Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

quote:

---

I was not proposing a flood model at all so am not sure why you had to propose yours here. But I feel sorry for you because you have just confirmed a biblical scripture (2 Peter 3:3-7)

---

And I feel sorry for you because you have apparently wasted a lot of time and effort on something so absurd. Perhaps you should have learned a bit of physics before you started.If you were not proposing a flood model why did you post it on this thread on the flood forum??? I really thought this quote from your first post had something to do with the flood. Since your "model" will punch through the crust and boil the global ocean away I don't see how it will be around to oscillate.Randy

quote:

---

My theory is not about star formation but on what happens after a binary star collapses.

---

You started off by stating that the origins of the solar nebula were neglected. They aren't. The study of star formation is essentially the investigation of how stars and solar systems, including ours, form.

quote:

---

In a binary system the two partners do not have to be of any particular age.

---

I believe that they do and I told you why I think so. It is irritating that you brush off that objection with this wave of the hand. Given the quality of your other science, I am not inclined to take you at your word.

quote:

---

It helps if one of them is nearing the supernova state but this is not essential for the fabrication of all the elements from hydrogen.

---

Nor does this have anything to do with why I think they should be approximately the same age.

quote:

---

A binary collapse is quite different from an exploding star.

---

?????? One of your binaries IS exploding!!!!

quote:

---

Both the Earth and the planetissimal can indeeed be regarded as 'bouncy rubber balls' Isostacy is evidence for this. The 'skin' of the ball is really very thin compared to the diameter and below the skin there is certainly compressible matter.

---

You have got to be joking? Rocks hitting a planet at tens of thousands of miles per hour don't bounce. This is ridiculous.

quote:

---

I am proposing that much of these sediments were fornmed and sorted out to a certain extent in the planetary disc and then swept up by the planets as they formed.

---

Sediments at the bottom of the ocean came DIRECTLY FROM SPACE??????Geez, man....!!!![quoe]In my theory all planets started to form many millions of miles away from and only spiralled their way into their present orbits in the final stages of the completion of the Solar System[/quote]Then this spiraling outward should be detectable. Is it? I'm thinking you need faster motion than this: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.earthsky.com/2001/es010821.html------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Reply to message 92 from JohnBinary stars
My theory for the formation of the Solar System starts with an ordinary binary star and I would agree with you that both partners in this system have to be the same age by the very way they were formed. By difference in ‘age’ I really meant different in state of development since this is dependant on mass and binary stars could have partners, which are very different in size.My theory does not require one to explode as you state. My theory is based on the two partners coalescing to form a central object around which a huge expanding and rotating cloud of dust and gas is formed by the two coming together. This is what I meant by the origin of the Solar Nebula and it’s not a new proposal either.What I have done in my book is simply to consider the transformation of this nebula step by step taking into consideration all possible forces acting within the nebula.
The result is a perfectly logical explanation for the structure and characteristics of all the planets-something that can be verified. So far nothing we know about the Earth or other planets is contrary to what could have been predicted by my analysis.The planets are not spiraling outwards from the Sun. In my model each planet grew from the dust and gas of the Solar Nebula and as each became heavier by they spiraled inwards until most of the matter in the Solar Nebula had been claimed. So for this reason all the planets are now in a steady orbit but if the Solar System is engulfed in the dust and gas of a supernova from another star all our planets will gather up additional material and then spiral inwards.You also express surprise about sediments from space. As all the planets are really aggregations of sediments I have no difficulty with this concept whatsoever.
Geology as I was taught at school started with the Earth as a hot molten ball. You may be happy with this starting point but I am not-hence my decision to consider the nature of the Solar Nebula.Reply to Message 91 from RandyBinary planets
Your strong objection to my theory for the formation of the supercontinent is not unreasonable perhaps because I have not explained it as I have done in my book.
The most important feature of the planetissimal I speak of is that it was once binary partner of the Earth in the same way as the Earth and Moon are today.
In a binary system both objects rotate about a common center of gravity. If for some reason the rotation of one or both of the partners is impeded there is every likelihood of a coalescing of both bodies into one. This does not mean that the two bodies will clash directly as you imply but does mean that the planetissimal will adopt a spiraling motion towards the Earth and start rotating round it with ever decreasing orbits but increasing velocity. As the planetissimal came into an orbit close to the Earth it would raise huge tides of both water and land. On first contact with the earth some of its energy would form a crater but its horizontal momentum would ensure that it continued its journey for some time before being brought to rest by friction. My planetissimal makes first contact in the area now occupied by the Pacific Ocean (huge crater as expected) but continues to travel half way round the world by rolling on the sea floor before coming to rest in a very hot and weak state. Sure there would be tremendous generation of heat and dust as you say. And the oceans were no doubt raised to near boiling point (this is also biblical). But the net result after all this was the creation of a submerged super continent which only became ‘dry land’ as the result of a rapid drop in sea level-but that is another event.Anyway that is my biblical/scientific theory for the formation of the supercontinent.
In the end it really is a choice between the word of man and the word of God.and we each choose whatever makes more sense to us.

Theories are built on evidence, not on lack of contrary evidence. Not only have you offered no positive evidence, much evidence to the contrary exists. First, God's word is captured far better in the earth and skies than in man's meager attempt called the Bible. To which record of God's word are you going to give the greater weight?Second, in the world of science you choose the view best supported by evidence. Your ideas are comprised primarily of scenarios for which you yourself are apparently unaware of all the contrary evidence.--Percy

quote:

---

The most important feature of the planetissimal I speak of is that it was once binary partner of the Earth in the same way as the Earth and Moon are today.
In a binary system both objects rotate about a common center of gravity.

---

The center of mass will be very near the center of the earth for an object with only about 0.3% of the mass of the earth and the velocity will be about 18000 mph to be in orbit.

quote:

---

If for some reason the rotation of one or both of the partners is impeded there is every likelihood of a coalescing of both bodies into one. This does not mean that the two bodies will clash directly as you imply but does mean that the planetissimal will adopt a spiraling motion towards the Earth and start rotating round it with ever decreasing orbits but increasing velocity. As the planetissimal came into an orbit close to the Earth it would raise huge tides of both water and land. On first contact with the earth some of its energy would form a crater but its horizontal momentum would ensure that it continued its journey for some time before being brought to rest by friction. My planetissimal makes first contact in the area now occupied by the Pacific Ocean (huge crater as expected) but continues to travel half way round the world by rolling on the sea floor before coming to rest in a very hot and weak state. Sure there would be tremendous generation of heat and dust as you say. And the oceans were no doubt raised to near boiling point (this is also biblical). But the net result after all this was the creation of a submerged super continent which only became ‘dry land’ as the result of a rapid drop in sea level-but that is another event.

---

So you start in orbit with a kinetic energy of about 6 x 10^29 J. If we start with the object 1000 KM away it will have gravitation potential energy equal to about 2 x 10^29 J which will be converted to additional kinetic energy as it spirals in and speeds up. So you have about 8 x 10^29J. If it starts further out you have more. It will indeed make huge tides but that won’t take up any significant fraction of the energy. Raising all the water in the oceans to a height of 10 kilometers only takes 10^25 J. If you think it can be slowed down by going through this water think again. The only way to slow it is by friction and frictional heating will boil the water. It would take about 4 x 10^27 J to boil all the water in all the oceans and that will slow the object less than 1%. When it hits it, even if it hits at a small angle to the horizontal it will punch right through the crust not make a hole and roll. The collision energy of almost 2 x 10^14 megatons of TNT is probably many times that required to fragment an object of this size and whatever doesn't punch through the crust will probably be blown back out into space along with a lot of the crust.

quote:

---

Anyway that is my biblical/scientific theory for the formation of the supercontinent.

---

There is nothing scientific about your absurd hypothesis which should not be called a theory.

quote:

---

In the end it really is a choice between the word of man and the word of God.and we each choose whatever makes more sense to us.

---

The word of God makes sense to many people. I doubt if your scenario makes sense to anyone but you.Randy

"True Creation asks how the sediment distribution near oceanic ridges can be explained.
Firstly this means that no substantial addition of sediments from
impacting bodies have been made since the ridges were formed."
--Clearly limestones & similar carbonates were not present on your meteorite? We find such sediments throughout the sedimentary load."Secondly the ridges (in my theory) represent lines where the ocean floor was once lifted and then subsided. During uplift any sediments would naturally thin out near the ridge and thicken the further you go away in mudflows and undersea landslides."
--What kind of incline are you talking about? There should also be some physics on this process. Or is this just speculative on your part?
--Also, in addition to your explanation on the distribution of sediments on the ocean floor, please explain:--The origin & evolution of the ocean floor in your scenario.
--What caused the ocean floor to uplift in the way that they did (mid-ocean ridges) and then subside.
--The origin of the continents."The lithosphere near ocean ridges is expected to be thiner for the same reason."
--How so?"Molten basalt has great flowing characteristics and because it would be flowing away from the raised ridge I would expect the ridge itself to hold back only sufficient material to seal the rift."
--What do you mean? and how does this apply?------------------

quote:

---

By difference in ‘age’ I really meant different in state of development since this is dependant on mass and binary stars could have partners, which are very different in size.

---

Stars of smaller mass than our sun will live longer, thus we can rule these out. Stars less than 1.44 solar masses become white dwarfs. I don't see any floating around. Stars between 1.4 and 3 solar masses become neutron stars. Stars larger than 4 solar masses become black holes. So it seems we'd have some evidence of the remnants.

quote:

---

My theory is based on the two partners coalescing to form a central object around which a huge expanding and rotating cloud of dust and gas is formed by the two coming together. This is what I meant by the origin of the Solar Nebula and it’s not a new proposal either.

---

This is even stranger. Stars tear each other apart when they collide.

quote:

---

So far nothing we know about the Earth or other planets is contrary to what could have been predicted by my analysis.

---

??????????? We've already contradicted a great many things.

quote:

---

The planets are not spiraling outwards from the Sun.

---

Yet the numbers you gave suggest just this. Surely you know the actual numbers by heart, have written a book and all?

quote:

---

You also express surprise about sediments from space. As all the planets are really aggregations of sediments I have no difficulty with this concept whatsoever.

---

I express surprise that you consider all of the sediments in the ocean to have come directly from dust in space. By the time the earth had oceans there wasn't much dust left in space.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

To form a retinue of planets as we have in our Solar System all you need to begin with is a binary star in which of the components could be as little as half the mass of our Sun and made entirely of hydrogen. You do not need a netron star or a red giant or a white dwarf or even an old star. A freshly made pair of stars will do just as well as an ancient pair of stars. The only requirement is that it must be a binary star and the conditions have to be right for them to collapse as binary systems do.Stars are normally so far apart that the chances of a collision are extremely remote. Anyway binary stars do not collide but coalsce. The heat and pressures generated by this event are sufficient to form an expanding, rotating nebula. But the expansion only goes on for a while and the nebula then contracts into a planetary disc from which the planets eventually form.If I said planets were spiralling outwards from the sun then thats not right. I did say that planets spiralled inwards towards the sun as they grew in mass. The only numbers I gave was for illustrion purposes only and these were typical orbital distances for different bodies.There is still plenty of dust in space. The larger lumps come down as meteorites. The smaller ones we just do not see. The daily dust fall has been measured by others.You say you have contradicted 'many things' about my theory.
Not by facts. Maybe what I am proposing does not fit in with a theory you prefer. Thats fine by me but only facts can be used to support a theory and there is plenty of those (all taken from
mainstream science writers) in my book.

The collapse of a binary does not mean one object punches into the other. It does mean that one object could rotate right round the surface of the other several times and may make a long deep skid mark before coming to rest. If this results in the generation of heat of the magnitude you say its not just the water that will dissipate it. The atmosphere and the ice cold basalt at the base of the oceans could absorb all the heat without difficulty. And much heat would radiate into space anyway.
If heat generation is your main concern about my theory I have not done too badly. Lets have some real scientific objections. But I see you have already made up your mind so perhaps dont bother.
Thanks for your input anyway. Thanks to all others as well.
If anyone wishes to continue on a personal one to one basis you are very welcome to cointact me directly by e mail.

quote:

---

To form a retinue of planets as we have in our Solar System all you need to begin with is a binary star in which of the components could be as little as half the mass of our Sun and made entirely of hydrogen.

---

Pure hydrogen stars would be first generation stars? Is this what you mean? After that first generation, you aren't going to get pure hydrogen stars. And first generation stars form very differently from second and third generation stars. You won't get binary stars from a cloud of pure hydrogen, though frankly, I'm not sure why you insist these stars be made only of hydrogen. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.astro.umd.edu/education/astro/stev/main_seq.htmlBut lets forget about the hydrogen stars and just go with regular second-generation+ stars.

quote:

---

The only requirement is that it must be a binary star and the conditions have to be right for them to collapse as binary systems do.

---

You need at least one of them to be fusing the heavier elements, as you have said. Even so, you need one of them to supernova in order to get any elements higher than iron. And a supernova will cause the problems I outlined previously. It is an explosion after all. This screws up your coalescing mechanism and your dust cloud.

quote:

---

Stars are normally so far apart that the chances of a collision are extremely remote.

---

As is the case of most, but not all, binary stars.

quote:

---

Anyway binary stars do not collide but coalsce.

---

Semantics....

quote:

---

There is still plenty of dust in space. The larger lumps come down as meteorites. The smaller ones we just do not see. The daily dust fall has been measured by others.

---

True. There are billions of tons of material in space, and quite a bit comes down to Earth, but you aren't dusting it off your car in the morning either. That is the kind of dust infall you'd need to account for the sediments in the ocean.

quote:

---

You say you have contradicted 'many things' about my theory.
Not by facts.

---

LOL... go ask around at some nearby university's astronomy department, or the geology department, or the physics department.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The collapse of a binary does not mean one object punches into the other. It does mean that one object could rotate right round the surface of the other several times and may make a long deep skid mark before coming to rest.

---

This is absurd. This object will hit the earth with a speed of about 10 km/sec. Even if it hits at a grazing angle of 1 degree from horizontal it will make a crater about 300 km deep. I think this is a little deeper than the Pacific Ocean. It will not make a skid mark and come to rest.

quote:

---

If heat generation is your main concern about my theory I have not done too badly. Lets have some real scientific objections. But I see you have already made up your mind so perhaps dont bother.

---

It is not just heat. It is the total energy released which will bust a giant hole in the crust and shatter/melt/vaporize the object and vaporize the oceans. The real science objection is that your "model" violates some well established laws of physics as I pointed out before.Randy

In my book I suggest that the heat and pressure from the collapse of two first generation stars can lead up to the production of all fusion elements up to iron. After that radiation from the now fused stars build up the rest of the elements.Binary stars can form from just one rotating cloud of hydrogen and
I have used a simple computer program to show this. How else do you suugest binary stars form? And why are over 70% of the stars in the universe binary or triple?It helps if one or both of my stars in the binary has already undergone some element production by fusion. But its a collapse of the binary that is required to release these elements. A mere explosion will produce a dust/gas cloud which in time will settle by gravity back ti its point of origin-apart from a small perecntage that will have an escape velocity high enough to diffuse out into empty space.I have taught for many years in a university which has all the departments you suggest. My teaching has always encouraged open mindness. As I have said before much of my facts come from books and papers in University libraries (Cambridge, San Diego, California,
Porto Allegre in Brazil and my present university where I continue to teach on a part time basis.) My university peers were the first to see drafts of my book. Ofcourse the Geologists felt threatened by
the new interpretation but could not offer any facts in opposition either)And I am still waiting for some real facts-not reinstatement of existing theories which I am more than familiar with and can see
their weaknesses.

quote:

---

In my book I suggest that the heat and pressure from the collapse of two first generation stars can lead up to the production of all fusion elements up to iron. After that radiation from the now fused stars build up the rest of the elements.

---

So your binary stars are indeed first generation pure hydrogen stars? Due to the cooling properties of hydrogen, pure hydrogen stars are massive-- 200 solar masses or so. And they burn out very quickly, within a few million years, and then SUPERNOVA. There is a likely candidate for a second generation star containing only 1/10000th the metals our sun contains. So it seems you need yet another intermediary.How do you propose that radiation fuses elements? The key factors are heat and pressure. You seem to be missing an element.

quote:

---

Binary stars can form from just one rotating cloud of hydrogen and I have used a simple computer program to show this. How else do you suggest binary stars form? And why are over 70% of the stars in the universe binary or triple?

---

You apparently didn't read the link I gave you. The problem is not with several stars forming from one cloud of gas, but with several stars forming from one cloud of pure hydrogen gas. The stars we see are all, as far as anyone can tell, at least third generation and so formed from clouds containing many elements, not just hydrogen. The presence of metals alters the dynamics greatly. Thus, your final two questions just don't make sense in context.

quote:

---

It helps if one or both of my stars in the binary has already undergone some element production by fusion.

---

If the stars are burning, they pretty much are fusing elements. It is the higher elements that are the problem. You have two stars fusing into one star that still isn't fusing the heavy elements, and it won't ever do so until it explodes. And we know how you don't like your pet theory blowing up, so where did the heavy elements come from? The power needed to fuse such elements rips stars apart, LRP. You have to start with these elements are you aren't going to get them.

quote:

---

I have taught for many years in a university which has all the departments you suggest.

---

What department?

quote:

---

My teaching has always encouraged open mindness.

---

There is a fine line between an open mind and an acid trip.

quote:

---

And I am still waiting for some real facts-not reinstatement of existing theories which I am more than familiar with and can see
their weaknesses.

---

Sound like the old "your is just a theory so I can make up something too" argument.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

RESPONSE TO POST 101 FROM RANDYI assume you have calculated the kinetic energy of the planetisimal assuming ‘free fall’
conditions. In this case the impact velocity would be directed vertically and I would accept your calculation for a 300km deep crater and the complete devastation of the planetissimal itself.
But this is not at all the case for a coalescing binary.
Under stable conditions the system would have angular momentum and this will be preserved from the start of the collapse right to and beyond the time of contact.
This means that as the orbit of the planetissimal becomes smaller the tangential velocity must increase and at the same time the centripetal force must also increase to keep the object from escaping. Hence some of the centripetal force is used up to keep the object in its orbit and some of it is used to bring the object downwards.
For this reason the actual acceleration in the vertical direction will small and it could takes days if not weeks to impact time.
It is theoretically possible for the planetissimal to orbit the earth at say only 1000 meters or less above the surface of the earth
By the time the planetissimal gets to the point of grazing the earth’s surface its vertical velocity will be small but its tangential velocity would be extremely high.
So rather than the object making a 300km hole in the ocean bed as you suggest it would be more likely to bulldoze a fairly shallow (0.5 to 1.0km deep) trough some 200km wide and 18,000km long. As for the planetisssimal ‘bouncing’ on first contact this again follows logically if the vertical velocity is low and the tangential velocity high enough to keep the planetissimal more or less suspended above impact level.Also knowing the internal structure of the Earth it is not unexpected that the planetissimal will have a very similar internal structure. Thus like two giant balls with relatively thin skins of solid basalt and a softer interior the planetissimal can be expected to ‘bounce’ at least once if not twice before finally being brought to rest and broken up.Finally the conversion of kinetic energy to heat is essential to partially melt and transform the contents of the interior of the planetissimal. Today we live on top of the contents of the planetissimal and all around us the effects of this great heat is plain to see unless one is blinded by traditional theories in Geology.

Heat comes from the friction of two merging bodies.
Pressure comes from the same source.
Radiation (in the form of free electrons, protons and neutrons) also
comes from the merger. Much too much to explain this in detail here.The composition of each star in a binary makes no difference to the dynamics whatsoever. Only the masses and orbits matter.My higher elements are not manufactured within the stars but within the resulting cloud of gas and dust. Again too much to explain here.I will ignore your remarks on the personal bits that you throw in-quite unnecessary if I may say so.