Traces of another world found on the Moon (BBC)

a reply to: Denoli

So if they was a collision I think no material would hang around to create the moon it would just fall to earth or be thrown into space , what's the odds on it making a moon , virtually impossible we're as eruptions on a mass scale is far more probable

Do you know what an orbit is? Do you know how gravity works? Are you qualified to decide what is virtually impossible when it comes to a combination of the two?

How are "eruptions on a mass scale" more likely to produce a Moon?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Denoli

So if they was a collision I think no material would hang around to create the moon it would just fall to earth or be thrown into space , what's the odds on it making a moon , virtually impossible we're as eruptions on a mass scale is far more probable

Do you know what an orbit is? Do you know how gravity works?
Are you qualified to decide what is virtually impossible when it comes to a combination of the two?

So now I have to be qualified to decide sorry me bad I know that if 2 objects collide they don't stop and do a dance and the evidence u have is " 3 rocks " case closed u win me bad ! Now where's that rabbit hole and my blinkers .

a reply to: Denoli

Now where's that rabbit hole and my blinkers .

Which rabbit hole? What blinkers?

Hmmm, makes complete sense to me personally. I saw Thor throw a strawberry poptart and a baseball together to form the sun.. sorry about your sunburns folks i apologize, told him not to do it but yakno he's Thor!

originally posted by: Denoli

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Denoli

So if they was a collision I think no material would hang around to create the moon it would just fall to earth or be thrown into space , what's the odds on it making a moon , virtually impossible we're as eruptions on a mass scale is far more probable

Do you know what an orbit is? Do you know how gravity works?
Are you qualified to decide what is virtually impossible when it comes to a combination of the two?

So now I have to be qualified to decide sorry me bad

I know that if 2 objects collide they don't stop and do a dance and the evidence u have is " 3 rocks " case closed u win me bad ! Now where's that rabbit hole and my blinkers .

You don't need to be qualified to decide, if you don't mind being wrong. I already posted a model that depicts a collision and a resulting moon. So you can believe what you like, that's the beauty with opinions. What you can't do is decide facts.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What you can't do is decide facts.

Almost couldn't've said it better myself: You can debate the conclusions, but you can't debate the objective facts. Basic physics says you are wrong about how a collision would work. I, Phage, OccamsRazor04, and others have tried relatively politely to explain this to you. Now let me be clear: The same physics that describes exactly the path of a bullet or cannon ball says that you are wrong about what would result from the collision model for the moon's formation. Again -- you can decide what you want about the conclusions of the research, and how to interpret the data, but you cannot debate the basic data and basic models. It's just how things work.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: WhiteAlice

you asked where was our scar that's what I was responding to my bad

It's all good. Figured it was the case and know it's hard to not stop and read the rest of a post when something comes up that goes "hey, over here!! look at ME!!!". Have a good one.

a reply to: astrostu

for what it's worth bullets and cannon balls are not planets. one computer simulation is hardly definitive. it's laughable that you would conclude we know everything there is to know about how "things work". Does the computer simulation show the Moon spinning or locked in a tidal drag? how does your simulation end?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

although I'm not immune to doing it! thanks and you the same

a reply to: bottleslingguy

You're missing my point. It's the same physics. It's not one computer simulation. It's not one researcher. It's not one research group. It's not one line of evidence. These things don't exist in isolation.

Sigh ... if you (plural) don't get it, it's not worth me commenting anymore since I don't know how else to put it.

a reply to: astrostu

well you mentioned the simulation, I was wondering how it ended. did it show a stable Moon or was the moon spinning? wouldn't you think it would be spinning so soon after accreting? are other moons tidal locked to their host planet? do we know how those moons were created? just asking for some substance to your claim of knowing how things work. we used to think we knew how comets worked but after the Temple1 impact we found it didn't fit the dirty snowball theory. now we're still scratching our heads on that one, so I'm wondering how you can be so confident we know for sure what happens when planets collide and what happens afterward.

why couldn't the Moon have been the other planet's companion and one hit us and the other got captured?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: astrostu

for what it's worth bullets and cannon balls are not planets. one computer simulation is hardly definitive. it's laughable that you would conclude we know everything there is to know about how "things work". Does the computer simulation show the Moon spinning or locked in a tidal drag? how does your simulation end?

The simulation is not proof of what did occur, it is proof that it CAN occur.

Other facts support it, such as the moon is made up of material that can be traced back to Earth through it's makeup, and material from another planet.

I will reply to your next post as well. Almost all moons are tidally locked. Pluto is actually tidally locked to it's moon as well due to Pluto being small. It's thought Planets can be tidally locked to suns as well, and stars in binary systems most likely are, although it can't be proven yet.

You sound like an EU believer with your dirty snowball crap ... if anything you should call it a icy dirtball. Can you show me a comet that has been found to have no water/ice? I will wait for it.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Wolfenz

but Moon rock is not rich with water
news.discovery.com...

Moon Rock or Space Rock ?

Of Course with a Moon in the Goldilocks zone it would be bone dry with no considered Atmosphere as the saying goes that The Moon is unable to hold an atmosphere because of its mass,, then again depends where the location is too ... and if its an actually Moon Rock or fragment of a Meteor or Comet Asteroid etc.. as a few of those rock are older then Earth itself .. tho there is ice discovered in the lower region of the moon The moon Rocks found around the Equator of the moon.

Well Here is a COMICAL article a Fun Read .. LOL We would have to be a CIV Type 2 or 3 to Accomplish such a feat ..
Tho yet we can still live on the MOON with Moon Bases and NASA Had some IDEAS ( the Planning ) of that.. back in the 60s to early 80s.. yet NASA stopped the Program going to the MOON in 1973.. claimed of budgeting Cost LOL tho during that time a Cold war was going on and South East Asia Conflicts from the Cold War..


Terraforming the Moon: Turning Our Satellite Into A Paradise
How to Terraform the Moon
hubpages.com...

OHH goodness Conspiracy Realm we go LOL !


in a serious Note :

How Far off was Stichen the Claimed Spoof ? in his Tale of Sumerians about Tiamat hitting earth and the Moon ? when this is now theorized of a mysterious claimed ROUGE planet or moon called THIEA






Is the Moon Hollow? Evidence Supporting Hollow Moon Theory
According to Hollow Moon Theory, the most interesting part of our moon may be inside.
cryptid.hubpages.com...

a reply to: bottleslingguy

why couldn't the Moon have been the other planet's companion and one hit us and the other got captured?

The capture of a small body, like an asteroid, is feasible. The capture of a large body, like the Moon, is not.

In a collision, a body orbiting the colliding object would have a trajectory of its own. The possibility of it being captured by Earth and acquiring a stable orbit is remote in the extreme.

originally posted by: Wolfenz
How Far off was Stichen the Claimed Spoof ? in his Tale of Sumerians about Tiamat hitting earth and the Moon ? when this is now theorized of a mysterious claimed ROUGE planet or moon called THIEA

Completely off since the Moon was the result of the collision and could not have been hit.

The impact theory was theorized in 1946, so if you can show me Stichen claiming it first ...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Earth material

Could you possibly explain this...to a layman.

Which element is Earth material and as such exclusively found on Earth...and how would one go about proving that ?

The moon has been scientifically verified to be identical to the Earth

I heard that when the Moon was struck (by a satellite I think) it rang like a bell for a period of time. Is that identical to Earth ? Does it also ring like a bell ? Does it not hint at different construct/material ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Earth material

Could you possibly explain this...to a layman.

Which element is Earth material and as such exclusively found on Earth...and how would one go about proving that ?

This is how.

measurements that find that the Earth and Moon the same isotopic composition (isotopes of an element have slightly different masses). The isotopes of oxygen and titanium, for example, vary widely in the Solar System and are used to ‘fingerprint’ different planets and meteorite groups. The data show that the Earth and Moon are ‘isotopic twins'

www.fas.harvard.edu...

A new series of measurements of oxygen isotopes provides increasing evidence that the moon formed from the collision of the Earth with another large, planet-sized astronomical body, around 4.5 billion years ago.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The moon has been scientifically verified to be identical to the Earth

I heard that when the Moon was struck (by a satellite I think) it rang like a bell for a period of time. Is that identical to Earth ? Does it also ring like a bell ? Does it not hint at different construct/material ?

No, it hints at you taking the quote out of context which is quite common on ATS (for that quote).

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge--it deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes.
lunar seismograms (graph)

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.

www.nasa.gov...

Why not spend 10 seconds on Google to learn the truth?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If two rocks have identical oxygen isotopic composition then the probability is great that they were formed from the same "parent planet" or formed from the same average mixture of solar system debris.

...ah yes...the probability is great...therefore...a fact.

I just love it when we calculate probabilities without having all the parameters. It's what science does daily. It's called guessing.

This guessing game is widely spread in the science community, but presented as fact.


So you are telling me...that a certain type of oxygen isotope is only present in/on Earth...therefore giving it a unique Solar fingerprint ? I find that conclusion rather ridiculous...

I really doubt we have the entire composition of elements present in the Solar system and it's isotopic variations on all the Solar bodies to make that bold claim.

Why not spend 10 seconds on Google to learn the truth?

why not spend 10 minutes in philosophical silence, assessing our own human arrogance.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If two rocks have identical oxygen isotopic composition then the probability is great that they were formed from the same "parent planet" or formed from the same average mixture of solar system debris.

...ah yes...the probability is great...therefore...a fact.

I just love it when we calculate probabilities without having all the parameters. It's what science does daily. It's called guessing.

This guessing game is widely spread in the science community, but presented as fact.


So you are telling me...that a certain type of oxygen isotope is only present in/on Earth...therefore giving it a unique Solar fingerprint ? I find that conclusion rather ridiculous...

I really doubt we have the entire composition of elements present in the Solar system and it's isotopic variations on all the Solar bodies to make that bold claim.

Why not spend 10 seconds on Google to learn the truth?

why not spend 10 minutes in philosophical silence, assessing our own human arrogance.

So you are ignorant of the facts and don't know about the isotopic differences of different elements therefor it's guesswork. Gotcha. Nice how you ignored my proving you took the moon ringing quote completely out of context.

I gave you the answers, if you prefer being ignorant you are welcome to it.

a reply to: Phage
Just picking that big brain of yours:

is it possible for a Type 1 (or more) civilization to move planets or moons around?

and why don't we see the asteroid belt accreting?