Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?

Well, so much of this speculation exists on the net but we are no more informed as to what happened when. Mythology still exists but we do not see it as simple truth. Perhaps there was a time when our E underwent a phase change. Perhaps the atmos became almost pure water vapor which would obscure the Moon. Perhaps there is a geological reason the sea floors are only 200 my old. The Black Sea and the Caspian are only 7,500 yr. The Great Lakes are 10,000 y old. Where are old bodies of water? Lake Titicaca is 2 million years old. The Med in its current form is only 5 million y old. Chinese legend tells of the layered sea/heaven/earth.

I do not understand the gas laws much less the theories of mass accreation. This is one site I read yesterday in which the author tackles some of the sticking points of our current understand of relativity and the quantum world: http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
I particularly like the concept of how we have such a small beginning, it implies our universe is like 'pearls on a string' --the theory of inflation/delfation instead of a big bang. As for the idea of the vortexes of the roton being the 25% known as dark mass, well, OK. This fits with the ideas now being tossed around as to what is the ordered electrons that don't do "superfluidity" but are present until T* (100K). That problem has been around for 75 years.

Are you "scientists" talking about marriage? Philosophy? The art of theology? Or science?

Katesisco, don't be put off by Preearth shouting at you. He shouts at all of us in turn, but he's probably a "pussycat", really.

Revlgking;

Actually, it turns out that most scientists are not actually real scientists at all.

They (most so-called scientists) have some faith-based religion which they call science,... but it is definitely not real science.

I was quite surprised to find this.

the real scientist are the people in their garages or workshops working on ways to improve life.

the ones that have degrees and really high paying jobs are not real scientist , they just get paid high wages , in no way should what their paid for words be taken as the full truth.

the fact is most of these people who appear to be scientist getting paid high wages are working on ways to make life unbearable.

and they are doing a really good job.

Sadly the days of that are pretty much over. Nearly everything you could do in a garage has been done. Sure, a rare gem might pop up, but not many. Now you have to work in a team, and you have to have big money behind you, that means, as you say, somebody else is pulling the strings.

But what choice is there? Science is so expensive now. We can't predict the outcomes of work. A lot of money (that means your labour) would be wasted if more of those decisions were made on purely political or emotional grounds. Now people who spend money are accountable for it. They have shareholders, they have laws, they have voters. They can't just do what they feel is right.

actually most new innovations come from people working in their garrage or workshop or lab.

then they try to get investment money from large corporations , they must divulge their invention to the corporations , the corporations then manipulate the invention to fit the corporations needs and the inventor gets nothing.

that is sad , but true.

Here's a new hypothetical twist:

"The mountainous region on the far side of the moon, known as the lunar farside highlands, may be the solid remains of a collision with a smaller companion moon, according to a new study by planetary scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz" - August 03, 2011

http://news.ucsc.edu/2011/08/big-splat.html

Impressive, Rede. I doubt that anyone would try to cite plate tectonics as the cause of this lunar feature, but you never know.

Preearth, shouting, even in a startling colour, lacks the impact of answering questions.

BTW, I completely agree with you about the evils of academics stealing from their students. I don't know how common it is, but even if it is relatively rare, it would be worth looking for ways to stop it. Perhaps PhD students should give dated copies of their work to someone outside academic circles, possibly a solicitor.

If PreEarth was any more anti-semitic he would be a card carrying Nazi party member

Wonder why it was two academics from Israel?

Lets look at PreEarths website

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts

The usual fare of anti-semitic and conspiracy theory.

NICE GUY our PreEarth as well as not answering any questions.

Sorry I dislike racists.

Wonder how surprised you'll be if you ever figure out you're an example of it.

Note to admins: This stuff is already being discussed in a thread is NQS (where it is more appropriate).

A way to ensure that you can prove authorship of a manuscript (as in a thesis for a Phd) is the method used in publishing. You print out 2 copies and ON THE DAY you hand in your work you put the other copy in an package addressed to yourself. You then post it to yourself by registered post ( or some sort of mail that has to have a receipt and signed delivery). You DO NOT open it when it arrives,so that if someone plagiarises your work you have the proof that you are the original author in a dated, sealed form. If a solicitor has been holding on to it so much the better.

I don't know if this would help in science, but I get very angry about haphazard copying the work of others without any acknowledgement,

what happens when someone else claims he was first?

and you have already opened the letter.

LOL

maybe you should take several copies to your lawyers , let them file them away unopened.

And who started all the jew threads ... ohh lets see PreEarth?

See I have no doubt you have trouble with having a jewish Einstein recognized and it's nothing to do with science you racist.

Paul- I said don't open the letter. If you are silly enough to do so then perhaps you may have been silly enough to need to do the copying. The method I described is common in publishing, a well-known area of plagiarism.

Orac is getting his knickers in a twist because I claim that Einstein was a fraud.

And that this is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

I'm sorry Orac has trouble reading, or understanding, or bothering to read, the mathematics.

However, you do not need any understanding of mathematics, at all, to read the published works of Olinto De Pretto, Hasenöhrl, etc, concerning E=mc2, and to take note of the dates that these works were published.

Anyway, a number of people published E=mc2 before the fraud Einstein. You can read what they wrote and note the time that they wrote it. This, in itself, should suggest that there is something wrong with the Einstein myth.

If Einstein was not a fraud he would have referenced these people's work. In his infamous 1905 paper he never referenced any of these people. In fact, he didn't reference anybody at all.

Orac once said he hadn't heard of De Pretto's previous publishing of E=mc2 and that he would "check it out". Well that was the last we heard from Orac on the subject.

Orac is simply dishonest.

There is a mountain of evidence that Einstein was a fraud.

However, Orac won't read any of it, as it might contradict his cherished beliefs.

Concerning special relativity, the Noble prize winner, Max Born, said; "The striking point is that it (Einstein's infamous 1905 paper) contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." Yet, Einstein never referenced any of these previous workers on relativity.

He had years and years to put the record straight, but he never did (except for this obscure reference to Poincaré concerning E=mc2 "Even though the simple formal observations which must lead to the proof of this assumption is already contained in the main in a work by H Poincaré, I, for reasons of clarity, will not refer to that particular work").

Max Born's statement should also suggest that there just might be something wrong with the Einstein myth. And remember, Born was a close friend of Einstein's.

If you don't know where to find these works, read http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf and find out (but I guess you will refuse to read Bjerknes book, because he is some sort of weird Jew, who hates Jews, or something).