Comet"s Tail

I'll have to read up on that one and get back to you. I was pretty excited
by the articles, but my boss won't be thrilled if I tell him I've got to
stay home to study astronomy. Maybe tonight. But to start, wouldn't many
or most of the minerals on the moon be from the impact object?

Bill C.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Bill C Yes I don't like the theory that the Moon was once part of
the Earth. Thanks to Apollo the rocks on the Moon are a lot different
that Earth rocks. Its just as bad a theory as the old theory that the
planets came out of the sun. Bert

I think to a large extent they are. At least, the Moon doesn't have a
big iron core because that wasn't part of the stuff that formed it, and
it does have a different distribution of elements. But would we be able
to tell? The elements may be the same, but the initial impact would have
vaporised and liquefied a lot of them to make wholly new minerals.

In message , Bill C.
writes
I'll have to read up on that one and get back to you. I was pretty excited
by the articles, but my boss won't be thrilled if I tell him I've got to
stay home to study astronomy. Maybe tonight. But to start, wouldn't many
or most of the minerals on the moon be from the impact object?

Bill C.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Bill C Yes I don't like the theory that the Moon was once part of
the Earth. Thanks to Apollo the rocks on the Moon are a lot different
that Earth rocks. Its just as bad a theory as the old theory that the
planets came out of the sun. Bert

--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

I think to a large extent they are. At least, the Moon doesn't have a
big iron core because that wasn't part of the stuff that formed it, and
it does have a different distribution of elements. But would we be able
to tell? The elements may be the same, but the initial impact would have
vaporised and liquefied a lot of them to make wholly new minerals.

In message , Bill C.
writes
I'll have to read up on that one and get back to you. I was pretty excited
by the articles, but my boss won't be thrilled if I tell him I've got to
stay home to study astronomy. Maybe tonight. But to start, wouldn't many
or most of the minerals on the moon be from the impact object?

Bill C.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Bill C Yes I don't like the theory that the Moon was once part of
the Earth. Thanks to Apollo the rocks on the Moon are a lot different
that Earth rocks. Its just as bad a theory as the old theory that the
planets came out of the sun. Bert

--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Hi Bill C Yes I don't like the theory that the Moon was once part of
the Earth. Thanks to Apollo the rocks on the Moon are a lot different
that Earth rocks. Its just as bad a theory as the old theory that the
planets came out of the sun. Bert

You may or may not like this theory, but you clearly don't understand
it. The theory is that the Earth was hit by a large body possibly as
big as Mars very early in its history or as it was forming. The
debris released into space from that impact eventually collected into
what would eventually form the moon. Computer simulations of such an
event have shown that the idea does work if conditions are right. The
impactor released a tremendous amount of energy that altered the form
of the material ejected from the impact point, depleting it of a
number of the more volatile elements and changing its minerology to
some extent. Thus, the lunar rocks would *not* be identical to the
rocks found on the surface of the Earth. Its not a bad theory at all,
but a workable one which may, in fact, be true.

David Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Hi Bill C Yes I don't like the theory that the Moon was once part of
the Earth. Thanks to Apollo the rocks on the Moon are a lot different
that Earth rocks. Its just as bad a theory as the old theory that the
planets came out of the sun. Bert

You may or may not like this theory, but you clearly don't understand
it. The theory is that the Earth was hit by a large body possibly as
big as Mars very early in its history or as it was forming. The
debris released into space from that impact eventually collected into
what would eventually form the moon. Computer simulations of such an
event have shown that the idea does work if conditions are right. The
impactor released a tremendous amount of energy that altered the form
of the material ejected from the impact point, depleting it of a
number of the more volatile elements and changing its minerology to
some extent. Thus, the lunar rocks would *not* be identical to the
rocks found on the surface of the Earth. Its not a bad theory at all,
but a workable one which may, in fact, be true.

David Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org

Hi David The nice part of you and I can live in the same spacetime and
express our views. My views are more mine,and yours are the classical
thoughts of your piers. Still I was told we bounce off each other
nicely(yes?) (no?) To put an object as close and the size
of our Moon in orbit has to have more than man made computer
computations to make a Mars size collision to work. In my way of
thinking. I think the Moon came at the right angle and speed,so that
their mutual gravitation matched their angular motion(equal forces) and
this resulted in the moon going around the Earth Bert PS we put
satellites to revolve around the Earth very easily using my thoughts.
Bert

Hi David The nice part of you and I can live in the same spacetime and
express our views. My views are more mine,and yours are the classical
thoughts of your piers. Still I was told we bounce off each other
nicely(yes?) (no?) To put an object as close and the size
of our Moon in orbit has to have more than man made computer
computations to make a Mars size collision to work. In my way of
thinking. I think the Moon came at the right angle and speed,so that
their mutual gravitation matched their angular motion(equal forces) and
this resulted in the moon going around the Earth Bert PS we put
satellites to revolve around the Earth very easily using my thoughts.
Bert

While the subject is comets, I would like the know a few things about
them myself. First off, I read somewhere once that an Earth-sized
comet collided with the sun a few years ago. Did that happen? If so,
how would one tell the difference between a rogue planet coming in
from the far reaches of space and a very large comet? I would assume
that if a planet was flung out into interstellar space it's atmosphere
would precipitate out and freeze without a sun. When and if it got
close to our sun it would begin to evaporate again. Would that form a
tail like a comet?

I know that scientists now claim that a planet hit Earth and formed
the moon in the beginning of the solar system. I used to have a
program that would start with a number of planets and would spin them
around a sun until a stable orbit was achieved. Most every run of the
program had most planets either hitting the sun or being flung off
into space. Very seldom did a stable solar system form.

Some of the orbits were extremely eccentric. Taking the equivalent of
tens of thousands of years to return before either crashing into the
sun or going back off into space. What is the reasoning against there
being at least one planet that has such an orbit? Something that takes
10,000 years to orbit the sun? Did we see such a planet and think it
was a comet? How big do comets get?

While the subject is comets, I would like the know a few things about
them myself. First off, I read somewhere once that an Earth-sized
comet collided with the sun a few years ago. Did that happen? If so,
how would one tell the difference between a rogue planet coming in
from the far reaches of space and a very large comet? I would assume
that if a planet was flung out into interstellar space it's atmosphere
would precipitate out and freeze without a sun. When and if it got
close to our sun it would begin to evaporate again. Would that form a
tail like a comet?

I know that scientists now claim that a planet hit Earth and formed
the moon in the beginning of the solar system. I used to have a
program that would start with a number of planets and would spin them
around a sun until a stable orbit was achieved. Most every run of the
program had most planets either hitting the sun or being flung off
into space. Very seldom did a stable solar system form.

Some of the orbits were extremely eccentric. Taking the equivalent of
tens of thousands of years to return before either crashing into the
sun or going back off into space. What is the reasoning against there
being at least one planet that has such an orbit? Something that takes
10,000 years to orbit the sun? Did we see such a planet and think it
was a comet? How big do comets get?

Ookie That theory tha the moon broke away from the Earth ,and was
kicked into just the right angular motion to be locked into Earth's
gravity field is a fairy tail(Once upon a time) It would be
nice if we could just blast a saterlite into orbit using this theory.
Can't be done. Lots of other stuff makes this theory very bad thinking.
Bert