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

Groups > sci.physics > #549456 > unrolled thread

Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#549456 — Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Moon was produced by head-on collision | Astronomy.com
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/moon-was-produced-by-head-on-collision

The Theia Theory used to talk about a glancing blow between the early 
Earth and a Mars-sized Theia, perhaps at 45 degrees. New data suggests 
that Theia might have actually hit head-on with the Earth. That's 
because the percentage of Oxygen 16/17/18 isotopes between the Earth and 
Moon are nearly identical, indicating that they came from the same source.

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, so now that that isotopic evidence 
has disappeared, why keep the Theia Hypothesis? There were other 
theories prior to that, which were discarded due to the isotopic evidence.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#549470

On 1/30/16 6:55 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Moon was produced by head-on collision | Astronomy.com
> http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/moon-was-produced-by-head-on-collision
>
>
> The Theia Theory used to talk about a glancing blow between the early
> Earth and a Mars-sized Theia, perhaps at 45 degrees. New data suggests
> that Theia might have actually hit head-on with the Earth. That's
> because the percentage of Oxygen 16/17/18 isotopes between the Earth and
> Moon are nearly identical, indicating that they came from the same source.
>
> 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, so now that that isotopic evidence
> has disappeared, why keep the Theia Hypothesis? There were other
> theories prior to that, which were discarded due to the isotopic evidence.
>
>      Yousuf Khan


   Thanks for Posting this.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549548

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> Moon was produced by head-on collision | Astronomy.com
> http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/moon-was-produced-by-head-on-collision
> 
> The Theia Theory used to talk about a glancing blow between the early
> Earth and a Mars-sized Theia, perhaps at 45 degrees. New data suggests
> that Theia might have actually hit head-on with the Earth. That's
> because the percentage of Oxygen 16/17/18 isotopes between the Earth and
> Moon are nearly identical, indicating that they came from the same source.
> 
> 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, so now that that isotopic evidence
> has disappeared, why keep the Theia Hypothesis? There were other
> theories prior to that, which were discarded due to the isotopic evidence.
> 
>         Yousuf Khan


The truth is...the origin of our solar system is...unknown.



So, how everthing got put together is unknown...including the moon.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549655

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > Moon was produced by head-on collision | Astronomy.com
> > http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/moon-was-produced-by-head-on-collision
> >
> > The Theia Theory used to talk about a glancing blow between the early
> > Earth and a Mars-sized Theia, perhaps at 45 degrees. New data suggests
> > that Theia might have actually hit head-on with the Earth. That's
> > because the percentage of Oxygen 16/17/18 isotopes between the Earth and
> > Moon are nearly identical, indicating that they came from the same source.
> >
> > 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, so now that that isotopic evidence
> > has disappeared, why keep the Theia Hypothesis? There were other
> > theories prior to that, which were discarded due to the isotopic evidence.
> >
> >         Yousuf Khan
> 
> The truth is...the origin of our solar system is...unknown.
> 
> So, how everthing got put together is unknown...including the moon.


For those seeking to know the origin of our solar system...all one has
to do is start and end here:

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'


The above sentence contains all the information one needs to understand
the origin of our
solar system and the universe.


Within this sentence contains the entire knowledge of the origin of the
universe.
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'

You just need to know how to decode it.


For example, ..."created the heavens and the earth", .. "heavens"
doesn't necessarly mean stars. It could mean
how stars looked before they became stars...without the light.

In other words, the earth and the stars were created at the same time,
they just both weren't formed completely then.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549663

On 01/02/2016 2:10 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> The truth is...the origin of our solar system is...unknown.
>>
>> So, how everthing got put together is unknown...including the moon.
>
>
> For those seeking to know the origin of our solar system...all one has
> to do is start and end here:
>
> 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'
>
>
> The above sentence contains all the information one needs to understand
> the origin of our
> solar system and the universe.


Yeah, that's the hypothesis we usually start off with initially, and 
then we invent new instruments and obtain new observations which lead to 
better hypotheses, and then eventually to some proper theories.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549744

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> On 01/02/2016 2:10 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >> The truth is...the origin of our solar system is...unknown.
> >>
> >> So, how everthing got put together is unknown...including the moon.
> >
> >
> > For those seeking to know the origin of our solar system...all one has
> > to do is start and end here:
> >
> > 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'
> >
> >
> > The above sentence contains all the information one needs to understand
> > the origin of our
> > solar system and the universe.
> 
> Yeah, that's the hypothesis we usually start off with initially, and
> then we invent new instruments and obtain new observations which lead to
> better hypotheses, and then eventually to some proper theories.
> 
>         Yousuf Khan


Well, it reads "the heavens and the earth", not 'the heavens and then the earth'.


So, somewhere along the line...your new instruments, your better hypotheses, and proper theories
is off by 5 billion years.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550188

For those seeking to know the origin of our solar system...all one has 
to do is start and end here: 

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' 
-----------

That actually tells us nothing.

For instance, where did this god character come from?

You can't just start a story "In the beginning" and then not tell about the beginning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550263

On 02/03/2016 07:51 AM, HVAC wrote:
> For those seeking to know the origin of our solar system...all one has
> to do is start and end here:
>
> 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'
> -----------
>
> That actually tells us nothing.
>
> For instance, where did this god character come from?
>
> You can't just start a story "In the beginning" and then not tell about the beginning.
>
You do that all the time. Like you call the "big bang" your "beginning" 
with no explanation. Oh that's right. Only YOU are allowed to decide 
where a beginning is and how it all began.

You might consider that it didn't begin!

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550275

HVAC wrote:
> 
> For those seeking to know the origin of our solar system...all one has
> to do is start and end here:
> 
> 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'
> -----------
> 
> That actually tells us nothing.
> 
> For instance, where did this god character come from?


There is no indication in that sentence that God is a character.


> 
> You can't just start a story "In the beginning" and then not tell about the beginning.


that don't make no sense...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550440

HVAC said:
> You can't just start a story "In the beginning" and then not tell about the beginning. 


that don't make no sense... 
------------

Any sense....The correct usage is "that doesn't make ANY sense".

But, to clarify, the story goes "In the beginning, god made the heavens and the earth". But what happened to all the stuff that happened before that? Like, where did god come from? HOW did god accomplish this construction project? Where did god get the materials to make the heaven and the earth?

If this still doesn't make sense to you, then our conversation is ended

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550548

HVAC wrote:
> 
> HVAC said:
> > You can't just start a story "In the beginning" and then not tell about the beginning.
> 
> that don't make no sense...
> ------------
> 
> Any sense....The correct usage is "that doesn't make ANY sense".
> 
> But, to clarify, the story goes "In the beginning, god made the heavens and the earth". But what happened to all the stuff that happened before that? Like, where did god come from? HOW did god accomplish this construction project? Where did god get the materials to make the heaven and the earth?


am i suppose to answer all these question with ...one post? 


Isn't that asking....too much?


You expect to learn all this in...one day?


How learn did it take you to learn the alphabet?


you don't make no sence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550651

> But, to clarify, the story goes "In the beginning, god made the heavens and the earth". But what happened to all the stuff that happened before that? Like, where did god come from? HOW did god accomplish this construction project? Where did god get the materials to make the heaven and the earth? 


am i suppose to answer all these question with ...one post? 
Isn't that asking....too much? 
You expect to learn all this in...one day? 
--------------

It was a rhetorical question that I posted for my own amusement.

Since you have an obvious mental problem, I will not make fun of you or call you a moronic jizzbag. I'm slowly becoming a better human being. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549821

In article <dPqdnSyaPpEcxjDLnZ2dnUU7-b3OydjZ@giganews.com>,
 Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
> Moon was produced by head-on collision | Astronomy.com
> http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/moon-was-produced-by-head-on-collision

The UCLA press release is at
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/moon-was-produced-by-a-head-on-collision-between-earth-and-a-forming-planet
and the article in _Science_ is at
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6272/493.full

I couldn't find a preprint, but there might be one somewhere.

> The Theia Theory used to talk about a glancing blow between the early 
> Earth and a Mars-sized Theia, perhaps at 45 degrees. New data suggests 
> that Theia might have actually hit head-on with the Earth. That's 
> because the percentage of Oxygen 16/17/18 isotopes between the Earth and 
> Moon are nearly identical,

Specifically, the new data show the isotope ratios (actually a ratio
of differences) is the same within 2 ppm.  A paper last year
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1146

found apparent differences at the 18 ppm level.  The new paper
suggests that was sample selection, i.e., the rocks analyzed earlier
were not characteristic of the whole Moon.

>  indicating that they came from the same source.

If the isotope ratios are identical, _either_ Earth and Theia had
identical ratios to begin with (possible but not very likely) _or_
the present Earth and Moon have identical fractions of Theia
material. That last would require a head-on collision with everything
getting mixed; a glancing collision would put a larger fraction of
Theia material into the Moon.

I'm very much an outsider here, but this looks to me like a highly
technical insider dispute that most of us shouldn't worry about.

> 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.

> so now that that isotopic evidence has disappeared, why keep the
> Theia Hypothesis? There were other theories prior to that, which
> were discarded due to the isotopic evidence.

That evidence being the _similarity_ of ratios, which is now stronger
than before.  The argument now seems to be about the details of the
collision, but as I say, I'm an outsider.

For a different hypothesis to be viable, it will have to be
consistent with not only the isotope ratios but also the element
ratios and other evidence.  As with all scientific hypotheses, it
will have to be testable (falsifiable) to receive scientific
consideration.

-- 
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]

#549837

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549883

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550070

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...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550151

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550338

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550436

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550544

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.

I was refering to "our moon", not those other...props.


Did you just say " previous liquid water on Mars"???? Oh, you're just
one of those lemming fools.


> 
> 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!

Your logic is.. without our moon we have  'previous liquid water on
Earth'.


Where would the water come from without our moon? 



The moon existed at the same time as the earth....they are both the same
age.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web