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 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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 inteligence , 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.
.

Thanks for the tips, Paul.

The opening around Antarctica.



Another cool animation, eh?

From:
http://preearth.net/

Last edited by preearth; 06/15/10 12:15 AM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
[censored]


Wow, I wish I would have said that.

LOL.


That's why I get the big bucks.

Quote:
How's your sister doin Marchimedes?


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

Originally Posted By: preearth
I will not bother with your site again.


Originally Posted By: preearth
Thanks for the tips, Paul.


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.


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
The opening of the South Atlantic.



Yet another cool animation, eh?

From: http://preearth.net/

I have started up my own bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?st=365&search_id=active_topics

See if there are any topics that interest you.


Last edited by preearth; 06/19/10 11:50 PM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
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 South Atlantic.
I have started up my own bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?st=365&search_id=active_topics

See if there are any topics that interest you.[/b]


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?


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
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.


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


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

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
beer & hookers!

How quaint.


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: ImagingGeek
Maybe we should all pitch-in and get pre some beer & hookers!

Just send cash.


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

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

Looks like only new topics are moderated??

Last edited by preearth; 08/15/10 11:38 PM.

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
For those of you who are interested, more on this topic can be found on this thread:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=35754&page=all


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
Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield's
Earth Formation Hypothesis.


The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth. Heaven had a radius about ninety percent that of PreEarth. These two, initially comprised a binary system (just like the Earth and Moon presently comprise a binary system) orbiting the Sun.

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 much of the crust 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 hypothesized situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, however, did not leave the remaining crust unscathed.

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, into the western impact area, covering about a third of the area.



The map of Earth on the left, below, shows the impact zone as viewed from space.



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 and rearranged by the expansion and 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 whence they stretch right to the bottom of South America before continuing as the Antarctic Peninsula mountains. Their exact whereabouts from there is unclear, as the region has been extensively rearranged by the impact, however, they probably continue from the Antarctic Peninsula mountains, to the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Colville and Kermadec ridges and then gap back to the Philippines, completing the circle. The map on the right, above, shows the positions of the 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 kilometers away, leaving seas in between. Japan and the Philippines are examples of this. Australia and New Zealand have also been ripped 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. Clearly, the unimpacted crust formed a sphere minus this spherical cap. The expansion below the unimpacted crust, caused it to crack into what we now call continents. Further expansion, expanded these continents apart, in what is officially termed, 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 center of the impacted region, then we get the map on the left, below. The impacted region has been mapped into the outer ring around the circumference of the map and the unimpacted region into the circular region within that ring. We will call the region enclosed by the inner circle, i.e., the unimpacted region, PreEarth-Pangaea.



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

The expansion cracked PreEarth's unimpacted 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 change of curvature.

Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth's continents. Wegener patched them 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 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.

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 center 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 center 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 color 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^3), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm^3). Continental crust is believed to be up to 4 billion years old, whereas, oceanic crust is believed to be 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 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 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. That is, there should be argon gradients between areas where the Earth's mantle was a well-mixed combination of Heaven and PreEarth's mantles and areas where it wasn't.

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 its mantle.

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 lower layers, as there was slippage at layer boundaries, in particular, the mantle-core boundary. 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 its mantle. This prediction of the theory, has been known to be true since 1996, when Richards and Song found that the inner core spins about 20 kms/yr further than the mantle 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 mostly from the top 400 meters of the basalt. For this 400 meter 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 meters 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 meters, managed to fly, when an albatross, with a mass of only nine kilograms and a wingspan of three meters, finds it difficult to get off the ground. Of course, if gravity was once significantly less, then maybe all this can be explained.

13) Removes the thermal catastrophe.

Radiogenic heating rates for the mantle, range from 6 TW (based on direct measurements of the abundance of radioactive elements in the mid-ocean ridge basalts) to 13 TW (based on cosmochemical abundances (and more recently, anti-neutrino observations)). This implies a secular cooling rate between 23 and 30 TW. This rate of secular cooling is problematic, for when combined with quite reasonable models of mantle convection, it implies the mantle was molten some one or two billion years ago (the so called thermal catastrophe). The collision hypothesis removes this problem by placing a significant thermal event, i.e, the collision, within the last billion, or so, years.

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

The thermal catastrophe shows that the theory of mantle currents indirectly contradicts certain measured quantities. However, it is still accepted as the power source for continental drift, because "What other option is there?" Of course, the collision hypothesis now provides another option for the power source of continental drift.

This power source that moves continents thousands of kilometers and raises the Himalayas to great heights is "radioactive shine," that is, heat from the radioactive decay of material that is much less radioactive than you, or your surroundings. In fact, a segment of the Earth stretching 6371 kilometers from a point at the center, to a one meter square at the surface, generates only 0.08 watts of heat (with radiogenic heat from the mantle comprising about 30% of this total). This is about one ten thousandth the power of sunlight on a dull day. It is true that if you let "radioactive shine," shine for a few hundred million years, it adds up to a lot of energy, and much more so, if you let sunshine, shine for a few hundred million years. 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.

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. It would not explain the age of the lunar rocks.

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 (clearly, 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 publicize the paper. This summary of evidence was completed on July 29, 2010.

Kevin Mansfield, has a BSc(Hons) from the University of Auckland (Auckland, New Zealand) and a PhD in mathematics from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). He may be contacted by;

Forum:http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34

Email: preearth7@yahoo.com

From: http://preearth.net/evidence.html


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
Hi, Preearth.

I’m still trying, (“very trying”, you might think), but I really want to make sense of some of the things that I can’t make add up.

To avoid confusion I will start by saying that I have no fixed idea about the formation of the Earth. The best evidence seems to be that the solar system formed by accretion from a disc of finer material. It seems quite logical to think that as the lumps became larger, there could have been a considerable number of proto-planets, and lots of collisions.

Perhaps the best way to obtain answers is to take one question at a time. You use the bullet and apple analogy.

Quote:
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 much of the crust unscathed.


I have no problem with the first part of this, but I cannot escape the thought that if I could smash together two apples of close to the same size, with this sort of force, the outcome would be very different. I would not expect one to enter the other, leaving an appreciable part of the skin of either apple intact.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
BTW, Preearth, can I call your attention to an unanswered question at the end of the thread "What are the main problems with plate tectonics?".

OK, I know I said "one question at a time", but perhaps one question per thread would be cool.

Last edited by Bill S.; 01/20/11 06:05 PM.

There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Looking back through past posts I see that the thread "Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence" ends with a question that is essentially the same as that above (#37153).

You could really tie up some loose ends here.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I have no problem with the first part of this, but I cannot escape the thought that if I could smash together two apples of close to the same size, with this sort of force, the outcome would be very different. I would not expect one to enter the other, leaving an appreciable part of the skin of either apple intact.

The reason for this is that you don't have a clue about gravity.

If you did have a clue about gravity, you would have no problem with this.

It is true, that if you smashed two apples of close to the same size, together, the outcome would be very different.

This is the part where the analogy breaks down.

When two apples collide (with sufficient speed) they explode apart.

When two planets collide they stick together (unless the speeds are astronomically fast).

The reason for the difference is very obvious, but since your knowledge of science is so limited, I doubt you will be able to see why this is, even after being told that it is true.

It is actually very simple,... think about it.



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
I doubt you will be able to see why this is, even after being told that it is true.


So I should just take your word for all this, and not try to understand?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So I should just take your word for all this, and not try to understand?

You can take my word for it, if you want.

But why can't you see that it is correct for yourself.

You aren't even making any attempt to understand.

It's simple. It's just gravity. What exactly is your problem with this?

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

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

It truly is simple. I don't see why you are having trouble with this.

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: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: preearth
When two planets collide they stick together (unless the speeds are astronomically fast).


Quote:
Assume both objects have the same mass. Then the force, pulling the objects together, is proportional to the mass squared.


When extraterrestrial objects strike Earth, they do so at astronomical speed. These objects are very much smaller than Earth, so the force pulling them together is less than in your planetary example. Why should objects of similar mass come together more slowly?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Preearth, have we been at cross-purposes?

Were you thinking along the lines of what seems to be current theory, namely that this proposed collision occurred at an impact angle of about 45°, and at a velocity around 4 km/s?


There never was nothing.
Page 4 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