If as I am proposing that somewhere in our history we were a non rotating orbiting planet. Could I not take this opportunity to add a dash of imagination to the proceedings and take you to a land far far away where the moon was the cause of mass species extinction.
Now children if we're sitting comfortably Mother's hour is about to begin.
So; once upon a time we had a globe with one land mass upon it. Now we all know what happens to mass on a rotating object do you remember going to the carnival and kepping balance upon a shifting platform, or attempting to stand on the rotating log well nigh impossible without lots and lots of practice. so how do you think such a globe would spin children?
That's right Joe Public.
Erratically, and we can't envisage it spinning like that, can we? And Joe public what about the water?
Well it would splish splosh all over the place would'n't it.
So children if we had but one land mass we can't have the water all splishy splashy there must be for the action of such weight what Shakespear put into language as; an equal and opposite reaction and a very clever man named Isaac Newton made up the start of some rules for this so we'd eventually learn how to play 'catch this nuclear bomb, 'cos i dont want it'. Which is a very bad game.
So teacher there must have been sumfink on the other side innit!
That's right Joe public and the area of mass must have been exponentially larger, in order to counterbalance such weight mass density ratios and you know the only one that fits the evidence is ice, you know under the rules of the 'circus ball' that mass would have spun around around the planet pell mell. Hence my hypothosis of a non-rotational but orbiting planet.
So children back to the moon only this blue moon did'n't leave us standing alone. No it bumped/crashed into us and hit the pacific ice cap, the side i think was always facing the white star of our binary system.
The evidence of such large land animals without the acceleratory mechanisms of a bone structure to the inner ear i feel gives weight to this argument in my view the inner ear being the 'tempo' needed to counteract fluid mechanics (the "circus ball').
So if i'm right about the moon hitting us the initial impetus would give us timings outside of our normal readings ie: the splits that tore up the singular land mass would have happened at a greater rate than we presume at the moment.
Post rotation i feel the animals would have had a higher rate of mutation and the planet would have had a faster geo activity than we give credence to today.
To take mineral and arborial evidence.
To create the coal seams we see today the fall of vegitation must not only have been spectacular it must have been some spectacular vegitation falling, to consider an autumn metaphor since the leaves turned it must have been some leaf fall. suggesting a height to rootball ratio unimaginable on a rotating planet.
It is known that the composition of moon rock is a lot harder than that found on Earth. what if that was the core of the white star .
The poetry and symetry of such notions appealed to me. To whit that the centre of the white star hit the pacific ice cap and nudged us forward about 1mml and started us rotating and perhaps creating a static or contra-rotating core with a viscous magma acting as both lubricant and counterbalance creating a gyroscopic effect.
Which leads me to the notion that the moon's push against us creates a tidal push back rather than attraction. somehow a gyroscopic effect was needed and happened in order to keep the stability that leaves us still around to discuss imponderables. With that it's goodnight children wherever you are.