Earth was almost flat disc - new Moon theory

[sevenperforce]

19 hours ago, Starstruck69 said:

The observation bit is where i become sceptical because we weren't measuring/observing in that instance.

If i were to drive 100 miles and we only observed the last 10. Can i accurately describe what happened in the first 90?

You can, if you can go back and see that the tracks from the first 90 match the tracks from the first 10.

Even if the tracks are broken and intermittent, you can still put a number on your effective certainty.

You only start to get into trouble if you are talking about 3' of tracks at the 20 mile point and 1.4' of tracks at the 60 mile point and no actual tracks during the last 10 but you're matching to the tires which were once on a car that was similar and so......you see the point?

[snip]

In the above example, we can say "We have matching tracks running across 20% of the path; we have analyzed track-producing systems and we can say we have 88% certainty that only one vehicle produced this track. If we discover matching tracks totaling 30%  of the path, our certainty will rise to 95%. If we find parallel matching tracks at any point, then we know there was another vehicle involved and our certainty drops to 0%." That is what the result of science looks like.

Our certainty about the past behavior of the moon comes from the exquisitely detailed records we are able to extract from ancient fossil records, particularly corals. Coral growths are able to show things as specific as the height and frequency of tides, interlinked with day-length cycles, insolation angles, ocean oxygenation, and many many other things. These are all buttressed by other fossil records like sedimentary layers and benthic foramins. We cross-reference this data with ice cores and tree ring samples and speleotherms. Even though any one of these might only be able to provide 60-70% certainty, their combination (and agreement) provides overwhelming certainty (>> 99.99%) for the history of the Earth-Moon system.

Edited March 30, 2019 by James Kerman
redacted by a moderator

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

I have nothing constructive or interesting to say. Insert badly made flat earth joke here.

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

I have nothing constructive or interesting to say. Insert badly made flat earth joke here.

Where were the turtle and the elephants when the Earth disk was a cloud of dust?

Edited March 29, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

It is not nonsense and by all means worth mentioning. It is try to deal with the shortcomings of the "pure" Theia impact hypothesis by extending it to a much more energetic impact. If it has something to it it'll be further discussed.

 

Edit: generally marine invertebrates are good environmental indicators and index fossils, specifically sponges during earlier periods, corals especially in and since the Jurassic and other invertebrates like foraminifera, molluscs, bivalves, brachiopods.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Green Baron

[Starstruck69]

17 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

You can, if you can go back and see that the tracks from the first 90 match the tracks from the first 10.

Even if the tracks are broken and intermittent, you can still put a number on your effective certainty.

You only start to get into trouble if you are talking about 3' of tracks at the 20 mile point and 1.4' of tracks at the 60 mile point and no actual tracks during the last 10 but you're matching to the tires which were once on a car that was similar and so......you see the point?

[snip]

In the above example, we can say "We have matching tracks running across 20% of the path; we have analyzed track-producing systems and we can say we have 88% certainty that only one vehicle produced this track. If we discover matching tracks totaling 30%  of the path, our certainty will rise to 95%. If we find parallel matching tracks at any point, then we know there was another vehicle involved and our certainty drops to 0%." That is what the result of science looks like.

Our certainty about the past behavior of the moon comes from the exquisitely detailed records we are able to extract from ancient fossil records, particularly corals. Coral growths are able to show things as specific as the height and frequency of tides, interlinked with day-length cycles, insolation angles, ocean oxygenation, and many many other things. These are all buttressed by other fossil records like sedimentary layers and benthic foramins. We cross-reference this data with ice cores and tree ring samples and speleotherms. Even though any one of these might only be able to provide 60-70% certainty, their combination (and agreement) provides overwhelming certainty (>> 99.99%) for the history of the Earth-Moon system.

Thats a great explanation. Thanks

Edited March 30, 2019 by James Kerman
redacted by a moderator

[Cassel]

5 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Earth-Sun L3, L4 and L5 makes it likely that the initial torus will form multiple bodies, well separated in orbit. But those bodies are usually unstable relative to each other, and over astronomical time, will eventually "clear their orbit" and collide/combine.

I suspect the spin of the rock-plasma disk actually gets tidally transferred to the moon, gradually shifting the moon  to a higher orbit.

Is a similar rule valid for Jupiter?
(By the way, can Jupiter be called a planet if it did not clean its orbit?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan

[Rakaydos]

4 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Is a similar rule valid for Jupiter?
(By the way, can Jupiter be called a planet if it did not clean its orbit?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan

Trojans arnt stable, they're captured and released. This still counts as Jupiter gravitationally dominating it's orbit because Jupiter's Trojan is having the capture effect. Same as the Galelean Moons could as under Jupiter's gravitational domain.

[Cassel]

5 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

When the giant impact took place, the crusts of proto-Earth and Theia were mixed to such a degree that they became undifferentiated. The core of Theia merged with the core of proto-Earth. Our moon formed rather rapidly from the debris cloud and has very little core to speak of.

We know without question that the Moon has been receding since its formation. This is observable.

If there really was such a clash, is it possible to have such "mountains"?
I think that the melted crust of Earth and the other planet would create a more uniform structure?

https://www.livescience.com/64943-nobody-understands-the-giant-mantle-blobs.html

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Pluto is not alone. Jupiter is a gas dwarf planet...

 

[Cassel]

1 minute ago, Rakaydos said:

Trojans arnt stable, they're captured and released. This still counts as Jupiter gravitationally dominating it's orbit because Jupiter's Trojan is having the capture effect. Same as the Galelean Moons could as under Jupiter's gravitational domain.

They are not stable, because Jupiter is cleaning its orbit before our eyes.

[Rakaydos]

1 minute ago, Cassel said:

They are not stable, because Jupiter is cleaning its orbit before our eyes.

I wouldn't go that far. the L4 and L5 (greek and Trojan camps) have orbits, just like moons do. They're just very vulnerable to perturbation from Saturn.

[sevenperforce]

Just now, Cassel said:

Just now, Rakaydos said:

Trojans arnt stable, they're captured and released. This still counts as Jupiter gravitationally dominating it's orbit because Jupiter's Trojan is having the capture effect. Same as the Galelean Moons could as under Jupiter's gravitational domain.

They are not stable, because Jupiter is cleaning its orbit before our eyes.

Another way of putting it: Jupiter dominates its orbit because it controls the orbits of those objects, whether they are coming or going.

Just now, Cassel said:

If there really was such a clash, is it possible to have such "mountains"?
I think that the melted crust of Earth and the other planet would create a more uniform structure?

https://www.livescience.com/64943-nobody-understands-the-giant-mantle-blobs.html

The giant impact between Earth and Theia happened a LONG time ago. Unbelievably long ago. Earth's entire surface has been reworked multiple times since then. Continents have been taken apart and rebuilt and taken apart over and over. The formation of a mountain or volcano or anything else may seem slow, but it is blindingly fast compared to the amount of time that has elapsed since the formation of the Moon.

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Earth's entire surface has been reworked multiple times since then.

That's all what we have since then.    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating

Edited March 29, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

If there really was such a clash, is it possible to have such "mountains"?
I think that the melted crust of Earth and the other planet would create a more uniform structure?

https://www.livescience.com/64943-nobody-understands-the-giant-mantle-blobs.html

Mountains are a MUCH (!) younger thing. Allow me to give you some terms to set out for a little research yourself:

During the time of the impact, at the beginning of the Hadean eon, the earth was "mushy", there was no continental crust. Mantle convection may have actually have been much faster than today. Forming of continental lithosphere started later, during the Archaean eon, when many small shifting and drifting cratons re- and arranged themselves over a softer mantle than today, which was convecting faster, and exchanging the surface more frequently. What came out of the water became subject to weathering, its products were and are lighter than oceanic (basaltic) crust because of a higher porosity, it starts to swim upon the basaltic underground, accretioning in larger "islands", that get welded together because of the crustal movement, forming the nuclei of future continents. This process, lasted for ~2 billion years, at the end of the Archaean ~70% of today continental crust was formed. Then, with the further cooling of the mantle, what we call "modern plate tectonics" began, sutures formed where the oceanic crust had cooled and densified so much that it tore off from the adjacent lighter continental crust and began to dive down through the mantle, dragging the oceanic crust behind it. Plates formed, and in exchange for the drag ocean ridges emerged where likewise magma erupted and erupts. The smaller proto-continents, unable to dive down again because of their buoyancy, arranged themselves at least 2 times in supercontinents. This process is running until today, and maybe for another ~500 million years, until the mantle has cooled down so much that subducting plates get stuck in the transition layer between crust and mantle.

Ok. That is a short history of the earth. Mountains (here: Orogeny) is connected with the forming of supercontinents. Several phases of orogeny ore known, the penultimate one is known as the Variscan orogeny in the course of the forming of Pangaea, the actual orogenic period is better known and divided into as the forming of the Alps and Himalaya, the Andes and the two north American mountain ranges. These ranges emerge when a subducting plate (slab) becomes too heavy in the mantle, tears off and because of the "sudden" gain in buoyancy the overlaying continental crust rises too fast to be weathered away. Et viola: mountain ranges that quite well mark the main subduction zones.

Also, if it hasn't been said already, while continental crust stays on the surface, oceanic does not get older than ~180million years (less than 5% of earth's age) before it gets subducted again. So, apart from a few ophiolites, Jurassic ocean floor is the oldest on earth.

tl, dr: That process that builds up mountains did not exist in earlier times.

--------------

If you have questions, here we are :-)

 

Edit: ignore the link, it is for the advanced, presented in a much too sensational way. Like, really. It has nothing to do with mountains on the surface, as i hope i have transported in my compressed semester earth's internal dynamics :-)

Edited March 29, 2019 by Green Baron
Corrected Hadean mantle convection rate.

[Cassel]

2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

I wouldn't go that far. the L4 and L5 (greek and Trojan camps) have orbits, just like moons do. They're just very vulnerable to perturbation from Saturn.

How do you distinguish the planet clearing it's orbit from what you describe?

[Cassel]

17 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

[snip]

[snip]

Quote

In the above example, we can say "We have matching tracks running across 20% of the path; we have analyzed track-producing systems and we can say we have 88% certainty that only one vehicle produced this track. If we discover matching tracks totaling 30%  of the path, our certainty will rise to 95%. If we find parallel matching tracks at any point, then we know there was another vehicle involved and our certainty drops to 0%." That is what the result of science looks like.

You suggest your own assumptions without proving the correctness of these assumptions. This approach creates an cognition bubble that can not be left out, and if you reject all scientific trends that contradict your initial assumptions, you will not be able to see where you are making a mistake.

Most hypotheses or even modern theories can be undermined by the logical error of the "Circular reasoning".

 

15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Another way of putting it: Jupiter dominates its orbit because it controls the orbits of those objects, whether they are coming or going.
 

Its orbit is not cleared, why we call Jupiter a planet?
How do you suggest to distinguish a planet that is just clearing its orbit from the one that has already done it, but still there are some objects in its orbit?

Quote

The giant impact between Earth and Theia happened a LONG time ago. Unbelievably long ago. Earth's entire surface has been reworked multiple times since then. Continents have been taken apart and rebuilt and taken apart over and over. The formation of a mountain or volcano or anything else may seem slow, but it is blindingly fast compared to the amount of time that has elapsed since the formation of the Moon.

And is there any evidence that such an event took place?
Here you are just committing a logic error, which I wrote earlier and second "Confirmation bias". You assume that your belief is true, so you interpret different events to confirm your belief. At the same time, you reject anything that contradicts your view.

Edited March 30, 2019 by James Kerman
redacted by a moderator

[Cassel]

10 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Yeah, don't let this get too wild. Ease of explanation is what drives research. If you start thinking around several corners to support an upcoming hypothesis (edit: while simpler explanations are there) something is wrong with your base model. The Theia hypothesis is around for several decades now and not widely doubted, though maybe in need of more adjustments. The paper in the OP also misses out on some things there.

Here's some reasonable pop science:

Very basic: https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html

A variant: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/moon_formation.html

The classic model: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/the-moon

(skip down to questions in that link, @Cassel, they are answered there)

 

Somewhat advanced, just to show that the ideas are in development, without any preferences from my side:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1602365

Addressing the angular momentum problem with many impacts instead of a big one:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2866

 

... and so on. You see, nothing is carved in basalt or iron ;-)

 

Edit: this is the second time in my life that i recommend a Wikipedia article. Changing times ...

 

 

It all came from the assumptions that the rocks are actually from the moon and that the whole moon has the same composition?
At the same time we have only one sample of these rocks? So why do you treat such research and these hypotheses seriously?
We should wait for more samples from other places on the moon before we start making hypotheses about collisions that did not happen.
 

[Green Baron]

33 minutes ago, Cassel said:

How do you distinguish the planet clearing it's orbit from what you describe?

Maybe among others, resonance. Trojans are in a 1 to 1 resonance. A planet has flung objects that were crossing its path in- or outside, or in the course of multiple encounters they were set on a resonant orbit that never takes them near enough for an impact or encounter. This does, of course, not exclude other influences on these bodies, like other planets or disturbances from outside, which might set such an object on an encounter or collision course again.

To the "circular reasoning", to exclude that we say a hypothesis must be testable. We do have tests for the Theia thing, orbital motion was mentioned and geo- and lunar chemistry (which triggered the idea in the first place). More indirect evidence include the history of the solar system and the "unrulyness" of its first inhabitants :-), will say violent conditions in its early days. (Though, as a sidenote, the LHB (late heavy bombardment) hypothesis, a similar but less well tested assumption, is about to be laid to the archives of science.) Nobody sticks to a hypothesis longer than is necessary, but to be released something better must be presented.

You may have noticed that i found your OP interesting if not widening the view on the moon's formation. I would simply wait for remarks and discussions it may trigger, if it triggers.

8 minutes ago, Cassel said:

It all came from the assumptions that the rocks are actually from the moon and that the whole moon has the same composition?
At the same time we have only one sample of these rocks? So why do you treat such research and these hypotheses seriously?
We should wait for more samples from other places on the moon before we start making hypotheses about collisions that did not happen.
 

No. We have ~400kg of samples from different places, the landing sites of the Apollo missions. And these samples were only the triggers, as i and others wrote 10 times now, there is more evidence to the giant impact hypothesis. And your link does not exclude it, it extends it, and is only based on modelling, no hard data. Say, what it is that holds you back from accepting the inevitable .-) ?

Edited March 29, 2019 by Green Baron

[Cassel]

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Maybe among others, resonance. Trojans are in a 1 to 1 resonance. A planet has flung objects that were crossing its path in- or outside, or in the course of multiple encounters they were set on a resonant orbit that never takes them near enough for an impact. This does, of course, not exclude other influences on these bodies, like other planets or disturbances from outside, which might set such an object on an encounter or collision course again.

You did not understand my question.

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

To the "circular reasoning", to exclude we say a hypothesis must be testable.

"circular reasoning" is not about testing

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

We do have tests for the Theia thing

There is no trace of this planet. The only thing we have is simulations. Have you listened to this video, which I inserted at the very beginning? There the doctor says that she is based only on simulations and experiments with her "cannon", there is nothing more.

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

No. We have ~400kg of samples from different places, the ladning sites of the Apollo missions. And these samples were only the triggers, as i wrote 10 times now, there is more evidence to the giant impact hypothesis. And your link does not exclude it. Say, what it is that holds you back from accepting the unevitable .-) ?

This is one sample from one scientist.

[Green Baron]

I am actually wasting explanations, time and effort. I am out.

[sevenperforce]

12 hours ago, Cassel said:

How do you distinguish the planet clearing it's orbit from what you describe?

A would-be planet has not cleared its orbit if there are other bodies sharing the same orbital neighborhood which are not dominated by its gravity. Trojans and moons are constrained by the gravity of the primary.

12 hours ago, Cassel said:

[snip]

[snip]

Quote

Quote

In the above example, we can say "We have matching tracks running across 20% of the path; we have analyzed track-producing systems and we can say we have 88% certainty that only one vehicle produced this track. If we discover matching tracks totaling 30%  of the path, our certainty will rise to 95%. If we find parallel matching tracks at any point, then we know there was another vehicle involved and our certainty drops to 0%." That is what the result of science looks like.

You suggest your own assumptions without proving the correctness of these assumptions. This approach creates an cognition bubble that can not be left out, and if you reject all scientific trends that contradict your initial assumptions, you will not be able to see where you are making a mistake.

I imagine you do not realize that the entire concept of calculable uncertainty leaves your riposte uncomfortably dull.

Quote

Its orbit is not cleared, why we call Jupiter a planet?
How do you suggest to distinguish a planet that is just clearing its orbit from the one that has already done it, but still there are some objects in its orbit?

I do not particularly like the planetary discriminant or the agreed definition of a planet. 

But it does work for these purposes. A body is either large enough to dominate its orbital neighborhood in geologic time, or it is not. Jupiter is. Pluto is not.

If Earth was positioned at the same distance as Eris then it would no longer be large enough to dominate its orbital neighborhood in geologic time, and thus would not be considered a planet, which is why I do not like the current agreed definition of a planet, but that is another topic altogether.

12 hours ago, Green Baron said:

I am actually wasting explanations, time and effort. I am out.

Ditto.

Edited March 30, 2019 by James Kerman
redacted by a moderator

[Cassel]

12 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

A would-be planet has not cleared its orbit if there are other bodies sharing the same orbital neighborhood which are not dominated by its gravity. Trojans and moons are constrained by the gravity of the primary.

So how do you think how planet's orbit that has not yet cleared it would look like?
Is there any simulation like Jupiter was clearing his orbit?

[snip]

Quote

But it does work for these purposes. A body is either large enough to dominate its orbital neighborhood in geologic time, or it is not. Jupiter is. Pluto is not.

 

 

I am not talking about definition, but about what we can observe today. It looks like Jupiter has not yet cleared his orbit from tiny bodies.

The asteroid belt looks like the planet has not formed yet.

There are no bodies like Trojans in the Earth's orbit, so the Theia hypothesis does not make sense. After such a collision on Earth's orbit in L points should be a mass of small bodies.

Is there any geological evidence, eg samples of the earth's crust, the original one from before the impact?

[snip]

Edited March 30, 2019 by James Kerman
redacted by a moderator

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

So how do you think how planet's orbit that has not yet cleared it would look like?

Take a look at the 'steroid belt.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Is there any simulation like Jupiter was clearing his orbit?

This.

Spoiler

(but without a shotgun

)

 

[snip]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

It looks like Jupiter has not yet cleared his orbit from tiny bodies.

Compared to Jupiter they're microscopic. Size matters.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

The asteroid belt looks like the planet has not formed yet.

It looks like an abortion material of a planet. Not enough to make one.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

There are no bodies like Trojans in the Earth's orbit

Probably we can see the remains of one every night.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

After such a collision on Earth's orbit in L points should be a mass of small bodies.

Originally the Moon was much closer to us. Getting farther and farther, it has smashed and consumed all debries and probably original satellites.
Nowadays L points are far beyond the original Moon orbit.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Is there any geological evidence, eg samples of the earth's crust, the original one from before the impact?

No. All is gone.

[snip]

Edited March 30, 2019 by James Kerman
redacted by a moderator

[Gargamel]

Hey Guys,

Some stuff had to be removed from the thread.   Remember, it's against the forum guidelines to be discussing Religion, Politics, and Conspiracy Theories and the like.  So let's try to avoid those topics while we discuss the topic at hand, shall we?   Thanks!

[Cunjo Carl]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:17 AM, Shpaget said:

Anyway, anybody feel like throwing some numbers on the paper to calculate how much would the Earth's spin change if the entire momentum of the Moon was converted to the rotation of the Earth?

I wasn't supposed to do any more typing today, but I'm too curious now. It's a good question. What happens if the Earth and Moon are combined into a roughly spherical body?

Angular momentum of body in orbit = m*r*v   (v is velocity perpendicular surface)
Angular momentum of sphere = 2/5 m r^2 * 2*pi / T   (T is rotation period)
volume = (4/3)pi*r^3

8.6E4 s per day
3.8E8 m Moon orbit radius
1.0E3 m/s Moon orbital velocity
7.3E22 kg Moon mass
6.0E24 kg Earth mass
6.4E6 m Earth radius

Since the Moon's mass is only ~1% that of the earth, the moon+earth sphere would have radius only .33% bigger, so not enough to worry about.

The moon has about 4 times the angular momentum of the spinning Earth, so the day of a hypothetical spherical Earth+Moon combo would be much shorter!

5.0 hrs day = [((2/5)*6.0E24*6.4E6^2*2*3.14/8.6E4 + 7.3E22*3.8E8*1E3) / ((2/5)*6.1E24*6.4E6^2*2*3.14))]^-1/3600

Centrifugal force at the equator would be 1.6m/s^2