|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Apr 12, 10:05*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Also if a Mars-sized object hit Earth, wouldn't we see a somewhat lopsided Earth? They say that most of Theia sunk to the core of Earth, but that would require displacement of everything that was already at the core of the Earth. It would require the Earth to have blown up and come back together for such perfectly round mixing of the combined bodies to happen again. And the Earth would look a bit younger than the other planets in the Solar System, because it would look like it formed later. There is no need for Earth+Theia to do more than melt. *There was plenty of extra energy to permit that. *Then the products spin, with a very oblate shape, a lobe starts to form as the system is unstable, the lighter materials get pulled up into the lobe, and the lobe parts. *See it in lava lamps sometimes. The Earth-Moon Lava Lamp Theory. I think this was actually the popular theory about the Moon's formation back in the 60's, wasn't it? They were very familiar with lava lamps back then. :-) Yes.... But still wouldn't we see some sort of tail or other formation on Earth at the point where the Moon might have plopped off? No, it was essentially all liquified. I think we see a difference in crustal thickness on the Moon between its Earth-facing side and its space-facing side. The Earth provides a temperature above the CMBR, and some tidal heating (before the Moon becomes tidally locked), so it would make sense that the Earth-facing side had thinner crust. But we don't see a similar crustal difference on Earth. Look where the tectonic plates are most finely broken. Unless, we talk about the crustal diffences between the oceanic plates and the continental plates, but they're distributed all over the place. I wonder if the formation of the Moon started this entire continental plate business? No, I'd put that squarely on structures internal to the Earth, upwellings in the core flows and such. Now if Theia was actually a Mars-sized black hole instead, then it could easily make its way to centre of the Earth and provide power source for the magnetic field that Earth has. Mars *massed* black hole, you mean. *No the structure of the Earth is not solid enough to permit that... we'd flow in. Then I wonder if we'd flow in and become part of a black hole, Yes, no choice. or would the mass of the Earth, being greater than the black hole, turn the black hole into a neutron star (neutron planet, maybe)? Mass uniformly distributed outside has zero net pull on the interior. And again, the entire planet would end up as a neutron star, no choice... given a neutron star core. The Earth would be about 3" diameter or 6" diameter either way. I mean a merger of two solid planets can't be nearly as simple as say the merger of galaxies, which have large gaps in between. Agreed. *I would expect quite a bit of debris. *Locally, the Moon would sweep that. *But in our solar L4 and L5... Our own Trojan asteroids. Yes, an asteroid belt. But do we see anything like that for any planet? Besides the collision theory, and the capture theory, why can't the Moon have simply formed where it is now? That would seem to be the simplest answer. We have records that date back to 2.2 Gy ago that says the Moon was much closer. I don't mean really in the exact orbital position it is in right now. I meant that it formed naturally somewhere in orbit around the Earth. There's a lot of rules about how large a satellite can get given the main planet's mass. Apparently the Moon is too large to fit those models. But why? Good question. I know Roche limit would apply had the Moon started significantly closer... What would happen to Earth's (and the Moon's surface) if a "dust cloud" at about 1000K blew by outside the heliosphere over a period of a few centuries? This would allow the Sun to be an Easy Bake Oven (R), and gloss over all sorts of formation details... David A. Smith |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
In sci.astro message , Sun, 12 Apr
2009 10:24:59, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" posted: Your sagacity is imperceptible. He corrected my misunderstanding on the next post. Thanks for taking this opportunity to **** on me. I hope I have saved a baby cat from being kicked somewhere near you. You should be aware that Usenet is not an instantaneous medium throughout : this site transfers News twice a day. After your unsuccessful attempt to do that to me in the matter of the gravity tractor, it seemed appropriate to demonstrate to you how it should be done. One essential is to be factually correct. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence. Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
On Apr 12, 10:10*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
wrote: Discovery of water in Moon's ancient rocks challenges collision theory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7497715.stm A global ocean, such as exists on Europa, Titan or Earth, *can explain the topography and composition of lunar surface. Especially the separation of highlands anorthosite from mare basalt. *John Curtis The scientists in the article you quoted were trying to fit it around the collision hypothesis. They were speculating that the water came up to the Moon during the collision event. Why do you think that's not plausible? Also which model do you think is more likely for the Moon, if not the collision model? The capture model, or the Earth-Moon co-formation model? * * * * Yousuf Khan Vacuum and water simply do not mix, especially if there's and IR~UV energy to deal with. However, at first whatever sufficiently thick ice and vacuum get along rather nicely if there's a sufficient rocky core of 7.35e22 kg to work with. Notice how among many odd things there's still no objective science as to ice coexisting in 1 AU space. ~ BG |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
In sci.astro message , Sun, 12 Apr 2009
16:52:19, Yousuf Khan posted: Dr J R Stockton wrote: Any gravitationally-bound two-body system has five Lagrange points; if the mass ratio is less than about 25:1, or if there are other sufficiently massive bodies near by, no points are dynamically stable, except in special cases - in which case they would not be the points for which Lagrange is known. What's special with the 25:1 mass ratio? The arithmetic is non-trivial. The actual figure is from 27(m1m2 + m2m3 + m3m1) = (m1 + m2 + m3)^2 as m3 - 0 m1^2 - 25 m1m2 + m2^2 = 0 so m1/m2 = 25 ± Root ((625-4) / 2) = 24.9599 . The reference that I had in mind for that is apparently dead. The page has quietly moved to http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/ContentMedia/lagra nge.pdf, and gives a different form. Isn't the Sun-Jupiter mass ratio over 1000:1? Yes. Re-read what you quoted. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
On Apr 12, 10:10*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
wrote: Discovery of water in Moon's ancient rocks challenges collision theory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7497715.stm A global ocean, such as exists on Europa, Titan or Earth, *can explain the topography and composition of lunar surface. Especially the separation of highlands anorthosite from mare basalt. *John Curtis The scientists in the article you quoted were trying to fit it around the collision hypothesis. They were speculating that the water came up to the Moon during the collision event. Why do you think that's not plausible? Colision temperature ~7000 K (if memory serves) would split water into oxygen and hydrogen, the latter escaping into space. Absence of water from the Moon is a tenet (perhaps even the lynchpin) of the collision theory. Also which model do you think is more likely for the Moon, if not the collision model? The capture model, or the Earth-Moon co-formation model? The evidence for global ocean confirms the commonality of planetary origins. Capture or co-formation are less incompatible with a global ocean on the Moon. John Curtis |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
On Apr 13, 12:26*pm, wrote:
On Apr 12, 10:10*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: wrote: Discovery of water in Moon's ancient rocks challenges collision theory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7497715.stm A global ocean, such as exists on Europa, Titan or Earth, *can explain the topography and composition of lunar surface. Especially the separation of highlands anorthosite from mare basalt. *John Curtis The scientists in the article you quoted were trying to fit it around the collision hypothesis. They were speculating that the water came up to the Moon during the collision event. Why do you think that's not plausible? Colision temperature ~7000 K (if memory serves) would split water into oxygen and hydrogen, *the latter escaping into space. Absence of water from the Moon is a tenet (perhaps even the lynchpin) of the collision theory. Also which model do you think is more likely for the Moon, if not the collision model? The capture model, or the Earth-Moon co-formation model? The evidence for global ocean confirms the commonality of planetary origins. Capture or co-formation are less incompatible with a global ocean on the Moon. John Curtis But otherwise not capable of excluding a lithobraking encounter with an icy Selene, and subsequent capture process that would have taken hundreds of years after Selene encountered Earth, before the terrestrial skies would have cleared enough to even notice that we'd obtained a moon. ~ BG |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote: snip But still wouldn't we see some sort of tail or other formation on Earth at the point where the Moon might have plopped off? I think we see a difference in crustal thickness on the Moon between its Earth-facing side and its space-facing side. But we don't see a similar crustal difference on Earth. Unless, we talk about the crustal diffences between the oceanic plates and the continental plates, but they're distributed all over the place. I wonder if the formation of the Moon started this entire continental plate business? The Earth remains tectonically active; convective and density-driven flows in the interior have had plenty of time to smooth out irregularities or asymmetries. As for the surface, the continents must have been rearranged or recycled at least a dozen times since the crust cooled -- so although there might be some traces left, they'd be so well buried or widely scattered as to be more or less undetectable. -- Odysseus |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
On Apr 13, 8:03*am, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In sci.astro message , Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:24:59, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" posted: Your sagacity is imperceptible. He corrected my misunderstanding on the next post. Thanks for taking this opportunity to **** on me. *I hope I have saved a baby cat from being kicked somewhere near you. You should be aware that Usenet is not an instantaneous medium throughout : this site transfers News twice a day. After your unsuccessful attempt to do that to me in the matter of the gravity tractor, it seemed appropriate to demonstrate to you how it should be done. *One essential is to be factually correct. I expressed concern over methods that a "gravity tractor" could push away the object it is trying to "pull". You did nothing more in addressing these concerns, than tell me I needed to do the math to show it was a problem. This sends the message that *you* had not done the math, and simply don't "feel" it to be an issue. I don't want you to supply the math. I am not interested in "oneupmanship". I am not interested in being right. I am just interested in someone providing answers to questions. I personally thank you for being just like the pompous, cubicle-minded jerks that sent me here nine years ago. As long as this "place" exists, it is a permanent record of behavior, a resource for research, and the only news magazine I get. The ads suck... David A. Smith |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
Odysseus wrote:
In article , Yousuf Khan wrote: snip But still wouldn't we see some sort of tail or other formation on Earth at the point where the Moon might have plopped off? I think we see a difference in crustal thickness on the Moon between its Earth-facing side and its space-facing side. But we don't see a similar crustal difference on Earth. Unless, we talk about the crustal diffences between the oceanic plates and the continental plates, but they're distributed all over the place. I wonder if the formation of the Moon started this entire continental plate business? The Earth remains tectonically active; convective and density-driven flows in the interior have had plenty of time to smooth out irregularities or asymmetries. As for the surface, the continents must have been rearranged or recycled at least a dozen times since the crust cooled -- so although there might be some traces left, they'd be so well buried or widely scattered as to be more or less undetectable. I'm thinking the existence of the continents themselves are the smoking gun. Think about it this way, we know that there is an imbalance in the crust of the Moon, but there should be some sort of corresponding imbalance in the crust of the Earth which we don't see. The crustal imbalances should correspond to where the Earth and Moon separated from each other. Now, the Moon has no major tectonic activity (apart from some early vulcanism), so the crustal imbalance on the Moon stays basically where it was originally. The Earth has all kinds of tectonic activity and over the course of billions of years those continents ... er, imbalances in the crust ... break up and drift all over the place, redistributing themselves over the Earth in several places. I'm not saying that all of the continents arose as a result of the break out of the Moon, but I'm sure the initial continents must have started that way. The remaining mass of continents may have formed as a result of vulcanism, and some flexure in the crust as the Earth readjusted itself to a round shape. Yousuf Khan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
Dr J R Stockton ) writes:
In sci.astro message , Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:52:19, Yousuf Khan posted: Dr J R Stockton wrote: Any gravitationally-bound two-body system has five Lagrange points; if the mass ratio is less than about 25:1, or if there are other sufficiently massive bodies near by, no points are dynamically stable, except in special cases - in which case they would not be the points for which Lagrange is known. What's special with the 25:1 mass ratio? The arithmetic is non-trivial. The actual figure is from 27(m1m2 + m2m3 + m3m1) = (m1 + m2 + m3)^2 as m3 - 0 m1^2 - 25 m1m2 + m2^2 = 0 so m1/m2 = 25 ± Root ((625-4) / 2) = 24.9599 . ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ( 25 ± Root (625-4) ) / 2, I think. What's special about this limit, m3 -- 0, that makes it the case universally referred to? Any reason m2 = m3 shouldn't occur, for instance? --John Park |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ESA watched full Moon withering behind Mother Earths shadow (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | March 7th 07 10:21 PM |
Theia (Proto-Luna) was probably a gas planet | Andrew Nowicki | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 21st 06 11:58 PM |
How long do we keep searching for ETs? | Rakesh Sharma | SETI | 8 | September 18th 04 06:40 AM |
Searching for a lost URL | Andy Dix | UK Astronomy | 2 | April 1st 04 05:45 PM |
Searching 6960 | manastro | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 29th 04 11:04 AM |