It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:29 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:17 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Tripp on 11:51 pm on Oct. 10, 2005

You're right in that mere condensing or sumultaneous accretion would not cover the differential chemistry and structure. However the currently favored model of impact with a roughly Mars-sized planet does tend to cover these concerns, with the moon accreting from the ejecta debris rotating around the earth.


yes, but the current favoured model does not explain where this body went to. was it ejected out of the solar system?

anyway, i found this very interesting link in my bookmarks which i didnt even remember and considering the author in question it might be an interesting addendum to this conversation.

<b>Earth Collided with Large Celestial Object</b>

<blockquote><hr>
Summary:
The results of satellite supported measurements of the earth's surface in the last few years have proven that the earth collided with a large celestial object. It can also be proven that this collision took place within recorded history. The diameter of the object that struck the earth was aproximately 4,500 km. During the few minutes of contact, 2/3 of the Indian Ocean and the earth's crust beneath it were abruptly destroyed down to a depth of several hundred kilometers. The area of extended from the base of the Antarctic to the Equator in the direction of India. The event can be compared to the end of the world.

The object struck a rigid earth's crust. The system of tectonic plates which exists today, with oceanic rifts as pressure formed fractures, the thousands of volcanic cones on the ocean floor, the high mountain ranges throughout the world and all deposits of sediment are all direct results of this collision. The earth's axis was tilted massively and the North- and South Pole became covered in ice and the Ice-Age began. The mammoths in Siberia were shock frozen. The polarity of the earth's magnetic field changed several times within a short period of time. Almost all life on earth was destroyed by waves of heat, pressure and by flooding. The few human beings who managed to survive were robbed of all resources and faced with a primitive new beginning. These periods of time are described today as the "Stone, Bronze and Iron" Ages. This publication totally disagrees with all other current geological theories about the history of the earth's formation. In contrast to those theories, however, it is based on documented evidence and understandable logic.
<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote><hr>
Conclusions:
Does the collision partner still exist? I believe so. The drag tracks, which were still connected when it lost contact with the earth, are an indication that it does. It must, however, also have been damaged badly. A conceivable alternative would be a periodically recurring expanse of ruins or a main body which was still intact with remains. The localisation would have to take place in the calculable level of orbit. It could, e.g. have been a large roaming moon, possibly accompanying a larger mother planet, or a smaller planet. As the plane of the path is almost vertical to that of the earth, the assumption that it was an "intruder" from outside the solar system is permissible.

This publication is certain to arouse vehement resistence on the part of many readers, in particular among geoscientists and associated professions. The geoscientists work with models to explain the appearance and the development of the planet earth. Whole books have been filled with various suggested models for the causes of ice ages, for the driving forces behind plate tectonics, or the formation of mountains. It is worthy of note that there is also scepticism in geoscientific textbooks about the various attempts at explanation in respect of the subjects mentioned above. I ask the geoscientists to undertake an unpredjudiced and calm investigation of the collision which has been described. Even if this results in in the emergence of a completely fresh start. It is necessary to break the unfortunate alliance between geology and paleontology with its fictitious research. Rigidly clinging to an incorrect time grid forestalls any possibility of finding a solution.

The publication presented here does not require the introduction of models in order to find a solution. It should also be mentioned that the radar measurements published by the responsible institutions are open to the public. It is equally possible for the measurement values cited here to be checked with little effort. There is no more plausible explanation for the indisputably distinct changes in the area of the Indian Ocean than the assumption that a collision with a large celestial body occurred. All of the consequences which have been deduced and described in this article are convincing and are presumably more numerous and catastrophic than has been stated.

However much one resists it, a logical conclusion has to be drawn from the consequences of the collision described. With our current notions about the development history of the earth and the life which exists on it we are taken in by a huge error. If this is taken into consideration, all of the strange mysteries, the confusing historical old-fashioned, as well as "high-tech" discovieries, and also the seemingly illogical layers can be explained logically and simply.

All of the findings and data used for this publication have been taken from works published throughout the world by recognised, national and international research institutes. They are based on the latest and most modern data and measurement methods currently known. It is precisely these results which have been obtained with much effort on the part of the classical sciences which prove in detail the collision of the earth with a large celestial body which has been described. The consequences which can be derived from this, both material and immaterial, are convincing. The history of the earth, of life and, in particular, of humanity, has to be completely rewritten.
<hr></blockquote>

Dr. Dr. rer. nat. B. Ellmann

the meat of the article is in here: [url=http://home.pages.at/tectonics/en/index.html#Schlußbetrachtungen

interesting]http://home.pages.at/tectoni....resting[/url] no?
a <b>large roaming moon</b>, possibly accompanying by a <b>larger mother planet</b>, or a smaller planet. the plane of the path is almost vertical to that of the earth, hinting at an <b>"intruder" from outside the solar system</b>. it sounds a lot like Nibiru.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:47 pm 

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Posts: 165
Location: Georgia
TRIPP: NO WORRIES! I have WHOLEheartedly agreed with you - ON OCCASION - in the distant past/12th planet Cafe days and since! You shouldn't fear RARELY agreeing with ME!!! :)

I was hoping that you would respond - at least at the feasibility level - to my question re the POSSIBILITY that the Antartic Icecap MIGHT have made those "scrape marks" on the ocean bottom??? I understand that you would HATE to agree with any aspect of the theories of V. or S., but give us a break! It's a LOT more feasible than the theory of Dr.Dr., isn't it??? The marks seemed to be the most SIGNIFICANT of the little info presented, and was undeniably large in scope! Does your lack of response mean that Establishment Geology has come up with no alternative explanation??? ASSUMING that, what is your PERSONAL judgement of my idea??? Respectfully yours, John


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:57 pm 
MrP

My apologies! I am soooo not used to responding to you where your tongue is not buried deep in your cheek (which one is hard to say at times)

One thing you need to keep in mind for those linear marks to be made by a glacier is that that big empty basin in those graphics is filled with water and very, very deep. That would be one helluva glacier. And what would be causing this glacial cap/flow to move North with such overwhelming motivation? In need of a vacation in warmer climes?

Outcast's author, Dr Dr, seems to be intent on dismissing plate tectonics but isn't it possible that these lineations and undulating waves in the crust are physical representations of compression and bucking from convergence on the Indian plate? That tsunami the area had not so long ago (not to mention the earthquake just recently) are real indicators of the forces at play and that they are at play still....today.


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:11 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Tripp on 8:48 am on Oct. 11, 2005

"interesting no? "

No

This .. guy ..pieces together this article based on superficial references and allusion to OTHER data and evidences, none of which involve indicated conclusions.

He writes then as if this article were so self-evident in its simplicity that one *must* accept the conclusions


i've read the article a long time ago but what picked my curiosity was the possible conclusion about the rogue planet, i didnt even noticed that DrDr was a creationist... not that a creationist cannot make a good argument. anyway, i'll read it again more attentively but nevertheless i have no technical knowlledge in the subjects at hand so... i'll retire to my corner at the back of the room.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:52 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
IN regard to our discussion on the previous page of this thread, page 9, about Tiamat's origins, I thought you all might find this of interest:


<b><font size=+1>Giant impact added to Earth's core</font></b>
Anna Salleh
ABC Science Online
Thursday, 27 October 2005

<img src="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/space/earthcollision261003.jpg" ALIGN=RIGHT>

The planetary collision believed to have created the Moon may help to explain why scientists can't agree how old the Earth's core is.

Professor Bernard Wood of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia and Professor Alex Halliday of the University of Oxford in the UK report their research in today's issue of the journal Nature.

"You basically had two episodes of core formation," says Wood.

When the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth was a molten mixture of rock and metal. Over time, as the Earth cooled, the heavier metal gravitated towards the centre, or core.

Scientists have worked out when this happened by using 'clocks' based on the decay of radioactive isotopes found in the rocky part of the Earth.

These clocks were set ticking when the Earth's metal separated from its rock.

"You can calculate how far back core formation took place," says Wood.

But scientists came up with two different dates of when the core formed, depending on which isotopes they studied.

Studies of tungsten isotopes, formed from hafnium, suggest the core was formed 30 million years after the birth of the solar system.

But studies of lead isotopes, formed from uranium, suggest a later date of 80 million years.

Now, geologists Wood and Halliday have come up with a model they think explains this discrepancy.

<B><FONT SIZE=+1>Giant impact changes Earth's chemistry</FONT></B>

The researchers argue that while 99% of the core was formed when the Earth was just 30 million years old, a last bit of core was added later.

This late addition happened during an event, believed to have created the Moon, involving the collision of a Mars-sized object with the Earth at around 45 million years.

"This impact had a huge effect on the chemistry of the Earth, we believe," says Wood.

He and Halliday argue that the collision would have caused the metal in the Earth to mix with sulfur.

Wood says this in turn would have changed the ratio of uranium and lead, resetting the uranium-lead clock, giving the date of 80 million years for core formation.

The hafnium-tungsten clock was already dead by then, he says, so could not record the late addition to the core.

REFERENCE <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1491190.htm" target="_blank">ABC.NET.AU - News In Science</a>

(Edited by Tripp at 12:01 am on Nov. 2, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:15 am 

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Posts: 165
Location: Georgia
Interesting theory!

But my impression is that the collision of the moons of Niburu with Tiamat were much closer in time to their first visit to the "new" Earth than to the formation of the Solar System billions of years before.

My assumption is that the Anunnaki evolved on Niburu in another star system and were resident when it entered the Solar System. They later observed the collision of their own MOONS (NOT their planet) with Tiamat and the formation of Earth from the main residue. I don't see any need for the Anunnaki to have billions of years of knowledge of events in the Universe or any exotic technologies with which to determine it. To me, their report reads more like a first-hand observation.

These "radioactive clocks of Earth" are, then, really the nuclear decay of Tiamat's ORIGINAL constitution, plus that of the Niburu moon which may have stuck in it's core??? The nuclear chemistry of the "stuck" moon of Niburu - it being from another star system - would be VERY unlikely to resemble the age and/or nuclear profile of the Solar System???

The scientists in the article are basing all of their conclusions upon the assumption that the Solar System has been basically stable for a billion or two years. I think not.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:15 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Houston, Texas
According to "When time Began" Pages 4-6:
"Outlining the process by which our Solar System came into being, the long text described how the Sun ("Apsu") and its messanger Mercury (Mummu") were first joined by an olden planet called Tiamat; how a pair of planets Venus and Mars-("Lahamu" and "Lahmu") then coalesced between the Sun and Tiamat;...Tiamat, in the midst of that unstable planetary family, sprouted eleven satallites; one of them, "Kingu," grew so much in size that it began to assume the aspects of a "celestial god," a plante, on its own...The more the invader (Nibiru) was drawn into the Solar System's center, the more it was forced into a collision course with Tiamat, resulting in the "celestial battle." In the series of collisions, with the invader's satellites repeatedly smashing into Tiamat, the olden planet split in two. One half of it was smashed into bits and pieces to become the Asteroid Belt (between Mars and Jupiter) and various comets; the other half, wounded but intact, was thrust into a new orbit to become the planet we call earth ("Ki" in Sumerian); shunted with it was Tiamat's largest satellite, to become Earth's Moon."


Earth's moon was not a satellite of Nibiru but, a satellite of Tiamat (Earth) from the beginning. Nibiru brought the seed of life to Earth by crashing into it repeatedly but, no life was given to the moon because it was not directly involved in the "celestial battle". This could give reason to the different chemical makeups of the Earth and the Moon.

Brings to mind a question;
Would the Earth be the same as the moon had not the "celestial battle" occured?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr>"The scientists in the article are basing all of their conclusions upon the assumption that the Solar System has been basically stable for a billion or two years."<hr></blockquote>

If it was stable, where did the Mars-sized planet come from? (or go to?)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
BTW, I seem to recall that scientists used to cite something called the Roche Limit when trying to counter Velikovsky's theories; indicating that tidal forces would cause a planet to break up into pieces before it could collide with the Earth. They seem to have conveniently forgotten about this when putting forth their own scenario of "Worlds In Collision"!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:20 pm 
So. The Earth "burped" out its moon, while all the other planets "acquired" theirs. Interesting.


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:26 am 
<blockquote><hr>Quote: from <b>Mouton Bazile</b> on 10:24 am on Nov. 2, 2005


Earth's moon was not a satellite of Nibiru but, a satellite of Tiamat (Earth) from the beginning. Nibiru brought the seed of life to Earth by crashing into it repeatedly but, no life was given to the moon because it was not directly involved in the "celestial battle". <b>This could give reason to the different chemical makeups of the Earth and the Moon.</b>
<hr></blockquote>

The moon and earth are not at all so different chemically, In fact it is a compelling argument that the moon consists of the earths crust and mantle materials, which would accomodate a two-body collision leading to the formign of the moon. My post on page 10 of this thread, second one fromk the top, goes into how the earth and moon are chemically very much the same.

<blockquote><hr>Quote: from <b>Agnostic</b>

If it was stable, where did the Mars-sized planet come from? (or go to?)

<hr></blockquote>

Where do you have evidence that this Mars-sized (Mars?) planet was not basically stable in its orbit since the first stabilization of the planetary system? Why could not Mars have been formed from coalescence of materials in approximately that area of the solar system as it was forming? Sure, Mars has scars and shows clear evidence of a very sizable impact, but where is the evidence that Mars underwent repeated planetary interaction (even with earth) anywhere? Where is the evidence that venus was shot out of the Jupiter's navel, careened around the inner solar system and then suddenly discovered a stable orbit?

<blockquote><hr>Quote: from <b>Agnostic</b>

BTW, I seem to recall that scientists used to cite something called the Roche Limit when trying to counter Velikovsky's theories; indicating that tidal forces would cause a planet to break up into pieces before it could collide with the Earth. They seem to have conveniently forgotten about this when putting forth their own scenario of "Worlds In Collision"!
<hr></blockquote>

Agnostic, I get the feeling that you are a devout proponent of Velikovsky.

I have to ask.. "WHY?"

Disproving, discrediting and undermining Velikovsky doesn't take all that much effort at all. There are reems and reems of nonsense in Velikovsky's claims that are not only unreasonable and impossible and easily discounted. It is even easy to find contradictions within Velikovsky's own writings. I myself put together a a fairly long discussion dealing with Velikovsky and I only touched on the hightlights.

What you are overlooking in claiming a contradiction in the standard theory that a planet could hit the earth and eject the moon... is that the theory involves the earth (and peraps colliding planet) not being fully coalesced, or not entirely solid, although differentiated.


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr>Where do you have evidence that this Mars-sized (Mars?) planet was not basically stable in its orbit since the first stabilization of the planetary system?<hr></blockquote>

In the "fact" that it collided with Earth! Where do you have evidence that the planetary system was stable?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr>Why could not Mars have been formed from coalescence of materials in approximately that area of the solar system as it was forming? Sure, Mars has scars and shows clear evidence of a very sizable impact, but where is the evidence that Mars underwent repeated planetary interaction (even with earth) anywhere?<hr></blockquote>

We were speaking of a Mars-sized planet, not necessarily Mars itself!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr>What you are overlooking in claiming a contradiction in the standard theory that a planet could hit the earth and eject the moon... is that the theory involves the earth (and peraps colliding planet) not being fully coalesced, or not entirely solid, although differentiated.<hr></blockquote>

If I'm not mistaken, the Earth is still not fully solid. Doesn't it have a liquid core?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr>"... in which he claimed that a comet collided twice with the earth ..."<hr></blockquote>

NO! He said that there were near approaches, close enough for tidal and/or magnetic effects, not actual collisions.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron