|
Post by paul on Jun 24, 2011 8:17:41 GMT 9.5
his logic is flawed.. the moon being (possibly) essential to create life on earth is no argument for its creation by that same life.. if it hadnt been there in the first place, life that supposedly built it couldnt have formed . Unless of course humans came from elsewhere. I wonder if there are traditional legends about that? Try some of the North American tribes!
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 24, 2011 8:22:40 GMT 9.5
Maybe henka can help us there, he would be the one most familiar with Nth American tribes. We have already covered a story or two elsewhere on this forum. They are of interest.
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 26, 2011 11:26:06 GMT 9.5
1 of these collisions is imo the most likely candidate.. . Unfortunately its seems that calculations of energy and momentum from possible collisions are not consistent with the current Earth-Moon relationship. Other explanations are needed. xplain pls what about evolution theory? doesnt that disprove such a claim?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 26, 2011 11:55:54 GMT 9.5
There are many problems with the collision theory here are some: "This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties which have yet to be resolved. These difficulties include: The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant impact hypothesis. If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, they must be due to some other cause.[17] There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis), and it is likely there exists material which has never been processed by a magma ocean.[17] The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, which is intermediate between Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.[18] If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient in those.[19] The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain if the impact caused a catastrophic heating event.[20] The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth.[3] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which can be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[21] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it would probably have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[4]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesisTheories are not proof. In this case evolution theory requires various links between the steps of the proposed evolutionary chain. The human "missing link" has been sought for 150 years with no success. As far as I know, no evolutionary chain for Any species at all has been demonstrated from the fossil record. The first 150 years of this theory therefore is not encouraging. Is it time to move on?
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 26, 2011 16:43:50 GMT 9.5
be more specific pls, whats there that shouldnt be or whats not that should? and why? r u sure about that? wasnt the earth 1 big magma ocean in its early stages? the bigger object gets most of the stuff.. u mean those elements that bond with iron at the core of the planet? why would the moon, which supposedly lost its core, have much of that according to u? The ratio is linked to water temperature of ancient oceans (wiki).. both prolly had none at the time.. more links than u can shake a pointy stick at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionif u want to see evolution in action, study organisms with fast reproductive cycles (like i.e. the common cold)..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 26, 2011 16:53:39 GMT 9.5
Perhaps you would like to investigate that.
There were not a lot of eye witnesses. It is all guesswork
Are you sure that is evolution? Perhaps it is adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 26, 2011 17:06:01 GMT 9.5
perhaps my question answers yours..
Perhaps you would like to investigate that.
adaptation = evolution
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 26, 2011 18:44:08 GMT 9.5
I adapt to summer by having browner skin.
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 26, 2011 22:49:24 GMT 9.5
There are two different mechanisms involved. Firstly, the UVA-radiation creates oxidative stress, which in turn oxidises existing melanin and leads to rapid darkening of the melanin. Secondly, there is an increase in production of melanin (melanogenesis),[1] which is the body's reaction to photodamage from UV radiation. (wiki)
natural selection ensures that the genes that "work" best in a particular environment r dominant.. a groups genes describing melanin thus adapts to the "normal" level of uv xposure.. this xplains why a child of african decendants born on higher latitudes doesnt have "white" skin..
i adapt to summer by applying sunblock..
the previous shows that if u alter a species natural habitat, it will take generations befor the genes that r better suited to the new environment become abundant in the genepool..
so untill then, ill keep applying sunblock..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 5, 2011 7:32:03 GMT 9.5
"The topography of the Moon has always puzzled scientists. In particular, the asymmetry between the far side (or hidden one) that has a bump............ NASA presents a more complete picture of the Moon, "We were a little surprised by the fact that our simulations have shown that a collision at low speed led to an accretion [addition of smaller moon to the moon] and not the formation of a crater," " english.pravda.ru/science/earth/05-08-2011/118657-Earth_may_have_had_two_moons-0/So another moon makes a low speed collision with our moon - that currently travels at 1km/sec. (How?) And the larger moon acts like plasticine - on this one occasion.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 5, 2011 8:18:28 GMT 9.5
So we have some scientists telling us that a small meteor could wipe us out on Earth, and other scientists telling us that a whole moon can just merge with another and meld into it.
That is all very odd.
|
|
|
Post by Circleoflight on Aug 6, 2011 18:10:01 GMT 9.5
Did you guys hear that they found water in Mars? Like, flowing water, that is not ice or under the surface?
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Aug 8, 2011 1:45:13 GMT 9.5
i think i remember something like that.. got a link?
speed is the important word here.. imagine 2 blobs of water in 0 gravity.. if they collide at slow speed, they will merge and wobble a bit.. at high speed u get little blobs of water everywhere..
earthquakes r a good xample of solids behaving as liquids..
most likely both moons would have to be in a similar orbit, the lighter object traveling slightly faster than the other.. at some point it would catch up with the heavier object.. for the slowest collision possible, the faster object would have to overtake the heavier object and then be slowed down by its gravitational pull..
a good analogy would be throwing a snowball at a big ball of compacted snow.. throw it hard enough and ull get a crater, throw it slowly enough and it will accrete..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 8, 2011 5:45:15 GMT 9.5
>most likely both moons would have to be in a similar orbit, the lighter object traveling slightly faster than the other.. at some point it would catch up with the heavier object.. for the slowest collision possible, the faster object would have to overtake the heavier object and then be slowed down by its gravitational pull. I think Newtonian mechanics work a bit differently. Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum still occur. In addition, the speed of orbit dictates the distance from the planet. Thus a slower moving moon cannot collide with a faster - the radius of orbit being different. www.mrelativity.net/RelOrbitalVelocity/Relativistic%20Orbital%20Velocity.htm
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Aug 9, 2011 1:38:02 GMT 9.5
speed + mass determines orbit.. lunar gravity can also draw other objects closer to its orbit..
the energy lost by the smaller moon when slowing down cause of lunar gravity is gained by the moon (obviously)..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 9, 2011 5:41:09 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Circleoflight on Aug 9, 2011 13:42:47 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 9, 2011 19:17:52 GMT 9.5
There are certainly many anomalies on the Moon's surface. Another anomaly is the general use of black & white images for the Moon and reddened almost monochrome images for Mars. Monochrome images make it harder to identify objects.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 22, 2011 15:25:55 GMT 9.5
Here is part of Miranda, a moon of Uranus. The picture is a bit large but worth a 1000 words. Some kid has been playing around with the moon.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 17, 2011 9:16:50 GMT 9.5
"Lava flows that turned into rocks on the moon are enriched with titanium in concentrations far higher than what is found on Earth. ....Detailed maps from a robotic NASA science satellite circling the moon show deposits as rich as about 18 percent, planetary geologist Jeffrey Gillis-Davis, with the University of Hawaii, told Discovery News. “Up to 3 percent is considered high on Earth,” he said.
Why parts of the moon are so flush with titanium is a bit of a mystery, but scientists are taking advantage of the find to figure out the moon’s volcanic history. As the moon cooled and solidified, some elements, like titanium, didn’t mix well so they formed as a separate layer inside. "
Thus the Moon is supposed to have a separate layer of titanium!
No wonder: “When a quake occurs, the moon rings like a bell.”
|
|