1 of 2
1
Why Earth Is Not an Ice Ball: Possible Explanation for Faint Young Sun Paradox
Posted: 03 June 2012 07:51 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm

I found this little article, and I have to admit, it is thought provoking.

My skeptical thinking kicked in pretty quickly. The concept of Venus forming from the collision of two pre-venus planets reminded me a bit of the Volikovskian proposal that Venus was ejected from Jupiter. But, it certainly isn’t that unfeasible. However, if there were such a collision, where is the debris? The Earth has the Moon from such a collision, so if a similar thing happened to Venus, Venus should either have a moon or there should be a population of asteroids which came from Venus still in orbit, and I assume at about the same distance from the Sun.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2012 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2012-02-02

Actually, there are doubts about the Moon being created from a collision.  Jack Schmidt, the only geologist to actually walk on the Moon, doesn’t buy that hypothesis and recent discoveries have cast some doubt on it.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2012 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I think a lot depends on how long ago this happened. The early solar system would likely have been nothing if not the Pinball Game From Hell, with any number of planetary bodies colliding with larger and smaller bodies. The debris would likely have been absorbed by the planets which ultimately survived all of this until there was little if anything left.

With all the craters you can find…even right here on Earth…it’s not as if we’re hurting for evidence of this.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2012 09:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

The article says that if the Venus collision happened to cause planetary drift moving the Earth away from the Sun, it would have been about 3 billion years ago, well after the Late Heavy Bombardment.

And, yes, I know the Moon collision theory isn’t proven yet either.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2012 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4270
Joined  2010-08-15
Coldheart Tucker - 03 June 2012 08:06 PM

Actually, there are doubts about the Moon being created from a collision.  Jack Schmidt, the only geologist to actually walk on the Moon, doesn’t buy that hypothesis and recent discoveries have cast some doubt on it.

Jack Schmidt may have been geologist and walked on the moon, but, considering his pronouncements regarding the science behind our Global Warming understand, the man seems to have allowed his politics to swamp his once keen scientific mind.

Though it would be interesting to hear something more authoritative about “some recent discoveries that have cast doubt on” on the Earth Moon collision theory.


fyi http://www.santafenewmexican.com/local news/former-astronaut-scoffs-at-global-warming

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2012 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2012-02-02
citizenschallenge.pm - 04 June 2012 02:33 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 03 June 2012 08:06 PM

Actually, there are doubts about the Moon being created from a collision.  Jack Schmidt, the only geologist to actually walk on the Moon, doesn’t buy that hypothesis and recent discoveries have cast some doubt on it.

Jack Schmidt may have been geologist and walked on the moon, but, considering his pronouncements regarding the science behind our Global Warming understand, the man seems to have allowed his politics to swamp his once keen scientific mind.

Though it would be interesting to hear something more authoritative about “some recent discoveries that have cast doubt on” on the Earth Moon collision theory.


fyi http://www.santafenewmexican.com/local news/former-astronaut-scoffs-at-global-warming

Why would one accept a geologist’s opinions on climate change?  That’d be like accepting an astronomer’s opinions on medicine.

Moon formation theory less certain.

Far more of the moon may be made of material from Earth than previously thought, according to a new study that may contradict the reigning moon-formation theory.

Scientists have suggested that the moon was created when a Mars-size object named Theia collided with Earth 4.5 billion years ago, with more than 40 percent of the moon made up of debris from this impacting body. However, researchers had expected this alien world to be chemically different from Earth, and past studies have revealed that the moon and Earth appear quite similar when it comes to versions of elements called isotopes — more so than might be suggested by the current Theia model.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2012 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

From the Huffington Post article:

On the one hand, the similarities between the moon and Earth might be explained by intense mixing of material after the moon-forming impact, leaving much of Theia’s material buried within the moon. On the other hand, maybe the moon is made almost completely of Earth material that spun off from a rapidly spinning Earth after a giant impact.

Yes, it is my understanding that the isotopic similarity between the Earth and the Moon was a big point in favor of the collision idea, not against it.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 04:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2012-02-02
TromboneAndrew - 04 June 2012 11:26 PM

From the Huffington Post article:

On the one hand, the similarities between the moon and Earth might be explained by intense mixing of material after the moon-forming impact, leaving much of Theia’s material buried within the moon. On the other hand, maybe the moon is made almost completely of Earth material that spun off from a rapidly spinning Earth after a giant impact.

Yes, it is my understanding that the isotopic similarity between the Earth and the Moon was a big point in favor of the collision idea, not against it.

And as the article says, that may not be the case.  In short, all we know is that our models do not accurately explain conditions as we know them.  I’d be willing to bet if we had a base on the Moon, we’d have a definitive answer in less than a year.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 04:53 AM

And as the article says, that may not be the case.  In short, all we know is that our models do not accurately explain conditions as we know them.  I’d be willing to bet if we had a base on the Moon, we’d have a definitive answer in less than a year.

Wait, backtrack a bit.

If the Moon was not created by a collision, then the moon would have to have been captured. Then, the isotopic ratios in discussion (not explained specifically in the article) would not match as well as they do. It seems to me that the only point of contention in the article is the amount of mixing that happened after such a collision, not that it happened at all. Which means that the article doesn’t really do a good job of explaining itself.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2012-02-02
TromboneAndrew - 05 June 2012 09:32 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 04:53 AM

And as the article says, that may not be the case.  In short, all we know is that our models do not accurately explain conditions as we know them.  I’d be willing to bet if we had a base on the Moon, we’d have a definitive answer in less than a year.

Wait, backtrack a bit.

If the Moon was not created by a collision, then the moon would have to have been captured. Then, the isotopic ratios in discussion (not explained specifically in the article) would not match as well as they do. It seems to me that the only point of contention in the article is the amount of mixing that happened after such a collision, not that it happened at all. Which means that the article doesn’t really do a good job of explaining itself.

The possibility you’re overlooking is that the Earth’s rotation was faster than it is now, and this caused material to be flung off the Earth, forming the Moon.  That was the accepted theory before the collision model was developed, as I recall.

There are, no doubt, other theories as well, that just happens to be the one I can recall off the top of my head.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 09:43 AM

The possibility you’re overlooking is that the Earth’s rotation was faster than it is now, and this caused material to be flung off the Earth, forming the Moon.  That was the accepted theory before the collision model was developed, as I recall.

That doesn’t invalidate a collision theory either. What could possibly accelerate Earth’s rotation besides a collision? It wouldn’t rotate that extremely simply from coalescence from the primordial soup.

Also, just because other theories exist doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid. The collision model seems to fit the most facts, as far as my meager understanding allows, so that’s what I’ll assume until better information follows.

[ Edited: 05 June 2012 11:39 AM by TromboneAndrew ]
 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2012-02-02
TromboneAndrew - 05 June 2012 11:37 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 09:43 AM

The possibility you’re overlooking is that the Earth’s rotation was faster than it is now, and this caused material to be flung off the Earth, forming the Moon.  That was the accepted theory before the collision model was developed, as I recall.

That doesn’t invalidate a collision theory either. What could possibly accelerate Earth’s rotation besides a collision?

]The Earth’s rotation is gradually slowing down due to the influence of the Moon.

It wouldn’t rotate that extremely simply from coalescence from the primordial soup.

Nor would it take the Earth spinning tremendously faster for the Moon to be spun off.  If the Earth and the Moon weren’t glommed together all that well to begin with, then the two of them breaking apart doesn’t require a collision.  Furthermore, one of the arguments used against an object whacking the Earth to create the Moon is Mars.  Something whacked Mars in the Northern Hemisphere hard enough that the material loss from the collision is such that the Southern Hemisphere is larger than the Northern Hemisphere.  Earth doesn’t show a similar distortion to its shape that Mars does.

Also, just because other theories exist doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid.

No, but given that Schmidt is a highly trained geologist, who has experience with the Moon that no other geologist currently has, I’m inclined to at least give him a listen.  Dismissing his theories on the basis of his political views or for his comments on an area outside of his specialization in science is akin to tossing out communication satellites, because their inventor, Arthur C. Clarke, started babbling, near the end of his life, about seeing NASA photos of Martian lifeforms.

The collision model seems to fit the most facts, as far as my meager understanding allows, so that’s what I’ll assume until better information follows.

So long as you’re not dogmatic about it. wink

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 09:43 AM

The possibility you’re overlooking is that the Earth’s rotation was faster than it is now, and this caused material to be flung off the Earth, forming the Moon.  That was the accepted theory before the collision model was developed, as I recall.

There are, no doubt, other theories as well, that just happens to be the one I can recall off the top of my head.

That does not seem to make sense. The physics doesn’t work. For a body to aggregate in space by the coalescence of smaller bodies the net angular momentum would have to be less than that required to pull the body apart.

In other words you cant propose that there was enough gravity to pull a body together but then propose that it wasn’t strong enough to keep it together.

The only way a body can “fling” material into space once it has formed is if the rate of rotation sped up dramatically after the body formed and the only way this can happen in our neck of the woods would be if another body struck the original body in a glancing manner to increase the rotational rate.

It seems that would lead us back to the collision theory of formation.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4270
Joined  2010-08-15

Ok you guys have made this an interesting discussion, and I’m only marginally familiar with astronomy and astrophysics but a lot of that article didn’t make sense given what I know.

I’ve never heard that Venus is half as young as the other planets, where did that come from?

I’ve never heard any theory that Venus is the product of a collision, where did that come from?

If Earth had been nudged out of a smaller orbit,
wouldn’t that have added a bit of instability into our orbit that astronomers would have known and wondered about?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4270
Joined  2010-08-15
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 05:47 PM

No, but given that Schmidt is a highly trained geologist, who has experience with the Moon that no other geologist currently has, I’m inclined to at least give him a listen.  Dismissing his theories on the basis of his political views or for his comments on an area outside of his specialization in science is akin to tossing out communication satellites, because their inventor, Arthur C. Clarke, started babbling, near the end of his life, about seeing NASA photos of Martian lifeforms.

Perhaps, but I’m not sure what the brightest geologist could have observed about Moon collision or orbital changes, not sure I buy the “geologists eyes” bit in this particular instance.

Other than that, sorry, and you know as a kid of the 60s and into the Space Program he was one of my heroes but no more, given his dishonest discourses on climatology.
Can’t help it, I’m really up to here, listening to these various “great scientists” utterly misrepresent and misdirect, and commit lies of omission and a few of commission when it come to portraying climatology that I could puke.  sick

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2012 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2012-02-02
macgyver - 05 June 2012 06:58 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 05 June 2012 09:43 AM

The possibility you’re overlooking is that the Earth’s rotation was faster than it is now, and this caused material to be flung off the Earth, forming the Moon.  That was the accepted theory before the collision model was developed, as I recall.

There are, no doubt, other theories as well, that just happens to be the one I can recall off the top of my head.

That does not seem to make sense. The physics doesn’t work. For a body to aggregate in space by the coalescence of smaller bodies the net angular momentum would have to be less than that required to pull the body apart.

In other words you cant propose that there was enough gravity to pull a body together but then propose that it wasn’t strong enough to keep it together.

The only way a body can “fling” material into space once it has formed is if the rate of rotation sped up dramatically after the body formed and the only way this can happen in our neck of the woods would be if another body struck the original body in a glancing manner to increase the rotational rate.

It seems that would lead us back to the collision theory of formation.

The standard model is that the Earth was basically already formed (though considerably much larger than it is today) when Theia kranged into it, skipping off somewhere out into space, while hunks of the Earth and Theia globbed together to form the Moon.  The theory I was talking about has the Moon splitting off much earlier in the Earth’s formation, when it hadn’t begun to take its final shape.  Its rate of rotation was different than it is today, and the material that became the Moon was only loosely aggregated with the material of the Earth.  (As a side note, because of their low gravity most asteroids do not have large hunks of ore inside them, the material is instead, randomly distributed about their interiors, so the guys planning to mine asteroids are going to have to sift through a lot of material to get to the stuff they want.)  There’s a few other theories about the formation of the Moon, but I don’t recall any of the details of them to comment about them.

If you want to be technical about it, everything in the solar system (and the universe, for that matter) owes its existence various objects colliding together.

I’m not going to pretend that I fully understand the science between all the various theories, so don’t take anything I say as gospel on the matter.  The formation of the solar system was a fairly chaotic process and we have yet to fully grasp the necessary physics involved.  As we improve our ability to observe things in the universe with telescopes like Hubble and the James Webb, we can expect to see changes in the theories about planetary formation.  (I can remember when I was a kid the standard theory of solar system formation held that the reason the innermost planets of our solar system were rocky, while the outer planets were gas giants was that the pressure from the solar wind blew the gases away from the inner solar system and that no gas giants could form very close to a star.  We now know that to be incorrect.)

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Success!      Meat? ››