Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

RESPONSE TO JOHN's MESSAGE 120You ask about element formation.
We have here on Earth something like a hundred different elements.
We know they could not have been created on the Earth and they are also unlikely to have been created by supernova explosions on distant stars bearing in mind the nearest star to us is some 4 light years away. This leaves only one alternative-that the elements were created and sorted out into useful concentrations within the space of our own Solar System. For the formation of all elements you need a steady supply of neutrons. electrons and protons and a source of great heat and pressure. The collapse any type of binary star will provide all the necessary conditions and ingredients. The higher elements can be built up within the Solar Nebula as a result of bombardment of high velocity protons. neutrons and electrons. Its not only the making up of these elements that must be considered but also the sorting as the process is completely random. For this reason it is essential to consider all the physical properties of the nebula especially its ability to sort out the elements and their chemical combinations.
If you know of a better theory to explain why we have here on earth so many different elements please let me know.

quote:

---

they are also unlikely to have been created by supernova explosions on distant stars bearing in mind the nearest star to us is some 4 light years away.

---

1) Supernova spit material out at incredible speeds. Four light years isn't that far considering that speed and the time the particles would have to travel the distance. 2) Current distances between stars aren't necessarily relevant. The universe is in motion.

quote:

---

If you know of a better theory to explain why we have here on earth so many different elements please let me know.

---

Ancients Stars Reveal Clues To Heavy Element Formation------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Except that there has been plenty of time for stellar winds and the remnants of exploding stars to mix with the primordial interstellar gas over the lifetime of our Galaxy.It is about 10-12 billion years old, and 1 km/s is 1 parsec/(million years). Meaning that it is easy to mix over interstellar distance scales without having to move very fast.As to element sorting in the Solar System, that is a byproduct of its formation. Different materials condense at different temperatures, and have different chemical affinities. The Sun had kept ice from forming in the inner Solar System, but not in the outer Solar System, which is why the outer Solar System is much more icy than the inner Solar System.

LRP:
I am at a loss to see your point-are you saying that only bodies less than 100kM in diameter will survive in the Roche Limit?Yes. And I think that that is an upper limit -- rock is not known for great tensile strength.

quote:

---

I am at a loss to see your point-are you saying that only bodies less than 100kM in diameter will survive in the Roche Limit?

---

If the difference in gravitational acceleration across the satellite becomes larger than the gravitational binding energy that holds the satellite together the satellite will be torn apart as has been pointed out. Small objects are not affected much and a strong enough object can indeed exist inside the Roche limit but I don’t think the object you postulate will be strong enough to stand the stresses in the low orbits you require as it spirals in.Physics | Brown UniversityRoche Limit -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physicshttp://www.sfu.ca/~boal/390lecs/390lec8.pdf

quote:

---

Also Roches Limit applies to smaller bodies that try and orbit the larger ones-not crash into them fairly quickly.

---

But I thought this object had to orbit quite awhile at quite a low altitude as it spiraled in. You quoted an orbit with an altitude of 1000 meters at one point. I calculate that there will be about 10^23 N of force trying pull the object apart at that height. But I agree that the object will indeed crash into the earth with a very big crash.

quote:

---

The moon has a thick skin of solid basalt and so will be certainly stressed if it comes within the Earth's Roche limit but should stay in tact.

---

Didn’t you previously say that the object has a relatively thin skin of solid basalt and a softer interior? How will it stand up to that kind of stress? It is true that solid objects can exist inside the Roche limit especially if they are strong and not too big.Your object is large and the orbits you require are so far within the Roche limit that it seems to me that this object will almost certainly be torn apart unless it comes slamming straight in, which seems more likely to me anyway.Further I see no mechanism for this object to slowly spiral in for a soft landing as you postulate. The increase in kinetic energy in a low orbit does not account for the sum of the gravitational potential and kinetic energy in high orbit. You must have a slowly decaying orbit that gradually bleeds off energy by a mechanism you have not specified while alowing the satellite to move down but speed up just enough to stay in orbit. In any case when this thing hits the earth it will punch right through the crust unless it is broken to bits by tidal forces first even if it hits at a very shallow angle. If the object breaks up you still have on the order on 10^30 J of total energy to deal with somehow. Probably some of the bits will punch through the crust in various spots around the globe. To me the whole thing just makes no sense at all.Randy

quote:

---

Further I see no mechanism for this object to slowly spiral in for a soft landing as you postulate. The increase in kinetic energy in a low orbit does not account for the sum of the gravitational potential and kinetic energy in high orbit.

---

And it makes little difference anyway - whether the amount of energy that has already been calculated gets dissipated in a day or a century, it will still melt the whole crust, likely with plenty of heat to spare.
And as to formation of the elements: not all isotopes, or even all elements, that exist on earth can be made in non-supernova events. The so-called "r-process" nuclides can only form in catastrophic (=supernova) events, where there are simultaneously enormous densities, high temperatures, AND huge fluxes of neutrons. Europium, IIRC, is one element like this - it can't be built by sequential neutron capture, as the intermediate products beta decay too quickly - only by a rapid sequence of captures not availably in such "placid" events as star mergers.

It seems to me you favour the idea of the elements having been created billions of years ago in millions of supernovas and somehow
got accumulated in just the right order and amount in the solar Nebula to enable it to form planets. Very airy fairy. But if thats the theory you prefer so be it. It does not make any sense to me.You say that the elements could not have formed according to my theory. I say they have. I am confident that as we understand what happens when a binary star collapses we will also understand that conditions for element making are all there.
What we know about this and other planets is all the evidence we need to support the theory that our local binary collapse did produce all the ingredients for planet making.So its really a choice between theories.

I have to say that I find the idea that there is some special "right order" for elements to accumulate in makes no sense to me.Perhaps you can explain it and how your model gets around this supposed problem. Does your hypothetical companion star neatly tune its fusion to produce elements in a precise order ?

What is it about current theory that doesn't make sense to you? What is your evidence that our sun was once part of a binary system? When choosing between competing theories one needs to be aware of the evidence supporting each. I'm aware of the evidence for current theory, but not for yours, though I did see some errors. For example, in Message 136 you said: Given that the universe is around 14 billion years old, and given that the sun and solar system are only about 5 billion years old, there was about 9 billion years of time available for material to travel from distant supernovas to here.Only the elements up through iron (Fe) can be produced within normal stellar processes. Heavier elements can be produced in novas, and even heavier elements in supernovas. Our solar system includes elements that require a supernova to produce them. Since your theory postulates a binary system, let's only consider Type 1 supernova, which are produced in binary systems consisting of a white dwarf and a star very much like our own sun. Once enough material is pulled from the sun-like star to the white dwarf a runaway nuclear reaction takes place resulting in the enormous explosion we call a supernova. The star-like sun may possibly survive, but only as a dense core. The remnants of a supernova bear no resemblance to our sun.--Percy

Actually, it's only the r-process and p-process that operate in stellar explosions and the like; the s-process operates in the interiors of red giants, and produces much of the elements heavier than iron.

True, but perhaps only half of the elements heavier than iron, and only up to Bismuth. Red giants where the s-process takes place produce a specific spectrum of heavy elements, one which our sun does not possess. But certainly red giants contributed to the material from which our solar system formed.But the important point I was trying to make was that supernovas are required to produce a good number of the elements found in our solar system, and since quite obviously a supernova has never taken place here, nor was there ever a red giant here, the heavy elements in our solar system came from elsewhere in the universe.--Percy

CRASHED PLANETISSIMAL THEORY-ROCHES LIMIT AND KINETIC ENERGY CONSIDERATIONSThe theory that the supercontinent was a crashed planetissimal has met some opposition on the grounds that the invading planetissimal would have disintegrated on entering the Earths Roche Limit and perhaps formed a ring or that the kinetic energy on impact would have been so great as to vaporize the planetissimal and the entire water in the oceans. Each of these objections are easily dealt withRoche Limit
In nature there are four fundamental forces that bind a body together. These are
the strong nuclear, the weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
Of these gravity is by far the weakest and is the only force affected within the Roche Limit. Thus when the planetissimal entered to within the limit it is only the gravitational binding forces within the planetissimal that would have been neutralized and some expansion of the planetissimal could have taken place. (Some verses in the Bible speak of the earth being 'stretched' over the waters so it maybe that the writer of these verses knew all about the Roche Limit!) This 'stretching' if it did occur actually helps the theory for two reasons.
Firstly it gives the planetissimal an added 'bounciness' and secondly it would have assisted the breaking up and spreading that occurred after the planetissimal eventually came to rest on the basaltic floor of a 4000m deep global ocean.Kinetic Energy
Randy's calculations for the available kinetic energy at the point of impact is very reasonable. However when one considers some of the ways this energy was dissipated we may be find we may need even more input energy than Randy quoted.The kinetic energy had to be sufficient to1. Cause severe lateral. downward and upward displacements in the thick basaltic floor of the entire Pacific Ocean resulting in a huge crater with a well defined rim. (The Rockies and Andes now cover part of this rim)2. Knock the Earth from its previously vertical axis to one inclined at 23 degrees thus allowing both bodies to 'recoil'from the impact and so absorb some of the shock.3.Allow the planetisimal to roll/skid along half way round the world heating itself and heat up the oceans so that entire earth atmosphere became opaque with thick clouds.
(this has biblical support)4. Heat part of the contents of the planetissimal to form metamorphic rocks and fluids for later igneous intrusions.5. Keep the entire earths atmosphere and supercontinent warm for several centuries years to allow steam to rise up and condense into water and form rivers that kept the entire population of the earth supplied with fresh water until normal precipitation became possible.6. Cause the earths basaltic floor to oscillate for centuries afterwards thus resulting in huge tides in the global ocean which would also have resulted in sorting and spreading of the debris.I fully realize that this mode of formation of the continents is contrary to current geological thinking but if accepted (and this could take several decades) could change completely the way we look at our planet. This forum could be making history!

quote:

---

This forum could be making history!

---

I'm not going to hold my breath, though......

quote:

---

Heat part of the contents of the planetissimal to form metamorphic rocks and fluids for later igneous intrusions.

---

Randy has given a kinetic energy number you agreed with - 8 x 10^29 joules - which must be dissipated for your planetesimal to form continents. That's about 2 x 10^29 calories. Let's assume half of that can somehow be dissipated in mechanical breaking of rocks, etc.The earth's crust weighs about 1.4 x 10^26 grams, of rock with a specific heat around .2 - let's assume .25. (Mass of oceans an atmosphere are negligible alongside this.) A starting physics calculation will show that your impact will heat the entire crust by about 2850 degrees C = 5100 degrees F, ignoring phase changes.It ain't gonna work.

Are you going to explain this "right order" the elements have to accumulate in ?Since you are using it as an argument for your model you could at least explain what it is and why it is so "absurd" that it could happen under any other scenario.Or is it the case that there is no "right order", and it was your argument that was absurd ?