The History of the Universe in 8 minutes:

Insult him; nonsense.

You are afraid of the truth of his answer. Which he nor anybody knows how.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for doing river's job dmoe.
At this stage I doubt Asimov's claims simply because of the already validated scenario which he questions......
"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."


And other sites concerning Asimov make no mention of it......
http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/essay_guide.html

http://www.mountainman.com.au/i_asimov.html
The Triple Triumph of the Moon
by
Isaac Asimov

In fact the other only reference I am able to find is at.....
https://reptilianilluminati.wordpress.com/tag/isaac-asimov/
Obviously another questionable site.

I'll let others comment of the reputability of the site you have given, but I certainly doubt the science so far espoused by Asimov.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Afraid? Don't be daft river. You are the one that has been afraid to give a reference. And now another has had to pick up your baggage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The following raises a few eyebrows.....
from dmoe's link......
"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."
NOTE: WITHIN MY PERMITTED LIMITS OF A TRUE Satellite

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears Asimov may have been slightly more eccentric than I thought.

And another raising eyebrows moment.....
"Well, I have an objection
to that".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quite questionable indeed!
I had given Asimov more credit than that.I was wrong.

 

Your agenda is holding you back river.
We all know that the capture of the Moon is not known with any certainty, and I said that way back up in post 43 thus......

You need to do better and keep up with what's being said river.

 

Density of course would be a major player which Asimov did not mention [strange]
The Moon's density= 3.34g/cm3
The Earth's density= 5.51g/cm3


Some answers here also which could have a bearing.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134819/how-can-a-planet-gravitationally-capture-objects

All in all, I think that firstly your link is questionable, and secondly, Asimov was wrong obviously.

 

You're not having fun pad? Sorry about that. You asked for a critique of Tyson's video. I rendered it.

This 'Unified Field Theory' of which Tyson speaks is just a dippy chalk line where fundamental forces settle into stable pools. There is no such theory yet. If that diagram impresses you, well, you are just easily impressed. There would need to be a reason the curve was that shape that does not depend on how the other forces are behaving. He hasn't published a paper on that particular theory, although he is otherwise well published in science, particularly astronomy as one would expect, and academia. It's just this video of his that doesn't pass science muster.

I'm certain this video probably goes over well with his audiences at the planetarium, and it also has the virtue of being quite short, no doubt a quality that is good for moving folks through the various displays and presentations quickly.

As per usual, you never answer a direct question or response to one of yours directly, so just forget it. Don't ask for an opinion if you don't really want one.

 

Sure I asked for opinions. It is just so clear how you criticise any established popular scientists.
And coming from a nobody, it is twice as obvious.
Oh, and which question did you want me to answer?
It must be terrible to be like the cocky on the biscuit tin:You know, outside looking in...Try embracing science, and ignore your inner feelings of vengeance and anger.
This particular rant was not as irrational as your past Thorne tirade, but still highly baseless and questionable.

 

Where does that CURVE Tyson used come from?

 

That makes no sense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...

try these : http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/603746.Of_Time_Space_and_Other_Things
http://www.asimovreviews.net/Books/Book064.html
http://topread.bestbook.website/books/603746.Of_Time_Space_and_Other_Things.html

then maybe READ THIS ONE : http://ebook12.com/of-time-space-an...me-and-space-7-just-mooning-around-993606.htm
" Part I Of Time And Space 7. Just Mooning Around" can be 'clicked-on' @ : http://ebook12.com/243256/of-time-space-and-other-things.htm

..."questionable"!!??..."wrong"!!??..."obviously"!!??


...

 

No his claims are questionable most certainly.
It appears that Asimov was somewhat askew with his science on the Earth/Moon system.
He was and is totally wrong in the claims in question.
Show me a non Asimov link that supports any stupid notion that the Earth/Moon gravitational system is unexplainable.
Like I said...he is wrong.

 

Then show the website that supports that Asimov was wrong.

 

http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/uc/earth/4/uce4_2a.html

http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoongravity.htm

http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoongravity.htm

http://www.das.uchile.cl/~mhamuy/moon.html


http://www.space.com/55-earths-moon-formation-composition-and-orbit.html

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides03_gravity.html

 

THIS one:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This curve is as SOLID AS A ROCK while every force in the universe changes. What is it that causes it to be so solid and deterministic, paddoboy? What force or feature of the universe does that?

Remember, this is supposed to represent a UNIFIED FIELD THEORY that someone has worked out. A unified field theory can explain the way all of the forces are related and/or united in arbitrary detail. Does it?

 

The thing is pad none of the sites tell how the Earth was capable of capturing the moon in the first place.

 

Asimov was a great Sci/Fi writer and a scientist.
I did not know too much more about him until now. It appears he has questionable unproven and in fact invalidated hypothesis about the Earth/Moon system.
He is certainly wrong and totally unsupported in his claims re the Earth/Moon system.
One of his claims in dmoe's link was that the Moon was not moving away from Earth, when in fact that has been measured and verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment#Results
Lunar laser ranging measurement data is available from the Paris Observatory Lunar Analysis Center,[8] and the active stations. Some of the findings of this long-term experiment are:

• The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year.[6] This rate has been described as anomalously high.[9]
• The Moon probably has a liquid core of about 20% of the Moon's radius.[3]
• The universal force of gravity is very stable. The experiments have constrained the change in Newton's gravitational constant G to (2±7)×10−13 per year. [10]
• The likelihood of any "Nordtvedt effect" (a differential acceleration of the Moon and Earth towards the Sun caused by their different degrees of compactness) has been ruled out to high precision,[11][12] strongly supporting the validity of theStrong Equivalence Principle.
• Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) predicts the Moon'sorbit to within the accuracy of the laser ranging measurements.[3]

 

gravity
And of course the accepted model was the collision theory which seems to have flown over your head.

 

??? The curve is a simplistic graph that shows the superforce breaking as pressures and temperatures dropped..first gravity, than the strong.
He also mentions in that period [which you would have realised if you weren't so emotional about our science popularisers] that this era 10-31 seconds is speculative.
Did you listen? Or did you just automatically apply your silly agenda immediatley? Think about it.

 

To this point, paddoboy, the only person that has Posted the "stupid notion that the Earth/Moon gravitational system is unexplainable." is...you...

As far as a Earth "Capturing" the Moon - is this site "Reputable" : http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html

" Question: Where did the Moon come from?

Answer: Any theory which explains the existence of the Moon must naturally explain the following facts:
The Moon's low density (3.3 g/cc) shows that it does not have a substantial iron core like the Earth does.
Moon rocks contain few volatile substances (e.g. water), which implies extra baking of the lunar surface relative to that of Earth.
The relative abundance of oxygen isotopes on Earth and on the Moon are identical, which suggests that the Earth and Moon formed at the same distance from the Sun.

Various theories had been proposed for the formation of the Moon. Below these theories are listed along with the reasons they have since been discounted.

The Fission Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the solar system. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came. This theory was thought possible since the Moon's composition resembles that of the Earth's mantle and a rapidly spinning Earth could have cast off the Moon from its outer layers. However, the present-day Earth-Moon system should contain "fossil evidence" of this rapid spin and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.

The Capture Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was formed somewhere else in the solar system, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth. The Moon's different chemical composition could be explained if it formed elsewhere in the solar system, however, capture into the Moon's present orbit is very improbable. Something would have to slow it down by just the right amount at just the right time, and scientists are reluctant to believe in such "fine tuning". Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.

The Condensation Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon and the Earth condensed individually from the nebula that formed the solar system, with the Moon formed in orbit around the Earth. However, if the Moon formed in the vicinity of the Earth it should have nearly the same composition. Specifically, it should possess a significant iron core, and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.

There is one theory which remains to be discussed, and it is widely accepted today.

The Giant Impactor Theory (sometimes called The Ejected Ring Theory): This theory proposes that a planetesimal (or small planet) the size of Mars struck the Earth just after the formation of the solar system, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually stuck together to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated. Furthermore, we see evidence in many places in the solar system that such collisions were common late in the formative stages of the solar system. This theory is discussed further below. "
- all ^^above^^ quoted from : http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html

...