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

Groups > sci.physics > #550070 > 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? 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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#550070 — Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

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] | [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]

#550605

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Where would the water come from without our moon? 

Rain clouds?

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

#550612

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]

#550633

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]

#550681

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]

#550686

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]

#550772

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]

#550773

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]

#550811

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]

#550873

> 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]

#550919

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]

#550778

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]

#550782

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]

#552330

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]

#550943

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]

#550850

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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web