Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth.
Start with a false assumption,
come to a false conclusion write 10 pages of nonsense.
I also see you've now eliminated all the energy calcs from your model - just goes to show, when evidence runs contrary to your beliefs, ignore it.
Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon?
Oh, wait, you never had the guts to answer that one...
Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed,
There is no smiley that can express my derision at the stupidity of this statement. The evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH_VdxsRelevant time point is 0:47 onwards. Unscathed skin is nowhere to be found.
Claim 1, false. Score is currently 0:1.
The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific....As the map of the age of the sea-floor, below, shows, the impact area is very different from all other regions of sea-floor.
LOL, your own map disproves your own model. If it were as you say it were, the surrounding sea floor would all be of the same age, with the "hole" being new. Instead, we have a new "hole" surrounding by regions where the farther from the "hole" you are, the older the crust is.
That is consistent with the current model of continental drift, and runs contrary to what you propose.
Score is now 0 for 2.
As expected, this region has no spreading ridges.
LOL, you cannot even be consistent with your own model. Continental drift isn't expected to form ridges mid-plate; rather, ridges form largely where two plates meet due to flexing of the crust in those regions. Impacts, on the other hand DO produce ridges - in fact, such ridges are a characteristic feature of impact zones, and are used to differentiate them from other similar structures:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0083665656900915Score is 0 for 3.
The impact mountains must have initially formed a complete circle. This was broken up and rearranged by the expansion and spin, giving us the ring of fire as we know it today.
Impacts do not form mountains, but rather a crater with a surrounding rim of pulverized material. You do not see typical mountain features like stratification and uplifting with impact craters. Nor would you see faulting; a common feature in mountains.
See previous ref for the details.
Score is now 0 for 4.
The impact destroyed a circular region of the Earth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit. The crust within this cap was smashed into the interior. Clearly, the unimpacted crust formed a sphere minus this spherical cap. The expansion below the unimpacted crust, caused it to crack into what we now call continents. Further expansion, expanded these continents apart, in what is officially termed, continental drift.
You love refuting your previous models. Remeber when you held the mid-atlantic ridge up as an example of your model? How does that jive with what you're stating now - your new model would make the mid-atlantic ridge a subduction zone; the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said before.
I'd also re-direct you to our previous discussion vis-a-vis surface area to volume ratios; you're model doesn't even stand upto basic geometry.
Score is now 0 for 5. It should be 0 for 6 due to your ignorance of basic geometry, but I'm feeling nice this morning.
The expansion cracked PreEarth's unimpacted crust into large pieces that became today's continents.
While requiring an impossible movement of the crust that defies both physics, geometry, and the physical strength of rocks...
I'd add this as another score, but you're simply repeating errors you made earlier in this posting.
Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth's continents. Wegener patched them into a single landmass, which he called Pangaea. He claimed that Pangaea existed for millions of years, until, for some unknown reason, it broke into smaller continents, which then drifted to their current positions.
However, your model is in complete opposition to what he proposed. The key feature of his model - which eventually was proven correct - was
slow drift.
And contrary to your claim, he also had several possible models explaining that drift.
Of course, Pangaea never existed as a continent. It was never surrounded by ocean and the Tethys Ocean and polar sea never existed at all.
And your evidence of this is? Because there is a lot of direct observational evidence supporting the existence of the Tethys ocean, including geological remains of the ocean itself and fossil evidence consistent with its existence, located in the expected place.
Score is now 0 for 6.
These are understandable fictions, forced upon scientists because they reassembled Earth's continents on Earth
LOL, they're more your fictions, based on an apparent ignorance of the vast array of observational data confirming drift, the comparative geology of crates vs mountains, fossil and geological data confirming the presence of the tethys (and other prehistorical) seas, etc.
Just goes to show - you can "prove" anything, so long as you ignore the relevant data.
Earth's continental crust is original PreEarth crust, whereas, oceanic crust is a mixture of material from both Heaven and PreEarth. Thus, one would expect oceanic crust to be noticeably different from continental crust. This is indeed the case.
But one would also expect oceanic crust to be consistent. It is not - your own map shows the HUGE degree of radiodating discrepancy along the ocean floor.
Score's now 0 for 7.
Continental crust is composed of granitic rock (65% silica and 2.7 g/cm^3), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm^3). Continental crust is believed to be up to 4 billion years old, whereas, oceanic crust is believed to be less than 200 million years.
LOL, ignoring your own map again, are we? If you'll look at your map you will clearly see the ocean floor is not "thought" to be >200 million years old, but instead ranges from "brand-spakin-new" to 200 million years old - consistent with coninental drift. Likewise, the earths surface ranges greatly in age - and the distribution of those ages are consistent with "new" surface being formed near areas of sea floor uplifting, "old" surfaces being removed in regions of subduction, and "really old" crust being retained in regions far removed from surface making/removing processes:
No current theory explains how continental crust came to be, let alone why it is so different from oceanic crust.
Sorry, wrong again. The major reason the modern model of continental drift is so widely accepted is that it explains just that - the sea floor consists almost entirely of "new" rock, formed from the mantle. Continents consists of a mix of this rock (exposed through uplifting), old rock (left over from the formation of the earth ~4BYA) and various forms of sedimentary and volcanic rocks that accumulated over time.
Scores now 0 for 8.
Right till the end of his life, in 2002, the renowned Australian geologist S. Warren Carey insisted that the geological evidence clearly demonstrated that the Earth had expanded. Carey considered many explanations for this expansion, but never considered the possibility of a large impact (probably because he believed the splitting of Pangaea took place over millions of years).
And? He was also shown to be wrong. Moreover, the mass of the earth determines its magnetic field, and thus were there changes in mass we would see changes in paeleomagnetic rocks over the history of the earth. The near-entirety of the earths paleomagnetic history has been reconstructed, and conclusively shows that the earth has not gained significant mass over time:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf
Score is now 0 for 9, although direct observational disproof of your hypothesis should count as an infinite number of points against you. I guess that makes the score 0 for infinity+9...
Over his career, Carey collected a large body of evidence for his "expanding Earth theory."
Actually, he didn't. What he did was discover a broad amount of evidence consistent with continental drift, and he then put forth a
hypothesis of an expanding earth as a possible explanation for that data.
His data are correct, and a critical part of the continental drift theory. His model, however, has been discredited through a series of direct observations of the earths size (which eliminated on-going expansion) and measurements of paeleomagntisim, which eliminated the possibility of historical expansion.
Since, Mansfield's theory is an expanding Earth theory, most of Carey's evidence is also evidence for his theory.
Mansfield had a
hypothesis, not a
theory. Maybe you should learn basic scientific terminology before trying to discuss it.
there should be argon gradients between areas where the Earth's mantle was a well-mixed combination of Heaven and PreEarth's mantles and areas where it wasn't.
And there shouldn't be gradients of non-gaseous radioisotopes. And yet, as pointed out to you many times previously, there are gradients of non-gaseous radioisotopes.
That would be yet another piece of evidence that:
a) directly refutes your model, and
b) directly supports the current theory
0 for 10
Only the collision hypothesis explains why the Earth's inner core spins faster than the rest of the planet.
And yet another falsehood from preearth. The differential rotation of the earths mantle verses crust was expected back in the 1950's, long before we had the ability to measure such things. The differential rotation was expected as a product both of changes in the viscosity (and thus friction) of the mantle at different depths, as well as due to the tidal action of our moon.
0 for 11.
As the two metallic cores fused, their combined magnetic field must have been in a state of extreme flux.
You've already stated that one (or both) of the planets were solid. Solid planets no not have magnetic fields.
0 for 12.
The planetary fusion probably took less than a day and many reversals of magnetic polarity must have been experienced within this period. These reversals were recorded in the basalt of the expanding sea floors, as distinctive stripped patterns of magnetism.
This explanation doesn't account for the fact that the various paramagntic reversals are accompanied by very specific radioisotopic ratios (i.e. have firm dates associated with them). Your model is incapable of explaining those radioisotopic dates, and ergo, does not explain how the paleomagnetic data could be associated with said dates.
See my last two refs for the details.
Likewise, your model wouldn't explain the paramgnetic reversals observed in non-seafloor rocks, as those rocks would not have melted during your merger, and thus should not have recorded any paleomagnetic shifts. And yet, those kinds of rocks can be found all over the world. For example:
Herries, A.I.R., Adams, J.W., Kuykendall, K.L., Shaw, J., 2006. Speleology and magnetobiostratigraphic chronology of the GD 2 locality of the Gondolin hominin-bearing paleocave deposits, North West Province, South Africa, J. Human Evolution. 51, 617-631
0 for 13
There is a large amount of indirect evidence that the Earth's gravity is now greater than it once was. For example, pterosaurs, such as hatzegopteryx, had wingspans of over thirteen meters and large, solidly constructed heads, making it a great puzzle as to how they flew, or even if they flew. Similarly, it is not known why the larger dinosaurs such as, argentinasaurus, did not collapse under their own weight.
Once again, a series of falsehoods:
1) Modern aeronautic science has been applied to pterosaurs and other extinct flighted animals. There is no mystery to how they flew - their aerodynamics were more than capable, and did not need reduced gravity to work. Some examples:
http://pterosaur.stanford.edu/Proposals/ProjectDescription.pdfhttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pter.html2) Biophyical analysis of large dinosaurs shows that the "worry" they would collapse under their own weight is silly - their bone structure was more than ample, even ignoring that they were likely largely aquatic:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1985.tb00871.x/pdfAnd then there is this gem:
It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven meters, managed to fly,
It's not an issue at all - the ability to fly is largely determined by
wing loading.
A. magnificens had a wing loading of ~11kg/m
2. Tiny loading in comparison to an albitros 20kg/m
2.
That's 3 wrong in one paragraph - scores now 0 for 16.
Of course, if gravity was once significantly less, then maybe all this can be explained.
It can also be explained with a basic grasp of science - no mythology required.
This rate of secular cooling is problematic, for when combined with quite reasonable models of mantle convection, it implies the mantle was molten some one or two billion years ago (the so called thermal catastrophe). The collision hypothesis removes this problem by placing a significant thermal event, i.e, the collision, within the last billion, or so, years.
Or, if you take into account the known existence of radioisotopes in the mantle/core, their known half life, and the known amounts of energy released by their decay, you more than amply account for the amount of heat being released by the earth.
0 for 17.
So there you have it - a score of 0 for 17 in terms of basic scientific knowledge. In place of knowledge, pre-earth would substitute a completely unsupported hypothesis that is not only self-inconsistent, but also is inconsistent with pretty much all existing data.
I'd also point out at this point that we've challenged pre to account for several other holes, in addition to those pointed out here. To date, he's failed to do so. The "old list":
1) As his planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface of the earth. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Pre's model fails to do so.
2) Pre's assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provides 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) provides no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.
3) Even if I give pre the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), he ignores 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) Pre's own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that this collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth (~2000K). And yet pre claims the surface would be untouched.
5) Pre's model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.
6) Pre's model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. He claims 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 his model.
We can now add to that list:
7) (should be #1): Pre's model has been directly disproven through observational data. Notably in:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,
andhttp://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf
The new point being, obviously, the biggest criticism of his hypothesis. Direct refutation and all that
Bryan
