Last edited:
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
- Thread starter preearth
- Start date
- Status
Billy T; You truly are arrogant.
Your main mistake is here;
If you do the calculation correctly, you get 5.791E31 Joules.
You simply forgot to divide by 9.88? Or something?
Your main mistake is here;
If you do the calculation correctly, you get 5.791E31 Joules.
You simply forgot to divide by 9.88? Or something?
Last edited:
Preearth,
JUST INCASE YOU ARE BLIND! Or perhaps you couldn't understand my previous query, I'll rewrite my query to be easier for you to understand.
Is there anywhere in the universe, in other star systems in our own solar system that shows a similar method for a planet to develop from two bodies?
I ask because if it can be observed then you can suggest your theory has ground, however I'm pretty sure you are going to be plum out of luck.
I would suggest that identifying this is actually the simplest way to prove or disprove the reality without the need for anyone to bog themselves in mindless mathematics.
Until you can provide a reference of a planetry body that can be observed elsewhere, I really would suggest you cut back on posting your animations or links here, because you blatently aren't here to discuss any subject, it's just spam.
JUST INCASE YOU ARE BLIND! Or perhaps you couldn't understand my previous query, I'll rewrite my query to be easier for you to understand.
Is there anywhere in the universe, in other star systems in our own solar system that shows a similar method for a planet to develop from two bodies?
I ask because if it can be observed then you can suggest your theory has ground, however I'm pretty sure you are going to be plum out of luck.
I would suggest that identifying this is actually the simplest way to prove or disprove the reality without the need for anyone to bog themselves in mindless mathematics.
Until you can provide a reference of a planetry body that can be observed elsewhere, I really would suggest you cut back on posting your animations or links here, because you blatently aren't here to discuss any subject, it's just spam.
Until you can provide a reference of a BLACK HOLE that can be observed elsewhere, I really would suggest you cut back on your COMPLAINING (or admit that you don't believe that black holes exist).
There is evidence for the existance of blackholes.
There is no evidence to support your theory.
There is no evidence that suggests blackholes don't exist (in some form).
There is real, physical evidence that directly contradicts your theory.
Who said I beleive blackholes exist? How does it equate to anything on the topic you are arguing?
It doesn't, plain and simply this is just you trying to hit back at someone because you feel wronged, you don't take into consideration I was trying to get you to think that perhaps there is either evidence to prove or disprove your reasoning, evidence by example. If you can't see it for the constructive criticism then perhaps you should add this forum to the ones that "want to censor you", and I'll just lock your threads so they can be read for what they are.
Yes, I did fail to divide by the 9.88 Thanks for catching that.
Still you are neglecting 5.791E31 Joules (of the fall together heating) and keeping only 1.961E31 Joules (of the final merger heating). I.e. the total heating is the sum of both or 7.752E31 Joules or 3.953* times greater temperature rise than you calculated.
I.e. 2468 x 3.953 = 9756 C rise. Now the SURFACE thermal equilibrium temperature of Earth like orbit planet is about 300K but just to avoid argument related to green house and effective emissivity etc. let first assume both PreEarth and Heaven were at surface temperature of 273K = 0 C. I.e. after collision the average temperature of Earth is 9756 C.
Actually both would be much hotter as they had much more “not yet decayed” radioactive isotopes, especially those which are still important and have shorter half-lives than uranium such as K40 etc. Earth does now still also have some of the internal gravitational heating released when it formed (assuming the convention theory of formation). Or in your theory of formation, both PreEarth and Heaven would have this gravitational heating too, which had less time to reach their surfaces before the collision.
I.e. more accurate than my “first assumption” would be to assume PreEarth and Heaven had at least the average temperature the Earth has now, not just the temperature of the surface layer and neglecting their molten cores, etc. (Getting the average temperature of Earth's mass would require a little work on my part and I am lazy so lets, for now, just use 9756 C as the initial temperature of Earth after collision and, for now, ignore the fact both PreEarth and Heaven would be considerably hotter, in average temperature, than 0 C just before contact.)
The melting point of tungsten is 3410C so Earth with an initial temperature of 9756C, almost three times hotter, would certainly be melted, crust and all. Thus, despite my computation error, my point remains valid:
Your theory of the PreEarth’s crust surviving the collision is still demonstrable wrong, but perhaps not “total nonsense,” just nonsense. Even when I neglect the fact that both PreEarth and Heaven would have had molten cores due the their greater (than current Earth) internal heating by radioactive isotopes decaying and less time for initial gravitational collapse heating to dissipate.
----------------
*Actually your 5.846E31 is correct. My slightly smaller 5.791E31 is due to fact I truncated all the values down to only three significant figures. Thus we agree that the total heating is (5.846+1.961 = 7.807 J) or 3.981 times greater temperature rise than you calculated. Thus even with same very conservative assumption that PreEarth & Heaven had average pre-contact temperatures of on 0 C, then the just formed Earth temperature is 9825 C.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
Of course, I am.
Damn it Billy, can't you read.
I state that as an hypothesis for the whole calculation.
You remember this;
"Note that, this is the energy released by just placing PreEarth next to Heaven and letting gravity transform them into the Earth. This does not incorporate any kinetic energy that the two original planets may have had."
O.K. so you read that comment and decided (that because you know better) it was wrong.
I guess you take the view that anyone who is willing to talk to you must be an idiot.
I do not consider the 5.791E31 Joules of the fall from infinity,... guess why?
Because it is not assumed that if falls from infinity.
For a start, I assume that Heaven falls from an orbit close to PreEarth.
So, now you can readjust your comment for that and continue to learn what you could have learnt by simply reading the paper.
Yes I know better, and so should you:
Of course they did not fall together from infinity. Perhaps you missed my discussion showing that the fall from only 100 times your center to center contact separation (d = 9.88x10^6 meters ) is only 1% DIFFERENT FORM THE FALL FROM INFINITY.
I.e. if D > 100 x9.88E6 = 9.88E8 meters then the heating is still ~ 4 times greater than you calculate.
To give idea / understanding of this distance, note the mean separation between Earth and moon = 3.82 × 108 m.
So you must be assuming that PreEarth and Heaven were always much closer than the Earth moon separation? (I must go for hour or so, I will let you calculated D, much less than moon’s distance from Earth, for which your computed temperature rise is only wrong by a factor of two. – I will do it when I can return, if you do not.)
Billy T said:
I tire of spoon feeding you when you could simply read the paper.
"So you must be assuming that PreEarth and Heaven were always much closer than the Earth moon separation?"
YES. Which you would know if you simply read the paper.
Why don't you act like a scientist rather than a religious person.
Billy T said:
I hope this not another of your, what must be by now, embarrassing mistakes.
Speaking of embaressing mistakes, as I have already pointed out there is no proof of a secular change in the earths angular momentum in the last billion years based on tidal rythmite data, so on that grounds alone we can dismiss your theory.
I assume that you want that PreEarth and Heaven were co-orbiting with separation small compared to the current Earth moon separation, but there is the Roche limit on how close Heaven could be to PreEarth without breaking up into smaller pieces. That is why Saturn has rings - they are inside the Roche limit.
The Roche Limit gives us a formula that tells us how close the satellite will be when gravitational forces start to pull it apart. You can have rings inside this limit, but not moons. If the moon and the planet have the same densities, the limit is at 2.423 of the planet's radius, measuring from the center of the planet to the center of the moon.
From: http://www.world-builders.org/lessons/less/les1/roche.html
Although the standard calculation of the Roche Limit assumes that one body is a moon orbiting a stationary planet, the gravitational stress of heaven by PreEarth depends only upon their separation, so fact they are co-orbiting their center of mass does not reduce the stress on Heaven due to the gradient of PreEarth's gravitational field.
SUMMARY the distance D must be greater than 2.423 times the radius of PreEarth of your Heaven would not remain a planet - It would just be thousands of orbiting boulders. Thus you cannot correctly calculate the heating by ignoring the fall together part. Also you need to postulate some third body of considerable size passes by the PreEarth/Heaven system to with increditable luck throw them together instead of the much more probably separation of them.
The Roche Limit gives us a formula that tells us how close the satellite will be when gravitational forces start to pull it apart. You can have rings inside this limit, but not moons. If the moon and the planet have the same densities, the limit is at 2.423 of the planet's radius, measuring from the center of the planet to the center of the moon.
From: http://www.world-builders.org/lessons/less/les1/roche.html
Although the standard calculation of the Roche Limit assumes that one body is a moon orbiting a stationary planet, the gravitational stress of heaven by PreEarth depends only upon their separation, so fact they are co-orbiting their center of mass does not reduce the stress on Heaven due to the gradient of PreEarth's gravitational field.
SUMMARY the distance D must be greater than 2.423 times the radius of PreEarth of your Heaven would not remain a planet - It would just be thousands of orbiting boulders. Thus you cannot correctly calculate the heating by ignoring the fall together part. Also you need to postulate some third body of considerable size passes by the PreEarth/Heaven system to with increditable luck throw them together instead of the much more probably separation of them.
Poster preearth said that the radius of PreEarth was 5200 km, so, from my last post with picture, the Roche limit for the disintegration of Heaven is: 2.423 x 5200 = 12600km = D in the formula below (which we both accept) for calculating the Kinetic Energy, KE, gained in the fall to surface contact center-to-center separation, d = 9.88E3km
KE = GMm(1/d – 1/D)
If the fall were from D = infinity, we both agree the KE gained would be 5.846E31 Joules. So to see how much falling from Heaven's center at the Roche limit, D = 12600km, to first contact separation, d = 9888km we can simply reduce that by the fraction:
(1/d – 1/D) / (1/d) = 1 – (d/D) = 1 – (9880 / 12600) = 0.2159
So even falling from just outside the Roche limit the KE = 5.846 x 0.2159 = 1.262E31 Joules which certainly cannot be totally ignored compared to the heat of merging from stationary contact which poster preearth computed as 1.961E31 Joules which gave a temperature rise to Earth of 2468 degrees C.
But we see that at the very least the total heat release is 1.262 +1.961 = 3.223E31 Joules. Thus the very least temperature rise is 2468 (3.223/1.961) = 4056 Degrees C, well about the melting point of tungsten, (3410 degrees C) Also as discussed earlier, this is the RISE added to the average temperature of PreEarth and Heaven, just prior to contact. I.e. back then they both had more internal radio isotope heating than Earth does today, which is adequate to have Earth with a molten core. I.e. they were probably already molten inside except for a crust that was thinner than Earth’s solid crust before the collision!
So we still conclude that Preearth’s theory is NONSENSE even assuming the least possible fall in from the Roche limit and neglecting the larger than Earth’s radio isotope heating of the interior of both PreEarth and Heaven!!!
PS it is even worse than that as the Roche limit calculation assumes that all of the “moon” is in the same gravitational gradient intensity, but Heaven is a “very large moon” – almost as large as PreEarth and the gradient falls off as the inverse cube. Thus the part of Heaven which is closer to PreEarth when Heaven’s center is at the Roche limit is in a much more intense gravity gradient and would be ripped off even if heaven's center were somewhat outside the Roche limit of PreEarth. I think that NO part of heaven can be within the Roche limit. If that is true then the least possible temperature rise will be significantly more than 4056 degrees C! Thus this and two other conservative underestimations of the temperature have been made (Neglect of radio isotope heat and that Heaven is initially just outside the 2.423 factor for a “tiny moon” Roche limit)
KE = GMm(1/d – 1/D)
If the fall were from D = infinity, we both agree the KE gained would be 5.846E31 Joules. So to see how much falling from Heaven's center at the Roche limit, D = 12600km, to first contact separation, d = 9888km we can simply reduce that by the fraction:
(1/d – 1/D) / (1/d) = 1 – (d/D) = 1 – (9880 / 12600) = 0.2159
So even falling from just outside the Roche limit the KE = 5.846 x 0.2159 = 1.262E31 Joules which certainly cannot be totally ignored compared to the heat of merging from stationary contact which poster preearth computed as 1.961E31 Joules which gave a temperature rise to Earth of 2468 degrees C.
But we see that at the very least the total heat release is 1.262 +1.961 = 3.223E31 Joules. Thus the very least temperature rise is 2468 (3.223/1.961) = 4056 Degrees C, well about the melting point of tungsten, (3410 degrees C) Also as discussed earlier, this is the RISE added to the average temperature of PreEarth and Heaven, just prior to contact. I.e. back then they both had more internal radio isotope heating than Earth does today, which is adequate to have Earth with a molten core. I.e. they were probably already molten inside except for a crust that was thinner than Earth’s solid crust before the collision!
So we still conclude that Preearth’s theory is NONSENSE even assuming the least possible fall in from the Roche limit and neglecting the larger than Earth’s radio isotope heating of the interior of both PreEarth and Heaven!!!
PS it is even worse than that as the Roche limit calculation assumes that all of the “moon” is in the same gravitational gradient intensity, but Heaven is a “very large moon” – almost as large as PreEarth and the gradient falls off as the inverse cube. Thus the part of Heaven which is closer to PreEarth when Heaven’s center is at the Roche limit is in a much more intense gravity gradient and would be ripped off even if heaven's center were somewhat outside the Roche limit of PreEarth. I think that NO part of heaven can be within the Roche limit. If that is true then the least possible temperature rise will be significantly more than 4056 degrees C! Thus this and two other conservative underestimations of the temperature have been made (Neglect of radio isotope heat and that Heaven is initially just outside the 2.423 factor for a “tiny moon” Roche limit)
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
I'm getting a little frustrated when you keep telling me crap and keep insisting your erroneous ideas/numbers are true.
I've known about the Roche Limit for decades.
The Roche Limit for PreEarth = 2.423 x 5,200 = 12,600 kms (I'll trust your 2.423, it sounds about right).
I assume an orbit outside the Roche Limit (for the initial stable orbit before the fall)
but even if it wasn't,...
Tell me Billy; Why doesn't a communication satellite break up?
Tell me Billy; Would the steel core of a planet break up?
The Roche Limit only gives the point where gravity breaks up loosely consolidated material. The chemical bounds between atoms in the steel core will be enough to hold the core together well inside the Roche Limit.
For sake of argument, let's assume an orbit of the Roche Limit = 12,600 kms.
Last edited:
I see you have already assumed an orbit of the Roche Limit = 12,600 kms.
The idea is that Heaven spirals down into PreEarth.
So in its fall it gets right inside PreEarth's Roche Limit and may in fact break up.
I see that you assume the average temperature rise, even for the crust.
However, the crust (that was not impacted) would have a temperature much less than the average.
The idea is that Heaven spirals down into PreEarth.
So in its fall it gets right inside PreEarth's Roche Limit and may in fact break up.
I see that you assume the average temperature rise, even for the crust.
However, the crust (that was not impacted) would have a temperature much less than the average.
There appears to be little regard for probability in these strange arguments. This coalescence of planets is supposed to have taken place only 250 million years ago. The solar system is almost 5 billion years old. Yet two planets are in such a close orbit that they come together with almost no relative velocity, (meaning they were in the same orbit) and somehow avoided this outcome for 4.7 billion years?
Come on guys. The odds against are a trillion to one.
Vastly more probable, for any such collision, is two planets in quite different orbits which eventually intersect. The relative velocities would be such as to destroy them. Certainly all life would be wiped out by planetary sterilisation. But this did not happen 250 million years ago.
Come on guys. The odds against are a trillion to one.
Vastly more probable, for any such collision, is two planets in quite different orbits which eventually intersect. The relative velocities would be such as to destroy them. Certainly all life would be wiped out by planetary sterilisation. But this did not happen 250 million years ago.
I have accepted ALL your numbers. (even your 6 significant figure ones of the masses!) What number do you think is "erroneous"?
Good. You must if you don't want to violate well established theory (and the observational evidence of Saturn's rings). Thus You must agree that the minimum possible temperature RISE is well about the melting point of tungesten, do you not? If not, why not? I.e. where is the an error in the calculation of that in my last post?
Glad you asked - they are small and the force of gravity pulling on their side near Earth is almost identical with that pulling on the side farthest from Earth. I.e. the tension trying to pull them apart is almost zero. Note that this is very far from true for huge Heaven in PreEarth's gravity. Force on the near to Earth side is much larger than on the far side - the gradient falls off as the inverse cube. As I noted near the end of my last post, because heaven is so big, its center could be significantly outside the Roche limit and it would still be ripped apart!
Yes. This is one of the illustrations computed at the link I gave in my post with the diagram.
False - see that calculation for the break up of steel sphere.
It is my bed time in Brazil now so see what you have to say tomorrow.
Not sure it will post correctly by quick copy and past but here is their calcualtion of the Roche limit for the iron sphere:
"... Example Four: (The earth has a moon made of iron (Not possible, but let's try it!)
Roche's Limit Formula
Given Values:
The Roche Limit = 2.423
Earth's radius = 1
Earth's density = 5.5
Density of imaginary moon made of iron = 8 ..."
Not all posted. Go here to see it: http://www.world-builders.org/lessons/less/les1/roche.html
The density difference between planet & moon has little effect as - only by the cube root of their density ratios.
Last edited by a moderator:
Still no evidence of a secular change in angular momentum?
Still no evidence of the kind of large scale crustal melting you're hypothesizing?
Still no explanation regarding the land based magnetic record?
And you have the timerity to call others names?
- Status