Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.astro > #57644 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-30 19:55 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 07:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 47 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.astro
Moon was produced by head-on collision? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 19:55 -0500
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 22:17 -0600
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-01-31 07:25 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-31 09:44 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-01-31 17:02 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 03:13 -0500
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 10:36 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-01 22:27 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 19:44 -0500
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 23:12 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-02 05:57 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-02 15:59 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-02 22:14 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 14:23 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-04 11:40 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 11:35 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-05 03:18 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 20:42 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-05 08:46 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-05 15:39 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-05 12:55 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-05 22:31 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-05 22:50 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:41 -0600
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-06 01:20 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-06 12:53 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-07 01:28 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-07 07:06 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-08 02:58 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-08 06:35 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-07 13:54 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-07 15:11 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-07 16:16 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-08 21:36 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-09 11:37 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 12:39 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-03 22:16 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 22:22 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 22:38 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 11:46 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? the_shadow <the_shadow@xcoxx.net> - 2016-02-06 07:30 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-04 07:52 -0800
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 12:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B3B71E.3FE7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #57673 |
Martin Brown wrote: > > On 02/02/2016 23:59, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Yousuf Khan wrote: > >>> > >>> On 01/02/2016 5:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>>> In article <dPqdnSyaPpEcxjDLnZ2dnUU7-b3OydjZ@giganews.com>, > >>>> Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes: > >>>>> My question is, if the isotopic evidence which was used to create the > >>>>> Theia Hypothesis in the first place, due to a previously perceived > >>>>> difference in isotopic abundances, > >>>> > >>>> The isotope ratios are _at least_ very similar, now seemingly > >>>> identical within measurement accuracy. This tends to support the > >>>> Theia hypothesis. If the Moon formed on its own and was somehow > >>>> captured by the Earth, it would be expected to have very different > >>>> isotope ratios. > >>> > >>> The Moon capture hypothesis was only one such hypothesis. That one would > >>> still be excluded by this recent finding. > > Not quite excluded but made a lot less likely since the moon would have > to have formed in the vicinity of the Earth's orbit to have the right > isotopic signature. I wonder what the REE signatures look like for > basaltic lunar material since that would be an independent test. > > Quick intro - can't find much outside a paywall > > http://www.usouthal.edu/geography/allison/gy303/TraceElements.pdf > > >>> Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where > >>> the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it > >>> pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical > >>> isotope levels between the Earth and Moon. > >>> > >>> Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the > >>> Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system > >>> nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet > >>> system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels. > >>> > >>> This site even says that if the isotope levels are different, then the > >>> above theories would be unlikely, but now that the isotope levels are > >>> similar, those theories come back into play. > >>> > >>> Theories of Formation for the Moon > >>> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html > >>> > >>> Yousuf Khan > >> > >> The purpose of our moon is to make an ocean on earth. > > > > > > Or should I say...our moon helps in the process of making an ocean on > > earth. > > Odd then that it rains methane rain on Titan. And there is clear > evidence of previous liquid water on Mars which has no such large moon. > > The moon *is* responsible for our more variable oceanic spring and neap > tides and perhaps indirectly for the evolution of land animals. > > > > > > Without our moon, we would not have an ocean...it wouldn't even rain. > > Without the moon we might not have lunatics like you! > > -- > Regards, > Martin Brown When I see people say "clear evidence of previous liquid water on Mars", ...i wonder about people like that. I think to myself, ..."That's a guy i can sell a bridge too!" In the united states children sing... London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down London Bridge is falling down My lady fair London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down London Bridge is falling down My lady fair London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down London Bridge is falling down My lady fair
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8tu8f$que$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57659 |
As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012. It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data including elemental composition of both bodies. In article <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes: > Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where > the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it > pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical > isotope levels between the Earth and Moon. If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission, how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real calculation. > Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the > Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system > nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet > system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels. Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each other. I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis has a lot to like. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 22:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B2EE3A.584E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #57669 |
Steve Willner wrote: > > As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search > didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the > isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012. > It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data > including elemental composition of both bodies. > > In article <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes: > > Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where > > the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it > > pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical > > isotope levels between the Earth and Moon. > > If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission, > how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this > hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real > calculation. > > > Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the > > Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system > > nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet > > system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels. > > Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon > much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact > hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each > other. > > I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis > has a lot to like. It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets... that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the moon, but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet. The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of triangle singularity and the big bang. The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else. Maybe you guys don't get it. Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle or point of view. If you reverse the universe to the beginning... when it all comes to a point.. what shape is the point? round, square or triangle??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 22:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B2F1D5.5BD8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #57671 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search > > didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the > > isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012. > > It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data > > including elemental composition of both bodies. > > > > In article <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes: > > > Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where > > > the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it > > > pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical > > > isotope levels between the Earth and Moon. > > > > If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission, > > how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this > > hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real > > calculation. > > > > > Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the > > > Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system > > > nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet > > > system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels. > > > > Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon > > much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact > > hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each > > other. > > > > I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis > > has a lot to like. > > It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets... > that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the > moon, > but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet. > > The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of > triangle singularity > and the big bang. > > The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else. > > Maybe you guys don't get it. > > Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle > or point of view. > > > If you reverse the universe > to the beginning... > when it all comes to a point.. > what shape is the point? round, square or triangle?? How about... have you heard the expression 'killing two birds with one stone'? Now, imagine every planet in the universe represents a bird... kill them all with one stone. In other words...you create a universe with one stone. Now, if you still don't get it... look for a stone then look for two birds. Now, try to kill both birds with one stone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 11:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B3AAB2.1FCB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #57672 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search > > > didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the > > > isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012. > > > It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data > > > including elemental composition of both bodies. > > > > > > In article <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes: > > > > Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where > > > > the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it > > > > pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical > > > > isotope levels between the Earth and Moon. > > > > > > If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission, > > > how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this > > > hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real > > > calculation. > > > > > > > Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the > > > > Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system > > > > nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet > > > > system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels. > > > > > > Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon > > > much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact > > > hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each > > > other. > > > > > > I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis > > > has a lot to like. > > > > It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets... > > that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the > > moon, > > but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet. > > > > The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of > > triangle singularity > > and the big bang. > > > > The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else. > > > > Maybe you guys don't get it. > > > > Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle > > or point of view. > > > > > > If you reverse the universe > > to the beginning... > > when it all comes to a point.. > > what shape is the point? round, square or triangle?? > > How about... > > have you heard the expression 'killing two birds with one stone'? > > Now, imagine every planet in the universe represents a bird... > > kill them all with one stone. > > In other words...you create a universe with one stone. > > Now, if you still don't get it... > > look for a stone > then look for two birds. > > Now, try to kill both birds with one stone. What yous don't seem to understand... that the triangle singularity begining point was very precisely arranged in order of a triangle. If you get a bunch of people to stand motionless, together in the shape of a triangle... then tell them..everyone on the outside of the triangle to walk away from the triangle, so on with everyone else... i don't know..tell them to walk away for 3 minutes.. what you will have is people scattered everywhere. But it was ordered..and there will not be a triangle.. and everyone will be in it's place of 3 minutes. This is the origin of the universe. It's very simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | the_shadow <the_shadow@xcoxx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 07:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56b5a103$0$32869$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #57676 |
On 2016-02-04, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> The Starmaker wrote: >> > >> > Steve Willner wrote: >> > > >> > > As I wrote earlier, I'm not an expert on this, and a quick web search >> > > didn't turn up anything definitive. The search did show that the >> > > isotope data have been disputed going back at least as far as 2012. >> > > It's also important to remember that there are other kinds of data >> > > including elemental composition of both bodies. >> > > >> > > In article <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes: >> > > > Other ones that would still be viable are the Fission hypothesis, where >> > > > the Moon was once a part of the Earth, but due to an imbalance it >> > > > pinched itself off of the Earth. This would certainly maintain identical >> > > > isotope levels between the Earth and Moon. >> > > >> > > If the early Earth was spinning fast enough to cause it to fission, >> > > how could it ever have formed in the first place? For this >> > > hypothesis to be viable, someone would have to produce a real >> > > calculation. >> > > >> > > > Another one is the Condensation Hypothesis, which suggested that the >> > > > Earth and Moon formed from the same section of the original solar system >> > > > nebula. So basically the two worlds evolved together as a twin planet >> > > > system. This would also pretty much maintain identical isotope levels. >> > > >> > > Also identical element composition, it would seem. Isn't the Moon >> > > much-depleted in iron? That's a natural consequence of the impact >> > > hypothesis but seems hard to explain if two bodies formed near each >> > > other. >> > > >> > > I don't think the full answer is known yet, but the impact hypothesis >> > > has a lot to like. >> > >> > It is possible that the moon had an impact with surrounding planets... >> > that there was a collision between mars, earth, other planets...and the >> > moon, >> > but the moon is not a product of earth or any other planet. >> > >> > The impact of planets against other bodies was the result and design of >> > triangle singularity >> > and the big bang. >> > >> > The moon was just rolling along just like everybody else. >> > >> > Maybe you guys don't get it. >> > >> > Maybe I need to explain it in a different way....from a different angle >> > or point of view. >> > >> > >> > If you reverse the universe >> > to the beginning... >> > when it all comes to a point.. >> > what shape is the point? round, square or triangle?? >> >> How about... >> >> have you heard the expression 'killing two birds with one stone'? >> >> Now, imagine every planet in the universe represents a bird... >> >> kill them all with one stone. >> >> In other words...you create a universe with one stone. >> >> Now, if you still don't get it... >> >> look for a stone >> then look for two birds. >> >> Now, try to kill both birds with one stone. > > > > What yous don't seem to understand... > that the > triangle singularity begining point > was very precisely arranged in order > of a triangle. > > If you get a bunch of people > to stand motionless, together > in the shape of a triangle... > then tell them..everyone on the outside of the triangle > to walk away from the triangle, so on with everyone else... > i don't know..tell them to walk away for 3 minutes.. > what you will have is people scattered everywhere. > > But it was ordered..and there will not be a triangle.. > and everyone will be in it's place of 3 minutes. > > This is the origin of the universe. > > It's very simple. You certainly are. -- Bob Holtzman A man is a man who will fight with a sword or conquer Mt. Everest in snow. But the bravest of all owns a '34 Ford and tries for six thousand in low.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 07:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <215ec1ad-ba00-474a-bac0-6996958816ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57671 |
Dear The Starmaker: On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 11:22:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: ... > Maybe you guys don't get it. We got it. You are more interested in reconciling current observations, to millenia old writings intended for "directing" children. Please, don't descend into a post-only engine. David A. Smith
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.astro
csiph-web