The History of the Universe in 8 minutes:

No its not.
What you claim Asimov said is most probably total bullshit.
Or do you have a reference other than the one that I presume [my previous post] you nabbed it from?
C'mon river, don't be so shy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most probably pad? So you have no idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure I do. The Moon accreted most likely from the debris after a planetary sized body collided with the Earth, a glancing blow 4.5 odd billion years ago.
Of course it still could have been captured not long after formation as a binary planetary system, we are not 100% sure.
You see no one has said that we know for sure. It's a scientific theory, based on available evidence, and may be modified in the future as observations and data improve. That's the scientific method.
Where you have shit yourself is claiming [1] that Asimov said it was impossible,[2] Taking it from a religious site, and [3] Not checking out a reputable site for yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't get pad. Proportionally the Earths gravity can not grasp or capture the moon.

 

I misinterpreted what you meant , sorry. You mean most probably with regards to what ASimov was supposed to have said.
I wasn't sure at first, correct, but the evidence coming from a nutty religious site, along with the other stupid claim on the site that Asimov also questioned the fact that the apparent size of the Moon and Sun are the same and why we have total eclipses.
That totally showed the site as total bullshit. Asimov would most certainly have known why the Moon and Sun are both apparently the same size. Basic physics and astronomy that be.
So yes your claim is a total furphy but I don't expect you to accept that, coming from someone as gullible as yourself that accepts Bigfoot, anal probing by Aliens, giants, ghosts etc.

 

I do get it. Your claim is total bullshit.
Do you have a reference for such a claim? [that's the third time I have asked]

 

According to who? Anti-science trolls?

 

Are you going to support your claim river?
Firstly, that the Earth could not have captured the Moon.
Secondly that Asimov said that.

 

Oh I see. So the moon captured by the Earth, has come to insults rather than science. Is this attitude helpful? NOT.

 

This question shows your lack of any real understanding of gravity.

 

The answer shows you as lacking intestinal fortitude to admit you made a stupid claim.
Or as I have asked four times, you could give me a reference?

 

Again river are you going to give me a reference that Earth is unable to gravitationally capture the Moon?
And can you give me a reputable reference that Asimov claimed that?
Or are you trolling.

 

.

Of course I'm the dumb one and you are not.

 

You are obliged by the forum's rules to give me a reference that I asked for.

 

.

Of course I'm the dumb one and you are not.

 

You are avoiding the question river.

 

Hey, he got something right.

 

What question?

That Earth can capture the moon?

I hope that Neil can answer this question. Don't you?

 

from : http://www.ebooktrove.com/Asimov, Isaac/Asimov, Isaac - Of Time and Space and Other Things.pdf

Of Time and Space and Other Things
by Isaac Asimov

" It is amazing, and very gratifying to me, to note how all
this makes such delightful sense, and how well I can reason
out the details of the satellite systems of the various
planets. It is such a shame that one small thing remains
unaccounted for; one trifling thing I have ignored so far,
but-
WHAT IN BLAZES IS OUR OWN MOON DOING
WAY OUT THERE?
It's too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth, if we
go by my beautiful chain of reasoning-which is too beautiful
for me to abandon. It's too big to have been captured
by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having
been effected and the Moon then having taken up a nearly
circular orbit about the Earth are too small to make such
an eventuality credible.
There are theories, of course, to the effect that the
Moon was once much closer to the Earth (within my permitted
limits for a true satellite) and then gradually moved
away as a result of tidal action. Well, I have an objection
to that. If the Moon were a true satellite that originally
had circled Earth at a distance of, say, 20,000 miles, it
would almost certainly be orbiting in the plane of Earth's
equator and it isn't.
But, then, if the Moon is neither a true satellite of the
Earth nor a captured one, what is it? This may surprise
you, but I have an answer; and to explain what that answer
is, let's get back to my tug-of-war determinations.
There is, after all, one satellite for which I have not calculated
it, and that is our Moon. We'll do that now. "
- .pdf page ~78/79 @ : http://www.ebooktrove.com/Asimov, Isaac/Asimov, Isaac - Of Time and Space and Other Things.pdf

 

I wouldn't insult him by asking such a basic question, since it originates from a typical anti science religious troll, and particularly when at best it is a misjudged quote from a dodgy site, without much thinking, or at worst down and out lie.
Now again, as per the forum rules, please supply me a reference where Asimov claims what you say he claims, and that the Earth's gravity cannot capture the Moon.