Our moon is constant

[Aupmanyav]

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

Yes, I have seen this information and seen it being refuted at Wikipedia-Moon. Have you gone through that article? Of course, this does not mean that all problems have been straightened out. We cannot create moon sitting here in front of our computers. Let the scientists who have experimented and researched pronounce their verdict. Out of Earth as a ribbon theory does not find many takers.

"In 2001, a team at the Carnegie Institute of Washington reported the most precise measurement of the isotopic signatures of lunar rocks. To their surprise, the team found that the rocks from the Apollo program carried an isotopic signature that was identical with rocks from Earth, and were different from almost all other bodies in the Solar System. Because most of the material that went into orbit to form the Moon was thought to come from Theia, this observation was unexpected. In 2007, researchers from the California Institute of Technology announced that there was less than a 1% chance that Theia and Earth had identical isotopic signatures.Published in 2012, an analysis of titanium isotopes in Apollo lunar samples showed that the Moon has the same composition as Earth, which conflicts with what is expected if the Moon formed far from Earth's orbit or from Theia. Variations on the giant impact hypothesis may explain this data."

 

[Native]

Yes, I have seen this information and seen it being refuted at Wikipedia-Moon. Have you gone through that article? Of course, this does not mean that all problems have been straightened out. We cannot create moon sitting here before our computers. Let the scientists who have experimented and researched pronounce their verdict. Out of Earth as a ribbon theory does not find many takers.

Yes. and I´ve even cited/mentioned it in this thread.

To me it is VERY strange that scientists refuse the obvious idea of the lunar birth from the Earth when one read your also posted informations and evidences.

But then again: This refusal is understandable because otherwise the scientists have to discard the Standard Model explanation of the entire Solar System. They prefer to hold onto their gravity model of formation and ignore the obvious facts.

This is the very essence of my posts and the purpose of providing alternative ideas which really are obvious - and even an ancient mythical knowledge.

 

[Native]

I quote the informations found and posted by Aupmanyav:

To their surprise, the team found that the rocks from the Apollo program carried an isotopic signature that was identical with rocks from Earth, and were different from almost all other bodies in the Solar System. Because most of the material that went into orbit to form the Moon was thought to come from Theia, this observation was unexpected.

I mean COME ON!

In 2007, researchers from the California Institute of Technology announced that there was less than a 1% chance that Theia and Earth had identical isotopic signatures.

You see?

Published in 2012, an analysis of titanium isotopes in Apollo lunar samples showed that the Moon has the same composition as Earth, which conflicts with what is expected if the Moon formed far from Earth's orbit or from Theia.

Three observations which confirms the Earth-Moon similarity and the birth from Earth!?

Variations on the giant impact hypothesis may explain this data."

Still they keep on moving in the blind gravity/collision track. And those who come up with alternative and logical explanations are of course ridiculed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To me it is VERY strange that scientists refuse the obvious idea of the lunar birth from the Earth when one read your also posted informations and evidences.

They considered other options but these had problems. They accept that Moon is Earth material which was ejected because of the Theia's impact. Perhaps you have missed this:

"These mechanisms included the fission of the Moon from Earth's crust through centrifugal force (which would require too great an initial spin of Earth), the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon (which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon), and the co-formation of Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk (which does not explain the depletion of metals in the Moon). These hypotheses also cannot account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system." (Wikipedia - Moon)

Plonk.

 

[Native]

Thanks for following up

They considered other options but these had problems. Perhaps you have missed this:
"These mechanisms included the fission of the Moon from Earth's crust through centrifugal force (which would require too great an initial spin of Earth), the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon (which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon), and the co-formation of Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk (which does not explain the depletion of metals in the Moon). These hypotheses also cannot account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system." (Wikipedia - Moon)

Thanks - But I didn´t miss this. The speculations here are all taken with the gravitational theory of the Solar System formation in their backheads as a kind of a mental ghost which hinders the scientists to think clearly and logical.

Even in this explanation/discussion the scientists are meet by several contradictive observations - and the last sentence of the lacking angular momentun explanation really dismiss everything.

And there we are again . . .

The angular momentum is initially given from the center of our Milky Way from where the Solar System once was formatted. With this approach everything else regarding the Solar System and "gravitational matters which not matters" - and even the locked lunar orbit - can be thoroughly investigated.

 

[Native]

@Aupmanyav,

Not to be personal, but in your profile you states that:
"Religion: I am an advaitist Hindu and a strong atheist".

Then I just wonder if your overall belief system and world perception is coloured (in the good sense) by the Hindu Mythology and it´s telling of creation?

(PS: Also posted to you as a personal conversation)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing to hide. I post my reply here also:

Greetings, Ivar,

I am a person of science (a science enthusiast and not a scientist). Therefore, I do not believe in the mythological schemes of creation. Actually, I believe that there is no creation, no birth, no death. What constitutes me (the atoms) were created 14 billion years ago at the time of Big Bang (Star Dust). So, when I came about, nothing new was born. Similarly, when my life ends, nothing will ever die. Only that my atoms will disperse in the environment and form new associations - chemical re-cycling. I term these atoms/energy which formed them as Brahman. Since I am that, I do not need a God/Gods/Goddesses. I also do not believe in heaven, hell, re-incarnation and transference of 'karmas' to any future life, of which there is none. But I do respect the traditions of my family and society, respect the deities who are worshiped by Hindus as our cultural figures (mythology). They are important for our lives, because in their stories we find the guidance about how to handle various situations of life. In that way I am and atheist, advaitist Hindu (a believer in non-duality) and a strong atheist too. It is fortunate that I was born in Hinduism because Hinduism gives me this freedom of views.

So, in short, my view is not influenced by Hindu mythology or references about creation in Hindu scriptures.

 

[Native]

@Aupmanyav,

Thank you for your very confidential answer.

I was just curious because as a Comparative Mythologist, I really like the Hindu Myths which IMO very specifically describe the basical conditions of the Universe, as well as the pre-conditions and factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy, where the Mount Meru Myth resembles the very center of the Milky Way - but that´s easy for me to claim . . .

But here it is:
"Mount Meru of Hindu traditions is described as 84,000 Yojan high (about 1,082,000 km (672,000 mi), which would be 85 times the Earth's diameter), and notes that the Sun along with all the planets in the Solar System revolve around Mt. Meru as one unit".

Disregarding the accuracy of the given numbers, it factually deals with the Solar System orbiting a center as one unit. i.e. the Milky Way center.

Not bad for a several thousand year old culture, right? The empirical physical and spiritual knowledge of our ancestors is huge - and hugely underestimated by modern people.

PS: I too do not believe in personified deities but in the natural forces of electromagnetism which in ancient cultures is described symbolical/allegorical as "male and female", resembling the two opposite but complementary polarities in electromagnetism. Nice universal language indeed.

Cheers

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Which all clearly indicates a direct formative connection to their mother planets. A connection which has nothing to do with gravity but everything to do with a formation ejected from the mother planets in the early days of the formation.

Not at all
Any body captured by the earths gravity would do the same.

if another body struck the moon a glancing blow, it might start rotating for a while, until the earths gravity took charge again.

 

[Native]

Not at all
Any body captured by the earths gravity would do the same.
if another body struck the moon a glancing blow, it might start rotating for a while, until the earths gravity took charge again.

Feel free and hereby invited to explain the causal and dynamical forces of gravity in a scientifical accepted way

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Mount Meru of Hindu traditions is described as 84,000 Yojan high (about 1,082,000 km (672,000 mi), which would be 85 times the Earth's diameter), and notes that the Sun along with all the planets in the Solar System revolve around Mt. Meru as one unit".

You see Native, 84,000 yojana is so much more impressive that 8,400 feet. These are stories and a Hindu hears these stories when he/she is a child/very young. So, as the story passed from one set of grandma/grandpa to another, Meru's height kept on increasing, till ultimately, Meru became 1,082,000 km high. But there are other references about Mount Meru in Hindu scriptures (RigVeda) and astronomy books. They say that at the top of Mount Meru, the sun never sets or does not for six months.

Cf. Siddhânta Shiromani, Golādhyâya, Bhāskarâchārya II (1114–1185) Chapter vii., verses 6-7.
“There is a peculiarity at the place, where the latitude is greater than 66° N. Whenever the northern declination of the sun exceeds the complement of the latitude, there will be perpetual day, for such time is that excess continues. Similarly when the southern (declination exceeds), there will be perpetual night. On Meru, therefore there is equal half-yearly perpetual day and night.”

Mount Meru is the terrestrial North Pole of our astronomers, and the Sûrya-Siddhânta, XII, 67, says: — “At Meru Gods behold the sun after but a single rising during the half of his revolution beginning with Aries.”

Thus if the latitude of a place be 70°, its complement will be 90 – 70 = 20°; and as the sun’s heights above the celestial equator (that is, his declination) is never greater than 23° 28' there will be a continuous day at the place, so long as the declination is greater than 20° and less 23° 28', and there will be a similar continuous night when the sun is in the Southern hemisphere. Paul Du Chaillu mentions that at Nordkyn or North Cape (N. lat. 71° 6'50'') the northernmost place on the continent of Europe, the long night commences on 18th November, and ends on 24th January, lasting in all, for 67 days of twenty-four hours each.

For comparative Mythology, I will suggest a reading of 'Arctic Home in Vedas" by BG Tilak, available as PDF at https://archive.org/details/TheArcticHomeInTheVedas

 

[Native]

@Terrywoodenpic
I was a little "short-headed" in my reply to you.

Not at all
Any body captured by the earths gravity would do the same.

if another body struck the moon a glancing blow, it might start rotating for a while, until the earths gravity took charge again.

Feel free and hereby invited to explain the causal and dynamical forces of gravity in a scientifical accepted way

What I meant with my reply was that no one ever have explained the "force of gravity" and on this background, no one really can be sure or argumentatively steadfast on any issues, unless this assumed force is fully explaned.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@Terrywoodenpic
I was a little "short-headed" in my reply to you.


What I meant with my reply was that no one ever have explained the "force of gravity" and on this background, no one really can be sure or argumentatively steadfast on any issues, unless this assumed force is fully explaned.

Gravity is a weak force and can be accurately measured. Now that gravity waves have been detected as predicted we are a long way down the road of a better understanding of how it is propagated. It does not need to be fully explained for its effects to be measured or to be used in calculations.
Any more than space- time and mass are fully explained or fully understood as all these things are linked.

 

[Native]

Gravity is a weak force and can be accurately measured. Now that gravity waves have been detected as predicted we are a long way down the road of a better understanding of how it is propagated. It does not need to be fully explained for its effects to be measured or to be used in calculations.
Any more than space- time and mass are fully explained or fully understood as all these things are linked.

To me it is a kind of contradiction of terms to state gravity as a week force when thinking of it´s supposed effects on celestial bodies and galaxies etc.
Yes, "gravity" is not explained but the concept needs to be re-examened and revised. Real science cannot work without causal explanations. It is my firm conviction that "gravitational motions" just are set on different equations on different empirical observations which could have been calculated otherwise without using the very term of "gravity" at all.
I don´t agree with you on the "space-time" ideas as long as they can´t explain what is going on for instants in a galactic formation. Again this "space-time" idea is based on an empirical observation of curving/orbiting matter without any explanation of what provides this motion. And when it comes to the term "black holes", everything goes mentally bananas in pure speculations and strange ideas.
IMO is the gravitational motions governed foremostly by electromagnetism which is hugely stronger than "the weakest link of them all", "gravity" - which I simply refuse to believe in.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To me it is a kind of contradiction of terms to state gravity as a week force when thinking of it´s supposed effects on celestial bodies and galaxies etc.
Yes, "gravity" is not explained but the concept needs to be re-examened and revised. Real science cannot work without causal explanations. It is my firm conviction that "gravitational motions" just are set on different equations on different empirical observations which could have been calculated otherwise without using the very term of "gravity" at all.
I don´t agree with you on the "space-time" ideas as long as they can´t explain what is going on for instants in a galactic formation. Again this "space-time" idea is based on an empirical observation of curving/orbiting matter without any explanation of what provides this motion. And when it comes to the term "black holes", everything goes mentally bananas in pure speculations and strange ideas.
IMO is the gravitational motions governed foremostly by electromagnetism which is hugely stronger than "the weakest link of them all", "gravity" - which I simply refuse to believe in.

I suggest you get over it... other people do understand these things at a level that is incomprehensible to laymen.
Gravity is a weak force when compared to other forces. How ever unlike say magnetism its influence extends over large distances.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[Native]

I suggest you get over it... other people do understand these things at a level that is incomprehensible to laymen.
Gravity is a weak force when compared to other forces. How ever unlike say magnetism its influence extends over large distances.

I can´t see how the lack of causable knowledge of a force can be raised to count anywhere.

"A level that is incomprehensible to laymen"!? I would say laymen have a better chance to understand this problem compared to scientists who are indoctrinated to believe in something they can´t explain causally and dynamically.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can´t see how the lack of causable knowledge of a force can be raised to count anywhere.

"A level that is incomprehensible to laymen"!? I would say laymen have a better chance to understand this problem compared to scientists who are indoctrinated to believe in something they can´t explain causally and dynamically.

Scientists keep an open mind, they do not "believe" in things. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about scientists

 

[Native]

Scientists keep an open mind, they do not "believe" in things. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about scientists

To count on something one can´t explain causally is de facto to believe/assume something. This is metaphysics until explained causally in all dynamical details.

 

[Native]

Cosmological and astrophysical scientists were 100% convinced of the celestial gravity laws - until the discovery of the galactic rotation curve contradicted this idea.

Then they belive in "dark matter", not recognizing the problem of this, since the Solar System orbital motion from where the "celestial laws of motion" derives, is a part of the galactic realms too with the Solar System different orbital motion.

This problem is of course in itself very contradictionary besides beeing totally insolvable with the "dark matter" idea.

Only electromagnetism can explain the "unexplainable" problem here.