Hitting Planets Hard

Double-A wrote:

On Feb 3, 12:02 am, (Tom Kerr) wrote:
In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:

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

[...]

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.

That doesn't answer the question. Let's put it more specifically: how much
water would survive in the rocks that were directly impacted and formed
the moon?


Why should I be responsible for answering that question? It is his
theory not mine that the rocks came from the Earth. Anhydrous Moon
rocks fit the theory of seprarate formation perfectly.

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.

At the time of the collision the water would have been mostly trapped in
terrestrial rocks. The energy of the impact would have vaporised the water
and the more volatile elements. This is exactly what's seen in lunar rock
samples - they are similar to terrestrial rocks except they are dry and
the volatile/refractory elemental abundance ratio is much smaller compared
to earth rocks of similar age.

I would also be interested to see your calculations about how much water
would survive such an impact in the debris, and please include the initial
abundance of chemically bound water, e.g., in clay, compared to trapped
water, when the impact occured. I look forward to your analysis.


Hey, this Earth origin Moon is your theory. Shouldn't you be the one
supplying those calculations in support of it? But hey, don't break a
sweat. I'm not holding my breath!

Another person that dares question the holy saucerhead writ. You'd
better run away and put him in the "stowfile", too.

Double-A



--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

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

That doesn't answer the question. Let's put it more specifically: how much
water would survive in the rocks that were directly impacted and formed
the moon?


Why should I be responsible for answering that question? It is his
theory not mine that the rocks came from the Earth. Anhydrous Moon
rocks fit the theory of seprarate formation perfectly.

You're questioning it - so provide the calculations..

That'll be the day.



I would also be interested to see your calculations about how much water
would survive such an impact in the debris, and please include the initial
abundance of chemically bound water, e.g., in clay, compared to trapped
water, when the impact occured. I look forward to your analysis.


Hey, this Earth origin Moon is your theory. Shouldn't you be the one
supplying those calculations in support of it? But hey, don't break a
sweat. I'm not holding my breath!

Coward.

Yup. Not to worry, painius will arrive just in time with another load
of goose lames.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Coward.

Yup. Not to worry, painius will arrive just in time with another load
of goose lames.

And attack those who dare question the holy trinity of kookiness

--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

On Feb 3, 12:02 am, (Tom Kerr) wrote:

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


On Feb 2, 1:11 pm, Scott Miller wrote:

Double-A wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:53 am, Scott Miller wrote:

[...]


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.

That doesn't answer the question. Let's put it more specifically: how much
water would survive in the rocks that were directly impacted and formed
the moon?



Why should I be responsible for answering that question? It is his
theory not mine that the rocks came from the Earth. Anhydrous Moon
rocks fit the theory of seprarate formation perfectly.


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.

At the time of the collision the water would have been mostly trapped in
terrestrial rocks. The energy of the impact would have vaporised the water
and the more volatile elements. This is exactly what's seen in lunar rock
samples - they are similar to terrestrial rocks except they are dry and
the volatile/refractory elemental abundance ratio is much smaller compared
to earth rocks of similar age.

I would also be interested to see your calculations about how much water
would survive such an impact in the debris, and please include the initial
abundance of chemically bound water, e.g., in clay, compared to trapped
water, when the impact occured. I look forward to your analysis.

Commander Double-A

Hey, this Earth origin Moon is your theory. Shouldn't you be the one
supplying those calculations in support of it? But hey, don't break a
sweat. I'm not holding my breath!

Double-A



nightbat

Correct Commander, so many of these clueless mainstreamers come
here with their gospel accepted theories and when confronted with
counter indicating evidence and logic they get upset and immediately
demand advanced science proofs from profound Science Officers.

They don't get it, the Science Team is composed of the most profound
deepest theoretical thinkers of the first magnitude order, and whose
combined logic is second to none. Non evidence Moon absence of water
embedded rocks is the giveaway, their sacred Earth-Moon space body
Impact theory collapses and they know it.

Can we Team help being so imaginative, so gifted, so genius level, so
provocative, so advanced, so real world based, so mysterious, so
natural, so clinical, so correlating, so helpful and friendly, so
beyond basic original Doctorate level Academics, so Google referenced
Googled about, so Patentable and Copyright material, so sci.physics
respected, so auk coffeeboy followed, so many World Wide Fans adored, so
extraterrestrial SETI advanced, so FTL acknowledged, so beyond Flash
Gordon, so beyond Buck Rodgers and the 21st Century, so non-sci fi
based, so sub quantum knowledgeable, so clueless Saul and duckies
helpful, so much science fun insightful, so Nova profound, so beyond
time and space.

very good,
the nightbat

Double-A For this Moon ejected from the Earth theory to help its
explanation the Earth had to be in the process of a liquid state. In
that state all water would be gas(steam) making a thick atmosphere. For
its surface to be cool enough for it to rain down is the spacetime for
creating its rocks we find on its crust today. No molecules of water in
10 billion parts of Moon rock tested means nothing to me. The big clue
is "no iron,and the Earth like Mercury is rich in iron. Scott is stuck
with that fact,and gives weak arguments to try to explain this fact away
with his "maybe" once upon a time ideas He is a no brainer
Bert

OK its in Google rocks and dust going around the Sun get bigger and
bigger as they hit each other. I will take the opposite view. I say
large objects about 100 miles in diameter get smaller and smaller over
time by being chipped away by being hit by a large object,and worn away
when hit by fine dust. We humans know all about sand paper,and what
blows from a sledge hammer can do to rock. My thoughts come out of
looking at Tempel 1!,and what we did to it in 2005 We hit it with a
desk size cooper missile going at 23,000 mph. Did the comet add this to
its structure making it more dense and bigger. No just the opposite,it
showed it blasted into space a foot ball field size crater. This cloud
of debris extended out 600 miles,and would never be part of the comet
ever again. This shows what hitting can do.especially when there is no
gas around the rock to break the speed of the incoming object,or burn it
up by friction. The impact theory to make stuff bigger and bigger must
also mention this. It is not just one sided. Like I keep saying
its alway best to think in every direction,so you can find reality.
Bert

In article ,
nightbat wrote:

nightbat

Correct Commander, so many of these clueless mainstreamers come
here with their gospel accepted theories and when confronted with
counter indicating evidence and logic they get upset and immediately
demand advanced science proofs from profound Science Officers.

You have no evidence. Only your diseased rantings.


They don't get it, the Science Team is composed of the most profound
deepest theoretical thinkers of the first magnitude order, and whose
combined logic is second to none. Non evidence Moon absence of water
embedded rocks is the giveaway, their sacred Earth-Moon space body
Impact theory collapses and they know it.

It has already been explained - only yet again, your "profound" science
officers lack a basic science education.



Can we Team help being so imaginative, so gifted, so genius level, so
provocative, so advanced, so real world based, so mysterious, so
natural, so clinical, so correlating, so helpful and friendly, so
beyond basic original Doctorate level Academics, so Google referenced
Googled about, so Patentable and Copyright material, so sci.physics
respected, so auk coffeeboy followed, so many World Wide Fans adored, so
extraterrestrial SETI advanced, so FTL acknowledged, so beyond Flash
Gordon, so beyond Buck Rodgers and the 21st Century, so non-sci fi
based, so sub quantum knowledgeable, so clueless Saul and duckies
helpful, so much science fun insightful, so Nova profound, so beyond
time and space.


All those words and he really meant "insane"



--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

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

Double-A For this Moon ejected from the Earth theory to help its
explanation the Earth had to be in the process of a liquid state. In
that state all water would be gas(steam) making a thick atmosphere. For
its surface to be cool enough for it to rain down is the spacetime for
creating its rocks we find on its crust today. No molecules of water in
10 billion parts of Moon rock tested means nothing to me. The big clue
is "no iron,and the Earth like Mercury is rich in iron. Scott is stuck
with that fact,and gives weak arguments to try to explain this fact away
with his "maybe" once upon a time ideas He is a no brainer
Bert

Project much, Beert? Stick to the drinking.


--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

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

The impact theory to make stuff bigger and bigger must
also mention this. It is not just one sided. Like I keep saying
its alway best to think in every direction,so you can find reality.

When you start thinking, let us know.



--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

On Feb 3, 12:02 am, (Tom Kerr) wrote:

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


On Feb 2, 1:11 pm, Scott Miller wrote:

Double-A wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:53 am, Scott Miller wrote:

[...]


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.

That doesn't answer the question. Let's put it more specifically: how much
water would survive in the rocks that were directly impacted and formed
the moon?



Why should I be responsible for answering that question? It is his
theory not mine that the rocks came from the Earth. Anhydrous Moon
rocks fit the theory of seprarate formation perfectly.


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.

At the time of the collision the water would have been mostly trapped in
terrestrial rocks. The energy of the impact would have vaporised the water
and the more volatile elements. This is exactly what's seen in lunar rock
samples - they are similar to terrestrial rocks except they are dry and
the volatile/refractory elemental abundance ratio is much smaller compared
to earth rocks of similar age.

I would also be interested to see your calculations about how much water
would survive such an impact in the debris, and please include the initial
abundance of chemically bound water, e.g., in clay, compared to trapped
water, when the impact occured. I look forward to your analysis.

Commander Double-A

Hey, this Earth origin Moon is your theory. Shouldn't you be the one
supplying those calculations in support of it? But hey, don't break a
sweat. I'm not holding my breath!

Double-A



nightbat

Correct Commander, so many of these clueless mainstreamers come
here with their gospel accepted theories and when confronted with
counter indicating evidence and logic they get upset and immediately
demand advanced science proofs from profound Science Officers.

Which you are completely at a loss to provide, frootbag.

They don't get it, the Science Team is composed of the most profound
deepest theoretical thinkers of the first magnitude order, and whose
combined logic is second to none. Non evidence Moon absence of water
embedded rocks is the giveaway, their sacred Earth-Moon space body
Impact theory collapses and they know it.

Total rot.

Can we Team help being so imaginative, so gifted, so genius level, so
provocative, so advanced, so real world based, so mysterious, so
natural, so clinical, so correlating, so helpful and friendly, so
beyond basic original Doctorate level Academics, so Google referenced
Googled about, so Patentable and Copyright material, so sci.physics
respected, so auk coffeeboy followed, so many World Wide Fans adored, so
extraterrestrial SETI advanced, so FTL acknowledged, so beyond Flash
Gordon, so beyond Buck Rodgers and the 21st Century, so non-sci fi
based, so sub quantum knowledgeable, so clueless Saul and duckies
helpful, so much science fun insightful, so Nova profound, so beyond
time and space.

Nice self-induced kookgasm, napoleon.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert