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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#551131

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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.



what you people 
don't understand...
is that the earth's moon
is instrumental in the 
origin of the ocean
the origin of fishes
the origin of people
the origin of Life on Earth.

Simply by it's gravitational pull on the earth and it's atmosphere.

What came first, the rain or the clouds?

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

#551519

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> what you people
> don't understand...
> is that the earth's moon
> is instrumental in the
> origin of the ocean
> the origin of fishes
> the origin of people
> the origin of Life on Earth.
> 
> Simply by it's gravitational pull on the earth and it's atmosphere.
> 
> What came first, the rain or the clouds?


Of course the answer is simple...the moon made the clouds and then it made it rain.

How did the moon make clouds? Instead of rainfall, it rainup.

Sorry, I cannot wait for yous people to invent the word "rainup".

Maybe a thousand years from now you'll figure it out....especially yous Wikipedia university students.

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

#551766

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > what you people
> > don't understand...
> > is that the earth's moon
> > is instrumental in the
> > origin of the ocean
> > the origin of fishes
> > the origin of people
> > the origin of Life on Earth.
> >
> > Simply by it's gravitational pull on the earth and it's atmosphere.
> >
> > What came first, the rain or the clouds?
> 
> Of course the answer is simple...the moon made the clouds and then it made it rain.
> 
> How did the moon make clouds? Instead of rainfall, it rainup.
> 
> Sorry, I cannot wait for yous people to invent the word "rainup".
> 
> Maybe a thousand years from now you'll figure it out....especially yous Wikipedia university students.


Now, as you see on the cover of the first issue of the Science Journal is shows a photograph of a leafinsect.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg


You're problably wondering, how did the leaf that fell from a tree turn into an insect????

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

#550549

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]

#550337

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]

#550408

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]

#550409

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]

#550545

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]

#550254

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:55:31 PM UTC-8, 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
CAPTURE TreBert

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

#550346

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 10:11:18 AM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:55:31 PM UTC-8, 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
> CAPTURE TreBert

Its not messy.Easy to explain,and fits well with known facts.Think iron.Think iridium.Think water.Think lava   TreBert

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

#550397

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Lunatic Glazier the Swine wrote:
> Its not messy.Easy to explain,and fits well with known facts
which are explained when:
>
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com>  :B::ert Glazier, the
hate-mongering Swine, introduces himself with/as
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
about which ....
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> aka
"Richard A." aka Harlow Campbell wrote:
>
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot".... .... about which....
 >
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, your brain is entangles with a used garbage can.
Glazier, "Its a shame" that your science is far worse
than the man's on the street.
Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage.
reber, take your you know it all thinking to your grave .
reber, your horseshit gets old.Say hi to Allah for me.
reber, you don't believe in science.
Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup.
Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__.
Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!..
 >
Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
 >
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
 >
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy
or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way.
 >
benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is!
Now they party and frolic!...still waiting "to be loved by all"...
 >
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's
Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
 >
Now, Glazier consider "what will the say when Glazier dies?
Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Swine, announced and posted at the
ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
 >
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
 >
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>:
Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which...
 >
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
 >
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face
to take a shit & say: "Open wide". Trebert.
 >
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
 >
hanson wrote:
Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in
and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you
sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been
"put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from
the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your
legacy, is because:
 >
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
 >
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you swine you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----            27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ----   27'953 hits & rising
>
cuz of hanson's caring and loving administering badly needed
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> to the mental
cripple aka <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>. ... Shalom!

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

#550569

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 10:11:18 AM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:55:31 PM UTC-8, 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
> > CAPTURE TreBert
> 
> Its not messy.Easy to explain,and fits well with known facts.Think iron.Think iridium.Think water.Think lava   TreBert
Capture it is 99% of the time.It just has to miss and side step.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web