Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 46 of 222 (528498)
10-06-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 9:57 AM


...why then do we see active volcanic activity on Io? Don't the same rules apply?
Yep. Only Jupiter is a bit bigger than earth and has a slightly larger mass. There are consequently much greater tidal forces affecting it than the moon and this creates a lot of heat. A glance through any encyclopaedia should confirm this information.
quote:
"why is this not true of other lunar satellites like Io of Jupiter?"
How many satellites is it not true of? How many is it true of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 9:57 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:16 AM Modulous has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 47 of 222 (528499)
10-06-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mark24
10-06-2009 9:41 AM


"Nope, the fallacy is yours, you believe absolutely in something you haven't observed & berate others for doing the same."
But Jesus Christ did. I take His word seriously whether you do or not. But that is not the topic of this post. Now comment on the historical sightings of volcanic activity on the moon. Comment on the active volcanic activity of such moons as Io. Why is the moon supposedly 'dead' of such activity while Io is even more volcanic than earth?
Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 10-06-2009 9:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 10:25 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 75 by mark24, posted 10-06-2009 12:35 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 48 of 222 (528502)
10-06-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Modulous
10-06-2009 10:06 AM


Only Jupiter is a bit bigger than earth and has a slightly larger mass. There are consequently much greater tidal forces affecting it than the moon and this creates a lot of heat
Really? Then why is it that so many of Jupiters 62 moons have little or no such activity? Why is Europa covered with water/ice on most of its surface? The moons of Jupiter are so very different from one another...as if they were made that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 10:06 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 10:27 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 10:32 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 10:38 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 49 of 222 (528503)
10-06-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by cavediver
10-06-2009 9:42 AM


we don't know the origin of this process??? Err, hello, tidal force, tidal bulges, and all that...
You are pretending. Let me make it even harder on you: give the time and date that lunar regression began.
What has the origin of the Moon to do with its recession? Why are you changing topic?
You aren't even paying attention. The title of the thread is: 'Moons: their origin, age, & recession.'
You need to post elsewhere because your posts are of no interest to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 9:42 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 10:39 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 56 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:57 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 10:59 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 50 of 222 (528504)
10-06-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:08 AM


But Jesus Christ did. I take His word seriously whether you do or not. But that is not the topic of this post
1: Keep your preachy faith shit out of the science section. Facts and evidence only please. Thank you.
Now comment on the historical sightings of volcanic activity on the moon. Comment on the active volcanic activity of such moons as Io. Why is the moon supposedly 'dead' of such activity while Io is even more volcanic than earth?
2: I, and practically every respondent have commented on your lack of knowledge regarding astronomy, you're just not reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:08 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 51 of 222 (528505)
10-06-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:16 AM


Really? Then why is it that so many of Jupiters 62 moons have little or no such activity? Why is Europa covered with water/ice on most of its surface? The moons of Jupiter are so very different from one another...as if they were made that way.
So your whole tangent is insistent upon your belief that all moons in the universe be identical to ours? Please go read a book on astronomy. I hear Stephen Hawking knows a thing or two.
{ABE}News flash Captain Kirk: there is a hell of alot more matter flying about in the cosmos than plain old rock.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 52 of 222 (528507)
10-06-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:16 AM


Really? Then why is it that so many of Jupiters 62 moons have little or no such activity?
Yes really. But the fact that they orbit the same planet is not the only property they have. They differ on many others, as you say.
If you think the calculations that lead to Io being tidally heated enough to account for the volcanic activity should also lead to all the other moons of Jupiter being likewise volcanically inclined - then show the calculations.
However - I don't think you've done the work.
The moons of Jupiter are so very different from one another...as if they were made that way.
Yes, they are different. Made of different things, with different origins, at different orbital distances, different masses, different densities and with different eccentricities. That's a lot of important variables. That's why they are all different.
And yes - it is because they were made that way. But it is not necessarily because someone decided to do it that way.
So we agree - Io is in a different situation to our moon so while the rules are the same - the situation is different and thus we might anticipate differences. So why did you bring up Io?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:23 AM Modulous has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 53 of 222 (528509)
10-06-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:06 AM


Care to get back on?
Yes, love to. Can you explain why Young's equation are right yet do not match any others? Why is he right? Please explain...
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:06 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:17 AM onifre has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 54 of 222 (528510)
10-06-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:16 AM


eally? Then why is it that so many of Jupiters 62 moons have little or no such activity?
Apart from four tiny moons, Io is the closest to Jupiter.
Why is Europa covered with water/ice on most of its surface?
The water should give you a clue - tidal heating is what causes it to be water and not ice. And why would ice be an issue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:58 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 55 of 222 (528511)
10-06-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:22 AM


You need to post elsewhere because your posts are of no interest to me.
What??? I soundly refute your entire opening post, and you say my posts are of no interest to you? Wouldn't it be great in real science if we could just ignore those that claim to have refuted out own work You need to grow up, mate.
Now, how about that retraction of your opening post. Interested parties are waiting...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:22 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 56 of 222 (528513)
10-06-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:22 AM


Going further concerning the origin of the moons of our solar system. Question:
1. If the moons are celestial objects that originated within the planets themselves (not a popular theory) then how did they end up in orbit hundreds of thousands of miles from those planets?
2. If the moons were 'captured' by the planets then why has no one ever observed such a capture in the history of recorded science? How could it happen in the first place considering the Roche limit of each planet would cause the utter disintigration of such moons?
3. If the moons are merely collections of inter-solar debris/rock that was gravitationally pulled together then what observation of such an event could reinforce this possiblity?
4. Why do so many moons have retrograde orbits?
Quote: "The moons Ananke, Carme, Pasipha and Sinope and many other small moons all orbit Jupiter in a retrograde direction.
The moon Phoebe, thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object, and many other small moons all orbit Saturn in a retrograde direction.
The moon Triton, thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object, orbits Neptune in a retrograde direction as do some small moons." Wikipedia.
Evolutionists don't have a clue.
Quote: " Triton orbits Neptune in what is known as a retrograde orbit. This means that it orbits Neptune a direction opposite the planet's rotation. It is the only large moon in the Solar System to do this. Astronomers are not quite sure of the reason for this retrograde orbit."Triton, moon of Neptune - The Solar System on Sea and Sky
The real reason that the moons (as well as Halley's comet and other celestial objects) are in backward motion from all others is because Almighty God set them in motion that way. He did this purposely so that observing man would see that natural forces would not/could not do this.
Edited by Calypsis4, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:22 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 11:14 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 11:25 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 93 by subbie, posted 10-06-2009 1:21 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 57 of 222 (528514)
10-06-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by cavediver
10-06-2009 10:38 AM


Apart from four tiny moons, Io is the closest to Jupiter.
And Io happens to be the exception?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 10:38 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 11:00 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 58 of 222 (528515)
10-06-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:22 AM


cavediver writes:
we don't know the origin of this process??? Err, hello, tidal force, tidal bulges, and all that...
You are pretending.
No, I'm not Why would I pretend? Your own stupid equations in your opening post accept that the reason for the recession is tidal forces. Were you pretending?
Let me make it even harder on you: give the time and date that lunar regression began.
Why would I need to do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:22 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 222 (528516)
10-06-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:58 AM


And Io happens to be the exception?
The exception to what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:58 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 60 of 222 (528520)
10-06-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:57 AM


1. If the moons are celestial objects that originated within the planest themselves (not a popular theory) then how did they end up in orbit hundreds of thousands of miles from those planets?
Is being hundreds of thousands of miles from those planets a problem? Is that too far but say 10,000 miles would be ok? What is the issue here?
2. If the moons were 'captured' by the planets then why has no one ever observed such a capture in the history of recorded science?
Err, 1) the history of recorded science is a single blink of the eye wrt the history of the Solar System so why should we have observed this?, 2) the Solar System is now a very quiet place compared to its early life and so we do not expect to see such captures.
How could it happen in the first place considering the Roche limit of each planet would cause the utter disintigration of such moons?
Why would capture have to involve passing the Roche limit?
3. If the moons are merely collections of inter-solar debris/rock that was gravitationally pulled together then what observation of such an event could reinforce this possiblity?
Do we need one?
4. Why do so many moons have retrograde orbits?
Because they were captured that way?
Because collisions have left them orbiting that way?
Evolutionists don't have a clue.
Not really surprising as Evolutionists work on Evolution, where-as astronomers and astrophysicists work on the dyanamics of the Solar System. Don't worry, you'll get there eventually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:57 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:48 AM cavediver has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024