Science and Society

Whenever I read of speculations like this, I can't help but wonder what science would pay to have a time-machine or a time-viewer? To be able to go back in time or to see back in time just how a given event occurred would certainly be revelatory. Maybe I should start working on one. Where's H. G. Wells when you really need him?

Hmm, interesting. This is the first I've heard of moonlets in our Lagrangian points. I've heard of the moon formation theory, which is widely accepted due to the fact that moon rocks, which are made of Basalt, closely resemble the chemical makeup of Earth-bound Basalt rocks. If I remember correctly, Basalt is an easier rock to form, so it would have been the first solid rock Earth would have had. This kind of makes you wonder if we really do have a second or third moon, floating silently and undiscovered around our planet.

I would love one too Andy, care to build a second? And we don't need H.G. Wells, we just need to invent Skynet, with all the Terminators it's been sending back in time that look remarkably similar to our very own Governator.

Andy
"The Brick Moon", a short story by Edward Everett Hale, published serially in The Atlantic Monthly starting in 1869 was just such a story.
Outdated but a fun read. Check out either Classic Reader or Project Guttenberg for an online copy.

Thanks, Quietman, I'll give it a look. There also was an ancient TV play about a simulated trip around the moon. It was so realistic (to the characters) that they freaked out when they rounded the moon and found only a wooden framework on the back side.

Once upon a time when the skies were dark, a giant hand decided to play with molecules. He pushed and pulled, and rolled the masses into planets and stars. There were some left over pieces of clay, so He left them in the skies and called them moons. Then He let out gas, and called it the sun. ROFLOL.

Weather or not the earth had more that one moon in God's original creation. I believe that it is a waste of time to speculate on these things when there is so much more that is in dire need of our attention and resources.
Genesis 1: 14-18 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Why does religion always have to find it's way into scientific discussions? I honestly don't care if you believe God made lights in the sky. I really don't. It's just getting old to even walk around in my city without having some religious guy or girl shoving their religion down my throat. And to be even more honest, it's only the Christians that seem to do so. At least in my experience. Why do you feel the need to inject religion into these discussions? Even the evolution ones? If you were truly secure and had absolute faith in your religion and beliefs, then why are you guys so afraid of science?

@Lawrence - Exactly! Well put.

Because it effects the very core of my being. Just the way you feel about the world evolving into what it is today. I feel the biblical account of how the earth was made is 100 percent true. The thing that troubles me the most is the evolution theory is taught as fact in every facet of education. It is not only the Christian's that are cramming it down each other throat. But really I am not trying to cram anything down anyone else's throat. I just want my side of the point to be heard.

Lawrence
I learned my lesson in the "Evolution: Now Showing at a Theater Near You" thread. Fundamentalism is a lost cause, on it's last legs and the hold outs are thick as schmitt.

Sorry about the spelling.

There are some problems with this hypothesis, as well as the Mars sized impact hypothesis (Thea hypothesis).

First: How do we know the original size of the earth? Each impact adds mass, wether it be a comet, asteroid or a small planet.

Second: Why would our moon stay if other moons did not? Mars kept both and its a smaller planet with less gravity.

Third: An impact on a planetary scale is probably the origin of all earth orbit crossing bodies as original formed bodies would have a more stable orbit (witness the rings and moons within the solar system with the exception of bodies beyoud Neptune).

Forth: The moon is moving away from us which would indicate, along with it's geologic similarities, that it is indeed of earth origin.

In summary, what this tells me is that the impact did occur but both the size of the impactor as well as the size of the earth prior to impact are unknowns.
Yhe earth crossing bodies and the erratic orbits beyond Neptune indicate at least one major collision and possibly several. And last, existing bodies in erratic orbits indicate that the old term planetoids is more appropo for some of these bodies than asteroids. The very fact that some are completely metalic (core material) while others stony (crust material) and icy (ocean material) points to a planetary disaster somewhere in the distant past.

Quietman, I'm not sure about your hypothesis about more than one planetary colision. I do agree that the size of Earth and it's impactor are up for grabs. We'll never know unless we get some time travel technology. The reason I don't necesarily agree with you is the majority placement. For instance, the rocky and iron 'roids, and a mix of the two, rock and iron, tend to be in closer orbits, in the asteroid belt, with some strays. The majority of the icy bodies, reside mainly in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud, with strays, known as comets travel in and out of the inner solar system. If you can show me some proof, I'd be more than willing to check it out.

Lawrence
There are a couple issues.

There are claims that Venus was hit hard and changed it's rotation.

Recently it was shown that Mercury was also given a punch so hard that it can be seen on the opposite side of the planet.

The Orbit of Pluto and some other Kupiter objects cross paths and come closer to Neptune.

While most bodies in the solar system revolve in the same plane, some cross through the plane instead.

I have a suspicion about Ceres and Calipso but I need to do some more research before I can form a hypothesis.

Reading "Asimov on Astronomy", the good doctor claimed that there is not enough mass to have formed a planet between Mars and Jupiter but he did not allow for the mass of past planetary impacts.

I see it as a billiard shot, it only took one stray cue ball to knock things out of kilter. Why does Venus rotate backwards? How did Mars get two moons while Venus, with more mass has none?

And most telling, why do meteors contain large amounts of irridium which on earth is only found in the moho?

Lawrence
I forgot to mention that Venus with no moon is much farther away from the asteroid belt than Mars and Jupiter which both have more than one moon.

That rocky and iron meteors travel together is logical if they had the same point of origin but lighter objects like comets were thrown into there long orbits only to return to their place of origin (the inner planets which would have to include one in the belts orbit).

Asimov claimed that a planet could not have formed in that orbit because of the mass of Jupiter but then how do we explain Ceres?

Lawrence
My thought is that the object that hit earth was the major part of the missing planet (Thea) that was pushed inward somehow from the sol V orbital position.
Another possibility is the twin planet hypothesis in the Sol II orbit was pushed outward into our orbital plane.
I have read speculative papers on both.

Lawrence
I think that there may be a possibility that both pluto and Calipso originated as inner system bodies that were pushed into their erratic orbit by the same cue ball. In other words, it was all one event.

Lawrence
Pluto may actually have been the cue ball. What do you think?

Imagine a billiard table where, not only would "english" not be available, but you had to take into consideration the gravitic attraction between all the balls on the table. Some shooting, huh? There's also the semi-mystery of why Uranus is on it's side, relative to the rest of the planets. Venus is still the most mysterious with its, well, backspin. Must have been some game.