What are the chances??

There is no question that meteorites that hit the moon could blast away
moon rock that will fall into the Earth gravity field.,and be found in
areas much like the Antarctic ice (where there are no rocks. So how
come when we find a meteorite we are told it came from Mars.? Moon
gravity (escape velocity) is less than Mars. Moon is millions of miles
closer. Is it all because it you want to sell a book Mars is a more
interesting object to talk about? Also keep in mind the moon does not
have an atmosphere to slow(friction) objects down. I think
man is possessed with his thoughts about Mars. It is red and that color
stirs up emotions Mars can spell war it you flip the "M" It was a
war semble in the old days. Truth is Mars surface other than its
poles looks very much like the surface of the moon. True it does change
with its dust storms,but its picture is dust and sharp looking rock
always. The change is more dust here or there after each storm. It is a
cold (like the moon) dusty dry surface.,and the first boot imprint(like
Armstrong's) on Mars will have the same look. The only difference will
be Mars dust will be deeper than the dust on the moon. I would
like to see more orbiters,than landers. I would like to know the size of
Mars core?. I would like to know how hot the core is?. I would
like to know why Mars does not have a magnetic field? This can be done
without landing on Mars. At this spacetime landing on Mars is to risky.
It uses up time. It tells us very little,and a well equipped orbiter can
tell us more. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
There is no question that meteorites that hit the moon could blast away
moon rock that will fall into the Earth gravity field.,and be found in
areas much like the Antarctic ice (where there are no rocks. So how
come when we find a meteorite we are told it came from Mars.?

Well, if one does the chemical analysis, one finds within those rocks said to be
from Mars the same chemical characteristics of rocks analyzed on the surface of
Mars, which happen to be different from those characteristics found in Moon
rocks. To be very specific:

"The dozen or so rocks that are claimed to have come from Mars all have certain
characteristics of meteorites - surface features, crystal formations, and
mineral compositions - that are not found in terrestrial rocks. One was seen to
fall out of the sky, so we know they are from space. Most are basaltic lavas
around 1.4 billion years old, which is much younger than common lunar rocks or
other meteorites. By 1980, scientists had posed the question, Where in the
solar system could there have been volcanism 1.4 billion years ago? Some
researchers suggested Mars. The large number of craters on the Martian lava
plains suggest that they are about 1.4 billion years old. Finally, the Viking
landers measured the composition of the Martian atmosphere, which exactly
matches the gas trapped in the rocks" ("The Universe Revealed", by Chris Impey
and William K. Hartmann).

Scott You know that the 830 LB of moon rock we tested is a lot
different than rock here on Earth. So why do astronomers keep telling us
the moon was once part of the Earth? Now that we are sure what
composition moon rocks have Why don't we find any moon rocks,in areas
like the Antarctica? Until you tell me otherwise I think Moon rocks
should be millions of times easier to find. Just think of distance. Just
think of gravity etc. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott You know that the 830 LB of moon rock we tested is a lot
different than rock here on Earth. So why do astronomers keep telling us
the moon was once part of the Earth? Now that we are sure what
composition moon rocks have Why don't we find any moon rocks,in areas
like the Antarctica? Until you tell me otherwise I think Moon rocks
should be millions of times easier to find. Just think of distance. Just
think of gravity etc. Bert


Actually, the sources I have here indicate there are quite a bit of similarities
between returned Moon rocks and terrestrial rocks, specifically those in the
outer layer of the Earth. The major difference is the paucity of water and
volatile elements in Moon rocks - there simply is none to speak of.

Second, there are meteorites recovered that seem to match the composition of
Moon rocks.

Scott My sources differ from your sources because I'm told there is a
"big" difference between Moon and Earth rocks. My source tells me there
is a rare element(can't off hand think of its name) that is rare on
Earth but not so rare on the Moon. This evidence is fudged over. For
some reason they love the moon being part of the Earth,and this big
chunk was chopped away from the Earths surface by being hit by a planet
that was three times the size of the Earth. This big rock was able to
go into orbit and we call it our Moon. They use this theory for
Pluto,and its Moon Charon. They don't use it for the gas planets. It is
a very bad theory. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott My sources differ from your sources because I'm told there is a
"big" difference between Moon and Earth rocks. My source tells me there
is a rare element(can't off hand think of its name) that is rare on
Earth but not so rare on the Moon. This evidence is fudged over. For
some reason they love the moon being part of the Earth,and this big
chunk was chopped away from the Earths surface by being hit by a planet
that was three times the size of the Earth. This big rock was able to
go into orbit and we call it our Moon. They use this theory for
Pluto,and its Moon Charon. They don't use it for the gas planets. It is
a very bad theory. Bert


Well Bert. I can provide you with the list of my references, including the
pages. The four I pulled off my bookshelf at random all said essentially the
same thing. IF there had been something special, I am quite sure it would have
been mentioned in at least a couple of them because it is special. They all
mention, for example, the paucity of iron, which would be consistent with an
impact knocking material off the top layers of a chemically differentiated
protoEarth. And, because you are so much in love with gravity, in the case of
such an impact, the iron from the impacting body would probably be drawn back to
the Earth more strongly than the lighter stuff like aluminum and silicates,
being thus incorporated in the iron core of the Earth.

So, what is your reference that sites something different in Moon rocks and
specifically what is that thing that is different.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Scott My sources differ from your sources because I'm told there is a
"big" difference between Moon and Earth rocks. My source tells me there
is a rare element(can't off hand think of its name) that is rare on
Earth but not so rare on the Moon.

Are you thinking of the KREEP samples?
K=Potassium
REE=Rare Earth Elements
P=Phosphorus

These were very prominent in Apollo 12 and 14 rocks.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
************************************************** **********

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Scott My sources differ from your sources because I'm told there is a
"big" difference between Moon and Earth rocks. My source tells me there
is a rare element(can't off hand think of its name) that is rare on
Earth but not so rare on the Moon. This evidence is fudged over. For
some reason they love the moon being part of the Earth,and this big
chunk was chopped away from the Earths surface by being hit by a planet
that was three times the size of the Earth. This big rock was able to
go into orbit and we call it our Moon.

It didn't go into orbit. Part of its core combined with earth's core. Part
of earth's outer regions and part of the impactor's outer regions splattered
into a million different directions, with a large portion of it going into
earth orbit. From there you had accretion, just as with the creation of the
planets in the first place. This accounts for:

(1) Oxygen isotope ratios being the same as earth.

(2) Lower density of the moon --- The earth retained its iron core, and much
of the impactor's iron core, while the moon is composed of the outer layers
which were blasted into orbit.

(3) Large angular momentum.

(4) Absence of water.

(5) Scarity of other relatively volatile elements.

(6) For the moon to have differeniated with the light crust, much of it must
have been molten at one point (accretion means impacts which mean a great
deal of ongoing heat production)

(7) Large size of the moon compared to earth.

They use this theory for
Pluto,and its Moon Charon.

No.

They don't use it for the gas planets.

For obvious reasons.

It is a very bad theory.

It is not only a very good fit with the data we have available, it is the
best fit of any theory.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
************************************************** **********

"J. Scott Miller" wrote:

Actually, the sources I have here indicate there are quite a bit of similarities
between returned Moon rocks and terrestrial rocks, specifically those in the
outer layer of the Earth. The major difference is the paucity of water and
volatile elements in Moon rocks - there simply is none to speak of.

Isn't the Moon also comparatively poorer in the heavier elements like
nickel, and correspondingly richer in the lighter (but still
non-volatile) ones like aluminum?

--
Odysseus

Hi Odysseus My sources tell me the moon is very deficient in nickel
and iron is these heavy elements went to the Earth's core before that
big planet collided with the Earth,and knocked out the moon. You know
Odysseus This crazy theory I think is much more far out than any of
mine. Still like any theory (mine to) can not go against evidence that
shows reality. Bert