One possible explanation of the dramatic changes of the Earth.

Neverfly said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sorry?
 
Emil said:

You are indeed a true Enlightened Moron ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Emil said:
But you are stupid to understand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I am. ;)

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...
 
Neverfly said:
You must remember, the Earth is mostly Fluid. It's not a solid ball.
Click to expand...
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.
 


Chipz said:
Emil - Under your assumptions of an earth decreasing in rotational periods...
Click to expand...
My assumption? :eek: You can not accept that is a fact?

Chipz said:
Emil.please explain why you believe the decrease to be approximately linear.
Click to expand...
What? :eek:
Emil said:

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.
Click to expand...
I assume that function is not linear.
You?


Chipz,
yet you assert these?

Chipz said:
Fine.
Assuming your other calculations are correct....$$\frac{31,899,904}{6 378 137 000} = \frac{5}{1000} \frac{m}{s^2}$$
You're off by a factor of 1 thousand, that's a lot.
Click to expand...
Chipz said:
Your calculations skipped steps and were formatted in a piss poor wysiwyg rather than a Latex format. I refuse to do your whole question, but I am rather confident that you're off by a matter of 1000 because at some point you substituted metric systems prefixes.
Click to expand...
 
Ophiolite said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

0-7645-1622-1_0601.jpg
 
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.
 
Chipz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Neverfly said:
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.

0-7645-1622-1_0601.jpg
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ophiolite said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Neverfly said:
Fluid behavior is demonstrated by the solids of the mantle..
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ophiolite said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ophiolite said:
No problem. I shall wait your response with interest. At least this is more productive than arguing with Emil.
Click to expand...

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 Add:Ophiolites 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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top