preearth;1321924 wrote: The first thing that would happen is the light from the Sun that fell on the Earth, would be transformed into heat within the planets surface and atmosphere - black body radiation would only take place after this had happened and would radiate the heat into space over time.
You know, just like what happens when a hot day becomes cold at night.
Maybe I should mention that most of the energy from tidal friction ends up as heat in the oceans.
The power of;
Sunlight = 1.74 × 10^17 J/s
Tidal Friction = 3.75 × 10^12 J/s
The Earth manages to radiate all the energy gained from sunlight, during the day, in one night.
How long would it take to radiate the energy gained from tidal friction (which is about one fifty thousandth of that from sunlight).
Perhaps you also want to read; "Some questions regarding your collision hypothesis," at;
preearth.net • View topic - Some questions regarding your collision hypothesis.
For all topics from the forum, see;
preearth.net • View new posts
Take a look at the standard calculations for the temperature of, for example, the core of Europa or Io - almost all of the heat comes from tidal friction - you cannot just discount it with a wave of your hand.
Or just look up tidal heating :-
* Tidal heating - (Astronomy): Definition
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1321913 wrote:
See; What about the Roche Limit? Would the planet breakup?
preearth.net • View topic - What about the Roche Limit? Would the planet breakup?
For all topics from the forum, see;
preearth.net • View new posts
Two problems here, firstly you are treating both bodies as solid which would not have been the case and secondly, where the two bodies are of comparable sizes they should be treated as a binary pair rather than as a primary and a satellite. Also, the figures you are using do not correspond to the accepted values – e.g. density pre-earth of 3.48 and density heaven 2.48 cf density Earth = 5.5.
Taking the Earth / Moon position as comparable, the rigid body limit is 9,496 km (still greater tan the combined radii) whereas NASA’s figure for the applicable Roche Limit is 18,470 km – I would expect similar figures for the pre-earth / heaven system.
Given that “If the primary is less than half as dense as the satellite, the rigid-body Roche Limit is less than the primary's radius, and the two bodies may collide before the Roche limit is reached.”, for a binary system even if this obtains in one direction (which in this case is unlikely) it will not in the other and at least one of the bodies will break up.
Also, you are assuming that the critical distance is the sum of the radii, however, any part of the body coming within Roche's limit will start to break up and, as both pre-earth and heaven are still rotating at this point, the wole body will break up before contact if the calculated limit is much greater than the radius of the other body.
See; What about the Roche Limit? Would the planet breakup?
preearth.net • View topic - What about the Roche Limit? Would the planet breakup?
For all topics from the forum, see;
preearth.net • View new posts
Two problems here, firstly you are treating both bodies as solid which would not have been the case and secondly, where the two bodies are of comparable sizes they should be treated as a binary pair rather than as a primary and a satellite. Also, the figures you are using do not correspond to the accepted values – e.g. density pre-earth of 3.48 and density heaven 2.48 cf density Earth = 5.5.
Taking the Earth / Moon position as comparable, the rigid body limit is 9,496 km (still greater tan the combined radii) whereas NASA’s figure for the applicable Roche Limit is 18,470 km – I would expect similar figures for the pre-earth / heaven system.
Given that “If the primary is less than half as dense as the satellite, the rigid-body Roche Limit is less than the primary's radius, and the two bodies may collide before the Roche limit is reached.”, for a binary system even if this obtains in one direction (which in this case is unlikely) it will not in the other and at least one of the bodies will break up.
Also, you are assuming that the critical distance is the sum of the radii, however, any part of the body coming within Roche's limit will start to break up and, as both pre-earth and heaven are still rotating at this point, the wole body will break up before contact if the calculated limit is much greater than the radius of the other body.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Nomad;1322343 wrote: So what have we decided?
I know what I've decided, what PreEearth's take on it is we'll have to wait and see.
Whilst we're waiting, here are three more points to ponder :-
1) Tidal interaction between two bodies transfers orbital momentum into heat as has been said. This has the effect of slowing the orbit of the two bodies about theri comon centre. The result of this slowing is that, far from the two bodies spiraling towards each other the orbital distance increases and they get further apart.
2) If, by some unexplained mechanism, Pre-earth and heaven did spiral towards each other and not shatter before gentally coming to rest against each other, the law of concervation of angular momentum means that, whilst the vertical component of their contact velocity might be very low, the horisontal component would be vast. For comparison, the orbital velocity of a geostationary satilite at approx 23,300 miles is about 4,500 mph, bring it down to near Earth orbit and has risen to about 30,000 mph - damage would not be localised to the point of contact.
3) In his treatment of the two planets spiraling in to a zero energy contact, PreEarth has ignored the effect of any atmosphere the two bodies posess. Given the heat generated on re-entry during a semi-controled shuttle landing I would expect the energy release of two planet sized bodies passing through each other's atmospheres to be truely awsome.
For a paragraph as short as :-
Heaven would then slowly spiral towards, and finally impact, PreEarth. This scenario was chosen, because, as Heaven approaches PreEarth, fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction. The kinetic energy of Heaven, just moments before impact, that is, when the planet centers were 9880 kms apart, would have been,
to give rise to five major objections makes you wonder what might be gained from the rest of the piece.
I know what I've decided, what PreEearth's take on it is we'll have to wait and see.
Whilst we're waiting, here are three more points to ponder :-
1) Tidal interaction between two bodies transfers orbital momentum into heat as has been said. This has the effect of slowing the orbit of the two bodies about theri comon centre. The result of this slowing is that, far from the two bodies spiraling towards each other the orbital distance increases and they get further apart.
2) If, by some unexplained mechanism, Pre-earth and heaven did spiral towards each other and not shatter before gentally coming to rest against each other, the law of concervation of angular momentum means that, whilst the vertical component of their contact velocity might be very low, the horisontal component would be vast. For comparison, the orbital velocity of a geostationary satilite at approx 23,300 miles is about 4,500 mph, bring it down to near Earth orbit and has risen to about 30,000 mph - damage would not be localised to the point of contact.
3) In his treatment of the two planets spiraling in to a zero energy contact, PreEarth has ignored the effect of any atmosphere the two bodies posess. Given the heat generated on re-entry during a semi-controled shuttle landing I would expect the energy release of two planet sized bodies passing through each other's atmospheres to be truely awsome.
For a paragraph as short as :-
Heaven would then slowly spiral towards, and finally impact, PreEarth. This scenario was chosen, because, as Heaven approaches PreEarth, fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction. The kinetic energy of Heaven, just moments before impact, that is, when the planet centers were 9880 kms apart, would have been,
to give rise to five major objections makes you wonder what might be gained from the rest of the piece.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Two problems here, firstly you are treating both bodies as solid which would not have been the case and secondly, where the two bodies are of comparable sizes they should be treated as a binary pair rather than as a primary and a satellite. Also, the figures you are using do not correspond to the accepted values e.g. density pre-earth of 3.48 and density heaven 2.48 cf density Earth = 5.5.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Roche Limit, you really don't have a clue.
The Roche limit (that is usually quoted) is for loosely consolidated material, i.e., material held together only by gravity.
Just like the international space station doesn't breakup (it is thousands of miles within the Roche limit usually quoted for Earth), neither will the rocks and solid iron core of the planet until it is thousands of miles within the (usually quoted) Roche limit. In many instances, there will be no breakup at all.
When there are chemical bonds between all the atoms (as in the case of the space station) then it is wrong to use the Roche Limit you quote. The Roche Limit you quote, could be used for a wrench laying on the surface of the space station, but not for a wrench welded to the surface.
Its a pity you didn't bother, or don't have the ability, to calculate the Roche Limit, because if you did, you would find that it is small enough so that it is quite clear the planet would not breakup,.... and even if some loose material floated upward for a minute, the planet's spin would take it out of the sweet zone and bring it down again.
The reason the densities do not turn up in the calculation is because they do not turn up in the derivation of the Roche Limit. You have to substitute the radius of the satellite for the densities if you want to consider them,... but, in this case, it would be stupid to introduce densities.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Take a look at the standard calculations for the temperature of, for example, the core of Europa or Io - almost all of the heat comes from tidal friction - you cannot just discount it with a wave of your hand.
It is you who are waving your hands.
I have given you an accurate figure for tidal heating in the Earth-Moon system, and compared it to sunlight, you ignored it.
Of course, PreEarth was larger and eventually orbited much closer than the Moon, however, even increasing the tidal heating by 50,000 times, would only bring it to the level of heating caused by the sun and that heat is lost to space over the period of one night.
It is a fact that nearly all the tidal heating occurs in the ocean,... if you can't figure out why scientists believe this,... well,... that's not my fault.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Tidal interaction between two bodies transfers orbital momentum into heat as has been said. This has the effect of slowing the orbit of the two bodies about there comon centre. The result of this slowing is that, far from the two bodies spiraling towards each other the orbital distance increases and they get further apart.
This is just another of the many mistakes that show you are a physics novice.
See the section "Tidal deceleration" of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Have a look at the section "Tidal heating" while you are there.
Bryn Mawr wrote: In his treatment of the two planets spiraling in to a zero energy contact,...
Only you assume this. You make mistake after mistake. From these mistakes it is clear that you have not spent the necessary time thinking about the viability of the positions you adopt.
I also note, that you have not answered the questions asked of the theories you supposedly believe. Ignoring the questions is safer, isn't it?
------------------
See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Roche Limit, you really don't have a clue.
The Roche limit (that is usually quoted) is for loosely consolidated material, i.e., material held together only by gravity.
Just like the international space station doesn't breakup (it is thousands of miles within the Roche limit usually quoted for Earth), neither will the rocks and solid iron core of the planet until it is thousands of miles within the (usually quoted) Roche limit. In many instances, there will be no breakup at all.
When there are chemical bonds between all the atoms (as in the case of the space station) then it is wrong to use the Roche Limit you quote. The Roche Limit you quote, could be used for a wrench laying on the surface of the space station, but not for a wrench welded to the surface.
Its a pity you didn't bother, or don't have the ability, to calculate the Roche Limit, because if you did, you would find that it is small enough so that it is quite clear the planet would not breakup,.... and even if some loose material floated upward for a minute, the planet's spin would take it out of the sweet zone and bring it down again.
The reason the densities do not turn up in the calculation is because they do not turn up in the derivation of the Roche Limit. You have to substitute the radius of the satellite for the densities if you want to consider them,... but, in this case, it would be stupid to introduce densities.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Take a look at the standard calculations for the temperature of, for example, the core of Europa or Io - almost all of the heat comes from tidal friction - you cannot just discount it with a wave of your hand.
It is you who are waving your hands.
I have given you an accurate figure for tidal heating in the Earth-Moon system, and compared it to sunlight, you ignored it.
Of course, PreEarth was larger and eventually orbited much closer than the Moon, however, even increasing the tidal heating by 50,000 times, would only bring it to the level of heating caused by the sun and that heat is lost to space over the period of one night.
It is a fact that nearly all the tidal heating occurs in the ocean,... if you can't figure out why scientists believe this,... well,... that's not my fault.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Tidal interaction between two bodies transfers orbital momentum into heat as has been said. This has the effect of slowing the orbit of the two bodies about there comon centre. The result of this slowing is that, far from the two bodies spiraling towards each other the orbital distance increases and they get further apart.
This is just another of the many mistakes that show you are a physics novice.
See the section "Tidal deceleration" of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Have a look at the section "Tidal heating" while you are there.
Bryn Mawr wrote: In his treatment of the two planets spiraling in to a zero energy contact,...
Only you assume this. You make mistake after mistake. From these mistakes it is clear that you have not spent the necessary time thinking about the viability of the positions you adopt.
I also note, that you have not answered the questions asked of the theories you supposedly believe. Ignoring the questions is safer, isn't it?
------------------
See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1322741 wrote: Unfortunately, when it comes to the Roche Limit, you really don't have a clue.
The Roche limit (that is usually quoted) is for loosely consolidated material, i.e., material held together only by gravity.
Just like the international space station doesn't breakup (it is thousands of miles within the Roche limit usually quoted for Earth), neither will the rocks and solid iron core of the planet until it is thousands of miles within the (usually quoted) Roche limit. In many instances, there will be no breakup at all.
When there are chemical bonds between all the atoms (as in the case of the space station) then it is wrong to use the Roche Limit you quote. The Roche Limit you quote, could be used for a wrench laying on the surface of the space station, but not for a wrench welded to the surface.
Its a pity you didn't bother, or don't have the ability, to calculate the Roche Limit, because if you did, you would find that it is small enough so that it is quite clear the planet would not breakup,.... and even if some loose material floated upward for a minute, the planet's spin would take it out of the sweet zone and bring it down again.
OK, shall we take this one slowly and go through it in a little detail?
Firstly, there is no Roche's Limit for the Earth as the value of Roche's Limit is dependant on the characteristics of the two bodies in question. The “Roche's Limit usually quoted for Earth is the limit for the Earth/Moon system and would be totally irrelevant for the Earth/ISS system. Also, whilst the Earth/Moon system is a good analogy for the pre-earth/heaven system and therefore provides a valid sanity check for any value you have derived, the Earth/ISS system bears no relationship to it.
Secondly, to the calculation itself :-
If we assign
L as the limit,
R as the radius of the primary
r as the radius of the satellite
M as the mass of the primary
m as the mass of the satellite
D as the density of the primary
d a the density of the satellite
Then the equation you have used is :-
L=r(2M/m)^(1/3)
As you can immediately see, for bodies of comparable mass the limit is going to be close to 1.25r and even with a 4:1 ratio you are still only looking at 2r. Using your figures we get 1.41r for the pre-earth/heaven system.
However, that equation is specific to solid bodies with a rigid structure. Your description of both pre-earth and heaven is of a solid core surrounded by a molten mantle with a surface crust – anything but a rigid body. Under these conditions, plastic deformation will occur and the equation you have chosen to use no longer applies.
For a fluid body the relevant equation is :-
L=2.44r(2M/m)^(1/3)
Here, for bodies of nearly equal mass, the result will be about 2.44r but, again using your figures, we get 3.44r for the pre-earth/heaven system.
The actual figure is going to lie between these two limits but will be closer to the latter as the magma of the mantle will be subject to the fluid deformation modelled in the derivation of the second equation.
Finally, you read the article you yourself quoted during your discussion of Roche's Limit it says in relation to the rigid body solution :-
If the satellite is more than twice as dense as the primary, as can easily be the case for a rocky moon orbiting a gas giant, then the Roche limit will be inside the primary and hence not relevant.
In this instance, the densities of both bodies are comparable and both planets will come within even the limit for rigid bodies and will break up.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
The reason the densities do not turn up in the calculation is because they do not turn up in the derivation of the Roche Limit. You have to substitute the radius of the satellite for the densities if you want to consider them,... but, in this case, it would be stupid to introduce densities.
I go back to the article on Roche's limit you link to in your discussion on the subject where it says:-
However, we don't really want the radius of the satellite to appear in the expression for the limit, so we re-write this in terms of densities.
.
.
.
.
which can be simplified to the Roche limit:
d=R(2PM/Pm)^(1/3)
Thus, although you do not work in terms of densities, that is the accepted form and is directly equivalent to what you are doing – given that the equations include the radius and the mass then the density is implicit. Any statement made about the density is equally applicable to the mass unless your calculations are incorrect.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
It is you who are waving your hands.
I have given you an accurate figure for tidal heating in the Earth-Moon system, and compared it to sunlight, you ignored it.
Of course, PreEarth was larger and eventually orbited much closer than the Moon, however, even increasing the tidal heating by 50,000 times, would only bring it to the level of heating caused by the sun and that heat is lost to space over the period of one night.
It is a fact that nearly all the tidal heating occurs in the ocean,... if you can't figure out why scientists believe this,... well,... that's not my fault.
Might I quote your statement from the original article :-
This scenario was chosen, because, as Heaven approaches PreEarth, fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.
If increasing tidal heating by 50,000 times still renders it insignificant then why are you trying to halve that kinetic energy yet again by postulating a moon “which is impacted by Heaven at the very time it is clipping the treetops of PreEarth. In this intermediate collision, we suppose that Heaven loses much of its energy as it deflects the moon into a higher orbit.“.
I say again, the law of conservation of mass energy states that you cannot just loose energy, you have to account for it. If the loss of that energy involves black body radiation then include a term for it in your calculation (but also include a term for received radiation from the sun for completeness) but do not just dismiss that amount of energy as gone like the sunlight.
If you do include terms for incident and radiated energy you will find that the reason that the Earth cools down at night is because it heats up during the day – the two terms balance over the planet and the nett movement is zero.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
This is just another of the many mistakes that show you are a physics novice.
See the section "Tidal deceleration" of Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Have a look at the section "Tidal heating" while you are there.
The part of your paper that I was having trouble with here was :-
Thus, the oceanic tidal bulge would lag behind Heaven and act to decelerate it in its orbit. Heaven would then slowly spiral towards, and finally impact, PreEarth.
From the Wiki page you reference :-
The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of the Earth causes the Moon to be promoted in its orbit, and the Earth to be decelerated in its rotation. As in any physical process within an isolated system, total energy and angular momentum are conserved. Effectively, energy and angular momentum are transferred from the rotation of the Earth to the orbital motion of the Moon (however, most of the energy lost by the Earth is converted to heat, and only about one 30th is transferred to the Moon). The Moon moves farther away from the Earth, so its potential energy (in the Earth's gravity well) increases. It stays in orbit, and from Kepler's 3rd law it follows that its velocity actually decreases, so the tidal action on the Moon actually causes a deceleration of its motion across the celestial sphere. Although its kinetic energy decreases, its potential energy increases by a larger amount. The tidal force has a component in the direction of the Moon's motion, and therefore increases its energy, but the non-tidal part of the Earth's gravity pulls (on average) slightly backwards on the Moon (which on average has a slight outward velocity), so the net result is that the Moon slows down. The Moon's orbital angular momentum increases.
So either it decelerates in it's orbit and spirals away from pre-earth or it spirals towards pre-earth and it speeds up in it's orbit.
It is easy to demonstrate. Take a geostationary satellite at 35,000 km and the ISS at 330 km above the surface. The satellite is travelling at just over 3,000 m/s whereas the ISS is moving at 7,800 m/s – you speed up as you come closer.
The big implication of this for your theory is that, when heaven is orbiting just above the surface of pre-earth it is moving like an express train and the kinetic energy of the horizontal component of it's velocity will add significantly to the impact. Also, as it is moving so quickly around pre-earth the point of impact will be spear around the globe, not just confined to a small area as you suggest.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
Only you assume this. You make mistake after mistake. From these mistakes it is clear that you have not spent the necessary time thinking about the viability of the positions you adopt.
I also note, that you have not answered the questions asked of the theories you supposedly believe. Ignoring the questions is safer, isn't it?
What questions have you asked? Insults yes, denials yes, but I see no questions from you.
The Roche limit (that is usually quoted) is for loosely consolidated material, i.e., material held together only by gravity.
Just like the international space station doesn't breakup (it is thousands of miles within the Roche limit usually quoted for Earth), neither will the rocks and solid iron core of the planet until it is thousands of miles within the (usually quoted) Roche limit. In many instances, there will be no breakup at all.
When there are chemical bonds between all the atoms (as in the case of the space station) then it is wrong to use the Roche Limit you quote. The Roche Limit you quote, could be used for a wrench laying on the surface of the space station, but not for a wrench welded to the surface.
Its a pity you didn't bother, or don't have the ability, to calculate the Roche Limit, because if you did, you would find that it is small enough so that it is quite clear the planet would not breakup,.... and even if some loose material floated upward for a minute, the planet's spin would take it out of the sweet zone and bring it down again.
OK, shall we take this one slowly and go through it in a little detail?
Firstly, there is no Roche's Limit for the Earth as the value of Roche's Limit is dependant on the characteristics of the two bodies in question. The “Roche's Limit usually quoted for Earth is the limit for the Earth/Moon system and would be totally irrelevant for the Earth/ISS system. Also, whilst the Earth/Moon system is a good analogy for the pre-earth/heaven system and therefore provides a valid sanity check for any value you have derived, the Earth/ISS system bears no relationship to it.
Secondly, to the calculation itself :-
If we assign
L as the limit,
R as the radius of the primary
r as the radius of the satellite
M as the mass of the primary
m as the mass of the satellite
D as the density of the primary
d a the density of the satellite
Then the equation you have used is :-
L=r(2M/m)^(1/3)
As you can immediately see, for bodies of comparable mass the limit is going to be close to 1.25r and even with a 4:1 ratio you are still only looking at 2r. Using your figures we get 1.41r for the pre-earth/heaven system.
However, that equation is specific to solid bodies with a rigid structure. Your description of both pre-earth and heaven is of a solid core surrounded by a molten mantle with a surface crust – anything but a rigid body. Under these conditions, plastic deformation will occur and the equation you have chosen to use no longer applies.
For a fluid body the relevant equation is :-
L=2.44r(2M/m)^(1/3)
Here, for bodies of nearly equal mass, the result will be about 2.44r but, again using your figures, we get 3.44r for the pre-earth/heaven system.
The actual figure is going to lie between these two limits but will be closer to the latter as the magma of the mantle will be subject to the fluid deformation modelled in the derivation of the second equation.
Finally, you read the article you yourself quoted during your discussion of Roche's Limit it says in relation to the rigid body solution :-
If the satellite is more than twice as dense as the primary, as can easily be the case for a rocky moon orbiting a gas giant, then the Roche limit will be inside the primary and hence not relevant.
In this instance, the densities of both bodies are comparable and both planets will come within even the limit for rigid bodies and will break up.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
The reason the densities do not turn up in the calculation is because they do not turn up in the derivation of the Roche Limit. You have to substitute the radius of the satellite for the densities if you want to consider them,... but, in this case, it would be stupid to introduce densities.
I go back to the article on Roche's limit you link to in your discussion on the subject where it says:-
However, we don't really want the radius of the satellite to appear in the expression for the limit, so we re-write this in terms of densities.
.
.
.
.
which can be simplified to the Roche limit:
d=R(2PM/Pm)^(1/3)
Thus, although you do not work in terms of densities, that is the accepted form and is directly equivalent to what you are doing – given that the equations include the radius and the mass then the density is implicit. Any statement made about the density is equally applicable to the mass unless your calculations are incorrect.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
It is you who are waving your hands.
I have given you an accurate figure for tidal heating in the Earth-Moon system, and compared it to sunlight, you ignored it.
Of course, PreEarth was larger and eventually orbited much closer than the Moon, however, even increasing the tidal heating by 50,000 times, would only bring it to the level of heating caused by the sun and that heat is lost to space over the period of one night.
It is a fact that nearly all the tidal heating occurs in the ocean,... if you can't figure out why scientists believe this,... well,... that's not my fault.
Might I quote your statement from the original article :-
This scenario was chosen, because, as Heaven approaches PreEarth, fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.
If increasing tidal heating by 50,000 times still renders it insignificant then why are you trying to halve that kinetic energy yet again by postulating a moon “which is impacted by Heaven at the very time it is clipping the treetops of PreEarth. In this intermediate collision, we suppose that Heaven loses much of its energy as it deflects the moon into a higher orbit.“.
I say again, the law of conservation of mass energy states that you cannot just loose energy, you have to account for it. If the loss of that energy involves black body radiation then include a term for it in your calculation (but also include a term for received radiation from the sun for completeness) but do not just dismiss that amount of energy as gone like the sunlight.
If you do include terms for incident and radiated energy you will find that the reason that the Earth cools down at night is because it heats up during the day – the two terms balance over the planet and the nett movement is zero.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
This is just another of the many mistakes that show you are a physics novice.
See the section "Tidal deceleration" of Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Have a look at the section "Tidal heating" while you are there.
The part of your paper that I was having trouble with here was :-
Thus, the oceanic tidal bulge would lag behind Heaven and act to decelerate it in its orbit. Heaven would then slowly spiral towards, and finally impact, PreEarth.
From the Wiki page you reference :-
The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of the Earth causes the Moon to be promoted in its orbit, and the Earth to be decelerated in its rotation. As in any physical process within an isolated system, total energy and angular momentum are conserved. Effectively, energy and angular momentum are transferred from the rotation of the Earth to the orbital motion of the Moon (however, most of the energy lost by the Earth is converted to heat, and only about one 30th is transferred to the Moon). The Moon moves farther away from the Earth, so its potential energy (in the Earth's gravity well) increases. It stays in orbit, and from Kepler's 3rd law it follows that its velocity actually decreases, so the tidal action on the Moon actually causes a deceleration of its motion across the celestial sphere. Although its kinetic energy decreases, its potential energy increases by a larger amount. The tidal force has a component in the direction of the Moon's motion, and therefore increases its energy, but the non-tidal part of the Earth's gravity pulls (on average) slightly backwards on the Moon (which on average has a slight outward velocity), so the net result is that the Moon slows down. The Moon's orbital angular momentum increases.
So either it decelerates in it's orbit and spirals away from pre-earth or it spirals towards pre-earth and it speeds up in it's orbit.
It is easy to demonstrate. Take a geostationary satellite at 35,000 km and the ISS at 330 km above the surface. The satellite is travelling at just over 3,000 m/s whereas the ISS is moving at 7,800 m/s – you speed up as you come closer.
The big implication of this for your theory is that, when heaven is orbiting just above the surface of pre-earth it is moving like an express train and the kinetic energy of the horizontal component of it's velocity will add significantly to the impact. Also, as it is moving so quickly around pre-earth the point of impact will be spear around the globe, not just confined to a small area as you suggest.
preearth;1322741 wrote:
Only you assume this. You make mistake after mistake. From these mistakes it is clear that you have not spent the necessary time thinking about the viability of the positions you adopt.
I also note, that you have not answered the questions asked of the theories you supposedly believe. Ignoring the questions is safer, isn't it?
What questions have you asked? Insults yes, denials yes, but I see no questions from you.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr wrote: What questions have you asked? Insults yes, denials yes, but I see no questions from you.
How about the following;
preearth wrote: How did the Earth aquire a 6-7,000 degree temperature at its core?
You even quoted this question to ask a couple of your own,...
preearth wrote: The Pangaea model, is clearly fictional.
Such, an arrangement would be completely unbalanced with regards to the supposed spin axis of the time. The Earth would spin erratically until the spin axis runs through the center of mass of Pangaea, which is somewhere in North-East Africa. There is no evidence that the rotational pole has ever been in North-East Africa. Some scientists have speculated that the stress of changes as the spin axis moves to a balanced arrangement, caused the breakup of Pangaea.
However, most "scientists" quietly ignore this HUGE problem.
How do you explain this?
preearth wrote: There are many more such problems with "official" theory, if you are interested.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Your description of both pre-earth and heaven is of a solid core surrounded by a molten mantle with a surface crust...
No it isn't. That is your own fiction. I claim both planets were initially solid.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If, by some unexplained mechanism, Pre-earth and heaven did spiral towards each other
I have explained your "unexplained mechanism" for you and you are not happy.
I guess that not only does this show your ignorance of the subject, but you don't like having your ignorance exposed.
Your comments about using densities in the Roche limit are crazy. The densities here are not well known,... why would you introduce them? Only the average densities are well known and this imposes serious restrictions on when the Roche limit involving them can be used.
I guess you must have densities because the first version of the Roche limit you ever learnt had densities in it and you cannot think beyond the first version you learnt.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If increasing tidal heating by 50,000 times still renders it insignificant then why are you trying to halve that kinetic energy yet again by postulating a moon...
Why is it you cannot understand that you can radiate a huge amount of energy over a long period of time,... lets say Heaven spun down over millions of years,... even if the amount per day is small? What is so hard about this concept that you cannot understand it? This, after all, is the basis of plate tectonics (small movements over long periods), where you don't seem to have a problem with it.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The big implication of this for your theory is that, when heaven is orbiting just above the surface of pre-earth it is moving like an express train and the kinetic energy of the horizontal component of it's velocity will add significantly to the impact. Also, as it is moving so quickly around pre-earth the point of impact will be spear around the globe, not just confined to a small area as you suggest.
Thats not how it works. What happens is that Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).
What is disturbing about you is that you have an agenda (which should be obvious to all 3 people reading this).
At least, this is the way it appears. Why else would you have such trouble with simple concepts like; Small amounts over long periods = large amounts in total?
If you were even handed, or knew enough about the subject, you could mention that a lot of the energy of the collision can be absorbed by the Earth moving away from the Sun, i.e., kinetic energy goes to potential energy, and not heat. I have not included this in the calculations, although a knowledgeable, unbiased person, would have pointed this out. I didn't include this because I wasn't sure I needed to and because if I ignored it, and other things, I could finish the paper before going to Australia.
When heaven spun down PreEarth's rotational speed increased through tidal effects. This is another store of kinetic energy that does not all end up as heat. You could have pointed this out, as well.
------------------
See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
How about the following;
preearth wrote: How did the Earth aquire a 6-7,000 degree temperature at its core?
You even quoted this question to ask a couple of your own,...
preearth wrote: The Pangaea model, is clearly fictional.
Such, an arrangement would be completely unbalanced with regards to the supposed spin axis of the time. The Earth would spin erratically until the spin axis runs through the center of mass of Pangaea, which is somewhere in North-East Africa. There is no evidence that the rotational pole has ever been in North-East Africa. Some scientists have speculated that the stress of changes as the spin axis moves to a balanced arrangement, caused the breakup of Pangaea.
However, most "scientists" quietly ignore this HUGE problem.
How do you explain this?
preearth wrote: There are many more such problems with "official" theory, if you are interested.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Your description of both pre-earth and heaven is of a solid core surrounded by a molten mantle with a surface crust...
No it isn't. That is your own fiction. I claim both planets were initially solid.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If, by some unexplained mechanism, Pre-earth and heaven did spiral towards each other
I have explained your "unexplained mechanism" for you and you are not happy.
I guess that not only does this show your ignorance of the subject, but you don't like having your ignorance exposed.
Your comments about using densities in the Roche limit are crazy. The densities here are not well known,... why would you introduce them? Only the average densities are well known and this imposes serious restrictions on when the Roche limit involving them can be used.
I guess you must have densities because the first version of the Roche limit you ever learnt had densities in it and you cannot think beyond the first version you learnt.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If increasing tidal heating by 50,000 times still renders it insignificant then why are you trying to halve that kinetic energy yet again by postulating a moon...
Why is it you cannot understand that you can radiate a huge amount of energy over a long period of time,... lets say Heaven spun down over millions of years,... even if the amount per day is small? What is so hard about this concept that you cannot understand it? This, after all, is the basis of plate tectonics (small movements over long periods), where you don't seem to have a problem with it.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The big implication of this for your theory is that, when heaven is orbiting just above the surface of pre-earth it is moving like an express train and the kinetic energy of the horizontal component of it's velocity will add significantly to the impact. Also, as it is moving so quickly around pre-earth the point of impact will be spear around the globe, not just confined to a small area as you suggest.
Thats not how it works. What happens is that Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).
What is disturbing about you is that you have an agenda (which should be obvious to all 3 people reading this).
At least, this is the way it appears. Why else would you have such trouble with simple concepts like; Small amounts over long periods = large amounts in total?
If you were even handed, or knew enough about the subject, you could mention that a lot of the energy of the collision can be absorbed by the Earth moving away from the Sun, i.e., kinetic energy goes to potential energy, and not heat. I have not included this in the calculations, although a knowledgeable, unbiased person, would have pointed this out. I didn't include this because I wasn't sure I needed to and because if I ignored it, and other things, I could finish the paper before going to Australia.
When heaven spun down PreEarth's rotational speed increased through tidal effects. This is another store of kinetic energy that does not all end up as heat. You could have pointed this out, as well.
------------------
See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1323025 wrote: How about the following;
You even quoted this question to ask a couple of your own,...
:wah: I assumed that you were referring to questions specifically aimed at me rather then every rhetorical question posed in the paper.
preearth;1323025 wrote:
No it isn't. That is your own fiction. I claim both planets were initially solid.
You start with a cold density model for heaven and then move on to a hot density model with a core temperature of 4,000K which is what you use for the collision. Are you now claiming that the mantle would be solid at those temperatures?
preearth;1323025 wrote:
I have explained your "unexplained mechanism" for you and you are not happy.
I guess that not only does this show your ignorance of the subject, but you don't like having your ignorance exposed.
The mechanism involved was not the point being made, either heaven was decelerating in which case the orbit was expanding or heaven was “slowly spiral in towards, and finally impact, pre-earth†in which case it's orbital velocity would be increasing.
Just quoting the pre-amble and ignoring the point does not make it go away
preearth;1323025 wrote:
Your comments about using densities in the Roche limit are crazy. The densities here are not well known,... why would you introduce them? Only the average densities are well known and this imposes serious restrictions on when the Roche limit involving them can be used.
I guess you must have densities because the first version of the Roche limit you ever learnt had densities in it and you cannot think beyond the first version you learnt.
The quote mentioned density because the wiki you referenced phrased it in that way - the point is equally valid whether phrased in terms of density or mass and I would be interested in your response to the point rather than seeing yet another personal attack.
preearth;1323025 wrote:
Why is it you cannot understand that you can radiate a huge amount of energy over a long period of time,... lets say Heaven spun down over millions of years,... even if the amount per day is small? What is so hard about this concept that you cannot understand it? This, after all, is the basis of plate tectonics (small movements over long periods), where you don't seem to have a problem with it.
I have no problem with it, it just is not what you paper says. If you wish to loose energy by differential rates of absorption and radiation of energy then say so and account for the energy imbalance. What you actually say is “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.†which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved.
preearth;1323025 wrote:
Thats not how it works. What happens is that Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).
What is disturbing about you is that you have an agenda (which should be obvious to all 3 people reading this).
At least, this is the way it appears. Why else would you have such trouble with simple concepts like; Small amounts over long periods = large amounts in total?
Again, that is not what your paper says. Your description of the event is “Heaven would then slowly spiral towards, and finally impact, PreEarth.†explaining how “the relative velocity of PreEarth and Heaven, before the collision, must have been very small. But how could this be? “ That is not a description of “Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).â€
As to having an agenda, you came onto this site to present your paper. I made the mistake of thinking you wanted to discuss its contents so suggested a couple of potential problems. Far from a discussion this was met with :-
“Unfortunately, when it comes to the Roche Limit, you really don't have a clue.â€
“Its a pity you didn't bother, or don't have the ability, to calculate the Roche Limit,â€
“This is just another of the many mistakes that show you are a physics novice.â€
So yes, I have an agenda, to show that your personal attacks are not warranted.
What's your agenda?
preearth;1323025 wrote:
If you were even handed, or knew enough about the subject, you could mention that a lot of the energy of the collision can be absorbed by the Earth moving away from the Sun, i.e., kinetic energy goes to potential energy, and not heat. I have not included this in the calculations, although a knowledgeable, unbiased person, would have pointed this out. I didn't include this because I wasn't sure I needed to and because if I ignored it, and other things, I could finish the paper before going to Australia.
When heaven spun down PreEarth's rotational speed increased through tidal effects. This is another store of kinetic energy that does not all end up as heat. You could have pointed this out, as well.
If these are relevant factors then they should be included in your paper, given your expressed opinion of my knowledge there is little point in my suggesting them.
You even quoted this question to ask a couple of your own,...
:wah: I assumed that you were referring to questions specifically aimed at me rather then every rhetorical question posed in the paper.
preearth;1323025 wrote:
No it isn't. That is your own fiction. I claim both planets were initially solid.
You start with a cold density model for heaven and then move on to a hot density model with a core temperature of 4,000K which is what you use for the collision. Are you now claiming that the mantle would be solid at those temperatures?
preearth;1323025 wrote:
I have explained your "unexplained mechanism" for you and you are not happy.
I guess that not only does this show your ignorance of the subject, but you don't like having your ignorance exposed.
The mechanism involved was not the point being made, either heaven was decelerating in which case the orbit was expanding or heaven was “slowly spiral in towards, and finally impact, pre-earth†in which case it's orbital velocity would be increasing.
Just quoting the pre-amble and ignoring the point does not make it go away
preearth;1323025 wrote:
Your comments about using densities in the Roche limit are crazy. The densities here are not well known,... why would you introduce them? Only the average densities are well known and this imposes serious restrictions on when the Roche limit involving them can be used.
I guess you must have densities because the first version of the Roche limit you ever learnt had densities in it and you cannot think beyond the first version you learnt.
The quote mentioned density because the wiki you referenced phrased it in that way - the point is equally valid whether phrased in terms of density or mass and I would be interested in your response to the point rather than seeing yet another personal attack.
preearth;1323025 wrote:
Why is it you cannot understand that you can radiate a huge amount of energy over a long period of time,... lets say Heaven spun down over millions of years,... even if the amount per day is small? What is so hard about this concept that you cannot understand it? This, after all, is the basis of plate tectonics (small movements over long periods), where you don't seem to have a problem with it.
I have no problem with it, it just is not what you paper says. If you wish to loose energy by differential rates of absorption and radiation of energy then say so and account for the energy imbalance. What you actually say is “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.†which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved.
preearth;1323025 wrote:
Thats not how it works. What happens is that Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).
What is disturbing about you is that you have an agenda (which should be obvious to all 3 people reading this).
At least, this is the way it appears. Why else would you have such trouble with simple concepts like; Small amounts over long periods = large amounts in total?
Again, that is not what your paper says. Your description of the event is “Heaven would then slowly spiral towards, and finally impact, PreEarth.†explaining how “the relative velocity of PreEarth and Heaven, before the collision, must have been very small. But how could this be? “ That is not a description of “Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).â€
As to having an agenda, you came onto this site to present your paper. I made the mistake of thinking you wanted to discuss its contents so suggested a couple of potential problems. Far from a discussion this was met with :-
“Unfortunately, when it comes to the Roche Limit, you really don't have a clue.â€
“Its a pity you didn't bother, or don't have the ability, to calculate the Roche Limit,â€
“This is just another of the many mistakes that show you are a physics novice.â€
So yes, I have an agenda, to show that your personal attacks are not warranted.
What's your agenda?
preearth;1323025 wrote:
If you were even handed, or knew enough about the subject, you could mention that a lot of the energy of the collision can be absorbed by the Earth moving away from the Sun, i.e., kinetic energy goes to potential energy, and not heat. I have not included this in the calculations, although a knowledgeable, unbiased person, would have pointed this out. I didn't include this because I wasn't sure I needed to and because if I ignored it, and other things, I could finish the paper before going to Australia.
When heaven spun down PreEarth's rotational speed increased through tidal effects. This is another store of kinetic energy that does not all end up as heat. You could have pointed this out, as well.
If these are relevant factors then they should be included in your paper, given your expressed opinion of my knowledge there is little point in my suggesting them.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr wrote: What you actually say is "fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction." which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved."
Lets split the idea up into bits so we can see where the problems are;
1) the tidal heating heats the oceans (99%).
2) the heat of the oceans is radiated over time (as long as you want) to space.
3) even though the per day loss is small, over a sufficiently long time it mounts up.
4) it mounts up to exactly HALF the extra energy that the planet would have gained if it just fell closer.
If the planet just fell from an orbit at A to B then it would gain X kinetic energy.
If the planet spins down from an orbit at A to an orbit at B then it gains X/2 kinetic energy.
Not, that I would expect you to know the simple formulas needed to show this.
The difference ends up as rotational energy and heat which is lost to space over time (and the time required is not actually all that long).
The spinning down allows HALF the kinetic energy it would have gained to be radiated to space (or to a lesser degree stored as rotational energy).
If you understood how tidal friction works, you would understand why nearly all the heat ends up in the oceans.
But obviously you have little idea of the mechanics behind tides and tidal friction.
Not knowing is not a sin. Being wrong is not a sin. But when you expect others to accept your opinion on matters when you clearly don't know much about the subject,... that's a sin.
In the Earth-Moon system, the unobstructed tide of an ocean is about 3 cm.
The tide in rock (crust/mantle) is so small as to be irrelevant.
Lets split the idea up into bits so we can see where the problems are;
1) the tidal heating heats the oceans (99%).
2) the heat of the oceans is radiated over time (as long as you want) to space.
3) even though the per day loss is small, over a sufficiently long time it mounts up.
4) it mounts up to exactly HALF the extra energy that the planet would have gained if it just fell closer.
If the planet just fell from an orbit at A to B then it would gain X kinetic energy.
If the planet spins down from an orbit at A to an orbit at B then it gains X/2 kinetic energy.
Not, that I would expect you to know the simple formulas needed to show this.
The difference ends up as rotational energy and heat which is lost to space over time (and the time required is not actually all that long).
The spinning down allows HALF the kinetic energy it would have gained to be radiated to space (or to a lesser degree stored as rotational energy).
If you understood how tidal friction works, you would understand why nearly all the heat ends up in the oceans.
But obviously you have little idea of the mechanics behind tides and tidal friction.
Not knowing is not a sin. Being wrong is not a sin. But when you expect others to accept your opinion on matters when you clearly don't know much about the subject,... that's a sin.
In the Earth-Moon system, the unobstructed tide of an ocean is about 3 cm.
The tide in rock (crust/mantle) is so small as to be irrelevant.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
From where I am, Bryn seems to know a lot about this subject (as do you - certainly more than me, anyway). To someone like myself who doesn't know much about physics and cannot therefore judge your or Bryn's calculations, your personal attacks make your arguments much less convincing because you appear to feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr wrote: What you actually say is "fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction." which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved."
Lets split the idea up into bits so we can see where the problems are;
1) the tidal heating heats the oceans (99%).
2) the heat of the oceans is radiated over time (as long as you want) to space.
3) even though the per day loss is small, over a sufficiently long time it mounts up.
4) it mounts up to exactly HALF the extra energy that the planet would have gained if it just fell closer.
If the planet just fell from an orbit at A to B then it would gain X kinetic energy.
If the planet spins down from an orbit at A to an orbit at B then it gains X/2 kinetic energy.
Not, that I would expect you to know the simple formulas needed to show this.
The difference ends up as rotational energy and heat which is lost to space over time (and the time required is not actually all that long).
The spinning down allows HALF the kinetic energy it would have gained to be radiated to space or stored as rotational energy.
If you understood how tidal friction works, you would understand why nearly all the heat ends up in the oceans.
But obviously you have little idea of the mechanics behind tides and tidal friction.
Not knowing is not a sin. Being wrong is not a sin. But when you expect others to accept your opinion on matters when you clearly don't know much about the subject,... that's a sin.
In the Earth-Moon system, the unobstructed tide of an ocean is about 3 cm.
The tide in rock (crust/mantle) is so small as to be irrelevant.
Clodhopper;1323294 wrote: because you appear to feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations.
"feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations."
That's a laugh.
"feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations."
That's a real good laugh.
I've been round the forum scene for long enough now to realize that you are most probably working in tandem with Brian.
On most forums there is a group of four or five (or more) who work together to influence the public. Usually, some from this group actually run or administer the forum. Watching what happens on these forums has been a real eye-opener.
----------------
The opening around India.
Notice that India is pushed under the rest of Asia, forming the Himalayas.
Cool animations, eh?
From: Worlds Collide.
Also, See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
Lets split the idea up into bits so we can see where the problems are;
1) the tidal heating heats the oceans (99%).
2) the heat of the oceans is radiated over time (as long as you want) to space.
3) even though the per day loss is small, over a sufficiently long time it mounts up.
4) it mounts up to exactly HALF the extra energy that the planet would have gained if it just fell closer.
If the planet just fell from an orbit at A to B then it would gain X kinetic energy.
If the planet spins down from an orbit at A to an orbit at B then it gains X/2 kinetic energy.
Not, that I would expect you to know the simple formulas needed to show this.
The difference ends up as rotational energy and heat which is lost to space over time (and the time required is not actually all that long).
The spinning down allows HALF the kinetic energy it would have gained to be radiated to space or stored as rotational energy.
If you understood how tidal friction works, you would understand why nearly all the heat ends up in the oceans.
But obviously you have little idea of the mechanics behind tides and tidal friction.
Not knowing is not a sin. Being wrong is not a sin. But when you expect others to accept your opinion on matters when you clearly don't know much about the subject,... that's a sin.
In the Earth-Moon system, the unobstructed tide of an ocean is about 3 cm.
The tide in rock (crust/mantle) is so small as to be irrelevant.
Clodhopper;1323294 wrote: because you appear to feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations.
"feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations."
That's a laugh.
"feel threatened by Bryn's arguments and calculations."
That's a real good laugh.
I've been round the forum scene for long enough now to realize that you are most probably working in tandem with Brian.
On most forums there is a group of four or five (or more) who work together to influence the public. Usually, some from this group actually run or administer the forum. Watching what happens on these forums has been a real eye-opener.
----------------
The opening around India.
Notice that India is pushed under the rest of Asia, forming the Himalayas.
Cool animations, eh?
From: Worlds Collide.
Also, See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Sigh.
I am not working "in tandem" with Bryn or anyone else.
I was just trying to warn you that your personal attacks make your arguments look less convincing to those of us who are not good enough at physics to follow the detail of your argument, but are interested in the solar system and its history.
I am not working "in tandem" with Bryn or anyone else.
I was just trying to warn you that your personal attacks make your arguments look less convincing to those of us who are not good enough at physics to follow the detail of your argument, but are interested in the solar system and its history.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn may be a very smart guy, but he is clearly no expert on the subject at hand.
If he insists on claiming errors, which are only errors because of his misunderstanding of the subject, then I feel quite free to say he doesn't know what he is talking about.
It may not be obvious to you, but much of what he says proves he has only a limited knowledge of the subject.
He is probably a talented high school kid, or undergrad,... nothing wrong with that.
And what I say about many (perhaps most) forums being driven by a small group with a common agenda,... that is absolutely true.
If he insists on claiming errors, which are only errors because of his misunderstanding of the subject, then I feel quite free to say he doesn't know what he is talking about.
It may not be obvious to you, but much of what he says proves he has only a limited knowledge of the subject.
He is probably a talented high school kid, or undergrad,... nothing wrong with that.
And what I say about many (perhaps most) forums being driven by a small group with a common agenda,... that is absolutely true.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
He is probably a talented high school kid, or undergrad,... nothing wrong with that.
Well, as you say, I can't tell how much either of you really know owing to my ignorance. I don't know what Bryn does (or did) for a living. But I'm sure he's MUCH older than a schoolkid or undergrad (sorry Bryn!) and I've certainly "seen" him having similar technical discussions on the science of Climate Change.
Apart from chatting about sport a bit (not recently) on the BBC site, this is the only forum I'm part of. Not aware of a small group with a common agenda driving it in any particular direction.
Well, as you say, I can't tell how much either of you really know owing to my ignorance. I don't know what Bryn does (or did) for a living. But I'm sure he's MUCH older than a schoolkid or undergrad (sorry Bryn!) and I've certainly "seen" him having similar technical discussions on the science of Climate Change.
Apart from chatting about sport a bit (not recently) on the BBC site, this is the only forum I'm part of. Not aware of a small group with a common agenda driving it in any particular direction.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1323322 wrote: And what I say about many (perhaps most) forums being driven by a small group with a common agenda,... that is absolutely true.
This forum seems OK though.
This forum seems OK though.
-
fseoer2010
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:47 pm
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
HAHA. The fact has proved this is the stuff of a good discussion.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
HAHA. The fact has proved this is the stuff of a good discussion.
?????
You've lost me.
Oh, and Hello!
?????
You've lost me.
Oh, and Hello!
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1323309 wrote: Lets split the idea up into bits so we can see where the problems are;
1) the tidal heating heats the oceans (99%).
2) the heat of the oceans is radiated over time (as long as you want) to space.
3) even though the per day loss is small, over a sufficiently long time it mounts up.
4) it mounts up to exactly HALF the extra energy that the planet would have gained if it just fell closer.
If the planet just fell from an orbit at A to B then it would gain X kinetic energy.
If the planet spins down from an orbit at A to an orbit at B then it gains X/2 kinetic energy.
Not, that I would expect you to know the simple formulas needed to show this.
The difference ends up as rotational energy and heat which is lost to space over time (and the time required is not actually all that long).
The spinning down allows HALF the kinetic energy it would have gained to be radiated to space or stored as rotational energy.
If you understood how tidal friction works, you would understand why nearly all the heat ends up in the oceans.
But obviously you have little idea of the mechanics behind tides and tidal friction.
Not knowing is not a sin. Being wrong is not a sin. But when you expect others to accept your opinion on matters when you clearly don't know much about the subject,... that's a sin.
In the Earth-Moon system, the unobstructed tide of an ocean is about 3 cm.
The tide in rock (crust/mantle) is so small as to be irrelevant.
Firstly, go back and re-read my post.
Then come back and show me where, in your paper, you enumerate this as the mechanism for loosing half of the kinetic energy.
As you appear to have difficulty addressing the point as made and only quote the part you want to answer out of context, I'll remind you of what I said :-
I have no problem with it, it just is not what you paper says. If you wish to loose energy by differential rates of absorption and radiation of energy then say so and account for the energy imbalance. What you actually say is “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.” which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved.
Whether the energy goes into the core of the body or into the ocean is totally irrelevant to what was said.
1) the tidal heating heats the oceans (99%).
2) the heat of the oceans is radiated over time (as long as you want) to space.
3) even though the per day loss is small, over a sufficiently long time it mounts up.
4) it mounts up to exactly HALF the extra energy that the planet would have gained if it just fell closer.
If the planet just fell from an orbit at A to B then it would gain X kinetic energy.
If the planet spins down from an orbit at A to an orbit at B then it gains X/2 kinetic energy.
Not, that I would expect you to know the simple formulas needed to show this.
The difference ends up as rotational energy and heat which is lost to space over time (and the time required is not actually all that long).
The spinning down allows HALF the kinetic energy it would have gained to be radiated to space or stored as rotational energy.
If you understood how tidal friction works, you would understand why nearly all the heat ends up in the oceans.
But obviously you have little idea of the mechanics behind tides and tidal friction.
Not knowing is not a sin. Being wrong is not a sin. But when you expect others to accept your opinion on matters when you clearly don't know much about the subject,... that's a sin.
In the Earth-Moon system, the unobstructed tide of an ocean is about 3 cm.
The tide in rock (crust/mantle) is so small as to be irrelevant.
Firstly, go back and re-read my post.
Then come back and show me where, in your paper, you enumerate this as the mechanism for loosing half of the kinetic energy.
As you appear to have difficulty addressing the point as made and only quote the part you want to answer out of context, I'll remind you of what I said :-
I have no problem with it, it just is not what you paper says. If you wish to loose energy by differential rates of absorption and radiation of energy then say so and account for the energy imbalance. What you actually say is “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.” which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved.
Whether the energy goes into the core of the body or into the ocean is totally irrelevant to what was said.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr;1324273 wrote: Whether the energy goes into the core of the body or into the ocean is totally irrelevant to what was said.
No it is not irrelevant.
The energy that goes into the ocean as heat is easily lost to space,... you know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding this, or is there really some problem?
As I have said many times before,... this is not a hard concept,... so I have real problems seeing why you cannot understand it.
No it is not irrelevant.
The energy that goes into the ocean as heat is easily lost to space,... you know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding this, or is there really some problem?
As I have said many times before,... this is not a hard concept,... so I have real problems seeing why you cannot understand it.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1324699 wrote: No it is not irrelevant.
The energy that goes into the ocean as heat is easily lost to space,... you know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding this, or is there really some problem?
As I have said many times before,... this is not a hard concept,... so I have real problems seeing why you cannot understand it.
Firstly, go back and re-read my post.
Then come back and show me where, in your paper, you enumerate this as the mechanism for loosing half of the kinetic energy.
As you appear to have difficulty addressing the point as made and only quote the part you want to answer out of context, I'll remind you of what I said :-
I have no problem with it, it just is not what you paper says. If you wish to loose energy by differential rates of absorption and radiation of energy then say so and account for the energy imbalance. What you actually say is “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.” which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved.
Whether the energy goes into the core of the body or into the ocean is totally irrelevant to what was said because I have already said that I have no problem with the concept of differential rates of radiation - just the fact that your paper says nothing about it and it is therefore not part of your theory.
All the way through this discussion, whenever I have made several points about what you have said, you have come back on the one or two items you think you can justify and totally ignored the other points. You are now down to selectively quoting just one sentence out of a point and therefore misrepresenting the point itself.
So let me isolate what I am saying in this sub point of one of the minor disagreements with your theory :-
If it is not in the paper then it is not part of the theory. You cannot say in the paper that the mechanism for loosing half of the heat is tidal friction and, when it is pointed out that this will not loose heat, change the mechanism to differential rates of radiation. Not because it is not a possible mechanism but because it is not enumerated in the paper and, without the figures for rates of energy gain and loss with explanations of how they have been derived, it cannot be validated.
The energy that goes into the ocean as heat is easily lost to space,... you know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding this, or is there really some problem?
As I have said many times before,... this is not a hard concept,... so I have real problems seeing why you cannot understand it.
Firstly, go back and re-read my post.
Then come back and show me where, in your paper, you enumerate this as the mechanism for loosing half of the kinetic energy.
As you appear to have difficulty addressing the point as made and only quote the part you want to answer out of context, I'll remind you of what I said :-
I have no problem with it, it just is not what you paper says. If you wish to loose energy by differential rates of absorption and radiation of energy then say so and account for the energy imbalance. What you actually say is “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.” which is a nonsense as the energy of tidal friction will go into the bodies involved.
Whether the energy goes into the core of the body or into the ocean is totally irrelevant to what was said because I have already said that I have no problem with the concept of differential rates of radiation - just the fact that your paper says nothing about it and it is therefore not part of your theory.
All the way through this discussion, whenever I have made several points about what you have said, you have come back on the one or two items you think you can justify and totally ignored the other points. You are now down to selectively quoting just one sentence out of a point and therefore misrepresenting the point itself.
So let me isolate what I am saying in this sub point of one of the minor disagreements with your theory :-
If it is not in the paper then it is not part of the theory. You cannot say in the paper that the mechanism for loosing half of the heat is tidal friction and, when it is pointed out that this will not loose heat, change the mechanism to differential rates of radiation. Not because it is not a possible mechanism but because it is not enumerated in the paper and, without the figures for rates of energy gain and loss with explanations of how they have been derived, it cannot be validated.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr;1324702 wrote: Then come back and show me where, in your paper, you enumerate this as the mechanism for loosing half of the kinetic energy.
Do you know what;
“fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.â€
means? Obviously not. Since there is only one way in which tidal friction can do this (i.e., through the dissipation of energy in the oceans (dissipation of energy in the rock mantle is negligible)), that is the way that was meant.
Do you know what;
“fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.â€
means? Obviously not. Since there is only one way in which tidal friction can do this (i.e., through the dissipation of energy in the oceans (dissipation of energy in the rock mantle is negligible)), that is the way that was meant.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth, it's an interesting paper. I still don't see how two equally sized spheres could smack into each other without throwing each other off orbit. Each would twist to escape the momentum of the other (ever play pool?). Because the tangent planes at which the two spheres contact would not be normal to the path of orbit. As a thought experiment, roll two marbles in a bowl and watch what they do when they smack into each other. Unless the two planets are perfectly aligned like a "Newon's cradle" one or both of the planets would most likely recoil and spiral away from or into the sun. And, what are the odds that two planets are perfectly aligned on the same orbit? Perfection isn't very probable is it?
Though I will say, the paper could be stronger if presented as one of several possibilities, rather than an assertion of fact, combined with hand-waving to dismiss any critical challenges.
Also, I don't see a huge difference between this theory and the "mainstream" theory which you are attacking, which also asserts that the moon was formed by an impact. The only significant difference is that you've assigned fairly definitive properties to the impacting body, which would seem to be in the opposite direction of observationally verifiable science. For example, you are saying the body was exactly the same size as Earth and perfectly aligned on the same orbit.
Personally I find most impact theories hard to believe, since it's more plausible two planets could form in close proximity (from the same material from a mother star) and an impact on the smaller of the two could set it in orbit around the larger. Since the material that survives burnup for several billion years would be exactly that which is trapped in a stabled orbit around the Sun. As far as explaining why the two share some molecular chemistry, I would think it would be because they were both cut from the same cloth.
The speed and direction of an orbiting body are critical in maintaining orbit. Any slight deviation will send it spiraling either away from, or towards the Sun. Do you know the odds of two random bodies of equal size smacking into each other and surviving orbit? It's almost infinitely small. It's possible it's happened, but for Earth? What I'd expect is a giant asteroid field to be produced instead.
Though I will say, the paper could be stronger if presented as one of several possibilities, rather than an assertion of fact, combined with hand-waving to dismiss any critical challenges.
Also, I don't see a huge difference between this theory and the "mainstream" theory which you are attacking, which also asserts that the moon was formed by an impact. The only significant difference is that you've assigned fairly definitive properties to the impacting body, which would seem to be in the opposite direction of observationally verifiable science. For example, you are saying the body was exactly the same size as Earth and perfectly aligned on the same orbit.
Personally I find most impact theories hard to believe, since it's more plausible two planets could form in close proximity (from the same material from a mother star) and an impact on the smaller of the two could set it in orbit around the larger. Since the material that survives burnup for several billion years would be exactly that which is trapped in a stabled orbit around the Sun. As far as explaining why the two share some molecular chemistry, I would think it would be because they were both cut from the same cloth.
The speed and direction of an orbiting body are critical in maintaining orbit. Any slight deviation will send it spiraling either away from, or towards the Sun. Do you know the odds of two random bodies of equal size smacking into each other and surviving orbit? It's almost infinitely small. It's possible it's happened, but for Earth? What I'd expect is a giant asteroid field to be produced instead.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1326325 wrote: Do you know what;
“fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.”
means? Obviously not. Since there is only one way in which tidal friction can do this (i.e., through the dissipation of energy in the oceans (dissipation of energy in the rock mantle is negligible)), that is the way that was meant.
I know very well what it means - I also know it does not mean the energy is dissipated by radiation which is what you are now saying.
The statement “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.” means that you see tidal friction as loosing the energy from the system you are describing. It will not do that - whether the energy moves into the rock or into the ocean is immaterial as it remains within the system.
If you then expect the energy to by lost from the system by radiation then you need to say so and show that it will happen otherwise your theory is incomplete and, as such, flawed.
“fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.”
means? Obviously not. Since there is only one way in which tidal friction can do this (i.e., through the dissipation of energy in the oceans (dissipation of energy in the rock mantle is negligible)), that is the way that was meant.
I know very well what it means - I also know it does not mean the energy is dissipated by radiation which is what you are now saying.
The statement “fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.” means that you see tidal friction as loosing the energy from the system you are describing. It will not do that - whether the energy moves into the rock or into the ocean is immaterial as it remains within the system.
If you then expect the energy to by lost from the system by radiation then you need to say so and show that it will happen otherwise your theory is incomplete and, as such, flawed.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: The Evidence.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1326402 wrote: Also, I don't see a huge difference between this theory and the "mainstream" theory which you are attacking, which also asserts that the moon was formed by an impact.
Actually the differences are huge.
For one, the impact was assumed to occur 4.5 billion years ago.
In order to get a simulation where a moon was formed, they needed to assume things like;
The planet had to be half-molten to begin with.
The impact had to have maximal impact speed.
The impact had to be a glancing blow.
The giant impact hypothesis has lots of problems. For one, see;
http://preearth.net/pdfs/giant-impact-problems.pdf
Actually the differences are huge.
For one, the impact was assumed to occur 4.5 billion years ago.
In order to get a simulation where a moon was formed, they needed to assume things like;
The planet had to be half-molten to begin with.
The impact had to have maximal impact speed.
The impact had to be a glancing blow.
The giant impact hypothesis has lots of problems. For one, see;
http://preearth.net/pdfs/giant-impact-problems.pdf
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1326402 wrote: The speed and direction of an orbiting body are critical in maintaining orbit. Any slight deviation will send it spiraling either away from, or towards the Sun.
yaaarrrgg; that's not true. Even very large deviations will not send it spiraling either away from, or towards the Sun.
What happens is the planet adjusts its orbit for the new speed and direction. It ends up a bit further, or closer, to the sun, depending on whether it loses, or gains, energy from the change.
yaaarrrgg; that's not true. Even very large deviations will not send it spiraling either away from, or towards the Sun.
What happens is the planet adjusts its orbit for the new speed and direction. It ends up a bit further, or closer, to the sun, depending on whether it loses, or gains, energy from the change.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
What happens is the planet adjusts its orbit for the new speed and direction. It ends up a bit further, or closer, to the sun, depending on whether it loses, or gains, energy from the change.
That and the eccentricity of the orbit changes.
That and the eccentricity of the orbit changes.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1326402 wrote: preearth, it's an interesting paper. I still don't see how two equally sized spheres could smack into each other without throwing each other off orbit.
Well, yes the orbit would have changed, but not that much.
Well, yes the orbit would have changed, but not that much.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
I'm sorry but doesn't anybody here recognize copyright laws?
I really would hate to have this nice forum busted for plagiarism.
Plagiarism.org
I really would hate to have this nice forum busted for plagiarism.
Plagiarism.org
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1326402 wrote: As a thought experiment, roll two marbles in a bowl and watch what they do when they smack into each other.
This is a nice thought experiment.
This is a nice thought experiment.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1327370 wrote: Actually the differences are huge.
For one, the impact was assumed to occur 4.5 billion years ago.
In order to get a simulation where a moon was formed, they needed to assume things like;
The planet had to be half-molten to begin with.
The impact had to have maximal impact speed.
The impact had to be a glancing blow.
The giant impact hypothesis has lots of problems. For one, see;
http://preearth.net/pdfs/giant-impact-problems.pdf
I can imagine if the Earth were like a half molten lava blob, hitting from one side might cause a molten plume to eject on the other without destroying either object (i.e. lava light meets newton's cradle). Some may then end up orbiting Earth, because some material is lost to space, some falls back to earth, and the stuff in the middle is stuck. That which is stuck in freefall then collapses to a sphere because of gravity, and internal attractive forces. Since the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, one side of Earth may then repeated attract the object at a regular interval (tangent to motion of Earth), syncing it in orbit.
I have a harder time imagining two cold Earths hitting together. Momentum is preserved regardless of temp, but if the objects are rigid I think they would want to recoil or break up, not stick together as much.
So in short, a hotter starting temp actually helps the impact theory IMO. But in order to draw any definite conclusions about *what* the temperature of Earth means, I think there needs to be a comparison to other planets as the base line. For example, are the core temperates of other planet with moons significantly different than Earth (such that it can't be explained by a different distance to the Sun, size)?
I think it's hard to draw such a definite conclusion from one data point, either way. Since any theory could be fit to it just as easily. What ever temp is needed to make the calculations work for a given time scale, that's the starting temp we can use.
For one, the impact was assumed to occur 4.5 billion years ago.
In order to get a simulation where a moon was formed, they needed to assume things like;
The planet had to be half-molten to begin with.
The impact had to have maximal impact speed.
The impact had to be a glancing blow.
The giant impact hypothesis has lots of problems. For one, see;
http://preearth.net/pdfs/giant-impact-problems.pdf
I can imagine if the Earth were like a half molten lava blob, hitting from one side might cause a molten plume to eject on the other without destroying either object (i.e. lava light meets newton's cradle). Some may then end up orbiting Earth, because some material is lost to space, some falls back to earth, and the stuff in the middle is stuck. That which is stuck in freefall then collapses to a sphere because of gravity, and internal attractive forces. Since the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, one side of Earth may then repeated attract the object at a regular interval (tangent to motion of Earth), syncing it in orbit.
I have a harder time imagining two cold Earths hitting together. Momentum is preserved regardless of temp, but if the objects are rigid I think they would want to recoil or break up, not stick together as much.
So in short, a hotter starting temp actually helps the impact theory IMO. But in order to draw any definite conclusions about *what* the temperature of Earth means, I think there needs to be a comparison to other planets as the base line. For example, are the core temperates of other planet with moons significantly different than Earth (such that it can't be explained by a different distance to the Sun, size)?
I think it's hard to draw such a definite conclusion from one data point, either way. Since any theory could be fit to it just as easily. What ever temp is needed to make the calculations work for a given time scale, that's the starting temp we can use.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1330205 wrote: I have a harder time imagining two cold Earths hitting together. Momentum is preserved regardless of temp, but if the objects are rigid I think they would want to recoil or break up, not stick together as much.
Actually, it is really hard not to get them to stick together.
Basically, the gravitational force of the combined mass prevents them exploding apart.
In the giant impact hypothesis (the hypothesis where it is supposed the Moon formed from an impact of a Mars sized planet with Earth), in order to get a simulation where enough material was blown away from the Earth to form a moon, they needed to assume things like;
The planet and (and sometimes the impactor) had to be half-molten to begin with.
The impact had to have a high impact speed (escape velocity or greater).
The impact had to be a glancing blow.
And even then the results are debatable.
The giant impact hypothesis has lots of problems. For one particular problem, see;
http://preearth.net/pdfs/giant-impact-problems.pdf
Actually, it is really hard not to get them to stick together.
Basically, the gravitational force of the combined mass prevents them exploding apart.
In the giant impact hypothesis (the hypothesis where it is supposed the Moon formed from an impact of a Mars sized planet with Earth), in order to get a simulation where enough material was blown away from the Earth to form a moon, they needed to assume things like;
The planet and (and sometimes the impactor) had to be half-molten to begin with.
The impact had to have a high impact speed (escape velocity or greater).
The impact had to be a glancing blow.
And even then the results are debatable.
The giant impact hypothesis has lots of problems. For one particular problem, see;
http://preearth.net/pdfs/giant-impact-problems.pdf
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1330852 wrote: Actually, it is really hard not to get them to stick together.
[/url]
For your theory that is probably true, since the relative difference in speed (between the two Earths) may be less than the escape velocity.
For the general impact theory, the object can come from out of the solar system and travel at any speed. For example Haley's comet is traveling about 7 times greater than escape velocity. The theoretical impactor is of unknown mass, speed and direction.
I would agree the general impact theory is debatable, but think that is true for most of these theories.
[/url]
For your theory that is probably true, since the relative difference in speed (between the two Earths) may be less than the escape velocity.
For the general impact theory, the object can come from out of the solar system and travel at any speed. For example Haley's comet is traveling about 7 times greater than escape velocity. The theoretical impactor is of unknown mass, speed and direction.
I would agree the general impact theory is debatable, but think that is true for most of these theories.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1331126 wrote: For your theory that is probably true, since the relative difference in speed (between the two Earths) may be less than the escape velocity.
For the general impact theory, the object can come from out of the solar system and travel at any speed. For example Haley's comet is traveling about 7 times greater than escape velocity. The theoretical impactor is of unknown mass, speed and direction.
I would agree the general impact theory is debatable, but think that is true for most of these theories.
That might have been true of the original theory but, since he's changed the theory to have heaven's orbit become eccentric with a final, gravity assisted, vertical dive into pre-earth, that may well no longer be true.
Thats not how it works. What happens is that Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).
For the general impact theory, the object can come from out of the solar system and travel at any speed. For example Haley's comet is traveling about 7 times greater than escape velocity. The theoretical impactor is of unknown mass, speed and direction.
I would agree the general impact theory is debatable, but think that is true for most of these theories.
That might have been true of the original theory but, since he's changed the theory to have heaven's orbit become eccentric with a final, gravity assisted, vertical dive into pre-earth, that may well no longer be true.
Thats not how it works. What happens is that Heaven's orbit becomes more eccentric and eventually, at aphelion, it cannot quite manage sufficient velocity to clear PreEarth on the next pass and consequently it impacts,... almost head on,... even though the average orbital speed was high (a few kilometers per second).
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr;1331160 wrote: That might have been true of the original theory but, since he's changed the theory to have heaven's orbit become eccentric with a final, gravity assisted, vertical dive into pre-earth, that may well no longer be true.
Ah, that's an interesting point. I hadn't noticed the theory was modified.
If we are going that route too, for any impact (of a given mass, speed and direction) there's really no way to determine if this object had at orbited the sun, and if so how many times it orbited. Any such impact following that arc could just as easily be caused by an object traveling from outside the solar system (tangent to the arc of the impactor, intersecting the curve at point of impact).
Saying that the object orbited the sun adds no theorectical power, any more than saying the object was yellow and had a giant smiley face on it. If anything, it diminishes the theorectical power, since an object from outside the solar system could have been carrying frozen life, which seeded the planet, or at least got the ball rolling so to speak. Maybe the object was the last part of an advanced civilization that met its end in nuclear war.
By assuming the object orbited the sun, we can explain *less* than if we don't make this assumption in the first place. By adding these definitive (and untestable) properties to the object, it goes against Occam's razor.
Ah, that's an interesting point. I hadn't noticed the theory was modified.
If we are going that route too, for any impact (of a given mass, speed and direction) there's really no way to determine if this object had at orbited the sun, and if so how many times it orbited. Any such impact following that arc could just as easily be caused by an object traveling from outside the solar system (tangent to the arc of the impactor, intersecting the curve at point of impact).
Saying that the object orbited the sun adds no theorectical power, any more than saying the object was yellow and had a giant smiley face on it. If anything, it diminishes the theorectical power, since an object from outside the solar system could have been carrying frozen life, which seeded the planet, or at least got the ball rolling so to speak. Maybe the object was the last part of an advanced civilization that met its end in nuclear war.
By assuming the object orbited the sun, we can explain *less* than if we don't make this assumption in the first place. By adding these definitive (and untestable) properties to the object, it goes against Occam's razor.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1331172 wrote: By assuming the object orbited the sun, we can explain *less* than if we don't make this assumption in the first place. By adding these definitive (and untestable) properties to the object, it goes against Occam's razor.
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1331687 wrote: No it doesn't.
Then what can we explain by assuming the impactor orbited the Sun once (or ten times, or a billion times) versus not at all?
Then what can we explain by assuming the impactor orbited the Sun once (or ten times, or a billion times) versus not at all?
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1331126 wrote: For your theory that is probably true, since the relative difference in speed (between the two Earths) may be less than the escape velocity.
Heaven orbits PreEarth, hence has to have less than the escape velocity (of PreEarth), by definition.
yaaarrrgg;1331126 wrote: For the general impact theory, the object can come from out of the solar system and travel at any speed. For example Haley's comet is traveling about 7 times greater than escape velocity. The theoretical impactor is of unknown mass, speed and direction.
Haley's comet has to be travelling at less than 42 km/s when crossing Earth's orbit (otherwise it would have enough energy to escape from the Sun).
Don't forget my little forum at: preearth.net/phpBB3/
Here's a list of topics: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
You don't need to register, just click on the new topic button and start a thread.
Heaven orbits PreEarth, hence has to have less than the escape velocity (of PreEarth), by definition.
yaaarrrgg;1331126 wrote: For the general impact theory, the object can come from out of the solar system and travel at any speed. For example Haley's comet is traveling about 7 times greater than escape velocity. The theoretical impactor is of unknown mass, speed and direction.
Haley's comet has to be travelling at less than 42 km/s when crossing Earth's orbit (otherwise it would have enough energy to escape from the Sun).
Don't forget my little forum at: preearth.net/phpBB3/
Here's a list of topics: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts
You don't need to register, just click on the new topic button and start a thread.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Don't forget my little forum at: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
yaaarrrgg;1331697 wrote: Then what can we explain by assuming the impactor orbited the Sun once (or ten times, or a billion times) versus not at all?
If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it orbits the Sun.
If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it orbits the Sun.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1333980 wrote: If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it orbits the Sun.
Question - if a body passes through the solar system on a hyperbolic path is it in orbit?
Question - if a body passes through the solar system on a hyperbolic path is it in orbit?
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr;1333983 wrote: Question - if a body passes through the solar system on a hyperbolic path is it in orbit?
Nope. But can you name even one natural body that has passed through the solar system on a hyperbolic path (I was trying to make the point that there is almost nothing in deep space and though something arrving from there is theoretically possible, it seems this doesn't happen in practice,... hence the "If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it orbits the Sun.").
I should have really said; If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it most probably orbits the Sun.
Nope. But can you name even one natural body that has passed through the solar system on a hyperbolic path (I was trying to make the point that there is almost nothing in deep space and though something arrving from there is theoretically possible, it seems this doesn't happen in practice,... hence the "If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it orbits the Sun.").
I should have really said; If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it most probably orbits the Sun.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
preearth;1333997 wrote: Nope. But can you name even one natural body that has passed through the solar system on a hyperbolic path (I was trying to make the point that there is almost nothing in deep space and though something arrving from there is theoretically possible, it seems this doesn't happen in practice,... hence the "If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it orbits the Sun.").
I should have really said; If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it most probably orbits the Sun.
When yaaarrrgg's question was specifically about the difference between objects that did or did not orbit the sun then to give that answer is misleading at best.
I should have really said; If the impactor is in the vicinity of the Sun then it most probably orbits the Sun.
When yaaarrrgg's question was specifically about the difference between objects that did or did not orbit the sun then to give that answer is misleading at best.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Bryn Mawr;1334009 wrote: When yaaarrrgg's question was specifically about the difference between objects that did or did not orbit the sun then to give that answer is misleading at best.
Actually, I couldn't figure what he was trying to say with regard to this. So. I answered and if he corrected that would be fine.
Actually, I couldn't figure what he was trying to say with regard to this. So. I answered and if he corrected that would be fine.
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
I decided to comment on Don Findlay's site, earthexpansion.blogspot.com, even though he appears to be false opposition.
Someone always deletes the posts.
Do you think it is Don Findlay, or the blogspot.com people, who are deleting the comments?
Seems most likely to be the blogspot.com people.
Someone always deletes the posts.
Do you think it is Don Findlay, or the blogspot.com people, who are deleting the comments?
Seems most likely to be the blogspot.com people.