> Carol: Why are you assuming the moon was ‘placed’ in orbit by
> an extraterrestrial agency? Which is more likely to have
> happened – a group of aliens maneuvered a 2,160-mile diameter
> 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 by
> the pock-marked surfaces of all the rocky planets, moons and
I am not "assuming" anything, so please do not put words in my mouth. 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.
[news.uchicago.edu]. 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.
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 the
> 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.
> Are you sure that Mars is going to be ‘terraformed’ 100 years
> from now? Are you sure we have anything like the technologies,
> 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.
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 moon?
> 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: The point of what?
> Carol: Yes, a total eclipse, but not an annular one.
So what? Who said anything about it needing to be annular?
> 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.
> 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 Moon
> > 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 irregular
> 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. And no, wrong again, the Moon's orbit is "nearly circular" [www.windows2universe.org]
> Carol: The origins of life on earth aren’t dependent only on
> the moon. Conditions on earth itself have to be taken into
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: 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: It’s complex, but not impossible, and although it leaves
> 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.
But here is direct evidence (again) against it:[news.uchicago.edu]
> 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 buggy.
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.
Post Edited (27-Jan-13 19:42)