Science a GoGo's Home Page
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 Heaven and PreEarth. Heaven had a radius about ninety percent that of PreEarth. These two, initially comprised a binary system (just like the Earth and Moon presently comprise a binary system) orbiting the Sun.

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, Heaven crashed through the crust of PreEarth, taking most of its energy into the interior, while leaving much of the crust unscathed. Now, imagine that the mass of the apple and bullet are so large (planet sized) that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesized situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, however, did not leave the remaining crust unscathed.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.

Heaven 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 Heaven, 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, into the western impact area, covering about a third of the area.



The map of Earth on the left, below, shows the impact zone as viewed from space.



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 and rearranged by the expansion and 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 whence they stretch right to the bottom of South America before continuing as the Antarctic Peninsula mountains. Their exact whereabouts from there is unclear, as the region has been extensively rearranged by the impact, however, they probably continue from the Antarctic Peninsula mountains, to the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Colville and Kermadec ridges and then gap back to the Philippines, completing the circle. The map on the right, above, shows the positions of the impact mountains on a reconstructed PreEarth.

3) Western impact mountains ripped off continental block.

The west to east spin of Heaven ripped sections of the impact mountains off the Asian continental block, which were then expanded hundreds of kilometers away, leaving seas in between. Japan and the Philippines are examples of this. Australia and New Zealand have also been ripped 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 Earth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit. The crust within this cap was smashed into the interior. Clearly, the unimpacted crust formed a sphere minus this spherical cap. The expansion below the unimpacted crust, caused it to crack into what we now call continents. Further expansion, expanded these continents apart, in what is officially termed, 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 center of the impacted region, then we get the map on the left, below. The impacted region has been mapped into the outer ring around the circumference of the map and the unimpacted region into the circular region within that ring. We will call the region enclosed by the inner circle, i.e., the unimpacted region, PreEarth-Pangaea.



5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.

The expansion cracked PreEarth's unimpacted 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 change of curvature.

Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth's continents. Wegener patched them into a single landmass, which he called Pangaea. He claimed that Pangaea existed for millions of years, until, for some unknown reason, it broke into smaller continents, which then drifted to their current positions. Above, on the right, is a map of the Earth showing 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.

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 center of the region. This is exactly what we see in Wegener's Pangaea. The splits being the polar sea and the large triangular shaped Tethys Ocean, which extends right to the center 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 map of Pangaea from above, with color and 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 Heaven and PreEarth. 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/cm^3), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm^3). Continental crust is believed to be up to 4 billion years old, whereas, oceanic crust is believed to be 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 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, Heaven was involved in a 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 Heaven reconstituted its mantle by gathering these Ar40 depleted rocks in further collisions, even more argon would be lost and Heaven's new mantle would have almost no Ar40, while PreEarth's mantle would still have its full complement. So, when Heaven impacted PreEarth, we would expect to find argon gradients depending on the degree of mixing of their mantles. That is, there should be argon gradients between areas where the Earth's mantle was a well-mixed combination of Heaven and PreEarth's mantles and areas where it wasn't.

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 Heaven's mantle mixed in, and thus, date progressively younger. Similarly, one expects the material that closed over the impact area, to be mainly PreEarth's mantle, and thus date older.

So, the argon 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 usual methods of dating the sea floor are well off the mark.

9) The theory predicts Earth's core is rotating faster than its mantle.

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 lower layers, as there was slippage at layer boundaries, in particular, the mantle-core boundary. 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 its mantle. This prediction of the theory, has been known to be true since 1996, when Richards and Song found that the inner core spins about 20 kms/yr further than the mantle 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 mostly from the top 400 meters of the basalt. For this 400 meter 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 meters 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 meters, managed to fly, when an albatross, with a mass of only nine kilograms and a wingspan of three meters, finds it difficult to get off the ground. Of course, if gravity was once significantly less, then maybe all this can be explained.

13) Removes the thermal catastrophe.

Radiogenic heating rates for the mantle, range from 6 TW (based on direct measurements of the abundance of radioactive elements in the mid-ocean ridge basalts) to 13 TW (based on cosmochemical abundances (and more recently, anti-neutrino observations)). This implies a secular cooling rate between 23 and 30 TW. This rate of secular cooling is problematic, for when combined with quite reasonable models of mantle convection, it implies the mantle was molten some one or two billion years ago (the so called thermal catastrophe). The collision hypothesis removes this problem by placing a significant thermal event, i.e, the collision, within the last billion, or so, years.

14) The theory provides a decent power source for continental drift.

The thermal catastrophe shows that the theory of mantle currents indirectly contradicts certain measured quantities. However, it is still accepted as the power source for continental drift, because "What other option is there?" Of course, the collision hypothesis now provides another option for the power source of continental drift.

This power source that moves continents thousands of kilometers and raises the Himalayas to great heights is "radioactive shine," that is, heat from the radioactive decay of material that is much less radioactive than you, or your surroundings. In fact, a segment of the Earth stretching 6371 kilometers from a point at the center, to a one meter square at the surface, generates only 0.08 watts of heat (with radiogenic heat from the mantle comprising about 30% of this total). This is about one ten thousandth the power of sunlight on a dull day. It is true that if you let "radioactive shine," shine for a few hundred million years, it adds up to a lot of energy, and much more so, if you let sunshine, shine for a few hundred million years. 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.

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 Heaven and a large object, blasted Heaven'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 Heaven'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. It would not explain the age of the lunar rocks.

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 (clearly, 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 publicize the paper. This summary of evidence was completed on July 29, 2010.

Kevin Mansfield, has a BSc(Hons) from the University of Auckland (Auckland, New Zealand) and a PhD in mathematics from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). He may be contacted by;

Forum:http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34

Email: preearth7@yahoo.com

From: Evidence supporting Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis.

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.



The opening of the Indian Ocean.

http://preearth.net/anim-indian-ocean-400.gif

The opening around Australia.

http://preearth.net/anim-australia-400.gif

The opening around India.

http://preearth.net/anim-india-400.gif

Notice that India is pushed under the rest of Asia, forming the Himalayas.

Cool animations, eh?

From; http://www.preearth.net/animations.html
Originally Posted By: preearth
Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth.

Start with a false assumption, come to a false conclusion write 10 pages of nonsense.

I also see you've now eliminated all the energy calcs from your model - just goes to show, when evidence runs contrary to your beliefs, ignore it.

Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon?

Oh, wait, you never had the guts to answer that one...

Originally Posted By: preearth
Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed,

There is no smiley that can express my derision at the stupidity of this statement. The evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH_Vdxs

Relevant time point is 0:47 onwards. Unscathed skin is nowhere to be found.

Claim 1, false. Score is currently 0:1.

Originally Posted By: preearth
The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., 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.

LOL, your own map disproves your own model. If it were as you say it were, the surrounding sea floor would all be of the same age, with the "hole" being new. Instead, we have a new "hole" surrounding by regions where the farther from the "hole" you are, the older the crust is.

That is consistent with the current model of continental drift, and runs contrary to what you propose.

Score is now 0 for 2.

Originally Posted By: preearth
As expected, this region has no spreading ridges.

LOL, you cannot even be consistent with your own model. Continental drift isn't expected to form ridges mid-plate; rather, ridges form largely where two plates meet due to flexing of the crust in those regions. Impacts, on the other hand DO produce ridges - in fact, such ridges are a characteristic feature of impact zones, and are used to differentiate them from other similar structures:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0083665656900915

Score is 0 for 3.

Originally Posted By: preearth
The impact mountains must have initially formed a complete circle. This was broken up and rearranged by the expansion and spin, giving us the ring of fire as we know it today.

Impacts do not form mountains, but rather a crater with a surrounding rim of pulverized material. You do not see typical mountain features like stratification and uplifting with impact craters. Nor would you see faulting; a common feature in mountains.

See previous ref for the details.

Score is now 0 for 4.

Originally Posted By: preearth

The impact destroyed a circular region of the Earth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit. The crust within this cap was smashed into the interior. Clearly, the unimpacted crust formed a sphere minus this spherical cap. The expansion below the unimpacted crust, caused it to crack into what we now call continents. Further expansion, expanded these continents apart, in what is officially termed, continental drift.

You love refuting your previous models. Remeber when you held the mid-atlantic ridge up as an example of your model? How does that jive with what you're stating now - your new model would make the mid-atlantic ridge a subduction zone; the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said before.

I'd also re-direct you to our previous discussion vis-a-vis surface area to volume ratios; you're model doesn't even stand upto basic geometry.

Score is now 0 for 5. It should be 0 for 6 due to your ignorance of basic geometry, but I'm feeling nice this morning.

Originally Posted By: preearth

The expansion cracked PreEarth's unimpacted crust into large pieces that became today's continents.

While requiring an impossible movement of the crust that defies both physics, geometry, and the physical strength of rocks...

I'd add this as another score, but you're simply repeating errors you made earlier in this posting.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth's continents. Wegener patched them into a single landmass, which he called Pangaea. He claimed that Pangaea existed for millions of years, until, for some unknown reason, it broke into smaller continents, which then drifted to their current positions.

However, your model is in complete opposition to what he proposed. The key feature of his model - which eventually was proven correct - was slow drift.

And contrary to your claim, he also had several possible models explaining that drift.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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.


And your evidence of this is? Because there is a lot of direct observational evidence supporting the existence of the Tethys ocean, including geological remains of the ocean itself and fossil evidence consistent with its existence, located in the expected place.

Score is now 0 for 6.

Originally Posted By: preearth
These are understandable fictions, forced upon scientists because they reassembled Earth's continents on Earth

LOL, they're more your fictions, based on an apparent ignorance of the vast array of observational data confirming drift, the comparative geology of crates vs mountains, fossil and geological data confirming the presence of the tethys (and other prehistorical) seas, etc.

Just goes to show - you can "prove" anything, so long as you ignore the relevant data.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Earth's continental crust is original PreEarth crust, whereas, oceanic crust is a mixture of material from both Heaven and PreEarth. Thus, one would expect oceanic crust to be noticeably different from continental crust. This is indeed the case.


But one would also expect oceanic crust to be consistent. It is not - your own map shows the HUGE degree of radiodating discrepancy along the ocean floor.

Score's now 0 for 7.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Continental crust is composed of granitic rock (65% silica and 2.7 g/cm^3), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm^3). Continental crust is believed to be up to 4 billion years old, whereas, oceanic crust is believed to be less than 200 million years.


LOL, ignoring your own map again, are we? If you'll look at your map you will clearly see the ocean floor is not "thought" to be >200 million years old, but instead ranges from "brand-spakin-new" to 200 million years old - consistent with coninental drift. Likewise, the earths surface ranges greatly in age - and the distribution of those ages are consistent with "new" surface being formed near areas of sea floor uplifting, "old" surfaces being removed in regions of subduction, and "really old" crust being retained in regions far removed from surface making/removing processes:

Originally Posted By: preearth
No current theory explains how continental crust came to be, let alone why it is so different from oceanic crust.

Sorry, wrong again. The major reason the modern model of continental drift is so widely accepted is that it explains just that - the sea floor consists almost entirely of "new" rock, formed from the mantle. Continents consists of a mix of this rock (exposed through uplifting), old rock (left over from the formation of the earth ~4BYA) and various forms of sedimentary and volcanic rocks that accumulated over time.

Scores now 0 for 8.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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).

And? He was also shown to be wrong. Moreover, the mass of the earth determines its magnetic field, and thus were there changes in mass we would see changes in paeleomagnetic rocks over the history of the earth. The near-entirety of the earths paleomagnetic history has been reconstructed, and conclusively shows that the earth has not gained significant mass over time:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

Score is now 0 for 9, although direct observational disproof of your hypothesis should count as an infinite number of points against you. I guess that makes the score 0 for infinity+9...

Originally Posted By: preearth

Over his career, Carey collected a large body of evidence for his "expanding Earth theory."

Actually, he didn't. What he did was discover a broad amount of evidence consistent with continental drift, and he then put forth a hypothesis of an expanding earth as a possible explanation for that data.

His data are correct, and a critical part of the continental drift theory. His model, however, has been discredited through a series of direct observations of the earths size (which eliminated on-going expansion) and measurements of paeleomagntisim, which eliminated the possibility of historical expansion.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Since, Mansfield's theory is an expanding Earth theory, most of Carey's evidence is also evidence for his theory.

Mansfield had a hypothesis, not a theory. Maybe you should learn basic scientific terminology before trying to discuss it.

Originally Posted By: preearth
there should be argon gradients between areas where the Earth's mantle was a well-mixed combination of Heaven and PreEarth's mantles and areas where it wasn't.

And there shouldn't be gradients of non-gaseous radioisotopes. And yet, as pointed out to you many times previously, there are gradients of non-gaseous radioisotopes.

That would be yet another piece of evidence that:
a) directly refutes your model, and
b) directly supports the current theory

0 for 10

Originally Posted By: preearth
Only the collision hypothesis explains why the Earth's inner core spins faster than the rest of the planet.

And yet another falsehood from preearth. The differential rotation of the earths mantle verses crust was expected back in the 1950's, long before we had the ability to measure such things. The differential rotation was expected as a product both of changes in the viscosity (and thus friction) of the mantle at different depths, as well as due to the tidal action of our moon.

0 for 11.

Originally Posted By: preearth

As the two metallic cores fused, their combined magnetic field must have been in a state of extreme flux.

You've already stated that one (or both) of the planets were solid. Solid planets no not have magnetic fields.

0 for 12.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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.


This explanation doesn't account for the fact that the various paramagntic reversals are accompanied by very specific radioisotopic ratios (i.e. have firm dates associated with them). Your model is incapable of explaining those radioisotopic dates, and ergo, does not explain how the paleomagnetic data could be associated with said dates.

See my last two refs for the details.

Likewise, your model wouldn't explain the paramgnetic reversals observed in non-seafloor rocks, as those rocks would not have melted during your merger, and thus should not have recorded any paleomagnetic shifts. And yet, those kinds of rocks can be found all over the world. For example:

Herries, A.I.R., Adams, J.W., Kuykendall, K.L., Shaw, J., 2006. Speleology and magnetobiostratigraphic chronology of the GD 2 locality of the Gondolin hominin-bearing paleocave deposits, North West Province, South Africa, J. Human Evolution. 51, 617-631

0 for 13

Originally Posted By: preearth
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 meters 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.


Once again, a series of falsehoods:
1) Modern aeronautic science has been applied to pterosaurs and other extinct flighted animals. There is no mystery to how they flew - their aerodynamics were more than capable, and did not need reduced gravity to work. Some examples:
http://pterosaur.stanford.edu/Proposals/ProjectDescription.pdf
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pter.html

2) Biophyical analysis of large dinosaurs shows that the "worry" they would collapse under their own weight is silly - their bone structure was more than ample, even ignoring that they were likely largely aquatic:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1985.tb00871.x/pdf

And then there is this gem:

Originally Posted By: preearth
It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven meters, managed to fly,

It's not an issue at all - the ability to fly is largely determined by wing loading. A. magnificens had a wing loading of ~11kg/m2. Tiny loading in comparison to an albitros 20kg/m2.

That's 3 wrong in one paragraph - scores now 0 for 16.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Of course, if gravity was once significantly less, then maybe all this can be explained.

It can also be explained with a basic grasp of science - no mythology required.

Originally Posted By: preearth
This rate of secular cooling is problematic, for when combined with quite reasonable models of mantle convection, it implies the mantle was molten some one or two billion years ago (the so called thermal catastrophe). The collision hypothesis removes this problem by placing a significant thermal event, i.e, the collision, within the last billion, or so, years.

Or, if you take into account the known existence of radioisotopes in the mantle/core, their known half life, and the known amounts of energy released by their decay, you more than amply account for the amount of heat being released by the earth.

0 for 17.

So there you have it - a score of 0 for 17 in terms of basic scientific knowledge. In place of knowledge, pre-earth would substitute a completely unsupported hypothesis that is not only self-inconsistent, but also is inconsistent with pretty much all existing data.

I'd also point out at this point that we've challenged pre to account for several other holes, in addition to those pointed out here. To date, he's failed to do so. The "old list":
Originally Posted By: oldlist
1) As his planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface of the earth. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Pre's model fails to do so.

2) Pre's assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provides no physical model to explain how you could form solid planets of 0.5 earth masses within the known age of the solar system.
b) provides no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.

3) Even if I give pre the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), he ignores how liquid objects merge, and the impact that would have on the planetary surface (i.e. it would force your continents together, or suck them under, not drive them apart).

4) Pre's own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that this collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth (~2000K). And yet pre claims the surface would be untouched.

5) Pre's model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.

6) Pre's model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. He claims the distribution of one - argon - is due to your collision, but fail to explain the half-dozen other radionucleotides which show the same distribution, but are non-gaseous and therefore cannot be explained with his model.


We can now add to that list:
7) (should be #1): Pre's model has been directly disproven through observational data. Notably in:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,
and
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

The new point being, obviously, the biggest criticism of his hypothesis. Direct refutation and all that smile

Bryan

Now that is what I call a well constructed Scientific refutations of how,.....an unsound, unproven, and badly thought out idea
as to how our Earth became formed in 'preearth' times, many millions of years ago.....have fallen by the wayside
and bit the proverbial dust.

ImagingGeek's (Bryans) proper step by step, scientific analysis of each of preeaths unsound ideas, read as music to my ears.
Yes, an effective baloney-buster. It's one thing to identify pseudoscience, and quite another to produce an unequivocal exposé. Well done, Bryan.
I think pre is ignoring me frown

Heat, kitchen, standing and all that smile

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

Not defending Mansfield's Hypothesis but questioning your assumption that (surface) gravity could not have been less during the reign of the dinosaurs.

You gave a link-reference relating to pterosaurs and their ability to fly. What is your opinion concerning the Japanese scientist Katsufumi Sato, whose extensive study of modern sea birds leads him to conclude that pterodactyls were too heavy to fly. I assume his conclusion is based on the premise that gravity has been the same in the past.

Your other link about large dinosaurs seems to require a subscription to view the report. Any other references?

Laze
Originally Posted By: preearth
It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven meters, managed to fly,...

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
It's not an issue at all - the ability to fly is largely determined by wing loading.

ImagingGeek is, as usual, incorrect here. What is true is;

"the ability to fly soar is largely determined by wing loading."

However, the ability to fly, involves being able to get off the ground, as well as soaring.

No one has a clue as to how argentavis magnificens got off the ground unless it was taking off from a steep slope with no obstacles, like shrubs, long grass or rocks.

I don't bother to point out ImagingGeek's many errors any more, as he is the most dishonest arguer I have ever come across.

I see him as simply a propagandist, with zero interest in the truth of the matter.


Originally Posted By: Laze
Your other link about large dinosaurs seems to require a subscription to view the report. Any other references?

ImagingGeek often quotes from articles he knows most people will not be able to access.
Preearth:
Leave off with the personal attacks. If you can't defend your ideas scientifically, don't attack the posters personally. It is a privilege to post in this forum, and you can have your privileges revoked if this sort of attack on your part continues.
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,
Not defending Mansfield's Hypothesis but questioning your assumption that (surface) gravity could not have been less during the reign of the dinosaurs.

It's not an assumption; I provided two papers - one analyzing paleomagnetic data, the other tidal sediments - to measure the mass of the earth over its history. They clearly showed there has been no change in the earths mass.
Originally Posted By: Laze

You gave a link-reference relating to pterosaurs and their ability to fly. What is your opinion concerning the Japanese scientist Katsufumi Sato, whose extensive study of modern sea birds leads him to conclude that pterodactyls were too heavy to fly. I assume his conclusion is based on the premise that gravity has been the same in the past.

I'd say a few things:
1)pterosaurs are not birds, nor are they related to birds (i.e. they're not even dinos, which are the evolutionary predecessors to birds). Ergo, any comparison with birds will be fraught with issues.

2) Aerodynamic analysis, as described in the papers I linked to, showed that pterosaur wings were able to produce sufficient lift for them to fly/glide.

3) We know that the atmosphere had a higher O2 concentration in the pterosaurs day, and may have been denser as well. Ergo, even bird-scale dynamics may have worked under those conditions.

4) They must of flown or glided - pterosaur physiology is not well adapted to life on the ground - evolution would pretty quickly eliminate them if they couldn't fly.
Originally Posted By: Laze
Your other link about large dinosaurs seems to require a subscription to view the report. Any other references?

Unfortunately, many scientific papers are behind subscription walls. I'm sure there are free sources out there that describe dino biomechanics, but I am unaware of where those sources may be. If you really want the paper, drop me a PM with your e-mail and I can send you the PDF.

Bryan

EDIT: To summarize what the above paper discusses, its an analysis of the forces generated as various large dinosaurs walked. It then compares those forces to known biological materials (i.e. collagen and lammanin; proteins which "glue" our bodies togeather). A few quotes:

Quote:
The cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of Diplodocus have bifid neural spines (Fig. 4C). The notch between the two branches of each spine was presumably occupied by a tension member (either a ligament or a muscle) that supported the head and neck by counteracting the hogging moments due to their weight. The third dorsal vertebra will be considered because it has one of the biggest notches and because Hatcher (1901) supplied a scale drawing of its posterior face. The supposed tension member presumably at least filled the notch, but it seems quite likely that it may have projected above the neural spine as indicated by stipple in Fig. 4C. Calculations will be made for a member of the dimensions so indicated, but it should be remembered that it may have been larger or smaller. The stresses that will be calculated are subject to error for this reason, and also because of possible errors in the estimation of the hogging moment.

The centroid of the stippled cross-section is 0.66 m above the centroid of the face of the centrum. The hogging moment to be counteracted is about 50 kN m(from Fig. 4B). Hence the force to be transmitted by the tension member is 50/0.66 = 76 kN. T h e stippled area is 0.09 m 2 so the stress in a tension member of the dimensions shown would be 76/0.09 = 800 kPa. The compressive force on the centrum would also be 76 kN. It would set up a stress of 1.2 MPa in the intervertebral disc.

What kind of tension member could have exerted the estimated stress of 800 kPa? This stress is two orders of magnitude less than the tensile strength of collagen (Wainwright et al. 1976) so a collagen ligament would have had a ludicrously high factor of safety. It is the same order of magnitude as the tensile strength of elastin, which seems to be of the order of 2 MPa (inferred from data in Gosline, 1980). Thus an elastin ligament (like the ligamentum nuchae of many mammals) seems possible.

That particular quote deals with Diplodocus's spine, and the forces it would experience based on the weight of the animal suspended between its front and hind legs. They do similar calcs for the legs and other parts of the animal, and show that in all cases the tensile and compressive strength of the proteins and bones animal bodies are made of are more than ample to deal with the mass of the dino.
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: preearth
It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven meters, managed to fly,...

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
It's not an issue at all - the ability to fly is largely determined by wing loading.

ImagingGeek is, as usual, incorrect here. What is true is;

"the ability to fly soar is largely determined by wing loading."

However, the ability to fly, involves being able to get off the ground, as well as soaring.


And both the ability to takeoff, and soar, are highly determined by wing loading. The higher the wing loading, the faster the air speed over the wing must be to achieve flight. The faster the air speed, the more difficult takeoff is, and (generally speaking) the muscle mass required for takeoff is also larger.

Originally Posted By: preearth

No one has a clue as to how argentavis magnificens got off the ground unless it was taking off from a steep slope with no obstacles, like shrubs, long grass or rocks.


To be accurate, YOU don't know how argentavis magnificens took off - that question was answered by scientists back in the 1980's. Argentavis magnificens has sufficiently strong enough legs to manage takeoff, although it likely took advantage of the near-constant winds in its home territory to aid in its takeoff.

Originally Posted By: preearth

I don't bother to point out ImagingGeek's many errors any more, as he is the most dishonest arguer I have ever come across.


LOL, and you were 100% wrong in the one "error" you did address...doesn't exactly support the above statement.

Besides, why address all the points, where there is one obvious one you NEED to address - the scientific literature which directly discredits your model by showing there has been no significant increases in the earths mass over the past 4 billion years:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf


Originally Posted By: preearth

I see him as simply a propagandist, with zero interest in the truth of the matter.


And I see you as a coward, completely unwilling to try and address the arguments and citations made against your hypothesis.

And you wonder why arXiv didn't accept your "paper".

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

Your response concerning pterosaur's ability to fly is not clear. Your Berkeley.edu link states that:

"The most derived pterosaurs, such as Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus, were so large that soaring was the only feasible option; these were the largest flyers ever known to cast a shadow on the Earth's surface."

Do you agree with the above statement?

Laze
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And both the ability to takeoff, and soar, are highly determined by wing loading.

I told you it was useless to argue with ImagingGeek.

Look,... if flight only depended on wing loading, then by your perverse reckoning, there would be 10 ton (22,400 lb) birds with 22,4000 square feet wing spans,... since such a bird would only have a 10 lb/ft^2 wing loading.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And I see you as..., completely unwilling to try and address the arguments

Your errors are so many and your argumentation so perverse, that it is difficult to bother.

So, then lets start at the beginning;


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon?

Yeah, you just pulled this one out of,... thin air.

It's obvious that you have nothing behind this weird claim of yours.

Typical velocity assumed in Theia collision = 10 km/s
Maximum velocity assumed in Heaven-PreEarth collision = 2.5 km/s

If Theia and Heaven had the same mass, then;

Kinetic Energy of the Theia collision
= 16 (i.e., 4^2) times Kinetic Energy of the Heaven-PreEarth collision.

Adjusting for the differing masses;

Kinetic Energy of the Theia collision
= 16 x 6.42 x 10^23/2.48 x 10^24
= 4.14 times Kinetic Energy of the Heaven-PreEarth collision.

Where; Mass of Heaven = 2.48 x 10^24 kg.
Mass of Theia = Mass of Mars = 6.42 x 10^23 kg

So your statement "an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon" is simply BS.

But, as per usual, I don't expect blatant falsehoods to slow you down.

So, the MAXIMUM energy released from the PreEarth collision is about one quarter that of the Theia collision.

This maximum energy can be reduced further.

And this is more than enough for one day.
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,

Your response concerning pterosaur's ability to fly is not clear. Your Berkeley.edu link states that:

"The most derived pterosaurs, such as Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus, were so large that soaring was the only feasible option; these were the largest flyers ever known to cast a shadow on the Earth's surface."

Do you agree with the above statement?

Laze


It is unquestionable that most pterosaur species could fly (as in take off under their own power, AND power their own flight).

Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus are controversial due to their huge size. Biomechanical/aerodynamic analysis of Quetzalcoatlus has been done, and that analysis has shown that it could take off under its own power - in fact, a working model of it has been built and flown, leaving little doubt about its ability to fly. AFAIK, Pteranodon has not undergone this kind of analysis, and whether it could fly, or simply soar, remains unknown. That said, it has a similar wing loading and wing shape to various sea birds, suggesting that it may be able to fly under its own power - although that comes along with all the caveat that Pteranodon's are not birds, nor birds ancestors, so such comparisons are fraught with problems.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And both the ability to takeoff, and soar, are highly determined by wing loading.

I told you it was useless to argue with ImagingGeek.

Look,... if flight only depended on wing loading, then by your perverse reckoning, there would be 10 ton (22,400 lb) birds with 22,4000 square feet wing spans,... since such a bird would only have a 10 lb/ft^2 wing loading.


From a purely aeronautical point of view, there is no reason such an animal could not fly. However, due to limitations in what a circulatory system can provide, as well as weight/strength ratios of tissues such as bones, such an animal is highly unlikely. Megafauna in general are rare, because such large size puts all kinds of stresses on biomaterials that they simply did not evolve to accommodate. And then there are the ecological issues as well - something that big would need a tremendous amount of food.

So from a flight point-of-view, it works. From a biology point-of-view, it doesn't.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And I see you as..., completely unwilling to try and address the arguments

Your errors are so many and your argumentation so perverse, that it is difficult to bother.

So, then lets start at the beginning;


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon?

Yeah, you just pulled this one out of,... thin air.

It's obvious that you have nothing behind this weird claim of yours.

Typical velocity assumed in Theia collision = 10 km/s
Maximum velocity assumed in Heaven-PreEarth collision = 2.5 km/s

If Theia and Heaven had the same mass, then;

Kinetic Energy of the Theia collision
= 16 (i.e., 4^2) times Kinetic Energy of the Heaven-PreEarth collision.


You know as well as I do that kinetic energy is only one part of the energy involved in these types of collisions. There is two sources of energy - kinetic energy (if the objects are moving relative to each other) and the change in gravitational energy. I provided the math in the other thread, showing that the change in gravitational potential energy alone was greater than the impact that formed the earth. Any kinetic energy only ADDS to that energy.

My post on the gravitational potential energy in your system.

The amount of gravitational potential energy lost (and therefore transformed into some other form of energy - heat, elastic, kinetic, etc) when your two planets merge - starting with them in contact, ending with them fused into one - is 5.95 X 10^31 J.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Adjusting for the differing masses;

Kinetic Energy of the Theia collision
= 16 x 6.42 x 10^23/2.48 x 10^24
= 4.14 times Kinetic Energy of the Heaven-PreEarth collision.


Add that to the 5.95 X 10^31 J and you get... 5.95 X 10^31 J. The kinetic energy is but a meager part of the total.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Where; Mass of Heaven = 2.48 x 10^24 kg.
Mass of Theia = Mass of Mars = 6.42 x 10^23 kg

So your statement "an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon" is simply BS.


To be accurate, if you only look at one of the energy sources in the impact - kinetic energy - then you still get enough energy to completely liquefy the surface of the earth.

Doesn't exactly help your position much.

Of course, when you account for all the energy in the system you get the correct answer - and one which is ~6 orders of magnitude greater than the collision in your hypothesis.

Originally Posted By: preearth

But, as per usual, I don't expect blatant falsehoods to slow you down.


Nope, your blatant falsehoods didn't slow me down for a second. Its amazing how a basic grasp of science can allow one to see right through pseudoscientific BS like your "hypotheses".

Originally Posted By: preearth

So, the MAXIMUM energy released from the PreEarth collision is about one quarter that of the Theia collision.


Nope, the kinetic energy of the collision is about 1/4. But since that is one of two sources of energy - the other being gravitational potential energy - the number is meaningless.

And I notice you still managed to not address the biggest hole in your "hypothesis" - the fact that at least two scientific studies have directly shown it to be false. Once again:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

To quote the latter:
Quote:
Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and paleorotational data can be used to explore whether Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological time. Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s radius has increased significantly with time, as required by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s moment of inertia would increase with secular increase in radius
...

These figures are the only available direct estimates of I/I 0 for the Precambrian and argue against significant overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ϳ620Ma. Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mechanisms, particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion since the Paleozoic [Carey, 1958, 1976]
...

Hence the rhythmite data and the astronomical and astrometric observations together argue against significant change in Earth’s radius by any mechanism at least since ϳ620 Ma
(emphasis mine)

Strangely enough, you didn't have the balls to address that gaping hole in your hypothesis, but instead put up some incorrect math as your defense.

LOL

Bryan
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The amount of gravitational potential energy lost (and therefore transformed into some other form of energy - heat, elastic, kinetic, etc) when your two planets merge - starting with them in contact, ending with them fused into one - is 5.95 X 10^31 J..... Add that to the 5.95 X 10^31 J and you get... 5.95 X 10^31 J.

Given that you seem to be too intellectually challenged to understand exactly what potential energy is and why this number, 5.95 X 10^31 J, is not the energy released "when the two planets merge - starting with them in contact, ending with them fused into one," I will humor you for the moment and accept it.

By the way, I can't believe that after all the explanation given elsewhere,... you still don't understand this.

So, ImagingGeek believes the PreEarth-Heaven collision releases 5.95 X 10^31 J.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon? (Later you specify ~6 orders of magnitude greater).

Here is a quote from the page http://www.ucl.ac.uk/es/research/planetary/undergraduate/bugiolacchi/moonf.htm

"Other calculations were carried out and a figure of 3 x 10^38 erg was estimated for the energy release of a Mars-sized projectile (Theia) impacting (proto-Earth) at 10 km/s."

So, Roberto Bugiolacchi states that the proto-Earth-Theia collision releases 3 x 10^38 erg = 3 x 10^31 J.

A pertinent question for ImagingGeek.

Is the PreEarth-Heaven collision about 6 orders of magnitude greater than the proto-Earth-Theia collision, like you claim?

That is; Is 5.95 X 10^31 J about 6 orders of magnitude greater than 3 x 10^31 J?

So your statement "an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon" is simply BS (even using your bogus energy number).
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The amount of gravitational potential energy lost (and therefore transformed into some other form of energy - heat, elastic, kinetic, etc) when your two planets merge - starting with them in contact, ending with them fused into one - is 5.95 X 10^31 J..... Add that to the 5.95 X 10^31 J and you get... 5.95 X 10^31 J.

Given that you seem to be too intellectually challenged to understand exactly what potential energy is and why this number, 5.95 X 10^31 J, is not the energy released "when the two planets merge - starting with them in contact, ending with them fused into one," I will humor you for the moment and accept it.


LOL, you keep making this claim, and yet consistently have not been able to support it. Why is the argument wrong? And, for that matter, where does the gravitational potential energy go? It exists, after all.
Originally Posted By: preearth

By the way, I can't believe that after all the explanation given elsewhere,... you still don't understand this.

So, ImagingGeek believes the PreEarth-Heaven collision releases 5.95 X 10^31 J.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon? (Later you specify ~6 orders of magnitude greater).

Here is a quote from the page http://www.ucl.ac.uk/es/research/planetary/undergraduate/bugiolacchi/moonf.htm

"Other calculations were carried out and a figure of 3 x 10^38 erg was estimated for the energy release of a Mars-sized projectile (Theia) impacting (proto-Earth) at 10 km/s."

So, Roberto Bugiolacchi states that the proto-Earth-Theia collision releases 3 x 10^38 erg = 3 x 10^31 J.


Which is in disagreement with the study I based my number on, which predicted a collision of 10^24 J. If Bugiolacchi is correct, than the difference is ~1.5 fold. However, the 1024 joule estimate is newer (2004 vs. 1998), and gives the ~7 orders of magnitude value:

Canup, Robin M. (April 2004). "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact". Icarus 168 (2): 433–456

Either way, it doesn't help you much - you've still got an impact on the scale of the one the produced the moon an liquefied the earth. Whether you're ~1.5X or ~107X over that value is immaterial - either way the continents on your pre-earth don't survive the impact.

And you've still been too much of a coward to address the real question - how do you account for these two studies which confirm that earth has never undergone significant expansion in its size:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

Lets see if you got the balls to deal with that inconvenient fact this time.

Somehow I doubt it.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

Revisiting your earlier reply to my stating that you were assuming the Earth’s surface gravity could not have changed, you stated that:
“It's not an assumption; I provided two papers - one analyzing paleomagnetic data, the other tidal sediments - to measure the mass of the earth over its history. They clearly showed there has been no change in the earths mass.”

I would agree that the Earth’s total mass has not changed significantly over the last few hundred million years. However you, and most people, don’t realize that there is another mechanism that could alter the surface gravity on the Earth. That method is the shifting of the Earth’s cores, either or both.
The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction explains this. For hundreds of millions of years, continental land masses have formed various land mass configurations, quite different from today’s fairly balanced widespread distribution. Since the Earth is spinning, any unbalanced distribution of these land masses as in the case of Pangea, according to the theory, causes the core(s) to shift away from the center of mass of the consolidated land masses lowering the surface gravity on it. As Pangea broke apart and dispersed, the reverse process would increase surface gravity until the core(s) returned to their central position.

There is much circumstantial evidence to support the theory. An example which is relevant to the current discussion concerns the pterosaurs. The core, or cores, movement would create a gravitational gradient on Pangea, lower surface gravity near Pangea’s center of mass, which would be near but not always on the equator, and higher surface gravity (but not as high as present) as one moves closer to either pole
The pterosaurs started out small and gradually increased in size during the Jurassic, as did the sauropod dinosaurs. At the end of the Jurassic, not only did the largest sauropod dinosaurs disappear from North America, the Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaurs went extinct. Why would the surviving pterosaurs continue to grow to such enormous proportions (i.e., wing surface area to body size) unless there was some other environmental pressure to do so? This indicates a significant increase in surface gravity on at least part of Pangea or possibly all of it. Either continental breakup or, as has been postulated, the entire Pangean supercontinent moved north during the late Jurassic. Also, since the theorized gravitational gradient would have resulted in lower surface gravity in near-equatorial regions (which would vary based on the movement of Pangea as a whole and the movement of individual continents during breakup), one would expect the largest creatures to live in this region. The largest pterosaurs, from what I have found, lived in these regions. The largest sauropod dinosaurs in N. America lived in what is now the southern USA during the Jurassic and the northward movement of Pangea shifted the lower gravity region into S. America during the Cretaceous, thus the giant titanosaurs.

Laze
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Which is in disagreement with the study I based my number on, which predicted a collision of 10^24 J.... However, the 10^24 joule estimate is newer (2004 vs. 1998), and gives the ~7 orders of magnitude value:

Canup, Robin M. (April 2004). "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact". Icarus 168 (2): 433-456

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that Robin Canup would say anything that stupid.

You just make this stuff up,... don't you?

I read the Canup paper about a year ago and I would have remembered any totally crazy result like your claim of a "collision of 10^24 J," for the proto-Earth-Theia impact.

Why don't you try stating that you meant another paper?

You never know, some sucker might believe you.
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,

Revisiting your earlier reply to my stating that you were assuming the Earth’s surface gravity could not have changed, you stated that:
“It's not an assumption; I provided two papers - one analyzing paleomagnetic data, the other tidal sediments - to measure the mass of the earth over its history. They clearly showed there has been no change in the earths mass.”

I would agree that the Earth’s total mass has not changed significantly over the last few hundred million years. However you, and most people, don’t realize that there is another mechanism that could alter the surface gravity on the Earth. That method is the shifting of the Earth’s cores, either or both.
The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction explains this. For hundreds of millions of years, continental land masses have formed various land mass configurations, quite different from today’s fairly balanced widespread distribution. Since the Earth is spinning, any unbalanced distribution of these land masses as in the case of Pangea, according to the theory, causes the core(s) to shift away from the center of mass of the consolidated land masses lowering the surface gravity on it. As Pangea broke apart and dispersed, the reverse process would increase surface gravity until the core(s) returned to their central position.

While its a nice theory, the math doesn't stand up in two different ways. The first thing you need to remember is the earths mass is constant, regardless of the position of the core(s). As such, when viewed from a distance the total gravity of the earth will always be constant. What can vary is the distribution of that mass, and thus there can be small variations in the gravitational force at different points on the earths surface. In fact, there are satellites which map the ocean bottom using these small gravitational differences.

Lets take the case of unshifted cores first. In this case you would have additional mass on one side of the planet (in the form of pangea), and thus pangea would have a high surface gravity than the earth's average. But how much different? Lets assume:

1) ALL continental mass is located in pangea, accounting for 30% (0.3) the total of earths surface area.
2) That the continental crust averages 40km thick, and the oceanic crust averages 8km
3) That the earths crust is 1% the total mass of the earth
4) That the density of the crust is the same throughout (the oceanic crust is actually more dense)
5) That the crust and the mantle/core are of the same density (also false; the crust is less dense)

Note: these numbers are from wikipedia.

So pangea would weight .3*40 = 12 units (unit being fractions of a km3)
The ocean would weigh .7*8 = 5.6 units

For a total crustal "mass" of 12+5.6 = 17.6 units

So the weight of the 2 crusts, relative to the mass of the earth is:

pangea = (12/17.6)*.01 = 0.006818 (0.7%) the earths total mass
ocean = (5.6/17.6)*.01 = 0.0031818 (0.3%) the earths total mass

Two more assumptions, to make the math easy:
1) This differential mass distributed over an equivalent area on each side of the globe, and the ocean/continents are distributed opposite each other. This allows us to treat them as point masses resting on the surface of the mantle, on opposite sides of the equator. It makes the math easier, but exaggerates the gravitational differences.

2) We have a constant radius. Given the small difference in crustal thickness vs. oceanic thickness (relative to the whole earth), this is reality, rather than an assumption, to within a few thousandths of a percent.

Given a constant radius, gravity scales linearly with mass (Fg = GM/r2, r being constant). Ergo, in this unbalanced case there would be ~0.4% more gravity on pangea side compared to the ocean side.

0.4% isn't going to account for much - its but a tiny fraction of the forces a flying organisms would experience due to air currents, wind gusts, and the like. In the case of Diplodocus (who had a mass of ~50 tonnes, i.e. 50,000kg), it would be equivalent to an extra 200kg. To put that into context, for an average human (60kg) that would be 210 grams (~0.5 lb); about the weight you gain drinking one cup of coffee.

======================================

Now, what about a shifting core? Once again, I would remind you that the earths mass, and thus total gravity, is constant. As such, all that can happen is the relative amounts of gravity felt on specific points of the surface can change.

In the case of a shifting core, it is going to shift to correct an inequity in the earths mass - i.e. it'll shift away from pangea. This will reduce the gravity felt on pangea and increase the gravity felt in the oceans. Assuming equilibrium is met (i.e. the earths center of mass is returned to its center of rotation), and the earth remains spherical, the gravity on the surface will be equalized - as in pangea will experience exactly 1.0G, and the ocean side will experience 1.0G. Or, in other words, the tiny gravitational distortion formed by the thicker crust on the pangea side will be eliminated. I.E. Diplodocus can have a Diplodocus-sized coffee without consiquence.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Which is in disagreement with the study I based my number on, which predicted a collision of 10^24 J.... However, the 10^24 joule estimate is newer (2004 vs. 1998), and gives the ~7 orders of magnitude value:

Canup, Robin M. (April 2004). "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact". Icarus 168 (2): 433-456

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that Robin Canup would say anything that stupid.

You just make this stuff up,... don't you?

I read the Canup paper about a year ago and I would have remembered any totally crazy result like your claim of a "collision of 10^24 J," for the proto-Earth-Theia impact.

Why don't you try stating that you meant another paper?

You never know, some sucker might believe you.

ImagingGeek:

It seems that last time we talked about the proto-Earth-Theia impact you insisted that the collision released 10^27 Joules.

Did you make up the 10^27 Joules number as well?
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Which is in disagreement with the study I based my number on, which predicted a collision of 10^24 J.... However, the 10^24 joule estimate is newer (2004 vs. 1998), and gives the ~7 orders of magnitude value:

Canup, Robin M. (April 2004). "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact". Icarus 168 (2): 433-456

[b]I don't believe you.

I don't believe that Robin Canup would say anything that stupid.

You just make this stuff up,... don't you?

I read the Canup paper about a year ago and I would have remembered any totally crazy result like your claim of a "collision of 10^24 J," for the proto-Earth-Theia impact.


If you read it a year ago, why don't you read it again? Then we don't have to rely on your fairly selective memory.

BTW, still waiting for you have have the balls to deal with two papers which directly refute your claims:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

Not too surprisingly, you keep dragging up red herrings to avoid the fact that your hypothesis has been throughly and totally discredited.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: preearth

It seems that last time we talked about the proto-Earth-Theia impact you insisted that the collision released 10^27 Joules.

Did you make up the 10^27 Joules number as well?[/b]

If I made such a claim, you'd be able to provide a link to the post where I made it. Its not like I can delete my messages off of science-a-go-go, or edit them after a few days.

I.E. if I said it, there would be irrevocable proof of it. Provide it, or shut up.

But once again, we have a red herring here. Your hypothesis has been throughly and totally discredited by these studies:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

Not too surpizingly, you still haven't had the balls to address the direct disproofs of your hypothesis.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
If you read it a year ago, why don't you read it again? Then we don't have to rely on your fairly selective memory.

ImagingGeek. You are in luck.

I have found my copy of the paper.

But it's 60 pages long.

Why don't you tell me where it states that the proto-Earth-Theia collision released 10^24 Joules, so that I don't have to read the whole paper.

The page number will do, but a quote would be better. Thanks.
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
If you read it a year ago, why don't you read it again? Then we don't have to rely on your fairly selective memory.

ImagingGeek. You are in luck.

I have found my copy of the paper.

But it's 60 pages long.

Why don't you tell me where it states that the proto-Earth-Theia collision released 10^24 Joules, so that I don't have to read the whole paper.

The page number will do, but a quote would be better. Thanks.

1) Do your own homework,

2) You are lying; the paper is only 23 pages long. Had you actually looked at the reference I provided you'd have at least picked up on the page numbers.

3) Still waiting for you have have the balls to deal with two papers which directly refute your claims:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

Bryan
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
2) You are lying; the paper is only 23 pages long. Had you actually looked at the reference I provided you'd have at least picked up on the page numbers.

Nope. Its 59 pages. It must be a preprint or something.

Its a PDF so I probably downloaded it from the internet.

I'll search for some phrases from it.

Can't find it yet. But no worries, since it must be a preprint I can put it on the internet for all to see.

Also, I have quickly scanned the paper and there is absolutely no mention of your outrageous claim.

So, I suspect it is you who is lying,... and not me, contrary to your claim.

I will read it more thoroughly later today.
So you're going to base your "conclusions" on a paper which deviates quite obviously from the original?

I'd say I'm surprised, but that's about par for you, given your continued scientific failures.

Still waiting for you have have the balls to deal with two papers which directly refute your hypothesis:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

The Earth’s mass is basically constant as I stated in my earlier post. And yes, from a great distance any variation in the Earth’s surface gravity could not be detected. However, your statement that there can only be small variations in surface gravity is incorrect. Depending on the amount of core(s) movement, there can be considerable changes in surface gravity; hence the theorized reason for large terrestrial and sea life.
Yes, today’s variations in surface gravity are being measured but these are not due to core movement but variations in crust and mantle densities. I have bypassed your comments on the scenario with no core movement and proceeded to the your statements concerning a shifted core (or cores).

Your wrote:
“Now, what about a shifting core? Once again, I would remind you that the earths mass, and thus total gravity, is constant. As such, all that can happen is the relative amounts of gravity felt on specific points of the surface can change.”
I agree.

“In the case of a shifting core, it is going to shift to correct an inequity in the earths mass”
No, it will shift to correct “rotational mass” or moment of inertia. For example, a movement of equal continental mass to each of the poles will have little or no effect on core movement but movement of that total mass to the equator would. It is the radius or distance to the rotational axis for the shifted mass that is significant.

“This will reduce the gravity felt on pangea and increase the gravity felt in the oceans.”
I agree.

“Assuming equilibrium is met (i.e. the earths center of mass is returned to its center of rotation), and the earth remains spherical, the gravity on the surface will be equalized - as in pangea will experience exactly 1.0G, and the ocean side will experience 1.0G.”
No, the shifting of the core(s), and therefore the shift in center of mass, has created the equilibrium. The center of mass will not coincide with the center of rotation. As long as Pangea remained basically intact, the differential surface gravity would remain the same.

Again, the reason why the oversized dinosaurs and sea reptiles and pterosaurs were able to develop was this lowered surface gravity and the reason they were gone near the K-T boundary was the rapid increase in surface gravity resulting from the breakup and dispersal of Pangea.

“Or, in other words, the tiny gravitational distortion formed by the thicker crust on the pangea side will be eliminated.”
See above explanation.

Laze
.
ImagingGeek:

I found a copy of the paper on the author's web-site.

Man, did google.com hide this paper away from the public.

Robin Canup has a few papers listed here:

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~robin/rcpapers.html

"Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact" is here:

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~robin/c03finalrev.pdf

I have read the paper thoroughly.

As I suspected, the paper you quoted does NOT claim that the proto-Earth-Theia collision released 10^24 Joules.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Energy of the collision that made the moon, and melted the entirety of the earth: 10^27J.

Also, nowhere in it, is your earlier claim that the proto-Earth-Theia collision released 10^27 Joules.

You made your earlier claim of 10^27 Joules, here:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34629#Post34629

It appears that ImagingGeek just makes up his "facts" from thin air.
preeath, you are coming close to lacking civility again. If you can't follow the math, don't call people names or impugn their character.
Originally Posted By: preearth
.
ImagingGeek:

I found a copy of the paper on the author's web-site.

It varies slightly from the one at iccarus, none the less
Originally Posted By: preearth
I have read the paper thoroughly.

As I suspected, the paper you quoted does NOT claim that the proto-Earth-Theia collision released 10^24 Joules.

Funny that, seeing as the data is integral to table 1 and figure 11. Funny, as well, in that they extensively quote the original calculation [Nature 412, 708-712 (16 August 2001)].

I guess you should have read more closely, and perhaps tried using some of those math skills you claim to have.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Why so I did. And in this case I have made a mistake - 10^24kJ is the impact energy.

But my mistake still doesn't help you none:
1) You're imaginary impact is still several orders of magnitude greater than the one which formed the moon (10^4 times greater, to be exact)

2) Your hypothesis has been completely disproven by at least two publications, which you insist on ignoring:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

And here we see the fundamental difference between the scientific approach (i.e. mine) and the kook (your) approach - I own upto my errors, and correct for them. The kook (i.e. pre-earths) approach is to whine about minutia, and to ignore contradictory data.

Now, pre, do you have the guts to actually address those two papers which DIRECTLY DISPROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS?

Better make it quick - I leave for the cottage in ~14 hours for four days of fishin, swimmin' and bbqin'.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: Laze
<snip>
“In the case of a shifting core, it is going to shift to correct an inequity in the earths mass”
No, it will shift to correct “rotational mass” or moment of inertia. For example, a movement of equal continental mass to each of the poles will have little or no effect on core movement but movement of that total mass to the equator would. It is the radius or distance to the rotational axis for the shifted mass that is significant.

Which is a round about way of saying exactly what I said. In the event you have an uneven distribution of mass perpendicular to the axis of rotation, there will be a force applied along the plane of rotation (i.e. perpendicular to the axis of rotation). In the event of a solid earth this force would result in precession of the earths axis of rotation.
Originally Posted By: Laze

“This will reduce the gravity felt on pangea and increase the gravity felt in the oceans.”
I agree.

“Assuming equilibrium is met (i.e. the earths center of mass is returned to its center of rotation), and the earth remains spherical, the gravity on the surface will be equalized - as in pangea will experience exactly 1.0G, and the ocean side will experience 1.0G.”
No, the shifting of the core(s), and therefore the shift in center of mass, has created the equilibrium. The center of mass will not coincide with the center of rotation. As long as Pangea remained basically intact, the differential surface gravity would remain the same.

No, that is incorrect. With the core centered, and pangea off to one side, you start off in disequlibrium - mass is not evenly distributed along the plane of rotation, which creates a precessionary "force" across the plane of rotation. In this case you have "extra" gravity on pangea, due to the increased amount of mass beneath pangea, relative to the earth on average. As per newtons 3rd law, in the disequlibrium state described above, you also have an equal, but opposite force that would push the core away from the pressesion of pangea. I'll attempt to draw, all images representing a line drawn across the plane of rotation, as seen from above:

P = pangea
) = oceanic crust
o = core
- = unit of distance
<> = forces
^ = location of axis of rotation (axis would extend out of your screen)
. = place holders, since this forum removes superfluous spaces

Starting position (not at equlibrium). More gravity will be found at pangea, due to the additional mass on that side of the rotational plane:
P-----o-----)
......^

Force on the above system due to rotation(top)and the opposite force on core (bottom, newtons 3rd law and all that):
<<P-----o-----)>
........^
........< >>

Distribution & force after core moves:

<P------o----)>
........^
.......< >

In the bottom case we have equilibrium - mass is distributed evenly across the plane of rotation, thus eliminating precessionary "force". Because the mass is now evenly distributed along the plane of rotation, surface gravity is also equal along the plane of rotation. Assuming a perfect sphere, this will be roughly 1G.
Originally Posted By: Laze

Again, the reason why the oversized dinosaurs and sea reptiles and pterosaurs were able to develop was this lowered surface gravity and the reason they were gone near the K-T boundary was the rapid increase in surface gravity resulting from the breakup and dispersal of Pangea.

Sorry, that doesn't work for a number of reasons:
1) In disequlibrium, there would be less than a half-percent change in gravity on pangea. At equilibrium, that change goes away. In the former case the difference is so small (0.4%, or 0.004G) as to be meaningless in a biological context.

2) Pangea broke up ~150MYA, with the major breakup complete around 100MYA. The dino's went extinct and the KT boundary formed 65MYA. So the timing doesn't fit.

3) Assuming a slow breakup of pangea, the ~100MY period of time it took would have been more than sufficient for the dino's to evolve along with changes in gravity. Instead, we see even the largest of dino's making upto the KT boundary intact, and then suddenly disappearing.

4) There is no known mechanism which could lead to a rapid breakup and leave the crust intact. There is also a boat-load of evidence for a slow breakup of pangea.


5) The mineralogy of the KT boundary is consistent with chondritic meteorites, and not with the earths mantle, providing further evidence for the meteoric extinction model, and further evidence against a geological mechanism.

6) There is a crater (Chicxulub Crater) which is both of the right age, and right size, as was predicted for the dino-killing impact. Once again, consistent with conventional science, and in direct opposition to your alternate answer.

7) There is no geological evidence consistent with large-scale or rapid changes in the makeup of the earth around 65MYA.

8) There is no mechanism by which earths irridium, which is largely locked up in the core, to move to the surface. To get it to the surface would require sufficient force to destroy the earths core, or lift a portion of it to the surface. No irridium = no KT boundary.

9) There is no biological need for lower gravity - biophysical analysis of even the largest dino's (sauropods; see the references in my older post) shows that their physiology was more than sufficient to support their mass given earth-normal gravity. Same is true for the largest of flying petrosaurs - aeronautic analysis has shown that the second largest would have had no trouble flying at earth-normal. The largest isn't much bigger, and is expected to have very similar physics.

Like I've been saying, the evidence is against you model. The math shows that any variation in gravitational force will be small - a half % of 1G max. There is no evidence suggesting a catastrophic breakup

Bryan

EDIT: as I mentioned to pre, I'm gone the next few days for some R&R. Please reply, and I'll try to get back to you early next week.
ImagingGeek,
You wrote:
“Which is a round about way of saying exactly what I said. In the event you have an uneven distribution of mass perpendicular to the axis of rotation, there will be a force applied along the plane of rotation (i.e. perpendicular to the axis of rotation). In the event of a solid earth this force would result in precession of the earths axis of rotation.”
This is correct but what you stated originally was not, which was that
“In the case of a shifting core, it is going to shift to correct an inequity in the earths mass”


Your wrote:
“Assuming equilibrium is met (i.e. the earths center of mass is returned to its center of rotation), and the earth remains spherical, the gravity on the surface will be equalized - as in pangea will experience exactly 1.0G, and the ocean side will experience 1.0G.”
I responded:
“No, the shifting of the core(s), and therefore the shift in center of mass, has created the equilibrium. The center of mass will not coincide with the center of rotation. As long as Pangea remained basically intact, the differential surface gravity would remain the same.”

You responded:
“No, that is incorrect. With the core centered, and pangea off to one side, you start off in disequlibrium - mass is not evenly distributed along the plane of rotation, which creates a precessionary "force" across the plane of rotation. In this case you have "extra" gravity on pangea, due to the increased amount of mass beneath pangea, relative to the earth on average. As per newtons 3rd law, in the disequlibrium state described above, you also have an equal, but opposite force that would push the core away from the pressesion of pangea.”

My response:
You are making a basic logic error here......according to theory being discussed, the core(s) cannot be at center with Pangea formed. If our current continental distribution with core(s) centered were to reform into a Pangean state, the core(s) would gradually shift off center. Therefore, your initial conditions of “disequilibrium” is invalid. If you meant to state that as Pangea formed, the disequilibrium created precessionary forces resulting in a shift of the core(s) away from Pangea, then I would agree with that.


Re: Your drawing depicting the plane of rotation of Pangea:

Again, your first and second drawings depict an invalid condition (i.e., centralized core(s) with Pangea formed). I won’t comment on this one.

Your third drawing depicts the shifted core(s) along with Pangea.
You wrote:

“In the bottom case we have equilibrium - mass is distributed evenly across the plane of rotation, thus eliminating precessionary "force". Because the mass is now evenly distributed along the plane of rotation, surface gravity is also equal along the plane of rotation. Assuming a perfect sphere, this will be roughly 1G.

My response:
Not true. We do have equilibrium now that the core(s) have shifted off center and therefore, by definition, we do not have mass distributed evenly across the plane of rotation.
Therefore, surface gravity will not be 1G on Pangea but will be less depending on the amount of the core(s) shifting.


I wrote:
“Again, the reason why the oversized dinosaurs and sea reptiles and pterosaurs were able to develop was this lowered surface gravity and the reason they were gone near the K-T boundary was the rapid increase in surface gravity resulting from the breakup and dispersal of Pangea.”

You wrote:
“Sorry, that doesn't work for a number of reasons:
1) In disequlibrium, there would be less than a half-percent change in gravity on pangea. At equilibrium, that change goes away. In the former case the difference is so small (0.4%, or 0.004G) as to be meaningless in a biological context.”

My response:
Based on my last response, surface gravity on Pangea would be lower, the lowest near the equatorial regions. The ratio of current G to Pangea’s lowest G would be d^2/r^2 where r is the current radius and d is the distance from the shifted center of mass (due to the core shift) to the center of mass of Pangea.


You wrote:
“2) Pangea broke up ~150MYA, with the major breakup complete around 100MYA. The dino's went extinct and the KT boundary formed 65MYA. So the timing doesn't fit.
My response:
Pangea started to breakup earlier than 150mya. About 200mya the nascent Atlantic Ocean began to form accompanied by the massive flood basalt volcanism known as CAMP. It might be a matter of semantics, but “breakup” doesn’t fully describe the situation. There was rifting or separation, both latitudinally and longitudinally in different degrees well beyond 150mya. 65mya the continents were pretty much separated and moving apart rapidly, some rotating also. It is this rapid, non-uniform, primarily longitudinal movement that caused a corresponding shift of the core(s) back toward their original, centralized location. And, according to this theory, caused pulses of increases in G, resulting in extinction.

You wrote:
“(3) Assuming a slow breakup of pangea, the ~100MY period of time it took would have been more than sufficient for the dino's to evolve along with changes in gravity. Instead, we see even the largest of dino's making upto the KT boundary intact, and then suddenly disappearing.”

My response:
What you see is the largest (and tallest) sauropods disappear at the end of the Jurassic in North America and a shift of the largest sauropods (i.e., the titanosaurs) into S. America as Pangea moved north, thereby shifting the lowest gravity region south. The titanosaurs were different with wide lower bodies, shorter necks and wider stance, all evolutionary characteristics that could be the result of increasing gravity. As the K-T approached all of the larger dinosaurs disappeared. It is inaccurate when someone writes that the dinosaurs were thriving up to an instant in time.

You wrote:
“4) There is no known mechanism which could lead to a rapid breakup and leave the crust intact. There is also a boat-load of evidence for a slow breakup of pangea.”
My response:
Again it is a matter of semantics. “Rapid” in geologic parlance could mean millions of years.
The breakup of Pangea was rapid compared to its formation.

You wrote:
“5) The mineralogy of the KT boundary is consistent with chondritic meteorites, and not with the earths mantle, providing further evidence for the meteoric extinction model, and further evidence against a geological mechanism.”
My response:
I don’t deny that a meteorite struck the Earth around 65mya and neither does Vincent Courtillot who admitted this in ‘Evolutionary Catastrophes’, where he emphasizes the fact that hot spot volcanoes have accompanied almost all of the major extinctions. The Deccan Traps volcanic activity coincided with the K-T.

You wrote:
“6) There is a crater (Chicxulub Crater) which is both of the right age, and right size, as was predicted for the dino-killing impact. Once again, consistent with conventional science, and in direct opposition to your alternate answer.”

My response:
Yes, there is a crater there but where is the bone pile? If the cataclysm was so devastating, there should have been entire herds, rookeries, etc. of dinosaurs that were buried alive.......where are they? I don’t know of a single one discovered just below the clay layer.


You wrote:
“7) There is no geological evidence consistent with large-scale or rapid changes in the makeup of the earth around 65MYA.”
My response:
Not sure what you stating. 65mya was the point at which geologists/paleontologists decided to change the name of the era from Mesozoic to Cenozoic. Had to be a significant change at that time.

You wrote:
“8) There is no mechanism by which earths irridium, which is largely locked up in the core, to move to the surface. To get it to the surface would require sufficient force to destroy the earths core, or lift a portion of it to the surface. No irridium = no KT boundary.”
My response:
Courtillot believes iridium can come from hot spot volcanos. If I remember correctly, he gives examples of where iridum has been found but no signs of impact.

You wrote:
“9) There is no biological need for lower gravity - biophysical analysis of even the largest dino's (sauropods; see the references in my older post) shows that their physiology was more than sufficient to support their mass given earth-normal gravity. Same is true for the largest of flying petrosaurs - aeronautic analysis has shown that the second largest would have had no trouble flying at earth-normal. The largest isn't much bigger, and is expected to have very similar physics.”
My response:
I question the validity of the biophysical analysis that you cite. These are computer models and I’m sure you know what GIGO stands for. You were unwilling to accept the study done by a Japanese scientist using extant sea birds, which are probably as close to the flying, egg-laying, mostly fish hunting, believed-to-be warm blooded pterosaurs. I would put more faith in his study than a computerized model based on someone’s guess as to the flesh and bone, lifestyle, etc. of dinosaurs.

You wrote:
“ Like I've been saying, the evidence is against you model. The math shows that any variation in gravitational force will be small - a half % of 1G max. There is no evidence suggesting a catastrophic breakup”
My Response:
See my earlier post where I give the ratio of current G to G with shifted core(s). Surface gravity may have been 30% to 50% of current values.

Laze
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Why so I did. And in this case I have made a mistake - 10^24kJ is the impact energy.


ImagingGeek, why don't you just admit that your number of 10^27 joules is totally wrong.

Why don't you just admit it like a man and get on with life.

FIRST COMMENT:

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG.


As has been pointed out to you before, a release of 10^24 kilojoules = 10^27 joules, for the proto-Earth-Theia collision is obviously wrong.

The amount of energy for each kilogram of Earth is;

= 10^27/(the mass of Earth)

= 10^27/(5.97369 x 10^24) = 167.4 joules.

So, how much will 167.4 joules of energy heat each kilogram?

Well, 1000 joules will heat one kilogram one degree centigrade (i.e., the specific heat for the Earth is 1000 Joules/kg°K)

So each kilogram is heated by the collision by 167.4/1000 = 0.1674 degrees.

So, ImagingGeek claims that the proto-Earth-Theia collision will raise the temperature of the entire Earth by ONLY 0.1674 of a degree. Which is obviously wrong.

SECOND COMMENT:

Your reference, the paper "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact," does provides a figure for the energy and it is many orders of magnitude greater than 10^24 kJ.

Guess what it is?

So how come you couldn't find it? You didn't even try? Forget where it was?

No,... you just never knew where it was.

Now you know it is there, why don't you find it and report back.

Hey Preearth would your idea still work if the continents all melted and reformed? Is there any reason why they must have remained mostly intact but spread out?
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,
<snip>

My response:
You are making a basic logic error here......according to theory being discussed, the core(s) cannot be at center with Pangea formed. If our current continental distribution with core(s) centered were to reform into a Pangean state, the core(s) would gradually shift off center. Therefore, your initial conditions of “disequilibrium” is invalid.


No logical error was made - it was a hypothetical situation intended to produce the maximum gravitational deviation possible. The whole point was to create the situation most likely to produce the effect you claim, and then analyze the impact that would have.

Secondly, your assumption could very well be wrong. No one has ever measured the rate the earths core moves in response to an uneven distribution of mass - or even if it occurs. Keep in mind that the force on the core will be less than the force pretty much anywhere else within the earth (as the core will be at/close to the center of rotation). Likewise, the mantle is very viscous and may be nearly solid near the core itself. As such, it is very well possible that the movement of the core to correct for shifts in mass may be slower than the continental drift forming those disequlibria. If the rate of continental drift forming those disequlibria occurs faster than shifts in the position of the core, you would end up with something close to the model I analyzed.

Originally Posted By: Laze
Re: Your drawing depicting the plane of rotation of Pangea:

Again, your first and second drawings depict an invalid condition (i.e., centralized core(s) with Pangea formed). I won’t comment on this one.


But I will - the pictures, as drawn, reflect the absolute maximum amount of deviation you could get. And while the "real-world" may not have occurred to the maximum extent, those deviations from equilibrium are the only way in which you could create a gravitational abnormality.

Originally Posted By: Laze

Your third drawing depicts the shifted core(s) along with Pangea.
You wrote:
“In the bottom case we have equilibrium - mass is distributed evenly across the plane of rotation, thus eliminating precessionary "force". Because the mass is now evenly distributed along the plane of rotation, surface gravity is also equal along the plane of rotation. Assuming a perfect sphere, this will be roughly 1G.

My response:
Not true. We do have equilibrium now that the core(s) have shifted off center and therefore, by definition, we do not have mass distributed evenly across the plane of rotation.


Sorry, you are wrong.

In the first picture we have a disequlibria - there is more mass between the axis of rotation and pangea than there is from the axis of rotation and the anipode to pangea. This occurs because the core is centered at the axis of rotation, while pangea (with its greater mass) is off to one side.

That unequal distribution of mass also creates a gravitational disequilibrium in pangea compared to its antipode.

In picture 3 we have restored equilibrium - the core is now off-set towards pangea's antipode. Since the core is denser than the mantle, this shifts mass towards pangea's antipode. The net effect is the amount of mass (i.e. in kg) between the center of rotation and pangea is now the same as the amount of mass between the center of rotation and pangea's antipode.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“Sorry, that doesn't work for a number of reasons:
1) In disequlibrium, there would be less than a half-percent change in gravity on pangea. At equilibrium, that change goes away. In the former case the difference is so small (0.4%, or 0.004G) as to be meaningless in a biological context.”

My response:
Based on my last response, surface gravity on Pangea would be lower, the lowest near the equatorial regions. The ratio of current G to Pangea’s lowest G would be d^2/r^2 where r is the current radius and d is the distance from the shifted center of mass (due to the core shift) to the center of mass of Pangea.


1) Your math is wrong, ergo your last response is invalid.

2) Even if we take your case at face-value, without values your claims are meaningless - you would need pretty large movement of the core to get a d2/r2 ratio to provide a 1-2% change in surface gravity.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“2) Pangea broke up ~150MYA, with the major breakup complete around 100MYA. The dino's went extinct and the KT boundary formed 65MYA. So the timing doesn't fit.

My response:
Pangea started to breakup earlier than 150mya. About 200mya the nascent Atlantic Ocean began to form accompanied by the massive flood basalt volcanism known as CAMP. It might be a matter of semantics, but “breakup” doesn’t fully describe the situation. There was rifting or separation, both latitudinally and longitudinally in different degrees well beyond 150mya. 65mya the continents were pretty much separated and moving apart rapidly, some rotating also. It is this rapid, non-uniform, primarily longitudinal movement that caused a corresponding shift of the core(s) back toward their original, centralized location. And, according to this theory, caused pulses of increases in G, resulting in extinction.


Still doesn't fit the fossil record. The major periods of breakup were not associated with mass-extinctions, but rather increases in species diversity:


Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“(3) Assuming a slow breakup of pangea, the ~100MY period of time it took would have been more than sufficient for the dino's to evolve along with changes in gravity. Instead, we see even the largest of dino's making upto the KT boundary intact, and then suddenly disappearing.”

My response:
What you see is the largest (and tallest) sauropods disappear at the end of the Jurassic in North America and a shift of the largest sauropods (i.e., the titanosaurs) into S. America as Pangea moved north, thereby shifting the lowest gravity region south. The titanosaurs were different with wide lower bodies, shorter necks and wider stance, all evolutionary characteristics that could be the result of increasing gravity. As the K-T approached all of the larger dinosaurs disappeared. It is inaccurate when someone writes that the dinosaurs were thriving up to an instant in time.


Three points:
1) The shifts in body shape you claim occur were not universal across all large caldes - which is what would have to happen if gravity was the cause.

2) Large sauropods are found at all elevations near the KT-boundary; picking the one continent where there numbers appear to have dropped doesn't bolster your argument, but instead is a clear-cut case of you cherry-picking data to "prove" your model.

3)Sauropods are found upto the KT boundary, but not beyond it. So it is fair to claim they all disappeared at the KT boundary.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“4) There is no known mechanism which could lead to a rapid breakup and leave the crust intact. There is also a boat-load of evidence for a slow breakup of pangea.”

My response:
Again it is a matter of semantics. “Rapid” in geologic parlance could mean millions of years.
The breakup of Pangea was rapid compared to its formation.

But in this context, rapid can be very well defined. For your model to work the breakup must occur faster that the core can shift.

You've provided no values, so we cannot put a limit on "rapid". None-the-less, the geological record and fossil record do not agree with your hypothesis. Pangea broke up over a >100 million year period; not exact consistent with a model that requires rapid shifts.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“[size:8pt]5) The mineralogy of the KT boundary is consistent with chondritic meteorites, and not with the earths mantle, providing further evidence for the meteoric extinction model, and further
evidence against a geological mechanism.”[/size]
My response:
I don’t deny that a meteorite struck the Earth around 65mya and neither does Vincent Courtillot who admitted this in ‘Evolutionary Catastrophes’, where he emphasizes the fact that hot spot volcanoes have accompanied almost all of the major extinctions. The Deccan Traps volcanic activity coincided with the K-T.


Cut-and-pasting from wikipedia, I see. But your complaint doesn't alter my criticism one bit - the evidence for a earth-altering impact that occurred when the dinos went extinct is very strong. Had you read all of the wikipedia article you copied from, you'd have noticed this sentence:

Due to the volcanic gases and subsequent temperature drop, the formation of the traps is seen as a major stressor on biodiversity at the time. This is confirmed by a mass extinction topping 17 families per million years (about 15 families per million years above the average)[5]. Sudden cooling due to sulfurous volcanic gases released by the formation of the traps and localised gas concentrations may have been enough to drive a less significant mass extinction, but the impact of the meteoroid that formed the Chicxulub Crater (which made a sunlight blocking dust cloud that killed much of the plants, called an impact winter) made this one of the most pronounced mass extinctions in the Phanerozoic.[6]

Or, in other words, the traps were insufficient to drive the mass extinction - and there is good evidence they were also caused by a meteorite, not changing geology.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“6) There is a crater (Chicxulub Crater) which is both of the right age, and right size, as was predicted for the dino-killing impact. Once again, consistent with conventional science, and in direct opposition to your alternate answer.”
My response:
Yes, there is a crater there but where is the bone pile? If the cataclysm was so devastating, there should have been entire herds, rookeries, etc. of dinosaurs that were buried alive.......where are they? I don’t know of a single one discovered just below the clay layer.

Couple of points:
1) Asteroid impacts would not necessarily create conditions that lead to good fossilization, which would be a pre-requisite for increased numbers of fossils. In fact, the K-T mineralogy suggests that the impact resulted in acidification, which degrades, not preserves, fossils.

2) The extinction was not thought to be instantaneous, but rather thought to occur over several thousand years. Once again, that would not produce large fossil beds, but rather dwindling rates of fossil production. Geologically, that is very fast, ergo appearing as an immediate loss of fossils.

3)There are several references in the scientific literature showing an abrupt end to dinosaur fossilization at the KT boundary; consistent with a rapid, but multi-generational extinction:

Archibald, J.D. 2000. Dinosaur abundance was not declining in a "3 m gap" at the top of the Hell Creek Formation, Montana and North Dakota. Comment. Geology 28(12): 1057-1184.

Bohor, B.F., D.M. Triplehorn, D.J. Nichols, and H.T. Millard, Jr. 1987. Dinosaurs, spherules, and the "majic" layer: A new K-T boundary clay site in Wyoming. Geology 15: 896-899.

Bryant, L.J. 1989. Non-dinosaurian lower vertebrates across the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary in Northeastern Montana. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 134.

Moreover, at least one of the kinds of deposits you expect (i.e. jumbles from instantaneous mass-death) have been found:
Bourgeois, J.T., T.A. Hansen, P.L. Wilberg, and E.G. Kauffman. 1988. A tsunami deposit at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in Texas. Science 241: 567-570.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“7) There is no geological evidence consistent with large-scale or rapid changes in the makeup of the earth around 65MYA.”
My response:
Not sure what you stating. 65mya was the point at which geologists/paleontologists decided to change the name of the era from Mesozoic to Cenozoic. Had to be a significant change at that time.


What I mean is that your model of rapid gravitational changes would be accompanied by specific geological evidences: changes in the formation of sedimentary rocks, changes in paleomagnetic data (whose traces are directly proportional to the strength of gravity at the site of formation), etc.

These changes are not seen. I provided links in a previous post relating to paleogravitaitonal measures; if the changes you claimed occured, we would see them in those recored - there would be significant deviations in those measures is rocks of the same age, located in different regions of the earth. That simply is not seen.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“8) There is no mechanism by which earths irridium, which is largely locked up in the core, to move to the surface. To get it to the surface would require sufficient force to destroy the earths core, or lift a portion of it to the surface. No irridium = no KT boundary.”

My response:
Courtillot believes iridium can come from hot spot volcanos. If I remember correctly, he gives examples of where iridum has been found but no signs of impact.


Some irridium is present in volcanic flows. However, the concentrations are much lower than what is found in the KT boundary, nor is there any volcanic mechanism by which it could be distributed as evenly across the earth as it is in the KT boundary, and thirdly, irridium in volcanic flows is always associated with volcanic material - be it solidified magma or volcanic particulates in sedimentary rock. This is not seen at the K-T boundary, where instead the irridium is contained within a layer consistent with condritic meteors that lacks significant amounts of volcanic dust/minerals.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“9) There is no biological need for lower gravity - biophysical analysis of even the largest dino's (sauropods; see the references in my older post) shows that their physiology was more than sufficient to support their mass given earth-normal gravity. Same is true for the largest of flying petrosaurs - aeronautic analysis has shown that the second largest would have had no trouble flying at earth-normal. The largest isn't much bigger, and is expected to have very similar physics.”
My response:
I question the validity of the biophysical analysis that you cite. These are computer models and I’m sure you know what GIGO stands for. You were unwilling to accept the study done by a Japanese scientist using extant sea birds, which are probably as close to the flying, egg-laying, mostly fish hunting, believed-to-be warm blooded pterosaurs. I would put more faith in his study than a computerized model based on someone’s guess as to the flesh and bone, lifestyle, etc. of dinosaurs.


Maybe you should check out those links I provided, because:

1) The fact that large petrosaurs could fly was validated experimentally - as in they made, and flew, a scale model.

2) Those computer models you so readily dismiss are known to be extremely accurate - the same models are used to design planes, trains and automobiles, and are know to replicate the real world to an extremely high degree of accuracy.

3) Your Japanese group also used a computer model - but one of highly questionable relevance. They took a range of measurements from existent birds and then used to measures to derive a cutoff for where birds can no longer fly. Compare that to the models used by other groups - models which apply the well-understood physics of aerodynamics and materials to predict the aerodynamic qualities of any object.

Not to mention, petrosaurs are not birds - morphologically & aerodynamically they are very different. Likewise, their environment was different as well - high O2 levels as one example.

So why would you consider the Japanese computer model better than the ones used to design and build airplanes - computer models, which as I mentioned above - have been validated through the construction & flight of a model petrosaur.

Or, take the example of the model used for suaropods - they took known strengths of biological materials, known morphology of the sauropods, accepted ranges of sauropod masses and mass distribution, and known newtonian physics and simply calculated the force.

What is questionable about that? How is that less valid than measuring various physical traits of things that fly and then saying anything that lacks those traits cannot fly?

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“ Like I've been saying, the evidence is against you model. The math shows that any variation in gravitational force will be small - a half % of 1G max. There is no evidence suggesting a catastrophic breakup”

My Response:
See my earlier post where I give the ratio of current G to G with shifted core(s). Surface gravity may have been 30% to 50% of current values.


And you provided ZERO evidence to support that sized shift. In fact, we can prove it to be impossible - the inner core accounts for ~2% of the earths mass, while the outer core accounts for ~30%. Keep in mind that for a constant mass, the only factor that will change gravity is distance - GM/r2. For these calcs' I'll treat the cores as point masses - a process which will maximize the gravitational difference; in the real world the actual differences will be less. So the max change in gravity would be:

Inner core:
r with core centered = 1 earth radius, core sitting on the bottom of the oceanic plate = 2 earth radi.

Fgunshifted = G(0.02)/12 = 0.02G of gravity from the core, therefore 0.98G from stuff inbetween

Fgshifted = G(0.02)/22 = 0.005G from core, for a total of 0.98+0.005 = 0.985G

That 1.5% less gravity on pangea; ignoring any "extra" gravity from pangea itself.

Outer + Inner core:
Fgunshifted = G(0.32)/12 = 0.32G of gravity from the core, therefore 0.68G from stuff inbetween

Fgshifted = G(0.32)/22 = 0.08G from core, for a total of 0.68+0.08 = 0.76G.

So the absolute maximum theoretical gravitational change possible, under the impossible assumptions that:
a) the inner + outer core is located on the bottom of the sea opposite pangea,
b)the mass of the 2 cores is concentrated into an infinity dense point,
c) no mass fills the space previously occupied by the core
d) pangea has no "extra" gravity due to its mass

The maximum loss of gravity you can have is 0.24G.

If you simply move the cores, so that the outer edge of the outer core sits against the oceanic crust opposite pangea, and assume the material that fills the space has the median density of the mantle, your maximum change becomes ~0.1G

So once again, basic physics and a basic grasp of math disproves your model.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Why so I did. And in this case I have made a mistake - 10^24kJ is the impact energy.


ImagingGeek, why don't you just admit that your number of 10^27 joules is totally wrong.


Because it isn't - and I provided the citations to prove so. The very fact you are unable to counter that claim by pointing out the "true" values used in those studies I cited is proof positive that you cannot counter those claims directly.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Why don't you just admit it like a man and get on with life.[/qiote]

ROFL!!!!

This coming from a guy who'se avoided responding approx. 5 times to citations which directly disproves his model.

If anyone needs to grow some cahones it is you, not I.

And while we're on the topic, how do you account for these two studies which [b]COMPLETELY REFUTE YOUR HYPOTHESIS!!!

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pd

FIRST COMMENT:

[quote=preearth]YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG.[/b]

As has been pointed out to you before, a release of 10^24 kilojoules = 10^27 joules, for the proto-Earth-Theia collision is obviously wrong.

The amount of energy for each kilogram of Earth is;

= 10^27/(the mass of Earth)

= 10^27/(5.97369 x 10^24) = 167.4 joules.

So, how much will 167.4 joules of energy heat each kilogram?

Well, 1000 joules will heat one kilogram one degree centigrade (i.e., the specific heat for the Earth is 1000 Joules/kg°K)

So each kilogram is heated by the collision by 167.4/1000 = 0.1674 degrees.

So, ImagingGeek claims that the proto-Earth-Theia collision will raise the temperature of the entire Earth by ONLY 0.1674 of a degree. Which is obviously wrong.


We've covered this already. Even today, the median temperature of the earth (~4800K) is more than sufficient to melt the entirety of the surface, if it were distributed evenly (the lithosphere melts somewhere between 900K and 1300K, but currently averages ~500K). Ergo, to melt the earths surface you need to either:

a) provide sufficient energy to mix the lithosphere and upper mantle, or

b) provide enough heat to directly melt the lithosphere.

1027J is more than sufficient to achieve a or b.

Originally Posted By: preearth

SECOND COMMENT:

Your reference, the paper "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact," does provides a figure for the energy and it is many orders of magnitude greater than 10^24 kJ.

Guess what it is?

So how come you couldn't find it? You didn't even try? Forget where it was?

No,... you just never knew where it was.

Now you know it is there, why don't you find it and report back.



The fact you are unable to point this out yourself pretty much shows us you are not able to find this information yourself. Keep in mind you are claiming I've falsely presented the data in my citations. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it is the case.

As I stated earlier, the 10^24kj value is used extensively in the impact models. To be more accurate, it is the median value they used that produced a moon, as their models covered a huge range of impact energies, starting temperatures, and impactor mass ratios.

All of that said, I'm going to assume you think the angular momentum is equal to the impact energy. I hope that's the case, because it would be the final proof that you simply stopped reading at the first big number you came across.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Why so I did. And in this case I have made a mistake - 10^24kJ is the impact energy.

ImagingGeek, why don't you just admit that your number of 10^27 joules is totally wrong.

Why don't you just admit it like a man and get on with life.

FIRST COMMENT:

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG.


As has been pointed out to you before, a release of 10^24 kilojoules = 10^27 joules, for the proto-Earth-Theia collision is obviously wrong.

The amount of energy for each kilogram of Earth is;

= 10^27/(the mass of Earth)

= 10^27/(5.97369 x 10^24) = 167.4 joules.

So, how much will 167.4 joules of energy heat each kilogram?

Well, 1000 joules will heat one kilogram one degree centigrade (i.e., the specific heat for the Earth is 1000 Joules/kg°K)

So each kilogram is heated by the collision by 167.4/1000 = 0.1674 degrees.

So, ImagingGeek claims that the proto-Earth-Theia collision will raise the temperature of the entire Earth by ONLY 0.1674 of a degree. Which is obviously wrong.

ImagingGeek claims that a 0.1674 degree rise in temperature for the proto-Earth-Theia collision, is, in fact, correct.

Excuse me everyone, but surely this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that ImagingGeek is stupid.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Why so I did. And in this case I have made a mistake - 10^24kJ is the impact energy.

ImagingGeek, why don't you just admit that your number of 10^27 joules is totally wrong.

Why don't you just admit it like a man and get on with life.

SECOND COMMENT:


Your reference, the paper "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact," does provide a number for the energy and it is many orders of magnitude greater than 10^24 kJ.

Guess what it is?

So how come you couldn't find it? You didn't even try? Forget where it was?

No,... you just never knew where it was.

Now you know it is there, why don't you find it and report back.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Keep in mind you are claiming I've falsely presented the data in my citations. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it is the case.


Yes, I claim that you have falsely presented the data in your citations.

You continually LIE to me and everyone. I don't appreciate it.

Usually your LIES are of the sort where you deliberately answer the wrong question and claim to have answered the question posited,... usually they are not as blatant as this LIE.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Keep in mind you are claiming I've falsely presented the data in my citations. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it is the case.


Actually, the burden of proof is on you.

It is you who claimed the paper "Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact," STATED that the proto-Earth-Theia collision generated,...

1) 10^24 joules of energy. You later changed this number to
2) 10^27 joules.

The paper does not state either of these numbers.

All you have to do to prove you are not guilty of falsely presented data, is to provide the section of the paper where it supports your claim, but you have not, and apparently cannot, do this.


You can't show the paper supports either of these numbers because you LIED about the paper stating such a number, in the first place.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The fact you are unable to point this out yourself pretty much shows us you are not able to find this information yourself. Keep in mind you are claiming I've falsely presented the data in my citations. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it is the case....

As I stated earlier, the 10^24kj value is used extensively in the impact models.


Who said I was unable to find this information myself (apart from you)? I was waiting for you to point it out so that it won't be so embarrassing for you. But since you LIE as readily as you tell the truth,... you have chosen to try and LIE your way out of it.

In fact, I can give the number that you cannot give. It is 2.95 x 10^31 joules.

Robin Canup states that for an impactor 0.13 the size of Earth, the (specific) impact energy per unit projectile mass is 3.8 x 10^11 ergs/g = 3.8 x 10^4 joules/g = 3.8 x 10^7 joules/kg.

Hence the total impact energy = (mass of the impactor) x 3.8 x 10^7

= 0.13 x (mass of the Earth) x 3.8 x 10^7

= 0.13 x 5.97369 x 10^24 x 3.8 x 10^7 = 2.95 x 10^31 joules.


Remember, Roberto Bugiolacchi stated that the proto-Earth-Theia collision released 3 x 10^31 J.

So, ImagingGeek has been shown to have falsely presented data from the source he quoted.
Originally Posted By: preearth
Actually, the burden of proof is on you.

Sorry, that's not how it works in the real world. You're claiming malfeasance on my part - both in the scientific world and in the legal world it is upto you to provide the evidence that I have done something wrong.

Originally Posted By: preearth

In fact, I can give the number that you cannot give. It is 2.95 x 10^31 joules.

Robin Canup states that for an impactor 0.13 the size of Earth, the (specific) impact energy per unit projectile mass is 3.8 x 10^11 ergs/g = 3.8 x 10^4 joules/g = 3.8 x 10^7 joules/kg.

VICTORY IS MINE!!!

I have to thank you pre - you just demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are either:

a) lying, or
b) incapable of understanding the material in front of you

You've also shown that you cannot come up with the right answer, even when every clue you need is laid out before you (hint - re-read my post where I refer to figure 11 and table 1).

Maybe you should have read that whole footnote, instead of grabbing the first big number you found:

Including consideration of latent heat should be most important for impacts whose specific impact energy per unit projectile mass, EI, is comparable to the heat of vaporization for rock, Ev ~ 1011ergs/g, and less important for impacts with either EI << Ev or EI >> Evergs/g, comparable to Ev. Also of a similar magnitude is the specific energy difference between an orbit with a = 1.5R&#8853; and the Earth’s surface, ~ 2 x 11 ergs/g. It is thus not surprising that accounting for the latent heat budget results in a somewhat lower yield of orbiting material for simulations using M-ANEOS than those using Tillotson for similar impact conditions.


Emphasis (bold) is mine. Had you bothered to read the paper, of even that whole footnote, you'd have known that the whole point of this paper was to refute the models based on impact energies like those described by Tillotson (who, BTW, is the one who first claimed 1011ergs/g).

I know pre will ignore this, but the whole point of this paper was to account for issues that previous models of lunar formation could not address. The earlier models, like Tillotsons, assumed a direct impact with huge energies - 1011ergs/g or more. Cameron showed in his nature paper (citation provided 2-3 posts ago) that this kind of impact was incapable of producing a moon due to the amount of vaporized material (which condenses poorly) and the orbital distribution of the debris (which are not ring-like, but rather spherically distributed).

The whole point of Camerons nature paper, which was refined by Canup in this paper, was that the impact had to be a glancing one - lower energy, impacting near the limb of the earth. This is the only way you can get an orbiting ring of material, in which the material is comprised almost entirely of crust, and in which the material is of a suitable size distribution to allow the moon to form in the time it took the moon to coalesce (vaporized particles are smaller, thus have less gravity, and thus take much longer to coalesce).

In figures 11 and 12, this paper outlines a range of impactor size, velocities and impact angles which can produce the moon. To actually get the energy absorbed by the earth, due to these simulated impacts, you need to do a bit of math of your own - table 1 outlines successful combinations (i.e. mass, velocity and impact angles which can produce a moon-like object). All of the values you need are in there - the speed and mass of the impactor (from which you can calculate input energy) the speed and mass of the resulting debris field (from which you can calculate the energy not absorbed by the earth). The difference between the two is the amount of energy absorbed by the earth - approx 1027J, +/- an order of magnitude across the various conditions.

What can I say - this was a test of pre's self-proclaimed math skills. He failed.

Now I'm sure at this point pre is frantically writing another post in which he'll call me a liar and other names, while not providing one iota of evidence that I'm wrong. But in the vauge hope he may of read this far, I re-issue my challenge for the 7th (I think) time:

How do you account for these two studies which directly refute your hypothesis?

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

For some reason, I suspect instead of answering that question pre's just going to call me names again...

Bryan
.
What's the old saying that goes something like;

When the JACKASS fails completely in his argument, he loudly claims complete victory, in the hope that those who hear his claim are foolish enough to believe him.

You must take the people on this forum for complete idiots.

Somehow I don't think they are as stupid as you think they are.


LIE 1) The impact energy is stated to be 10^24 joules.

When it is pointed out that in the past he had claimed the impact energy was 10^27 joules, behold a new lie,...

LIE 2) The impact energy is stated to be 10^27 joules.

Without ever backing up any of his claims,...

LIE 3) the jackass claims victory.

By the way,... do you remember this?

Originally Posted By: paul
I think you speak for yourself, bryan (ImagingGeek).

this man has an idea, if it is or is not fully understood by you, is your problem not his.

further, your inability to understand the least of his concepts does not translate into your intelligence , nor does it show that he is incorrect.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"

well should you ever cross that threshold bryan , I for one would make sure the door lock was changed and you were not given a key.


Originally Posted By: paul
well I've toyed with the concept that you think backwards bryan (ImagingGeek), this pretty much tells the story.

unless you drive your car backwards and just call the backs of cars the fronts of cars.

or you have been taught that the backs of cars are actually the fronts of cars.

which can be compared to your understanding of newtons laws.

but if thats the case , it fits perfectly.


Which part of Paul's observations concerning you didn't you understand, Bryan?

1) your inability to understand the least of his concepts,... or,...

2) well should you ever cross that threshold bryan, I for one would make sure the door lock was changed and you were not given a key,... or,...

3) I've toyed with the concept that you think backwards bryan,... which can be compared to your understanding of newtons laws.


By the way, what happened to Paul?

One day he was the first or second most prolific poster, the next he wasn't even on the Top Posters list.

By the way Bryan, I think you are a total moron and the less time I waste on you, the better.
I should setup a palm-reading shop - I'm clearly clairvoyant. Pre wrote exactly what I predicted he would.

Originally Posted By: preearth
.
LIE 1)The impact energy is stated to be 10^24 joules.

When it is pointed out that in the past he had claimed the impact energy was 10^27 joules, behold a new lie,...

LIE 2) The impact energy is stated to be 10^27 joules.


And here we see pre lying to cover the fact that he cannot address the meat of my post.

He is 100% correct that I mistakenly stated 10^24J; when in fact I mean 10^24kJ. When he pointed that out I owned upto it.

For the unit-challanged a kJ is equal to 103 J, so 1024kJ is the exact same as 1027J.

And here we have pre's next red herring:

Originally Posted By: preearth
.
Which part of Paul's observations concerning you didn't you understand, Bryan?

[b]1) your inability to understand the least of his concepts,... or,...


Yep, pre is basing his arguments against me on the statements of a man who doesn't understand the simple difference between an open and closed system, or newtons 3 laws.


But lets not loose track of the main points:

1) Pre quoted the first big number in the citation I provided as evidence I was wrong - despite the fact that the entirety of the paper was based around disproving that impact energy.

2) Despite providing step-by-step instructions on how to extract the impact energies in the paper I provided, pre has so far failed to do so. Instead he brings up red herring after red herring as proof I "lie".

3) As of the lines below, this is now the 8th time I've challenged pre to deal with 2 scientific publications that directly refute his hypothesis. He has consistently failed to do so:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.p

Originally Posted By: preearth
.
By the way, what happened to Paul?


I think he got tired of us laughing at him and his scientific illiteracy. Maybe oneday you'll do the same...

...oh wait, you did. Then you broke your promise and came back frown

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

I’ll try to keep my responses as brief and to the point as possible:
Yes, no one has measured the relationship between core movement and distribution of the Earth’s mass (that I know of) which is why this theory is a radical one.

Mantle viscosity near the core being very high???.....need a reference for that. Hot-spot volcanic plumes originate there.

The forces on the core(s) (in reaction to the creation/dismantling of Pangea) are not dependent on the proximity to the center of rotation, they are the result of Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which you stated earlier.

Continental drift today is on the order of .5 to 1.5 inches per year. I doubt whether core-shift movement couldn’t keep pace at this rate. We’re addressing processes that took place over millions of years.
“In picture 3 we have restored equilibrium - the core is now off-set towards pangea's antipode. Since the core is denser than the mantle, this shifts mass towards pangea's antipode. The net effect is the amount of mass (i.e. in kg) between the center of rotation and pangea is now the same as the amount of mass between the center of rotation and pangea's antipode.”

How could this be true? The Center Of Rotation (COR) remains at the Earth’s geographic center with both cores displaced toward’s Pangea’s antipode (i.e., to the left of the COR in your picture). Clearly, there is more mass to the left of the COR than to the right.

My statement that the ratio of Pangea’s lowest G (near Pangea’s equatorial region) to current G is not wrong. The value of the ratio ( r^2/d^2) is dependent upon the Earth’s new center of mass, and therefore the amount of movement of the cores. THE GTME POSITS A VERY LARGE MOVEMENT OF THE CORES.
“1) Your math is wrong, ergo your last response is invalid.

2) Even if we take your case at face-value, without values your claims are meaningless - you would need pretty large movement of the core to get a d2/r2 ratio to provide a 1-2% change in surface gravity.”

Your math is wrong, plug in some numbers into the above ratio or review the last part of this response.

In reply to my statements about the rapid breakup of Pangea around 65mya resulting in pulses if increasing surface gravity and extinction, you wrote:
“Still doesn't fit the fossil record. The major periods of breakup were not associated with mass-extinctions, but rather increases in species diversity:

No extinctions around 65mya???? The graph you provided shows otherwise but a clearer image is:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/03/10/mn_extinction.jpg

On the reduction in size of the sauropods, you wrote:
“The shifts in body shape you claim occur were not universal across all large caldes - which is what would have to happen if gravity was the cause.”

Do you have any references to support this statement? The effect would have been most obvious on the largest and tallest dinosaurs......and that’s what we see.

“Large sauropods are found at all elevations near the KT-boundary; picking the one continent where there numbers appear to have dropped doesn't bolster your argument, but instead is a clear-cut case of you cherry-picking data to "prove" your model.”

I assume you meant “latitudes” when you wrote “elevations.”
I’m not “cherry-picking”...if you have any references to prove otherwise, I’d like to see them.

“Sauropods are found upto the KT boundary, but not beyond it. So it is fair to claim they all disappeared at the KT boundary. “

Your link seems to be broken, here’s one:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-dinosaur-lost-world.htm

This is consistent with the GTME. The dinosaurs that survived the K-T boundary were found in a near-equatorial region where surface gravity would be at minimum values compared to other parts of Pangea, ie., not in Canada, Australia, Siberia, New Zealand, etc. And, their survival for only another 500,000 years has to be explained......increasing surface gravity is my explanation.

You wrote:
“But in this context, rapid can be very well defined. For your model to work the breakup must occur faster that the core can shift.”
No, they are simultaneous........one is a reaction to the other in small increments.
I have to echo my previous statements that the breakup of Pangea was at its most rapid rate around 65mya, primarily in a longitudinal direction. Study the movement of the subcontinent of India at this time. It moved from the southern tip of Africa to current position of Reunion Island (the location of the hot-spot volcano that formed the Deccan Traps) in a geologically brief period.

On Courtillot and his views, no “cut and paste from wikipedia” involved. I have his book right in front of me as I type this. Nothing I’ve written here has been copied from anywhere.
I won’t debate the volcanic vs. asteroid extinction theories because, as you might have guessed, I believe surface gravitational changes caused the extinctions. BTW, your link theorizes that multiple asteroids fell during the K-T period, I didn’t see any support for extinction. I introduced Courtillot’s work not to support the volcanic theory of extinction; his pointing out the connection between hot-spot volcanic eruptions and extinction periods actually supports the GTME. I’ll explain this in a subsequent posting.

On the lack of a “bone pile” at the time of impact I would repeat my view, which is:
The impact should have created sand storms, mudslides, tsunamis, etc. which would have buried large numbers of land vertebrates, including dinosaurs. I have not heard of any, have you?
In answer to your references about an “abrupt end to dinosaur fossilization at the K-T boundary I would refer you back to my link describing Fassett’s so-called “lazarus dinosaurs” that made it past the K-T boundary and survived for 500,000 years.

Your statement that the rapid gravitational changes would be accompanied by changes in the formation of sedimentary rocks is incorrect. There might be changes in slumping of mud or volcanic flows, which would probably be weak evidence to pursue but not sedimentation. Paleomagnetic data verifying gravitational change?? Please explain.
Glad you mentioned Paleomagnetic data because there is some that support the GTME. The two superchrons, the Kiaman long reversed superchron and the Cretaceous long normal superchron were extremely long periods when the Earth’s north and south poles did not reverse polarity. Clearly, something unusual was happening related to the cores and/or the core/mantle boundary. I have not found a credible explanation for this. The Kiaman superchron occurred as the continents were in their final consolidation phase forming Pangea, meaning (according to GTME) the core(s) were moving to their furthest distance away from the Earth’s center. The Cretaceous superchron occurred as Pangea was breaking up, the core(s) moving back toward their central location. And, very significantly the polarity of the two superchrons are reversed. Could the movement of the core(s) in two different directions during these two periods, per GTME, explain the difference in polarity? Quite possible and shifting cores could explain the supershrons.

On computer modeling vs. experiments using extant birds, I have to repeat my belief that the latter will produce more accurate results. Aeronautical programs are probably very accurate for designing and testing fixed wing aircraft powered by constant energy supplied means, not for flapping pterosaurs. Yes, “ pterosaurs are not birds” but they are more like birds than airplanes.
The same applies to computer models for sauropods. How did the models handle the high blood pressure required to pump blood to the brains of the dinosaurs? Did they provide for the additional mass of gastroliths? Did they use bone, muscle, ligaments of extant mammals as a reference? If they did, that has to be rejected per your “pterosaurs are not birds” analogy.
Dr. Roger Seymour of the Adelaide University believes that the large sauropods could not position their necks vertically to feed:
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news180.html

Yet other scientists said they did: just google the words dinosaurs held head high
and you will get many websites.
I only know of one way to reconcile the two views.....I think you know my answer.

Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect. All that is needed is the ratio I supplied earlier:
r^2/d^2 Where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance from the center of mass of Pangea to the new center of mass of the Earth after the core shifting. YES, I BELIEVE THE CORE SHIFT WAS SUBSTANTIAL WITH THE INNER CORE NOT REMAINING AT THE CENTER OF THE OUTER CORE.
A simple example should suffice:
The Earth has a diameter of 12 units
The Earth’s center of mass shifts from position 6 to position 8 (i.e. 8 units away from Pangea)
The ration of the new G to the old G is r^2/d^2= 6^2/8^2= 36/64= 56%
A shift from position 6 to position 9 gives 44%.

Laze
ImagingGeek,

The current theory, the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (GTME) is supported by not only the things just described, i.e., the extreme size of some dinosaurs, their near equatorial habitats per the theorized gravitational gradient and the disappearance of all non-avian dinosaurs near the K-T boundary, but by other evidence.

Courtillot makes the case for hot-spot volcanos as an alternative to the asteroid impact mode of extinction. He correctly points out the numerous extinction events that have occurred in the last 250my that were accompanied by hot-spot volcanos. These volcanos are believed to originate at the core/mantle boundary, producing a plume that rises to the Earth’s surface. As you know, the hot-spot volcano that formed the Deccan Traps in India was active during the K-T transition. The killing mechanism of both the hot-spot volcanos and asteroid impacts are believed to be similar: sulfur compounds ejected into the atmosphere causing a cooling of temperatures followed by a global warming from carbon dioxide, in addition to the effects of other contaminates injected into the atmosphere. However, no explanation for the cause of hot-spot volcanos is offered.

The GTME does offer an explanation for the hot-spot volcanos, which is that they result from movements of the core(s). And, of course, the core movements are the result of movement of large continental masses. Based on this, during the last 200my when Pangea rifted and broke apart, each significant movement of continental mass resulted in a pulse of two things: a plume of basaltic lava that would form a hot-spot volcano eruption and a pulse of surface gravity increase. Therefore, the coincidence of the extinction events and hot-spot volcanos are tied together and the extinction events, according to GTME, were the result of gravitational increases and not the result of cooling, global warming or other volcanic/asteroid causes.

The Deccan Traps produced a very large number of volcanic flows over a period of perhaps a million years (although the duration is debated). Therefore, the GTME posits that each flow corresponds to a major movement of continents. The continents, during this period, had separated from Pangea and were moving apart rapidly, primarily longitudinally. This movement would have resulted in major core shifting; moving the core(s) toward the central location while initiating the plumes. Since the K-T transition, the magnitude of hot-spot volcano’s flood basalt outpouring has steadily declined, something that would be expected because continental movement would have a corresponding lesser effect on core movement as the land masses moved further and further away from the consolidated Pangea position.

The common belief that an asteroid or even volcanism caused the K-T extinctions, based on the GTME, must challenged. It is not disputed that they can cause local extinctions but to be able to wipe out entire global species required a global force. I believe changes to surface gravitation was that force.

Laze
Preearth:
You are about to exceed the tolerance level for rude and insolent behavior. One more post calling people names and accusing them of being liars, etc., and you will find yourself edited out of existence. Show some self respect and refrain from digging in the ditch of personal attacks. It adds nothing to the discussion and makes you look like a fool. Mind your manners, or I'll start editing your messages.
As a junior member, it grieves me to witness more senior members resorting to ad hominem attacks and the use of bold type and capitals, that must be tantamount to shouting. However, there are a couple of, perhaps naïve questions I would like to ask Preearth.

1. I take the point about the bullet and the apple, but would the outcome not be rather different if the radius of the bullet happened to be about 90% of that of the apple? Furthermore, if both were around the same density as the apple, I suspect the outcome would be more like apple sauce than an enlarged apple.

2. “The planetary fusion probably took less than a day…….This rapid cooling was due to the new lava being immersed in the water of the oceans.” Surely an impact of this magnitude would vaporise any surface water, and your timescale would not allow for the reformation of oceans. How, then, could the new lavs be immersed in water?
I wrote a lot, but since edited to cut it down. Long post made short - most of your critisisms were answered in the citations I've provided previously. Maybe you should try reading them, instead of ignoring them and then pretending those materials were never provided. I have only one point of yours I wish to address at this point. If we can get past this, than we can go back to your other points:

Originally Posted By: Laze
Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect.

1) Prove the calculations are incorrect. Simply stating so doesn't make it so. For that matter, putting your faulty (see below) math up as a counter example only weakens your case.

2) They are 100% relevant, in that they put an upper limit on the degree of gravitational shift which could occur, using nothing more than newtonian physics. And they show that the most extreme possible shift you could have - the core sitting immediately under one side of the earth - the shift you get is smaller than the one you propose.

If you think Newton was wrong, say it. Otherwise, show where the calcs are wrong. If you don't then you are going the same route as pre - rejecting evidence that opposes your beliefs without a valid and demonstratable reason to do so.
Originally Posted By: Laze

A simple example should suffice:
The Earth has a diameter of 12 units
The Earth’s center of mass shifts from position 6 to position 8 (i.e. 8 units away from Pangea)
The ration of the new G to the old G is r^2/d^2= 6^2/8^2= 36/64= 56%
A shift from position 6 to position 9 gives 44%.

That is wrong is so many ways:

1) You're treating the core as though it were the entire mass of the earth, which is completely false. The cores combined are ~32% the total mass of the earth. So even if we take your calcs at face value, the shift is 56% of 32% the earths mass, not 56% of the total mass. So your shift isn't 56%, but rather 56% of 32% = 17.92%.

2) Your calculations ignore that the area formerly occupied by the core will be filled by mantle. The mantle weighs, per unit volume, 4.5g/cm^2 while the cores average 11.5g/cm^2. Ergo, the effect of the core shift will be reduced by 4.5/11.5 = 39% due to replacement of the core by mantle. So the 17.92% now drops by 7.01% to 10.91%.

3) Your math is fundamentally flawed. Gravity is dependent on radius, not on diameter. Ergo, you cannot use diameter as the "measuring stick" by which you position objects.

4) Of course, none of that matters since your formula is completely and utterly wrong. Lets derive it from the beginning:

The force of gravity at earths surface is determined by:
Fg = G*m1*m2/r^2

Lets use a consistent test-mass (m1) of 1kg. In the case of the earth (and core), mass (m2) is constant and therefore the G*m1*m2 part of the equation stays constant. Lets use 'a' as the symbol for G*m1*m2. If 'a' for earth = 1, than 'a' for the core = 0.32. But sticking to symbols, our formula now becomes:

Fg = a/r^2, which is the same as

Fg = a(r^-2)

Unshifted, the core is b units (6 in your example, but lets stick with symbols) from the earths surface, therefore under this case the gravity will be:

Fg(start) = a(b^-2)

Shifted, the core is c units from the earths surface (8 in your example from pangea, 4 from the antipode. Under these cases:

Fg(end) = a(c^-2)

We're interested in the change of gravity during the shift, we need the delta(Fg), which is:

Delta(Fg) = Fg(end)-Fg(start)
Delta(Fg) = a(c^-2) - a(b^-2)

This can be written as Fg = a/c^2 - a/b^2

Note how different that is from your b^2/r^2.

To use your numbers we need to convert your units into fraction of an earth radius:

Unshifted = 6 units, therefore 1 unit of radius = 1/6

So unshifted we have 6*1/6 = 1 earth radi

Shifted = 8 units, therefore 8*1/6 = 1.3333 (4/3rds) earth radi

Using your numbers, and a core of 0.32 earth masses (i.e. a = 0.32):
Delta(Fg) = a/c^2 - a/b^2
Delta(Fg) = [0.32/1.333^2] - [0.32/1^2]
Delta(Fg) = 0.18 - 0.32
Delta(Fg) = 0.14,

Which is 14% of a G, a tiny fraction of the 54% your incorrect formula provided. And this formula still does not take into account the gravity of the magma which will fill the former position of the core.

The magma which fills the core will have a G*m1*m2 of:
a' = 0.32*0.39 = 0.1248

Since this "filler" is at the former position of the core, r = 1, therefore Fg(filler) = 0.1248/1^2 = 0.1248.

Delta(Fg) now becomes:
Delta(Fg) = Fg(end)- Fg(start) + Fg(filler)
Delta(Fg) = 0.18 - 0.32 + 0.1248
Delta(Fg) = -0.0152

Which is 1.52% decrease in gravity at pangea.

Bryan
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
As a junior member, it grieves me to witness more senior members resorting to ad hominem attacks and the use of bold type and capitals, that must be tantamount to shouting. However, there are a couple of, perhaps naïve questions I would like to ask Preearth.

1. I take the point about the bullet and the apple, but would the outcome not be rather different if the radius of the bullet happened to be about 90% of that of the apple? Furthermore, if both were around the same density as the apple, I suspect the outcome would be more like apple sauce than an enlarged apple.

2. “The planetary fusion probably took less than a day…….This rapid cooling was due to the new lava being immersed in the water of the oceans.” Surely an impact of this magnitude would vaporise any surface water, and your timescale would not allow for the reformation of oceans. How, then, could the new lavs be immersed in water?


Welcome to the thread, bill. Don't worry, you'll soon be writing ALL IN CAPS, and in bold, AND SOMETIMES BOTH.. Its called frustration...

To come back to the apple example, pre's original example doesn't even stand upto scrutiny. An apple, shot with a bullet, explodes:



Video, relevant time point is 0:21

And you are 100% correct; scale up the size of the "bullet" and you'll end up with something between apple sauce and apple juice.

I didn't even think of the vaporizing water thing.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

I did write “Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect.” Your calcs in the last posting are also incorrect and based on erroneous assumptions.

You stated that “You’re treating the core as though it were the entire mass of the earth....”
Not so, I have used a lot of care in all of my prior posts to describe relevant distances as, for example, “the distance from the CENTER OF MASS of Pangea to the new CENTER OF MASS of the Earth” after the core(s) shift, I have not stated “to the shifted cores” when calculating gravitational changes.

You have, in your latest calculation, switched those two terms:

“Shifted, the CORE is c units from the earths surface (8 in your example from pangea, 4 from the anitpode.” If you reread my statement which you have inserted near the top of your post you will see this.
Therefore, you cannot compare the results you get with those of mine.

My calc, using r^2/d^2 as the ratio of lowered G to current G, in which I repeatedly defined ‘d’ as the distance from the CENTER OF MASS of Pangea to the new CENTER OF MASS of the Earth is based on Newton’s Gravity Law.
You wrote: “If you think Newton was wrong, say it.” Definitely not, this whole theory is based on Newton’s laws.

You wrote:
“Your math is fundamentally flawed. Gravity is dependent on radius, not on diameter. Ergo, you cannot used diameter as the ‘measuring stick’ by which you position objects.”

I’m not sure if you are confusing my use of the letter ‘d’ for distance with diameter because nowhere in my posting do I use diameter as a variable to describe changes in gravitation. BTW, your statement is incorrect.......gravity depends on the inverse square of distance, not on radius.

Since you replaced CENTER OF MASS with CORE in your calcs, they must be discarded for comparison to my calcs, which are not “....completely and utterly wrong.” They conform 100% with Newton’s laws.

Even though your calcs must be discarded, I will point out another error:
You wrote:
“Delta (Fg)=Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler)”
This is incorrect because you have ignored the effect of the filler before the shift. The equation should be:
Delta (Fg)=Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler-end) - Fg(filler-start)

The most important erroneous assumption that you have made is one that I also made at one time:
You, and at one time I, assumed that when the outer core shifts off center, it maintains its spherical shape. This would not be the case, centripetal forces would distort its shape; the greater the core shift the greater the flattening distortion. It would be comparable to putting a blown-up balloon into a somewhat larger rigid spherical container and then pushing the balloon against the side of the chamber. In the case of the outer core, this would shift the CENTER OF MASS further from the Earth’s center, i.e., further away from Pangea, than if the outer core retained its spherical shape.

Laze
Originally Posted By: Laze

I did write “Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect.” Your calcs in the last posting are also incorrect and based on erroneous assumptions.


Stating so does not prove it. Show where the math is wrong. Show where a calculation was done wrong. Show where the calcualtions are inconsistent with basic physics.

Saying "your math is wrong" is no different then a kid throwing a temper-tantrum.

This is a science board. Show us your science. If you want to make non-specific whines about how the mean scientists don't buy your incorrect math, I can direct you to a creationist board or two.

Originally Posted By: Laze
You stated that “You’re treating the core as though it were the entire mass of the earth....”
Not so, I have used a lot of care in all of my prior posts to describe relevant distances as, for example, “the distance from the CENTER OF MASS of Pangea to the new CENTER OF MASS of the Earth” after the core(s) shift, I have not stated “to the shifted cores” when calculating gravitational changes.


And another math fail. From your post (#35896):

The Earth has a diameter of 12 units
The Earth’s center of mass shifts from position 6 to position 8 (i.e. 8 units away from Pangea)
The ration of the new G to the old G is r^2/d^2= 6^2/8^2= 36/64= 56%


Where in the above calculation did you account for the core only weighting 32% the total mass of the earth? Where did you account for the back flow of mantle that would fill that space?

The answer, of course, is you didn't. Ignoring that your "formula" runs counter to the physics of gravity, the only way you could get a reduction in gravity of that size is by moving the entire earth. The core is not enough.

In fact, we can figure out exactly how far you would have to move the entier earth, to get Fg down to 0.56G:

Fg = G*m1*,2/r^2
0.56G = 1/r^2
r = 1.33631 earth radi

You'll notice that the size of the shift - 1.33 (AKA 4/3), is exactly equal to the size of the shift in your example (8/6, AKA 4/3).

The math says you are wrong. Either prove that I did something wrong with the math, or show us the derivation of your d^2/r^2 formula.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote: “If you think Newton was wrong, say it.” Definitely not, this whole theory is based on Newton’s laws.


Really? Then why is it you are calculating changes in gravitational force without actually calculating a change? Changes (deltas), since you seem to have forgotten your math, are always calculated via additive or subtractives; what you have is a ratio, not a difference.

And, for that matter, it is impossible to derive your formula from newtons law of gravitation.

And if I'm wrong on that later point - PROVE IT. Derive your formula, and post it here.

I've put my chips on the table; strange that you have not.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You wrote:
“Your math is fundamentally flawed. Gravity is dependent on radius, not on diameter. Ergo, you cannot used diameter as the ‘measuring stick’ by which you position objects.”

I’m not sure if you are confusing my use of the letter ‘d’ for distance with diameter because nowhere in my posting do I use diameter as a variable to describe changes in gravitation.


Sure you do. Your D of 8 can only be mapped using diameter. If using radius, as you should be using, that would be 2 (or -2, depending on how you label your axis).

Originally Posted By: Laze

BTW, your statement is incorrect.......gravity depends on the inverse square of distance, not on radius.

The inverse square of what? I'll give you a hint - it isn't the inverse square of the diameter!

I cannot believe you actually wrote the above - gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the RADIUS. To say gravity is not dependent on the radius is like saying John Lennon has nothing to do with the Beetles. Radius, but the way, is the 'r' in newtons's universal law of gravitation:

Fg = G*m1*m2/r2
..................^ That guy right there

Originally Posted By: Laze

Since you replaced CENTER OF MASS with CORE in your calcs, they must be discarded for comparison to my calcs, which are not “....completely and utterly wrong.” They conform 100% with Newton’s laws.


Prove it. Derive your formula from either Newtons law of gravitation, or general relativity, and post the derivation here. If you cannot, then your formula does not conform.

I'd point out that the formula I derived IS based on newtons law of gravitation, and I posted my derivation here. Lets see your response...

Originally Posted By: Laze

Even though your calcs must be discarded


And there it is folks - no reason as to why they should be discarded, only that they should. Of course anyone reading this thread knows why they must be discarded - because they conflict with your beliefs. You're like the Catholic church, demanding that everyone ignore Galleleo proof of a heliocentric solar system. And your reason is the same as theirs - you've got some random scribbles which you believe over properly derived, and evidenced, science.

Originally Posted By: Laze

, I will point out another error:
You wrote:
“Delta (Fg)=Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler)”
This is incorrect because you have ignored the effect of the filler before the shift. The equation should be:
Delta (Fg)=Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler-end) - Fg(filler-start)


The reason I did not add in that number is because it is extremely difficult to deal with. That filler, pre-shift, would be in a roughly hemispherical shell. Because its flow is not even (i.e. most of its flow will come from the side where the core moves to), it cannot be treated as a point mass. A crude approximation would be to treat it as if it all were a point mass, located mid-way between core and the surface, opposite pangea. The mass will be the same as the mass of the filler, so:

a' = 0.32*0.39 = 0.1248 (from my last post)
r' = 0.6769, from pangea = 1.6769

Fg(pre-filler) = 0.1245/1.6769^2
Fg(pre-filler) = 0.04427G

And from before:
Fg(start) = 0.32
Fg(end) = 0.18
Fg(filler) = 0.1248

Delta(Fg) = Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler-end) - Fg(filler-start)
Delta(Fg) = 0.18 - 0.32 + 0.1248 - 0.04427
Delta(Fg) = -0.05947

Still a small fraction of the 54% you're claiming; in fact its pretty much 1/10th of what you claimed.

Originally Posted By: Laze
The most important erroneous assumption that you have made is one that I also made at one time:
You, and at one time I, assumed that when the outer core shifts off center, it maintains its spherical shape. This would not be the case, centripetal forces would distort its shape; the greater the core shift the greater the flattening distortion. It would be comparable to putting a blown-up balloon into a somewhat larger rigid spherical container and then pushing the balloon against the side of the chamber. In the case of the outer core, this would shift the CENTER OF MASS further from the Earth’s center, i.e., further away from Pangea, than if the outer core retained its spherical shape.


No, the center of mass would remain the same; angular momentum dictates that - unless you're planning on breaking not only the laws of gravity, but also the law of conservation of energy as well.

As I've challenged 3 or 4 times above - SHOW US THE MATH. Starting from known physical principals, derive d^2/r^2.

If you cannot show us that, then you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm gone for a week on holiday - that'll give you plenty of time to write out the math and post it here. If you can hammer it out in the next 6 or so hours, I may be able to reply before I leave (but I doubt it).

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

I don't want to spoil your holiday......so I'll delay my response until you get back.

Enjoy your holiday.

Laze
ImagingGeek,

In reference to your calculations, You asked:
“Show me where the math is wrong.”
“Show where the calculations are inconsistent with basic physics.”

I will show you where you have made errors in your basic assumptions that are inconsistent with basic physics, making all of your calculation irrelevant. Let’s start with basic physics:


In response to my stating that:
“BTW, your statement us incorrect.....gravity depends on the inverse square of distance, not on radius”, you responded:

“The inverse square of what? I’ll give you a hint - it isn’t the inverse square of distance!”
“I cannot believe you actually wrote the above - gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the RADIUS. To say gravity is not dependent on the radius is like saying John Lennon has nothing to do with the Beetles(sic). Radius, but(sic) the way, is the ‘r’ in newton’s universal law of gravitation:

Fg = G*m1*m2/r^2
.............^ That guy right there”

I’m shocked because what you just wrote is totally wrong. This is something one learns in high school physics.

Sorry, “That guy right there” IS THE VARIABLE FOR DISTANCE in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation:


“EVERY PARTICLE OF MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE ATTRACTS EVERY OTHER PARTICLE WITH A FORCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE PRODUCT OF THE MASSES OF THE PARTICLES AND INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM.”

This equation is usually written as:
F = G mm’/r^2
Where F is the resultant force
m is one mass
m’ is the other mass
r is the distance between m and m'
(NOT RADIUS)
G is the gravitational constant

The letter ‘r’ is used, I assume, because Newton was dealing with the Earth (and maybe the Moon) when he developed this law. Therefore, ‘r’ was used in writing this law because the radius of the Earth was the specific value of the variable distance that he was concerned with.


Let’s derive my ratio of the lowest G (the ‘F’ in Newton’s Law stated above) to today’s G:
To avoid confusion between the gravitational constant G and the force of gravity (which we have been using ‘G’ to represent) let’s use lower case ‘G’ (i.e., ‘g’) to represent the force of gravity. In other words ‘g’ represents the weight of, in this case, of an object on the surface of Pangea (near Pangea’s center of mass). Also, for clarity sake, let’s use ‘d’ as the distance in Newton’s Law.

The weight of an object (today), of mass m using m’ as the mass of the Earth, on the surface is:

g =Gmm’/d^2 =Gmm’/r^2 Where the value of r is the radius of the Earth.

If the center of mass of the Earth shifts away from the object on the surface so that the distance between the object and the new center of mass of the Earth is ‘x’ then the new weight of the object is:

g’=Gmm’/d^2 = Gmm’/x^2

The ratio of the new weight to the old weight of the object is:
g’/g =(Gmm’/x^2) / (Gmm’/r^2) =r^2/x^2

Since I was using ‘d’ instead of ‘x’, remembering that ‘d’ is not diameter, my previous references were stated as r^2/d^2. I hope this clarifies things. As you can see, there is no conflict with Newton’s laws and I was not using diameter as a variable.

Next, let’s examine why your assumptions are not valid by going over my assumptions, most of which have already been stated:

1. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #1:
The process of consolidation of the masses forming Pangea caused a wobble in the Earth’s rotation. This wobble was countered by a force (Newton’s Third Law) whose action was to move the core(s) away from Pangea. For simplicity, I’ll say that this net force could be described as a single vector force between Pangea’s center of mass and the center of mass of the core(s) (at least initially).

2. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #2:
When the core(s) moved from the Earth’s center (also the axis of rotation), the inner core no longer remained at the center of the outer core; it could move independently within the molten core under the force of the previously mentioned vector force and also subject to the, now unbalanced, centripetal forces.

3. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #3:
When the core(s) moved from the Earth’s center, the outer core, like the inner core, was subject to the vector force previously mentioned as well as the centripetal forces. These two forces would have distorted the shape of the outer core, the effect of which would be to shift the center of mass of the Earth further than if the outer core were able to remain spherical. An analogy would be a balloon that is depressed at its center (by the vector force) and the opposing surface spreading out due to the centripetal forces.

4. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #4:
As in any planetary body, density increases with depth. The densest part of the mantle surrounds the outer core. When the outer core shifts antipodally from Pangea, the spherical volume that is left vacant by the shift is filled with the densest material from the mantle. Hence, an additional movement of the center of mass (COM) of the Earth away from Pangea. This is a nonlinear movement of the COM; the rate of increase increases with shifting of the outer core.

5. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #5
When the outer core shifts antipodally from Pangea, the densest part of the mantle at the leading edge of the outer core (i.e., furthest away from Pangea) is shifted away from Pangea, again moving the COM of the Earth further away from Pangea. This is a nonlinear movement of the COM; the rate of increase increases with shifting of the outer core.

I believe all of the above assumptions are reasonable and are based on “basic physics.”

ImagingGeek, Your calcs are based on assumptions that are in conflict with those that I have listed above and are not “real world” assumptions. As a matter of fact, you have not even listed your assumptions; I can only guess what they are. For example, using my assumptions number 4 and 5, you cannot just switch the “filler” from one side of the outer core to the other ignoring the movement of the densest part of the mantle and resultant shifting COM which I describe. Your statement that the “filler” on the trailing edge of the shifting outer core where “most of its flow will come from the side where the core moves to” is wrong. The densest part of the mantle will always move directly toward the new COM.

If I may quote you:
“This is a science board. Show us your science. If you want to make non-specific whines about how mean scientists don’t buy your incorrect math, I can direct you to a creationist board or two.”
There are other quotes that you have made that apply to you as well but I won’t waste the keystrokes needed to repeat them here.

I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but your calcs must be discarded. I have shown that a shift in the COM of the Earth not only involves the cores but also the densest part of the mantle and the outer core does not maintain its spherical shape which is part of the basis for your facile analysis.

We can exchange views on the other things you mention in your last post including
Galileo and the Catholic Church, the Beatles and John Lennon, Creationism and angular momentum in a future post, after we can agree on the magnitude of a change in ‘g’, per the request in your next-to-last post:

“If we can get past this, then we can go back to your other points.”


Laze
I'm sad to say, this is exactly the reply I was expecting. As I expected, you completely failed to show my math was wrong. You completely failed to show my math was inconsistent with the Newtons Universal Laws of Gravitation. You completely failed to support your position, other than to repeat the exact same things you said before.

To keep this short, in order to disprove my math in a scientific manner you simply cannot say "it is wrong". What you need to to discredit my math in anything vaugly resembling a scientific argument is:
  • Show where the math is inconsistent with physical laws. You did not.
  • Show where an error in the derivation was made. You did not.
  • Show that the calculation does not produce the expected result given a known configuration. You did not.

Simply saying "your math is inconsistent with my assumptions" doesn't cut it - as we'll see below, your assumptions do not pass scientific muster - or high school physics for that matter. You can either disprove my math using the laws of physics - not personal assumption - or you have no scientific argument against it.
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,
The letter ‘r’ is used, I assume, because Newton was dealing with the Earth (and maybe the Moon) when he developed this law. Therefore, ‘r’ was used in writing this law because the radius of the Earth was the specific value of the variable distance that he was concerned with.

No, the letter 'r' is used because radius is the correct measure to use. The universal law of gravitation assumes point masses; in the case of non-point masses you must use the radius (i.e. distance from the center of mass) for the math to work.

Now, lets look at your "derivation":
Originally Posted By: Laze
g =Gmm’/d^2 =Gmm’/r^2 Where the value of r is the radius of the Earth.

If the center of mass of the Earth shifts away from the object on the surface so that the distance between the object and the new center of mass of the Earth is ‘x’ then the new weight of the object is:

g’=Gmm’/d^2 = Gmm’/x^2

The ratio of the new weight to the old weight of the object is:
g’/g =(Gmm’/x^2) / (Gmm’/r^2) =r^2/x^2

You've not added anything here you didn't have before, and the math is still wrong (or at least isn't saying what you want it to).

As I stated previously, your formula assumes the entirety of the earth's mass is moving; that is the only condition under which this ratio will produce an accurate result.

Keep in mind that a core shift would only move a portion of the earths mass - your formula does not take that into account. Nor does it take into account the gravity of the material which fills in the space. All it does is measure the relative change in gravity when the distance between two masses (the earth and the observer - AKA m and m') is increased.

And its easy to prove this is the case. Take an example where we rip the earth into two equal hemispheres, and move the second hemoisphere 4 radi away:

Before the rip:
Fg = Gmm'/1^2 = 1

After the rip:
Fg = 0.5(Gmm')/1^2 + 0.5(Gmm')/4^2 = 0.5 + 0.03125 = 0.53125

Your calculation:
1^2/4^2 = 1/16 = 0.0625

Obviously the wrong answer. But we can get that answer if we move the whole planet to 4 earth radi:
Fg = Gmm'/4^2 = Gmm'/16 = 1/16 = 0.0625

That there is proof-positive you math is wrong - the only way we can get your result is to move the entire earth, rather than just the piece.
Originally Posted By: Laze
1. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #1:
The process of consolidation of the masses forming Pangea caused a wobble in the Earth’s rotation. This wobble was countered by a force (Newton’s Third Law) whose action was to move the core(s) away from Pangea. For simplicity, I’ll say that this net force could be described as a single vector force between Pangea’s center of mass and the center of mass of the core(s) (at least initially).

This is correct. Keep in mind that under this condition the earths center of mass is to one side of the earths center of rotation, due to the unbalanced mass of the crust.
Originally Posted By: Laze
2. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #2:
When the core(s) moved from the Earth’s center (also the axis of rotation), the inner core no longer remained at the center of the outer core; it could move independently within the molten core under the force of the previously mentioned vector force and also subject to the, now unbalanced, centripetal forces.

This is incorrect - the centripetal force was unbalanced before the core shift; that is why there would be a precession (wobble) of the earth. Movement of the core would correct this precession, not make it worse, by re-establishing the earths center of mass on the axis of rotation. This is a simple concept you consistently get wrong.

Its so easy:
1) With an unshifted core, the earths center of mass (COM) lies between the axis of rotation and pangea, due to the extra thickness of the crust at pangea.
2) This imbalance will create a precession (wobble) of the axis of rotation, as the axis of rotation will, itself, rotate around the center of mass (tracing out a circle, if observed from a pole).
3) That wobble produces a force opposite to the direction of pangea, this will "push" the cores away from pangea.
4) As the core moves away from pangea, the wobble will decrease because COM will move back towards the axis of rotation. Once the COM is recenetered at the axis of rotation, this force will be zero and no further movement will occur.
5) In this now balanced state, there will be an equal distribution of mass between pangea and its antipod, resulting in equal gravity at both sites.

That is what physics states will happen.
Originally Posted By: Laze
3. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #3:
When the core(s) moved from the Earth’s center, the outer core, like the inner core, was subject to the vector force previously mentioned as well as the centripetal forces. These two forces would have distorted the shape of the outer core, the effect of which would be to shift the center of mass of the Earth further than if the outer core were able to remain spherical. An analogy would be a balloon that is depressed at its center (by the vector force) and the opposing surface spreading out due to the centripetal forces.

You're missing an important point here - that "compressive" force existed before any core shits, as it is due to the rotation of the earth and not the uneven mass distribution. The compression you speak of occurs along the rotational axis. That is why the earth has a smaller polar circumference than it's equatorial circumference. It will not be changed by anything other than changes is the rotational velocity of the earth - the law of conservation of momentum dictates that.

Nor does this provide you with a larger gravitational shift. The distortion will be centered on the cores center of mass, and extend evenly in all directions. Ergo, an equal amount of the "squished" core will be displaced towards pangea, and an equal amount "squished" away from pangea. The law of conservation of momentum dictates this. The end effect is the center of mass remains the same - you do end up with more mass along the plane of rotation, but the center of mass (from where we calculate gravity) remains the same.
Originally Posted By: Laze
4. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #4:
As in any planetary body, density increases with depth. The densest part of the mantle surrounds the outer core. When the outer core shifts antipodally from Pangea, the spherical volume that is left vacant by the shift is filled with the densest material from the mantle. Hence, an additional movement of the center of mass (COM) of the Earth away from Pangea. This is a nonlinear movement of the COM; the rate of increase increases with shifting of the outer core.

This is simply nonsense. The denser mantle material will be filling in the space between the core and pangea, adding not subtracting gravity. Gravity is purely attractional; adding mass can only increase it.
Originally Posted By: Laze
5. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #5
When the outer core shifts antipodally from Pangea, the densest part of the mantle at the leading edge of the outer core (i.e., furthest away from Pangea) is shifted away from Pangea, again moving the COM of the Earth further away from Pangea. This is a nonlinear movement of the COM; the rate of increase increases with shifting of the outer core.

Once again, total nonsence. The material being pushed upon has two options - flow up, or flow around the core to fill the void. Unless you're proposing crust-rupturing flows, the later will predominate.
Originally Posted By: Laze
I believe all of the above assumptions are reasonable and are based on “basic physics.”

The first is reasonable, the rest are totally wrong and could only have been derived in the complete absence of Newtons 3 laws and the conservation of momentum.
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek, Your calcs are based on assumptions that are in conflict with those that I have listed above and are not “real world” assumptions.

And once again, you miss the point. This isn't about how you assume the world works, but rather it is about what physics dictate must happen.

Your assumptions fall afoul of the newtons lows of motion, and the law of conversation of momentum. That means they are wrong - start with a wrong assumption, come to a false conclusion.

The very fact you are unable to directly disprove my math, using the laws of physics is proof-positive you cannot do so. So instead you give us some laughably false "assumption" which you use in place of actual physical laws.

Now, take my calcs; premised on the following facts:
1) The total mass of the earth, and thus its total gravitational field,remain constant. All that changes is the distribution of that mass.
2) The changes in local gravity will be determined by
  • the "extra" gravity due to pangeas additional crustal thickness
  • the "lost" gravity, due to movement of the core away from pangea
  • the "added" pangea gravity due to the backflow of mantle into the space taken up by the core
  • the "lost" gravity from the mantle that was displaced by the core


Originally Posted By: Laze
I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but your calcs must be discarded. I have shown that a shift in the COM of the Earth not only involves the cores but also the densest part of the mantle and the outer core does not maintain its spherical shape which is part of the basis for your facile analysis.

You've shown no such thing. Instead, you've made a series of unfounded and scientifically illiterate assumptions, and used them to replace the laws of physics which so readily demonstrate you are wrong.

So I reiterate my challenge - show how my calculation is wrong. Show it - using math - to be inconsistent with any law of physics. Show the math itself to be erroneous - errors in derivation, formulation or solving. Or provide an example of known grivtational shifts in which my math does not work.

After all, I was able to disprove your math using all three methods. Certantly you can disprove mine with one.

But, as I said at the beginning, this was exactly the pseudoscientific BS answer I was expecting - repetition of things you said before, a complete failure to address the math and laws of physics which show you to be wrong, and "disproofs" based on personal beliefs (assumptions in your words) rather than hard-and-fast scientific principals.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

You still seem to doubt the meaning of ‘r’ in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation, which I stated. ‘r’ is the distance variable, not radius. I do not want to beat a horse to death here so I will not make further comments on this very basic concept.

In reply to my derivation of the ratio of the value of ‘g’ (gravity) of Pangea vs. today’s ‘g’ which I calculated to be r^2/d^2, where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance between the center of mass of Pangea and the center of mass of the Earth after the core(s) shifting, you wrote:

“As I stated previously, your formula assumes the entirety of the earth's mass is moving; that is the only condition under which this ratio will produce an accurate result.”

To be precise, reread my statement before your quote above, it is pretty clear.

Your example of splitting the Earth into two hemisphere’s is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with what we are discussing and therefore, those calculations are meaningless. BTW, your calculations in that example are totally wrong. You would have to find the COM of each hemisphere and use the distances from those points to the fixed reference point to get a meaningful number.

In response to Laze’s Assumption #2, you wrote:
“This is incorrect - the centripetal force was unbalanced before the core shift; that is why there would be a precession (wobble) of the earth. Movement of the core would correct this precession, not make it worse, by re-establishing the earths center of mass on the axis of rotation. This is a simple concept you consistently get wrong.”

You are confusing what I wrote. The unbalanced centripetal (or centrifugal) forces that I specified applies to the core(s) that have shifted from the central position, I was not referring to the entire Earth. My wording is very clear but you are distorting what I wrote.
In addition, your comment that the movement of the core would reestablish the Earth’s COM on the axis of rotation is the biggest error you have made. I must emphasize this point:

THE CONSOLIDATED CRUSTAL MASS OF PANGEA IS MUCH, MUCH SMALLER THAN THE CORE(S), THEREFORE THE SHIFT OF THE CORES RESULTS IN THE EARTH’S COM MOVING AWAY FROM THE AXIS OF ROTATION.

If I succeed in anything in this post it will be to get you to understand the above scenario. Your statement:
“4) As the core moves away from pangea, the wobble will decrease because COM will move back towards the axis of rotation. Once the COM is recentered at the axis of rotation, this force will be zero and no further movement will occur.”

Based on what I just wrote above, this is wrong. Yes, the wobble will decrease because the movement of the core(s) will offset the moment of inertia imbalance caused by the consolidation of continental land masses. It will not cause the COM to be located on the axis of rotation.
And therefore, your following statement is also incorrect:
“5) In this now balanced state, there will be an equal distribution of mass between pangea and its antipode, resulting in equal gravity at both sites.”

I won’t repeat your criticism of Laze’s Assumption #3 because it is too wordy and incorrect. There are two forces acting on the core(s). The vector force mentioned, as a result of Newton’s Third Law of Motion and the unbalanced centripetal/centrifugal forces on the core(s) once they move off center. Therefore, the result is radial forces on the core(s) away from the Earth’s center making the “squished” core(s) movement toward Pangea impossible.

In response to Laze’s Assumption #4, you wrote:
“This is simply nonsense. The denser mantle material will be filling in the space between the core and pangea, adding not subtracting gravity. Gravity is purely attractional; adding mass can only increase it.”
Wrong again! As the core(s) move away from Pangea, the Earth’s COM also moves in the same direction. The densest part of the mantle will move directly toward that new COM, hence away from Pangea and lowering ‘g’ on Pangea further.

In response to Laze’s Assumption #5, you wrote:
“Once again, total nonsence. The material being pushed upon has two options - flow up, or flow around the core to fill the void. Unless you're proposing crust-rupturing flows, the later will predominate.”

Wrong again! It can’t flow around, read my response to Laze’s Assumption#4. The resultant densest part of the mantle will still be a concentric (or as close to concentric as possible) ring layer around the shifted core(s) resulting in the COM moving further away from Pangea. Therefore, your “flow around” is wrong.

The balance of your statement are without merit. You statement that I have violated Newton’s laws are wrong. Actually, it is you who have misused and misinterpreted them making assumptions about “squishing” of the densest part of the mantle and your hemispheres example.
Please address the highlighted (in caps) statement I made earlier because it is the most important point in this post.
Originally Posted By: Laze
In reply to my derivation of the ratio of the value of ‘g’ (gravity) of Pangea vs. today’s ‘g’ which I calculated to be r^2/d^2, where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance between the center of mass of Pangea and the center of mass of the Earth after the core(s) shifting, you wrote:

“As I stated previously, your formula assumes the entirety of the earth's mass is moving; that is the only condition under which this ratio will produce an accurate result.”

To be precise, reread my statement before your quote above, it is pretty clear.

And it is still wrong. Being clear about a wrong concept doesn't make you right - it makes you clearly wrong.

I did the math, using the universal law of gravitation, that the only way your formula provides the shifts you claim it does is if you shift the entire mass of the earth.

You were unable to refute that - in fact, you cut that direct disproof of your formula from your reply. And you've steadfastly ignore the two scientific papers I provided that directly disproved your hypothesis.

So, in summary, you're argument in favour of your hypothesis is to ignore data.

[sarcasm] very sciency of you[/sarcasm]
Originally Posted By: Laze
Your example of splitting the Earth into two hemisphere’s is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with what we are discussing and therefore, those calculations are meaningless.

100% wrong. we are talking about the effects of shifting a portion of the earths mass on the gravity felt at a specific point. Moving half the earths mass is exactly the same - only simplified as we do not have to worry about movement of other portions of the earth.

And the results of those calcs are clear - your math is wrong.
Originally Posted By: laze
BTW, your calculations in that example are totally wrong. You would have to find the COM of each hemisphere and use the distances from those points to the fixed reference point to get a meaningful number.

I was keeping things simple, since you seem to have difficulty following the math we've used already - i.e. not understanding how a ratio is not a delta. But, for the sake of accuracy, lets re-do it, using the proper COM for a hemisphere; which, BTW, is 3/8ths the radius of the sphere for a uniform object. In the case of a split earth it'll be larger (back-of-the-napkin approximation gives me ~2/3rds), due to the denser core, but for simplicity we'll use 3/8ths:

Fg = 1/(3/8)^2 + 1/4^2
Fg = 0.141 + 0.0625
Fg = 0.2035

Your calc:
1^2/4^2 = 1/16 = 0.0625

You're math is still wrong. The only way your math provides the correct shift is to move the entirety of the earth.
Originally Posted By: laze
You are confusing what I wrote. The unbalanced centripetal (or centrifugal) forces that I specified applies to the core(s) that have shifted from the central position, I was not referring to the entire Earth.

You cannot do that - the cores are not closed systems, and therefore you cannot ignore the outside environment. The very force applied to the cores comes from the remainder of the earth; no "rest of earth" = no forces = no movements of the core. This is basic mechanics - you cannot treat an open system as a closed one.
Originally Posted By: laze
My wording is very clear but you are distorting what I wrote.
In addition, your comment that the movement of the core would reestablish the Earth’s COM on the axis of rotation is the biggest error you have made. I must emphasize this point:

THE CONSOLIDATED CRUSTAL MASS OF PANGEA IS MUCH, MUCH SMALLER THAN THE CORE(S), THEREFORE THE SHIFT OF THE CORES RESULTS IN THE EARTH’S COM MOVING AWAY FROM THE AXIS OF ROTATION.

That is no different that what I was saying previously. But what you consistently get wrong is where the force that moves the cores comes from, its magnitude, and what happens to it as the core moves. I assume you're errors come from a lack of understanding of newtons 3rd law and the conservation of momentum - that is all you need to see you are wrong.

Lets make it simple, lets first define terms:
COM = center of the earths mass
COR = center of the earths rotation

1) The force on the core is solely a product of the uneven distribution of mass due to pangea. Pangea's additional mass moves the COM towards pangea, and away from the COR. This now creates a force, as the COM is no longer at the same position as the COR.

I.E. COM != COR.

2) This precessionary force is outwards - i.e. as viewed from the COR, the moment of this force will be towards pangea..

3) The magnitude of the presessionary force (specifically, its moment) is proportional to the separation COR is separated from COM. The larger the separation, the larger the force (moment).

I.E. F is proportional to COR-COM

4) Since the mantle is an incompressible fluid, this force will be passed onto the solid core (ignoring viscosity). This force will push the core away from pangea, as dictated by by newtons 3rd law (equal and opposite reaction).

I.E. F(pangea) = -F(core)

5) As the core moves away from the pangea, the earths COM also moves away from pangea. Therefore the separation of COM and COR decreases

I.E. [COM-COR]t=0 > [COM-COR]t>0

6) At some point the core will move sufficiently such that COM = COR. At this point COM-COR is zero. Since F is proportional to COM-COR, F is now zero.

At this point the core no longer moves; equilibrium has been re-established.

You cannot have a larger shift than that - it defies both newtons 3rd law, and the law of conservation of momentum.

Anyways, I've clipped much of the rest you wrote, as you're simply repeating the same mistake again and again. You've invented some magical force that simply does not exist.
Originally Posted By: laze
Wrong again! As the core(s) move away from Pangea, the Earth’s COM also moves in the same direction. The densest part of the mantle will move directly toward that new COM, hence away from Pangea and lowering ‘g’ on Pangea further.

You love shooting yourself in the foot - don't you. You're treating the core as if it were in a vacuum and gravity was the only force present. Problem is, the core is suspended in a fluid, so we're talking about fluid dynamics - AKA a major part of my ol' PhD thesis. What we have here is the movement of an incompressible fluid around a solid object; gravity is not a factor here as the particles making up an incompressible fluid don't experience a net gravitational force - the force of gravity is exactly equaled in a fluid by the buoyancy of the fluid itself (otherwise, fluids would compress).

So you're assumption #1 is fatally flawed - the mantle will flow as a fluid would; not as a particulate solids in a vacuum.

Secondly, when a solid object moves through a fluid, the fluid around it stays stationary (ignoring the effects of viscosity), and thus it is only the displaced fluid that flows. So what you will end up with, when the core moves, is a movement of the mantle in front of the core to behind the core. If the core remains in the lower mantle, then that is the mantle that will flow. If it goes above that depth, then lower-density upper mantle will be what flows.

Because the mantle is viscous (i.e. not a perfect fluid) there will be some flow of the surrounding material - generally speaking this will result in draw-down of the upper mantle on the pangea side, and upwelling of denser mantle on the antipodal side. Since the mantle is constrained, this will have the effect of pushing additional upper mantle from the antipodal side to the pangea side.
Originally Posted By: laze

In response to Laze’s Assumption #5, you wrote:
“Once again, total nonsence. The material being pushed upon has two options - flow up, or flow around the core to fill the void. Unless you're proposing crust-rupturing flows, the later will predominate.”

Wrong again! It can’t flow around, read my response to Laze’s Assumption#4. The resultant densest part of the mantle will still be a concentric (or as close to concentric as possible) ring layer around the shifted core(s) resulting in the COM moving further away from Pangea. Therefore, your “flow around” is wrong.

Only in a world free of fluid dynamics would this be the case. But hey, 100 pages of my PhD thesis were only on particles movements in fluids - so what would I know?

BTW, a primer for you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KbzBnE6...ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

==================================================

So long story short:
1) You are still completely unable to refute my math, other than by your same old trick of sticking your fingers in your ears and repetitively screaming "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" whilst rocking back and forth.

You remind me of these guys:


Anyways:

1) If you had legitimate, mathematic/scientific proof that I was wrong, you'd have shown it to us by this point. Ergo, the only logical conclusion for us at this junction is you cannot disprove the math.

2) Your "hypothesis" requires that we ignore newtons 3rd law, ignore the law of conservation of momentum, and ignore fluid dynamics in general. I.E. it requires that we ignore science. That makes you "hypothesis" a clear-cut case of pseudoscience.

If it were legit, you'd be able to show us mathematically how you are not defying ma = -ma and F = d/dt(mv).

Show us the math - show us how your little forumla is something more than the ratio of force when a single object is moved relative to the observer. Show us how you can move the core past the equilibrium point without violating the law of conservation of momentum. Show us where the force to move the core comes from without violating newtons 3rd law.

Don't worry, my expectations for you are low. I'm ready for another round of "you're wrongs" combined with more scientifically illiterate ramblings.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,
I’m not sure if you are intentionally using evasive tactics to obfuscate the basic issue we are trying to resolve:

Whether a reduction in surface gravity is possible given the consolidation of land masses that formed Pangea and to what extent that surface gravity changed.

Again, your two-hemisphere example using homogenous hemispheres of constant density (i.e., no central, very dense core material or material of variable density with depth) makes your calculations of no value. I won’t be diverted from the issue I specified above.

Your next set of statements 1-5 are partially correct. One that is wrong is:

“5) As the core moves away from the pangea, the earths COM also moves away from pangea.”
YES! WE AGREE HERE.

“ Therefore the separation of COM and COR decreases”
NO, THE SEPARATION INCREASES BECAUSE THE COR REMAINS THE SAME.

“You love shooting yourself in the foot - don't you.” Seems like you are good at that. The only way what you stated could happen is if the COR moved. It is very obvious that if that happened the Earth would have been in an even more unbalanced state....not only Pangea but a big chunk of earth would be causing the imbalance.

Your references to fluid mechanics and the inner/outer core movements don’t apply here. You can’t apply a laboratory-observed result to this situation. The core(s), as I have explained many times, are subject to at least three forces:

1. The force pushing the core(s) away from Pangea (Newton’s 3rd Law as you previously described).
2. Centripetal/centrifugal forces on the core(s)as they move off-center, directed radially away from the center.
And last,
3. Just as in every planetary body, gravitational forces push all mass to the center of mass of the body; the densest material accumulating around the COM.

Therefore, this flow-around concept:
“the mantle will flow as a fluid would”
which works in a laboratory experiment in which the above 3 forces are absent negates your fluid mechanics explanation.

Again you are, IMO, using a lot of faulty, extraneous, erroneous information to try to distract viewers from the realization that you are wrong. It is you who has misread Newton, starting with the ‘r’ in his simple equation on gravity.

Your assumption that the center of rotation (COR) moves as the center of mass (COM) moves proves that your knowledge of physics needs improvement. Your comparing a laboratory style experiment in fluid mechanics to the inner/outer core dynamics only reenforces this. And, your constant whining about your calculations, which don’t apply here because of your assumptions, not being taken seriously is getting tiresome. Your original request was to resolve the question of whether surface ‘g’ could change, and if so, by how much. Your original postings agreed that it could change.....now you have reversed course and state that it couldn’t. Not a very scientific approach IMO.

Laze
Didn't realize you had replied. My apologies for the lateness of my response.

Originally Posted By: Laze
Your next set of statements 1-5 are partially correct. One that is wrong is:

“5) As the core moves away from the pangea, the earths COM also moves away from pangea.”
YES! WE AGREE HERE.

“ Therefore the separation of COM and COR decreases”
NO, THE SEPARATION INCREASES BECAUSE THE COR REMAINS THE SAME.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

No matter what happens the COR should remain where it is (running from pole-to-pole).

When pangea forms the COM moves away from the COR; it moves towards pangea, as pangea has more mass that the oceanic crust on the antiopde. So COR != COM in this situation. This creates a precession, and thus a force.

This precessionary force causes the core to move away from pangea - a statement to which you agree. Since the core has greater density than the surrounding material, this means that the COM will move in the same direction - also away from pangea.

So when pangea forms, COM moves towards pangea, and thus away from the COR. When the core moves, it moves away from pangea and thus towards the COR.

When the position of the COM = the position of the COR there will be no further processionary force, and thus no more movement of the core.

Originally Posted By: Laze

Your references to fluid mechanics and the inner/outer core movements don’t apply here. You can’t apply a laboratory-observed result to this situation.


Applying pseudoscientific standards on a science board, I see. Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt.

The physics of fluid dynamics do not change from the lab to the "real world". They are the same whether you're talking about a cell in the blood or a star moving through a nebula. Heck, geologists use fluid dynamics all the time - to understand (amount other things) mantle plumes and the formation of the earths magnetic field.

Long story short, the laws of fluid dynamics are very much in play - and can no more be ignored than the laws of conservation of momentum and newtons laws.

Originally Posted By: Laze
The core(s), as I have explained many times, are subject to at least three forces:
1. The force pushing the core(s) away from Pangea (Newton’s 3rd Law as you previously described).
2. Centripetal/centrifugal forces on the core(s)as they move off-center, directed radially away from the center.
And last,

You're missing one thing here - conservation of momentum (and of energy). Anytime the core moves such that the COM is no longer centered on the COR, you will generate a processionary force (i.e. force #1) in the opposite direction. Keep in mind, all internal forces must have a net force of zero. Other wise you violate the law of conservation of momentum (and of energy).

As I said, you consistently make basic errors in regards to basic physical laws. This is a perfect example of this.

Originally Posted By: Laze
3. Just as in every planetary body, gravitational forces push all mass to the center of mass of the body; the densest material accumulating around the COM.

You're mistaking where most of the density comes from. Real-world fluids are not 100% compressible - the iron ore of the core is denser than the same ore at the surface. *Much* of the added mantle density near the core is due to pressure, not because denser material has sunk to the bottom.

Furthermore, mantle flows are slow. Depending on the rate you move the core at (and geologically speaking, you'd have to move it pretty fast to get a gravitational discontinuity) the forces of fluid flow will far exceed those of differential density - hence the flow of fluids will predominate, with density flows correcting any disequilibriums at later time points.

Originally Posted By: Laze

Again you are, IMO, using a lot of faulty, extraneous, erroneous information to try to distract viewers from the realization that you are wrong.

Faulty assumption = faulty conclusion.
I am correct - its as simple as that. The kinds of gravitational shifts you would get from moving the core is far smaller than what you propose. The minutia I write about get written simply to point out where you are making your errors. Take the fluid-flow example - it was provided as a direct refutation of your claims vis-a-vis mantle flow.

The simple facts, none of which you've even attempted to refute:

1) Your formula of r^2/d^2 only works if you shift the entire mass of the earth and does not calculate a delta.

2) At least two scientific papers have directly tested, and refuted, the idea that the force of gravity at the surface of the earth has changed over time.

3) That, using nothing more than the universal law of gravitation, I was able to derive the correct formula for calculating a gravitational shift, and

4) Your proposition requires a violation of the law of conservation of momentum/energy.

Originally Posted By: laze

Your assumption that the center of rotation (COR) moves as the center of mass (COM) moves proves that your knowledge of physics needs improvement.

Seeing as I never said that, one has to wonder what your point is.

What I stated is the distance between COR and COM changes - which is both factually correct and something to which you agreed. The COR remains stationary - but the COM moves and the magnitude of the precessionary force correlates with the distance separating COM from COR.

Originally Posted By: laze
Your comparing a laboratory style experiment in fluid mechanics to the inner/outer core dynamics only reenforces this.

So what you are saying is you disagree with the application of well established physical principals to questions regarding physics.

In that case we better throw out your claims vis-a-vis density, seeing as those principals were also established in a lab.

Or do we only ignore those scientific principals which violate your beliefs?

Originally Posted By: laze
And, your constant whining about your calculations, which don’t apply here because of your assumptions, not being taken seriously is getting tiresome.

They are tiresome, as you constantly fail to address them.

You see, in the scientific world a discussion like this goes something like this:
Me: "There is a flaw in your calculation, and here is my math showing this to be incorrect"
You: "I disagree. Here is the [flaw, error, incorrect derivation] which caused your erroneous result.

In stead you took the route of "Your claim is wrong, and no, I will not provide evidence of your error".

So I'll keep dogging you about this until you man up and provide a real answer. Either you can show my math is wrong, using basic physical principals, or you have to accept is as correct and come up with a valid reason why YOUR numbers differ.

Originally Posted By: laze

Your original request was to resolve the question of whether surface ‘g’ could change, and if so, by how much. Your original postings agreed that it could change.....now you have reversed course and state that it couldn’t. Not a very scientific approach IMO.

Once again, I never made the claim that no shift would occur. Why is it that you must lie about my position to make your "point". My point is, and always has been, the same:

Your math is wrong. The shifts you calculate are many times larger than what the laws of physics dictate they will be.

Everything else has simply been a refutation of your attempts to ignore that math.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

You are still showing a lack of understanding of physics, you wrote:

“When pangea forms the COM moves away from the COR; it moves towards pangea, as pangea has more mass that(sic) the oceanic crust on the antiopde(sic). So COR != COM in this situation. This creates a precession, and thus a force.”

Not quite:
As Pangea forms, in increments, there is a corresponding tiny incremental movement of COM toward Pangea. However, it is not this tiny shift in COM that produces the force you mention. What produces this force is the wobble resulting from the imbalance of the moment of inertia due to the mass difference between Pangea and its antipode. It is not the mass shift alone; mass, angular velocity and radius (of shifted mass) come into play.

If the Earth did not spin and this formation of Pangea occurred, the mass imbalance would be too insignificant....i.e., no wobble and no core shifting.

I know that you will comment with something like “ That’s the same thing I wrote only you wrote it a little different.” Sorry, I’m not buying that.

You then wrote:
“This precessionary force causes the core to move away from pangea - a statement to which you agree. Since the core has greater density than the surrounding material, this means that the COM will move in the same direction - also away from pangea.”

Yes, although I would call it a “wobble” force instead of “precessionary.”

You then wrote:
“So when pangea forms, COM moves towards pangea, and thus away from the COR. When the core moves, it moves away from pangea and thus towards the COR.”

Let me rewrite this with a little more accuracy:
So when Pangea forms, COM incrementally moves toward Pangea in extremely tiny amounts, and thus away from the COR. When the core(s) move, which occurs at the same time Pangea is consolidating, they move away from Pangea at a much higher rate (of distance) than the tiny movement of COM towards Pangea due to its consolidation. Since the core(s) movement is much, much greater than the tiny shift in COM due to the consolidation of Pangea, the net effect is that the Earth’s COM moves away from the COR away from Pangea.

Finally, you wrote:
“When the position of the COM = the position of the COR there will be no further processionary(sic) force, and thus no more movement of the core.”

Totally wrong. If you read the statements above, the Earth’s COM is always moving, starting at the COR and away from the COR, away from Pangea because of the great disparity between the tiny shift in COM toward Pangea due to its consolidation and the greater core(s) shift in the opposite direction due to the reaction force from the wobble.

The scenario would be.....a continent moves toward Pangea (with a tiny shift in COM toward Pangea)........an imbalance in moment of inertia occurs causing the Earth to wobble.....the action-reaction force pushes the core(s) away from the COR away from Pangea. Obviously, this was a multi-million year process.

I don’t want to comment on your other statements at this time because the above issue is the crux of our commentary.

Laze
Laze, you keep repeating yourself, and making the same errors. To say this is getting boring is an understatement.

To be blunt, you are wrong. To quickly address your new errors:

Gyroscopic procession - i.e. what happens to your earth due to the imbalance created by pangea - is determined solely by the speed of the planets rotation and the distance separating the COM from the COR. So the rate any disparity between the position of the COM and COR forms is irrelevant - the final precessionary force produced is independent of the rate that disparity forms.

Anyways, since day one I've been trying to force you to deal with two gaping holes in your hypothesis - holes you ignore by brining up additional irrelevant falsehoods like the claims you made in your last post. If you're willing to address these issues this discussion will continue. If you're going to ignore them for the [sarcasm]2x106 time[/sarcasm] than, AFAIC, this thread is dead:

1) Your hypothesis has been directly refuted by at least two separate scientific studies, using two vastly different methodologies to measure paleogravity at different locals on the earth. How do you account for this data that directly disproves your hypothesis?

The citations:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.p

2) Your "formula" of d^2/r^2 only calculates gravitational shifts when the entire mass of the earth is moved, relative to the observer. I showed the mathematical proof of this earlier in the thread, and derived a proper formula for calculating the magnitude of these shifts. My formula gives gravitational shifts a magnitude of order smaller than the ones your gives. Given this data, please explain:
a) Derive your formula such that it accounts for more than movements of the entire earth, relative to a stationary observer, or
b) Show that the derivation of my formula is incorrect based on accepted physical principals (i.e. math, not name-calling and whining)

The above is how real scientific conversations occur. You can either join me in such a conversation, or you can join the ranks of the other psudoscienitifc kooks on this board.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

I knew it! Yes, I knew that you would threaten ending the discussion when you realized you were wrong.

In my prior post, I proved that you were solving the wrong problem. You were solving the problem as though the Earth was not spinning. You were trying to offset the center of mass shift due to the formation of Pangea (which is tiny) with the core(s) shift. This would apply if the Earth were static (i.e., not spinning). You apparently didn’t know the difference between static mass and rotational mass (i.e., moment of inertia).

Having realized your blunder, you then introduced double-talk in which you mention the rotation of the Earth:
“......what happens to your earth due to the imbalance created by pangea - is determined solely by the speed of the planets rotation.........”

Yes, now you introduce the rotation of the Earth’s after I explained that to you. Go back and read your prior description, which is applicable only to a static Earth.

You then state:
“Anyways, since day one I've been trying to force you to deal with two gaping holes in your hypothesis - holes you ignore by brining up additional irrelevant falsehoods like the claims you made in your last post.”
Of course, you don’t list what those “falsehoods” are. What are they? What are the "two gaping holes"?

You then apply your diversionary tactics by stating that you have cited 2 references that disprove the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction. One relates to Earth expansion, something totally irrelevant to what we are addressing and the other is a link that, when trying to access, gives the message:

“ERROR: The document you are looking for could not be found”

You then return to your diversionary tactics, instead of explaining the “falsehoods” of my prior post. I’m not falling for that. You know what they say: “If it's too hot in the kitchen......”

I’d have more respect for you if you would admit you made an error in the basic concepts being discussed (i.e., that the surface gravitational change was significant) and then we could go on to address the magnitude of that change. Will you admit that or are you ready to bail out?

Laze
Originally Posted By: Laze
In my prior post, I proved that you were solving the wrong problem. You were solving the problem as though the Earth was not spinning.

You did no such thing, and this statement is proof positive you have no understanding of the physical principals we are talking about. Precession can only occur with rotating bodies. Ergo, every single time I used the terms "procession", "processionary force", etc, I was directly and specifically describing a rotating system.

Likewise, every single time I used the term "center of rotation" (i.e. COR), I was directly and specifically describing a rotating system.

The fact you have to stoop to these lies to make your point is pretty clear evidence of both your dishonesty, as well as your unfamiliarity of basic scientific principals and terminology.

Originally Posted By: laze

You then apply your diversionary tactics by stating that you have cited 2 references that disprove the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction. One relates to Earth expansion, something totally irrelevant to what we are addressing and the other is a link that, when trying to access, gives the message:
“ERROR: The document you are looking for could not be found”

LOL, ignoring the papers instead of dealing with it. The first of those papers directly measured paleogravity at several sites on the earth. Had your little magical gravitational change happened they would have observed it. Instead they found that the force of gravity remained constant, throughout the earths history, at the sites they tested. Given that they tested site which were part of pangea, that's a pretty big hole in your hypothesis.

The second link works fine in all but one of my posts, where part of the file extention got clipped. Maybe you should have tried one of the other 4-5 times I posted it (but thanx for confirming you never bothered trying to read it until yesterday):
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

As with the first paper, this one directly measures paleogravity, but this time using a different methodology (tidal deposits), in an area which was part of pangea. No measurable changes in gravitational force were observed, despite the fact that 100MYA-65MYA was extensively covered in their data set.

Keep in mind, you're claiming a 54% shift in gravity; both of these studies don't see that despite having a sensitivity ~10X better than what you're expecting them to find.

And you still have not dealt with the fact that your formula does not calculate what you claim it does.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

I am declaring a red herring alert for your last post. Let’s start with your links that supposedly invalidate a change in surface gravitation.

The ‘Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant’ clearly purports to invalidate the Earth Expansion Theory, which I do not support. You stated:

“The first of those papers directly measured paleogravity at several sites on the earth. Had your little magical gravitational change happened they would have observed it. Instead they found that the force of gravity remained constant, throughout the earths history, at the sites they tested. Given that they tested site which were part of pangea, that's a pretty big hole in your hypothesis.”

The first of the papers did not measure paleogravity, it measured PALEOMAGNETISM. If you don’t know the difference, we’re in real trouble. Only measurements of paleogravity can deduce the size of the Earth in the past. That eliminates that link.

The second link is still not working. When I copy/paste the URL at the top of the screen, nothing happens. How about summarizing the website in a paragraph with direct quotes supporting your position. Or, better yet, supply a link that works.

I’ll repeat my statement:
“In my prior post, I proved that you were solving the wrong problem. You were solving the problem as though the Earth was not spinning.”

If you go back and reread your statements, even though you used the term COR, you were solving the problem as though the Earth were not rotating or rotating at a very slow rate, like the moon. In other words, you were ignoring the moment of inertia (i.e., the rotational mass) of the core(s)/Pangea.
This is why you came to the erroneous conclusion that equilibrium would be established when the tiny center of mass shift of the Earth due to the consolidation of Pangea would be offset by an equal center of mass shift due to the wobble exerting a reaction-force on the core(s).

You claim that I’m correcting you with lies???? Signs of desperation.

My example for a 54% change in surface gravity on Pangea (i.e., it would have been 54% of current “g”) was based on a shift of the center of mass of the Earth from the current center by a distance of one sixth of the diameter of the Earth. Considering we would be dealing with the shift of the inner core, outer core and the densest part of the mantle, I don’t find this to be unobtainable. And yes, my r^2/d^2 (remember ‘d’ is not diameter but distance from Pangea’s COM to the new COM of the Earth) was derived from Newton’s law.

Laze
Just correcting my statement:

"The first of the papers did not measure paleogravity, it measured PALEOMAGNETISM. If you don’t know the difference, we’re in real trouble. Only measurements of paleogravity can deduce the size of the Earth in the past. That eliminates that link."

Should read:
Only measurements of paleomagnetism can deduce the size of the Earth in the past.

Laze
Originally Posted By: Laze
The first of the papers did not measure paleogravity, it measured PALEOMAGNETISM. If you don’t know the difference, we’re in real trouble. Only measurements of paleogravity can deduce the size of the Earth in the past. That eliminates that link.

And Laze confirms once again that he did not read the paper, and that he also has limited understanding of the implications of findings such as these.

The angle of the crystals they use to measure the strength of paleomagnetism is dependent on the local gravitational force. The local gravitational force is dependent (obviously) on the amount and distribution of mass below a test site. From this we can come up with three simple hypothesis:

1) If the mass of the earth increased/decreased over time, this would be apparent as universal changes in paleomagnetism, appearing as a larger/smaller radius, or
2) If the earth had periods of time with areas having significantly different levels of surface gravity, than we would see this as local differences in the paleomagitism measured at different points on the earth, or
3) If the earths surface gravity has been continious over time, this will be apparent in the form of a constant G, and thus constant radius.

As you can see in table 1 of the paper, no significant variations of paleomagnitism were seen in any of the >200 test sites, which are scattered all over the globe. Ergo, there was never any significant deviations in the local gravitational fields at those sample locations.

In fact, this paper puts a cap on the size of shifts that could have occurred, as larger shifts would have been identifiable through the statistical noise. This particular paper puts this at 4-7%, depending on the geological period under question (Table 2).

Originally Posted By: Laxe

The second link is still not working. When I copy/paste the URL at the top of the screen, nothing happens.

Works for me, try clicking this link.

Basically, this paper analyzed the paleoorbit of the moon, using tidal deposits as proxy data for the period of rotation and height of tides:

"Hence the thickness of successive laminae deposited by tidal currents can be a proxy tidal record, with paleotidal and paleorotational values being determined by analysis of measured records of lamina and cycle thickness. "

Tidal heights are determined solely by the ratio of lunar gravity to local gravity. The higher the earths gravitational pull at the measurement site, the smaller the tide.

Once again, was your model correct they would have seen changes outside of those caused by the moons regression, as their sample site was part of pangea. This is not the case (see table 1, Figs 10 & 15).

Originally Posted By: laze
If you go back and reread your statements, even though you used the term COR, you were solving the problem as though the Earth were not rotating or rotating at a very slow rate, like the moon. In other words, you were ignoring the moment of inertia (i.e., the rotational mass) of the core(s)/Pangea.

Really? Perhaps you can show me exactly where I made that assumption.

Oh wait, you cannot show me where I made that assumption, as I never did. This is simply yet another excuse by you to not address the faults in your math.

Originally Posted By: laze

My example for a 54% change in surface gravity on Pangea (i.e., it would have been 54% of current “g”) was based on a shift of the center of mass of the Earth from the current center by a distance of one sixth of the diameter of the Earth. Considering we would be dealing with the shift of the inner core, outer core and the densest part of the mantle, I don’t find this to be unobtainable.

And yet, a basic understanding of the universal law of gravitation shows it to be impossible. I'd point out again that I solved using the law of gravity, to calcluate the delta (change) in Fg, and I was unable to replicate your result and you've been unable to show my math to be wrong.

Originally Posted By: laze
And yes, my r^2/d^2 (remember ‘d’ is not diameter but distance from Pangea’s COM to the new COM of the Earth) was derived from Newton’s law.

And, as I pointed out several times before, your formula only gives the correct answer if you shift the enter mass of the earth, meaning it is completely useless for measuring the gravitational shift when only the core moves.

I'd also point out that your formula ignores all of the things you claim I ignore - rotation of the earth, distortion of the core, etc.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

You wrote:
“The angle of the crystals they use to measure the strength of paleomagnetism is dependent on the local gravitational force. The local gravitational force is dependent (obviously) on the amount and distribution of mass below a test site.”

You’ll have to explain how the “angle of the crystals” has any relationship to local gravity.

You then listed three hypotheses:
“1) If the mass of the earth increased/decreased over time, this would be apparent as universal changes in paleomagnetism, appearing as a larger/smaller radius, or
2) If the earth had periods of time with areas having significantly different levels of surface gravity, than we would see this as local differences in the paleomagitism measured at different points on the earth, or
3) If the earths surface gravity has been continious(sic) over time, this will be apparent in the form of a constant G, and thus constant radius.”

Again, you have to explain what you believe to be the relationship between paleomagnetism and paleogravity. You also seem to be trying to disprove the Expanding Earth Theory with your references to changes in “radius” and “mass.” The theory we are evaluating requires no change in radius or mass.

You wrote:
“As you can see in table 1 of the paper, no significant variations of paleomagnitism were seen in any of the >200 test sites, which are scattered all over the globe. Ergo, there was never any significant deviations in the local gravitational fields at those sample locations.”

At the risk of sounding like a broken record,
Again, you have to explain what you believe to be the relationship between paleomagnetism and paleogravity.

Your second link works this time. However, I don’t believe your conclusion that variations in sedimentation thickness due to tidal variations can measure changes in surface gravity on the Earth.

You wrote:
“Tidal heights are determined solely by the ratio of lunar gravity to local gravity. The higher the earths gravitational pull at the measurement site, the smaller the tide.”

This is your opinion (i.e., what is local gravity?). Remember that the current theory posits a gravitational gradient; lowest “g” at Pangea’s COM and gradually getting higher toward both poles; and highest at the antipode. Since the moon would be facing significant areas of varying values of “g” on the Earth continuously as the Earth spinned, any attempt to come up with meaningful data on tidal variations would be fruitless.

In response to my example of a 54% change in “g” produced by a shift in the Earth’s COM by a distance of 1/6 th of the diameter of the Earth, you repeatedly write:

“And, as I pointed out several times before, your formula only gives the correct answer if you shift the enter(sic) mass of the earth, meaning it is completely useless for measuring the gravitational shift when only the core moves.”

Again, as I have repeated many times, not only both inner and outer core move but also the densest part of the mantle that surrounds the cores also moves further from Pangea. And yes, the “entire mass of the Earth” (i.e., the COM of the Earth) must shift.

Your previous calculation is totally incomprehensible:
Fg = G*m1*,2/r^2
0.56G = 1/r^2
r = 1.33631 earth radi


Finally, you wrote:
“I'd also point out that your formula ignores all of the things you claim I ignore - rotation of the earth, distortion of the core, etc.”

Red herring alert! My formula is very clear....and simple. The formula simply states that ratio of the local “g” at any point on Pangea to today's "g" is equal to r^2/d^2, where “r” is the radius of the Earth and “d” is the distance between any point on Pangea and the shifted COM of the Earth. It doesn’t have to explain how the outer core becomes distorted or anything else.


Laze
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,
You wrote:
“The angle of the crystals they use to measure the strength of paleomagnetism is dependent on the local gravitational force. The local gravitational force is dependent (obviously) on the amount and distribution of mass below a test site.”

You’ll have to explain how the “angle of the crystals” has any relationship to local gravity.

You could try reading the paper, or reading on the relationship between gravity and magnetism...

That said, it isn't rocket science. As paramagnetic crystals form in molten rock they orientate such that they align with the local magnetic field. Gravity bends magnetic fields, therefore the angle of these crystals can be used to determine the force of gravity bending those magnetic lines.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You then listed three hypotheses:
<snip>
Again, you have to explain what you believe to be the relationship between paleomagnetism and paleogravity.

Already stated, and described in detail in the paper I provided.

Originally Posted By: Laze

You also seem to be trying to disprove the Expanding Earth Theory with your references to changes in “radius” and “mass.” The theory we are evaluating requires no change in radius or mass.

Exactly. There are three possible options in terms of the paleogravity record - consistent change over the entirety of the earth (i.e. expanding earth), local changes (your hypothesis) or no changes (i.e. you and the expanding earth hypothesis are wrong).

The record shows the later - no change. Therefore neither your, nor the expanding earth, hypothesis are correct. I would be remiss to not consider all possibilities - which is why I included the expanding earth option.

Originally Posted By: laze
Your second link works this time. However, I don’t believe your conclusion that variations in sedimentation thickness due to tidal variations can measure changes in surface gravity on the Earth.

What you believe is irrelevant, it is what you can prove that matters.

I provided scientific evidence in two separate forms which refutes your claim. Your only reply has been "I don't believe these papers are right".

You can either find evidence they are wrong, or the only logical thing to do is to concede that those papers refute your hypothesis.

Originally Posted By: Laze
You wrote:
“Tidal heights are determined solely by the ratio of lunar gravity to local gravity. The higher the earths gravitational pull at the measurement site, the smaller the tide.”

This is your opinion (i.e., what is local gravity?).

No, that is basic physics. The height of a tide, relative to mean sea level, is determined by the force of gravity pulling down on the water (i.e. the gravity in the local region) and the gravitational force pulling the water upwards (determined by the distance between the moon and earth, in the case of lunar tides).

Keep in mind we use variations in the earths tidal forces on orbiting satellites to map existent gravitational anomalies (used to map the sea floor). Given that you're proposing changes in gravity approx seven orders of magnitude larger than the ones we observe today, the tidal record should have recorded those changes.

So if your hypothesis was correct, the lower gravity at pangea would have resulted in much larger tides during that time period (approx. double the height) - instead we see continually shrinking tides on a pangeal tidal flat.

Originally Posted By: Laze
Again, as I have repeated many times, not only both inner and outer core move but also the densest part of the mantle that surrounds the cores also moves further from Pangea.

But what moves is irrelevant; its how far it has to move that invalidates your hypothesis.

Lets assume that 50% the mass of the earth is shifted away (i.e. the 32% that constitutes the cores, plus a whopping portion of the denser mantle). To get your 54% reduction in gravity, ignoring the gravity of the lower-density backfill, would require a shift of:

Fg=0.5/r^2
0.54 = 0.5/r^2
r = sqrt(0.5/0.54) = sqrt(0.9259) = 0.96 earth radi

Or, in otherwords, to get your 54%G via a core/mantle shift, you would have to move the cores COM to a few km beneath the oceans crust - as in you'd have a tens-of-thousands of km high bulge opposite pangea.

If you take into account the "backfill", and in order to get your 54%G would require that your remove the core, and dense mantle, completely from the earth.

That's a far cry from the 1/6th earth radius your "formula" calculates.

Originally Posted By: laze
And yes, the “entire mass of the Earth” (i.e., the COM of the Earth) must shift.

But that is not the issue with your formula.

The only time your formula gives the correct answer is if you move the entirety of the earth relative to the observer - i.e. calculate the Fg on the observer standing on the earth, verses being several thousand km above the earths surface.

So it will not work for the situation you are trying to apply it to - where the earths distribution of mass changes, but the observer and earth remain stationary in regards to eachother.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

You wrote:
“Gravity bends magnetic fields..........”

How about some proof? Maybe Wikipedia? Please don’t provide an obscure 100 page pdf for me to wade through.

You wrote:
“Already stated, and described in detail in the paper I provided.”

Again, provide a specific, concise reference. If you can’t copy and paste the relevant info then your links are worthless.

When repeating your assertions that tidal effects can measure past surface gravity, which is total nonsense, you conveniently omit my initial response, which was:

Remember that the current theory posits a gravitational gradient; lowest “g” at Pangea’s COM and gradually getting higher toward both poles; and highest at the antipode. Since the moon would be facing significant areas of varying values of “g” on the Earth continuously as the Earth spinned, any attempt to come up with meaningful data on tidal variations would be fruitless.

You then add your traditional double-speak:
“I provided scientific evidence in two separate forms which refutes your claim. Your only reply has been "I don't believe these papers are right".

If you can’t explain what’s in links that you provide in a paragraph or two, don’t expect me to read through 20 pages or more to try to ferret out what you claim. This is just a stalling and diversionary tactic.

You wrote:
“Given that you're proposing changes in gravity approx seven orders of magnitude larger than the ones we observe today, the tidal record should have recorded those changes.”

Seven order of magnitude larger than today??? Show me where I stated that!!!!!
Again, your distorting what has been written is unconscionable.



You keep repeating your nonsensical math without any explanation:


Fg=0.5/r^2
0.54 = 0.5/r^2
r = sqrt(0.5/0.54) = sqrt(0.9259) = 0.96 earth radi

The above is totally meaningless! If this is the best that you can do, we are in trouble. Either provide a complete set of equations or admit that you are fudging it.

Laze
Originally Posted By: Laze
ImagingGeek,

You wrote:
“Gravity bends magnetic fields..........”

How about some proof? Maybe Wikipedia? Please don’t provide an obscure 100 page pdf for me to wade through.

I already provided the citation - its in the first of those papers you still haven't bothered to read yet. That gravity determines the angle of a planets gravitational field lines is a very well understood phenomena, and is thoroughly discussed and cited in the forst paper I provided earlier.

Originally Posted By: Laze
When repeating your assertions that tidal effects can measure past surface gravity, which is total nonsense

And your evidence it is nonsense is...nothing.

Reality is that the hight of tides is directly determined by surface gravity, and thus tidal deposits can, and are, used as a proxy data for gravitational strength. Once again, the methodology and relevant citations for this fact are all throughly covered in the second paper I provided.

Just because you deliberately ignore that paper, and the citations within, doesn't change that reality one iota.

Originally Posted By: Laze
Remember that the current theory posits a gravitational gradient; lowest “g” at Pangea’s COM and gradually getting higher toward both poles; and highest at the antipode. Since the moon would be facing significant areas of varying values of “g” on the Earth continuously as the Earth spinned, any attempt to come up with meaningful data on tidal variations would be fruitless.

Actually, I took that into account. In short, its nothing but wishful thinking on your part. In your situation tidal effects would be very obvious in the record - as tides approach the lower G area they would increase in height - dramatically if we assume your 54% value to be correct. While you may not get an exact measure of G, the decrease in G (as observed in the form of an increase in tidal height) would be eminently obvious.

Once again, your wishful thinking does not eliminate the reality of science. At the end of the day, tidal heights are nothing more than a product of the relative gravitational force of the earth beneath the tidal bulge and the moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Physics

Quote:
laze]You then add your traditional double-speak:
“I provided scientific evidence in two separate forms which refutes your claim. Your only reply has been "I don't believe these papers are right".

That isn't double-speak; that is a statement of fact.

I have provided two papers, which measure the force of gravity at the earth surface, over geological time. Both of them refute your hypothesis, and both of them extensively cite the scientific literature in support of their methods and results. Your response to those papers has continually been "my opinion is they are wrong", without one iota of evidence that is the case.

Originally Posted By: laze

If you can’t explain what’s in links that you provide in a paragraph or two, don’t expect me to read through 20 pages or more to try to ferret out what you claim. This is just a stalling and diversionary tactic.

LOL, your continued insistence to not read those papers is a stalling and diversionary tactic. After all, if you were serious about refuting these papers, it would only take you a half hour or so to read them.

But you and I both know that all of this is an excuse to not read something that challenges your belief system.

And, I'd point out, that I've explained what is in these papers extensivly - even quoted directly from them - in several of my posts. For example, #36322, 36349 and 36274.

Now, seeing as your premise is false - I've extensively described the papers, quoted from them, etc, what is your excuse now for not reading them?

Originally Posted By: laze

You wrote:
“Given that you're proposing changes in gravity approx seven orders of magnitude larger than the ones we observe today, the tidal record should have recorded those changes.”

Seven order of magnitude larger than today??? Show me where I stated that!!!!!

You didn't; math does (although 7 is an exaggeration on my part). You are claiming a decrease of 0.46G. The size of the anomalies measured today are as small as 5uGal. Earth standard gravity is 980mGal.

So you claim: .46*980 = 450.8mGal change
We can detect: 0.005mGal chage
Fold difference: 90,160, AKA ~5 magnitudes of order difference.

Originally Posted By: laze

Again, your distorting what has been written is unconscionable.

Distorting = using math. Call the presses! LOL.

Originally Posted By: laze
The above is totally meaningless! If this is the best that you can do, we are in trouble.

Meaningless? I've shown the math since day 1. And quite ironically, I've made the same assumptions that you did in yours - that we can treat the earths mass and radius as constants. Otherwise, it is newtons law of gravitation. That said, I did make a mistake, and have corrected it below - note that I fix my mistakes; maybe you can learn something from that...

Now, let me take your hand and walk you through this...

Fg = GM1M2/r^2, newtons law of gravitation.

On earth we can "convert" all of these into units of earthlyness, i.e. Fg = 1 earth gravity, GM1M2 = 1 earth mass*G, r = 1 earth radius.

So for the earth, Fg = GM1M2/r^2
Fg = 1/1^2
Fg = 1G

For any component of the earth we can then use fractions of these values to solve for the relative contribution of that component. I.E. for the unshifted core + mantle you are shifting (which I assumed weighted ~50% an earth mass), we get:

Fg(core) = 0.5/1^2 = 0.5G

For a 0.01 earth mass block of matter, located 1.2 radi away from the observer on the surface:
Fg = 0.01/1.2^2
Fg = 0.00694 earth G's

Now here is my small mistake. You are claiming a pangea G of 54%, I used this value for Fg. But my error is that we want to calculate the change in earths Fg as the core moves, not just the Fg of the core.

So before the shift the core+moving mantle provides 0.5G worth of gravity. It moves, reducing (by your claim) gravity by 0.46G, giving a final surface G of 0.54G at pangea.

Assuming the shift in G is due solely to the movement of the core (i.e. no "backflow" filling the space left behind and whatnot), the contribution of the core must be reduced to 0.5-0.46 = 0.04G. So we need to calculate the radius at which the core+mantle's gravitational attraction is reduced from 0.5 to 0.04G:

Fg(start) = 0.5 = 0.5/1^2 (r = 1)
Fg(end) = 0.04 = 0.5/r^2 (r = ?)

So:
0.04 = 0.5/r^2,
r = sqrt(0.5/0.04)
r = 3.54 earth radi

Since the core started at 1R, this is a shift of 2.54 radi

My mistake didn't help you much...LOL.

And don't forget, this shift will be reduced further by the backflow of mantle into the void left by the core, as this will move mass towards pangea, thus adding additional gravity.

Bryan
ImagingGeek,

Your two references that purport to disprove the theory being discussed are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRIKE 1
‘LIMITS TO THE EXPANSION OF EARTH, MOON, MARS AND MERCURY AND TO CHANGES IN THE GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT’

This conclusion of this study is:

“New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion.”

This paper, as I have repeatedly stated, provides evidence against the Earth Expansion Hypothesis by establishing narrow limits on the size of the Earth’s radius for the last 400 my. There is nothing in this paper that precludes variations in surface gravity due to shifting core(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STRIKE 2
‘GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION AND THE MOON’S ORBIT’

The conclusion of this paper is:
“The thickness of successive laminae deposited by tidal currents can be a proxy tidal record, with paleotidal and paleorotational values being determined by analysis of measured records of lamina and cycle thickness.”

Not only is the time period (i.e., Neoproterozoic ~620ma) not near the time of the existence of Pangea, but more important:
There are zero, no, nada references to the words “gravity” or paleogravity” in the entire pdf yet you insist that this paper invalidates the current theory. Absolutely no relationship is made, except by you, between paleomagnetism and paleogravity.
RED HERRINGS ABOUND!
---------------------------------------------------------------


STRIKE 3
Your reference to wikipedia in attempting to use tidal data to refute the current theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Physics

You should go back and reread it, it states:
“Tides vary on timescales ranging from hours to years due to numerous influences. To make accurate records, tide gauges at fixed stations measure the water level over time.”

And,

“The times and amplitude of the tides at the coast are influenced by the alignment of the Sun and Moon, by the pattern of tides in the deep ocean (see figure 4) and by the shape of the coastline and near-shore bathymetry.”

Got any tide gauges from 100mya?


STRIKE 4 (YOU’RE ALREADY OUT but I’ll let you keep trying)

On your claim that I had proposed a 7 fold increase in “g”, you stated:
“...7 is an exaggeration on my part.” From a “g” 1 to a “g” of .54 is close to a ½ decrease, some 14 times lower than you claim I made.
Yes, you do exaggerate!


Your calculations of the shift in COM are still based on erroneous assumptions. I’ll give you the problem to solve using a real-world scenario:

Tonight, you step on your bath scale and weight yourself. You get a reading of 100 lbs (you’re wondering how I knew you were a lightweight). Tomorrow morning you step on that scale and it only registers 54 lbs. You scratch your head and realize that surface gravity has decreased. The only explanation you can muster is that the inner/outer cores must have shifted. All you have is a pencil and paper and Newton’s Universal Gravity Law. You assume that the Earth’s COM has shifted away from you. That’s all you have, so now you figure out the ratio of the distance to the new COM vs. the old COM based on the reduction in your weight.

Let me know what you get as the answer.

Laze
Originally Posted By: Laze

STRIKE 1
‘LIMITS TO THE EXPANSION OF EARTH, MOON, MARS AND MERCURY AND TO CHANGES IN THE GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT’

This conclusion of this study is:

“New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion.”

And once again laze shows us he didn't read the paper.

You see, papers have data, and from that data you can answer questions other than the one the paper specifically addresses. In this study, these individuals took paleogravity measures of G from hundreds of sites scattered all over the world. This data directly refutes your hypothesis.

It's simple - if you were correct they would have observed variations in their measured G across the globe. Instead, their data clearly shows a consistent 'G' across the globe, throughout geological history.

Ergo, the paper directly refutes your claims.

Originally Posted By: Laze
This paper, as I have repeatedly stated, provides evidence against the Earth Expansion Hypothesis by establishing narrow limits on the size of the Earth’s radius for the last 400 my. There is nothing in this paper that precludes variations in surface gravity due to shifting core(s).

Nothing except:
Table 1, which provides the mean and SD of 'G' measured at the varying sites across the globe based on magnetic field line angles.

Table 2, which provides the mean and SD of 'G' measured based on groupings of the varying sites across the globe

And on page 320 (page 5 of the article PDF) the formulas used to calculate radius are measured - and, had you read the article, you'd have noticed that R is calculated based on the changes in surface gravity (dG/dT) measured from the paleomagnetic data.

In otherwords, the "strike" is yours - the radius's they calculated were determined from the measured force of gravity at the various sites they analyzed.

Originally Posted By: Laze

STRIKE 2
‘GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION AND THE MOON’S ORBIT’

The conclusion of this paper is:
“The thickness of successive laminae deposited by tidal currents can be a proxy tidal record, with paleotidal and paleorotational values being determined by analysis of measured records of lamina and cycle thickness.”

Not only is the time period (i.e., Neoproterozoic ~620ma) not near the time of the existence of Pangea, but more important:
There are zero, no, nada references to the words “gravity” or paleogravity” in the entire pdf yet you insist that this paper invalidates the current theory. Absolutely no relationship is made, except by you, between paleomagnetism and paleogravity.

Not working those critical thinking skills much, are we?

I'd first direct you to figure 2 - notice the time scale? Notice the data regarding the very time period we are discussing? Its ironic that you claim to have read the paper, while missing that one of the major points of the paper is the validification and complementation of the methods used to produce figure 2...

And , as with the last paper, the specific conclusion this paper is making is not the same as the one we are asking. But none-the-less, the data within the paper also answers our question.

Now I realize critically analyzing data isn't your forte, but first take into consideration the relationship between gravity, tides and momentum. I realize you're looking desperately for excuses to ignore this paper - like your wikipedia fail below, but none-the-less, that physical relationship is well understood.

Now, the momentum of the earth/moon system is essentially conserved (an assumption shown to be correct on page 55 of the journal; page 19 of the pdf). Ergo, any changes in tidal height must assume a constant momentum. Therefore, the only factor that can lead to broad-scale changes in the tidal heights at a set local is the relative gravitational force between the moon and the earths gravity at the site in question.

Here we have a site, situated on what becomes pangea. And there is no evidence of gravitational changes at that site; only evidence of the moon moving outwards. There is, in figure 2, simular observations acquired from numerous other sites, covering other points in history (including the de facto pangea), also showing no evidence for changes in earthly gravity.

What do YOU conclude from that? The correct conclusion is, of course, that strike 2 also belongs to you...

Originally Posted By: Laze

“The times and amplitude of the tides at the coast are influenced by the alignment of the Sun and Moon, by the pattern of tides in the deep ocean (see figure 4) and by the shape of the coastline and near-shore bathymetry.”

Got any tide gauges from 100mya?

I direct your attention to figure 5, showing the near-shore bathymetry. And I direct you to figure 10, showing the patter of tides in the regional ocean. And lastly, to table 1, providing information as to the sun-moon alignment, orbital periods, day-length, etc.

In other words, we have all the data that wikipedia correctly states we need to calculate tidal heights. So, given that we have that data, what do you think we can do with it?

LOL, that's a pretty big fail on your part - proving in one quote that you neither read/understood the paper, or what wikipedia was saying.

So once again, strike 3 is also yours.

Originally Posted By: laze

On your claim that I had proposed a 7 fold increase in “g”, you stated:

And now Laze is relying on lying to make his point...always the last tactic of the pseudoscientist when faced with the physical impossibility of their claims.

Simply put, I never made the above statement. What I actually said was:
"Keep in mind we use variations in the earths tidal forces on orbiting satellites to map existent gravitational anomalies (used to map the sea floor). Given that you're proposing changes in gravity approx seven orders of magnitude larger than the ones we observe today, the tidal record should have recorded those changes."

Post #36349

Pretty clear what I said. And in post #36363 I clarified what was said, since you couldn't figure it out on your own:
"You are claiming a decrease of 0.46G. The size of the anomalies measured today are as small as 5uGal. Earth standard gravity is 980mGal.

So you claim: .46*980 = 450.8mGal change
We can detect: 0.005mGal chage
Fold difference: 90,160, AKA ~5 magnitudes of order difference."


I'm assuming that catching you in a bold-faced lie counts as a strike. I'd also like to assume that such on obvious demonstration of reading incomprehension is also worth a strike...

Originally Posted By: laze
Your calculations of the shift in COM are still based on erroneous assumptions.

If that were truly the case, you'd be able to list those erroneous assumptions. Since you didn't we can only conclude that once again, you are lying through your teeth.

Originally Posted By: laze

Tonight, you step on your bath scale and weight yourself. You get a reading of 100 lbs (you’re wondering how I knew you were a lightweight). Tomorrow morning you step on that scale and it only registers 54 lbs. You scratch your head and realize that surface gravity has decreased. The only explanation you can muster is that the inner/outer cores must have shifted. All you have is a pencil and paper and Newton’s Universal Gravity Law. You assume that the Earth’s COM has shifted away from you. That’s all you have, so now you figure out the ratio of the distance to the new COM vs. the old COM based on the reduction in your weight.

Let me know what you get as the answer.

I've done this before, and once again you didn't provide enough data, so I'll assume the core + mantle that has moved is 50% the mass of the earth. For simplicity I'll assume the gravitational contribution of the rest of the earth remains constant (keep in mind this will underestimate the size of shift you will need - backflow of mantle would increase local G relative to what is calc'd here):

Fg(start) = 100lbs (I'm flattered, btw) = 45kg * G = 441N
Fg(end) = 54lbs = 25kg * G = 245N
Me = 5.98e24kg
Mcore = 0.5*5.98e24kg = 2.99e24kg
Fg(unshifted core) = 0.5G

Portion of our starting Fg determined by the core = 441N * 0.5G = 220.5N

What this has to be reduced to, to reduce Fg(end) to 245N:
delta(Fg) = dFg = 220.5N - (441N-245N) = 220.5N - 196N = 24.5N

So the core has to move to a location where it provides 24.5N of force.

24.5N = G*Me*M/r^2
24.5N = [6.674e-11 * 2.99e24kg * 100kg]/r^2
24.5N = 1.995e16/r^2
r = sqrt(1.995e16/24.5)
r = 2.853945354e+7m = 28539km

r(earth) = 6371km

therefore, the core must be shifted (28539-6371)/6371 = 3.48 earth radi.

Bryan

In other words, to get this shift in my weight, the contribution of the gravitational force of the core must be reduced from 220.5N to 24.5N
ImagingGeek,

I asked you to solve a simple problem, one that any high school student could solve. Yet, you claim:

"I've done this before, and once again you didn't provide enough data..."

There is enough data for you to solve the problem without making any other assumptions. Instead, you would rather make invalid assumptions to come up with an answer that you want. Go back and reread Laze's Assumptions.

Assuming a value of .5 of the mass of part of the Earth in your calculation is your biggest error. Without knowing what the effective mass of the densest part of the mantle is, relative to the upper, less dense mantle, your assumption of .5 is erroneously misleading. Even you, in an early post, suggested that the near-core mantle might be too viscous to allow core movement, yet you ignore this when estimating total mass movement.

First, solve the problem I gave. If you can't do this, you don't understand Newton's Gravity Law.

Laze
ImagingGeek and his sock-puppet Laze certainly did take this thread of on a tangent, didn't they?
Hey preearth,

Funny thing.........I was starting to think that you were ImagingGeek's stocking-puppet.

Haven't heard much from him but if you want to fill-in for him, welcome aboard. Or would that be re-aboard?

Laze
Hi Laze;

21 out of your 21 posts at scienceagogo.com are in this thread. Not a single post to any other thread.

You disappear for a few months, from Oct 1st till now, but are still able to reply within an hour of being "called".

This is all evidence that you are a sock-puppet, in fact, probably one of the people who run/control this website.
Hey preearth,

The only reason I knew you referenced me in your post is because I have a cadre of sock-puppets monitoring the web.
You are now officially on their Watch-List!

Laze

Pretty much every one of the Geek's comments in the 2nd post (#35758) of this thread, is wrong. After weeks of argument with the Geek, something akin to bashing one's head against a wall, just to prove his first claim wrong, his line 3, I decided I couldn't be bothered any more.

However, I recently decided that I should once again take up the task of pointing out his errors.

We move on to his lines 5 & 6.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed,...
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
There is no smiley that can express my derision at the stupidity of this statement.
The evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH_Vdxs

Relevant time point is 0:47 onwards. Unscathed skin is nowhere to be found.

This is another example of the Geeks misleading replies

In fact, there is no smiley that can express my derision at the unscientific nature of the Geek's reply.

POINT ONE; Even though the Geek ignores it, the velocity of the projectile is important. For example, a bullet travelling near the speed of light would split the apple into subatomic particles. The Geek shows you what a high velocity bullet does to an apple.

Here, is a video of a slightly slower bullet hitting an apple;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV4X_O_Rrrs

where most of the skin is unscathed (i.e., still recognizable as skin and, in this case, the unscathed skin has not even split into pieces).

Another example of this type of thing, is a bullet hitting a human skull. The bullet rips through the skull, leaving most of the skull (and skin, etc) around the entry wound unscathed,... Same basic idea.

POINT TWO; The Geek's claim that "Unscathed skin is nowhere to be found." is, of course, false.

Even in this instance of a high velocity bullet, the apple skin is still recognizable as apple skin. It has just been split into pieces, just as the continental crust was still recognizable as continental crust, and was just split in pieces (called continents, which then expanded apart).
Preearth, this is not a criticism, it is a genuine attempt to learn.
I find myself wondering to what extent a bullet hitting an apple, or a human skull, is analogous to a scenario in which two objects of similar mass and composition collide. The importance attached to this analogy makes me suspect that there is a greater similarity than I can detect.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
The importance attached to this analogy makes me suspect that there is a greater similarity than I can detect.

What are you talking about?

Hardly any importance is attached to this analogy.

It just makes it easier to understand what is happening.
Originally Posted By: preearth
What are you talking about?


This is what I was talking about: " find myself wondering to what extent a bullet hitting an apple, or a human skull, is analogous to a scenario in which two objects of similar mass and composition collide".

Quote:
Hardly any importance is attached to this analogy.


It has figured quite largely in your threads. Is that not a sign that some importance is attached to it?

Quote:
It just makes it easier to understand what is happening.


I find it difficult to accept that it can make anything easier to understand if you do not show the validity of the analogy.
Posted By: Anonymous Susanna Omori - 02/13/11 04:36 PM
agree
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Susanna Omori - 02/16/11 01:50 PM
Originally Posted By: toto
agree


Perhaps, if you say why you agree, it might help with the general understanding. I don't seem to be getting my point across. smile
Posted By: kallog Re: Susanna Omori - 02/18/11 05:15 AM
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: toto
agree


Perhaps, if you say why you agree, it might help with the general understanding. I don't seem to be getting my point across. smile


I agree too :P

It's been shown to have no value because different bullet-apple situations have totally different behaviours. Some consistent with Earth remaining intact and some not.

That shows the analogy is meaningless and people shouldn't bother using it. It's an appeal to common sense which is unscientific and totally useless for sorting out a radical claim.
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Susanna Omori - 02/21/11 08:12 PM
Originally Posted By: K
It's an appeal to common sense which is unscientific and totally useless for sorting out a radical claim.
.

Between us, we should be able to think of a better way of sorting it out. smile

Would accepting that some sort of collision scenario is currently favoured in the scientific community be a reasonable starting point?
Posted By: kallog Re: Susanna Omori - 02/22/11 08:04 AM
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Between us, we should be able to think of a better way of sorting it out. smile

I reckon. You seem to be the most level headed person on this forum.

Only problem is PreEarth hasn't been around for a while. There's no challenge without critical opposition!
Posted By: preearth Re: Mansfield's Earth Theory: The Evidence. - 03/24/11 07:19 AM
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I find myself wondering to what extent a bullet hitting an apple, or a human skull, is analogous to a scenario in which two objects of similar mass and composition collide. The importance attached to this analogy makes me suspect that there is a greater similarity than I can detect.

Actually, I thought I answered this already,.... but,.... here goes again.

The accurate part of the analogy is the formation of a neat round hole where the impacting planet hits.

The inaccurate part of the analogy is that everything will fly apart.

Apples would fly apart but planets will not.

It's really simple to see this. It's just gravity.

If you put two apples side by side, what happens?

If you put two planets side by side, what happens?

It truly is simple.

Perhaps, stating the obvious (from Newton's formula for gravity) might help;

For a fixed distance of separation, the gravitational force of attraction between two objects, is proportional to the product of their masses.

Make it even simpler. Assume both objects have the same mass.

Then the force, pulling the objects together, is proportional to the mass squared.

You get the idea?
S W Carey did Earth expansion with factual evidence. He did not know, as we do not know, what would cause expansion.
Well, do we know what is causing the supposed "planet" at the end of the solar system to be visible?

I do not understand the gas laws much less how matter accretes. But is it a possibility that energy applied to a plasma cloud generating electricity and magnetism would be able to force matter into being?
Originally Posted By: katesisco
S W Carey did Earth expansion with factual evidence. He did not know, as we do not know, what would cause expansion.

What caused the expansion? The expansion was caused by PreEarth absorbing its moon, called Heaven.
By the way, here is a PDF about S. Warren Carey;

http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/2016/1/CAREY.pdf
Originally Posted By: preearth
What caused the expansion? The expansion was caused by PreEarth absorbing its moon, called Heaven.


"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true." (Lewis Carroll)

Especially if I shout!
Did you appreciate the PDF about S. Warren Carey?
Quote:
Did you appreciate the PDF about S. Warren Carey?

I did, it was a very interisting account which inspires me to do some follow up, when time permits.

‘We are blinded by what we think we know, therefore disbelieve if you can!’

This seems to advocate an attitude for which you have criticised me in the past!
You are going to have to get me over the orbital stability issue before I even bother wasting time on this. No stability means not really possible.

This is what you are up against gravitationally speaking read it well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_planet).

Hint calculate the tug-of-war value.
Well, I have kind of been avoiding this topic, since I don't really think it is anything other than another crackpot idea. But I thought I would go ahead and take a quick look at the original post. And right off I was struck by something that just looks odd. According to the idea there were 2 planets of approximately the same size which were orbiting each other. Well of course they were actually orbiting around the center of mass of the 2 bodies, that that is kind of a side thing. But when I look at the post it appears that the 2 bodies apparently struck head on. At least that is the only way I can see it. So what perturbed the 2 bodies so that they quit orbiting and plunged straight together? I could maybe see them perturbed so that their orbits reached an intersection point, but that would produce a grazing collision, not a head on collision.

I suppose that Jupiter could have spit out a different Venus sized body* to cause the weird dynamics, but having it happen twice would be an awfully long shot. Any way I think that having the orbits perturbed that way doesn't have much more chance than Velikovsky's idea.

* "Worlds in Collision" - Velikovsky

Bill Gill
Actually that is the one thing I think that is likely Bill if they did start from an unstable twin arrangement.

As Bill S commented run example 8 & 9 on this link you will see why this can happen visually
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
Doesn't this instability problem just show that the moon couldn't have already been there before the collision? The preearth and heaven would have been stable, right? But any other body in the system would have had the unstable orbit.

Seems to me there are two options:
1) The moon was already there before the collision
2) The moon appeared after the collision

1) has the instability problem for the moon meaning it wouldn't have survived.
2) means throwing away the collision theory for moon formation, because that would have destroyed the continents, at least most of them.

Originally Posted By: Kallog
2) means throwing away the collision theory for moon formation, because that would have destroyed the continents, at least most of them.


Is that necessarily so? Even a head-on collision would throw material into orbit; is it not possible that the moon could have formed from this.

No!! I'm not converted - yet, but I have to be true to my belief that if you can't question it, you don't understand it.
Yes Bill S it could but actually that gives PreEarth a big problem he can't have that energetic a merge otherwise the earth core temperature gets too hot and melts the mantle and ergo earth at that point is just a molten ball he loses all continents etc.

So the solar system is almost 5 billion years old but the merging of the two planets only occurred 250 million years ago. So for over 4.75 million years the two planets were completely stable and were in very close proximity orbitting each other as twins and then without any major event they simply merged into each other.

As I said good luck getting those orbital mechanics to work I have no problem that orbits can become unstable but the events that follow would always be violent. In preearths case they can't be violent or else no land mass shapes left for his patterns.

These claims are so unlikely you would need very good proofs because this sort of mechanism is so unlikely and never been seen if at all possible.

I would think you would also see magnetic field changes and momentum changes in earth. Think of an ice skater spinning, you have two masses coming in like a skater does with the arms eart would spin faster. These should be recorded in rocks and lavas from the period around earth. I see no such evidence presented.

To me I would want to see momentum and magnetic field changes at a very minimum at the proposed merge time before I even consider such a theory.

This all smacks of trying to fire two identical bullets from two identical guns at an infintesimal angle so the two bullets merged in flight. See you say it like that you can make a case ... I will take bets against it any day.
Couldn't they have slowly moved together over a long time, a bit like the moon is slowly moving away?

Preearth could calculate the angular momentum change. Preearth would have to have been spinning at the same speed as heaven orbited, so that the collision was localized in one spot. Knowing the original length-of-a-day would surely be able to be connected with some evidence.
Originally Posted By: kallog
Couldn't they have slowly moved together over a long time, a bit like the moon is slowly moving away?

Preearth could calculate the angular momentum change. Preearth would have to have been spinning at the same speed as heaven orbited, so that the collision was localized in one spot. Knowing the original length-of-a-day would surely be able to be connected with some evidence.

I am surprised,... you got it.

Others (including a number of academics) have looked at this for ages and never figured "the obvious".

As Heaven slowly approaches PreEarth, tidal forces cause PreEarth to spin faster as Heaven orbits faster (i.e., Heaven is kept tidally locked, all the way in).

Tidal forces keep things synchronized, so that even though Heaven hits a "glancing blow" it is actually a "head on collision."

By the way, the reason I haven't told people about this (and a lot of other detail) is that there is organized theft of ideas among academics. And I didn't want to make things too easy for the thieves.

Again the problem is to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical and I do mean identical.

When you tell me this

Heaven mass = 2.48456 x 10^24 kg.
PreEarth mass = 3.48280 x 10^24 kg.

I have a huge problem with orbital mechanics.

Here is the exact analogy for you:

I have two identical magnets hanging on strings which rotate around and I can pull up through a very small ring. the small ring is the centre point where if the strings are pulled fully the two magents touch. You can mathematically show there is a speed you can rotate the magnets and a speed you can pull the magnets together so that the two magnets just touch or kiss because the centrugal force out is countered by the attractive force of the magnets. The magnetic attractive force is our replica of gravity and it obeys the square law the same as gravity. For a given force of gravity, mass of magnets there will be one root of those equation solves.

Now try it with one magnet slightly more powerful. What you will find is there are no roots of the equations. The reason is simple the centrifugal force versus the attractive force never balance to the central collission point. The stronger magnet will always grab the other magnet as they close in because there is no solution to balance the forces.

The orbital solutions will throw up the same problem.

So unless you have changed you mind on the masses of heaven and preearth are exactly (and I do mean exactly) the same weight I can't see how you get around this problem.

And we come back to the point we did agree on that earth must spin faster ... do you have any evidence?

I am not sure why you worry about someone stealing the idea this is just a different version of big impact theory, remember Einstein stole Poincare idea didn't he ..... Just stirring because I can't reconcile your views on these two :-)
Originally Posted By: Orac
Again the problem is to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical and I do mean identical....
I (Orac) have a huge problem with orbital mechanics.

Yes, you (Orac) do indeed have a huge problem with orbital mechanics.

In fact, you truly don't have a clue about it. Not a clue.

Is the moon tidally locked to Earth?
Does the mass of the moon equal the mass of the Earth?
Will the moon continue to be tidally locked to Earth?


Your statement "to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical" (and many other incorrect statements) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Really, you should read up on basic physics, and if you really want to make statements about orbital mechanics, then you will have to put in the hard yards, i.e., read up on it.

This is an update of the original post.

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

Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis. UPDATE.

The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth (called Heaven, so that, the collision can be viewed as the mythical marriage between Heaven and Earth). These two, once comprised a double planet system. Heaven orbited PreEarth, and they both orbited the Sun (just like the Earth and Moon today, except that Heaven, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth, was much larger than today's Moon).

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, Heaven 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 mass of the apple and bullet are so large (planet sized) that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesised situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, caused the non-impacted crust to break into large pieces.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.

Heaven 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 Heaven, 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 Heaven'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 is complete.





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 Heaven 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 Earth'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. This 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. 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 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. 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 map of Pangaea from above, with colour and 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 Heaven and PreEarth. 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, Heaven 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 Heaven reconstituted its mantle by gathering these Ar40 depleted rocks in further collisions, even more argon would be lost and Heaven's new mantle would have almost no Ar40, while PreEarth's mantle would still have its full complement. So, when Heaven 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 Heaven's mantle mixed in, and thus, date progressively younger. Similarly, one expects the material that closed over the impact area, to be mainly PreEarth's mantle, and thus date older.

So, the argon 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 usual methods of dating 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 Heaven 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 Heaven and a large object, blasted Heaven'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 Heaven'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 (and probably earthquakes) 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).

The following is a map of Pangaea from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG);



The above diagram can still be found at

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/9701904.gif
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/index.htm

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea are the most accurate ever produced.

Note that Pangaea (together with the shallow Tethys ocean) is neatly circumscribed by a circle.

Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?

Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.

So; why do you think that Pangaea fits neatly within a circle?

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

However, the PreEarth-Heaven collision provides a simple explanation.

Namely; The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

The non-impacted area is by definition Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea).

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

To get from PreEarth-Pangea to Earth-Pangea you have to adjust for the fact that Earth has a smaller curvature than PreEarth (PreEarth has a larger curvature than Earth). This adjustment introduces splits. Indeed, if you reduce the curvature of a rigid circular cap (e.g., PreEarth-Pangea), i.e., you flatten it somewhat, then you necessarily introduce splits in the cap.

Therefore, Pangea (Earth-Pangea) is circular with splits.

Where the main split is, of course, the pie-shaped region, called the Tethys ocean.
Originally Posted By: preearth
Your statement "to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical" (and many other incorrect statements) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Really, you should read up on basic physics, and if you really want to make statements about orbital mechanics, then you will have to put in the hard yards, i.e., read up on it.


And your attitude and abuse is why you have been banned from what around 35 sites so far probably more and why you are destined to always be in the pseudo science realm so don't worry about anyone stealing your great theory.

That's right because your maths qualification exceeds everyone else physics degrees and working knowledge.

If you were even remotely civil I would spend time to explain some issues but you being a pratt no thanks enjoy your dribbling on in solititude.

Posting the same crap over and over again doesn't make it right and until you stop being a pratt and listen to the problems and resolve them expect to be treated like you have been on countless physics forums.

At the end of the day I made an effort to be civil and explain the problems if your felt you had counters to teh arguments you could make them in a civil polite way.

Enjoy the dark dim recesses of the web where noone gives a dam.

See like my namesake ORAC sometimes I choose not to provide answers even when I know them ----> I am outta here.
Originally Posted By: preearth
As Heaven slowly approaches PreEarth, tidal forces cause PreEarth to spin faster as Heaven orbits faster


So how long was a day? Is that consistent with any geological evidence? Cycling ice caps at the equator? Would those necessarily form with such a long day? Check it.

Can you explain again how the moon fits into it all? Was it already there or not?

Orac; Grow up. If you are wrong you are wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Again the problem is to remain so tidally locked the two masses would have to be identical and I do mean identical....

Is the moon tidally locked to Earth?
Does the mass of the moon equal the mass of the Earth?
Will the moon continue to be tidally locked to Earth?


Of course, two tidally locked object do NOT have to have identical masses.

Originally Posted By: Orac
You are going to have to get me over the orbital stability issue before I even bother wasting time on this. No stability means not really possible.....

What orbital stability issue? You talk (other thread) of the instability of a double planet system (PreEarth-Heaven) together with a third object (the Moon). For some reason you just assume that together they are unstable, no proof required.

But you are obviously wrong. Think on a bigger scale;

Is the double system (Earth-Sun) unstable simply because you add, say, Venus?

Contrary to your claims, the addition of a third object does not necessarily imply orbital instability.

Originally Posted By: Orac
I simply can't see the differences between the theories (the PreEarth-Heaven collision theory and the giant impact theory).....

How is this theory different from the giant impact theory?

Let's start with:

1) the impact causes continental drift
2) the impact causes the Pacific basin
3) the impact creates the Pacific ring of fire
4) the impact raises the ring of mountains around the Pacific
5) the impact creates the Himalayas
6) the impact takes continental crust that completely covers the planet PreEarth and distributes it in patchwork fashion over the surface of the Earth


None of these things are claimed by the giant impact theory.

The giant impact theory claims to create the moon, however,

7) Mansfield's impact does not claim to create the Moon.

These are not minor differences in the theories.

Originally Posted By: kallog
So how long was a day?

Originally, I have no idea.

I have calculated it at the point of impact, but it was so long ago now that I have forgotten.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Can you explain again how the moon fits into it all? Was it already there or not?

It was already there.
The earth and the moon aren't going to collide PRATT they have a stable tidal lock (well the moons going away slightly) something you can't have.

Remember if the planets don't meet in a nice controlled way you have a big kinetic energy problem and a molten world.

The exact wording you need is "decaying tidal locked planets" ... google it and try working through the problem you are the maths genius ... do some maths. If all else fails start (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay) there are only a few ways for orbital decay to come about but I know nothing maybe invent some new ways. Remember the planets have inertia spin and have gyro effect makes for a bit of fun trying to solve it all. Thats why I suggest magnets and string but crap what would I know I am wrong.

Once you get through that one genius, when the two planets meet you have another problem. They are spinning draw two circles on a blank piece of paper and draw a clockwise direction on both now look at the two direction of the two sides that contact they go opposite ways.

Consider what is going to happen ... if you cant work it out genius put two wheels on a pivot start them spinning and touch the two wheels together and watch what happens.

So now you have a new problem the planets have to be spinning opposite which is the only way to solve that problem and now you have to go back and fix your orbital decay.

When you get to that point Sir Genius I will give you the next problem ... but hey I don't know anything.

As I have said before point 1..6 are not excluded by giant impact theory they simply aren't covered. Taking what you have said about Einstein and Poincare then you can't say that makes them different.

Wish I could stay around and help but I don't know anything.

Good luck with it all and now I really do have to go .. actual science to discuss.
Originally Posted By: Orac
The earth and the moon aren't going to collide PRATT they have a stable tidal lock (well the moons going away slightly) something you can't have.

So what? This again just shows your ignorance. If the moon was sufficiently close to the earth it would be orbiting faster than the earth is spinning and the moon WOULD eventually collide with the earth.

Originally Posted By: Orac
when the two planets meet you have another problem. They are spinning draw two circles on a blank piece of paper and draw a clockwise direction on both now look at the two direction of the two sides that contact they go opposite ways.

No kidding? You are not stating anything new. But at least you are stating something correct (for a change).

Originally Posted By: Orac
Consider what is going to happen ... if you cant work it out genius put two wheels on a pivot start them spinning and touch the two wheels together and watch what happens.

The gravitational force between the two planets is, by so far, the biggest force, that the spin is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.

By the way; I think you are stupid to make all sorts of comment without actually reading the material that you are commenting on. There are only two papers. Why are you so lazy? Did you ever think of reading them both before commenting.
You call me lazy and you can't even write any maths out ... aren't you after all a mathematician.

Forget the pretty pictures which might convince morons do some real mathematics write out the mathematics for the orbital mechanics.

Proove what you say is remotely possible it isn't that hard or a big ask ... put up or shut up!

Till you do that I am done because it's pointless you are a genius and the rest of physics people are just stupid we submit to your magnificence lord of physics.
Quote:
they go opposite ways


just imagine the mass of the earth rotating, what force would be required to stop its rotation?

now add another rotating planet to do the stopping!

not a pretty picture for either planet.

I would most certainly say molten.

and the planets would continue to rotate even after the initial tugg of gravity that rips huge continental sized chunks of crust and underlying magma off into space as the two become one.

when two planets become close like that the gravity of the two planets will find a new center of gravity and the mass of the two will move towards the new center of gravity.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxRfQsXrgiA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVQS2W0_r7U&NR=1



Originally Posted By: Orac
Consider what is going to happen ... if you cant work it out genius put two wheels on a pivot start them spinning and touch the two wheels together and watch what happens.


If thewheels are on different axils and rotating in opposite directions (I.e. one clockwise and one anti-clockwise) the surfaces that come together will be stationary relative to eachother. Nothing violent happens, I suspect.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that two planets, coming together in this way, would lack violence; just wondering about the analogy.
Less violent as opposed to alternative :-)

I had sort of danced around the issue because to be honest I thought that preearth might actually do some research rather than dribble on.

Since you have interest Bill S I will give you some background.

What he is setting up is an called an "astrometric binary" planets.

Here is a quick overview for it

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/astrometric.html

The orbital mechanics behind binaries are somewhat demanding we have been studying them in the Kuiper belt ... some light reading
(http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/out/kbbook/Chapters/Noll_Binaries.pdf)

Pluto/Charon which is sort of what he is looking at with preearth/heaven (http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/17.PlutoCharon.html)

You notice charon most likely doesn't have an atmosphere as with most of these systems because two atmospheres on each planet means tides on each system and that really makes things well interesting :-)

Now preearths problem is he needs to bring the binaries in and in slowly so they meet.

As I discussed above there is a further complication to all this so lets bring it in the earths axis tilt of (22-24 degree). What you really have is (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Applets/Precession.html) set the prolateness to near 1.0 for sphere.

The earth has a forward tilt that means heaven would have had to be a retrograde twin if we want counter rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_orbit).

This is also good because it gives the effect he wants which due to tidal deceleration, bodies in retrograde orbit will slow down and eventually impact the central body.

My problem is he wants the bodies somewhat similar in size and we have both effects needed at once astrometric twin and retorgrade. The tilts will be all wrong I suspect you will still get a big smash. A lighter faster heaven I suspect would make the situation easier but I think he needs a volume of expansion thing.

Anyhow if he had slightly better attitude people might take him and his theory a little better.

I won't say it's impossible what he is suggesting but let just say I would like to see a hell of a lot more calculations than he has in his paper so far and if he was serious he would do them rather than complain about people who think his idea is far fetched.


Edit: BTW have a look at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(47171)_1999_TC36) thats a more interesting system because it includes a 3rd body IMO :-)
Thanks Orac. I begin to see the sort of mechanism that would make preearth's scenario possible.

Just to check my thinking thus far; would it be right that the fact that the two bodies are orbiting would result in a gentler impact than if they were on a direct collision course? Also, their counter-rotation (provided the speeds matched) would help to prevent them from ripping each other to bits and flinging the debris into space?
Yes it would obviously stop the crusts on impact trying to peel each other back which I imagine is what would happen otherwise. The downside is the tilts will be sligtly out so there is still going to be a massive crunch.

We are still talking about system much bigger than the Kuiper belt and pluto/charon and I would want to see calculations because I am not sure it's possible in earths space position.

I still say the moon had to be there at the start based on dating (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full)

Quote:

New W isotope data for lunar metals demonstrate that the Moon formed late in isotopic equilibrium with the bulk silicate Earth (BSE). On this basis, lunar Sr isotope data are used to define the former composition of the Earth and hence the Rb–Sr age of the Moon, which is 4.48±0.02Ga, or 70–110 million years after the start of the Solar System. This age is significantly later than had been deduced from W isotopes based on model assumptions or isotopic effects now known to be cosmogenic. The Sr age is in excellent agreement with earlier estimates based on the time of lunar Pb loss and the age of the early lunar crust (4.46±0.04Ga).


Which is why I threw up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(47171)_1999_TC36 system.

Presumably lunar isotopic data relies on measurments made using material brought back on lunar expeditions. Has anyone checked if Preearth accepts the lunar landings?
Originally Posted By: Orac

I won't say it's impossible what he is suggesting but let just say I would like to see a hell of a lot more calculations than he has in his paper so far and if he was serious he would do them rather than complain about people who think his idea is far fetched.


Fair summary.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Presumably lunar isotopic data relies on measurments made using material brought back on lunar expeditions. Has anyone checked if Preearth accepts the lunar landings?


Yes Bill S the rocks bought back give those dates, assuming you believe we went there :-)

We are still going to extrodanary lengths to keep the myth alive (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=34522) ... :-)

There is of coarse a different argument you could mount there is evidence that the moon was hit and pancaked by another body (http://www.space.com/12529-earth-2-moons-collision-moon-formation.html). So you could argue this small body was gravity captured and was much older material and thats what was brought back.

Don't you love science without controls :-)

We might be able to at least limit some of that argument with a new experiment (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/man-in-the-moon-to-get-ct-scan.html)


Preearth would have to tell you what he believes I haven't seen anything definitive from him beyond his usual tirad's.
PreEarth; over the next couple of days I hope to have a little time, at least some of which I intend using to have a better look at Mansfield's theory than I have been able to do so far. The time is likely to be fragmented, so I shall post any questions as they arise. If this leads to my asking questions that are later answered in the text, I would ask for your patience.
The first question has been asked, and partially answered elsewhere, but for the sake of clarity, and keeping all the information together, I'm going to slip it in again.

"Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, The Old Moon crashed through the crust of PreEarth"

"The Old Moon, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth"

The bullet/apple analogy works with a bullet and an apple, but in this theory the "bullet" is 90% of the size of the "apple", and they are composed of similar material. How can this be the same, physically?
(4). "The impact destroyed a circular region of the PreEarth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit."

Does this size relate to Earth before or after the impact?
(4). "(imagine putting a small hole in the centre of the impact region and then stretching the planets skin to a flat disc)."

What would cause a small hole?
(5). "These massive pieces of crust largely retained their shape throughout the expansion,"

What happened to the oceans?
(5). "He (Wegener) 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."

The reason may have been "unknown" when Wegener proposed his idea, but subsequent development of the theory of plate tectonics has moved on from the idea that a primative super-continent suddenly and inexplicably did anything. Does Mansfield's theory take account of present day records of movement on plate boundaries?
I tend to stay away from geology I always found it terribly frustrating because you would never know if you were right in your lifetime.

The one thing that always made me chuckle was the prediction in 250 Million years all the continents end up back together (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast06oct_1/) .... thinking about the current political situations between countries I always laughed at the prospect :-)
Originally Posted By: Orac
you would never know if you were right in your lifetime.


Then you would know only if you were wrong. smile

Back to the serious stuff.

(6). "No current theory explains how continental crust came to be, let alone why it is so different from oceanic crust."

Does Mansfield's theory hold that the continental crust of PreEarth was chemically/lithologically different from the underlying mantle material?
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
preeath, you are coming close to lacking civility again. If you can't follow the math, don't call people names or impugn their character.
Amaranth Rose II, thanks for refereeing this interesting match and for asking the protagonists to at least treat one another with respect (which, by the way, is what agape-love, a quality favoured by all theologians, is all about)--as in agape, or respect, even your enemies).

BTW, does theology qualify as a science? I ask with a smile Or should it be with a smirk? How about psychology? My basic undergraduate degree is in this field? I assume that pneumatology does at least qualify as a philosophy--the mother of the arts and the sciences.

As a theologian with an interest in all the sciences, should I be amused? Or shocked by such behaviour?

AR II, have you heard about an organization known as ORDAINED SCIENTISTS?
http://www.ordainedscientists.org/index.html

Perhaps you should get in touch with this group and ask if there are any ordained geologists, whatever, who are familiar with the Mansfield's Earth Formation hypothesis. Perhaps one of them could get in touch with "The Boss and Creator" and find out what "He" has to say.

Me? Personally, without claiming to have any expert knowledge, I kinda like the MEF hypothesis.

Three weeks ago we acquired a 5 yr old Pomeranian (agout half the size of our cat). His owner had gone into Res Care. He learns quickly, and has found his place in our "pack". The only real problem remaining is that he seems to think that no other dog has a right to be on the planet. His motto is "get in first and shout loudest".

I wonder if Preearth is so used to people pouring scorn on his ideas that he (she?)adopts the same policy. Just a thought.
BTW, I thought I'd join the trawl back through the "past". I followed Bryan's link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH_Vdxs

and found the impressive evidence he mentioned. I also found a still of a bullet that had passed through an apple, seemingly, leaving most of the skin intact.

Personally, I think the important thing is not so much what a bullet does to an apple, as whether the bullet/apple analogy is a sound one for modelling the sort of collision that would have been involved in Mansfield's theory.
Another point arising from this footage is that none of the skin is carried into the apple. If the analogy holds, none of the PreEarth crust should have been pushed inward. Let's not overwork a bad analogy!

To Revlgking:

I see you only present one side of things. Should I be amused? Or shocked by such behaviour?

I simply called ImagingGeek a liar, because of the tactics he used, and the fact that he was caught lying.

ImagingGeek used many deceitful tactics in an attempt to negatively influence those who read this forum. He felt it his "duty to mankind" to protect people from such theories, or something like that (I can't remember the exact words).

Every single forum I posted to, had an individual, or, more commonly, a group, dedicated to a similar outcome. Many forums simply immediately deleted my first thread and banned me without stating why, so it was impossible to tell whether they also had such a group of professional liars, but I would guess they did.

ImagingGeek did things like, claiming certain papers on the internet, that he knew no one could access, said certain things, that they did not actually say. Often, you have to be an academic (or pay enough) to access such papers.

In one instance he got unlucky. He falsely claimed a certain result from a paper that I just happened to have a print copy of. I pointed out that he was lying, yes, I called him a liar, and asked him to show me where in the paper it said what he claimed. Of course, he never did, because he had simply lied about the result. ImagingGeek used quite a number of "lying tactics". One of his favorites was to answer a different question to that asked, and claim he had answered the original.

He never apologized for lying. He was just doing his job.

You may not have noticed, but there are millions of people, who lie to you, about many things. This is the way that whole societies come to believe things that are patently not true.

So, for you it is un-Christian to call a liar, a liar.

But, you claim to be a theologian. Didn't Christ call some bunch of Jews, liars, simply because they were.

John 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

"I kinda like the MEF hypothesis." That's cool.
LOL you complain one sided behaviour thats rich.

I think most of us know all about your behaviour PreEarth, how many more sites you been banned off lately? Oh thats right it's all us that have the behaviour issues ... we call that delusional :-)

You can't discuss anything logically and rationally without it becoming a slinging/insult match which almost every other person on forums can ... whats that say about you PreEarth.

Anyone who doesn't agree with PreEarth is wrong and a liar cause he is infallible ... genius no less ... LMAO.
"Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, however, did not leave the remaining crust unscathed."

I admit that I may have missed something, but: Has anyone ever mentioned that, the process of creating a new being, this sounds similar to what happens when the sperm of a father is "swallowed" by the egg of a mother(earth)? However, the egg is much larger than the male sperm.
I think it fair to say that science, on the whole, seems to do a good job when dealing with matters of somatological fact--matters that can be easily measured; not so good when dealing with psychological matters--matters of the mind. But when it comes to pneumatological matters, theological matters, matters of the human spirit--where we ask the why questions of life, it seems we keep missing the real joy of what it means to be human, and humane:

PNEUMATOLOGICAL AND THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
For example, why is there something rather than nothing? What was there before the point we call creation? What is the purpose and meaning of life? Why do some people get angry, when their opinion is challenged, and others do not?

Suggest other questions and let's have a dialogue. Maybe we could actually learn something from one another.



Rev. I might point out that your questions are not in line with the subject of this discussion. Also they are not science. You say that science doesn't try to understand these things. That is because science is about measurable things, and the things you want to discuss aren't measurable.

Meantime, if you want a discussion of the questions you pose you should of course take it to NQS, where you have had a long running thread on similar subjects.

Bill Gill
Orac & Rev, you are not exactly increasing the chances of getting any sort of dialogue going here.
I wasn't aware PreEarth ever had dialogues .... how many of your questions has he answered :-)

Okay Bill S I will try and be more positive and live in hope.
Originally Posted By: Orac
I will try and be more positive and live in hope.


I'm sure Rev will approve of that.

Not many questions answered to date, but as you can see, I too live in hope.
I've been off line for a few days, and on my return, am sad to find no answers from Preearth. Could be my questions are too naïve to merit a response, but I shall charitably infer lack of time.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I wonder if Preearth is so used to people pouring scorn on his ideas that he adopts the same policy. Just a thought.

Not really; I am just amazed at how stupid people are (generally speaking).
Originally Posted By: Preearth
I am just amazed at how stupid people are (generally speaking)


Is it stupidity or ignorance you are seeing? If the former, there is probably little you can do about it; if the latter, you might help the situation by answering questions.

Why not make 2012 the year of dispelled ignorance?
BTW, Pre, does your removal of (she?) from my quote constitute this year's first bit of dispelled ignorance?

Bill 6: This year's first bit of dispelled ignorance is:

Mantle currents cannot exist and thus plate-tectonics is wrong.

Those who push plate-tectonics are so amazingly stupid, that they never even bothered to check whether, or not, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle was really lighter than the colder rock above it, as is required by their theory. And this is even though most geology books actually tell you that the hot rock, 3740 K, at the bottom of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³, and that the density decreases from 5,560 kg/m³ to 3,370 kg/m³ as one approaches the top of the mantle (3,370 kg/m³ is the density the cold rock, 930 K, at the top of the mantle, about 40 kms down).

This, totally contradicts the assumptions of the theory of mantle currents/plate-tectonics (that is, contrary to known fact, plate-tectonics assumes that the rock at the bottom of the mantle becomes hotter, and thus lighter, than the colder rock above it, and consequently rises).

How could scientists be so stupid? Well, whatever the reason, they certainly are extremely stupid.

I also note that, various scientists have now had more than nine months to come up with some sort of answer to this problem (and the other problems presented below) but they have not.


The following was written to point out some of the shortcomings of the current theories of Earth formation. It was printed and delivered to some 600 academics in the Auckland area towards the end of March, 2011. It was added to http://www.preearth.net in December, 2011.

Mansfield's Earth Theory & Proof that
various accepted Earth theories are wrong.


Mansfield's Earth theory, is that the Earth formed from the collision of two smaller planets (which, before their collision, were of a similar size and formed a double planet system, much like the Earth and Moon today, except that the previous moon had about thirty-five times the mass of our current Moon).

It is said, that you can tell a good theory by its explanatory power.

The collision theory of Dr. Kevin Mansfield explains all of the following:

[1] It explains the existence of the Pacific Basin.
[2] It explains the existence of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
[3] It explains the (impact) mountains that ring the Pacific Ocean.
[4] It explains why the Earth has continents.
[5] It explains how, and why, the continents moved apart.
[6] It explains the existence of the ancient continent of Pangea.
[7] It explains why Pangea fits neatly within a circle.
[8] It explains why Pangea had a large split called the proto-Tethys Ocean.
[9] It explains how continental crust formed and where it came from.
[10] It explains why continental crust covers only 40% of the Earth's surface.
[11] It explains why continental crust is so different from oceanic crust.
[12] It explains why the Earth's core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet.
[13] It explains why the Earth has a relatively strong magnetic field.
[14] It explains why the Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.
[15] It explains why the Earth has a global surface layer of clay.
[16] It explains how the ice-caps were able to build to such a size.
[17] It explains why no evolution occurred in India while a separate continent.
[18] It explains why the severity of volcanism has decreased.
[19] It explains the bimodal distribution of elevation.
[20] It explains the geologically mysterious Gamburstev Mountains.
[21] It explains why magnetic reversals have not caused mass extinctions.
[22] It explains why only the top 500 meters of the sea-floor has a significant magnetic anomaly.

Also, with further assumptions, it provides,

[23] new possibilities regarding the formation of the Moon,
[24] can explain the tremendous size of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc, and
[25] can explain the large amount of Ar40 in the atmosphere.

Current theories explain only two (numbers five and thirteen) of the above (and both of these explanations are wrong).

The official explanation for (5) is called plate-tectonics.

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. These extremely slow flows of rock, are thought to be maintained by convection. The convection is claimed to be due to the temperature difference (about 3,000 degrees) between the top and the bottom of the mantle.

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. 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. 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.



However, it is a fact that seismic studies have allowed scientists to determine the density of rock at all levels of the mantle, and laboratory experiments have given reasonable estimates of the temperatures (briefly, the deeper the rock is, the hotter and more dense it is). In particular, we know the densities of the cold rock at the top of the mantle and the hot rock at the bottom.

The cold rock (930 K) at the top (about 40 kms down) of the mantle has a density of 3,370 kg/m³.

The hot rock (3,740 K) at the bottom (about 3,700 kms down) of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³.

So, one of the many, many, many problems with the mantle currents scenario (plate-tectonics), is that, contrary to assumption, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle is much heavier than the colder rock anywhere above it. Thus the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle will never rise, it will just sit at the bottom of the mantle, forever.

Consequently, mantle currents, do not, and cannot, exist.

Seismic studies have revealed mantle details, such as, the 410 km, 520 km, and 660 km, density discontinuities. These discontinuities are related to chemical, and or, phase changes in the rock, and the discontinuities are globally found to be within a few kilometers of the depths that they are named after. If giant rivers of rock were really flowing through these structures, there would be significant distortion of them, but these discontinuities are always found close to the depths that they are named after.

Seismic studies have told us much about the Earth's interior. They have told us, that at a depth of about 660 km, the density of mantle rock changes suddenly (over about 4 kms) from 4,000 kg/m³ to 4,380 kg/m³. High-pressure studies in the laboratory have revealed that the main component, Mg2SiO4, of olivine (olivine comprises about 60% of the upper mantel and is a solid solution of Mg2SiO4 and Fe2SiO4) undergoes a reversible change to a mixture of MgSiO3 and MgO. This new structure occupies a smaller volume (which accounts for the density change) and is only stable at pressures, corresponding to depths greater than 660 km.

In the mantle current scenario, lower mantle rock is continuously being raised through the 660 km discontinuity. As it rises above 660 km, the reduced pressure allows the MgSiO3 and MgO to recombine as Mg2SiO4. This is accompanied by a decrease in density and an increase in volume. The increase in volume can be found from the density change, and is about 10%. This massive increase in volume of rock, around the up-welling, would cause the Earth's surface to swell and would be accompanied by almost continuous earthquakes, of tremendous magnitude, as existing rock is moved, many kilometres, to accommodate the newly created volume.

On the opposite side of the mantle current (which may be 3,000-4,000 kms away) upper mantle rock is continuously being forced downward through the 660 km discontinuity. As the Mg2SiO4 changes to MgSiO3 and MgO, the rock suffers a large decrease in volume, which would lead to a subsidence of the Earth's surface and would be accompanied by almost continuous earthquakes. Since, none of this is observed, the mantle currents scenario cannot be correct.

To overcome this, and other problems, some geophysicists have suggested that the mantle has stacked convection currents, one circulating above the 660 km discontinuity and another circulating directly below it. But, of course, this new model has serious problems of its own.

That geophysicists cannot tell you whether the mantle has stacked convection current loops, or single loops, shows how very little they actually know about these mythical convection currents. Of recent years, some geophysicists have tried to downplay convection as the main power source of these currents and tentatively suggest that they are really caused by slab push and slab pull, but this is equally hopeless.

There are other arguments against plate-tectonics, that, while not proving it wrong, do render it less plausible. For example, it is claimed that, 200 million years ago, the single continent Pangea covered about 35% of the surface of the Earth, with the remaining 65%, covered by ocean. Obviously, any ocean sea-floor from this time, still existing today, must be more than 200 million years old. However, it is well-known that there is no sea-floor, existing today, that is more than 180 million years old. This tells us that none of the ocean sea-floor that covered 65% of the Earth, 200 million years ago, still exists as sea-floor today. So, what happened to 65% of Earth's surface? Did it just disappear into thin air?

The official answer (from qualified geologists) is that, over the last 200 million years, 65% of the Earth's surface has fallen down various holes and disappeared. So, the disappearing into thin air, answer, is closer than one may have thought. In the language of geology; 65% of the Earth's surface has been subducted. How easy is it to believe that, over the last 200 million years, 65% of entire surface of the Earth has fallen down holes and disappeared?

The official explanation for (13) is called the geo-dynamo theory.

The geo-dynamo theory, is the belief that Earth's magnetic field is caused by convection currents which circulate the molten iron of the outer core. The fact that the outer core is a true liquid, means that if convection really occurred, the outer core would have reached a uniform temperature, a very, very long time ago. The reason this hasn't happened, is that convection cannot actually occur. And this is because the cold liquid iron at top of the outer core weighs 9,900 kg/m³, while the hot liquid iron at the bottom of the outer core weighs 12,160 kg/m³, and the heavier material at the bottom, has absolutely no incentive to rise into the lighter material above it.

It is worth noting that even if the outer core had a uniform temperature, the material at the bottom would still be heavier than the material anywhere above it. This is simply due to gravitational compression.

Consequently, convection in the outer core, does not, and cannot, exist.

So, the geo-dynamo theory, like plate-tectonics, is fatally flawed.

I have only presented difficulties that can be described in a few sentences, but the list of problems with these two theories is very long and thick books could be written on the subject. I have been absolutely stunned by how easy it has been to find significant holes in these theories. But, I guess, this is what one should expect from false theories.

I am certainly not the first to claim that plate-tectonics is simply wrong. That honour belongs to the renowned Australian geologist, Professor Warren Carey. I particularly like his simple observation that there are no subduction zones in, or around, Africa (and similarly for Antarctica). This deficiency in plate-tectonics theory, is so hard to explain, that it is just ignored.



The problem is clear. If there is no subduction, in, or around, Africa, then there is no feasible arrangement of the mantle currents below the African plate.

Returning to Mansfield's Earth theory.

Evidence for this theory is presented in the articles; When Worlds Collided, and Evidence supporting Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis, both of which can be found on the websites named below. A senior geophysicist from the University of Auckland has read the above mentioned articles, and for the first of them, kindly contributed a number of pages of suggestions, and helpful comment. Unfortunately, he believes that plate-tectonics is much too well established, for any competing idea (as different as mine) to be true.

Whether Mansfield's Earth theory is correct, or not, it certainly warrants careful consideration. Any theory that explains such an array of otherwise unexplained facts, is likely to be correct. From a parochial viewpoint, Kevin Mansfield is a New Zealander, who can attract significant attention to New Zealand science. And with attention, comes funding.

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).

Websites: www.preearth.net and www.preearth.info; 21 March 2011.

PDF version.
A new year and >>> YAWN <<< same old garbage. Good old PreEarth just answers all the questions as usual.

I usually just ignore PreEarth but what we really need is an option to ignore and not show posts from certain users ... surely forum software has that ability these days.
We can do that, Orac.
Left-Click on the poster's name and select 'View Profile'. On their profile page you will see an option "Ignore this user".
But you could always be tortured by the thought that one day he might answer a question and you would never know!
No wonder you like infinity Bill S, I suspect that is about the time before PreEarth ever answers a questions or remotely becomes civilized :-)

I shall take Reds option B and shall be PreEarth free forever.
Coward! smile

So Bill, do you 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.
Quote:
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.


There is just a chance that I might not post a question if I had answered it myself.

Then again, if I had answered a question, and the answer seemed not to jibe with your posts, experience tells me that you would probably interpret this as my being brain-washed, so it makes sense to try to find out how you/mansfield might have arrived at a particular conclusion. This seems like a reasonable learning process.

Obviously you have made your mind up that I am not trying to learn, so you don't need to answer questions. What more can one do?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
There is just a chance that I might not post a question if I had answered it myself.

Of course, the reference was to questions already posted, but later, through a little reflection, for which you found answers. Clearly, it was then too late not to post the (already posted) question(s).
One of the problems with having more than one thread containing almost identical material running concurrently is that switching from one to another can cause trains of thought to be lost. For that reason I am moving a question from another thread in which it became lost in a plethora of red ink and exasperation.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Thanks for that explanation, Pre.

Would it not be the case that any azimuthal equidistant projection would map as a circle?

If Pre-Earth's (or Earth's) "continents" were close together, they would naturally fall (and fit) within such a circle if the centre of the azimuthal equidistant projection coincided with the centre of the land mass.


Might I add to this:

Originally Posted By: Pre
The AAPG circle corresponds to the boundary of the impacted and non-impacted regions.


True; and the process by which this comes about (as you described) means that it could not be otherwise. With no other possible explanation, what does this prove?

If for example I were to produce an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the UK, with a radius of about 500 miles; then do the same from the opposite side of the world, such that the two boundaries were co-incident, it could certainly not be inferred that the rest of the world could be fitted into the same space as the UK.
Your first two questions don't make sense (to me).

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If for example I were to produce an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the UK, with a radius of about 500 miles; then do the same from the opposite side of the world, such that the two boundaries were co-incident, it could certainly not be inferred that the rest of the world could be fitted into the same space as the UK.

That is correct and no one ever said that this was inferred.

Maps that preserve distance (equidistant) are never area-preserving.
Quote:
That is correct and no one ever said that this was inferred.


What, then, is established by stressing that Pangaea fits within such a circle? Surely, it could not be otherwise?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
What, then, is established by stressing that Pangaea fits within such a circle? Surely, it could not be otherwise?

It is not my job to answer your questions and it is questions like this that I have difficulty bothering to answer.

With a question like this is impossible to believe that really don't understand the importance of the tight fit of the inner circle around the continent of Pangea. Except for the two splits (the hypothesized Tethys and Arctic Oceans) the fit is pretty much exact. Close up the two splits. It's exact. This is exactly as Mansfield's theory predicts,... exactly.

You come along and say that you can fit a circle around a square, or whatever. Duhhh.

What am I meant to think? That you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misunderstanding what is being said?




pre

you know what , I've been studying the concept and could the reason that the earth has two cores be because there was a collision between two planets?

1 planet = 1 core !!!

2 planets = 2 cores !!!

1 + 1 = 2


what do you think?

Quote:
You come along and say that you can fit a circle around a square


Now, there’s something I didn’t say. However, since you mention it, even an idiot could fit a circle round a square, given the right proportions, so perhaps I could.

Quote:
It is not my job to answer your questions


True, but surely posting a possibly controversial idea is tantamount to inviting questions. If you are choosy about the questions you are prepared to accept, you should stipulate that your posts are not intended for people who think for themselves.

Quote:
and it is questions like this that I have difficulty bothering to answer.


That sort of statement usually means “questions I have difficulty answering”. Past experience suggests that there are vast numbers of questions you cannot be bothered to answer. Perhaps I should admit that it is a waste of time asking them.

Quote:
What am I meant to think? That you are an idiot


If that is what you choose to think, that is entirely up to you. Possibly you think that anyone who does not accept your pronouncements without thought or question is an idiot.

Am I an idiot? Could be that a person who persists in trying to engage an obviously ill mannered bigot in a reasonable discussion could be considered to be an idiot. However, that’s a matter of opinion.
Originally Posted By: Paul
1 planet = 1 core !!!

2 planets = 2 cores !!!

1 + 1 = 2

what do you think?

Yeah,... have thought about that. Didn't come to any conclusions.

There seems to be some problem as to why the liquid core is still liquid. This idea might help there, but I never followed it up.

Quote:
What am I meant to think? That you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misunderstanding what is being said?

Actually, I think you often deliberately misunderstand what is said (because you have the same political agenda as ImagingGeek, etc).
Quote:
Actually, I think you often deliberately misunderstand what is said (because you have the same political agenda as ImagingGeek, etc).


I am quite willing to accept that I sometimes misunderstand what is said. That I do so deliberately is certainly not the case in any serious thread. The fact that misunderstanding is a possibility is one reason why I tend to ask questions until I am reasonably sure I have achieved a level of understanding. Answers such as "rubbish" do tend to lack a degree of explanatory value, and are not among the most illuminating.
Originally Posted By: paul
pre; you know what , I've been studying the concept and could the reason that the earth has two cores be because there was a collision between two planets?

1 planet = 1 core !!!

2 planets = 2 cores !!!

1 + 1 = 2

what do you think?

This idea was mentioned in the first ever paper concerning PreEarth;

http://preearth.net/worlds-collide.html

I am sure since you never answer criticisms and objections to your ideas it will sink without all trace like it has already.

I think you have been given probably more leeway on SAGG than almost any other forum and at this stage I haven't seen you answer a single problem thrown up even by very tolerant people like Bill S.

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.
"I'm back again, said Nora, with a monumental crash."
Rosemary Wells; "Noisy Nora".

I think the whole subject of global tectonics is sufficiently interesting to be worth discussing. One trouble with spreading comments and questions over several threads is that things get lost.

I'm going to try a fresh thread. Ridiculous? Just adds one more thread! Give it a go.
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.
I don't have teeth but I do have razor sharp science logic which is what you continually fall foul of :=)
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.
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?
Pointing out an example of something hardly constitutes complaining.
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.
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?
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?
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!
This thread has been updated to: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39783
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums