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
0 registered (), 210 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#41117 - 10/25/11 06:47 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Here is an update of a summary article I wrote some time back (note TheOldMoon replaces the name Heaven).

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

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 PreEarth and TheOldMoon. These two, once comprised a double planet system. TheOldMoon orbited PreEarth, and they both orbited the Sun (just like the Earth and Moon today, except that TheOldMoon, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth, was some thirty-five times larger than today's Moon). In the collision, the two planets, became one.

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, TheOldMoon 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 masses of the apple and bullet are so large that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesised situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed TheOldMoon, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, caused the non-impacted crust (which was mainly on the opposite side of the planet) to break into large pieces, called continents. These continents then expanded apart.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the north west Pacific where TheOldMoon entered.

TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon, 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 TheOldMoon'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.





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 TheOldMoon 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 PreEarth'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. The 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 (Earth-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 Earth-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 (Earth-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 AAGP map of Pangaea (from above) with 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 PreEarth and TheOldMoon. 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/cm³), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm³). 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, TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon reconstituted its mantle by gathering these Ar40 depleted rocks in further collisions, even more argon would be lost and TheOldMoon's new mantle would have almost no Ar40, while PreEarth's mantle would still have its full complement. So, when TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon's mantle mixed in, and thus, date progressively younger. Similarly, one expects the material that closed over the impact area, to be almost entirely PreEarth's mantle, and thus date oldest.

So, the argon 40 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 accepted ages of 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 TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon and a large object, blasted TheOldMoon'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 TheOldMoon'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 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 km³ of lava spilled onto the Earth's surface. Others, include the area around Iceland (6.6 million km³) the Siberian Traps (4 million km³) an area in the Caribbean (4 million km³) the Karoo-Ferrar area (2.5 million km³) and the Parana-Etendeka traps (2.3 million km³). The largest continental outpouring of lava (in terms of area) is the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, which covers about 11 million km². 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

Top
.
#41119 - 10/25/11 07:31 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Note that the name of the 2nd planet has been changed to TheOldMoon.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#41120 - 10/25/11 07:51 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: preearth

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.


Not only have I read the mathematics I have followed the argument.

I have no particular view on Einstein he wasn't a great scientist in my opinion but he was an excellent theorist. He struggled with QM because he trusted physicality more than science.

If you actually bothered to read and discuss things rather than act like the POMPUS PRAT you may actually realize what people think.

I can see where people get the idea that Einstein stole relativity from as I said I make the same claim about your theory it's recycled not new.

Relativity is a hell of a lot more than E=MC2 and lorentz transformations and most of these old works its actually dam hard to work out what they are talking about because there ideas were weird.

The basic question for me is who defended Relativity against the attacks on it and it's none of the people you mentioned they all sat quietly in the corner.

Your idea of answering question is to print another pile of garbage when you have been asked a number of questions nicely by Bill S which you of coarse will never address.


Originally Posted By: preearth

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.


Sorry with the superluminal nuetrino claims have been rather busy with stuff of actual physics significance.


Originally Posted By: preearth

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.


As opposed to PreEarth the honest racist I am hapy to be dishonest. As for Einstein I have already given you my actual position, personally I prefer Poincarre but no I don't view him as the father of Relativity either.


Edited by Orac (10/25/11 08:06 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#41121 - 10/25/11 09:31 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Orac
As opposed to PreEarth the honest racist I am hapy to be dishonest.

I am glad that you are happy to be known as dishonest, because you surely are.

Maybe you would be kind enough to provide a list of instances that proves this so-called racism.

However, you can call me racist all you like. I really don't care.

Claiming Einstein was a fraud is simply a statement of fact.

Here is a list of quotes on the subject from a few notables;

In 1912 the Nobel prize winner (physics) Johannes Stark accused Einstein of plagiarism.

Einstein did not deny the charge, but replied;

"J. Stark has written a comment on a recently published paper of mine for the purpose of defending his intellectual property. I will not go into the question of priority that he has raised, because this would hardly interest anyone, all the more so because the law of photochemical equivalence is a self-evident consequence of the quantum hypothesis."

Professor Reuterdahl accused Einstein of plagiarizing his work, as well as the work of others.

"No unprejudiced person can deny that, in the absence of direct and incontrovertible proofs establishing his innocence, Einstein must, in view of the circumstantial evidence previously presented, stand convicted before the world as a plagiarist."

Einstein Charged with Plagiarism, New York American, (11 April 1921)
A. Reuterdahl, "The Origin of Einsteinism", The New York Times, (12 August 1923)

Professor Westin charges Einstein with plagiarism:

Westin protested to the Directorate of the Nobel Foundation against the reward of Einstein, thus:

"From these facts the conclusion seems inevitable that Einstein cannot be regarded as a scientist of real note. He is not an honest investigator."

Reported in the New York Times, (12 April 1923).

Professor See charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"Professor See Attacks German Scientist...", The New York Times, (13 April 1923).
"Einstein a trickster?", The San Francisco Journal, (27 May 1923).

Nobel prize winner (physics) P. Lenard, E. Gehrcke, Paul Weyland, and other scientists accused Einstein of plagiarism.

"In fact, one begins to doubt the justice of these claims and to wonder if the charges (of plagiarism made against Einstein) made by a fast growing group of German scientists who, like E. Gehrcke, P. Lenard, and Paul Weyland, hold that Einstein is both a plagiarist and a sophist, are not, after all, true."

J. T. Blankart, "Relativity or Interdependence", Catholic World, Volume 112, (February, 1921)

The Nobel prize winner (physics) and friend of Einstein, Max Born, had this to say;

"Many of you may have looked up his paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik, vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it 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."

Max Born, "Physics and Relativity", Physics in my Generation.

Professor Nordmann implicitly charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."

Charles Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe (1921).

If Einstein was not a fraud, these scientists would not have called Einstein a fraud.

As to other views you seem to claim I hold,... Is Barack Obama a Jew?


Well, my guess from the picture in the forum post, is that he is a Jew. But so what?

My guess comes from this picture

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/hi_res/seder_hi-res.jpg

I thought this was a very interesting photo. Interesting enough to copy it to my website

http://www.preearth.net/images/seder_hi-res.jpg

So, to help you out. Do I think Barack Obama a Jew? I answer,... probably.

As to whether Ahmadinejad is a Jew. Well, I doubt it, but that is what is claimed in this newspaper report;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ewish-past.html

Anyway, rave as much as you will. Makes no difference to me.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#41122 - 10/25/11 10:36 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
And the number of vistors to your website tells you how much people care for you and your racism ... enjoy your dim dark hole in oblivian you anti-semitic.

Funny how you can answer stupid questions around Einstein but can't answer a single one on your stupidity of a theory :-)


Edited by Orac (10/25/11 10:37 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#41123 - 10/25/11 10:43 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You never did answer did you or did you not create all the jew threads on your website ... Answer that question?

See this is why I have trouble with your motivation ... because you try and sidestep that don't you.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#41164 - 10/26/11 05:26 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Can anyone tell me what the religious persuasion of Obama or Ahmadinejad might have to do with the subject matter of this thread? For that matter, are the ethics of Einstein really relevant to the possible formation/development of the Earth?

How about having some answers to relevant questions in threads related to this one?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41360 - 11/08/11 09:47 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Saw this grav merger of a binary star system and couldn't help think of preearth.

Still hasn't answered you questions hey Bill S :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqN6dyUmJg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_793.html


Edited by Orac (11/08/11 09:49 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#42245 - 01/23/12 10:56 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Look at this;

General Science Discussion Forum (83 viewing)
Not-Quite-Science Forum (15 viewing)

Never seen this much interest in "General Science Discussion,..." ever.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#42937 - 03/27/12 11:22 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Do you guys remember this from the thread which was deleted because it showed photos of Barack Obama and G.W. Bush wearing Jewish skullcaps and practicing Jewish religious ceremonies. Well, what was said in it, is still true, nothing has changed.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
Preearth, perhaps your posting time would be better spent answering questions in other threads. Some of us are keen to learn and discuss. Give it a go!

Truth is, that you are not keen to learn at all. You only say you are.

If you were keen to learn, you would occasionally answer your own questions, but you have never done this. Not even once. Not even when your questions were almost trivial. No partial answers,... nothing.

If you were keen to learn, like you say, you would put in some effort towards that end, but you haven't.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#43406 - 04/28/12 07:45 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Anyway, why was the thread with the photos of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush (wearing Jewish skullcaps and practicing Jewish religious ceremonies) deleted? There are plenty of such photos on the internet. What's the big deal?
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#43410 - 04/28/12 11:02 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Anyway, why was the thread with the photos of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush (wearing Jewish skullcaps and practicing Jewish religious ceremonies) deleted?


Could it have something to do with the fact that this is a science discussion forum? OK, NQS accommodates all kinds of stuff, but the Mods probably feel they need to have a clean up now and again.
I think the thread in which I had a silly exchange with Paul has gone too. I doubt it will be missed.

BTW, I'm currently trying to find odd moments in which to revise my (limited) knowledge of tectonic history. I guess you can claim credit for that. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#43715 - 05/20/12 12:44 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Anyway, why was the thread with the photos of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush (wearing Jewish skullcaps and practicing Jewish religious ceremonies) deleted?

Probably for the same reason that this thread was moved to page two of the thread listings (i.e., was hidden).
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#43720 - 05/20/12 05:58 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
No, that quote was not originally posted by Bill S. I hope you take more care with your science than you do with your quotes.

It's a little disappointing that this is what you choose to post rather than addressing serious issues that are more appropriate to the subject of your various threads. Can it be that Orac has a point?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#43732 - 05/21/12 03:13 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Never ... I am just a silly little man.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43739 - 05/21/12 04:48 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
I think the term was "idiot", which would put you in very good company. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#43759 - 05/22/12 12:54 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
It was sort of timely but this article pop up on physics today

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-capturing-planets.html

When the full paper comes up I will link it.

As I suggested before the calculations on these sorts of binaries are exacting and Preearth if he were a real physicist rather than a mathematician making outrageous claims with no intention of really putting the theory to the test he would run this sort of calculation and see if what he proposes is even possible.

But you and I know he really doesn't want to put the theory to the test because it's not about the theory it's about preearth and his psychologcal issues ... is that too harsh :-)

Luckily I am an idiot and don't know any better than the all mighty PreEarth holder of all knowledge.


Edited by Orac (05/22/12 12:57 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44218 - 07/11/12 10:01 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: Orac]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Orac
Never ... I, Orac, am just a silly little man.
Yes.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#44224 - 07/12/12 12:32 AM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Chalk that one up, Orac. Pre agreed with you. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#44269 - 07/17/12 01:00 PM Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Pre, I'm posting this question here rather than in "Global Tectonics" as it is specific to your theory.

Do studies of the Rh-Os isotope ratios in “post impact” oceanic crust fit a pattern that would be indicative of extraterrestrial impact?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.