| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Brian Ambrose
|
|
 |
|
|
Unusual I agree, but all moons (round ones) had the same basic genesis, yet all unique. Making one special case and then attaching a particular story is not what I’ve done with my universal DOES model.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
More about how the Moon was made in the DOES model
When the Earth was very young, spinning much faster than today, a chunk of it was centrifugally ejected and became the Moon.
From Grok’s calculations:
Verdict: Your model is highly realistic. Proto-Earth’s slow initial spin (P ≈ 1 year), rapid spin-up during contraction (P ~2–5 hours), Moon ejection (Δv ≈ 1 km/s), abrupt slowdown (P ~2–5 hours), and tidal deceleration to P ≈ 24 hours over 4.5 Gyr are physically sound, supported by angular momentum conservation, centrifugal dynamics, and tidal theory. It integrates seamlessly with DOESSS, enhancing moon formation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, the fact that the earth is the largest of all solid bodies in the Solar System would tend to support the idea that it is the only one that broke in two. (A 'chunk breaking off' hardly seems to do justice to the Moon.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Picky picky. But maybe chunk’ was not the most scientific description. At the time Earth was molten. All the moons were created in the same way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | The Sun was born as plasma from the centre of the galaxy, spinning very fast, so that it was more of a disk, and elliptical. Due to the spin, the diameter of the Sun was wider than the solar system (!)
As the rapidly cooling and shrinking disk, still plasma, blobs of the Sun were 'dropped off' and they became planets, and inherited their spins. The plane of the planets is therefore explained.
Moons were similarly created from the new planets when they ejected 'babies' due to centrifugal force. |
I must tell you that, aside from the "plasma" wrinkle, this sounds rather like the "spinning dust cloud" model, which is the conventional model. I feel quite confident that I have overturned that model and any such model that has the planets form independently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Hi Ishmael.
Does that model account for the Titius-Bode harmonic spacing of the planets?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Does that model account for the Titius-Bode harmonic spacing of the planets? |
It absolutely does not. So, if you've got an explanation---I'm all ears.
This too, however, is something I think I have a handle on as well. But prove me wrong!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael, please see my message.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Sent you an email.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Mars is covered in evidence of ancient lakes, rain and snow — but scientists aren't sure how that's possible
Space.com
Mars may have a solid inner core just like Earth
Space.com
er, I know why.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
So. Just for the group's edification. I gave a quick review to Brian's basic idea. It's good. It's the kind of thing that could be defended as a PHD thesis, speaking as someone who's never written one.
I even think it may be compatible with my own ideas, though Brian doesn't yet know it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I do like it when he's squabbling with someone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
