Early Mercury would have been a better incubator planet than Earth.
Has anyone ever thought the same?
Notice Mercury has oxygen , water and methane, even now, so early on it could have had them in abundance.
"Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it."
A transfer of of living cells/spores could have happened 3.9 billion years ago. Doesn't that time coincide fairly well with life first being noticed on Earth?
"Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it."
A transfer of of living cells/spores could have happened 3.9 billion years ago. Doesn't that time coincide fairly well with life first being noticed on Earth?
They should send a space probe back to Mercury and land it on the ice in a crater and analyse the sample for life (organic molecules?).
If they found DNA or RNA or Protein I would say that proves life started off on Mercury.
You might think all that would prove is life is capable of existing in very extreme environments and it would prove that life exists on other planets.
Could I disprove that all the planets formed at the same time?
Well the Gas Giant planets formed after the Solar Wind blew the volatile material out there.
You can see the Asteroid Belt was in the process of planet building and was interrupted (I suspect by the solar wind).
And even if the the other 4 planets formed at the same time during the protosun period you would have to agree the radiant pressure on the material nearest Mercury would be the highest compared to the rest, so Mercury warmed up earlier and had more intense light radiation to start off processes like photosynthesis.
Previously (weeks back now) looking through the Hubble images (Nebulae Section) I did see a star with multiple concentric bands of dust around it about to form multiple torus' (planet formation occurring?) but whether it will finish the job we will never know.
Because I have now seen this imagine I can't insist the planets in our solar system definitely formed in a series.
If they found DNA or RNA or Protein I would say that proves life started off on Mercury.
You might think all that would prove is life is capable of existing in very extreme environments and it would prove that life exists on other planets.
Could I disprove that all the planets formed at the same time?
Well the Gas Giant planets formed after the Solar Wind blew the volatile material out there.
You can see the Asteroid Belt was in the process of planet building and was interrupted (I suspect by the solar wind).
And even if the the other 4 planets formed at the same time during the protosun period you would have to agree the radiant pressure on the material nearest Mercury would be the highest compared to the rest, so Mercury warmed up earlier and had more intense light radiation to start off processes like photosynthesis.
Previously (weeks back now) looking through the Hubble images (Nebulae Section) I did see a star with multiple concentric bands of dust around it about to form multiple torus' (planet formation occurring?) but whether it will finish the job we will never know.
Because I have now seen this imagine I can't insist the planets in our solar system definitely formed in a series.
Is there any features of life today that might suggest it was of extra-terrestrial origin?
Do you think there is any reason only 4 nucleic acid bases are used?
I looking for some feature that might suggest life started off on Mercury. Any help most welcome.
Do you think there is any reason only 4 nucleic acid bases are used?
I looking for some feature that might suggest life started off on Mercury. Any help most welcome.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 15 2011, 10:12 PM)
I looking for some feature that might suggest life started off on Mercury. Any help most welcome.
You're an idiot.
Does that help?
You're an idiot.
Does that help?
Calling me names is definitely going to help resolve the science question put forward.
I have put the idea that life started on Mercury on the PhysForum and it hasn't received a hot reception, but they tell me what it is like now but can't comprehend that all the development from molecules to replicating molecules to single celled organisms happened during the Proto-Sun stage.
With Pan Spermia single celled spores could have been what was transferred via space (meteorites and comets originating from Mercury).
With Pan Spermia single celled spores could have been what was transferred via space (meteorites and comets originating from Mercury).
QUOTE
Mercury's core has a higher iron content than that of any other major planet in the Solar System, and several theories have been proposed to explain this. The most widely accepted theory is that Mercury originally had a metal-silicate ratio similar to common chondrite meteorites, thought to be typical of the Solar System's rocky matter, and a mass approximately 2.25 times its current mass. Early in the Solar System’s history, Mercury may have been struck by a planetesimal of approximately 1/6 that mass and several hundred kilometers across. The impact would have stripped away much of the original crust and mantle, leaving the core behind as a relatively major component. A similar process, known as the giant impact hypothesis, has been proposed to explain the formation of Earth’s Moon.
Alternatively, Mercury may have formed from the solar nebula before the Sun's energy output had stabilized. The planet would initially have had twice its present mass, but as the protosun contracted, temperatures near Mercury could have been between 2,500 and 3,500 K (Celsius equivalents about 273 degrees less), and possibly even as high as 10,000 K. Much of Mercury’s surface rock could have been vaporized at such temperatures, forming an atmosphere of "rock vapor" which could have been carried away by the solar wind.
Alternatively, Mercury may have formed from the solar nebula before the Sun's energy output had stabilized. The planet would initially have had twice its present mass, but as the protosun contracted, temperatures near Mercury could have been between 2,500 and 3,500 K (Celsius equivalents about 273 degrees less), and possibly even as high as 10,000 K. Much of Mercury’s surface rock could have been vaporized at such temperatures, forming an atmosphere of "rock vapor" which could have been carried away by the solar wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Mercury was never cool.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 16 2011, 11:31 AM)
I have put the idea that life started on Mercury on the PhysForum and it hasn't received a hot reception, but they tell me what it is like now but can't comprehend that all the development from molecules to replicating molecules to single celled organisms happened during the Proto-Sun stage.
With Pan Spermia single celled spores could have been what was transferred via space (meteorites and comets originating from Mercury).
You may want to revise your terminology. Panspermia deals with cosmic ejecta. Pan Spermia deals with ejecta you might have occasion to swallow.
With Pan Spermia single celled spores could have been what was transferred via space (meteorites and comets originating from Mercury).
You may want to revise your terminology. Panspermia deals with cosmic ejecta. Pan Spermia deals with ejecta you might have occasion to swallow.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 16 2011, 05:16 PM)
You may want to revise your terminology. Panspermia deals with cosmic ejecta. Pan Spermia deals with ejecta you might have occasion to swallow.
Well you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (within lawful bounds).
Thanks for the spelling correction. .. at least someone is reading the thread.
What about some important insight that would eliminate Mercury as the source of the spermia?
Well you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (within lawful bounds).
Thanks for the spelling correction. .. at least someone is reading the thread.
What about some important insight that would eliminate Mercury as the source of the spermia?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 16 2011, 05:27 PM)
Well you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (within lawful bounds).
Thanks for the spelling correction. .. at least someone is reading the thread.
What about some important insight that would eliminate Mercury as the source of the spermia?
The lack of evidence that a mouth or hand of sufficient size existed at that point in the evolutionary history of our solar system.
Thanks for the spelling correction. .. at least someone is reading the thread.
What about some important insight that would eliminate Mercury as the source of the spermia?
The lack of evidence that a mouth or hand of sufficient size existed at that point in the evolutionary history of our solar system.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 16 2011, 05:35 PM)
The lack of evidence that a mouth or hand of sufficient size existed at that point in the evolutionary history of our solar system.
What about the "Hand of God"? Could there be some angel that will do the job for you?
What about the "Hand of God"? Could there be some angel that will do the job for you?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 16 2011, 02:07 PM)
What about the "Hand of God"? Could there be some angel that will do the job for you?
Are there any female angels?
Are there any female angels?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 16 2011, 06:35 PM)
Are there any female angels?
Are you fussy? Yes in fact there are but unfortunately they don't get involved in sex as far as I know. Well not the ones I have met so far.
Are you fussy? Yes in fact there are but unfortunately they don't get involved in sex as far as I know. Well not the ones I have met so far.
flyingbuttressman .... a bit of a fallen angel name according to my records!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 16 2011, 01:02 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Mercury was never cool.
How do you know that? There are regions on Mercury that are very hot and others extremely cold so there might be a zone that is just right. Look in that zone for life.
Mercury was never cool.
How do you know that? There are regions on Mercury that are very hot and others extremely cold so there might be a zone that is just right. Look in that zone for life.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 07:00 PM)
How do you know that? There are regions on Mercury that are very hot and others extremely cold so there might be a zone that is just right. Look in that zone for life.
That's not how it works. Life requires liquid water. I don't think liquid water ever existed on Mercury. Even Earth had to slowly accumulate water over the course of a billion years before life was even possible.
This whole idea is idiotic. How did life manage to move from one planet to another? Theories exist to explain observations. What does this "theory" even begin to explain? These are questions you need to ask yourself.
That's not how it works. Life requires liquid water. I don't think liquid water ever existed on Mercury. Even Earth had to slowly accumulate water over the course of a billion years before life was even possible.
This whole idea is idiotic. How did life manage to move from one planet to another? Theories exist to explain observations. What does this "theory" even begin to explain? These are questions you need to ask yourself.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 11:06 PM)
That's not how it works. Life requires liquid water. I don't think liquid water ever existed on Mercury. Even Earth had to slowly accumulate water over the course of a billion years before life was even possible.
This whole idea is idiotic. How did life manage to move from one planet to another? Theories exist to explain observations. What does this "theory" even begin to explain? These are questions you need to ask yourself.
During the protosun period there was a massive amount of water and other volatiles on Mercury. That Wikipedia far underestimates the original size of the planet.
Living bacteria type cells will survive freeze dried in space and otherwise transported in comets or meteorites.
It explains where molecules to first cell evolution occurred.
This whole idea is idiotic. How did life manage to move from one planet to another? Theories exist to explain observations. What does this "theory" even begin to explain? These are questions you need to ask yourself.
During the protosun period there was a massive amount of water and other volatiles on Mercury. That Wikipedia far underestimates the original size of the planet.
Living bacteria type cells will survive freeze dried in space and otherwise transported in comets or meteorites.
It explains where molecules to first cell evolution occurred.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 07:16 PM)
During the protosun period there was a massive amount of water and other volatiles on Mercury. That Wikipedia far underestimates the original size of the planet.
Based on what source? Your imagination? During the "protosun" period, most of the planets in the solar system were nothing more than rings of rubble around the sun.
SOME types of bacteria can do that, most can't. Again, why is this theory even necessary?
SOME types of bacteria can do that, most can't. Again, why is this theory even necessary?
It explains where molecules to first cell evolution occurred.
No, it doesn't. There is no reason to think that life did not evolve right here on Earth.
I think you need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Basically, life began when the first self-replicating molecule came together. Once it starts making copies of itself, the laws of Evolution take over. Think of that molecule as an early ancestor of RNA.
This is such obvious bullshit, that I can't believe you posted it.
Yes, you want to be known as a crank (for whatever reason), but this is just too stupid.
OTOH, it's you, I guess.
This is such obvious bullshit, that I can't believe you posted it.
Yes, you want to be known as a crank (for whatever reason), but this is just too stupid.
OTOH, it's you, I guess.
Can you give me one reason why you think it is bullshit? That must be some original insight and not just a lick to another website. Let me see what you are thinking please.
Based on what source? Your imagination? During the "protosun" period, most of the planets in the solar system were nothing more than rings of rubble around the sun.
QUOTE
Living bacteria type cells will survive freeze dried in space and otherwise transported in comets or meteorites.
SOME types of bacteria can do that, most can't. Again, why is this theory even necessary?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Living bacteria type cells will survive freeze dried in space and otherwise transported in comets or meteorites. |
SOME types of bacteria can do that, most can't. Again, why is this theory even necessary?
It explains where molecules to first cell evolution occurred.
No, it doesn't. There is no reason to think that life did not evolve right here on Earth.
I think you need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Basically, life began when the first self-replicating molecule came together. Once it starts making copies of itself, the laws of Evolution take over. Think of that molecule as an early ancestor of RNA.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 11:25 PM)
Based on what source? Your imagination? During the "protosun" period, most of the planets in the solar system were nothing more than rings of rubble around the sun.
SOME types of bacteria can do that, most can't. Again, why is this theory even necessary?
No, it doesn't. There is no reason to think that life did not evolve right here on Earth.
I think you need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Basically, life began when the first self-replicating molecule came together. Once it starts making copies of itself, the laws of Evolution take over. Think of that molecule as an early ancestor of RNA.
Based on my calculations from the mass of material in the nebula disc. The rings of rubble as you say then forming planetesimals then coalescing into a planet.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
There is more evolution to develop the first living cell that to go from a bacterium to a man. You seem to think it is easy but it isn't and it required a special place like Mercury.
The Earth was just a block of frozen liquids (a lot like Jupiter is today) no life here sorry.
We have been discussing the abiogenesis debate for months now on the Wooden Boat Forum / Bilge / "Are we alone in the Universe."
SOME types of bacteria can do that, most can't. Again, why is this theory even necessary?
No, it doesn't. There is no reason to think that life did not evolve right here on Earth.
I think you need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Basically, life began when the first self-replicating molecule came together. Once it starts making copies of itself, the laws of Evolution take over. Think of that molecule as an early ancestor of RNA.
Based on my calculations from the mass of material in the nebula disc. The rings of rubble as you say then forming planetesimals then coalescing into a planet.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
There is more evolution to develop the first living cell that to go from a bacterium to a man. You seem to think it is easy but it isn't and it required a special place like Mercury.
The Earth was just a block of frozen liquids (a lot like Jupiter is today) no life here sorry.
We have been discussing the abiogenesis debate for months now on the Wooden Boat Forum / Bilge / "Are we alone in the Universe."
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 09:00 PM)
Based on my calculations from the mass of material in the nebula disc. The rings of rubble as you say then forming planetesimals then coalescing into a planet.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
You are lying. You are not doing any calculations, you are daydreaming. Don't be an idiot. Saying "by my calculations" does not make you look smart.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
You are lying. You are not doing any calculations, you are daydreaming. Don't be an idiot. Saying "by my calculations" does not make you look smart.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 01:04 AM)
You are lying. You are not doing any calculations, you are daydreaming. Don't be an idiot. Saying "by my calculations" does not make you look smart.
I object to that being called a liar Sorry. Those calculations were done in around 1998 -1999 I did them most definitely.
I object to that being called a liar Sorry. Those calculations were done in around 1998 -1999 I did them most definitely.
I was saying to my friends on WBF that I must try and find where those notes went for I was going to scan them in as a photo. I'm not sure where they are just at the moment but I'm sure they weren't lost.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 09:08 PM)
I object to that being called a liar Sorry. Those calculations were done in around 1998 -1999 I did them most definitely.
Riiiiight.
Riiiiight.
QUOTE
Bibbitybobittyboo,
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
This is such obvious bullshit, that I can't believe you posted it.
Yes, you want to be known as a crank (for whatever reason), but this is just too stupid.
OTOH, it's you, I guess.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 01:25 AM)
Riiiiight.
So you now agree that the original masses of the planets in the protosun period have been calculated? Riiiiight!
So you now agree that the original masses of the planets in the protosun period have been calculated? Riiiiight!
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 18 2011, 01:47 AM)
This is such obvious bullshit, that I can't believe you posted it.
Yes, you want to be known as a crank (for whatever reason), but this is just too stupid.
OTOH, it's you, I guess.
Can you give me one reason why you think it is bullshit? That must be some original insight and not just a lick to another website. Let me see what you are thinking please.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 11:06 PM)
Can you give me one reason why you think it is bullshit?
Umm, because it's not true? You don't get to make up facts at a whim.
Umm, because it's not true? You don't get to make up facts at a whim.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 03:09 AM)
Umm, because it's not true? You don't get to make up facts at a whim.
Remember what we are arguing here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass. OK and you can't think of something that might happen if the Earth had that or more mass? Have you heard of compression of solids? Would the terrestrial part of the Earth be compressed with that sort of mass on it?
Remember what we are arguing here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass. OK and you can't think of something that might happen if the Earth had that or more mass? Have you heard of compression of solids? Would the terrestrial part of the Earth be compressed with that sort of mass on it?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 03:20 AM)
Remember what we are arguing here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass. OK and you can't think of something that might happen if the Earth had that or more mass? Have you heard of compression of solids? Would the terrestrial part of the Earth be compressed with that sort of mass on it?
You could have also wondered where all this extra mass has ended up.
You could have also wondered where all this extra mass has ended up.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 11:20 PM)
Remember what we are arguing here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass.
It didn't. You don't get to make up facts on a whim.
It didn't. You don't get to make up facts on a whim.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 11:20 PM)
Remember what we are arguing here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass. OK and you can't think of something that might happen if the Earth had that or more mass? Have you heard of compression of solids? Would the terrestrial part of the Earth be compressed with that sort of mass on it?
Really, there are few words to describe how idiotic this is. You have no evidence or even a consistent model to explain why you think the Earth was 28 times bigger. This combined with your idiotic theory of divine panspermia really leads me to believe that you are mentally disabled.
Really, there are few words to describe how idiotic this is. You have no evidence or even a consistent model to explain why you think the Earth was 28 times bigger. This combined with your idiotic theory of divine panspermia really leads me to believe that you are mentally disabled.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 02:11 PM)
Really, there are few words to describe how idiotic this is. You have no evidence or even a consistent model to explain why you think the Earth was 28 times bigger. This combined with your idiotic theory of divine panspermia really leads me to believe that you are mentally disabled.
This is a serious confrontation to my reputation. That is totally unfair and I expect you to retract those hurtful comments please.
This is a serious confrontation to my reputation. That is totally unfair and I expect you to retract those hurtful comments please.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 02:25 PM)
This is a serious confrontation to my reputation. That is totally unfair and I expect you to retract those hurtful comments please.
What reputation does "Robittybob1" pretend to have? Do you deny making up "facts" to suit your whims? If you make a statement that contradicts modern scientific understanding, you had better be prepared to back it up, or your claim will be dismissed as a dishonest attempt at crankery.
What reputation does "Robittybob1" pretend to have? Do you deny making up "facts" to suit your whims? If you make a statement that contradicts modern scientific understanding, you had better be prepared to back it up, or your claim will be dismissed as a dishonest attempt at crankery.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 06:49 PM)
What reputation does "Robittybob1" pretend to have? Do you deny making up "facts" to suit your whims? If you make a statement that contradicts modern scientific understanding, you had better be prepared to back it up, or your claim will be dismissed as a dishonest attempt at crankery.
And when I have done all this what are you going to do for me?
I feel you are continuing on with your defamation of me, even after I have asked you to stop. Please stop abusing me and refute my hypothesis, if you can, with evidence that will make me change my mind, but please stop just hurting my feelings.
And when I have done all this what are you going to do for me?
I feel you are continuing on with your defamation of me, even after I have asked you to stop. Please stop abusing me and refute my hypothesis, if you can, with evidence that will make me change my mind, but please stop just hurting my feelings.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 09:11 AM)
Really, there are few words to describe how idiotic this is. You have no evidence or even a consistent model to explain why you think the Earth was 28 times bigger. This combined with your idiotic theory of divine panspermia really leads me to believe that you are mentally disabled.
That's a little harsh.
Mentally ill, maybe. Idiotic certainly. But not disabled. At least not totally.
When you get right down to it, it's just another crank.
That's a little harsh.
Mentally ill, maybe. Idiotic certainly. But not disabled. At least not totally.
When you get right down to it, it's just another crank.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 18 2011, 06:59 PM)
That's a little harsh.
Mentally ill, maybe. Idiotic certainly. But not disabled. At least not totally.
When you get right down to it, it's just another crank.
You guys are in for a fall off your mighty horses. You will all look so have at it! Trampled has beens. Enough idioms yet!
Mentally ill, maybe. Idiotic certainly. But not disabled. At least not totally.
When you get right down to it, it's just another crank.
You guys are in for a fall off your mighty horses. You will all look so have at it! Trampled has beens. Enough idioms yet!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 06:56 PM)
And when I have done all this what are you going to do for me?
I feel you are continuing on with your defamation of me, even after I have asked you to stop. Please stop abusing me and refute my hypothesis, if you can, with evidence that will make me change my mind, but please stop just hurting my feelings.
As scientists, we try to describe the world precisely. Stop passing off your made-up nonsense as science and we'll stop describing you as a crank.
I feel you are continuing on with your defamation of me, even after I have asked you to stop. Please stop abusing me and refute my hypothesis, if you can, with evidence that will make me change my mind, but please stop just hurting my feelings.
As scientists, we try to describe the world precisely. Stop passing off your made-up nonsense as science and we'll stop describing you as a crank.
QUOTE (Kino+Oct 18 2011, 07:23 PM)
As scientists, we try to describe the world precisely. Stop passing off your made-up nonsense as science and we'll stop describing you as a crank.
No what is happening is I am proposing something different and just as likely as what you guys think happened. If you think I am wrong show me where I am wrong, just don't try and win the argument by insulting me.
I am very serious, and feel the idea needs exploration so that is why I have ventured onto the science forums. OK the reception has been overly harsh, more like what I'd expect from religious fanatics rather than scientists.
If I say I have done the calculations I have done them. I try to be 100% honest in every thing I do or say.
No what is happening is I am proposing something different and just as likely as what you guys think happened. If you think I am wrong show me where I am wrong, just don't try and win the argument by insulting me.
I am very serious, and feel the idea needs exploration so that is why I have ventured onto the science forums. OK the reception has been overly harsh, more like what I'd expect from religious fanatics rather than scientists.
If I say I have done the calculations I have done them. I try to be 100% honest in every thing I do or say.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 03:35 PM)
No what is happening is I am proposing something different and just as likely as what you guys think happened.
Ahhh, here's the crux of it. You really have no idea how scientists come up with models, estimates and theories, so they must all be the products of daydreams and imagination, right? Or is it that you have contempt for the scientific institution because it is fully capable of describing a universe devoid of divine intervention? Either way, you understand what you are criticizing even less than you understand what you are suggesting to replace it.
Ahhh, here's the crux of it. You really have no idea how scientists come up with models, estimates and theories, so they must all be the products of daydreams and imagination, right? Or is it that you have contempt for the scientific institution because it is fully capable of describing a universe devoid of divine intervention? Either way, you understand what you are criticizing even less than you understand what you are suggesting to replace it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 08:18 PM)
Ahhh, here's the crux of it. You really have no idea how scientists come up with models, estimates and theories, so they must all be the products of daydreams and imagination, right? Or is it that you have contempt for the scientific institution because it is fully capable of describing a universe devoid of divine intervention? Either way, you understand what you are criticizing even less than you understand what you are suggesting to replace it.
What you seem to be very good at is making observations about other persons (whether right or wrong one will never know), but I have yet to see you put your thinking cap on and tell me why my hypothesis is obviously wrong.
And one would think since you seem to jump to conclusions you should be mentally fit enough to knock me over in the ring and not having to resort to low blows to win the match.
What you seem to be very good at is making observations about other persons (whether right or wrong one will never know), but I have yet to see you put your thinking cap on and tell me why my hypothesis is obviously wrong.
And one would think since you seem to jump to conclusions you should be mentally fit enough to knock me over in the ring and not having to resort to low blows to win the match.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 04:38 PM)
What you seem to be very good at is making observations about other persons (whether right or wrong one will never know), but I have yet to see you put your thinking cap on and tell me why my hypothesis is obviously wrong.
And one would think since you seem to jump to conclusions you should be mentally fit enough to knock me over in the ring and not having to resort to low blows to win the match.
Where did the other 27 Earth masses go?
And one would think since you seem to jump to conclusions you should be mentally fit enough to knock me over in the ring and not having to resort to low blows to win the match.
Where did the other 27 Earth masses go?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 09:32 PM)
Where did the other 27 Earth masses go?
Now you realise we are talking of volatile masses here, things that make up the early atmosphere. Don't let your agile mind think in terms of rocks, soils, dust or anything like that. So what we have is this 1 earth mass of rocky iron nickel silicone containing terrestrial bit holding this enormous globe of gas and liquid around it. I have not worked out to what radius that would make it. It would be good for the discussion progress if someone could work it out. Say with an average density of 1.5 to account for some compression of the inner liquid (How much extra radius would that make the Earth to have 27 Earth masses of volatiles around it? What are you like at maths?
Now when the Sun went through the next stages of development and turned into a main sequence star it rapidly heated and the solar wind and radiant pressure drove the loosely bound volatile gasses off into space to be picked up by the still forming gas giant planets. This would have been extremely intensified once the Moon had been captured in orbit. The tides and waves created would have been enough to send liquids directly into space. (This the material from which Comets formed)
That is where the Gas Giant planets get their exceptional mass from. And also contributed to mass of the ice planets even further out.
The same sort of process was happening on Mercury Venus Mars and on the planetesimals in the Asteroid Belt.
Now you realise we are talking of volatile masses here, things that make up the early atmosphere. Don't let your agile mind think in terms of rocks, soils, dust or anything like that. So what we have is this 1 earth mass of rocky iron nickel silicone containing terrestrial bit holding this enormous globe of gas and liquid around it. I have not worked out to what radius that would make it. It would be good for the discussion progress if someone could work it out. Say with an average density of 1.5 to account for some compression of the inner liquid (How much extra radius would that make the Earth to have 27 Earth masses of volatiles around it? What are you like at maths?
Now when the Sun went through the next stages of development and turned into a main sequence star it rapidly heated and the solar wind and radiant pressure drove the loosely bound volatile gasses off into space to be picked up by the still forming gas giant planets. This would have been extremely intensified once the Moon had been captured in orbit. The tides and waves created would have been enough to send liquids directly into space. (This the material from which Comets formed)
That is where the Gas Giant planets get their exceptional mass from. And also contributed to mass of the ice planets even further out.
The same sort of process was happening on Mercury Venus Mars and on the planetesimals in the Asteroid Belt.
So many problems with that.
1. The planet-forming process is hot. There is no way liquid water could exist on Earth until well after the Earth cooled down. Most of the Earth's water is theorized to have come from comet and asteroid impacts (comets are composed of rock, ice and dust, and were much more common in the young solar system). At that time, all water in the solar system was frozen. Any impacts at that point would have vaporized the ice and sent it back into space.
2. Solar wind does not disintegrate planets, and the star forming process is not an explosion. If the Earth had 28 times its current mass to work with, it would have been even more able to hold on to that mass than it is now. Any wind strong enough to blow off 27 Earth masses would blow away the rock in the middle as well.
3. The sun pre-dates the planets. The solar system looked like a giant disk of asteroids when the sun was born. It took a long time for planets to coalesce.
4. The inner planets are rocky because the sun blew all the gas into the outer solar system. None of that gas had time to accumulate around any of the inner planets.
5. Planets the size of Earth do not have enough gravity to hold onto a gas envelope. Earth can barely hold on to the tiny fringe of an atmosphere it already has. Look at the moon. If you pumped an atmosphere-worth of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide onto the moon's surface, it would just float away.
The fact that you have no ability to research the very things you are claiming to have "calculated" is scary.
1. The planet-forming process is hot. There is no way liquid water could exist on Earth until well after the Earth cooled down. Most of the Earth's water is theorized to have come from comet and asteroid impacts (comets are composed of rock, ice and dust, and were much more common in the young solar system). At that time, all water in the solar system was frozen. Any impacts at that point would have vaporized the ice and sent it back into space.
2. Solar wind does not disintegrate planets, and the star forming process is not an explosion. If the Earth had 28 times its current mass to work with, it would have been even more able to hold on to that mass than it is now. Any wind strong enough to blow off 27 Earth masses would blow away the rock in the middle as well.
3. The sun pre-dates the planets. The solar system looked like a giant disk of asteroids when the sun was born. It took a long time for planets to coalesce.
4. The inner planets are rocky because the sun blew all the gas into the outer solar system. None of that gas had time to accumulate around any of the inner planets.
5. Planets the size of Earth do not have enough gravity to hold onto a gas envelope. Earth can barely hold on to the tiny fringe of an atmosphere it already has. Look at the moon. If you pumped an atmosphere-worth of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide onto the moon's surface, it would just float away.
The fact that you have no ability to research the very things you are claiming to have "calculated" is scary.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2011, 11:30 PM)
So many problems with that.
1. The planet-forming process is hot. There is no way liquid water could exist on Earth until well after the Earth cooled down. Most of the Earth's water is theorized to have come from comet and asteroid impacts (comets are composed of rock, ice and dust, and were much more common in the young solar system). At that time, all water in the solar system was frozen. Any impacts at that point would have vaporized the ice and sent it back into space.
2. Solar wind does not disintegrate planets, and the star forming process is not an explosion. If the Earth had 28 times its current mass to work with, it would have been even more able to hold on to that mass than it is now. Any wind strong enough to blow off 27 Earth masses would blow away the rock in the middle as well.
3. The sun pre-dates the planets. The solar system looked like a giant disk of asteroids when the sun was born. It took a long time for planets to coalesce.
4. The inner planets are rocky because the sun blew all the gas into the outer solar system. None of that gas had time to accumulate around any of the inner planets.
5. Planets the size of Earth do not have enough gravity to hold onto a gas envelope. Earth can barely hold on to the tiny fringe of an atmosphere it already has. Look at the moon. If you pumped an atmosphere-worth of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide onto the moon's surface, it would just float away.
The fact that you have no ability to research the very things you are claiming to have "calculated" is scary.
Thanks for replying with a very challenging rebuttal. What I suggest we do is look closely and work together on the physics of each of your objections and see if they really hold up. I am sure some others will be reading the thread and check the science of what we say.
So the rules (as such ) is that we work together finding the facts out scientifically to see if I could be right or wrong, and in the process you could also be right or wrong, but the outcome will be a solution we maybe able to agree on.
You will need some time to devote to the research, and i'll try and fit in time as much as I can spare too.
So what I think we need to do is to try and calculate the size of the Earth if it has 27 times it's current mass as volatile liquids and atmosphere. We may be able to see what the Escape velocity would be of a planet that large and then see if the Magnetic field would still be able to deflect the Solar Wind at that distance.
I would imagine it might take a year to work through all the physics and maths of it.
Do you want to give it a go?
1. The planet-forming process is hot. There is no way liquid water could exist on Earth until well after the Earth cooled down. Most of the Earth's water is theorized to have come from comet and asteroid impacts (comets are composed of rock, ice and dust, and were much more common in the young solar system). At that time, all water in the solar system was frozen. Any impacts at that point would have vaporized the ice and sent it back into space.
2. Solar wind does not disintegrate planets, and the star forming process is not an explosion. If the Earth had 28 times its current mass to work with, it would have been even more able to hold on to that mass than it is now. Any wind strong enough to blow off 27 Earth masses would blow away the rock in the middle as well.
3. The sun pre-dates the planets. The solar system looked like a giant disk of asteroids when the sun was born. It took a long time for planets to coalesce.
4. The inner planets are rocky because the sun blew all the gas into the outer solar system. None of that gas had time to accumulate around any of the inner planets.
5. Planets the size of Earth do not have enough gravity to hold onto a gas envelope. Earth can barely hold on to the tiny fringe of an atmosphere it already has. Look at the moon. If you pumped an atmosphere-worth of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide onto the moon's surface, it would just float away.
The fact that you have no ability to research the very things you are claiming to have "calculated" is scary.
Thanks for replying with a very challenging rebuttal. What I suggest we do is look closely and work together on the physics of each of your objections and see if they really hold up. I am sure some others will be reading the thread and check the science of what we say.
So the rules (as such ) is that we work together finding the facts out scientifically to see if I could be right or wrong, and in the process you could also be right or wrong, but the outcome will be a solution we maybe able to agree on.
You will need some time to devote to the research, and i'll try and fit in time as much as I can spare too.
So what I think we need to do is to try and calculate the size of the Earth if it has 27 times it's current mass as volatile liquids and atmosphere. We may be able to see what the Escape velocity would be of a planet that large and then see if the Magnetic field would still be able to deflect the Solar Wind at that distance.
I would imagine it might take a year to work through all the physics and maths of it.
Do you want to give it a go?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 10:41 PM)
What I suggest we do is look closely and work together on the physics of each of your objections and see if they really hold up. I am sure some others will be reading the thread and check the science of what we say.
I would imagine it might take a year to work through all the physics and maths of it.
Do you want to give it a go?
No thanks.
Science isn't a democracy or a negotiation. You haven't done the slightest bit of research, so all this would be is pain and suffering on my end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and...he_Solar_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
Do your own goddamn research.
I would imagine it might take a year to work through all the physics and maths of it.
Do you want to give it a go?
No thanks.
Science isn't a democracy or a negotiation. You haven't done the slightest bit of research, so all this would be is pain and suffering on my end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and...he_Solar_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
Do your own goddamn research.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 02:50 AM)
No thanks.
Science isn't a democracy or a negotiation. You haven't done the slightest bit of research, so all this would be is pain and suffering on my end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
Do your own goddamn research.
You could have gone down in history as one of the Great Scientists but passed on the opportunity. If you change your mind let me know.
Science isn't a democracy or a negotiation. You haven't done the slightest bit of research, so all this would be is pain and suffering on my end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
Do your own goddamn research.
You could have gone down in history as one of the Great Scientists but passed on the opportunity. If you change your mind let me know.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 10:54 PM)
You could have gone down in history as one of the Great Scientists but passed on the opportunity. If you change your mind let me know.
Great scientists do what? Debate idiots on the internet? You have no clue how science actually works, do you?
Great scientists do what? Debate idiots on the internet? You have no clue how science actually works, do you?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 02:56 AM)
Great scientists do what? Debate idiots on the internet? You have no clue how science actually works, do you?
Have you discovered any scientific fact for yourself?
Have you discovered any scientific fact for yourself?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 07:35 PM)
No what is happening is I am proposing something different and just as likely as what you guys think happened. If you think I am wrong show me where I am wrong, just don't try and win the argument by insulting me.
I am very serious, and feel the idea needs exploration so that is why I have ventured onto the science forums. OK the reception has been overly harsh, more like what I'd expect from religious fanatics rather than scientists.
If I say I have done the calculations I have done them. I try to be 100% honest in every thing I do or say.
Find them, do them again, or stop pretending to do science. Given your posting history here, I have precisely zero confidence that you can calculate anything more complex than a grocery bill.
I am very serious, and feel the idea needs exploration so that is why I have ventured onto the science forums. OK the reception has been overly harsh, more like what I'd expect from religious fanatics rather than scientists.
If I say I have done the calculations I have done them. I try to be 100% honest in every thing I do or say.
Find them, do them again, or stop pretending to do science. Given your posting history here, I have precisely zero confidence that you can calculate anything more complex than a grocery bill.
QUOTE (Kino+Oct 19 2011, 06:54 AM)
Find them, do them again, or stop pretending to do science. Given your posting history here, I have precisely zero confidence that you can calculate anything more complex than a grocery bill.
I would like someone to help me this time. So that if we get a similar result I won't have to go through this drama over and over again.
My calculations started from an internet search where I found a scientist who had estimated the thickness and density of the dust disc from which the planets formed. Now if anyone has that information that is where we will start recalculating the masses.
I would like someone to help me this time. So that if we get a similar result I won't have to go through this drama over and over again.
My calculations started from an internet search where I found a scientist who had estimated the thickness and density of the dust disc from which the planets formed. Now if anyone has that information that is where we will start recalculating the masses.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 02:50 AM)
No thanks.
Science isn't a democracy or a negotiation. You haven't done the slightest bit of research, so all this would be is pain and suffering on my end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and...he_Solar_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
Do your own goddamn research.
I see there are plenty of unsolved problems in those Wikipedia articles. In my research of the problem I came up with a method that has been (I believe) observed in one of the photos on the Hubble Album on Nebulae. The answer lies in the formation of these concentric dust rings. Then radiant pressure pushes these dust rings into ever denser torus shaped object in the original nebula disc. The division of these rings is based on a principle similar to Boyle's Law (from memory).
Since the proto-planetary disc is divided in a rather mathematical fashion and it was nearly even thickness and density (I think it is fair to say further out it will have been thinner). It is then possible to calculate the amount of material within each Torus.
The timing of the process is critical and it must occur during the protosun period. Once the Sun fires up gas and small particles are just swept away into the outer regions.
From these observations and calculations I was able to propose that the Sun begun thermonuclear at the time the Asteroid Belt was in the late Torus stage when the ring had become dense enough to form planetesimals. Once the lighter material blew away there was insufficient cohesion in the torus to allow planet formation.
Science isn't a democracy or a negotiation. You haven't done the slightest bit of research, so all this would be is pain and suffering on my end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and...he_Solar_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
Do your own goddamn research.
I see there are plenty of unsolved problems in those Wikipedia articles. In my research of the problem I came up with a method that has been (I believe) observed in one of the photos on the Hubble Album on Nebulae. The answer lies in the formation of these concentric dust rings. Then radiant pressure pushes these dust rings into ever denser torus shaped object in the original nebula disc. The division of these rings is based on a principle similar to Boyle's Law (from memory).
Since the proto-planetary disc is divided in a rather mathematical fashion and it was nearly even thickness and density (I think it is fair to say further out it will have been thinner). It is then possible to calculate the amount of material within each Torus.
The timing of the process is critical and it must occur during the protosun period. Once the Sun fires up gas and small particles are just swept away into the outer regions.
From these observations and calculations I was able to propose that the Sun begun thermonuclear at the time the Asteroid Belt was in the late Torus stage when the ring had become dense enough to form planetesimals. Once the lighter material blew away there was insufficient cohesion in the torus to allow planet formation.
Here is what may be a helpful illustration to help you understand how to make advances in science:
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
It is nearly impossible to make scientific advances without being an expert at the field which you are studying. Even for people who are scientists in one field, it is next to impossible to discover new things in an unrelated field.
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
It is nearly impossible to make scientific advances without being an expert at the field which you are studying. Even for people who are scientists in one field, it is next to impossible to discover new things in an unrelated field.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 02:10 PM)
Here is what may be a helpful illustration to help you understand how to make advances in science:
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
It is nearly impossible to make scientific advances without being an expert at the field which you are studying. Even for people who are scientists in one field, it is next to impossible to discover new things in an unrelated field.
But I went through a few early posts that you had made on the forum when you first came here and noted you were pretty keen to come up with some original work.
In fact I liked some of the things you said especially about the size of black holes. You might have changed your mind by now, but then you felt even you could make a dent in the boundary of knowledge.
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
It is nearly impossible to make scientific advances without being an expert at the field which you are studying. Even for people who are scientists in one field, it is next to impossible to discover new things in an unrelated field.
But I went through a few early posts that you had made on the forum when you first came here and noted you were pretty keen to come up with some original work.
In fact I liked some of the things you said especially about the size of black holes. You might have changed your mind by now, but then you felt even you could make a dent in the boundary of knowledge.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 11:40 AM)
But I went through a few early posts that you had made on the forum when you first came here and noted you were pretty keen to come up with some original work.
In fact I liked some of the things you said especially about the size of black holes. You might have changed your mind by now, but then you felt even you could make a dent in the boundary of knowledge.
No, that is not correct. There is a difference between learning and contributing. My goal here has always been education, for myself and others. Nothing I come up with is going to worth a damn to a scientist. Hopefully, at some point you will discover that "expert" actually means something, and it is not trivial to become an expert at something.
In fact I liked some of the things you said especially about the size of black holes. You might have changed your mind by now, but then you felt even you could make a dent in the boundary of knowledge.
No, that is not correct. There is a difference between learning and contributing. My goal here has always been education, for myself and others. Nothing I come up with is going to worth a damn to a scientist. Hopefully, at some point you will discover that "expert" actually means something, and it is not trivial to become an expert at something.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 05:19 PM)
No, that is not correct. There is a difference between learning and contributing. My goal here has always been education, for myself and others. Nothing I come up with is going to worth a damn to a scientist. Hopefully, at some point you will discover that "expert" actually means something, and it is not trivial to become an expert at something.
OK but I'm not saying I'm an expert but there was a glint of possible truth in what I discovered, but it needs to be followed through systematically.
Formation of the Solar System aspect of science is probably the least precise of them all, as it is all imagination and presenting a picture of how it happened.
As I said there is evidence that backs my theory and not much supporting the opposing views. It took a lot of study to develop this hypothesis.
OK but I'm not saying I'm an expert but there was a glint of possible truth in what I discovered, but it needs to be followed through systematically.
Formation of the Solar System aspect of science is probably the least precise of them all, as it is all imagination and presenting a picture of how it happened.
As I said there is evidence that backs my theory and not much supporting the opposing views. It took a lot of study to develop this hypothesis.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 01:48 PM)
OK but I'm not saying I'm an expert but there was a glint of possible truth in what I discovered, but it needs to be followed through systematically.
No, it doesn't. It's an idea without a foundation or a purpose. If logic and evidence leads scientists to put forward a theory that resembles yours, it would simply be coincidence that you thought of it first. If scientists spent their time pursuing every half-witted theory they heard, they would make no progress at all.
It's not imagination. A working theory has to explain the evidence we have and be consistent with itself and other theories. Your theory doesn't explain anything or line up with any known evidence. It is simply masturbation.
It's not imagination. A working theory has to explain the evidence we have and be consistent with itself and other theories. Your theory doesn't explain anything or line up with any known evidence. It is simply masturbation.
As I said there is evidence that backs my theory and not much supporting the opposing views. It took a lot of study to develop this hypothesis.
Bible study? Bible evidence? Or do you mean that you've studied astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, biology and mathematics in depth, and hold a masters or PhD in any of these fields?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
You're an idiot.
And you need a lesson in thinking outside of the square.
No, it doesn't. It's an idea without a foundation or a purpose. If logic and evidence leads scientists to put forward a theory that resembles yours, it would simply be coincidence that you thought of it first. If scientists spent their time pursuing every half-witted theory they heard, they would make no progress at all.
QUOTE
Formation of the Solar System aspect of science is probably the least precise of them all, as it is all imagination and presenting a picture of how it happened.
It's not imagination. A working theory has to explain the evidence we have and be consistent with itself and other theories. Your theory doesn't explain anything or line up with any known evidence. It is simply masturbation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Formation of the Solar System aspect of science is probably the least precise of them all, as it is all imagination and presenting a picture of how it happened. |
It's not imagination. A working theory has to explain the evidence we have and be consistent with itself and other theories. Your theory doesn't explain anything or line up with any known evidence. It is simply masturbation.
As I said there is evidence that backs my theory and not much supporting the opposing views. It took a lot of study to develop this hypothesis.
Bible study? Bible evidence? Or do you mean that you've studied astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, biology and mathematics in depth, and hold a masters or PhD in any of these fields?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 05:55 PM)
No, it doesn't. It's an idea without a foundation or a purpose. If logic and evidence leads scientists to put forward a theory that resembles yours, it would simply be coincidence that you thought of it first. If scientists spent their time pursuing every half-witted theory they heard, they would make no progress at all.
It's not imagination. A working theory has to explain the evidence we have and be consistent with itself and other theories. Your theory doesn't explain anything or line up with any known evidence. It is simply masturbation.
Bible study? Bible evidence? Or do you mean that you've studied astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, biology and mathematics in depth, and hold a masters or PhD in any of these fields?
Well I see a few are reading this thread . The right person might come along with time.
We will work on it together.
It fits better than you think.
I spent more time studying these topics more than enough for a PhD.
It's not imagination. A working theory has to explain the evidence we have and be consistent with itself and other theories. Your theory doesn't explain anything or line up with any known evidence. It is simply masturbation.
Bible study? Bible evidence? Or do you mean that you've studied astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, biology and mathematics in depth, and hold a masters or PhD in any of these fields?
Well I see a few are reading this thread . The right person might come along with time.
We will work on it together.
It fits better than you think.
I spent more time studying these topics more than enough for a PhD.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 02:04 PM)
I spent more time studying these topics more than enough for a PhD.
How can you spend so much time studying and not learn a single thing?
If you claim to know so much about physics, answer this question:
Why does the equation E = MC^2 not apply to photons?
How can you spend so much time studying and not learn a single thing?
If you claim to know so much about physics, answer this question:
Why does the equation E = MC^2 not apply to photons?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 06:43 PM)
How can you spend so much time studying and not learn a single thing?
If you claim to know so much about physics, answer this question:
Why does the equation E = MC^2 not apply to photons?
well I was told the other day that E=MC^2 is a simplification of the formula proposed by Einstein. Simplified for those who need it. But in the simplification light is excluded (massless particles excluded).
If you claim to know so much about physics, answer this question:
Why does the equation E = MC^2 not apply to photons?
well I was told the other day that E=MC^2 is a simplification of the formula proposed by Einstein. Simplified for those who need it. But in the simplification light is excluded (massless particles excluded).
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 06:04 PM)
I spent more time studying these topics more than enough for a PhD.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for your viva. "I've lost my thesis and all the supporting calculations and evidence. But I'm sure I'm right, and you should trust me, even though I can't even prove that I've done more than skim Wikipedia. Now gimme a PhD!"
Not even a 'prestigious non-accredited university' would fall for that one...
Edit: ...and remember what I was saying on the Cranks thread about cranks lacking self-awareness? You fit the stereotype to perfection.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for your viva. "I've lost my thesis and all the supporting calculations and evidence. But I'm sure I'm right, and you should trust me, even though I can't even prove that I've done more than skim Wikipedia. Now gimme a PhD!"
Not even a 'prestigious non-accredited university' would fall for that one...
Edit: ...and remember what I was saying on the Cranks thread about cranks lacking self-awareness? You fit the stereotype to perfection.
QUOTE (Kino+Oct 19 2011, 06:53 PM)
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for your viva. "I've lost my thesis and all the supporting calculations and evidence. But I'm sure I'm right, and you should trust me, even though I can't even prove that I've done more than skim Wikipedia. Now gimme a PhD!"
Not even a 'prestigious non-accredited university' would fall for that one...
Edit: ...and remember what I was saying on the Cranks thread about cranks lacking self-awareness? You fit the stereotype to perfection.
In 1998 Wikipedia may not have got off the ground, but I found Google good. I was working night shifts and I had plenty of spare time so for years it was Science Science and more science.
Not even a 'prestigious non-accredited university' would fall for that one...
Edit: ...and remember what I was saying on the Cranks thread about cranks lacking self-awareness? You fit the stereotype to perfection.
In 1998 Wikipedia may not have got off the ground, but I found Google good. I was working night shifts and I had plenty of spare time so for years it was Science Science and more science.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 02:51 PM)
well I was told the other day that E=MC^2 is a simplification of the formula proposed by Einstein. Simplified for those who need it. But in the simplification light is excluded (massless particles excluded).
Light does have mass, just not rest mass. The 'M' in the equation denotes rest mass.
Spare time for what? What do you count as science education?
Light does have mass, just not rest mass. The 'M' in the equation denotes rest mass.
QUOTE
I was working night shifts and I had plenty of spare time so for years it was Science Science and more science.
Spare time for what? What do you count as science education?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2011, 09:34 PM)
Light does have mass, just not rest mass. The 'M' in the equation denotes rest mass.
Spare time for what? What do you count as science education?
Light might have mass but you can't give it more mass by speeding it up.
They don't get too worried when you say light has mass on this forum? Amazing! Do you also go on the Physics Forum? You'd get banned for heresy like that there!
Science Study - Just doing searches as deep and as specific as I could go. I certainly learned how to refine Google searches. I'd better not say how much time I devoted to research.
Spare time for what? What do you count as science education?
Light might have mass but you can't give it more mass by speeding it up.
They don't get too worried when you say light has mass on this forum? Amazing! Do you also go on the Physics Forum? You'd get banned for heresy like that there!
Science Study - Just doing searches as deep and as specific as I could go. I certainly learned how to refine Google searches. I'd better not say how much time I devoted to research.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 06:34 PM)
Science Study - Just doing searches as deep and as specific as I could go. I certainly learned how to refine Google searches. I'd better not say how much time I devoted to research.
Wow. You actually think Google searching is scientific research. Just wow.
Just curious, what was the most "informative" site you've found?
Wow. You actually think Google searching is scientific research. Just wow.
Just curious, what was the most "informative" site you've found?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2011, 12:50 AM)
Wow. You actually think Google searching is scientific research. Just wow.
Just curious, what was the most "informative" site you've found?
You know we are talking 12 years ago right! Now one remarable image was called the structure of and electron. Now that was like a star burst but for some reason that was the understanding at the time.
The other one I found fascinating was The Expanding Earth theory (Tasmanian professor). This i tend to believe was the case too. What about you? Are you into the Expanding Earth Hypothesis?
Just curious, what was the most "informative" site you've found?
You know we are talking 12 years ago right! Now one remarable image was called the structure of and electron. Now that was like a star burst but for some reason that was the understanding at the time.
The other one I found fascinating was The Expanding Earth theory (Tasmanian professor). This i tend to believe was the case too. What about you? Are you into the Expanding Earth Hypothesis?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 08:13 PM)
You know we are talking 12 years ago right! Now one remarable image was called the structure of and electron. Now that was like a star burst but for some reason that was the understanding at the time.
The other one I found fascinating was The Expanding Earth theory (Tasmanian professor). This i tend to believe was the case too. What about you? Are you into the Expanding Earth Hypothesis?
You really will believe anything, because you know nothing.
The other one I found fascinating was The Expanding Earth theory (Tasmanian professor). This i tend to believe was the case too. What about you? Are you into the Expanding Earth Hypothesis?
You really will believe anything, because you know nothing.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 20 2011, 01:52 AM)
You really will believe anything, because you know nothing.
OK if I know nothing what do you know about the Expanding Earth as a possibility?
OK if I know nothing what do you know about the Expanding Earth as a possibility?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 10:26 PM)
OK if I know nothing what do you know about the Expanding Earth as a possibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
You're an idiot.
QUOTE
Expanding Earth or Growing Earth is a hypothesis asserting that the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of the Earth increasing.
While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion of the Earth.
While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
You're an idiot.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2011, 02:44 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
You're an idiot.
And you need a lesson in thinking outside of the square.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 10:48 PM)
And you need a lesson in thinking outside of the square.
Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
What would happen to the terrestrial part of the Earth if my "calculations" were wrong being rather an underestimate of the original Earth mass, What say it was 50 times what it is now.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?
The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?
The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 19 2011, 09:53 PM)
What would happen to the terrestrial part of the Earth if my "calculations" were wrong being rather an underestimate of the original Earth mass, What say it was 50 times what it is now.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?
The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.
It's already too late to sound the idiot alert.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?
The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.
It's already too late to sound the idiot alert.
Since Alex said it will be a stretch to say he (Robby) is developmental disabled, being credulous is more descriptive of his state than gullible.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 20 2011, 03:37 AM)
It's already too late to sound the idiot alert.
Ease up Alex.
Ease up Alex.
QUOTE (boit+Oct 20 2011, 04:14 AM)
Since Alex said it will be a stretch to say he (Robby) is developmental disabled, being credulous is more descriptive of his state than gullible.
Credulous: Having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.
Does that make the rest of you incredulous?
Credulous: Having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.
Does that make the rest of you incredulous?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 20 2011, 02:53 AM)
What would happen to the terrestrial part of the Earth if my "calculations" were wrong being rather an underestimate of the original Earth mass, What say it was 50 times what it is now.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?
The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.
Well since the ratio of Continental plates to ocean plates fits in with the Expanding Earth hypothesis. OK none of the possible reasons given on that Wikipedia site on the topic mention compression (in fact it might have mentioned it in passing).
Even before I realized the connection between my Early Earth mass calculations and this hypothesis, I was intrigued by the Expanding Earth, and from my ignorance at the time I thought it might have been a result of radioactivity producing more molecules hence expanding the core, but I was shown that this doesn't happen.
Since then I have learnt that even solid material are compressible under enough pressure.
This can been seen when you compare the density of the Earth's inner core with Iron -Nickel alloy under normal atmospheric pressure.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?
The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.
Well since the ratio of Continental plates to ocean plates fits in with the Expanding Earth hypothesis. OK none of the possible reasons given on that Wikipedia site on the topic mention compression (in fact it might have mentioned it in passing).
Even before I realized the connection between my Early Earth mass calculations and this hypothesis, I was intrigued by the Expanding Earth, and from my ignorance at the time I thought it might have been a result of radioactivity producing more molecules hence expanding the core, but I was shown that this doesn't happen.
Since then I have learnt that even solid material are compressible under enough pressure.
This can been seen when you compare the density of the Earth's inner core with Iron -Nickel alloy under normal atmospheric pressure.
Are there any biologists reading this forum? It was the biological markers that may support evolution away from the Earth, that I was wanting to discuss, but it has resorted to a physics discussion.
I am otherwise transferring to another forum for a different audience.
I am otherwise transferring to another forum for a different audience.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 20 2011, 12:27 AM)
Credulous: Having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.
Does that make the rest of you incredulous?
Skeptical is the word I would prefer.
Does that make the rest of you incredulous?
Skeptical is the word I would prefer.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2011, 01:29 PM)
Skeptical is the word I would prefer.
Being skeptical is a position that I can tolerate. Overtly defamatory and abusive either I will go or my antagonist will go.
But did you see the connection . Are the surface features of the Earth indicative of this previous compression. The only logical cause of that size reduction of the terrestrial part is the massiveness of the Early Earth.
To get that massiveness the planet forming process is more orderly and the planetary spacing is as found by Boyle. There was sufficient density in the protoplanetary disc to form planets of this size. The evidence of this is the oversize of the gas giant planets. The timing of the planetary building process had a sequential aspect to it. From the inside out, and it was when the process was forming a planet in the Asteroid belt the Sun fired up. The ring of asteroids is further evidence of the process was from a toroid structure and without the essential volatile material to cushion and make stickiness and cohesion and sufficient gravitational strength to pull the whole toroid into one planet and possibly one or more smaller moons.
Now those points you put up as scientific objections (respecting you for that) all those will have to be worked through but I have a feeling I'm on to something that feels right to me at least.
Being skeptical is a position that I can tolerate. Overtly defamatory and abusive either I will go or my antagonist will go.
But did you see the connection . Are the surface features of the Earth indicative of this previous compression. The only logical cause of that size reduction of the terrestrial part is the massiveness of the Early Earth.
To get that massiveness the planet forming process is more orderly and the planetary spacing is as found by Boyle. There was sufficient density in the protoplanetary disc to form planets of this size. The evidence of this is the oversize of the gas giant planets. The timing of the planetary building process had a sequential aspect to it. From the inside out, and it was when the process was forming a planet in the Asteroid belt the Sun fired up. The ring of asteroids is further evidence of the process was from a toroid structure and without the essential volatile material to cushion and make stickiness and cohesion and sufficient gravitational strength to pull the whole toroid into one planet and possibly one or more smaller moons.
Now those points you put up as scientific objections (respecting you for that) all those will have to be worked through but I have a feeling I'm on to something that feels right to me at least.
If you can see the reasoning of my previous post, you will see that Mercury was formed for the longest period and under the influence of the heating protosun. Which makes it the prime candidate for being the incubator planet in our solar system.
If this was the case and life forms as spores traversed space and seeded the Early Earth, I want the opinion of biologists to tell me if there is any sign of redundant aspects of a cell that could indicate this on the biological basis.
If this was the case and life forms as spores traversed space and seeded the Early Earth, I want the opinion of biologists to tell me if there is any sign of redundant aspects of a cell that could indicate this on the biological basis.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 20 2011, 11:02 AM)
Are the surface features of the Earth indicative of this previous compression.
No, they are indicative of tectonic plate activity.
That is an illogical conclusion. Given several possible conclusions, you should always pick the one that makes the fewest assumptions. You are picking the option with the MOST assumptions.
Here are some simple facts that throw your theory out the window:
The width of the Atlantic Ocean is currently growing while the width of the Pacific Ocean is shrinking, each by a few centimeters per year. If the Earth was expanding, we would see all oceans increasing in size.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html
No, they are indicative of tectonic plate activity.
QUOTE
The only logical cause of that size reduction of the terrestrial part is the massiveness of the Early Earth.
That is an illogical conclusion. Given several possible conclusions, you should always pick the one that makes the fewest assumptions. You are picking the option with the MOST assumptions.
Here are some simple facts that throw your theory out the window:
The width of the Atlantic Ocean is currently growing while the width of the Pacific Ocean is shrinking, each by a few centimeters per year. If the Earth was expanding, we would see all oceans increasing in size.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2011, 05:35 PM)
No, they are indicative of tectonic plate activity.
That is an illogical conclusion. Given several possible conclusions, you should always pick the one that makes the fewest assumptions. You are picking the option with the MOST assumptions.
Here are some simple facts that throw your theory out the window:
The width of the Atlantic Ocean is currently growing while the width of the Pacific Ocean is shrinking, each by a few centimeters per year. If the Earth was expanding, we would see all oceans increasing in size.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html
Do you understand the Expanding Earth (ExE) premise. Tectonic plate movements are facilitated by it. So Tectonic plate movement and ExE go hand in hand.
As far as the current expansion of the Earth, don't you understand it is a result of loss of mass hence a reduced compression. Well is that still happening? No, the Earth now is in a state of equilibrium (not quite the right word) where mass loss balances weight gain so the core does not have any reason to expand at the moment.
Whether the Atlantic is widening is a local issue and will be dependent on the currents in the mantle. There could be changes in this at times so the spread of the continental plates will not be predicted till we know the strengths of the current emanating in the outer core etc. (This heating is related to radioactivity in the Earth itself.)
That is an illogical conclusion. Given several possible conclusions, you should always pick the one that makes the fewest assumptions. You are picking the option with the MOST assumptions.
Here are some simple facts that throw your theory out the window:
The width of the Atlantic Ocean is currently growing while the width of the Pacific Ocean is shrinking, each by a few centimeters per year. If the Earth was expanding, we would see all oceans increasing in size.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html
Do you understand the Expanding Earth (ExE) premise. Tectonic plate movements are facilitated by it. So Tectonic plate movement and ExE go hand in hand.
As far as the current expansion of the Earth, don't you understand it is a result of loss of mass hence a reduced compression. Well is that still happening? No, the Earth now is in a state of equilibrium (not quite the right word) where mass loss balances weight gain so the core does not have any reason to expand at the moment.
Whether the Atlantic is widening is a local issue and will be dependent on the currents in the mantle. There could be changes in this at times so the spread of the continental plates will not be predicted till we know the strengths of the current emanating in the outer core etc. (This heating is related to radioactivity in the Earth itself.)
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 20 2011, 03:55 PM)
Do you understand the Expanding Earth (ExE) premise. Tectonic plate movements are facilitated by it. So Tectonic plate movement and ExE go hand in hand.
What problem does your theory even claim to solve? The continents aren't moving any faster now than they ever have. You might as well theorize that 500,000 years ago, Earth was shaped like a banana for a day.
What problem does your theory even claim to solve? The continents aren't moving any faster now than they ever have. You might as well theorize that 500,000 years ago, Earth was shaped like a banana for a day.
Why do you even respond to this arse-wipe? He is obviously a troll and an incredible egotist.
Incredible being the operative word...
Incredible being the operative word...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2011, 09:30 PM)
What problem does your theory even claim to solve? The continents aren't moving any faster now than they ever have. You might as well theorize that 500,000 years ago, Earth was shaped like a banana for a day.
Now you are starting to loose focus, you are going bananas!
Get your thinking cap on and then come back.
Now you are starting to loose focus, you are going bananas!
Get your thinking cap on and then come back.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 20 2011, 06:00 PM)
Now you are starting to loose focus, you are going bananas!
Get your thinking cap on and then come back.
Can't tell if joking or just stupid.
Get your thinking cap on and then come back.
Can't tell if joking or just stupid.
QUOTE (Guest_Jack Schidt+Oct 20 2011, 09:46 PM)
Why do you even respond to this arse-wipe? He is obviously a troll and an incredible egotist.
Incredible being the operative word...
My feelings exactly he seems such a babe amongst the wise old seniors. And just as well you are a guest for you wouldn't last the day.
Incredible being the operative word...
My feelings exactly he seems such a babe amongst the wise old seniors. And just as well you are a guest for you wouldn't last the day.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2011, 10:01 PM)
Can't tell if joking or just stupid.
Are you a stand up comedian or do you have any formal tertiary qualifications?
Are you a stand up comedian or do you have any formal tertiary qualifications?
I'm not a guest, you damned fool.
I've been on this board for years, to my disgust. I still try to help a little.
I remember nopeda and his dysfunctional idea of 'playing nice with others', and you fit the bill to a 'T', you *****.
Stroke on. Maybe you'll get some pleasure from it.
I've been on this board for years, to my disgust. I still try to help a little.
I remember nopeda and his dysfunctional idea of 'playing nice with others', and you fit the bill to a 'T', you *****.
Stroke on. Maybe you'll get some pleasure from it.
QUOTE (Sapo+Oct 20 2011, 10:10 PM)
I'm not a guest, you damned fool.
I've been on this board for years, to my disgust. I still try to help a little.
I remember nopeda and his dysfunctional idea of 'playing nice with others', and you fit the bill to a 'T', you *****.
Stroke on. Maybe you'll get some pleasure from it.
Are you from Libya?
I've been on this board for years, to my disgust. I still try to help a little.
I remember nopeda and his dysfunctional idea of 'playing nice with others', and you fit the bill to a 'T', you *****.
Stroke on. Maybe you'll get some pleasure from it.
Are you from Libya?
What is on the internet that links ExE with what is reality?
From Wikipedia On the subject of Expanding Earth.
"Present day advocates
Australian Geologist James Maxlow has produced a series of twenty-three reconstructions of a smaller Earth suggesting a 99%[20] matching of all the continental boundaries. Italian Geologist Giancarlo Scalera has written several papers[21] in support of evidence for an expanding Earth.
Whole-earth decompression dynamics was proposed in 2005 by J. Marvin Herndon who postulates Earth formation from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[22]"
Ok Note: I don't buy any of the other alternative causes. So what I need to do is see why this J marvin Herndon thought the Earth had this extreme mass?
The link from the wikipedia page takes you to a scientific paper by Herndon.
"Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA"
"Present day advocates
Australian Geologist James Maxlow has produced a series of twenty-three reconstructions of a smaller Earth suggesting a 99%[20] matching of all the continental boundaries. Italian Geologist Giancarlo Scalera has written several papers[21] in support of evidence for an expanding Earth.
Whole-earth decompression dynamics was proposed in 2005 by J. Marvin Herndon who postulates Earth formation from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[22]"
Ok Note: I don't buy any of the other alternative causes. So what I need to do is see why this J marvin Herndon thought the Earth had this extreme mass?
The link from the wikipedia page takes you to a scientific paper by Herndon.
"Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA"
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 21 2011, 06:12 AM)
From Wikipedia On the subject of Expanding Earth.
"Present day advocates
Australian Geologist James Maxlow has produced a series of twenty-three reconstructions of a smaller Earth suggesting a 99%[20] matching of all the continental boundaries. Italian Geologist Giancarlo Scalera has written several papers[21] in support of evidence for an expanding Earth.
Whole-earth decompression dynamics was proposed in 2005 by J. Marvin Herndon who postulates Earth formation from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[22]"
Ok Note: I don't buy any of the other alternative causes. So what I need to do is see why this J marvin Herndon thought the Earth had this extreme mass?
The link from the wikipedia page takes you to a scientific paper by Herndon.
"Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA"
I had not read that article before but it aligns significantly with my figures that I put together in 1998. Now he has done a much more detailed study than I could have ever done, so I would say it is a must read before you say that what I have said is wrong.
I am a bit surprised at the size he proposes the early Earth to be. Who knows but really it isn't that important.
"Present day advocates
Australian Geologist James Maxlow has produced a series of twenty-three reconstructions of a smaller Earth suggesting a 99%[20] matching of all the continental boundaries. Italian Geologist Giancarlo Scalera has written several papers[21] in support of evidence for an expanding Earth.
Whole-earth decompression dynamics was proposed in 2005 by J. Marvin Herndon who postulates Earth formation from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[22]"
Ok Note: I don't buy any of the other alternative causes. So what I need to do is see why this J marvin Herndon thought the Earth had this extreme mass?
The link from the wikipedia page takes you to a scientific paper by Herndon.
"Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA"
I had not read that article before but it aligns significantly with my figures that I put together in 1998. Now he has done a much more detailed study than I could have ever done, so I would say it is a must read before you say that what I have said is wrong.
I am a bit surprised at the size he proposes the early Earth to be. Who knows but really it isn't that important.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 21 2011, 03:33 AM)
Who knows but really it isn't that important.
Not surprising given your lack of interest in facts.
Not surprising given your lack of interest in facts.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2011, 03:07 PM)
Not surprising given your lack of interest in facts.
You are beginning to look a bit silly. Is that the best comment you can make after reading that paper?
Once you get over 50 Earth masses the compression in the inner cores can be significant due to degeneracy of the iron core and I didn't see him mention that.
There are at times other unforeseen aspects in science and only by extensive analysis will the facts truly surface.
I want to try and contact this person to see if further facts can be ascertained.
You are beginning to look a bit silly. Is that the best comment you can make after reading that paper?
Once you get over 50 Earth masses the compression in the inner cores can be significant due to degeneracy of the iron core and I didn't see him mention that.
There are at times other unforeseen aspects in science and only by extensive analysis will the facts truly surface.
I want to try and contact this person to see if further facts can be ascertained.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2011, 03:07 PM)
Not surprising given your lack of interest in facts.
Hey you never answered my question to you! Repeat: Do you have any formal tertiary qualifications?
Hey you never answered my question to you! Repeat: Do you have any formal tertiary qualifications?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 21 2011, 01:41 PM)
Hey you never answered my question to you! Repeat: Do you have any formal tertiary qualifications?
Like a bachelor's degree?
Like a bachelor's degree?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2011, 05:49 PM)
Like a bachelor's degree?
Yes a degree or PhD? What training or skills do you have?
Yes a degree or PhD? What training or skills do you have?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 21 2011, 01:54 PM)
Yes a degree or PhD? What training or skills do you have?
Bachelor's in Computer Science
Web dev by trade
Bachelor's in Computer Science
Web dev by trade
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.