Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum The standard model of Pangaea is clearly FALSE?

Instead of repeating your rant, why not answer the specific criticisms people have made against it?

It appears to be you who rant.

No one has made any criticism.

I don't see any criticism. Do you see any criticism?

I think you imagine things.

-------------------



This thread evolved from the paper: "Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?" at http://preearth.net/.

Probably. I didn't actually read your post, only the title. I learnt the hard way that there's no point reading what you write because you ignore reasonable criticisms about it.

Yep. A bit like you posting the same story in all different threads, yet not interested enough to respond to my replies.

And there you have it, folks. Proof-positive preearth is a liar. Here's the critisisms which have been pointed out to him, in several threads. He's not once had the balls to try and address them:

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 average temp if I recall correctly. And yet pre claims the surface would be untouched - even though there is no physical mechanism which could produce such a state, given the impact is on the surface, and hence the heat is created largely on the surface.

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.

There have been other criticisms as well; those are just mine...

Bryan

But your counter-claim is your usually silly BS, which as we've pointed out before is a load of crap.

As is your above claim. Mass irregularities do not result in spinning objects changing their spin axis to align along a new center of mass. Rather, their axis of rotation stays the same (relative to the object), while the axis (and thus the object) undergo precession.

As with pangea, the earth today has an asymmetric distribution of the crust - notably across the equator, but also on the east-west axis. And, just as would have been the case with pangea, the earths axis precesses.

Hell, all kinds of insanely asymetric objects manage to rotate, without changing their axis of rotation. Take this example:


Bryan

As I just told you, there's not much point reading your long-winded posts because most of them contain the same copy-and-paste stuff.

If you can't be bothered writing each post you make, then don't expect anyone to bother reading them.

You are not going to be tolerated if you continue to act uncivil. One more round of insulting posts and I will ban you.

I think he should know by now that imagegeek is pumping
up his replies with irrelevant information , or filler.

he should do as most have learned to do and just ignore his replies as mostly irrelevant.

I would like to comment on the axis change portion however , mostly the entire planet does not shift its axis but the skin of a planet or its crust shifts because of newly aquired or distributed mass.

such as large volcanoes distributing huge amounts of mass onto the surface.

We've had whole threads on how your little "planet merger" is a physical impossibility. Its not like there is a single post debunking the whole thing, but rather dozens of posts.

While we're on the topic, you still haven't answered the basic criticisms of your model that I and others brought up, notably:

1) As your planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Your model fails to do so.

2) You're assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provide 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) provide no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.

3) Even if I give you the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), you ignore 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) Your own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that your collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth - 2000K average temp if I recall correctly. And yet you claim the surface would be untouched - even though there is no physical mechanism which could produce such a state, given the impact is on the surface, and hence the heat is created largely on the surface.

5) Your model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.

6) You model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. You claim 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 your model.


Well, there is this thread, and this tread, and now this new one...



Two points:
1) We have direct observational data of unbalanced objects undergoing precession, verses shifting their rotational axis. I provided one such example in my last post, and

2) Most importantly, you're mis-quoting the claims of that papers authors. They do not claim the rotational axis of mars changed. What they do claim is the lithosphere (crust) of mars rotated relative to the mantle and rotational axis - as in the rotational axis remained the same, and the then-floating crust of mars moved relative to the mantle/axis of rotation - i.e. a Martian version of continental drift.

So your "counter claim" is a falsehood - the rotational axis of mars has not moved due to tharsis, but rather the crust has moved relative to the mantle and axis of rotation.

And just to show I'm not lying, here is the origonal study, and here is a laymans review of the paper.


Yep, but apparently you did not. LOL.


LOL, another mis-truth from pre-earth. Why is it you cannot make your case without mis-representing the actual data that has been widely published. Precession was directly observed more than 2000 years ago! We've quantified this precession to a huge degree of accuracy.

LOL, gotta love it - preearth doesn't "believe" in a scientific phenomena observed more than 2000 years ago, and one which is directly measurable by anyone with a telescope and a year or two of free time!


Buzzt, sorry that answer is correct. Rotating objects have angular momentum. To change their axis of rotation means you must change their angular momentum. That can only be achieved with the application of an outside force.

Basic newtonian physics; I guess that's something else we can add to the list of basic scientific concepts you don't understand.

Bryan

LOL, so direct evidence of my claims is now "irrelevant"?

I guess in kook world it would be - where evidence is blasphemy, and opinion is sacrosanct.

Bryan

Whatever did happen to ImagingGeek?

Preearth, whatever happened to your interest in matters geological?

Haha don't ever talk to me about flogging a dead horse :-)

I don't have a lot of time to spare.

I know the feeling; but here's a suggestion. Transfer some time from Jews to geology; you can still stir people up with a bit of effort.