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

Groups > sci.physics > #550337 > unrolled thread

Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#550337 — Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

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] | [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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web