 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / September 2007Triton Moon of Neptune
OK It is well known I don't like the explosion theory in creating Moons,and putting them in orbit. I like capture theory best. Its clean and reality. They use it for Neptune capturing it biggest moon,but they love to have an explosion to create Earth's Moon,and put it in orbit. This begs the question WHY? bert > OK It is well known I don't like the explosion theory in creating > Moons,and putting them in orbit. I like capture theory best. Its clean > and reality. They use it for Neptune capturing it biggest moon,but they > love to have an explosion to create Earth's Moon,and put it in orbit. > This begs the question WHY? bert What about moons generally being formed by swirling masses of gas and stellar wind at the time the entire solar system being formed? > > OK It is well known I don't like the explosion theory in creating > > Moons,and putting them in orbit. I like capture theory best. Its clean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What about moons generally being formed by swirling masses of gas and > stellar wind at the time the entire solar system being formed? Glazier gets it wrong again. The current theory of our moon's formation involves a collision scenario, not an explosion. Mark That Moon theory at the beginning of the solar system with all that heavy dust to create big rocks I can live with(accretion dust disk around planets). Its better than an explosion theory bert Why do you say explosion therory, nobody has ever (as far as i know) claimed the moon was created by an explosion ! It's well know that the moon is created by an collision scenario between a large object and earth > Mark That Moon theory at the beginning of the solar system with all > that heavy dust to create big rocks I can live with(accretion dust disk > around planets). Its better than an explosion theory bert > Why do you say explosion therory, nobody has ever (as far as i know) > claimed the moon was created by an explosion ! > > It's well know that the moon is created by an collision scenario between a > large object and earth That really does not seem possible to me, because if an object as big as the Moon hit Earth, both would surely now be rubble, if you think very hard about it, you know. >> Mark That Moon theory at the beginning of the solar system with all >> that heavy dust to create big rocks I can live with(accretion dust disk >> around planets). Its better than an explosion theory bert >> Why do you say explosion therory, nobody has ever (as far as i know) >> claimed the moon was created by an explosion ! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the Moon hit Earth, both would surely now be rubble, if you think very > hard about it, you know. Much bigger than the Moon. An object roughly the size of Mars is required to gouge enough material out of a proto Earth to form the Moon and leave the Earth-Moon system with the required angular momentum.. Your personally incredulity means nothing. This has been demonstrated by impact calculations. Klazmon. >>> Why do you say explosion therory, nobody has ever (as far as i know) >>> claimed the moon was created by an explosion ! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > incredulity means nothing. This has been demonstrated by impact > calculations. Calculations never beat out common sense. > Calculations never beat out common sense. Actually they do, almost every time! >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > > Actually they do, almost every time! Not to me. If the Earth was molten at the time a molten Mars sized world impacted, they would have just globbed into each other, like mercury. "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in news:13ca38lopab6r26 @corp.supernews.com: >>> Calculations never beat out common sense. >> >> Actually they do, almost every time! > > Not to me. If the Earth was molten at the time a molten Mars sized world > impacted, they would have just globbed into each other, like mercury. When you are talking about an impact between objects size of the earth and Mars, whether or not the crusts are solid or molten makes no difference. Klazmon. > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in news:13ca38lopab6r26 > @corp.supernews.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When you are talking about an impact between objects size of the earth and > Mars, whether or not the crusts are solid or molten makes no difference. You can at least tell that two spheres of liquid cannot blast a moon sized object into space, can't you? > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in news:13ca38lopab6r26 > > @corp.supernews.com: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You can at least tell that two spheres of liquid cannot blast a moon sized > object into space, can't you? How? Where's your calculation? >> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in news:13ca38lopab6r26 >> @corp.supernews.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You can at least tell that two spheres of liquid cannot blast a moon > sized object into space, can't you? Why not? Even two drops of liquid colliding where the drops are held together only by surface tension will produce all sorts of interesting effects. You can't scale up that case though as surface tension is of no consequence in the case of planets. Planets are held together by gravity which is negligible in the case of small drops of liquid. Klazmon. Klazmon You are a low wit thinker,and that is proven by your last post. liquid reacts differently when hit than a solid. End of story. bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:4432-46C5A50D-13 @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon You are a low wit thinker,and that is proven by your last post. > liquid reacts differently when hit than a solid. End of story. bert The planets under consideration are mostly liquid. The thin crust of such planets is much weaker than an egg shell relatively speaking. It is of no consequence for the primary effects. End of story. Klazmon. > Klazmon You are a low wit thinker,and that is proven by your last post. > liquid reacts differently when hit than a solid. End of story. bert Solid crust means nothing on the scale we are talking about. A thin egg shell on a raw egg has vastly more relative strength than the crust of the Earth. The Earth is held together by gravity not by its' material strength. You have no concept of scale. End of story LOL. . Klazmon Now with your great thinking ability you are comparing egg shell to being so much stronger than the Earth's crust. You have tested both to make this a fact? Earth's crust strength varies from place to place. Its depth can be 5 miles to 50 miles. I'm sure your experiments took this "fact" into its measurements. That Arizona crater shows the Earth has a pretty strong crust. How about that Yucatan crater. It was a great explosion. Well Klazmon I'm big on hard boiled eggs,and can tell you the best way to peel them. bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:26285-46C97A0B-760 @storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon Now with your great thinking ability you are comparing egg > shell to being so much stronger than the Earth's crust. You have tested > both to make this a fact? Earth's crust strength varies from place to > place. Its depth can be 5 miles to 50 miles. Try rolling two eggs together at a speed of one egg diameter per second. Then try the same experiment with two planets. Eggs are held together entirely by the material strength of the shell. Planets are held together by gravity. > I'm sure your experiments > took this "fact" into its measurements. That Arizona crater shows the > Earth has a pretty strong crust. How about that Yucatan crater. It was a > great explosion. For comparison. Try throwing a dust mote or even a grain of sand at an eggshell. Klazmon. Klazmon I'm having trouble doing the experiment with two planets. Reason is they won't fit in my garage. No problem with two eggs,and using an egg timer for that experiment. Will take a fast picture showing a bullet hitting the shell of an egg and not breaking it. This will clearly show how very strong egg shells are oh ya bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:4430-46CABB88-937 @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon I'm having trouble doing the experiment with two planets. > Reason is they won't fit in my garage. No problem with two eggs,and > using an egg timer for that experiment. Will take a fast picture > showing a bullet hitting the shell of an egg and not breaking it. This > will clearly show how very strong egg shells are oh ya bert A bullet against an eggshell is like firing the moon at the earth at faster than a million miles per hour. The comparison was the impactor that caused the meteor crater in Arizona - equivalent to a dust mote hitting an eggshell. Klazmon. > >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > > > Actually they do, almost every time! > > Not to me. If the Earth was molten at the time a molten Mars sized world > impacted, they would have just globbed into each other, like mercury. For 250 years Newtonian physicists argued that powered heavier than air flight was impossible based upon their calculations that the friction on the wings would increase exponentionally as speed increased. Good thing that the Wright brothers weren't too up on the science of their day, or they might have never tried. Nothing based only on calculations is for certain. Double-A > > >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > science of their day, or they might have never tried. Nothing based > only on calculations is for certain. That doesn't sound right. you have a cite regarding these calculations of friction? I could believe that they would have despaired of being able to produce enough energy from an engine small enough to be lifted by that energy, say by propelling a sufficient amount of air at a sufficient velocity. >> >> Calculations never beat out common sense. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > science of their day, or they might have never tried. Nothing based > only on calculations is for certain. Scientists...38 years after landing a man on the Moon...still cannot get us out of Earth orbit. > >> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Scientists...38 years after landing a man on the Moon...still cannot get us > out of Earth orbit. Can you even get us off the ground? >> >> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Can you even get us off the ground? With input I could give, a ship could be designed which could get us all the way to Alpha Centauri in a month. > >> "Double-A" <double...@hush.ai> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > With input I could give, a ship could be designed which could get us all the > way to Alpha Centauri in a month. Did you tell your doctor about that? > >> >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Scientists...38 years after landing a man on the Moon...still cannot get us > out of Earth orbit. Irrelevant. Technology is not the same thing as science theory. On Aug 16, 8:27 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.ai> wrote:mercury. > For 250 years Newtonian physicists argued that powered heavier than > air flight was impossible based upon their calculations that the > friction on the wings would increase exponentionally as speed > increased. Good thing that the Wright brothers weren't too up on the > science of their day, or they might have never tried. Nothing based > only on calculations is for certain. Actually the Wright brothers had no illusions about the reality of manned flight, as glider experiments already had proven, most notably by Otto Lilienthal. The Wrights' own glider work went much further, developing the 3-axis control system which enabled full stability. But their main hurdle was finding a powerplant of sufficient power-to- weight ratio to fly a man-carrying machine. They ended up designing their own engine (the actual machining being done by a master engine- builder), of a whopping 12 horsepower(!). Their propeller design was a marvel of efficiency even by modern standards, enabling the aircraft to fly at over *700 pounds* gross weight. The Wrights ran an aeronautical R&D center, a virtual Skunk Works, out in the middle of nowhere, and supplied their own logistics. They were in every sense the 'Burt Rutans' of their day. oc > On Aug 16, 8:27 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.ai> wrote:mercury. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > own logistics. They were in every sense the 'Burt Rutans' of their > day. oc Yes, the success of gliders should have been a clue. But Lord Kelvin, the president of the Royal Society, had just stated in 1895: "I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible." The Scientific American Magazine continued to label the Wright brother's flights to be a hoax for years after the first 1903 flight. I guess they didn't want to be confused by facts that flew in the face of "good science". Double-A > > On Aug 16, 8:27 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.ai> wrote:mercury. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are > impossible." As it would have been given the power plant availability at that particular time. > The Scientific American Magazine continued to label the Wright > brother's flights to be a hoax for years after the first 1903 flight. > I guess they didn't want to be confused by facts that flew in the face > of "good science". Can you cite actual issues and articles from the years following the 1903 flight that call the Wright brothers flights a hoax? > > > On Aug 16, 8:27 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.ai> wrote:mercury. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > As it would have been given the power plant availability > at that particular time. The conclusions that heavier than air flight was impossible were based on more fundamental issues than that. They were based on calculations of wing lift and drag characteristics using Newton's Sine-Squared Law. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=IYnl_XPggZYC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22newtonian+s ine+squared+law%22&source=web&ots=TU2C1pPO61&sig=EIJ62A_mSL3_lc9XDvmQjnHXZNQ Like any calculation of something that has not been tested, you don't know if you have all the factors. Double-A > Yes, the success of gliders should have been a clue. But Lord Kelvin, > the president of the Royal Society, had just stated in 1895: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I guess they didn't want to be confused by facts that flew in the face > of "good science". The information and links on this topic gathered at the Bad Astronomy site may be instructive: http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-48778.html It seems that much of the disbelief, or rather slowness to acknowledge the events, on the part of the editor of Scientific American (and other media) was due to the secretive way in which the Wright Brothers were operating. > It seems that much of the disbelief, or rather slowness > to acknowledge the events, on the part of the editor > of Scientific American (and other media) was due to > the secretive way in which the Wright Brothers were > operating. Exactly. But their inordinate secrecy was driven first by the imperative that when official demonstartions *were* given, that they come off without a hitch.. and secondly, to keep prying eyes from their proprietary 3-axis control system which they were exclusive inventors of. However, the flamboyant showman Glenn Curtiss surreptitiously filched it anyway, leading to the Wrights' long and contentious patent suits against him. oc oc & double-A Flying bugs,and bird wings were the big clues bert > >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > > > > Actually they do, almost every time! > > Not to me. If the Earth was molten at the time a molten Mars sized world > impacted, they would have just globbed into each other, like mercury. And you KNOW this because of your vast practical experience throwing together molten planet-sized objects? Idiot. You have no practical experience that even approaches the conditions involved -- materials on the macro scale simply do not behave the same as on the human scale. For example, explain to us, O man of mighty common sense, how the speed of sound in molten projectiles of that size will affect the transfer of kinetic energy via spherical harmonics from the point of initial contact, and where that energy can be expected to end up. >> >> Calculations never beat out common sense. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > experience throwing together molten planet-sized > objects? Idiot. And you or someone you know has pushed planets together, or at least has observed such? > You have no practical experience that even approaches > the conditions involved -- materials on the macro > scale simply do not behave the same as on the human > scale. I just know the way magma...a liquid for heaven sake...behaves. For example, explain to us, O man of mighty > common sense, how the speed of sound in molten > projectiles of that size will affect the transfer of > kinetic energy via spherical harmonics from the point > of initial contact, and where that energy can be > expected to end up. That is just a bunch of scientific smokescreen to try to hide the fact that scientists are at a lost to successfully explain the existence of the Moon. > >> >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And you or someone you know has pushed planets together, or > at least has observed such? No, and that's the point; where practical experience is lacking, theoretical calculation is the only safe guide. > > You have no practical experience that even approaches > > the conditions involved -- materials on the macro > > scale simply do not behave the same as on the human > > scale. > > I just know the way magma...a liquid for heaven sake...behaves. You just "know". Mystical bullshit. Worse than wrong. > For example, explain to us, O man of mighty > > common sense, how the speed of sound in molten [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the fact that scientists are at a lost to successfully explain the existence > of the Moon. Lack of response noted. You've got nothing. The current model successfully explains the Moon's origin, and is backed up by detailed calculation and simulation. Your theory is backed up by what? a warm fuzzy feeling? >> >> >> Calculations never beat out common sense. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > simulation. Your theory is backed up by what? a > warm fuzzy feeling? Just observe the facts. I think the rings of Saturn should explain to you where moons come generally come from. They come from gases that swirl around planets as the planets are being formed. Further, if moons came from explosions off of a planet, how did Jupiter's moons escape its dynamic gravity? Further, if the surface of the Earth were molten, it would all be molten, and a collision with another molten body would just fluidly lump the mass of both together. <snip> >> The current model successfully explains the Moon's >> origin, and is backed up by detailed calculation and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >They come from gases that swirl around planets as the planets are being >formed. So how come the measured elemental abundances in moon rocks don't support your idea? What's your explanation for that? Since you've asked people to observe the facts, I'm sure you will also "observe the facts" with your explanation. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So how come the measured elemental abundances in moon rocks don't support > your idea? Because Moon rocks come from meteorite debris. And meteorite debris...can be from anywhere. The Moon is so covered with meteorite debris that no one has even ever seen the true color of the Moon, except in the crater rays. <snip> >> That is just a bunch of scientific smokescreen to try to hide >> the fact that scientists are at a lost to successfully explain the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >simulation. Your theory is backed up by what? a >warm fuzzy feeling? It's not just backed up by calculations and simulations, it's backed up by actual geological evidence, a point that the loons almost invariably avoid addressing. Mark It is no surprise Moon rocks and Earth rocks are very similar,after all they came from the same dusty disk. However those that don't cotton to the explosion theory have for their argument this Earth has great amount of iron,and the Moon little. Next Earth has little amount of iridium,and the Moon has lots more in comparison.etc The Moon was never blasted out of a molten Earth.,it came to Earth at the right speed and angle and was captured,like Triton's Moon Rings of Saturn was a comet that came apart when captured. Jupiter has 61 Moons all captured. Reality is Mars has no moons and those two potatoes are captures asteroids. Pluto's Moon was captured. Asteroid Ida has a moon,and it was captured. Well all are theories but capture is the best one because it has more evidence of showing reality. bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:12499-46C6ECC0-535 @storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net: > Mark It is no surprise Moon rocks and Earth rocks are very > similar,after all they came from the same dusty disk. What you fail to realise is that there are two glaring differences. First the moon rocks contain practically no volatile material. Secondly the moon doesn't have a dense core like the Earth. The entire moon is made of material similar to the Earth's crust with the volatiles removed but very different material to the Earth's core. Any hypothesis for the formation of the Moon has to explain why the moon's material is so similer to the Earth's crust (except for the volatile substances) but has no material like the Earth's core. The collision hypothesis explains this very well. i.e the moon is actually made from Earth crustal material that was blasted into orbit losing the associated volatile materials in the process. Klazmon lazmon Was the Earth and the Mars size object that struck it both in a liquid state? How do you know this to be true. How long ago did this happen? How do you know. ? Was the Moons surface built up from volcanoes as we observe as seas of lava and the way the Moon got its crust?. I know its mantle is rich in rocky substances but very poor in metals especially iron The mantle is 700 miles deep. Please explain if it was part of the Earth,but no iron Hmmm "once upon a time" Where did all the iron go? (Please think about it) Please since every one would like to know about the Moons core Kasmon tell us what we will find there? It must be hot,and I read its temperature is 840F But it is a mystery bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:11154-46C8E639-792 @storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net: > lazmon Was the Earth and the Mars size object that struck it both in a > liquid state? How do you know this to be true. The Earth's mantle today is described as being plastic and the outer core liquid after 4.5 billion years of cooling. The proto Earth and the impactor were newly formed and if if they had lost much their heat of formation by the time of the collision they still have much greater levels of heat production due to radioactive decay in their interior. > How long ago did this > happen? How do you know. ? Since the Earth would have been completely melted by this event, no crust can be older. The oldest known minerals on Earth (zircon crystals found in ancient sediments in Western Australia - apparently weathered from more ancient igneous rocks ) established by isochron dating are around 4.1 billion years old. It's more likely though that the collision happenned soon after the initial formation of the Earth around 4.5 billion years ago. > Was the Moons surface built up from volcanoes > as we observe as seas of lava and the way the Moon got its crust?. The seas are flood lava which may well have been released through large asteroid collisions completely smashing through the moons crust at a time before its' interior had largely solidified, rather than standard volcanism. > I > know its mantle is rich in rocky substances but very poor in metals > especially iron The mantle is 700 miles deep. Please explain if it was > part of the Earth,but no iron Hmmm "once upon a time" Where did all the > iron go? Nonsense. Lunar rocks average about 13% iron. Moon Iron 13% Calcium 8% Silicon 21% Aluminum 7% Magnesium 6% Oxygen 42% Others 3% Quite similar to the Earth's crust. Overall the Earth has more Iron but that extra Iron is in the Earth's core. Try getting your facts straight. Klazmon. Klazmon We are not talking facts we are talking theories. Get that straight. Never read the Moon was 13% iron,or 42% Oxygen. Best you rethink those two. Sum it up "Capture theory" goes with all the other Moons in the solar system ,but only the explosion theory works for Earth. Oh ya It fits Best to think we explode shuttles up into space,and they don't fall down or go off into deep space they just side step the Earth,and that goes for the physics of our Moon,only difference the explosion created tiny liquid pieces in orbit and they came together to form the 2100 mile in diameter Moon Klazmon best you read up on ways things can achieve orbit bert Bert if you don't belive that moon holds13% iron, 42% Oxygen, then see this chart: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC20/IMAGES/fig5.GIF And you still need to explain this: Problems with your capture theory: composition, especially oxygen isotopes, are too similar for independent formation. gravitational capture is improbable, wouldn't produce circular orbit. And for the record, this theory below is the only theory that can explain the moon as it is, all others have big issues : ORIGIN OF THE MOON: GIANT IMPACT Suggested in 1970s, now leading theory for the Moon's origin. a.. Proto-Earth smacked off-center by Mars-sized body. b.. Knocks off mantle material, vaporizes volatiles. c.. Debris settles into circular orbit, pulls together by gravity, forms Moon. d.. Accounts reasonably well for all the main facts. Leading theory by process of elimination. e.. Implies violent early history of the solar system. i would also reccomend reading this article: http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/projects/moon/Formation_Of_The_Moon.htm > Klazmon We are not talking facts we are talking theories. Get that > straight. Never read the Moon was 13% iron,or 42% Oxygen. Best you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to form the 2100 mile in diameter Moon Klazmon best you read up on > ways things can achieve orbit bert Starman Capture works for all other solar system Moons. They all in time have nice circular orbits as their orbits get bigger over time. Moon now 10 times further away. Read the lack of iron on the Moon and iridium difference hurts the impact theory. Well there are 3 theories and capture is the one I like. bert I don't see why lack of iron hurts the impact theory Please understand that main part of earths iron is inside the core, not on the surface where the impact occurred and therfore easy can explain why the moon "only" holds about 13 % iron > Starman Capture works for all other solar system Moons. They all in > time have nice circular orbits as their orbits get bigger over time. > Moon now 10 times further away. Read the lack of iron on the Moon and > iridium difference hurts the impact theory. Well there are 3 theories > and capture is the one I like. bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:26285-46C975C8-758 @storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon We are not talking facts we are talking theories. Get that > straight. Never read the Moon was 13% iron,or 42% Oxygen. Best you > rethink those two. Those figures are correct. Look it up yourself. Klazmon. Klazmon Both Moon and Earth were in a liquid state 3.8 billion years ago. Earth has a very large heavy metal core Iron there in both solid and liquid state. How come if the Moon was "once upon a time" coming out of the Earth it has no iron in its core. bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:4430-46CABCBD-938 @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon Both Moon and Earth were in a liquid state 3.8 billion years > ago. Impossible. Zircon crystals have been isochron dated to 4.1 +/- 0.1 billion years ago, so the Earth's crust was already solid by that point. There are even signs that life was already present on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. > Earth has a very large heavy metal core Iron there in both solid > and liquid state. How come if the Moon was "once upon a time" coming out > of the Earth it has no iron in its core. bert Grazing collision kicked up crust from both the proto Earth and the impactor. The iron/nickle cores were left intact. Klazmon. Klazmon What put the pieces of both Earth and that Mars size object into orbit? Its a messy theory that explosion collision theory and asks more questions than it answers. capture is simple. like Einstein and Bohr told us "If a theory is short and simple it is a good theory" Capture works well for all the Moons,and I like it. Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:13599-46D2CD97-935 @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon What put the pieces of both Earth and that Mars size object > into orbit? They formed in situ from the same material that formed the Sun and everything else in the soalr system. > Its a messy theory that explosion collision theory and asks > more questions than it answers. capture is simple. Then where did the object being captured come from. Any questions you ask about where the impactor came from apply equally to an object being captured, except that there is no realistic way for the Earth to capture and object like the Moon. Klazmon. Klazmon There is a realistic way planets capture their moons. You are just not willing to except it. Jupiter has 61 Moons and none got there by explosions created by collisions. Why is that? Why only the Earth Moon created by an explosion? Think man Think Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:10542-46E29859-45 @storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon There is a realistic way planets capture their moons. You are > just not willing to except it. Jupiter has 61 Moons and none got there > by explosions created by collisions. Why is that? Why only the Earth > Moon created by an explosion? Think man Think Bert A few of the small ones could be captured by jupiter, most of them probably formed in situ. Show your calculations of a single planet alone capturing a moon. Klazmon Jupiter big Moons Io,Europa.Callisto,and Ganymede all show they did not come out of Jupiter. No need for math. they speak for themselves. All were captured. Not just the small ones as you say. All of them. The very small are asteroids. Small is easier to capture than big. Ganymede is even larger than Mercury. Europa and Callisto have lots of ice (water) covering their rock. Being different does not help your thinking. Explosion used as a theory for creating Moons is just plain bad thinking,and must be put down. It is hard to do when people like you hate to part with something in the books. Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:14248-46E541FC-563 @storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon Jupiter big Moons Io,Europa.Callisto,and Ganymede all show > they did not come out of Jupiter. They formed in orbit around Jupiter just as the planets did about the Sun. The presence of those moons is what allows Jupiter to capture asteroids and misc junk. > No need for math. they speak for > themselves. All were captured. Nope. > Not just the small ones as you say. All > of them. The very small are asteroids. Small is easier to capture > than big. Wrong. Klazmon Show me the math that proves me wrong OK I have you going with created out of the same dust disk. That is better than exploding out of the planet. Klazmon your thinking is getting there. I can see Saturn rings coming together and creating a Moon in about 900 million years. That theory has this going for it "all the ice,and rock is in orbit already". My theory was Saturn's rings are from a comet that came apart from Saturn's gravitation and its pieces were captured. Ooops there I go again with the "capture theory" Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:14248-46E5D388-664 @storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon Show me the math that proves me wrong Two bodies are either bound or not bound and nothing can change that situation - conservation laws. What you need is a third body. In the case of the Earth, the third body is the Sun. Now figure out a plausible incoming unbound trajectory for the Earth to capture the Moon given only the Sun. I'll even let you call on assistance from the Earth's Ocean's which can slosh around a bit and transfer energy via tidal interactions. > OK I have you going > with created out of the same dust disk. That is better than exploding > out of the planet. Klazmon your thinking is getting there. I can see > Saturn rings coming together and creating a Moon in about 900 million > years. The rings are inside the Roche limit. So no. > That theory has this going for it "all the ice,and rock is in > orbit already". My theory was Saturn's rings are from a comet that came > apart from Saturn's gravitation and its pieces were captured. Ooops > there I go again with the "capture theory" Bert Capture is possible with the assistance of the the other moons. Klazmon. Klazmon Your first paragraph does not take away the capture theory(lousy thinking at best). Earth and Moon have their mutual gravitation,and this plus the right angle + speed created capture,and being just right made it possible for the moon to go into orbit,and over time the orbit came larger and more circular. Klazmon See how simple capture theory can be explaned. Even a bar maid can understand it(Bohr) If a theory is not simple its not a good theory (Einstein) A theory of few words is a good one (Glazier) Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:25417-46E69093-648 @storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon Your first paragraph does not take away the capture > theory(lousy thinking at best). Earth and Moon have their mutual > gravitation,and this plus the right angle + speed created capture,and > being just right made it possible for the moon to go into orbit, Wrong. It is only possible with the involvement of a third object. Look up conservation of energy. Klazmon. Klazmon. Did Pluto need another object to capture its Moon? If your so hung up that a third oject is needed then the Sun is that object. So what's your point? You are using the "conservation of energy" here and it don't fit. It means this (in few words) Its the principle that in a closed system the "total amount of energy remains constant" It however may assume different forms successivly. Klazmon please don't throw out your lack of understanding science to make such crazy arguements.(points) Think man think Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:8483-46E7CE6D-12 @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon. Did Pluto need another object to capture its Moon? Dead on arrival. You can't get around the conservation of energy. You are making the false assumption that capturing was involved. Klazmon Klazmon There are 3 theories how our Moon got there. Capture is one of them,and is reality. Your argument is weak. No third body is needed for objects to be in orbit. Conservation of energy don;t fit,but you throw it in any way because you can't think. You don't answer any of my questions,because you can't think. You read about the explosion theory,but don't know how to defend it. Its as bad a theory that was once in the books that the planets came out of the Sun. It was dropped. The Moon coming out of the Earth is even worse thinking. It will also be dropped as well,and the sooner the better Bert herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:19919-46E92F65-202 @storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net: > Klazmon There are 3 theories how our Moon got there. Capture is one of > them,and is reality. It's dead. Klazmon > herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in > news:19919-46E92F65-202 > @storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net: >> >> Klazmon There are 3 theories how our Moon got there. Capture is one of >> them,and is reality. Bert, there are at least two reasons why it is unlikely that Selene, the Moon, was captured by the Earth... 1) It is pretty much impossible to believe that a planet as big as Selene could be captured by a planet as small as Earth and then fall into an orbit around Earth that's almost a perfect circle. There is no way yet found to explain this near- circularity of the Moon's orbit using the "capture theory". 2) Another thing the capture theory cannot explain is how the Moon's orbit would be so close to the ecliptic, the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun. All the major planets orbit the Sun at or very close to this ecliptic. The most deviation is the orbit of Mercury, seven degrees off the ecliptic. And Selene is only five degrees off the ecliptic. The capture theory cannot give an explanation why the Moon is so close to the ecliptic. > It's dead. > > Klazmon happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureTwinkle twinkle little star, I don't wonder what you are, What i *really* want to see... Is there someone there like me? http://www.seti.org/ Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net > > herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in > > news:19919-46E92F65-202 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > http://www.savethechildren.org/ > http://www.painellsworth.net I still haven't seen it explained how any object blasted off the face of the Earth without further guidence can have any trajectory that will take it anywhere other than either back to the Earth or else escaping it completely. Things that get blasted off the Earth do not go into orbit. Rockets that leave the Earth have to exert a critically calculated further thrust at a certain angle once they are up there to put themselves into orbit. But that leaves only one theory left: the Moon formed in place. Double-A >> > herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in >> > news:19919-46E92F65-202 [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Double-A And the "formed in place" theory also has some problems. The computers say that the collision theory can work; possibly the objects blasted off the Earth went into near orbit within whatever the Roche limit was for the proto-Earth. Then the objects, small enough to be all over the place and in many orbital planes were either thrown off to become rogue asteroids or over time increased orbital diameters and fused together to begin the forming of proto-Selene. I guess this is sort of a mixing of the collision theory and the formed-in- place theory. There are problems with all three ideas, but the mysterious, enigmatic Selene had to have formed in *some* manner. The collision theory appears to present the fewest challenges. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureTwinkle twinkle little star, I don't wonder what you are, What i *really* want to see... Is there someone there like me? http://www.seti.org/ Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net Painius Why are they afraid to say "explosion" Collision makes mt think of two cars hitting. They claim the object that struck to Earth was the size of mercury and that begs the question How fast were they moving in relation to each other? Why not a trace of some of this explosion material in orbit seen today. Mars been hit often,and has two small Moons,and there is good reasons you can't use the collision theory there. Nor for Jupiter,Saturn,Neptune,and pluto. It only works for Earth Oh Ya Go figure Make it fit. Blow a hole in the Earth,and all the material coming out of this hole goes into orbit,and in time all the dust becomes a rock 2160 miles in diameter "once upon a time" Bert >Painius Why are they afraid to say "explosion" Because it seems you don't understand the difference. Explosion is normally thought of as the result of a chemical reaction. (I know you going to babble about fission and fusion, which don't apply in this case) >Collision makes mt >think of two cars hitting. Think very large masses moving at nearly the same speeds and the angle of incidence doesn't have to that large. >They claim the object that struck to Earth >was the size of mercury and that begs the question How fast were they >moving in relation to each other? That depends on the angle of incidence. If you understood the math you wouldn't be asking this question. >Why not a trace of some of this >explosion material in orbit seen today. Who says it isn't. there are entire sets of classes of debris of NEOs which are mentioned as future collision possibilities. > Mars been hit often,and has two >small Moons,and there is good reasons you can't use the collision theory >there. Nor for Jupiter,Saturn,Neptune,and pluto. It only works for >Earth Oh Ya Go figure Make it fit. Blow a hole in the Earth,and all >the material coming out of this hole goes into orbit,and in time all the >dust becomes a rock 2160 miles in diameter "once upon a time" Bert You are drunk again, Beert? SignatureAk'toh'di You don't need just chemical action to create explosions,or implosions People are not thinking any more Bert > Painius Why are they afraid to say "explosion" Collision makes mt > think of two cars hitting. They claim the object that struck to Earth [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the material coming out of this hole goes into orbit,and in time all the > dust becomes a rock 2160 miles in diameter "once upon a time" Bert Bert, this guy, H. Jay Melosh, oversimplifies it just a bit... http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/outreach/origin/ and yet still manages to bring out the main points, and they are: 1) Before the Moon rocks were studied, there were three good theories of Moon formation, a) the fission theory - the rapidly rotating proto- Earth spun off material to later become proto- Selene, b) the capture theory - Selene formed somewhere else in the Solar System and was caught by the Earth, c) the co-accretion or "double planet" theory - the Earth and Selene grew together from the start, growing out of the primordial swarm and whorl. But the analysis of the Moon rocks shot all these way down, yes, even the capture theory. The only theory so far that's consistent with the observations and the analysis of the Moon rocks is the collision theory. As i have said before, i'm not totally happy with it. But until it's bested, it remains the most likely way that Selene came to be. My main problem with it is the Earth/Selene's almost nearly perfect circular orbit 'round the Sun. The barycenter of our binary-planet system forms just the bare notion of an ellipse. The orbit's eccentricity, "e" is just 0.0167! When you consider that if "e" = zero, you have a circle, and as "e" approaches one, the circle gets flatter and flatter, you see that 0.0167 is *so* close to being a perfect circle. So it's hard for me to reconcile such a near-perfect circular orbit with any kind of major collision, especially with an object that's about the size of planet Mars! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureAsimov! where have you gone? Your written word goes on and on, All things become so clear to see In Asimov's Astronomy! http://www.cenara.com/users/ce00018/nonfic.htm Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net >> Painius Why are they afraid to say "explosion" Collision makes mt >> think of two cars hitting. They claim the object that struck to Earth [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Earth and Selene grew together from the start, > growing out of the primordial swarm and whorl. one little nit, for Painius the half wit. when you cite someone from the web or a heavy tome, Don't place ideas in your citation that makes you look dumb. Mr Melosh never mention Selene as a reference for Earth's natural satellite. Your apparent fixation makes you appear to be very kooky. The your use of the non-standard reference to greek mythology/culture for the natural satellite is an odd fixation. >But the analysis of the Moon rocks shot all these way >down, yes, even the capture theory. The only theory >so far that's consistent with the observations and the >analysis of the Moon rocks is the collision theory. As Exactly the point made by myself and many other people. >i have said before, i'm not totally happy with it. But >until it's bested, it remains the most likely way that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >any kind of major collision, especially with an object >that's about the size of planet Mars! If you would stop and think, (I know that is hard for painius to do) the circularization of an orbit would take many hundred of thousands orbits and energy exchanges for the orbit to become nearly circular. The rule of thumb would simply be over the long period of time for bodies in motion would tend to achieve an intersecting orbit (collision) or a circular orbit or an independent (ejection path). All of which are considered conical sections. Most 1st year college level textbooks cover the concepts and are considered must have knowledge to enter into any discussion of orbital mechanics. I am sure if you looked around most college campus books stores you'll find such good books. If this was the 70's would suggest looking for George Abell's Exploration of the Universe as a good introductory course for the 70's. Try some supplemental reading: http://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/karcher/KeplerOrbits.pdf http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonkepler.html This one covers the material very well: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/orbits.html SignatureAk'toh'di Double-A What you posted is my main season why an explosion can't put any thing in orbit especially an object the size of the moon. If the object goes at 7 mps it will not come back. Slower and it will fall back. The object would have to go up,and than given energy to go parrel to the Earth surface at the right speed to miss the Earth in falling back. Asminov in his book on physics used the words "Side stepping" as achieving orbit. It fits Moon and Earth forming together I can almost live with. Explosion theory "NEVER " Bert >herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:10542-46E29859-45 >@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >formed in situ. Show your calculations of a single planet alone capturing a >moon. And don't forget, Beert keeps talking about an explosion. Not a proto-moon's body colliding with an proto-earth's mass. The most likely set of events is very early nearly molten earth mass being hit by a another body. He forgets bodies in motion, stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. The point is current gravity equations make this collision the most likely set of events, backed-up by the data of make up of the moon was known beyond simple speculation. Once Beert gets an idea locked into his brain, he becomes fixated with the inaccurate set of facts, he often resorts to use of fallacies, to keep his besotted fixations safe from logical thinking. SignatureAk'toh'di >>herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:10542-46E29859-45 >>@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >backed-up by the data of make up of the moon was known beyond simple >speculation. It is my understanding that these equations are rejected by the intellectual elite of alt.astronomy. >Once Beert gets an idea locked into his brain, he becomes fixated >with the inaccurate set of facts, he often resorts to use of >fallacies, to keep his besotted fixations safe from logical thinking. SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth COOSN-266-06-39716 Bob I did not formulate the capture theory. It is not my theory that tries to prove the Moon is older than the Earth. I read as a kid the planets came out of the Sun,and did not like it. I read the Moon came out of the Earth by being hit by a Mercury sized rock,and don't like it. You Bob try to knock my personality if I defend the "capture theory" That only proves what a low life wit you are. Bert >Bob I did not formulate the capture theory. I know, it was old... > It is not my theory that >tries to prove the Moon is older than the Earth. You have no theory. > I read as a kid the I read lots of things "as a kid", many of them were later shown to be wrong, or they didn't have enough of the right information to rule those ideas out. >planets came out of the Sun,and did not like it. I read the Moon came >out of the Earth by being hit by a Mercury sized rock,and don't like it. you might not like it, but that is the best fit for the information we have in hand. in the 1950s the idea of the plate movement was more or less outright rejected. in the information gathered in the 50s and 60s lead to the acceptance of the concept. Learn to understand accepted ideas amount to the use of the concept which *all facts* fit best. the facts: 1 The moon didn't form in situ. 2. the moon doesn't seem to be a captured body. 3. the best fit to the facts in hand today is that it is the result of a very early stage collision between two bodies in the very early formation of our solar system. >You Bob try to knock my personality if I defend the "capture theory" I point out the fact you are a drunken sot, a fool and have a total lack of factual information in your articles. >That only proves what a low life wit you are. Bert No, Beert you are a low life when you refuse to keep you "education" current. the old idiocy of "I learned when I was a child" is a bad excuse for your ignorance. SignatureAk'toh'di Bob I read,and discuss current science all the time. Theories like every thing evolve with time. If the explosion theory is most popular at this time that does not make it right. It does not answer how an explosion puts the dust in orbit ??? That kills it for me. Lots of other questions it can'[t answer. Reality is it creates more questions than answers,and that is a bad theory Bert >Bob I read,and discuss current science all the time. You babble and make up sh.t, beert. You don't discuss anything. you can not even cite quotation from an article. > Theories like every thing evolve with time. Theories evolve when new facts are found. you ignore the implications of new facts. > If the explosion theory is most popular at It isn['t an explosion theory, you idiot! it is collision theory. big difference. >this time that does not make it right. No but it is the best fit to the facts at this time. >It does not answer how an explosion puts the dust in orbit ??? It wasn't an explosion, you moron. it was a collision. Objects in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. >That kills it for me. Because you can't get beyond the idea of an explosion. While their might have been some sort of rapid expansion of gas/plasma. That didn't blast anything into orbit. >Lots of >other questions it can'[t answer. Reality is it creates more questions >than answers,and that is a bad theory Bert You have no idea of what you are talking about. SignatureAk'toh'di Bob Best you get this into your pea brain. A theory is a plan or scheme existing in the brain only.. In time hopefully verified by experiment and observation.. Such was the case for Einstein's relativity.theory It can be a theory based on abstract thinking. An hypothesis designed to account for any phenomenon. I myself can say I make good guesses at times to help my weather predictions. I like to use good science to arrange my thoughts to come up with a good "idea" Reality is my thinking out of the box.and going against imperial thinkers I keep coming up against people like you that think a theory is a fact. That only known facts can create a theory. Not true Bert >Bob Best you get this into your pea brain. You're besotted again, Bert. >A theory is a plan or scheme >existing in the brain only.. No. Not always. A theory is often started with an observation, The theory is evolved as an explanations and mechanism of what you are looking at or observing. >In time hopefully verified by experiment >and observation.. Such was the case for Einstein's relativity.theory >It can be a theory based on abstract thinking. An hypothesis designed >to account for any phenomenon. Agreed. >I myself can say I make good guesses at >times to help my weather predictions. Sure Bert, you're an idiot. Guess are guesses, do you want to do a stat run on your So Called "Guesses". Hot and Steamy in the summer in Florida? Only an Idiot would make that "Guess". >I like to use good science to No You don't use good science. that the point Bert, you mis-use words, and mix popular press, Dumbing down Science as scientific thinking. You're a drunk, Bert. >arrange my thoughts to come up with a good "idea" Reality is my No you don't. >thinking out of the box.and going against imperial thinkers I keep You're a drunk unable to think or put together two sentences. You can't even cite a usenet article in a reply. You unable to think or learn. Stop Drinking! Stop drinking and posting to usenet. >coming up against people like you that think a theory is a fact. That >only known facts can create a theory. Not true Bert You ignore Factual information. You're an drunken idiot. SignatureAk'toh'di Bob I have only been drunk.7 times I post mostly in the morning when my brain is rich in oxygen. I do love my Bud. I do love to argue,but only as a gentleman. Well enough about this crazy old drunken fool. I posted Triton and I happen to like this strange Moon. It has intrigued me because it is different and even more interesting than our moon. Triton has volcanoes that don't give off lava,but vent frozen stuff.,and this frozen stuff is "organic" Hmmmm Organic compounds makes it more interesting than Mars. Tritan even has "high altitude winds Hmmmm Triton with the coldest surface temperature of any known world an has an atmosphere. Very interesting It has a polar cap of solid nitrogen. Almost forgot to mention it has geyser like activity. All this is factual,for it came out of my universe picture and information scrape book. Pictures taken by Voyager 2 probe back in 1989. Oops forgot this important information. Triton is the only Moon in the solar system that orbits Neptune backwards compared to other planet satellites Hmmmm Also at a very high angle to Neptune equator bob you can bring in your collision theory to explain this strange behavior. How ever its written in my scrape book "Triton was certainly not formed in orbit around Neptune,but was "captured" Hmmm the old drunken Bud drinking fool was right again. Go figure Neptune has 13 Moons. I'm looking at the surface of Triton,and it is very amazing. Cheers Bud brain Bert >Bob I have only been drunk.7 times I post mostly in the morning when >my brain is rich in oxygen. Not after a night of drinking.... > I do love my Bud. One does not have to be drunk to suffer from being Besotted. Habitual drinking will make you "rum dumb". >I do love to >argue,but only as a gentleman. You are a sot... >Well enough about this crazy old >drunken fool. I posted Triton and I happen to like this strange Moon. >It has intrigued me because it is different and even more interesting >than our moon. >Triton has volcanoes that don't give off lava,but vent >frozen stuff.,and this frozen stuff is "organic" Hmmmm Lava is "frozen" stuff, you besotted idiot. >Organic >compounds makes it more interesting than Mars. Organic compounds only mean the main compound is some form of NH*/CH*. >Tritan even has "high >altitude winds Hmmmm Triton with the coldest surface temperature of >any known world an has an atmosphere. Amazaing... you have never read about triple points? >Very interesting It >has a polar cap of solid nitrogen. Almost forgot to mention it has >geyser like activity. All this is factual,for it came out of my >universe picture and information scrape book. Pictures taken by Voyager >2 probe back in 1989. >Oops forgot this important information. information, but is it important to your point? >Triton >is the only Moon in the solar system that orbits Neptune backwards >compared to other planet satellites Hmmmm Does that mean anything? >Also at a very high angle >to Neptune equator bob you can bring in your collision theory to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >figure Neptune has 13 Moons. I'm looking at the surface >of Triton,and it is very amazing. Cheers Bud brain Bert Your point? It seems as if you made the point our Moon was not "captured"... SignatureAk'toh'di Bob Thank you for using a three letter word to describe me "sot" It kind of fits me. Drinking lots of cans of Bud light every day "sot" means a "drunkard" Bud does not make me drunk(I do get a glow) I do have some pain and it takes most of it away. Bud makes me sleep better. I have no hang over in the morning. Has it hurt my thinking ??? Well you are negative to all the positive stuff I post. You are my anti-thinker. If I'm north you are south,and you prove that by coming in under my posts. I would enjoy it more arguing with you if you were more clever,but you are in reality just a low life,and have only the wit of a parrot. Bert >Bob Thank you for using a three letter word to describe me "sot" It >kind of fits me. Drinking lots of cans of Bud light every day "sot" >means a "drunkard" Bud does not make me drunk(I do get a glow) I do >have some pain and it takes most of it away. Bud makes me sleep better. >I have no hang over in the morning. That is the description of besotted. >Has it hurt my thinking ??? Well unless you were born stupid, it has. >Well >you are negative to all the positive stuff I post. When did you do that, idiot? >You are my anti-thinker. No, You an idiot., >If I'm north you are south,and you prove that by coming >in under my posts. ??? You use a web tv and are too stupid to even cite a reply. > I would enjoy it more arguing with you if >you were more clever,but you are in reality just a low life,and have >only the wit of a parrot. Bert You know my opinion of people that drink and post to usenet. SignatureAk'toh'di > >> >> Calculations never beat out common sense. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I just know the way magma...a liquid for heaven sake...behaves. Have you ever seen lava splash? >> >> >> Cal |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message