Actually, the burden of proof is on you.
Sorry, that's not how it works in the real world. You're claiming malfeasance on my part - both in the scientific world and in the legal world it is upto you to provide the evidence that I have done something wrong.
In fact, I can give the number that you cannot give. It is 2.95 x 10^31 joules.
Robin Canup states that for an impactor 0.13 the size of Earth, the (specific) impact energy per unit projectile mass is 3.8 x 10^11 ergs/g = 3.8 x 10^4 joules/g = 3.8 x 10^7 joules/kg.
I have to thank you pre - you just demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are either:
a) lying, or
b) incapable of understanding the material in front of you
You've also shown that you cannot come up with the right answer, even when every clue you need is laid out before you (hint - re-read my post where I refer to figure 11 and table 1).
Maybe you should have read that whole footnote, instead of grabbing the first big number you found:
Including consideration of latent heat should be most important for impacts whose specific impact energy per unit projectile mass, EI, is comparable to the heat of vaporization for rock, Ev ~ 1011ergs/g, and less important for impacts with either EI << Ev or EI >> Evergs/g, comparable to Ev. Also of a similar magnitude is the specific energy difference between an orbit with a = 1.5R⊕ and the Earth’s surface, ~ 2 x 11 ergs/g. It is thus not surprising that accounting for the latent heat budget results in a somewhat lower yield of orbiting material for simulations using M-ANEOS than those using Tillotson for similar impact conditions.Emphasis (bold) is mine. Had you bothered to read the paper, of even that whole footnote, you'd have known that the whole point of this paper was to
refute the models based on impact energies like those described by Tillotson (who, BTW, is the one who first claimed 10
11ergs/g).
I know pre will ignore this, but the whole point of this paper was to account for issues that previous models of lunar formation could not address. The earlier models, like Tillotsons, assumed a direct impact with huge energies - 10
11ergs/g or more. Cameron showed in his nature paper (citation provided 2-3 posts ago) that this kind of impact was incapable of producing a moon due to the amount of vaporized material (which condenses poorly) and the orbital distribution of the debris (which are not ring-like, but rather spherically distributed).
The whole point of Camerons nature paper, which was refined by Canup in this paper, was that the impact
had to be a glancing one - lower energy, impacting near the limb of the earth. This is the only way you can get an orbiting ring of material, in which the material is comprised almost entirely of crust, and in which the material is of a suitable size distribution to allow the moon to form in the time it took the moon to coalesce (vaporized particles are smaller, thus have less gravity, and thus take much longer to coalesce).
In figures 11 and 12, this paper outlines a range of impactor size, velocities and impact angles which can produce the moon. To actually get the energy absorbed by the earth, due to these simulated impacts, you need to do a bit of math of your own - table 1 outlines successful combinations (i.e. mass, velocity and impact angles which can produce a moon-like object). All of the values you need are in there - the speed and mass of the impactor (from which you can calculate input energy) the speed and mass of the resulting debris field (from which you can calculate the energy not absorbed by the earth). The difference between the two is the amount of energy absorbed by the earth - approx 10
27J, +/- an order of magnitude across the various conditions.
What can I say - this was a test of pre's self-proclaimed math skills. He failed.
Now I'm sure at this point pre is frantically writing another post in which he'll call me a liar and other names, while not providing one iota of evidence that I'm wrong. But in the vauge hope he may of read this far, I re-issue my challenge for the 7th (I think) time:
How do you account for these two studies which directly refute your hypothesis?
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
For some reason, I suspect instead of answering that question pre's just going to call me names again...
Bryan
