Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58
Like Tree8Likes
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: Formation of the Earth and Origin of Life - new hypothesis

  1. #1 Formation of the Earth and Origin of Life - new hypothesis 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    There is an interesting new hypothesis about the formation

    of the earth, that can explain the origin of terrestrial water

    and early life, based on a new theory of planet formation.

    This includes a new geological explanation for the origin

    of the moon. These are most important new discoveries.

    You can read a free PDF here:

    Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home

    Some anti-virus software products including the

    government-controlled "web of trust" give a warning,

    because there are files from the upload-area. You can

    ignore all warnings and open every file. I have opened

    everything and there is no virus anywhere. These are

    100% clean and safe pages.

    I recommend very much to read this article thoroughly

    and open the links inserted to see the peer-reviewed

    articles the author used as source.

    --- Geomensch


    Last edited by Geomensch; January 3rd, 2013 at 08:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    what are the points made?


    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Before even reading the document I declare I am extremely skeptical of any proposal that is self published on a blog, rather than within the pages of a peer reviewed journal. (If it were published in Nature, or Science I would only be very skeptical.) The author explains she believes research results should be freely available, which is why she is not publishing there. I find that unconvincing.

    Goemensch, are you the author, or do you have some association with her?

    If and when I can actually access the document I may comment further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I must say, just from a look at the front page, I'm thinking woo-woo.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I can claim to have read some of the 36 page document in question.

    Pages 13 & 14
    Loss of volume with increased gravitation
    accelerates the planet’s rotation. Centrifugal forces have their maximum effect at
    the equator. The prospective moon-material in the earth-interior has a different
    density. It slowly moves to the earth-surface. Along naturally grown fissures in the
    organic shapes of Pangaea the dried out lithosphere gets torn open. The moon
    emerges slowly, which causes a release of pressure in the earth-mantle.
    ..........
    Before the Pacific ocean-floor originated, the west coasts of North- and South
    America were located together with the Asian east coast and the Tonga plate. The
    “old hole” was still located in the middle. After the emersion of the moon in
    Permian the newly originated ocean-floors are driven symmetrically in opposite
    directions. The eastern parts of the oldest ocean-floors disappear under America
    filling the vacated space left by the moon. In the west at the Mariana- and Tonga
    Trench less material submerges, because the moon came from east moving
    westwards, when the eastward earth-rotation was accelerated. The Central Atlantic
    Ocean is above Jurassic Atlantic ocean-floor between West-Africa and the
    Caribbean. This is a trace of the moons pathway coming from beneath the Tethys
    ocean under the surface of Pangaea moving westwards along the equator closely
    under the surface and breaking it open before its complete emerging. This was
    possible because the planet-embryo already had certain suitable biogenic grown
    structures presented in chapter 4.
    (I think 'emersion' means emergence.)

    Page 18
    An important factor of growth including an increase of mass is the continuous
    photosynthesis taking in CO2 producing biomass taking in N2 and aerosols from the
    atmosphere into organisms producing sediments making the pressure and heat in
    the earth's interior increase due to their weight. Sediments feed the magma as low
    parts of the lithosphere are getting molten. The meteorites add a certain percentage.

    According to the neutrino-theory, particles coming from the sun make the earth’s
    interior grow with the moon working as lens focussing neutrino-beams

    I am not an astronomer nor am I any kind of physicist. I therefore offer no opinion on this content.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    For people not having studied these subjects reading this article only makes sense

    when opening every link to references inserted, where the author referres to many

    peer-reviewed articles. Therefore it would be better to not delete the topic on the

    geoscience- and astronomy-pages where qualified people can write comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Geomensch, I am removing your other threads that are copies of this one. This thread is enough and is in the correct section. Don't post any more copies of this thread please. Thanks
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    If you remove it there, not many scientists who have really studied the different subjects will take notice and write comments. This article is an interdisciplinary reseach-work about astronomy, astrobiology, earth-and planetary sciences AND paleontology. However here is a good place too and it should remain here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    As an old member here, I can assure you that you will get the best mix in this thread. It won't get any more attention in those sections. Thanks
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I can claim to have read some of the 36 page document in question.

    Pages 13 & 14
    Loss of volume with increased gravitation
    accelerates the planet’s rotation. Centrifugal forces have their maximum effect at
    the equator. The prospective moon-material in the earth-interior has a different
    density. It slowly moves to the earth-surface. Along naturally grown fissures in the
    organic shapes of Pangaea the dried out lithosphere gets torn open. The moon
    emerges slowly, which causes a release of pressure in the earth-mantle.
    ..........
    Before the Pacific ocean-floor originated, the west coasts of North- and South
    America were located together with the Asian east coast and the Tonga plate. The
    “old hole” was still located in the middle. After the emersion of the moon in
    Permian the newly originated ocean-floors are driven symmetrically in opposite
    directions. The eastern parts of the oldest ocean-floors disappear under America
    filling the vacated space left by the moon. In the west at the Mariana- and Tonga
    Trench less material submerges, because the moon came from east moving
    westwards, when the eastward earth-rotation was accelerated. The Central Atlantic
    Ocean is above Jurassic Atlantic ocean-floor between West-Africa and the
    Caribbean. This is a trace of the moons pathway coming from beneath the Tethys
    ocean under the surface of Pangaea moving westwards along the equator closely
    under the surface and breaking it open before its complete emerging. This was
    possible because the planet-embryo already had certain suitable biogenic grown
    structures presented in chapter 4.
    (I think 'emersion' means emergence.)
    Am I reading this correctly to mean that the earth literally gave "birth" to the moon?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I have read carefully some of the linked work and scanned it all. Here are my observations about the opening paragraph.

    Circle conclusions between geology and astronomy make believe the oldest rocks on earth were igneous rocks, which cannot be confirmed by the geo-chemical evidence any more.
    I challenge this statement. Geochemical and geophysical evidence point strongly to the Earth having formed from aggregation of chondritic meteors. Planetesimals formed from these underwent extensive heating, caused by kinetic energy of impact and short lived radioactive decay. The heating led to differentiation into core (siderophile elements) and mantle (lithophile elements). This occurred on a large scale with the formation of the proto-Earth. It is difficult to see how complete melting could be avoided, given the considerable kinetic energy involved in the aggregation process. What evidence are you using to support your contention that the first rocks were not igneous?


    The oldest Precambrian rocks are metamorphic. Due to previous heating identification as biogenic sediments is often difficult, although components can be formed by biomineralisation. Stromatolithes of the same age are definitely biogenic.
    This is illogical and factually incorrect.

    1. The biogenic origin of the older stromatolites is disputed. (I happen to agree with the assessment that they are biogenic, but this is not universally accepted, therefore the statement that they are definitely biogenic is an opinion, not an established fact.)
    2. Rocks considerably older than the oldest stromatolites are known. It is incorrect to state that some rocks of the same age as the oldest known rocks are biogenic.
    3. I know of no biomineralisation process that can produce minerals such as garnet, staurolite or orthoclase, to take just three examples.

    As astronomers used to try to generate igneous rocks in laboratory experiments, some geologists still assume igneous rocks were the first.
    This is very misleading.

    1. Researchers (who included more geologists than astronomers) not only tried to generate igneous rocks in the laboratory: they succeeded.
    2. There is no assumption present. A mass of observational, evidential and theoretical data point to igneous rocks being primary.
    3. “Some geologists” as a phrase suggests many do not think igneous rocks are primary. This is incorrect.

    In all laboratory experiments simulating the growth of planetesimals problems occur, although new ideas for suitable compounds are found and the experimental set-ups are improved.
    This implies that significant problems remain (a questionable suggestion) and that the current theory for the development of planetesimals is faulty (almost certainly not the case and certainly not demonstrated as viable here).


    For several reasons the resulting planetesimal-bodies don’t exceed a certain limited size.
    Several reasons? I suggest there is just one; once they exceed a certain size we tend to call them planets, or at the very least proto-planets. There are plenty of detailed computer models that are able to recreate plausible planetary systems from the formation and aggregation of planetesimals in the accretion disc through the accepted mechanisms of gravitational and collisional growth.


    In summary, in your first paragraph I find multiple instances of the following:
    1. Factual errors.
    2. Apparent misunderstandings and misinterpretations of current theory.
    3. Vague assertions and implications that should have no place in a scientific paper.

    On that basis I have serious doubts that the speculation – I hesitate to call it a hypothesis – has any sound scientific basis. I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but first I would like to see each of these damaging points addressed.
    adelady and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    The origin of the earth as well as the origin of the other rocky planets in our solar system

    could not be understood, because the hypothesis of dry accretion was missleading the research.

    It is right that chondrites consist of materials suitable for early rocks and probably planetesimals.

    Therefore we wanted to know, how chondrites formed in nature in the cosmos a long time ago.

    Many laboratory experiments and computer-simulations were developed to verify the hypothesis

    of dry accretion and the growth of planetesimals forming a huge globe with a diameter of many

    thousands of kilometers, but it could not be verified until now. On the contrary. The problem is

    that the growth of planetesimals doesn't work satisfactoryly in experiments and simulations.

    At the International Conference Planet Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems in Munich

    2012 many talks from many research institutes were given about the experiences in labratory

    experiments and computer-simulations trying to make planetesimals grow. All experiments

    and simulations had the same result: The planetesimals never exeed a limitid size (the limits

    were between a few millimeters and 200 meters maximum) because due to the necessary

    dynamics they drift apart from each other, so they don't collide any more. If the experimental

    setups are modified in a way, that they don't drift apart too far, they start destroying each

    other.

    One mineralogist from Heidelberg, Germany, expert for Chondrites, with a good sense

    of humor, wrote the following formular on the blackboard in the University lecture hall:

    "t-drift probably don't want t-grow".

    Therefore many astronomers say, we first need to find out the glue, that makes the

    substances stick together without needing to collide in the state of planetesimals

    destroying each other again. Some experiments were done with fluffy substances

    to reduce the destruction. The growth was better but not good enough. These

    experiments pointed in the right direction. Something soft like higher chain-

    molekules (organic matter?) have better chances to keep growing.


    The abundance of water found in protoplanetary discs allows new considerations

    about planet formation. Geologists looking for oldest rocks find metamorphosed

    rocks.

    The hypothesis of dry accretion and planetesimals forced them, to interprete basic

    materials to be of volcanic origin although secondary heating was possible as well.

    Many astronomers still feel forced to find some better theory (the old one is outdated)

    to make igneous rock only in order to fullfill the geologists' expectation based upon

    the outdated astronomic hypothesis.

    Therefore it is good to relax and make a complete new start

    allowing scientists from the other subjects to find new ideas

    and new explanations of how our planet came into existence.

    The following series of images doesn't show the oldest rocks,

    but it shows how much biogenic materials can be changed:

    Bedded Chert
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 3rd, 2013 at 08:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I notice you have chosen to largely ignore most of the points I have made. will you please address them.


    Please provide citations for the research that demonstrates a failure to grow planetesimals beyond 200m.


    Side note: can you try to do something about your formatting please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 3rd, 2013 at 12:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    thank you for the links. I shall study them over the weekend and respond on Monday.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    [QUOTE=John Galt;381319] "I have read carefully some of the linked work and scanned it all."

    Dear John, I am sorry to tell you, that you are not allowed to scan anything.

    Please remove it from your PC. The paper will always be available here:

    Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home




    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 10th, 2013 at 06:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    (I can't read the document because of our firewall but ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Page 18
    According to the neutrino-theory, particles coming from the sun make the earth’s
    interior grow with the moon working as lens focussing neutrino-beams
    This is obviously nonsense on many levels.

    Just for starters:
    1. Neutrinos interact very rarely with matter - they could happily pass through light years of solid lead without noticing.
    2. They are not "focussed" by the moon (see 1) and even if they were, that would only be relevant during an eclipse
    3. The mass of neutrinos passing through the earth is insignificant. Even the millions of tons of dust and meteorites that fall on the Earth every day have not added any significant mass to the planet.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    I wrote, the neutrino-theory says so. Meanwhile I completed the sentence with another one,

    saying that this could not be verified. For all other kinds of radiation moon causes a shadow!

    The tidal effect of the moon is the only verified finding.


    Some people using the Browser "web-of-trust" seem to have difficulties opening the page.

    Please let me know, if you can open this: Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home

    Someone told me, web of trust is a filter-system controlled by the government. Who would

    do such a job? Real scientists? No.

    I don't know, if this is true, but you certainly do better without. Deinstall "web of truth" and

    you will be always able to read the article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    I wrote, the neutrino-theory says so.
    What is "the neutrino theory"?

    Some people using the Browser "web-of-trust" seem to have difficulties opening the page.
    I don't know what a 'Browser "web-of-trust" ' is; I cannot access your PDF because of our firewall.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Who installed this firewall?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Who installed this firewall?
    The company. For security reasons. (And to stop people wasting their time reading irrelevant material!)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    I think about it. I will ask someone, what we can do for you.

    Can I make an upload in a place where you have access to?

    Kind regards - Geomensch
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    I think about it. I will ask someone, what we can do for you.
    How about just answering the question here

    What is the "neutrino theory"? Where id it come from and what evidence is there that neutrinos are focussed by the moon or have added to the mass of the Earth?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    It is the theory of Professor Konstantin Meyl, but it is not proven. There is no evidence.
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 8th, 2013 at 08:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    It is the theory of Professor Konstantin Meyl, but it is not proven. There is no evidence.
    And it is obviously nonsense. Why, therefore, are you referencing it in your work? Wouldn't you be better relying on established science rather than crackpots?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Because it is mentioned in Wikipedia.
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 8th, 2013 at 08:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Because it is mentioned in Wikipedia.
    Not really a good reason. All sorts of things are mentioned on Wikipedia. Some accurate and some not. That is why it would be better to rely on scientific sources.

    If you want the article as PDF write an email now.
    As I am not a geologist and because it appears you base your theory on any old nonsense, I don't see any value in reading it. But thanks anyway.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    It is based on scientific sources.
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 8th, 2013 at 08:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    I wrote, the neutrino-theory says so. Meanwhile I completed the sentence with another one,

    saying that this could not be verified. For all other kinds of radiation moon causes a shadow!

    The tidal effect of the moon is the only verified finding.
    Neutrinos are not shadowed or lensed by the moon. Tidal effects have nothing to do with either neutrinos or shadowing. Why did you bring it up here?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    I wrote: For all OTHER kinds of radiation moon causes a shadow.

    The tidal effect has nothing to do with neutrinos. But the moon

    has a tidal effect on the magma.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...09254112006262

    Fig. 10.jpg
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 10th, 2013 at 03:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    [QUOTE=Geomensch;382492]
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    "I have read carefully some of the linked work and scanned it all."

    Dear John, I am sorry to tell you, that you are not allowed to scan anything.

    Please remove it from your PC. The paper will always be available here:

    Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home
    1. When I say I have scanned it I mean I have read through the document using speed reading techniques that allow me to capture a flavour of its contents.

    I have, however, downloaded the document so that I can study it when I am offline. There is no wording that I can see on the site that indicates this is not to be done.

    For your information I have no intention of removing it from my pc since you have placed it in the public domain; you have encouraged me to read it; you have offered no clear statement prohibiting downloads; I am using it for the fair and reasonable pruposes of study; I have no intention of sharing it with any other party or of quoting from it, except selected excerpts for discussion in this thread.

    If you insist that I remove it from my pc I suggest you consider pursuing a legal action.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Okay. Then please delete the version you have and use the actual version.

    I have reworked it in some points to make my explanations more precise

    for better understanding. On my homepage you find the latest version.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    How about you actually discuss the points that are raised here, rather then repeatedly asking everyone to go to your website?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    If you can read, there is nothing to discuss. If you don't understand what you read,

    because you don't have enough technical knowledge to understand the text: start

    studying, or read something you understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Evolution and Geological Planet Formation
    So, a friend of yours liked your book. Cool.

    Now, about the questions that John and others have raised ...
    Last edited by Strange; January 9th, 2013 at 03:42 PM. Reason: Removed spam link from quote
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    If you can read, there is nothing to discuss. If you don't understand what you read,

    because you don't have enough technical knowledge to understand the text: start

    studying, or read something you understand.
    There is NEVER a point in science when everyone agrees and there are no questions. Saying so is just a way for you to try to avoid the questions asked. Stop being obtuse and start participating in the full discussion here.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    If you can read, there is nothing to discuss. If you don't understand what you read,

    because you don't have enough technical knowledge to understand the text: start

    studying, or read something you understand.
    So this is just spam advertising your book? You are not interested in discussing your "theory"?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Am I reading this correctly to mean that the earth literally gave "birth" to the moon?
    I have just skimmed this pathetic book. That certainly seems to be the case. Apparently, this was possible because the "earth's gravity was less" back then. Quite where the extra mass of the Earth came from isn't immediately obvious. I didn't want to spend too long reading it as I could feel my IQ seeping out of my ears.

    The stuff comparing the shape of the continents to fetal development might be interesting if you are a student of psychoceramics.

    Geomensch, I see you have still got the crap about neutrinos in there. You can't expect to be taken seriously if you rely on nonsense like that.
    adelady likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    I did not write, I would be relying on anything. On the contrary.

    I just made a collection of all suggested causes for an increase

    of mass, because this is an important question, to compare and

    see which one comes into consideration and which one doesn't.

    None of the scientists dealing with these questions was ignored,

    as I was in personal contact with each one of them for scientific

    exchange. Because they all helped me to complete my collection,

    they deserve to be mentioned here.

    I wrote: The neutrino-theory could NOT BE VERIFIED.

    Now I reworked the text once more for better understanding.
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 10th, 2013 at 01:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    Geomensch, do you intend at any point to address the questions that have been raised here?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    If your answer to my question is just to spam a link to the article I will suggest to the moderator team that you be banned and the links to your article deleted.

    I will ask one last time, are you going to address here ​the questions that have raised here?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    I have answered someone's question about the neutrino-theory first.

    So what is your scientific question now? Ask me your scientific question

    and I will answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    We are still waiting for you to address the questions raised by john in his second post.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    There is nothing in the agreements for members of this forum, that every question MUST be answered.

    Especially not in this case, because most answers are already in the article and some are given here.

    You behave like a judge, who can put up conditions and make decisions about an accused person. You

    make indecent insulting comments on other threads, which is definitly not in accordance with the rules.

    Anyway, I will repeat what I have already written: John's questions: ...

    Answer 1: Oldest metamorphic rocks can also stem from compressed sediments.

    Metamorphosis includes heating. I mentioned secondary melting of primarily

    biogenic sediments becoming magma, then cooling down again becoming

    igneous rocks. I inserted a link from Andrew Alden with an example of silification.

    Answer 2: Stromatolithes are definitely biogenic. I inserted a link from Andrew Alden.

    The only question was, if the fossils found were of the same age. I gave

    a link from Preston Cloud showing fotographs of these microorganisms.

    Answer 3: The hypothesis of dry accretion, planetesimals ... could not be verified.

    I inserted a link from the International Conference Planet Formation and

    Evolution of Planetary Systems 2012. I myself attended this conference.

    I explained the results in my comment above.

    Answer 4: Silicates can be biogenic (accumulated by diatoms, sponges and so on,

    link: Andrew Alden). Silicates can form by cristallisation in oversaturated

    solutions. Silicates can form in cooling magma, which consists of molten

    biogenic silicates.

    I am not responsible for people with difficulties understanding alternative ideas.

    It is not my job giving private lessons here. I am sure, John doesn't need you as

    advocate to insist on answering his questions. As I have more important work to

    do, I say Good-Bye !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There is nothing in the agreements for members of this forum, that every question MUST be answered.
    There is, however, common understanding of conventions and courtesies in on-line discussions. (This is not the only forum I engage in, I might add. And those forums are not all scientific ones.)

    I can assure you that it is the usual practice when someone talks about a topic based on a technical paper or report for them to be responsible for giving additional information and analysis. This is done by people asking specific questions and the person advancing the paper/report giving more answers for those specific questions. Sometimes they even introduce further paper/s or analyses to improve the explanation.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    I wrote: The neutrino-theory could NOT BE VERIFIED.
    That is ridiculous. The problem is not that it cannot be "verified". The problem is that it is just wrong. In fact, it is worse than wrong it is complete nonsense. By leaving this in there it makes a mockery of the idea this is a scientific document. You might as well include the idea that the Earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle. At least that is physically possible.
    adelady likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Academic communication has a different style than this one: Knüppel.jpg

    Please be aware that the Professor who developed the theory

    will read this book too.
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 10th, 2013 at 04:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    (Clubs Geomensch on the head)

    I'm sorry... what were you saying?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Academic communication has a different style than this one: Knüppel.jpg
    I am told it is much more brutal than that.

    Industry is bad enough: you certainly wouldn't get away with the nonsense in your book in any company I have worked in.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Academic communication has a different style than this one: Knüppel.jpg

    Please be aware that the Professor who developed the theory

    will read this book too.
    its a much more blunt and exacting style that what your finding here. The fact that some will also read this is irrelevant you do not have a viable hypothesis at this point as it is built on incorrect initial premises.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    You behave like a judge, who can put up conditions and make decisions about an accused person.
    This is a discussion forum. In posting a link to your speculation here the presumption is that you wish a discussion about your speculation to take place. Since this is a science forum such discussion is likely to be adversarial, skeptical and aggressive. That is the nature of the scientific process and it is mimiced on this this, a science discussion forum. If you are uncomfortable having your speculation attacked you might be best to withdraw from science entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Anyway, I will repeat what I have already written:
    What follows these words of yours is not a repetition of anything that I can find anywhere in this thread. Perhaps you failed to hit the correct key after writing the reply the first time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    Answer 1: Oldest metamorphic rocks can also stem from compressed sediments.

    Metamorphosis includes heating. I mentioned secondary melting of primarily

    biogenic sediments becoming magma, then cooling down again becoming

    igneous rocks. I inserted a link from Andrew Alden with an example of silification.
    You made a clear statement that the geochemical evidence cannot support the assertion that the oldest rocks to appear on the planet were igneous.
    1. You have failed to provide any of this geochemical evidence.
    2. I fail to see how the formation of metamorphic rocks from sediments has anything to do with the nature of the first rocks. Perhaps you will explain.
    3. The fact that some sediments may ultimately be transformed, at least partially, into magma does not mean that the first rocks were not igenous.
    4. The fact that silicification can occur and does occur, is not evidence that the first rocks were formed in this way.

    Frankly, I fail completely to see what point you are trying to make. The closest I can come to making sense of your intention is the following. Analysis of zoning in detrital zircons in the Jack Hills in Australia provide evidence for sedimentary deposits in an ocean at a time earlier than 4 Ga. However, that does not mean that sedimentary rocks were the first rocks to be formed. Indeed the researchers use the data, quite rightly, to support the contrary position. (Cavosie, A.J. et al Internal zoning and U–Th–Pb chemistry of Jack Hills detrital zircons: a mineral record of early Archean to Mesoproterozoic (4348–1576Ma) magmatism. Precambrian Research 135 (2004) 251–279)

    Answer 2: Stromatolithes are definitely biogenic. I inserted a link from Andrew Alden.
    The only question was, if the fossils found were of the same age. I gave a link from Preston Cloud showing fotographs of these microorganisms.
    The link from Andrew Alden! Firstly, I would have thought that in arguing the case for a novel idea you would have favoured links to peer reviewed research rather than casual items in About.com.
    Secondly, the link has nothing to do with stromatolites. What makes you think it does?
    Thirdly, the biogenic origin of the older examples of stromatolites is disputed. For example, Moorbath,S., 2005. Dating earliest life. Nature 434, 155
    Fourthly, in what way do photographs of the organisms constitute evidence for their age?

    Answer 3: The hypothesis of dry accretion, planetesimals ... could not be verified. I inserted a link from the International Conference Planet Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems 2012. I myself attended this conference.
    I explained the results in my comment above.
    I have reviewed much of the material you kindly provided links to. I apologise for the delay in my response, which I had promised for Monday. I have been beset by a viral infection that laid me low.

    All of the material I have seen deals with details issues concerning the formation of small clumps of material in the solar accretion disc. The researchers are not concerned with problems at the size range you refer to, but several orders of magnitude smaller than this. Moreover all the researchers do not see it as a insrumountable problem requiring a new paradigm, but rather a minor complexity whose details have yet to be worked out. At least one of the research teams seemed well on their way to finding such a solution.

    What makes you a) think their research relates to larger scales, b) think the problems they are investigating are insurmountable.

    Answer 4: Silicates can be biogenic (accumulated by diatoms, sponges and so on, link: Andrew Alden). Silicates can form by cristallisation in oversaturated solutions. Silicates can form in cooling magma, which consists of molten biogenic silicates.
    Most magma is silicate magma. What is your evidence that we have magma formed from biogenic silicates?


    I am not responsible for people with difficulties understanding alternative ideas. It is not my job giving private lessons here.
    As the promoter of an alternative idea you are responsible for communicating it clearly. So far you have been doing rather a poor job. That is not an insult but an objective observation. If you respond positively to the observation you can improve the presentation of your idea and increase the probability of it being accepted, or of clearer refutation of its basics being offered to you.
    Last edited by John Galt; January 10th, 2013 at 05:46 AM. Reason: Correct faulty quote format
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    My work is stuffed with links to peer-reviewed articles: Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home


    This here is no scientific discussion but a mobbing session. Where is YOUR evidence for what you beleive?

    All you are doing here is a winner-losser game, repeating continuously the same: "You failed and I won!"

    It is not the amount of scientifically significant argumentation but it is the amount of aggression in your

    kind of communication, that decides, who will declare himself to be a "winner" declaring the other one

    to be a looser in your game, who supposively "failed and failed". It is an important result in behavioral

    research: The amount of aggression decides, who will be the winner, and not the physical or intellectual

    strengh. This is where you go wrong with your conviction, that a scientific discussion may be aggressive.

    Your decision what you want to understand or learn was made right in the beginning. I feel sorry for you,

    who failed to learn anything.

    I inserted the link to your question about Stromatolithes IN MY PAPER. No, I did not make it available

    here, to discuss with arrogant people. If you think you know the ultimate truth about geology, think it!

    Beleive in what you beleive. It is not honest to declare this to be a so called scientific discussion forum

    and at the same time using it as a systematically working slaughtering machine with no other purpose

    than to maintain a certain hierarchy of opinions like in a gorilla pride. You have no respect. Anyone can

    do what you did here. You failed to do a good job, asking your questions in a way that allows to make

    things clearer than before.

    An ocean with moderate temperatures older than 4 Ga on an earth which did not even have enough

    time to cool down ??? : http://www.zgw-online.de/en/media/237-094.pdf

    End of discussion. I REALLY have more important things to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    In what way is asking perfectly reasonable questions a mobbing session?

    In what way is asking for clarification of obscuree points a mobbing session?

    In what way is explaining the ethics of a discussion forum a mobbing session?

    In what way is pointing out errors of logic in an argument a mobbing session?

    In what way is anything that I have posted a mobbing session?

    Geomensch, you appear to have some serious issues that extend beyond the poor quality of your presentation to date. I suggest you have two practical options:

    1. Set aside those personal issues for the present and deal directly with the reasonable points I have made about your posts and your speculation.


    Or,

    2. Abandon the discussion and the forum until such time as you feel a little better.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post
    This here is no scientific discussion but a mobbing session.
    Pointing out the factually incorrect information about neutrinos was an attempt to help you improve your document. But you decided to leave this meaningless nonsense in there. I cannot understand why.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    This is where you go wrong with your conviction, that a scientific discussion may be aggressive.
    I take it you've not attended many science conferences. Scientists are extremely aggressive on occasion.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH
    By Suhail Jalbout in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 362
    Last Post: January 9th, 2013, 04:13 PM
  2. How to prove origin of life on earth with quantum biology
    By Guohou Jiang in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: February 11th, 2010, 08:40 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •