-
The MOON And Its ORIGINS

Small Impactor Causology or,

"What if life had evolved in 20,000 billion B.C., was its influence on Health Science in the 12oo's substantial?"

The current theory about the moon is that it was captured when the proto moon, a mars sized mass, hit the earth, nearly blowing the earth apart via the force of the impact. This is the Giant Impactor Theory, used to explain much of the info of the Apollo moon landings of the 70's. For instance the Earth and moon have identical isotopic composition, this is well accounted for because they would have blended well in the capture of the moon. On this site authored by the originators of the Giant Impact causology (Click Here) it says the proto moon would have been created out of one of many small planets like large asteroids or the size of Mars at the time of the later formation of the solar system. A problem with this is, with many of these large proto moons around where did the rest of them go? There are three ways this would take place; the Impactors would be either captured, impacted and melded with the nearby planet, or removed to elsewhere in the solar system by the gravity of the planet as they would wheel past it. About this, there would be a high probability that a major fraction of these protoplanets would be removed and roam around the solar system to be captured by planets like Jupiter or Saturn without impact. And the larger moons of these worlds are more ice and water based, not burnt and dry like the moon. Thus if the source of the moon was by way of many large impactors we would expect to see many Mars sized moons of the gas giants. Since these are not seen, the whole idea of the later formation of the solar system by large impactors must be revised. Many smaller impactors no doubt are of worth because the outer moons of the giant planets are of this type. Another problem is about the regular increase of mass and decrease in density with distance both the planets and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn have with increasing distance outward from either the sun or a massive planet. This would be explained by a common way of formation so the giant planets with their large moons, and the solar system and the planets would have been formed by the same forces. But large protolanets the size of Mars in many motions around the solar system would disrupt this regular motif of formation for the moons of the giant planets and with their large mass the Giant Impactors would double or triple the mass of Mars or Venus at random and by moving around the solar system they would have disrupted both the mass and density of the Earth, Venus and Mars which show no signs of this. Venus in it's history has been impacted with something large so that the slowed down rotation always keeps the same face toward the earth as is known, and it's known the reason Mars has a lower altitude in it's N hemisphere is because of an impactor that sheared off some of the N hemisphere of Mars. While these are evidence of impactors, they aren't necessarily proof of the formation of the solar system by this motif, as in the Giant impactor causology. The Venus and Mars Impactors may have been of higher speed and lower mass from outside the solar system. So a prediction of this Small Impactor causology as necessary to explain the formation of the giant planets satellites and the planets themselves may be that the N hemisphere of Mars is of a different type of rock left over from outside the solar system. And since these Venus and Mars impactors would neither have been caused by the formation of the solar system or associated with the moon capture with it's breakup of the asteroid planet and my explanation of it's Late Heavy Bombardment with large asteroids around the solar system millions of years after the solar system's formation, the timing of the Venus and Mars impactors could be at any time in the history of the solar system, or at least somewhat after the Late Heavy Bombardment if the timing was caused by just luck

....

If the origin on the moon is not from the Giant Impactors near the Earth another source for the moon would be of worth to explain it's origin.

....

If the moon was in orbit around a planet comparable in mass to the earth at the start it would have had the right speed from that source to be captured by the Earth. And the giant planet origin of the moon is also ruled out because it would take a strong impact to dislodge the moon if in orbit around a world of great mass by another high speed moon or comet, this would have blown our moon to bits so this would probably not be where the moon was born. Optimally the planet the moon would have originally been around would have been from a mass like the Earth because if it were of this mass and the central planetary mass were impacted and disintegrated, the outgoing proto moon from the planet of origin would be the best with a comparable speed to its speed of orbit around the earth after the capture. The origin of a Giant Mars sized proto moon Impactor would neither be outside the solar system or the satellite of a large planet for these reasons. The only other source for a Giant Impactor would be as a planet itself or in orbit around a planet. By Bode's law or it's equivalent distance percent law of planetary distance, each planet is about 65% farther away from the sun than the one before it. By these two laws, whatever their cause, all the locations for planets are taken up. No planets are vacant other than where the asteroid planet was. Two planets can't occupy the same spot, because they would impact and combine. The only place where a Mars sized Impactor would originate might thus be narrowed down to that of the Asteroid Planet. But if it were dislodged from it's orbit this would take another Mars sized impactor, but there seems to be no other source than where the Asteroid Planet itself was in Bode's Law for the origin of this outside Impactor to move the Great Impactor if we assume this the Asteroid Planet was indeed the proto moon. On the other hand it's much easier to believe in an outside much higher speed small impactor to blow up the Asteroid Planet with a smaller proto moon in orbit around it. The relative speed of outside destroyers of worlds like this would be much higher than just orbital speed of satelites or other orbs. Computer simulations about the paths of the asteroids in their orbit in retro mode by retracing their paths back in time have been in evidence that the asteroids may have originally been one mass, a planet named Archeotex. An impacting high speed comet of other sort of rock than Rock Around the World would have blown up Archeotex, leaving the moon in a path toward the earth capture. I disagree with the "great" in the Great Impactor Theory. A moon of an earth sized world and at the distance from the sun where the density was comparable to the earth would have been just another moon like the moon now is. A giant high speed proto moon would indeed have blown the earth to bits. A more gentle impact with a small impactor would have allowed the moon to spin around the earth a bit, digging out the pacific ocean and then rolling off by centrifugal force. A huge proto moon of enough mass would have caused much more than the dent of the pacific ocean in the process of loss of mass of the Impactor theory. The pacific ocean is 5 miles deep compared to the huge 37,000 mile round earth. A giant impactor may have dug out a much deeper basin. To lose the mass and go from a giant to just 1/81 the mass of the earth would need a big impact. The moon would have also aided the disintegration of the asteroid planet by tidal forces, this being a contributing reason of why no other planet in the solar system may have had a similar fate.
.
On The wikipedia article Giant Impactor Theory;

"Even the dominant theory has some difficulties which have yet to be explained. These difficulties include:

There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis).

Formation of the Moon requires about twice the amount of angular momentum that the Earth-Moon system has now.

Ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not consistent with the giant impact hypothesis. If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient of those.

Iron oxide (FeO) content of 13% of the bulk Moon properties rule out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of Earth's mantle."

...

The lack of a magma ocean on the earth is not disproven by my theory. The capture of the moon would have been by a relatively light rolling motion with a more narrow band of blending of the moon and earth material. It would have been made by the lighter outward implosion of the earth and moon's gravity at the band instead of by pressure, so it would have reduced heat and magma, not proven with the impactor. The band itself may not be found yet because it would have been covered over mostly by the westward motion of N and S America. This would explain why the earth and moon don't have much mass in common.

.

The problem of the angular momenta is inconsistent with the Giant Impactor causology because if the proto moon was in the same orbit as the earth and mostly stable as in the impactor theory but more to the E, it would have had enough time to align the spins up. The Moon would have always gone with the Earth because of this balance of the field, so the most probable bet would have been that the angular moments wouldn't have cancelled out as much with a Small Impactor, leaving the small spin of the earth and moon uncancelled with a Small Impactor, with the spins much like they are believed to be by simple causology. There needs to be angular momentum in a moon capture to flung off the moon from the Earth following and during the impact. In The Small Impactor causology there is no extra missing spin to explain, the spin is reduced because it was built in from the preimpact and more spin is needed to fling off a Giant Impactor. An outside small proto moon wouldn't have to have as much spin to be flung out after the capture and it's angle of spin with the earth would be with more luck than the level resonance of the Giant Impact, so this allows the spins in more opposition that would cancel out and with also force enough that the moon would have been spun out. The Small Proto Moon and Earth in the process of aligning and flexing the field would have both flung the moon outward after it was rolled around the Earth at the same time losing the angular momentum.

...

The evidence about the moon elements like the siderophiles has generally been taken to be that the moon was burnt somehow. The theory that the moon was close to the asteroid planet when it was broken up would have the moon much nearer Archeotex and so it was nearer the source of the Late Heavy Bombardment, burning the moon more than anywhere else in the solar system..

. If the moon was originally formed near the Archeotex deeper down it would be made of more the same sort of rocks. The density of the moon is more earth like than the worlds of ice like the giant crystal globes or the great pizza in the heavens of Io and other moons of Jupiter. The event of impacts of the large asteroid size masses (seperate and following the formation) found in history of the solar system as a source of mass of the late heavy bombardment from the breakup of the asteroid planet is explained by this theory. Throughout the solar system the evidence from this event on the worlds with a stable surface may be found in the geology of the impact basins. A proof or disproof of the idea that this was the source of the moon would be that the capture of the radio dish (datable by the blonds on a date you ask if she'll lend you her VISA) would definitely be after the impacts but just for the narrow 500 million year band of geologic time, if the impacts were caused at the same time and with the moon's outward travel from where it was created. It would have wandered just a while. If it were moving for longer the wager would have been higher it would have gone in the area of the more massive planets. So it would have been captured by the much more robust mass of the giant worlds. So without much time roaming through the solar system, the time from the explosion of Archeotex and the capture of the moon by the earth in geologic time would have not been great. The rocks would cause the large impacts just before and after the moon capture. The moon rocks are proof of when the moon was captured and the large impacts on other worlds like Mars may prove the large impacts that would have gone on just before the moon and earth were unified. Since these asteroids would presumably be from the asteroid planet Archeotex it being iron rich, the impact basins they formed would have the same type of iron rich rocks in all the impact basins of the solar system, a prediction of this, my Small Impactor Causology of The Moons Source. The timing of the asteroid impact events are not a prediction of the Giant Impactor theory, and is a definitely distinct prediction of my theory. Because the source of the Giant Impactor would be unrelated to the late heavy bombardment, the timing of the capture of the Impactor theory just by luck would not be so definitely associated with the moon capture. The liberation of the Small Impactor in the impactor theory would be if the moon was captured just after the heavy bombardment. It bodes well for us that large impacts may be rare in the history of the Earth.

~~~~~~~

If moon captures of this sort are rare in the history of most solar systems, this would make life more improbable because life is caused by tides. Volcanoes are 75% steam to separate the land from water, and the first life was sulphur based around the lava vents. My geology marm loves coffee lamps and me! And the tides may also cause the ebb and flow in the estuaries thought essential to life. Most of the fish and other life live near the beach, it's like being rich at the beach, all is well if you're rich, at the beach, or when you're rich while at the beach, this how is the beach is good for S&Ls, you see sand dollars and starfish.. And the moon keeps the earth tilted and precessing around so it's not too hot on one side. So this may be an important reason why proof of extraterrestial life has not been found. If many more worlds without moons to evolve life are uncommon this would also make the advanced civilizations more uncommon.

.

Here's why life is about planting trees we may never see shade of (It has GE radiance!); Thanks to gene splicing of DNA a possible use of bio science may be if there were branches of the S and L that waved like fans in the heat to power wind for passers by in heat when the air was still! The heat would power a small flexor like perhaps spliced from the gene of other flora that move to capture life. Many plants that put out power (exotherms) are more so than many mammals, and may be of worth, and they may also respire their moisture more to the people who live and walk up the street. A usual area of forest breathes out a swimming pool of water per hour in the heat. It may be much more expensive to put up fans of usual electric power than to by GE. So the most wind, shade, and moisture may be aimed where it would achieve the "moist" worth. And horticulture may be used like this to make the leaves shield from noise in the city. If your head is too hot in summer and your street has no trees like these, I just lean towards the shade, broadband!

The crime rate goes down where there are trees, and the same trees might be used to find wind power. It's possible evergreen trees like pines might be GE so the needles are broader for power all the time, and a simple change in GE might give each branch a wire and a simple motor. Another possibility that's being considered is to put the tree in a large pot for the roots as it rocks in the wind for power. The tree mostly would rest even near CA! Large fields of herbs might be good for wind power by GE. We read of another possibility. Shingles powered by summer heat have been used since the late 90's; these might be combined so they might be for wind by small machines that also spin around with much larger area than machines now in the biz, they are for wind and summer heat, and look just like common shingles, modular so they can be added as much as is optimal if money is an issue.

.
They have booze for dogs new this month, is a Boozing Bengy a pooch who goes to Arf Arf Anonomyous?

.