Talk:Chicxulub Crater
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Video
I used to have a video clip showing the animation of the Chicxulub impact, but I can't find it on the internet anymore. If I find it I'll add the link.--Ixfd64 05:03, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Removed broken link [[* Images from geological surveys]] RWFanMS 09:44, 2005 March 07 (EST)
[edit] this is not fact.
"The impact caused giant tsunamis in all directions, which hit the Caribbean island of Cuba especially hard" seems to imply that this subject is fact, and in fact there is evidence of giant tsunamis and the subsequent devestation in the Caribbean, despite the event happening 65 million years ago. Perhaps we can amend the article to reflect that the events following the impact are not known for sure, but it is [theorised] that the following happened.Nambio 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If I remember correctly, Cuba may not have existed at the time of the Yucatan impact and was possibly created as a result of the impact.
- Certainly not a result of the impact. Cuba and other Antilles islands are a part of submerged mountain chain. Besides it is nowhere near the impact structure, which is pretty much invisible on the ground.--JyriL talk 09:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can we change the title "Part of Multiple Impact?" to something like "Multiple Impact Theory" to better reflect quality standards? It's a minor edit as best. SSJPabs 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] no scientific theory is fact
The statement in the article that "the theory is not universally accepted" is unnecessary. All scientific theories are just that -- theories, models. They are open to, and welcome, skepticism ... so long as that skepticism is based in observations. Science attempts to explain things using the best observations and reasoning based on those observations. Theories *approach* facts, but never become facts ... any observation may eventually cause reconsideration and modification of the model.
This is a very basic part of understanding science and the meaning of the word theory. Scientific theories, unlike all others, are *based* in the known facts. We can't *observe* the event, so we can never be *certain* what happened. This is the -good- part about science.
The paper cited with the statement is very interesting. But the last line in section "Part of a multiple impact" indicates differences of opinion. A perfect example of skepticism based in observation, and a sign that the discussion will be around longer than we will.Twang 8 April 2006
[edit] Pronunciation
Hey, could someone post up the pronunciation of 'Chicxulub' in IPA for me please? ZephyrAnycon 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just came here to write precisely the same request. I'm assuming it's like Chikh-ZOO-lub, but hard to tell. — Donama 14:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
To whomever added the IPA pronunc.: there's a discrepancy between the final vowel in this rendering and that given on the Chicxulub, Yucatán page. Are both acceptable variants? I know the name of my town can be pronounced a number of different ways. ZephyrAnycon 06:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hey all--as one who does not speak IPA, could a EZ-Reader version be posted, like the Chikh-ZOO-lub above? THANKS! jengod 05:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Meteor or asteroid?
The lead says what hit earth 65 million yrs ago was an meteor... but is that the case? Wouldn't it be called an asteroid? Mikker (...) 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken/Non existant links
I have removed several links in the second section which didn't exist whatsoever. Just had an after thought that the links may have been sitting in waiting to be created, hope not - looks a lot tidier now though. (SJ Wright 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
- People either create such dead links because they intend to create the article themselves, or more likely to encourage others to do so (or occasionally a previous article has been deleted or changed name). In the case of the Chicxulub article those dead links have mostly been there for several years (just check the page history), and in most cases they were to people who probably don't warrant a article, so I think you did the right thing by removing them. -Zamphuor 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/01/asteroid.dinosaurs.reut/index.html is also broken. Should we remove it? --Ggeller 16:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
