Robittybob1

I think if you followed the Bible from one end to the other you would end up with various ideas about whether there is an afterlife. Is it a type of reincarnation? Or is it a heavenly abode? Or the type of Hades where the deceased souls go? There would be many different viewpoints. Modern theology in my opinion has lost its hope in an afterlife. It is hard to define scientifically so it becomes difficult to convince people of it.

After 15 years of following a chain of thought I was surprised to read in a post the other day an idea which seemed to gel with the concept of Earth formation that I had independently developed. I had contemplated that the Earth and Theia had formed at opposite sides of this torus of matter that orbited the protosun at the approximate radius of the Earth's current orbit. In my concept there were fewer planets than the hundreds of planets sometimes proposed, but within the torus there would be many (thousands) planetesimals. They would be formed but they do not need to jump from torus to torus for they are gravitationally bound within their own region. I think of it like a ring that is broken into two places and not necessarily evenly but these long strips of matter are condensed into asteroid sized chunks and they accrete at opposite ends of the orbit. As the main mass (Proto-Earth) gathers in the smaller bits on the path in the orbital direction the asteroid sized pieces and dust/gases are slowed in their orbit, dropping them to a lower orbit but because they have become gravitationally bound ahead and from behind they strike the accretion disc on the inner side. The opposite effect is found with the material accreting from the trailing side, it being accelerated by the gravitational forces will attain a higher orbit but it doesn't slow down so it strikes the growing Earth on the outer side (away from the Proto-sun). The whole mass of stuff being gravitationally pulled together keeps the accretion disc rotating at a speed where the outer parts are nearly at orbital speed. Now I have thought this through many times but have been very hesitant to write it down and present it, for I thought one would just get a runaway rotation of the whole mass, but with the concept of Theia being an unstable planet forming at the L3 Lagrangian point and later going into a "Horseshoe Orbit" with the Earth and at the same time itself forming, there is the possibility of the two outer parts of their accretion discs clashing. The matter will hit each other conserving momentum in multiple inelastic impacts by slowing. This would result in the matter heating up and falling into the gravitational centers. I can see there is a huge potential for mixing of the material (clashing accretion discs) to become isotopically similar for these reasons, without the need for a giant impact. The reason I have been encouraged to present the outline of my Earth formation model was because I can now see it was not too difficult to control the incoming material through having it rotating in an accretion disc at near orbital speed. The features that can be discussed are: 1. The planets form in the late protosun period where there is not as much Solar Wind and radiant pressure to blow away gasses needed to hold the asteroid chucks gravitationally together. 2. Because the whole mass is rotating with outer parts at orbital speed there is a high rate of loss of volatile matter (Hydrogen Helium Methane Water CO2 etc). 3. There is sufficient mass of liquids surrounding the two planets to allow for Moon Capture. 4. The high rate of liquid/gas loss results in the Earth losing sufficient mass so the Moon begins drifting away even before the tidal acceleration can take effect. (Until the oceans became shallow enough there is minimal tidal acceleration. That is why the current rate of tidal acceleration has not been present throughout the history of the Moon.) The idea was rather odd to begin with but over the years new evidence has tended to support rather than refute such a scenario. What do you reckon?

That was an interesting idea.

As the Earth formed and prior to the iron catastrophe the density of the matter would be more even throughout so the accretion would be at the equatorial region as has been suggested previously in this thread. That is certainly a novel idea and has seldom been argued before. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88621-nonspherical-earth-split-from-centrifugal-forces/page-2#entry863929

I hope the Justice Dept gives him due reward for handing it in.

I don't know too much about phages but if you can grow your bacteria easy enough allow them some exposure to the environment I think you will pick up phages. The reason I say this was the fact that people who make cheese using bacteria also have problems with phages and these are in the process room and infect the culture.

I did calculate its rate of rotation for a rigid body with Earth's radius and it would need to spin once per 1.5 hours to have orbital speed at its surface. I then considered what would happen if the Earth wasn't so rigid, for the rigidity seemed to be unnatural. I might have done the calculations wrong for I had a higher figure for the ratio of velocity : orbital velocity. According to Wikipedia a person on the equator is doing 465.1 m/s (1,040 mph) and needs 7.9 km/s (17,672 mph) to get to orbital speed. Does this mean he has already 1/17 th of the required orbital speed just from the rotation of the Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed#Tangential_velocities_at_altitude Edit: I get it now because the angular acceleration is calculated by v^2/r even though it is 1/17 of the velocity compared to orbital velocity, it is only 0.3% of the acceleration compared to gravity of 9.8 m/sec^2

This from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge#The_equilibrium_as_a_balance_of_energies I wonder if there is something more scientific?

You would have to shorten the day length down to around 1.5 hours to get to that sort of velocity, but at that sort of rotation rate the Earth would be even more oblate in shape so the radius increases so the period can come down as a result. I wonder how the shape would change with increased rotation rate?

You are definitely a cut above the rest of us. Cheers. So what I want know is the shape of an Earth that has a rotational period of just 1 hour (say). I have heard of scientists giving the Early Earth a rotational period of 2 hours (before Theia struck) so what shape is the planet when that happens for all the diagrams just show a relatively spherical Earth. At what point would the Earth begin to stretch out like a spun pizza base? looks fun but don't get me to do it!

Which is rather ridiculous as at that rate of acceleration we would be traveling through space at close to the speed of light.

I've been listening to YT videos with integration as the subject (integrals). I like it but I haven't learnt how to use it. Thanks.

The planet might have cooled and froze solid in that shape and then slowed its rotation (somehow).

It does but just saying it is further from the center is not the whole answer for if you were able to drop a mass down a hole drilled into the Earth its weight is not going to go up simply because it is getting closer to the center.

Have you heard of centrifugal pumps? What you have done is a very cursory centrifugal pump. How does a Centrifugal pump work ?

MigL - I'm sure you should have used the word pressure somewhere in your explanation.

That sounds like some mineral in the water rather than organic if the stain will not come off.

That's OK mgh is positive if something rises but will be negative if the mass falls lower.

So what is the integral of 1/r^2? 1/r^2 = r^-2 now what do you do?

Closer to the center of the mass things will experience a stronger force and hence weigh more. GPE being a negative energy less is more negative or deeper in the gravity well. But that lower G value is not causing the shape so Studiot is wrong.

What happens if you put a bottle of it on the window sill in sunlight? Where is the water coming from?

Yeast and other organisms extract! Manganese? Minerals.

Matter will gravitate to where gpe is lower cos it weighs [less] more not less.

That is more for what happens above the surface, but I'll think about that.

Yes that is the starting position, but is there another point where the gravity at the center equals the gravity at the equator. It could do if the rate of rotation was chosen correctly and the substance of the Earth blended evenly.