gao203 at is7.nyu.edu
Tue Apr 7 21:38:55 EDT 1998
>Oh yea. One thing thogh, Antarctica, while a land mass, is still at the
>but bottom of the globe.
First, that's actually a matter of perspective. ^_^ Second, what is your
>An explosion that melted all the ice would have certinly done a number on
>the land as well.
Well, my point is that they say that the Second Impact destroyed
Antarctica, and everyone treats it as if that means it just melted a bunch
of ice. Sure it did, but in order to destroy Antarctica, it would also
have to melt an awful lot of earth. That's all I was saying. I was just
griping about the fact that everyone somehow seems to forget that
Antarctica is covered in ice, not made of it.
>think about the size involved, any explosion that could melt all the ice,
>not throw the Earth off into space, and cause the widespread destruction
>that it did could not have totaly destroyes a continent like Antarctica.
You've got some rather odd phrasing here, but at any rate... The
explosion was enough to knock the earth out of its normal axis, and
besides you are severely underestimating the amount of force it would take
to remove the earth from its solar orbit.
Has tried to blow the earth out of orbit on occasion,
More information about the oldeva