Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Loading tagline ....

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                         

Jurassic Asteroids

  (+4)
(+4)
  [vote for,
against]

As far as we can tell, Michael Crichton was wrong when he had the scientists of Jurassic Park extract dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes in amber. DNA just doesn't seem to survive that long in amber.

If you want to preserve DNA for a long, long time you would actually want to dessicate it, then store it at very, very low temperatures.

So, where might we be able to get our hands on some well-preserved dinosaur DNA?

Well, the asteroid that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs, and all the impacting asteroids before that, would have blasted many pieces of Earth off into space. We know this because pieces of Martian rock occasionally fall on Earth, by the same process. It's also been shown that, if the fragments are not too small, their ejection from the planet does not involve massive amounts of heat.

So, somewhere out in space there are billions of fragments of 65 million year old Earth surface rocks. There are also, almost certainly, a few fragments of 65 million year old dinosaurs floating around out there.

The surface rocks might well have bits of dinosaur DNA in them. The bits of orbiting dinosaur will almost certainly have dinosaur DNA in them. This DNA will have been deep-frozen and freeze-dried as soon as it was ejected, and is likely to be well preserved. The only damage will come from radiation, so what we're really looking for is a big chunk of T-Rex - big enough that the innermost parts will have been shielded from the worst of the radiation.

They're out there somewhere - big pieces of dinosaurs, charred on the outside but perfectly preserved on the inside.

MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 15 2017

Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
[hippo, Sep 15 2017]

A Statue for Father https://en.wikipedi...A_Statue_for_Father
What a way to be remembered ... [8th of 7, Sep 15 2017]

In the news a few years ago https://www.newscie...rse-panspermia.html
Not about recovering dino DNA, though. Some of those rocks from the Chicxulub impact could be several light-years away by now. [Vernon, Sep 17 2017]

Wow, do YOU have it all wrong. The dinosaurs survived the asteroid impact, and .... http://drmcninja.co...chives/comic/21p16/
.... after centuries re-evolving in space, returned and reclaimed their rightful home. [normzone, Sep 17 2017]

[link]






       This is probably the plot of Jurassic Park VI
hippo, Sep 15 2017
  

       This seems like a lot of effort.   

       Why not just back-breed from existing species ? As a starting point, you would simply require genetic material from a suitable cold-blooded scaly thick-witted predatory venomous animal.   

       Real-estate agents would be an obvious starting point.
8th of 7, Sep 15 2017
  

       I kind of want to make a game where the objective is to tile as many dinosaurs into an area as possible. I'd call it "Jurassic Parking".
Loris, Sep 15 2017
  

       //Why not just back-breed from existing species ?// Because you'd be breeding back towards whatever we think dinosaurs were like based on bones. Metabolism, skin colour, instinctive behaviour would all be moot. You'd probably end up with a velociraptor that crowed at dawn.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 15 2017
  

       If it tasted good when roasted with sage and onion, who would care ?   

       <link>
8th of 7, Sep 15 2017
  

       //Panspermia// If there isn't a porn movie with that title, it's a waste.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 15 2017
  

       The thing is, the film was called Jurassic Park, but although amber has been found as early as the late Carboniferous and the Jurassic, most amber didn't really start being commonplace until the late Cretaceous, and that is when the insect inclusions started to be present. Mosquitoes, however, are relatively recent - as are all of Diptera. The earliest 'modern' style mosquito in amber is from about 79 million years ago, with the majority starting from later than that.
Ian Tindale, Sep 15 2017
  

       You'll be telling me next that Raquel Welch didn't actually encounter dinosaurs.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 15 2017
  

       Well, the church actually canonised a dinosaur, into a saint – the egasaur.
Ian Tindale, Sep 15 2017
  

       Having the DNA is just a starting point, but how can we move the moon back close to the earth so that terrestrial gravitation is heavily modulated over the day ?   

       When the moon loomed large in the sky, gravity would decrease once per day. Larger animals and predators could move freely. Early gliding and flapping animals could sustain a few hours flight during min G, but when the moon disappeared over the horizon and gravity increased prehistoric animals all had to lie down. This is how sleep was invented - the necessity to remain still when gravity hit a maximum.   

       However, the gigantism prevalent in old DNA could easily be supported on the moon itself.
bigsleep, Sep 15 2017
  

       // how can we move the moon back close to the earth //   

       Daft question.   

       Simply temporarily modify the local value of "G", the gravitational constant. Push the moon to where you want, then restore it. Simples.
8th of 7, Sep 17 2017
  

       //When the moon loomed large in the sky, gravity would decrease once per day. //   

       Either you've got your tongue in your cheek, or your bollocks are showing. The closest the moon has ever been to Earth is believed to be about 25,000km or about 4 earth radii, or 3 radii from the centre. And its mass is about 0.01 Earth masses. Hence, it's maximum gravitational pull would have been about 0.01/(3^2), or about 0.001 Earth gravities.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 17 2017
  

       // Either you've got your tongue in your cheek, or your bollocks are showing. //   

       No, be fair ... the actual amount of change in gravity is not specified. The value of g changes continuously - oceanic tides are a manifestation of this. When your moon was closer, the change in g was indeed bigger.   

       As a purely qualitative statement, it's correct ...   

       // Larger animals and predators could move freely. Early gliding and flapping animals could sustain a few hours flight during min G, but when the moon disappeared over the horizon and gravity increased prehistoric animals all had to lie down. This is how sleep was invented - the necessity to remain still when gravity hit a maximum. //   

       ... but that bit is manifestly complete cack.
8th of 7, Sep 17 2017
  

       //either you've got your tongue in your cheek or your bollox are showing// This seems like extreme behaviour to me, and very unhygienic. No one should attempt to use their tongue to clean their bum, or consider displaying their bollox as an alternative to this behaviour. What you two get up to is on display here a lot these days. Can you use the blue text filter option for these communications please?
xenzag, Sep 17 2017
  

       // No one should attempt to use their tongue to clean their bum, //   

       No indeed, it's repulsive and disgusting. Then again, our loathing for cats is well known.   

       // or consider displaying their bollox as an alternative to this behaviour. //   

       [MB]'s relatives are, in many ways, socially deficient ...   

         

       // What you two get up to is on display here a lot these days. //   

       This is nothing to do with us. Put the burlap sack and the marmite down and step away ...   

       // Can you use the blue text filter option for these communications please? //   

       We were merely quoting. Address your remarks to the offenders, not us.
8th of 7, Sep 17 2017
  

       [xen] is just cross because she didn't think of it first.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 17 2017
  

       Constantly referring to me as female reveals you as misogynistic. Denying this verifes the condition even more.
xenzag, Sep 17 2017
  

       // misogynistic //   

       Sp. "misanthropic".   

       He hates everyone, irrespective of gender.
8th of 7, Sep 17 2017
  

       [xen], the simple truth is that you are a short french woman. I know this for a fact, because I have looked closely at my mental image of you. May I be so bold as to suggest that your denial of this does you no credit?   

       I have nothing against women - my mother was one, and I even married one. I think they're great. Of course the same cannot be said of the french, but that's hardly my fault.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 17 2017
  

       You're delusional, and in denial like all confirmed misogynists. Lighten up on the GM ingestions and your mind will unshrivel itself. I'll even arrange for someone to iron it for you. As for the French, you need to take this up with that unelected drunk who's the head of the EU.
ps tell 8th of 7th that the kennel he ordered is ready. I suspect it may be a surprise present for you, so I hope you're happy in it :-)
xenzag, Sep 17 2017
  

       um... if I may interject, where can I find the evidence to support this statement?   

       // The closest the moon has ever been to Earth is believed to be about 25,000km or about 4 earth radii, or 3 radii from the centre.//   

       Why is this believed to be true?   

       [+] [bigs] and idea.
FlyingToaster, Sep 17 2017
  

       //Why is this believed to be true?// It was on the internet, so it must be true.   

       The reasoning was as follows. The moon was formed when a Mars-sized body impacted the early Earth. The ejecta could not have coalesced into a moon less than about 4 radii from the Earth (tidal forces would have been too great), and couldn't have been ejected much further than that, so it's likely that the moon coalesced at a distance of about 4 radii.   

       Since then, of course, it's been drifting away due to tidal drag accelerating its orbit.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 18 2017
  

       //You're delusional// Yes, of course. But that's beside the point.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 18 2017
  

       // The moon was formed when a Mars-sized body impacted the early Earth. The ejecta could not have coalesced into a moon less than about 4 radii from the Earth//   

       Interesting. I've wondered about the impact theory and it doesn't feel quite right to me, but I can't put my finger on why though.
I want to learn whether there is geologic evidence of a time before tides but I don't know where to look.
  

       The fun-size or the normal size? And was the normal sized one bigger in the 70s?
Ian Tindale, Sep 18 2017
  

       // geologic evidence of a time before tides //   

       If the moon-earth system was created by an impact event, then that event would be so violent as to effectively erase all previous geological evidence, shirley ?
8th of 7, Sep 18 2017
  

       Exactly. The two bodies would have been melted by the impact.   

       However, there ought to be (and I think there is, but can't remember where) evidence for changing tidal frequency as the moon sped up and moved away, and the Earth slowed down.   

       As far as I'm aware, the collision theory is currently the most favoured one. I believe it's supported by the distribution of elements between Earth and our moon, and by a consideration of planetary dynamics, but I don't know the details.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 18 2017
  

       Of course you don't. The government/Vatican/oil companies/Masons/<insert name of sinister secret organization here> have hushed it up, like they always do.
8th of 7, Sep 18 2017
  

       <insert name of sinister secret organization here> The Clintons?   

       Shriveled is what you want. The more, the better. Minds with no folds are not of much use.
RayfordSteele, Sep 18 2017
  

       //If the moon-earth system was created by an impact event, then that event would be so violent as to effectively erase all previous geological evidence//   

       //The two bodies would have been melted by the impact//   

       Ok, I think I figured out what bugs me about this scenario.
So, if the impact is not tangential then no orbit right? Straight up equals straight back down or ejected to space.
  

       A tangential impact, even a planet obliterating one, will expel material at an angle to the gravity-well and could coalesce into a satellite.
When I try to picture that in my head I see a curling wave of ejecta. Some of this earth would be flung away and much of it would fall back to Earth in large-ish chunks, but the material held suspended would have had spin imparted to it equal to the angle of the tangent of the planetary impact, Just like a spin-shot in pool.
  

       Computer simulations should show this.   

       The only way I can figure for an object the size of the moon to orbit as closely as it does with exactly one revolution per orbit is if that body broke away from the Earth mostly intact.   

       The only way I can figure for that to have happened is of the Earth once spun a LOT faster than it now does and had a pyriform, pear shape, which was caused to increase in rotational speed, probably due to an interplanetary close-call, losing its pear shape and reforming to an oblate spheroid with an attached "bud" slowly retreating.
If the original pyriform shape were pronounced enough then this Moon-sized mountain would have been lifeless and completely irradiated, same age as the rest of the Earth, and it would account for the breakup of Pangea since that singular land-mass would have occupied the fat bottom of the "pear".
It might also account for the gigantic size previous creatures could attain which a strictly oxygen-rich atmosphere has not proven to re-create.
  

       It just makes sense.   

       How much energy is required to eject a sizable rock at escape velocity? That"s going to be slowed and heated by the atmosphere upon exit, what's the decomposition temperature of desiccated DNA? There's going to be a minimum sized rock in a limited number of orbits to have usable DNA. Also, 65 million years of cosmic rays...?
bs0u0155, Sep 19 2017
  

       //There's going to be a minimum sized rock// Yes, but it may be quite small. Bear in mind that meteorites - even ones as small as footballs - are still at near-space temperatures on the inside when they hit the ground, even though the outside skin has been melted. This suggests that similarly-sized rocks might stay cold on the inside when ejected, too.   

       //what's the decomposition temperature of desiccated DNA?// The DNA won't be dessicated at the time of ejection. By the time it re-enters, it will be dessicated but, as noted above, temperatures in the middle of a head-sized rock will probably remain quite comfortable during re-entry.   

       //65 million years of cosmic rays...?// Yes, agreed, and that will be the main damage factor. It will also probably determine the minimum useful rock size, since the rock will be providing the only shielding.   

       //It just makes sense.// What matters most is the total angular momentum of the system before impact, since that will be its a.m. post impact. The angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is one of the factors that rules out either co-formation from a planetary disc, or capture of the moon from outside.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 19 2017
  

       Tremendous asteroids. Tremendous. Made In America first.
xenzag, Sep 20 2017
  

       //The angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is one of the factors that rules out either co-formation from a planetary disc, or capture of the moon from outside.//   

       It does not rule out the faster spinning pyriform Earth breaking in two due to an increase in angular momentum though.
If this is indeed the case, then geologic evidence from before the break-up of Pangea should reveal a lack of tidal influence.
There would have been no annihilation of Earth, merely an incredibly fast reduction in spin causing any and all of the plants and animals with the greatest mass to drop where they stood as Pangea was torn apart when the world reformed its shape to oblate spheroid to compensate for the decrease in centripetal force.
  

       As far as I can tell, no previous moon-formation theory can account for our moon revolving exactly one per orbit in such a way that we never see the far side., but an early Pyriform shaped Earth theory explains this well.
It should be easily ruled out if not correct.
  

       //As far as I can tell, no previous moon-formation theory can account for our moon revolving exactly one per orbit in such a way that we never see the far side., but an early Pyriform shaped Earth theory explains this well.//   

       I don't understand some of what you're saying. The moon is tidally locked to Earth which I think is all the explanation you need.
EnochLives, Sep 20 2017
  

       //As far as I can tell, no previous moon-formation theory can account for our moon revolving exactly one per orbit in such a way that we never see the far side., but an early Pyriform shaped Earth theory explains this well.//   

       I don't understand some of what you're saying. The moon is tidally locked to Earth which I think is all the explanation you need.
EnochLives, Sep 20 2017
  

       What [Enoch] said. Most moons are tidally locked, and the process is well understood. The trick in science is to find plausible explanations for things that are not understood; you seem to be attempting the opposite.   

       Also, splitting from a pear-shaped parent would most definitely _not_ give you such locking. Think.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 20 2017
  

       // splitting from a pear-shaped parent //   

       It's true, the Intercalary definitely isn't tidally locked.
8th of 7, Sep 20 2017
  

       Yo' momma...
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 20 2017
  

       //As far as I can tell, no previous moon-formation theory can account for our moon revolving exactly one per orbit in such a way that we never see the far side., but an early Pyriform shaped Earth theory explains this well.//   

       1) When the earth and moon separated they would have been bits of rock and or lava - so no geo history other than small bits of rock.   

       2) Given some rocky rings around the sun, the earth and moon may have formed separately and had a slow impact or just formed unevenly - its a mute difference. Many inner sun orbital debris rings formed planets. A couple of rings didn't because of some garbage cleaner large planets not having the reach.   

       3) The moons density is not even. It's lighter on the far side so in terms of energy to spin the moon relative to the earth, it would need a relatively large orbit change. Hmm, is the moon rotating as it moves away from the earth ?
bigsleep, Sep 20 2017
  

       moot difference, not mute.
RayfordSteele, Sep 20 2017
  

       hmmm...   

       Tidal locking. Cool stuff.
Can't see how it excludes pyriform planetary budding though.
  

       Definitely cool. Thanks.
Precession fighting rotation until equalization makes sense.
Doesn't explain why the moon rings like a bell when impacted, the break-up of Pangea, or the fossil record of life forms which could not exist given our current gravitational attraction.
  

       But very cool.   

       The planets were obviously cubic when they first started - easier to manufacture. The square corners gradually wore off due to the friction of space, over time. The corners had to go somewhere.
Ian Tindale, Sep 20 2017
  

       //the fossil record of life forms which could not exist given our current gravitational attraction.//   

       Such as?
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 21 2017
  

       //the break-up of Pangea// - just caused by convection in the mantle; no more complicated explanation is needed, surely?
hippo, Sep 21 2017
  

       //Doesn't explain why the moon rings like a bell when impacted// Durr(1), it's made of rock, and has little if any molten content. Why would it not ring when struck?   

       // the break-up of Pangea,// Durr(2). Pangaea is only the most recent "supercontinent", and it only formed about 300 million years ago (ie, quite recently), and broke up only 170 million years ago (ie, very recently). Before that, there was Gondwana (also relatively recent - billions of years after the formation of the moon), and before that others. Continents break apart and join as a result of mantle convection (as [Hippo] pointed out), and the process continues today. Mexicans will be well aware of tectonic plate movement.   

       //Precession fighting rotation until equalization makes sense.// Durr(3). Not really. It's more a question of tidal drag. Try Wikipedia.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 21 2017
  

       Durr indeed.   
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle