Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
- From: BradGuth <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 04:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
On May 20, 6:39 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<27bc2272-5fc7-424b-bd0c-049f8beba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stevep...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Like Brad Guth, I don't favor the Collision Theory much either since
the Collision Theory has at least a half dozen flaws. These are just
off the top of my head. I didn't spend much time with them \
I could tell.
so if these
arguments can be picked apart, super.
Perhaps you could learn a bit from my picking...
Opposing Argument #1
-----------------
The collision had to happen early in the creation of BOTH earth and
moon because both bodies had to be extremely molten everywhere,
including at the surface. Why? Because later, the surfaces
cooled and formed crusts so if it occured recently, you'd see
multiple places on both earth and moon where humongous chunks
of crust exist. We're talking magnitudes the size of Mount Everest.
You wouldn't get the perfectly smooth moon and earth we see today.
So it appears that the collision must have happened early in the
evolution of both bodies .. ie "in the beginning". Such a collision
is impossible according to big bang theory/the expanding universe
theory since both bodies would be moving "outward" together at
the same rate and direction so the two bodies would clump together,
which is obviously ruled out, or keep moving outward and away
from each other, cool and form individual planets whcih also
obviously didn't happen. This is a major blow to the collision
theory.
Except for the minor detail that the Big Bang occurred ~ 13BYA and did
not create the moon or the Earth. Those were created ~4.5BYA out of
elements that were created in stars which formed long after the Big Bang
was a faint glow in the cosmic background.
You need to go read up on cosmology and planetary formation.
Opposing Argument #2
-----------------
The moon (and earth) are too perfectly shiny round for the collision
theory IMHO. A lot of the initial "soup" would cool and
Iowa sized chunks would fall from relatively close range and
plow into both moon and earth leaving huge tell-tailed signs
of such an event.
You mean like craters? Isn't the moon totally covered in craters? Have
you ever wondered why the Earth isn't also totally covered in craters?
Yet all the largest things we see today are
mountains which all are the result of volcanic or platonic
action.
Except that the collision would have occurred ~4.5BYA and the same
forces that made the proto-Earth spherical in the first place would also
have made the Earth and moon spherical.
You really need to go read up on planetary formation.
Opposing Argument #3
-----------------
The collision contact would have to be more central than
current theoretical models show because of the extremly fast
speed the proto-moon would be accelerating at the earth.
A side blow as shown in these computer simulations would
over spray the blast material forward away from the earth
making it impossible for the earth to recapture them as
shown in the simulations.
Except for the minor little detail that the guys who made the
simulations know somewhat more about planetary impacts than you do. They
only showed you the collisions that resulted in an earth-moon pair. They
didn't show you the hundreds or thousands of other collisions that ended
up with other results.
Opposing Argument #4
-----------------
Why doesn't the recollection of debris happen to Saturn's ring?
I assure you that dozens of brilliant young graduate students smarter
than you are working on the problem. It probably has to do with the
rocks having reached equilibrium orbits of some sort.
Opposing Argument #5
-----------------
Some scientists claim the moon's core isn't liquid .. which is
somewhat opposes this
theory. But again, nobody knows this since core samples remain hidden.
Except for the fact that heat transfer rates for lunar rocks (and
similar Earth rocks) are by now well known, and people smarter than you
have calculated how long it takes for a lump of rock the size of the
moon to cool down sufficiently to be completely solid.
The Apollo astronauts left seismometers on the moon. From analyzing the
data from them, we know its center is not liquid.
Opposing Argument #6
-----------------
Is the moon and earth too "foreign" to each other for there to
be such a collision? It appears that way. Supposedly iron ore
and other metals differ dramatically between earth and moon.
A big however, no one has core samples of the moon and I'd
need proof of that first.
In other words, you're talking out of your ass and you know nothing
about the composition of the moon.
BTW if the moon and earth are all that alike especially at the
surface (which is the only available source thus far anyway),
Except that the density of the moon is very well known, as is its
seismicity. There are perfectly reasonable assumptions of what the moon
is made of.
then all the supposed "moon rocks" NASA claims to have are
meaningless.
No, they're not. Whatever they tell us about the moon's surface
composition is information about the moon and whatever hit it.
This isn't going to sound nice, but there's no way to sugar-coat it. You
don't know much about things scientific, and you really need to read a
whole lot more before pretending to make serious contributions to
scientific discussions. And don't go running off to hide behind the
usual crap about the scientific establishment's conspiracy to hoodwink
us about the faked moon landings. That garbage is purely a handy excuse
for not reading real science books and really thinking in a logical way
about what happened and how we know it.
You're not being a very good sport about any of this. More like an
old stick in the mainstream status quo mud, with only your conditional
laws of physics and subjective science.
The mainstream imposed big ass collision theory of what supposedly
created our moon doesn’t make any objective sense.
Earth wasn’t the least bit internally cold then or now. Earth also
once had nearly 100 bar of a mostly CO2 atmosphere to work with, and
at least 10 fold as much greater magnetosphere, and we is still 98.5%
fluid.
There are no objective indications that our moon has any molten core
leftover.
What early terrestrial process converted Earth’s CO2 and H2 into H2O?
Earth’s DE(diatomaceous earth = 86% silica, 5% sodium, 3% magnesium
and 2% iron) via diatoms and UV energy took how long to create? (and
why the hell is DE essentially no longer getting created?)
Think again. ? moon created via major collision ? (I don't think so)
Look at all the other weird moon crap, especially of that going around
Jupiter or Saturn. Which one if any of those items were collision
generated? (how about none)
http://janus.astro.umd.edu/javadir/orbits/ssv.html
http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-meteor/meteor-strikes.html
http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/
Take another look at those shallow moon craters, especially of the
really big one that would quite easily match an Earth encounter,
especially if that extremely solid and thick crusted moon of such
unusual surface mascons also had an extremely thick covering of ice
(most likely salty ice as great as 262 km thick).
. - Brad Guth
.
- References:
- Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
- From: Stevepppp
- Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
- From: Timberwoof
- Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
- Prev by Date: Re: Martian Brain Neurons discovered
- Next by Date: Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
- Previous by thread: Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
- Next by thread: Phoenix Lands on Mars this Sunday!!! To Examine Martian Water Ice
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
