Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.astro, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? |
| Date | 2016-02-04 11:40 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <n8vdbu$1qir$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <dPqdnSyaPpEcxjDLnZ2dnUU7-b3OydjZ@giganews.com> <n8om4s$gp6$1@dont-email.me> <rLOdnXy-3tZHZjLLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <56B056FB.522D@ix.netcom.com> <56B142DA.1ECD@ix.netcom.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
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
Back to sci.astro | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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