ForumGarden

When Worlds Collided.

Heaven and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heaven to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heaven and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heaven itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map.



This map is a flat representation of part of a globe. Hence, some distortion is inevitable.....

Read the rest here: http://preearth.net/

The whole idea of the theory is summarized by this animated GIF:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

Heaven was completely submerged into PreEarth (causing massive expansion).

When Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) is mapped from the sphere of PreEarth to a flat map, you get exactly the map of the first graphic up above. In fact, that is how this map was first produced.

Here is a standard map of Pangaea



The expansion in size of PreEarth after swallowing Heaven, caused Pangaea to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

The circular region where Heaven entered is now called the Pacific Ocean (not all the Pacific, but most of it).

From: http://preearth.net/

This should be the stuff of a good discussion.

No.

ditto

Does the use of the word "heaven" carry any religious overtones? If not, why did you use it?

Celestial mechanics is not my bag, but I was under the impression that the coalescing of bands of space dust surrounding the newly-formed sun had no mechanism for forming binary planets and the moon is generally reckoned to have been split from Earth by a collision with a large body ejected from the asteroid belt or beyond, during a recognized period of heavy bombardment. Have you any references to mathematical models which might allow binary planets to form in any circumstances?

Interesting topic of conversation?

Im going to go watch Scooby Doo re-runs.



A = Impacted Area = 2π ⌠⌡x = ug(x)√1+ g'(x)2  dxx = √u2 - v 2 = 2πu(u - √u2 - v 2 )

Nomad;1312634 wrote:

A = Impacted Area = 2π ⌠⌡x = ug(x)√1+ g'(x)2  dxx = √u2 - v 2 = 2πu(u - √u2 - v 2 )


Only if you restrict your observation set to hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces, Shirley.

spot;1312636 wrote: Only if you restrict your observation set to hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces, Shirley.


Dont call me Shirley.

Nomad;1312641 wrote: Dont call me Shirley.


i was going to say that!!!



:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

spot;1312633 wrote: Does the use of the word "heaven" carry any religious overtones? If not, why did you use it?




Why not. It needed a name.

If two equally sized planets collided, wouldn't it knock them both out of orbit?

Too bad you can't buy a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin real fast and freak everybody out.

The opening of the Atlantic.



Cool animation, eh?

I think these are better ! :-6




The thing is, which spin direction is correct ? The left one or the right one ?

left one

beowulf;1313088 wrote: left one


That's what I thought, as the sun rises in the east. I wonder what would happen if it started spinning the other way ! Would we all fall into the sea? :-3 :wah:

G#Gill;1313091 wrote: I wonder what would happen if it started spinning the other way ! :


the yanks would get up before we did :yh_rotfl

beowulf;1313165 wrote: the yanks would get up before we did :yh_rotfl


Mah - they're never up before lunchtime - I know, I've been in meetings with them :wah:

As for the theory, too many holes in it, it'll never fly.

The opening around Antarctica.



Another cool animation, eh?

From: Worlds Collide.

spot;1312633 wrote: and the moon is generally reckoned to have been split from Earth by a collision with a large body ejected from the asteroid belt or beyond, during a recognized period of heavy bombardment.


It should be pointed out that the accepted hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesized glancing collision between the Earth and a Mars sized object, has its problems.

The oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio.

This means that the impactor had to have essentially the same oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio, that is, it had to be a twin (binary) of the Earth.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2382.pdf

So, the Moon had to be formed from the impact of a former moon,... which is not really satisfactory at all, is it?

The opening of the South Atlantic.



Yet another cool animation, eh?

From: Worlds Collide.

You didn't actually answer my earlier question - does your use of the word "heaven" carry any religious overtones?

All these animated GIFs in this thread make it very difficult for my 64MB 266MHz laptop to get in and respond, it's like pushing treacle uphill.

beowulf;1313088 wrote: left one


G#Gill;1313091 wrote: That's what I thought, as the sun rises in the east. I wonder what would happen if it started spinning the other way ! Would we all fall into the sea? :-3 :wah:


beowulf;1313165 wrote: the yanks would get up before we did :yh_rotfl


How much faster would Earth's orbit have to be in comparison with Earth's rotation have to be in order to see the exact same observation if Earth rotated to the left as depicted by the right globe in figure http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1313073-post14.html?

spot;1314042 wrote: You didn't actually answer my earlier question - does your use of the word "heaven" carry any religious overtones?


Of course it does. That is the whole point.

The paper at Worlds Collide. has no relation to religion except for naming the second planet Heaven.

That was a curious "definitely yes" followed by "definitely no". Would you like to expand on the definitely yes bit?

spot;1314619 wrote: That was a curious "definitely yes" followed by "definitely no". Would you like to expand on the definitely yes bit?
Yes;

It definitely has religious overtones.

Religion plays no part in the proofs presented in the paper.

preearth;1315337 wrote: Yes;

It definitely has religious overtones.

Religion plays no part in the proofs presented in the paper.


So you're using the word "heaven" as a means to give religious viewpoints a more scientific perspective on the "paper" as opposed to highlighting your bias toward what you feel is relevancy between religion and physics/cosmology?

K.Snyder;1315349 wrote: So you're using the word "heaven" as a means to give religious viewpoints a more scientific perspective on the "paper" as opposed to highlighting your bias toward what you feel is relevancy between religion and physics/cosmology?


Not really,... I just thought it would be great to be able to start the paper with

"In the beginning God created Heaven and PreEarth."

preearth;1315485 wrote: Not really,... I just thought it would be great to be able to start the paper with

"In the beginning God created Heaven and PreEarth."


It is, if you'll pardon my saying so, the immediate cause of whatever resistance you're finding to the paper's acceptance.

spot;1315488 wrote: It is, if you'll pardon my saying so, the immediate cause of whatever resistance you're finding to the paper's acceptance.


Yes. This is a big part of it,... but not the only part.

The opening of the Indian Ocean.



Yet another cool animation, eh?

From: http://preearth.net

I have started up my own bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/

See if there are any topics that interest you?

It should be pointed out that the accepted hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesized glancing collision between the Earth and a Mars sized object, has its problems.

The oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio.

This means that the impactor had to have essentially the same oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio, that is, it had to be a twin (binary) of the Earth.


My understanding was that the early Earth was hit by a Mars sized object at a slight angle. The two bodies completely merged, but a lot of debris was thrown off by the impact. The Moon was formed by the gradual coalescence of this debris.

Since the debris was from both colliding objects, it would make sense that Earth and Moon would share characteristics such as oxygen isotopes.

(After that your discussion with spot goes waaaaaaay out of my depth!)

Just taking the paragraph :-

Suppose, initially, that neither planet had extensive oceans and that Heaven was in a synchronous orbit about PreEarth. Suppose, that a large icy comet encroached within PreEarth's Roche limit, broke up, and dumped billions of cubic kms of ice on the planet. This new mass of water would cause adjustments to Heaven's orbit, leaving its period slightly shorter than PreEarth's day. 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. 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,


as an example.

Firstly, the "fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.". The energy dissipated by tidal friction would have ended up as heat within the two bodies being slowed. Far from being lost from the equation, the energy of the system would not change through this mechanism.

Secondly, the two bodies would not have slowly spiralled in towards each other and gently come to rest against each other as suggested. As soon as they approached within Roche's limit they would have fragmented - the end result could well be a recombination into a single planet but the preservation of life and the majority of the surface features would have been impossible.

Bryn Mawr;1315954 wrote: Firstly, the "fully half the kinetic energy that Heaven would have otherwise accrued, will be dissipated by tidal friction.". The energy dissipated by tidal friction would have ended up as heat within the two bodies being slowed. Far from being lost from the equation, the energy of the system would not change through this mechanism.


NO. The heat would be lost to space over time.

You know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.

Bryn Mawr;1315954 wrote: Secondly, the two bodies would not have slowly spiralled in towards each other and gently come to rest against each other as suggested.


No. No one, except you, is suggesting that.

Assuming that the two planets were next to each other was just to make the calculations easier to understand.

Bryn Mawr;1315954 wrote: As soon as they approached within Roche's limit they would have fragmented - the end result could well be a recombination into a single planet but the preservation of life and the majority of the surface features would have been impossible.


NO. The Roche limit (that is usually quoted) is for loosely consolidated material.

Just like the international space station doesn't breakup (it is thousands of miles with Earth's Roche limit), neither will the rocks and solid iron core of the planet until it is thousands of miles within the (usually quoted) Roche limit.

You would do well to watch a scientific TV programme called "Wonders Of The Solar System", presented by Prof. Brian Cox. It is *excellent* viewing (and learning), and available on DVD. Go on - I thoroughly recommend it!

Clodhopper;1315947 wrote: Since the debris was from both colliding objects, it would make sense that Earth and Moon would share characteristics such as oxygen isotopes.


They did not mix much at all. Computer studies show that the Moon would be 80% impactor. So the oxygen isotopes should be very different (unless they were the same to begin with).

What do you mean by "80% impactor"? If you mean it caused 80% damage to the moon and 20% to the earth, that's still a mix. Or are you saying 100% of the debris was from one body and 0% from the other?

And I've never seen this hit at 45 degree angle bit.

And we've a much bigger iron core than would be expected from a planet the size of Earth, but just the right size to have absorbed the iron core of the the planetoid that his the Early Earth. And lo and behold, if you take that extra amount of iron out of the Earth and plonk it in the Moon (which is remarkably short of iron for its size) both Earth and Moon fit much more precisely the amounts of iron that WOULD be expected in objects that size.

Clodhopper;1317310 wrote: What do you mean by "80% impactor"?


I mean it is 80% impactor, i.e., the Moon is 80% comprised of material from the impactor.

So the oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of the Moon would be very close to that of the impactor.

I have started up my own bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts

See if there are any topics that interest you.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts

Thanks for the explanation . But isn't there a flaw in your argument? You say that the Moon ought to be 80% impactor. That it is exactly the same as Earth is taken by you to show that the impactor was identical to Earth. But it is equally logical to say that the identical nature of the Earth and Moon's isotopes show that the Moon is formed of roughly equal amounts of both colliding bodies?

Chuckle. Anyway, science is constantly learning new things and changing its mind about old things. Who knows what we will know in another decade? This is a very exciting time to be alive.

Clodhopper;1318362 wrote: Thanks for the explanation . But isn't there a flaw in your argument? You say that the Moon ought to be 80% impactor. That it is exactly the same as Earth is taken by you to show that the impactor was identical to Earth. But it is equally logical to say that the identical nature of the Earth and Moon's isotopes show that the Moon is formed of roughly equal amounts of both colliding bodies?


I don't follow your question,... like to rephrase it?

Clodhopper;1318362 wrote: But it is equally logical to say that the identical nature of the Earth and Moon's isotopes show that the Moon is formed of roughly equal amounts of both colliding bodies?


Even if the Moon was made of equal amounts of impator and pre-earth, their initial difference in oxygen isotope ratios would show through, i.e., the Moon and Earth would have different oxygen isotope ratios, not the same as observed.

The opening around India.



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

Cool animations, eh?

From: http://preearth.net/

Also, I have started up my own bulletin board, see if there are any topics that interest you?

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts

Clodhopper;1318362 wrote: Chuckle. Anyway, science is constantly learning new things and changing its mind about old things. Who knows what we will know in another decade? This is a very exciting time to be alive.


Thats true.

Even if the Moon was made of equal amounts of impator and pre-earth, their initial difference in oxygen isotope ratios would show through, i.e., the Moon and Earth would have different oxygen isotope ratios, not the same as observed.


Surely that would depend on how completely the two bodies merged? I'm afraid I really don't know enough abut this to be able to argue properly with you. Still, we do seem to agree that the modern Earth was formed by the collision of two decent sized celestial bodies. That's something.

Oh, and regarding the Himalayas: I saw a documentary about how the mountain root of the Himalayas will eventually drop off (or maybe it already has) and the whole vast Tibetan plateau will end up like Death Valley! (In a few million years)

Clodhopper;1319890 wrote: Oh, and regarding the Himalayas: I saw a documentary about how the mountain root of the Himalayas will eventually drop off (or maybe it already has) and the whole vast Tibetan plateau will end up like Death Valley! (In a few million years)


I don't believe that.

The official versions of Earth's history, are full of false stuff, e.g., the model of Earth, with one hemisphere being the continent of Pangaea and the opposite hemisphere being ocean.

This model, 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.

preearth;1320633 wrote: However, most "scientists" quietly ignore this HUGE problem.


There are many more such problems with "official" theory, if you are interested.

preearth;1321185 wrote: There are many more such problems with "official" theory, if you are interested.


Another example;

How did the Earth aquire a 6-7,000 degree temperature at its core.

preearth;1321791 wrote: Another example;

How did the Earth aquire a 6-7,000 degree temperature at its core.


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,


Question :-

Where would the energy dissipated through tidal friction have gone?



Question :-

Why would the two bodies not have broken up as soon as the came within Roche's limit?

Bryn Mawr;1321792 wrote: Question :-

Where would the energy dissipated through tidal friction have gone?


The heat would be lost to space over time.

You know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.

Bryn Mawr;1321792 wrote: Question :-

Why would the two bodies not have broken up as soon as the came within Roche's limit?


See; What about the Roche Limit? Would the planet breakup?

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30

For all topics from the forum, see;

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts

preearth;1321913 wrote: The heat would be lost to space over time.

You know, just like a hot day becomes cold at night.




The first thing that would happen is theat the kinetic energy lost due to tidal friction would be transformed into heat within the two bodies - black body radiation from those two bodies would only take place after this had happened.

Far from loosing the energy and dismissing it as irrelevant you have only exchanged one form of energy transfer for another.

Bryn Mawr wrote: The first thing that would happen is theat the kinetic energy lost due to tidal friction would be transformed into heat within the two bodies - black body radiation from those two bodies would only take place after this had happened.
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;

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31

For all topics from the forum, see;



http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.p ... d=newposts