How long have we had a moon?

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Ziggy21 Slade wrote:

The gravity of the earth drags things towards it, thats how we remain standing on the surface, its why we need rockets to get into orbit, and its why if I dropped a huge lead weight on your head, you would have a terrible headache and not a nice view of my lead weight flying off into space.

 

---

[Ceka Cianci]

we have had a moon for many moons now..

[Lucinda Bulloch]

Well to prove that is a different matter, in fact there is very little that can be proved so making the theory described valid, it would be nice if it could be disproved without people resorting to insults, but there again maybe that is what it is all about, do you think I have been treated unfairly by some here, maybe they take any excuse, don't know.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

Well to prove that is a different matter, in fact there is very little that can be proved so making the theory described valid, it would be nice if it could be disproved without people resorting to insults, but there again maybe that is what it is all about, do you think I have been treated unfairly by some here, maybe they take any excuse, don't know.

---

i haven't read the thread..just the OP..

so i really can't say how anyone is being treated..

my response was to show that i pretty much don't know how long we have had a moon or if it was always there.. hehehe

[ROB34466IIIa]

ETA : .. not an insult .. just to prove there can be water on the moon indeed :robotwink:

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

I don't believe in such silly things, leave that for kids.

---

Oh, that's fine then.

[Madelaine McMasters]

There are now thousands of seismometers around the globe, routinely recording both natural and man-made seismic activity. Just as expectant mothers can get li'l pictures of their unborn children via ultrasound, we can "triangulate" the recorded seismic data to probe the Earth's core. The data shows a core of molten iron, which thankfully explains our wandering magnetic field and the geologic evidence of plate tectonic drift.

Your centrifuge analogy is flawed. The school centrifuge spins test tubes full of liquid. As you state, the denser things in suspension in the liquid in the tube settle to the "bottom" because of their own inertia (centrifugal force is conceptual, not actual). Curiously, the surface of Earth is covered by air and surrounded by a vacuum, both of which appear to be consisiderably less dense than the ground we're standing on. What do you imagine would happen if you replaced the centrifuge's test tubes with air and just poured liquid straight into the machine?

Or do you imagine that the Earth is surrounded by a large transparent glass sphere which keeps us from flying off the surface? I do rather like this theory and will start scanning the skies for the passage of a giant "PYREX" label. If we believe we've launched satellites and people into orbit, we'll have to come up with an explanation for how they got through the sphere, won't we? If you haven't thought of this Pyrex sphere theory, may I claim it. I'd like to name it MAD for "Madelaine's Atmospheric Dome".

Yes, I'm vain.

[Lucinda Bulloch]

They have never got a wave to penetrate the core, the only waves they did pick up implied it was gas so they ignored it, as for the centrifuge that was discussed on the Xmas lectures shown on the BBC showing that there is an argument for the core to be liquid iron, metallic hydrogen or gas, seems I am a lot more well read than you.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

I am a lot more well read than you.

---

We may be on to something here. I don't imagine there's enough light to read by at the bottom of a well.

[Sy Beck]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 If you haven't thought of this Pyrex sphere theory, may I claim it. I'd like to name it MAD for "Madelaine's Atmospheric Dome".

Yes, I'm vain.

---

 

No, no.  Surely, "Pyrex Installed Envelope" -  In The Sky

[Lucinda Bulloch]

ty for proving my point, as you all will do in time.

 

PS why are all the heavy elements on or near the surface of the earth, lol, lol,.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

ty for proving my point, as you all will do in time.

---

My pleasure.

[JeanneAnne]

Moons been there about 4 bys. It was created when something about the size of Mars hit the Ocean Planet & tore the moon loose. Moon's density is about the same as the OP's crust .. there's little Fe in the moon .. Which means that the impact didn't involve the core .. just crust & mantle material.

Jeanne

[Ceka Cianci]

just lurking on this one hehehe..don't mind me..it's an  intresting topic but also seems to be filled with action packed adventure as well..

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 If you haven't thought of this Pyrex sphere theory, may I claim it. I'd like to name it MAD for "Madelaine's Atmospheric Dome".

Yes, I'm vain.

---

 

No, no.  Surely, "

P

yrex

I

nstalled

E

nvelope" -  In The Sky

---

Go away! I'm feeding my vanity here, Sy. I have no tolerance for cleverness.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Little Fe's in the moon?  I wondered where she'd gone.

[Lucinda Bulloch]

OK so for 4 billion years it has been inactive, agree?

In that case the surface rocks scatted about can't be moon rocks can they, most of the rocks on its surface must be from somewhere else, as it is covered in impact sites it would seem that its has been scattered in rocks from all over, so implies how do you tell a moon rock from something that landed there, this fact is ignored so make one think that they know the so called moon samples are in fact earth samples and they don't have any sample of rock from the moon, because they cant go there and drill under the crust that is covered in rock from elsewhere they will never know.

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

OK so for 4 billion years it has been inactive, agree?

In that case the surface rocks scatted about can't be moon rocks can they, most of the rocks on its surface must be from somewhere else, as it is covered in impact sites it would seem that its has been scattered in rocks from all over, so implies how do you tell a moon rock from something that landed there, this fact is ignored so make one think that they know the so called moon samples are in fact earth samples and they don't have any sample of rock from the moon, because they cant go there and drill under the crust that is covered in rock from elsewhere they will never know.

---

Wrong again .. a projectile with high velocity impacting on another object will always cause material from the larger object to be thrusted outward raining down on itself (impact crater).

The projectile itself barely survives the high velocity impact and gets mostly dissolved into the object or simply evaporates into the atmosphere (if present at all) or space.

What astronauts brought down is most certainly material that' s native to the planet(oid).

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Just like 'mercans and everyone else really - everything comes from somewhere else originally.

So all those terra-lunans and martian-lunans have to deal with the Irish-lunans and Gitano-lunans (I am assured that wherever you go you'll find them there already).  It's almost as if we are all stardust.

[Sy Beck]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

OK so for 4 billion years it has been inactive, agree?

In that case the surface rocks scatted about can't be moon rocks can they, most of the rocks on its surface must be from somewhere else, as it is covered in impact sites it would seem that its has been scattered in rocks from all over, so implies how do you tell a moon rock from something that landed there, this fact is ignored so make one think that they know the so called moon samples are in fact earth samples and they don't have any sample of rock from the moon, because they cant go there and drill under the crust that is covered in rock from elsewhere they will never know.

---

Quite the opposite in fact.  Meteorites hit the moon's surface and depending on speed and density will more than likely bury themselves into the surface causing an eruption and shattering of surface and sub-surface material upwards and outwards or the meteorite will dissolve to dust on impact.

 

[Lucinda Bulloch]

Think this is the right time to add this.

A lot of the impacts seems to have been done during in a short time.

Also there are what appear to be old lava flows or mares

this implies that once the moon was active once but something happened to it that caused it to be peppered badly then become in active.

This could be explained by it leaving the orbit of a brown dwarf and entering an orbit around us, now 64 million years ago a spilt opened up in Russia, 100's of miles long and wide, it covered India in a mile layer of lava, the event was huge and poisoned the sea for 200,000 years, I know you think that a meteor did, that's cos the US didn't want Russia having the glory for the extinction event.

No one can explain that event, it killed almost all life on the planet and for 100,000 years was covering most of Russia and all of India in lava.

Again this can be explained by a very large body coming close to us and entering an orbit with us.

[Lucinda Bulloch]

So that all the meteor hunters out of business then, lol, still don't explain how you tell what is what, you think guessing is the best way, LOL.

[Sy Beck]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

So that all the meteor hunters out of business then, lol, still don't explain how you tell what is what, you think guessing is the best way, LOL.

---

I'll 'fess up and admit it's all to do with the Annunaki who will shortly return aboard planet Nibiru.  Who on Dec 21st will reveal themselves as the genetic creators of all life on Earth, charge up the pyramids, show us zero point energy uses for our digital watches, crown David Icke as the Lizard King ruler of Earth and install the Illuminati as his counsel of advisors and the 11 secret herbs and spices in a KFC will be given unto all of us.

Happy now?

 

All this is verified by You Tube videos...so there.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

OK so for 4 billion years it has been inactive, agree?

In that case the surface rocks scatted about can't be moon rocks can they, most of the rocks on its surface must be from somewhere else, as it is covered in impact sites it would seem that its has been scattered in rocks from all over, so implies how do you tell a moon rock from something that landed there, this fact is ignored so make one think that they know the so called moon samples are in fact earth samples and they don't have any sample of rock from the moon, because they cant go there and drill under the crust that is covered in rock from elsewhere they will never know.

---

Yeah, the moon is tectonically inactive .. Mostuv the material on the surface is going to be impact detritus .. Big impacts tho.. will throw out debris from deeper below the surface .. Ocean Planets crust & mantle, moon & asteroid material are all basically the same stuff tho .. mineral compounds composed of lighter elements that accreted around Sol under gravity

Jeanne

[Ziggy21 Slade]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

So that all the meteor hunters out of business then, lol, still don't explain how you tell what is what, you think guessing is the best way, LOL.

---

Everything you have written is a guess, stop pretending to be educated it's embaressing, watching The Christmas Lecture does not make you 'well read'