Early Earth: 30 Million years to layering?

[yevaud]

<font color="blue"><b>Bonzelite</b></font><br /><br />*I'm going to try to begin using this style, made famous by both LuciusVerus and Veritassemper*<br /><br />I *like* playing around with ideas, they just have to conform to some modestly well-established standards, that's all. Within that framework, I am more than comfortable (and by that I do *not* mean, "beyond which is heresy," either). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<font color="green"><b>Spacester</b></font><br /><br /><i>I am definitely a not-even-an-amateur, I’m just trying to work thru the basic logic of the information presented here.</i><br /><br />I know. I get into fairly interesting discussions with you. Same with Bonzelite. My "rant" was more than anything trying to draw my intellectual "line in the sand," as well as a warning to Bonzelite - not that he hasn't already run into the situation before. Science-trained people can be very stubborn about certain things. I damned sure am.<br /><br /><i>So everything is assumed to have the same ratio of the precursor 146Sm when the solar system formed. We have recently discovered that the ratio of its decay product, 142Nd, to other isotopes, is not the same for Earth and Moon as it is for meteorites, it’s a higher ratio. Thus, something happened to cause the composition of Earth/Moon to diverge from that of the meteorites. Further, the measurements place this ‘differentiation event’ (my term) as ‘within the first 30 Million Years after solar system formation (meaning Sol is formed or that all the planets are formed?)’</i><br /><br />I will use this paragraph as a starter, but not include the rest (not a judgement, merely disinterested in typing a lot tonight). But I think I will answer what you mean, regardless.<br /><br />Well, look at it this way: we know that the solar system formed and accreted, as we have ample observational evidence - everything from Stellar Nurseries to T. Tauri stars in various stages of evolution. So at least that aspect of Protoplanetary development is likely correct.<br /><br />Now if the Collision Theory of Lunar formation is correct, a larger amount (edit: than is normal here) of lighter material may well have been carried away while Differentiation was occuring. Perhaps that abrupt heating (and heating there would be from the collision), the planet cooked off more of one isotope than another. <br /><br />Or, perhaps Earth is in a unique zone <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i understand. i can work with that as well. the ideas cannot be so outrageous as to be untenable. for example, "there may be dinosaur skeletons on mars" --probably not; to the extent of probably zero likelihood. <br /><br />"planets formed by magic merlin casting a spell" --probably not. <br /><br />planets and their moons may form very rapidly near the parent star, concurrently with the parent body, or may be mass ejections from the parent star: maybe in some cases. <br /><br />i'm taking the idea somewhat ripped off from CME events, taking the event farther and on a more grandiose scale --proposing that such accretion is a molten process from the very beginning and happens within tens of millions of years at most, with the initial molten mass being made available within a few seconds.. <br /><br />i don't think that the glacial pace of traditional accretion is necessarily the only context for accretion. some observed super-massive gas planets orbit extremely closely to their parent star, and with shockingly fast orbital periods. i don't see that relationship as being a slow and boring accretion process from gradual buildup. i think the buildup in those contexts is frighteningly quick. <br /><br />we have not abandoned anything, per se.

 

[yevaud]

<i>planets and their moons may form very rapidly near the parent star, concurrently with the parent body, or may be mass ejections from the parent star: maybe in some cases.</i><br /><br />Well, Protostars (Herbig-Haro objects) do tend to occasionally "spit," to my understanding, but...<br /><br /><i>i'm taking the idea somewhat ripped off from CME events, taking the event farther and on a more grandiose scale --proposing that such accretion is a molten process from the very beginning and happens within tens of millions of years at most, with the initial molten mass being made available within a few seconds..</i><br /><br />Well, yeah. But not right from the beginning. Space is COLD. At the early stages, Van Der Waals forces would have little effect in heating. Same with the very earliest accretions.<br /><br />But after that, collisions plus the increasing temperature of the Protostar would tend to make a great deal of the material quite hot.<br /><br />None of what you said is unknown.<br /><br /><i>i don't think that the glacial pace of traditional accretion is necessarily the only context for accretion. some observed super-massive gas planets orbit extremely closely to their parent star, and with shockingly fast orbital periods.</i><br /><br />Yes, but they may be unusual cases where a large amount of the material of the Protoplanetary disc was clumped for some reason, and accreted near the forming Primary.<br /><br />Of course, we *do* know that that's not the only morphology the developing Solar System can take. Obviously.<br /><br /><i>i don't see that relationship as being a slow and boring accretion process from gradual buildup. i think the buildup in those contexts is frighteningly quick.</i><br /><br />There is no reason to think that. Please don't assume that this scientific possibility just reported means that anything has changed, except for where it involves the amount of time that it took for Differentation. And it doesn't mean anything else. And likely won't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yes. i understand what you mean on all counts. new discoveries do not always mean that the entire of body of knowledge is now in peril and in danger of becoming quickly outmoded. <br /><br />were that the case, then nothing would ever be ascertainable at any given moment, and there would not be any consensus on what direct observation and experimental data may yield.<br /><br />i entertain the idea that after the initial spark of creation, if that is how it happened, the universe did not completely cool. instead, moments or regions of super-hot matter were flung out into the heavens for centuries and aeons --as in projectile like burning cinders of the explosive remains, ie, proto islands of starstuff. immediately. i know that current ideas prohibit immediate formation of anything so concrete. but it would be roughly equivalent to having a campfire with burning cinders rising in the air, then settling in nearby dried leaves and starting other fires. the cinders never cool or die, but birth new cauldrons of hellfire. on this scale, the cinders would be billions of years old. <br /><br />it may not have been this cold dark place, only to then find itself back to heat again as the theories suggest. the intermediary step of frigid dust that then collects in a disk, accretes, forms larger clumps, then under gravitational friction becomes molten --seems like a waste of time and effort, and an unnecessary step. is not dynamic but is plodding and nearly a snails pace of boredom.

 

[yevaud]

*One of My New Year's Resolutions - to be less of an SOB, but more agressive about Scientific Accuracy, instead of just observing and not commenting. And spend more time in these Forums again, Damnit!!!*<br /><br />Ok, glad we're on the same page then. It establishes a common bedrock for a debate.<br /><br /><i>i entertain the idea that after the initial spark of creation, if that is how it happened, the universe did not completely cool. instead, moments or regions of super-hot matter were flung out into the heavens for centuries and aeons --as in projectile like burning cinders of the explosive remains</i><br /><br />Sorry, Cosmology and Inflation Theory aren't my speciality. I know them, but topically (in an eduated sense, that is). Besides, this is an entire seperate thread unto itself. Start one, and I'll try to participate. But this is where Saiph, Jonclarke, DrWayne, Telfrow, and several others should join. If you want a real scientific debate, that is (e.g., more than simple ole' me).<br /><br /><i>it may not have been this cold dark place, only to then only find itself back to heat again as the theories suggest. the intermediary step of frigid dust that then collects in a disk, accretes, forms larger clumps, then under gravitational friction becomes molten --seems like a waste of time and effort, and an unnecessary step. is not dynamic but is plodding and nearly a snails pace of boredom.</i><br /><br />Yeah, well, Physical Theory cares not for our opinions, not to mention whether or not we're bored. It merely IS.<br /><br />As far as "wasting steps," oh no, not at all. Remember, there are major changes of state in forms of space and matter dependant on temperature. Each had some influence on where we are today and how we got here. And time is relative. You may not see it, and I may not see it. But our lifespan is less than the blink of an eye to the processes that collectively are the Universal "all."<br /><br />(*Boy, I ought to patent that last line, and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

*Bump for DrWayne Apology* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Sorry sir, I was shaving and taking a bath, the monthly stuff doncha know. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Maybe I ought to take a picture, its the best I have looked all year.<br /><br />I have been reading / lurking about this exchange. I have found it fascinating, as much for the exchange/discipline/restraint that I see. It has been inspiring.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

By the way, I can not tell you how many times at work I find myself repeating that quote from Spock in "City on the Edge of Forever" - and state "I am a fool!"<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>"I am a fool!"</i><br /><br />On a daily basis, brother, on a daily basis... <br /><br />(Which meant, btw, "Me Too!") <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Yeah, well, Physical Theory cares not for our opinions, not to mention whether or not we're bored. It merely IS. </font><br /><br />indeed, yes. 'tis true. it's fun to imagine stuff, though.

 

[bonzelite]

by the way, hello, dr. wayne. <br />

 

[yevaud]

If this is to be a serious debate on this, I will PM all of the mentioned participants. I warn you, there will be times you will be terribly pleased with out collective answers, and also times you will be pissed off. Your choice.<br /><br />*Mostly because I either want to be in a thread that progresses in a scientific debate, or I will simply find/start another of my own* <br /><br />Edit: as part of trying to improve SDC back to some of it's old standards, I may make this PM'ing of participants a semi-regular thing. We should all talk about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

*Bump again for good reason* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

why hide the information for only the professionals? most people here, as laypeople, would probably find it fascinating all the same. <br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Sorry, Bonz - I am trying to lead you down the scientific "Primose Path."<br /><br />You'll be dreaming Proton Storms and D-Branes in no time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>why hide the information for only the professionals? most people here, as laypeople, would probably find it fascinating all the same.</i><br /><br />Not - never - hiding a thing. Ever. I am big on scientific disingenuity, and there are expert poseurs here at SDC (bw warned). They will slightly alter a physical theory, or post a comment out of context. And it's very easy to fall into their trap. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

ok. <br /><br />if you do create a totally pm'd thread you can send it on to me as well. i will respect your professionalism and not pop off at the mouth. i can save whatever annoying digressions into fantasy or creative conjectures for other threads. <br /><br />i'm open to learning whatever you have.

 

[yevaud]

No, not a totally PM'd thread - inviting a number of respected posters to this one. Totally public, just as we have been so far.<br /><br />Needless to say, if I PM them, I would expect they'd do the same to me here and there down the line.<br /><br />Besides, that conjecture is a good thing. It's the foundation of scientific progress. <br /><br />What I suppose I meant before was the "This <b>IS</b><br />" stuff, in a generic sense. Way too much of that around here lately. You've probably read a lot of it yourself.<br /><br />So I figured this is as good a thread to try a new thing in as any (e.g., I have picked this thread as a good place to start). New Year and all that.<br /><br />*Pick this back up tomorrow* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

right. i understand. <br /><br />

 

[spacester]

<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

All the requested participants have been PM'd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

So, to begin this again. The original post by Spacester was:<br /><br /><i>Wow, it looks like there is a radically new view of the early Earth. It turns out that better measurements of the mass 142 isotope of Neodymium leads them to think that the crust formed much earlier than previously thought. Only 30 Million years after the solar system was formed!<br /><br />Are they are saying the Moon was formed even earlier? If one assumes the thinness of the crust is due to the moon-forming impact, wouldn't that be a logical conclusion?</i><br /><br />Science Daily Article<br /><br />Here are my own views on this:<br /><br />1. I find this quite interesting. However, I don't see this as "radical." An important contribution to a known body of science, yes.<br /><br />2. It may well be that the impactor that calved off Luna was earlier than previously thought. Or not. Each for a variety of reasons.<br /><br />3. That the most curious aspect of this all is that the isotopic ratio for the Earth-Moon appears to be somewhat different than that of various Carbonaceous Chondrites. Why? Again, various possibles for this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

Well, I've read through the thread, and basically, you're square on the mark Yevaud.<br /><br />It merely means the differentiation phase happened a bit differently than previously thought. This shifts time tables around a bit, opens up some questions, but doesn't make any radical change to the theory, merely tweaks a part of it.<br /><br />I don't know if we can say anything about how it affects the time of the Luna creation event...as that's a pretty vague and broad time period anyway (and while widely believed to be quite credible and probable, isn't really confirmed anyway due to lack of data) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Yeah. But since it was mentioned, I thought I'd try to idly throw out some thoughts on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>