Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Emil, Aug 16, 2010.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I forgive you.
You are indeed a true Enlightened Moron Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well.. It could be worse.
I could concoct a totally unsupported claim with a massive ego in which I think I've succeeded where everyone else failed miserably, fail to defend it, insult everyone else...
and then allow a sarcastic comment to go right over my head.
But there's no need for me to do so- You have it covered very well.
I have asked you very nicely.
But you are stupid to understand.
Yeah, I guess I am. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I just can't understand that a crap hypothesis not being supported deserves rigorous scrutiny and examination.
I can't understand that if I'm going to assert a conclusion, I must defend the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
Oh, what a fool I've been...
Indeed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Everything in your post is correct except this statement. This statement is completely incorrect. The crust is solid. The mantle is solid. The inner core is solid. Only the outer core is liquid. Even if you allow20-30% fluid for the small portions of the mantle undergoing partial melting you are still left with a dominantly solid Earth.
Emil - Under your assumptions of an earth decreasing in rotational periods...please explain why you believe the decrease to be approximately linear.
My assumption? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You can not accept that is a fact?
What? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I assume that function is not linear.
yet you assert these?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but let's discuss this a wee bit, because it's important to Emils claim.
The crust is Very Thin. Yes, it is solid, but very thin.
But this bit is important: I did not say it was Liquid- I said it was FLUID.
Imagine if you had a pair of pincers out in space larger than the Earth and you try to pick the Earth up with them.
The Earth is not a solid ball, it will essentially Squish and you'll end up with globs of debris floating around.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay Emil - I've gone so far as to derive the solutions entirely for you, then assume them to be true - then ask you to expound on both its implications and inherent assumptions. In return I've received nothing but disrespectful guff and our communique has been nowhere near pleasant. At this point I feel it's within my rights to tell you to piss off.
Quite a double standard, isn't it? He repeatedly calls everyone that doesn't kiss his butt stupid but demands that everyone kiss his butt afterward.
He refuses to defend his conceived conclusion. It seems as though he wants others to do his work for him or he will call them stupid.
It's no wonder that folks like this can be found readily on the internet.
Allow me to agree and second the motion - Piss off Emil.
It's hard when you do not have arguments and get to such "arguments". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But over time maybe you will learn something. :thumbsup:
There are two kinds of fluid: liquid and gas. This is, as I know you know, is primary school physics. The mantle, which constitutes the bulk of the earth is solid. If it were not then it would not be possible for S-waves to penetrate it. They do so with no trouble whatsoever.
You appear to be trying to use fluid with a definition that would not be acceted in any textbook of phsyics, geophysics or geology. Your reference to squishing is irrelevant. Solids can and do deform. Solids can and do flow. This does not make them fluids.
Ok, I'll accept your wording on a matter of semantics.
Fluid behavior is demonstrated by the solids of the mantle.
That said, if you and I are now in agreement on the terminology, this is relevant to the claims made by Emil.
Because an impact event is going to have different results on impact with a true Solid form than when impacting one that is partly solid and exhibits fluid behavior.
if you add the vital caveat over geological time scales, then we are in complete agreement. However this caveat negates your next observation. Since any impact is a short term event the fluid like properties of the mantle will not be able to express themselves.
Subject to short term stress the mantle is rigid. For example:
"...developments in the theory of elasticity and G.H.Darwin’s (1898)investigation of the tides indicated that the Earth was not only solid to great depths, but also 'more rigid than steel'.”
From Schubert, G. et al "Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets." 2004 Cambridge University Press, page 1.
The Darwin reference is: Darwin,G.H. (1898). "The Tides and Kindred Phenomena in the Solar System." Houghton Mifﬂin and Company.
The impactor would generate substantial melts in the vicinity of the impact. This volume likely rises exponentially with crater diameter. Bolide impact velocity is obviously also a factor. However, this is only affecting a comparatively thin layer within the crust.
Emil is wrong, but this line of argument of Earth fluidity is not supported by the facts.
I think you and I are reading very different resources.
There is a good chance that I'm wrong on this, if I was taught incorrectly on this one.
I'm going to look it up and either get back to you with a retraction or support for why I was saying what I was later.
No problem. I shall wait your response with interest. At least this is more productive than arguing with Emil.
Actually, with the links I've opened it looks as though I misunderstood part of the seismic measurements used to study the interior of the Earth. May not be a long wait.
Edit to AddPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!phiolites description was far superior to mine- I stand corrected. I had been looking at how an impact would be absorbed and dispersed by the globe as a whole in a Major (Catastrophic) impact event and had been way too relaxed in how "fluid" I was allowing the High temperature but very high pressure mantle to behave.
That being the case, the point I was aiming for was that an Impact large enough to significantly alter the rotation of Earth would most likely result in chunks of the Earth leaving the Earth and totally changing the mass of the planet in any event.
A Fully solid Earth would be much more readily moved without breaking apart.
Separate names with a comma.