 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't fucking surprise me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 27, 2015 - 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
This is how I see it. The moon was not originally part of the earth. It was debris from the formation of the solar system. Like any other planetary moon it started out as a space wanderer, which at some point was hit by some other object large enough to reduce it's orbital velocity around the sun and send it sunward from whatever starting orbit it had before it hit whatever it was that ensured it's fate would become bound to that of earth. Eventually it hits earth with a sideward, glancing blow. If it had hit head-on it would have been obliterated.
The other interesting thing we know is it came in from an angle to the plane of the ecliptic. This angle is broadly in keeping with the angle of tilt the earth has with respect to the plane of the ecliptic. I contend the earth's spin axis would have been more in alignment at right angles to it's orbital plane before the moon hit it. For argument's sake and to fit the pieces of the jigsaw with higher clarity, I assume as much. The biggest maria "splodge" on the moon is where the impact took place. As the moon makes contact with earth, the frictional contact rotates the earth for as long as the contact lasts. Remember, the moon has tremendous velocity due to any acceleration it would gain from being pulled toward the sun. But, with the earth getting in the way it is slowed down due to the impact. Eventually, the planetoid grazes past the earth with several large chunks that have broken off moving alongside it. These massive chunks are smaller than the "moon" planetoid, so as the moon races away from earth following the impact, these large boulders may be spread out in a local debris "cloud" under the influence of the moon planetoid and vice-versa. This means that these mass objects would pull the moon away from any subsequent orbital path it would take around the earth and prevent it from impacting with earth again. We know this because the moon is sufficiently far from earth in it's current orbit. In other words, the moon and the debris caused by impacting earth all self-interfere. Eventually, these parts of the original planetoid are pulled back by the larger mass and create secondary, though smaller and more circular impacts that eventually became the seas of crisis and tranquility, for instance. This could explain the specific locality of groupings of maria. Imagine a shotgun travelling at speed that fires buckshot. The buckshot slows down and when it does it collides with the shotgun, which has caught up with the shot it fired, and which is now more spread out.
So we owe our seasons to the mechanical contact with the moon as it hit, then grazed along with the earth giving it the peculiar tilt it has with respect to the ecliptic.
The few pieces of the jigsaw giving rise to this picture are too overwhelming to pass over IMHO.
Relative sizes of earth and moon
The moon's orbit around earth crosses the plane of the ecliptic
Some info on the moon:
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2195.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 12, 2017 - 9:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
An idea for why the moon has maria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJkVegBsNyE
The problem is not only that Theia is the usual suspect, but a second moonlet derived in the collision with proto-earth was involved. The idea is kind of interesting, although, if the second smaller moonlet is chasing the larger one, it will have to be on a separate orbit.
Next is a short sequence showing how Theia caused the earth/moon system. The animation is graphically cool, however, the makers seem to have spelled Theia incorrectly for all their trouble. Still, the interesting bit is the debris flying around the newly formed moon, giving rise to the maria. They swirl around it like a swarm of wasps and eventually impact to create the dark spots. The point is they have trailed the moon and, being closer to it rather than the earth, end up crashing down onto its surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPJG5oVjvME
A mesmerizing animated sequence showing the formation and evolution of solar system solid bodies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf628Bugy_I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 12, 2017 - 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
This notion of lopsided lumpiness to solar system bodies is very interesting. Tom Van Flandern supposed the southern hemisphere of Mars was bathed in the pulverized rocky mass of a larger planet than Mars, of which Mars itself was that planet's moon. He envisioned this planet exploded and bathed Mars with a proportion of its mass. Why he thought that is a mystery to me. I think the thicker southern hemisphere on Mars is simply due to the two or three truly massive asteroidal collisions leaving their mass spread out over vast areas of the Planet, along with their impact basins. In the case of Mars, though, the large volcanic systems we see on its surface seem to me to be artefacts created by the massive blows inflicted somewhere on the other side of the planet. With Mars you can marry up, one for one, each impact basin with a system of volcanoes more or less diametrically opposite. I find it interesting how shock waves made by massive collisions traverse the innards of a planet whose only 'outer surface' contact is with space itself - that is to say, the shock reverberates only within the planetary mass itself. How is the shock of a massive impact focused to create the volcanic outlet somewhere else on its surface? That is interesting.
Edit: By the way, the Mars impact basins and volcanic plateaus are why I think Sputnik Planum on Pluto exists, however, the nature of the impacts are somewhat different. Where Mars is concerned, we have very large impactors vaporizing on the surface, having directed all their energy of mass and motion directly into the planet with which they've merged. With Pluto/Charon we are looking at minor deflections in their resultant motions following collision due to their original courses being almost parallel to one another. Think of Titanic and the Iceberg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 13, 2017 - 7:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
There would have to be an awful lot of impacts to make a 3 Km elevation difference between the hemispheres. A mere two or three impacts would have to be so large they'd destroy Mars.
Look at the elevation maps of Mars. The impact basins are huge. When I say "volcanoes," it is a mere slip of the tongue. Earth has volcanoes because it has very large plate tectonics. The massive volcano-like structures on Mars are more like outlet valves. If they are directly related to the large impactors in the southern hemisphere, it would seem as though some huge heat 'bullet' conducted right through the planet, following the colossal impact. Internal cracking and fissuring must have occurred in a big way. Shock waves would have been absorbed by the planet core, but also, they were probably deflected around the core in the same sort of way light rays are deflected, or refracted by a lens. The pressure of pent up molten rock pushed away from the impact site and gurgled all the way to the top. I would say that pattern of connection is as plain as the nose on a face, or the ears on Mickey Mouse 
These two artitcles kind of say it all: http://www.thule.org/mars/mars2.html and https://grahamhancock.com/spexarthg1/
YouTube documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlXuUxFTcLs
 
Edit: As it turns out, there are quite a few similarly inclined individuals who came to the conclusion the southern hemispheric Hellas impact is responsible for the uplift in the northern hemisphere quite a while ago. There really is something to be said for common sense being applied to something like this. It kind of creates a sense of relief and justification:
https://thinkingscifi.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/martian-geology-101/
http://charles_w.tripod.com/dweber/mars_volcanos/mars_volcanos2.html
The above image showing the top down plan view of both Earth and Mars' orbital shapes indicates Mars has greater eccentricity than does Earth. Could Mars' orbit have been less eccentric at the time of its formation? Did the Hellas impact give a push forwards, or a push backwards to impart the eccentricity we see today? I would think the impact would tend to rob it of orbital velocity rather than add it, however, one must be fair in appraising these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
