Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by The Imp, May 4, 2010.
Really? I wonder how they found that out
Man, I don't know. That sounds kinda kooky, and hella hard to provide empirical evidence for.
In the above study, they depleted deuterium in the water to extend the lifespan of poisoned worms via aging and metabolic pathways.
Looks like there is some patent covering its use in treating high blood pressure, but otherwise it looks like it just isn't really good for you at all.
How would an ascent to orbit look on Titan? Rough look of the craft?
But you are assuming rock that didn't form in water exists? I know we dont have much rock from that period, but the rock we do have formed in water. That does not tell me the surface was rocky with some "puddles", it tells me the water covered the surface. And thats exactly what I'd expect from a planet forming further away from the Sun, not closer.
I dont think the Earth formed here, I think it formed where our water formed - near the freeze line. And if thats the case, I believe the Earth accreted in the presence of plentiful water and had miles and miles of water covering it during the later stages of that process. Now if you're right that the Earth formed here along with a majority of its water, how do you account for deuterium levels indicative of an origin at the asteroid belt? Outgassing on a planet 1 au from the sun would not have water from the asteroid belt, and not much water to begin with given the early solar wind.
Your description of what is required to move the Earth here from the asteroid belt involves a larger object on a retrograde path. If this process (the LHB) was a continual accretion event, why does the Moon show evidence of a large impact on the Earth?
So retrograde orbits of long term comets - roughly half if not more? - does not suggest another retrograde object influencing them?
Do Saturn's rings (equatorial plane) point to Pluto near the latter's perihelion? There are other relationships between the two, like subtracting Saturn's distance from Pluto's creates a 2:1 ratio, and they share similar ascending nodes. How does angular momentum rule out a Saturnian origin for Pluto?
The water didn't form here, how could the Earth outgas water that formed at the asteroid belt? And until we find rock that didn't form in water, why should we assume water wasn't present when rock did solidify into a crust?
and it didn't get a majority, or most of its water from outgassing if the Earth formed here.
So recently I have been playing with a University TaeKwonDo club, and today I was told by the head dude there that it takes only 7lbs of pressure to break a collarbone.
Obviously I assumed that was utter BS and smiled and nodded. Upon getting home I googled and came across the same value of 7lbs. Now this makes no sense whatsoever, if it really only requires 7lbs of force I should be able to break someones collarbone just by pushing on them fairly casually. In fact if it's even in the same ball park then most anybody should be able to break bones just by pushing on someone, forget even hitting them.
How is this number being calculated and how might we get a more realistic one?
Just randomly speculating in a sleep deprived state, but 7 pounds of pressure isn't a very precise statement. Does it mean 7 PSI? Or 7 pounds applied to a very small area? Or perhaps 7 pounds just to break the bone itself, outside a body.
They use it in particle detectors to spot neutrinos and possibly other particles. They carve out giant caverns underground and fill them with heavy water and line the cavern with light detectors. When a neutrino hits a heavy water molecule, it knocks off the extra proton and emits a blue flash that the detectors spot.
The Moon bears witness to a whole bunch of impacts across it's history (including a bunch from the LHB), not a single massive terrestrial impact. There was a single massive impact on the far side, but that doesn't rule out the LHB.
In your above paragraph, by terrestrial do you mean 'Earth' or simply land?
Edit: Double Post, please delete
Indeed, I assume it means 7 pounds of force. Also what it takes to break a bone outside the body would be irrelevant in the context I heard it in. Which brings us back to the mystery...
I assume he means the existence of the moon? Since it was supposedly created by a large collision.
Will my person ever be in the same place more than once?
terrestrial = earth, or this planet before the lhb ~4bya
and the moon's history is much more tied to the lhb, thats when the side facing us now got slammed by debris from an impact(s) on the earth big enough to create the maria we see now.
Didn't they just finish a mission measuring lunar gravity to determine whether the maria were from the impact of a hypothetical second moon Earth may have had that formed in conjunction with the first?
That is a big leap of logic to make there. With a sample size of 1, that is simply not enough to say definitively that the surface is covered in water.
Let me show you why you cannot make that assumption with that logic.
If you took a random rock sample from Earth today, and declared whatever you found to be the entire surface of the Earth. Chances are, you will have found one which formed in water. Therefore, modern Earth is entirely covered in water. Therefore, there can be no fire-using intelligent species because fire cannot burn underwater. Therefore, humans cannot exist.
You must take information from multiple sources to draw a conclusion, not just one. Earth cannot have formed in the outer regions as mentioned earlier. Parts of the surface could have been dry simply by proposing the existence of highlands, or an asymmetrical surface where water will collect, kind of like how the surface is asymmetrical today. It's not a very big leap of logic to assume a non-isotropic surface, is it?
Let's reverse this for a moment.
If you are right, and the Earth formed at the Freeze line and migrated inward, this will imply that Newtonian Mechanics is terribly wrong at the domains which observationally it has never been wrong before. How do you account for the angular momentum loss?
This is fundamental physics, not something which can result from many different processes. The calculations provided on deuterium levels in primordial Earth's location at 1 AU might have been off. The calculations for deuterium migration from LHB might have made incorrect assumptions. Maybe only a small fraction of Earth's water formed at larger distances, but at a very deuterium enriched region, and then accreted by Earth. There can be many explanations, while your proposed solution either ignores angular momentum, or requires a rather extreme event to take place that is essentially inconsistent with itself.
If you're referring to the Giant Impact theory, that took place a billion years earlier than LHB. When such events were actually possible because of the dynamical relaxation processes going on near the end of the majority of the mass gain/loss. That was the result of the instability of the L3 Lagrange point, so the orbital motions are going in mostly similar directions, and therefore have no extreme angular momentum changes. This also allowed sufficient time when the solar system was sufficiently crowded that Earth's orbit had time to circularize by interactions with other bodies nearby.
No, because nearly random motions in a spherical cloud turns out to be roughly 50/50 chance of going either in your direction of motion, or not.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is purely coincidental. The relationships have no physically significant way of being related to each other.
Let me clear this up again.
Saturn's rings "point" to Pluto near the perihelion is purely coincidence because of orbital precession of orbiting bodies, much like the moon "perfectly" (not really) covers the sun during the occasional solar eclipse. Eventually, Saturn's orbit will precess such that it will not line up with Pluto anymore, likewise with Pluto.
It is entirely a timing issue. The orbits will precess, and soon they will not line up, much like the moon in the past will produce much longer total solar eclipses and can never produce the Baily's beads/Diamond Ring effect because it was closer and not any in the farish future because it has drifted far enough away.
Angular momentum rules out Saturn from Pluto for similar reasons as to why the Earth cannot have formed at 3 AU, except even worse. (You will find that migrating things inward is far easier [but still quite difficult] than migrating things outwards from an angular momentum perspective. This is why the formations of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune was so difficult to solve, and there is still a lot of debate over it.) It requires an object moving in a pro-grade motion at high velocities in extreme excess of orbital velocities. For an object as large as Pluto, that would imply a very, very, very large mass. Then you need a mechanism to alter its orbit again, at its current present orbit. Comparing the age of Saturn's rings, that would also imply it happened in the recent past, about a billion years ago by examining the dustyness of the rings from asteroid impacts. The density of the Kuiper belt is simply not high enough to produce that.
Now we have proven using Newtonian Physics that Pluto being ejected from Saturn's orbit is impossible in the mechanism required to form the 2:1 distance ratio (Note: Earth and Jupiter is 5:1 at perihelion. Simply finding cute number patterns doesn't guarantee a relationship, especially if you have to do convoluted subtractions that make no physical sense), unless if you can come up with a physically and mathematically consistent way to describe how the 2:1 distance ratio can form (more significant are 2:1 resonance ratios with orbital periods, not distances, and no subtracting out orbits), it can only be regarded as a curiosity and coincidence.
No, the Earth's outgassed water mixed with the water that formed from the asteroid belt. It's not water and oil, they mix, and you have to consider relative abundances of each, not assume it is all or nothing.
You're assuming that a single paper is so infallible in its calculations that it overturns centuries of Newtonian mechanics.
Yes, they did. It was something like the far side of the moon impacted with the second moon to create those craters. Though I need to read the actual paper, rather than a popular science magazine.
The previous theory was that the crust of the moon is thicker on the far side than the near side due to the process which tidally locked the moon, so impacts on the far side are less likely to be erased by lava outflows.
This better not be philosophical...
I may be wrong, but I believe he's assuming that because it plays into his pet theory about how the world was created in accordance with the Babylonian creation myth (you know, those people who knew about the existence of Pluto, no less).
You are free to choose an appropriate coordinate system where the answer is yes. Otherwise there is no way to put a mark into space to define a specific place.
If humans ever invent viable fusion power, will Helium be one of the byproducts?
Well, considering that that is what hydrogen fusion does.....
Separate names with a comma.