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


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

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Would I be right in thinking that your reasoning would say that if that had happened, and plate tectonic mechanisms had not intervened, we would now have an Earth that was completely covered with one type of crust?


I would think that earth already has 1 type of crust.

like fresh water is basicaly the same as sea water.

the earths crust is also basicaly the same as far as chemical composition is concerned , it is the difference in the amounts of chemicals found in basalt and granite that cause the two to seem really different.

an active basalt flow



granite collums



they are both igneous volcanic rock , or cooled lava

the earth has two types of crust basalt and granite and both types are igneous rock

Quote:
and plate tectonic mechanisms had not intervened


my guess is that if that would have happened the entire forming mass would be too hot to remain solid , even the two cores would form a single core , after several million years of cooling then the crust would be taking shape , remelting , taking shape , etc.. for a few million more years.

Plate tectonics would have come about during the cooling process.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Interesting link, Orac; lots of questions; for instance:
In example 8 the three bodies appear to be in syzygy at the start, at 0.5 orbits and 1 orbit.
The divergence seems not to start until almost 1.5 orbits. What initiates the deviation?


That is the point Bill S the instability is caused because the system at start was inherently unstable and that is the issue to get a long term stability of more than a few laps which is ultimately unstable is extremely difficult. It has to be so fractionally out of balance it takes a long time to break the stability which is sort of what preearth is suggesting they were stable for a long time then the collided.

I would also add the Earth-moon tug-of-war value to the sun is 0.46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_planet).
As Isaac Asimov said in some ways

Quote:

We might look upon the Moon, then, as neither a true satellite of the Earth nor a captured one, but as a planet in its own right, moving about the Sun in careful step with the Earth


The likelyhood of being able to able to switch between the different conditions is incredibly long odds you would much more bet on Earth smashing into another body orbiting the sun than a double twin planet.

I would suggest that there is only 1 mathematical solution to the proposition given and you should be able to even calculate the masses and stable/unstable times because the balancing act would need to be so precise.

I also view the tectonic plates exactly as Paul did in his post so you have alot of hurdles to get me across this line.

Edit: I should add this really is not much different to the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis) except it adds in a whole new orbital stability issue and the theories difficulties are summed up as probably the same as the above.

Last edited by Orac; 08/29/11 04:07 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
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
but that would raise a question as to why we have two quite distinct forms of crust now,


Having read "Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update." I realise there is an answer to this question there. I withdraw it for the present.


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.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
but that would raise a question as to why we have two quite distinct forms of crust now,


Having read "Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update." I realise there is an answer to this question there. I withdraw it for the present.

So many unanswered questions out there.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

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