Some questions regarding your collision hypothesis.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:34 am
The following link provides a complete list of topics on this forum:
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts
What evidence lead you to believe that the earth was caused by the collision of planets?
Why do you believe that they were 5200km and 4371 in size respectively?
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?
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?
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?
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts
What evidence lead you to believe that the earth was caused by the collision of planets?
Why do you believe that they were 5200km and 4371 in size respectively?
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?
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?
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?