- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:29 pm
- Location: Netherlands (Nederland, Holland)
First the gravity plays hardly any role according to them as the collision velocity was relatively slow.
Then when the impact occurred gravity plays an huge role according to them as the second moon gets flattened out over half of the first moon in just 2 hours.
As for not finding any resources on it any more. It is probably all removed because theory was so flawed it is ridiculous that it was published at first at all
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanks Jim, but even with those images of the animation, I still can't figure it out in relation to my 2nd point of contention.
I just cannot see how the subsurface shock-wave from the 2 sphereoids colliding would drive the KREEP (Potassium, Rare Earth Elements & Phosporus) and the OOS (Orthopyroxene, Olivine, and Mg‐Al spinel) to an area at 90° from the direction from the initial impact...and only on one "face".
I noticed the author of that article concluded the event might have been "much like what happened to the asteroid Vesta". I saw the Vesta pics on a different page of the newspaper.
I wondered how the mainstreamers would explain the connected 6 crater chain...
or the roughly hexagonal impression of the chain's largest crater.
Looks carved by electric discharge to me.
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
new analysis of a lunar rock brought back by the 1972 Apollo 16 mission suggests that the moon could be tens of millions of years younger than previously thought. Another possibility, scientists say, is that current models of how the moon cooled in its early years may be totally wrong.
Using three separate dating techniques that measure the ratios of lead, neodymium, and samarium isotopes, the researchers estimate that the rock had crystallized about 4.36 billion years ago, plus or minus 3 million years, they report online today in Nature. These analyses are the first to produce consistent ages from multiple dating techniques on the same moon rock, the scientists contend. "This is the first really reliable age for this suite of rocks," Borg says.
(their emphasis)So, the researchers claim, the extraordinarily young age for the lunar sample means that either the moon solidified significantly later than most previous estimates or current models of how the moon's crust formed are incorrect.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 64a8eddd48
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:12 am
Gee, all you'd need to bring this mystery to ground would be to accept the possibility of magnetism's companion, electricity.Known about since the Renaissance, lunar swirls came under increased scrutiny after orbiting satellites in the 1960s noticed that they tended to be associated with magnetic fields. Unlike the Earth’s large global magnetic field, these lunar magnetic fields are small local phenomena that are strewn more or less randomly on its surface. Wherever researchers find lunar swirls, they find these magnetic fields.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... es+2%29%29
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
These guys are just making stuff up now. Whatever happened to plain old science?generating heat that turned the surrounding area magnetic
Both paramagnetism and ferromagnetism decrease with temperature and disappear altogether at particular transition temperatures. Bulk magnetism is a consequence of ordering in materials. Adding heat increases disorder.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am
"The moon "spoon-dynamo" is temporarily switched off, please come and visit another time."http://news.ucsc.edu/2011/11/lunar-dynamo.html
Ancient lunar dynamo may explain magnetized moon rocks
The presence of magnetized rocks on the surface of the moon, which has no global magnetic field, has been a mystery since the days of the Apollo program. Now a team of scientists has proposed a novel mechanism that could have generated a magnetic field on the moon early in its history.
The "geodynamo" that generates Earth's magnetic field is powered by heat from the inner core, which drives complex fluid motions in the molten iron of the outer core. But the moon is too small to support that type of dynamo, according to Christina Dwyer, a graduate student in Earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz. In the November 10 issue of Nature, Dwyer and her coauthors--planetary scientists Francis Nimmo at UC Santa Cruz and David Stevenson at the California Institute of Technology--describe how an ancient lunar dynamo could have arisen from stirring of the moon's liquid core driven by the motion of the solid mantle above it.
"This is a very different way of powering a dynamo that involves physical stirring, like stirring a bowl with a giant spoon," Dwyer said.
Dwyer and her coauthors calculated the effects of differential motion between the moon's core and mantle. Early in its history, the moon orbited the Earth at a much closer distance than it does today, and it continues to gradually recede from the Earth. At close distances, tidal interactions between the Earth and the moon caused the moon's mantle to rotate slightly differently than the core. This differential motion of the mantle relative to the core stirred the liquid core, creating fluid motions that, in theory, could give rise to a magnetic dynamo.
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:17 am
Wouldn't this lunar ionosphere be similar to electric comets?MYSTERY OF THE LUNAR IONOSPHERE: How can a world without air have an ionosphere? Somehow the Moon has done it. Lunar researchers have been struggling with this mystery for years, and they may have finally found a solution.
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Any positive ion structure might be considered as "grain",Wouldn't this lunar ionosphere be similar to electric comets?
Now when there accumulates a quantity sufficient to constitute a layer, and it is separated from an internal kernel by a relatively dielectric layer, then it would probably qualify as an 'ionosphere.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... onosphere/UV rays from the sun hit the grains and ionize them. According to their calculations, this process produces enough charge (positive grains surrounded by negative electrons) to create the observed ionosphere.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests