🚀 go-pugleaf

Ralph Silverman <z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote in article
<56q4qc$iob@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>...
> Brett Holman (bholman@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
> : Ken Wessels wrote:
> 
> : >     There is no excuse for being on this group and acting like the
> : > "Asteroid Belt" is a weird notion. It does seem like the remnants of
> : > another, possibly small, planet. 
> 
> : I posted the combained mass of the asteroid belt two weeks ago;
> : it is only 0.0004 Earth masses, far smaller than any planet. Also,
> : meteorites (presumably from the belt) are not sedimentary rocks, which
> : you might expect if they are remains of planets. 

Sedimentary rocks would probably not stand up to millions of years of
space. The theory also stated that the moon was apart of the mass used.
Maybe not a big planet so it was a small one.

All indications
> : are that they formed in weightless environments (except for martian and
> : lunar meteorites of cources). 

How do small rocks form without gravity?  The truth is meteors and
asteroids were apart of something bigger.

 I am not sure how the recent Galileo
> : asteroid fly-bys back this up.
> 
> : The asteroid belt seems to be left-over material from the formation
> : of the solar system, prevented from forming a planet by the 
> : gravitational influence of Jupiter and the Sun. There doesn't seem
> : to be any reason to doubt this.
> 
> : > I don't see how Earth could be "half" of
> : > the destroyed planet.

No body is saying that the earth is a part of a destroyed planet. The
theory states that the moon is the reminiscence of a destroyed planet this
also explains why the earth is blessed with such a large satellite.


> : >     It seems when science and speculation merge, science gets
ridiculed as
> : > much as the speculation. Another fault appears. Seperating the two is
the
> : > next step in analytical thinking. The "real world" is apprehendable.


You know, all through history science has ridiculed new ways of looking the
universe. It wasn't until the late seventies that continental drift became
an excepted theory. Prior to that the popular "science" community say that
large land masses just don't drift around the planet.  Further back in time
popular science thought that the earth was flat only a heretic would think
other wise.

 
> : I have no problem with science and speculation. Speculation is a 
> : necessary part of science. It's only when (as was the case with the
> : original post in this thread) speculation is not based on any
scientific
> : facts that have a problem.

That sounds some what like an arrogant statement.


 ______________________________________________________________________
> : Brett Holman            bholman@physics.unimelb.edu.au
> : School of Physics	http://astro.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~bholman/
> : University of Melbourne	* I can't believe that I, let alone the Uni, * 
> : AUSTRALIA               * would hold the opinions expressed here.    *
> 
> : Stop quoting the laws to us.  We carry swords. - Pompey the Great
> 
> --
> *************begin r.s. response****************
> 
> 	left over?
> 	huh?
> 
> 	generally,
> 	this stuff is metamorphic blobs ...
> 
> 	it melted and recongealed ...
> 
> *************end r.s. response*******************
> Ralph Silverman
> z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
> 
>