Venus and Earth's Moon

Hi Everyone,

I am a graduate student in English, so I am by no means an expert in
astronomy or physics. However, the sciences do interest me a great
deal. Especially astronomy. Venus is one of my favorite subjects. I
have been interested in it since high school, when I did my science
project on it.

There are several things that have always bothered me both about the
current condition of Venus and about the formation of the Moon and I
am hoping that you will be able to clear things up for me and satisfy
my scientific curiosity on this subject.

As I understand it the current theory about the formation of The Moon
is that a Mars-sized object struck Earth and then the debris accreted
into our moon. I also understand that the current theory about Venus'
current condition is that subterranean lava caused both the
catastrophic restructuring of the Venusian surface and the planet's
poisonous atmosphere. Neither of these theories satisfied me, so over
the past few years, I have been developing a theory of my own linking
the two celestial events which seems to make more sense than any of
the currently accepted theories, and I am surprised that no expert
seems to have considered it before.

The basic gist of my theory is that Earth's moon was formed not from a
collision between Earth and another object, but from such a collision
involving Venus. I am no expert, as I said, but I do read and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that the evidence to support my
idea is there. That evidence can be found in what Venus has in
abundance but Earth lacks any traces of: a poisonous carbon dioxide
atmosphere with clouds of sulfuric acid, retrograde rotation, and a
surface that is far younger than it should be.

As I said, I am not an expert. I do, however, read enough and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that these things are indicative of
a massive impact. It has happened here on Earth before. When the
asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit our own planet 65 million years
ago, tons of the materials making up the Earth's crust were thrown
into the atmosphere. The expected effects—nuclear winter, acid rain,
and seismic disturbances of all kinds—all occurred. There is physical
evidence of that impact. There is, however, no evidence to support an
impact of the scale necessary to create the Moon.

If an object the size of Mars had hit Earth, there would be telling
evidence of the impact—even today—other than the big hunk of gray rock
we see in the night sky. Something that big—hitting at the right
angle and velocity—would have knocked Earth's rotation off-kilter. It
would also have vaporized the entire surface of the planet, sending
billions upon billions of tons of the planet's crust into the Terran
atmosphere on a scale millions—if not billions—of times more massive
that the impact that killed the dinosaurs. The end result would have
been a super-dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.
The density of the atmosphere would have not only contributed—along
with volcanic activity—to hellish surface temperatures, keeping the
planet's surface molten for a lot longer than it would normally be
under impact circumstances, but would keep that surface
younger-looking than it actually was by burning up the vast majority
of any asteroids or other debris that passed its way.

In short, Venus!

I have come up with three different scenarios where this seems to be
feasible. Each one seems to be more likely than the next.

The first scenario places Venus and Earth in a double-planet system
with similar atmospheres and surface chemistry. The Mars-sized
object—dubbed Orpheus, if I remember correctly—comes at the
double-planet system from somewhere out in the direction of Mars and
strikes Venus, sending the planet on a slow trek towards its current
solar orbit and leaving in its wake debris that eventually accretes
into the Moon.

The second scenario again places Venus and Earth in a double-planet
system with similar chemistry, but closer to Venus' current orbital
path. Orpheus strikes Venus from somewhere in the direction of
Mercury. The force of the resulting impact sends Earth, and a cloud
of space debris ejected during impact out into space towards Earth's
current orbit. The accompanying debris accretes into the Moon.

The third—and most likely—scenario leaves Venus and Earth in their
current orbits, but gives them similar chemistry and atmospheres.
Orpheus strikes Venus , vaporizing the surface and ejecting the
material into space. Most of it settles in the Venusian atmosphere to
create the Venus we know today. The rest of it is sent into space in
all directions. A major chunk of it heads out our way, is caught in
our gravity, and accretes into the Moon.

I have been developing this theory for several years now. Just about
every scientifically-minded person I have ever asked about it said
that it wasn't right, but when I pressured them, they couldn't give me
a valid, satisfactory reason as to *why* it wouldn't work.
Especially Scenario #3... Given that we've found Martian meteorites
right here on Earth, it seems feasible that enough material from a
Venusian impact could have made it here to form our Moon.

So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Jason

Hi Jason,

Interesting theory you have here, :-) However, I personally find
what you describe to be quite unlikely. I'm no expert also, keep
this in mind. Find my comments below:

Jason P. Bodine wrote:

[...]
The basic gist of my theory is that Earth's moon was formed not from a
collision between Earth and another object, but from such a collision
involving Venus. I am no expert, as I said, but I do read and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that the evidence to support my
idea is there. That evidence can be found in what Venus has in
abundance but Earth lacks any traces of: a poisonous carbon dioxide
atmosphere with clouds of sulfuric acid, retrograde rotation, and a
surface that is far younger than it should be.

As I said, I am not an expert. I do, however, read enough and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that these things are indicative of
a massive impact. It has happened here on Earth before. When the
asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit our own planet 65 million years
ago, tons of the materials making up the Earth's crust were thrown
into the atmosphere. The expected effects—nuclear winter, acid rain,
and seismic disturbances of all kinds—all occurred. There is physical
evidence of that impact. There is, however, no evidence to support an
impact of the scale necessary to create the Moon.

If an object the size of Mars had hit Earth, there would be telling
evidence of the impact—even today—other than the big hunk of gray rock
we see in the night sky. Something that big—hitting at the right
angle and velocity—would have knocked Earth's rotation off-kilter.

Quite possible...

It would also have vaporized the entire surface of the planet, sending
billions upon billions of tons of the planet's crust into the Terran
atmosphere on a scale millions—if not billions—of times more massive
that the impact that killed the dinosaurs.

I would think it would practically re-melt the whole planet, first
breaking it completely.

The end result would have
been a super-dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.

The end result would probably look like a fresh-new planet. None
of the original atmosphere or surface will remain. It would be
just like starting anew. I don't see how anything at all recognizable
from the previous planet would remain.

The density of the atmosphere would have not only contributed—along
with volcanic activity—to hellish surface temperatures, keeping the
planet's surface molten for a lot longer than it would normally be
under impact circumstances, but would keep that surface
younger-looking than it actually was by burning up the vast majority
of any asteroids or other debris that passed its way.

In short, Venus!

I have come up with three different scenarios where this seems to be
feasible. Each one seems to be more likely than the next.

The first scenario places Venus and Earth in a double-planet system
with similar atmospheres and surface chemistry. The Mars-sized
object—dubbed Orpheus, if I remember correctly—comes at the
double-planet system from somewhere out in the direction of Mars and
strikes Venus, sending the planet on a slow trek towards its current
solar orbit and leaving in its wake debris that eventually accretes
into the Moon.

The first problem would be that if that was the case, Venus now would
be in a highly elliptical orbit almost crossing the Earth orbit. I
don't see any mechanism that will allow such an orbit to be circularized
to the extent of Venus' orbit.

The second scenario again places Venus and Earth in a double-planet
system with similar chemistry, but closer to Venus' current orbital
path. Orpheus strikes Venus from somewhere in the direction of
Mercury. The force of the resulting impact sends Earth, and a cloud
of space debris ejected during impact out into space towards Earth's
current orbit. The accompanying debris accretes into the Moon.

Again, the problem with the nearly circullar orbit of Earth now.

The third—and most likely—scenario leaves Venus and Earth in their
current orbits, but gives them similar chemistry and atmospheres.
Orpheus strikes Venus , vaporizing the surface and ejecting the
material into space. Most of it settles in the Venusian atmosphere to
create the Venus we know today.

The impact would practically blow the atmosphere away and the
athmosphere will be created anew from the usual sources after the
things get stable.

The rest of it is sent into space in
all directions. A major chunk of it heads out our way, is caught in
our gravity, and accretes into the Moon.

It's very difficult to catch something in Earth's gravity. You need
extremely "lucky" conditions for this to happen, if the thing was
flying on interplanetary trajectory. Anyway, even if this happens,
the orbit of such an object around Earth would be very elliptical.

Look for example at the way Cassini entered Saturn orbit few days
ago. Oh man, it was difficult! The slightest miscalculation and you
have a fly-by, not Saturn orbit. Or look at Mars Odyssey. In both
cases we need some external force to act on the object entering orbit.
Gravity of the two objects will not do it.

In Cassini's case it was a long 96 minute burn. In Mars Odyssey it
was an extremely precise pass through the upper layers of the atmosphere,
or "aerobraking". Without these none of the aparats would enter
orbit but would just sweep around and changing direction will
disappear never to be seen around the planet again. Note that even with
these extra efforts (the orbital insertion burn or the aerobraking), the
initial orbits (before the subsequent adjustment burns) are highly
elliptical.

So, talking of such huge quantity of matter, like the Moon, to be
captured in orbit around Earth coming from an interplanetary trajectory,
does not make much sense, IMHO.

I have been developing this theory for several years now. Just about
every scientifically-minded person I have ever asked about it said
that it wasn't right, but when I pressured them, they couldn't give me
a valid, satisfactory reason as to *why* it wouldn't work.
Especially Scenario #3... Given that we've found Martian meteorites
right here on Earth, it seems feasible that enough material from a
Venusian impact could have made it here to form our Moon.

So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Jason

I hope my answers make sense and point some of the trickiest places in
your theory. I also hope that more people would answer to your post
before all the thread goes up in flames, :-)

Regards,

- Alex

Hi Jason,

Interesting theory you have here, :-) However, I personally find
what you describe to be quite unlikely. I'm no expert also, keep
this in mind. Find my comments below:

Jason P. Bodine wrote:

[...]
The basic gist of my theory is that Earth's moon was formed not from a
collision between Earth and another object, but from such a collision
involving Venus. I am no expert, as I said, but I do read and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that the evidence to support my
idea is there. That evidence can be found in what Venus has in
abundance but Earth lacks any traces of: a poisonous carbon dioxide
atmosphere with clouds of sulfuric acid, retrograde rotation, and a
surface that is far younger than it should be.

As I said, I am not an expert. I do, however, read enough and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that these things are indicative of
a massive impact. It has happened here on Earth before. When the
asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit our own planet 65 million years
ago, tons of the materials making up the Earth's crust were thrown
into the atmosphere. The expected effects—nuclear winter, acid rain,
and seismic disturbances of all kinds—all occurred. There is physical
evidence of that impact. There is, however, no evidence to support an
impact of the scale necessary to create the Moon.

If an object the size of Mars had hit Earth, there would be telling
evidence of the impact—even today—other than the big hunk of gray rock
we see in the night sky. Something that big—hitting at the right
angle and velocity—would have knocked Earth's rotation off-kilter.

Quite possible...

It would also have vaporized the entire surface of the planet, sending
billions upon billions of tons of the planet's crust into the Terran
atmosphere on a scale millions—if not billions—of times more massive
that the impact that killed the dinosaurs.

I would think it would practically re-melt the whole planet, first
breaking it completely.

The end result would have
been a super-dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.

The end result would probably look like a fresh-new planet. None
of the original atmosphere or surface will remain. It would be
just like starting anew. I don't see how anything at all recognizable
from the previous planet would remain.

The density of the atmosphere would have not only contributed—along
with volcanic activity—to hellish surface temperatures, keeping the
planet's surface molten for a lot longer than it would normally be
under impact circumstances, but would keep that surface
younger-looking than it actually was by burning up the vast majority
of any asteroids or other debris that passed its way.

In short, Venus!

I have come up with three different scenarios where this seems to be
feasible. Each one seems to be more likely than the next.

The first scenario places Venus and Earth in a double-planet system
with similar atmospheres and surface chemistry. The Mars-sized
object—dubbed Orpheus, if I remember correctly—comes at the
double-planet system from somewhere out in the direction of Mars and
strikes Venus, sending the planet on a slow trek towards its current
solar orbit and leaving in its wake debris that eventually accretes
into the Moon.

The first problem would be that if that was the case, Venus now would
be in a highly elliptical orbit almost crossing the Earth orbit. I
don't see any mechanism that will allow such an orbit to be circularized
to the extent of Venus' orbit.

The second scenario again places Venus and Earth in a double-planet
system with similar chemistry, but closer to Venus' current orbital
path. Orpheus strikes Venus from somewhere in the direction of
Mercury. The force of the resulting impact sends Earth, and a cloud
of space debris ejected during impact out into space towards Earth's
current orbit. The accompanying debris accretes into the Moon.

Again, the problem with the nearly circullar orbit of Earth now.

The third—and most likely—scenario leaves Venus and Earth in their
current orbits, but gives them similar chemistry and atmospheres.
Orpheus strikes Venus , vaporizing the surface and ejecting the
material into space. Most of it settles in the Venusian atmosphere to
create the Venus we know today.

The impact would practically blow the atmosphere away and the
athmosphere will be created anew from the usual sources after the
things get stable.

The rest of it is sent into space in
all directions. A major chunk of it heads out our way, is caught in
our gravity, and accretes into the Moon.

It's very difficult to catch something in Earth's gravity. You need
extremely "lucky" conditions for this to happen, if the thing was
flying on interplanetary trajectory. Anyway, even if this happens,
the orbit of such an object around Earth would be very elliptical.

Look for example at the way Cassini entered Saturn orbit few days
ago. Oh man, it was difficult! The slightest miscalculation and you
have a fly-by, not Saturn orbit. Or look at Mars Odyssey. In both
cases we need some external force to act on the object entering orbit.
Gravity of the two objects will not do it.

In Cassini's case it was a long 96 minute burn. In Mars Odyssey it
was an extremely precise pass through the upper layers of the atmosphere,
or "aerobraking". Without these none of the aparats would enter
orbit but would just sweep around and changing direction will
disappear never to be seen around the planet again. Note that even with
these extra efforts (the orbital insertion burn or the aerobraking), the
initial orbits (before the subsequent adjustment burns) are highly
elliptical.

So, talking of such huge quantity of matter, like the Moon, to be
captured in orbit around Earth coming from an interplanetary trajectory,
does not make much sense, IMHO.

I have been developing this theory for several years now. Just about
every scientifically-minded person I have ever asked about it said
that it wasn't right, but when I pressured them, they couldn't give me
a valid, satisfactory reason as to *why* it wouldn't work.
Especially Scenario #3... Given that we've found Martian meteorites
right here on Earth, it seems feasible that enough material from a
Venusian impact could have made it here to form our Moon.

So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Jason

I hope my answers make sense and point some of the trickiest places in
your theory. I also hope that more people would answer to your post
before all the thread goes up in flames, :-)

Regards,

- Alex

(Jason P. Bodine) wrote in
om:

1. Is my theory sound?

No.

2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?

NA

3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Because orbital mechanics do not allow for the scenarios you present.
Take #1 in which Venus starts near Earth orbit, is struck, and goes off
on a "slow trek" to its current orbit. What makes it settle into that
nearly circular orbit when it gets there? You can't just wish that
problem away.

In scenario 2, you have the same problem explaining how the Earth moved
from Venus orbit to its current orbit and then stabilized there. In
addition, you need to explain how the impact forced Earth out of Venus'
orbit without leaving signs of an impact which you argue are missing.

In scenario 3, you don't explain how a major chunk of material knocked
loose from Venus settles into a stable, near circular orbit around the
Earth. If you've actually worked on this theory for years, you should
take time off and study orbital mechanics. It will be time well spent.

--
Steve Gray

(Jason P. Bodine) wrote in
om:

1. Is my theory sound?

No.

2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?

NA

3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Because orbital mechanics do not allow for the scenarios you present.
Take #1 in which Venus starts near Earth orbit, is struck, and goes off
on a "slow trek" to its current orbit. What makes it settle into that
nearly circular orbit when it gets there? You can't just wish that
problem away.

In scenario 2, you have the same problem explaining how the Earth moved
from Venus orbit to its current orbit and then stabilized there. In
addition, you need to explain how the impact forced Earth out of Venus'
orbit without leaving signs of an impact which you argue are missing.

In scenario 3, you don't explain how a major chunk of material knocked
loose from Venus settles into a stable, near circular orbit around the
Earth. If you've actually worked on this theory for years, you should
take time off and study orbital mechanics. It will be time well spent.

--
Steve Gray

"Jason P. Bodine" wrote in message om...
So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Well, it's clear from Venus' retrograde rotation that
_something_ major happened to it at some point. But
scientists have proven, almost without question that our
moon had its origins in the Earth not Venus.

Rick

"Jason P. Bodine" wrote in message om...
So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Well, it's clear from Venus' retrograde rotation that
_something_ major happened to it at some point. But
scientists have proven, almost without question that our
moon had its origins in the Earth not Venus.

Rick

Jason P. Bodine wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I am a graduate student in English, so I am by no means an expert in
astronomy or physics. However, the sciences do interest me a great
deal. Especially astronomy. Venus is one of my favorite subjects. I
have been interested in it since high school, when I did my science
project on it.

There are several things that have always bothered me both about the
current condition of Venus and about the formation of the Moon and I
am hoping that you will be able to clear things up for me and satisfy
my scientific curiosity on this subject.

As I understand it the current theory about the formation of The Moon
is that a Mars-sized object struck Earth and then the debris accreted
into our moon. I also understand that the current theory about Venus'
current condition is that subterranean lava caused both the
catastrophic restructuring of the Venusian surface and the planet's
poisonous atmosphere. Neither of these theories satisfied me, so over
the past few years, I have been developing a theory of my own linking
the two celestial events which seems to make more sense than any of
the currently accepted theories, and I am surprised that no expert
seems to have considered it before.

The basic gist of my theory is that Earth's moon was formed not from a
collision between Earth and another object, but from such a collision
involving Venus. I am no expert, as I said, but I do read and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that the evidence to support my
idea is there. That evidence can be found in what Venus has in
abundance but Earth lacks any traces of: a poisonous carbon dioxide
atmosphere with clouds of sulfuric acid, retrograde rotation, and a
surface that is far younger than it should be.

As I said, I am not an expert. I do, however, read enough and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that these things are indicative of
a massive impact. It has happened here on Earth before. When the
asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit our own planet 65 million years
ago, tons of the materials making up the Earth's crust were thrown
into the atmosphere. The expected effects—nuclear winter, acid rain,
and seismic disturbances of all kinds—all occurred. There is physical
evidence of that impact. There is, however, no evidence to support an
impact of the scale necessary to create the Moon.

If an object the size of Mars had hit Earth, there would be telling
evidence of the impact—even today—other than the big hunk of gray rock
we see in the night sky. Something that big—hitting at the right
angle and velocity—would have knocked Earth's rotation off-kilter. It
would also have vaporized the entire surface of the planet, sending
billions upon billions of tons of the planet's crust into the Terran
atmosphere on a scale millions—if not billions—of times more massive
that the impact that killed the dinosaurs. The end result would have
been a super-dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.
The density of the atmosphere would have not only contributed—along
with volcanic activity—to hellish surface temperatures, keeping the
planet's surface molten for a lot longer than it would normally be
under impact circumstances, but would keep that surface
younger-looking than it actually was by burning up the vast majority
of any asteroids or other debris that passed its way.

In short, Venus!

I have come up with three different scenarios where this seems to be
feasible. Each one seems to be more likely than the next.

The first scenario places Venus and Earth in a double-planet system
with similar atmospheres and surface chemistry. The Mars-sized
object—dubbed Orpheus, if I remember correctly—comes at the
double-planet system from somewhere out in the direction of Mars and
strikes Venus, sending the planet on a slow trek towards its current
solar orbit and leaving in its wake debris that eventually accretes
into the Moon.

The second scenario again places Venus and Earth in a double-planet
system with similar chemistry, but closer to Venus' current orbital
path. Orpheus strikes Venus from somewhere in the direction of
Mercury. The force of the resulting impact sends Earth, and a cloud
of space debris ejected during impact out into space towards Earth's
current orbit. The accompanying debris accretes into the Moon.

The third—and most likely—scenario leaves Venus and Earth in their
current orbits, but gives them similar chemistry and atmospheres.
Orpheus strikes Venus , vaporizing the surface and ejecting the
material into space. Most of it settles in the Venusian atmosphere to
create the Venus we know today. The rest of it is sent into space in
all directions. A major chunk of it heads out our way, is caught in
our gravity, and accretes into the Moon.

I have been developing this theory for several years now. Just about
every scientifically-minded person I have ever asked about it said
that it wasn't right, but when I pressured them, they couldn't give me
a valid, satisfactory reason as to *why* it wouldn't work.
Especially Scenario #3... Given that we've found Martian meteorites
right here on Earth, it seems feasible that enough material from a
Venusian impact could have made it here to form our Moon.

So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Jason

Hi Jason...
regarding #1:
Depends on what your definition of "sound" is.

regarding question #2:
The likely reason it that is wouldn't withstand peer review.

I would think you'd be well advised to continue your English studies, as
you don't seem to be making much headway in the sciences.
Regards,
Etok




__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Jason P. Bodine wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I am a graduate student in English, so I am by no means an expert in
astronomy or physics. However, the sciences do interest me a great
deal. Especially astronomy. Venus is one of my favorite subjects. I
have been interested in it since high school, when I did my science
project on it.

There are several things that have always bothered me both about the
current condition of Venus and about the formation of the Moon and I
am hoping that you will be able to clear things up for me and satisfy
my scientific curiosity on this subject.

As I understand it the current theory about the formation of The Moon
is that a Mars-sized object struck Earth and then the debris accreted
into our moon. I also understand that the current theory about Venus'
current condition is that subterranean lava caused both the
catastrophic restructuring of the Venusian surface and the planet's
poisonous atmosphere. Neither of these theories satisfied me, so over
the past few years, I have been developing a theory of my own linking
the two celestial events which seems to make more sense than any of
the currently accepted theories, and I am surprised that no expert
seems to have considered it before.

The basic gist of my theory is that Earth's moon was formed not from a
collision between Earth and another object, but from such a collision
involving Venus. I am no expert, as I said, but I do read and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that the evidence to support my
idea is there. That evidence can be found in what Venus has in
abundance but Earth lacks any traces of: a poisonous carbon dioxide
atmosphere with clouds of sulfuric acid, retrograde rotation, and a
surface that is far younger than it should be.

As I said, I am not an expert. I do, however, read enough and watch
The Science Channel enough to know that these things are indicative of
a massive impact. It has happened here on Earth before. When the
asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit our own planet 65 million years
ago, tons of the materials making up the Earth's crust were thrown
into the atmosphere. The expected effects—nuclear winter, acid rain,
and seismic disturbances of all kinds—all occurred. There is physical
evidence of that impact. There is, however, no evidence to support an
impact of the scale necessary to create the Moon.

If an object the size of Mars had hit Earth, there would be telling
evidence of the impact—even today—other than the big hunk of gray rock
we see in the night sky. Something that big—hitting at the right
angle and velocity—would have knocked Earth's rotation off-kilter. It
would also have vaporized the entire surface of the planet, sending
billions upon billions of tons of the planet's crust into the Terran
atmosphere on a scale millions—if not billions—of times more massive
that the impact that killed the dinosaurs. The end result would have
been a super-dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.
The density of the atmosphere would have not only contributed—along
with volcanic activity—to hellish surface temperatures, keeping the
planet's surface molten for a lot longer than it would normally be
under impact circumstances, but would keep that surface
younger-looking than it actually was by burning up the vast majority
of any asteroids or other debris that passed its way.

In short, Venus!

I have come up with three different scenarios where this seems to be
feasible. Each one seems to be more likely than the next.

The first scenario places Venus and Earth in a double-planet system
with similar atmospheres and surface chemistry. The Mars-sized
object—dubbed Orpheus, if I remember correctly—comes at the
double-planet system from somewhere out in the direction of Mars and
strikes Venus, sending the planet on a slow trek towards its current
solar orbit and leaving in its wake debris that eventually accretes
into the Moon.

The second scenario again places Venus and Earth in a double-planet
system with similar chemistry, but closer to Venus' current orbital
path. Orpheus strikes Venus from somewhere in the direction of
Mercury. The force of the resulting impact sends Earth, and a cloud
of space debris ejected during impact out into space towards Earth's
current orbit. The accompanying debris accretes into the Moon.

The third—and most likely—scenario leaves Venus and Earth in their
current orbits, but gives them similar chemistry and atmospheres.
Orpheus strikes Venus , vaporizing the surface and ejecting the
material into space. Most of it settles in the Venusian atmosphere to
create the Venus we know today. The rest of it is sent into space in
all directions. A major chunk of it heads out our way, is caught in
our gravity, and accretes into the Moon.

I have been developing this theory for several years now. Just about
every scientifically-minded person I have ever asked about it said
that it wasn't right, but when I pressured them, they couldn't give me
a valid, satisfactory reason as to *why* it wouldn't work.
Especially Scenario #3... Given that we've found Martian meteorites
right here on Earth, it seems feasible that enough material from a
Venusian impact could have made it here to form our Moon.

So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Jason

Hi Jason...
regarding #1:
Depends on what your definition of "sound" is.

regarding question #2:
The likely reason it that is wouldn't withstand peer review.

I would think you'd be well advised to continue your English studies, as
you don't seem to be making much headway in the sciences.
Regards,
Etok




__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Yes I believe the chemical composition of the Earth and Moon have been found
to be very similar and this is one of the main reasons that scientists
believe the moon was bourne of the earth.
I do wonder though doesn't the most accepted theory claim the split occurred
when the earth was "molton" and as such there would not be a visible sign of
impact.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"Jason P. Bodine" wrote in message
om...
So, to sum up, my questions a

1. Is my theory sound?
2. If it is sound, why has no scientist ever published such an idea?
3. If it is *not* sound, why not?

Thanks for your time!

Well, it's clear from Venus' retrograde rotation that
_something_ major happened to it at some point. But
scientists have proven, almost without question that our
moon had its origins in the Earth not Venus.

Rick