Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

It will in the post by air mail on Monday.

Roche's limit applies only to bodies that are held together by their own gravity-not for example aircraft and satellites and space shuttles etc that operate well within the limit. 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.
Also Roches Limit applies to smaller bodies that try and orbit the larger ones-not crash into them fairly quickly.

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?

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.

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.

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!

BINARY COLLAPSE AND ELEMENT FORMATIONThe last few posts on element formation from Ipetrich, Coragypys, PaulK and Percipient and John can all be responded to in this post.PERCIPIENT favours the theory that over billions of years explosive events in stars would have produced all the material for our Solar System. This theory is without any real evidence since no one has been able to observe debris from an exploding star being absorbed into anything like a Solar Nebula and exactly what goes on within the depths of a star is also speculative as astrophysicists will themselves admit. Any particle that has a high enough velocity to escape the gravity of the exploding star will be diffused evenly into the emptiness of space and not accumulate in one location. If in the unlikely event that such material did somehow form a nebula it would be one that would be cold, and devoid of the higher elements
The nebula from which our Solar System was formed could not have been just a random accumulation of ejected material. The nebula had to have rotation about a high mass pivotal body. It also had to have all the elements sorted out into useful concentrations-not all mixed together. There is no reason or evidence that random supernovas can produce such a nebula of the sort that led to the formation of our solar system.IPETRICH comments that element sorting in the Solar System is a product of its formation!! He does not say which theory for formation of the Solar System is being referred to here, as there are so many theories. In my theory the sorting out of the elements takes place within the Solar Nebula itself and the planets form after the nebula has contracted and cooled and elements (and their compounds) have already been sorted out by gravitational, magnetic and high speed particle fluxes. The sorting out of the elements is a prerequisite to understanding why all the planets differ in the way they do.CORAGYPS quite rightly says that for element formation you need simultaneous very high density, temperatures and a huge flux of neutrons. The collapse of a binary star is not a quiet merger but a stupendously dramatic event which elegantly provides all that is needed to form all the elements. The collapse of a binary results in the conversion of a huge amount of kinetic energy into heat, pressure and radiations which does the necessary transformations close to and further out from the collision region itself.PAULK questions the right order of elements. In a binary collapse there is no right order. Elements are formed at random whenever and wherever conditions for their formation are correct. Within the environs of a collapsed binary there are billions of situations with different combinations of density, temperature and flux intensity.
Random formation is to be expected-it’s the sorting out of the elements that is all important.Finally JOHN comments that there is no evidence for my theory.
Any astronomer will tell you that there are more binary stars than single stars and binary collapses are areas of research in some universities and observatories. Einstein used his theory of relativity to predict what would happen if a binary star collapses and his prediction was later confired by Hulse and taylor who won a Noble Prize for this research.
The real evidence is what we see all round us today. We look at the sun-I see in it the remnants of a binary star and sunspot activity tells me that within it are the remains of another star. We look at the oceans-I see the origin of water as hydrogen and oxygen produced in a binary star collapse. We breathe in an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. My theory tells me why the Earth has this atmosphere rather than one of carbon dioxide or methane etc as other planets do. We live on land made from a huge variety of soil and rock minerals. The same theory tells me how these minerals came to be formed.
I could go on and on citing evidence that is plain to see all around us.
I just happen to prefer a single unifying theory instead of the ten or twelve different theories proposed by scientists throughout the ages to explain the same evidence. Ofcourse the stumbling block to my theory is not lack of evidence but the fact that it has biblical support.