A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moon was produced by head-on collision?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 4th 16, 08:35 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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  
Old February 4th 16, 08:46 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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  
Old February 4th 16, 09:39 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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  
Old February 5th 16, 04:18 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

The Starmaker writes:

Where would the water come from without our moon?


Rain clouds?
  #25  
Old February 5th 16, 05:42 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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  
Old February 5th 16, 09:46 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default 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  
Old February 5th 16, 04:26 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default 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  
Old February 5th 16, 04:39 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default 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  
Old February 5th 16, 09:55 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default 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  
Old February 5th 16, 10:48 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.