> carolb wrote:
> > Carol: Why are you assuming the moon was ‘placed’ in orbit
> > an extraterrestrial agency? Which is more likely to have
> > happened – a group of aliens maneuvered a 2,160-mile
> > body into orbit around earth, or it was formed by collision
> > with a Mars-sized body early in the history of the solar
> > system, when such collisions were commonplace, as evidenced
> > the pock-marked surfaces of all the rocky planets, moons and
> > asteroids?
> I am not "assuming" anything, so please do not put words in my
Carol: I’m not ‘putting words into your mouth’. I’m paraphrasing your argument. After all, it was you, not me who stated: “how would one put an orbiting body around a planet?” This suggests you assume it was indeed placed there, and is not natural.
I am offering an alternative hypothesis to the woefully
> inadequate explanation offered by science.
> A collision from a double mass Mars size body (Theia) that hit
> perfectly once, swung back in the reverse direction and hit
> perfectly again leaving no trace of its existence on the Moon,
> Earth, or neighboring space, despite this theory requiring at
> least 40% of the Moon to be made up of this body. If another
> body was responsible for the Moon it would have its own unique
> material signature but it is simply not there.
> The Giant Impact theory is all but dead leaving no viable
> scientific explanation. If there is a perfectly natural
> explanation for the moon, the "Big Whack" theory is not it.
Carol: It’s still a theory, but it’s the one that best suits the facts as they are known at present. It’ll be refined as more knowledge comes to light, as is always the case in astronomy. Just because it’s not 100% accurate right now doesn’t mean that it never will be, nor that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the right one.
> What is more likely; that the Earth is the center of the solar
> system or the Sun?
> What is more likely; that megalithic culture dates back to at
> least 9,000BC or is "impossible" it existed prior to 3,500BC?
> > As the moon’s composition is similar to earth’s, though in
> > different distributions, are we to assume the aliens knew
> > earth’s composition beforehand, and manufactured or found a
> > moon that would match the earth in composition?
> Why would they need to know "beforehand"? It was obviously
> formed from material in the Earth zone so I'm not sure what you
> are asking unless you are putting words in my mouth again
> assuming it was towed in from outside the solar system.
Carol: I’m not ‘putting words into your mouth’. I’m paraphrasing your argument. It was you, not I that suggested “the introduction of the Moon into Earth’s orbit, …..the product of a concerted extraterrestrial effort to terraform the Earth.” That would suggest ‘towing’.
> > Are you sure that Mars is going to be ‘terraformed’ 100
> > from now? Are you sure we have anything like the
> > resources or will to do such a thing? Mars orbit is already
> > stable – why would it need another moon to stabilize what is
> > already stable? Where would we get a large moon from?
> Are you sure it won't be? Are you sure we won't have this
> technology in 100yrs? What would you have said 100yrs ago when
> you were driving into town on your horse and buggy because you
> couldn't afford one of them newfangled Ford Model T "motor
> cars" if I told you 60yrs later man would be walking on the
> Moon? And don't forget that the first Wright brothers flight
> was only 10yrs earlier and that Model T you couldn't afford was
> only available 5yrs before. You would have thought I was crazy.
> Why don't you educate yourself and look back 100-150yrs ago and
> see what advancements are possible so that you won't make such
> shallow arguments. Regardless, I give "100yrs" as an example,
> but once again you focus on the straw-man argument. Make it
> 200yrs if that makes you feel better. You do know that
> scientists theorize this same exact scenario right? This isn't
> science fiction.
Carol: I wouldn’t hold my breath. We haven’t been back to the moon in over 40 years, and there’s no intention of putting a man on Mars, let alone terraforming the planet, anytime soon. There’s a vast difference between modernizing modes of transport here on earth over a 100 year period, and developing, testing, inventing, experimenting, running trials, etc. on something as daring as sending a group of astronauts on a dangerous journey of six months’ duration to another planet….and that’s only the first visit I’m talking about.
Terraforming a planet one-third the size of Earth is an undertaking far greater than that. I still find it hard to imagine there’s the will, the resources and, most important, the money to do such a thing, given the economic dire straits of most countries here on Earth. What would be the point of it?
It’s funding that’s keeping us from returning to the moon. Where’s the funding going to come from to terraform Mars, an undertaking vastly more demanding and expensive?
> Sorry, but Mars has a very eccentric orbit, though it is the
> rotation that is relevant here not orbit; but an adequately
> sized moon is required to terraform Mars for the same reasons
> the Earth is required to have such a moon. Life can't exist on
> Earth as we know it without the Moon and yet you can't
> understand if we terraformed Mars why it would need to have a
> > As for ‘who’ maneuvered the moon into position, no, I didn’t
> > expect you knew who did.
> So I was right to question your motives.
Carol: If you suggest something as ‘Hoaglandesque’ as steering a giant moon into orbit, it’s not unreasonable to ask who you thought did it.
> > Carol: The point of what?
Carol: I have no idea what that means.
> > Carol: Yes, a total eclipse, but not an annular one.
> So what? Who said anything about it needing to be annular?
Carol: You originally said: “it is this phenomenon (the phenomenon of the moon and the sun being approximately the same angular size) that allows the Moon to perfectly cover the Sun during an eclipse allowing us to view the corona.”
You didn’t specify what type of eclipse you meant, and didn’t mention (or didn’t know) that the ‘cover’ isn’t perfect during an annular eclipse. As the moon continues to recede from earth, there’ll come a time when total eclipses will no longer be visible. Annular and partial will be the only types we see.
> > Carol: The moon’s albedo is only about 7% - it’s not really
> > very reflective at all.
> Yes, but its proximity to Earth makes it very "luminous", a
> better choice of words, to us down here which is a great
> benefit to life.
Carol: A full moon, yes, but the other phases aren’t all that luminous.
> > The Moon is in the exact spot it is required to be, no
> > > other place it could be, for Earth to be what it is. The
> > > is also the only orbiting body in the solar system with a
> > > stationary ( one side perpetually facing its host) and
> > > near-perfect circular orbit.
> > Carol: No, not true. Most moons are in synchronous orbit
> > around their parent planet. The exceptions are the
> > outer moons of the giant planets. And the moon's orbit is
> > elliptical, not near-perfectly circular.
> Who said synchronous? I said "stationary" meaning only one side
> faces Earth.
Carol: The correct term to describe the rotation of a moon that presents the same face to its parent planet is indeed ‘synchronous’.
A stationary orbit is something different – it’s also called a geostationary orbit. It refers to a body, such as a satellite, that orbits the earth in the same period as the earth rotates, thus appearing to hover above the same location on earth all the time: [www.thefreedictionary.com] The moon doesn't do this.
And you’ve ignored the fact that the moon is not unique in having a synchronous orbit. I pointed out to you that all the moons of the planets, with the exception of the outer, irregular moons of the giant planets, have synchronous orbits.
And no, wrong again, the Moon's orbit is "nearly
Carol: OK, but ‘nearly circular’ is still elliptical. When I wrote that I had in mind the fact that apogee and perigee moons are notably different in size to an astronomer, and the ‘supermoon’ phenomenon that gets the media all excited each year wouldn’t make the news if the orbit were circular.
> > Carol: The origins of life on earth aren’t dependent only on
> > the moon. Conditions on earth itself have to be taken into
> > account.
> Oyyy. At best life as was present prior to 600,000,000yrs could
> exist without the Moon, which is the point I am making which
> you ignore, but complex life as it exists after the
> Pre-Cambrian explosion could not.
Carol: I won’t argue that point, as I don’t know enough about biology to do so.
> > Carol: Which law of the universe is earth breaking by being
> > alone among the rocky planets in having such a moon?
> I never said it was breaking the laws of physics, once again
> putting words in my mouth, but obviously it is highly unusual
> isn't it? Hmmm, gas giants all have many moons, but except for
> Earth rocky planets have none. Aren't we lucky.
Carol: I didn’t put words into your mouth, and didn’t even mention the word ‘physics’. I could say that it’s you that’s putting words in my mouth! Again, I was paraphrasing your argument.
So what if we’re the only rocky planet with a large moon? Your sense of incredulity that we do have such a moon seems to suggest you think there was design and intent in placing it there, rather than it happening naturally.
> > Carol: It’s complex, but not impossible, and although it
> > some questions unanswered, it’s a lot more plausible than
> > ‘aliens did it’. Some supporting evidence:
> Yes, I like to say "aliens did it" for every anomaly because
> I'm just a dumb alien lover. Give me a moment while I adjust my
> tin-foil hat.
> Wikipedia-that explains a lot.
Carol: Sneering sarcasm doesn’t advance your argument one bit. In fact, it does the opposite. It weakens it, and makes the arguer look foolish.
> But here is direct evidence (again) against
> > Carol: But you're suggesting that the aliens set it up for
> > capture. How did they push it there then, slow it down and
> > make sure earth captured it and held it in its present orbit?
> > Its sheer size would make this difficult, if not impossible,
> > according to what you’ve just quoted above.
> How do we do it with any object? Its only a matter of scale. In
> reference to Asimov's statement, which is true, this excludes a
> "controlled" capture, i.e. placement. But once again you limit
> your thinking to what is possible based on what we are capable
> of doing today as if this is just it and yet scientists as we
> speak are theorizing how to accomplish these exact same things.
> Ironic don't you think? Glad everyone doesn't think like you
> otherwise you'd still be driving around in that horse and
Carol: See my comment on sarcasm above.
Again, you’re assuming that the moon being where it is cannot be natural, and that someone must have ‘put’ it there, without offering any evidence that this is true, or any proposed means to do such a thing.
> Regardless, I offered an alternative hypothesis which you can
> take it for what its worth, don't really care, and as other
> posters have suggested if this discussion is to continue it
> should be done in its own thread.
I replied only to defend myself against your arguments and point out your errors. If you don’t want to respond any further, that’s OK with me.