Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #549456 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-30 19:55 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 14:40 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 52 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 03:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n914ar$g13$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #550544 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >Where would the water come from without our moon? Rain clouds?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 20:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B42852.31BE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #550605 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > >Where would the water come from without our moon? > > Rain clouds? The moon is what makes it rain. The clouds are created by the moon. No moon, no rain clouds. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 08:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n91nir$1afh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #550612 |
On 05/02/2016 04:42, The Starmaker wrote: > Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >> >>> Where would the water come from without our moon? >> >> Rain clouds? Originally from later impacting comets and/or the initial composition of the nebula that the Earth condensed from. Initially it would be far too hot for any liquid water to exist and until the planet surface cools so that thermal velocity of water molecules drops below the escape velocity of the accreting planet the water cannot accumulate. Helium and hydrogen can escape relatively easily from our planets atmosphere even today. Mars only really managed to hold onto CO2. OTOH Titan in the far reaches of the solar system had hydrocarbon rain. It seems just about possible that so does Pluto but at such a low temperature that nitrogen and/or oxygen is in a pseudo liquid slushy phase and has water ice mountains floating in it that are as hard as steel. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/pluto-s-mysterious-floating-hills > > The moon is what makes it rain. > > The clouds are created by the moon. > > No moon, no rain clouds. > > > Right? *WRONG!* Moon howling netkook nutter territory. "Starmaker" makes Oriel36 look almost sane. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n92eu8$lu2$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #550612 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >> >> >Where would the water come from without our moon? >> >> Rain clouds? >The moon is what makes it rain. >The clouds are created by the moon. >No moon, no rain clouds. Just when I thought I've heard the absolutely dumbest, kookiest "science" claim possible, along comes someone with an even dumber, kookier one. >Right? Completely wrong, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 15:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #550681 |
In sci.physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >>Michael Moroney wrote: >>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >>> >Where would the water come from without our moon? >>> Rain clouds? >>The moon is what makes it rain. >>The clouds are created by the moon. >>No moon, no rain clouds. > Just when I thought I've heard the absolutely dumbest, kookiest "science" > claim possible, along comes someone with an even dumber, kookier one. >>Right? > Completely wrong, of course. There is one teeny tiny thing. Comparing times of new moon versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of in preciptation of a few percent. There is a recent paper doing the rounds of the Chinese echo chamber network that does a closer analysis of this . -- Updated blended model/observation comparisons using 2015 annual anomalies: <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZLWFf_UYAEdYfi.png> -- Zeke Hausfather, 20 Jan 2016, San Francisco, CA [A slightly modified version -- apparently the upper edge of the error band only -- was shown in some newspapers: <http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Screen-Shot-2015-12-08-at- 2.37.04-PM.png>].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n935ca$quk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #550686 |
In article <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> writes: > Comparing times of new moon > versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of > in preciptation of a few percent. Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than physics. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <120f0b6b-8eed-4173-9c6e-317cbc62af1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550772 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 1:51:55 PM UTC-8, Steve Willner wrote: > In article <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, > R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> writes: > > Comparing times of new moon > > versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of > > in preciptation of a few percent. > > Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the > effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than > physics. > > -- > Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. > Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu > Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Comets are very dry.That means NASA has to go with "ONCE UPON A TIME" How Earthg got its oceans is a great mystery. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 20:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecd5103e-343a-4790-a911-ce625cfe9f5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550773 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 1:57:00 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > Comets are very dry... You really need to study more, because you have this totally wrong! Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 04:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b264cd0c-ac1a-44ef-9c60-9fd365a1c475@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550811 |
> Comets are very dry... You really need to study more, because you have this totally wrong! Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades??? ------------ No. Bert has been living in his car at the Wal-Mart parking lot and shitting into a bucket. Seriously
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Y3qty.37538$Ue1.5095@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #550873 |
On 02/06/2016 07:47 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
>> Comets are very dry...
>
> You really need to study more, because you have this totally wrong! Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades???
> ------------
>
> No. Bert has been living in his car at the Wal-Mart parking lot and shitting into a bucket.
>
> Seriously
>
Well, van actually. Bucket is true.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n937sd$4bl$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #550772 |
In sci.physics Steve Willner <willner@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > In article <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, > R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> writes: >> Comparing times of new moon >> versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of >> in preciptation of a few percent. > Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the > effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than > physics. google "moon and precipitation" 52 mn hits Phase of the moon affects amount of rainfall - Phys.org phys.org # Astronomy & Space # Space Exploration 7 days ago - Satellite data over the tropics, between 10 degrees S and 10 degrees N, shows a slight dip in rainfall when the moon is directly overhead or ... Folklore Confirmed: The Moon's Phase Affects Rainfall ... www.sciencemag.org/.../folklore-confirmed-moons-phase-affects-rainfall Oct 6, 2010 - Researchers find link between lunar cycles and precipitation. In the news Image for the news result Moon can affect rainfall, scientists discover | Science | News The Independent# - 2 days ago The Moon can affect how heavy the rain is, according to a new study that could help improve ... Moon Affects Rainfall, Says Study Based on NASA and Japanese Aerospace Data Nature World News# - 2 days ago Moon overhead makes rainfall lighter, scientists conclude Telegraph.co.uk# - 2 days ago More news for moon and precipitation Moon's tidal forces affect amount of rainfall on Earth | UW ... www.washington.edu/.../phases-of-the-moon-affect-amount-of-rainfall/ Jan 29, 2016 - "As far as I know, this is the first study to convincingly connect the tidal force of the moon with rainfall," said corresponding author Tsubasa ... -- Europe wasn't a very hospitable place fifteen millennia ago. The westernmost landmass of the Eurasian continent had endured a long ice age, with glaciers stretching across northern Europe and into the region we now call Germany. But suddenly, about 14,500 years ago, things started to warm up quickly. The glaciers melted so fast around the globe that they caused sea levels to rise 52 feet in just 500 years. Meanwhile, the environment was in chaos, with wildlife trying vainly to adjust to the rapid fluctuations in temperature. Humans weren't immune to the changes, either. -- <http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/there-was-a-massive- population-crash-in-europe-over-14500-years-ago/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n938vn$2sk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #550772 |
On 05/02/2016 21:48, Steve Willner wrote: > In article <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, > R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> writes: >> Comparing times of new moon >> versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of >> in preciptation of a few percent. > > Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the > effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than > physics. I am sceptical too but here is one source with references: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/moon.html There is a more recent climate related paper claiming a statistically significant temperature to lunar phase correlation in satellite data but not rainfall. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5203/1481.abstract It isn't totally implausible since the Earth will be very slightly closer to the sun at full moon. The effect is tiny ~20mK -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ioa1$657$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #550782 |
In article <n938vn$2sk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes: > I am sceptical too but here is one source with references: > http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/moon.html I looked at the notes but not the references. They refer to single locations and limited periods of time, which makes me wonder about statistical significance. In any case, they can't tell us anything global. > There is a more recent climate related paper claiming a statistically > significant temperature to lunar phase correlation in satellite data but > not rainfall. > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5203/1481.abstract > > It isn't totally implausible since the Earth will be very slightly > closer to the sun at full moon. The effect is tiny ~20mK I think Martin has nailed the cause, though the authors didn't. While the authors write "0.02 K" and "0.03 K" in the text -- and why they give two different values is unclear to me -- their Figure 1 (which I found in the pdf but not the html version) actually shows 10 mK difference. That's just the amount I estimate from the difference in solar distance as a function of lunar phase. I'm impressed that it can actually be measured. Another source quoted http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/lunar-gravity-affects-rainfall.html which is based on the refereed article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067342/full This shows the expected semi-diurnal tidal effect on the atmosphere and correlates it with a tiny rainfall effect. The original claim was a monthly effect, which this paper doesn't address and about which I remain skeptical. By the way, it's not hard to compare the relative tidal forces on a raindrop from the Moon and from a nearby frog. The Moon is roughly three times denser than a frog, so if the Moon and the frog subtend the same angular diameter as seen from the raindrop, the Moon's tidal force will be three times larger. Move the frog 30% closer, and the tidal forces will be equal. (Tidal force goes as r^-1/3.) Of course both are utterly negligible for any practical purpose. -- 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 12:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Kf2dnTRyR4nPoyvLnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #550772 |
On 2/5/16 3:48 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > In article <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, > R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> writes: >> Comparing times of new moon >> versus full moon shows a statistically relevant difference of >> in preciptation of a few percent. > > Can you cite a source? I confess to some skepticism, but if the > effect is real, my first thought would be biology rather than > physics. > Lunar Phase Affects Rainfall > http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/lunar-gravity-affects-rainfall.html > Abstract > > Classical tidal theory predicts that the lunar gravitational > semidiurnal tide (L2) should induce perturbations in relative > humidity (RH). Adiabatic expansion in divergent flow in advance of > the L2 pressure minimum cools the air and reduces its saturation > vapor pressure, thereby increasing the rate of condensation in > saturated air parcels and causing the relative humidity (RH) of > unsaturated parcels to rise. Here we detect a statistically > significant L2 signature in precipitation rate (P) in a 15 year, > eight times daily, global precipitation data set acquired in the > Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission. Consistent with tidal theory and > with the notion that L2 modulates P mainly by perturbing RH, P varies > out of phase with pressure, and it increases at a rate of about 10% > per 1% increase in RH. These measurements thus provide a measure of > the sensitivity of P to planetary-scale changes in RH. Analysis of > solar semidiurnal (S2) tidal statistics yields similar results. > > Citation > > Rainfall variations induced by the lunar gravitational atmospheric > tide and their implications for the relationship between tropical > rainfall and humidity by Tsubasa Kohyama John (Michael) Wallace > published in Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL067342 > > Their new paper is the first to show that the moon’s gravitational > tug also puts a slight damper on the rain. > > When the moon is overhead, its gravity causes Earth’s atmosphere to > bulge toward it, so the pressure or weight of the atmosphere on that > side of the planet goes up. Higher pressure increases the temperature > of air parcels below. Since warmer air can hold more moisture, the > same air parcels are now farther from their moisture capacity. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 01:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B5BAD2.29AC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #550612 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > > > >Where would the water come from without our moon? > > > > Rain clouds? > > The moon is what makes it rain. > > The clouds are created by the moon. The way this works is the moon draws in the moisture from the trees up, and makes the clouds. Now that you understand that part.. do you understand how the moon makes the ocean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n95egv$51f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #550850 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >The Starmaker wrote: >> The moon is what makes it rain. >> >> The clouds are created by the moon. >The way this works is >the moon draws in the moisture from the >trees up, and makes the clouds. Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants (by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component of the water cycle. >Now that you understand that part.. >do you understand how the moon makes the ocean? False conclusion based on a false assumption.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 12:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B65D2D.7A0C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #550941 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > >The Starmaker wrote: > > >> The moon is what makes it rain. > >> > >> The clouds are created by the moon. > > >The way this works is > >the moon draws in the moisture from the > >trees up, and makes the clouds. > > Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants > (by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component > of the water cycle. What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about the moon as being "a minor component of the water cycle."? The Moon moves the ocean. Is the ocean "a minor component of the water cycle."???? > > >Now that you understand that part.. > >do you understand how the moon makes the ocean? > > False conclusion based on a false assumption. The Moon not only...'controls' the rain, the ocean...but other minor components of the water cycle. Like for example...the rainforest. Even the little drops of water on a single leaf. Do you know what the Moon does to a single drop of water on a single leaf??? Do you actually believe that the Moon and affect the whole ocean on earth, but not a drop of water on a leaf? You don't understand the mechanism of the moon.... do you understand how the moon makes the ocean??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 01:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n966jo$akb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #550960 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants >> (by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component >> of the water cycle. >What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about >the moon as being "a minor component of the water cycle."? Can't you read? I said that plant transpiration of water (caused by the sun) is a minor component. The moon is irrelevant, the words "moon" and "tide" aren't even used in the Wikipedia article on the water cycle. The moon isn't mentioned in a long USGS web page explaining the water cycle, "tide" is only because they explain the water table and wells by using the example of digging a hole at the beach which fills with water from the ocean (and is affected by tides). >The Moon moves the ocean. Is the ocean "a minor component of the water >cycle."???? As a storage reservoir and a source of evaporation, the ocean is major. The effect of tides on these are minimal, how minimal others are arguing about in this thread. >> >Now that you understand that part.. >> >do you understand how the moon makes the ocean? It doesn't. It sloshes it around somewhat. >> False conclusion based on a false assumption. >Do you know what the Moon does to a single drop of water on a single leaf??? I suppose it could raise a tide in it. Now I am wondering whether such a tide could even be measured or whether a poison dart frog hopping by would raise a larger tide in it. >Do you actually believe that the Moon and affect the whole ocean on >earth, but not a drop of water on a leaf? Right now I am not bored enough to calculate how many nanometers high a moon tide in a raindrop would be. Or a frog tide, either. >You don't understand the mechanism of the moon.... >do you understand how the moon makes the ocean?? Babbling nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B7BCFB.6148@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #551002 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > >Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants > >> (by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component > >> of the water cycle. > > >What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about > >the moon as being "a minor component of the water cycle."? > > Can't you read? I said that plant transpiration of water (caused by the > sun) is a minor component. The moon is irrelevant, the words "moon" and > "tide" aren't even used in the Wikipedia article on the water cycle. > The moon isn't mentioned in a long USGS web page explaining the water > cycle, "tide" is only because they explain the water table and wells by > using the example of digging a hole at the beach which fills with water > from the ocean (and is affected by tides). I see, you getting your information from a 'anonymous user-edited website'. That means you don't know much... https://www.google.com/#q=moon+tides&tbm=nws Here’s how it works: The moon’s gravitational pull causes Earth’s atmosphere to bulge toward it, (on both sides of the earth) .. this 'gravitational pull' by the moon pulls a drop of water from the leaf unto the ground. From the ground the drops of water 'pulled by the moon’s gravitational pull' from the leaves, the billions of leaves...form ruiing water on the ground that turns to rivers...that eventually form and...ocean. In other words... the earth's moon makes the ocean. All from a single drop of water on a leaf. http://revelwallpapers.net/d/7532364C705A437130394F77714B31687A7047493438444F76714E716B673D3D/water-drops-on-leaf.jpg Where do you think fishes come from? From leaves that fall from trees. Do you want me to explain How that works? Don't expect to find this information on a 'anonymous user-edited website' like Wikipedia. Why waste your time...read about it here from this first cover issue of Science magazine: http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56B7CF09.284@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #551108 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > > > >Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > >> Babbling nonsense. Read up on the water cycle. Water drawn up in plants > > >> (by the sun as part of photosynthesis, not the moon) is a minor component > > >> of the water cycle. > > > > >What is "a minor component of the water cycle."? Are you talking about > > >the moon as being "a minor component of the water cycle."? > > > > Can't you read? I said that plant transpiration of water (caused by the > > sun) is a minor component. The moon is irrelevant, the words "moon" and > > "tide" aren't even used in the Wikipedia article on the water cycle. > > The moon isn't mentioned in a long USGS web page explaining the water > > cycle, "tide" is only because they explain the water table and wells by > > using the example of digging a hole at the beach which fills with water > > from the ocean (and is affected by tides). > > I see, you getting your information from a 'anonymous user-edited website'. > > That means you don't know much... > https://www.google.com/#q=moon+tides&tbm=nws > > Here’s how it works: The moon’s gravitational pull causes Earth’s atmosphere to bulge toward it, (on both sides of the earth) .. > > this 'gravitational pull' by the moon pulls a drop of water from the leaf unto the ground. From the > ground the drops of water 'pulled by the moon’s gravitational pull' from the leaves, the billions > of leaves...form ruiing water on the ground that turns to rivers...that eventually form and...ocean. > > In other words... > > the earth's moon makes the ocean. > > All from a single drop of water on a leaf. > > http://revelwallpapers.net/d/7532364C705A437130394F77714B31687A7047493438444F76714E716B673D3D/water-drops-on-leaf.jpg > > Where do you think fishes come from? From leaves that fall from trees. > > Do you want me to explain How that works? > > Don't expect to find this information on a 'anonymous user-edited website' like Wikipedia. > > Why waste your time...read about it here from this first cover issue of Science magazine: > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dGDQfjNjst89oGMGZUuvCejqvO6-M&q=moon+tides&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-2qy64ebKAhVM5CYKHV3ABI8QqgIIJDAB of course Science is a few thousand years behind... they still tryin to figure out how the Moon works. https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dGDQfjNjst89oGMGZUuvCejqvO6-M&q=moon+tides&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-2qy64ebKAhVM5CYKHV3ABI8QqgIIJDAB wait till they find out the moon makes fishes and people fall from trees: http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg man! yous guys are soooo behind the times. yous just don't get it. I think i was born tooo early.....let me come back a thousand years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web