Earth Formation-I Have Doubts Of The Theory

Thanks for the explanation and certainlly I will follow your advise and read more about the subject

Like any engineer I suppose, what someone can´t prove I don´t believe

I confess I liked more your explanation of crushing force to explain the magma that radiotive metheorites creates magma as shown in that TV presentation.

Iron and nickel are more heavy and have a tendency to go to the core of the planet

I also glad that you have a different alternative for water than metheorites. Comet are snowballs and make more sense to me that water could came from comets.But how many comets need to fill our ocean is the question. Maybe something more should had occurred that we don´t know.

I will read Stephen Hawking as suggested

Best Regards

Radionuclides are much much denser than iron, even denser than lead. So if Iron sinks and collects disproportionately at the center relative to the surface, waht of the rdionuclides.

Actually, most radionuclides are less dense than lead and many less than iron.

Most radionuclides have short half-lives (days to a years. Carbon-14 is the exception at 5730 years.

This is true as I had not considered the isotopes of lighter atoms, and was just considering the radionuclides that contribute to the core, e.g. uranium, thorium, etc..

Though something else to consider that can be a major contributing factor toward heating a planets core also is the surface flexure from tidal forces.

I suggest you check out the following site http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_plan.html Enjoy

Gannet,

Thank you . The site tufts.edu is very interesting and explains a lot of the cosmic evolution.

But the theory of earth formation of this site is contradictory with the new theory formulated in 2010 by Mr.W.Dahl (Niels Bohr Institut), based in measured evidences of the decay of tungsten (see my comment in #20) .

Which hypothesys is more correct ? I think nobody knows for sure .

I like more the theory of Mr.W.Dahl but certainlly the theory of tufts.edu makes sense for several persons .

Future will tell which theory has higher probability to be correct

"This will create heat"

Is this verified experimentally?

When two dust particles are attracted to each other by gravity, the kinetic energy of their collision results in the rise of their temperature. This may not have been measured experimentally for such small particles. (Although maybe it has!) I would guess that this has been measured for some particles not too much larger than that, though.

Are you talking about the one recently shown on BBC depicting Stephen Hawkins' theory about the big-bang followed by the formation of the universe?

There are a lot of big-bang theories but this looked quite an advanced and a credible one supported by some computer modellings.

I guess we will continue to be intrigued by this topic for quite sometime till we reach a unanimous conclusion about the formation of our universe but. Meanwhile, it just remains to be pretty amusing to say the least.

Sounds like it. It was fairly recently produced.

Barely a fortnight ago on BBC1 I think.

Math models are only as accurate as the sampling data and from what I've seen that has a lot to be desired. Describing the whole based on what we know so far is like blind folk describing an elephant by feel. We have been making up stories to explain everything since day one. A few years ago we came up with the Double blind test to help reduce the effects of opinion. That hasn't helped very much because the general populous seem to prefer living in some made-up world of their own rather than discovering the cold hard facts.

Dear FE,

Being an Engineer for 17 years I can tell you that these explanations are perfectly reasonable and possible, not at all crazy.

Of course, there may be other, equally possible, explanations. Nobody will know for sure.

If you really want to know the truth, keep searching and stay away from "holy" books! The truth is not to be found there...

Being an engineer for 35 years I respectfully suggest and based on my experience of life, that you do not waste your time and damage your brain cells thinking to deeply about such matters because science will never provide the answers which you or myself and many other people are searching for. Science can only provide theories as opposed to laws or proofs.

I was in the past like your good self questioning everything from physics to phsycology and everything in between, however I have given up and now feel content looking after the well being and happiness of my family which in return gives me joy.

With respect to your comment "stay away from the "holy" books" I personally strongly disagee. There is nothing in the "holy" books which science can contradict based on our current undestanding of science / physics. Look back 100 years when at that time man knew or thought he knew everything. Well as we all know now - man did not, nor do we now and never shall so please accept that.

No offence intended.

Richard F.

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post #18

This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about politics and religion.

You're funny but, have to give the man credit in #17 because he's got a valid point.

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post #23

This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about politics and religion.

In response to a now deleted post. The example used assumes that time is linear and absolute. In my experience time is relative. The measure of time beyond the existence of the measuring tool becomes dubious. e.g. the use of 5 billion years for the formation of our stellar system or 15 billion years for the universe runs into the problem of a Earth year not existing at that point in time. The extrapolation of time beyond our capacity to verify the accuracy of the measuring stick is going to lead to errors. My experience of time is more of a landscape; there are folds and canyons and plains. Take off your watch and go into the woods, go into a cave... our experience of time changes. The watch is just a meter stick not time itself.

"In my experience time is relative"

...and the more relatives you have the less time you have!

You have a good point. It made me laugh.

Richard F, your suggestion is interesting but unsatisfying for many of us.

Many of us enjoy the struggle to understand new things, we understand that all knowledge is provisional and that our current theories may alter as more information is found, we don't see this as a fault but a strength.

We'd rather be right than certain.

We'd rather be confounded (and astounded) by the complexity of reality than content with a glib answer from any book.

Actually, true scientific theories demand a mathematical proof be developed that demonstrates the theory exemplifies the mechanics suggested inherently by the theory (that is actually the theory, before that it is just some sort of conjecture or concept), then experimentation conducted to attempt and disprove the theory, thus validating it.

"science will never provide the answers which you or myself and many other people are searching for"

I couldn't agree with you more and all those who tend to think like that. Science is developed by humans and it is only as perfect as humans. I heard many a times that humans aren't perfect in their thinking that can immediately cast a doubt over some of our theories including this one here.

Our theory about the creation of the universe is only as advanced as our technological progress combined with the best of our imaginations.

I do not wanna pick on Stephen Hawking but, if you look at his current physical condition of the poor bloke, you must see he's little more than a living-brain bound to a hi-tech wheel-chair.

This further shows that no matter who we are, but we are in the realm of somebody. And we are bound to live on this planet subject to all of its forces in and around it, including the destructive ones which we commonly refer to as 'natural disasters'. (Interestingly, some old insurance policies used to refer to those natural disasters as 'Act of God' - do you know why?)

I have been an engineer for 22 years and can tell you that science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive. Read all the books you can INCLUDING HOLY BOOKS, and make your own determination!

If you find the idea of purely physical processes difficult to understand there are many organisations who also use magic in their explanations.

This can make things much easier to follow eg Question - How did X happen? Answer Magic. How did Y happen - Answer Magic!. Easy isn't it.

Try the Creation Research Institute for more examples.

In the typical evolutionary scheme, that Magic is called Time. Need organism A to change to a B? Easy! Just add a few more miliion or billion years.

For the intelligent and serious inquirer, I would strongly suggest you watch Rob Bell's presentation titled "Everything is Spiritual". there are segments of it in youtube, but the whole presentation can be found elsewhere.

in that presentation, you will understand that the earth's elements are in such perfect balance and tuning that if just one of them were not "tuned", life could not be supported. accident? please see that presentation and settle your doubts once and for all about our origin.

the simplest minded person can understand and see DESIGN in nature. man in his finite mind would like to explain how things have become what they are in a complicated way.

-- langyaw

And to find out things that "Inquiring Minds Want to Know," read The National Enquirer.

Your arguments are not cohesive. Let alone correct.

Religion does not belong in scientific studies, although there is nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs.

The problem is when you say "and a religious miracle happens here..." as part of a scientific explanation.

At that point it is a long distance call between where you are at and science.

Hmm, maybe there should be a prerequisite to log on this site that a valid professional engineering license number (that mathces the license holder name and address) be provided as part of the login information. I believe that would save a ton of the off topic debates over spirituality, evolution, drug enforcement, and recommendation to violate the law.

Dear Sirs,

I read today that in the magazine Earth and Planetary Science Letter that was written a new theorie of Earth and Moon Formation .

New theorie says that the Earth and Moon are a result of colision (or union ) of 2 planets of the size of Mars and Venus 150 millions years after solar system was created and not 30 millions as stated (4,5 billions of years ago)

When the 2 planets collided they had a iron nucleus and a crust made of rock, and temperature was so high (7000°C) that iron and rock were melted in collison

This collison created Earth and Moon at same time, and not in different times , how stated today.

The conclusions were a result of the measurament of the decay of tungsten 182, that the iron nucleou was unable to remove from earth crust

Conclusions of Mr.W.Dahl (Niels Bohr Institut)

Hey; if any 2 (planets/stars/rocks/whatever) in this universe measure the exact same amount of tungsten 182, then, "Science says": they MUST have come from the same exact source or collision or whatever. Period. End of discussion. "Next"...

Sounds pretty hairbrained to me...

Hey; get a brain haircut and explain the vicinity of moon & earth then.

Yahlasit

well actually, I am not sure any one has ever measured the content of tungsten 182 in the moon and the earth, but i suspect just due to size diferences the "amount" would be different. Now thw relative content or ratio might be similar within a statistically significant range, to a level of significance that allows us to determine they are significantly different than other sources. I am not actually sure how you would measure the amount of tungsten on earth and the moon with any significant level of precision, bet it would be awfully destructive process.

Suggest you check out http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Cryptic.html It discusses the collision between Earth and Theia and the Accretion of Earth Enjoy

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post #24

This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about politics and religion.

FE,

When so many theories haunt on the formation of earth and solar system and the universe, based on realities, I have my theory on formation of planet earth.

*When the solar system formed, burning masses of matter was thrown out from self rotating SUN-many planets of the solar system are thrown out masses formed from Sun.

* Now coming to the earth's part, earth as a burning mass was thrown out in a whirling fashion from the orbit of Sun, and the passage of the same into space was like movement of the boomerang, the formation of cycling elliptical motion of the earth.

Like wise so many planets and orbits were formed.

*Now coming to the earth's part, the hot mass, self rotating and revolving around sun,

in due course of it's passage, the solid part was condensed as earth, the light mass gas expelled to outer atmosphere, condensed and retained by earth's gravity.

The continuing volcanic eruptions and like sulphur, phosphor, chlorine[acid fumes] and possible basic fumes like hydroxyls, ammonia etc. The net result being formation of neutralizing reactions resulting in the formation of water and salt. when more of gas had been condensed, more of water[saline] had formed on earth.

The planet was getting cooler, solar evaporation resulting in rains and taking in minerals into sea, formation of water ways, soils etc.

The conducive moisture, air, nutrients,climate and solar light resulted in the formation of plants, dependent, herbivores, carnivores, omnivores and the great human evolution.

Planet earth holds the active concealed primitive hot mass, which still retreats as volcanic eruptions.

The three phases of matter- earth, air, and saline sea water confirms my theory.

The perpetual rotation of earth confirms Newton's theory of moving objects keep moving unless otherwise hindered by external friction factors.

S.Udhayamarthandan,

Your theory of earth formation are in line with the recent report of Mr.W.Dahl (Niels Bohr Institut) regarding to earth and moon formation .

New theories certainly will be made in next years, but at least this makes more sense to me, that the TV presentation I saw which explained that earth was a result of grains settled together and collected into clumps, then chunks, then boulders and finally bodies large enough to exert their own gravity and the magma and water was a result of meteorites and/or comets.

I also think that the water formation in earth was a result of chemical reaction during earth formation . The water coming from meteorites or comets , although possible, probably could not create the immense quantity of water we have in our planet.

Like said by Galileo during his trials with the Church...

"The Holy Writ[Scripture] is to tell one how to get to heaven and not how heaven goes"

Keep that in mind when reading religious texts, and a subjective approach when reading any text.

well said. ga

I'm no atheist but to take religion into engineering is ludicrous as they just do not have anything in common.

Indeed, religion has done enough damage not only to itself but even to the Bible. And while I remarked before that there's a possible creative force behind the Universe it does not mean I am religious.

Religion is a doctrine setup by the church which is nothing short of an institution that eventually ridiculed itself with the help of science and eventually had to admit defeat regardless its foremost authority it used to enjoy.

The problem with the planetary formation theories is that they started with the answer "Solar systems exist" and then asked the question "what process could put all of its individual parts together in the same place". This is in reality a loaded question. it assumes that there were a large number of individual parts that came together.

In reality the theory submitted could never work. The solar system is made up almost exclusively of planar solar systems. Outside of this there exists almost nothing for light years until you get to another planar solar system.

Randomly distributed particles would never be capable of making a pancake shaped object. The only orientation possible would be randomly oriented orbitals that formed as particles collided. Also, the particles coming together would have a zero sum of momentum. Planetary and solar spin would be almost unheard of in these conditions.

Finally, the big bang could never have happened, because the vast empty regions in space would instead be vast comet filled regions of space. It is ludicrous to believe that all of the matter in a giant explosion just happened to confine itself almost exclusively in one trillionth of the total space available to it.

Science is only as good as the questions asked and the hypotheses entertained.

"Randomly distributed particles would never be capable of making a pancake shaped object" All evidence to the contrary. We may not understand... but there is evidence to suggest that pancake shaped accretion disks do occur. As such uniformity in these disks seem to support your other comments I might be inclined to agree that the processes are gentle.. but I don't really think we know very much at all about the processes of solar system creation.

Saturn's rings are not "evidence to suggest that pancake shaped accretion disks do occur." They are evidence of planetary satellites getting within the Roche limit and therefore torn apart and not being able to reconsolidate.

see http://media4.obspm.fr/exoplanets/pages_outil-roche/calcul-limiteRoche.html for explanation

that explains why some particles (snowballs) would be attracted to the planet in question, and some would be able to move away. It does not explain (to me.. maybe I missed it) why the particles would form a disk. As gravity is spherical, the arrangement of particles should be spherical as well. so... why a disk?

Chris since the moon being torn apart was in an orbit about Saturn and conservation of angular momentum requires contraction which form the rings. Also, being inside the Roche limit would not allow the fragments to reconsolidate.

so you are saying, that if the aggregate is in orbit around a significant gravitational field, and being inside the Roche limit, that "pancake shaped accretion disks do occur." ? but only under those specific conditions.

Isn't it fair to interpret from galactic images, that this is a pretty common function?

I'm not a mathematician or scientist.. I'm just saying, that based on what we can see, the notion that celestial systems form lumpy accretion disks and could form a solar system the same way, seems to be a reasonable interpretation. (maybe saturn was not a fair image) Certainly we can see millions of galaxys that appear this way, in various stages of contraction. Don't you think? Are we saying the same thing?

You are correct about galactic images.

Why is this answer "off-topic"? Just because one disagrees with an answer doesn't make it "off-topic". Extrapolating data over billions of years only assures that the iterations are going to create huge errors from the initial assumptions.

I dunno... wasn't me anyway.

It isn't, just misinformed.

This is not an insult, but the issues you are having getting your brain around those questions are due to a huge lack of understanding.

For one thing, during the Big Bang there was no empty space to fill or be confined to. Space was created as part of the process and continues to this day. You should at least read (and hopefully understand) the theory before trying to discredit it.

You will need to prepare yourself for learning a lot more about the subject (if it really interests you) before it all makes any sense. Otherwise, it all just looks like magic, which we all should know is ludicrous.

Unfortunately, I kind of think that your mind may already be made up about the topic, you have formed your opinions, and that is it. I hope I am wrong, for your sake.

No insult is taken, and I sincerely hope that you will return the sentiment.

"Space was created as part of the process and continues to this day." This is in no form true. The space existed, and was then, according to the theory, partially filled.

Your wording suggests that you suppose this process to have created, at that moment, an entirely new dimension that only exists because of, and to the extent that, the "expansion" has reached. This is in essence a gnostic view, holding that if I can't experience (measure with a light year stick) something then it does not exist. There still exists a cubic light year of space, even if the universe, including light itself, has not touched that particular subsection of space. This cubic light year of nothingness will also still exist even if the stuff of this universe completely ceases to exist.

To put it another way, even though space, time, and matter/energy are linked, this does not mean that removing one or even two of these will negate the third.

You are correct in assuming that my mind is made up on the subject, but it is not for want of information or learning. In fact, it is exactly because of the information that I have found that I can not accredit truth to this theory. While I always consider all of the information that I come across, it would take something truly earth shattering to overcome the many points of error that are contained by the big bang theory.

Well, there probably is no more purpose to the conversation if your mind is made up. Much like trying to pour tea into a full cup. You will never accept anything new, particularly if it does not agree with your current set of beliefs.

Contrary to what you believe, there is nothing beyond the Universe. The Universe is not expanding into anything and you can not go outside of the Universe and look in.

You have drawn your conclusions based on a bad set of incomplete data and you have predisposed yourself to the idea that you have not erred. Your cup is full.

Nevertheless, I wish you a good evening, my friend.

Just because I am enjoying your wit, I will post a final comment before the terrors of my coming work week keep me from checking this site for further comment.

You are indeed correct that there is nothing beyond the universe, but only because you have defined it that way. If we ever found something beyond the universe, then it too would be considered to be part of the universe, by definition.

Saying that you cant go outside of the universe is very similar to the flat earth theory, where the sailors all wondered what would happen if they fell off. I would rather consider nothingness to exist, and for this nothing to strech out far beyond our universe.

I am curious about one thing though, and I would like your personal opinion rather than the textbook response. Do you consider the big bang to have created this dimension(meaning its rules and boundaries)? And to take it one step farther, did that one event define everything that is contained within it?

I hope your week is a good one.

Space/Time is a set of four dimensions, matter-energy are not dimensions but rather propertiess that exist within those dimensions. You can remove matter-energy and still have space-time. However, you can not do the same with space-time. zero values in space-time would mean nothing could exist, as there was no where to exist.

Maybe. Show me something with no "matter-energy". And don't say a vacuum, as a true vacuum is theoretical and requires the vessel (matter) to contain it.

Lol don't be innane. I am trying to clarify the relationship, not identify a real world occurence you can see.

What part of Mr. Hawking's book or lectures did you take issue with?

video

The Universe is a big place.

Nay, runneth over.