pavelcherepan

I believe swansont told you that you can post as long as you have some model that makes predictions that match observations.

OK, no maths for now. In a few points can describe what your model explains and what it predicts? I've been discussing with you for ages and I still have no idea what your model is.

I will quote my earlier post, because you don't seem to read them carefully: What that means is that it was not because of collisions that a planet failed to form where asteroid belt is nowadays, but because Jupiter (and Saturn too) did disrupt it gravitationally and still do now. An object too large will interact strongly with the giant planet and will be kicked out of its orbit. That fate has come to many a planet embryo during early SS days before Jupiter and Saturn achieved their current orbital resonance as described in the Nice model.

It's hard to say how much of it there as geological evidence from those times is very sporadic. I'd say that probably not a lot, the atmosphere would've been pretty thin, but as I said, I can't prove it. I did look it up. CH3 is a free radical and normally would quickly find a partner to pair up with. I'm not sure if it's retained by forming complex molecules, it's you who implied it. CH3 can potentially react with another CH3 molecule and form C2H6.

It could potentially have been a psychosomatic response. If in your head you're convinced that you've done something very wrong it could potentially manifest in physiological effects, such as itching. Although I'm not exactly sure if psychosomatics is a very scientific subject. I know, for example, that my wife, when she gets nervous or scared, always gets foot cramps and itchiness and redness of forearm skin.

Read my posts carefully. I've never said that. Stop making straw men.

I've heard just the opposite - people who masturbate a lot have hair growing on palms of their hands So your logic is like that - "We use accurate methods and get shitty results, then we should use shitty methods to get accurate results"? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or your head was itching because you haven't taken shower for a while, or you had head lice or you had some skin condition. There's a lot of options. Believe what you want, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

That's what your source says: It doesn't say that planets form in asteroid belts. Main asteroid belt is in it's current state because Jupiter's (mostly) gravitational influence prevents material from coalescing into larger objects.

Yeah, that's just what I said. Methane breaks down to CH3, which is still too heavy to escape gravity of proto-Earth.

You're contradicting yourself. You need helium balloons to fall in order to transfer the stored heat to your high tunnel, but in order to fall they would need to lose all stored heat. Do you see the problem with this arrangement? Also, helium balloons won't drop down. Densities are too different: air (at sea level) - 1.3 kg/m3, helium - 0.178 kg/m3.

You're confused here. Asteroid families are thought to be results of past collisions and that's why they share almost the same orbital elements. There is no surprise that those would be very close in isotopic composition since at some stage most of them would've been a part of the same object. Think of a scale first - the main asteroid belt extends from some 200 to some 700 million kilometers from the Sun and also quite a distance above and below the plane of ecliptic. This is an enormous volume and there's no currently known mechanism that would provide good mixing of all the initial material. As a result all the irregularities that would have been present in the giant gas cloud that came to become Solar system, would be represented in the composition of asteroids.

Have you actually studied the problem in question. Can you reference and proper scientific studies that show that masturbation is bad for you? There are questions of science and if Einstein said something in a scientific sense one would definitely have to consider it seriously, but in psychological or ethical discussions why would Einstein be a point of reference?

Well, it was probably not the best reference that I could use, but you see it says there that in addition to hydrogen and helium, which indeed must have escaped largely, there were some simple hydrides like water, ammonia and methane. Even in the absence of greenhouse effect the temperature on the Earth is not low enough to get all ammonia and methane frozen (-78 and -182oC freezing points) and Earth's gravity would've been sufficient to retain these gases. So atmosphere will still be there, although it would be very minor compared to the modern one.

There had to be an atmosphere made up from gases captured during accretion and as Ophiolite has mentioned even before the collision with Theia Earth would've been massive enough to hold atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Earliest_atmosphere

In their paper they say that the best fit is 32-35o angle of impact. It's confusing when people keep saying "direct impact". They don't even use this term in the paper. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5224.pdf There would've been an earlier atmosphere before the impact. And Moon probably is pretty important for development of life, but we can't say for sure, because we don't know any other places with life other than Earth.

I was talking particularly about stealth in respect to radio waves detection. Visual and infrared are a whole other story. http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/Counter_Stealth_Radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar Infra-red stealth for aircraft, is only possible from certain directions. You can't possibly hide IR signature when viewed from the rear.

Just like I told you in a PM, you've sent me a link to a 236-page (!!!) discussion started by you where you were arguing that life originated on Mercury. I'm not planning on wasting my time browsing through this pile of rubbish. I you have a link to a particular part where it talks about formation of the Moon (for whatever reason) then please do provide it and hopefully it will contain not just random rambling but some calculations or modelling too. This is just a pure speculation which we'll be only able to confirm/reject when we get some real data. At the moment all the samples collected from the Moon itself by Apollo missions and soviet Luna crafts came from the surface. Even lunar meteorites found on the Earth are still mostly from the crust and don't give any insights on the isotope content of mantle. Still, regardless of the type of collision, whether it was a glancing blow or a more direct impact that formed ejecta that coalesced into the Moon, our satellite should've been in a molten state during coalescence and early life, which should result in relatively good mixing of Theia and Earth-originating materials. Then you could potentially explain the isotopic similarities if the crust had solidified relatively quickly and it mostly was composed of Earth material. That seems rather unlikely, though. I do like the hypothesis by several authors, where it was suggested that "the Earth-Moon isotopic similarity is the result of isotopic re-equilibration between the terrestrial magma ocean and the circum-terrestrial disk formed in the Giant Impact, via a common silicate vapor atmosphere". http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.5323.pdf NB: Papers on Cornell University site have real weird formatting. On the other hand the authors of the new version of Giant Impact hypothesis, which I will refer to as "slightly more direct impact" in a paper discuss various theories of Moon formation and dismisses the above idea based on papers by several other authors: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.3819.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.0932v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3036v1.pdf So it's still a pretty hot debate around the formation of the Moon and hopefully we'll hear some more new and exciting ideas soon. EDIT: Robittybob1 did come back to me with a link to his theory. It's here if anyone's interested. There Robitty argues with himself (apparently by now everyone else got tired of this nonsense and left) for 10-12 posts exploring things like that the original Earth was 42 times the mass of the current one and the majority of it was water which then all was blown away by solar wind because iron core of the Moon disrupted Earth's magnetic field. I'm not lying! That's really what it says there! Also, there are no calculations or any sign that it's all not just a figment of Robitty's imagination.

That's a rather wild guess. Main asteroid belt extends between ~1.5 and 5 AU and so covers an area (projected on ecliptic) of over 70 AU2. It also includes objects with circular orbits, highly elliprical orbits and a wide range in between. There's also no studies that show that material could've been mixed and homogenised in that entire part of Solar system. Studies of meteorites and asteroids show that they're quite variable in composition. From what we know this prediction can already be shown to be wrong to a high degree of accuracy. Do you at least have a link to that discussion? Our idea of what early Earth was like is based on empirical evidence and modelling. Your wild guesses on the other hand are not. EDIT: I had a look around and found several papers by Andreas Reufer et al. that DrmDoc's link has mentioned. That's what it says for example in their paper "A hit and run Giant Impact scenario": which is somewhat different to a standard idea, but 32-35o angle is far from a "direct impact". Nowhere in their paper they even mention simulations of collision for an angle higher than 35 degrees.

I believe that one of the great wins of Giant Impact hypothesis in its current most accepted form is that it does a really good job in explaining angular momentum of Earth-Moon system. The article you've linked is very basic and to me it seems like the "direct impact hypothesis" will have a hard time explaining why angular momentum is in its current shape. Also, there are some difficulties with the current model that the new version will also have troubles explaining, for example:

That's probably the least of the problems. Modern stealth technology is focused on hiding the plane from high-frequency radars, X-band and above. It's very hard to hide a craft from low-frequency radars. Radio telescopes, on the other hand use a wide range of frequencies and it would be very hard to shield an object from all of those.

The article is behind a paywall so I can only see the abstract, but it doesn't say anything about a "direct" collision, it says: Would you care to explain how a direct impact is a higher angular momentum collision compared to a glancing blow? Or simply how can a direct impact be a high angular momentum collision?

Also months 9-12 are erroneously named and we're using a lame 60-base system for time keeping. There are so many things that are wrong with the current time measuring. But the fact is that lunar calendars have been used by many cultures throughout the early history and are still being used now, mostly for religious purposes. The biggest problem with lunar calendar is that it's not linked to seasons and depending on how you set it up it will drift around 10 days each year.

Of all the satellites in the Solar System Moon is the most massive in relation to its host planet. It is highly unlikely that Earth would've been able to capture the Moon. It's possible but it would require an extremely precise conditions which are not very likely to have happened. Why is this news? This hypothesis has been around for a while. Actually, from what I remember same oxygen isotopic ratios have for a long time been an argument against the giant collision hypothesis, because if Theia indeed was formed in a different region of SS then it's highly unlikely that it would have exactly the same O isotope ratios as we see on the Earth based on what we know about isotopic ratios of other planets and asteroids. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec01/Oisotopes.html The recent take on this issue is that modelling shows that after a collision for a short while (some hundreds of years) Earth will be surrounded with a plasma ring which included bits of the first atmosphere (and potentially hydrosphere) and rock material that's been evaporated in the impact. Debris that would later coalesce into Moon was within this ring and it allowed for material exchange between Earth and Moon and as a result the isotopic ratios are almost identical. Do you just guess or do they really have same isotopic ratios? Studies of meteorites seem to show that they normally don't have same ratios and can vary by large amounts especially in hydrogen/deuterium isotopes. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/ipm2012/pdf/1030.pdf Because so far it seems like isotopic profile is more or less unique to different bodies of SS. There might be some similarities in one or two elements, but the entire profile is generally quite unique. Can you give a link to a paper on this theory?

Yeah, but does it affect genetic code of original bone marrow cells in the host or is it just that the implant reproduces and proliferates faster and takes over blood cells production? I'd also like to add viruses.

Probably some more experienced people can correct me. For obvious reasons you won't have neutral hydrogen/antihydrogen atoms that you're going to be annihilating, because you can't safely store neutral antihydrogen. So it all comes down to proton-antiproton annihilation. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation There are also some pretty graphs and Feynman diagrams in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2152.pdf Basically, it's not as simple as electron-positron annihilation and you can end up with a whole load of different products that you will all need to direct to actually get some acceleration going.