Rich_A12

Sorry, run that reason why it falls apart by me again please I must have missed it. The physics of what I've described are so basic and elementary that even a teenager in school could understand it. You haven't found a reason why it would fall apart, your argument is that others have already considered it and they decided against it but "they" did not know about migration when they made that decision therefore that decision must be reconsidered. If migration stopped when the gases ignite and form a star, there would be no migration at all. Let's say it takes millions of years for large bodies to form and for the star to wind up the rotational forces post blast, this again is an exact science which I am unable to find out but it is possible to work out using computer simulation. Migration can happen and most likely does happen, that National Geographic video says it can happen therefore our planet might very well have migrated, in fact it's probably inevitable. Also for the oceanic floor to crimp and ripple, the Earth might actually have to shrink a little which is unlikely. The bulging and crimping that goes on in the oceans is as a result of the continental sections occupying more distance due to gravity making them take on a wider curvature. The problem is we think currently that Earth is spewing out new rock from the fault lines i.e. the oceanic sections are being pushed apart but they aren't, they are being pulled apart due to expansion. Microwave radiation maybe? It is also likely about reduced loss of heat to space combined with an ever developing and insulating atmosphere. Actually my Geography teacher was a good teacher and it was because of him why I paid as much attention as I did. What is the evidence for there being more than one Pangaea type continent? I accepted that subduction is viable with an expanding Earth due to shifting and gravity but I don't agree that entire continents continue moving in a direction indefinitely, instead they shift about a bit on the surface, they might go left and then go right but there are no trends. Current science uses magnetic records to determine continental movement, but I don't agree that magnetic records directly correlate to continental movement. I don't believe the oceanic sections are strong enough either to move entire continents, the softer oceanic sections are more likely to just bulge and ripple but over time the continental sections will find it difficult to manipulate the oceanic sections so there will be some crimping between oceanic sections and continental sections. But the biggest crimping affect will be where continental sections rub up against other continental sections.

I made this topic to see what angles others would take on the theory and there have been some interesting angles. Using only very basic physics and science, this thoery does not at any point so far fall apart. I will make a video to summerise this, maybe that will make things more clear for some. That video is by National Geographic, a very reputable documentary channel. The guy that talked about migration said it will fundamentally change the way we think about planet formation! The proof for migration was gained by real scientists and billion dollar telescopes in space! You want maths and quantities and I cannot give you them. It's like asking the guy who thought the world was round not flat, to build and put a satelite in space to prove it. You're asking me for proof in the form of mathematics which are way beyond my means and indeed it would take years to program the maths into a computer, I wouldn't even know where to begin. You're expectations are way too high and unreasonable and it really doesn't take much of an understanding of physics to visualise what I've described, to play the physics out in your mind. That's all you can do to be honest with this, because there are some things we'll never know and some things will always remain a mystery to us whether we like it or not. If some here expect the maths and demand the maths, well I cannot give you them but if you understand the maths and can do the maths, well maybe you can use the maths to disprove what I have said? I don't know how much energy is released from gases collapsing into a star, I don't know how much gas was present before collapse, neither do I know how much the gases were rotating before collapse, or know how far Earth was from the Sun to begin with or how many collisions Earth had with other massive bodies; these things are mostly random chaos physics. These things could possibly be reverse engineered but there will always be huge margins of error. The exact quantities are not so important, I am only interested in how likely certain processes are - think it's called, a rough idea.

OMG, the reason is in that video I posted, they got their proof from the billion dollar telescopes we put in space. Planets can and likely do migrate towards a star. Let's say a planet migrates 50,000,000 miles closer to the Sun over the course of 4 billion years and the critical pressure point occurs at 4.4 billion years, what's going to happen? Seems your suggesting that nothing will happen or the planet will explode with nothing in between. That's a bit extreme and the physics is far more complex than all or nothing.

If your number is accurate, there's no reason why the Earth could not form as we know it in that time. What is your argument against it happening in that amount of time? If it did happen in that amount of time, well the Earth must have taken a long time to migrate towards the Sun and have been cocooned in it's crust for the majority of it's life time. There are no real rules governing how long things should take, there are an infinite number of permutations as to what can and might happen.

Where have you got that 200% from, did you work that out? It happens over billions of years, didn't you see my hypothetical graph? You got to remember that the new crust created as the Earth expands (the ocean floors) is very soft and malleable compared to the land masses which are much thicker and more dense. The ocean floors are like marsh mellow compared to the land masses so it doesn't take much energy to keep on expanding once the intial fragmentation has occured.

You looking for maths again Moontanman and I can't give you any. And you're thinking about it purely in terms of things being hot. Instead, think of it as things being less cold. If a planet migrates in 50 million miles closer to the Sun, that planet is going to be a heck of a lot less cold than it was previously. Coldness in that sense is a form of energy as it takes a lot of energy to stop a gas element from moving around. It takes a tremendous amount of energy for us to acheive very low near absolute zero temperatures. It's all relative, everything depends on what orientation or angle you are looking at things.

Haha, you lot are just as bonkers as I am. So the main concern is that the pressures would have vapourised the crust? Well you know, under different circumstances in another solar system, maybe that has happened. There are an infinite number of permutations but with regards to fragmentation, the crust will have a critical pressure point at which it will begin to crack open. A thinner crust might have a lower critical pressure point and so the explosive release of pressure would be reduced therefore there might only be a couple of fragmentations or partial fragmentations. On another planet the crust might be thicker and so the critical pressure point higher, resulting in a huge number of fragmentations which leads to other consequencies. Perhaps there is a critical pressure Goldilocks zone. If the pressure was too extreme and there was too much fragmentation, well the surface would just crust over again but there would be some expansion going on before that. Maybe that planet wouldn't get another chance to reach a critical pressure point again because it might no longer be migrating towards the Sun and so it becomes a dead planet. Am sure some of you have the skills to make some estimates and calculations. But you know I just watched another documentary which estimated (based on computer simulation) that our solar system had around 10 massive solid bodies within the radius of Mars at one time. Some bodies got flung out of the solar system and some collided. These collisions might also significantly affect the speed at which a body rotates around the star. Therefore speed is not entirely determined by rotational acceleration caused by the star, it can be affected by other bodies and therefore collisions can affect the rate at which a body migrates towards the star.

I have presented the mechanisms, you're just not thinking about it for yourself which is another problem with modern science. Science is a process of discovery as you say, what I am talking about for me at least is at that point of discovery. How can you expect anything on paper when I only just thought of it like 48 hours ago! I will try and make a video though to summarise it all.

Mass is unchanged, gravity is unchanged except for any asteroids that collide with Earth. Bare in mind that pre fragmentation there was virtually no atmosphere, there was no water, just solid rock - like Mars is now I guess. Again, you're asking for quantities and all I can give you is a theory. You got to be reasonable and have some imagination. I have explained the expansion as best I can in previous posts and followed that up with analogies is subsequent posts (packet of crisps in a car on a hot day). I hope you know what I mean by fragmentation. It is the moment when the Earth's crust cracks open, it is the moment that all our land masses, our continents are created. The physics behind it are totally random, the crust would never crack or fragment the same way twice. After this happens it becomes very easy for the pressures to expand the Earth. A bit like when ice starts to break up on water, can have massive slabs of ice wobbling and squirming around one another, only there isn't much room for lateral or vertical movement, so the next easiest thing for the pressures to do is expand the Earth.

The mechanisms are basic physics, physics which most of us already understand. What you want are quantities and I can't do that. The Earth wouldn't vapourise, the crust is several miles thick and is made of solid matter, it's extremely strong. Also the planet rotates so heat is distributed around the surface. And then you have gravity and the coldness of space keeping the crust from vapourising. Without an atmosphere there would have been bare rock in contact with space, so I imagine when the Earth was smaller, it would have had a much thicker and stronger crust. You are the one now suggesting and saying things which cannot easily be proven Moontanman, things which demand further investigation. You're quite right to do that.

The problem is you expect science to be presented a certain way, in the stereo typical way. Am sorry but the thought comes first, then the science. Before man made fire he thought, how can I make fire, he then made fire and proceeded to understand it scientifically. He did not discover fire by first understanding it scientifically, might even have discovered how to make it by accident. And he certainly did not need to present a thesis to everyone before his methods were accepted. Science is for everyone, not just those in white coats with degrees. If you choose not to take what I said seriously because it's not "presented" correctly, that's your loss and you ought to examine whether what you choose to do and how you choose to think is beneficial or a hindrance to you. How the heck am I supposed to know that, like I said before I cannot give quantities - only a computer can simulate it. But all elements would gain energy therefore everything under the crust would attempt to occupy a greater space, but it can't because the crust is stopping it therefore the result is increased pressure.

A century ago they couldn't look at planets orbiting other stars! As to the exact chemisty, I don't know. I'm thinking maybe it's not just gas elements that can create pressure. Energised elements will act like energised gas elements. If you have two containers the same size, one is filled with iron ore at 1,000'C and the other is filled with iron ore at 2,000'C - which exerts a greater pressure on the container? Of course all elements expand when they are heated. If this expansion is contained, the result is pressure.

How long have you spent trying to find that out? Can get carbon dioxide from iron ore by mixing it with carbon at high temperatures.

Stop being so snobby. Bonds can be broken as environments change, I'm not a chemist - this is why I come to this forum, to get some ideas as to how it's possible. BTW watch from 8 min for proof that planets can migrate towards a star .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBjlZz5ZHk

http://www.nature.co...s/268130a0.html http://library.think...s_of_earth.html (From second link) Looking at the lower mantle, its chemical composition includes silicon, magnesium, and oxygen. (Inner core) According to scientists, about 10% of this layer is composed of sulfur and/or oxygen due to the fact that these two elements are abundant in the cosmos and dissolve readily in molten iron.