Hello,
I recently heard a theory that the moon is really part of earth that got blown off by a big meteor.
Plese post ur comments!
Hello,
I recently heard a theory that the moon is really part of earth that got blown off by a big meteor.
Plese post ur comments!
I read somewhere that it was part of Earth, but that it was knocked off by Mars rather than a meteor. I don't think anythings been confirmed, though.
T3h l33t ski1z,
AE
T3h l33t ski1z,
AE
QUOTE (AE_JO_59+Nov 10 2007, 10:21 PM)
I read somewhere that it was part of Earth, but that it was knocked off by Mars rather than a meteor.
I think it was just a Mars - sized body, rather than Mars itself.
- Gehn
I think it was just a Mars - sized body, rather than Mars itself.
- Gehn
Now I thought that rethinker was going to start this thread to discuss his egg shaped earth?
Anyway the big splat is a bit hard to accept if you were taught something else in school. but everything changes.
Anyway the big splat is a bit hard to accept if you were taught something else in school. but everything changes.
QUOTE (roam+Nov 10 2007, 09:59 PM)
Hello,
I recently heard a theory that the moon is really part of earth that got blown off by a big meteor.
Plese post ur comments!
About 15 years ago I took part in a forum thread on the old CompuServe Science Forum. The topic was about this theory that the Moon was formed by a large body (about the size of Mars) that collided with Earth. When his occurred, according to the theory, the body which collided with Earth was dispersed into a wide orbit surrounding the Earth much like Saturn's rings, only with a lot more mass. The orbiting debris finally coalesced into what is now the Moon.
One of the scientists who commented on this theory was a gentleman who had earlier identified himself as a NASA employee who had worked on the celestial mechanics involved in Moon mission planing. He said that when he had first heard about the theory he thought it was without merit; however, after giving it some thought (and perhaps some computer analysis, I don't recall) he came to accept the theory as probably correct. Of course, argument from authority is no argument at all, still I would be interested in knowing if this theory has been tested via computer simulations. Anyone know?
-- Charles
I recently heard a theory that the moon is really part of earth that got blown off by a big meteor.
Plese post ur comments!
About 15 years ago I took part in a forum thread on the old CompuServe Science Forum. The topic was about this theory that the Moon was formed by a large body (about the size of Mars) that collided with Earth. When his occurred, according to the theory, the body which collided with Earth was dispersed into a wide orbit surrounding the Earth much like Saturn's rings, only with a lot more mass. The orbiting debris finally coalesced into what is now the Moon.
One of the scientists who commented on this theory was a gentleman who had earlier identified himself as a NASA employee who had worked on the celestial mechanics involved in Moon mission planing. He said that when he had first heard about the theory he thought it was without merit; however, after giving it some thought (and perhaps some computer analysis, I don't recall) he came to accept the theory as probably correct. Of course, argument from authority is no argument at all, still I would be interested in knowing if this theory has been tested via computer simulations. Anyone know?
-- Charles
Hello NowIsForever,Gehn,AE_JO_59,roam,Paul and all.
Paul did suggest I start a topic on my Earth Egg shape Theory,so I will just add a few comments to Roam's interesting topic, and start a topic about my theory.
If indeed Roam wondered if the Moon was part of Earth,it is strange that Roam would not just walk outside some night, and look up at the moon. You can clearly see it is not part of Earth, but indeed is separated by a large distance.
If the question was on the lines of was the moon part of Earth, then I must say yes.
I will add some comments slowly to my topic and I hope Roam will not take offense to my starting a similar topic.
Paul did suggest I start a topic on my Earth Egg shape Theory,so I will just add a few comments to Roam's interesting topic, and start a topic about my theory.
If indeed Roam wondered if the Moon was part of Earth,it is strange that Roam would not just walk outside some night, and look up at the moon. You can clearly see it is not part of Earth, but indeed is separated by a large distance.
If the question was on the lines of was the moon part of Earth, then I must say yes.
I will add some comments slowly to my topic and I hope Roam will not take offense to my starting a similar topic.
Analysis of lunar rock samples returned from the US missions in the 70's show the rock on the moon is the same as that found on Earth, so yes it was originally part of the Earth.
QUOTE (MikeeMiracle+Nov 16 2007, 09:34 AM)
Analysis of lunar rock samples returned from the US missions in the 70's show the rock on the moon is the same as that found on Earth, so yes it was originally part of the Earth.
That is not conclusive proof as the coalescence (Formation) might have occurred separately - from the same available accretion materials....
Most of what all of the planets accreted from would probably have originated from the same (or similar) source, thereafter most of the differentiation of the various planets composure arises as a result of their distance from whatever was the origin of the accretion materials ...and other factors. (Gravity)
That is not conclusive proof as the coalescence (Formation) might have occurred separately - from the same available accretion materials....
Most of what all of the planets accreted from would probably have originated from the same (or similar) source, thereafter most of the differentiation of the various planets composure arises as a result of their distance from whatever was the origin of the accretion materials ...and other factors. (Gravity)
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 17 2007, 02:48 AM)
That is not conclusive proof as the coalescence (Formation) might have occurred separately - from the same available accretion materials....
Most of what all of the planets accreted from would probably have originated from the same (or similar) source, thereafter most of the differentiation of the various planets composure arises as a result of their distance from whatever was the origin of the accretion materials ...and other factors. (Gravity)
Co-formation is not consistent with the Angular momentum of the earth-moon system.
Co-formation can not explain the fact that the moon is depleted wrt Iron and has a smaller core then it should.
Co-formation can not explain the lack of volatile materials on the moon.
So the co-formation theory is inadequit.
The impact hypothesis explains exactly the angular momentum of the earth-moon system (when simulated on computer).
The impact hypothesis can explain the depletion of Iron in the moon.
The impact hypothesis can explain the lack of volatile materials.
The co-formation theory can not explain why the bulk composition of the moon as a whole is the same as the earths mantle, where as the impact theory does, according to the co-formation theory, the earth and the moon should have the same bulk composition, they don't.
The capture theory - the idea that the moon was formed elsewhere also has many problems, including the striking similarities between the composition of the earth and the moon, basically, my understanding of that objection is that it would require the moon to have formed close enough to the earth that it should have been captured or disrupted much sooner, then there's the fact that the evidence tells us that the moon formed 30-50 mya after the planets formed, and this is not insignificant. Another strong point against the capture hypothesis is the issue of angular momentum. the current observed angular momentum is far too low for the moon to have been captured, and that's aside from the fact that captured bodies normally follow high ellipticity, retrograde orbits. The observed angular momentum of the earth-moon system is so low, that it would require the moon to have lost some energy through some mechanism like, for example, the earth having had a significantly extended atmosphere for the moon to pass through to loose energy, but, once again, the bulk of the evidence (or should I say the entirety of the evidence) is against this idea - for example, the roche limit for the earth is approximately 9,500 km (approx 1.5 earth radii), this represents the closest the moon could approach the earth without being disrupted, and means that the earths atmosphere would have to be dense enough to slow the moon at this point, now, given that at the moment the International Space Station has a stable orbit between 320 and 380 km, and the top of the exosphere sits at 10,000 km, and is characterized by "Free moving particles that may migrate into or out of the magnetosphere or solar wind" that doesn't seem very terribly likely now does it?
Most of what all of the planets accreted from would probably have originated from the same (or similar) source, thereafter most of the differentiation of the various planets composure arises as a result of their distance from whatever was the origin of the accretion materials ...and other factors. (Gravity)
Co-formation is not consistent with the Angular momentum of the earth-moon system.
Co-formation can not explain the fact that the moon is depleted wrt Iron and has a smaller core then it should.
Co-formation can not explain the lack of volatile materials on the moon.
So the co-formation theory is inadequit.
The impact hypothesis explains exactly the angular momentum of the earth-moon system (when simulated on computer).
The impact hypothesis can explain the depletion of Iron in the moon.
The impact hypothesis can explain the lack of volatile materials.
The co-formation theory can not explain why the bulk composition of the moon as a whole is the same as the earths mantle, where as the impact theory does, according to the co-formation theory, the earth and the moon should have the same bulk composition, they don't.
The capture theory - the idea that the moon was formed elsewhere also has many problems, including the striking similarities between the composition of the earth and the moon, basically, my understanding of that objection is that it would require the moon to have formed close enough to the earth that it should have been captured or disrupted much sooner, then there's the fact that the evidence tells us that the moon formed 30-50 mya after the planets formed, and this is not insignificant. Another strong point against the capture hypothesis is the issue of angular momentum. the current observed angular momentum is far too low for the moon to have been captured, and that's aside from the fact that captured bodies normally follow high ellipticity, retrograde orbits. The observed angular momentum of the earth-moon system is so low, that it would require the moon to have lost some energy through some mechanism like, for example, the earth having had a significantly extended atmosphere for the moon to pass through to loose energy, but, once again, the bulk of the evidence (or should I say the entirety of the evidence) is against this idea - for example, the roche limit for the earth is approximately 9,500 km (approx 1.5 earth radii), this represents the closest the moon could approach the earth without being disrupted, and means that the earths atmosphere would have to be dense enough to slow the moon at this point, now, given that at the moment the International Space Station has a stable orbit between 320 and 380 km, and the top of the exosphere sits at 10,000 km, and is characterized by "Free moving particles that may migrate into or out of the magnetosphere or solar wind" that doesn't seem very terribly likely now does it?
And what if the formative body of origin was a sort of 'un-balanced dog bone shape' that later broke apart...then, later still, aggregated even more from the same sources?
The Moon was ejected from the Earth's core. just as all the planets were ejected from the Sun
Jupiter, being positive in energy, may continue to eject moons.
Jupiter, being positive in energy, may continue to eject moons.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 19 2007, 07:46 AM)
And what if the formative body of origin was a sort of 'un-balanced dog bone shape' that later broke apart...then, later still, aggregated even more from the same sources?
Take a look at the definition of a planet (bozo). The key thing that defines planets and dwarf planets is they are round. The reason they are round is because their gravity causes any other shape to collapse. That's collapse (bozo), not fly off.
Take a look at the definition of a planet (bozo). The key thing that defines planets and dwarf planets is they are round. The reason they are round is because their gravity causes any other shape to collapse. That's collapse (bozo), not fly off.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 19 2007, 08:46 AM)
And what if the formative body of origin was a sort of 'un-balanced dog bone shape' that later broke apart...then, later still, aggregated even more from the same sources?
Then that would fall under the "Fission" category, with all of it's short comings.
Then that would fall under the "Fission" category, with all of it's short comings.
QUOTE (N O M+Nov 18 2007, 09:14 PM)
Take a look at the definition of a planet (bozo). The key thing that defines planets and dwarf planets is they are round. The reason they are round is because their gravity causes any other shape to collapse. That's collapse (bozo), not fly off.
And that would be why an off centered formation would have separated - the gravitational pull breaks the connector...hummmm.....
Tell me 'oh' sage of the Planetary bodies' (
) why isn't Pluto still a planet and why is the Moon called a 'moon' and not a planet? after all it too is in the form of round.....
Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??
Tell me 'oh' sage of the Planetary bodies' (
) why isn't Pluto still a planet and why is the Moon called a 'moon' and not a planet? after all it too is in the form of round.....Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 02:19 PM)
And that would be why an off centered formation would have separated - the gravitational pull breaks the connector...hummmm.....
Tell me 'oh' sage of the Planetary bodies' ( ) why isn't Pluto still a planet and why is the Moon called a 'moon' and not a planet? after all it too is in the form of round.....
Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??
Because Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet, because although it has sufficient gravity to overcome rigid body forces and assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (sphere), and although it orbits the sun, it is not sufficiently massive to clear the neighbourhood of it's orbital zone.
The moon is not classed as a planet because it is not in orbit around the sun, because it is in orbit around the earth, it is classed as a satelite. If a body the size of earth were in orbit around Jupiter, it would be classed as a satelite.
Of course, you'd know all of this if you had the capacity to look for the information for yourself.
Tell me 'oh' sage of the Planetary bodies' (
) why isn't Pluto still a planet and why is the Moon called a 'moon' and not a planet? after all it too is in the form of round.....Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??
Because Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet, because although it has sufficient gravity to overcome rigid body forces and assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (sphere), and although it orbits the sun, it is not sufficiently massive to clear the neighbourhood of it's orbital zone.
The moon is not classed as a planet because it is not in orbit around the sun, because it is in orbit around the earth, it is classed as a satelite. If a body the size of earth were in orbit around Jupiter, it would be classed as a satelite.
Of course, you'd know all of this if you had the capacity to look for the information for yourself.
......you missed the last question...and dodged noticing the first statement.....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 01:49 PM)
......you missed the last question...and dodged noticing the first statement.....
You mean about the clown? It probably was a poor way to describe you (parsons), because there is no way you will ever be famous.
Funny how you can accuse others of dodging questions. I have asked you several times why you use that stupid "(I)" affectation, yet you still dodge.
You mean about the clown? It probably was a poor way to describe you (parsons), because there is no way you will ever be famous.
Funny how you can accuse others of dodging questions. I have asked you several times why you use that stupid "(I)" affectation, yet you still dodge.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 02:49 PM)
......you missed the last question...and dodged noticing the first statement.....
Bullocks.
I answered the question completely.
Question:
why isn't Pluto still a planet
Answer:
Because Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet, because although it has sufficient gravity to overcome rigid body forces and assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (sphere), and although it orbits the sun, it is not sufficiently massive to clear the neighbourhood of it's orbital zone.
Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but a dwarf planet, because pluto is/was unable to 'clear the neighbourhood', and this is one of the requirements of being a planet. The same criteria apply to Ceres and Eris, both of which (also) have sufficient gravity to overcome rigid roces and assume a hydrostatic shape (incidentally, Eris is larger then Pluto - one of the things that led the IAU to define a planet in 2006 or 2007).
Question:
Bullocks.
I answered the question completely.
Question:
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 02:19 PM)
why isn't Pluto still a planet
Answer:
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 2:38 PM)
Because Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet, because although it has sufficient gravity to overcome rigid body forces and assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (sphere), and although it orbits the sun, it is not sufficiently massive to clear the neighbourhood of it's orbital zone.
Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but a dwarf planet, because pluto is/was unable to 'clear the neighbourhood', and this is one of the requirements of being a planet. The same criteria apply to Ceres and Eris, both of which (also) have sufficient gravity to overcome rigid roces and assume a hydrostatic shape (incidentally, Eris is larger then Pluto - one of the things that led the IAU to define a planet in 2006 or 2007).
Question:
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 02:19 PM)
why is the Moon called a 'moon' and not a planet? after all it too is in the form of round.....
Answer:
Answer:
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 2:38 PM)
The moon is not classed as a planet because it is not in orbit around the sun, because it is in orbit around the earth, it is classed as a satelite. If a body the size of earth were in orbit around Jupiter, it would be classed as a satelite.
The moon is not considered a planet because the moon is in orbit around the earth. The earth-moon system is occasionaly refered to as a double planet system, however, the vast majority of astronomers are against this definition because the center of gravity is well below the earths surface.
One of the other criteria for a body being a planet in it's own right is that it is in orbit around the sun, and not another planet. So, although the moon is sufficiently large to overcome rigid forces and assume a hydrostatic shape, it orbits (or is gravatationally bound to) the earth rather then the sun, and is thus considered a satellite, rather then a planet.
This is why I raised one of the points that I did - that if the Earth were in orbit around Jupiter, Earth would be classed as a satellite.
Both questions answered first time round.
I ignored the first statement, because it is both incoherrent and lacks relevance.
One parent body splitting into to daughter bodies (the earth and moon) irrespective of it's shape falls under the fission category, and has all of the short comings of said theories, most notably the bulk composition of the earth compare to the moon, and the total angular momentum of the earth-moon system. Not to mention the fact that a body as large as the Earth and moon combined would have pulled itself into a round shape - which I believe is the point that NOM was making.
Why don't you tell us your mechanism for getting an initially spherical object into a dogbone shape anyway.
The moon is not considered a planet because the moon is in orbit around the earth. The earth-moon system is occasionaly refered to as a double planet system, however, the vast majority of astronomers are against this definition because the center of gravity is well below the earths surface.
One of the other criteria for a body being a planet in it's own right is that it is in orbit around the sun, and not another planet. So, although the moon is sufficiently large to overcome rigid forces and assume a hydrostatic shape, it orbits (or is gravatationally bound to) the earth rather then the sun, and is thus considered a satellite, rather then a planet.
This is why I raised one of the points that I did - that if the Earth were in orbit around Jupiter, Earth would be classed as a satellite.
Both questions answered first time round.
I ignored the first statement, because it is both incoherrent and lacks relevance.
One parent body splitting into to daughter bodies (the earth and moon) irrespective of it's shape falls under the fission category, and has all of the short comings of said theories, most notably the bulk composition of the earth compare to the moon, and the total angular momentum of the earth-moon system. Not to mention the fact that a body as large as the Earth and moon combined would have pulled itself into a round shape - which I believe is the point that NOM was making.
Why don't you tell us your mechanism for getting an initially spherical object into a dogbone shape anyway.
Ha hahahahahahah Tripe your amazing, completely amazing and a good source of a good laugh....needed chuckle....
(What a twit!!)
THE LAST QUESTION WAS-IS....
(What a twit!!)
THE LAST QUESTION WAS-IS....
QUOTE (Me+)
"Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??"
......So - how will you miss that - this time??
At least you admit you dodged (Ignored) the other '....notice of the first statement...' even though you claim it is "incoherrent and lacks relevance" and THEN proceed to ask questions based upon what you have just pronounced 'incoherrent and lacking relevance' what a lost mind........
P.S. in the formative time it was NOT yet round - you TWIT
N O M not a relevant question to ANY of the topics that you have posted it in, simply you spamming threads and leading them astray
......So - how will you miss that - this time??
At least you admit you dodged (Ignored) the other '....notice of the first statement...' even though you claim it is "incoherrent and lacks relevance" and THEN proceed to ask questions based upon what you have just pronounced 'incoherrent and lacking relevance' what a lost mind........
P.S. in the formative time it was NOT yet round - you TWIT
N O M not a relevant question to ANY of the topics that you have posted it in, simply you spamming threads and leading them astray
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 21 2007, 03:28 AM)
Ha hahahahahahah Tripe your amazing, completely amazing and a good source of a good laugh....needed chuckle....
(What a twit!!)
THE LAST QUESTION WAS-IS....
......So - how will you miss that - this time??
At least you admit you dodged (Ignored) the other '....notice of the first statement...' even though you claim it is "incoherrent and lacks relevance" and THEN proceed to ask questions based upon what you have just pronounced 'incoherrent and lacking relevance' what a lost mind........
P.S. in the formative time it was NOT yet round - you TWIT
N O M not a relevant question to ANY of the topics that you have posted it in, simply you spamming threads and leading them astray
I'm sure anyone reading this thread will see that in spite of your righteous indignation elsewhere, that it's you that is both leading this thread astray, and dragging it into the realm of insults, meanwhile I have been making an honest attempt at answering the thread.
Just because I find a statement both incoherrent and lacking in relevance, doesn't mean I wont neccessarily make an honest attempt at replying to the individual points raised in the statement. One does not exclude the other.
Ceres is spherical at 950km across - the point being that planetary objects (logically) are also spherical from early in the formative process.
Pallas, at an average of 500 km across is nearly spherical, in fact Flora, the 8th discovered asteroid, with dimensions of 145x145x120 km is nearly spherical, so my point stands that planetisimals assume a spherical, or nearly spherical shape from very early in their history (Flora is also thought to have been disrupted at some point by an impact).
(What a twit!!)
THE LAST QUESTION WAS-IS....
......So - how will you miss that - this time??
At least you admit you dodged (Ignored) the other '....notice of the first statement...' even though you claim it is "incoherrent and lacks relevance" and THEN proceed to ask questions based upon what you have just pronounced 'incoherrent and lacking relevance' what a lost mind........
P.S. in the formative time it was NOT yet round - you TWIT
N O M not a relevant question to ANY of the topics that you have posted it in, simply you spamming threads and leading them astray
I'm sure anyone reading this thread will see that in spite of your righteous indignation elsewhere, that it's you that is both leading this thread astray, and dragging it into the realm of insults, meanwhile I have been making an honest attempt at answering the thread.
Just because I find a statement both incoherrent and lacking in relevance, doesn't mean I wont neccessarily make an honest attempt at replying to the individual points raised in the statement. One does not exclude the other.
Ceres is spherical at 950km across - the point being that planetary objects (logically) are also spherical from early in the formative process.
Pallas, at an average of 500 km across is nearly spherical, in fact Flora, the 8th discovered asteroid, with dimensions of 145x145x120 km is nearly spherical, so my point stands that planetisimals assume a spherical, or nearly spherical shape from very early in their history (Flora is also thought to have been disrupted at some point by an impact).
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 10:53 AM)
I'm sure anyone reading this thread will see that in spite of your righteous indignation elsewhere, that it's you that is both leading this thread astray, and dragging it into the realm of insults,
No - that would be your MOB partner N O M
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 10:53 AM)
meanwhile I have been making an honest attempt at answering the thread.
Finally...
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 10:53 AM)
Just because I find a statement both incoherrent and lacking in relevance, doesn't mean I wont neccessarily make an honest attempt at replying to the individual points raised in the statement. One does not exclude the other.
exclude? ....no - contradict? yes!
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 10:53 AM)
Ceres is spherical at 950km across - the point being that planetary objects (logically) are also spherical from early in the formative process.
Logically? how does logic imply that? it does not - it seeks evidence....
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 20 2007, 10:53 AM)
Pallas, at an average of 500 km across is nearly spherical, in fact Flora, the 8th discovered asteroid, with dimensions of 145x145x120 km is nearly spherical, so my point stands that planetisimals assume a spherical, or nearly spherical shape from very early in their history (Flora is also thought to have been disrupted at some point by an impact).
What formed this planet (and the Moon) might not have qualified for your definition of planetesimals as it could just have easily been something that we have yet to discover, a property of gravity-mass that is still un-known.....and neither of these two (teacherlink.ed.usu.edu) qualify as 'round'...more like oblong.....more towards bone shaped
What the bleeding heart are you blithering on about now?
Get a grip Parsons, it contradicts nothing either.
IF I find a post to be incomprehensible and untelligable as a whole, I have a choice.
I can choose to ignore it, or I can choose to address those parts of the post that are coherrent enough to make sense of. The first time aroun I chose the first, the second time around I chose the second.
It contradicts nothing, it simply reflects how much energy and effort I'm willing to put into addressing the nonsense.
Next point.
You've contradicted nothing I've said. Nowhere did I say that large objects couldn't be spherical, I was simply pointing out to you that objects many times smaller are spherical.
And I'd wager good money that if you dug into the history of those asteroids that you linked to that aren't spherical, you'd probably find out that they've been disrupted in the past either tidally, or by an impact.
Now, the point(s) that you're side stepping are that:
1) It's not consistent with the measured/observed age of the moon - by the model you're proposing, the Earth and the moon should be the same age, they're not, there's a difference of something like 30-50mya. This is not insignificant.
2) It's not consistent with the observed differences in bulk composition between the Earth and the moon - by the model your proposing, the moon should (for example) contain significantly more iron then it does. The bulk compositions are simply too different.
3) It's not consistent with the observed angular momentum of the earth-moon system, the model you're proposing implies a significantly higher angular momentum then we currently observe.
The list goes on, but I've just spent 12 hours grinding rocks in a gold mine.
Oh yay, Ida, Dactyl, and Gaspara, whoopdy-doo, what's you're point? If you ask me it looks like they've experienced significant impacts that might have chipped them out of spherical. I would have though that was obvious.
When you're ready to stop dispensing insults, and actually talk science, I'll be around.
Get a grip Parsons, it contradicts nothing either.
IF I find a post to be incomprehensible and untelligable as a whole, I have a choice.
I can choose to ignore it, or I can choose to address those parts of the post that are coherrent enough to make sense of. The first time aroun I chose the first, the second time around I chose the second.
It contradicts nothing, it simply reflects how much energy and effort I'm willing to put into addressing the nonsense.
Next point.
You've contradicted nothing I've said. Nowhere did I say that large objects couldn't be spherical, I was simply pointing out to you that objects many times smaller are spherical.
And I'd wager good money that if you dug into the history of those asteroids that you linked to that aren't spherical, you'd probably find out that they've been disrupted in the past either tidally, or by an impact.
Now, the point(s) that you're side stepping are that:
1) It's not consistent with the measured/observed age of the moon - by the model you're proposing, the Earth and the moon should be the same age, they're not, there's a difference of something like 30-50mya. This is not insignificant.
2) It's not consistent with the observed differences in bulk composition between the Earth and the moon - by the model your proposing, the moon should (for example) contain significantly more iron then it does. The bulk compositions are simply too different.
3) It's not consistent with the observed angular momentum of the earth-moon system, the model you're proposing implies a significantly higher angular momentum then we currently observe.
The list goes on, but I've just spent 12 hours grinding rocks in a gold mine.
Oh yay, Ida, Dactyl, and Gaspara, whoopdy-doo, what's you're point? If you ask me it looks like they've experienced significant impacts that might have chipped them out of spherical. I would have though that was obvious.
When you're ready to stop dispensing insults, and actually talk science, I'll be around.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 21 2007, 02:28 AM)
Ha hahahahahahah Tripe your amazing, completely amazing and a good source of a good laugh....needed chuckle....
(What a twit!!)
THE LAST QUESTION WAS-IS....
......So - how will you miss that - this time??
Just how thick can you be? I called you "Bozo", you replied to me. Trippy answered a completely different point, and you accuse him of dodging? I retract the complement of "clown" from you, yet you still think I haven't answered your question?
Have you been this stupid all your life? Are you insane? Have you destroyed your brain with drugs?
parsons, you need to soak your meths in more bread before you drink it
(What a twit!!)
THE LAST QUESTION WAS-IS....
QUOTE
Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??"
......So - how will you miss that - this time??
Just how thick can you be? I called you "Bozo", you replied to me. Trippy answered a completely different point, and you accuse him of dodging? I retract the complement of "clown" from you, yet you still think I haven't answered your question?
Have you been this stupid all your life? Are you insane? Have you destroyed your brain with drugs?
parsons, you need to soak your meths in more bread before you drink it
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
What the bleeding heart are you blithering on about now?Get a grip Parsons, it contradicts nothing either.
Try starting out without the insulting - twit
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
IF I find a post to be incomprehensible and untelligable as a whole, I have a choice.
If it is incomprehensible then you cannot derive anything from it as you have admitted that you cannot comprehend it, so your argument is self defeating, nothing new there....
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
I can choose to ignore it, or I can choose to address those parts of the post that are coherrent enough to make sense of. The first time aroun I chose the first, the second time around I chose the second.
It contradicts nothing, it simply reflects how much energy and effort I'm willing to put into addressing the nonsense.
It contradicts nothing, it simply reflects how much energy and effort I'm willing to put into addressing the nonsense.
If it is nonsense to you why not simply not address it...much easier on me.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
Next point.
Only if you have made a first one...
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
You've contradicted nothing I've said. Nowhere did I say that large objects couldn't be spherical, I was simply pointing out to you that objects many times smaller are spherical.
(I) was not trying to contradict you - (I) was simply adding in the reality of the the other shapes available
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
And I'd wager good money that if you dug into the history of those asteroids that you linked to that aren't spherical, you'd probably find out that they've been disrupted in the past either tidally, or by an impact.
And what does that have to do with anything?
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
Now, the point(s) that you're side stepping are that:
Haven't side stepped anything, that is one of your tactics...
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
1) It's not consistent with the measured/observed age of the moon - by the model you're proposing, the Earth and the moon should be the same age, they're not, there's a difference of something like 30-50mya. This is not insignificant.
relative to the cooling period both would have gone through and the moon should have cooled earlier-faster unless it is an offshoot of the proto earth...or a proto earth system
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
2) It's not consistent with the observed differences in bulk composition between the Earth and the moon - by the model your proposing, the moon should (for example) contain significantly more iron then it does. The bulk compositions are simply too different.
Perhaps that is because one of them has a process inside it that has changed some of the original materials...
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
3) It's not consistent with the observed angular momentum of the earth-moon system, the model you're proposing implies a significantly higher angular momentum then we currently observe.
Tracked back how many years? and the other potential influences that could have affected all of that? got evidence?
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
The list goes on, but I've just spent 12 hours grinding rocks in a gold mine.
Germaine to what??
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
Oh yay, Ida, Dactyl, and Gaspara, whoopdy-doo, what's you're point? If you ask me it looks like they've experienced significant impacts that might have chipped them out of spherical. I would have though that was obvious.
So because they might have been 'chipped out' that precludes the same type of thing-asteroid from participation in the origin event - what??
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 21 2007, 02:31 AM)
When you're ready to stop dispensing insults, and actually talk science, I'll be around.
(I) was and your intros are NOT science talk....
N O M trippy chose to respond to a post that (I) had made to you...figure it out...
N O M trippy chose to respond to a post that (I) had made to you...figure it out...
For those who want to discuss the SCIENCE involved, particularly that based upon researchers who have been studying this issue for over 30 years:
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040903-1.htm
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
Arthur
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040903-1.htm
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
Arthur
Good links adoucette (Authur) Thanks! will read as much a comp time allows me to. 
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 22 2007, 02:00 AM)
N O M trippy chose to respond to a post that (I) had made to you...figure it out...
Idiot. But why should he have to take any notice to one stupid question not intended for him. Figure that out.
Idiot. But why should he have to take any notice to one stupid question not intended for him. Figure that out.
QUOTE
Haven't side stepped anything, that is one of your tactics...
Crap. You sidestep all the time. Otherwise you'd answer the question I have asked you many times: Why do persist in using that stupid "(I)" affectation. Answer that loser.
If your interested in getting back on topic, I found this site very revealing. (picture worth thousand words)
http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?...d=071120TugMoon
I had not grasped the impact of the impact (so to speak). This site shows that the impact with earth caused it (earth) to completely reform. I was thinking the impact just expelled a large chunk of earth.
http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?...d=071120TugMoon
I had not grasped the impact of the impact (so to speak). This site shows that the impact with earth caused it (earth) to completely reform. I was thinking the impact just expelled a large chunk of earth.
[QUOTE=N O M,Nov 21 2007, 04:09 PM](SNIP) Otherwise you'd answer the question I have asked you many times: Why do persist in using that stupid "(I)" affectation. Answer that loser. (SNoP)[/QUOTE](I) have - (I) told you it is an off topic question that is inappropriate to this thread's discourse.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 22 2007, 09:52 AM)
(I) have - (I) told you it is an off topic question that is inappropriate to this thread's discourse.
Pathetic dodge parsons, as you are happy to get off topic in every thread you involve yourselve with your whining about your non-existant reputation.
Pathetic dodge parsons, as you are happy to get off topic in every thread you involve yourselve with your whining about your non-existant reputation.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 22 2007, 03:00 AM)
Try starting out without the insulting - twit
If it is incomprehensible then you cannot derive anything from it as you have admitted that you cannot comprehend it, so your argument is self defeating, nothing new there....
If it is nonsense to you why not simply not address it...much easier on me.
(I) was not trying to contradict you - (I) was simply adding in the reality of the the other shapes available
And what does that have to do with anything?
Haven't side stepped anything, that is one of your tactics...
relative to the cooling period both would have gone through and the moon should have cooled earlier-faster unless it is an offshoot of the proto earth...or a proto earth system
Perhaps that is because one of them has a process inside it that has changed some of the original materials...
Tracked back how many years? and the other potential influences that could have affected all of that? got evidence?
Germaine to what??
So because they might have been 'chipped out' that precludes the same type of thing-asteroid from participation in the origin event - what??
(I) was and your intros are NOT science talk....
But you started it (or is that defense only usable by you?)
No, my argument is not self defeating the following sentence "blah blah blah yakety schmakety lambs blood the earth is round soy milk yak cheese OMG STFU LOL woohoo" is incomprehensible as a whole, however, from that incomprehensible sentence can be extracted the sentence "The earth is round" which is comprehensible and addressable. Therefore, my argument is not self defeating.
I did, but you then accused me of sidestepping it, which is how you managed to side track us onto this topic in the first place.
Who cares? Obviously I already knew that, having taken the time to actually look up the data, to be able to cite figures in the the first place.
It has everything to do with anything. Do you know what shape Ida was before it was chipped at by asteroids? And no, I'm not claiming that it was spherical, I am simply pointing out (the obvious fact) that it didn't neccessarily form in the shape it currently has.
You (had) failed to address the points, therefore by your own definition (the one you apply to me, even though you then go on to suggest that I should have ignored you) you have side stepped them. Or is this another standard that Mr Parsons does not apply to himself?
What, precisely, does the cooling period have to do with the difference in age between the moon and the earth? Or cooling rates for that matter?
Off hand? I don't know how many years, and I don't have evidence, but I do know that the problem has been throughly studied for thirty years (as Arthur has pointed out), and my understanding is that the three main points that I have raised are three of the main points that have been raised against the fission theory of lunar genesis.
Germaine to my limited tolerance for picking through posts to find points to address, and germaine to my somewhat short tempered opening to my last post.
This makes no sense, what, precisely are you trying to ask here? My point is that just because the asteroids are non spherical, doesn't mean they have always been that way (as I have already stated). I also gave you the opportunity to provide a mechanism for generating your 'dogbone shaped' planetesimal, but you failed to do so (and I have now provided you with two.
So calling me a twit is science talk now? Interesting.
If it is incomprehensible then you cannot derive anything from it as you have admitted that you cannot comprehend it, so your argument is self defeating, nothing new there....
If it is nonsense to you why not simply not address it...much easier on me.
(I) was not trying to contradict you - (I) was simply adding in the reality of the the other shapes available
And what does that have to do with anything?
Haven't side stepped anything, that is one of your tactics...
relative to the cooling period both would have gone through and the moon should have cooled earlier-faster unless it is an offshoot of the proto earth...or a proto earth system
Perhaps that is because one of them has a process inside it that has changed some of the original materials...
Tracked back how many years? and the other potential influences that could have affected all of that? got evidence?
Germaine to what??
So because they might have been 'chipped out' that precludes the same type of thing-asteroid from participation in the origin event - what??
(I) was and your intros are NOT science talk....
But you started it (or is that defense only usable by you?)
No, my argument is not self defeating the following sentence "blah blah blah yakety schmakety lambs blood the earth is round soy milk yak cheese OMG STFU LOL woohoo" is incomprehensible as a whole, however, from that incomprehensible sentence can be extracted the sentence "The earth is round" which is comprehensible and addressable. Therefore, my argument is not self defeating.
I did, but you then accused me of sidestepping it, which is how you managed to side track us onto this topic in the first place.
Who cares? Obviously I already knew that, having taken the time to actually look up the data, to be able to cite figures in the the first place.
It has everything to do with anything. Do you know what shape Ida was before it was chipped at by asteroids? And no, I'm not claiming that it was spherical, I am simply pointing out (the obvious fact) that it didn't neccessarily form in the shape it currently has.
You (had) failed to address the points, therefore by your own definition (the one you apply to me, even though you then go on to suggest that I should have ignored you) you have side stepped them. Or is this another standard that Mr Parsons does not apply to himself?
What, precisely, does the cooling period have to do with the difference in age between the moon and the earth? Or cooling rates for that matter?
Off hand? I don't know how many years, and I don't have evidence, but I do know that the problem has been throughly studied for thirty years (as Arthur has pointed out), and my understanding is that the three main points that I have raised are three of the main points that have been raised against the fission theory of lunar genesis.
Germaine to my limited tolerance for picking through posts to find points to address, and germaine to my somewhat short tempered opening to my last post.
This makes no sense, what, precisely are you trying to ask here? My point is that just because the asteroids are non spherical, doesn't mean they have always been that way (as I have already stated). I also gave you the opportunity to provide a mechanism for generating your 'dogbone shaped' planetesimal, but you failed to do so (and I have now provided you with two.
So calling me a twit is science talk now? Interesting.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 22 2007, 03:41 AM)
For those who want to discuss the SCIENCE involved, particularly that based upon researchers who have been studying this issue for over 30 years:
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040903-1.htm
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
Arthur
Thanks Arthur. I notice the three articles raise three of the points that I have (tried) to make to Mr Parsons - The lack of volatiles, the Angular momentum issue, and the differences in bulk composition between the moon and the earth.
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040903-1.htm
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
Arthur
Thanks Arthur. I notice the three articles raise three of the points that I have (tried) to make to Mr Parsons - The lack of volatiles, the Angular momentum issue, and the differences in bulk composition between the moon and the earth.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 22 2007, 02:36 AM)
Thanks Arthur. I notice the three articles raise three of the points that I have (tried) to make to Mr Parsons - The lack of volatiles, the Angular momentum issue, and the differences in bulk composition between the moon and the earth.
What I find interesting is the apparently NARROW range of impactor sizes, angles and age of the Earth that would have resulted in a Moon like we have.
We're VERY lucky, since life as we know it would probably not be possible without the moon's stabilizing influence.
Arthur
What I find interesting is the apparently NARROW range of impactor sizes, angles and age of the Earth that would have resulted in a Moon like we have.
We're VERY lucky, since life as we know it would probably not be possible without the moon's stabilizing influence.
Arthur
Interests me how this is simply an effort - on my part - to examine other possibilities and potentials, to discuss them - rationally and calmly....yet it is very apparent that no one else here ever bothers to try to look for other potential answers and abusively retort anyone who seems even remotely willing to think outside that Box some of you seem to reside in.
Sad state of affairs in Scientific discourse, very sad...
Sad state of affairs in Scientific discourse, very sad...
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 23 2007, 02:44 AM)
What I find interesting is the apparently NARROW range of impactor sizes, angles and age of the Earth that would have resulted in a Moon like we have.
We're VERY lucky, since life as we know it would probably not be possible without the moon's stabilizing influence.
Arthur
Yeah, I've always found that pretty amazing as well, but then again, it shouldn't be entirely unexpected in many regards, if you know what I mean?
It's kind of like a forensic analaysis, there are many variables, but we also have a good sized data set which helps us significantly narrow the range of initial conditions. If we knew less about any of the factors, the bulk composition of the moon, or the earth, the distance between here and there, orbital velocity of the moon, rate of change of the distance between here and there, the list goes on. Then a lack of knowledge in any of these would increase the uncertainty in the initial conditions.
Although, I can see people complaining about the specificity of the predictions "But how do we know, you're ad-hocing the theory."
I'm sure you know teh arguments, they're loosely related to the ones that people try and use to dismiss the big bang theory.
But what hey overlook is that a planetoid with a specific mass hit the earth at a specific angle, a planetoid is capable of having only one mass, and only one trajectory (at any time).
We're VERY lucky, since life as we know it would probably not be possible without the moon's stabilizing influence.
Arthur
Yeah, I've always found that pretty amazing as well, but then again, it shouldn't be entirely unexpected in many regards, if you know what I mean?
It's kind of like a forensic analaysis, there are many variables, but we also have a good sized data set which helps us significantly narrow the range of initial conditions. If we knew less about any of the factors, the bulk composition of the moon, or the earth, the distance between here and there, orbital velocity of the moon, rate of change of the distance between here and there, the list goes on. Then a lack of knowledge in any of these would increase the uncertainty in the initial conditions.
Although, I can see people complaining about the specificity of the predictions "But how do we know, you're ad-hocing the theory."
I'm sure you know teh arguments, they're loosely related to the ones that people try and use to dismiss the big bang theory.
But what hey overlook is that a planetoid with a specific mass hit the earth at a specific angle, a planetoid is capable of having only one mass, and only one trajectory (at any time).
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 22 2007, 04:19 PM)
Interests me how this is simply an effort - on my part - to examine other possibilities and potentials, to discuss them - rationally and calmly....yet it is very apparent that no one else here ever bothers to try to look for other potential answers and abusively retort anyone who seems even remotely willing to think outside that Box some of you seem to reside in.
Sad state of affairs in Scientific discourse, very sad...
There goes Mr. Robin Parsons, trolling again...
- Gehn
Sad state of affairs in Scientific discourse, very sad...
There goes Mr. Robin Parsons, trolling again...
- Gehn
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 23 2007, 05:19 AM)
Interests me how this is simply an effort - on my part - to examine other possibilities and potentials, to discuss them - rationally and calmly....yet it is very apparent that no one else here ever bothers to try to look for other potential answers and abusively retort anyone who seems even remotely willing to think outside that Box some of you seem to reside in.
Sad state of affairs in Scientific discourse, very sad...
And yet here, in this thread, it's a matter of public record that it was you, not me, inspite of your protestations, that resorted to name calling.
Once again, you're making assumptions aout what I have and haven't done. You keep refering to the box that I (and others) live in, and yet, you don't know what I have and haven't studied. I've told you before, I'm aware of alternatives, I've studied them, I like them, one might even say I go out of my way to collect them. I just happen to believe that the bulk of the evidence supports the assertions of mainstream science. That's not living in a box, that's weighing the evidence for myself and coming to a conclusion. You claim to be able to feel people from afar, and yet, I know for a fact that every single one of your assertions about me and my motivations have been wrong.
You're not me. You don't know what I have and haven't read. It just so happens that how the moon formed is, as a Geologist, a Chemist, someone who has studied physics, a fan of anything to do with space, and most importantly a dreamer, a topic of special interest to me, and one I have done a lot of reading on.
And yet when I try and share the benefit of this accumulated knowledge with you, it is you who resorts to abuse.
As I said, I have been working 12 hour shifts. Working 12 hours, sleeping 8, that only leaves about 4 hours in my day, of which my willingness to spend that time wading through the internet, trying to find papers to prove a point to someone who thinks that
Sad state of affairs in Scientific discourse, very sad...
And yet here, in this thread, it's a matter of public record that it was you, not me, inspite of your protestations, that resorted to name calling.
Once again, you're making assumptions aout what I have and haven't done. You keep refering to the box that I (and others) live in, and yet, you don't know what I have and haven't studied. I've told you before, I'm aware of alternatives, I've studied them, I like them, one might even say I go out of my way to collect them. I just happen to believe that the bulk of the evidence supports the assertions of mainstream science. That's not living in a box, that's weighing the evidence for myself and coming to a conclusion. You claim to be able to feel people from afar, and yet, I know for a fact that every single one of your assertions about me and my motivations have been wrong.
You're not me. You don't know what I have and haven't read. It just so happens that how the moon formed is, as a Geologist, a Chemist, someone who has studied physics, a fan of anything to do with space, and most importantly a dreamer, a topic of special interest to me, and one I have done a lot of reading on.
And yet when I try and share the benefit of this accumulated knowledge with you, it is you who resorts to abuse.
As I said, I have been working 12 hour shifts. Working 12 hours, sleeping 8, that only leaves about 4 hours in my day, of which my willingness to spend that time wading through the internet, trying to find papers to prove a point to someone who thinks that
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 02:49 PM)
......you missed the last question...and dodged noticing the first statement.....
in reference to
in reference to
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 20 2007, 02:19 PM)
Bozo was the name of a famous clown, you trying to ride on his name too??
Is some how pertinent to a discussion about what constitutes a planet, satelite, or minor planet, and is surprised when I take offense at comments like:
Is some how pertinent to a discussion about what constitutes a planet, satelite, or minor planet, and is surprised when I take offense at comments like:
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 21 2007, 03:28 AM)
Ha hahahahahahah Tripe your amazing, completely amazing and a good source of a good laugh....needed chuckle....
(What a twit!!)
I've stated before that perhaps you need to practice some Omphaloskepsis, and reflect upon your own attitudes towards others, and consider making some changes.
In case you're unaware, Omphaloskepsis is defined as "Contemplating ones navel as an aid to meditation" (Yes, there's even a word for 'navel gazing').
(What a twit!!)
I've stated before that perhaps you need to practice some Omphaloskepsis, and reflect upon your own attitudes towards others, and consider making some changes.
In case you're unaware, Omphaloskepsis is defined as "Contemplating ones navel as an aid to meditation" (Yes, there's even a word for 'navel gazing').
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 22 2007, 01:58 PM)
And yet here, in this thread, it's a matter of public record that it was you, not me, inspite of your protestations, that resorted to name calling. Once again, you're making assumptions aout what I have and haven't done. You keep refering to the box that I (and others) live in, and yet, you don't know what I have and haven't studied. I've told you before, I'm aware of alternatives, I've studied them, I like them, one might even say I go out of my way to collect them. I just happen to believe that the bulk of the evidence supports the assertions of mainstream science. That's not living in a box, that's weighing the evidence for myself and coming to a conclusion. You claim to be able to feel people from afar, and yet, I know for a fact that every single one of your assertions about me and my motivations have been wrong. You're not me. You don't know what I have and haven't read. It just so happens that how the moon formed is, as a Geologist, a Chemist, someone who has studied physics, a fan of anything to do with space, and most importantly a dreamer, a topic of special interest to me, and one I have done a lot of reading on. And yet when I try and share the benefit of this accumulated knowledge with you, it is you who resorts to abuse. As I said, I have been working 12 hour shifts. Working 12 hours, sleeping 8, that only leaves about 4 hours in my day, of which my willingness to spend that time wading through the internet, trying to find papers to prove a point to someone who thinks that in reference to Is some how pertinent to a discussion about what constitutes a planet, satelite, or minor planet, and is surprised when I take offense at comments like: I've stated before that perhaps you need to practice some Omphaloskepsis, and reflect upon your own attitudes towards others, and consider making some changes. In case you're unaware, Omphaloskepsis is defined as "Contemplating ones navel as an aid to meditation" (Yes, there's even a word for 'navel gazing').
Basically entirely off topic - and - (I) too go with the propensity of the available evidence and come to conclusions - just that - (I) do not use that to restrict myself and no longer allow myself to try thinking about other possibilities...but -apparently - for all you have stated about how you do, you Do Not and the above is proof.
Look at the video from the second link adoucette provided {(I)'ve yet had the time to read all of any of them) and in one of them it generates a distinctly dog boned shape after the impact which demonstrates that such a shape COULD have potentially been involved in the actual formation.
BTW 'Peanut' shape (eros) is also close enough to 'Dog bone'
OH yes the MOB are YOUR friends-affiliates who come here to harass whomever they do not like and BACK YOU UP, so figuring out the rest is easy
Basically entirely off topic - and - (I) too go with the propensity of the available evidence and come to conclusions - just that - (I) do not use that to restrict myself and no longer allow myself to try thinking about other possibilities...but -apparently - for all you have stated about how you do, you Do Not and the above is proof.
Look at the video from the second link adoucette provided {(I)'ve yet had the time to read all of any of them) and in one of them it generates a distinctly dog boned shape after the impact which demonstrates that such a shape COULD have potentially been involved in the actual formation.
BTW 'Peanut' shape (eros) is also close enough to 'Dog bone'
OH yes the MOB are YOUR friends-affiliates who come here to harass whomever they do not like and BACK YOU UP, so figuring out the rest is easy
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 23 2007, 06:11 AM)
BTW 'Peanut' shape (eros) is also close enough to 'Dog bone'
But that is an asteroid. Not a planet, not even a dwarf planet. So, typically, not a very good argument.
But that is an asteroid. Not a planet, not even a dwarf planet. So, typically, not a very good argument.
maybe when all the ice melts the moons gravity is to strong for earth to hold the water on this planet. when a giant wave starts caused by the moons gravity the wave reaches the moon and all the water is pulled to the moon, maybe that is where the ying yang symbol comes from what about that theory
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 23 2007, 07:11 AM)
Basically entirely off topic - and - (I) too go with the propensity of the available evidence and come to conclusions - just that - (I) do not use that to restrict myself and no longer allow myself to try thinking about other possibilities...but -apparently - for all you have stated about how you do, you Do Not and the above is proof.
Look at the video from the second link adoucette provided {(I)'ve yet had the time to read all of any of them) and in one of them it generates a distinctly dog boned shape after the impact which demonstrates that such a shape COULD have potentially been involved in the actual formation.
BTW 'Peanut' shape (eros) is also close enough to 'Dog bone'
OH yes the MOB are YOUR friends-affiliates who come here to harass whomever they do not like and BACK YOU UP, so figuring out the rest is easy
Again with the (erroneous) assumptions about myself, and my motivations.
Once again, instead of being graceful and admitting your error, you choose to lash out with personal attacks.
In order for an object to split from a peanut shape or an ellipsoid shape, one of two things need to happen, either the object needs to exceed it's roche lobe, or the object needs to be spinning fast enough that the centrifugal forces exceed it's cohesive forces, or something needs to happen to disrupt it.
The animated gifs on the page that you're refering to (bare in mind that my having read them is implicit in my commenting on them to Arthur that the raise every point I've tried raising to you) are for impact scenarios. The fact that one of them might show a fleeting peanut shape is completly irrelevant to the formation of the moon. It's irrelevant because you were claiming, or suggesting, that the moon formed because the earth had a peanut/dogbone shape, and you claimed, or implied that the impact hypothesis was wrong.
If I recall correctly, the version of the impact hypothesis that you're referring to that had a transient peanut shape (transient on the order of minutes to hours) involved the collision of similarly sized bodies, which is not the (currently) accepted model.
Eros is a near earth asteroid, and has a mars crossing orbit. It's also only 13km across.
The reason why I keep coming back to mentioning size, is size relates to age.
Look, by about 30-50 million years, the earth had finished forming, the implication of this is that by this time it was the size (give or take) that it is now, and spherical - baring some special circumstances which we have no evidence to support. Not only that, but all the examples you're citing are less then a couple of hundred kilometers across - it seems that anything bigger then about 300 km across has the ability to pull itself into a spherical shape.
The implication of this consequence of your conjecture is that the fission would have to occured before the planetisimal that would eventually become Earth reached the point where it had become large enough to self gravitate into a spherical shape. Were this the case, we come up against the age issue, composition issue, and angular momentum issue.
In the case of the age, as I have already said, for your conjecture to be acheivable, the fission would have had to occur early on in the process, meaning that the difference in ages between the earth and the moon should be a lot less then what we observe it to be, so that piece of evidence rules your conjecture out.
In the case of your composition, because the fission occure while the earth planetisimal was still small (probably less then 300 km, certainly less then 500 km) so, we have two planetisimals of nearly equal size, acreeting material from the same portion of the solar nebula at the same rate, so, they should (for example) have the same bulk iron content. This also contradicts what we observe, we observe that the moon has a significantly lower iron content then the Earth. So this piece of evidence also rules out your conjecture.
Then there's the issue of angular momentum, your conjecture (potentially) predicts a much higher angular momentum then we observe.
And as far as my last post being off topic goes, it's no more off topic then your false accusations, or the post that my post was a completely germain response to. in otherwords, if my post was off topic, it's because the post I was replying to was off topic, so get off your high horse, and feel free to start talking science.
I find your opening paragraph a blatant attempt at flaming, again, you make a whole bunch of false and unprovable accusations against me, in spite of the fact that I have endeavoured to explain other wise to you. Again, I have endeavoured to explain to you that I'm not narrominded like you seem to think I am. Again, you seem to think that just because I have the scientific background to be able to discard a theory that makes erroneous predictions, that that makes me narrow minded?
I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the persistent clinging to a theory in spite of the fact that all the evidence says it's wrong with an almost dogmatic conviction was the epitomy of narrow mindedness.
If something better comes along? I don't care, why? Because I'm not emotionally invested in the theory. If a theory that more strongly supports the evidence comes along? Great, wonderful, I'm all for it.
But yours isn't it. How do I know that? Because all of the variations of the fission theory have been examined and discarded. You're not proposing anything new.
Look at the video from the second link adoucette provided {(I)'ve yet had the time to read all of any of them) and in one of them it generates a distinctly dog boned shape after the impact which demonstrates that such a shape COULD have potentially been involved in the actual formation.
BTW 'Peanut' shape (eros) is also close enough to 'Dog bone'
OH yes the MOB are YOUR friends-affiliates who come here to harass whomever they do not like and BACK YOU UP, so figuring out the rest is easy
Again with the (erroneous) assumptions about myself, and my motivations.
Once again, instead of being graceful and admitting your error, you choose to lash out with personal attacks.
In order for an object to split from a peanut shape or an ellipsoid shape, one of two things need to happen, either the object needs to exceed it's roche lobe, or the object needs to be spinning fast enough that the centrifugal forces exceed it's cohesive forces, or something needs to happen to disrupt it.
The animated gifs on the page that you're refering to (bare in mind that my having read them is implicit in my commenting on them to Arthur that the raise every point I've tried raising to you) are for impact scenarios. The fact that one of them might show a fleeting peanut shape is completly irrelevant to the formation of the moon. It's irrelevant because you were claiming, or suggesting, that the moon formed because the earth had a peanut/dogbone shape, and you claimed, or implied that the impact hypothesis was wrong.
If I recall correctly, the version of the impact hypothesis that you're referring to that had a transient peanut shape (transient on the order of minutes to hours) involved the collision of similarly sized bodies, which is not the (currently) accepted model.
Eros is a near earth asteroid, and has a mars crossing orbit. It's also only 13km across.
The reason why I keep coming back to mentioning size, is size relates to age.
Look, by about 30-50 million years, the earth had finished forming, the implication of this is that by this time it was the size (give or take) that it is now, and spherical - baring some special circumstances which we have no evidence to support. Not only that, but all the examples you're citing are less then a couple of hundred kilometers across - it seems that anything bigger then about 300 km across has the ability to pull itself into a spherical shape.
The implication of this consequence of your conjecture is that the fission would have to occured before the planetisimal that would eventually become Earth reached the point where it had become large enough to self gravitate into a spherical shape. Were this the case, we come up against the age issue, composition issue, and angular momentum issue.
In the case of the age, as I have already said, for your conjecture to be acheivable, the fission would have had to occur early on in the process, meaning that the difference in ages between the earth and the moon should be a lot less then what we observe it to be, so that piece of evidence rules your conjecture out.
In the case of your composition, because the fission occure while the earth planetisimal was still small (probably less then 300 km, certainly less then 500 km) so, we have two planetisimals of nearly equal size, acreeting material from the same portion of the solar nebula at the same rate, so, they should (for example) have the same bulk iron content. This also contradicts what we observe, we observe that the moon has a significantly lower iron content then the Earth. So this piece of evidence also rules out your conjecture.
Then there's the issue of angular momentum, your conjecture (potentially) predicts a much higher angular momentum then we observe.
And as far as my last post being off topic goes, it's no more off topic then your false accusations, or the post that my post was a completely germain response to. in otherwords, if my post was off topic, it's because the post I was replying to was off topic, so get off your high horse, and feel free to start talking science.
I find your opening paragraph a blatant attempt at flaming, again, you make a whole bunch of false and unprovable accusations against me, in spite of the fact that I have endeavoured to explain other wise to you. Again, I have endeavoured to explain to you that I'm not narrominded like you seem to think I am. Again, you seem to think that just because I have the scientific background to be able to discard a theory that makes erroneous predictions, that that makes me narrow minded?
I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the persistent clinging to a theory in spite of the fact that all the evidence says it's wrong with an almost dogmatic conviction was the epitomy of narrow mindedness.
If something better comes along? I don't care, why? Because I'm not emotionally invested in the theory. If a theory that more strongly supports the evidence comes along? Great, wonderful, I'm all for it.
But yours isn't it. How do I know that? Because all of the variations of the fission theory have been examined and discarded. You're not proposing anything new.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 23 2007, 01:47 PM)
maybe when all the ice melts the moons gravity is to strong for earth to hold the water on this planet. when a giant wave starts caused by the moons gravity the wave reaches the moon and all the water is pulled to the moon, maybe that is where the ying yang symbol comes from what about that theory
You mean aside from the complete lack of volatiles on the moon?
You mean aside from the complete lack of volatiles on the moon?
So this little bit is pertinent to the science... and basically a rehashing of what you have already posted...
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 23 2007, 03:05 AM)
In order for an object to split from a peanut shape or an ellipsoid shape, one of two things need to happen, either the object needs to exceed it's roche lobe, or the object needs to be spinning fast enough that the centrifugal forces exceed it's cohesive forces, or something needs to happen to disrupt it. The animated gifs on the page that you're refering to (bare in mind that my having read them is implicit in my commenting on them to Arthur that the raise every point I've tried raising to you) are for impact scenarios. The fact that one of them might show a fleeting peanut shape is completly irrelevant to the formation of the moon. It's irrelevant because you were claiming, or suggesting, that the moon formed because the earth had a peanut/dogbone shape, and you claimed, or implied that the impact hypothesis was wrong.If I recall correctly, the version of the impact hypothesis that you're referring to that had a transient peanut shape (transient on the order of minutes to hours) involved the collision of similarly sized bodies, which is not the (currently) accepted model. Eros is a near earth asteroid, and has a mars crossing orbit. It's also only 13km across. The reason why I keep coming back to mentioning size, is size relates to age. Look, by about 30-50 million years, the earth had finished forming, the implication of this is that by this time it was the size (give or take) that it is now, and spherical - baring some special circumstances which we have no evidence to support. Not only that, but all the examples you're citing are less then a couple of hundred kilometers across - it seems that anything bigger then about 300 km across has the ability to pull itself into a spherical shape. The implication of this consequence of your conjecture is that the fission would have to occured before the planetisimal that would eventually become Earth reached the point where it had become large enough to self gravitate into a spherical shape. Were this the case, we come up against the age issue, composition issue, and angular momentum issue. In the case of the age, as I have already said, for your conjecture to be acheivable, the fission would have had to occur early on in the process, meaning that the difference in ages between the earth and the moon should be a lot less then what we observe it to be, so that piece of evidence rules your conjecture out. In the case of your composition, because the fission occure while the earth planetisimal was still small (probably less then 300 km, certainly less then 500 km) so, we have two planetisimals of nearly equal size, acreeting material from the same portion of the solar nebula at the same rate, so, they should (for example) have the same bulk iron content. This also contradicts what we observe, we observe that the moon has a significantly lower iron content then the Earth. So this piece of evidence also rules out your conjecture. Then there's the issue of angular momentum, your conjecture (potentially) predicts a much higher angular momentum then we observe.
And you make several false assumptions in here about me and about how and what (I) think!
But this...
But this...
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 23 2007, 03:05 AM)
Again with the (erroneous) assumptions about myself, and my motivations. Once again, instead of being graceful and admitting your error, you choose to lash out with personal attacks.
And this....
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 23 2007, 03:05 AM)
And as far as my last post being off topic goes, it's no more off topic then your false accusations, or the post that my post was a completely germain response to. in otherwords, if my post was off topic, it's because the post I was replying to was off topic, so get off your high horse, and feel free to start talking science. I find your opening paragraph a blatant attempt at flaming, again, you make a whole bunch of false and unprovable accusations against me, in spite of the fact that I have endeavoured to explain other wise to you. Again, I have endeavoured to explain to you that I'm not narrominded like you seem to think I am. Again, you seem to think that just because I have the scientific background to be able to discard a theory that makes erroneous predictions, that that makes me narrow minded? I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the persistent clinging to a theory in spite of the fact that all the evidence says it's wrong with an almost dogmatic conviction was the epitomy of narrow mindedness. If something better comes along? I don't care, why? Because I'm not emotionally invested in the theory. If a theory that more strongly supports the evidence comes along? Great, wonderful, I'm all for it. But yours isn't it. How do I know that? Because all of the variations of the fission theory have been examined and discarded. You're not proposing anything new.
The blue and orange are simply you accusing (Twitting me) me then - you doing exactly what your accusing me of in green
All (I) have done - so far - is been willing to explore ideas and examine if other potentials have any possibility, and you just keep slamming me for thinking.....
When (I) have the time - God willing - (I) will write it up and show you what you miss in science and the value and importance of the questioning thinking process especially in reference to established theories....
All (I) have done - so far - is been willing to explore ideas and examine if other potentials have any possibility, and you just keep slamming me for thinking.....
When (I) have the time - God willing - (I) will write it up and show you what you miss in science and the value and importance of the questioning thinking process especially in reference to established theories....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 22 2007, 11:19 AM)
Interests me how this is simply an effort - on my part - to examine other possibilities and potentials, to discuss them - rationally and calmly....yet it is very apparent that no one else here ever bothers to try to look for other potential answers and abusively retort anyone who seems even remotely willing to think outside that Box some of you seem to reside in.
Robin,
In your analogy, "inside the box" equals the hypothesis that the Moon formed from an impact with another large body (~ Mars in size)
This hypothesis is currently the leading scientific explanation of how the Moon formed.
Still, before one thinks "outside the box" one should FIRST show that what is INSIDE the box is in error.
Trippy, in one of the early posts in this thread had a summary of what was "inside the box" and why the previous leading hypothesis, Co-formation (which you had suggested (among others)), did not fit "inside the box".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7104558.stm
From the article:
If I understand the theory correctly, the moon is a 'consistent shape' because it coalesced from the vaporized/molten remnants of the (alleged) impactor and earth. The energy of the impact was sufficient to return to earth to a molten/semi-molten state. The earth and the moon coalesced into their familiar spherical shapes under the influence of gravity. Since then the earth-moon system 'swept clear' their orbital space of remaining debris.
Someone please correct me if I am misinformed
But, if both bodies accreted from the same proto-planetary material, wouldn't they be expected to have the same general composition?
The moon's paucity of iron would seem to discount this model.
However, a body impacting the earth after it had already differentiated would blow off or vaporize mostly the lighter crust material. The earth's remaining (mainly core) material would be in a molten, or at least plastic, state and would eventually coalesce back into a spherical shape.
Meanwhile the remaining mass would be orbiting the proto-earth. This would consist of the lighter materials from the earth and the impacting object. This material would coalesce to become the moon.
The impactor scenario seems like a better fit to me.
No dude, God created the earth in seven 24-hour days and he's coming back SO YOU BETTER BE PREPARED!!!
Just kidding. Thanks for the good answer. Wanted to make sure I didn't come across as a close-minded mule.
No dude, God created the earth in seven 24-hour days and he's coming back SO YOU BETTER BE PREPARED!!!
Just kidding. Thanks for the good answer. Wanted to make sure I didn't come across as a close-minded mule.
Although I assume you meant that tongue-in-cheek, it's true that there is no way to disprove the creation theory. However, I personally, choose to believe in theories that have actual empirical evidence to support them.
I'm of the opinion that if God created me and wanted me to believe in him, then I would. I would have a mind capable of faith. But my mind demands evidence. This is the dichotomy between science and religion. One demands belief without evidence, while the other demands evidence before belief. They cannot be reconciled.
Half of these forums are devoted to people espousing their personal TOE's. They try to blend cutting edge science with their own religious beliefs, resulting in weird mishmashes of metaphysical nonsense. It's a waste of time. The science-minded people will never give credence to anything the 'philosophical-types' say, and vice-versa.
Everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe. Unfortunately, most people will adhere to whatever they learned in their impressionable youth, good, bad, or otherwise. Whether it be 'rote' science, religion, whatever. The answers are out there.
We just have to find them by whatever means we feel appropriate.
Robin,
In your analogy, "inside the box" equals the hypothesis that the Moon formed from an impact with another large body (~ Mars in size)
This hypothesis is currently the leading scientific explanation of how the Moon formed.
Still, before one thinks "outside the box" one should FIRST show that what is INSIDE the box is in error.
Trippy, in one of the early posts in this thread had a summary of what was "inside the box" and why the previous leading hypothesis, Co-formation (which you had suggested (among others)), did not fit "inside the box".
QUOTE (Trippy+)
Co-formation is not consistent with the Angular momentum of the earth-moon system.
Co-formation can not explain the fact that the moon is depleted wrt Iron and has a smaller core then it should.
Co-formation can not explain the lack of volatile materials on the moon.
So the co-formation theory is inadequit.
The impact hypothesis explains exactly the angular momentum of the earth-moon system (when simulated on computer).
The impact hypothesis can explain the depletion of Iron in the moon.
The impact hypothesis can explain the lack of volatile materials.
I suggest that if you want to "think outside the box" that you FIRST deal with these issues:
Angular Momentum of the Earth/Moon system
The Moon's Iron Depletion
The Moon's relatively much smaller Core
The Moon's lack of volatile materials
The relative size of the Moon to the Earth.
More about what is INSIDE the box is here:
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040903-1.htm
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
Arthur
Co-formation can not explain the fact that the moon is depleted wrt Iron and has a smaller core then it should.
Co-formation can not explain the lack of volatile materials on the moon.
So the co-formation theory is inadequit.
The impact hypothesis explains exactly the angular momentum of the earth-moon system (when simulated on computer).
The impact hypothesis can explain the depletion of Iron in the moon.
The impact hypothesis can explain the lack of volatile materials.
I suggest that if you want to "think outside the box" that you FIRST deal with these issues:
Angular Momentum of the Earth/Moon system
The Moon's Iron Depletion
The Moon's relatively much smaller Core
The Moon's lack of volatile materials
The relative size of the Moon to the Earth.
More about what is INSIDE the box is here:
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040903-1.htm
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 25 2007, 03:25 AM)
So this little bit is pertinent to the science... and basically a rehashing of what you have already posted...
And you make several false assumptions in here about me and about how and what (I) think!
But this...
And this....
The blue and orange are simply you accusing (Twitting me) me then - you doing exactly what your accusing me of in green
All (I) have done - so far - is been willing to explore ideas and examine if other potentials have any possibility, and you just keep slamming me for thinking.....
When (I) have the time - God willing - (I) will write it up and show you what you miss in science and the value and importance of the questioning thinking process especially in reference to established theories....
I habe simply made obsevations.
If I wanted to call you a twit, I would, as I have in the past,
And Arthur is correct, you're side stepping the issues that I've raised (or at least apparently trying to).
And you make several false assumptions in here about me and about how and what (I) think!
But this...
And this....
The blue and orange are simply you accusing (Twitting me) me then - you doing exactly what your accusing me of in green
All (I) have done - so far - is been willing to explore ideas and examine if other potentials have any possibility, and you just keep slamming me for thinking.....
When (I) have the time - God willing - (I) will write it up and show you what you miss in science and the value and importance of the questioning thinking process especially in reference to established theories....
I habe simply made obsevations.
If I wanted to call you a twit, I would, as I have in the past,
And Arthur is correct, you're side stepping the issues that I've raised (or at least apparently trying to).
adoucette you seem to think that (I) do not accept the current modeling,yet (I) do, just that (I) am still willing to go out and think about other possibilities, and yes even to revisit the ones that were thought disproved - as sometimes all it takes is a tweak upon the precept to change everything....sometimes not.
An example
An example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7104558.stm
From the article:
QUOTE
Moons like the Earth's - which are formed in catastrophic collisions - are extremely rare in the Universe, a study by US astronomers suggests.
I dunno....black holes are one thing, but to think something crashed into the Earth and created a shape as consistent as the moon seems implausible. Not impossible, just not sufficiently supported enough to persuade me otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if the moon was a large mass that randomly became apart of the solar system during a collision of galaxies or nebulae clouds.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 26 2007, 08:45 AM)
adoucette you seem to think that (I) do not accept the current modeling,yet (I) do, just that (I) am still willing to go out and think about other possibilities, and yes even to revisit the ones that were thought disproved - as sometimes all it takes is a tweak upon the precept to change everything....sometimes not.
An example
I find it really amusing when people make these sorts of claims.
Why are there no threads on Phlogistonated Air?
Why are there no Flat Earth or Geocentric Threads?
Why are there no threads debating the existence/nonexistence of atoms?
Why are there no threads comparing the new periodic table with the greek one?
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
To make claims that you're simply being open minded by re-examining the old possibilities is simply ridiculous.
An example
I find it really amusing when people make these sorts of claims.
Why are there no threads on Phlogistonated Air?
Why are there no Flat Earth or Geocentric Threads?
Why are there no threads debating the existence/nonexistence of atoms?
Why are there no threads comparing the new periodic table with the greek one?
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
To make claims that you're simply being open minded by re-examining the old possibilities is simply ridiculous.
QUOTE (graciassenor+Nov 30 2007, 12:36 AM)
I dunno....black holes are one thing, but to think something crashed into the Earth and created a shape as consistent as the moon seems implausible. Not impossible, just not sufficiently supported enough to persuade me otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if the moon was a large mass that randomly became apart of the solar system during a collision of galaxies or nebulae clouds.
Then this would fall under the category of "Capture Hypotheses", and be subject to the same problems as every other capture hypothesis, only in the cases you're proposing, the issues of angular momentum and composition become even mor eimportant.
Then this would fall under the category of "Capture Hypotheses", and be subject to the same problems as every other capture hypothesis, only in the cases you're proposing, the issues of angular momentum and composition become even mor eimportant.
QUOTE
I dunno....black holes are one thing, but to think something crashed into the Earth and created a shape as consistent as the moon seems implausible. Not impossible, just not sufficiently supported enough to persuade me otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if the moon was a large mass that randomly became apart of the solar system during a collision of galaxies or nebulae clouds
If I understand the theory correctly, the moon is a 'consistent shape' because it coalesced from the vaporized/molten remnants of the (alleged) impactor and earth. The energy of the impact was sufficient to return to earth to a molten/semi-molten state. The earth and the moon coalesced into their familiar spherical shapes under the influence of gravity. Since then the earth-moon system 'swept clear' their orbital space of remaining debris.
Someone please correct me if I am misinformed
Given the volumes of mass - the dog bone accumulation could have accreted quickly in a somewhat wet (Snow/Ice crystals - where eventually our water came from) environment such that when the larger end of the 'dog bone' - proto earth - contracted under it's own gravitational force, (From only the mantel type material) breaking it's connection to it's other end and heating enormously from the contraction event such that it pushed it's now - companion - off of it's surface out into space at an angular momentum similar to what is currently observed, and heating it too until the earth's gravitational activity settled out in it's newly pressurized profile and cooled - hence contracted - cooling the moons surface and Both contacting to spherical, the earth with the Much Larger mass thereafter initiating Slow Fusion in it's core and in the millennium that followed differentiating the Material of composition by gravitational activity - energy - to the degree now known.
QUOTE
Given the volumes of mass -
But, if both bodies accreted from the same proto-planetary material, wouldn't they be expected to have the same general composition?
The moon's paucity of iron would seem to discount this model.
However, a body impacting the earth after it had already differentiated would blow off or vaporize mostly the lighter crust material. The earth's remaining (mainly core) material would be in a molten, or at least plastic, state and would eventually coalesce back into a spherical shape.
Meanwhile the remaining mass would be orbiting the proto-earth. This would consist of the lighter materials from the earth and the impacting object. This material would coalesce to become the moon.
The impactor scenario seems like a better fit to me.
QUOTE (TemporalFugue+Nov 30 2007, 12:22 PM)
(SNIP) But, if both bodies accreted from the same proto-planetary material, wouldn't they be expected to have the same general composition? The moon's paucity of iron would seem to discount this model. (SNoP)
The original dog bone could have had a differentiated end that held a different material than the other end, hence iron content, or it simply could be the differentiation in gravitational rates that gives the earth a slow fusioning core that generated the eventual iron enriched content....one end of that dog bone could have been 'enriched' with uranium or some small quantity of a heavier element.
Maybe that 'end' held a more esoteric material - one that is more gravitationally attractive (Highly neutron heavier) than what we yet realize is possible....possibly....
The original dog bone could have had a differentiated end that held a different material than the other end, hence iron content, or it simply could be the differentiation in gravitational rates that gives the earth a slow fusioning core that generated the eventual iron enriched content....one end of that dog bone could have been 'enriched' with uranium or some small quantity of a heavier element.
Maybe that 'end' held a more esoteric material - one that is more gravitationally attractive (Highly neutron heavier) than what we yet realize is possible....possibly....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 1 2007, 03:27 AM)
Flatearthsociety
theflatearthsociety.org
phlogiston
What's your point?
I meant on this forum, and I was specifically referring to you (although, I know, I was naughty adn didn't specifically state it), but I kind of thought that would have been obvious in context).
theflatearthsociety.org
phlogiston
What's your point?
I meant on this forum, and I was specifically referring to you (although, I know, I was naughty adn didn't specifically state it), but I kind of thought that would have been obvious in context).
Parsons, the point I have tried explaining many times, you have missed, and continue to miss is this.
For your theory to work, it would have had to occur at a time when the earth-moon precursor was ceartainly smaller then Ceres - which is 500km across.
What this means, is that the split you keep referring to would had to have occured when the earth-moon precursor was also very young, because for an accretionary process, size and age are directly related. But we know that the moon is 30 million years younger then the earth, this is not a problem that will simply 'go away' this is a significant problem for your conjecture for two main reasons.
The first is this, the accretionary process was well and truely over by this stage, but we expect a bunch of large 'not quite planets' 'wandering around' the solar system. This means that the moon formed at a time when the accretionary process had finished.
The second is this, the smaller the earth-moon precursor at the time of the split, the younger the earth-moon precursor, the younger the precursor at the time of the split, then the older the moon would be, and as I have pointed out more then once, the age of the moon is significantly difference from the age of the earth (by 30 million years).
Not to mention the fact that Ceres is not large enough to have internally differentiated yet.
Another critical point which I have made, which you have continued to ignore, is that of composition. The earlier the split, the closer the composition of the earth and the moon should be, because they were acreeting from the same material. Fusioning is not some magical process that you can use to simply explain this away, because, well, for one thing the Earth is not, and has never been massive enough to allow any fusion to occur. Jupiter isn't even massive enough for slow fusioning to occur.
Your proposed configuration is gravitationally unstable, a much more likely result, especially if you're proposing that the body lasted long enough to reach the level where its interior was plastic enough to differentiate, was for the mass of both bodies to begin flowing towards the center of gravity. After all, we are talking about two massive bodies, in contact with each other, and well within each others Roche lobes, unless you're going to claim that the body was spinning fast enough to stop that from happening, which moves us onto our next point.
Angular momentum, your model is simply incapable of accounting for the observed angular momentum of the earth moon system.
Most of these problems have been pointed out to you before by myself, and others, but you continue to ignore them.
For your theory to work, it would have had to occur at a time when the earth-moon precursor was ceartainly smaller then Ceres - which is 500km across.
What this means, is that the split you keep referring to would had to have occured when the earth-moon precursor was also very young, because for an accretionary process, size and age are directly related. But we know that the moon is 30 million years younger then the earth, this is not a problem that will simply 'go away' this is a significant problem for your conjecture for two main reasons.
The first is this, the accretionary process was well and truely over by this stage, but we expect a bunch of large 'not quite planets' 'wandering around' the solar system. This means that the moon formed at a time when the accretionary process had finished.
The second is this, the smaller the earth-moon precursor at the time of the split, the younger the earth-moon precursor, the younger the precursor at the time of the split, then the older the moon would be, and as I have pointed out more then once, the age of the moon is significantly difference from the age of the earth (by 30 million years).
Not to mention the fact that Ceres is not large enough to have internally differentiated yet.
Another critical point which I have made, which you have continued to ignore, is that of composition. The earlier the split, the closer the composition of the earth and the moon should be, because they were acreeting from the same material. Fusioning is not some magical process that you can use to simply explain this away, because, well, for one thing the Earth is not, and has never been massive enough to allow any fusion to occur. Jupiter isn't even massive enough for slow fusioning to occur.
Your proposed configuration is gravitationally unstable, a much more likely result, especially if you're proposing that the body lasted long enough to reach the level where its interior was plastic enough to differentiate, was for the mass of both bodies to begin flowing towards the center of gravity. After all, we are talking about two massive bodies, in contact with each other, and well within each others Roche lobes, unless you're going to claim that the body was spinning fast enough to stop that from happening, which moves us onto our next point.
Angular momentum, your model is simply incapable of accounting for the observed angular momentum of the earth moon system.
Most of these problems have been pointed out to you before by myself, and others, but you continue to ignore them.
QUOTE
If I understand the theory correctly, the moon is a 'consistent shape' because it coalesced from the vaporized/molten remnants of the (alleged) impactor and earth. The energy of the impact was sufficient to return to earth to a molten/semi-molten state. The earth and the moon coalesced into their familiar spherical shapes under the influence of gravity. Since then the earth-moon system 'swept clear' their orbital space of remaining debris.
No dude, God created the earth in seven 24-hour days and he's coming back SO YOU BETTER BE PREPARED!!!
Just kidding. Thanks for the good answer. Wanted to make sure I didn't come across as a close-minded mule.
QUOTE (graciassenor+Nov 30 2007, 11:32 PM)
No dude, God created the earth in seven 24-hour days and he's coming back SO YOU BETTER BE PREPARED!!!
Just kidding. Thanks for the good answer. Wanted to make sure I didn't come across as a close-minded mule.
Although I assume you meant that tongue-in-cheek, it's true that there is no way to disprove the creation theory. However, I personally, choose to believe in theories that have actual empirical evidence to support them.
I'm of the opinion that if God created me and wanted me to believe in him, then I would. I would have a mind capable of faith. But my mind demands evidence. This is the dichotomy between science and religion. One demands belief without evidence, while the other demands evidence before belief. They cannot be reconciled.
Half of these forums are devoted to people espousing their personal TOE's. They try to blend cutting edge science with their own religious beliefs, resulting in weird mishmashes of metaphysical nonsense. It's a waste of time. The science-minded people will never give credence to anything the 'philosophical-types' say, and vice-versa.
Everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe. Unfortunately, most people will adhere to whatever they learned in their impressionable youth, good, bad, or otherwise. Whether it be 'rote' science, religion, whatever. The answers are out there.
We just have to find them by whatever means we feel appropriate.
Here's one for you, how do you resolve the disparity in mantel thicknesses seen on the moon, the back side known as twice as thick as the front side??
...because my 'dog bone' tagged with inner stellar remnants (Very Neutron heavy) escalating to fusion and turning into a small sphere of 'so hot - it's glowing 'rock' does....by the manner of it's (The earth's) cooking of it. (The Moon!)
...because my 'dog bone' tagged with inner stellar remnants (Very Neutron heavy) escalating to fusion and turning into a small sphere of 'so hot - it's glowing 'rock' does....by the manner of it's (The earth's) cooking of it. (The Moon!)
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 3 2007, 09:37 AM)
Here's one for you, how do you resolve the disparity in mantel thicknesses seen on the moon, the back side known as twice as thick as the front side??
...because my 'dog bone' tagged with inner stellar remnants (Very Neutron heavy) escalating to fusion and turning into a small sphere of 'so hot - it's glowing 'rock' does....by the manner of it's (The earth's) cooking of it. (The Moon!)
That's easy, it's called tidal forces.
This was resolved a long time ago,a nd has nothing to do with this 'fusion' that you're proposing.
Simply speaking, one would expect the core of the moon to be displaced towards the earth by some amount when you take considerations such as isostasy and gravitational field strength into account.
...because my 'dog bone' tagged with inner stellar remnants (Very Neutron heavy) escalating to fusion and turning into a small sphere of 'so hot - it's glowing 'rock' does....by the manner of it's (The earth's) cooking of it. (The Moon!)
That's easy, it's called tidal forces.
This was resolved a long time ago,a nd has nothing to do with this 'fusion' that you're proposing.
Simply speaking, one would expect the core of the moon to be displaced towards the earth by some amount when you take considerations such as isostasy and gravitational field strength into account.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 2 2007, 04:52 PM)
That's easy, it's called tidal forces.
You mean the forces that are known to be able to Break up a satellite? not likely
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 2 2007, 04:52 PM)
This was resolved a long time ago,a nd has nothing to do with this 'fusion' that you're proposing. Simply speaking, one would expect the core of the moon to be displaced towards the earth by some amount when you take considerations such as isostasy and gravitational field strength into account.
Isostacy (Dictionary(dot)com) Given that you do not know how to spell it properly - it makes sense that you would also use it improperly as it references equal pressure not an un-equal pressure that would be required to displace the core.....
And what (I) said was the Mantle differences not the core differences....Oops of course your answer cannot deal with the mantle differences - so you choose to obliquely opt for the dodge of core displacement.
And what (I) said was the Mantle differences not the core differences....Oops of course your answer cannot deal with the mantle differences - so you choose to obliquely opt for the dodge of core displacement.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 4 2007, 07:39 AM)
You mean the forces that are known to be able to Break up a satellite? not likely
Isostacy (Dictionary(dot)com) Given that you do not know how to spell it properly - it makes sense that you would also use it improperly as it references equal pressure not an un-equal pressure that would be required to displace the core.....
And what (I) said was the Mantle differences not the core differences....Oops of course your answer cannot deal with the mantle differences - so you choose to obliquely opt for the dodge of core displacement.
Are you brain dead or what?
In order to break up a satelite, the satelite must be within it's primary's roche lobe, the earth (quite demonstrably) has never been within that limit of the earth (as evidenced by the fact that it's there).
Tidal forces are created by differences in gravitational feild strength on opposing sides of the body - it's about the r in GMm/r^2. The near side of the moon has a stronger gravitational attraction to the earth then the far side of the moon.
Isostasy comes into play, because normally the denser elements settle into the center of a body, but if the body is immersed in a gravitational field, and experiences tidal forces, the point at which the settle isn't in what would be normally considered the center of the moon.
The point that you're obviously failing to grasp is that in this situation, the center of mass and the center of gravity are not in the same place, because at the scale of the moon, the earths gravity field is not uniform.
This is important, because it means that the point at which the Heavy elements that form the core settles is displaced towards the earth, but the opposite statement of this is also true, the place where the lighter elements settle - those that make up the crust is displaced away from the earth. What this means, in the end, is that the crust, and mantle are thinner on the near side, and thicker on the far side.
So yes, my answer deals completely and directly with the question, you apparently lack the mental resources to be able to figure it out without having to have it explained in excruciating detail.
Isostacy (Dictionary(dot)com) Given that you do not know how to spell it properly - it makes sense that you would also use it improperly as it references equal pressure not an un-equal pressure that would be required to displace the core.....
And what (I) said was the Mantle differences not the core differences....Oops of course your answer cannot deal with the mantle differences - so you choose to obliquely opt for the dodge of core displacement.
Are you brain dead or what?
In order to break up a satelite, the satelite must be within it's primary's roche lobe, the earth (quite demonstrably) has never been within that limit of the earth (as evidenced by the fact that it's there).
Tidal forces are created by differences in gravitational feild strength on opposing sides of the body - it's about the r in GMm/r^2. The near side of the moon has a stronger gravitational attraction to the earth then the far side of the moon.
Isostasy comes into play, because normally the denser elements settle into the center of a body, but if the body is immersed in a gravitational field, and experiences tidal forces, the point at which the settle isn't in what would be normally considered the center of the moon.
The point that you're obviously failing to grasp is that in this situation, the center of mass and the center of gravity are not in the same place, because at the scale of the moon, the earths gravity field is not uniform.
This is important, because it means that the point at which the Heavy elements that form the core settles is displaced towards the earth, but the opposite statement of this is also true, the place where the lighter elements settle - those that make up the crust is displaced away from the earth. What this means, in the end, is that the crust, and mantle are thinner on the near side, and thicker on the far side.
So yes, my answer deals completely and directly with the question, you apparently lack the mental resources to be able to figure it out without having to have it explained in excruciating detail.
Other than taking this as an opportunity to further insult me - none of this is relevant or even correct as it is lacking coherence and contradicting...so what was your point? ....or will you simply admit that you don't have one?
....or will you simply admit that you don't have one?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 10 2007, 01:35 AM)
Other than taking this as an opportunity to further insult me - none of this is relevant or even correct as it is lacking coherence and contradicting...so what was your point? ....or will you simply admit that you don't have one?
Actually, it's all correct and completely relevant, you just seem to lack the knowledge to be able to realize it.
I'd invite you to actually post what specific parts you have issues with, but somehow I doubt that would be productive.
....or will you simply admit that you don't have one? Actually, it's all correct and completely relevant, you just seem to lack the knowledge to be able to realize it.
I'd invite you to actually post what specific parts you have issues with, but somehow I doubt that would be productive.
gravity does not 'displace lighter elements'
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 11 2007, 04:50 AM)
gravity does not 'displace lighter elements'
Do you seriously have any idea how the differentiation process that operates in large bodies works?
It works because of gravity
In a spherical body with no external influences, the lighter elements tend to float to the top, while the heavier elements tend to fall to the middle. This is the reason why the Mantle has a different composition from the crust, it's even the reason why oceans are low, and continents are high (Continental crust is (essentially) processed oceanic crust, it's sort of refined, and contains more light elements then oceanic crust, which is closer in composition to the mantle).
If we introduce an external gravity field near enough and strong enough to create significant tidal forces, rather then settling as a series of concentric spheres, the heavier elements tend to displace slightly towards the 'lower' side, and the lighter elements tend to displace towards the 'higher' side, resulting in an off center core, and anomalously thick crust.
Do you seriously have any idea how the differentiation process that operates in large bodies works?
It works because of gravity
In a spherical body with no external influences, the lighter elements tend to float to the top, while the heavier elements tend to fall to the middle. This is the reason why the Mantle has a different composition from the crust, it's even the reason why oceans are low, and continents are high (Continental crust is (essentially) processed oceanic crust, it's sort of refined, and contains more light elements then oceanic crust, which is closer in composition to the mantle).
If we introduce an external gravity field near enough and strong enough to create significant tidal forces, rather then settling as a series of concentric spheres, the heavier elements tend to displace slightly towards the 'lower' side, and the lighter elements tend to displace towards the 'higher' side, resulting in an off center core, and anomalously thick crust.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 10 2007, 03:14 PM)
Do you seriously have any idea how the differentiation process that operates in large bodies works?
Yes quite well.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 10 2007, 03:14 PM)
It works because of gravity
And heat.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 10 2007, 03:14 PM)
In a spherical body with no external influences, the lighter elements tend to float to the top, while the heavier elements tend to fall to the middle. This is the reason why the Mantle has a different composition from the crust, it's even the reason why oceans are low, and continents are high (Continental crust is (essentially) processed oceanic crust, it's sort of refined, and contains more light elements then oceanic crust, which is closer in composition to the mantle).
Float to the top because they are lighter - less dense - because they are hot
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 10 2007, 03:14 PM)
If we introduce an external gravity field near enough and strong enough to create significant tidal forces, rather then settling as a series of concentric spheres, the heavier elements tend to displace slightly towards the 'lower' side, and the lighter elements tend to displace towards the 'higher' side, resulting in an off center core, and anomalously thick crust.
Actually the history of the earth and moon formation is as a result of what created them, the stellar body that exploded and created all of this solar system. One inner mantle piece of that splatted with a more core material that expulsed shortly thereafter coats the end and generates heating by fission - once it accretes enough material - out the the dust and snow crystal space as to have formed a six to one differentiated Bell-bell shape the larger one goes gravitational and the tidal forces are what cause the smaller sphere to then break off, thereafter getting a great push from the explosive heating effect that the tidal forces are generating on the now compressing and heating larger mass - proto earth.
Learned in school long ago that the earth was once very hot, so hot it glowed.
It's true too.
Learned in school long ago that the earth was once very hot, so hot it glowed.
It's true too.
RP: The so-called "impactor" theory has a far better shot at producing your favored "dogbone" shape (which later snaps off) than any pure fission theory. So, you can have your dogbone, but it's probably at the expense of accepting an impactor to add the necessary energy to the mix.
Since we see evidence of impacts pretty much everywhere, what's the problem believing that?
Since we see evidence of impacts pretty much everywhere, what's the problem believing that?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 11 2007, 11:06 AM)
Yes quite well.
And heat.
Float to the top because they are lighter - less dense - because they are hot
Actually the history of the earth and moon formation is as a result of what created them, the stellar body that exploded and created all of this solar system. One inner mantle piece of that splatted with a more core material that expulsed shortly thereafter coats the end and generates heating by fission - once it accretes enough material - out the the dust and snow crystal space as to have formed a six to one differentiated Bell-bell shape the larger one goes gravitational and the tidal forces are what cause the smaller sphere to then break off, thereafter getting a great push from the explosive heating effect that the tidal forces are generating on the now compressing and heating larger mass - proto earth.
Learned in school long ago that the earth was once very hot, so hot it glowed.
It's true too.
Apparently not.
PArsons, most of this post makes little or no sense.
They don't float to the top because they are hot.
Or are you going to argue that the crust floats on top of the mantle because it's hotter then the mantle?
The crust is solid.
The mantle is liquid.
Generally speaking, the crust qualifies as cooler then the mantle.
It has to do with the density of the crustal material. Lithium, Aliminium, Silicon, as opposed to say the mantle which is more like Iron, Magnesium, and silicon.
Again, you're wrong.
And heat.
Float to the top because they are lighter - less dense - because they are hot
Actually the history of the earth and moon formation is as a result of what created them, the stellar body that exploded and created all of this solar system. One inner mantle piece of that splatted with a more core material that expulsed shortly thereafter coats the end and generates heating by fission - once it accretes enough material - out the the dust and snow crystal space as to have formed a six to one differentiated Bell-bell shape the larger one goes gravitational and the tidal forces are what cause the smaller sphere to then break off, thereafter getting a great push from the explosive heating effect that the tidal forces are generating on the now compressing and heating larger mass - proto earth.
Learned in school long ago that the earth was once very hot, so hot it glowed.
It's true too.
Apparently not.
PArsons, most of this post makes little or no sense.
They don't float to the top because they are hot.
Or are you going to argue that the crust floats on top of the mantle because it's hotter then the mantle?
The crust is solid.
The mantle is liquid.
Generally speaking, the crust qualifies as cooler then the mantle.
It has to do with the density of the crustal material. Lithium, Aliminium, Silicon, as opposed to say the mantle which is more like Iron, Magnesium, and silicon.
Again, you're wrong.
After powerful eruption from galaxy nucleus our Earth had temperature of many thousand degrees. Mass of the Earth mainly was huge mass of heavy atom-nuclear gaseous splash. It was gaseous mixtures mass. During the first moment of eruption, the Moon was formed from this gaseous splash during extension. It can be hardly said, that the Earth could not be able to capture the Moon during eruption. We have to take in our consideration, that the speed of gaseous masses during start stage is equal thousand and thousand kilometres per second. (km/sec) . Significant declination of the Moon orbit from Earth’s equatorial platitude is caused by the Sun’s gravity. The Moon we can see always from the same side. Everything almost proves that the Moon was formed from the Earth’s gaseous mixtures during the extension process after eruption from galaxy nucleus. The gaseous mixture of the Earth together the moon with the formation began rotation movement around the Sun. Earth and the moon began to turn in the liquid and solid condition little by little. (Cooling process of the Earth lasts for milliard years still). The moon has finished geoevolution (Cooling process).
that theory might be correct........
one of other theory's state that the moon was part of earth, then after time, the earth had a large bulge in the side , and because of centrifugal force of the earth spinning, the bulge became more increasingly large...
eventually flinging free of the earth and becoming a separate body.....
that is probably a more correct theory because , were else would the moon get the energy to start spinning and going into orbit (well, apart from flying in from a "comet like" form )
neutrinos
one of other theory's state that the moon was part of earth, then after time, the earth had a large bulge in the side , and because of centrifugal force of the earth spinning, the bulge became more increasingly large...
eventually flinging free of the earth and becoming a separate body.....
that is probably a more correct theory because , were else would the moon get the energy to start spinning and going into orbit (well, apart from flying in from a "comet like" form )
neutrinos
QUOTE (Neutrinos+Dec 19 2007, 09:14 PM)
that theory might be correct........
one of other theory's state that the moon was part of earth, then after time, the earth had a large bulge in the side , and because of centrifugal force of the earth spinning, the bulge became more increasingly large...
eventually flinging free of the earth and becoming a separate body.....
that is probably a more correct theory because , were else would the moon get the energy to start spinning and going into orbit (well, apart from flying in from a "comet like" form )
neutrinos
That would fall under the category of "Fission theories" and is much the same thing that Parsons was talking about.
There are a number of reasons to discount this including age, composition, and the angular momentum of the earth-moon system.
one of other theory's state that the moon was part of earth, then after time, the earth had a large bulge in the side , and because of centrifugal force of the earth spinning, the bulge became more increasingly large...
eventually flinging free of the earth and becoming a separate body.....
that is probably a more correct theory because , were else would the moon get the energy to start spinning and going into orbit (well, apart from flying in from a "comet like" form )
neutrinos
That would fall under the category of "Fission theories" and is much the same thing that Parsons was talking about.
There are a number of reasons to discount this including age, composition, and the angular momentum of the earth-moon system.
I'm not parson. I'm author of modern cosmogeological theory.
www.cosmogeology.ge
There are not solid comets or interstellar solid planets to the galaxy nucleus .
Tere are eruption of proto planetary gaseous mass and proto stellar mass.
___Fresh gaseous huge streams from a SGN (Spiral Galaxy Nucleus) surface explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system. (Huge unbelievable nuclear reactions into submerged huge SGN spot under huge convection streams of SGN).
___The axial SGN surface explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, into red-hot huge gaseous proto-planetary parent bodies. Debris of exploded space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed stone meteorites later.
Severely Mass-Fractionated Isotopes in Meteorites and Planets
___Multi-stage mass separation are in the Sun and in the it’s parent star (SGN)
The SGN into spots made new isotopes by nuclear synthesis reaction into proto-planetary material that was mass fractionated
___Exploded SGN proto-planetary spot products by the various huge nuclear reactions, unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, made collectively “normal” isotope abundances into space-bodies later.
___ The Solar Surface Is Made Mostly of Light Elements. A lot of small parts of the main spots is spread into convection streams all over the Sun undergo multi-stage mass separation into the streams. (In the streams into separated spots masses are continuing nuclear syntheses reactions mainly by He-nucleuses, super heavy nucleuses are exploding later and light elements are spreading all over the Sun).
Video evidence-explosion into convection stream of multi-stage separated mini spot. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
.
___Carbonaceous Meteorites Are Also Rich in Light Elements. These are part of exploded space-bodies. They were formed mostly from the
www.cosmogeology.ge
There are not solid comets or interstellar solid planets to the galaxy nucleus .
Tere are eruption of proto planetary gaseous mass and proto stellar mass.
___Fresh gaseous huge streams from a SGN (Spiral Galaxy Nucleus) surface explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system. (Huge unbelievable nuclear reactions into submerged huge SGN spot under huge convection streams of SGN).
___The axial SGN surface explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, into red-hot huge gaseous proto-planetary parent bodies. Debris of exploded space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed stone meteorites later.
Severely Mass-Fractionated Isotopes in Meteorites and Planets
___Multi-stage mass separation are in the Sun and in the it’s parent star (SGN)
The SGN into spots made new isotopes by nuclear synthesis reaction into proto-planetary material that was mass fractionated
___Exploded SGN proto-planetary spot products by the various huge nuclear reactions, unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, made collectively “normal” isotope abundances into space-bodies later.
___ The Solar Surface Is Made Mostly of Light Elements. A lot of small parts of the main spots is spread into convection streams all over the Sun undergo multi-stage mass separation into the streams. (In the streams into separated spots masses are continuing nuclear syntheses reactions mainly by He-nucleuses, super heavy nucleuses are exploding later and light elements are spreading all over the Sun).
Video evidence-explosion into convection stream of multi-stage separated mini spot. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
.
___Carbonaceous Meteorites Are Also Rich in Light Elements. These are part of exploded space-bodies. They were formed mostly from the