Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: preearth

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
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.


You claimed you had already these links/papers.

Were you just lying?

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.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Is it too hard to provide the links you claimed you had?

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.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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?

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...

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 06/04/10 06:18 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
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.

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.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: paul
all of this is unnecesarry , how could two orbiting planets collide.

There are some ways.

Originally Posted By: paul
because if one planet gets closer for some reason the other would get further away.

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).

Originally Posted By: paul
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.

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.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
So, how's that counter hypothesis coming?

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: paul
if the earth collided with another similar sized and massed object , the entire earths crust would melt.

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.

Last edited by preearth; 06/09/10 10:58 PM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: preearth

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


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

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 06/09/10 11:40 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
So basically you've just disproven your own hypothesis,...


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/


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
So basically you've just disproven your own hypothesis,...


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.


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


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
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.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You've ignored the gravitational potential energy

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).

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored how fluidic objects merge

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).

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored how heat flows

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

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored what has happened every single time two heavenly bodies have collided.

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/

Last edited by preearth; 06/10/10 10:52 PM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
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?

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You've ignored the gravitational potential energy

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


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

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored how fluidic objects merge

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).


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?

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored how heat flows

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


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.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored what has happened every single time two heavenly bodies have collided.

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


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.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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


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


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
you've ignored what has happened every single time two heavenly bodies have collided.

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

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.

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.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: preearth

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.


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


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
You morons are editing my posts.

You stupid jerks can go to hell.

I will not bother with your site again.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
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


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
crushed the front of his car


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.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted By: preearth
The opening of the Atlantic.
Cool, eh?


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.


What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
crushed the front of his car


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.





That's more like it.

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

Shame.


What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: paul
I think you speak for yourself , bryan.

This man has an idea, if it is or is not fully understood by you, is your problem not his.

Further, your inability to understand the least of his concepts does not translate into your intelligence , nor does it show that he is incorrect.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"

well should you ever cross that threshold bryan , I for one would make sure the door lock was changed and you were not given a key.
.

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.

Last edited by preearth; 06/14/10 10:52 PM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
[censored]


Wow, I wish I would have said that.

LOL.

How's your sister doin Marchimedes?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
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.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5