There May Be an Ancient Earth Inside Earth

[apokalypse]

A team of Harvard scientists believe the remnants of an ancient Earth, dating to the time another planet collided with ours to produce the moon, may still be lodged deep within the Earth’s mantle

http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/06...rd-scientists/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609113347.htm

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/echoes-anci...mantle-1451918


interesting isn't it? this whole Inner Earth thing we have talked about already and recently they came out with Water near the core and this.

[Azt]

It is a possibility but when "Harvard scientist" says this

dating to the time another planet collided with ours to produce the moon

we need to watch out as they might be forcing the truth with a lie .... (as usual)

A collision and then the moon is formed PERFECT rounded and in the perfect distance from the EARTH (to have crucial influence in everything down here) Uh.... I do not buy that from Harvard....

[AriG]

That is an amazing concept. Wonder if any of Earth's prior inhabitants survived and evolved...Reptilians perhaps? Maybe these underground bases are actually theirs.... You know, the US doesn't like to invest in infrastructure and takes years to upgrade two miles of highway...if another species evolved over time in that environment, they would certainly know how to manipulate it better than we...

I wouldn't worry too much about the Harvard connection. All the Ivy Leagues are trying to separate themselves from the powers. They see the futility in backing a lame horse.

[phillipbbg]

"That is an amazing concept. Wonder if any of Earth's prior inhabitants survived and evolved."

Maybe we are the survivors...

[Agape]

What if ... it did not happen 4,5 billion years ago . The time when we arrived here first of all and the Earth was quite barren except for plants and I can't recall whether it had any Moon at that time , was barely hundred of millions years ago .
What if .. it was the 'time before time' still recalled in many aboriginal legends and yes how would they remember if no one survived . And if they survived the cataclysm , even if it was huge it could not 'evaporate' half of the planet .
How possibly would our ancestors say they remember such things, otherwise ..

[onawah]

Except that the Moon is pretty obviously not from this solar system, which Harvard researchers should realize.
But if such a collision actually occurred, I would think it doubtful that anyone would have survived.

[Fairy Friend]

Actually, the composition of the Moon is almost identical to the composition of the crust of the earth. Which is why scientists have been thinking the moon formed somehow this way. One theory believes a planet was forming in a similar orbit and was pulled together into Earth (or vice versa). Another theory believes that Earth had two planets orbiting in the same orbit (twin) but one was faster than the other and therefore collided. This would have been at the beginning of the formation of the planets themselves and the birth of our solar system. The earth got the inner part of the other planet giving us a higher concentration of nickel and iron in the core and helped form Earths magnetic shield. Heavier elements (Like nickel and iron) go to the core and lighter elements (like silicone and carbon) will rise to the crust.

[Sunny-side-up]

I'm not thinking very well at the moment so maybe please forgive me but! Earth hit by small planet sized object 4.5B years ago! Age of Earth stated as 4.5B years, well Earth must be older for there to have been something to be hit?

[panopticon]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
I'm not thinking very well at the moment so maybe please forgive me but! Earth hit by small planet sized object 4.5B years ago! Age of Earth stated as 4.5B years, well Earth must be older for there to have been something to be hit?

According to the Giant Impact Hypothesis the early Earth (known as the proto-Earth) was hit by a planet of similar size just after it started to cool. At the time it is thought that the Earth still had a largely molten surface due to the high degree (pardon the pun) of volcanic activity. The impact hypothesis is still being investigated but recently evidence of a slightly different Oxygen isotope ratio between the Earth and Moon might indicate that the hypothesis is correct (source).

So, to answer the question. If the hypothesis is correct then the impact event occurred while the solar system was still forming and the Earth was still cooling which would be around 4.5 Billion years ago. Maybe a better name for the early planet than proto-Earth might make it clearer but according to the hypothesis the end result (ie the Earth-Moon system) is what we got.

Hope this has been useful.

-- Pan

[Matt P]

Please keep in mind, when trying to square this with age numbers that have been brainwashed into people, that "they" have NO IDEA how old the earth is, how it formed or what the composition is, nor how the moon formed, where she came from, how she got there, how and why she's different than every other moon in our solar system, etc. It is ALL speculation so any theory is welcome, in my opinion.
Here's some of mine...The earth may be MUCH older than claimed. See yesterday's thread about human tools found in 300 million year old rock and coal. If the moon and earth are made of similar materials (shocker), perhaps all planets are made of similar materials (shocker). I personally put very little value on anything from Harvard. They are full of lying globalist fake reality control matrix enforcers. That being said, sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut and this is an awesome thread topic! Go Hollow Earth!!

Matt

[Hervé]

From another thread about said collision:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]

Arrggghhh!

Going down to nanoscale and missing the woolly Mammoth in the room:

How do they know said zircon originated on Earth since "they" presuppose the latter is a hybrid generated by interplanetary collision?

This implies that there are inherited materials from the impactor especially if the latter was already "solid."

This leads to consider that Earth might also have been "solid" prior to impact and "re-melted" upon impact....

Etc...

[panopticon]

Posted by mpennery (here)
See yesterday's thread about human tools found in 300 million year old rock and coal.

The thread in question is here.
Fancy that, I actually know something about this particular artefacts history...

The "artefact" is commonly referred to as the "London Hammer" and is held at Carl Baugh's 'Creation Evidence Museum of Texas' (page here or Don Patton's page here).

The owner of the London Hammer is creationist Carl Baugh (who claimed to have a Masters Degree in Archaeology from Pacific College [a non-existent degree mill]) and supported by that upstanding pseudo-scientific proponent of creationism Don Patton (who has equally shonky "Dr" credentials).

I could spend many hours regaling about the "London Hammer", Baugh and Patton but I don't have much time so instead would point out that the way the original story is related is questionable (there is more than one version), the rock formation does exist however there is no evidence that the hammer was ever embedded in it at depth, the rock type in this formation can absorb objects (see below from Cole 1985), people who have examined the hammers handle report seeing no evidence of petrification/"coalification"/fossilisation (including Creationists) and Baugh's website reported that a C-14 dating test was done (though there is no evidence of this nor the alleged metallurgical analysis supposedly undertaken) that returned inconclusive evidence (saying the hammer was between 700 years and modern but not 100 million years old or even 5000).

That's about all I know and all I needed to in this case. Baugh & Patton still go on about it but as far as I know they have no evidence to support their claims. Baugh keeps saying he's going to have it carbon tested though I'm not holding my breath. Cole (1985) did a brief examination of the rock that the hammer was allegedly found in and reported:

The answer is that the concretion itself is not Orriovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble. This is analogous to stalactites incorporating recent objects in their paths as they grow. The rapidity with which concretions and similar types of stone can form is evident in soil caliche development.
J. R. Cole, 1985. p, 46. Source

Yes, the Earth could be a lot older than the hypothesised 4.5 Billion years. However, I have not seen any evidence to support that theory. Please direct me to some if you have it because usually the discussions I have are with persons arguing that the Earth is much younger (in the thousands of years) so any help in references to longer time lines would be great.

I hope someone found this interesting.

-- Pan

[Fairy Friend]

Let me clarify, the Earth and the moon are not made a similar materials. The moon is made of materials only of the Earth's crust, not materials of the inner core. The planets do not have exactly the same materials to each other especially the inner and outer planets. Hope this helps with the confusion.

[sirdipswitch]

In accordance with the opening question, yes there is. It's called inner earth, (Agartha) and there's a whole bunch of really nice folks livin in there. chuckle chuckle.

[ghostrider]

A remnant of the old lyrians it is said , live in an underground city under the mountains of India , the blue skinned people ... they are linked to the people of Atlantis and Mu ...