Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Message-ID	<56B27DF9.1223@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date	2016-02-03 14:23 -0800
From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.astro, sci.physics
Subject	Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?
References	(1 earlier) <n8om4s$gp6$1@dont-email.me> <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <56B056FB.522D@ix.netcom.com> <56B142DA.1ECD@ix.netcom.com> <56B19AA8.51B5@ix.netcom.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Without our moon, we would not have an ocean...it wouldn't even rain.
> >
> > Now, if you're wondering how our moon got to the vincity of our
> > earth....that is
> > an entire different process...that's part of the ball rolling process i
> > mention elsewhere...
> 
> In other words...
> 
> it's very simple..
> 
> the point
> the earth is at
> the point the moon is at
> from the sun..
> and each other
> was exactly where
> they were meant to be.
> 
> it took a
> big bang
> to accomplish it.
> 
> That which you call
> the singularity..
> where everything
> is stuck together...
> and cannot move..
> the shape
> of the
> singularity
> was a triangle.
> 
> Now, I know for
> sure no one here
> has ever been told
> the singularity
> was the shape
> of a triangle.
> 
> It is very simple
> geometry.
> 
> If you understand the
> shape of the singularity...
> 
> then you can understand
> the points at which the earth
> the sun
> the moon
> are where they are now.
> 
> In other words..
> 
> the universe today
> is at it is because of
> a
> triangle.
> 
> When the big bang
> occured...
> the singularity
> triangle points
> went
> in
> every
> direction.



In other words...
the reason why the universe
'appears' to have no center is
because of the
triangle singularity.

Everything 'looks' random, even
though everything is in it's place.

In the place...where it's suppose to be.

Everything is in it's place.

Thread

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? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-31 09:44 -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? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 04:51 -0800
        Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:38 -0500
        Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 10:55 -0800
          Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:19 -0800
            Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 12:31 -0800
              Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:26 -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? 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? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-05 21:48 +0000
                Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:56 -0800
                Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-05 20:07 -0800
                Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 04:47 -0800
                Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:29 -0500
                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? 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? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:11 -0800
    Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:39 -0800
      Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-03 20:09 -0800
      Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:40 -0800

csiph-web