Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Message-ID	<56B056FB.522D@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date	2016-02-01 23:12 -0800
From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.astro, sci.physics
Subject	Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?
References	<dPqdnSyaPpEcxjDLnZ2dnUU7-b3OydjZ@giganews.com> <n8om4s$gp6$1@dont-email.me> <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Thread

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? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-01-31 07:25 -0800
  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? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-01-31 17:02 -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? 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? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-02 05:57 -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? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-05 12:55 -0800
                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? 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? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-07 07:06 -0800
                Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-08 02:58 +0000
                Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-08 06:35 -0800
                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? the_shadow <the_shadow@xcoxx.net> - 2016-02-06 07:30 +0000
          Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-04 07:52 -0800

csiph-web