Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by MetaKron, Jun 8, 2006.
I'm just going to wait until July 5 to reply again to this thread...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
>> how much energy you would need to eject venus from the core.
Venus was ejected from the Sun
The Moon was ejected from Earth
Now you might see that Jupiter can only eject its moons.
For God's sake. If the moon can be ejected from the Earth, Venus can be ejected from Jupiter. You can't just pick some arbitrary line and say "this planet can do it and another can't." I have no idea how much energy it would take and no one here does either.
The Moon wasn't ejected; it coalesced from impact-blasted fragments. Its composition supports this. I am yet to see any evidence supporting your theory of Venus's origin. I also eagerly await answers to my questions.
Eburacum does. He already posted his estimation: 10^33 Joules.
I don't care anymore.
That's a sensible conclusion to an insensible prognostication.
What makes you think the moon was ejected from the Earth?
An alternative theory for Earth's moon formation is that initially the Earth-Moon system was a single cloud of hot gas (mostly Hydrogen) with two primary gravitational centers in orbit about each other. The heavier elemental admixture (iron, nickel, and everything else, in our current relative abundance for the solar system) in the hydrogen gas tended to spend more time around the larger gravitational center, preferentially enriching that region in heavier elements (mostly iron and nickel, some silicon and magnesium oxygen, etc.) Eventually the two regions became two separate spherical clouds, which formed the proto-earth and the proto-moon. Later, the Hydrogen (and Helium) was volatilized away by nearby OB stars (which have since drifted away as the large stellar nursery in which they evolved volatilized away) having high UV output, leaving behind the heavier gases on proto-earth, and no gases on proto-moon. During the initial phase of collapses of the two spherical clouds, the heavy elements would have 'rained out', forming molten inner balls, gravitationally stratified into an iron-nickel center and molten oxides mantle.
Anyway, so goes the theory, which seems preferrable to the alternative theory voiced that the moon was formed from mantle material that was ejected by an impact of a large planetary body on earth. How exactly did Earth become molten under small-rocks aggregating into larger rocks into planetismals, when such impacts do not provide enough heat to melt the rock (according to a recent Scientific American article on it)?
Under the first theory, the initial gas clouds for our solar system would have been hot due to large jets of super-hot super-nova stellar ejecta hitting cold Hydrogen clouds, setting the cloud spinning (due to an off-center impact of the ejecta), and over millions of years thoroughly mixing the heavier isotopes so that samples today are uniform in relative isotopic abundance, whether from the moon, mars, meteors or earth.
Wagner, it's a lot easier to get it right by dealing with physical evidence that points toward what did happen than it is to deal with theories that can't readily be tested. Physical evidence may point towards X-factors that some will simply declare to be impossible without knowing one way or the other, just because our understanding of science is still deficient and so is our math. It gets that way when they can't test the math. But they still think that they can say that a thing is impossible because they don't know how it's done. They've been like that forever, religious and scientific authority. That's why they are authorities and not innovators or discoverers. They sense this lack in theirselves, resent it, and take it out on those who are actually their superiors, but who they have made their apparent inferiors by fucking them around.
How did you get on with your father?
I'll have my telescope up and running tonight. bet it's an average evening Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey, if you spot a new planet "ZOB" would be a neat name for it - remember to give me the credit. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So, MetaKron. It's about eight minutes until five o'clock on the third of July in my part of the world. That means that if what you say is true, Jupiter will eject a new planet very soon. Here's hoping you're right not! haha!.
Well, look, this was a just for fun prediction. I believe in the mechanism. I also believe that unlikely events often coincide with dates that are significant to humans just because of the perversity that exists in real life.
I'm not backing down on the idea that this is the day that is most likely until the next time the spots pass each other. It would also have been a hell of a good science fiction book or movie but now it's a lost opportunity. As far as I know no one picked up on it in time. It could still work without the July 4 connection. How about December 12, 2012? 12-12-12. Whatever that is. It is passing strange that the end of the Mayan calendar might be on a date in the Christian Era calendar that has three twelves in it. I'm not at all surprised that it's the end of the Mayan calendar when all of its cycles come together. It's a calendar. They just start it over again. If they have a complete set of cycles already computed out, and the dates are determined by the place each cycle has in the calendar, then it's already written out for the next 52 million years. They might change the number at the top of the page, but what else would they have to do with it?
Funny how the dates of these things always get pushed back.
There's always an excuse as to why the prediction didn't come to pass.
It couldn't be that the whole idea is a load of crap, could it? Of course not.
Are you sure you're not just saying this now, now that the realization you might be wrong is creeping up on you?
Good for you, I suppose.
Unlikely events often coincide with dates that are significant to humans because there are few-- actually, no dates which aren't significant in some way.
Ignoring the flawed logic behind the very scenario you conjecture, I would say it's illogical to think the fourth of July is so special that a new planet would be formed all on this single date.
It's an arbitrary happening. There are several times in all calendars that humans have devised when such things as June 6th, 2006 and December 12th, 2012 happen. They mean nothing, and unlikely events are not statistically more or less likely to happen when 'special' events happen.
Not really. It's just a coincidence.
I think that the only reason to expect this to happen on the Fourth is because it doesn't make sense, and the universe doesn't always make sense. I said as much in the beginning. It's one of those coincidences that there can't possibly be a reason for but these things do happen. There is no way in hell that the Mayan calendar should line up so that it ends on 12-12-12, either, unless there are numerical patterns in common that someone hasn't gotten around to working out yet.
MetaKron, the Myan calandar was created before the one we use now, so the fact that thiers ends on 12-12-12 is our fault, not thiers. If we had been a day off in creating the damned thing, then the Mayan calendar would end on 12-13-12...and, of course, everyone would find some significance in that, too, I suppose.
It really is coincidence, and nothing else.
And just because I know nothing about this sort of stuff....
A new planet being "spat" out of another..is that how things work? And if it were, could it all happen in one day?
>> .is that how things work?
yep, radioactivity is a prime example
The Universe follows the same rules, OK ?
Separate names with a comma.