Most things can be linked to me.

I'm afraid to say that this was infact caused by my playing an exciting game on the PS3, whilst doing so i nodded off and knocked into mars.

Mars battered, huge stick of rock involved !

Apologies to you foreigners who won't get the food references.

Or is something that size only a planet when an american discovers it?

This is karma for evicting our dainty neighbor on the outskirts of town. Except that he knew it was going to happen 3 billion years ago, and sent his drunkard brother-in-law in our direction.

Fortunately for us, the poor bastard was so lit, he ran into the wrong planet.

See what can happen when you don't use your hands-free set? Have a care!

It can't be Bar Billiards, there are no holes on the table and none of those little wooden things that you can knock over.

Therefore, they're playing snooker where the holes are out at the edge where we haven't found them yet.

Therefore, we're safe.

Mars is red and since he failed to pot it, he can't go for a colour on the next shot.

Where's the picture/diagram or model reconstruction ? You can't expect us to read all those words.

There used to be 10 planets. Pluto's brother-in-law had his status as a planet demoted by the Martians. In a fit of drunken rage he smashed into their planet for revenge. We had better hope Pluto stays sober.

On a serious note. Someone mentioned the theory that the moon was formed by something Mars sized hitting earth. I seem to remember similar evidence of a fairly big impact to the planet Mercury, assuming they haven't demoted Mercury yet. I wonder if Venus has a similar impact. That might suggest the rocky planets originally form in pairs that eventually slam into each other with the larger one surviving.

The first video looks like continental drift. Either that or some alien piss drunk dinged the side of Mars on his way to a party at Venus. :)

Cheers,

John

Have you actually read that nealadams site?

That is the maddest lot of badly argued, inconsistent, unverifiable, thick, clap trap I've heard since last I went to a creationist site.

And I mean creationist. none of that sophisticated and balanced ID debate.

The style is identical of course.

Just to check - Neal Adams is a (very talented) artist and animotor who has an opinion on early Earth geology, and quantum physics (pair creation), and is utterly at odds with the consensus view in both cases?

Interesting.

To answer your first point, finding something hard to believe does not influence it's likelihood or truth value. It is simply a reflection on your intellect. Oh, and you shouldn't be believing it anyway - you should be assessing the theories, and considering the concepts in light of evidence, and how closely the theory predicts reality.

Doing this will put the 'alternative' theory in a very poor light. Not least as it would result in an increase in Earth mass, which would affect the orbit, causing the climate to change rather dramatically. No, lots more dramatically than it is at the moment, and much slower.

For others who haven't visited the site - don't. It isn't worth it to understand why I'm on a soapbox.

Get back to Dave Lister - the pool ball theory actually makes more sense.

As far as Adams goes... He just seems to be a talking head for a movement of "over 1000 geologists" who have solid scientific evidence that supports this theory. Who knows who these geologist are and why he is a spokes person for the "movement," but it does offer an alternative view point to the tectonic drift theory.

My greatest interest is more in seeing the scientific method played out well on both ends. If you are a student of history you will recall how Galileo insistence on the Earth revolving around the Sun, was a major paradigm shift in this area of thinking. The point is that "Sun Around the Earth" and the "Earth Around the Sun" theories BOTH had major holes in the theories at the time, (lack of solar parallax for starters); so does the Tectonic Drift and Expanding Earth theories. Which theory has the greatest probability.

The problem that exists today is that scientist and spokespersons (especially Adams) make emphatic statements that say "this is the way it happened, there is no other possible way." The scientific method deals with probabilities, which theory has the greatest probability. Does one answer questions that the other cannot? Will investigating both theories allow for a more accurate picture be drawn?

I think the site is worth the visit ... http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

PAX

I would like to see that. One planet crashing into another has got to be one of the coolest things you could possibly witness.

Thanks for the voice of sanity and reason.

Good thing I wasn't on that planet 3.9 billion years ago then!

Yes, it's Jupiters fault apparently.

He's going to pull off a shot that might take us or Mercury with it. Although it might just pot it in the Sun or lose it off the table altogether.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13757-solar-system-could-go-haywire-before-the-sun-dies.html

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

Someday.

I still remember that planet collision on the TV show Space 1999. Was exciting as hell! But then I was at the age of 10.

Uh, no, it wasn't paradigm shifting.

The Mayans knew. 5000BC

The Greeks new 3000BC

The Arabs knew 1000BC

Heck, the CHURCH at that time had theologians who knew.

What got the church's knickers in a twist was Gallileo putting his work in common Italian, rather than Latin (which only the scholars could understand).

scientist 1 - "i believe mars was irrevocably altered by a pluto sized rock."

scientist 2 - "I see no evidence that such an event ever occurred."

scientist 1 - "Oh yeah? then where did all the Martians go?"

scientist 2 - "hmmm... good point..."

"One planet crashing into another has got to be one of the coolest things you could possibly witness." ... preferably from a significant distance, a third planet even; but certainly not from the surface of either of those involved in the collision.

Postulation: maybe Mars was the object and what it hit has since been moved on. (additional reference "cannon shot above")