Our moon is constant

Aupmanyav said:

"The Moon is thought to have formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth.

Click to expand...

Fits nicely my perception of the lunar formaton out of the Earth.

Native said:

Fits nicely my perception of the lunar formaton out of the Earth.

Click to expand...

So the moon is made out of similar stuff to the earth...and so?

Rick O'Shez said:

So the moon is made out of similar stuff to the earth...and so?

Click to expand...

I´m fairly sure it is - with a slight difference of the amount of composition.

Quote from - http://phys.org/news/2015-04-moon-composition.html
"Given that most of the Moon material came from another body in the solar system, it was expected that the composition of the Moon should be similarly very different from that of the Earth, according to the "giant impact" model. However, analysis of samples brought from the Moon by the Apollo missions showed otherwise—in terms of composition, the Earth and Moon are almost twins, their compositions are almost the same, differing by at most few parts in a million".

That is. The "giant impact" model is wrong and the lunar formation out from the Earth as I hypothezise, is more likely and logical.

Ouroboros said:

My understanding is that the tidal bulge is pulled forward by the rotation of Earth, so it goes ahead of the Moon and pulls it forward, and hence increase its velocity. At least that's how they explained in it my astronomy class to be the reason to Moon recession.

Click to expand...

True, but the tidal bulge is a lot more than water. That's just the easiest part to see.

SoyLeche said:

True, but the tidal bulge is a lot more than water. That's just the easiest part to see.

Click to expand...

I know someone may think this is a far fetched explanation, but:

What if the synchronic "gravitational" motions of the Earth and the Moon just mirrors the initial lunar formation out from the Earth? Wouldn´t this be a plausible explanation? I think so indeed.

Native said:

I know someone may think this is a far fetched explanation, but:

What if the synchronic "gravitational" motions of the Earth and the Moon just mirrors the initial lunar formation out from the Earth? Wouldn´t this be a plausible explanation? I think so indeed.

Click to expand...

Once again, new words - no new ideas. This is the same thing you've said in every post without further clarification or evidence.

"What if the synchronic "gravitational" motions of the Earth and the Moon just mirrors the initial lunar formation out from the Earth? Wouldn´t this be a plausible explanation? I think so indeed".

SoyLeche said:

Once again, new words - no new ideas. This is the same thing you've said in every post without further clarification or evidence

Click to expand...

No new ideas??? Have you seen this description otherwhere? Where?

Regarding those who claim "hard evidences":

Where are the solid and concrete proofs in standing cosmology? As far as I´m concerned there are no differences between mine circumstantial evidences and assumptions and those in the modern cosmology.

Native said:

Regarding those who claim "hard evidences":

Where are the solid and concrete proofs in standing cosmology? As far as I´m concerned there are no differences between mine circumstantial evidences and assumptions and those in the modern cosmology.

Click to expand...

asking for 'proof'.....?
and the result of what experiment are you waiting for?

Thief said:

asking for 'proof'.....?
and the result of what experiment are you waiting for?

Click to expand...

I was referring to those in this topic who asks for proofs of me and take the standing cosmological assumptions for granted even though they also lacks solid proofs.

Native said:

I was referring to those in this topic who asks for proofs of me and take the standing cosmological assumptions for granted even though they also lacks solid proofs.

Click to expand...

ah yes.....we are all in the same small boat.....(planet)

Genesis 1:1 states: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

I am a creationist and this is one that is hard to explain.

Can we fathom God's wisdom? God knows everything. He is omniscient. Just think about other moons and mother planets. Do they have water? The moon itself, is there water or seas like what we here on earth?

peacecrusader888 said:

Genesis 1:1 states: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

I am a creationist and this is one that is hard to explain.

Can we fathom God's wisdom? God knows everything. He is omniscient. Just think about other moons and mother planets. Do they have water? The moon itself, is there water or seas like what we here on earth?

Click to expand...

I´m not a creationist, but as a Comparative Mythologist I would like to have a go with an explanation. When reading the numerous cultural Myths of Creation, it is very likely that "in the beginning" doesn´t mean "the beginning of the entire Universe".

If for instants reading the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, and reading of the also Egyptian goddess Hathor - who is closely connected to the Milky Way and have "a complex relationship with the Egyptian god, Atum-Ra", one can conclude this story to deal with the pre-conditions of and actual formation of the Milky Way.

Here Atum-Ra is the first fiery entity (LIGHT as in the biblical telling) to be created in the center of the Milky Way and together, Atum-Ra and goddess Hathor creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way galaxy. From the center of our Milky Way, everything is formatted in this and transported out in the galactic surroundings. As also hypothezised and explained above.

If this is correct, then the ancient story of creation in fact is more factual, precise and shows a better understanding than those of the modern cosmological explanations.

This creation of everything in the galactic center must be taken into consideration when talking of the Solar System and it´s formation and subsequently also the planetary and lunar matters as discussed here.

"The beginning" should not be read as the beginning of the Universe, but as the creation of our Milky Way galaxy. (In the Ogdoad the Universe is eternal and with cyclical formations which takes place for ever)

Native said:

I know. This is the standard gravitational explanation - which no one really can explain causally or logically and it include a "spooky force acting on distance without any visible connection" as it is said. I don´t accept this explanation because it only "explain" "half the truth" regarding motions in space, namely the attractive motion and not the expulsive motions in cosmos.

Click to expand...

Gravity is still a bit of a mystery, agree, but we do know that there's a gravitational force of some kind, even if we don't fully understand how it works.

I wrote:


Yes, I have a short description here on the free alternative peer review website, vixra.org - "Circular Galactic Formation" - http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0283

PS: Just by the very looks of a barred galaxy you can intuitively and logically conclude the motion to go outwards from the center. There is no way a galactic arm can take a suddenly 90 degree turn from the arms into the barred structure if the motion should go outwards in. - Look here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barre...ubble2005-01-barred-spiral-galaxy-NGC1300.jpg

Cheers

Click to expand...

Not seeing what I was asking for. I think I might have not understood what you were suggesting earlier, and my question wasn't clear either. Let's leave it for now. Perhaps I get the answer I'm looking for later on in this thread.

peacecrusader888 said:

Can we fathom God's wisdom? God knows everything. He is omniscient. Just think about other moons and mother planets. Do they have water?

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact they do.

We did find water on Mars. And I think there is H2O on the Moon as well, but bound up in the rocks.

Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, is full of water.

We even have found organics in space, like ethanol, methanol, and amino acids.

The moon itself, is there water or seas like what we here on earth?

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be exactly like Earth? There used to be a thicker atmosphere and flowing water on Mars. Now, most water is frozen, but some of it does melt occasionally.

The moon has moon-quakes. It had volcanic activity a long time ago. Did it ever have flowing water and atmosphere? Probably not, simply because it's too small.

SoyLeche said:

True, but the tidal bulge is a lot more than water. That's just the easiest part to see.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. The crust and the planet itself also bulges. Very true.

Native said:

"What if the synchronic "gravitational" motions of the Earth and the Moon just mirrors the initial lunar formation out from the Earth? Wouldn´t this be a plausible explanation? I think so indeed".

No new ideas??? Have you seen this description otherwhere? Where?

Click to expand...

I've seen the same essential description here:

Native said:

From your link:

I don´t think so. The cause of this is that the Moon once was ejected from the Earth early in the formation when the entire Solar System was molten hot.

Click to expand...

and here:

Native said:

I wrote:
"I don´t think so. The cause of this is that the Moon once was ejected from the Earth early in the formation when the entire Solar System was molten hot".

I think they are. Imagine when the Earth still was molten hot very early in the formation of the Solar system and the Moon was ejected from the Earth. In this way the Moon would follow the motion of its mother planet with a rotation which fits its orbital motion around the Earth = the locked motion.
This can also confirm the still annual receding motion away from the Earth

Click to expand...

and here:

Native said:

You have to imagine an initial spinning sphere which become the entire Solar System where the planets are ejected fmo this central sphere and where the Moons are ejected from their mother planets.
In this spinning motion and formation the moons logically will follow the mother planets with an orbital motion and 1 lunar rotation as the momentum is given by the mother planets.

Click to expand...

SoyLeche said:

I've seen the same essential description here:

Click to expand...

Here, here and here . . .

Yes, but I bet you can´t find these explanations otherwhere = they are new.

Never mind. It doesn´t seem you have a genuine interest to follow up on these alternative ideas.

Thief said:

ah yes.....we are all in the same small boat....

Click to expand...

A little summary.

At large, one can speculate of the validity of the Solar System formation theory, from "a planetary disk", which accretes to planets (and their moons).

Why is it for instants that planets were formed in different distances from the Sun as if these planetary locations each represents a local force of gravity, which formatted the planets?

Several contraintuitive and highly speculative assumptions are the basis of this standard hypothesis.

------------------
As the entire Solar System (and the other stars) orbits the galactic center synchronously, this can only point towards an initial central force of formation in the Milky Way center and a following expulsion out from this. (Really very similar to the Standard Model explanation of planetary formation out of the Sun)

That is: The centrifugal force from the galactic center (initially governed by electromagnetic forces and properties, creating both attractive and repulsive motions) creates the Solar System and, also via centrifugal forces, the Solar System is slung out from the galactic center.

And as most moons also orbits their mother planets synchronously, the formation of these moons also derives out of their mother planets from which the moons gets the same velocity as their mother planets - which again gives the "locked orbital motion". Not by "gravitational forces" but via simple centrifugal forces and laws.

OK Cheers and thanks for the replies