When two bodies collide, the linear momentum of the new system is equal to the sum of the bodies' momentums. Keep in mind that velocity is a vector which means that it has direction as well as magnitude (AKA speed) -- I hope that that does not confuse you too much.
Again, you do not have to write so much.
What if the collision was between a moon-size or larger body and the earth? And they hit at an angle? Even at a 90° angle?
We already know that the Earth has a lot of water. So this adds nothing. Even if it is true.
It’s the sort of argument you wouldn’t bother with if you had anything worthwhile. But of course you don’t.
Your first sentence would sound better if it is a question. It is your second sentence that turned me off. I really don't like to reply when I see a person talk with that attitude. Why should I?
Well, so you are reverting to being a f*cking idiot by ignoring an honest assessment of your baseless assertions, showing them to be pure crap. You have no other recourse but to completely ignore the plain truth. Very telling, that.
Again, you do not have to write so much.
Yes, I do, because I am imparting information which requires a certain degree of completeness.
Of course, that is completely different from what you are doing, which is to advance your false religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity) through deceptive means while engaging in frantic hand-waving meant to distract us from the fact that everything you present is pure crap.
You seek to generate confusion and lies while I seek clarity and truth.
What if the collision was between a moon-size or larger body and the earth? And they hit at an angle? Even at a 90° angle?
Typical dishonest creationist trickery. You ask a question and then when you get the answer, you ignore it and throw out another question. You dishonest creationists are truly sickening.
Why should we constantly do your homework for you? Especially when all you do in response is to shit all over everything.
Do your own homework! Do the math yourself! Show us your results, including the values that you used in the calculations, the formulae you used, etc. Just as you would in doing homework in a science class, though I very much doubt that your shadow has ever darkened the doorway of any science classroom.
I don't think there is any fusion reaction at the center of the earth.
Of course there isn't. Why are you talking about fusion, introducing the question of whether there's fusion in the earth's core? Which there isn't. Rather, there isFISSION happening, but that is very different from fusion even though both involve the loss of mass through the conversion of matter to energy. Or don't you know that they are different? It is so difficult to guess which extremely basic and simple facts are completely beyond your ability to comprehend.
Just to clear up your attempt to misquote me (typical filthy creationist!), here is what I wrote in Message 2301 which you are misrepresenting (the word "fission" emphasized here in yellow):
DWise1 writes:
First, your idea that the earth is gaining mass is incorrect as we already established in Message 2280 so then you have no excuse for not knowing better. While the earth is gaining about 40,000 tonnes of mass per year through meteoric infall, it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions) and primarily through hydrogen and helium lost from the atmosphere into space. That results in a net loss of earth mass of 10,000 tonnes per year.
My source on that is this BBC article, Who, What, Why: Is the Earth getting lighter?. Since you will never read it for fear of learning something (your false religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity) does insist that you preserve your ignorance), here are some pertinent excerpts from it:
quote:By far the biggest contributor to the world's mass is the 40,000 tonnes of dust that is falling from space to Earth, says Dr Smith.
. . .
Nasa has calculated that the Earth is gaining energy due to rising temperatures. Dr Smith and his colleague Mr Ansell estimate this added energy increases the mass of Earth by a tiny amount - 160 tonnes.
This means that in total between 40,000 and 41,000 tonnes is being added to the mass of the planet each year.
But overall, Dr Smith has calculated that the Earth - including the sea and the atmosphere - is losing mass. He points to a handful of reasons.
For instance, the Earth's core is like a giant nuclear reactor that is gradually losing energy over time, and that loss in energy translates into a loss of mass.
But this is a tiny amount - he estimates no more than 16 tonnes a year.
But there is something else that is making the planet lose mass. Gases such as hydrogen are so light, they are escaping from the atmosphere.
"Physicists have shown that the Earth is losing about three kilograms of hydrogen gas every second. It's about 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen that the planet is losing every year.
"The other very light gas this is happening to is helium and there is much less of that around, so it's about 1,600 tonnes a year of helium that we lose."
So taking into account the gains and the losses, Dr Smith reckons the Earth is getting about 50,000 tonnes lighter a year, which is just less than half the gross weight of the Costa Concordia, the Italian cruise liner, that ran aground recently.
Clearly, compared to the immense size of the world, this is a tiny difference, a loss of just 0.000000000000001%.
So then the earth is losing mass, not "gaining" it as you keep asserting falsely.
And that mass loss in the earth's core is obviously due to FISSION (not fusion as you falsely accuse me of having stated).
The (OH) [not H] get into igneous rocks by water already existed in magma.
But you stll need another H to turn OH into HOH.
Juvenissun writes:
In general, the reaction is like this:
Wet-minerals + other minerals --> dry-minerals + H2O
That's too general. Be more specific.
Juvenissun writes:
This reaction needs input of energy.
So where does that energy come from? And more important, how does the timing work? What triggers that reaction to make the water for the flood? And even more important, what triggers the reverse reation that hides the water in the rock after the flood?
"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
The earth was hit by asteroids, moons, planets many many times.
Within human history? That's when you are claiming that it happened! So then just exactly when within human history was that? Moons? Planets? What moons and planets? Name them and when they had hit the earth. Many many times? Really? Name just one such event within human history since that is when you have been repeatedly claiming that it happened.
And as for what an asteroid hit would have done to the earth's orbit, I've already shown you conclusively and beyond the shadow of a doubt in my Message 2336 that that effect would be so minimal as to have virtually no effect on the earth's orbit.
Also, you took that from my recalling another clueless creationist having tried to argue that because ancient calendars had years 360 days long, then that meant that the length of the year had changed. Rather, those ancient calendars had breaks of a few days between each calendar, usually involving festivals, that would sync the next calendar up again with the seasons. Here again is what I wrote in Message 2302 and which you have quote-mined:
DWise1 writes:
Do you remember several months ago how somebody (creation?) tried to argue that the year used to literally be 360 days long and then something happened that suddenly changed the earth's orbit? He based it on how so many ancient calendars had 360 days. What he forgot was that those calendars also had intercalary days added at the end of the official year, usually in the form of a festival, to make up the difference and so the seasons would work out right. It turns out that they were really in love with the number 360 for its unique mathematical properties so they chose it for their calendars despite having to tweak it. Then Roman politicians politicized those intercalary days, declaring more of them to keep their people in power longer or fewer to get their opponents out of office sooner. So Julius Caesar established the Julian Calendar in 46 BCE, of which the later Gregorian Calendar is a refinement.
At no point was the actual physical year literally 360 days long, though it will be some time in the future.
That's right, they even have a special term for days that are stuck in between calendars or within calendars: intercalary days.
Why 360? Because ancient peoples loved that special number. It's evenly divisible by so many numbers: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, and 180. We still love that number since we use it to divide the circle into 360 degrees. They also loved the number 60, a factor of 360, which is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. We still love it such that we use base-60 (sexagesimal) in our system of time and angle measurement -- plus the numbers 12 and 24, factors of 360, are part of our timekeeping system.
So we do know the true story of ancient calendars having 360 days and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of your made-up bullshit nonsense.
Look at the geologic recent, how much orbit shift took place by the hit that killed dinosaurs 60 m.y. ago? We do not know because we do not know the direction of hit.
Like I said, I already crunched the numbers on that scenario in Message 2336 and found that the effect of an asteroid hit on the earth's orbit would be so minimal as to have virtually no effect.
Here are the actual numbers. I choose a frame of reference that sets the x-axis in the direction of the earth's original motion, such that its direction is zero degrees -- therefore the earth's original vector is (30,000:0) in meters per second. The maximum effect that an asteroid hit could have in changing the orbit would be if it hit at right angles, therefore at an angle of 90 degrees. Furthermore, I choose from Message 2336 the asteroid hit with the most effect, Ceres whose momentum would result in a velocity vector of (0:3.1423E-6) in m/sec. Adding those two vectors we get the resultant vector, (30,000:3.1423E-6), would be 0.0113 seconds of arc with a magnitude of 30,000 meters/sec -- ie, virtually no effect at all.
A careful study on the rate change of some key geological processes may reveal something about it.
You hypocrite! You are the one opposing any kind of study of those rates, let alone a careful study.
You dishonest hypocritical creationists are truly disgusting!
Edited by dwise1, : more explicitly specifying the velocity vectors in an asteroid hit also I had mistakenly used the mph speed for the Ceres vector, not the m/s
Edited by dwise1, : Added the units to the magnitude of the resultant vector
Edited by dwise1, : Should be 0.0113 seconds of arc, not 2.16E-5. Still insignificant.
Those were the moons and planets that hit the earth but just like the Biblical Floods no one noticed.
Sounds like that recurring theme in the revived Doctor Who in which cataclysmic events happen world-wide (eg, alien invasions) but then afterwards nobody remembers any of it. They've even hung a lantern on it a few times with the Doctor asking passers-by about those past events.
This clip explains hanging a lantern at about 0:50:
Like what Juvenissun and far too many other creationists do, except they keep forgetting the lantern.
or instance, the Earth's core is like a giant nuclear reactor that is gradually losing energy over time, and that loss in energy translates into a loss of mass.
But this is a tiny amount - he estimates no more than 16 tonnes a year.
it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions)
So you just had to misquote me, didn't you? Filthy dishonest creationist!
You misquoted:
or instance, the Earth's core is like a giant nuclear reactor that is gradually losing energy over time, and that loss in energy translates into a loss of mass. But this is a tiny amount - he estimates no more than 16 tonnes a year.
it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions)
The first quote is from the BBC article I cited and quoted from.
The second you lifted out of context to make it appear that I was saying something entirely different than I actually did say. That makes you a damned liar!
What I had actually written (the omitted parts in yellow):
DWise1 writes:
... it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions) and primarily through hydrogen and helium lost from the atmosphere into space.
So while you lied by misrepresenting me as attributing 50,000 tonnes of mass loss to fission reactions alone, what I had actually written was that the primary loss of mass from the earth is from hydrogen and helium escaping from the atmosphere. You lying piece of shit!
Also, what I had written was a repost from Message 2301 for the purpose of exposing your other lie about me that I was talking about a fusion reaction in the earth's core. I did not such thing, but rather I was talking about fission all along.
As it turns out, I was using a different source in Message 2301 which gave the same figures. However, I had misread the 50,000 tonnes loss as being the mass loss from the atmosphere and from the core. In this source from the BBC, they give the 50,000 tonnes as the net mass loss when you subtract the mass gain from the mass loss.
Either way, it still works out that the earth experiences a net loss of mass instead of the mass gain that you repeatedly and falsely claim.
You still have nothing to say about that? Except to lie about what others say. Typical creationist.
™ Version 4.1
