A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Hitting Planets Hard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #92  
Old February 18th 07, 09:31 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Scott Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Hitting Planets Hard

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scotty Mars has been hit 100 million times. Millions of its rocks have
come to Earth(easy to find on its ice) Mars has two Moons,and they
did not get there by the hit theory. They are two asteroids that got
"captured" It is written they came into Mars gravity field at the right
speed and angle. This is in reality natures balancing act "Force of
angular motion equals gravity force" Scotty an explosion can't do it.
An explosion will cause it to fall back(what goes up must come down) or
the explosion was powerful to create a speed(escape velocity) and the
stuff will go into deep space. This is good science ,and that is some
thing you Scotty lack Bert


Sorry to continue throwing scientific data at you, but since you persist
in lying, I have no choice.

No one says that Mars' satellites were caused by initial impacts.
Likely they are the result of capture. They are very small compared to
Mars, so that makes the process a little easier than capturing a
relatively large body like the Moon as compared to the size of the
Earth. I have seen the scientific papers written by people who claim to
show how it is possible to capture, but the concensus opinion is that
the probability of such a narrow angle of ingress is so small as to be
impossible. And then there are the similarities found between Earth
rocks and Moon rocks.

Exploding material from the Earth's surface by a Mars-sized object on
the other hand and having it form into a satellite of about the size of
the Moon has been demonstrated using computer models with gravity as the
force pulling the material together. So, yes, it can be done,
naturally. So stop lying about this point. And the current data
supports the hypothesis and does not support capture. So, stop lying
about this point.
  #93  
Old February 18th 07, 11:54 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Hitting Planets Hard

ScottY You bringing in relative size for helping your explosion
theory,.than Pluto must have been hit and out popped its Moon Asteroids
are small and some have small Moons so they were also hit,and their moon
has put there by colliding with another object. Oh ya All this only
proves Scotty you are not a thinker. I'm sure a computer can put Moons
to orbit planets by capture,or Jupiter would not have 61. That Saturn's
rings were not the result of an explosion on its surface,but the result
of Saturn gravitation capturing a comet that swung by at the right speed
and angle. This was a snow ball comet,and easy to break up. Proof of
that is the composition of the material that make up the rings. You
will say this is not evidence. You will post I never give any
evidence,and only make up 'capture". Yet Scotty it is natures way. Sun
did not burp out of the planets. Planets did not burp up teir moons.
They have to be similar having evolved out of the same nebula cloud.
Nature uses explosions,and implosions to create,but not to create
satellites. Nature does that by gravity,and angular motion . It is
much simpler,and it fits Bert

  #94  
Old February 19th 07, 08:09 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Hitting Planets Hard

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

ScottY You bringing in relative size for helping your explosion
theory,.than Pluto must have been hit and out popped its Moon Asteroids
are small and some have small Moons so they were also hit,and their moon
has put there by colliding with another object. Oh ya All this only
proves Scotty you are not a thinker. I'm sure a computer can put Moons
to orbit planets by capture,or Jupiter would not have 61. That Saturn's
rings were not the result of an explosion on its surface,but the result
of Saturn gravitation capturing a comet that swung by at the right speed
and angle. This was a snow ball comet,and easy to break up. Proof of
that is the composition of the material that make up the rings. You
will say this is not evidence. You will post I never give any
evidence,and only make up 'capture". Yet Scotty it is natures way. Sun
did not burp out of the planets. Planets did not burp up teir moons.
They have to be similar having evolved out of the same nebula cloud.
Nature uses explosions,and implosions to create,but not to create
satellites. Nature does that by gravity,and angular motion . It is
much simpler,and it fits Bert



Nonsense

--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
  #95  
Old February 21st 07, 03:02 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Hitting Planets Hard (Hudson Bay)

When looking at the Earth and observing that rounded out area known as
Hudson Bay it gave me the idea it was formed by a hit . It would be an
asteroid of about 45 miles in diameter with a speed of 28,000 mph. Some
evidence I read about two years ago that gave reality to this thought
was "bucky balls were found all around this vast area. I wonder how
much wobble to the Earth was created by this hit? Hudson Bay is up high
enough(65N) At this spacetime the Earth's axial inclination is about 24
degrees Hmmmm What if it was 14 degrees before this colossal hit? That
tells us after being hit the poles got more Sun light. Big weather
change Bert (flame away)

  #96  
Old March 5th 07, 07:17 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Theory on Hits

I think it's way too late for BEERTbrain, Bob! Nothing would help
him...

Saul Levy


On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:39:52 -0800, Bob Officer
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:12:12 -0500, in alt.astronomy,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Nospam Galaxy arms came out of the center,and your thinking is
backwards. The curve of the arms show the direction of the turning of
the galaxy relative to us.


No they don't... The arms are not directly connected to the stellar
direction. The arms are *pressure* waves...

Reality is galaxies are moving apart and not
coming together ,with few exceptions.


Actually you are again wrong... google the Term: "Great Attractor" +
Virgo.

Also there is little doubt our own Local Galaxy Cluster in the
process of contracting.

We have carbon compounds like the
"snake nebula" in every galaxy(read my post on them) they are not coming
together. Read my convexing of space theory. Best to keep in mind
atoms are not falling into each other and taking in size of object the
micro world has more space between its objects than macro space objects


I would rather not read you mindless drivel...

Go figure Bert


It seems you would benefit from a basic astronomy class.

  #97  
Old March 10th 07, 11:25 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Hitting Planets Hard

BEERTbrain's not too lazy, Scott. He's the male equivalent of a
female bimbo!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:27:46 -0500, Scott Miller
wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Dear Scott Miller professor at UL. Scott I can't even put two letters in
the right order Well Scott with all that fast spin
creating centrifugal force its no wonder not all the heavy elements did
not go directly to the Earth's core and stay there. This has to be your
reasoning. We find surface iron every where. Gold washed down from
mountains. Uranium ,lead billions of tons Scott please give us a
break,and do a little home work before you teach such bad science. Bert


Okay, so you can't do simple mathematical first order approximations.
And, a little research would say that there is not as much iron in the
crust of the Earth as you seem to think. I have looked up a couple of
web sites for you to visit, since you seem too lazy to do the work yourself:

Moon composition: http://www.neiu.edu/~jmhemzac/mooncomp.htm

Earth crust composition:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...s/elabund.html

Earth composition:
http://www.geography4kids.com/files/...mposition.html

The last one seems to fit your mentality, hence its inclusion.

 




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
Hitting Planets Hard G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 106 February 25th 07 02:37 AM
Meteorite seen hitting Moon Rich Amateur Astronomy 3 December 25th 05 08:32 PM
Orphaned Planets: It's a Hard Knock Life Jason H. SETI 1 March 23rd 05 03:47 PM
three Objects hitting Sun before each of three last flares Solar 2 October 29th 03 04:02 AM
Comets Hitting Head On G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 2 October 9th 03 09:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 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.