Antarctica is melting

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Ah yeah. Oxford reject vs UoW Success.

That's not even remotely true Do remind me, do I still earn twice as much as you do?

[Solly]

2:1 vs 2:2 ? Suppose a Desmond is a real flyer in the job market

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
2:1 vs 2:2 ? Suppose a Desmond is a real flyer in the job market

You forget about the masters and all the experience though. It's never posed me too much difficulty. Tell me, do I still earn twice as much as you do?

[Ecthy]

PH Spink KH Winston

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by Whoha
theres some speculation that atlantis is under the antarctic sheet. some Turkish admiral had accurate maps of the coastline of the land mass under the 3 mile ice sheets 500 years ago, or so I've been led to believe.

Does accurate and Turkish belong in the same post?

[Berzerker]

It's not scientifically possible for a large object to disrupt the tides without also more forcefully disrupting the Earth's orbit. Gravitational forces are inversely proportional to the square of the distance, but tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. That's why the Moon has a bigger effect on the tides than the Sun, despite the Sun having more gravitational influence on the Earth.

The Earth has been struck by large objects, are you suggesting the Earth did not form in its current orbit? And I'd still like to know what you think qualifies as a significant disruption of Earth's orbit because right now we're debating your definition and you wont give it, i.e., your argument is pointless. Besides, when I speculated on what would happen to the ice shelf if a large object passed near the poles, I was not arguing there would be no effect on Earth's orbit. You just made that up to argue against...

[KrazyHorse]

are you suggesting the Earth did not form in its current orbit

Yes. Or at least he should be.

[KrazyHorse]

I was not arguing there would be no effect on Earth's orbit

Unfortunately for you, there is a supreme lack of evidence of any relatively recent significant perturbations in the Earth's orbit.

[Berzerker]

I was speculating on what would happen, not what did happen.

[Berzerker]

Yes. Or at least he should be.

So what does the evidence suggest about where (or how far from the sun) the Earth formed?

[KrazyHorse]

First off, due to tidal locking and slowly reducing mass of the Sun the Earth has moved significantly outward from its initial mean distance.

Secondly, there have been some massive perturbations in the past which are probably the source of the maximal eccentricity of the Earth's orvit. The largest of these is the impact which ejected the mass which is now called our Moon. Direct evidence for the Earth's initial orbit is lacking due to the inchoate nature of planetary bodies in our Solar System at that time.

Any event which had occured much more recently than that (say, in paleological time) would have left huge marks on the Earth's orbit.

[Berzerker]

First off, due to tidal locking and slowly reducing mass of the Sun the Earth has moved significantly outward from its initial mean distance.

Secondly, there have been some massive perturbations in the past which are probably the source of the maximal eccentricity of the Earth's orvit. The largest of these is the impact which ejected the mass which is now called our Moon. Direct evidence for the Earth's initial orbit is lacking due to the inchoate nature of planetary bodies in our Solar System at that time.

Given "2", how do you know the Earth moved outward from its initial distance? It may have moved outward after the orbit became more stable, after the major collisions, but I'm interested in where it was before the collisions. And this major collision, it would have left a ring of debris orbiting the sun, true? Is there evidence of such a ring of debris orbiting the sun?

Any event which had occured much more recently than that (say, in paleological time) would have left huge marks on the Earth's orbit.

Dont the vast majority of ring systems and satellites follow equatorial orbits? Why doesn't the moon if it formed from a debris ring resulting from a collision between Earth and another body? Why did the moon suffer such severe damage on the side facing us now and not the other? The moon is out of balance with the heavier side facing us, just as if it was struck by objects bearing heavier materials. And doesn't the evidence suggest the moon suffered major impacts at roughly the time the Earth was struck? I thought the main collision(s) occured 3,9 to 4.1 billion years ago followed by several hundred million years of lava outpouring to form the maria.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The Earth has been struck by large objects, are you suggesting the Earth did not form in its current orbit? And I'd still like to know what you think qualifies as a significant disruption of Earth's orbit because right now we're debating your definition and you wont give it, i.e., your argument is pointless. Besides, when I speculated on what would happen to the ice shelf if a large object passed near the poles, I was not arguing there would be no effect on Earth's orbit. You just made that up to argue against...

A significant orbital change in this context would be one that induces severe climatic changes which basically dwarf any 'tidal' effects.

I'm curious as to exactly how this tide-induced global warming of yours actually works. A strong tide would probably just go around Antarctica, rather than breaking up the ice sheet.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Given "2", how do you know the Earth moved outward from its initial distance? It may have moved outward after the orbit became more stable, after the major collisions, but I'm interested in where it was before the collisions.

We'll never know. But the Earth is moving outwards now. And that won't have changed.

And this major collision, it would have left a ring of debris orbiting the sun, true? Is there evidence of such a ring of debris orbiting the sun?

Most of the debris fell back to Earth. Most of what didn't fall back down, went into orbit around the Earth, eventually coalescing into the moon. That which escaped our orbit went in every freaking direction several billion years ago. Anything which remained in our orbit would have been swept up eventually. There are plenty of other Earth-orbit crossing asteroids that may have resulted from the impact.

You're really embaressing yourself here.

Dont the vast majority of ring systems and satellites follow equatorial orbits?

All ring systems are temporary. The Jovian planetary rings are decaying or being destroyed by various moons.

Why doesn't the moon if it formed from a debris ring resulting from a collision between Earth and another body?

Because we didn't get hit directly on the ecliptic?

[Berzerker]

A significant orbital change in this context would be one that induces severe climatic changes which basically dwarf any 'tidal' effects.

Perhaps (you got proof?), but I was citing one possible consequence of such an object passing by and you jumped in to "refute" me by pointing how the climate would be effected in other ways resulting from the near miss? So what? :roilleyes:

I'm curious as to exactly how this tide-induced global warming of yours actually works. A strong tide would probably just go around Antarctica, rather than breaking up the ice sheet.

Tide induced global warming? Ice sheet? Where did I say all that? And where did I say this object would not effect Earth's orbit? You have a habit of making stuff up and attributing it to me.