Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #550549

Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web