On Nov 6, 9:54 am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
As our sun continually loses mass and Earth continually gains mass
(roughly 40e3 tonnes/year) could become an unfortunate trade-off, or a
tidal radius wash that'll not exactly help us when our sun starts to
die on us.
Of course, the odds of humanity making a go of it much past the next
thousand years is not exactly looking all that certain either. So
what's the difference.
On Nov 6, 10:54*am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
It is believe it was agglomerated from interstellar material, that is
coalesced from stuff located near our Sun, and was entirely molten at
the time the Sun "lit". No real "prehistory" has been found to
support loose aggregation.
Not likely. Evidence of heat, not cool.
It is believed so by many. It is comprised of the lighter elements.
We have "gravity history" dating back to when the Moon was separated
from the Earth by only a billion years or so. Nothing before this.
Possible very simple life. Single cells, perhaps. Exceedingly hot,
no evidence of water.
Sure. With increasing errors the further back you go.
Changes with time. Precesses with time.
No chance of looking for "exploded bits" where the collision might
have occurred, since they would also have been in various orbits.
On Nov 6, 10:07 am, [Only registered users see links. ].spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Except that our solar system is a fairly recent cosmic artifact, and
lord only knows how many times the Milky Way itself has gotten reborn
after encountering other rogue galaxies. Most of the Universe as
offering their surface solids as viable planets with a sufficient
composite crust that's covering their otherwise 98~99+% fluid orb, is
likely billions of years older than Earth.
The planet Venus is likely 99+% fluid, with something less than 1%
(perhaps as little as 0.5%) representing its surface crust. It just
doesn't add up to what our mainstream status quo (including yourself)
has been telling us.
On Nov 6, 1:28*pm, Double-A <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
Formation of the Moon as a spin-off from Earth (as opposed to a
separate accretion) is a recognized model. Note that tidal rhythmites
establish a recession of the Moon form the Earth at varying rates back
to about 2.2 Gy ago. Doesn't ensure that the Moon "spun off" the
Earth, but that it must have been accreted later than the Earth if it
did not spin off.
Do you wish to discuss the strong opinion you have stated here?
On Nov 6, 12:54*pm, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
No. The earth's orbit about the sun is elliptical, albeit of small
eccentricity. This means it's almost a circle, but with a slight
elongation. As a consequence, we're a bit closer to the sun in
January than we are in June.
Exactly, though there is not a whole lot of difference.
No. The shape doesn't change, but the ellipse does tend to precess
Supposedly, the sun and all the planets formed out of a rotating cloud
of gas and dust.
Not an asteroid as much as a so-called planetoid, about half the size
Supposedly the Earth.
Maybe, but probably only single celled organisms.
Celestial mechanics makes very accurate predictions of where
everything was and how it was moving going back billions of years. At
least back as far as about three billion years when everything was
finally settled into the stable configuration we see today.
The Earth is an extended body, so the answer would probably be no.
On Nov 6, 1:11*pm, dlzc <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
The Moon has no trace of atmosphere or moisture. It appears nothing
like the Earth. If it has always been in the vicinity of the Earth,
how did it lose its atmosphere so completely, while the Earth has so
much atmosphere and water? Because it is so much smaller? The dwarf
planet Ceres has only one third the diameter of our Moon and yet it
has an atmosphere. How do you explain that? I think our Moon was
once in an orbit that took it much closer to the Sun. It resembles
Mercury more thann anything else.