Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?

Message-ID	<56B3AAB2.1FCB@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date	2016-02-04 11:46 -0800
From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.astro, sci.physics
Subject	Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision?
References	(1 earlier) <n8om4s$gp6$1@dont-email.me> <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <n8tu8f$que$1@dont-email.me> <56B2EE3A.584E@ix.netcom.com> <56B2F1D5.5BD8@ix.netcom.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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