08-05-2018, 02:31 PM
Hm. Various initial thoughts here.
1) Per the Wikipedia page on GRBs, no observed GRB event has taken place within our galaxy. The nearest GRB so far observed was 130 million ly away. So this would seem to argue for them being very rare in a local sense or otherwise operating within limits or parameters that make an impact on Earth unlikely.
Note also that the article also talks about potential effects of a GRB on Earth and doesn't seem to be concerned with Earth being cooked or the like, but rather with environmental effects as the gamma rays are absorbed by the atmosphere and induce chemical reactions that result in smog, acid rain, and other negative stuff that could adversely (albeit perhaps temporarily) impact the biosphere.
That all said, I suppose the references you provide could be based on more recent information. However, having said that and coming to my next thoughts:
2) You talk about how much energy the Earth would be subjected to, but don't include how much energy we are starting with. So we don't have complete information to consider your argument with. If you could please add the starting amount of energy you calculated from, that would be very helpful.
3) When you did your calculations, did you take into account the Inverse Square Law?
My 2c worth,
Todd
1) Per the Wikipedia page on GRBs, no observed GRB event has taken place within our galaxy. The nearest GRB so far observed was 130 million ly away. So this would seem to argue for them being very rare in a local sense or otherwise operating within limits or parameters that make an impact on Earth unlikely.
Note also that the article also talks about potential effects of a GRB on Earth and doesn't seem to be concerned with Earth being cooked or the like, but rather with environmental effects as the gamma rays are absorbed by the atmosphere and induce chemical reactions that result in smog, acid rain, and other negative stuff that could adversely (albeit perhaps temporarily) impact the biosphere.
That all said, I suppose the references you provide could be based on more recent information. However, having said that and coming to my next thoughts:
2) You talk about how much energy the Earth would be subjected to, but don't include how much energy we are starting with. So we don't have complete information to consider your argument with. If you could please add the starting amount of energy you calculated from, that would be very helpful.
3) When you did your calculations, did you take into account the Inverse Square Law?
My 2c worth,
Todd