It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Earth is actually 2 planets" Scientists conclude

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
sorry, i had to come back to this. If you have an impact, especially a head on impact of the size they talking about, at a time when the earth had cooled enough to have the iron and nickel fall to the core, then the explosion of the collision would not have been so tidy. What do I mean by that, there wouldn't be anything left. The glancing blow tried to get around the fact that you need to start the moon at a certain distance from the earth where the material would have been thrown. A head on impact would turn earth back into a pure molten state. For a moment, I gave up on all my ideas. I concede that this impact theory is right. At least, I said in my mind, at least this theory makes more sense than the glancing blow theory.

Then I play the film in my mind and the experiment blows up. Go out in you backyard, get a friend and try to throw two snowballs and make them collide, Make ice balls even. When two partially liquid object collide, the objects basically pass through each other in a horrible torrent. Only the metal at the core would survive.

I know they made a simulation and made it work. But, but, they didn't explain how many times they had to change variables to get their result. Fact is, no one knows how fast either object would have going. And, how did the objects actually end up going in completely opposite directions in order to end up in a head on collision. Meaning, the early solar system debris field had somehow a disk with objects travelling in two polar opposite directions. Forgetting there a basic direct that material end up circling the sun. Yes, object collide and rebound in every direction. But, how did two giant, already coalesced objects somehow end up going in completely opposite directions and end up colliding.

Improbable. This theory isn't new, nor is it right. No way it was a head on collision. Dang, I really hate the glancing blow theory, I had hoped to make this a better option to argue against. Nope. It's dumb




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ericblair4891

So your evidence that the theory is false is , "throw 2 snowballs together"? I don't think you are fully understanding the calculations scientists use to estimate the speed, and you are making some very questionable comparisons based on complete guesswork. The snowball one is faulty because they are pure water and they are not in a vacuum. The earth wasn't even close to pure water. When you throw them together, the snow doesn't disappear it falls to the ground because of gravity. In a vacuum they don't fall to the ground, they gravitate together. You seem to forget that the early solar system was complete chaos. You have objects colliding and flying all over the place like a 3D pool table.


And, how did the objects actually end up going in completely opposite directions in order to end up in a head on collision. Meaning, the early solar system debris field had somehow a disk with objects travelling in two polar opposite directions. Forgetting there a basic direct that material end up circling the sun. Yes, object collide and rebound in every direction. But, how did two giant, already coalesced objects somehow end up going in completely opposite directions and end up colliding.


This is answered above. The early solar system had things all over the place colliding. Think of it like a pool table. Can balls directly collide unintentionally? There's no reason to assume everything has to form moving in the same exact direction.


Improbable. This theory isn't new, nor is it right. No way it was a head on collision. Dang, I really hate the glancing blow theory, I had hoped to make this a better option to argue against. Nope. It's dumb


Sorry, but this is just stubbornness. Do you realize how much time these scientists put into these models? And you just dismiss it offhand as "dumb" without even analyzing the data. I know the scientists don't know everything and that information updates as new info becomes available, but you are essentially dismissing a scientific hypothesis as a layman that doesn't really understand the science on the level that they do. It's easy to sit at home and critique but are you running experiments to show a different theory? Do you have any evidence for your volcano idea?

One thing that you might want to look up is orbital velocity. The moon gives us the illusion that it is orbiting the earth, but it is really slowly moving away a few inches each year. This is because the orbital velocity is high enough to escape the earth's gravity. If it wasn't, the moon would come back down and crash back into the earth or maintain the same orbit if it was the perfect speed. I don't see how a volcano can produce as much energy as a planetary head on collision, to put that much material into space. It doesn't really make sense, but surely you have some evidence and numbers for me.

edit on 2 10 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Let's forget everything I've written.

Let's start in the beginning. We have our sun. And around sun, there are planets which are orbiting the sun. All the planets, are going the same direction around the sun. At the time of the "collision" there were already planets of various sizes. The "planet" that "collided" with our first earth, was about the size of mars. This means the planets were already basically formed and travelling in their approximate orbits.

My problem with the head on collision is that there was ONE Mars sized planet not obeying the traffic rules and was somehow flying around in the exact opposite direction. The scientist that worked on this problem have a problem explain how this Mars size planet was going the wrong way. It's not the glancing blow theory, it's the head-on theory.


And remember, it wouldn't be an orphan object on it's own weird orbit, because it "collided" head-on. Meaning, it was travelling the opposite direction.

Forget the snowballs and such.

I just want to know, how did Thea end up orbiting in the opposite direction in the first place?
If you can find the scientist's answer, please refer me to their work.


Okay, you also asked how would volcanoes produce enough energy. First, let me say you are correct and the moon is travelling away from us. Charles Darwin's son tried to explain the moon, but the fact was that was that when you take his centrifugal force idea and do the math, the moon starts out- too far away from earth. Which is why we have scientists trying to figure out how it got to it's original starting point. It's too far away from Earth to have been flung there by inertia and spin.

So, you want to know how the volcanoes could throw material far enough out into space and not come back. Some did. Much of the material would come back. Not all. These were hydrogen explosions. Hydrogen. Nuclear. The Earth was acting very much like the sun. When the Sun has a Coronal Mass Ejection, much of the material is throw so forcefully it has escape velocity. But, still, some of that material doesn't escape.

I'm saying the volcanoes act very much like CMEs. The water and molten rock explode under pressure.

If humans can send a rocket into space with escape velocity, then why can't a giant (phreatic- the key is water) volcano.

Here's a good article about some moon studies.
www.space.com...

edit on 10-2-2016 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ericblair4891
Let's start in the beginning. We have our sun. And around sun, there are planets which are orbiting the sun. All the planets, are going the same direction around the sun.


Why are they all going the same direction in the beginning? Are you just assuming that? The solar system didn't just magically arise with all the planets in their orbits. It came from a collapsing gas cloud, that would have caused numerous explosions in creating the sun, sending debris all over the place.


At the time of the "collision" there were already planets of various sizes. The "planet" that "collided" with our first earth, was about the size of mars. This means the planets were already basically formed and travelling in their approximate orbits.


No, that's not even close to what that means. You are connecting dots with assumptions.


My problem with the head on collision is that there was ONE Mars sized planet not obeying the traffic rules and was somehow flying around in the exact opposite direction. The scientist that worked on this problem have a problem explain how this Mars size planet was going the wrong way. It's not the glancing blow theory, it's the head-on theory.


Traffic rules? In space, there are no traffic rules. There are only the laws of physics. We don't know where the planet came from. It could have been a rogue planet from another solar system. It could have bounced around our solar system hitting numerous objects until it ended up on a collision coarse with earth. Scientists may not fully know the answer to that, but that's no reason to discredit the theory.


Okay, you also asked how would volcanoes produce enough energy. First, let me say you are correct and the moon is travelling away from us. Charles Darwin's son tried to explain the moon, but the fact was that was that when you take his centrifugal force idea and do the math, the moon starts out- too far away from earth. Which is why we have scientists trying to figure out how it got to it's original starting point. It's too far away from Earth to have been flung there by inertia and spin.


I don't know anything about Darwin's son or his work in astrophysics, but I fail to see how volcanoes can explain that, while you think the collision hypothesis can not.


So, you want to know how the volcanoes could throw material far enough out into space and not come back. Some did. Much of the material would come back. Not all. These were hydrogen explosions. Hydrogen. Nuclear. The Earth was acting very much like the sun. When the Sun has a Coronal Mass Ejection, much of the material is throw so forcefully it has escape velocity. But, still, some of that material doesn't escape.


The earth does not act like the sun. The sun is a giant nuclear fusion generator. The earth does not have nuclear fusion going on in the core, nor did it have it going on back then. First, it's not hot enough, 2nd the composition is not conducive to it. If the earth was like the sun, the crust would have never formed because it would be too hot.


I'm saying the volcanoes act very much like CMEs. The water and molten rock explode under pressure.


I'm not buying this.


If humans can send a rocket into space with escape velocity, then why can't a giant (phreatic- the key is water) volcano.


Even if the biggest super volcano on earth blows, it won't eject even close to enough matter into space. Yeah, it will devastate the earth and cloud up the atmosphere, but you won't have a new moon being formed. Also what's this you are saying about water causing explosions?



Here's a good article about some moon studies.
www.space.com...


Ok, now where does it back up anything you said in this post? I'm already familiar with the moon hypothesis, thanks. I'm curious about your volcano idea.
edit on 2 10 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Firstly, I just posted the article because it was more in depth than most, and I knew it didn't support my ideas, I just like information.

I didn't expect to get into a debate. I like tacking a post on the end of a thread because usually threads get forgotten.

I didn't make up the idea about the planets forming quickly and finding their orbits early on, I think that PBS Neil guy said it. All of our planets are following the basic laws of flying in the same direction. They are all on a plane of a disk. Even the belt of asteroids, a proposed failed planet, all assemble themselves in this uniformed way. Yes, you're right, other sizable objects would be travelling in different directions and colliding and forming new proto-planets, asteroids and other junk. These smaller stuff get sucked up by, Earth, Sun, And Jupiter, and some even escape our solar system. And yes, you are right, the Mars sized planet that may have smashed into earth may have come from another part of the universe all together. But the question still remains, how did it get on a directly opposite path, on the plane, and hit the earth head on.

It's head on. Otherwise, we have a different hypothesis called the glancing blow... Actually what do they call it????
They call that one, side swipe. So, it either side swiped, or, it hit head on. There's two options. If you say it came from another solar system, then it sneaked passed Neptune, Jupiter, Venus, that asteroid belt and found, it exact opposite direction. Honestly, if came from somewhere else, it probably would have hit on angle.

As for my volcanoes, the nuclear part comes from the hydrogen. Hydrogen is the stuff of the sun. So, just like I said before, they hydrogen and the oxygen were fuel. If you put hydrogen under pressure, with enough heat, you'll get a nuclear reaction. You'll fission, not fusion, but both are powerful. A fission explosion of a great size would be powerful enough to propel molten magma beyond escape velocity.

A body of water, inundates a magma chamber, and the mixing produce hydrogen and oxygen under pressure until you get critical mass.

Please just don't believe. and I bet , even if I was right, and even if I brought much evidence to bear, you'd just disagree anyway. For example I could tell you that Hudson Bay was formed by three gigantic explosions, and you wouldn't see it or believe. Even if I did the geometry. Wait. I won't right anymore, someone made a picture of Hudson Bay for me and I can post a picture hoping it says a thousand words. It's a bit rough and the center points should be exactly on the edges of the circle, but I still thank Penny for giving the excercise a try...

I'll find picture and then I'll rest may case... Otherwise, I think I'll just keep repeating myself...



Many people think an asteroid formed the nearly perfect arc in the bay. Geologist did tests and found no evidence it was an impact, or collision. No shatter rock or rebound, yet....

en.wikipedia.org...

webecoist.momtastic.com...


edit on 11-2-2016 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ericblair4891
I didn't make up the idea about the planets forming quickly and finding their orbits early on, I think that PBS Neil guy said it. All of our planets are following the basic laws of flying in the same direction. They are all on a plane of a disk.


Again. In the early solar system, there was debris flying in all kind of directions and colliding. While you are correct that most planets and objects revolve and rotate the same direction because of the way the gas cloud collapsed initially, that doesn't mean collisions wouldn't have sent objects in different directions. How can one explain Venus rotating backwards and Uranus rotating sideways? These are also believed to be the results of collisions. It's like I said earlier. It's a giant 3D pool table based on geometry, momentum and cause & effect.


But the question still remains, how did it get on a directly opposite path, on the plane, and hit the earth head on.


There are many possibilities as to how an object could end up in earth's path. I listed 2 of them in the last post. You also need to keep in mind it doesn't have to be an exact opposite orbit to have a head on collision. It could have approached earth from the north pole and smacked it directly from there. The collision can explain the moon being tidally locked, and why the earth rotates on a tilted axis.


If you say it came from another solar system, then it sneaked passed Neptune, Jupiter, Venus, that asteroid belt and found, it exact opposite direction. Honestly, if came from somewhere else, it probably would have hit on angle.


If it came from another system, it didn't have to sneak past anything. It could have come from a completely different direction or angle. You are looking at the solar system as a 2D thing, plus erroneously suggesting that a planet would have to go through all the other planets to get to earth. The other planets (that were barely formed at the time) could have been on the other side of the sun at the time or just not near the object's path. The asteroid belt might not have even existed yet.


As for my volcanoes, the nuclear part comes from the hydrogen. Hydrogen is the stuff of the sun. So, just like I said before, they hydrogen and the oxygen were fuel. If you put hydrogen under pressure, with enough heat, you'll get a nuclear reaction. You'll fission, not fusion, but both are powerful. A fission explosion of a great size would be powerful enough to propel molten magma beyond escape velocity.


Would it? Can you give me some numbers on that? Hydrogen is the stuff of the sun? You realize it's way more complicated than that, right? The earth has a liquid iron core and the collision happened long before there was any water on earth, so I'm not buying it.


Please just don't believe. and I bet , even if I was right, and even if I brought much evidence to bear, you'd just disagree anyway.


I follow evidence, so if you have any, now would be the time. I just find it hard to believe that somebody's gut feeling about something could discredit the science and right now I see no evidence at all to suggest a volcano could create the moon. I'm sorry.


Many people think an asteroid formed the nearly perfect arc in the bay. Geologist did tests and found no evidence it was an impact, or collision. No shatter rock or rebound, yet....


But no evidence of a mega volcano either. The article seems to agree that it was most likely an impact event. There's no reason why a volcano would carve a perfect circle. That's tell tale impact event crater.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct



Why did they feel the name to posthumously name the baby planet?



My exact thought!.. " it was called Theia"... oh was it now?



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I have not butted into this one though it is interesting, the earth (and the other planets) according to standard scientific model formed from debris and dust in an accretion disc, a layer of material that forms a vortex like disc around a new star, during it's formation it may have been smashed apart and reformed several time's along with merging with many other proto planet's, there is also the theory that at a later date the moon was formed when two planet's collided, while most of the material formed the earth some formed the moon.

Of course without a time machine I can not say what happened and neither can anyone else.

According to theory giant stars formed early in the universe history when the only stable element was probably hydrogen, it was in these massive stars that other elements came into being according to this theory and these giant stars being so massive were short lived so whent nova and exploded throwing this new material out into the universe, there remain's formed huge clound's of dust and gas which of course we call nebula's and it is in these that later smaller heavier cored stars and planets formed and form.

Of course this is based on what they Think happened and what they can see through tool's such as telescopes etc.

So the earth may actually be made up of scores of smaller planets that formed closed enough together in the accretion disc to fall together under there mutual gravitational attraction.

More than two.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join