Antarctica is melting

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Given "2", how do you know the Earth moved outward from its initial distance?

Because the laws of physics tell me it must have.

[Berzerker]

We'll never know. But the Earth is moving outwards now. And that won't have changed.

It may have changed when the Earth was struck in the distant past, true?

Most of the debris fell back to Earth. Most of what didn't fall back down, went into orbit around the Earth, eventually coalescing into the moon. That which escaped our orbit went in every freaking direction several billion years ago. Anything which remained in our orbit would have been swept up eventually. There are plenty of other Earth-orbit crossing asteroids that may have resulted from the impact.

But how did the Earth stay in its orbit? If the collision occured elsewhere and the Earth was moved to a new orbit, the Earth couldn't sweep up the debris. And these Earth crossing asteroids may have resulted from the impact? Does the fact most of these asteroids approach perihelion in our neighborhood while their eccenticity takes them out toward the main belt of asteroids tell us anything?

You're really embaressing yourself here.

How so? "And this major collision, it would have left a ring of debris orbiting the sun, true? Is there evidence of such a ring of debris orbiting the sun?" These two questions embarass me?

All ring systems are temporary. The Jovian planetary rings are decaying or being destroyed by various moons.

So what? Do the vast majority of ring systems and satellites have equatorial orbits or not? If so, did the moon have an equatorial orbit too and was pushed off it or did Earth's equatorial ring form at an angle to Earth's equator?

Because we didn't get hit directly on the ecliptic?

The ecliptic is Earth's orbit around the sun, feel embarassed?

[KrazyHorse]

Dont the vast majority of ring systems and satellites follow equatorial orbits? Why doesn't the moon if it formed from a debris ring resulting from a collision between Earth and another body?

Huh? The moon is only off by 4 degrees from the plane of the ecliptic. An impact from a body close to the plane of the ecliptic with the earth would eject a mass whose orbit was also close to the plane of the ecliptic. The effect of the Earth's rotation would be secondary.

[KrazyHorse]

Berzerker, it sounds like, as usual, you've read a lot about a subject and understand little about it.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and by the way, I make no claims that the ejected body theory is foolproof. It is, however, the current best guess as to the origin of the moon.

Tidal locking and the slow loss of mass from the Sun, on the other hand, are virtual certainties. To counter their effects, some perverse external influence would have had to be present.

[KrazyHorse]

So what? Do the vast majority of ring systems and satellites have equatorial orbits or not? If so, did the moon have an equatorial orbit too and was pushed off it or did Earth's equatorial ring form at an angle to Earth's equator?

What an odd question. The whole point of the theory is that the moon did not coalesce from a previously extant ring system (which formed at the same time as the Earth, and would thus likely follow an equatorial orbit). The Earth gained a new ring system due to a catastrophic collision...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


It may have changed when the Earth was struck in the distant past, true?

Again, demonstrating a fundamental incomprehension of the workings of orbital dynamics. Question: what is the change caused by a single large transfer of momentum on a nearly circular orbit? The answer is not a nearly circular orbit at a smaller orbit for any possible conditions

[Berzerker]

Because the laws of physics tell me it must have.

But dont the laws of physics apply to celestial bodies colliding with each other? You said the Earth's initial orbit was closer to the sun, how do you know given the major collision(s) it suffered?

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, it sounds like, as usual, you've read a lot about a subject and understand little about it.

Then correct me when I'm wrong

Oh, and by the way, I make no claims that the ejected body theory is foolproof. It is, however, the current best guess as to the origin of the moon.

Tidal locking and the slow loss of mass from the Sun, on the other hand, are virtual certainties. To counter their effects, some perverse external influence would have had to be present.

Like a major collision?

What an odd question. The whole point of the theory is that the moon did not coalesce from a previously extant ring system (which formed at the same time as the Earth, and would thus likely follow an equatorial orbit). The Earth gained a new ring system due to a catastrophic collision...

You mean all the rings of the other planets formed at the same time as those planets and have remained intact ever since?

Again, demonstrating a fundamental incomprehension of the workings of orbital dynamics. Question: what is the change caused by a single large transfer of momentum on a nearly circular orbit? The answer is not a nearly circular orbit at a smaller orbit for any possible conditions

Your answer needs to be re-stated

[Odin]

Where the hell is Berz getting this BS?

[Berzerker]

Look at the title of your thread and compare it with the actual evidence you supplied and tell us about BS

[Vince278]

This thread has at least two people who excel at trolling themselves.