Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 73 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
AM I Moving? ( classic evidence)
by newton
12/12/17 03:53 AM
WE SOLVED IN POLAND EMDRIVE SECRET
by newton
12/12/17 03:34 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 2
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#35754 - 08/15/10 11:33 PM Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence.
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
.
#35758 - 08/16/10 04:59 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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


Edited by ImagingGeek (08/16/10 05:07 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35776 - 08/17/10 02:39 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: ImagingGeek]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK

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.
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#35777 - 08/17/10 04:12 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: Mike Kremer]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Yes, an effective baloney-buster. It's one thing to identify pseudoscience, and quite another to produce an unequivocal exposé. Well done, Bryan.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#35782 - 08/18/10 03:55 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: redewenur]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
I think pre is ignoring me frown

Heat, kitchen, standing and all that smile

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35787 - 08/19/10 09:40 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: ImagingGeek]
Laze Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/19/10
Posts: 24
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

Top
#35792 - 08/20/10 02:20 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: Laze]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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.


Edited by preearth (08/20/10 02:24 PM)
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#35794 - 08/20/10 08:11 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: preearth]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
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.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#35801 - 08/21/10 03:36 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: Laze]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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.


Edited by ImagingGeek (08/21/10 04:45 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35802 - 08/21/10 04:02 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35804 - 08/21/10 09:42 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: ImagingGeek]
Laze Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/19/10
Posts: 24
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

Top
#35806 - 08/21/10 11:46 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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.


Edited by preearth (08/22/10 01:46 AM)
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#35811 - 08/22/10 01:04 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: Laze]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35812 - 08/22/10 01:26 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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


Edited by ImagingGeek (08/22/10 06:40 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35820 - 08/23/10 01:16 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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).

Top
#35822 - 08/23/10 02:41 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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


Edited by ImagingGeek (08/23/10 02:42 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35823 - 08/23/10 07:01 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: ImagingGeek]
Laze Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/19/10
Posts: 24
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

Top
#35826 - 08/24/10 01:42 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: Laze]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#35827 - 08/24/10 02:08 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: Laze]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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


Edited by ImagingGeek (08/24/10 02:15 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35828 - 08/24/10 02:25 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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?

Top
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



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

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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