Which part of Paul's observations didn't you understand, Bryan?
Hiding behind pauls' skirts, are we?
Why am I not surprised, one science denialist hiding behind the excuses of another science denialist. And, if you look back, you'll see even paul think's your full of crap.
1) your inability to understand the least of his concepts,....
Paul is promoting not one, but two perpetual motion machines. I know these are a physical impossibility. Paul's re-written newtons laws, and ignores the law of conservation of motion, to create his "machines".
I understand very well pauls arguments. I also understand that they are wrong.
2) I've toyed with the concept that you think backwards bryan,... which can be compared to your understanding of newtons laws.
Then backwards = correct.
Reactionless propulsion is a physical impossibility, calling me names and mis-interpreting high school physics doesn't magically change that.
As for pre-earths claim, I (and others) have pointed out numerous problems with your models. Its not my fault you're unwilling to address them.
Basically, Paul's observations of your ability in the subject are correct, however, I don't think you are a moron,... I think you are a propagandist who is paid to push a certain view, no matter what. You would make a great religious person.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Paid, to post of Science a GoGo? I wish.
But that's the typical anti-science claim - if you're not willing to buy into their claims, you must be part of a conspiracy to hide "the truth".
Now, please excuse me, I have to go talk to my alien overlords
Your talk of the distribution of radionucleotides is of a similar nature. If you can't understand what has been written about this, is it my fault. No.
Actually, you quite clearly demonstrated you do not understand what is written about it. Remember the paper I provided, about the anomalous zircons, and how continental drift was the source of those anomalies? Remember how you thought those anomalies disproved the paper - even laughed at the presence of those zircons? Even though the entirety of the paper was all about those zircons and where they came from?
I do,
and so does the internet. Nearly every comment you make makes it is clear that you have made absolutely no attempt to understand the basic theory that has been put forward. Yet, at the same time, you insist your perverted version of things is correct. Or, perhaps you really don't have the ability to understand it? I can't figure out which.
Actually, I understand your model just fine. But I am a scientist by profession, and basically make my living by finding the flaws and holes in other peoples work and filling in those holes. In your work I see many flaws, notably:
1) As your planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Your model fails to do so.
2) You're assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provide no physical model to explain how you could form solid planets of 0.5 earth masses within the known age of the solar system.
b) provide no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.
3) Even if I give you the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), you ignore how liquid objects merge, and the impact that would have on the planetary surface (i.e. it would force your continents together, or suck them under, not drive them apart).
4) Your own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that your collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth - 2000K average temp if I recall correctly. And yet you claim the surface would be untouched - even though there is no physical mechanism which could produce such a state, given the impact is on the surface, and hence the heat is created largely on the surface.
5) Your model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.
6) You model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. You claim the distribution of one - argon - is due to your collision, but fail to explain the half-dozen other radionucleotides which show the same distribution, but are non-gaseous and therefore cannot be explained with your model.
That, preearth, is how real science works - you present you ideas and others criticize them. If you cannot take criticism, stay out of science. Its not for the thin-skinned.
Real scientists, such as myself, take those criticisms and address them - for example, by showing they are incorrect, or by changing our hypothesis to account for criticisms which are legitimate.
You take the route of anti-science. You ignore data in scientific studies which undermine your hypothesis. You ignore well-established physical phenomena which invalidate your calculations. And rather than dealing with the criticisms you receive, you instead insult and belittle those smart enough to see the problems with your hypothesis.
But at the end of the day, you're just a typical science-denier. No different than the flat-earthers, perpetual-motioners, vaccine-deniers, creationists, homeopaths, and various other scientific illiterati who pollute the internet.
But you can prove me wrong - man up, and address my concerns. I.E. be a scientist.
Bryan
