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 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

This is an update of the original post.

When Worlds Collided (the main paper).
The preearth.net Forum (have your say here).

Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis. UPDATE.

The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth (called Heaven, so that, the collision can be viewed as the mythical marriage between Heaven and Earth). These two, once comprised a double planet system. Heaven orbited PreEarth, and they both orbited the Sun (just like the Earth and Moon today, except that Heaven, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth, was much larger than today's Moon).

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, Heaven crashed through the crust of PreEarth, taking most of its energy into the interior, while leaving the non-impacted crust relatively unscathed. Now, imagine that the mass of the apple and bullet are so large (planet sized) that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesised situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, caused the non-impacted crust to break into large pieces.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.

Heaven impacted PreEarth in what is now the north west Pacific. As the map of the age of the sea-floor, below, shows, the impact area is very different from all other regions of sea-floor. This difference is to be expected, as this area was the result of an impact, whereas, all other areas of ocean basin, including the southern and eastern Pacific, are the result of expansion. As expected, this region has no spreading ridges. The expansion and west to east spin of Heaven, ripped America away from the edge of the impact zone and Europe/Africa/Asia from America, creating new sea-floor in between. This same spin dragged molten material from under the eastern edge of the continent of Asia, and even the edge of Asia itself, over the western impact area, covering about a third of the area.



The map, above, shows the hypothesised impact zone outlined in red. Australia can be seen toward the bottom of the impact zone. The Australian plate was dragged over the impact region by Heaven's west to east spin.

The maps below show the impact zone viewed from space. On the left, it is viewed just after the impact, with little expansion, as yet (and showing the initial position of the ring of impact mountains). On the right, it is viewed after the expansion is complete.





2) The impact mountains around the Pacific Ocean, i.e., the ring of fire.

The impact mountains must have initially formed a complete circle. This was broken up by the expansion and distorted by the spin, giving us the ring of fire as we know it today. Starting with the mountainous islands of the Philippines and Japan, the impact mountains then traverse Kamchatka, gap to Alaska, from where they stretch right to the bottom of South America before continuing as the Antarctic Peninsula and Transantarctic mountain ranges. Their exact whereabouts from there is unclear, as the region has been extensively rearranged by the impact, however, they probably continue from the Transantarctic mountains, to the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the (submerged) Colville and Kermadec ridges and then gap back to the Philippines, completing the circle. The map on the left, above, shows, in blue, the initial positions of the, above named, impact mountains on a reconstructed PreEarth.

3) Western impact mountains ripped off continental block.

The west to east spin of Heaven ripped sections of the impact mountains off the Asian continental block, which were then expanded hundreds of kilometres away, leaving seas in between. Japan and the Philippines are examples of this. Australia and New Zealand have also been dragged eastward with New Zealand having been ripped off the Australian block.

4) The impact caused continental drift.

The impact destroyed a circular region of the Earth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit. The crust within this cap was smashed into the interior. Although the crust outside this cap remained relatively unscathed, the expansion below it, caused it to crack into huge pieces that we now call continents. Further expansion, expanded these continents thousands of kilometres apart, to the positions they now occupy. This movement of these continents, is called continental drift.

Using an azimuthal equidistant projection, we can map PreEarth to a circular flat map. If we choose the origin of the projection to be the antipode of the centre of the impacted region, then we get the map on the left, below (imagine putting a small hole in the centre of the impact region and then stretching the planets skin to a flat disc). The impacted region is mapped into the outer ring and the non-impacted region into the circular region within that ring. We will call the region enclosed by the inner circle, i.e., the non-impacted region, PreEarth-Pangaea. It is the crust in this region that we are particularly interested in.





5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.

The expansion cracked PreEarth's non-impacted crust into large pieces that became today's continents. These massive pieces of crust largely retained their shape throughout the expansion, although their curvature changed considerably. Since these pieces of crust had previously comprised the region, PreEarth-Pangaea, it is clear that Earth's continents should be able to be shuffled about Earth's surface and be reassembled as an area resembling PreEarth-Pangaea. Of course, it will not be possible to recreate PreEarth-Pangaea, exactly, because of the continents change in curvature.

Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth's continents (although, many had previously noted that two, sometimes three, or four, continents appeared to have once been joined and had since moved apart). Wegener patched all of the continents into a single landmass, which he called Pangaea. He claimed that Pangaea existed for millions of years, until, for some unknown reason, it broke into smaller continents, which then drifted, by some unknown process, to their current positions.

Above, on the right, is a map of the Earth showing Pangaea (the land area enclosed by the inner circle). The azimuthal equidistant projection has been used to create this map which is from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists, and is, reportedly, the most accurate available. For those who know this map, note that its creators trimmed (as uninteresting) a large area of ocean from it. I have extended the outermost ring to add this area of ocean and complete the map of the Earth (as imagined by geologists) when Pangaea existed.

If one took the crust from the PreEarth-Pangaea region and imposed Earth's curvature upon it, by say, placing it above the Earth and physically forcing it down until it lay on the Earth's surface, then the crust would necessarily split in one or two places and at least one of these splits would extend to the centre of the region. This is exactly what we see in Wegener's Pangaea. The splits being the polar sea and the large triangular shaped Tethys Ocean, which extends right to the centre of the region.

Of course, Pangaea never existed as a continent. It was never surrounded by ocean and the Tethys Ocean and polar sea never existed at all. These are understandable fictions, forced upon scientists because they reassembled Earth's continents on Earth, rather than on PreEarth, from whence the continents actually originated. However, even though these are fictional, they are all fictions predicted by the hypothesis.

To give you a better feel for the map projection used above, here is the azimuthal equidistant projection of Earth, with origin being the north pole (i.e., the antipode of the south pole). As you can see, the distortion at the south pole is maximal. The map on the right is the map of Pangaea from above, with colour and a few more features.





6) The theory predicts oceanic crust very different from continental crust.

Earth's continental crust is original PreEarth crust, whereas, oceanic crust is a mixture of material from both Heaven and PreEarth. Thus, one would expect oceanic crust to be noticeably different from continental crust. This is, indeed the case.

Continental crust is composed of granitic rock (65% silica and 2.7 g/cm), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm). Continental crust is up to 4 billion years old, whereas, oceanic crust is less than 200 million years. Oceanic crust averages about 8 kms in thickness, whereas, continental crust averages about 40 kms, etc, etc.

So, here is a theory that explains the genesis of Earth's continental crust, why its chemical composition is so different to oceanic crust, why it dates much older and why they are of such different thicknesses. No current theory explains how continental crust came to be, let alone why it is so different from oceanic crust.

7) Warren Carey's evidence, is also evidence for this hypothesis.

Right till the end of his life, in 2002, the renowned Australian geologist S. Warren Carey insisted that the geological evidence clearly demonstrated that the Earth had expanded. Carey considered many explanations for this expansion, but never considered the possibility of a large impact (probably because he believed the splitting of Pangaea took place over millions of years). Over his career, Carey collected a large body of evidence for his "expanding Earth theory." Since, Mansfield's theory is an expanding Earth theory, most of Carey's evidence is also evidence for his theory.

8) Apparent sea-floor ages explained as geochemical gradient due to mixing.

Suppose, Heaven was involved in a previous catastrophic collision, in which the entire silicate rock layer was exploded away from the planet. Then, the impact would have melted and scattered its silicate rock, causing it to lose most of its Argon 40 (Ar40) to space. As the rump iron core of Heaven reconstituted its mantle by gathering these Ar40 depleted rocks in further collisions, even more argon would be lost and Heaven's new mantle would have almost no Ar40, while PreEarth's mantle would still have its full complement. So, when Heaven impacted PreEarth, we would expect to find argon gradients depending on the degree of mixing of their mantles. The more mixed the mantles, the more diluted the Ar40, and the younger the apparent age.

Thus, in the expansion of the oceans, we would expect that the oceanic crust of the continental margins would be mainly from PreEarth's mantle, as only partial mixing of the mantles would have occurred at this stage. Consequently, the continental margins would be richer in Ar40 and have a greater apparent age. As we proceed further from the continents the material forming the oceanic crust will have a progressively larger percentage of Heaven's mantle mixed in, and thus, date progressively younger. Similarly, one expects the material that closed over the impact area, to be mainly PreEarth's mantle, and thus date older.

So, 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 materials with different initial argon concentrations.
Anyway, if the Atlantic opened in a matter of hours, then clearly the usual methods of dating the sea floor are well off the mark.

9) The theory predicts Earth's core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet.

When the planets collided, obviously their outer layers impacted first. Thus, the outer layers sustained a large change in angular momentum as their spins clashed. However, this change was not transmitted, in full, to the core, as there was slippage at the core-mantle boundary, due to the formation of a liquid iron layer. So, in the first moments of the collision, the mantles would have been slowed relative to the cores. The fusion of the cores would not change this, and thus, the Earth acquired a core that rotated faster than the rest of the planet. This prediction of the theory, has been known to be true since 1996, when Richards and Song found that the solid core spins about 20 kms/yr further than the material above it (this was revised down to about 8 kms/yr in 2005). Only the collision hypothesis explains why the Earth's inner core spins faster than the rest of the planet. One suspects that this extra spin of the core is the source of Earth's relatively strong magnetic field.

10) The theory predicts Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.

Even though the inner core is spinning in the liquid of the outer core, friction will gradually slow it until it spins at the same rate as the mantle. If the extra spin of the core is really the source of Earth's magnetic field, then this would imply that the magnetic field is decaying. Apparently, this is the case. The Earth's magnetic field has been measured to be decaying at about five percent per century. Since this cannot be denied, the problem of the magnetic field decaying to zero, is largely ignored, or brushed off, with the claim that on becoming weak the field will reverse and recover its strength, just like it has many times before.

11) The theory predicts/explains magnetic reversals.

As the two metallic cores fused, their combined magnetic field must have been in a state of extreme flux. The planetary fusion probably took less than a day and many reversals of magnetic polarity must have been experienced within this period. These reversals were recorded in the basalt of the expanding sea floors, as distinctive stripped patterns of magnetism. It is a fact, that this magnetic signature is mainly from the top 400 metres of the basalt (and exactly how the deeper rock lost its magnetic anomaly, has never been explained). For this 400 metre layer to have recorded the swiftly changing magnetic field, it must have cooled to below the Curie temperature, very rapidly. This rapid cooling was due to the new lava being immersed in the water of the oceans. This cooling, was not just a surface effect, as cracks and faults allowed the water to percolate to great depths.

12) The theory allows the force of gravity to have been smaller in the past.

There is a large amount of indirect evidence that the Earth's gravity is now greater than it once was. For example, pterosaurs, such as hatzegopteryx, had wingspans of over thirteen metres and large, solidly constructed heads, making it a great puzzle as to how they flew, or even if they flew. Similarly, it is not known why the larger dinosaurs such as, argentinasaurus, did not collapse under their own weight. It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven metres, managed to fly, when an albatross, with a mass of only nine kilograms and a wingspan of three metres, finds it difficult to get off the ground. Of course, if gravity was once significantly less, then all this can be explained.

13) The Global Clay Layer.

The world has been covered in layer of very fine particles (less than two micrometres) called clay. Clays result when granite is ground into powder and weathered. When Heaven struck PreEarth, billions of tonnes of continental crust, that is, granite, was blown into orbit. The finest particles precipitated from the atmosphere last, forming the clay layer. This explains the global distribution of clay and why there is generally a clay layer on, or close to, the surface.

14) The Ice Sheets.

The ice-caps of the ice age, contained a massive volume of water. As the ice-caps formed, sea-levels dropped by some 200 metres. The evaporation of such a quantity of water, would have required an immense amount of heat. In certain regions, temperatures needed to be sufficiently hot to supply the necessary evaporation, yet at the poles, they needed to be sufficiently cold to enable a buildup of ice. And, of course, this temperature differential had to be maintained in the face of masses of warm moist air being transported to the colder region. All currently accepted theories fail to provide a plausible mechanism by which this temperature differential can be maintained. The impact hypothesis, however, has such a mechanism, built in.

With large areas of the oceans being heated from below, huge volumes of water entered the atmosphere. Strong weather systems carried the warm humid air towards the polar regions, where cooler temperatures precipitated snow. In this way, large ice sheets were built up. While the ocean and atmosphere over the mid-oceanic ridges were hot, the polar continental regions remained cold, as the flow of heat from the mantle to the surface was much lower, than the flow of heat from the continental surfaces into space (as continental crust is a very good insulator of heat). Also, the immense quantities of dust blown into the upper atmosphere, by the impact, kept the whole planet cooler than it would have otherwise been.

15) Animations of the expansion plus drift can be produced.

Animations have been produced, that trace the movement of the continents from the PreEarth-Pangaea region to todays arrangement. Each step of the animation preserves continental areas. This is strong evidence that one is on the right track.

16) Provides a new theory regarding the formation of the Moon.

Suppose, a catastrophic collision between Heaven and a large object, blasted Heaven's entire silicate rock layer into an extensive debris field, leaving its iron core as the largest remnant. Further collisions with the debris would lead to the rump iron core gathering a new mantle and cascading ever closer to PreEarth. The debris field beyond Heaven's reach, would also accumulate, creating a new satellite of low density, poor in volatiles, and lacking an iron core, namely, the Moon as we know it today. Among other things, this scenario would explain why the oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of the lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial ratio. However, it would not explain the age of the lunar rocks.

17) No evolution in India while a separate continent.

Amber deposits, in India, have yielded thousands of fossil arthropods (insects, spiders, etc) from a period (52 million years ago) when India had supposedly been a separate continent for a hundred million years, yet none of these arthropods were unique to India. All have been found in other parts of the world. So, why hasn't India's long isolation led to many new species, in the same way, that the isolation of the Galapagos Islands led to many new species?

India supposedly became an island 150 million years ago and remained that way until it collided with Asia, some 35 million years ago. Arthropods started appearing about 110 million years ago (i.e., after India had become an island). So, how is it, that all of these arthropods found in isolated India, have evolved almost identical copies in places thousands of kilometres away? These difficulties for plate-tectonics are easily explained by the collision theory, as India was never an island separated from the rest of the world.

18) It explains the genesis of the Gamburtsev mountains.

The Gamburtsev mountains are located in the centre of the Antarctic continent. They extend for more than 1,200 kilometres and rise to about 3,400 metres. Although, similar in size to the European Alps, they are totally hidden below hundreds of metres of ice and snow. Their genesis is shrouded in mystery, as there is absolutely no evidence of plate collision in central Antarctica, and the shape of the Antarctic plate has barely changed over hundreds of millions of years. Thus, the mountains must be hundreds of millions of years old. However, the mountains appear young, with sharply chiselled river valleys, rather than the rounded features of an ancient eroded landscape. These difficulties, for plate-tectonics, are easily explained by the collision theory. The Gamburtsev mountains are simply an example of far-field compression, resulting from the impact.

19) It explains why the severity of volcanism (and probably earthquakes) has decreased.

In the past, huge outpourings of lava have created enormous igneous provinces. The most massive being the Ontong-Java Plateau in which 100 million km of lava spilled onto the Earth's surface. Others, include the area around Iceland (6.6 million km) the Siberian Traps (4 million km) an area in the Caribbean (4 million km) the Karoo-Ferrar area (2.5 million km) and the Parana-Etendeka traps (2.3 million km). The largest continental outpouring of lava (in terms of area) is the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, which covers about 11 million km. Volcanic activity on this scale no longer occurs. Current theories have problems explaining why these enormous quantities of lava should pour from the Earth in intense spurts, usually lasting less than a millions years, then stop, only to start much later at some distant location. It seems more likely that these igneous provinces all formed at around the same time. Namely, the time of the impact.

20) The theory provides a decent power source for continental drift.

The power source, that moves continents thousands of kilometres and raises the Himalayas to great heights, is a very diffuse heat, coming from radioactive decay and the cooling of the Earth. In fact, a segment of the Earth stretching 6371 kilometres from a point at the centre, to a one metre square at the surface, delivers only 0.08 watts of heat. This is less than one ten thousandth the power of sunlight on a bright day. It is true that if you accumulate this heat for a few hundred million years, it adds up to a lot of energy. But clearly, you would accumulate much more energy, if you let sunshine, shine for a few hundred million years, yet sunshine has never built mountains, or raised the Himalayas. To use this, widely distributed, extremely dilute power, you have to first, stop it from escaping, then, concentrate it where the work will be done. We are told that the Earth and mantle currents can do this, but some doubt it.

Expanding on point 15.

15) Animations of the expansion plus drift can be produced.

The opening of the Atlantic.



The opening around Antarctica.



The opening of the South Atlantic.



A brief history of the ideas.

Many of the ideas above were first presented in a public lecture, on November 2, 2008, at the Alexandra Park Raceway, Auckland, New Zealand. They were subsequently written up and published, on April 20, 2010, in the form of a 26 page paper. The preprint server arxiv.org refused to distribute this paper (the task of releasing preprints to the scientific community should be taken from those at arxiv.org and given to some responsible party). Consequently, toward the end of May, the website www.preearth.net was established to publicise the paper. This article was completed on July 29, 2010 and revised on March 19, 2011.

About Dr. Kevin Mansfield.

Dr. Kevin Mansfield has a BSc(Hons) [mathematics and chemistry] from the University of Auckland and a PhD [mathematics] from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). His mathematical research involves the study of certain algebraic structures with normed topologies (these being of interest as a framework, in which both relativity and quantum theory, may eventually find a compatible home).


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

The following is a map of Pangaea from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG);



The above diagram can still be found at

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/9701904.gif
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/index.htm

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea are the most accurate ever produced.

Note that Pangaea (together with the shallow Tethys ocean) is neatly circumscribed by a circle.

Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?

Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.

So; why do you think that Pangaea fits neatly within a circle?

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

However, the PreEarth-Heaven collision provides a simple explanation.

Namely; The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

The non-impacted area is by definition Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea).

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

To get from PreEarth-Pangea to Earth-Pangea you have to adjust for the fact that Earth has a smaller curvature than PreEarth (PreEarth has a larger curvature than Earth). This adjustment introduces splits. Indeed, if you reduce the curvature of a rigid circular cap (e.g., PreEarth-Pangea), i.e., you flatten it somewhat, then you necessarily introduce splits in the cap.

Therefore, Pangea (Earth-Pangea) is circular with splits.

Where the main split is, of course, the pie-shaped region, called the Tethys ocean.


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
Originally Posted By: preearth
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.


And your attitude and abuse is why you have been banned from what around 35 sites so far probably more and why you are destined to always be in the pseudo science realm so don't worry about anyone stealing your great theory.

That's right because your maths qualification exceeds everyone else physics degrees and working knowledge.

If you were even remotely civil I would spend time to explain some issues but you being a pratt no thanks enjoy your dribbling on in solititude.

Posting the same crap over and over again doesn't make it right and until you stop being a pratt and listen to the problems and resolve them expect to be treated like you have been on countless physics forums.

At the end of the day I made an effort to be civil and explain the problems if your felt you had counters to teh arguments you could make them in a civil polite way.

Enjoy the dark dim recesses of the web where noone gives a dam.

See like my namesake ORAC sometimes I choose not to provide answers even when I know them ----> I am outta here.

Last edited by Orac; 09/02/11 11:43 AM.

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
Originally Posted By: preearth
As Heaven slowly approaches PreEarth, tidal forces cause PreEarth to spin faster as Heaven orbits faster


So how long was a day? Is that consistent with any geological evidence? Cycling ice caps at the equator? Would those necessarily form with such a long day? Check it.

Can you explain again how the moon fits into it all? Was it already there or not?

Last edited by kallog; 09/02/11 12:16 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Orac; Grow up. If you are wrong you are wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes.

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....

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?


Of course, two tidally locked object do NOT have to have identical masses.

Originally Posted By: Orac
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.....

What orbital stability issue? You talk (other thread) of the instability of a double planet system (PreEarth-Heaven) together with a third object (the Moon). For some reason you just assume that together they are unstable, no proof required.

But you are obviously wrong. Think on a bigger scale;

Is the double system (Earth-Sun) unstable simply because you add, say, Venus?

Contrary to your claims, the addition of a third object does not necessarily imply orbital instability.

Originally Posted By: Orac
I simply can't see the differences between the theories (the PreEarth-Heaven collision theory and the giant impact theory).....

How is this theory different from the giant impact theory?

Let's start with:

1) the impact causes continental drift
2) the impact causes the Pacific basin
3) the impact creates the Pacific ring of fire
4) the impact raises the ring of mountains around the Pacific
5) the impact creates the Himalayas
6) the impact takes continental crust that completely covers the planet PreEarth and distributes it in patchwork fashion over the surface of the Earth


None of these things are claimed by the giant impact theory.

The giant impact theory claims to create the moon, however,

7) Mansfield's impact does not claim to create the Moon.

These are not minor differences in the theories.

Originally Posted By: kallog
So how long was a day?

Originally, I have no idea.

I have calculated it at the point of impact, but it was so long ago now that I have forgotten.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Can you explain again how the moon fits into it all? Was it already there or not?

It was already there.


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
The earth and the moon aren't going to collide PRATT they have a stable tidal lock (well the moons going away slightly) something you can't have.

Remember if the planets don't meet in a nice controlled way you have a big kinetic energy problem and a molten world.

The exact wording you need is "decaying tidal locked planets" ... google it and try working through the problem you are the maths genius ... do some maths. If all else fails start (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay) there are only a few ways for orbital decay to come about but I know nothing maybe invent some new ways. Remember the planets have inertia spin and have gyro effect makes for a bit of fun trying to solve it all. Thats why I suggest magnets and string but crap what would I know I am wrong.

Once you get through that one genius, when the two planets meet you have another problem. They are spinning draw two circles on a blank piece of paper and draw a clockwise direction on both now look at the two direction of the two sides that contact they go opposite ways.

Consider what is going to happen ... if you cant work it out genius put two wheels on a pivot start them spinning and touch the two wheels together and watch what happens.

So now you have a new problem the planets have to be spinning opposite which is the only way to solve that problem and now you have to go back and fix your orbital decay.

When you get to that point Sir Genius I will give you the next problem ... but hey I don't know anything.

As I have said before point 1..6 are not excluded by giant impact theory they simply aren't covered. Taking what you have said about Einstein and Poincare then you can't say that makes them different.

Wish I could stay around and help but I don't know anything.

Good luck with it all and now I really do have to go .. actual science to discuss.

Last edited by Orac; 09/02/11 01:29 PM.

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
The earth and the moon aren't going to collide PRATT they have a stable tidal lock (well the moons going away slightly) something you can't have.

So what? This again just shows your ignorance. If the moon was sufficiently close to the earth it would be orbiting faster than the earth is spinning and the moon WOULD eventually collide with the earth.

Originally Posted By: Orac
when the two planets meet you have another problem. They are spinning draw two circles on a blank piece of paper and draw a clockwise direction on both now look at the two direction of the two sides that contact they go opposite ways.

No kidding? You are not stating anything new. But at least you are stating something correct (for a change).

Originally Posted By: Orac
Consider what is going to happen ... if you cant work it out genius put two wheels on a pivot start them spinning and touch the two wheels together and watch what happens.

The gravitational force between the two planets is, by so far, the biggest force, that the spin is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.

By the way; I think you are stupid to make all sorts of comment without actually reading the material that you are commenting on. There are only two papers. Why are you so lazy? Did you ever think of reading them both before commenting.


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
You call me lazy and you can't even write any maths out ... aren't you after all a mathematician.

Forget the pretty pictures which might convince morons do some real mathematics write out the mathematics for the orbital mechanics.

Proove what you say is remotely possible it isn't that hard or a big ask ... put up or shut up!

Till you do that I am done because it's pointless you are a genius and the rest of physics people are just stupid we submit to your magnificence lord of physics.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
they go opposite ways


just imagine the mass of the earth rotating, what force would be required to stop its rotation?

now add another rotating planet to do the stopping!

not a pretty picture for either planet.

I would most certainly say molten.

and the planets would continue to rotate even after the initial tugg of gravity that rips huge continental sized chunks of crust and underlying magma off into space as the two become one.

when two planets become close like that the gravity of the two planets will find a new center of gravity and the mass of the two will move towards the new center of gravity.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxRfQsXrgiA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVQS2W0_r7U&NR=1





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Consider what is going to happen ... if you cant work it out genius put two wheels on a pivot start them spinning and touch the two wheels together and watch what happens.


If thewheels are on different axils and rotating in opposite directions (I.e. one clockwise and one anti-clockwise) the surfaces that come together will be stationary relative to eachother. Nothing violent happens, I suspect.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that two planets, coming together in this way, would lack violence; just wondering about the analogy.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Less violent as opposed to alternative :-)

I had sort of danced around the issue because to be honest I thought that preearth might actually do some research rather than dribble on.

Since you have interest Bill S I will give you some background.

What he is setting up is an called an "astrometric binary" planets.

Here is a quick overview for it

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/astrometric.html

The orbital mechanics behind binaries are somewhat demanding we have been studying them in the Kuiper belt ... some light reading
(http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/out/kbbook/Chapters/Noll_Binaries.pdf)

Pluto/Charon which is sort of what he is looking at with preearth/heaven (http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/17.PlutoCharon.html)

You notice charon most likely doesn't have an atmosphere as with most of these systems because two atmospheres on each planet means tides on each system and that really makes things well interesting :-)

Now preearths problem is he needs to bring the binaries in and in slowly so they meet.

As I discussed above there is a further complication to all this so lets bring it in the earths axis tilt of (22-24 degree). What you really have is (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Applets/Precession.html) set the prolateness to near 1.0 for sphere.

The earth has a forward tilt that means heaven would have had to be a retrograde twin if we want counter rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_orbit).

This is also good because it gives the effect he wants which due to tidal deceleration, bodies in retrograde orbit will slow down and eventually impact the central body.

My problem is he wants the bodies somewhat similar in size and we have both effects needed at once astrometric twin and retorgrade. The tilts will be all wrong I suspect you will still get a big smash. A lighter faster heaven I suspect would make the situation easier but I think he needs a volume of expansion thing.

Anyhow if he had slightly better attitude people might take him and his theory a little better.

I won't say it's impossible what he is suggesting but let just say I would like to see a hell of a lot more calculations than he has in his paper so far and if he was serious he would do them rather than complain about people who think his idea is far fetched.


Edit: BTW have a look at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(47171)_1999_TC36) thats a more interesting system because it includes a 3rd body IMO :-)

Last edited by Orac; 09/06/11 08:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks Orac. I begin to see the sort of mechanism that would make preearth's scenario possible.

Just to check my thinking thus far; would it be right that the fact that the two bodies are orbiting would result in a gentler impact than if they were on a direct collision course? Also, their counter-rotation (provided the speeds matched) would help to prevent them from ripping each other to bits and flinging the debris into space?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yes it would obviously stop the crusts on impact trying to peel each other back which I imagine is what would happen otherwise. The downside is the tilts will be sligtly out so there is still going to be a massive crunch.

We are still talking about system much bigger than the Kuiper belt and pluto/charon and I would want to see calculations because I am not sure it's possible in earths space position.

I still say the moon had to be there at the start based on dating (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full)

Quote:

New W isotope data for lunar metals demonstrate that the Moon formed late in isotopic equilibrium with the bulk silicate Earth (BSE). On this basis, lunar Sr isotope data are used to define the former composition of the Earth and hence the RbSr age of the Moon, which is 4.480.02Ga, or 70110 million years after the start of the Solar System. This age is significantly later than had been deduced from W isotopes based on model assumptions or isotopic effects now known to be cosmogenic. The Sr age is in excellent agreement with earlier estimates based on the time of lunar Pb loss and the age of the early lunar crust (4.460.04Ga).


Which is why I threw up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(47171)_1999_TC36 system.


Last edited by Orac; 09/06/11 01:40 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Presumably lunar isotopic data relies on measurments made using material brought back on lunar expeditions. Has anyone checked if Preearth accepts the lunar landings?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: Orac

I won't say it's impossible what he is suggesting but let just say I would like to see a hell of a lot more calculations than he has in his paper so far and if he was serious he would do them rather than complain about people who think his idea is far fetched.


Fair summary.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Presumably lunar isotopic data relies on measurments made using material brought back on lunar expeditions. Has anyone checked if Preearth accepts the lunar landings?


Yes Bill S the rocks bought back give those dates, assuming you believe we went there :-)

We are still going to extrodanary lengths to keep the myth alive (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=34522) ... :-)

There is of coarse a different argument you could mount there is evidence that the moon was hit and pancaked by another body (http://www.space.com/12529-earth-2-moons-collision-moon-formation.html). So you could argue this small body was gravity captured and was much older material and thats what was brought back.

Don't you love science without controls :-)

We might be able to at least limit some of that argument with a new experiment (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/man-in-the-moon-to-get-ct-scan.html)


Preearth would have to tell you what he believes I haven't seen anything definitive from him beyond his usual tirad's.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
PreEarth; over the next couple of days I hope to have a little time, at least some of which I intend using to have a better look at Mansfield's theory than I have been able to do so far. The time is likely to be fragmented, so I shall post any questions as they arise. If this leads to my asking questions that are later answered in the text, I would ask for your patience.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
The first question has been asked, and partially answered elsewhere, but for the sake of clarity, and keeping all the information together, I'm going to slip it in again.

"Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, The Old Moon crashed through the crust of PreEarth"

"The Old Moon, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth"

The bullet/apple analogy works with a bullet and an apple, but in this theory the "bullet" is 90% of the size of the "apple", and they are composed of similar material. How can this be the same, physically?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
(4). "The impact destroyed a circular region of the PreEarth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit."

Does this size relate to Earth before or after the impact?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
(4). "(imagine putting a small hole in the centre of the impact region and then stretching the planets skin to a flat disc)."

What would cause a small hole?


There never was nothing.
Page 6 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