|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
Martin Brown wrote:
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. I was refering to "our moon", not those other...props. Did you just say " previous liquid water on Mars"???? Oh, you're just one of those lemming fools. 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! Your logic is.. without our moon we have 'previous liquid water on Earth'. Where would the water come from without our moon? The moon existed at the same time as the earth....they are both the same age. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
The Starmaker wrote:
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. What yous don't seem to understand... that the triangle singularity begining point was very precisely arranged in order of a triangle. If you get a bunch of people to stand motionless, together in the shape of a triangle... then tell them..everyone on the outside of the triangle to walk away from the triangle, so on with everyone else... i don't know..tell them to walk away for 3 minutes.. what you will have is people scattered everywhere. But it was ordered..and there will not be a triangle.. and everyone will be in it's place of 3 minutes. This is the origin of the universe. It's very simple. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
Martin Brown wrote:
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 When I see people say "clear evidence of previous liquid water on Mars", ...i wonder about people like that. I think to myself, ..."That's a guy i can sell a bridge too!" In the united states children sing... London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down London Bridge is falling down My lady fair London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down London Bridge is falling down My lady fair London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down London Bridge is falling down My lady fair |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
The Starmaker writes:
Where would the water come from without our moon? Rain clouds? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
Michael Moroney wrote:
The Starmaker writes: Where would the water come from without our moon? Rain clouds? The moon is what makes it rain. The clouds are created by the moon. No moon, no rain clouds. Right? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
On 05/02/2016 04:42, The Starmaker wrote:
Michael Moroney wrote: The Starmaker writes: Where would the water come from without our moon? Rain clouds? Originally from later impacting comets and/or the initial composition of the nebula that the Earth condensed from. Initially it would be far too hot for any liquid water to exist and until the planet surface cools so that thermal velocity of water molecules drops below the escape velocity of the accreting planet the water cannot accumulate. Helium and hydrogen can escape relatively easily from our planets atmosphere even today. Mars only really managed to hold onto CO2. OTOH Titan in the far reaches of the solar system had hydrocarbon rain. It seems just about possible that so does Pluto but at such a low temperature that nitrogen and/or oxygen is in a pseudo liquid slushy phase and has water ice mountains floating in it that are as hard as steel. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/pluto-s-...floating-hills The moon is what makes it rain. The clouds are created by the moon. No moon, no rain clouds. Right? *WRONG!* Moon howling netkook nutter territory. "Starmaker" makes Oriel36 look almost sane. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
The Starmaker writes:
Michael Moroney wrote: The Starmaker writes: Where would the water come from without our moon? Rain clouds? The moon is what makes it rain. The clouds are created by the moon. No moon, no rain clouds. Just when I thought I've heard the absolutely dumbest, kookiest "science" claim possible, along comes someone with an even dumber, kookier one. Right? Completely wrong, of course. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
In sci.physics Michael Moroney wrote:
The Starmaker writes: Michael Moroney wrote: The Starmaker writes: Where would the water come from without our moon? Rain clouds? The moon is what makes it rain. The clouds are created by the moon. No moon, no rain clouds. Just when I thought I've heard the absolutely dumbest, kookiest "science" claim possible, along comes someone with an even dumber, kookier one. Right? Completely wrong, of course. There is one teeny tiny thing. Comparing times of new moon versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of in preciptation of a few percent. There is a recent paper doing the rounds of the Chinese echo chamber network that does a closer analysis of this . -- Updated blended model/observation comparisons using 2015 annual anomalies: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZLWFf_UYAEdYfi.png -- Zeke Hausfather, 20 Jan 2016, San Francisco, CA [A slightly modified version -- apparently the upper edge of the error band only -- was shown in some newspapers: http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/up...2015-12-08-at- 2.37.04-PM.png]. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
Dear R Kym Horsell:
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 8:44:27 AM UTC-7, R Kym Horsell wrote: .... There is one teeny tiny thing. Comparing times of new moon versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of in preciptation of a few percent. I think there is a stronger correlation to "weekends". So either clouds have calendars (and not lunar ones), or *we* affect the weather. And more than a few percent. David A. Smith |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Moon was produced by head-on collision?
In article ,
R Kym Horsell writes: Comparing times of new moon versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of in preciptation of a few percent. Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than physics. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt23 Earth Moon collision; Layered ages of the Cosmos and SolarSystem #395 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 20th 11 07:26 AM |
The Moon Alien's head! | Pat Flannery | History | 7 | October 22nd 06 12:06 PM |
Large mass produced dob | Big Al | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | August 23rd 06 07:39 PM |
Continents: the result of a Moon-forming collision? | Jim McCauley | Science | 2 | October 8th 05 03:55 PM |
cargo for mass produced EELV.s | steve rappolee | Technology | 1 | February 28th 04 08:45 PM |