Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) Age of the Earth is 4.543 billions y.../ _________Moon__4.53__b.y Size& mass_____Earth __5.97 ________ Moon ______ 1.622 Question. Why?~ the Earth and moon have nearly the same age and so much (different mass~ and size) Edited May 5, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion
Delta1212 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 Because the size and mass of an object aren't really related to how old it is?
Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 5, 2017 Author Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) Because the size and mass of an object aren't really related to how old it is? How ?~ does one defines time space and size. Edited May 5, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion
Sensei Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) Why the Earth and moon have nearly the same age According to Giant impact hypothesis, Moon is result of collision of other planet-to-be with Earth-to-be in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis Edited May 5, 2017 by Sensei
Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 6, 2017 Author Posted May 6, 2017 (edited) Sensei According to Giant impact hypothesis, Moon is result of collision of other planet-to-be with Earth-to-be in the past. Roger Non sens !~ that statement is contrarily to the law of relativity ; that why collision in space is not possible between planets All planets are in motion at the same time and in the same direction if there was debris in the ether NASA would have e serious probleme to guarantee the space program . it would be wasting money Edited May 6, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion -3
zapatos Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 Perhaps some sort of test prior to being allowed to post... 1
swansont Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 Sensei According to Giant impact hypothesis, Moon is result of collision of other planet-to-be with Earth-to-be in the past. Roger Non sens !~ that statement is contrarily to the law of relativity ; that why collision in space is not possible between planets All planets are in motion at the same time and in the same direction if there was debris in the ether NASA would have e serious probleme to guarantee the space program . it would be wasting money Last I checked NASA was not launching rockets > 4 billion years ago, so the conditions back then are moot as far as today's efforts are concerned. 1
Sensei Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 (edited) Non sens !~ that statement is contrarily to the law of relativity ; that why collision in space is not possible between planets All planets are in motion at the same time and in the same direction if there was debris in the ether NASA would have e serious probleme to guarantee the space program . it would be wasting money If your plan is to get as fast as possible the largest number of negative votes, for writing rubbish, you're on the right track. Did you hear about Shoemaker-Levy comet hitting Jupiter.. ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker–Levy_9 Comet used to orbit around solar system for billion years, and boom, it's gone, finally it hit some planet. The same can, and will happen to other planets in this star system, sooner or later. Sun (in billion years from now) will turn to red giant and consume inner planets, and vaporize giant planets, because of much larger energy released at the end of its life.. Currently existing orbits are just metastable. And can be disturbed (relatively quickly) by unusual event like f.e. nearby flight of ejected planet, ejected hyper velocity star etc. etc. Orbits of planets are especially metastable in binary-star systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Planets "While a number of binary star systems have been found to harbor extrasolar planets, such systems are comparatively rare compared to single star systems. E.g. observations by the Kepler space telescope have shown that most single stars of the same type as the Sun have plenty of planets, but only one-third of binary stars do. According to theoretical simulations,[72] even widely separated binary stars often disrupt the discs of rocky grains from which protoplanets form. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem You should also read about accretion disk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk Formation and evolution of solar system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System Edited May 6, 2017 by Sensei
Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 6, 2017 Author Posted May 6, 2017 (edited) If your plan is to get as fast as possible the largest number of negative votes, for writing rubbish, you're on the right track. Did you hear about Shoemaker-Levy comet hitting Jupiter.. ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker–Levy_9 Comet used to orbit around solar system for billion years, and boom, it's gone, finally it hit some planet. The same can, and will happen to other planets in this star system, sooner or later. Sun (in billion years from now) will turn to red giant and consume inner planets, and vaporize giant planets, because of much larger energy released at the end of its life.. Currently existing orbits are just metastable. And can be disturbed (relatively quickly) by unusual event like f.e. nearby flight of ejected planet, ejected hyper velocity star etc. etc. Orbits of planets are especially metastable in binary-star systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Planets "While a number of binary star systems have been found to harbor extrasolar planets, such systems are comparatively rare compared to single star systems. E.g. observations by the Kepler space telescope have shown that most single stars of the same type as the Sun have plenty of planets, but only one-third of binary stars do. According to theoretical simulations,[72] even widely separated binary stars often disrupt the discs of rocky grains from which protoplanets form. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem You should also read about accretion disk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk Formation and evolution of solar system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System I do not read. That is my understanding of my comprehension from experimentation in meta physics; and material experiments in this forum ,,. my goal is not to have votes negative or positive it is to get my understanding challenged in a logical way ; not from what you have read , but from what your logic comes about . Edited May 6, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion -4
Strange Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 I do not read. That explains a lot. I cannot understand why some people think that making up stuff is just as valid as learning. Maybe it is just laziness.
Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 6, 2017 Author Posted May 6, 2017 That explains a lot. I cannot understand why some people think that making up stuff is just as valid as learning. Maybe it is just laziness. Strange ../ Can you tell me the force (s) that would lead a planet to hit an other .
John Cuthber Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 I do not read. That is my understanding of my comprehension from experimentation in this case the experiment is to watch what happens in the sky. People who did that know about a comet hitting Jupiter. What you actually did was sit and make stuff up. That sometimes works- but not always Aristotle was famous for employing that method. He's also famous for his mistakes because of it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armand-marie-leroi/6-things-aristotle-got-wr_b_5920840.html
Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 6, 2017 Author Posted May 6, 2017 (edited) Gravity Where is the origin of that force ?. taking under consideration, the 3e law of motion. Edited May 6, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion
John Cuthber Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 The 3rd law isn't a problem here. Everything is the "source" of gravity. Everything attracts everything else.
Janus Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 Sensei According to Giant impact hypothesis, Moon is result of collision of other planet-to-be with Earth-to-be in the past. Roger Non sens !~ that statement is contrarily to the law of relativity ; that why collision in space is not possible between planets All planets are in motion at the same time and in the same direction if there was debris in the ether NASA would have e serious probleme to guarantee the space program . it would be wasting money At the present time, the planets all orbit the sun in well spaced orbits that do not cross each other. This was not always the case. When the Solar system was younger it was a lot more crowded and unsettled. Collisions between major bodies were not uncommon. But over time collisions and close passages which threw material clear of the solar system swept the solar system more or less clear. We ended up with the planets in the orbits they now have as the survivors. Teir is still debris out there that follow orbits that still cross those of the planets and the planets are still from time to time struck by them( Annual meteor showers like the Perseids are caused by the Earth passing through the debris trail of an old earth orbit crossing comet. ) . For the most part, this stuff is small(It is estimated the Earth is hit by 10's of thousands of tons of such left over stuff every year, most of it the size of dust particles), though from time to time the Earth is still hit with something bigger. Every time NASA launches a craft it runs the chance that it would could be hit by something, but since the craft represent a small target( as compared to the Earth), the risk is low( though in 2012 one of the windows on the ISS was hit with a small object that chipped it, and to be safe they shuttered the window. The ISS was designed to account for this small risk.)
Sensei Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 Every time NASA launches a craft it runs the chance that it would could be hit by something, but since the craft represent a small target( as compared to the Earth), the risk is low( though in 2012 one of the windows on the ISS was hit with a small object that chipped it, and to be safe they shuttered the window. The ISS was designed to account for this small risk.) NASA revealed photos of space shuttle window hit by Micrometeoroid https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/laboratories/hypervelocity/mmod.html
Sriman Dutta Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 For your information Roger, each and every object in the universe attracts another body. This force is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. [math]F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{S^2}[/math] According to general relativity, any massive body creates a depression in the space-time fabric, causing any surrounding object to fall into that depression. That is the origin of this attractive force.
Roger Dynamic Motion Posted May 6, 2017 Author Posted May 6, 2017 (edited) NASA revealed photos of space shuttle window hit by Micrometeoroid https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/laboratories/hypervelocity/mmod.html This is more likely the debris of an unwanted dead satellite perhaps from a exploded nuclear satellite . Who knows ____________________________ ''It is something you should know''' The issue of space debris capture and removal has become extremely urgent, due to the huge amounts of passive (or active) space debris along operational orbits. As a promising solution, Space Tethered Net is low-cost and executable. Based on this kind of non-maneuverable space net, a new solution for space debris capture and removal is proposed in this paper, named Maneuverable Tethered Space Net (MTSN). We first describe the structure of the Maneuverable Tether Space Net in detailed, and then give a typical mission scenario. Then, the kinematics and dynamics model of the MTSN is derived under some basic conclusions of single space tether. An appropriate initial condition is decided, after the analysis of releasing characters including folding pattern, shooting angle and shooting velocity. Considering the longitudinal elasticity of tether and the uncertainties from space environment, an adaptive second-order super-twisting sliding mode control scheme is employed for the stability control of the MTSN. Finally, we verify the controller by both theoretical proof and numerical simulations. For your information Roger, each and every object in the universe attracts another body. This force is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. [math]F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{S^2}[/math] According to general relativity, any massive body creates a depression in the space-time fabric, causing any surrounding object to fall into that depression. That is the origin of this attractive force. According to general relativity, any massive body creates a depression in the space-time fabric, causing any surrounding object to fall into that depression. That is the origin of this attractive force. If you meant to mention the effect of black hole; that is only speculation... nothing there ! Gravity I will never agree with the theory of a planet hitting an other planet . It is contrary to the formation of the Universe as I understand it logically . Beginning from the big Bang end expanding in time the first body created from the sun evolving one after on other one in time would naturally be where they belong and so on.~ no state of kayos. Edited May 6, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion -2
Delta1212 Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 The whole solar system started as a swirling dust cloud. The planets and other objects in the solar system only coalesced in the first place because of debris colliding and gathering together in clumps. How exactly do you think things formed? 1
Phi for All Posted May 6, 2017 Posted May 6, 2017 I will never agree with the theory of a planet hitting an other planet . It is contrary to the formation of the Universe as I understand it logically . ! Moderator Note Then you need to open a blog, because this is not behavior befitting discussion, especially in a mainstream section here at SFN. You need to reconsider why you're here if you're so close-minded.
Recommended Posts