Archimedes wrote:What evidence lead you to believe that the earth was caused by the collision of planets?
The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the Pacific Ocean.
The impact mountains around the entire Pacific Ocean, i.e., the ring of fire.
The fact that the oceanic crust is of a totally different composition to the continental crust (the continental crust is original PreEarth crust; the oceanic crust is a mixture of material from PreEarth and Heaven).
The breakup of the crust on the side opposite the impact, which explains the apparent movement of the continents. That is, it explains continental drift.
It explains why the core is rotating faster than the mantle above it."When the planets collided, obviously their outer layers impacted first. Thus, the outer layers sustained a large change in angular momentum, as their spins clashed. However, this change in angular momentum was not transmitted, in full, to lower layers, as there was slippage at layer boundaries. In particular, the mantle-core boundary would have been prone to such slippage. So, in the first moments of the collision, the mantles would have been slowed relative to the cores. The fusion of the cores would not change this, and thus, the Earth acquired a core that rotated faster than its mantle."
Archimedes wrote:Why do you believe that they were 5200km and 4371 in size respectively?
See the section "Determining Their Size." of http://preearth.net/
The basic idea is that today's continental crust when pieced together will reconstruct the unimpacted side of PreEarth.
Therefore, the area of continental crust (which is well known) determines the size of PreEarth (which then pretty much determines the size of Heaven).
Archimedes wrote:Why do your calculations involve putting them near each other and then crashing into each other instead of crashing into each other at high velocity from a distance?
Tidal friction causes Heaven to spiral down into PreEarth. Heaven has some kinetic energy at impact.
The "putting them near each other" is just a way of getting figures for the energy from the time of impact onwards. Try doing it some other way. If you can, I'm interested.
Archimedes wrote:Upon what basis are you concluding that one would have simply neatly been absorbed into the other without disrupting the surface and would merely cause an expansion of the smaller body and not the ugly messy violent collision I imagine it would be like?
The surface was significantly disrupted. What do you think the Pacific Ocean is? Yes, it is an expanded impact crater.
Archimedes wrote:Just why would the surface not be affected by the huge rise in temperature caused by the collision - do you have work to show that the heat would be dissipated the way you claim it would and not the way others have claimed it would?
Most of this energy went straight through the skin (crust) and into the interior.
Just like a bullet goes through the skin of an apple and does not melt it (the skin of the apple).
In this analogy, the main difference is that the mass of the apple and bullet are so large, that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity.