Notices

View Poll Results: where are planets from

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • the big bang and space dust

    1 50.00%
  • the centre of the solar system, the sun.

    1 50.00%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 233 of 233
Like Tree53Likes

Thread: Origin of the Planets

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    So you base your conclusions on emotions and not facts. Do you see why people laugh at you?
    It is not the way I come to conclusions but the feeling I have when I read about it.
    Whereas when I think about how the Earth could have got rid of the water, there is still optimism, but definite uncertainty.
    I think you know how my scenario works, you have the background to comprehend it. So what aspect to you seems like the biggest mistake?
    Surely it's not just the removal of the water at the end?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The giant impact hypothesis states that the Moon was formed out of the debris left over from a collision between the Earth and a body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 Gya (four and a half billion years) ago. The colliding body is sometimes called Theia ...f
    That is as offensive as reading about the death of Yasser Arafat. It is sick.
    You still don't say why it is offensive. Do you have a problem with the physics of such an event? Is there something tangible that you think doesn't fit within the model? From what I have read of the giant impact theory, it works. Is it just the notion of two planet-sized objects colliding? There is no reason to believe it is impossible or even uncommon in an undeveloped system.
    It is just a feeling I get. I have worked through the science of it and maybe I just remain skeptical. So I love it when someone finds there are unexplained aspects of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    You're posting about Yasser Arafat?

    I did PM James R but after reading some of your posts. I mean... like...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    You're posting about Yasser Arafat?

    I did PM James R but after reading some of your posts. I mean... like...
    In relation to planets?
    I see Yasser is back in the news again today, but no matter what happens the whole episode just made me sick in the stomach. I just don't read the articles at all.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 3rd, 2013 at 01:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Oh my god, are you claiming that the gas giants in the solar system have cores that are compressed terrestrial like planets,
    That is pretty much the accepted model. There are two current models for the formation of the gas and ice giants:

    1. Accretion of rocky core and runaway gravitational acquisition of gaseous envelope.
    2. Gravitational instability in the disc leading to collapse and further rapid acquisition of more gas.

    The former explanation is the most favoured. I'm not sure what part of this you are objecting to, or why. Bob's idea falls down flat because a) there is no evidence for it b) countless simulations fail to produce the kind of planet he is talking about c) most critically, he has no plausible mechanism for removing the water.
    I'm objecting to Bob's idea that Earth was such a planet that then lost all of its bulk to the solar system, leaving it with the terrestrial core that we apparently live on today.

    Of course it is the accepted theory that Saturn, Uranus and Jupiter is believed to have rocky cores, with Neptune having a more iron and nickel core I believe. However Bob's proposal would mean that Earth started out like a giant water planet with such a core, and then apparently dispersed to then form the gas giants, leaving it with the small core as a planet of its own after having captured the moon. I should have worded my disgust to Bob a bit clearer.

    And I think he believes that when the sun "fired up", it apparently blasted the water away...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    That is as offensive as reading about the death of Yasser Arafat. It is sick.
    It would only be offensive or sick if you were a theist who believed in intelligent design and who felt that the hand of God meant perfection, not destruction.

    Hate to break it to you Rob, but in a few billion years, the earth will no longer exist. Earth came out of the death of a star, our whole solar system did and in a few billion years, it will all end. Life is about death and other things taking our place. We see it in the history of life on the planet.

    It is just a feeling I get. I have worked through the science of it and maybe I just remain skeptical. So I love it when someone finds there are unexplained aspects of it.
    Your spidey senses don't amount to science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Oh my god, are you claiming that the gas giants in the solar system have cores that are compressed terrestrial like planets,
    That is pretty much the accepted model. There are two current models for the formation of the gas and ice giants:

    1. Accretion of rocky core and runaway gravitational acquisition of gaseous envelope.
    2. Gravitational instability in the disc leading to collapse and further rapid acquisition of more gas.

    The former explanation is the most favoured. I'm not sure what part of this you are objecting to, or why. Bob's idea falls down flat because a) there is no evidence for it b) countless simulations fail to produce the kind of planet he is talking about c) most critically, he has no plausible mechanism for removing the water.
    I'm objecting to Bob's idea that Earth was such a planet that then lost all of its bulk to the solar system, leaving it with the terrestrial core that we apparently live on today.

    Of course it is the accepted theory that Saturn, Uranus and Jupiter is believed to have rocky cores, with Neptune having a more iron and nickel core I believe. However Bob's proposal would mean that Earth started out like a giant water planet with such a core, and then apparently dispersed to then form the gas giants, leaving it with the small core as a planet of its own after having captured the moon. I should have worded my disgust to Bob a bit clearer.

    And I think he believes that when the sun "fired up", it apparently blasted the water away...
    Voicing your disgust isn't going to help, but you seem to have described the proposed scenario pretty well.
    Water (volatiles) are lost via the T Tauri Wind and the Solar Wind but the majority loss is due to the Moon capture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Of course it is the accepted theory that Saturn, Uranus and Jupiter is believed to have rocky cores, with Neptune having a more iron and nickel core I believe.
    Thank you for the clarification, but please note that that is definitley not what you said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    That is as offensive as reading about the death of Yasser Arafat. It is sick.
    It would only be offensive or sick if you were a theist who believed in intelligent design and who felt that the hand of God meant perfection, not destruction.

    Hate to break it to you Rob, but in a few billion years, the earth will no longer exist. Earth came out of the death of a star, our whole solar system did and in a few billion years, it will all end. Life is about death and other things taking our place. We see it in the history of life on the planet.

    It is just a feeling I get. I have worked through the science of it and maybe I just remain skeptical. So I love it when someone finds there are unexplained aspects of it.
    Your spidey senses don't amount to science.
    That is the question are we willing to find a way out of here. Interstellar travel is a dream at this stage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    So, the Earth was the size of Jupiter with a rocky core of what is at present day and the rest of the size was accounted for by water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Thank you for the clarification, but please note that that is definitley not what you said.
    Rob's belief that we were a water giant planet with a core like that of some of the gas giants which then saw all of its water removed after 'moon capture', leaving the core as what we now call earth is what I had meant, but yes, you are correct, that was not what I had said. Next time I will be a bit clearer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    That is the question are we willing to find a way out of here. Interstellar travel is a dream at this stage.
    Does not matter either way. It still is not going to help you in this thread.

    Water (volatiles) are lost via the T Tauri Wind and the Solar Wind but the majority loss is due to the Moon capture.
    If the majority were lost with 'moon capture', why didn't the water transfer to the moon? After all, if the moon's gravity was enough to pull the surface of the earth off, ignoring the huge gravitational pull of the massive water earth and instead, removing surface water from the planet, then that water should have fallen onto the moon, should it not? Or do you believe the water acted like a baseball mitt, catching the moon as it whizzed by, only to then dissolve and escape to the far reaches of the solar system?

    I find it astounding that you believe the Earth was a massive water planet, which had enough gravity and atmosphere to capture a passing planet, but could not sustain its own surface water and instead, it was blasted off the whole planet. You realise this makes no sense, don't you? If the massive water world earth's gravity was strong enough to capture a moon, then it would have had more than enough to maintain its water instead of apparently losing its mass to solar wind. After all, something as massive as 47 times bigger than the earth is now would have the type of gravitational pull that would affect the formation of all nearby planets and we would probably have a lot more satellites than the one we do have. Also, moon capture would not be enough to make it lose the water. If Uranus can take impacts that were strong enough to knock it on its side, then the earth capturing one moon would have little effect on its water.

    Your theory has no factual foundation or basis and is instead, a fantasy of yours because you aren't comfortable with the thought that Earth did collide with another massive object which then saw the creation of Earth and the moon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Thank you for the clarification, but please note that that is definitley not what you said.
    Rob's belief that we were a water giant planet with a core like that of some of the gas giants which then saw all of its water removed after 'moon capture', leaving the core as what we now call earth is what I had meant, but yes, you are correct, that was not what I had said. Next time I will be a bit clearer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    That is the question are we willing to find a way out of here. Interstellar travel is a dream at this stage.
    Does not matter either way. It still is not going to help you in this thread.

    Water (volatiles) are lost via the T Tauri Wind and the Solar Wind but the majority loss is due to the Moon capture.
    If the majority were lost with 'moon capture', why didn't the water transfer to the moon? After all, if the moon's gravity was enough to pull the surface of the earth off, ignoring the huge gravitational pull of the massive water earth and instead, removing surface water from the planet, then that water should have fallen onto the moon, should it not? Or do you believe the water acted like a baseball mitt, catching the moon as it whizzed by, only to then dissolve and escape to the far reaches of the solar system?

    I find it astounding that you believe the Earth was a massive water planet, which had enough gravity and atmosphere to capture a passing planet, but could not sustain its own surface water and instead, it was blasted off the whole planet. You realise this makes no sense, don't you? If the massive water world earth's gravity was strong enough to capture a moon, then it would have had more than enough to maintain its water instead of apparently losing its mass to solar wind. After all, something as massive as 47 times bigger than the earth is now would have the type of gravitational pull that would affect the formation of all nearby planets and we would probably have a lot more satellites than the one we do have. Also, moon capture would not be enough to make it lose the water. If Uranus can take impacts that were strong enough to knock it on its side, then the earth capturing one moon would have little effect on its water.

    Your theory has no factual foundation or basis and is instead, a fantasy of yours because you aren't comfortable with the thought that Earth did collide with another massive object which then saw the creation of Earth and the moon.
    By this stage in anyone's theory you have to use your imagination, but I tend to this view:
    Or do you believe the water acted like a baseball mitt, catching the moon as it whizzed by, only to then dissolve and escape to the far reaches of the solar system?
    The other planets in the nearby region are also similarly more massive but there is also a greater amount of left over gas which has been claimed will dampen down wild eccentric elliptical orbits.

    You never seem to learn Tranquille, I made my theory develop in stages and it was that planets formed in a series from the inner planets to the outer ones as the first step. It had nothing to do with a Giant Impact Theory dislike which only developed later..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    So, the Earth was the size of Jupiter with a rocky core of what is at present day and the rest of the size was accounted for by water.
    It could have been 42 - 28 times as massive as the current mass. But that is still only less than 1/8th the size of Jupiter.
    But the rest is about right. It may not be water, but I just say volatiles, the stuff that has blown away.

    The Earth to begin with was large but I haven't calculated it yet but the escape velocity at the extreme edges of a large planet like this would be lower I believe that the current escape velocity, but I'd need to check that. Water does not compress so retains its volume.

    We should look at this factor for it is also something Tranquille is objecting too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    What if the Earth was like really really massive. The water was compressed by the sheer gravity. Starting nuclear fusion and exploded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    What if the Earth was like really really massive. The water was compressed by the sheer gravity. Starting nuclear fusion and exploded?
    NO.
    How many times more massive did Jupiter have to be before it would turn into the lowest mass star? ( it was still in the order of hundreds isn't it?), so there is insufficient matter in the protoplanetary dust disk to form a binary star situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Interesting News item in Google News:
    Light transmitted and partially absorbed - 5 planets most likely to be on Elon Musk's itinerary (pictures) - CNET News


    The picture #4 shows a water world the size of Jupiter real close in to its star.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    What if the Earth was like really really massive. The water was compressed by the sheer gravity. Starting nuclear fusion and exploded?
    NO.
    How many times more massive did Jupiter have to be before it would turn into the lowest mass star? ( it was still in the order of hundreds isn't it?), so there is insufficient matter in the protoplanetary dust disk to form a binary star situation.
    Wikipedia on Dwarf stars Dwarf star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So there may have been enough matter in the protoplanetary disk to form a Brown Dwarf binary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    By this stage in anyone's theory you have to use your imagination, but I tend to this view:
    I'd rather stick to facts thanks.

    The other planets in the nearby region are also similarly more massive but there is also a greater amount of left over gas which has been claimed will dampen down wild eccentric elliptical orbits.
    Now you're claiming that the other inner planets in the solar system were also giants? What? Their mass escaped to the outer reaches of space as well when the sun "fired up" and the solar wind blew it all away?

    You never seem to learn Tranquille, I made my theory develop in stages and it was that planets formed in a series from the inner planets to the outer ones as the first step. It had nothing to do with a Giant Impact Theory dislike which only developed later..
    Your theory is akin to the creation museum being sceintific. In other words it is utter rubbish and complete bullshit.

    You have absolutely no proof, evidence, calculations, modeling or anything else to support your theory except your finding the giant impact theory to be personally offensive. Frankly, I am amazed you are still allowed to post here considering the greater majority of what you post here is utter rubbish with no scientific factual basis, just based only on your imagination and your spidey senses. This thread repeats the exact same pattern that many of us, who were unfortunate enough to encounter you on other sites, had to put up with.

    These ridiculous claims of yours don't even count as pseudoscience anymore because it is complete and utter bullshit that you are obviously pulling out of your backside. Whether you believe it or not is beside the point. Your posts here lower the intelligence of this site by a huge margin.

    As for your signature, it just proves your dishonesty. You have been corrected too many times to count. However you refuse to accept those corrections and instead prefer to post bullshit and lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    By this stage in anyone's theory you have to use your imagination, but I tend to this view:
    I'd rather stick to facts thanks.

    The other planets in the nearby region are also similarly more massive but there is also a greater amount of left over gas which has been claimed will dampen down wild eccentric elliptical orbits.
    Now you're claiming that the other inner planets in the solar system were also giants? What? Their mass escaped to the outer reaches of space as well when the sun "fired up" and the solar wind blew it all away?

    You never seem to learn Tranquille, I made my theory develop in stages and it was that planets formed in a series from the inner planets to the outer ones as the first step. It had nothing to do with a Giant Impact Theory dislike which only developed later..
    Your theory is akin to the creation museum being sceintific. In other words it is utter rubbish and complete bullshit.

    You have absolutely no proof, evidence, calculations, modeling or anything else to support your theory except your finding the giant impact theory to be personally offensive. Frankly, I am amazed you are still allowed to post here considering the greater majority of what you post here is utter rubbish with no scientific factual basis, just based only on your imagination and your spidey senses. This thread repeats the exact same pattern that many of us, who were unfortunate enough to encounter you on other sites, had to put up with.

    These ridiculous claims of yours don't even count as pseudoscience anymore because it is complete and utter bullshit that you are obviously pulling out of your backside. Whether you believe it or not is beside the point. Your posts here lower the intelligence of this site by a huge margin.

    As for your signature, it just proves your dishonesty. You have been corrected too many times to count. However you refuse to accept those corrections and instead prefer to post bullshit and lie.
    Sounds like you have resigned.
    It wouldn't be just the Earth that formed prior to the Sun Going main sequence or even T Tauri.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    By this stage in anyone's theory you have to use your imagination, but I tend to this view:
    I'd rather stick to facts thanks.

    The other planets in the nearby region are also similarly more massive but there is also a greater amount of left over gas which has been claimed will dampen down wild eccentric elliptical orbits.
    Now you're claiming that the other inner planets in the solar system were also giants? What? Their mass escaped to the outer reaches of space as well when the sun "fired up" and the solar wind blew it all away?

    You never seem to learn Tranquille, I made my theory develop in stages and it was that planets formed in a series from the inner planets to the outer ones as the first step. It had nothing to do with a Giant Impact Theory dislike which only developed later..
    Your theory is akin to the creation museum being sceintific. In other words it is utter rubbish and complete bullshit.

    You have absolutely no proof, evidence, calculations, modeling or anything else to support your theory except your finding the giant impact theory to be personally offensive. Frankly, I am amazed you are still allowed to post here considering the greater majority of what you post here is utter rubbish with no scientific factual basis, just based only on your imagination and your spidey senses. This thread repeats the exact same pattern that many of us, who were unfortunate enough to encounter you on other sites, had to put up with.

    These ridiculous claims of yours don't even count as pseudoscience anymore because it is complete and utter bullshit that you are obviously pulling out of your backside. Whether you believe it or not is beside the point. Your posts here lower the intelligence of this site by a huge margin.

    As for your signature, it just proves your dishonesty. You have been corrected too many times to count. However you refuse to accept those corrections and instead prefer to post bullshit and lie.
    Sounds like you have resigned.
    It wouldn't be just the Earth that formed prior to the Sun Going main sequence or even T Tauri.
    If the findings of Uma Gorti are correct, the dust disk is thinner closer in toward the Sun and hence the amount of matter in the region forming Mercury and Venus could have been thinned and hence the torus there having lesser lighter molecules and proportionally more heavier particulates.

    You might have just made us come up with the first clue as to why Mercury has such a high proportion of iron nickel in its core, being that the lighter material could have photo-evaporated outward to the regions of Venus and Earth. Mars could have suffered some of the same effects as the Asteroid Belt and became depleted of volatiles simply because of the building intensity of the Proto-Sun that was about to go into its T Tauri stage.

    Thank you Tranquille.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    If the findings of Uma Gorti are correct, the dust disk is thinner closer in toward the Sun and hence the amount of matter in the region forming Mercury and Venus could have been thinned and hence the torus there having lesser lighter molecules and proportionally more heavier particulates.

    You might have just made us come up with the first clue as to why Mercury has such a high proportion of iron nickel in its core, being that the lighter material could have photo-evaporated outward to the regions of Venus and Earth. Mars could have suffered some of the same effects as the Asteroid Belt and became depleted of volatiles simply because of the building intensity of the Proto-Sun that was about to go into its T Tauri stage.

    Thank you Tranquille.
    I don't know what you are trying to prove here, but my saying your theory is retarded and my pointing out that you have failed repeatedly, to back up any of your claims is not something to thank me for.

    Your claims are unfounded, unproven and without any merit whatsoever.

    Perhaps you feel the need to pontificate or perhaps you feel that this, like your pathetic christian songs thread you tried to foist on this site, is your way to prove the existence of your god. You're wrong. Your theories are wrong.

    You have this belief that everything in the solar system was orbiting the sun in the same way. That there was no collision and that everything was perfect. The solar system as we know it today came about by way of elimination. Objects and planets were moving in all different directions. Including the early Earth and the large object or celestial body that eliminated it, and from that, came the earth and the moon. Any celestial body not moving in the one direction would have been eliminated by those that were moving in the preferred direction. This has been backed up by science and modeling, which Flick even provided for you.

    If you want to imagine the power of these collisions, you only have to look at Uranus. The impacts it suffered tilted it virtually on its side.

    This is the reality of our solar system. You can try and claim that the inner planets were massive or giant planets that lost all of its bulk to the outer solar system because you think the sun 'fired up' and blew it all away, or you can deal with reality. The choice is yours. In the meantime, I'd suggest you stop projecting your erroneous claims onto me. You know full well that I find your claims to be as intelligent as a pile of dog poo. Trying to insinuate that I agree with you or am helping you just makes you a liar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    If the findings of Uma Gorti are correct, the dust disk is thinner closer in toward the Sun and hence the amount of matter in the region forming Mercury and Venus could have been thinned and hence the torus there having lesser lighter molecules and proportionally more heavier particulates.

    You might have just made us come up with the first clue as to why Mercury has such a high proportion of iron nickel in its core, being that the lighter material could have photo-evaporated outward to the regions of Venus and Earth. Mars could have suffered some of the same effects as the Asteroid Belt and became depleted of volatiles simply because of the building intensity of the Proto-Sun that was about to go into its T Tauri stage.

    Thank you Tranquille.
    I don't know what you are trying to prove here, but my saying your theory is retarded and my pointing out that you have failed repeatedly, to back up any of your claims is not something to thank me for.

    Your claims are unfounded, unproven and without any merit whatsoever.

    Perhaps you feel the need to pontificate or perhaps you feel that this, like your pathetic christian songs thread you tried to foist on this site, is your way to prove the existence of your god. You're wrong. Your theories are wrong.

    You have this belief that everything in the solar system was orbiting the sun in the same way. That there was no collision and that everything was perfect. The solar system as we know it today came about by way of elimination. Objects and planets were moving in all different directions. Including the early Earth and the large object or celestial body that eliminated it, and from that, came the earth and the moon. Any celestial body not moving in the one direction would have been eliminated by those that were moving in the preferred direction. This has been backed up by science and modeling, which Flick even provided for you.

    If you want to imagine the power of these collisions, you only have to look at Uranus. The impacts it suffered tilted it virtually on its side.

    This is the reality of our solar system. You can try and claim that the inner planets were massive or giant planets that lost all of its bulk to the outer solar system because you think the sun 'fired up' and blew it all away, or you can deal with reality. The choice is yours. In the meantime, I'd suggest you stop projecting your erroneous claims onto me. You know full well that I find your claims to be as intelligent as a pile of dog poo. Trying to insinuate that I agree with you or am helping you just makes you a liar.
    I haven't got time to respond to this rant but it does reveal your inner thoughts very clearly. - Thanks for all of that revelation.
    I wasn't thanking you before for agreeing with me but our debating brought out a new concept allowing for the higher density of Mercury without having to strip 2/3 of the planet away. That is what I was thanking you for.

    No one knows for sure why Uranus is tilted, it may have been an impact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your unscientific nonsense is not welcome here. Shape up, or ship out.
    Tranquille and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    From Wikipedia which has a reference to a paper on the subject states:
    Uranus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The reason for Uranus's unusual axial tilt is also not known with certainty, but the usual speculation is that during the formation of the Solar System, an Earth-sized protoplanet collided with Uranus, causing the skewed orientation.
    They say it is speculation. It is not known with certainty. That was the point I was making.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    You still have yet to give a satisfactory explanation for your dismissal of the giant impact theory. How can you expect any of us to buy what you're selling when you're so quick to dismiss accepted science because it offends your senses in some way?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    You still have yet to give a satisfactory explanation for your dismissal of the giant impact theory. How can you expect any of us to buy what you're selling when you're so quick to dismiss accepted science because it offends your senses in some way?
    I thought I had covered that, but remember the Moon formation is also a matter of speculation, and the usual thing is to accept the Giant Impact Theory because there wasn't thought to be enough water on the Earth to allow for a Moon capture.
    But with my planet building occurring prior to the Sun going T Tauri there is every opportunity for the Earth to be a water world at that early time.

    I plan to run the Three Body Problem program to see if this is possible with the Earth being an unknown variable in its mass; possibly between 10 - 50 times the current Earth mass). It may account for the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system (in fact I not too sure at this stage what they mean by that. As noted in the bold section below.)

    Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Several mechanisms have been proposed for the Moon's formation 4.527 0.010 billion years ago,[f] some 30–50 million years after the origin of the Solar System.[13] Recent research presented by Rick Carlson indicates a slightly younger age of between 4.4 and 4.45 billion years.[14][15]These mechanisms included the fission of the Moon from the Earth's crust through centrifugal force[16] (which would require too great an initial spin of the Earth),[17] the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon[18] (which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of the Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon),[17] and the co-formation of the Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk (which does not explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon).[17] These hypotheses also cannot account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.[19]The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact, where aMars-sized body (named Theia) collided with the newly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around it, which accreted to form the Moon.[20] This hypothesis perhaps best explains the evidence, although not perfectly. Eighteen months prior to an October 1984 conference on lunar origins, Bill Hartmann, Roger Phillips, and Jeff Taylor challenged fellow lunar scientists: "You have eighteen months. Go back to your Apollo data, go back to your computer, do whatever you have to, but make up your mind. Don’t come to our conference unless you have something to say about the Moon’s birth." At the 1984 conference at Kona, Hawaii, the giant impact hypothesis emerged as the most popular. "Before the conference, there were partisans of the three 'traditional' theories, plus a few people who were starting to take the giant impact seriously, and there was a huge apathetic middle who didn’t think the debate would ever be resolved. Afterward there were essentially only two groups: the giant impact camp and the agnostics."[21]
    ....
    In 2001, a team at the Carnegie Institute of Washington reported the most precise measurement of the isotopic signatures of lunar rocks.[31] To their surprise, the team found that the rocks from the Apollo program carried an isotopic signature that was identical with rocks from Earth, and were different from almost all other bodies in the Solar System. Since most of the material that went into orbit to form the Moon was thought to come from Theia, this observation was unexpected. In 2007, researchers from the California Institute of Technology announced that there was less than a 1% chance that Theia and Earth had identical isotopic signatures. [32] Published in 2012, an analysis of titanium isotopes in Apollo lunar samples showed that the Moon has the same composition as the Earth,[33] which conflicts with what is expected if the Moon formed far from Earth's orbit or from Theia. Variations on GIH may explain this data.

    the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon[18] (which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of the Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon),[17] and the co-formation of the Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk (which does not explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon).[17] These hypotheses also cannot account for the highangular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.[19]
    In my hypotheses none of these objections seem unsolvable. But it is early days yet, but I have gone through a possible scenario of what happens after the Earth captures the Moon. I called it the "Yo-yo Moon Capture Theory" , but it is purely imaginary possibility to account for Earth's tilt, and the melting of the Moon and Earth rocks, the Moon's inclination (possibly?) and the tidal locking of the Earth to the Moon.

    I would be willing to reproduce all this theory here but we must all realize it is just a first attempt to account for all those things.

    I found developing the "Yo-yo Moon Capture Theory" an amazing creative thought process. I will post it but I don't want it to be an argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    You've talked about moon capture for what, around eight months now? Wanting someone else to work the math while you indulge in a world of your own imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    You've talked about moon capture for what, around eight months now? Wanting someone else to work the math while you indulge in a world of your own imagination.
    But this time someone has said he would help. So I'll wait and see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    You still have yet to give a satisfactory explanation for your dismissal of the giant impact theory. How can you expect any of us to buy what you're selling when you're so quick to dismiss accepted science because it offends your senses in some way?
    I thought I had covered that, but remember the Moon formation is also a matter of speculation, and the usual thing is to accept the Giant Impact Theory because there wasn't thought to be enough water on the Earth to allow for a Moon capture.
    But with my planet building occurring prior to the Sun going T Tauri there is every opportunity for the Earth to be a water world at that early time.

    I plan to run the Three Body Problem program to see if this is possible with the Earth being an unknown variable in its mass; possibly between 10 - 50 times the current Earth mass). It may account for the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system (in fact I not too sure at this stage what they mean by that. As noted in the bold section below.)
    You still didn't answer his question.

    In my hypotheses none of these objections seem unsolvable. But it is early days yet, but I have gone through a possible scenario of what happens after the Earth captures the Moon.
    Your hypothesis is a massive water planet that catches the moon with its water and then loses its water when, as you call it, the sun fires up. I could claim the earth and moon and solar system was formed by magical pixies, which would hold as much scientific sway as your hypothesis.

    I called it the "Yo-yo Moon Theory"
    Now I see why the people in your life begins on Mercury thread on the other forum you linked here called you mentally retarded.

    but it is purely imaginary possibility to account for Earth's tilt, and the melting of the Moon and Earth rocks, the Moon's inclination (possibly?) and the tidal locking of the Earth to the Moon.

    I would be willing to reproduce all this theory here but we must all realize it is just a first attempt to account for all those things.
    And I have to ask myself, how can you be allowed to continue posting this utter dog crap:

    I found the "Yo-yo Moon Theory" an amazing creative thought process. I don't want it to be an argument.
    Then I realised, perhaps you are this village's idiot.

    You haven't backed anything up.

    All you have done is make things up. You lied in your signature. You have been corrected so many times now, but you keep lying because you refuse to accept any corrections and instead prefer to create more crap and try to pass it off as science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    You still have yet to give a satisfactory explanation for your dismissal of the giant impact theory. How can you expect any of us to buy what you're selling when you're so quick to dismiss accepted science because it offends your senses in some way?
    I thought I had covered that, but remember the Moon formation is also a matter of speculation, and the usual thing is to accept the Giant Impact Theory because there wasn't thought to be enough water on the Earth to allow for a Moon capture.
    But with my planet building occurring prior to the Sun going T Tauri there is every opportunity for the Earth to be a water world at that early time.

    I plan to run the Three Body Problem program to see if this is possible with the Earth being an unknown variable in its mass; possibly between 10 - 50 times the current Earth mass). It may account for the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system (in fact I not too sure at this stage what they mean by that. As noted in the bold section below.)
    You still didn't answer his question.

    In my hypotheses none of these objections seem unsolvable. But it is early days yet, but I have gone through a possible scenario of what happens after the Earth captures the Moon.
    Your hypothesis is a massive water planet that catches the moon with its water and then loses its water when, as you call it, the sun fires up. I could claim the earth and moon and solar system was formed by magical pixies, which would hold as much scientific sway as your hypothesis.

    I called it the "Yo-yo Moon Theory"
    Now I see why the people in your life begins on Mercury thread on the other forum you linked here called you mentally retarded.

    but it is purely imaginary possibility to account for Earth's tilt, and the melting of the Moon and Earth rocks, the Moon's inclination (possibly?) and the tidal locking of the Earth to the Moon.

    I would be willing to reproduce all this theory here but we must all realize it is just a first attempt to account for all those things.
    And I have to ask myself, how can you be allowed to continue posting this utter dog crap:

    I found the "Yo-yo Moon Theory" an amazing creative thought process. I don't want it to be an argument.
    Then I realised, perhaps you are this village's idiot.

    You haven't backed anything up.

    All you have done is make things up. You lied in your signature. You have been corrected so many times now, but you keep lying because you refuse to accept any corrections and instead prefer to create more crap and try to pass it off as science.
    I'm not going to answer that sorry. Flick Montana can decide if he thinks I answered him or not. I'm sure I did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    This is a discussion forum/message board where multiple people converse and debate.

    Not for one on one. For that, PM's or emails would do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    This is a discussion forum/message board where multiple people converse and debate.

    Not for one on one. For that, PM's or emails would do.
    Flick asked the question so I'll leave it up to him if he feels I answered it to his satisfaction. You don't like PMs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Are Free-floating Planets 'Planets'?
    By Cogito Ergo Sum in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: January 13th, 2014, 11:47 PM
  2. Planets
    By TimeLord in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: August 5th, 2013, 11:24 PM
  3. Planets
    By Jim Colyer in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 8th, 2013, 06:24 PM
  4. Occultations between planets as seen from other planets
    By ricci70 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 9th, 2008, 07:27 AM
  5. 12 Planets! What do you think?
    By shalyn in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2006, 10:01 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •