pavelcherepan

From Impact Earth using parameters of Mars and Earth and impact at 40o angle and 20 km/sec impact velocity:

It is incorrect because: a) not all of protons will get into the atmosphere at poles, but a lot will be trapped in Van Allen belts. b) the amount of protons coming with solar wind is tiny (the number in post 39 includes both electrons and protons) c) the amount of electrons coming with solar wind is tiny d) Earth loses more hydrogen every second than the amount of protons supposedly coming into the atmosphere e) you can't use the normal idea of temperature when particle concentrations are so low EDIT: Oh, and another thing - you can't form water with oxygen atom and protons. Chemical reactions are interactions between outer electron levels. No electrons = no chemical reactions.

What do stromatolites and BIFs have to do with solar wind? This seems like a bunch of unrelated statements. Solar wind, cyanobacteria, oxygen and plate tectonics all in one pile. Would you be so kind and explain relationships between all of those? And what's that about 3500 years? Also please take a look at John Cuthber's comment above and also the following: So now if you calculate roughly the amount of these particles that will reach Earth, you'll get a number around 5*1027 particles per second. Even if you assume that all of these will reach the atmosphere (which they won't) and compare this with the estimated amount of hydrogen escape into space of ~3kg/sec: (3000 g/sec/ 1.008 g/mol) * 6.02*1023 mol-1 = 1.79*1028 atoms/second loss from the atmosphere. Can you see now that you still get a net loss of hydrogen?

Well said, iNow. +1

Even now mantle has around 7.5% of Fe by weight, which is of course relatively low compared to overall composition of the Earth (32.1% Fe) but still it's not what you call depleted. So with that in mind what makes you think that in less than 100 my from the formation of the planet the mantle was already low on iron?

Even if this mechanism were plausible, for it to work there must be a directed flow of charged particles, otherwise if your electrons are going all over the place you won't get any magnetic field. What would cause such a directed flow of charged particles?

Oh, cool, thanks! For some reason I missed the part about rings

Hi everyone! This may be a silly question but anyway here goes. So with Einstein cross we have a quadrupled image of a distant quasar which happens due to gravitational lensing by a nucleus of a spiral galaxy in the foreground. Why do we see 4 distinct images of the quasar? I mean, if a quasar is sort of directly behind the lensing galaxy and if the gravitational field of galactic nucleus is more or less uniform I would expect to see a blurred circle, not 4 separate images. What am I missing here?

That's not entirely fair. US imposed sanctions against Iran and pressured for international sanctions through UN SC. This is not an empty threat of destruction that Iranian leaders make, but an actual attempt of economic destruction so, again, your point is not entirely valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran Really? Please refer to the links below. Report: Israel Considering Military Action Against Iranhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_military_action_against_Iran Israeli Defense Minister Suggests Military Action against Iran because the US is “Weak” Anyway, we've strayed off-topic and I'd love to hear more from the OP.

Could you show the formula that you used to calculate velocities in the table?

Many models do assume that by the time of the impact both Theia and proto-Earth have been partially differentiated with small iron-rich cores in both of those, but the remainder of iron was still spread around the rest of material and in fact Giant Impact would have accelerated density differentiation due to increase of temperatures. It's also generally assumed that IC took a significant period of time, so it might have started before the impact but went on for another half a billion years or so.

How so? Would there be no iron to sink to the center? Quite the opposite, actually. Proto-Earth gained a lot of iron and heavy metals from the impact with Theia.

If that really was the result of co-pilot's deliberate actions this would not be the first case. Take for example EgyptAir flight 990 that crashed in international waters by a relief pilot as an act of revenge (one of the versions). I guess, if a person is already in a state of mind where he/she doesn't care about his own life anymore, why would he/she care about some random people? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/16/duncancampbell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

studiot, +1

Most of countries that already have nuclear weaponry don't want anyone else to have it too. But so far it's been already Israel, South African Republic, India, China, Pakistan and North Korea who all have developed nuclear weapons on their own and so it's pretty hard to stop a country that has technical capabilities from developing it. One thing we can say for sure - Israel will most certainly start a war if there's even a remote chance Iran might be getting close to having nuclear weapons. And that makes sense with Israel next door having nuclear weaponry in unknown amounts. Somehow I doubt it. In a very unstable region Middle East is it would be pretty stupid of them, even if they aren't developing any weaponry, to let foreign inspectors get a look at every single secret facility. It's just a matter of national security. If there's no solid evidence that they're currently working on nuclear weapons, I'd consider that bullying. I hope not. To the US currently Iran is a potential semi-ally in fight against ISIS. Which one are you referring to?

You mean that the Earth is 6000 years old and it's been created in six days? Scientific evidence says otherwise. So probably not.

The fact that a person is self-taught doesn't mean much and definitely can't make an argument against his position. For example, I self-taught myself Japanese. I don't think it makes my knowledge any worse than that of someone who got formal education and I'm quite capable of speaking, reading and writing so it would be super annoying if someone criticised me based only on the fact that I'd learnt it by myself.

If you're not talking about Hawking radiation as Mordred mentioned it would be an interesting question. My understanding of quantum entanglement is poor but afaik entanglement is still limited by the speed of light and so if you have two entangled particles and send one of them past the event horizon you won't see any effect on the other particle regardless of what's going on in the black hole. But I'd love for professionals to clarify this for both of us.

That is an interesting question. Firstly, you can talk about equal distribution throughout the planet for silicon or oxygen or any of the major elements of crust and mantle. All these other elements you have listed are generally present in such minute amounts that equal distribution would require absolutely extreme convection of all the material of the Earth which we do not observe and there's no indication that something like this was present in early Earth. That's why some less abundant elements are concentrated in some spots and all but nonexistent in the other. Then chemistry plays an important role, of course. Elements close to one another in periodic table, for example elements from the same group, tend to stick together due to having similar outer electron shell configuration and being able to participate in the same reactions and that's why we have rare earth elements (REE) always stick together. Also, silver and gold in most cases go together as they tend to easily form an alloy. And last, but not least geology plays its part. For any particular deposit there would generally be a geological reason for high concentrations of heavy elements. For example, for Banded iron formations - first photosynthetic bacteria producing oxygen and iron oxides precipitating from primordial ocean, for metal sulfide deposits it's metal-rich hydrothermal fluids coming through sea floor and enriching the overlaying strata. Basically, that really depends on the type of deposit and the element you're talking about.

Wow! Thanks for that, Enthalpy! That was an amazing explanation!

Please do. In another thread.

Such a situation would require one external event to trigger the formation of the Earth and so accurate that it didn't affect anything else, and another event to trigger formation of all other planets. How would it fare against Occam's razor?

This thread has been moved to speculations if you haven't noticed it yet. My guess that would be because you're arguing against accepted scientific theories without ever providing evidence and yet demanding explanations for your random ideas. It's easy to answer but you obviously haven't read any papers that other posters have linked before. Please go through the thread and check information that you've been given. Please refer to these: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88301-earth-what-is-the-real-age/?p=859805 also this article from post 4: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988LPICo.681...20G&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88301-earth-what-is-the-real-age/?p=859809 There's plenty of information in these links and remember - it's pretty lame to ask a question and not read the answer you've been given.

David, please read rules about discussing your ideas in Speculations forum, if you haven't already done so and particularly pay attention to rule 1. Please provide evidence to back your idea, because so far we haven't seen any evidence, just random baseless speculations with no scientific backing. Do you want to discuss or just want to postulate that current knowledge is incomplete?

As it was stated on multiple occasions in the thread, oldest zircons have been dated around 4.4 bya and since those have survived until now in their original state means that at no point in history these have been subjected to a temperature above the melting point of zircon - 1855oC and thus here you have the upper boundary for the crust temperatures from 4.4 bya onwards. Also, as been already pointed out before, ratio of oxygen isotopes in these zircons shows that at the time of their formation temperatures were low enough to support liquid water on the surface. So if the surface were molten completely, it had to cool down relatively fast to support these known facts. And the upper bound for the formation of the Earth comes from dating of meteorites and lunar samples, since its implausible to assume that the Earth has formed before the rest of the Solar System. So here you have them facts and they correlate well with each other and whatever the mechanism of cooling was (although I think physicists here gave some really good insights on the process) it had to happen within these time frames. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/841.short