Hitting Planets Hard

Scott (Talk about not reading )Why I don't like our Moon ejected out
from the bowels of the Earth,you can read that I answered this in full
on my post of 1/28/07 at 12.42pm " in depth". I "even read" by
another astronomer that Moon"s lack of iron takes away the credibility
of the Moon "once upon a time" being a chunk of the Earth. Scott where
did the Moon's iron go. Iron is one of the most stable elements. Lots
of iron found on top of the Earth's crust and in its crust. Very easy to
dig up,and that proves even in its molted state not all the iron sank to
its core. Please think of that when telling me all the iron was in the
Earth's core when the Earth ejected out the Moon. Also why there is no
known iron in the Moons core. Best you keep in your pea brain the Moon
had to also be in a melting state. You can't answer this Scott because
now you know your low wit has gotten you into trouble with known facts
about the Moon. I would ask you to think about all this,but thinking is
what parrot brains can't do.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott (Talk about not reading )Why I don't like our Moon ejected out
from the bowels of the Earth,you can read that I answered this in full
on my post of 1/28/07 at 12.42pm " in depth". I "even read" by
another astronomer that Moon"s lack of iron takes away the credibility
of the Moon "once upon a time" being a chunk of the Earth. Scott where
did the Moon's iron go. Iron is one of the most stable elements. Lots
of iron found on top of the Earth's crust and in its crust. Very easy to
dig up,and that proves even in its molted state not all the iron sank to
its core. Please think of that when telling me all the iron was in the
Earth's core when the Earth ejected out the Moon. Also why there is no
known iron in the Moons core. Best you keep in your pea brain the Moon
had to also be in a melting state. You can't answer this Scott because
now you know your low wit has gotten you into trouble with known facts
about the Moon. I would ask you to think about all this,but thinking is
what parrot brains can't do.


Okay, apparently you are even less clever than I gave you credit for.

To whit: 1) What astronomer said this - sources please. I have given
you those I quoted from. The least you can do is present the source so
we can check the context of the statement.

2) There is ample evidence for iron in the makeup of the Moon - its core
is likely iron based on average density compared to crust density (much
like we do for the Earth) and the remnant magnetic field detected frozen
in the crustal rocks, which is likely a fossil field from when the Moon
rotated faster (before tidal breaking locked it into 1:1
synchronization) and its core was more molten than now (if it is even
now partially molten).

3) Most computer simulations show the iron escavated from the surface of
Earth fell back to it, leaving lighter material out of which to form the
Moon. And in a previous post on this topic, I gave you a URL for seeing
the results of some of those simulations. And as I made clear in my
last post, no one claims ALL the iron making up the Earth had migrated
to the core when the impactor hit Earth (and your statement above
implies that the Moon was ejected by Earth without help, which is not
what the collisonal-ejection model says). I said most of the iron.
What iron made up the impactor also likely fell more toward the Earth
than stayed in orbit after the impact, again, denying lots of iron to
the Moon in its makeup.

4) So, we come to the conclusion that it is you that have your facts
screwed up. The composition of the Moon is well know to me from the
reference material I have here on my desk and is consistent with the
collisional-ejection model at present. Even new data from Clementine
and other recent missions are consistent with the model.

As I have said all along, science is a harsh master, and has definitely
dealt you a blow. You would be wise to learn some before you attempt to
challenge it. Idle speculation is no match for the razor used in
science to discriminate good from bad ideas.

Dear Scott Miller. I can't remember the astronomer that also did not
like the Moon being hit by a Mars size object and that ejected out a
large chunk from the Earth,and it went into orbit,and we call this large
piece of the Earth the Moon;. This astronomer who's name I'll have to
recall also pointed out that the 830lb of Moon Rock the Apollo
astronauts brought back to Earth were not exactly like Earth rocks. I
hope someone here will help me and let us know what these differences
were? Best to keep in mind Jupiter has 61 Moons Uranus has 5
Moons that are even closer in orbit than our Moon so using the theory of
ejection they all came out of Uranus.(being hit by a large object)
Saturn has its Moons,and Titan is even larger that Mercury. That must
have been a real big collision(oh ya) Hard to fit the theory in with
Pluto I'll let you show how being hit created its Moon,Im sure you will
make it fit. I'll leave out Jupiter 61 Moons,and you can work that in
as well. Scott collision theory I do not like. capture theory fits in
better for me. I know you do not like my ideas. but they are based on
good science. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Dear Scott Miller. I can't remember the astronomer that also did not
like the Moon being hit by a Mars size object and that ejected out a
large chunk from the Earth,and it went into orbit,and we call this large
piece of the Earth the Moon;. This astronomer who's name I'll have to
recall also pointed out that the 830lb of Moon Rock the Apollo
astronauts brought back to Earth were not exactly like Earth rocks. I
hope someone here will help me and let us know what these differences
were?

Best to keep in mind Jupiter has 61 Moons Uranus has 5
Moons that are even closer in orbit than our Moon so using the theory of
ejection they all came out of Uranus.(being hit by a large object)
Saturn has its Moons,and Titan is even larger that Mercury. That must
have been a real big collision(oh ya) Hard to fit the theory in with
Pluto I'll let you show how being hit created its Moon,Im sure you will
make it fit. I'll leave out Jupiter 61 Moons,and you can work that in
as well. Scott collision theory I do not like. capture theory fits in
better for me. I know you do not like my ideas. but they are based on
good science. Bert


Well, there you go again - trying to play junior scientist and coming up
empty. No one has said that the collisional ejection model is
applicable to all satellite systems around all of the planets. It is
applied to Earth because its system has a larger satellite/planet ratio
in terms of diameter compared to other planets in the solar system. The
only other higher such ratio is between Pluto and Charon. Most of the
planetary systems with satellites (and Jupiter is up to 62 - I think I
told you that once before) likely formed those from the original cloud
of gas that formed the planet itself (mini solar systems of a sort)
and/or later captured them (this explains many of the small outer
satellites with retrograde orbits).

Major difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks is a lack of water
in the crystaline structure of the rocks. There are slight differences
in isotopic abundances, well within the limits expected and in some
cases well explained by a high temperature event (such as the
collisional ejection model).

And, if you wish to see about how a collision might have been
responsible for the satellite system of Pluto, visit the Hubble Space
Telescope site and go to the HST images of its newly discovered
satellites. The discoverers are the ones that have proposed the idea.

Finally, your ideas are based on poor science. You have some inkling of
an idea how you think science works, but each time you post a new
message, it simply demonstrates that "an inkling" is being kind.

On Feb 2, 3:53 am, Scott Miller wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Dear Scott Miller. I can't remember the astronomer that also did not
like the Moon being hit by a Mars size object and that ejected out a
large chunk from the Earth,and it went into orbit,and we call this large
piece of the Earth the Moon;. This astronomer who's name I'll have to
recall also pointed out that the 830lb of Moon Rock the Apollo
astronauts brought back to Earth were not exactly like Earth rocks. I
hope someone here will help me and let us know what these differences
were?

Best to keep in mind Jupiter has 61 Moons Uranus has 5
Moons that are even closer in orbit than our Moon so using the theory of
ejection they all came out of Uranus.(being hit by a large object)
Saturn has its Moons,and Titan is even larger that Mercury. That must
have been a real big collision(oh ya) Hard to fit the theory in with
Pluto I'll let you show how being hit created its Moon,Im sure you will
make it fit. I'll leave out Jupiter 61 Moons,and you can work that in
as well. Scott collision theory I do not like. capture theory fits in
better for me. I know you do not like my ideas. but they are based on
good science. Bert

Well, there you go again - trying to play junior scientist and coming up
empty. No one has said that the collisional ejection model is
applicable to all satellite systems around all of the planets. It is
applied to Earth because its system has a larger satellite/planet ratio
in terms of diameter compared to other planets in the solar system. The
only other higher such ratio is between Pluto and Charon. Most of the
planetary systems with satellites (and Jupiter is up to 62 - I think I
told you that once before) likely formed those from the original cloud
of gas that formed the planet itself (mini solar systems of a sort)
and/or later captured them (this explains many of the small outer
satellites with retrograde orbits).

Major difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks is a lack of water
in the crystaline structure of the rocks.


Yes, what about the fact that all the Moon rocks are all anhydrous?
Rocks that came from Earth should have water in their composition.
Doesn't fit the theory very well, does it?

Double-A


There are slight differences
in isotopic abundances, well within the limits expected and in some
cases well explained by a high temperature event (such as the
collisional ejection model).

And, if you wish to see about how a collision might have been
responsible for the satellite system of Pluto, visit the Hubble Space
Telescope site and go to the HST images of its newly discovered
satellites. The discoverers are the ones that have proposed the idea.

Finally, your ideas are based on poor science. You have some inkling of
an idea how you think science works, but each time you post a new
message, it simply demonstrates that "an inkling" is being kind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Scott Miller So using that theory on relative sizer Charon came
out of Pluto,and if the ratio in size is different you can use the
capture theory(the one I like) Surely your joking Mr.Miller As I
recall Moon rocks have a larger amount of an element that is extremely
rare on Earth (need help to name that element?? ) You start your post
by saying "There I* go again" I think my points are a good argument
for capture over collision. Hitting two large objects together is
messy,and to get get one to orbit around the other out of this
explosion,is very,very bad thinking (science) Capture works easy,and
is far more realistic It is in reality natures way You Scott Miller
emphasis size and weight. Yet you forget size and weight objects
accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field Sorry your
explanation is wrong and your lack of thinking is showing.
Your virtual old time friend Bert

In article .com,
"Double-A" wrote:


Yes, what about the fact that all the Moon rocks are all anhydrous?
Rocks that came from Earth should have water in their composition.
Doesn't fit the theory very well, does it?


Clueless AA - thats the first attack of the kook on the moon rocks.

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_6.html

Chemically, the lunar rocks were mostly in a class by themselves, being
different from their terrestrial rock type counterparts. They are deficient in
iron, low in volatiles (including potassium and sodium), and are totally
anhydrous (meaning that water was not present when they formed; water found on
the Moon is discussed below); compared with Earth rocks, they were exceedingly
fresh, showing almost no signs of alteration. As an example of their chemical
specificity, examine this diagram which plots the ratio of potassium (K) to
uranium (U) versus changing potassium content; note that both meteorites
(chondrites and carbonaceous chondrites) and terrestrial igneous rocks plot in
different areas of the diagram than the lunar rocks. However, the meteorite
class Eucrites plots partly within the lunar samples field, suggesting that
these are actually ejecta from the Moon that reached Earth.


Perhaps a basic geology class is in order.



--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

Double-A wrote:
On Feb 2, 3:53 am, Scott Miller wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Dear Scott Miller. I can't remember the astronomer that also did not
like the Moon being hit by a Mars size object and that ejected out a
large chunk from the Earth,and it went into orbit,and we call this large
piece of the Earth the Moon;. This astronomer who's name I'll have to
recall also pointed out that the 830lb of Moon Rock the Apollo
astronauts brought back to Earth were not exactly like Earth rocks. I
hope someone here will help me and let us know what these differences
were?

Best to keep in mind Jupiter has 61 Moons Uranus has 5
Moons that are even closer in orbit than our Moon so using the theory of
ejection they all came out of Uranus.(being hit by a large object)
Saturn has its Moons,and Titan is even larger that Mercury. That must
have been a real big collision(oh ya) Hard to fit the theory in with
Pluto I'll let you show how being hit created its Moon,Im sure you will
make it fit. I'll leave out Jupiter 61 Moons,and you can work that in
as well. Scott collision theory I do not like. capture theory fits in
better for me. I know you do not like my ideas. but they are based on
good science. Bert

Well, there you go again - trying to play junior scientist and coming up
empty. No one has said that the collisional ejection model is
applicable to all satellite systems around all of the planets. It is
applied to Earth because its system has a larger satellite/planet ratio
in terms of diameter compared to other planets in the solar system. The
only other higher such ratio is between Pluto and Charon. Most of the
planetary systems with satellites (and Jupiter is up to 62 - I think I
told you that once before) likely formed those from the original cloud
of gas that formed the planet itself (mini solar systems of a sort)
and/or later captured them (this explains many of the small outer
satellites with retrograde orbits).

Major difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks is a lack of water
in the crystaline structure of the rocks.



Yes, what about the fact that all the Moon rocks are all anhydrous?
Rocks that came from Earth should have water in their composition.
Doesn't fit the theory very well, does it?

Double-A

Spoken like the uninformed. Out of curiosity, how much water do you
think would survive the collision between two planet-sized bodies?
Recall this collision destroys the smaller impactor while escavating the
crust and upper mantle of the Earth. I assume such an "informed"
statement is supported by the calculations you have done to determine
the energy and the survivability of water under those conditions.
Please provide those results.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Dear Scott Miller So using that theory on relative sizer Charon came
out of Pluto,and if the ratio in size is different you can use the
capture theory(the one I like) Surely your joking Mr.Miller As I
recall Moon rocks have a larger amount of an element that is extremely
rare on Earth (need help to name that element?? ) You start your post
by saying "There I* go again" I think my points are a good argument
for capture over collision. Hitting two large objects together is
messy,and to get get one to orbit around the other out of this
explosion,is very,very bad thinking (science) Capture works easy,and
is far more realistic It is in reality natures way You Scott Miller
emphasis size and weight. Yet you forget size and weight objects
accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field Sorry your
explanation is wrong and your lack of thinking is showing.
Your virtual old time friend Bert


How you do ramble. I have given you a scenario for the
collisional-ejection model and included how it would vary the abundances
of that material out of which the Moon eventually formed from that
collisional material and you ignore that and play mind games.

No, bert, capture does not work with a body as large as the Moon because
such a body would have such a large kinetic energy relative to the
capturing body (the Earth) as to be uncapturable by itself. There would
have to be large body to transfer much of the energy to in order to
reduce it to a level where Earth might capture it. Then, of course, you
have to show the special circumstances necessary for the orbit obtained
to be tilted with respect to the equatorial plane of the Earth.
Specifically, the Moon would have had to come within 50,000 kilometers
of the Earth's surface with exactly the right speed to leave its prior
orbit around the Sun (hence the need for a body to transfer excess
kinetic energy to), and done so without hitting our planet instead.

So, if you think your points are good arguements for capture, you don't
understand capture of a large body by another large body. You lose this
game because I have too many references from too many people who have
worked through this problem. As you haven't....

On Feb 2, 1:11 pm, Scott Miller wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On Feb 2, 3:53 am, Scott Miller wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Dear Scott Miller. I can't remember the astronomer that also did not
like the Moon being hit by a Mars size object and that ejected out a
large chunk from the Earth,and it went into orbit,and we call this large
piece of the Earth the Moon;. This astronomer who's name I'll have to
recall also pointed out that the 830lb of Moon Rock the Apollo
astronauts brought back to Earth were not exactly like Earth rocks. I
hope someone here will help me and let us know what these differences
were?

Best to keep in mind Jupiter has 61 Moons Uranus has 5
Moons that are even closer in orbit than our Moon so using the theory of
ejection they all came out of Uranus.(being hit by a large object)
Saturn has its Moons,and Titan is even larger that Mercury. That must
have been a real big collision(oh ya) Hard to fit the theory in with
Pluto I'll let you show how being hit created its Moon,Im sure you will
make it fit. I'll leave out Jupiter 61 Moons,and you can work that in
as well. Scott collision theory I do not like. capture theory fits in
better for me. I know you do not like my ideas. but they are based on
good science. Bert

Well, there you go again - trying to play junior scientist and coming up
empty. No one has said that the collisional ejection model is
applicable to all satellite systems around all of the planets. It is
applied to Earth because its system has a larger satellite/planet ratio
in terms of diameter compared to other planets in the solar system. The
only other higher such ratio is between Pluto and Charon. Most of the
planetary systems with satellites (and Jupiter is up to 62 - I think I
told you that once before) likely formed those from the original cloud
of gas that formed the planet itself (mini solar systems of a sort)
and/or later captured them (this explains many of the small outer
satellites with retrograde orbits).

Major difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks is a lack of water
in the crystaline structure of the rocks.

Yes, what about the fact that all the Moon rocks are all anhydrous?
Rocks that came from Earth should have water in their composition.
Doesn't fit the theory very well, does it?

Double-A

Spoken like the uninformed. Out of curiosity, how much water do you
think would survive the collision between two planet-sized bodies?


Water is part of basic chemical composition of most rocks on Earth. I
would have thought you would have known that.


Recall this collision destroys the smaller impactor while escavating the
crust and upper mantle of the Earth. I assume such an "informed"
statement is supported by the calculations you have done to determine
the energy and the survivability of water under those conditions.
Please provide those results.


This not about the survivability of free water, O snide one, the water
is chemically bound in the Earth's rocks.

Double-A