tralalo tralala

[tony873004]

Uranus and Neptune are just one of many theories. I'm not sure I agree with it, but that might be because I don't completely understand it . Neptune, especially is thrown into lots of theories.

But I'm not talking about moonlets orbiting the Moon. I'm talking about moonlets getting ejected into interplanetary space by the Moon, and sharing an orbit with the Earth / Moon system. The Earth and Moon would be orbiting in the middle of a mini-asteriod beld for millions of years.

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

But I'm not talking about moonlets orbiting the Moon. I'm talking about moonlets getting ejected into interplanetary space by the Moon, and sharing an orbit with the Earth / Moon system. The Earth and Moon would be orbiting in the middle of a mini-asteriod beld for millions of years.

Oh. Maybe so, but they probably wouldn't have lasted very long either way. Any traces of those that hit Earth are long gone, and the ones that hit the Moon probably are in amongst the craters somewhere

It would be kinda cool if we did someday find an asteroid that had the same composition as the Earth or Moon though

[tony873004]

...and the ones that hit the Moon probably are in amongst the craters somewhere

It would be kinda cool if we did someday find an asteroid that had the same composition as the Earth or Moon though

But that's what I'm talking about. The Moon is more heavily cratered than Mercury. Are the excess number of the Moon's craters caused by ejected moonlets from the original collision? Mercury got a head start too. It was probably mostly formed and cratered by the time the Moon was formed as a molten sphere and a "blank canvas" so to speak. And that would be cool if in the future we could examine moon craters and find that some of the impactors did indeed have a composition similar to the Earth and Moon.

[granthutchison]

The Moon is more heavily cratered than Mercury.

Do you have a reference for that, or is it just a visual impression?
It's usually said that the Mercurian and lunar highlands have very similar primary crater densities, though you see fewer secondaries on Mercury.

Grant

[tony873004]

The Moon is more heavily cratered than Mercury.

Do you have a reference for that, or is it just a visual impression?
It's usually said that the Mercurian and lunar highlands have very similar primary crater densities, though you see fewer secondaries on Mercury.

Grant

Much of what I know I learn from surfing the internet, so I don't remember what my original reference was. A quick Google yields this:

This looks like a teacher's lecture notes:

Craters are less densely packed than on the moon

and a website whose credibility is questionable: (have your popup blocker on if you visit this one)

The surface of Mercury is more heavily cratered than that of our moon. This leads astronomers to presume that Mercury is over 4,000 million years old. The largest crater on Mercury is the Caloris Basin which reaches 1,300km (810 miles) in diameter. Mercury has experienced little volcanic activity. There are no basalt 'seas' on the surface as there are on the Earth's moon.

I know I've heard it elsewhere too in my searches for articles on how things were formed. But you never know what you can trust on the internet.

Of greater importance to my above question is the Moon's larger number of large impact basins, since most small debris would have already been swept up by the larger moonlets by the time the Moon was massive enough to start gravitationally ejecting stuff.

[granthutchison]

This looks like a teacher's lecture notes:

Craters are less densely packed than on the moon

Just a couple of lines below is the reason ... the existence of intercrater plains that post-date the LHB. You've got to be careful to compare only the oldest, unflooded, highland terrains. If this lecturer had included the lunar maria in his analysis, he'd have been saying that Mercury was more heavily cratered than the Moon. No doubt all this was explained in the lecture that went with the slides ... I guess what I'm saying is that internet sources that don't include a discussion and references can pretty much be ignored, because they're without context.

But I take your point about the impact basins ...

Grant

[t00fri]

Pardon...

If the truly Brain-Dead might make a small observation here?

What a load of crap! Why do you MIT types even reply
to this stuff?

Thanks for your kind attention.

Hi hi...

just spotted all this crap. Sometimes its good to be too busy for posting;-))

Bye Fridger

[Bob Hegwood]

just spotted all this crap. Sometimes its good to be too busy for posting;-))

Well, perhaps I should just keep my big mouth shut and mind my own
business, but - as someone who really wants to LEARN some of this stuff -
it irks me to be mislead by someone who is obviously smarter than I am.

Thanks, Bob

[granthutchison]

it irks me to be mislead by someone who is obviously smarter than I am.

Ummm. Bob?
If someone posts something he thinks is a "great discovery", but you can immediately identify it as a "load of crap", why would you think that he's smarter than you are?
My impression is exactly the opposite.

Grant

[granthutchison]

Sometimes its good to be too busy for posting

Tut, Fridger. The one time the Evil Doctor might have relished your direct approach, and you were too busy. What a team you two could have made!

Grant

[Bob Hegwood]

Ummm. Bob?
If someone posts something he thinks is a "great discovery", but you can immediately identify it as a "load of crap", why would you think that he's smarter than you are?
My impression is exactly the opposite.

Well, I've really snowed YOU then.

I got lost in the math when I tried to follow the explanation...

I really *did* try to understand what was being said though, and THAT's
what irked me. Sorry I wasted my time... Sorry I pissed off another
Celestia user...

Thanks, Bob

[cpotting]

Hmmm....

This thread has reminded of a topic I once saw Carl Sagan speaking about on one of his shows (Cosmos, I think it was). In it he was relating about a person (Velokofsky?) who proposed that the Moon was ejected from Jupiter or Saturn, did a tour of the Solar System, caused the flood and the stopping of Earth's rotation for a day, and finally became our moon.

The main point he was trying to make was that Velokofsky(sp?) was rejected out of hand by the scientific community because his ideas were ridiculous - NOT because they were not scientifically sound, but because they were ridiculous. Ideas should never be squashed simply because they sound dumb.

Now, I realise that IosifK has a LOT of stuff that is way off base in his proposal, but I for one, think it is great that he was brave enough to gather together what little anecdotal evidence he had, organise his ideas into a proposal and submit it to this august and obviously highly esteemed group for commentary. Good for you IosifK! I remember what it took for me to go up to my high school science teacher and argue that I believed when a ball is shot from a cannon it moves in an ellipse and not in a parabola like all the textbooks said. Turns out I was right, got the marks on my test and was told to use the parabolic equations from now on and keep all this subversive Newtonian stuff under my hat.

Anyway, before anyone gets really angry at IosifK (it seems to me that that is direction this thread is heading), perhaps we should be looking at a different approach. When a child points at an airplane and says "bird!" you don't call him stupid, you explain the differences between an animal and a machine.

I suggest that we get IosifK to begin supporting his theory. He does seem open to correction - after all he conceeded the point about Scandanavia and Hudson's Bay. Lets start with his statement:
"Suppose there is a planet called Earth that has a water / ice atmosphere (and sulfur in or around the core which would explain why Earth would have a water atmosphere - it would have dehydrated every planet in the solar system - (Rivers on Mars?)). "

I suggest that IosifK should set, as his first task, to confirm that Earth did have sulfur in and around the core and to determine to what amounts. Second, to provide an explanation of how the presence of sulfur would lead to Earth having a water atmosphere. And finally, to explain the "dehydration" of the other planetary bodies.

Your results IosifK should NOT be just your "ideas" - that we have already, now the onus is on you to provide - not proof - but plausible explanations. Show us your thought process, and back them up a bit.

Put it this way... If you had said "the ball fell up into the sky", I am not asking you to prove the ball did, just explain what could cause it go up! Maybe it was a helium filled ball, maybe it was over an air vent, or maybe you just don't beleive in gravity. Tell me which it is.

Could anyone suggest some internet resources where IosifK could find information on Earth's ancient mineral and chemical compositions?

What can I say... I'm Canadian... it's in my nature to try and keep the peace.

[granthutchison]

What can I say... I'm Canadian... it's in my nature to try and keep the peace.

Michael J Fox told a story which I think reflects splendidly on Canadians as a peaceful and reflective nation. The story goes that a radio station in Canada launched a competition to find a Canadian equivalent of "As American as apple-pie": just fill in the blank after "As Canadian as ..."
And the winner was ... "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances."

With regard to IosifK: a person obviously needs a little motivation to take up a "project" such as you outline ... they need to be prepared to see deficiencies in their own current world-view and hope to rectify them. IosifK seems to be happy with handwaving reasoning ... "doesn't the moon look molten to you" and "surely a hell of a lot of volcanoes would do the trick". If that's a satisfactory method of reasoning for him, then he's got no motivation to go and look for more information as you suggest.
Shrug. Maybe he'll surprise me and bounce back with a detailed response to your suggested project.

Grant

[Dollan]

Well, on my Great Big Group of Everything, I and a few other people tried to answer his theory point for point, as well as providing links throughout the responses for him to go and look, perhaps study more. I've yet to hear back from him; I'm hoping he is taking the time to study, and to realize that saying a thing is so because it looks that way is not sufficient.

I do agree with cpotting in that one should not squash an idea or call is stupid because it sounds that way. This is the learning process. However, I can only presume that Isofik is rather older than a small child who calls a plane a bird (actually, my 3 year old today called a plane a spaceship... heh). Also, Velikovsky was proposing his theory at a time when, frankly, there wasn't that much hard evidence to refute it, aside from a dislike of catastrophism in academia. Isofik's views, however, are all largely flying in the face well grounded and established scientific facts on nearly every level.

At any rate, I do hope that he eventually responds to some of the points that we made in the GBGofE. It has the potential for a good discussion, if we do not let it fall to "I'm right because it looks that way and makes sense to me," as well as "You're wrong because you're an idiot." Moderation on both sides might well be required!!

...John...

[IosifK]

I didn't finish argueing.. I'm gathering more information and also trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist :> Which will be a bit hard But I will prove everything eventually :> And no I'm not nuts.. I'm also 25 years old and not a 3 years old child.

[cpotting]

And the winner was ... "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances."

Oh how true - one of those jokes that usually only Canadians get. I heard another speaker once ask "in a room full of people, how do you tell the Americans from the Canadians". The answer was "the Americans are the ones saying 'you can't, there is no difference', and the Canadians are the ones yelling 'YES THERE IS!'"

I didn't finish argueing.. I'm gathering more information and also trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist :> Which will be a bit hard But I will prove everything eventually :> And no I'm not nuts.. I'm also 25 years old and not a 3 years old child.

One more word to IosifK: If you are taking up this project, don't view it as an me vs. them thing, look at it as a modelling process. I am a firm believer in the modelling philosophy that says you cannot prove a theory or model is right, only that it either models the observable (in which case it works) or it does not (in which case it is flawed). Working models have been shown to be flawed many times (e.g. the Sun orbits the Earth, the planets orbit the Sun on great celestial spheres, Ether fills the universe, Cher's outfits can't get any skimpier, etc).

You have a model. Show us that it works. If, in your investigations, you find that your model does not work (e.g. you find the presence of sulphur does not lead to a water atmosphere, then DON'T abandon your model. After all, even though the planets do not orbit the Sun on great celestial spheres, they do orbit the Sun! The model was flawed but not useless. It just needed tweeking (thanks Kepler). Find out what did give us this atmosphere and see if the rest of your model holds up with this revision.

Perhaps you will find that your model is unworkable, like the Sun going around the Earth, or the Terminator controlling the lives of millions... wait, scratch that, that actually did happen. Well, if you do find the model can't be made to work, then you followed the scientific process and added to your learning.

Just don't EVER fall into the trap of thinking "it IS so because it looks so", or "I KNOW I'm right and you are wrong, so I don't have to prove it". That leads to what we Canadians call "an argument" and we avoid those if we can - unless the persons involved are carrying hockey sticks - in which case it's GLOVES OFF AND FIST-A-FLYING! ... ditto for cell-phones on the highway...

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

Hmmm....
The main point he was trying to make was that Velokofsky(sp?) was rejected out of hand by the scientific community because his ideas were ridiculous - NOT because they were not scientifically sound, but because they were ridiculous. Ideas should never be squashed simply because they sound dumb.

In the case of this thread, they weren't squashed because they were dumb, they were squashed because they weren't based on any of the available physical evidence and because he instists - despite having all this evidence pointed out to him - that he is still correct..

There is simply no point in arguing with people like that. I've been occasionally hassled by a guy who thinks that there's an artificial cable going across Tyre Macula on Europa, simply because it kinda looks like it in one of the images. There's that nut Hoagland who thinks that men didn't land on the moon and that aliens built a Face on Mars, based solely on the fact that a random hill kinda looks like a face when seen from a certain angle at a certain time of day from above. We can tell these loons that their impressions are mistaken and point out the factual data that everyone has access to until we're blue in the face, but they just stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalala I can't hear you!' and then start harping on about conspiracies.

If you propose a hypothesis you should not have already committed yourself to believing that it is correct. When others point out the flaws and problems (and in this case there are many, many problems) you should be prepared to account for and explain them in your hypothesis - if you can't then that indicates that your hypothesis is quite probably wrong in its current form and needs to be reconsidered.

Right now, IosifK's hypothesis doesn't explain an awful lot of the physical data that we have available for the earth-moon system, and violates most of the laws of physics in the process, and still he insists that he'll prove that he's correct. That he's now saying that he wants to prove that gravity doesn't exist too isn't exactly adding to his rapidly decreasing credibility.

[t00fri]

I didn't finish argueing.. I'm gathering more information and also trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist :> Which will be a bit hard But I will prove everything eventually :> And no I'm not nuts.. I'm also 25 years old and not a 3 years old child.

You are still far too young to understand what you are claiming here;-).

The theory of gravitation is not only simple conceptionally and thus esthetically most attractive, it has been tested on a /precision/ level from distances of 0.1 *10^-6 meters (!) to almost the end of the universe.

Let me also remind you of the available precision tests of the great quantitative predictions of general relativity, like

--principle of equivalence of the gravitational mass and the inertial mass..
--the advance of Mercury's perihelion
--gravitational deflection of /light/!

It usually takes more than 25 years to be fully aware of the solid pillars on which the theory of and evidence for gravitation actually rests...

Bye Fridger

[granthutchison]

Um.
Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that IosifK was just joking about the gravity thing?

Grant

[Bob Hegwood]

Um.
Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that IosifK was just joking about the gravity thing?

I certainly *hope* he was...

Welcome back, IosifK. Come on Man, give us some Hell!

Take care, Bob