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 9 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Orac
So I guess my comment is YAWN ... glug glug glug ... waves theory good-bye as it sinks into oblivion and dies a sad a lonely death.

Look carefully, and you can see the poison dripping from Orac's fangs.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I don't have teeth but I do have razor sharp science logic which is what you continually fall foul of :=)


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: Pre
Look carefully, and you can see the poison dripping from Orac's fangs.


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


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: Pre
Look carefully, and you can see the poison dripping from Orac's fangs.

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?


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
Pointing out an example of something hardly constitutes complaining.


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.
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.


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
Quote:
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?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
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.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118
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.

Last edited by KirbyGillis; 10/19/12 04:34 AM.

Good atmosphere and good conversation...that's the best.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
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.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
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?


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: KG
I certainly haven't been a fan of the "taffy pull" theory that's been going around lately.


Originally Posted By: BS
Back in my school days the "taffy pull" theory was high on the list of "possibilities". …… but when I thought about it later, it made little sense.


Originally Posted By: Pre
The taffy-pull theory. What rubbish.


This must be something like agreement!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
This thread has been updated to: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update.

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


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: preearth
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.


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: preearth
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?

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


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
Quote:
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.


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.
Quote:
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).

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
However, I suspect that a major factor is your tendency to make dogmatic statements....

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.


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
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.

Originally Posted By: Pre
Your statements are so full of proviso's they often say nothing at all.


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


There's no pleasing some people, is there? smile

Originally Posted By: Pre
No, I am saying that you folk know nothing; and you know no people who know anything, so why are you even here?


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.


There never was nothing.
Page 9 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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