Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence.

I don't have teeth but I do have razor sharp science logic which is what you continually fall foul of :=)

Thanks; that's a good example of what we need to escape from if we are to have a real discussion.

So, Bill. How is it you never once complained when Orac called people Nazis, racists and other nasty names?

Pointing out an example of something hardly constitutes complaining.

And not pointing out the same when stated by another, i.e., orac, constitutes considerable bias.

I suggest that a search of this site would reveal examples of lots of things you have not pointed out. can I take it that you are biased in favour of all the things you have ignored?

Zinc isotopic evidence for the origin of the Moon
Nature 490, 376–379 (18 October 2012)
Volatile elements have a fundamental role in the evolution of planets. But how budgets of volatiles were set in planets, and the nature and extent of volatile-depletion of planetary bodies during the earliest stages of Solar System formation remain poorly understood. The Moon is considered to be volatile-depleted and so it has been predicted that volatile loss should have fractionated stable isotopes of moderately volatile elements. One such element, zinc, exhibits strong isotopic fractionation during volatilization in planetary rocks, but is hardly fractionated during terrestrial igneous processes, making it a powerful tracer of the volatile histories of planets. Here we present high-precision zinc isotopic and abundance data which show that lunar magmatic rocks are enriched in the heavy isotopes of zinc and have lower zinc concentrations than terrestrial or Martian igneous rocks. Conversely, Earth and Mars have broadly chondritic zinc isotopic compositions. We show that these variations represent large-scale evaporation of zinc, most probably in the aftermath of the Moon-forming event, rather than small-scale evaporation processes during volcanism. Our results therefore represent evidence for volatile depletion of the Moon through evaporation, and are consistent with a giant impact origin for the Earth and Moon.

That should please Pre.

Oh no!! You would have to believe the moon landing stuff for this to be any good.

Glad to see that there is additional concrete corroboration for the impact theory of the moon formation. I certainly haven't been a fan of the "taffy pull" theory that's been going around lately.

Thanks for the work Bill S.

Back in my shcool days the "taffy pull" theory was high on the list of "possibilities". In fact, the Pacific basin was considered the likely source area, but when I thought about it later, it made little sense.

I was inclined towards the idea that the moon formed as a separate body, which was subsequently captured bu the Earth, but as new evidence comes to light, that begins to look less likely.

The taffy-pull theory. What rubbish.

Bill; why don't you explain what you think has replaced mantle currents as the force that moved the continents so far apart?

You don't seem to know what this force is,... do you?

This must be something like agreement!

This thread has been updated to: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39783

And, of course, the name of PreEarth's 2nd moon was changed to TheOldMoon.

So Bill what has replaced the mantle currents you say are no longer true.

Pre, give me the specific quote to which you refer and I will do my best to hep you to understand it.

It all came from your statement below (on some other thread).


Bill S. is very, very, silly; He whines that preearth makes dogmatic statements, then he IMMEDIATELY goes on to make the following FIVE dogmatic statements:

"Plate-tectonics, is the belief that many of Earth's geological features, such as mountains, are caused by currents of solid rock which circulate in the mantle. Wrong.

"The convection is claimed to be due to the temperature difference (about 3,000 degrees) between the top and the bottom of the mantle." Wrong.

"The basic idea, is that the rock at the bottom of the mantle, on being heated by the core, becomes lighter, and thus, rises (in a gigantic up-welling) to the top of the mantle". Wrong.

"The rock current, then flows (away from the up-welling and) under the Earth's surface, but parallel to it (carrying the continents with it), until it cools". Wrong.

"On cooling sufficiently, the rock becomes heavier and sinks (in a gigantic down-welling) back to the bottom of the mantle, and on doing so, completes one lap of a circuit". Wrong.

Proving, at the very least, that he doesn't understand the words he uses.

Also, if you have any honestly at all, you should now back up these FIVE dogmatic statements of yours, with evidence.

You should at a minimum tell us what replaces the mantle currents you say are wrong.

Pre, as usual you seem to be jumping to your own conclusions about what I have said.

For example, I have not said that mantle currents do not exist; only that your presentation of their nature does not necessarily coincide with modern thinking.

Perhaps you should remove your blinkers and read the Global Tectonics thread.





There's no pleasing some people, is there?



What is the point in trying to discuss anything with someone who has that sort of bigoted attitude?

I, for one, have better things to do with my time. If ever you feel you can have a reasonable discussion without insults and ranting, there could be hope for the future.