Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?

Hi Mike Kremer.

"You are saying that the earths increase in size was the reason as to why pre-Pangea opened up"

Yes, indeed.

"and slowly split into the various Continents as we know them today?"

No, the splitting was not slow. The splitting took place in a day or two.

There is a rather old theory called the "expanding Earth theory," first proposed by the Australian S. Warren Carey in the 1950's.

Carey considered many possibilities for his "expanding Earth theory," but he never considered an impact as the reason for it,.. probably because he believed the splitting of Pangaea took place over millions of years.

"To my way of thinking that means that Heaven must have hit pre-Earth diametrically opposite Pangea, as the best position to expand Earth, to enable it to crack and break up into our recognisable continents."

True. Consider this animated GIF:



The impact area is that within the circle.

Pangea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) is outside the circle.

"Have I got that right? I mean Heaven could not have crashed onto Pangea, or even close to it, else it would have obliterated it rather than have it expand apart."

Yes, indeed.

Arrg, screwed up my original posts. Here is the corrected version:

I see quite a few issues with your hypothesis:

1) I think you need to re-consider he forces involved in even the slowest of two ~0.5 earth masses coming together. You wouldn't have pangea being forced apart; you'd have total fragmentation of both bodies, leading to complete destruction of the both planets. Its not a matter of heat, or anything like that, but rather is a simple issue that even if the relative velocity of the two bodies is zero upon their contact, you still have two massive object whose centers of mass are separated by an enormous distance. Ergo, the potential energy is huge, and since the earth is only marginally elastic, that energy is not going to be absorbed nicely.

For example, using your model (and using the over simplification that mass is linearly equal to radius):

[note: for simplicity the "subscript" p-e = pre-earth, h = heaven, e = earth; so Mp-e would be mass of the pre-earth)

Mass:
Mp-e = 0.52(5.9736 × 10^24 kg) = 3.11 x 10^27 g
Mh = 0.48(5.9736 × 10^24 kg) = 2.87 x 10^27 g

Gravitational Energy
U=[G(Mp-e + Mh)]/R, where:
U = potential energy (joules)
G = gravitational constant
R = dist. between centers of gravity

U=[6.67x10^-11(3.11 x 10^27 + 2.87 x 10^27)]/(5200+4800)
U = 5.94 X 10^40J

To put that into perspective, the meteor that wiped out the dino's was though to have had ~10^23 joules, thats ~100,000,000,000,000,000 LESS energy than you situation without the planets being in relative motion to each other. In fact, I believe we're on par here with the collision that is though to have created the moon (and also melted the earth).

Even a slow closing speed ups the ante significantly - kinetic energy is a real bitch.


2) The other problem you have is that in your model the flow of surface material during the collision is inwards, not towards or away from the site of impact. This is due to the fact that surface area does not increase linearly with volume.

For simplicity I'll assume both the pre-earth and heaven have the same volume, that being 50% that of earth. I'll also ignore compression and assume that this means that the volume of the final planet will be the sum of the two starting volumes. I'm using this calculator:

http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php

Volume earth = 1.052 X 10^12 m^3
Volume (p-e & h) = 0.5(1.052 X 10^12) = 0.526 X 10^12 m^3
SA (each) = 3.15 X 10^8 m^2

In contrast, earth is:
SAe: 5.00 X 10^8 m^2

What this means is upon merger, earth is missing ~26% of the surface area of the old pre-earth and heaven.

This means is you have a net flow of the surface *inwards*, as surface must be subducted to maintain a spherical shape as the new earth forms. This inwards flow will occur at the site of contact (assuming fluid bodies), meaning you'll loose land area in the region of contact, while (in theory) having little effect in the areas outside of the contact sites.

You may argue that upwelling of new material from the interior would force the plates apart, but keep in mind that in this merger you are putting an equal volume into a region containing much less surface area, meaning that there will be tremendous force keeping the surface where it is. Your proposed expansion of the surface runs, in fact, in complete opposition to what physics dictates will happen when you merge two smaller objects into one.

Assuming a perfectly fluidic impact, you'd end up with the heavenly and earthly continents (assuming they both faced away from the impact) pretty much where they were, while the surface area of the contact itself would now be in the interior.

3) I didn't go through all your numbers, but I think a molten earth is a given in this situation. You have two tremendous sources of heat - the initial collision, and the heat as the new earth compresses down to a smaller size.

4) Ignoring the "stationary earths" for a moment, there is yet another source of heat and mass destruction in your system - any closely passing heavenly bodies of the size you envision will exert tremendous tidal forces on each other. Not "oooh, look at the big wave" tidal forces, but rather "holy s..t, who ripped north america in half" tidal forces. Assuming a close pass or two before collision (your model, I believe), the surface would be slice-and-diced into oblivion, long before the collision, which'll destroy whatever is left.

Bryan

EDIT:
Upon re-reading what I wrote, I realize point #2 is not totally clear.

That would only occur if the two planets made of a fluid were to come together, and only then, if they came together gently enough to allow a merger without significant "trauma". This could only occur if there was essentially zero velocity of collision, and something "held back" the planets so their gravity didn't accelerate them together at incredible speed.

The more "realistic" action should this pre-earth and heaven come together, even if they had a collision velocity of zero, would be rapid acceleration of the two bodies together (thanks to gravity), resulting in massive waves rushing around the two spheres, all kinds of distortions, leading to a quite traumatic merger. Since the surface of the earth isn't exactly flexible, those waves would pulverize the crust.

Bryan

I have had one geophysicist (professor from Monash University) state that the mathematics in the paper appeared to be correct.

Also, I am a Mathematician. PhD from UNSW, Australia.

When I get a chance, I will review your figures.

I would suggest that you actually read (and understand) the calculations in the paper. They were done to show you how these things are calculated and to save you the trouble of doing them yourself. But if you enjoy checking things, go for it.

The first thing to note is that your formula for the gravitational potential energy is wrong.

It should be U=[G(Mp-e * Mh)]/R

If you use the correct formula to obtain the potential energy and use it as an estimate for the kinetic energy, you are assuming that Heaven fell to PreEarth from infinitely far off.

So your estimate of the kinetic energy is the largest possible and thus not very realistic.

Also, you have mixed different systems of units. For example, you have R in kilometers and the masses in grams.

Also, G = 6.67428e-11 m^3/(kg s^2) has units meters, seconds and kilograms (not grams).

Note that G = 6.67428e-20 km^3/(kg s^2).

Also, any calculation after the collision begins (from when the planets touched) that uses point masses, will be completely wrong. So you can't do that.

Let me emphasize that no part of Pangaea was obliterated by the impact.

A circular cap region of crust on PreEarth was obliterated.

Heaven was completely submerged into PreEarth (causing the expansion).

Pangaea was the surviving region, that is, the region exterior to this circular cap.

Have another look at this animated GIF:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

When Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) is mapped from the sphere of PreEarth to a flat map, you get exactly the map of the first graphic way above. In fact, that is how this map was first produced.

The reason that standard maps of Pangaea are essentially circular is because they represents a sphere with a circular cap region cut from it.

Clearly, a sphere missing a circular cap explains why Pangaea was though to be concentrated on one side of Earth with ocean on the other (which is a very problematic unbalanced arrangement).

And, of course, splits in landmass (the Tethys Ocean and Bering Strait) had to be included in the standard maps of Pangaea to account for the map makers use of the wrong radius (Earth's instead of PreEarth's).

Here is a standard map of Pangaea



The expansion in size of PreEarth after swallowing Heaven, caused Pangaea to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

The circular region where Heaven entered is now called the Pacific Ocean (not all the Pacific, but most of it).

A few thoughts.



If the moon was already there before heaven hit:

Why didn't the moon crash into Heaven? Heaven would have been rotating with the pre-Earth to have crashed so precisely, but the moon would presumably have had a different speed.

Why does the composition of the moon material match that of the current earth? Surely it should be either random, or match the pre-earth composition.




If the moon wasn't there:

If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, then that would have smashed up all the lovely continents.

Pangea was supposed to have existed a couple of hundred million years ago, much younger than the supposed 4.5 billion year old moon.

Let me more accurately state what I meant - I looked over your arguments, and while I did not check to make sure you math was correct, I do understand what you have calculated. More to the point, I agree that you've accurately taken into account some of the forces involved in a planetary merger, assuming of course:

1) That you did preform those calculations accurately, and
2) That you used the correct methods to come to your results

What I noticed though, while reading through your work, is you ignored/missed the single greatest source of energy in your system - the actual gravitational potential energy between the two masses (plus any kinetic energy in the system, which to be nice, I pretended was zero). You also missed/ignored the effect the SA:V ratio changes would have on your model.



I used the correct formula in my calcs, but I see that I used a plus sign in the formula I typed out. I'll own upto that mistake, but you do realize had I used the formula as I wrote it (rather than the correct one) that I would have come up with a gravitational potential energy many orders of magnitude less than the true value.

My typo does you no favours.

If you run the numbers, using the correct formula, you'll see that the 10^40J number I have is correct (ignoring my other mistake, which you identified; more on that later).



And since I did no such thing, your point is moot. Firstly, the value for potential energy I calculated was calculated assuming a separation equal to the sum of the planets radi, as in what the separation of the planets centers of mass would be if the planets surfaces were just barely touching - not infinite separation as you claim. I also assumed no initial movement (ergo, zero kinetic energy).

However, that potential gravitational energy has to go somewhere - the first law of thermodynamics dictates that. In the case of a collision that energy can go into three places - heat (due to friction during impact, largely from friction generated during the elastic movements of the planets crust and mantel), kinetic energy of ejecta, and "residual" potential energy due to the fact we cannot coalesce the matter into a point mass.



You need to go back, look at that formula, and use your mathematician skills to figure out what was actually calculated - it wasn't kinetic energy. Firstly, as I made eminently clear in my first post kinetic energy was zero in the situation I presented. I did not maximize it - to the contrary I did the polar opposite and created a situation where kinetic energy was ZERO at the starting point. A condition I would point out, that is a physical impossibility. There should be some kinetic energy in the system, on top of the gravitational potential energy.

What I did calculate was the gravitational potential energy; as in the amount of potential energy created between two objects, separated by a finite distance, by the gravitational attraction of their two masses. A portion of that potential energy will be converted into kinetic energy, some will be "consumed" in elastic interactions (i.e. the energy which distorts the actual masses), etc. But in the end, once everything settles down, most of that potential energy will be "consumed" by friction and converted into heat*

*with the exception of any ejecta; which will carry away some of that potential energy in the form of kinetic energy



100% my bad, and in this case I did not convert everything within the formulas when I ran the numbers. But once again, you're not doing your model any favours here. Using the correct units:

Mp-e = 3.11 × 10^24 kg
Mh = 2.87 x 10^24 kg
G = 6.67428e-11 m^3/(kg s^2)
R = [(5200km+4800km)*1000] = 10000000m

U=-[6.67428e-11(3.11 X 10^24 * 2.87 X 10^24)]/10000000
U=-[6.67428e-11(8.93 X 10^48)]/10000000
U=-5.95 X 10^31 joules

A lot lower than my first screwed up number, but it is still an energy ~100,000,000 - that is ONE HUNDRED MILLION - times greater than the asteroid that killed off the dino's.

EDIT: upon more reading, specifically of:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6848/full/412708a0.html

and the references therein, it turns out I was also wrong about the impact that created the moon. It may have had an energy of "just" 10^26 J, well below the correct number for your system (and "only" a few thousand times that of Chicxulub). The higher estimates put the impact into the 10^29 joule range; still a few orders of magnitude lower than your hypothetical situation.

Quite interestingly, the impact that created the moon has some similarities to the one you envision - notably that the impact velocity is quite low (15m/s-ish). The similarities end there - the moon was a glancing blow, leading to most of the impact energy being "absorbed" in the form of the kinetic energy of the ejecta. Your system requires all of the energy to be absorbed by the earth, essentially as friction, ergo, absorbed as heat.



Nice try to weasel out; but without proof you do not have a counter-argument.

And to be blunt, you are 100% wrong with your claim vis-a-vis point masses. When talking about spherical objects of uniform density, the lower potential energy of the mass that falls between the two centers of mass is countered by the higher potential energy of the mass which is in opposition to the centers of mass. Ergo, when talking about uniform spherical objects, point masses do indeed accurately calculate the gravitational potential energy between the two objects, upto the point of contact.

Obviously, there are some assumptions in there - planets are rarely perfect spheres, nor of uniform density. But those facts don't help your model either. The obliqueness of planets is generally so low that they can be treated as spherical - at worst obliqueness would skew the potential energy a few tenths of a percent higher or lower (depending on the orientation of impact). The uneven density actually works against your model, as planets tend to have higher density in their centers. What this means is upon contact the potential energy is higher than in the point-mass assumption, due to the fact that a larger portion of the mass is located higher above the contact point then there would be if the mass was equally distributed.

Planets also tend to have angular momentum - i.e. they spin. I've completely ignored this energy to this point, but that also is a source of energy you have not accounted for.

Where my calculations do fall short - and I freely admit this - is that a portion of the potential energy that exists between the two objects will remain potential energy after the merger, since not all of the matter can coalesce to a single point. But even there you're talking about a few tens of percents of the total potential energy - a far cry from the magnitudes of order of excess energy you've failed to take into account. In plain English, something like 30-60% of the potential energy of the two masses will remain potential energy after impact. But to not completely melt the surface you need to "get rid" of 99.9999% (give or take a few points past the decimal) of the impact energy. And not melting the surface is the least of your problems; even if you get rid of 99.99999% of the total energy you're still going to pulverize the surface to the point where no continents will be left.

-----------------------------------
I'd also point out that you've not responded to the volume/surface area issue, which is an equally big thorn in the side of your model. You have not taken into account the fact that the surface area of the final planet will be less than the combined surface area of the two starting planets. Ergo, you are missing a huge contractile force in your calculations. 26% of the combined surface area will disappear upon the merger, without taking that into account your calculations are meaningless.

Bryan

all of this is unnecesarry , how could two orbiting planets
collide.

because if one planet gets closer for some reason the other would get further away.

there would have to be a third planet that strikes one of the orbiting planets and slows its orbit.

it cannot be just two planets that are already locked into a
central gravity system and orbiting each other because of the gravity between them.

Hopefully someone with a better understanding of astronomy will pipe in, but I believe even a collision with the moon wouldn't be end of the problems derived from having a moon.

I believe (this is where we need a real astronomer) that most cases where you have 3 bodies in close proximity like you would in this hypothetical case, that one body (usually the smaller one) is usually ejected from the system.

So there is another question to add to the ones I had before; if the moon was there before, why didn't it:

a) collide with heaven (or pre-earth), thus FUBARing the whole thing, or
b) get ejected from the system, as bodies tend to be during these kinds of close orbital interactions?

Bryan

Yeah, but it is fun. It's why I've come to this forum - I love science, love to debate science, and the people here seem to be above-par compared to other forums I checked out before deciding to come here.



Happened all the time while our solar system was forming. If in separate orbits gravitational tugs from the larger planets (or even a close pass or impact by a smaller one) could create a situation where there would be an impact.

Another possibility is what is thought to have happened in the case of the moon. The moon is thought to have accreated in the earths L4 or L5 point. This co-orbital position is stable until the smaller partner gets to be ~10% of the mass of the larger. At this point the orbit is no longer stable, the smaller mass slips out of the L-point and, according the the papers I read, a collision is now inevitable due to the closely spaced, but now separate, orbits.

Finally, if you had two planets in the same solar orbit, with the two planets orbiting a common center of mass, I think a collision would also be inevitable. Tidal forces would cause the two planets to spiral outwards from each other, until eventually one escaped into an independent orbit. Alternatively (or perhaps more likely) gravitational tugs from the sun and other large planets (Jupiter?) would eventually disrupt the system. Once disrupted its only a matter of time until the new solar orbit crosses the old - wham, bam, thankyou mam!




???how do you figure, that opposite of how gravity normally works???



As I said above, tidal forces and/or tugs from other masses in the solar system can break apart such systems. Once again, we need a real astronomer to comment, but I believe such co-orbits are fundamentally unstable; especially when the co-orbiting pairs are in orbit around a much larger mass (i.e. the sun).

Bryan

if the earth collided with another similar sized and massed object , the entire earths crust would melt.

depending on the velocity of each planet the mass would not just stop as they each reach what is the new center of gravity , the two masses would continue to move in the same direction and buldge outwards before they are pulled back in by the newly forming planets gravity.

etc.etc.etc.

this would occur for a few thousand years I would think as the new planet attains its new shape.

too much heat for what we call and know as life.

so the crust on the opposite side of the earth would first be pushed out a great distance then fall back or be pulled underneath the magma of the newly forming planet.

there would be no life on the earth or the other planet.

except any life that could survive inside magma !

after all the only reason the two orbit each other is the
center of gravity between them.

if that center changes then they change to adjust , if one moves closer to the other for some reason the center of gravity changes so the other will adjust --move further away.

and that is not opposite how gravity works it is exactly how gravity works.

the earth and its moon are orbiting around a mutual center of gravity.
even our moon causes our planet to increase and decrease its solar orbital path every time the moon orbits the earth.

if our moon leaves us , then the earths orbit would no longer wobble around our sun.

My bad, I mis-interpreted what you wrote as the gravity acting in some sort of repulsive fashion. You had not (at that point, anyhow) specified they were orbiting a common center of gravity.

But, as I stated in my last post, I do not believe that these types of orbits are stable with objects of similar mass. Even in the earth/moon situation tidal forces are causing the moon to recede from the earth. I do not believe this will ever reach the point where the moon can escape the earths gravity, but in the hypothetical situation the OP brings up, there probably is sufficient angular motion in the rotation of the two bodies (assuming 24 hour-ish days) to propel the bodies out of their co-orbit around their common center of mass, into two separate orbits around the sun.

As I said earlier, we really need a real astronomer to come by and clear the orbital stuff up...

Bryan

I totally agree. I think he calculated it for the objects being gently placed right next to each other, then let go. But even that sounds like a spectacular release of energy in what's effectively liquid blobs.

Sorry, but you do, do such a thing.

You are implicitly assuming that the loss of potential energy is countered by a gain in kinetic energy.

The potential energy you calculated is that lost in the planet coming from infinitely far off to where the planets surfaces were just touching. This is by the DEFINITION of potential energy.

This loss in potential energy gives the gain in kinetic energy, WHEN the planet has come from infinitely far off to where the planets surfaces were just barely touching.

By the way, are you a high school student or undergrad?



Nice try to weasel out; but you have simply restated what I said.

I said: any calculation after the collision begins (from when the planets touched) that uses point masses, will be completely wrong (and although unsaid, it is true that point masses do indeed accurately calculate the gravitational potential energy between the two spherical objects where their density depends only on the distance from the center).

You said: point masses do indeed accurately calculate the gravitational potential energy between the two objects, up to the point of contact.

Which is exactly the same thing.



I thought you would have figured this for yourself;

The entire surface of Heaven disappeared INTO PreEarth.

So, 100% of the surface area of Heaven is missing.

The surface area of PreEarth is dealt with as in the paper.

These are quick replies. Unfortunately, I do not have time for more at the moment.

Try re-reading what I wrote - I specifically stated that was not my assumption. I think you need to go back and read up on your basic forces, energies and how they relate to work. At the point of contact there is an enormous amount of potential energy due to the gravitational attraction between the two planets. A significant portion of that energy will be released as varying forms of work during the impact. Kinetic energy is but one source of that work; it is hardly the only one.

Your pretending that is not the case defies both basic physics, and basic logic.



Once again, you're 100% incorrect. The real definition of potential energy is:

"energy stored within a physical system as a result of the position or configuration of the different parts of that system."

As for gravitational potential energy:
"a stored energy determined by an object's position in a gravitational field"

Strange, how you come up with correct answers when you use the correct definitions.



Absolutely 100% wrong. The gravitational potential energy is simply the amount of energy available for work, due to the separation of mass. Work is not kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is but one form of energy through which potential energy can be "converted" inorder to preform work. However, it is not the only one. In the case of an impact you will generate elastic energy (largely in the form of waves and distortion of the impacting planets), pressure energy (in the fairly obvious form of having material squeezed between 2 masses of 0.5 earths), as well as kinetic energy (due to the acceleration of the masses themselves).

All of those, not just the kinetic energy, are forms of energy/work that gravitational potential energy will be converted into. The combination of those is not taken into account by your model.



LOL, insults I see. I guess we know just how strong your legitimate arguments are.

But since we're using insults now, lets just say I find your statement quite ironic, coming from someone who apparently missed the highschool physics class where they teach you that kinetic energy is not the only vehicle available for converting potential energy into work...



And this claim is still wrong. The amount of potential energy available at the time of contact between the two objects will be accurately calculated using point masses. That potential energy doesn't magically disappear once impact begins; instead it is converted into other forms of energy which conduct work on the system.

Whining that the events post-collision cannot be accurately predicted by point masses DOES NOT MAGICALLY MAKE THAT POTENTIAL ENERGY DISAPPEAR. It is still there, in all its glory - being absorbed in the form of elastic, pressure and kinetic energy; all of which will eventually be turned into heat.



I didn't figure that out by myself because, to be blunt, its an idea too stupid to have given thought to. How exactly do you propose that two objects comprised of incompressible viscous fluid (magma) would merge in such a fashion? Its defies the basic laws of fluid dynamics; especially the ones regarding surface tension.

Unless you're proposing that the planets are made of perfect fluids, or have indestructible crusts...both of which are laughable options at best.

========================================
I have a proposal for you, since you seem set on ignoring the well-though out counter arguments of those of us on this board - put your money where your mouth is. Every year I write up my work and send it to scientific journals, where it is reviewed by experts in my field, and (with luck) published.

Why don't you do the same? Write it up, send it into a geology or astronomy journal, and see what the experts in the field think. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the exact same issues brought up here - especially the issue of where does all that potential energy go - will be brought up by them as well.

A bit of advice though, if you choose to do this - get rid of the religious terminology. Scientists tend to frown on the use of religious terminology in scientific works.

Bryan

No, it wasn't meant as an insult.

Your level of knowledge indicates a talented high school student or undergrad.

You certainly don't know/understand enough to be a grad.

LOL, I see instead of actually replying to the criticism you've instead chosen to propagate your insult. And on that note, what kind of science I'm involved in is clearly outlined in my profile - no need for you to guess.

What you have shown us is where you stand on the topic of peer-review...and on the topic of the relationship between potential energy and work.

Bryan

PS: how's that paper coming?

It is finished. You can download it from http://preearth.net/worlds-collide-A4-bw.pdf

Hi Bryan,

Last night I didn't have time to explain things fully and I spent all today chatting with geophysicists from Auckland University. I left Sydney about a week ago.

So, where were we?

Question 1) What exactly is your definition of gravitational potential energy?

Here is mine: The gravitational potential energy is the work done against the gravity force in bringing a mass in from infinity (so the gravitational potential energy is negative). It is defined to be zero at infinity.

Now, you calculate the gravitational potential energy of one planet relative to the other, at the time when they touch, and then swing this about as if it means something that it probably doesn't, without saying exactly what you mean.

Question 2) What exactly do you think this number you calculated means?

I tried to guess what you meant by this and assumed you were talking about the kinetic energy Heaven would have if it fell to PreEarth from infinitely far off. Which is negative the same number.

But apparently, that is not what you meant.

So, what exactly do you mean?

I could hazard another guess, but don't think it wise, until you have made what you think it means clear.

Try submitting that to peer review; without that it's not a scientific paper, just ramblings...



Sorry, but there is only one definition for gravitational potential energy, and that is the one defined by physicists. You don't get to make up your own scientific definitions on a whim, or to re-write basic physical laws so they fit your mis-understanding of physics.

The one and only definition of gravitational potential energy is the one I gave, and is the one defined by the formula I used - "stored energy determined by an object's position in a gravitational field".

The key word there is "position". "Position" is not infinity, but rather is the exactly defined distance between the centers of mass.



It means exactly what the math and science says it means - that is the amount of energy available to the system, in its given configuration. The exact same math is used by scientists and engineers all over the world to calculate things like the amount of energy that can be derived from hydroelectric dams. They don't have to move the water an infinite distance away in order to extract the gravitational potential energy determined by U=G[m1*m2]/R. Nor do your imaginary planets need to be moved to an infinite distance apart for the gravitational potential energy that exists between them to be converted, in its entirety, into work.



Its the amount of potential energy available in the system to do work, given the spatial relationship of the two planets and their mass. As in exactly what gravitational potential energy calculates.

I'm thinking you may need to pick up a high school textbook; potential energy and the conversion of it into work is one of the most basic of physical concepts, and you have absolutely zero understanding of how they work.



Exactly what I've been saying all along, and exactly what the physics of gravity dictate I am saying. You really need to learn about the relationship between potential energy and work.

Bryan

Here is a typical definition of gravitational potential energy:

Gravitational Potential Energy

The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space....

From the work done against the gravity force in bringing a mass in from infinity where the potential energy is assigned the value zero, the expression for gravitational potential energy is:

U = - [G * M * m]/R, etc.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

It is from a site dedicated to high school students so should be easy to understand.

Bryan;

In the case being considered, the gravitational potential energy is as you calculated;

U = - [G * Mp-e * Mh]/R = -5.95 X 10^25 MJ.

This is exactly the kinetic energy (apart from the sign) that Heaven would have if it fell to PreEarth from infinitely far off, i.e., Heaven would have kinetic energy

KE = 5.95 X 10^25 MJ.

(the loss in potential energy equals the gain in kinetic energy)

So your estimate of the energy transfer to PreEarth is the largest possible and thus not very realistic.

I don't know how many times one has to say this till you wake up,....

So? As pointed out to you repetitively, kinetic energy is not the only form of energy which potential energy can be converted to, and ergo is not the only mechanism by which the gravitational potential energy between pre-earth and heaven will be translated into work (i.e. turning your planets into molten orbs of goo).



Its actually the measure of the free energy available to do work. Without proof, you have no idea as to how much or little of that will actually be translated into the destruction of your planet. But keep in mind, you need to explain away roughly 99.99% of that energy just to get to an energy transfer equivalent to the amount of energy thought to have created the moon - and that collision completely melted the earth's surface.

To get into territory where the earths crust has a chance of actually remaining intact (to be generous, 1000 dino-extinction asteroids worth) you need to explain away 99.999995% of that potential energy.

Pretending that because it cannot all get converted into kinetic energy, and therefore can be ignored, is bad science at best; idiocy at worst.



Get what? That you don't have the vaguest idea of what potential energy is and how its translated into work, or that you are so married to your hypothesis that you are unwilling to take criticism and analyze your possible errors?

Bryan

Bryan; Perhaps the following will help you out.

Yes the gravitational potential energy of the system at impact is equal to

U = - [G * Mp-e * Mh]/R = -5.95 X 10^25 MJ.

However, not all that potential energy will be converted to heat (something you keep telling me I don't believe,... but its actually you who assume all the potential energy is turned to heat, thus giving the largest possible increase in heat).

A lot of this potential energy will be used in reshaping the 2 planets into one.

For example, a cubic kilometer of mass on the surface of Heaven (radius 4800 km, say) needs to be "lifted" one and a half thousand kilometers to the surface of Earth (radius 6371 km), or more, if the cubic kilometer of mass started below Heaven's surface.

This takes a huge amount of energy.

So you get the idea.

Its not as simple as one may think.

It is this sort of thing that forced me to adopt the approach using gravitational binding energy (in the paper).

Based on what I've seen, I highly doubt these conversations ever took place. But it would be easy enough for you to confirm - names please.

Try re-reading my past posts; I never once said it would all be converted to heat. Some portion of the potential energy in the initial state will remain as potential energy, simply because the entirety of the two planets masses will not be collapsed down into a point-mass. Ergo, the mass "supported" above the core will not loose all of its potential energy.

However, enough of it will be. Keep in mind that just 1% of the energy in you starting state is 100X the energy needed to get a moon-making impact. But since you seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball, I'll slow it down even more for you:

Gravitational potential energy of your initial state: 5.95 X 10^31 J.

Energy of the collision that made the moon, and melted the entirety of the earth: 10^27J

Energy of the collision that killed the dino's: 10^23J

So the amount of potential energy you need to have magically disappear, just to get to an earth-melting, moon making collision: ~99.99%

Energy that has to magically disappear, to get to a dino-killing impact: ~99.999999%

A rough guess as to the amount of energy that has to magically disappear to get the maximum energy absorbed without melting the earth: ~99.999%

Now I'll buy that upto 60%, maybe even a bit more, of the potential energy in the original configuration will be left after formation. That still leaves you a few orders of magnitude above what it takes to make a moon.

You see, it is comments like the one above which confirm you have no grasp of basic physics, which is also why I doubt you ever talked to a real scientist about your ideas.

Firstly, no "lifting" is taking place - the surface of one planet is not being lifted towards the other. What physics dictates must happen, given your initial state, is both planets fall towards the center of mass of the combined system - which assuming equal density of both planets, will be located a few hundred km below the surface of pre-earth. The planets ***fall*** towards each other, due to their mutual gravitational attraction. There is no "lifting", and thus no "lifting energy" is required.

Secondly, you seem to have forgotten your thermodynamics, and the role of entropy. Heat (or more accurately, increased entropy) is a given in all physical systems. In the case of two planets merging, all of the energy generated in the interactions between the two bodies will ultimately end up has heat. For example, as the two planets merge the magma comprising the two planets will be forced to flow due to the displacement by the other planet. That flow is subject to friction, which over time will bring the flow to a halt, transferring that energy into heat. Likewise, any waves created during merger will be slowed by friction, converting their energy into heat. Heat is the eventual end for all of the potential energy translated into work, with one exception. That one exception is any material actually ejected into space - in this one case energy escapes not as heat, but rather as kinetic energy.

Oh, but it is. You have a very simple situation - an initial state containing a large quantity of potential energy. You can pontificate all you want about gravitational binding energy or whatever other irrelevant phenomena you want, but at the end of the day that energy MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR. Bringing up irrelevant physical phenomena doesn't change that one simple fact.

Bryan

.
Sorry Bryan but you are totally hopeless.

You believe random incorrect stuff and refuse to believe correct stuff.

First your 10^27J for the collision that made the moon (and supposedly melted the entirety of the earth) is basically unsourced and CLEARLY WRONG.

Take 1300 J/kg°K as the average specific heat for the Earth.

Then if all of the 10^27J is converted to heat we get a temperature rise of:

(10^27)/(5.97369 x 10^24 x 1300) = 1.3 degrees (the mass of Earth is 5.97369 x 10^24 kg)

And a 1.3 degree rise in temperature, just ain't going to melt the planet.

Now lets get back to the gravitational potential energy of the system just before impact.

Then if ALL the potential energy, i.e., the entire 5.95 x 10^31 Joules, is converted to heat we get a temperature rise of:

(5.95 x 10^31)/(5.97369 x 10^24 x 1300) = 7662 degrees.

And this is not so unreasonable but is clearly enough to eventually melt the planet.

Prove me wrong then. Saying it is so, does not make it so.


It was not unsourced, as I provided the link to the scientific paper from which I got the source the first time I brought up the number. that's the opposite of unsourced - its cited fully, the first time it was given. The link, again:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6848/full/412708a0.html

Any errors in that calcification are theirs, not mine. Any errors in interpreting their numbers are mine...



Small problem with your math - most of the earth is already molten; it is only the surface which has to be warmed to melt the surface. Had you read the article I linked to before you'd know the collision was a glancing one, and thought to have transferred most of its energy to the crust (which is why the moon is iron-poor, BTW). Had you bothered checking the citation you claimed I never gave, you'd not have made such an obvious mistake. It's late and I'm feeling lazy, but I'd be willing to bet the fairly thin crust (30km on average today; less back then) would easily be melted by that impact.



If the planet was entirely solid to start, I'd agree. But since all but <1% the planet was already molten, and since a lot of the energy was applied to the solid surface, I don't see the relevance of your calcs. Heat transfer takes time - in the case of the earth today, core-surface transfer takes place of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.



So lets see:

You agree that the potential energy is sufficient to melt the planet.

Finally, some progress!

Now, lets do some kindergarden math. The average temp of magma is 700-1300C according to wikipedia. Lets give you the best-case scenario, wherein the entirety of pre-earth and heaven are at the freezing point of water; from the core on out. This means that to melt the whole of the new planet you'd need 9-17% of the total potential energy of your initial state to be transferred into any other form of energy, to eventually get this degree of warming. Keep in mind, this means that in this impossible scenario you still have an excess of potential energy nearly 6X that needed to melt earth.

But once again, most of the planet is already molten. According to wikipedia, 1% of the earths volume (and therefore approximately the same % of mass) is crust. The top of the crust averages ~18C, the bottom ~400C. Call it an average of 200C for simplicity. So to melt the crust of earth you actually need between 0.07 to 0.14 percent of the potential energy present in your initial condition.

Now tell me, where the hell do you think the other 99.85-99.93% of that potential energy goes?

Bryan

If facing the world with a critical mind, and demanding proof of claims makes me "hopeless", than I'm damned proud to be hopeless.

Bryan

The opening of the Atlantic.



Cool, eh?

Nice animation. How does your model account for the fact that the crust along the base of the Atlantic radiodates in a matter consistent with continued expansion over millions of years (i.e. the crust nearest shore dates much older than crust near the mid-atlantic ridge), instead all aging to the same date (as your model would predict)?

Bryan

If you had read the paper, you would know that my model does not necessarily predict that all points of the Atlantic ocean basin should age the same.

Why don't you read the section called: Radiogenic Dating.

In fact, under certain circumstances one would expect to see an argon gradient across the Atlantic, just like one sees today.

The argon gradient used to date the sea-floor, can be interpreted as a geochemical gradient, one which can be explained by the mixing of mantles with different initial argon concentrations.

I did - and like the rest of your hypothesis you ignored all the contravening data and looked only at the one form of radiodating you could twist to your desires.

And even with argon you did a half-assed job - you pretty much ignored the potassium side of the equation. You need both - not just the argon - to date the rocks. I'd like to see you explain both the argon and potassium, without you ignoring basic physics this time.

And if you can do that, try searching the scientific literature - 2 minutes in it found three papers which dated the Atlantic floor using four other methods - Samarium-neodymium, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-Lead and even Uranium-thorium of the area closest to the ridge itself.

They all show the same thing - explaining how mixing could give the argon gradient is one thing, explaining how 8 other radionucleotides could all end up in exactly the right mixes - given their different half-lives - is going to be much harder.

If you can do that, then lets see you explain the magnetic anomalies which also support conventional continental drift, in a non-radioactive manner.

Bryan

Good. Then lets have the web addresses of the sites you found (and consider good enough).

And, no more (false) claims from links the general public can not access.

Start with the Uranium-Lead and Uranium-thorium, please.

So basically your reply is "please do my homework for me". You'd think someone claiming to be presenting a "scientific" hypothesis would be familiar with scientific journals and how to find them. Or that the burden of proof is on you - reviewers of scientific work (i.e. me) simply provide critisim; its upto those doing the "work" to prove/disprove those critisism.

Speaking of which, why the deafening silence on the potassium issue? It is, after all, a direct product of your work - no references needed...

But I'm feeling generous today, so here's a hint - you can find scientific literature using google scholar: http://scholar.google.com

Heck, I'm feeling so good today I'll even give you some help, and start your home work for you:

Best place to start, is with the man who single-handedly discovered most of what we know about oceanic ridges:
Cesare Emiliani's [u]The Oceanic Lithosphere[u]. Great book, been a scientific staple for 30 years.

Then, how about some actual studies, published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals out there:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci%3B323/5917/1048

--and--

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

Between Emiliani's book and those two papers, you should have data and references galore.

Bryan

You claimed you had already these links/papers.

Were you just lying?

Is it too hard to provide the links you claimed you had?

And the one link you did provide states:

Approximately 75% of the gabbros accreted within error of the predicted seafloor magnetic age, whereas ~25% are significantly older. These anomalously old samples suggest...

So fully one quarter of the dates were ANOMALOUS.

Is that what you call collaborating evidence? Hmmmmm?

Nope, but I'm at work now and I found those yesterday at home. Different computers, no luxury of the history list.

But your excuse for not doing your own research are duly noted.


I provided two of them, after a 30sec search of google scholar. And I was nice enough to do that search 2X for you.

Now get off your lazy arse and do the rest of your homework yourself. Its your hypothesis, and therefore its your job, not mine, to provide the supporting evidence.


Try reading the whole paper, instead of quote mining the abstract. Had you bothered reading the paper - or even the sentence after the one you quote-mined - you'd have found out that the 25% anomalous material was due to crust uplifting - you know, the very process you're trying to replace with your little theory.

Its quite funny though - the entire paper is about that 25% anomalous zircons; where it comes from, how its formed, and why it gets mixed in. The entirety of that paper - which is based on those anomalies you think discredit it - undermines the entirety of your claims.

The very anomalies they are measuring are due to a process your model does not account for.

But thanx for confirming you're not interested in testing your ideas, and will grasp at any straw to avoid having to read actual science. Even if that straw is a critical piece of evidence that undermines your entire theory - a piece of evidence you apparently don't understand.

From the paper, which you clearly did not read:
The inherited zircon cores are 1.5 My older than the predicted magnetic age for this portion of Atlantis Bank (19). In contrast, the weighted-average age of the four rims (12.12 ± 0.29 Ma) is consistent with the magnetic age and is interpreted to reflect the timing of crustal accretion at ~12.0 Ma. The observed inheritance likely represents magmatic assimilation during the primary crust-forming event...The Pb/U zircon ages reported here, together with the age reported in (17), allow us to place absolute constraints on the time scale for crustal growth at Atlantis Bank. In all, at least 15 (75%) of these 20 ages plot within error of their expected magnetic age (Fig. 3). However, 5 (25%) of our samples are significantly older (up to 2.5 My), indicating that construction of any given piece of slow-spreading oceanic crust may take as long as 2.5 My.

Bryan

EDIT: I'm off to the cottage for three days - that'll give you a chance to read that scientific literature and come up with some sort of counter theory.

I'm not going to hold my breath, mind you...

I assume that the moon was not already there, but there is no compelling reason for this.

Why didn't the moon crash into Heaven,...

3 cases:

1) Long before the collision of Heaven and PreEarth.

The Moon didn't crash into Heaven for the same reason that the Earth does not crash into Venus (different stable orbits).

2) Just prior to the collision of Heaven and PreEarth with the Moon orbiting between Heaven and PreEarth.

Well, then it probably would have crashed.

2) Just prior to the collision of Heaven and PreEarth with the Moon orbiting beyond Heaven.

Then, it would survive the collision of Heaven and PreEarth.

There are some ways.


This statement is wrong by definition. You explain later what you mean,... but then, all you are saying is that if the planets keep their current orbit,... then they keep the same distance (apart).


That's one way. Another is to introduce tidal friction. Or friction due to a cloud of debris.

It can be just 2 planets, but 3 or more is fine.

So, how's that counter hypothesis coming?

Bryan

Hi Paul. This is not necessarily true. Showing this is the subject of much of the paper at http://www.preearth.net/.

Here is the "hard" part, the rest I leave to you.

As to the question of whether the energy released by the impact would melt the entire earth.

We will make the simplifying assumption of spherical planets with uniform density.

This makes the math simple and the argument easy to follow.

First we calculate the temperature rise caused by placing PreEarth next to Heaven and letting gravity transform them into the Earth.

The gravitational binding energy of a planet, U, is the energy released by the assembly of the planet from atoms which were originally an infinite distance away. Or, alternatively, it is the energy needed to disassemble the planet into atoms by moving each an infinite distance away.

The gravitational binding energy of a spherical planet with uniform density, is given by the formula;

U = 0.6GM^2/R, where

G = 6.67428 x 10^-20 km^3/(kg s^2) is the gravitational constant,
M is the mass of the planet in kg,
R is its radius in km.

U is here measured in megajoules, MJ.

Earth Radius R_E = 6371 km.
Earth Mass M_E = 5.97369 x 10^24 kg.
Approximate Earth Binding Energy = 0.6*G*M_P^2/R_P = 22.430 x 10^25.

PreEarth Radius R_P = 5200 km.
PreEarth Mass M_P = 3.48280 x 10^24 kg.
Approximate PreEarth Binding Energy = 0.6*G*M_P^2/R_P = 9.341 x 10^25 MJ.

Heaven Radius R_H = 4680 km.
Heaven Mass M_H = 2.48456 x 10^24 kg.
Approximate Heaven Binding Energy = 0.6*G*M_H^2/R_H = 5.282 x 10^25 MJ.

The energy necessary to separate PreEarth and Heaven to infinity, is:

G*M_P*M_H/(5200+4680) = G*M_P*M_H/9880 = 5.846 x 10^25 MJ.

The idea is to take PreEarth and Heaven at the point of first contact, that is, when they are just 9,880 kilometers apart, dissemble them to infinity, then bring everything back from infinity and assemble Earth.

So, the energy released from the point of contact through the formation of the Earth, is:

Energy Released = (22.430 - 9.341 - 5.282 - 5.846) x 10^25 = 1.961 x 10^25 MJ.

This is (1.961 x 10^25)/(5.97369 x 10^24) = 3.2827 megajoules per kilogram.

Suppose an average specific heat of 1330 J/kg°K.

Then we have a 3282700/1330 = 2,468 degree rise in the temperature of the entire Earth.

Note that, this is the energy released by just placing PreEarth next to Heaven and letting gravity transform them into the Earth. This does not incorporate any kinetic energy that the two original planets may have had.

I have just created a new forum at http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/

See you there.

So basically you've just disproven your own hypothesis - given the fact most of the earth is already molten, the above increase in temp would be more than sufficient to melt the thin layer of crust. Heck, add that to the average temp of the earths mantle and you may be close to gassifying some types of rock.

BTW, hows the radiodating counter-argent coming - you've been awfully quiet on that issue...

Bryan

There are none so blind as,.... ImagingGeek.

The temperature at center of Earth would have been some 7,000 to 8,000 degrees with a gradient to the surface.

So the surface would have been much cooler than the average temperature.

It a pity you never bothered to read the paper at http://preearth.net/ where this is explained.

For example, from the FIRST page;

Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below.

and later,...

The heat generated by the collision (at least partially) melted the mantles and cores of both planets, which then quickly combined to become the mantle and core of the Earth. However, the massive blocks of PreEarth's crust (that is, the Earth's continental crust) were still solid to a depth of some tens of kilometers. Rather than being crushed and melted by resisting the impact forces, these blocks of crust just went with the flow and although their surface material was severely broken and contorted, these blocks ended up relatively intact. These giant pieces of the ancient crust, acted like a thermal blanket, protecting life from the heat below.

The continental crust is some twenty to eighty kilometers thick and is a poor conductor of heat. Consequently, it would take a very long time for the underlying heat to reach the surface by conduction alone. Thus, the continental crust provided shelter for the life living upon it. Although the sea-floor was initially molten, the oceans quickly cooled the exposed magma and formed an oceanic crust. Once solid, this crust was also an efficient thermal barrier. This reduced the flow of heat to the oceans until it was no longer a threat to the life within them.

Also, I have grown tired of all the censorship on internet forums and have consequently started up one of my own, at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/

Oh, I read it. But as I, paul, and numerous others here have pointed out, its a bunch of bunk and a physical impossibility.

You've ignored the gravitational potential energy, you've ignored how fluidic objects merge, you've ignored how heat flows, you've ignored how volume and surface area change upon such mergers, and you've ignored what has happened every single time two heavenly bodies have collided.

We've pointed these facts out to you time and time again - ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

BTW, hows your explanation of the distribution of radio-nucleotides across the Atlantic sea floor coming? Kinda a BIG FREAKIN HOLE in your hypothesis.

Bryan

No I haven't actually. Is it my fault you don't even understand the definition of gravitational potential energy?

Please, get Paul, or someone who knows the definition of gravitational potential energy, to explain this for you (on this forum so we can watch).


You really are SLOW. The two objects merging are initially solid. The "fluidic" flow you talk about is more like the "fluid" flow of a bullet into an apple (i.e., not like the normal flow of fluids).


I've talked about heat flow, you haven't.


Oh right,... why don't you list the recorded instances of two heavenly bodies colliding.

I don't know whether to just laugh at you or call you a moron.

By the way, you haven't visited http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/, or isn't that part of your job description.

The opening of the Indian Ocean.



Yet another cool animation, eh?

From: http://preearth.net/

Avoiding the radionucleotide issue again, are we?

Nice to see you're being consistent - ignoring and obfuscating issues that completely invalidate your hypothesis.

Just like a good creationist - too bad this is a science forum.

So, for the third (fourth?, I've lost count) time - how does your model account for the distribution of radionucleotides along the Atlantic sea floor?



As addressed in the other thread, your definition of GPE is wrong. Kellog already hit on the main error you're making.



1) What evidence do you have earth was ever completely solid?

2) How would you propose two 1/2-earth sized planets form which have solid interiors, within the known age of our solar system?

3) How do two solid objects "merge" without fracturing into pieces, or first melting?

4) Given the only answer to '3' that would give you anything but a pile of sand, and given that they would be melting as they merged, why have you ignored how fliuidic bodies merge?



No, you've pretended that all of the impact energy somehow magically ends up contained in the earths core. That is ignoring how heat flows.

The heat will be generated primarily at the site of impact - i.e. on one half of each globe - that includes the surface on those sides. Heat flows from hot -> cold, meaning that heat will move from the hot side of the globes to the cold side. It will not simply sink to the core, leaving the "cold" surface alone.

That is what I mean by "ignoring heat flow". You've created a system wherein heat is created on one side of an object, and then ignored how it'll flow to the other.



Lets see:
1) formation of every planet in our solar system,
2) formation of the moon from the earth
3) every crater on every moon in our solar system
4) every crater on every planet in our solar system

Strangely, none of those led to nice mergers like you propose, but rather one body blasting the hell out of the other.



I'm interested in science, not the ramblings of someone who ignored inconvenient data points. Hence why I am here, not on your little message board.

Bryan

You truly are weird.

Take just the one example quoted above.

The reason I wanted recorded instances (i.e., observed events with the results of the collision recorded) of two heavenly bodies colliding is so that we would have a scientific basis on which to go forward.

However, you supply a list of unrecorded, i.e., unobserved events and then attach your OPINION to them.

Your OPINION that they would be "one body blasting the hell out of the other."

Since, you weren't at such an event (and neither was anyone else) you can't say what a collision between two planets half the volume of Earth would be like.

Oh,... I am sorry, you can say what a collision between two planets half the volume of Earth would be like, as you have.

But you have no evidence for your claim.

So, you make clear that you are a propagandist not a scientist.

I figured that would be your reply - collisions between celestial objects are recorded yearly - impacts between asteroids , impacts with the earth , jupiter got whacked pretty good a few years ago. And then there is this guy:


Notice how the meteor didn't merge nicely with his car, but rather smashed a hole in the roof of his garage and crushed the front of his car...

And you think two planet-sized objects are going to merge nicely.

LOL.

BTW, how's your explanation for the distribution of radionucleotides along the Atlantic sea floor coming?

Or are you still avoiding that huge gaping hole in your hypothesis?

Bryan

We cannot edit your posts - only you can do that.

I'm guessing this is an excuse you're making up to avoid having to correct your errors.

Bryan

well I've toyed with the concept that you think backwards bryan , this pretty much tells the story.

unless you drive your car backwards and just call the backs of cars the fronts of cars.

or you have been taught that the backs of cars are actually the fronts of cars.

which can be compared to your understanding of newtons laws.

but if thats the case , it fits perfectly.

Eh, it's okay, but you can't dance to it.

You know, I started reading this thread but quickly lost interest.

You need some jokes in it.

That's more like it.

Drove the poor [censored] away, did you guys?

Shame.

Hi Paul;

I have started up my own bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/

See if there are any topics that interest you.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts

Virtually no one has made use of this board and am wondering if it is fully functional.

Would you be kind enough to leave a few comments so I can see that all is O.K.

It certainly seems functional from where I am.

Thanks a lot.

Wow, I wish I would have said that.

LOL.

How's your sister doin Marchimedes?

I think you should rename the board.

and you dont have a energy topic.

something with a name that can be found if someone
does a search for science forums.

like scienceagogo it has science at ts begining.

then your going to need to put some side boxes up for advertising and such.

but you might consider a blingable reply button that removes the side boxes and gives you some room to write in.

also videos are the in thing now , so you must not forget
to allow videos to be embeded into the pages.

you might loose your visitors if you allow them to leave
and the more user friendly a forum is , the quicker you will attract members.

I think the first thing is to stray away from the name
because it will be too hard to search for.

and you have so many topics that are not related to the preearth hypothesis.

heres something you should seriously have a look at.

websitespark program at microsoft.

Thanks for the tips, Paul.

The opening around Antarctica.



Another cool animation, eh?

From: http://preearth.net/

That's why I get the big bucks.



I see you've figured that out from my thread. And thank you.





See, preearth, now how can we believe anything you say? Your word is worth Jack. next thing you know you gonna tell us the Earth is made from two bodies colliding, wouldn't that be sumpin?

Listen, pre, can I call you pre? Thanks, pre. Pre, I think I can help you out here, as I'm kinda interested in this subject yet the presentation is too boring for me to bother with, pre, maybe you should take some tips form The Master.

That would be me.

Check this...

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=21827#Post21827

See, I can say the sun rises in the west and water is dry but I'm gonna get views, and trust me, pre, you want views. Without views all you doing is practicing typing. Don't get me wrong, your stuff still needs to be solid, like mine is, or it's gonna turn into a bash pre-a-thon, which could also be fun, but I digress. I'm gonna go ahead and attempt to read this thread, I'm thinking lots of coffee and maybe I'll start a crystal-meth addiction to keep me awake and we'll see what I can come up with to help you with this, er, condition of yours.

Yea, I looked, not really.

Maybe if you had a thread about beer. Or hookers. Or hookers with beer.

Better yet, hookers with free beer.

THEN you'd have a web site.

Just saying man, you gots to get people in the door first, then you can bore them to Hell.

You're not much fun at parties, are you?

Bro, that thing about not being fun at parties?

Sorry, that was a little harsh.

I'm sure you are the center of attention.

Hey, have you noticed how many views this thread has had?

Ah yea, there ya go.

Might wanna listen to ol' Marchimedes advice.

Just sayin.

Hi Marchimedes,... great to get advice from someone who doesn't seem to know too much.

Maybe we should all pitch-in and get pre some beer & hookers! Might loosen him up some.

Bryan

How quaint.

Just send cash.

"This forum is now fully Moderated,..."

Your (non-in-house) comment rate will trend to zero.

Looks like only new topics are moderated??