[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Chicxulub's Antipode (Re: cause of death at KT)

At risk of getting on thin crust--

1). 65 my is old for deep ocean crust. Might be hard to find some that was in 
the antipodal location at the time. Stuff can move fast, like 10cm/a. That is 
6500km since KT, IMMC. Might, in fact, be all subducted.
2). HOH dissolves a lot of stuff at 4000m pressures (seen the pictures of the 
styrofoam cups that have made the trip down and back? Cool.). Then there is 
mixing, ect. 
3). I am still not entirely clear as to why the antipode would be a more 
interesting place to be during KT than say, laying on a beach near Nassau 
(ocean crust near the Bahamas is evidently quite old, by the way), or hanging 
out at Frank's place... can somebody help me out? Maybe a reference? I need to 
catch up on some reading.

That said, there have a _lot_ of cores taken world-wide, and I would bet a 
large sum of money that this has been looked at. 


----- Original Message ----
From: Phillip Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2006 4:00:12 PM
Subject: Re: Chicxulub's Antipode (Re: cause of death at KT)

I'm starting to get the impression that this subject is still horribly

Past authors appear to have attempted to <forcably?> correlate structures
on a certain landmass <cough-India-cough> with the antipode, possibly
because of a "terrestrial bias".  Granted, it's easier and cheaper (not
to mention sexier) to study structures exposed on land than it is to
drill into them under 12,000 ft of water.

Would Chatterjee et al. get nearly as excited about data obtained from
deep sea core samples?