|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 14:06:05 GMT -5
If the solar event had stopped at Jupiter, then why are the moons of Jupiter not also gas giants? If they were captured, then why are not all moons captured? Why have one origin for one moon and another origin for other moons? This sounds like the story needs to keep changing to accommodate any holes in the story.All day yesterday in Church and most of the night last night was spent Pondering this comment. First let me address the vocabulary – why are not all moons captured? I have only given this particular quest 24hrs thought, but perhaps all moons are captured. I certainly think our moon was a capture. The moons of Mars are captures as well. Even if a moon formed in orbit around a planet – gravitational capture – keeps it there. With a google search of the moons of our solar system I found that none of them have a pure circular orbit about their host planets. Why not? Some moons have dramatic elliptical orbits; I suggest this is evidence of capture. According to orbital mechanics, as a body flys by a planet, there can only be one of several outcomes. 1. The flight path of each body is deflected to some degree and the passing body flys off in an altered course, while the planet is effect only slightly. 2. The passing body is captured into an elliptical orbit. If too elliptical then impact to the planet is inevitable. 3. If impact doesn’t occur the tug of war between the two bodies will moderate that orbit to become more circular and the host planet gets a new moon. Why are the moons of Jupiter not also gas giants?This is easy. To be a gas giant the planet’s gravity well must be large enough to hold onto all that gas. Gas giants are very large. If a gas giant planet has a gas giant moon – it would not be a moon – but rather it would be a binary planetary system. Each planet would wobble about the other, as they both orbited their host star. Although, the latest planetary finds around other stars do support gas giants very close to their host stars in support to WEDD and FD-WEDT. Why have one origin for one moon and another origin for other moons? This sounds like the story needs to keep changing to accommodate any holes in the story.I understand the point you are trying to make, but consider it forced. Our Moon and our planet Earth did not form by the same process – this is extremely obvious. The moons of Mars, Delmos and Phobos, are captured asteroids (my terminology). I say this because neither are spherical body, but rather, appears as fragments of originally larger bodies. Evidently there are more than one way to make a planet as well as a moon. The only way the theory has any holes in it – is if you try to confine all space bodies to the same story of formation – which is not the case. Attachments:
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 26, 2013 19:49:22 GMT -5
...perhaps all moons are captured. I certainly think our moon was a capture. The moons of Mars are captures as well. Lunar capture theory is purely speculation. The capture of our moon is a stetch... the idea of capture is that the moon had formed elsewhere and was captured within a certain planets gravitational force. There is no evidence of this theory, and it is not even believed as the contemporary scientific theory of our lunar formation. Is this what your church teaches you in Colorado? (just joking). God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 21:23:29 GMT -5
Lunar capture theory is purely speculation. The capture of our moon is a stetch... the idea of capture is that the moon had formed elsewhere and was captured within a certain planets gravitational force. There is no evidence of this theory, and it is not even believed as the contemporary scientific theory of our lunar formation. Is this what your church teaches you in Colorado? (just joking).Every scientific hypothesis is purely speculation, until proven or disproven; therefore I totally agree with your statement, but not your conclusion. Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, God set them in place. God placed them where they are. So once they are moved to their positions, why do they remain there? As I said previously: Even if a moon formed in orbit around a planet – gravitational capture – keeps it there.Capture theory is a mainstream, and well accepted, theory. The Capture Theory www.windows2universe.org/earth/moon/capture_theory.htmlMany of the moons surrounding other planets are really captured asteroids and not objects that formed in place with the mother planet, or were ejected by the mother planet.
One sign that a moon is really a captured asteroid is that it has a non-spherical shape, or looks more like a potato than round like our Moon. Moons that look like this are the two moons of Mars; Phobos and Deimos. Another sign that a moon may be captured is if it orbits in a direction opposite to that of the mother planet. An example of a moon of this kind is Neptune's moon Triton.
The Earth's Moon is both rounded in shape and orbits with Earth. These are the most direct pieces of evidence that the Moon is not a captured object. If the Moon were a captured object it would explain why the Moon and the Earth do not appear to be made of the same material.[/b] [/i] Origin of the Mooncde.nwc.edu/SCI2108/course_documents/earth_moon/moon/lunar_origin_theories/origins_moon.htmCapture Theory - states that the Moon was formed elsewhere in the Solar System and was passing by Earth when captured by Earth's gravity. The chief trouble with this theory is obvious from walking the "scale model of the solar system." The planets are so incredibly small compared to the vastness of space that it seems nearly impossible for something big to be captured instead of either missing us or striking us. The mathematical model for the capture of such a large body make this theory imposingly difficult to accept. However, the fact that the gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn have captured moons makes this scenario at least remotely possible for Earth. Unless Earth captured the moon when it was a large gas giant protoplanet as WEDD and FD-WEDT suggest!Since I am the pastor of my own fellowship here in Colorado, and I believe whole heartedly in both WEDD and FD-WEDT – it is what I preach. (not joking)
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 27, 2013 17:43:52 GMT -5
Capture Theory - states that the Moon was formed elsewhere in the Solar System and was passing by Earth when captured by Earth's gravity. The chief trouble with this theory is obvious from walking the "scale model of the solar system." The planets are so incredibly small compared to the vastness of space that it seems nearly impossible for something big to be captured instead of either missing us or striking us. The mathematical model for the capture of such a large body make this theory imposingly difficult to accept. I agree with these statements (above). Capture theory presents an imaginary mechanism to allow for concepts such as the Big Bang. The process of placement of planets and moons has nothing to do with accidental capture. It is universe by design. That, at least, is my opinion. Since I am the pastor of my own fellowship here in Colorado, and I believe whole heartedly in both WEDD and FD-WEDT – it is what I preach. (not joking) My comment about "joking" was in reference to your seemingly snide comment about my own church and country. Such a joke does not often get a laugh, wouldn't you say... God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 27, 2013 18:43:05 GMT -5
Capture theory presents an imaginary mechanism to allow for concepts such as the Big Bang. The process of placement of planets and moons has nothing to do with accidental capture. It is universe by design.
I am sorry you seem to be so threatened by vocabulary. If you do not believe that our Moon stays in orbit about our planet through the process of gravitational capture, then you can use whatever vocabulary you wish.
I really do not see the connection between gravitational capture and the Big bang theory. I have only used he term in connection with WEDD. By the way, the Big bang theory is a product of the Catholic Church, not science, science just claims it for itself.
I fully support and agree that the universe is by design. God put in place very specif Laws that must be followed. God does not have to manually mate 2 hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom to form a water molecule. It is these Laws of nature that allow us to rediscover His handiwork in nature. There is ZERO randomness!
However, even saying that, I recognize that seemingly random events occur, but occur with strict adherence to those established Laws.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
Psa 19:1 ... The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
If the only relevant fact of Creation is that God did it, then what is there to discover by investigating and exploring those Laws that support intelligent design? Remember, the phrase is by design, not absolute authority.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on Aug 28, 2013 17:20:09 GMT -5
I have been reading this thread for several days now trying to inject something intelligent here. In the reading I have done on the side it seems that there is only 3 ways that the moon could have formed.
1. It came out of our pacific ocean. If this is true then wouldn't it leave such a hole in our planet that California and China wold have moved closer together to maintain a ball shaped globe?
2. It formed on its own around us. If this is true then why is it made so differently?
3. It was captured. I notice in you example from The origin of the Moon' that the earth would be to small to capture such a large ball as our moon. Couldn't the moon be moving so slow that it would have been an easy capture?
Is their another theory of how we got our moon?
Just asking.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 28, 2013 20:38:59 GMT -5
By the way, the Big bang theory is a product of the Catholic Church, not science, science just claims it for itself. Actually, the Big Bang is of Jewish origins. Sorry about my "snide" comment. I misread the tone owing that I could not hear you. Textual comments can easily be lost in translation. God Bless Steve
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 28, 2013 20:49:17 GMT -5
Is their another theory of how we got our moon? Hi Dillon, The most popular evolutionist theory of the moon today is that the moon formed through a collision of a Mars size planet into earth over 4 billion years ago. According to this theory, the debris from the collision that formed around the earth had coalesced into a ball, which became our moon. The coalescing moon formed about 15,000 kms from earth, and then gradually drifted off until it reached its current distance from earth. It is quite a ridiculous theory, but nonetheless, that is the latest and greatest that evolutionists are trying to sell the gullible consumers. The NASA video on the "evolution of the moon" is found here: God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 28, 2013 23:36:09 GMT -5
1. It came out of our pacific ocean. If this is true then wouldn't it leave such a hole in our planet that California and China wold have moved closer together to maintain a ball shaped globe?
I have heard this two way, both by collision with another body and by ejection without another body involved.
a) You are correct about the pacific becoming narrower if this was true. People forget that the earth is a spinning top. The laws of rotational harmonics demand that if you take that much mass and weight out of a single location the globe must adjust its mass to maintain it rotational harmonics.
b) The second issue is the pacific ocean floo'rs Hawaiian Sea Mount chain. Its track marched its way from the North Pacific, first south and then eastwardly over time. If the Moon was gouged out from the Pacific in one massive swoop this Sea Mount chain wouldn't have developed as it did.
c) Pacific ocean floor dating also suggest a gradual ooze across the basin from the MORs. If it was gutted in one massive swoop you would expct the ocean floor to have a more uniform date / age.
2. It formed on its own around us. If this is true then why is it made so differently?
Correct again. The Moon and Earth are not of the same material, and more importantly for me, not of the same density. I suppose two bodies could form next to one another and be of different stuff, but it is a stretch.
3. It was captured. I notice in you example from The origin of the Moon' that the earth would be to small to capture such a large ball as our moon. Couldn't the moon be moving so slow that it would have been an easy capture?
Don't forget that no matter how slow the Moon was going, the Earth was still traveling at a really fast pace. Although, regardless of speed, I imagine that two bodies traveling any any speeds could meet up and capture one another. Remember our space craft dock with one another at 17,800 miles per hour.
This brings up a missing element for many peoples understanding of the universe. Gravity is a function of momentum. As you sit there and read this you are traveling at 4.4km/sec as you rotate around the earth, the earth is traveling at about 30km/sec as it orbits the sun, the sun is traveling at 250km/sec about out galactic core, and our galaxy is travelling at 600km/sec trough empty space. Add all this together and the momentum of your movement is staggering.
I add this because so many people forget the extreme mathematical forces involved in simple observed things, like a shooting star, or a moon about it host planet.
The thing I want to point out is that even the argument for capture theory requires that early planet earth to be a gas giant like Jupiter, which totally is in agreement with FD-WEDT
Is their another theory of how we got our moon?
I think Steve would tell you that God just put it there.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 29, 2013 0:56:59 GMT -5
Is their another theory of how we got our moon?I think Steve would tell you that empirically God just put it there. [/size][/b][/color][/quote] My, my, you are being cheeky. There are a few steps that are taken to form any galactic body, and even more specific steps to allow for organic life forms: 1. You need space 2. You need laws of attraction, such as magnetism, gravity and centrifugal forces 3. You need sub-atomic particles to be distributed to every corner of the universe (horizontality) 4. You need an equal distribution of subatomic particles (homogeneity) 5. You need a mechanism of distribution of subatomic particles (propagation) 6. You need a blueprint of sustainability (architect) 7. You need a purpose (God) Although evolutionist scientists scoff at the idea of an architect and God, they have not come up with a credible means of explaining most of these points, other than to say a "singularity" smaller than an atom contained the entire universe within. It exploded and coincidentally assembled with such a precision that organic life was inevitable. Most people are so used to seeing the world through an evolution perspective that they cannot conceive of a world outside of Einstein's relativity and the Big Bang. The idea that space itself could propagate subatomic particles into an ether of an existing spiritual blueprint with laws is outside of their naturalist expectation. The result is to mock all explanations that cannot be empirically tested, even though their own beliefs cannot be proven. This is the corrupt character of a community alienated from God, and it sometimes rubs off on otherwise God fearing christians. To think of a universe that forms from a blueprint from the tiniest atomic particles is somewhat similar to how our body forms from the tiniest of cells. Those cells duplicate and are predestined to form according to the order of the blueprint they have inherited. The wisdom behind that blueprint is God. This is what Dave means, presumably, when he amuses of me telling you that " God just put it there". This blueprint theory is bemusing, as though no one has ever heard of DNA before. What ever you want to believe is within your power. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 30, 2013 12:11:06 GMT -5
Other planets also experience eclipses. This is too big a coincidence that capture theory of moons would also facilitate eclipses, while other methods of moon formation, such as our moon, would also "accidentally" demonstrate eclipses. This is a precision event that requires careful calculation and engineering; something that capture or collision does not provide. I will post some links on eclipses on other planets shortly so that we are on the same page. Read more: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=planetoidpangea&action=display&thread=26&page=1#ixzz2dTGZG5gXI was reading the news this morning and the answer to this question by Steve just popped into my head. I knew this, but didn't think of it this now. Sorry I am so slow. He term is called the Ecliptic Plane. I don’t want to get into an argument of how it formed, but it did form. It is observed that many galaxies are flattened disc shapes, like our own Milkyway. Most of the stars of our galaxy orbit the core within a few degrees of that ecliptic plane. All the planets of our solar system are trapped within our stars ecliptic plane. The Earth's orbit is inclined a little more than 1° to the ecliptic plane of our sun, and the other major planets are also within about 6° of the ecliptic plane of our sun. Most Solar System bodies appear very close to the ecliptic in the sky. Moons are also trapped by their host planets ecliptic planes. Therefore, all moons, planets, and even stars experience eclipse, some small, some total. The news today: CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) — NASA's Mars rover Curiosity turned its cameras skyward to snap pictures of the planet's moon, Phobos, passing in front of the sun, images released on Thursday show. This is by far the most detailed image of any Martian lunar transit ever taken. It was even closer to the sun's center than predicted, Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com/SciTech/nasa-mars-rover-eclipse/2013/08/29/id/522973#ixzz2dTOiEMJ8 Attachments:
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 30, 2013 21:10:54 GMT -5
I was reading the news this morning and the answer to this question by Steve just popped into my head. I knew this, but didn't think of it this now. Sorry I am so slow. The examples you give only demonstrate the exacting precision in which moons and planets require in order to showcase these eclipse phenomenon. A "big bang" would certainly not create such a galactic spectacle by accident. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 1:06:39 GMT -5
The examples you give only demonstrate the exacting precision in which moons and planets require in order to showcase these eclipse phenomenon. A "big bang" would certainly not create such a galactic spectacle by accident.
1. I read Richards post several times, where did he say it was the Big Bang that forms the ecliptic plane?
2. The ecliptic plane is a function of both gravity and angular momentum
Our moon is trapped in orbit around us by the gravity well formed by earth. The Earth, as well as all the space bodies orbit our sun because they are trapped in the gravity well of the sun, The moons of other planets are trapped in their host planets gravity wells. Al the planets and moons are trapped in this ecliptic plane at a +/- 8% inclination. This also explains why many galaxies have flatted disc shape profiles.
Are their exceptions to this rule - of course - but the preponderance of the evidence is in agreement, and there are excellent theories to explain some of the most obvious exceptions.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 16:37:38 GMT -5
1. I read Richards post several times, where did he say it was the Big Bang that forms the ecliptic plane? I was emphasizing that the comments Richard made only demonstrate the reasons for a belief in design - not big bang cosmology. Our moon is trapped in orbit around us by the gravity well formed by earth. The Earth, as well as all the space bodies orbit our sun because they are trapped in the gravity well of the sun, The moons of other planets are trapped in their host planets gravity wells. You state this as though you positively know this and that you have empirical evidence to prove this "trapped orbit" theory. Why did the moon not stay in its same orbit after it was initially captured after the debris of collision? Why was the moon not originally captured on the right ecliptic plane? Please show the empirical evidence for such beliefs. Where and how did this law of gravity come from in the big bang cosmology, and how does it work on such large and small bodies simultaneously? Why does it capture some things on ecliptic planes and other things not? God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 23:14:44 GMT -5
Our moon is trapped in orbit around us by the gravity well formed by earth. The Earth, as well as all the space bodies orbit our sun because they are trapped in the gravity well of the sun, The moons of other planets are trapped in their host planets gravity wells. You state this as though you positively know this and that you have empirical evidence to prove this "trapped orbit" theory. Why did the moon not stay in its same orbit after it was initially captured after the debris of collision? Why was the moon not originally captured on the right ecliptic plane? Please show the empirical evidence for such beliefs. Where and how did this law of gravity come from in the big bang cosmology, and how does it work on such large and small bodies simultaneously? Why does it capture some things on ecliptic planes and other things not? Did I say that Einstein's theory of gravity was called "trapped orbit theory?" Is Einstein's theory of gravity related to the Big Bang theory? I think he was more focused on orbital mechanics at the time. As for empirical evidence - is not our galaxy and our solar system evidence enough? Why are their exceptions to the rule - without looking it up I would say a) gravitational disturbances from other bodies, or from within the Ort cloud, b) products of collisions, c) and bodies that entered our solar system from deep space of differing inclinations. If you don't understand the science of Orbital Mechanics, how can you criticize it intelligently? Do you really do not know the current modeling that answers all of your question? I know you are going to say that the mathematics involved are just science fiction, but they hold true enough so that NASA can launch a satellite, in 1977, that can come within 30 square miles of its predicted target window of the Moon Triton, in 1989, and that was after it deflected its orbit twice by swinging around both Jupiter and Saturn. Here is a suggested guide to help you understand the basics of Orbital Mechanics - Newtonian Physics not Einsteinian. 1. Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students, Second Edition (Aerospace Engineering) by Howard Curtis (Nov 9, 2009) Hardcover $64.89 2. Orbital Mechanics by John E. Prussing and Bruce A. Conway (Dec 12, 2012) Hardcover $93.05 3. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering) by Roger R. Bate, Donald D. Mueller and Jerry E. White (Jun 1, 1971) Paperback $17.95 4. Orbital Mechanics by John E. Prussing and Bruce A. Conway (Sep 23, 1993) Hardcover $95.05 5. Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students, Third Edition (Aerospace Engineering) by Howard Curtis (Nov 10, 2013) $99.95 6. Orbital Mechanics, Third Edition (AIAA Education) by The Aerospace Corporation V. Chobotov (Sep 1, 2002) Hardcover $94.95 7. Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students (Aerospace Engineering) by Howard Curtis (Jan 10, 2005) Hardcover $41.00 8. Spaceflight Dynamics: Third Edition by William E. Wiesel (Jun 3, 2010) paperback $39.95 9. Introduction to Space Dynamics (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering) by William Tyrrell Thomson (Jun 1, 1986) Paperback $16.95 10. Orbital Mechanics: Theory and Applications by Tom Logsdon (Oct 24, 1997) Hardcover $145.00 11. Satellite Orbits: Models, Methods and Applications by Oliver Montenbruck and Eberhard Gill (Sep 2, 2011) Hardcover $99.00 12. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications by David A. Vallado and Wayne D. McClain (Apr 20, 2007) Paperback $150.00 Hardcover $165.19 13. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications by David A. Vallado and Wayne D. McClain (Apr 20, 2007) Paperback $150.00 Hardcover $165.19 14. Orbital and Celestial Mechanics (Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics) by J. Vinti, G. Der, A. Bonavito and Nino L. Bonavito (Jan 1, 1998) Hardcover $119.95
|
|