Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 01/02/2016 5:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
My question is, if the isotopic evidence which was used to create the
Theia Hypothesis in the first place, due to a previously perceived
difference in isotopic abundances,

The isotope ratios are _at least_ very similar, now seemingly
identical within measurement accuracy. This tends to support the
Theia hypothesis. If the Moon formed on its own and was somehow
captured by the Earth, it would be expected to have very different
isotope ratios.

The Moon capture hypothesis was only one such hypothesis. That one would
still be excluded by this recent finding.

Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

This site even says that if the isotope levels are different, then the
above theories would be unlikely, but now that the isotope levels are
similar, those theories come back into play.

Theories of Formation for the Moon
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Yousuf Khan



The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth.

Dear The Starmaker:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 12:12:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
....
The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth.

And the oceans on the moons of Saturn and Jupiter...?

Your supposition is at odds with Biblical text. I don't suppose that matters to you...

David A. Smith

The Starmaker wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 01/02/2016 5:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
My question is, if the isotopic evidence which was used to create the
Theia Hypothesis in the first place, due to a previously perceived
difference in isotopic abundances,

The isotope ratios are _at least_ very similar, now seemingly
identical within measurement accuracy. This tends to support the
Theia hypothesis. If the Moon formed on its own and was somehow
captured by the Earth, it would be expected to have very different
isotope ratios.

The Moon capture hypothesis was only one such hypothesis. That one would
still be excluded by this recent finding.

Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

This site even says that if the isotope levels are different, then the
above theories would be unlikely, but now that the isotope levels are
similar, those theories come back into play.

Theories of Formation for the Moon
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Yousuf Khan

The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth.


Or should I say...our moon helps in the process of making an ocean on
earth.

Without our moon, we would not have an ocean...it wouldn't even rain.

Now, if you're wondering how our moon got to the vincity of our
earth....that is
an entire different process...that's part of the ball rolling process i
mention elsewhere...

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 01/02/2016 5:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
My question is, if the isotopic evidence which was used to create the
Theia Hypothesis in the first place, due to a previously perceived
difference in isotopic abundances,

The isotope ratios are _at least_ very similar, now seemingly
identical within measurement accuracy. This tends to support the
Theia hypothesis. If the Moon formed on its own and was somehow
captured by the Earth, it would be expected to have very different
isotope ratios.

The Moon capture hypothesis was only one such hypothesis. That one would
still be excluded by this recent finding.

Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

This site even says that if the isotope levels are different, then the
above theories would be unlikely, but now that the isotope levels are
similar, those theories come back into play.

Theories of Formation for the Moon
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Yousuf Khan

The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth.

Or should I say...our moon helps in the process of making an ocean on
earth.

Without our moon, we would not have an ocean...it wouldn't even rain.

Now, if you're wondering how our moon got to the vincity of our
earth....that is
an entire different process...that's part of the ball rolling process i
mention elsewhere...

In other words...

it's very simple..

the point
the earth is at
the point the moon is at
from the sun..
and each other
was exactly where
they were meant to be.

it took a
big bang
to accomplish it.

That which you call
the singularity..
where everything
is stuck together...
and cannot move..
the shape
of the
singularity
was a triangle.

Now, I know for
sure no one here
has ever been told
the singularity
was the shape
of a triangle.

It is very simple
geometry.

If you understand the
shape of the singularity...

then you can understand
the points at which the earth
the sun
the moon
are where they are now.

In other words..

the universe today
is at it is because of
a
triangle.

When the big bang
occured...
the singularity
triangle points
went
in
every
direction.

As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search
didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the
isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012.
It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data
including elemental composition of both bodies.

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission,
how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this
hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real
calculation.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon
much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact
hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each
other.

I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis
has a lot to like.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 01/02/2016 5:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
My question is, if the isotopic evidence which was used to create the
Theia Hypothesis in the first place, due to a previously perceived
difference in isotopic abundances,

The isotope ratios are _at least_ very similar, now seemingly
identical within measurement accuracy. This tends to support the
Theia hypothesis. If the Moon formed on its own and was somehow
captured by the Earth, it would be expected to have very different
isotope ratios.

The Moon capture hypothesis was only one such hypothesis. That one would
still be excluded by this recent finding.

Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

This site even says that if the isotope levels are different, then the
above theories would be unlikely, but now that the isotope levels are
similar, those theories come back into play.

Theories of Formation for the Moon
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Yousuf Khan

The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth.

Or should I say...our moon helps in the process of making an ocean on
earth.

Without our moon, we would not have an ocean...it wouldn't even rain.

Now, if you're wondering how our moon got to the vincity of our
earth....that is
an entire different process...that's part of the ball rolling process i
mention elsewhere...

In other words...

it's very simple..

the point
the earth is at
the point the moon is at
from the sun..
and each other
was exactly where
they were meant to be.

it took a
big bang
to accomplish it.

That which you call
the singularity..
where everything
is stuck together...
and cannot move..
the shape
of the
singularity
was a triangle.

Now, I know for
sure no one here
has ever been told
the singularity
was the shape
of a triangle.

It is very simple
geometry.

If you understand the
shape of the singularity...

then you can understand
the points at which the earth
the sun
the moon
are where they are now.

In other words..

the universe today
is at it is because of
a
triangle.

When the big bang
occured...
the singularity
triangle points
went
in
every
direction.



In other words...
the reason why the universe
'appears' to have no center is
because of the
triangle singularity.

Everything 'looks' random, even
though everything is in it's place.

In the place...where it's suppose to be.

Everything is in it's place.

Steve Willner wrote:

As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search
didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the
isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012.
It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data
including elemental composition of both bodies.

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission,
how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this
hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real
calculation.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon
much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact
hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each
other.

I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis
has a lot to like.


It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets...
that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the
moon,
but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet.

The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of
triangle singularity
and the big bang.

The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else.

Maybe you guys don't get it.


Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle
or point of view.


If you reverse the universe
to the beginning...
when it all comes to a point..
what shape is the point? round, square or triangle??

The Starmaker wrote:

Steve Willner wrote:

As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search
didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the
isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012.
It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data
including elemental composition of both bodies.

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission,
how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this
hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real
calculation.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon
much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact
hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each
other.

I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis
has a lot to like.

It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets...
that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the
moon,
but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet.

The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of
triangle singularity
and the big bang.

The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else.

Maybe you guys don't get it.

Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle
or point of view.


If you reverse the universe
to the beginning...
when it all comes to a point..
what shape is the point? round, square or triangle??



How about...

have you heard the expression 'killing two birds with one stone'?

Now, imagine every planet in the universe represents a bird...


kill them all with one stone.

In other words...you create a universe with one stone.

Now, if you still don't get it...

look for a stone
then look for two birds.

Now, try to kill both birds with one stone.

On 02/02/2016 23:59, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 01/02/2016 5:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
My question is, if the isotopic evidence which was used to create the
Theia Hypothesis in the first place, due to a previously perceived
difference in isotopic abundances,

The isotope ratios are _at least_ very similar, now seemingly
identical within measurement accuracy. This tends to support the
Theia hypothesis. If the Moon formed on its own and was somehow
captured by the Earth, it would be expected to have very different
isotope ratios.

The Moon capture hypothesis was only one such hypothesis. That one would
still be excluded by this recent finding.

Not quite excluded but made a lot less likely since the moon would have
to have formed in the vicinity of the Earth's orbit to have the right
isotopic signature. I wonder what the REE signatures look like for
basaltic lunar material since that would be an independent test.

Quick intro - can't find much outside a paywall

http://www.usouthal.edu/geography/al...ceElements.pdf

Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

This site even says that if the isotope levels are different, then the
above theories would be unlikely, but now that the isotope levels are
similar, those theories come back into play.

Theories of Formation for the Moon
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Yousuf Khan

The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth.


Or should I say...our moon helps in the process of making an ocean on
earth.

Odd then that it rains methane rain on Titan. And there is clear
evidence of previous liquid water on Mars which has no such large moon.

The moon *is* responsible for our more variable oceanic spring and neap
tides and perhaps indirectly for the evolution of land animals.




Without our moon, we would not have an ocean...it wouldn't even rain.

Without the moon we might not have lunatics like you!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Dear The Starmaker:

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 11:22:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
....
Maybe you guys don't get it.

We got it. You are more interested in reconciling current observations, to millenia old writings intended for "directing" children.

Please, don't descend into a post-only engine.

David A. Smith