lbiarge

Airplane radiation is not in relation with atmosphere, it's in relation with less magnetic field. In same form a less quantity of the magnetic field may have relation with radiation at low altitude. Also consider that a people is few time in a plain but all the time in the land.

"At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in just a few tens of millions of years." - in Fermi paradox. with this I not need make more comments. This man not considered the need of combustible? You consider that we have a probably millions years civilization, what combustible? In our planet the spatial race begin in 1957, from there the man as put the foot in Moon and make a hole in Mars. This in 56 years. How could make comunications a civilization that would exist in a galaxy, with a probably longer of 100000 lightyears like our Milky way? What would be the interest for conquist many planets with the cost in materials and combustible? etc, .etc ... And all this would be with only 1 civilization, not 2 like say the post

Really is strange the construction of particle acceleratorns, according to duality wave-particles the sub-atomic particles would not need to be accelerated. Do you know inf the particles accelerators accelerate the photons? Do you understand why make construction of accelerators more powerfull that the already exist?

Very probably the effect is very high that I consider: "Radiation exposure of airline passengers" - http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/anthropg/flugpassagiere.html This is probably a negationist but also is usefull (he deny the effect of radioactivy in the "pregnant women exposed to medical radiation") : "So, even during large solar flares, passengers will not receive a radiation dose to be concerned about, but pregnant women worry about the effects on their children" - http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/solarflare.html more in google : http://www.google.com/search?q=solar+wind+plains#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q="solar+wind"+airplane+passengers This is usefull because a person is in a airplane few time, but a little more bigger solar wind but in many time, ... or less magnetic field can make many more effects.

"For example, the levels of ionizing radiation and radio interference can vary by factors of hundreds to thousands" - "Earth itself is largely protected from the solar wind by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles; however some of the charged particles are trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt." - "CMEs cause shock waves in the thin plasma of the heliosphere, launching electromagnetic waves and accelerating particles (mostly protons and electrons) to form showers of ionizing radiation that precede the CME" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind "From the European Space Agency’s Cluster mission, a new study has taken place that proposes it easier for the solar wind to infiltrate the magnetosphere than it had been previously believed" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind "What Problems Do Solar Winds Cause for Technology?" - "Problems Caused by the Solar Wind - In power systems especially, geomagnetic storms induce strong currents within transformers" - "Minimizing Solar Wind Impacts - Utility companies and other technology-based operations can minimize the impacts from geomagnetic storms." - http://www.ehow.com/way_5743486_prob...chnology_.html The perfect solar storm? Sun eruptions to peak in 2013 - "A massive solar storm, like the one that knocked out radio communications all over the U.S. in 1958, is coming, and this time the devastation could total as much as $2 trillion, experts told FoxNews.com. Call it the perfect solar storm." - http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...-peak-in-2013/ etc, etc

Sorry but I know the name, ... : "Every day we are hit by a blizzard of radioactive particles. It's called the solar wind and it carries about one million tons of electrically-charged gas particles, away from the sun every second" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/23degrees/2011/01/the_sun_and_the_solar_wind_ear.html

I prefer not continue this conversation, but I only say: "At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in just a few tens of millions of years." - in Fermi paradox. with this I not need make more comments. This man not considered the need of combustible? For end, I'm wrong. Please close the topic.

Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles - laws of quantum field theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics Today is a theory over duality. Also is string theory and Higgs boson, ... "Photoelectric effect is not a wave behavior" - in same form a electronic circuit (matter) can make waves. If you like I can say that a photon is a particle, but a photon like the light has a constant speed in any environment (vacuum, ...) and has not mass, against that a neutrino has mass and by that can have different speeds and this last are not theories.

Sorry if you consider that.

Photon is wave, by that have not mass.

Very probably all this is the cause that I write an hypothesis against the mainstream. Your solution is according to mainstream, but really is very expressive the evidences. "Please don't be insulting," I say the same, You and all people can to be belief, that not change the TRUE. This problem is near to the "exponential grow", normally mainstream consider it possible but only is impossible, and many people cannot understand that grow and exponential are incompatibles. You can say all you like over contact with other civilization, but really our society and probably more advanced civilization have the same probability to contact that the primitive man to contact with other continent. "Radio technology and the ability to construct a radio telescope are presumed to be a natural advance for technological species,[28] theoretically creating effects that might be detected over interstellar distances" - none proof, is easy to say. " Sensitive observers of the Solar System, for example, would note unusually intense radio waves for a G2 star due to Earth's television and telecommunication broadcasts" - an star transmit with trillion bigger power that a radio signal. etc, etc, etc. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1 last note with your permission: Who affirm anything is who need to give proofs. You affirm, please give the proofs. Sorry for my words, but it's very easy to attack without proofs, with words say by another person. This make me to be the rare, but really I give evidences, against the mainstream that give none proof and affirm that can occur, so this work make the against work, that who deny need to give the proofs. This is like say that God exist or give proof that not exist, same with UFo, magic, .... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I also can give many phrases of Bible or Koran, ... and then say that you give proofs against that phrases, this is what you say to me, give a phrase without any proof and that I give proof against that, and remember: "WHO AFFIRM IS WHO NEED TO GIVE THE PROOFS"

I'm preparing a more elaborated work with evidences, ... but an advance: 3 proofs or if you like 3 coincidences: 1 - At same time of dinosaurs extinction is the big marine reptile extinction, against this the sharks survive, reptiles need to go to surface to breathe but sharks have gill and by that not need. The so called extinction by impact need that the Sun get dark by dust and this difficult the photosynthesis, eat of vegetables … but these reptile are carnivores and can eat sharks … and in sea there are not barriers. In relation to Sun particles the big marine reptiles need to go to surface and receive more quantity of particles. 2 - Older species admit more radiation that new species. 3 - "Many scientists have suggested that ionizing radiation was responsible for mass extinctions” – this is according to Sun particles - http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm and not with impact. More: “Much in the fossil record confirms this evolutionary scheme. Ionizing radiation is evident in the geologic and fossil records as irradiated minerals, such as iridium, tektites and microtektites, bones that are radioactive, mummified fossils, abrupt shifts in the levels of elements known as isotopes, and selective extinctions. The huge deposits of fossilized bones that make-up phosphate rock deposits is staggering, and they are often radioactive. The conditions under which these fossil bones were deposited do not exist today, as they appear to have been cut off from both sea and air, and no sedimentation took place as they were laid down. The chemical process that transformed the bones into phosphate is unknown and could have involved ionizing radiation, especially since the deposits are radioactive.” - http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm - here you can read also information over iridium All this are in relation with Sun particles that is near to nuclear power and against impact.

Then I need to understand that you has gone to alpha centari and received signals from Earth. In this condition I can't say nothing more. Better, you affirm that you have travel to "across the visible universe" and detected the radio telescope arecibo. Good, very good. You are a God and I can't argue with an evidence like this. Also I can understand we are probably between the most advanced civilization in the universe, and prepared to contact with any other.

An example considering contact with the nearest star from us: I say also that same in the case of million of civilization the contact is impossible at least with our technology, with our actual technology probably we cannot contact with Proxima Centauri, this is only at 4.24 light years but this is only at 9285.6 more distance that Pluto. To contact with other civilization you need many transmission power, probably in a magnitude near to our star power emission (or more, our star is a low star), consider the loses by attenuation. Consider treat to contact with Proxima Centauri, you need a parabolic anten in that direction, a power of many wat, probably you would need near the power of 50 nuclear plants (or more) for obtain a signal probably 1 trillion less power that the Sun (without take in count the electronic for that - transistors, ...) with that signal probably you could make a signal of 2 minutes. This signal will arrive to Proxima Centauri in 4.24 years and only is signal for 2 minutes, in Proxima Centauri only would to ear the signal if there is a parabolic pointed to the earth. In case of receive by an advanced civilization they could send signal for us maybe yes or maybe not, ... All this for 1 only information in both directions???? the cost??? the value???? maybe also that when arrive the answer to us in 8.48 years our antennas are not directed to Proxima Centauri and we lost the answer. An this only with the more nearest star to us.

"The signals indicated superluminal speed, so what's your point?" I don't say this, I say that a particle can to travel at any speed below their maximum speed, so any speed is compatible with any other, different to waves that travel a constant speed in each environment (vacuum, ...) So neutrinos traveling near to light speed is totally compatible with neutrinos traveling at 1000 times less speed. In same form that a car traveling at 200 km/hour is totally compatible to another car traveling at 10 km/hour xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Wave behavior has been observed with electrons, atoms and molecules. All have been observed to diffract and interfere." Yes, but until today nobody has observed particles without mass and also nobody has observed waves with mass.

I think I don't misinterpreted that they say:" A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force." Then according to this, what strong forces or not strong force is the residual strong force? Later he say: "I said the residual strong force. You need to read the section that pertains to that." They say: " Really you treat to explain against that I say using the same that I say: I say before: "- a neutron can to be with weak force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not strong force." - in weak force. You say : "A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force." Really is near the same, (against you consider other strong force", a free neutron experience weak force, gravity and electromagnetism but not strong. xxxxxxxxxxxxx I say "- a neutron can to be with strong force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not weak force." You say : "I can bombard a stable iron nucleus" , then you say that a stable iron can to be unstable, according to nuclear bombard, nuclear plants, ... xxxxxxxxxxxxx When a nucleus stable become unstable then is like a hot surface that become less hot (or cold), like I say the strong and weak is like hot and cold. You say another time "I can bombard a stable iron nucleus", then after bombard the stable iron become unstable iron or radioactive iron, by that the stable and without weak become in part weak. Really is near the same.

According to this is false: “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx more: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Really these forces are not like that affect one or the other, in same form that a person that makes force in one direction, they are like temperature where cold really is the absence of heat. You need think more in a force of attraction that in their errors admit the decay. An example maybe a person with several dogs taken by cords, where an error in any cord makes that the dog at the end of that cord escapes. Also you can think the same with magnets and atoms.

Sorry, I only make this affirmation: “theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” - http://en.wikipedia....eutrino_anomaly This is false, matter can travel at any speed below the maximum speed. "Your idea that light as it is a wave and neutrinos as they are particles are very different is flawed as they both exhibit wave like ans particle like behaviours." This theory until today (Higgs boson, ...) has not find waves with mass and 1 only particle that travel in all direction like waves or for example 1 photon.

In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly reported neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly Very probably is an anomaly, I go not treat this now, but the physics say then that cannot to be true and that it’s against measures of the “theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly In all this explanations and beliefs they forget that light is a wave and neutrino is matter, waves travel at a constant speed in an environment but matter can travel at different speeds (maybe c is the maximum speed). So “believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly is only a lie probably subjective by their belief. Matter can travel at different speeds, so it’s completely probably and reconcile that any neutrinos travel at different speed. Really they say the same and not sure the real speed: “The delay of Icarus "only" 0.3 ns +-4ns +- 9ns (though still "in favor" of neutrinos), still leaves a large randomness of uncertainty about what the neutrinos have approached the speed of light” - http://marius-gravity.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/opera-phantom.html They use average “measured proton pulses to get an average distribution in time of the individual protons in a pulse.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly because really each neutrino has a different speed, like “each of which traveled with a slightly different speed!” in http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/neutrinos/neutrino-types-and-neutrino-oscillations/velocity-differences-of-neutrinos/ So it’s necessary to say that light in a environment travel at constant speed (is a wave) but neutrinos have different speeds (is a particle and by that is matter). Also we need to consider that we have not a supernova to proof the speed, only can accelerate in accelerator, by that is probably that in supernova, accelerator, Sun, … can have different speeds. Supernova 1987A – “thus 1.000000002 times the speed of light. This value was obtained by comparing the arrival times of light and neutrinos. The difference of approximately three hours was explained by the circumstance, that the almost noninteracting neutrinos could pass the supernova unhindered while light required a longer time” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed , quicker but always with explanation to all against their ideas Good, good, all time with subjective for explain the things without contradict the loved theory. The neutrinos also are curved by gravity like the light and light and neutrinos start in same point. Light not travel from the backside of the supernova and by that this affirmation is totally false. Really I would obtain other probabilities in the Supernova: 1 – Maybe that the light in vacuum not be the maximum speed and that light travel more speed in other environment, so the neutrinos not exceed light speed but exceeding the light speed in vacuum. 2 - Really neutrinos exceed light speed, this is according to the Opera experiment and also very probably also according to the Icarus that also is not sure that exceed or not light speed. 3 – Other probabilities but not false solutions. Maybe that boot neutrinos from accelerator and supernova are according to light speed but not with lies. Really the value of Supernova 1987A and experiments are very reconciling against that say subjective scientists. The result in supernova only is less that light speed with that explanation without any evidence and against any proof and physic. In same form that they explain the reconcile of Supernova 1987A and light speed you could reconcile everything. Here I’m not saying that neutrinos exceed or not light speed, is probably that light speed is more that c and by that the result are error, but treat to reconcile with lies, it’s not good and say bad of the subjective procedure. If the theory of relativity works fine or not is another team, but reject the proofs and the reality is another thing, like belief and religion. To say “theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” only is a true lie, and more over a particle that like matter can travel at different speeds (with maximum speed or not). Good work for the science that make resigned to that people that offer the result with courage and probably errors - http://io9.com/dario-autiero/ and many more good work to the science that permit that the cowardly that work and not sign obtain the recompense. This is a very good work. A courage people is that admit the obtained result with errors or not and show them with errors or not. And after all, neutrinos can travel and really travel at different speeds, by that they speak over average. Not compare with waves that travel at constant speed in each environment (vacuum, …) . But in general good time for science. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks. © Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

1 - the evidences of impact is zero. The same scientist say that may only to be a "coup de grace" 2 - the evidences in their time from impact is very low or null: "The asteroid-impact theory was first proposed in detail in 1978, by a team led by American geologist Walter Alvarez and physicist Luis Alvarez. The Alvarez team analyzed sediment collected in the 1970s from the K-T layer near the town of Gubbio, Italy. The samples showed a high concentration of the element iridium, a substance rare on Earth but relatively abundant in asteroids. Other samples of K-T boundary strata from around the world were also analyzed; excess iridium was found in these samples as well. Using the average thickness of the sediment as a guide, they calculated that a meteorite about 10 km in diameter would be required to spread that much iridium over the whole Earth" - http://www.universetoday.com/36706/asteroid-extinction-theory/ 3 - the iridium study is very subjectiv, without compare other times, .... this is work in inverse mode, they find what they like, not information over iridium in other times. 4 - the proof of cause today is know but already remain in a false cause. 5 - Renne say "One cause of the climate variability could have been a sustained series of volcanic eruptions in India that produced the extensive Deccan Traps. Renne plans to re-date those volcanic rocks to get a more precise measure of their duration and onset relative to the dinosaur extinction." - Where are here the evidences? 6 - Why Renne not need evidences but I need evidences? 7 - Why Renne may use the common sense but not me? 8 - more evidences: "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane" - Here where are the evidences? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages Well, well, you consider a totally false cause good, and any other solution probably like error? Against 0 probability any other solution has infinite more probabilities, less another false. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well. The iridium - "the iridium occurs in a layer just above the last Cretaceous microfossils," this probably means the solution to the impact in a probably 11,000 years after the extinction. A probably: I see you understand that the impact is previous, later dead dinosaurs and later probably 1000 years later the iridium take land. This is near impossible, how any species survive the impact? If would dead by the impact the iridium would to be at same level, the take of land would be like much 1 - 2 years later and probably less. In that subjectiv study not find other probably layers with more iridium, asteroids impact near every time. And also not study (maybe they make this study, I have not find) if the layers correspond all at same time. But may occur all at same time, we know that in a difference of + or - 11,000 years maximun a good asteriod impact. The proof of the iridium for me is: the dinousaus extinct, then later in a time until 11,000 years or less have impact the asteroid, and without extinction effects, the animals in few number after o into that bad period of dead not are extincted. In all form, the populations in time before the extinction are decreasing, probably in exctintion danger, but not only the dinosaurs, all the species, the dinosaurs extinct and other but not all. And you say that I say false, all you say false. False is to say that the extinction of the dinosaurs is by impact later that already the scientist with their subjectiv studies discover is false, but continue say that is true. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If you like I can continue with the extinction in same time of the marine reptiles were the plants have few importance, the darks survive, the reptiles not and where big fish eat little fish xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I finish: "Ok, so no evidence to back your idea up, then? I mean, I've prompted you 3 times now. Your idea is grossly unsupported by evidence. Come back with evidence, and then you'll get some attention. Otherwise, this isn't science. You're doing nothing more than story telling about magic sun particles." You and all scientist that say that dinosaurs extinct by impact really no have evidences, really have contrary evidences. I don't speak over magic sun particles, ask to the "international spatial station" if the danger is by "magic sun particles" or show that aurora in poles are not by your magic sun particles.

"The weak interaction is not responsible for holding quarks together" I don't say this, I say that weak not make this. "And this is fairly well understood in terms of the strong force and electrostatic force" - I understood bad but "Once the nuclear lobes have been pushed to a critical distance, beyond which the short range strong force can no longer hold them together, the process of their separation proceeds from the energy of the (longer range) electromagnetic repulsion between the fragments" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission But I accept xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well, after all my errors I go to make more easy, simplifing: In a stable and strong nucleus like for example iron, ¿there are weak forces? In a "free neutrons are unstable with a relatively short half life of about 10 minutes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) there are strong forces between their decay? "While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s)."

Sorry. "You seem to be wanting to make up new meanings for the terminology" - No, I treat to explain what I like to say, always without change meanings. I use the wikipedia like reference, probably is not the best and you know better, but I use that, can you propose any better. I see this: strong the force that join protons and neutrons in stable nucleus and also "also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.”" Weak: radiactive decay, and when not hold "“quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” If you say that "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force" in this case all nucleus different from hidrogen would use the strong force. But: In radiactive elements neutrons make the radiactive fision. I consider that in a stable nucleus the neutrons and protons are in equal quantity, there work the strong nuclear force and not exist weak force. If the nucleus is unstable by different quantity of neutrons and protons or very high quantity number (radioactive elements) the nucleus is unstable (any part of the nucleus remain stable but another not, where the neutrons decay). When a neutron decay is unstable and also into the nucleus, and the cannot actue the strong force over that neutron, according to strong definition not "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons" and by that decay that neutron. Sorry my errors xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now returning to my affirmation, after explain and sorry for my inconveniences weak and strong in physic nuclear forces I see like contraries. Strong is stable and "binds protons and neutrons" and also "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.”" this represent not decay or changing. Weak is the contrary, unstable in form of radioactivy, decay or changing taste. If a neutron is in strong force it not decay and theirs quarks are strong without separe. If a neutron is weak, decay or their quarks separe or for example " it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino". So it's impossible at same time that a neutron is strong binds to proton and at same time their quarks not strong. In same form is impossible that a neutron decay and their quarks remain strong. So the same neutron cannot to use at same time the strong and weak forces, because in weak force the neutron is only in the nucleus (sometimes ejected in for example radiactivity) and their quarks are not strong units. Ending: - a neutron can to be with strong force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not weak force. - a neutron can to be with weak force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not strong force. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force, and yet you somehow conclude that this is attraction is not present in unstable nuclei." - in weak force the neutron can to be ejected or decay, then where is the strong force in this neutron? Sorry, I not treat to attack the definitions but also the interpretation you make is not correct. You say "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force", yes but only in strong or stable part of the nucleus. "and yet you somehow conclude that this is attraction is not present in unstable", no, if the neutron is not stable really they not use strong force, can to be ejected from the nucleus or decay (decay also is a fail in "“holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons") I not treat "to make up new meanings for the terminology", but I also see like you make it. In a weak connection in magnet for example, also a bad connection has connection but unstable and not strong, also with the example of building and the same with neutrons. If like you say strong force is always in the nucleus : How do you explain the neutrons ejected from the nucleus in radioactive elements? and the decay of neutrons? According to your note there are strong and by that cannot decay. Sorry and thans. Not always remain, other times decay. really only can to be ejected or not, that it's not ejected (need forces) not means that it's stable An example: In uranium U-235 there are 92 protons, then 92 protons and 92 neutrons or more are stable and use strong force. But a few neutrons are weak, this are in the nucleus or are ejected, also into the nucleus are unstables and producen radioactivity.

Good, very good note, thanks. But this only has a few problems, like you say "the same layer of sediment was found in a very, very disperse locations" but if it's good the sediments need to be at all locations (supposing is global). Also the sediment is later of the extintion: "the iridium occurs in a layer just above the last Cretaceous microfossils," The text is good but insufficient, but: "The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," "scientist say that this need to be quickly, but the extinction was so slowly that 1 million years." "The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," - means nothing, because has not explanation of the begin and also can to be 11,000 later of the end of the extinction. The sediment is true, but it's over the end of life of dinosuars, no with it. Sorry. what you say is not true, same scientist that an impact only would to be a "coup de grace" "Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model." - no, only a probably "coup de grace" You say I say not true but really you say not true. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I never negate the impacts, I only say that an impact or not extinct or extinct all species. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This idea of hibernate is good but any botanic can say you that hibernation is not free has costs. The animals that hibernate need to have grease reserves, normally according to the winter duration, if the reserves are little the animal die and also the reserve is prepared for any months not any years or many years. But plants normally can hibernate but really many of theirs dead, and it's according to this phrase "You might want to look into the proliferation of ferns after the KT event and tell me how your unfounded 'sun particle' theory explains that." So an impact cannot explain this, but sun particles can. I don't deny the impact, volcanoes, .. but if extinct only extinct near species (a volcano in their near environment) or all the species. Sorry, scientists today admit that the impact only can to be the "coup de grace.", nothing more , not put you the phrases. "Right now, a great deal of the evidence matches the impact model" - no "Please, please, please cite evidence that matched your sun particle model" - none, but it's near the only explanation possible, the extinction begin near a million years before the impact, animals and plants dead and many extinct but an impact only can not extinct or extinct all species, the so long duration is against the ideas of volcanoes and impacts. The radiation like the radiation in Chernobil, ... can in long periods make extinctions, ... Another proof against the volcanoes and impact is that a dark sky would given also a glaciation and the glaciations leave marks. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Really if the cause of extinction is not the impact, not vulcanoes, not glaciations, appart from Sun and Sun radiaction what another things can cause the extinction? We know that the life is from the Sun and the day the Sun extinct all the life also will extinct. Glaciations, season, ... all is by the Sun.

Can you copy here the test with problems? and/or number of the text?

I never say that, more probably you like say that I say that. Died many species, but any species not, any birds, ... no one dinosaur. "Or that volcanic eruptions cover the skies with ashes, therefor the Sun disappears and all plant life dies" No. I say not that, I speak over the year without summer, and it's proved that in that year in many places not germinated the vegetables, then if the kakratoa was a little explosion, in a bigger that remain during 1000 years of more (the difference is from 11,0000 years and the period total is of 1 million years) the result would be many more fatals. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do you understand "coup de grace", "final blow" and cause like the same thing? According to this all animals die by a heart failure, and the only cause of dead is heart failure. I here not speak over if that "coup de grace", "final blow" is real of subjective.