At www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3127256/Brimstone-really-DOES-li… …. a story sent in by member Gary (and can also be found at PhysOrg). The earth's core has large quantities of sulphur – ten times the amount in the rest of the planet.
As the core is at the centre of the Earth how did they find out? Indirect geochemical methods were used. To begin with it is known the core is too light to be made entirely of iron and nickel and a reason for this was sought – involving suggesting other elements within the core. One of these was sulphur, others were silicon, oxygen and carbon. However, to account for the sulphur a catastrophic collision in the distant past must have occurred. This, they claim, was a collision with another planet sized body which caused a piece of the Earth to become dislodged – and became the Moon. The impact, it is theorised, melted Earth's mantle – and allowed a sulphur rich liquid to form and some of this found its way into the core.
The Daily Mail seems to quote the authors as if they were unassailably correct – but it is a hypothesis. Obviously, they support the notion the Moon was not captured but was formed out of the Earth (a theory that is not universally accepted).
However, there is a second fundamental assumption. Isotopic ratios of elements in the mantle (or geology thought to have an origin in the mantle) is similar to that found in some meteorites. Variation in mantle material (and in meteorites) raised issues with their research and they hit on the idea of using copper – as it is often associated with sulphur. As sulphur has been found in meteorites (and comets) and these are believed to be objects with a history going all the way back to the early solar system formation which is taken to mean they must have a similar composition as early Earth (also formed during the early solar system formation). And so on.
This is not the only catastrophic encounter visited upon the Earth as www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630264.000-dual-asteroid-strike-hints-a… … gets into the act. Suddenly, Worlds in Collision doesn't appear so far fetched and is becoming more real by the day.
This time twin asteroids struck the Earth. This occurred much more recently than the Dinosaur clout as the impacts gouged out the Popigai crater in Siberia and the Chesapeake Bay crater on the east coast of N America. It had been proposed that a single asteroid was responsible, splitting into two pieces. However, research on the ground has shown one crater was formed by an iron rich object and the other was not. That they occurred close in time is accepted in this new theory – but the claim is that two asteroids were involved is proposed instead of a single one disintegrating. The fact that Earth might have had a bashing from at least two asteroids over a close period of time is where the chaos in the solar system hypothesis is derived. They even say that a change in Earth's orbit might explain the Ice Ages (or at least the icing over of Antarctica at 35 million years ago). Are they talking about Pole Shift – surely not. No, they are talking about Earth's orbit around the Sun changing due to the chaos in the solar system – but what caused it to happen. A near collision (per Velikovsky)?