| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Painius
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
 |
|
To get it all together here are the reasons why the Moon will
someday be officially reclassified a...
Full Fledged "Major Planet"
1) The size of the Moon relative to most natural satellites
and, more importantly, the Moon's size relative to our planet
Earth.
2) The "barycenter", also called "center of gravity" (CG) of
the Earth-Moon system is about 3,000 miles out from Earth's
center toward the surface, or only about 1,000 miles below
Earth's surface.
3) All major planets always "fall" toward the Sun. Satellites
sometimes fall toward the Sun and sometimes move away
from the Sun. Our Moon *always* falls toward the Sun. The
Moon's open orbit around Earth means it never goes fully and
completely all the way around our planet!
4) The way the Moon "fits in" with the other solid planets.
Earth's sister planet, Selene, fits in very well with these other
major planets!
5) Natural satellites orbit their primary planets directly
above the planet's equator. Major planets orbit the Sun on
or near the ecliptic. Selene's orbit around the Sun (and the
Earth) is off the ecliptic by only 5 degrees. Selene varies
fully 18-23 degrees off the Earth's equatorial plane.
6) The Moon's orbit is far too distant from Earth to be either
a true satellite or a captured one.
____________________________________
Now, here's one more little thing for you to consider. Here it
is, just for you...
Isaac Asimov, who was one of the most gifted people to ever
grace and space our minds, was the one who thought of all
these reasons. Asimov truly believed that one day, perhaps
several years from the time he wrote his essays on the Moon,
the global astronomy community would finally realize that our
Solar System has another distinct major planet. Isaac Asimov
truly believed that the Earth and Moon together form a binary
planet system.
Well, official reclassification didn't happen in his lifetime. Isn't
it interesting how science will move so quickly to rename some
things in light of new evidence (for example, like changing the
"Andromeda Nebula" to the "Andromeda Galaxy") and then
move very slowly, or not seem to move ever at all, even when
the evidence *so strongly* suggests that renaming is needed?
Ah, but it would take more than just a renaming, wouldn't it?
It would take a reclassification of the Moon from "satellite" to
"major planet". Even some classical poetry might be rendered
impotent. We have been viewing the Moon as going completely
around the Earth for far too long, i suppose.
Imagine... even back when the last holdout finally gave in to
heliocentrism--the belief the Sun is the center of the Universe,
and that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the
other way around--even that last holdout could say, "Well, at
least we still have the Moon. If nothing else goes around the
Earth, at least the Moon still does!" And yet, even this we find
to be wrong due to a limited perspective. Our Moon doesn't
completely orbit the Earth at all. It orbits the Sun in careful
step with the Earth. Maybe it's all just too hard to swallow?
Anyway, if long after i'm dead and gone, ya'll do decide to
stop calling a planet a satellite, then you may need a new
name for the Moon. I mean... you *can't* keep calling it "the
Moon", after all, because a moon is defined as a satellite. Its
other name, the Roman "Luna", won't do either because,
while it happens to be a pretty name for the goddess of the
Moon, it is still too closely identified with the "Moon is just a
satellite" idea. On top of this, "Luna" has all those negative
associations such as "lunatic" and "lunacy" and those ever so
controversial "lunar" landing missions. <g>
For me, of all the potential new names for the Moon, by far
the most beautiful, seductive one is...
Selene
That's pronounced seh-LAY-nay, and is the ancient Greek
name for the goddess of the Moon. This name does not wear
the cloak of "satellite" so much as "Moon" and "Luna" do.
I think "Selene" sounds rare and beautiful!...
much like our mysterious partner in space!...
very much like our rare and beautiful sister!...
planet Selene
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
On Jun 22, 4:23 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
To get it all together here are the reasons why the Moon will
someday be officially reclassified a...
Full Fledged "Major Planet"
1) The size of the Moon relative to most natural satellites
and, more importantly, the Moon's size relative to our planet
Earth.
|
There's also its relatively good mass and relative orbital velocity
that's far more tidal impressive than any other moon.
| Quote: |
2) The "barycenter", also called "center of gravity" (CG) of
the Earth-Moon system is about 3,000 miles out from Earth's
center toward the surface, or only about 1,000 miles below
Earth's surface.
3) All major planets always "fall" toward the Sun. Satellites
sometimes fall toward the Sun and sometimes move away
from the Sun. Our Moon *always* falls toward the Sun. The
Moon's open orbit around Earth means it never goes fully and
completely all the way around our planet!
4) The way the Moon "fits in" with the other solid planets.
Earth's sister planet, Selene, fits in very well with these other
major planets!
5) Natural satellites orbit their primary planets directly
above the planet's equator. Major planets orbit the Sun on
or near the ecliptic. Selene's orbit around the Sun (and the
Earth) is off the ecliptic by only 5 degrees. Selene varies
fully 18-23 degrees off the Earth's equatorial plane.
6) The Moon's orbit is far too distant from Earth to be either
a true satellite or a captured one.
|
I and a good orbital simulator do not agree with your 6).
| Quote: |
____________________________________
Now, here's one more little thing for you to consider. Here it
is, just for you...
Isaac Asimov, who was one of the most gifted people to ever
grace and space our minds, was the one who thought of all
these reasons. Asimov truly believed that one day, perhaps
several years from the time he wrote his essays on the Moon,
the global astronomy community would finally realize that our
Solar System has another distinct major planet. Isaac Asimov
truly believed that the Earth and Moon together form a binary
planet system.
Well, official reclassification didn't happen in his lifetime. Isn't
it interesting how science will move so quickly to rename some
things in light of new evidence (for example, like changing the
"Andromeda Nebula" to the "Andromeda Galaxy") and then
move very slowly, or not seem to move ever at all, even when
the evidence *so strongly* suggests that renaming is needed?
|
Our DARPA works in very mysterious ways, almost exactly as though it's
Old Testament regulated, or worse yet Zionist/Nazi moderated to
death.
| Quote: |
Ah, but it would take more than just a renaming, wouldn't it?
It would take a reclassification of the Moon from "satellite" to
"major planet". Even some classical poetry might be rendered
impotent. We have been viewing the Moon as going completely
around the Earth for far too long, i suppose.
|
Bet yourself and all others can't objectively prove it has been
continually with us, other than since the very last ice-age this Earth
w/Selene is ever going to see..
Can we do the math of 2e20 N/sec * 3.6e3 * 24 * 365 = ???????
Can you convert some of that tidal holding force into raw energy?
| Quote: |
Imagine... even back when the last holdout finally gave in to
heliocentrism--the belief the Sun is the center of the Universe,
and that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the
other way around--even that last holdout could say, "Well, at
least we still have the Moon. If nothing else goes around the
Earth, at least the Moon still does!" And yet, even this we find
to be wrong due to a limited perspective. Our Moon doesn't
completely orbit the Earth at all. It orbits the Sun in careful
step with the Earth. Maybe it's all just too hard to swallow?
Anyway, if long after i'm dead and gone, ya'll do decide to
stop calling a planet a satellite, then you may need a new
name for the Moon. I mean... you *can't* keep calling it "the
Moon", after all, because a moon is defined as a satellite. Its
other name, the Roman "Luna", won't do either because,
while it happens to be a pretty name for the goddess of the
Moon, it is still too closely identified with the "Moon is just a
satellite" idea. On top of this, "Luna" has all those negative
associations such as "lunatic" and "lunacy" and those ever so
controversial "lunar" landing missions. <g
For me, of all the potential new names for the Moon, by far
the most beautiful, seductive one is...
Selene
That's pronounced seh-LAY-nay, and is the ancient Greek
name for the goddess of the Moon. This name does not wear
the cloak of "satellite" so much as "Moon" and "Luna" do.
I think "Selene" sounds rare and beautiful!...
much like our mysterious partner in space!...
very much like our rare and beautiful sister!...
planet Selene
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net
|
You and most of anyone other will likely be dead and gone before the
Zionist/Nazi DARPA is ever going to give an inch on this one. Too
bad, because I too kinda like Selene as our binary planet that has
thawed us out from that last ice-age this planet w/Selene is ever
going to see.
Even if we could manage to relocate Selene to Earth L1, as such this
interactive orbital improvement would still be capable of keeping the
3% solar isolated plus AGW boosted environment from ever seeing
another ice-age, as well as we'd still have roughly half the current
level of ocean tides to deal with (except only on a 24 hour cycle
basis), not to mention having fewer earthquakes and less other
geothermal fluctuations to deal with.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Painius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message...
news:8648f13a-9b36-497b-8257-de18c0c1d7b2@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 22, 4:23 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
To get it all together here are the reasons why the Moon will
someday be officially reclassified a...
Full Fledged "Major Planet"
1) The size of the Moon relative to most natural satellites
and, more importantly, the Moon's size relative to our planet
Earth.
There's also its relatively good mass and relative orbital velocity
that's far more tidal impressive than any other moon.
|
Excellent! Thank you, Brad, for this is yet another good
reason to consider Selene a major planet. It's tidal effect
upon the Earth far outweighs the tidal effects of any of the
moons on their planets.
| Quote: |
2) The "barycenter", also called "center of gravity" (CG) of
the Earth-Moon system is about 3,000 miles out from Earth's
center toward the surface, or only about 1,000 miles below
Earth's surface.
3) All major planets always "fall" toward the Sun. Satellites
sometimes fall toward the Sun and sometimes move away
from the Sun. Our Moon *always* falls toward the Sun. The
Moon's open orbit around Earth means it never goes fully and
completely all the way around our planet!
4) The way the Moon "fits in" with the other solid planets.
Earth's sister planet, Selene, fits in very well with these other
major planets!
5) Natural satellites orbit their primary planets directly
above the planet's equator. Major planets orbit the Sun on
or near the ecliptic. Selene's orbit around the Sun (and the
Earth) is off the ecliptic by only 5 degrees. Selene varies
fully 18-23 degrees off the Earth's equatorial plane.
6) The Moon's orbit is far too distant from Earth to be either
a true satellite or a captured one.
I and a good orbital simulator do not agree with your 6).
|
Why not? Keep in mind that this was just a mental
exercise by Asimov to show that true satellites would
only fall at certain distances from their planets. There
has never been independent substantiation of his idea
that i know of.
However, i consider it to be the strongest reason of all
to see the Moon as really a planet. So i'd be interested
to know the details of why you don't agree.
| Quote: |
____________________________________
Now, here's one more little thing for you to consider. Here it
is, just for you...
Isaac Asimov, who was one of the most gifted people to ever
grace and space our minds, was the one who thought of all
these reasons. Asimov truly believed that one day, perhaps
several years from the time he wrote his essays on the Moon,
the global astronomy community would finally realize that our
Solar System has another distinct major planet. Isaac Asimov
truly believed that the Earth and Moon together form a binary
planet system.
Well, official reclassification didn't happen in his lifetime. Isn't
it interesting how science will move so quickly to rename some
things in light of new evidence (for example, like changing the
"Andromeda Nebula" to the "Andromeda Galaxy") and then
move very slowly, or not seem to move ever at all, even when
the evidence *so strongly* suggests that renaming is needed?
Our DARPA works in very mysterious ways, almost exactly as though it's
Old Testament regulated, or worse yet Zionist/Nazi moderated to
death.
Ah, but it would take more than just a renaming, wouldn't it?
It would take a reclassification of the Moon from "satellite" to
"major planet". Even some classical poetry might be rendered
impotent. We have been viewing the Moon as going completely
around the Earth for far too long, i suppose.
Bet yourself and all others can't objectively prove it has been
continually with us, other than since the very last ice-age this Earth
w/Selene is ever going to see..
|
Okay, this says to me that you, like Bert, think the
Moon was captured by Earth. And you seem to think
that it was captured relatively recently.
To be captured in the "normal" sense, that is to think
that an object the size of the Moon can approach the
Earth from any random trajectory and then be caught
by the Earth, wind up in a nearly circular orbit around
the Earth, and very stabley, in step, orbit the Sun with
Earth almost right on the ecliptic, is way too much for
me to swallow.
However, i've been thinking about something Ralph
Hertle said about the Earth and Moon originally going
around the Sun in almost the same orbit, but very far
apart. One or the other might be going a little faster,
and sooner or later catch up. This type of "capture" i
can go along with.
| Quote: |
Can we do the math of 2e20 N/sec * 3.6e3 * 24 * 365 = ???????
Can you convert some of that tidal holding force into raw energy?
|
That's not my area. <g>
| Quote: |
Imagine... even back when the last holdout finally gave in to
heliocentrism--the belief the Sun is the center of the Universe,
and that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the
other way around--even that last holdout could say, "Well, at
least we still have the Moon. If nothing else goes around the
Earth, at least the Moon still does!" And yet, even this we find
to be wrong due to a limited perspective. Our Moon doesn't
completely orbit the Earth at all. It orbits the Sun in careful
step with the Earth. Maybe it's all just too hard to swallow?
Anyway, if long after i'm dead and gone, ya'll do decide to
stop calling a planet a satellite, then you may need a new
name for the Moon. I mean... you *can't* keep calling it "the
Moon", after all, because a moon is defined as a satellite. Its
other name, the Roman "Luna", won't do either because,
while it happens to be a pretty name for the goddess of the
Moon, it is still too closely identified with the "Moon is just a
satellite" idea. On top of this, "Luna" has all those negative
associations such as "lunatic" and "lunacy" and those ever so
controversial "lunar" landing missions. <g
For me, of all the potential new names for the Moon, by far
the most beautiful, seductive one is...
Selene
That's pronounced seh-LAY-nay, and is the ancient Greek
name for the goddess of the Moon. This name does not wear
the cloak of "satellite" so much as "Moon" and "Luna" do.
I think "Selene" sounds rare and beautiful!...
much like our mysterious partner in space!...
very much like our rare and beautiful sister!...
planet Selene
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net
You and most of anyone other will likely be dead and gone before the
Zionist/Nazi DARPA is ever going to give an inch on this one. Too
bad, because I too kinda like Selene as our binary planet that has
thawed us out from that last ice-age this planet w/Selene is ever
going to see.
Even if we could manage to relocate Selene to Earth L1, as such this
interactive orbital improvement would still be capable of keeping the
3% solar isolated plus AGW boosted environment from ever seeing
another ice-age, as well as we'd still have roughly half the current
level of ocean tides to deal with (except only on a 24 hour cycle
basis), not to mention having fewer earthquakes and less other
geothermal fluctuations to deal with.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
|
Hold on... isn't L1 located on a line between the
Earth and the Moon? So if the Moon were moved
to L1, wouldn't it be closer to Earth and so cause
higher levels of ocean tides, more earthquakes
and other geothermal fluctuations?
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hagar
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote in message
news:P9B7k.129079$SV4.78172@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: |
To get it all together here are the reasons why the Moon will
someday be officially reclassified a...
Full Fledged "Major Planet"
1) The size of the Moon relative to most natural satellites
and, more importantly, the Moon's size relative to our planet
Earth.
|
There are moons in the solar system which are larger than Mercury and Pluto,
yet they will retain with the monicker "moons" ??
| Quote: |
2) The "barycenter", also called "center of gravity" (CG) of
the Earth-Moon system is about 3,000 miles out from Earth's
center toward the surface, or only about 1,000 miles below
Earth's surface.
|
You said it yourself, the "barycenter" is irrelevant.
| Quote: |
3) All major planets always "fall" toward the Sun. Satellites
sometimes fall toward the Sun and sometimes move away
from the Sun. Our Moon *always* falls toward the Sun. The
Moon's open orbit around Earth means it never goes fully and
completely all the way around our planet!
|
All planet fall towards the Sun, agreed. Their orbital velocity creates the
centrifugal counter balance to that tendency, thus maintaining a stable
orbit. The Moon falls towards Earth, with a tiny impact from the Sun.
During the first 15 day cycle from opposition to conjunction, the Sun's pull
speed it up the Moon, whereas during the second monthly cycle from
conjunction back to opposition, the Earth reins it back in again. This in
all likelihood causes a slightly elliptical orbit, the apex of which is
always pointed towards the Sun.
| Quote: |
4) The way the Moon "fits in" with the other solid planets.
Earth's sister planet, Selene, fits in very well with these other
major planets!
|
Yes, but all other planets orbit the Sun. Moons orbit planets. That single
point alone will never give Selene planetary status acceptance.
| Quote: |
5) Natural satellites orbit their primary planets directly
above the planet's equator. Major planets orbit the Sun on
or near the ecliptic. Selene's orbit around the Sun (and the
Earth) is off the ecliptic by only 5 degrees. Selene varies
fully 18-23 degrees off the Earth's equatorial plane.
|
You keep bringing up "Selene's orbits around the Sun". Selene's orbit is
around the Earth, period. The Earth carries it around the Sun and it's
inclination has nothing to do with anything. So the Earth is 5 degrees off
the ecliptic ... no problem. The Moon orbits the Earth around its ecliptic
(equator), but the Earth's axis is also tilted by 23.5 degrees, so the
Moon's relationship to the Solar ecliptic is 23.5 degrees plus 5 degrees
during 6 months of the years and 23.5 degrees minus 5 degrees for the rest
of the year.
| Quote: |
6) The Moon's orbit is far too distant from Earth to be either
a true satellite or a captured one.
|
Of all the scenarios regarding the Moon's origin, the impact one is still
the most viable. A body the size of the Earth simply cannot "capture" an
object the size of the Moon. The Sun might be able to, but not the Earth.
It is also a fact that the Moon is receding from Earth about 2 inches per
year. Calculate that backwards and you come up with a Roche Limit of
approximately 22,000 miles, about 4.2B years ago, when the cataclysmic event
is said to have happened.
Lastly, the barycenter should not matter, but Selene's only chance to be
named a Planet would be as part of a Earth-Moon binary planetary system, but
to qualify for that, the barycenter should be outside the circumference of
the larger of the two. Well, it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Painius
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B O T
I just *love* the way you keep leaving me open, Hagar! It's
almost as if you're buckin' for "straight man"...
**You Abbot -- Me Costello !**
<g>
"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message...
news:PIKdnesRPLPESsLVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: |
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote in message
news:P9B7k.129079$SV4.78172@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
To get it all together here are the reasons why the Moon will
someday be officially reclassified a...
Full Fledged "Major Planet"
1) The size of the Moon relative to most natural satellites
and, more importantly, the Moon's size relative to our planet
Earth.
There are moons in the solar system which are larger than Mercury and
Pluto, yet they will retain with the monicker "moons" ??
|
Yes, due to their size relative to their primary planets!
And due to their "closed" orbits around their primaries,
and due to all the other attributes they share with all
natural satellites and do NOT share with planet Selene.
| Quote: |
2) The "barycenter", also called "center of gravity" (CG) of
the Earth-Moon system is about 3,000 miles out from Earth's
center toward the surface, or only about 1,000 miles below
Earth's surface.
You said it yourself, the "barycenter" is irrelevant.
|
Not quite... I said that you might be correct that the
position of the barycenter (whether or not it lies
within or without the larger body) is irrelevant. And
as you may recall, i qualified this statement with the
strong feeling that the fact that the Earth/Moon CG
is so much closer to the surface of Earth, but that
all the satellites have barycenters that are so much
closer to their planets' centers, is HIGHLY relevant!
| Quote: |
3) All major planets always "fall" toward the Sun. Satellites
sometimes fall toward the Sun and sometimes move away
from the Sun. Our Moon *always* falls toward the Sun. The
Moon's open orbit around Earth means it never goes fully and
completely all the way around our planet!
All planet fall towards the Sun, agreed. Their orbital velocity creates
the centrifugal counter balance to that tendency, thus maintaining a
stable orbit. The Moon falls towards Earth, with a tiny impact from the
Sun. During the first 15 day cycle from opposition to conjunction, the
Sun's pull speed it up the Moon, whereas during the second monthly cycle
from conjunction back to opposition, the Earth reins it back in again.
This in all likelihood causes a slightly elliptical orbit, the apex of
which is always pointed towards the Sun.
|
Sort of like if you are driving around in a huge circle,
and your steering of the wheels is always to the left.
But if you're a satellite, you sometimes have to turn
to the right. Selene is always "driven" to the left!
| Quote: |
4) The way the Moon "fits in" with the other solid planets.
Earth's sister planet, Selene, fits in very well with these other
major planets!
Yes, but all other planets orbit the Sun. Moons orbit planets. That
single point alone will never give Selene planetary status acceptance.
|
As previously shown, planet Selene and planet Earth
both track around a common barycenter, however
their complex movement around the Sun is such that
Selene never completely orbits the Earth, and all of
these points together WILL FORCE the IAU to accept
that our Moon is a Full-Fledged Major Planet in its
own right!... Officially!
Or Else get laughed off the podium! (It's just as silly
to refer to Selene as a satellite as it was to call Pluto
a major planet!)
| Quote: |
5) Natural satellites orbit their primary planets directly
above the planet's equator. Major planets orbit the Sun on
or near the ecliptic. Selene's orbit around the Sun (and the
Earth) is off the ecliptic by only 5 degrees. Selene varies
fully 18-23 degrees off the Earth's equatorial plane.
You keep bringing up "Selene's orbits around the Sun". Selene's orbit is
around the Earth, period. The Earth carries it around the Sun and it's
inclination has nothing to do with anything. So the Earth is 5 degrees
off the ecliptic ... no problem. The Moon orbits the Earth around its
ecliptic (equator), but the Earth's axis is also tilted by 23.5 degrees,
so the Moon's relationship to the Solar ecliptic is 23.5 degrees plus 5
degrees during 6 months of the years and 23.5 degrees minus 5 degrees for
the rest of the year.
|
There is so much wrong with the above paragraph, i
hardly know where to begin! To begin with, Earth is
NOT 5 degrees off the ecliptic, Hagar! The ecliptic
plane is DEFINED by Earth's orbit around the Sun! So
Earth is ZERO degrees off the ecliptic! It is planet
Selene that is 5 degrees off the ecliptic! As for the
rest of the inconsistency, i leave it to you.
| Quote: |
6) The Moon's orbit is far too distant from Earth to be either
a true satellite or a captured one.
Of all the scenarios regarding the Moon's origin, the impact one is still
the most viable. A body the size of the Earth simply cannot "capture" an
object the size of the Moon. The Sun might be able to, but not the Earth.
|
Not long ago i agreed with this. However, i'm starting
to like Ralph Hertle's idea that the Moon and Earth were
orbiting the Sun in similar orbits, but the two planets or
protoplanets were not close to each other. Just their
*orbits* were very near each other. Then since one was
going just a little faster than the other, that body slowly
caught up to the other. After catching up, the two bodies
smoothly integrated into a binary planet system.
| Quote: |
It is also a fact that the Moon is receding from Earth about 2 inches per
year. Calculate that backwards and you come up with a Roche Limit of
approximately 22,000 miles, about 4.2B years ago, when the cataclysmic
event is said to have happened.
Lastly, the barycenter should not matter, but Selene's only chance to be
named a Planet would be as part of a Earth-Moon binary planetary system,
but to qualify for that, the barycenter should be outside the
circumference of the larger of the two. Well, it isn't.
|
Ah, so you DO think the barycenter is relevant, so much
relevant in fact that it's the one thing that makes all the
difference.
Baloney.
Next thing you know, you'll be screaming how Jupiter
must be a full-fledged star just because the Sun/Jupiter
barycenter lies just outside the surface of the Sun.
Bullcheet!
You are hereby officially laughed off the podium, and
you're in good company... the IAU.
And by the way... Who's on first? What's the guy's
name on second? and so on, and so on. <g>
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hagar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote in message
news:fBS7k.67902$102.50657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: |
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B O T
I just *love* the way you keep leaving me open, Hagar! It's
almost as if you're buckin' for "straight man"...
**You Abbot -- Me Costello !**
|
Not quite, I am the logical thinker, you are vehemently Moon planetoid
obsessive. You will twist anything known to man to get your point across.
Unfortunately, you fail at every juncture.
So, taking a chance on sounding repetitious (again), here are my points:
1) The Moon revolves around the Earth ... completely, every 30.5 days or
so, but it goes all the way around. The inclination of its orbit is totally
irrelevant. Nobody really gives a shit whether there are "loops" or not
when viewed from the surface of the Sun, Venus, Betelgeuse or the Magellanic
Cloud. It doesn't matter, ok. Viewed from the Earth, it goes round and round
and ... you get the drift.
2) If the Moon is to be considered a Planet, then all other Moons in the
Solar System, larger then the Moon, should be considered planets as well.
Now don't bring up your "barycenter" shit again, because it does not matter
one iota.
3) You are a smart dude, obviously, but you, for some unknown reason, got
hung up on a proposition that just won't hold sway in the real world. The
Earth capturing the Moon as it drifted by ... you can't be serious. It's
like a Kenworth doing 80 mph on the freeway suddenly sucking in a Honda
Civic and making it part of his "Convoy". Physically impossible.
4) I'm giving up on this argument. Even though I understand that it is a
noble cause in your eyes and I also am sure that your heart is in the right
place and I wish you all the success in your endeavor. The IAU says screw
you, we just got through fucking you out of Pluto as a planet. And there are
many more where Pluto came from, once we have the means to see that far.
You'll be a busy buckaroo sorting all that out.
5) I can guarantee one thing, though, the Moon will never become a planet.
Looks like one, moves like one, has a once a month rotational period, but
it's still a Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Painius
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
"Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message...
news:JcCdnf1X2cKYyv3VnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: |
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote in message
news:fBS7k.67902$102.50657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B O T
I just *love* the way you keep leaving me open, Hagar! It's
almost as if you're buckin' for "straight man"...
**You Abbot -- Me Costello !**
Not quite, I am the logical thinker, you are vehemently Moon planetoid
obsessive. You will twist anything known to man to get your point across.
Unfortunately, you fail at every juncture.
|
If you truly thought logically, then you wouldn't continue
to deny the FACTS Asimov and i have listed. And it is you
who keep dancing to Chubby Checker, not me!
| Quote: |
So, taking a chance on sounding repetitious (again), here are my points:
1) The Moon revolves around the Earth ... completely, every 30.5 days or
so, but it goes all the way around. The inclination of its orbit is
totally irrelevant. Nobody really gives a shit whether there are "loops"
or not when viewed from the surface of the Sun, Venus, Betelgeuse or the
Magellanic Cloud. It doesn't matter, ok. Viewed from the Earth, it goes
round and round and ... you get the drift.
|
Yeah, like... the Sun goes 'round the Earth when viewed
from Earth. Makes all the sense in the world...
....to anyone with a sadly limited point of view.
| Quote: |
2) If the Moon is to be considered a Planet, then all other Moons in the
Solar System, larger then the Moon, should be considered planets as well.
Now don't bring up your "barycenter" shit again, because it does not
matter one iota.
|
Oh no, apparently the barycenter is *everything* to you,
Hagar. You keep saying it's "not relevant", then you turn
around and treat the barycenter as if it's all that matters.
So don't bring up YOUR inconsistent barycenter shit again!
| Quote: |
3) You are a smart dude, obviously, but you, for some unknown reason, got
hung up on a proposition that just won't hold sway in the real world. The
Earth capturing the Moon as it drifted by ... you can't be serious. It's
like a Kenworth doing 80 mph on the freeway suddenly sucking in a Honda
Civic and making it part of his "Convoy". Physically impossible.
|
You obviously have NO clue as to the suction power of a
semi-tractor-trailer rig. You should look things up before
making such sadly uninformed statements!
| Quote: |
4) I'm giving up on this argument. Even though I understand that it is a
noble cause in your eyes and I also am sure that your heart is in the
right place and I wish you all the success in your endeavor. The IAU says
screw you, we just got through fucking you out of Pluto as a planet. And
there are many more where Pluto came from, once we have the means to see
that far. You'll be a busy buckaroo sorting all that out.
|
Thank you for giving up and giving me the last word, Hagie!
And i'll say it again...
If Pluto had not been fortuitously (to say the least) found by
Tombaugh, if Pluto had instead been discovered in the 90's
along with the rest of the KBO's, i'd like to hear what you or
anybody else would say if someone proposed to call Pluto a
"major planet". Pluto's a comet wannabee like the rest of
the objects in the Kuiper Belt.
And BTW, Pluto is STILL a planet... a "dwarf" planet.
Thank you for your well wishes, Hagar. I'm sure that
success is right around the corner!
| Quote: |
5) I can guarantee one thing, though, the Moon will never become a
planet. Looks like one, moves like one, has a once a month rotational
period, but it's still a Moon.
|
No, it's still *the* Moon, and in name only. The Moon
doesn't have to "become" a planet, Hagester, because
it already *is* a planet. Selene, the Moon, is a bonyfide
full-fledged major planet in its own right, so your silly
"guarantee" is just a buncha corn flakes that you can
eat for breakfast.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Painius
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
"oldcoot" <oldcoot7074@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message...
news:178ed873-b5b9-4de2-b793-a0e0c427ad7d@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
. . .
But if one "wants" it to be a planet badly enough, there are enough
arguments to "make" it one. Hey, still friends i hope. 
|
That was never in question, Bill. If in the face of
undeniable evidence that the Moon "demonstrates
itself" as a full-fledged major planet in its own right,
you feel that the minor differences far outweigh the
major similarities, then maybe in the future you won't
have as big a problem with people who so fervently
deny the CBB model and flowing space!
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
oldcoot
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Painius
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
"oldcoot" <oldcoot7074@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message...
news:6dde19b4-ce15-4161-aef1-2e753b4a8555@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 26, 1:31 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
If in the face of
undeniable evidence that the Moon "demonstrates
itself" as a full-fledged major planet in its own right,
you feel that the minor differences far outweigh the
major similarities...
I wuz goin' by the colossal mass difference between the moon and its
primary, something like .0123 to one. That's barely over *one percent*
of Earth's mass, which IMHO would surely put it in the category of a
captive satellite. Whereas if it were in a solar orbit all its own,
then it *would* be a planet in the league with Mercury etc.
|
". . . colossal mass difference . . .", hmm.
Earth's mass is 81.3 times the mass of the Moon. So
maybe you're right, Bill. It certainly *sounds* like a
lot. But let's take a look at some *truly* colossal
mass differences, shall we? The five satellites that
would have any chance at all of whipping the Moon
are the Galilean moons and Saturn's Titan. Here's
how they compare with their primary planets...
Jupiter has ... 39,559 times the mass of Europa (.0025%)
... 21,256 times the mass of Io (.0047%)
... 17,646 times the mass of Callisto (.0057%)
... 12,811 times the mass of Ganymede (.0078%)
Saturn has .... 4,226 times the mass of Titan (.024%)
Uranus has ... 24,620 times the mass of Titania (.0041%)
Neptune has .. 4,786 times the mass of Triton (.021%)
Earth has ...... 81 times the mass of Selene (1.23%)
"81 times the mass" just doesn't seem "colossal" to
me by comparison. I don't know where one ought to
draw the line, but when this comparison is added to
all the other reasons for seeing Selene as a planet
instead of a satellite, it seems to me that Selene very
certainly demonstrates itself to be exactly what it is...
a full-fledged major planet in its own right!
And i just thought of *another* reason in the Moon's
favor. I'll post it as soon as i can get to it.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
oldcoot
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
On Jun 26, 11:50 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
..it seems to me that Selene very
certainly demonstrates itself to be exactly what it is...
a full-fledged major planet in its own right!
...If just twern't for its being in captive orbit around that big blue |
mamoo and the system's barycenter being inside the BBM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
On Jun 25, 8:23 am, oldc...@webtv.net (oldcoot) wrote:
| Quote: |
Binary stars, black holes and planets do
exist, don't they?
Yeah, but are not such binaries of more or less equal mass? Is the
moon's mass relative to the Earth's really sufficient to qualify it as a
binary with the earth vis-a-vis a satellite? Somehow, mass-wise it just
don't jibe.
|
How massive was Sirius-B prior to going into its red giant phase?
How massive was Sirius-A prior to Sirius-B going red giant?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:40 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
On Jun 27, 6:54 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"oldcoot" <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message...
news:7f843142-3fa5-4f04-b5e2-ca7aa33a988b@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 11:50 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
..it seems to me that Selene very
certainly demonstrates itself to be exactly what it is...
a full-fledged major planet in its own right!
...If just twern't for its being in captive orbit around that big blue
mamoo and the system's barycenter being inside the BBM. :-)
Oh! I see that i left out two of the *really* colossal mass
differences...
Planet Mars is 60 million times the mass of its moon,
Phobos, and fully 428 million times the mass of its other
moon, Deimos. How about *those* for colossal mass
differences !!! And Earth is a mere, tiny 81 times the
mass of planet Selene, tch tch.
Frame of reference, oc! Earth is just as much a captive
of Selene as the other way around. Neither one is able
to escape the other. If you deny this, then you must
also deny the tremendous tidal and rotation period
effects that planet Selene has on Earth.
And how many times must it be said? Whether or not the
barycenter is inside or outside Earth should not matter so
much as the fact that its only 1/8 of Earth's diameter down
inside Earth, and the fact that EVERY satellite shares a
barycenter with its primary that is extremely close to the
center of the primary!
If the barycenter being outside the Sun doesn't make
Jupiter a star, then the barycenter being just inside the
Earth's surface shouldn't deny Selene's being a planet.
And **especially** in light of all the other reasons.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net
|
Rabbi oldcoot doesn't have such Old Testament options, especially if
it involves the truth.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Saul Levy
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
There is no evidence for any of this, BradBoi! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:28:57 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Selene also represents roughly twice the tidal affect upon our 98.5%
fluid Earth as does our sun.
2) The "barycenter", also called "center of gravity" (CG) of
the Earth-Moon system is about 3,000 miles out from Earth's
center toward the surface, or only about 1,000 miles below
Earth's surface.
3) All major planets always "fall" toward the Sun. Satellites
sometimes fall toward the Sun and sometimes move away
from the Sun. Our Moon *always* falls toward the Sun. The
Moon's open orbit around Earth means it never goes fully and
completely all the way around our planet!
4) The way the Moon "fits in" with the other solid planets.
Earth's sister planet, Selene, fits in very well with these other
major planets!
5) Natural satellites orbit their primary planets directly
above the planet's equator. Major planets orbit the Sun on
or near the ecliptic. Selene's orbit around the Sun (and the
Earth) is off the ecliptic by only 5 degrees. Selene varies
fully 18-23 degrees off the Earth's equatorial plane.
6) The Moon's orbit is far too distant from Earth to be either
a true satellite or a captured one.
I and a good orbital simulator do not agree with your 6).
Why not? Keep in mind that this was just a mental
exercise by Asimov to show that true satellites would
only fall at certain distances from their planets. There
has never been independent substantiation of his idea
that i know of.
However, i consider it to be the strongest reason of all
to see the Moon as really a planet. So i'd be interested
to know the details of why you don't agree.
I first of all agree that Selene is more likely a captured planet than
natural moon.
However, a natural moon can be of a somewhat closer orbit than 385,000
km, as well as further off depending upon the tidal radius of the
mother planet. A great deal of planet mass and/or greater mutual
density could allow for natural moons to exist at much grater
distances, as well as closer but at greater orbital velocity, whereas
a relatively low mass planet (such as Mars) is going to be limited to
holding onto nearby moons (natural or captured).
____________________________________
Now, here's one more little thing for you to consider. Here it
is, just for you...
Isaac Asimov, who was one of the most gifted people to ever
grace and space our minds, was the one who thought of all
these reasons. Asimov truly believed that one day, perhaps
several years from the time he wrote his essays on the Moon,
the global astronomy community would finally realize that our
Solar System has another distinct major planet. Isaac Asimov
truly believed that the Earth and Moon together form a binary
planet system.
Well, official reclassification didn't happen in his lifetime. Isn't
it interesting how science will move so quickly to rename some
things in light of new evidence (for example, like changing the
"Andromeda Nebula" to the "Andromeda Galaxy") and then
move very slowly, or not seem to move ever at all, even when
the evidence *so strongly* suggests that renaming is needed?
Our DARPA works in very mysterious ways, almost exactly as though it's
Old Testament regulated, or worse yet Zionist/Nazi moderated to
death.
Ah, but it would take more than just a renaming, wouldn't it?
It would take a reclassification of the Moon from "satellite" to
"major planet". Even some classical poetry might be rendered
impotent. We have been viewing the Moon as going completely
around the Earth for far too long, i suppose.
Bet yourself and all others can't objectively prove it has been
continually with us, other than since the very last ice-age this Earth
w/Selene is ever going to see..
Okay, this says to me that you, like Bert, think the
Moon was captured by Earth. And you seem to think
that it was captured relatively recently.
It may have been a NEO for quite some time, but only as having been
fixed into orbiting us as of roughly 12,500 BP.
To be captured in the "normal" sense, that is to think
that an object the size of the Moon can approach the
Earth from any random trajectory and then be caught
by the Earth, wind up in a nearly circular orbit around
the Earth, and very stabley, in step, orbit the Sun with
Earth almost right on the ecliptic, is way too much for
me to swallow.
Then just put everything we think we know into a public owned
supercomputer, and let it fly, so to speak.
There is a remote chance that both Earth and Selene came into this
solar system as a package deal. After all, Sirius-B before becoming a
white dwarf did lose its tidal grip on any number of planets and their
moons.
However, i've been thinking about something Ralph
Hertle said about the Earth and Moon originally going
around the Sun in almost the same orbit, but very far
apart. One or the other might be going a little faster,
and sooner or later catch up. This type of "capture" i
can go along with.
Earth L1, L2, L3 and L4 are each good initial capture locations.
Earth L2 or L1 are perhaps best suited.
Can we do the math of 2e20 N/sec * 3.6e3 * 24 * 365 = ???????
Can you convert some of that tidal holding force into raw energy?
That's not my area. <g
Global warming via Selene/moon is never any ones area of expertise.
|
| Quote: |
You and most of anyone other will likely be dead and gone before the
Zionist/Nazi DARPA is ever going to give an inch on this one. Too
bad, because I too kinda like Selene as our binary planet that has
thawed us out from that last ice-age this planet w/Selene is ever
going to see.
Even if we could manage to relocate Selene to Earth L1, as such this
interactive orbital improvement would still be capable of keeping the
3% solar isolated plus AGW boosted environment from ever seeing
another ice-age, as well as we'd still have roughly half the current
level of ocean tides to deal with (except only on a 24 hour cycle
basis), not to mention having fewer earthquakes and less other
geothermal fluctuations to deal with.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Hold on... isn't L1 located on a line between the
Earth and the Moon? So if the Moon were moved
to L1, wouldn't it be closer to Earth and so cause
higher levels of ocean tides, more earthquakes
and other geothermal fluctuations?
Earth L1 is always between Earth and Sol. Moving our moon out to
being interactively managed within the Earth L1, as a managed halo
orbit, would become extremely beneficial to life as we know it.
The Earth-Moon L1 or just moon L1 (ML1) is always situated between
Earth and our moon, +/- x km, offering a near zero gravity zone that's
roughly 85% from Earth or 15% away from the moon. Check out "Clarke
Station".
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Saul Levy
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The Planet Moon - The Altogether |
|
|
What planets and moons, BradBoi? lmfjao!
There are NO KNOWN PLANETS OR MOONS around Sirius A/B.
Saul Levy
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 25, 8:23 am, oldc...@webtv.net (oldcoot) wrote:
Binary stars, black holes and planets do
exist, don't they?
Yeah, but are not such binaries of more or less equal mass? Is the
moon's mass relative to the Earth's really sufficient to qualify it as a
binary with the earth vis-a-vis a satellite? Somehow, mass-wise it just
don't jibe.
Sirius-B used to be worth 6+ solar mass, while Sirius-A was likely
worth just one solar mass (a total of 7+ solar mass). Nowadays, the
two combined are worth only 3 solar mass, Sirius-B having lost their
tidal radius grip on any number of planets and moons.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
