How did the Earth capture the Moon ?

[Janus58]

The theory of the moon , is that a venus sized object collided with the Earth .

Mars sized, not Venus sized. Venus is of comparable mass to the Earth, while Mars has 1/10 the mass.

And the debris coalesced into the form of the moon . By gravity .

That's the theory .

Then the Earth has the gravity to capture this object . Which logically the Earth can't , simply because the Earth doesn't have the mass to do so .

Why do you keep making declarative statements on things you have no understanding of? You don't have the vaguest notion of how to figure out the dynamics involved in such a collision, or its end results in terms of how much material would be left in Earth orbit. The Earth has enough mass/ gravity to hold on to the Moon is its present orbit of ~384,000 km away. Any debris thrown off moving at speed not much under escape velocity would establish itself in orbit around the Earth.

Your claim that the Earth didn't have the mass enough to hold on to debris is based on ignorance.

 

[river]

Mars sized, not Venus sized. Venus is of comparable mass to the Earth, while Mars has 1/10 the mass.

Why do you keep making declarative statements on things you have no understanding of? You don't have the vaguest notion of how to figure out the dynamics involved in such a collision, or its end results in terms of how much material would be left in Earth orbit. The Earth has enough mass/ gravity to hold on to the Moon is its present orbit of ~384,000 km away. Any debris thrown off moving at speed not much under escape velocity would establish itself in orbit around the Earth.

Your claim that the Earth didn't have the mass enough to hold on to debris is based on ignorance.

Highlighted

Your not making any sense .

So the Earths orbit coalesced the material left over from this collision to form the moon?

 

[Janus58]

Highlighted

Your not making any sense .

So the Earths orbit coalesced the material left over from this collision to form the moon?

I said nothing about "Earth's orbit", I was clearly talking about material in orbit around the Earth. Learn to read.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Highlighted

Your not making any sense .

So the Earths orbit coalesced the material left over from this collision to form the moon?

I said nothing about "Earth's orbit", I was clearly talking about material in orbit around the Earth.

Why ?

 

[Janus58]

Why ?

Why are your reading comprehension skills so abhorrent? I don't know. You'll have to answer that question for yourself.

 

[river]

↑

The theory of the moon , is that a venus sized object collided with the Earth .

Mars sized, not Venus sized. Venus is of comparable mass to the Earth, while Mars has 1/10 the mass.

Why do you keep making declarative statements on things you have no understanding of? You don't have the vaguest notion of how to figure out the dynamics involved in such a collision, or its end results in terms of how much material would be left in Earth orbit. The Earth has enough mass/ gravity to hold on to the Moon is its present orbit of ~384,000 km away. Any debris thrown off moving at speed not much under escape velocity would establish itself in orbit around the Earth.

Your claim that the Earth didn't have the mass enough to hold on to debris is based on ignorance.

No I said the Earth doesn't have the mass to capture the mass of the moon .

From my post#40

The theory of the moon , is that a venus sized object collided with the Earth .
And the debris coalesced into the form of the moon . By gravity .

That's the theory .

Then the Earth has the gravity to capture this object . Which logically the Earth can't , simply because the Earth doesn't have the mass to do so.

The Earth can't .

​

 

[sculptor]

You might find this ted talk interesting and/or informative?
https://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_t_stewart_where_did_the_moon_come_from_a_new_theory

but, then we have

Scientists at The University of New Mexico have found that the Earth and Moon have distinct oxygen compositions and are not identical in oxygen as previously thought according to a new study released today in Nature Geoscience.

from:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200310164742.htm
"Our findings suggest that the deep lunar mantle may have experienced the least mixing and is most representative of the impactor Theia,"
................................................
ok
I ain't completely confused yet
but I am working on it

 

[river]

You might find this ted talk interesting and/or informative?
https://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_t_stewart_where_did_the_moon_come_from_a_new_theory

but, then we have

from:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200310164742.htm
"Our findings suggest that the deep lunar mantle may have experienced the least mixing and is most representative of the impactor Theia,"
................................................
ok
I ain't completely confused yet
but I am working on it

Terrific stuff

 

[sculptor]

Terrific stuff

amen to that

 

[river]

sculptor extend what Sarah is saying to the Sun and , within the Sun is our planets formation .

Sooner or later Sarah or others will do exactly that .

 

[paddoboy]

"Our findings suggest that the deep lunar mantle may have experienced the least mixing and is most representative of the impactor Theia,"
................................................
ok
I ain't completely confused yet
but I am working on it

The article is not invalidating the giant Impact theory, and the Oxygen anomaly can be explained.
It's worth noting sculptor that the giant Impact theory has only come about since the Apollo era and the study and data from some Moon rocks, and that data is substantial in supporting the current best theory.

Before that there were a couple of other propositions. One was the "Capture theory" which held that the Moon was another body similar to an Asteroid, that formed elsewhere in the solar system and was captured by Earth's gravity, as it passed nearby.
The other was simply an extension of the formation of the solar system as a whole, with the now overwhelmingly evidenced and observed, "accretion disk theory" and that the Moon was created along with Earth at its formation.
The third model had the Earth spinning so fast, that some if the Earth broke away, coalesced and began to orbit the planet. [The Earth was certainly spinning faster then it does today.
So all had something going for it.

And finally, despite being ignored by another "interested" party, the Asimov article was well before the Apollo era [mentioned previously by Janus] and as such, the Impact theory did not have much evidence at that time.
Obviously, the Earth does have enough mass to capture the Moon and I'm sure the maths supports that, so of course anyone who doubts that fact, needs to show the maths that discredits it.

 

[river]

Anyway , from my post#50

sculptor extend what Sarah is saying to the Sun and , within the Sun is our planets formation .
Sooner or later Sarah or others will do exactly that .

 

[paddoboy]

You might find this ted talk interesting and/or informative?
https://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_t_stewart_where_did_the_moon_come_from_a_new_theory

but, then we have

from:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200310164742.htm
"Our findings suggest that the deep lunar mantle may have experienced the least mixing and is most representative of the impactor Theia,"
................................................
ok
I ain't completely confused yet
but I am working on it/QUOTE]
Nice TED video sculptor. But in reality, all she is proposing is a variation on the "Giant Impact Theory" That is science...that's how science and scientific theories evolve...added to, modified and even on occasions scrapped as new evidence comes to light

 

[paddoboy]

Nice TED video sculptor. But in reality, all she is proposing is a variation on the "Giant Impact Theory" That is science...that's how science and scientific theories evolve...added to, modified and even on occasions scrapped as new evidence comes to light.

Anyway , from my post#50

sculptor extend what Sarah is saying to the Sun and , within the Sun is our planets formation .
Sooner or later Sarah or others will do exactly that .

I don't believe so, and I don't believe you have a clue as to what you are talking about, and to prove that here are some ignorant "statements of fact" from you....

I get that , but the moon is not rotating ,

Ah ... so the Dark Side of the moon does face us , its just there is no light making it visible .

There is a Dark Side of the Moon , because we can never see it . Hence satellites that take photos of the dark side of the moon .

The moon does NOT rotate .

Why don't you admit river, that you simply do not have a clue. Starting to read some reputable science books would be a start.

 

[river]

Well pad is certainly confused .

 

[paddoboy]

Well pad is certainly confused .

Confused about what river? Your ignorance? That's why you are banned from the sciences.
The TED video? Not at all. I watched it all the way through and understood it completely. It is a variation on the giant Impact theory.
The Earth and other planets evolving from the Sun? Again not at all. We have seen stellar accretion disk formations in other systems and what we see is the proto star at the core, with planetary formation at various distances from that core.

 

[river]

Confused about what river? Your ignorance? That's why you are banned from the sciences.
The TED video? Not at all. I watched it all the way through and understood it completely. It is a variation on the giant Impact theory.
The Earth and other planets evolving from the Sun? Again not at all. We have seen stellar accretion disk formations in other systems and what we see is the proto star at the core, with planetary formation at various distances from that core.

The Ted talk has nothing to do with any impact theory .

 

[paddoboy]

The Ted talk has nothing to do with any impact theory .

As usual your comprehension, understanding, and general trolling sees you as wrong....
from the transcript....
" Then came the day when I realized my mistake.My student and I were looking at the data from these fast-spinning giant impacts.On that day, we weren't actually thinking about the Moon,we were looking at the planet.The planet gets super-hot and partially vaporized from the energy of the impact.But the data didn't look like a planet.It looked really strange.The planet was weirdly connected to the disk.I got that super-excited feeling when something really wrong might be something really interesting.

04:51
In all of my calculations,I had assumed there was a planet with a separate disk around it.Calculating what was in the disk as how we tested whether an impact could make the Moon.But it didn't look that simple anymore.We were making the mistake of thinking that a planet was always going to look like a planet.On that day, I knew that a giant impact was making something completely new.


Now river you understand it is just a variation of the Impact theory? [probably not ]
And of course the exact methodology as put in the TED talk, still needs refining, research, and review, like all scientific data and models...unlike of course your own usually incorrect "facts"

 

[river]

Inotherwords the moon was ejected from the Earth .

 

[paddoboy]

Inotherwords the moon was ejected from the Earth .

The "Impact" created a more molten Earth with a associated disk..." The planet was weirdly connected to the disk."
It didn't appear to be a separate disk as per the more common Impact theory, thus..."in all of my calculations,I had assumed there was a planet with a separate disk around it"
Now river we all know you will try and misinterpret anything to suit your own preferred "facts " but like I said, a variation on the Impact theory, with the Moon coalescing from that disk being a part of the molten Earth...very very similar to general Impact theory, except the disk was separate and the Moon coalesced within it.

Please please please river, as I said, an interesting proposition yet to be researched and reviewed further, like all scientific theories..eg: The BB, SR/GR etc etc

Now river I'll be absent for a while, relos visiting [within our relaxed isolation rules] and I must help with preparation. I'll attend to your further education at a later time, OK?