> I went so far as to present it at a guest lecture in The USA to an audience of planetary scientists.

> They were very polite. They told me it was essentially impossible, but gave me credit for trying.

> - The killer argument is that the studies of the Proto-Earth - Thea collision show that yes, a lot of material gets lofted into orbit, forms a planetary ring, and condenses into a moon, but 90% of the material falls back to Earth, so it's impossible to strip-off more than 10% of the crust. The sort of model you're going for needs 70% removal. You can discriminate between metal core and everything else, but that's it. The surface stuff can't be peeled off and collected.

YOU ARE REPEATING MY ARGUMENTS! You have not read my paper, you have not even read my last post, and you believe that I am just another idiot/troll. If you give me your phone number I will patiently explain my theory on the phone. My theory claims that this was NOT a HARD collision between two SOLID bodies, but a SOFT collision between the Earth and a cloud of GAS. The source of the gas was improbable collision between rocky core of a giant comet (I call it Theia) and the Moon (Proto-Moon). The velocity of the gas was so high that it became plasma when it hit the Earth. The plasma etched the front of the Earth and its sides, but it could not etch the back of the Earth because the Earth shielded itself from the plasma. (Plasma etching is commonly used to fabricate integrated circuits.) THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE SIAL REMAINED ON THE BACK 30% OF THE EARTH.

> Nick Hoffman wrote:

> - Even if it was, the Earth wouldn't stay as a featureless globe. Plate movement and volcanism have been conclusively shown to dominate over sedimentary transport. The nature of the Earth is to scrape its continents together into as small an area as possible.

OF COURSE! YOU ARE REPEATING MY ARGUMENTS AGAIN!

> Nick Hoffman wrote:

> Learn about Plate Tectonics and Geology. it's a widely-researched science. Your comments about Australia and the Himalayas are so wrong they're "not even wrong".

> Where do you think Granites come from?

I believe that the young, hot Earth was covered with liquid sial/granite. When the Earth cooled, its entire surface was covered with solid sial. Now only 30% of the Earth’s surface is covered with the sial (continents). Where is the missing sial?

> Nick Hoffman wrote:

> Why should the Earth stop being a dynamic system after a collision?

I believe in plate tectonics, but a quick estimate (mentioned in my paper) indicates that the sial/granite is not strong enough to push one giant sial plate on top of another giant sial plate. When two giant plates collide they crumble like the Himalayas.

> Nick Hoffman wrote:

> Why should there be any granite left?