David Levy Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) To MigL "David Levy still cannot understand that the reason the moon is slowly moving away from the Earht is due to the change in angular momentum from the tidal forces," The issue is very simple. Today we all know the reason that causes the moon to move outwards from the Earth. But, 50 years ago we didn't know that reason. Actually we didn't even think that there is a possibility that the moon is moving away from Earth. Just after getting the formal approval from NASA about this situation, our wisdom science came out with this brilliant idea of reason. Why they didn't think about it before getting the results from NASA??? Today, no one knows for sure if Mars is moving (inwards or outwards). Actually we can't ignore any idea of movement direction as currently there is no solid verification & test. We just know that the Science consider that Mars stay in the same radius for billion of year. Is it reasonable??? I'm quite sure that if NASA will verify tomorrow that Mars moves outwards then the Science will immediately come with a new brilliant theory which explains this movement. Why they can't estimate this situation in advance??? Why they can't see today what is quite clear and logical?? Today I have proved that there is significant evidence that Mars must had been in its Habitable Zone in the past. Therefore, it must have been closer to the Sun. Hence, it moves outwards from the Sun. NASA – We have a problem!!! Please try to help!!! Edited October 12, 2012 by David Levy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) To MigL "David Levy still cannot understand that the reason the moon is slowly moving away from the Earht is due to the change in angular momentum from the tidal forces," The issue is very simple. Today we all know the reason that causes the moon to move outwards from the Earth. But, 50 years ago we didn't know that reason. Actually we didn't even think that there is a possibility that the moon is moving away from Earth. Just after getting the formal approval from NASA about this situation, our wisdom science came out with this brilliant idea of reason. Why they didn't think about it before getting the results from NASA??? Today, no one knows for sure if Mars is moving (inwards or outwards). Actually we can't ignore any idea of movement direction as currently there is no solid verification & test. We just know that the Science consider that Mars stay in the same radius for billion of year. Is it reasonable??? I'm quite sure that if NASA will verify tomorrow that Mars moves outwards then the Science will immediately come with a new brilliant theory which explains this movement. Why they can't estimate this situation in advance??? Why they can't see today what is quite clear and logical?? Today I have proved that there is significant evidence that Mars must had been in its Habitable Zone in the past. Therefore, it must have been closer to the Sun. Hence, it moves outwards from the Sun. NASA – We have a problem!!! Please try to help!!! Actually there's a pretty simple way to determine if Mars is moving outwards or inwards. You just measure the time it takes to ping the lander. If that amount of time changes by a statistically significant amount (iow, outside the error bars expected for communicating with another planet, and based on the changing distance between them as they orbit the sun), then Mars is moving. But let us, for the sake of argument, assume Mars is moving outwards at a rate of 1 inch per year and has been doing so since 100 million years after the formation of the solar system. That means it will have moved something like 4.4 billion inches since the formation of the planets. That's only 69,000 miles. That's not even far enough to reach the moon. In order to move from the earth's orbit to it's present location (a distance of .5 au), in 4.4 billion years, Mars would need to be moving roughly 669 inches per year (assuming my math is right). With the precision required to land something on the surface of Mars, someone would have noticed that the planet kept moving a little bit at that speed. Edited October 12, 2012 by Greg H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Any planet that was moving at the rate to move it out of the habitable zone would be moving at a rate so great that it would have collided with another planet between Earth and Mars. The early solar system had many smaller planets that crashed and combined until reaching the current equilibrium of all planets in our vicinity are moving in nearly circular orbits. They are not moving outward, or if moving outward at such a low rate that it would not be enough to move out of the habitable zone. So motion outward would have nothing to do with the reason Mars lost its lakes of liquid water. It lost its' liquid water when it lost its magnetic field and its' atmosphere got stripped away by the solar wind. Edited October 13, 2012 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Levy Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Dear Greg "In order to move from the earth's orbit toit's present location (a distance of .5 au), in 4.4 billion years, Mars wouldneed to be moving roughly 669 inches per year" Wow,great reply. Thanks you. If NASA would make the verification and find this result, you have to take a trademark on that. To:Airbrush "It lost its' liquid water when it lost its magnetic field and its' atmosphere got stripped away by the solar wind". Let's think what could be the outcome of the following theoretical step:. Assuming that the Earth is placed at Mars location, what could be the result on liquid water??? I assume that it will freeze completely even that the Earth has asignificant magnetic field. Therefore, Mars has no liquid water as it is not located at its Habitable Zone!!! Edited October 13, 2012 by David Levy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 That be irrelevant because it none be strong enough to manage the atmosphereive sustainance only the OzoneLayer can contain it and keep it in the relevant arrange For air molecules to leave a planet, it must have a velocity higher than the 'escape velocity', which is \sqrt { 2g{ r }_{ E } } , plugging in 9.8 for the value of g and 6.4e6 for earth's radius, we have 11kms-1. The velocity of air molecules is about 0.48kms-1, which is way smaller than the escape velocity. For where the equation come from, see Newton's universal law of gravitation. Thus, air molecules and ozone molecules don't leave the Earth that easily. Did you thought that the ozone layer was a solid and it encased the earth?! If yes, have you ever thought of the large hole in the ozone layer above the North poles?! If your explanation were true, Our atmosphere would have been gone years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Levy Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) To:Airbrush Thanks for you rmessage!!! I have reconsidered your reply. It was a triggerfor me to verify the source of the magnetic field in a star. Please see the thread which I have opened and let me know your advice. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69720-star-magnetic-field/page__view__getnewpost__fromsearch__1 Edited October 13, 2012 by David Levy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 David, David... Newton knew the explanation for the tides 300+ yrs ago and could easily have inferred the movement of the moon away from earth. I don't know wether he did or not and don't have time to look it up. But it certainly wouldn't have needed verification from NASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Dear Greg "In order to move from the earth's orbit toit's present location (a distance of .5 au), in 4.4 billion years, Mars wouldneed to be moving roughly 669 inches per year" Wow,great reply. Thanks you. If NASA would make the verification and find this result, you have to take a trademark on that. I am starting to think you miss the point on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 For air molecules to leave a planet, it must have a velocity higher than the 'escape velocity', which is \sqrt { 2g{ r }_{ E } } , plugging in 9.8 for the value of g and 6.4e6 for earth's radius, we have 11kms-1. The velocity of air molecules is about 0.48kms-1, which is way smaller than the escape velocity. For where the equation come from, see Newton's universal law of gravitation. Thus, air molecules and ozone molecules don't leave the Earth that easily. Did you thought that the ozone layer was a solid and it encased the earth?! If yes, have you ever thought of the large hole in the ozone layer above the North poles?! If your explanation were true, Our atmosphere would have been gone years ago. There is no hole in the OzoneLayer it be a hateful lie The atmosphere would have scattered out to space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 There is no hole in the OzoneLayer it be a hateful lie The atmosphere would have scattered out to space I suggest you support those assertions with some real evidence not baseless claims... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 In order for liquid water to exist, there has to be a high enough air pressure or at least high enough of some external pressure, and Mars has a much lower air pressure than Earth, which means water evaporates much easier. There is however ice water underneath the ground on Mars, which makes sense because there's a higher pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Replies be variable Reply specificaly about the post directly or indirectly It be respective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Replies be variable Reply specificaly about the post directly or indirectly It be respective So far everything you have asserted has been horse feathers, I have been respectful and offered you links to evidence of your mistakes. You however insist on simply making baseless claims with no evidence what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 So far everything you have asserted has been horse feathers, I have been respectful and offered you links to evidence of your mistakes. You however insist on simply making baseless claims with no evidence what so ever. Yoy still do not uderstand Your reply was to me about my reply to mallinia You should have repied indirectly useing FastReply at the end of the application Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Yoy still do not uderstand Your reply was to me about my reply to mallinia You should have repied indirectly useing FastReply at the end of the application You should show some supporting evidence of your claims... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 You should show some supporting evidence of your claims... What do you suppose about the RepyAspect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 What do you suppose about the RepyAspect You are mistaken, this forum is not a PM system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 You are mistaken, this forum is not a PM system... That be irrelevant There are two type of replies I explained myself in the past Suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 There is no hole in the OzoneLayer it be a hateful lie The atmosphere would have scattered out to space Unfortunately, yes there is one, and fauna and flora are dying because of that. Another thing. If rockets flew to the moon, the exhaust gases will also destroy part of the ozone layer, apart from tearing it apart. Thus the rockets will create holes where our atmosphere can leak out forever?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Unfortunately, yes there is one, and fauna and flora are dying because of that. Another thing. If rockets flew to the moon, the exhaust gases will also destroy part of the ozone layer, apart from tearing it apart. Thus the rockets will create holes where our atmosphere can leak out forever?!!! What are there symtoms Ifbe being i can assist there illness or if sickness I agree I am also against rockets and airplans So you suppose it is not a lie and there is holes in the OzoneLayer You need to specificaly explain your supposings Be more specific every time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 What are there symtoms Ifbe being i can assist there illness or if sickness I agree I am also against rockets and airplans So you suppose it is not a lie and there is holes in the OzoneLayer You need to specificaly explain your supposings Be more specific every time Rockets already flew to the moon. The ozone layer is depleting. The ozone layer is not a solid. The animals are getting skin cancer. If you went there, you probably would too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Rockets already flew to the moon. The ozone layer is depleting. The ozone layer is not a solid. The animals are getting skin cancer. If you went there, you probably would too. You keep saying the samething Just be against it Defend your self Be correct So you shall none be to blame if something auful happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 You keep saying the samething Just be against it Defend your self Be correct So you shall none be to blame if something auful happens The ozone layer has holes in it. What could be worse? [/sarcarsm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrology Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 The ozone layer has holes in it. What could be worse? [/sarcarsm] I said no Do not bother me I am very busy Talk about something else Thanks -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 There is no hole in the OzoneLayer it be a hateful lie The atmosphere would have scattered out to space No, it wouldn't have. But you obviously do not care to hear about facts. So have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now