A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Moon was produced by head-on collision?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 5th 16, 11:31 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

In sci.physics Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
R Kym Horsell writes:
Comparing times of new moon
versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of
in preciptation of a few percent.

Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the
effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than
physics.



google "moon and precipitation"
52 mn hits

Phase of the moon affects amount of rainfall - Phys.org
phys.org # Astronomy & Space # Space Exploration
7 days ago - Satellite data over the tropics, between 10 degrees S and 10 degrees N, shows a slight dip in rainfall when the moon is directly overhead or ...
Folklore Confirmed: The Moon's Phase Affects Rainfall ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/.../folklo...fects-rainfall
Oct 6, 2010 - Researchers find link between lunar cycles and precipitation.
In the news
Image for the news result
Moon can affect rainfall, scientists discover | Science | News
The Independent# - 2 days ago
The Moon can affect how heavy the rain is, according to a new study that could help improve ...
Moon Affects Rainfall, Says Study Based on NASA and Japanese Aerospace Data
Nature World News# - 2 days ago
Moon overhead makes rainfall lighter, scientists conclude
Telegraph.co.uk# - 2 days ago
More news for moon and precipitation
Moon's tidal forces affect amount of rainfall on Earth | UW ...
http://www.washington.edu/.../phases...t-of-rainfall/
Jan 29, 2016 - "As far as I know, this is the first study to convincingly connect the tidal force of the moon with rainfall," said corresponding author Tsubasa ...

--
Europe wasn't a very hospitable place fifteen millennia ago. The
westernmost landmass of the Eurasian continent had endured a long ice
age, with glaciers stretching across northern Europe and into the
region we now call Germany. But suddenly, about 14,500 years ago,
things started to warm up quickly. The glaciers melted so fast around
the globe that they caused sea levels to rise 52 feet in just 500
years. Meanwhile, the environment was in chaos, with wildlife trying
vainly to adjust to the rapid fluctuations in temperature. Humans
weren't immune to the changes, either.
-- http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...was-a-massive-
population-crash-in-europe-over-14500-years-ago/
  #32  
Old February 5th 16, 11:50 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

On 05/02/2016 21:48, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
R Kym Horsell writes:


Comparing times of new moon
versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of
in preciptation of a few percent.


Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the
effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than
physics.


I am sceptical too but here is one source with references:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...ap10/moon.html

There is a more recent climate related paper claiming a statistically
significant temperature to lunar phase correlation in satellite data but
not rainfall.

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten.../1481.abstract

It isn't totally implausible since the Earth will be very slightly
closer to the sun at full moon. The effect is tiny ~20mK

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #33  
Old February 6th 16, 08:30 AM posted to sci.astro
the_shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

On 2016-02-04, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

Steve Willner wrote:

As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search
didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the
isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012.
It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data
including elemental composition of both bodies.

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where
the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it
pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical
isotope levels between the Earth and Moon.

If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission,
how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this
hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real
calculation.

Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the
Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system
nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet
system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels.

Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon
much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact
hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each
other.

I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis
has a lot to like.

It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets...
that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the
moon,
but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet.

The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of
triangle singularity
and the big bang.

The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else.

Maybe you guys don't get it.

Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle
or point of view.


If you reverse the universe
to the beginning...
when it all comes to a point..
what shape is the point? round, square or triangle??


How about...

have you heard the expression 'killing two birds with one stone'?

Now, imagine every planet in the universe represents a bird...

kill them all with one stone.

In other words...you create a universe with one stone.

Now, if you still don't get it...

look for a stone
then look for two birds.

Now, try to kill both birds with one stone.




What yous don't seem to understand...
that the
triangle singularity begining point
was very precisely arranged in order
of a triangle.

If you get a bunch of people
to stand motionless, together
in the shape of a triangle...
then tell them..everyone on the outside of the triangle
to walk away from the triangle, so on with everyone else...
i don't know..tell them to walk away for 3 minutes..
what you will have is people scattered everywhere.

But it was ordered..and there will not be a triangle..
and everyone will be in it's place of 3 minutes.

This is the origin of the universe.

It's very simple.


You certainly are.


--
Bob Holtzman
A man is a man who will fight with a sword or
conquer Mt. Everest in snow. But the bravest of all
owns a '34 Ford and tries for six thousand in low.
  #34  
Old February 6th 16, 10:20 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

The Starmaker wrote:

Michael Moroney wrote:

The Starmaker writes:

Where would the water come from without our moon?


Rain clouds?


The moon is what makes it rain.

The clouds are created by the moon.



The way this works is
the moon draws in the moisture from the
trees up, and makes the clouds.

Now that you understand that part..
do you understand how the moon makes the ocean?
  #35  
Old February 6th 16, 07:37 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

The Starmaker writes:

The Starmaker wrote:


The moon is what makes it rain.

The clouds are created by the moon.



The way this works is
the moon draws in the moisture from the
trees up, and makes the clouds.


Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants
(by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component
of the water cycle.

Now that you understand that part..
do you understand how the moon makes the ocean?


False conclusion based on a false assumption.
  #36  
Old February 6th 16, 07:41 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

On 2/5/16 3:48 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
R Kym Horsell writes:
Comparing times of new moon
versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of
in preciptation of a few percent.


Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the
effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than
physics.



Lunar Phase Affects Rainfall

http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...-rainfall.html


Abstract

Classical tidal theory predicts that the lunar gravitational
semidiurnal tide (L2) should induce perturbations in relative
humidity (RH). Adiabatic expansion in divergent flow in advance of
the L2 pressure minimum cools the air and reduces its saturation
vapor pressure, thereby increasing the rate of condensation in
saturated air parcels and causing the relative humidity (RH) of
unsaturated parcels to rise. Here we detect a statistically
significant L2 signature in precipitation rate (P) in a 15 year,
eight times daily, global precipitation data set acquired in the
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission. Consistent with tidal theory and
with the notion that L2 modulates P mainly by perturbing RH, P varies
out of phase with pressure, and it increases at a rate of about 10%
per 1% increase in RH. These measurements thus provide a measure of
the sensitivity of P to planetary-scale changes in RH. Analysis of
solar semidiurnal (S2) tidal statistics yields similar results.

Citation

Rainfall variations induced by the lunar gravitational atmospheric
tide and their implications for the relationship between tropical
rainfall and humidity by Tsubasa Kohyama John (Michael) Wallace
published in Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL067342


Their new paper is the first to show that the moon’s gravitational
tug also puts a slight damper on the rain.

When the moon is overhead, its gravity causes Earth’s atmosphere to
bulge toward it, so the pressure or weight of the atmosphere on that
side of the planet goes up. Higher pressure increases the temperature
of air parcels below. Since warmer air can hold more moisture, the
same air parcels are now farther from their moisture capacity.



--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

  #37  
Old February 6th 16, 09:53 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Michael Moroney wrote:

The Starmaker writes:

The Starmaker wrote:


The moon is what makes it rain.

The clouds are created by the moon.


The way this works is
the moon draws in the moisture from the
trees up, and makes the clouds.


Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants
(by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component
of the water cycle.


What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about the moon as being
"a minor component of the water cycle."?

The Moon moves the ocean. Is the ocean "a minor component of the water cycle."????



Now that you understand that part..
do you understand how the moon makes the ocean?


False conclusion based on a false assumption.



The Moon not only...'controls' the rain, the ocean...but other

minor components of the water cycle.


Like for example...the rainforest.

Even the little drops of water on a single leaf.

Do you know what the Moon does to a single drop of water on a single leaf???

Do you actually believe that the Moon and affect the whole ocean on earth, but not a drop of water on a leaf?


You don't understand the mechanism of the moon....



do you understand how the moon makes the ocean??
  #38  
Old February 7th 16, 02:28 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

The Starmaker writes:

Michael Moroney wrote:


Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants
(by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component
of the water cycle.


What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about
the moon as being "a minor component of the water cycle."?


Can't you read? I said that plant transpiration of water (caused by the
sun) is a minor component. The moon is irrelevant, the words "moon" and
"tide" aren't even used in the Wikipedia article on the water cycle.
The moon isn't mentioned in a long USGS web page explaining the water
cycle, "tide" is only because they explain the water table and wells by
using the example of digging a hole at the beach which fills with water
from the ocean (and is affected by tides).

The Moon moves the ocean. Is the ocean "a minor component of the water
cycle."????


As a storage reservoir and a source of evaporation, the ocean is major.
The effect of tides on these are minimal, how minimal others are arguing
about in this thread.

Now that you understand that part..
do you understand how the moon makes the ocean?


It doesn't. It sloshes it around somewhat.

False conclusion based on a false assumption.


Do you know what the Moon does to a single drop of water on a single leaf???


I suppose it could raise a tide in it. Now I am wondering whether such
a tide could even be measured or whether a poison dart frog hopping
by would raise a larger tide in it.

Do you actually believe that the Moon and affect the whole ocean on
earth, but not a drop of water on a leaf?


Right now I am not bored enough to calculate how many nanometers high a
moon tide in a raindrop would be. Or a frog tide, either.

You don't understand the mechanism of the moon....
do you understand how the moon makes the ocean??


Babbling nonsense.
  #39  
Old February 7th 16, 04:06 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Dear Michael Moroney:

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:28:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
....
Babbling nonsense.


The "jack in the box" keeps popping out, if you keep responding to it in the usual way.

I am sure you know this, but he is artificially ignorant by choice. You may have boundless optimism that you can fix this condition, but he is consciously referencing biblical text, and picking and choosing which facts and observations support his position.

If you manage to pull the rug entirely out from under him, he will be forced to fall back on literal interpretation of biblical works, since Science cannot save his soul.

Your breath is wasted on his corpus. So if you enjoy watching the "jack in the box", keep on cranking...

David A. Smith
  #40  
Old February 7th 16, 10:54 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Michael Moroney wrote:

The Starmaker writes:

Michael Moroney wrote:


Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants
(by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component
of the water cycle.


What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about
the moon as being "a minor component of the water cycle."?


Can't you read? I said that plant transpiration of water (caused by the
sun) is a minor component. The moon is irrelevant, the words "moon" and
"tide" aren't even used in the Wikipedia article on the water cycle.
The moon isn't mentioned in a long USGS web page explaining the water
cycle, "tide" is only because they explain the water table and wells by
using the example of digging a hole at the beach which fills with water
from the ocean (and is affected by tides).


I see, you getting your information from a 'anonymous user-edited website'.


That means you don't know much...
https://www.google.com/#q=moon+tides&tbm=nws


Here’s how it works: The moon’s gravitational pull causes Earth’s atmosphere to bulge toward it, (on both sides of the earth) ..

this 'gravitational pull' by the moon pulls a drop of water from the leaf unto the ground. From the
ground the drops of water 'pulled by the moon’s gravitational pull' from the leaves, the billions
of leaves...form ruiing water on the ground that turns to rivers...that eventually form and...ocean.


In other words...

the earth's moon makes the ocean.


All from a single drop of water on a leaf.



http://revelwallpapers.net/d/7532364...ps-on-leaf.jpg


Where do you think fishes come from? From leaves that fall from trees.


Do you want me to explain How that works?


Don't expect to find this information on a 'anonymous user-edited website' like Wikipedia.


Why waste your time...read about it here from this first cover issue of Science magazine:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The...nal-2-abcd.jpg
 




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
Chapt23 Earth Moon collision; Layered ages of the Cosmos and SolarSystem #395 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 20th 11 07:26 AM
The Moon Alien's head! Pat Flannery History 7 October 22nd 06 12:06 PM
Large mass produced dob Big Al Amateur Astronomy 2 August 23rd 06 07:39 PM
Continents: the result of a Moon-forming collision? Jim McCauley Science 2 October 8th 05 03:55 PM
cargo for mass produced EELV.s steve rappolee Technology 1 February 28th 04 08:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 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.