How the moon was formed

On Friday, June 6, 2014 3:55:18 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
Despite the insane ramblings of Goth and other halfwits, the

overwhelming evidence says that the moon was formed during an

encounter with the proto-earth and a Mars-sized object.



The resulting ejecta later coalesced into our moon.


So why is it the rocks on the Moon are older than those on the Earth?

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
...

On Friday, June 6, 2014 3:55:18 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
Despite the insane ramblings of Goth and other halfwits, the

overwhelming evidence says that the moon was formed during an

encounter with the proto-earth and a Mars-sized object.



The resulting ejecta later coalesced into our moon.


So why is it the rocks on the Moon are older than those on the Earth?

Double-A


*** Says who ??? Is that one of your scientific observations
or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...



On Friday, June 6, 2014 3:55:18 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:

Despite the insane ramblings of Goth and other halfwits, the



overwhelming evidence says that the moon was formed during an



encounter with the proto-earth and a Mars-sized object.







The resulting ejecta later coalesced into our moon.





So why is it the rocks on the Moon are older than those on the Earth?



Double-A





*** Says who ??? Is that one of your scientific observations

or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...


I state only facts here, Hagar.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
...

snip inane AA drivel


*** Says who ??? Is that one of your scientific observations

or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...


I state only facts here, Hagar.

Double-A


*** If you can read, read this, you dumpster diving
douche bag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

This is from people who get paid for thinking, unlike
you and your free loading ilk ...

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:28:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...

I state only facts here, Hagar.

Double-A

Fact; Earth has several teratonnes of lunar basalt and carbonado, and it is nothing like any terrestrial basalt because moon basalt and carbonado is highly paramagnetic with a density of roughly 3.5 g/cm3.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:52:39 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:28:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:



or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...



I state only facts here, Hagar.



Double-A



Fact; Earth has several teratonnes of lunar basalt and carbonado, and it is nothing like any terrestrial basalt because moon basalt and carbonado is highly paramagnetic with a density of roughly 3.5 g/cm3.

You are full of ****. You just have a fetish for the sound of the word "carbonado". And FYI, all basalt is paramagnetic.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:17:14 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:52:39 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:28:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:



On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:







or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...







I state only facts here, Hagar.







Double-A



Fact; Earth has several teratonnes of lunar basalt and carbonado, and it is nothing like any terrestrial basalt because moon basalt and carbonado is highly paramagnetic with a density of roughly 3.5 g/cm3.


You are full of ****. You just have a fetish for the sound of the word "carbonado". And FYI, all basalt is paramagnetic.

I actually have some of it, because it's not all that uncommon. Would you like a sample?

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 5:03:40 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...



snip inane AA drivel





*** Says who ??? Is that one of your scientific observations



or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...





I state only facts here, Hagar.



Double-A





*** If you can read, read this, you dumpster diving

douche bag:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis



This is from people who get paid for thinking, unlike

you and your free loading ilk ...


From the very article you cited:

"There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant impact hypothesis, however.[5] The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of magma; yet there is no evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle. At present, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include when the Moon lost its share of volatile elements and why Venus, which also experienced giant impacts during its formation, does not host a similar moon."

Double-A

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:17:14 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:52:39 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:28:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:



On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:







or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...







I state only facts here, Hagar.







Double-A







Fact; Earth has several teratonnes of lunar basalt and carbonado, and it is nothing like any terrestrial basalt because moon basalt and carbonado is highly paramagnetic with a density of roughly 3.5 g/cm3.



You are full of ****. You just have a fetish for the sound of the word "carbonado". And FYI, all basalt is paramagnetic.


The basalt here in the Columbia River gorge

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rown_point.jpg

has magnetic properties too. In fact the ash I collected that blew off Mt. St. Helens,

http://www.history.com/topics/us-sta...-helens-erupts

which was undoubtedly pulverized basalt, had particles in it that responded to a magnet I had.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 5:03:40 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...



snip inane AA drivel





*** Says who ??? Is that one of your scientific observations



or have you been plagiarizing GuthBall's regurgitated drivel ...





I state only facts here, Hagar.



Double-A





*** If you can read, read this, you dumpster diving

douche bag:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis



This is from people who get paid for thinking, unlike

you and your free loading ilk ...


From the very article you cited:

"There remain several questions concerning the best current models of
the giant impact hypothesis, however.[5] The energy of such a giant
impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of
magma; yet there is no evidence of the resultant planetary
differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle. At
present, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant
impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon.
Other remaining questions include when the Moon lost its share of
volatile elements and why Venus, which also experienced giant impacts
during its formation, does not host a similar moon."

Double-A


*** Because they simulated the impact theory on a military
computer (authorized share-time) a it took a number of
scenarios to get it right, but when they finally dialed in the
correct size of the impacting proto planet, its speed and
the angle of impact, the Moon theory was proven beyond
a shadow of doubt. It is also thought that the metallic core
of the impactor merged with that of the Earth, leaving the
Moon with no core to speak of.
Because of that is is assumed that the Moon cooled much
faster, and as the material cooled it also shrank, creating
internal cracks, which crackpots like GuthBall mistakenly
interpreted as a "Hollow Moon", because of a ringing,
which was detected during echo soundings and is caused
by said internal fissures.