The History of the Universe in 8 minutes:

Here's a few more......
The first gives the few hypothesis that we have on the Moon.....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/moonform.html

http://www.space.com/19275-moon-formation.html

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/moon/capture_theory.html

http://www.mff.cuni.cz/veda/konference/wds/proc/pdf12/WDS12_318_f12_Franc.pdf

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/yss/display.cfm?ThemeID=28

http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/cpalma/astro10/class21.html

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/space/planets-solar-system/moon/origins/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt dmoe as I don't believe you have read all my posts and the claims re the Moon/Earth system I have made.
I have given many links that support the general consensus.
The argument here is river claiming that asimov is correct in saying the Earth should not have captured the Moon.
and other invalidated claims also such as the Moon is not moving away.
So try sticking to facts.
Asimov was and is wrong on near all counts.
That is what this is about.Which obviously supports the notion that all Äsimov"links are suspect to say the least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've given many links dmoe.You have picked one suspect.
My sincerest and deepest apologies for letting that slip.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now again this debate is about the Asimov claim that the Earth/Moon system is unexplainable. He is wrong.
Its about the Asimov claim that the Moon is not moving away. Again he is wrong.
Agreed?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you.

ps: Actually that site gives all the possible hypothesis that have been discussed dmoe. So its pretty reasonable, agreed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point again is how the Earths gravity captured the moon in the first place pad.

Everything else is moot.

 

I totally agree with that and have mentioned it in earlier posts.
Would you like me to find them?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No wrong.
The most popular theory today is the impact that I spoke of earlier and that is reproduced above.

 

...please...Cite and Please be so kind as to supply the full quote of this ..."One of his claims in dmoe's link was that the Moon was not moving away from Earth".
I have Read and Re-Read the link : http://www.ebooktrove.com/Asimov, Isaac/Asimov, Isaac - Of Time and Space and Other Things.pdf , and honestly I do not read any claim such as that.

I may be missing it, so could you Please...maybe just "Copy and Paste" the "claim" you are alluding to from that Link?

...please?

 

That is totally wrong.
Please show me where I support the Earth/Moon system as being unexplainable. I have argued exactly the opposite.
Please read all posts.

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

...[/QUOTE]

 

I have heard of this before; many times. But the thing is how has Earth captured the moon.

If there was a collision between the Earth and some other celestial body; the Earth still needs the gravity to pull against; to pull back, the body that was sent into space.

The Earth however is not large enough to do so. Earths gravity is not able to do this.

 

Gravity ol son, gravity.
The Moon was a lot closer and coalesced from the debris from the collision of the body with Earth.
Understand?

 

Do you pad understand my #89 post?

 

It wasn't your link dmoe, it was another link.
here........
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_16.htm
14. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds,
"There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.

Probably the link where river got his claim from although he has yet to admit it.
If true, and if this is accurately attributed to Asimov, after the Lunar data I listed, then he is totally wrong.

 

Wrong, and you are right. Wrong

 

Yes, its bullshit with reference to the scenario being discussed.
The Moon coalesced from smashed up debris that was in a close orbit around Earth.
Why do you not understand this?
Is this just another "effort"to try and invalidate accepted science?

 

I know I'm right.
That is where you got your nonsense from.

 

Verification [again] Of Asimov's stupidity and error.

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 thislong-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]

 

The moon rings like a bell.

 

Oh, well...

...at any rate, nowhere in the above did you Cite and supply the full quote of this ..."One of his claims in dmoe's link was that the Moon was not moving away from Earth".

...so...if you could...Please maybe just "Copy and Paste" the "claim" you are alluding to from that Link?

...please?

 

It sure is (speculative). No agenda attached.

The EM-electroweak unification is known, so it makes sense they would be close to the same phase transition energy, but there is no unification theory of the other forces to hold the shape of that curve in one place or energy level while the universe is gradually cooling down. Taking someone like Tyson at his word that the mystery is solved is like giving up on what might turn out to be better theoretical approaches to the problem if it were made more clear that unification has not yet actually occurred.

A popularizer of science, particularly one as popular as Tyson, needs to be held to a higher level of scientific exposition than simply saying "this is speculative". In a court of law, speculation with scanty evidence to support it like this would be ruled inadmissible.

The video suggests that we know quite a bit more science than we actually do to be able to narrate the creation of the universe and everything in it in just under 8 minutes.

I noticed that Tyson borrows Sagan's "we are made of star stuff" in his own words for the end of his presentation, without attributing it to Sagan. He deftly gets away with that where someone else might not.

 

...or maybe, just possibly, at some time in the past 50 years he had read the book : "Of Time, Space, and Other Things" by Isaac Asimov...it was, after all, published in 1965.

http://www.goodreads.com/search?q=Of Time and Space and Other Things