One possible explanation of the dramatic changes of the Earth.

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Emil, Aug 16, 2010.

1. OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
Would you take a look at my earlier calculation and see if you agree with it. I think I show a three order of magnitude differnce from Emil, which matches your suspicion that he is out by 1000.

3. NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Now, call me a liar, again.

Emil: If not a very large impact - Explain clearly, WHAT could cause a severe change in the Earths rotation speed? I've asked you this question twice, now, and you've ignored it each time.

Don't ignore them and then claim later that I'm flat out lying about having asked. Answer them and you'll solve the problem at the start so that you need not fall back on ad hom attacks to account for your failures.

5. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801
Now you do not lie,lied earlier when I said.

Now I'll have to teach you English is not my native language.
You understand the meaning of "if" and mark "?"

You answer a question with another question.This is stupid and pointless.

I will ignore you until you solve the problem with "Moron"

7. NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
If I had not lied "now" then I could not have lied "then" considering each time I was saying the same thing.

Very well- There is no evidence of any impactor that has changed the rotation speed of the Earth. There is no evidence in any geological nor magnetic marker that demonstrates any change in the Earths rotation.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that anything has changed the Earths rotation speed as that would require another Massive celestial body.

So your proposal still fails flatly.

More ad hom. Perhaps when you learn to create reasoned posts, you won't have a problem with your anger issues.

8. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

Correct.

It is true only if six hours is day light length( day is 12 hours instead of 24 so the Earth moves 2 times faster).
So centrifugal force is greater than 2 ^ 2=4

If the Earth move five times faster then the centrifugal force is greater than 5 ^ 2=25

9. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

I told quite clearly that this is a lie.Have to repeat several times?

You're just ignorant.

http://novan.com/earth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Historical_evidence

Why you have put yourself if that is your opinion?
Maybe others are interested in the topic.

What?

10. NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Your lack of understanding and clarity does not make me a liar.
You DID make those claims. For you to continue to deny it after I quoted you- for you to call me a liar only makes a liar out of you. It's tiresome and you should grow up, already.

Irrelevant. The changes discussed there are small and gradual.

The changes you were proposing were catastrophic and significant.
Posting those links smacks of a lack of honesty on your part... Because those links are not related to what you were discussing.

There is a very large difference between the two. now, I admit, I worded that last post badly, but I was referring to your claim when I wrote it.

11. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

Neverfly (Enlightened Moron),

You do not understand anything I said.
When I say something,I sayex actly.No less and no more. :deal:
I already tired to show you all the inaccuracy and the crap you post.

Most do not understand why you put in this discussion, as you clearly are not interested? :shrug:

12. ChipzBannedBanned

Messages:
838
Since once person - Orphiolite other than Emil wants verifications, I will do it from scratch.

Rotation of Earth:
$\Omega_{e} = 7.2921150 E -05 \ (\frac{rad}{s})$

$\bar{r_e} = 6,378.1 km = 6,378,100 m$

If we are to are to assume that the day was at one point 6 hours and not 24 hours.

Then the modified $\Omega_M$ is...
$\frac{24}{6}\Omega_e = 4\Omega_e = 2.916846 E -04 = \Omega_m$

And the acceleration is equal to: $\Omega^2 r$.

Then the present acceleration is:
$a_0 = \Omega_e^2 r_e = (7.2921150 E -05)^2(6,378,100) =(5.31749412 E -09)(6,378,100) \approx 0.0339 \ \frac{m}{s^2}$

And the modified acceleration is:
$a_m = \Omega_m^2 r_e = (2.916846 E -04)^2(6,378,100) =(8.50799059 E-08)(6,378,100) \approx .54426 \ \frac{m}{s^2}$

Then the actual gravity at any point is equal to:
$A = 9.81 - a cos(\theta)$ If we take the equatorial region of $\theta = 0$ $cos(0) = 1$.

Then the acceleration today A is:
$9.81 - .03 = a_0 = 9.78$

Then the modified accelerationA is:
$9.81 - .54426 = a_m = 9.27$

And: $\frac{a_m}{a_0} \approx .95$

Which is equivalent to saying it was 95% of present acceleration... or 5% less acceleration at the Equator. Which is equivalent to 100 lbs being 95lbs at the equator.

Irregardless of previous statements, those are the facts.

13. NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
It's perfectly possible that I misunderstood you.

Calling me a liar, calling the actual science I put forth crap or making fun of a jocular status I added to my own profile does not exactly endear me to listen to your claims of misunderstanding.

Your initial post suggests nonsense. If I misunderstood it- Point out what is misunderstood instead of attacking the person angrily-- And you might get a better response.

But what I Observe in this thread is that you ASKED whether or not such could occur; but then argued with every answer given.

This suggests that it was not a question, but a proposal on your part that is very scientifically inaccurate - One you are trying to defend.

14. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

Correct.
How beautiful were If you would have started like that.
Can we calculate the shape of earth for an equivalent weight of 80%.?
After my calculations that means a rotation of the Earth 7.7 times faster(3h 6min instead of 24h).
To simplify assume that land is homogeneous and liquid.
But keep in mind that earth radius at the equator is changing and is no longer 6,378,000m.

15. OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
So dipshit, Chipz's calculation result is approxiamtely the same as mine. Both are substantially different from yours. Please now concede that you were wrong. Or are you a coward as well as a fool?

16. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801
You're simply a liar.
So for you 1.4 = 5

17. ChipzBannedBanned

Messages:
838
Emil, you're a crack pot. The Earth was never rotating exceptionally fast providing the capabilities of large growth in dinosaurs. You're simply a crack pot.

18. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

Now I understand.
You entered this thread to say that "You're simply a crack pot."
I respect your opinion but I want to talk to those who find something interesting in the following:

http://novan.com/earth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Historical_evidence

19. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

Unfortunately, until now I had to argue the accuracy of mathematical calculations.
I was angry because the calculations were correct and I believe the discussion was hijacked.
But I do not want to convince anyone that I am right. I'm looking for conversation partners, to explore this hypothesis and eventually to reach a conclusion.
Those who want their opinion to be mentioned, namely that this topic is crap,
say their opinion but do not insist.
Those who come with arguments for and against are welcome.
The proposing is not a statement.It is a working hypothesis.Those who worked in research know what that means (I hope Google translate correctly translated.I check several times but even so may appear inaccurate and incorrect sentences.)

Indices for which I think is worth exploring this hypothesis are:

Kinetic energy of a body is mV ^ 2 / 2.
In my opinion, energy loss due to water movement is not a linear function.
In my opinion is not a simple multiplication between the number of days and 1.4 milliseconds.
To have a clearer picture should form a team of specialists, geologists, mathematicians and programmers specialize in computer modeling of dynamic systems.To do a dynamic model of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

With this dynamic model of Earth, we can give time back and forth and we could simulate the Earth's rotation from the past.

Other indices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Another clues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K–T_boundary

Another clues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth

But land is only 30% of the earth.But the events that took place on ocean surface?

The probability that these impacts alter the rotation axis and rotation of the earth are very high.As the impact direction is perpendicular to the earth's surface is very small.
In my opinion these events have not been sufficiently analyzed in terms of change of rotational speed of the Earth and even change the axis of rotation.

20. OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
That's because your calculations are screwed up.

21. NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Emil, I took my time and I read that entire long post.

Here is my basic understanding of what you are saying...:

That all the scientists that studied the impact craters, all the celestial mechanics, all the math- Is wrong. And You, solely, are right.

That IS possible, although that possibility is very remote. And, again, examination and independent verification on your part is a Great Thing.

But here's what I suggest... If you truly think it's ALL wrong- show how it is. In the process, if you are wrong, you'll learn a lot along the way and come out stronger.
If you're correct, you can take your findings to peer reviewed journals and universities and be recognized and do a service for science.

About the only thing you can do on this forum is MAYBE check your work. That's it.

Now, my two bits:
Many of those impact craters show evidence as to the direction of the impact. In the cases of some, they impacted at an angle toward the rotation of the Earths rotation. The change in Earth rotation for the vast majority of them is quite negligible. The mass of the Earth is significantly greater than the mass of those objects that hit it.
Additionally, the force and results of the impacts is due to Speed upon impact and not mass upon impact.
Some of the impacts were against the rotation of the Earth, causing a very slight acceleration in the opposite direction. Again, pretty negligible.

You must remember, the Earth is mostly Fluid. It's not a solid ball.

In order to significantly (As Your OP Asked-- because yes, the Earths rotation has slowly accelerated in the opposite direction due to tidal forces, etc Significantly enough to cause mass extinctions) alter the Earths rotation, an impact event must cause an acceleration in either direction and be the result of a mass about (Back of envelope guess with Earth mass at 5.98 x 1024 kg and "Significant" as defined as greater than 2 seconds per day even though that amount is not significant enough to cause mass extinctions) ...
the size of Montana * Correction, I forgot to convert English to Metric <blush> make that closer to Two Montanas- Which is more than big enough to kill all life on Earth including bacteria.

Anything larger, that can cause a more significant change in the rotation speed of Earth, obviously is no more deadly to what's already dead.

Last edited: Sep 20, 2010
22. EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801

I still remain to my conclusion and my position.

I seriously say this does not interest me.
I wanted a discussion on this issue in a pleasant and modest circumstances. (What has failed, at least in the first part.)

What interests me and upset me because nothing happens,is my first thread.
And I think people are more stupid than I thought as before.

23. NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
If you're taking a stance as you clearly are- You must DEFEND that "against the mainstream position." You do this by showing your work and your math and explaining WHY you reached the conclusion that you reached.

If you do not know, then you cannot be standing to a position, can you?

"I don't know" can be an acceptable answer if you're asking innocent questions.
But it is not acceptable if you have reached a conclusion, now is it?

And that's why I've been harsh with you. Because you're taking a stance and not showing your work, you're attacking others. You're not demonstrating why you have concluded what you have- You are insulting other posters.

You're making a stand without standing up. Without answering basic questions.

And I just explained why it is failing.

Yes, that's a great way to make pleasant conversation...