dinosaurs arose in the age of nuclear weapons. The articl

by 3minus1 14y ago

I'm no scientist, but I do think it's interesting that the theory of a massive asteroid destroying the dinosaurs arose in the age of nuclear weapons. The article mentions a newer theory involving climate change, which seems to befit the present day.

jug6ernaut 14y ago
Why do you find it interesting that this theory arose in the age of nuclear weapons? The "age of nuclear weapons" has been some 60 years now, a lot of new information has come within these past 60 years. Unless your implying that nuclear weapons somehow lead them to this idea. I would argue that the 110 mile crater would be a bigger influence but that's just me.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  What he is saying is that it looks like we are explaining the unknown based on our greatest fears - coming to a conclusion and then finding evidence to support it - rather than by looking at the evidence. It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just that it is always worth remembering how our ability to analyze data points is always done through a haze of our own experiences.
mikeash 14y ago
It also arose in the Space Age, when knowledge of space was increasing dramatically. It only seems reasonable that theories would find wider applications. Knowledge of climate change has greatly increased in the past couple of decades, and it's not as if there's something that only restricts that knowledge to being applied within a few centuries of the present.
- ufo 14y ago
  To be fair, knowledge of everything else was also expanding dramatically... And the impact theory only really solidified in the 90s after they found the crater.
fhars 14y ago
It is actually even more closely related to nuclear weapons that the timing tells, one of the main proponents of the impact theory was Luis Alvarez, a physicist who had significant influence on the ignition system of the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator#...). (The other one was the geologist Walter Alvarez, his son.)

by 3minus1 14y ago

jug6ernaut 14y ago

Why do you find it interesting that this theory arose in the age of nuclear weapons? The "age of nuclear weapons" has been some 60 years now, a lot of new information has come within these past 60 years. Unless your implying that nuclear weapons somehow lead them to this idea. I would argue that the 110 mile crater would be a bigger influence but that's just me.

run4yourlives 14y ago
What he is saying is that it looks like we are explaining the unknown based on our greatest fears - coming to a conclusion and then finding evidence to support it - rather than by looking at the evidence. It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just that it is always worth remembering how our ability to analyze data points is always done through a haze of our own experiences.

mikeash 14y ago

It also arose in the Space Age, when knowledge of space was increasing dramatically. It only seems reasonable that theories would find wider applications. Knowledge of climate change has greatly increased in the past couple of decades, and it's not as if there's something that only restricts that knowledge to being applied within a few centuries of the present.

ufo 14y ago
To be fair, knowledge of everything else was also expanding dramatically... And the impact theory only really solidified in the 90s after they found the crater.

fhars 14y ago

It is actually even more closely related to nuclear weapons that the timing tells, one of the main proponents of the impact theory was Luis Alvarez, a physicist who had significant influence on the ignition system of the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator#...). (The other one was the geologist Walter Alvarez, his son.)