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 (), 85 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Bill S. #37468 02/18/11 05:15 AM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: toto
agree


Perhaps, if you say why you agree, it might help with the general understanding. I don't seem to be getting my point across. smile


I agree too :P

It's been shown to have no value because different bullet-apple situations have totally different behaviours. Some consistent with Earth remaining intact and some not.

That shows the analogy is meaningless and people shouldn't bother using it. It's an appeal to common sense which is unscientific and totally useless for sorting out a radical claim.

.
kallog #37488 02/21/11 08:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
It's an appeal to common sense which is unscientific and totally useless for sorting out a radical claim.
.

Between us, we should be able to think of a better way of sorting it out. smile

Would accepting that some sort of collision scenario is currently favoured in the scientific community be a reasonable starting point?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #37497 02/22/11 08:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Between us, we should be able to think of a better way of sorting it out. smile

I reckon. You seem to be the most level headed person on this forum.

Only problem is PreEarth hasn't been around for a while. There's no challenge without critical opposition!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I find myself wondering to what extent a bullet hitting an apple, or a human skull, is analogous to a scenario in which two objects of similar mass and composition collide. The importance attached to this analogy makes me suspect that there is a greater similarity than I can detect.

Actually, I thought I answered this already,.... but,.... here goes again.

The accurate part of the analogy is the formation of a neat round hole where the impacting planet hits.

The inaccurate part of the analogy is that everything will fly apart.

Apples would fly apart but planets will not.

It's really simple to see this. It's just gravity.

If you put two apples side by side, what happens?

If you put two planets side by side, what happens?

It truly is simple.

Perhaps, stating the obvious (from Newton's formula for gravity) might help;

For a fixed distance of separation, the gravitational force of attraction between two objects, is proportional to the product of their masses.

Make it even simpler. Assume both objects have the same mass.

Then the force, pulling the objects together, is proportional to the mass squared.

You get the idea?


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8
K
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8
S W Carey did Earth expansion with factual evidence. He did not know, as we do not know, what would cause expansion.
Well, do we know what is causing the supposed "planet" at the end of the solar system to be visible?

I do not understand the gas laws much less how matter accretes. But is it a possibility that energy applied to a plasma cloud generating electricity and magnetism would be able to force matter into being?

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: katesisco
S W Carey did Earth expansion with factual evidence. He did not know, as we do not know, what would cause expansion.

What caused the expansion? The expansion was caused by PreEarth absorbing its moon, called Heaven.


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
By the way, here is a PDF about S. Warren Carey;

http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/2016/1/CAREY.pdf


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: preearth
What caused the expansion? The expansion was caused by PreEarth absorbing its moon, called Heaven.


"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true." (Lewis Carroll)

Especially if I shout!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Did you appreciate the PDF about S. Warren Carey?


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Did you appreciate the PDF about S. Warren Carey?

I did, it was a very interisting account which inspires me to do some follow up, when time permits.

We are blinded by what we think we know, therefore disbelieve if you can!

This seems to advocate an attitude for which you have criticised me in the past!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You are going to have to get me over the orbital stability issue before I even bother wasting time on this. No stability means not really possible.

This is what you are up against gravitationally speaking read it well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_planet).

Hint calculate the tug-of-war value.

Last edited by Orac; 08/28/11 01:57 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, I have kind of been avoiding this topic, since I don't really think it is anything other than another crackpot idea. But I thought I would go ahead and take a quick look at the original post. And right off I was struck by something that just looks odd. According to the idea there were 2 planets of approximately the same size which were orbiting each other. Well of course they were actually orbiting around the center of mass of the 2 bodies, that that is kind of a side thing. But when I look at the post it appears that the 2 bodies apparently struck head on. At least that is the only way I can see it. So what perturbed the 2 bodies so that they quit orbiting and plunged straight together? I could maybe see them perturbed so that their orbits reached an intersection point, but that would produce a grazing collision, not a head on collision.

I suppose that Jupiter could have spit out a different Venus sized body* to cause the weird dynamics, but having it happen twice would be an awfully long shot. Any way I think that having the orbits perturbed that way doesn't have much more chance than Velikovsky's idea.

* "Worlds in Collision" - Velikovsky

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Actually that is the one thing I think that is likely Bill if they did start from an unstable twin arrangement.

As Bill S commented run example 8 & 9 on this link you will see why this can happen visually
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Doesn't this instability problem just show that the moon couldn't have already been there before the collision? The preearth and heaven would have been stable, right? But any other body in the system would have had the unstable orbit.

Seems to me there are two options:
1) The moon was already there before the collision
2) The moon appeared after the collision

1) has the instability problem for the moon meaning it wouldn't have survived.
2) means throwing away the collision theory for moon formation, because that would have destroyed the continents, at least most of them.


Last edited by kallog; 09/01/11 03:17 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
2) means throwing away the collision theory for moon formation, because that would have destroyed the continents, at least most of them.


Is that necessarily so? Even a head-on collision would throw material into orbit; is it not possible that the moon could have formed from this.

No!! I'm not converted - yet, but I have to be true to my belief that if you can't question it, you don't understand it.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yes Bill S it could but actually that gives PreEarth a big problem he can't have that energetic a merge otherwise the earth core temperature gets too hot and melts the mantle and ergo earth at that point is just a molten ball he loses all continents etc.

So the solar system is almost 5 billion years old but the merging of the two planets only occurred 250 million years ago. So for over 4.75 million years the two planets were completely stable and were in very close proximity orbitting each other as twins and then without any major event they simply merged into each other.

As I said good luck getting those orbital mechanics to work I have no problem that orbits can become unstable but the events that follow would always be violent. In preearths case they can't be violent or else no land mass shapes left for his patterns.

These claims are so unlikely you would need very good proofs because this sort of mechanism is so unlikely and never been seen if at all possible.

I would think you would also see magnetic field changes and momentum changes in earth. Think of an ice skater spinning, you have two masses coming in like a skater does with the arms eart would spin faster. These should be recorded in rocks and lavas from the period around earth. I see no such evidence presented.

To me I would want to see momentum and magnetic field changes at a very minimum at the proposed merge time before I even consider such a theory.

This all smacks of trying to fire two identical bullets from two identical guns at an infintesimal angle so the two bullets merged in flight. See you say it like that you can make a case ... I will take bets against it any day.

Last edited by Orac; 09/01/11 08:11 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Couldn't they have slowly moved together over a long time, a bit like the moon is slowly moving away?

Preearth could calculate the angular momentum change. Preearth would have to have been spinning at the same speed as heaven orbited, so that the collision was localized in one spot. Knowing the original length-of-a-day would surely be able to be connected with some evidence.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
Couldn't they have slowly moved together over a long time, a bit like the moon is slowly moving away?

Preearth could calculate the angular momentum change. Preearth would have to have been spinning at the same speed as heaven orbited, so that the collision was localized in one spot. Knowing the original length-of-a-day would surely be able to be connected with some evidence.

I am surprised,... you got it.

Others (including a number of academics) have looked at this for ages and never figured "the obvious".

As Heaven slowly approaches PreEarth, tidal forces cause PreEarth to spin faster as Heaven orbits faster (i.e., Heaven is kept tidally locked, all the way in).

Tidal forces keep things synchronized, so that even though Heaven hits a "glancing blow" it is actually a "head on collision."

By the way, the reason I haven't told people about this (and a lot of other detail) is that there is organized theft of ideas among academics. And I didn't want to make things too easy for the thieves.



Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again the problem is to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical and I do mean identical.

When you tell me this

Heaven mass = 2.48456 x 10^24 kg.
PreEarth mass = 3.48280 x 10^24 kg.

I have a huge problem with orbital mechanics.

Here is the exact analogy for you:

I have two identical magnets hanging on strings which rotate around and I can pull up through a very small ring. the small ring is the centre point where if the strings are pulled fully the two magents touch. You can mathematically show there is a speed you can rotate the magnets and a speed you can pull the magnets together so that the two magnets just touch or kiss because the centrugal force out is countered by the attractive force of the magnets. The magnetic attractive force is our replica of gravity and it obeys the square law the same as gravity. For a given force of gravity, mass of magnets there will be one root of those equation solves.

Now try it with one magnet slightly more powerful. What you will find is there are no roots of the equations. The reason is simple the centrifugal force versus the attractive force never balance to the central collission point. The stronger magnet will always grab the other magnet as they close in because there is no solution to balance the forces.

The orbital solutions will throw up the same problem.

So unless you have changed you mind on the masses of heaven and preearth are exactly (and I do mean exactly) the same weight I can't see how you get around this problem.

And we come back to the point we did agree on that earth must spin faster ... do you have any evidence?

I am not sure why you worry about someone stealing the idea this is just a different version of big impact theory, remember Einstein stole Poincare idea didn't he ..... Just stirring because I can't reconcile your views on these two :-)

Last edited by Orac; 09/02/11 08:58 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Orac
Again the problem is to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical and I do mean identical....
I (Orac) have a huge problem with orbital mechanics.

Yes, you (Orac) do indeed have a huge problem with orbital mechanics.

In fact, you truly don't have a clue about it. Not a clue.

Is the moon tidally locked to Earth?
Does the mass of the moon equal the mass of the Earth?
Will the moon continue to be tidally locked to Earth?


Your statement "to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical" (and many other incorrect statements) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Really, you should read up on basic physics, and if you really want to make statements about orbital mechanics, then you will have to put in the hard yards, i.e., read up on it.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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 UsokW
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