4 ms·
I disagree. This event does not support the Nemesis hypothesis. This might only add evidence to suggest that there is periodicity to Earth impacts. Although, it
by tdedecko 17y ago
I disagree. This event does not support the Nemesis hypothesis. This might only add evidence to suggest that there is periodicity to Earth impacts. Although, it might not. As I understand it the idea of periodicity for impacts is debated and is not statistically conclusive.
There are other hypothesizes besides Nemesis to explain the supposed periodicity of impacts. Essentially, we need something to cause a gravitational change to the Oort cloud. Other possibilities include Brown dwarfs and black holes or precession in the rotation of the milky way.
- btilly 17y agoCorrection. This event doesn't only support the Nemesis hypothesis. More precisely it is evidence that something caused excess asteroid activity 65 million years ago. And therefore is supporting evidence for any theory which could explain that. Nemesis is the best known possibility, but is far from the only candidate.
- tdedecko 17y agoThe supposed impact is merely a data point that could be used to interpret Earth impact periodicity. It can only contribute to our to our current collection of data. Defining it as evidence in support or against periodicity is premature.
- btilly 17y agoWho said anything about periodicity? I was saying that it is evidence that the dinosaur asteriod was not just a random asteroid. Some external force disturbed potential asteroids and shoved multiple ones into the inner solar system. That fits with Nemesis. But would fit with other theories as well.