Topic: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?

[preearth]

When Worlds Collided.

Heaven and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heaven to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heaven and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heaven itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map.



This map is a flat representation of part of a globe. Hence, some distortion is inevitable.....

Read the rest here: http://preearth.net/

[Orstio]

What evidence lead you to the assumption that the Earth was made from two planets?  I read the paper on your site, and you start with the hypothesis assuming it is true, and work forward from there.  I see no evidence the hypothesis itself has anything to support it.

[preearth]

The whole idea of the theory is summarized by this animated GIF:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

The collision caused PreEarth to expand in size. It was this expansion in size that caused the continents to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

[Orstio]

I don't think you understand my question.

What leads you to believe that the Earth is made up from two planets?

In science, you need to produce hypotheses from observation, not just come up with some whacky idea and the try to find evidence to support it. Observation first, hypothesis after.

What observation leads to this hypothesis?

Also, your map displays the continents as they currently are today, other than the above-sea portion of the African continent being far smaller. You realize that the plates on which the above-sea land-masses are much, much larger than the above-sea portions? The South American plate, for example, extends half-way to Africa off the South American east coast. The above-sea land-masses by no means define the continents.

Your use of the word "theory" in this case shows an extreme ignorance to science.

For reference:

Theory is accepted as truth, or the best possible explanation of an observation.

Hypothesis is any possible explanation of an observation.

Conjecture is wild guesswork.  This is where your colliding-world idea belongs.

[preearth]

What leads you to believe that the Earth is made up from two planets?

The evidence is all around you.

Have another look at this animated GIF:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

Let me emphasize that no part of Pangaea was obliterated by the impact.

A circular cap region of crust on PreEarth was obliterated.

Heaven was completely submerged into PreEarth (causing the expansion).

Pangaea was the surviving region, that is, the region exterior to this circular cap.

When Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) is mapped from the sphere of PreEarth to a flat map, you get exactly the map of the first graphic up above. In fact, that is how this map was first produced.

The reason that standard maps of Pangaea are essentially circular is because they represents a sphere with a circular cap region cut from it.

Clearly, a sphere missing a circular cap explains why Pangaea was though to be concentrated on one side of Earth with ocean on the other (which is a very problematic unbalanced arrangement).

And, of course, splits in landmass (the Tethys Ocean and Bering Strait) had to be included in the standard maps of Pangaea to account for the map makers use of the wrong radius (Earth's instead of PreEarth's).

Here is a standard map of Pangaea



The expansion in size of PreEarth after swallowing Heaven, caused Pangaea to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

The circular region where Heaven entered is now called the Pacific Ocean (not all the Pacific, but most of it).

The theory explains most of the problematic features of Pangaea.

That's not a bad start,... but it does more. Read the paper.

I have had one geophysicist (professor from Monash University) state that the mathematics in the paper appeared to be correct.

He is withholding judgement concerning the overall idea, at least for the time being.

Other experts in the field have said they will send a detailed account of their thoughts about it (the paper has only been out a week or so).

Also, I am a Mathematician. PhD from UNSW, Australia.

[Orstio]

I have read the paper, and you're still missing the point.

Your gif looks nothing like the planet Earth, other than you've drawn representations of all the landmasses on a geometric form.

There are ALWAYS problems when mathematicians try to solve physics problems. One of them is causality. Mathematics ignores causality, and so all sorts of fractal models of the universe seem "mathematically correct" yet they can't possibly exist in a rational universe.

I'm goingto ask you one more time before you are banned:

What observation did you make of the current state that lead you to the belief that the Earth must be made from two planets?

And, of course, splits in landmass (the Tethys Ocean and Bering Strait) had to be included in the standard maps of Pangaea to account for the map makers use of the wrong radius (Earth's instead of PreEarth's).

 

So you're saying that this not only happened within the time span of human existence, but also as recently as humans' discovery of language and more importantly, geography?

ETA - You further discredit your conjecture with your representation of Antarctica as a single land-mass the same size and shape of the current ice-sheet that covers that continent. Antarcitica, if it were not covered in ice, would look more like a chain of islands than a single mass:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/AntarcticBedrock.jpg

[yale]

preearth, your paper is utter bullwash.The events described in your paper are for 250 million years ago or so. As you point out, the planets surface temperatures would rise by many, many thousands of degrees.This alone would zero out all life and reset all rock-dating to a maximum of 250 mill years ago.I won't even bother going into the rest of the bogus nonsense of your "paper".Sorry - never happened.- yale

[Dingo1]

PreEarth,Read your paper, found it humorous to say the least.  For one thing the type of collision you describe would have completely destroyed the Planet Earth.  There is so much solid proof on the relative age of our planet as 4.5 billion years old give or take.  Best theories date a collision between Early Earth and a planetiod of Mars size colliding, resulting in the Earth/Moon approx 4.5 - 4.6 Billion years ago.What you have written is a conjecture that will not hold up to scientific review.As having written a Hypothesis and subsequently continuing to refine my Theory in regards to large planetary body collisions your conjecture does not hold water.   Exceptionally in the realm of Planetary Physics

[preearth]

For one thing the type of collision you describe would have completely destroyed the Planet Earth.

PROVE your claim. You expect me to, so why shouldn't you?

There is so much solid proof on the relative age of our planet as 4.5 billion years old give or take.

My theory provides no date for the age of the Earth, so how is it that you claim this? 4.5 billion years is OK with me.

Best theories date a collision between Early Earth and a planetiod of Mars size colliding, resulting in the Earth/Moon approx 4.5 - 4.6 Billion years ago.

This "best" theory is not very good.

The oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio.

This means that the impactor had to have essentially the same oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio, that is, it had to be a twin (binary) of the Earth.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2382.pdf

So, the Moon had to be formed from the impact of a former moon,... which is not really satisfactory at all, is it?

What you have written is a conjecture that will not hold up to scientific review.

Oh, really. I admit that a lot of the geophysicists who promised to make detailed comments on the theory have gone quiet, but this might be because they are presently unwilling to say the theory is wrong.

In a week or so, I will knock on some of their doors again and see what happens.

[yale]

preearth-You ignored my comments.One more time.You claim you planetary merger variously occurred either 250 million, 160 million, or outrageously only SIX MILLION YEARS AGO - any of those times when the earth was teaming with advanced and simple life - the direct evolutionary ancestors of current life. Now, pick a point on the earths surface. Describe in detail the conditions at that point during the approach, merger, and stabilization period. Motions, temperatures, the shockwaves, the tidal distortions, the vertical displacements of thousands of kilometers, the horizontal motions of thousands of kilometers, the rain of incandescent ejecta, etc., etc. all in essentially in an instant. As you rather seriously understate, the earth's crust's "surface material was severely broken and contorted". Ummm, yeah. Not a freaking plant or animal could survive this fantasy collision.

[Orstio]

For one thing the type of collision you describe would have completely destroyed the Planet Earth.

 

PROVE your claim. You expect me to, so why shouldn't you?

He doesn't have to prove it. It's simple physics. You're the one making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

My theory provides no date for the age of the Earth, so how is it that you claim this? 4.5 billion years is OK with me.

 

Well it does, actually. Pangaea was a temporary surface tectonic state. It lasted from about 400 million years ago to about 250 million years ago. Before that, the continents were separate. Not in the same configuration as today, but not a single giant land-mass nonetheless. Again, you conjecture is nowhere near theory, so you can stop calling it that.

Here's a good example of what the continents looked like 570 million years ago, BEFORE Pangaea:

What you have written is a conjecture that will not hold up to scientific review.

 

Oh, really. I admit that a lot of the geophysicists who promised to make detailed comments on the theory have gone quiet, but this might be because they are presently unwilling to say the theory is wrong.

Or it's because they know you're a crank and don't have the heart to tell you, or the motivation to argue about something so ridiculous.

BTW -- Your inclusion of Central America in your map is also fallacious. Central America was only formed in the last 6 million years, evidenced both by the migrations of terrestrial life and geology. To include it in a map of Pangaea is absurd.

And, you obviously did not read the paper you linked.  It concludes the exact opposite of what you are saying:

Conclusions: The contrasting accretion styles of   
the Earth and the moon-forming impactor suggest that   
they did not have identical source regions, and hence   
oxygen isotope compositions. Our model suggests that   
in the aftermath of the giant impact, the proto-Earth   
and the proto-lunar magma disk may have approached   
diffusive equilibrium with respect to oxygen isotopes.   
Since this process would have occurred at high   
temperatures, this also predicts that the delta-values of   
the bulk silicate Earth and bulk silicate Moon will be   
the same. Resolving the oxygen isotope story in the   
inner solar system, for example, by sampling Venus   
and Mercury, may help to resolve the long-standing   
problem of the provenance of the terrestrial planets.