Previous in Forum: NASA Needs Crater Counters   Next in Forum: The Future of NASA!!!
Close
Close
Close
74 comments
Active Contributor

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brazil - Porto Alegre
Posts: 23

Earth Formation-I Have Doubts Of The Theory

06/08/2010 8:06 AM

Recently I saw in Television an explanation of earth formation that I frankly speaking coul hard believe , but I am not a scientist and probably I could not understand very well the explanation and maybe someone can help me with my doubts

Theories said that the earth formation was due grains settled together and collected into clumps, then chunks, then boulders and finally bodies large enough to exert their own gravity.Certainly there were grains and a space experiment by NASA shows that grains has a tendency to join in space without gravity

OK,we can explain the formation of the earth body , but how can we explain the magma? Explanation that magma was a result of radioactive meteorites???????

If we look the composition of the meteorites that arrives the planet in the past and today, they are not radioactive, have maybe only traces of radioactivity. Were they in the beginning in such amount and with so much radioactivity to create this massive magma? Or is possible to have another explanation ?

Explanation that the ocean was also formed by small waters drops inside the meteorites? How many meteorites need to fill an ocean ? Zillions?

Explanation that the moon was a result of planets collision only because we find rocks in moon without traces of iron ?

Everybody agrees with these theories because the facts are undeniable?

Or someone has doubts like me?

__________________
Where there's a will there's a way
Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
4
Guru
Engineering Fields - Optical Engineering - Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 5363
Good Answers: 646
#1

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 8:45 AM

Keep in mind that it was a television show. It's purpose was to entertain and to sell commercials (or get more funding if it was a PBS show). The writers and producers probably 'cut corners' in discussing the details of the theories that were presented and the verity of the data backing-up those theories. They also probably decided, due to time constraints, to avoid alternative theories. Besides, the formation of the solar system took place nearly 5 billion (or thousand-million if you're British) years ago; it's not like anyone had cameras set-up to film it. It does sound, though, like the show you watched presented the 'latest' theories on the formation of the Earth; sometimes events in Nature can be counter-intuitive; strange but true.

You should be skeptical -- as a general rule you should always be skeptical of what you see on TV, read in a periodical, or view via in the internet, because people are human and they have opinions and agendas that influence what they publish. And in particular, a good scientist is always a skeptic. For a scientist 'belief' is always seasoned with a teaspoonful of doubt.

__________________
Whiskey, women -- and astrophysics. Because sometimes a problem can't be solved with just whiskey and women.
Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
4
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#2

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 9:25 AM

Well, as with any subject where you really don't have a good grasp of, it all looks like magic. It takes time to learn even the basics, but if it is fascinating to you, you should pursue learning as much as possible.

Let's get started. Anything that has mass also has gravity. So, even tiny specs of dirt will have a pull on each other. As more and more mass comes together the rate of attraction increases.

If enough mass gets pulled together it creates a pretty crushing force. This will create heat. and explains some of the reason the Earth is hot inside. Most of that heat is caused by friction as it rotates and sloshes around inside the planet's core. If iron is present it will cause the planet to have a magnetic field.

Another factor is where a planet forms relative to the sun. Close to the sun a planet gets bombarded by a lot of solar wind and radiation. This boils off any water or gases and lighter elements.

Further out water can be liquid and has a better chance of sticking around. Even further out the solar wind is too weak to strip the lighter gas from planets and we see planets with mostly lighter elements such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

What a planet is composed of is a factor of where it is forming proximal to its star and what elements are floating around in the cosmic junkyard at the time.

When our solar system was very young it was very different than it is today. There was a lot more junk floating around in space, even more than what you see along the side of a Mississippi highway. That stuff kept raining down on our Earth for a long time. The early planet was too hot to support liquid water, so it was a gas. Most of our water does not come from meteorites, but probably comets, which are a bit larger. The number of comets we see today is a mere pittance compared to our young solar system.

Everything here on Earth, all matter, you and I, are all made from elements that at one time existed in stars. Stars are the factory for heavier elements such as iron and even gold. When a star goes nova or super nova, all the matter is blown into space. That debris will ultimately gather together under the forces of gravity and form planets.

There is a lot more to the process than that, but that is it in a nutshell.

If you would like a good primer on some of this stuff, Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking is a wonderful 3-part series produced by Stephen Hawking. They are available on Apple iTunes and I imagine you could find it elsewhere. You might even find a copy at your library, so check there. The last one of the trilogy is probably the most comprehensive and will directly address the things discussed here in greater detail. Plus the graphics are really neat. ;-)

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Active Contributor

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brazil - Porto Alegre
Posts: 23
#5
In reply to #2

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 11:38 AM

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

__________________
Where there's a will there's a way
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#34
In reply to #5

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 1:48 PM

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.

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#35
In reply to #34

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 3:40 PM

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.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#36
In reply to #35

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 4:57 PM

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.

Reply
Power-User
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Aeromarine Vehicle Engineer

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 148
Good Answers: 5
#68
In reply to #5

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/16/2010 10:36 AM

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

Reply
Active Contributor

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brazil - Porto Alegre
Posts: 23
#69
In reply to #68

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/16/2010 11:29 AM

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

__________________
Where there's a will there's a way
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#8
In reply to #2

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 10:50 PM

"This will create heat"

Is this verified experimentally?

Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20963
Good Answers: 780
#14
In reply to #8

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 2:38 AM

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.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa Canada
Posts: 1975
Good Answers: 117
#27
In reply to #8

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 10:27 AM

I have always heard that heat is created by radioactive decay underground. The heat can't get out easily, so things would heat up down there. A lot of the products of radioactive decay come out from excavations and such, so it seems reasonable to me that there is some of that going on. That would explain why it is still hot inside the earth, and other worlds, (like our moon for instance) are not liquid inside.

__________________
If it was easy anybody could do it.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#29
In reply to #27

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 11:30 AM

does that suggest that increasing gravity has an effect on radioactive decay rates? That should be verifiable with a centrifuge... just wondering out loud.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Analog and Digital Circuit Design Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Transformers, Motors & Drives, EM Launchers Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Applied Electrical, Optical, and Mechanical

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 1208
Good Answers: 119
#32
In reply to #29

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 12:38 PM

Radioactive decay rates are not affected by any external process (other than time) that we currently know of. If we could affect decay rates, then we might have a good solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem and nuclear power might be able to make a big comeback.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Next to the Prime Merridian (51°29'34.50"N 0°13'32.85"W)
Posts: 781
Good Answers: 1
#3

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 10:21 AM

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.

__________________
Making mistake is part of learning.
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#4
In reply to #3

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 11:11 AM

Sounds like it. It was fairly recently produced.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Next to the Prime Merridian (51°29'34.50"N 0°13'32.85"W)
Posts: 781
Good Answers: 1
#7
In reply to #4

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 1:44 PM

Barely a fortnight ago on BBC1 I think.

__________________
Making mistake is part of learning.
Reply
5
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Analog and Digital Circuit Design Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Transformers, Motors & Drives, EM Launchers Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Applied Electrical, Optical, and Mechanical

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 1208
Good Answers: 119
#6

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/08/2010 12:33 PM

I watched the same show. They presented some of the most current theories on earth formation and history.

Given a sufficient education in math, physics, and chemistry, all the theories presented in this show should not seem unreasonable. IMHO it is the time frame of the processes involved that causes the most confusion. The current estimate of earth formation is ~4.6 billion years ago. This is such a long time that many people just cannot comprehend its significance.

> Small particles can clump together due to electrostatic forces, but gravity is still considered the main engine driving the planet formation process.
> Compression of matter creates heat; collision of matter converts kinetic energy into heat energy; radioactive decay produces heat.
> Water already present and new water deposited over half a billion years of meteor and cometary bombardment is completely plausible.
> Moon created by large impact theory answers many questions about size, composition, and rotational momentum we see today.

These are current theories which seem to best fit the available data. There are alternate theories which, although plausible, may not have as much supporting data. Of course new theories will develop if/when new data becomes available. Anyone can choose to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of existing data. However, real scientists will usually have an opinion based on the best available data. As new data is discovered, hypotheses, theories, and opinions should and will change. This is what drives the scientific process.

Here is just one reasonable starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

Don't stop there. Asking questions and seeking new knowledge is a good thing.

Reply Good Answer (Score 5)
Active Contributor

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 20 miles north of Mt. Shasta California along I-5...aka , Yreka, California.
Posts: 18
#9

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 12:15 AM

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.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20963
Good Answers: 780
#10
In reply to #9

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 1:12 AM

The Yreka BakerY later became the Yrella GallerY; does the latter still exist?

Is it pronounced Wye-re-ka, Eye-re-ka, Ir-re-ka, something else yet, or inconsistently?

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing -

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Burnt Ranch, State of Jefferson
Posts: 688
Good Answers: 20
#11
In reply to #10

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 1:15 AM

Wye-re-ka. Right next to Weed, State of Jefferson.

__________________
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -Mark Twain
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Associate

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: China
Posts: 25
#12

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 1:59 AM

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...

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#17
In reply to #12

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 4:15 AM

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.

Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20963
Good Answers: 780
#18
In reply to #17

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 4:55 AM

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.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Next to the Prime Merridian (51°29'34.50"N 0°13'32.85"W)
Posts: 781
Good Answers: 1
#39
In reply to #18

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 7:56 PM

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

__________________
Making mistake is part of learning.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1013
Good Answers: 36
#23
In reply to #17

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 9:58 AM

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.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing -

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Burnt Ranch, State of Jefferson
Posts: 688
Good Answers: 20
#28
In reply to #23

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 10:54 AM

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.

__________________
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -Mark Twain
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#30
In reply to #28

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 11:31 AM

"In my experience time is relative"

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

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Next to the Prime Merridian (51°29'34.50"N 0°13'32.85"W)
Posts: 781
Good Answers: 1
#42
In reply to #30

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/10/2010 5:13 AM

You have a good point. It made me laugh.

__________________
Making mistake is part of learning.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1084
Good Answers: 54
#38
In reply to #17

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 7:51 PM

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.

__________________
If there's something you don't understand...Then a wizard did it. As heard on "The Simpsons".
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#41
In reply to #17

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 8:01 PM

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.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Next to the Prime Merridian (51°29'34.50"N 0°13'32.85"W)
Posts: 781
Good Answers: 1
#49
In reply to #17

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/11/2010 9:42 AM

"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?)

__________________
Making mistake is part of learning.
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Anonymous Poster
#33
In reply to #12

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 1:43 PM

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!

Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1084
Good Answers: 54
#13

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 2:01 AM

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.

__________________
If there's something you don't understand...Then a wizard did it. As heard on "The Simpsons".
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Anonymous Poster
#31
In reply to #13

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 12:24 PM

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.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#15

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 4:08 AM

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

Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20963
Good Answers: 780
#16
In reply to #15

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 4:15 AM

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

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#19
In reply to #15

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 6:48 AM

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.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#40
In reply to #15

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 7:59 PM

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.

Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Active Contributor

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brazil - Porto Alegre
Posts: 23
#20

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 7:24 AM

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)

__________________
Where there's a will there's a way
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Analog and Digital Circuit Design Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Transformers, Motors & Drives, EM Launchers Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Applied Electrical, Optical, and Mechanical

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 1208
Good Answers: 119
#21
In reply to #20

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 8:13 AM

Have not read this one yet, but from your description it does not sound like a "new" theory. It is still basically the giant impact theory with an updated time scale based on new data. Revisions like this (when supported by verifiable and repeatable data) should be completely expected and accepted by scientists.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Anonymous Poster
#22
In reply to #20

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 9:54 AM

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...

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#46
In reply to #22

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/10/2010 4:15 PM

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

Yahlasit

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#47
In reply to #22

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/10/2010 7:02 PM

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.

Reply
Power-User
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Aeromarine Vehicle Engineer

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 148
Good Answers: 5
#70
In reply to #20

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/16/2010 11:39 AM

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

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#24

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 10:01 AM

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.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1013
Good Answers: 36
#25
In reply to #24

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 10:08 AM

You are contradicting your first sentence by doing exactly what you blame others of doing or being....!

Keep your beliefs simple and to your self. Be less agressive and accept the others as they are. (and as you want them to accept you!!??)

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa Canada
Posts: 1975
Good Answers: 117
#26
In reply to #24

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 10:21 AM

You have to hide behind an anonymous post to say that? Guess you don't want to be associated with such a statement. No matter how valid it might be, the fact that you won't bother to go to the trouble to sign in simply removes all respect you might have had otherwise.

__________________
If it was easy anybody could do it.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1084
Good Answers: 54
#37
In reply to #26

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/09/2010 7:22 PM

Good post Yusef1 (and I didn't read Post 24, so I don't know which side he was on).

I don't know why you've been flagged as "off topic". Possibly another faceless coward?

__________________
If there's something you don't understand...Then a wizard did it. As heard on "The Simpsons".
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa Canada
Posts: 1975
Good Answers: 117
#44
In reply to #37

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/10/2010 10:16 AM

No faceless coward ffei, but rather myself. I did not feel that a complaint about somebody's posting habits was supporting the original topic, so I marked myself down. And it doesn't matter which side it was on...my problem was not with the topic, but rather with the fact that if somebody doesn't sign in, they are just a voice from the audience. You can't reply to just a voice because there are many "guests", with different comments requiring different replies. I would have said the same even if I strongly agree with the post. Therefore, the "guest" who comes in to make a controvercial comment is naught but a troll who is trying to stir up trouble.

Not always of course. I have occasionally posted a reply as "guest" because I can't be bothered to sign in for a simple "hear here", or "applause". This normally happens when I am away from my home computer, or on my cell phone, where every text costs money! I make it a point to not waste money on negative comments though!

The rating system here on CR4 is not for approval or disapproval, but rather, for "off topic" or "Good Answer". So therefore I do not feel bad when I get marked down because usually the comment really WAS off topic. This happens rarely.

Some threads get so tangled that I have even been rated upwards to be "on topic" even though I had considered myself to be posting "off topic" and rated myself down on purpose!

And because this has nothing to do with theories on a TV show, I shall rate this post as "off topic" as well.

Thank you for your kind words.

Yusef1

__________________
If it was easy anybody could do it.
Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tamilnadu, India
Posts: 837
Good Answers: 42
#43

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/10/2010 10:06 AM

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.

__________________
Nature is so graceful and naked. Human possession is ridiculous.
Reply
Active Contributor

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brazil - Porto Alegre
Posts: 23
#45
In reply to #43

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORIE

06/10/2010 10:48 AM

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.

__________________
Where there's a will there's a way
Reply
Associate

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 36
Good Answers: 2
#48

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/11/2010 9:14 AM

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.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#50
In reply to #48

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/11/2010 1:20 PM

well said. ga

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Next to the Prime Merridian (51°29'34.50"N 0°13'32.85"W)
Posts: 781
Good Answers: 1
#57
In reply to #48

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 2:19 PM

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.

__________________
Making mistake is part of learning.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Anonymous Poster
#51

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/12/2010 8:35 PM

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.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#52
In reply to #51

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/12/2010 9:19 PM

"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.

Reply
Power-User
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Aeromarine Vehicle Engineer

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 148
Good Answers: 5
#67
In reply to #52

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/15/2010 6:08 PM

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

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#71
In reply to #67

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/16/2010 11:46 AM

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?

Reply
Power-User
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Aeromarine Vehicle Engineer

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 148
Good Answers: 5
#72
In reply to #71

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/16/2010 12:08 PM

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.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#73
In reply to #72

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/16/2010 12:57 PM

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?

Reply
Power-User
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Aeromarine Vehicle Engineer

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 148
Good Answers: 5
#74
In reply to #73

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/16/2010 4:45 PM

You are correct about galactic images.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing -

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Burnt Ranch, State of Jefferson
Posts: 688
Good Answers: 20
#53
In reply to #51

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 12:35 AM

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.

__________________
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -Mark Twain
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#54
In reply to #53

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 12:47 AM

I dunno... wasn't me anyway.

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#56
In reply to #53

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 10:05 AM

It isn't, just misinformed.

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#55
In reply to #51

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 10:03 AM

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.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Anonymous Poster
#58
In reply to #55

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 5:15 PM

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.

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#59
In reply to #58

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 6:47 PM

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.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#61
In reply to #59

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/14/2010 3:41 AM

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.

Reply
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#62
In reply to #61

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/14/2010 7:33 AM

I believe we have a reasonably good understanding of things a few billionths of a second after T0, but the problem gets beyond our current understanding of physics when we try to wind the clock back any further.

Going further than that is the land of pure speculation. Well, maybe not pure speculation, but there just isn't enough data to make an educated guess.

Do I believe the Big Bang created the observable laws of physics, time, and space as we know it? Yes. I think that everything is bounded within our universe and that is why nothing can exist outside of it. Intrinsically, that is a hard thing for us to conceptually grasp because we are normally operating in a world where there is an inside and an outside to everything, so we are naturally programmed to think that way.

Is there the possibility of other universes? Why not? But we are really in the realm of pure speculation, which makes for good entertainment, but is not something we are likely to resolve soon.

Does God exist? I think that is a yes. Perhaps God is the universe and why not?

Why do I believe in these things? Because there are many, many brighter minds than I that have been working on these questions as part of their careers. They have been building a consensus on the laws of this universe and we have gained enough knowledge to get a pretty good idea of those rules.

Do I understand that picture? Not very well, but I feel comfortable that the general laws we have discovered are pretty well grounded. We have proved enough theories well enough to understand a very large portion of the picture and things tic and tack when we apply and test those theories. Will we find contradictions? You bet! But it is very unlikely that we will ever have to rewrite a significant part of our understanding. I don't think we will encounter a revelation that will stand everything we believe on its ear.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#63
In reply to #58

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/14/2010 11:31 AM

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.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing -

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Burnt Ranch, State of Jefferson
Posts: 688
Good Answers: 20
#64
In reply to #63

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/15/2010 1:23 AM

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.

__________________
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -Mark Twain
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#65
In reply to #64

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/15/2010 11:44 AM

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

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa Canada
Posts: 1975
Good Answers: 117
#66
In reply to #58

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/15/2010 1:27 PM

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

video

The Universe is a big place.

__________________
If it was easy anybody could do it.
Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20963
Good Answers: 780
#60

Re: EARTH FORMATION - I HAVE DOUBTS OF THE THEORY

06/13/2010 9:28 PM

Nay, runneth over.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Reply to Forum Thread 74 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Hero (8); Anonymous Poster (10); chrisg288 (8); Dedalus (1); FE (4); ffej (3); Gannet (5); Isti80 (6); LAA_Lucke (2); lighthasmass (4); mjb1962853 (3); RCE (7); robertgrist (1); RScincy (1); s.udhayamarthandan (1); Tornado (5); Usbport (1); Yusef1 (4)

Previous in Forum: NASA Needs Crater Counters   Next in Forum: The Future of NASA!!!

Advertisement