🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Monroe wrote:
> 
> They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> 
> --
> David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
> Software Engineer
> Control Data Systems
> 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> (937) 427-6385

Then I hope they have invisible probes.  And that they don't keep them  
in the fridge.
and I hope they have invisible probes

Aan 3-11-96 6:49, in bericht <01bbc94a$4ee7d640$6f8860ce@david-lawler>, 
"dglmal@telis.com" <dglmal@telis.org> schreef:

> If you look at our solar system we have a missing planet.  This missing
> planet has left plenty of evidence if we look between the orbits of Mars &
> Jupiter there should be a planet. However, what we find is called the
> Asteroid Belt. 
> My theory is that the Asteroid belt several millions (160 or so) ago was
> really a planet that for some reason it exploded killing off the Earth's
> dinosaurs, destroyed all life on mars by blowing away most of Mar's
> atmosphere.
> This theory also explains why the earth has such a over size satellite and
> why the super continent Pangea broke into seven smaller continents that are
> now drifting around the globe.
> Check the mass of the belt and moon, I think you will find there is a
> enough dirt floating around out there to equal a good size terrestrial
> planet.
> -- 
> David Lawler
> dglmal@telis.org 

COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!1111

While extremely pissed and not going toi take it anymore.... TMB wrote:
> 
> Brian Zeiler <bdzeiler@primenet.com> wrote in article
> <3281ecbf.74010009@news.primenet.com>...
> > On 4 Nov 1996 20:07:13 -0800, Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Learn some modern geology PLEASE.
> >
> > Ha!  This from the same paranormalist who still has not been able to
> > produce the proof of his "thunder lizard" fantasies that was demanded
> > several months ago.
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> 
> >                         G ########### P
> >                      R ####         #### A
> >                    E ###    ########   ### C
> >                   E ##    ################# K
> >                   N ##    ####           ## E
> >                    B ###   #########   ### R
> >                      A ####         #### S
> >                         Y ########### !
> > _______________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> Actually,  We'd be happier if you both learn how to use a news reader and
> STOP CROSS POSTING.
> Alien abducted, tarot card reading, table-knocking, fantasy writing,
> half-baked
> conspiracy believers, area 51 vacationers, etc.....don't belong in
> sci.space.history.
> Notice that it isn't spelled scifi.space.history.

Laffffffff?  Chocking.  No wait.. That's Choking.  (Just checking who'd reply)

In article <3286CCE7.1D58@primenet.com>, goddess1@primenet.com wrote:

> Dave Monroe wrote:
> > 
> > Charlene Vickers wrote:
> > >

> > I think this thread is trying to compete with the
> > 'interesting' theories of Velikovski.

Did I hear Velikovski? Let's have a go at that! You do realize, of course,
that whether or not you like the sweeping, strange Velikovsky theories,
unfortunately, most of the predictions made from his model (things like
the voltage at the surface of the sun, etc.) turned out in retrospect to
be correct and/or true. How do you explain that? All of Velikovsky's
theories aside, it is pretty clear now that he was victimized by the
scientific establishment of his day- people like Menzel (a local favorite
around UFO groups) hated his ideas with such vengance that his writtings
were censored, and he himself basically recieve the scientific
establishements equivelent of "excommunication." 

Pons and Fleischmann ring a bell?

David Weinstein <dave@dweinstein.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>This theory also explains why the earth has such a over size satellite and
>>why the super continent Pangea broke into seven smaller continents that are
>>now drifting around the globe.
>Supercontinents have formed and broken up several times on Earth... It
>is cyclical. So this is out of the question
>-- 
>David Weinstein


Here's my '2 cents'..

Assuming that a meteorite of suitable size and velocity impacted on
pangea, and cause continental drift.  We know that the earths core is
liquified.  If a large body hits an liquid filled object, a contrecoup
arises opposite the blow. Has anyone located any traces of this zone
of damage?

Also has the search for microdiamonds in the K-T interval showed
anything up yet?

Toni 

Science is what helps mankind live, art is what he lives for.

Favourite quote....
Make it idiot proof and someone'll make a better idiot.

Thomas Having <master@alabama.com> wrote in article
<3287FC6F.232D@alabama.com>...
> Dave Monroe wrote:
> > 
> > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> > 
> > --
> > David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
> > Software Engineer
> > Control Data Systems
> > 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> > Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> > (937) 427-6385
> if there invisible, how did you see them?
> 
DOH!

Ok, as a physicist and a geologist, I think this whole mess needs to be 
cleared up once and for all.  Short lession in science history, as well 
as geology follows.

For a long time, catastrophism was considered to be the primary shaping 
event of the world (ie, volcanos, and big nasty events causing large 
changes) that happen in a relatively short time.  Then beginning in the 
1700's, but having most work on it done in the 1800's, the theory of 
uniformitarianism came into being, which basically says that slow events 
over a long period of time have a significant effect, which holds quite 
true.  Sedimentation of limestone in oceans, and the process of mountain 
building (which continues in many ranges to this day) are events that 
aren't formed in days, weeks, years, or even thousands of years, but on 
the scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Uniformitarianism became so popular that for a while catastrophic events 
were considered minor players in world events, basically considered 
having local effects only.  Of course, a more centrist view of the 
situation, allowing for both situations is pretty much accepted today.

On the subject of the impact about 65 million years ago - a short history:

In 1978, a group of scientists (including geologist Walter Alvarez, and 
his father Luis Alvares, a Nobel psysicist) were trying out a new 
technique to get the time it took for marine rock layers to form by 
looking at the trace element Iridium.  Iridium is a VERY rare element on 
Earth, but trace ammounts are collected from space dust that is captured 
by the earth (lots of dust and other materials from space is constantly 
raining down - several hundreds of tons a year or more).   Since the rate 
of dust/iridium accumulation is known well enough to suit error factors 
for geological ages, it was a sound model.  But the Alvarez's discovered 
something completly by accident - an EXTREMELY high concentration of 
Iridium in a small layer right at the boundry between the Cretaceous 
(denoted as a K, from the German word) - which was the last age of the 
dinosaurs, and the Tertiary (Symbolized by a T) - the age when mamals pretty 
much took over.  

There's only two possibilities for this concentration of Iridium - a 
volcanic eruption that includes lava from deep in the mantle of the 
Earth, or from an extraterrestrial (meteor or comet) imact, as iridium is 
known to be in high concentrations in such objects.  Further, other 
scientists started noticing that this anomalously high iridium boundry 
was seen globally at the same location in the geologic time scale (at the 
K-T boundry).   Also, it was well known that there are NO dinosaur 
fossils above the Cretaceous, and that about 60% of all other life on 
earth at the time went extinct as well (so it wasn't just a dino problem).

More recent studies of the KT boundry have shown an isotopic ratio of 
Iridium and other rare earth elements (Osmium for one) to be more 
consistent with an extraterrestrial origin, as well as the varieties of 
shocked quartz (quartz that has been changed due to a large stress such 
as an impact) that has been found globally at this layer.

It should be noted, however, that there was a VERY large volcanic 
eruption in the Decan Traps in Russia at about the same time, and recent 
hypothesis abound right now as to them being coincidences, or possibly the 
impact (which was known to be VERY large) causing the vulcanism.  I'm not 
well versed in these hypothesis, however, and will not discuss them 
further without more information.

Nevertheless, it is nearly globally admitted by geologists that an 
extremely large impact occured about 65 million years ago, most probably 
at Chixilub (sorry if this is a misspelling) off the Yucatan Peninsula of 
Mexico, from an object probably in the range of 5 to 10 miles in 
diameter, and there is much evidence supporting this hypothesis.

As far as continental drift goes, it's been going on for a LOT longer 
than 65 million years ago (in fact, it's been going on as long as there 
have been continents) and supercontinents seem to form in cycles (note, 
this doesn't mean all the pieces go back in the same position they used 
to be in at all - they just come together, then break up again, meeting 
each other in different configurations).  There has been at least 4 of 
these supercontinents estimated to have existed, and possibly more.  One 
only needs to go to East Africa and look at the African rift system to 
see a new ocean beginning to form as the rift splits aparts, or come here 
to Duluth and see one that started about 1.1 billion years ago, but 
stopped again (not uncommon).

As for the asteroid belt, to the best of my knowledge, the total mass 
would only be that of a small planet or moon, but it is unlikely that it 
was every together.  It is basically bits left over from the formation of 
the solar system that was caught in a gravitationally good spot, being 
influenced by jupiter.  And contrary to some beliefs, mostly enfoced by 
hollywood, the asteroids are concentrated in two groups, slightly ahead 
of and behind Jupiter's orbit due to orbital mechanics/gravitational 
effects.  I'm sure someone else could explain it better, but I'll find 
more information if people really request it.

I should present a show on this whole thing at the Alworth Planetarium 
where I work ;o).  Or at least hope a representative from a college that 
has a graduate program in planetary sciences might seem impressed and 
send me material on their program ;o).

Hope this helps!

--
/  ALSO SPRACH RFENTIMA / Robert Fentiman - University of Minnesota, Duluth  \
| Amiga 3000/25/9/100  \ rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu or  Robert.A.Fentiman@umn.edu / 
|__MST3K+Starwars+B5 Fan_\______Physics/Geology_Major_-_CS/Math Minor_______/
\_____________Pain is the body's way of saying "Don't do that!"____________/

nobody@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote:

>Did I hear Velikovski? Let's have a go at that! You do realize, of course,
>that whether or not you like the sweeping, strange Velikovsky theories,
>unfortunately, most of the predictions made from his model (things like
>the voltage at the surface of the sun, etc.) turned out in retrospect to
>be correct and/or true. 

More details of which can be found at:
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/velikovsky.htm


Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/

Thomas Having wrote:
> 
> Dave Monroe wrote:
> >
> > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> >
> > --
> > David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
> > Software Engineer
> > Control Data Systems
> > 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> > Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> > (937) 427-6385
> if there invisible, how did you see them?

That's easy.  They have the ability to bend light so only the person who 
is supposed to see them can see them.

ShimSoft (shimsoft@wport.com) wrote:
: Thomas Having wrote:
: > 
: > Dave Monroe wrote:
: > >
: > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
: > >
: > > --
: > > David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
: > > Software Engineer
: > > Control Data Systems
: > > 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
: > > Fairborn, Ohio 45324
: > > (937) 427-6385
: > if there invisible, how did you see them?

: That's easy.  They have the ability to bend light so only the person who 
: is supposed to see them can see them.

But how does this person know they're actually invisible? :))

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|           Bert `Ernie' Van Vreckem <we49807@is1.vub.ac.be>     |
| _    _              Free University of Brussels                |
|/ `--'/     Ninoofsesteenweg 70 - B-1760 Roosdaal (Belgium)     |
|  |=|==========##         Phone: +32 54 33 45 34                |
|\_,--\                      'Dormio Ergo Sum'                   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

ShimSoft wrote:
> 
> Thomas Having wrote:
> >
> > Dave Monroe wrote:
> > >
> > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> That's easy.  They have the ability to bend light so only the person who
> is supposed to see them can see them.

WHen the aliens come. Does that mean cellular rates will drop?

Survivor
-- 
Keep your head low and your powder dry. That is why I am the..
                        Survivor

In article <8NOV199619032604@hydra1.caltech.edu>, dbl@hydra1.caltech.edu
(Daniel Lang) wrote:

> In article <55tqh1$56k@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
kmc_mst6@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Karen M Cramer) writes...
> >MH Roberts (u5k24@cc.keele.ac.uk) wrote:
> >: Neil O'Hara wrote:
> >: > The object that struck earth and killed the dinosaurs was more likely a
> >: > comet, but could have been a meteor,...

> The other possibility is a massive episode of volcanic activity that
> formed the Deccan traps (in what is now India) ~65 million years ago.
> 
> Along the same lines, the formation of the Siberian traps may be responsible
> for the extinction episode at the end of Permian (the largest of the 
> extinction episodes).
> 
> Daniel Lang  dbl@hydra0.caltech.edu

      I like the idea that extinction ocurred before the comet or asteroid hit.
If you look at the size of the colonies in the Rockies and whrere they
died, you can see that other factors, including food availabiity could
have wiped out these herds.
      Can someone explain what the "traps" are in India and Siberia. Have
dino bones been found in the Western Desert of India?

-- 
visit me @ http://members.aol.com/cydonia102/private/ken.html

I believe you will find the Deccan traps in India.

	/Al Cooperband
	 ... unattributed opinions are my own

On 13 Nov 1996, Robert Fentiman wrote:

..<snip>...
> It should be noted, however, that there was a VERY large volcanic
> eruption in the Decan Traps in Russia at about the same time, and recent
> hypothesis abound right now as to them being coincidences, or possibly the
> impact (which was known to be VERY large) causing the vulcanism.  I'm not
> well versed in these hypothesis, however, and will not discuss them
> further without more information.

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

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.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
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

In article <32838324.654B@mail.idt.net>, Infomaniac <stodda19@mail.idt.net> says:
>
>Nicole Miller wrote:
>> 
>> In article <01bbc94a$4ee7d640$6f8860ce@david-lawler>, dglmal@telis.org
>> says...
>> >
>> >If you look at our solar system we have a missing planet.  This
>> missing
>> >planet has left plenty of evidence if we look between the orbits of
>> Mars &
>> >Jupiter there should be a planet. However, what we find is called the
>> >Asteroid Belt.
>> >My theory is that the Asteroid belt several millions (160 or so) ago
>> was
>> >really a planet that for some reason it exploded killing off the
>> Earth's
>> >dinosaurs, destroyed all life on mars by blowing away most of Mar's
>> >atmosphere.
>> >This theory also explains why the earth has such a over size satellite
>> and
>> >why the super continent Pangea broke into seven smaller continents
>> that are
>> >now drifting around the globe.
>> >Check the mass of the belt and moon, I think you will find there is a
>> >enough dirt floating around out there to equal a good size terrestrial
>> >planet.
>> >--
>> >David Lawler
>> >dglmal@telis.org
>> 
>> What does this have to do with Astrology???
>> --
>> THE PSYCHIC GUIDANCE ONLINE NETWORK
>> analysis | astrology | artwork | divination | healing | ufology |
>> workshops
>> HTTP://PAGES.PRODIGY.COM/NLDN84A
>> _______________________________________________________________
>> *****To subscribe, type SUBSCRIBE PGON in the subject field of your
>> email to pepgon@earthlink.net
>> *****To request our Frequently Asked Questions file (FAQ), type PGON
>> FAQ in
>> the subject field of your email to pepgon@earthlink.net
>> PLEAST TAKE THIS OUT OF alt.prophecies.nostradamus
>.
------------

Sounds good to me.

In article <56bnpu$4ge@epx.cis.umn.edu>, Robert Fentiman
<rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu> writes
>/  ALSO SPRACH RFENTIMA / Robert Fentiman - University of Minnesota, Duluth  \
>| Amiga 3000/25/9/100  \ rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu or  Robert.A.Fentiman@umn.edu / 
>|__MST3K+Starwars+B5 Fan_\______Physics/Geology_Major_-_CS/Math Minor_______/
>\_____________Pain is the body's way of saying "Don't do that!"____________/

A pretty neat summary on the K-T boundary. There have been other ,
lesser impact extinctions, eg the Eocene at 39my ago, and one c 91my ago
to name but two
Most asteroids lie between Mars and Jupiter, but the troublesome  ones
(2,000 it is believed<10 kms in size) fall into 3 groups
 Amor, Apollo, and Aten
Amors range elliptically from the Main belt to inside Mars' orbit,
sometimes <0.3 AU from earth
Apollos, range from the Main belt to cross Earth's orbit, while the 
Atens are mostly within Earth's orbit, and cross it on the way OUT to
Aphelion; These come "out of the Sun", as the fighter pilots have
it,mand so are hard to spot, but could make excellent sopurces of raw
materials, more accessible than Luna, for a mature human civilization. 
It is abundantly clear that we will never achieve our full ;potential as
a species stuck on earth, and that the Near Earth asteroids are
providentially placed for us to bootstrap our way into the future. 
 Providence has given us a clear message
"Heed the visionaries, colonise Space and grow , or listen to the little
Earthers and face a deserved extinction - we have no use for failures in
this Galaxy!"
 Interested "readers" are invited to visit Space Age Associates
http://people.delphi.com/astronist/index.html
-- 
Michael Martin-Smith

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

: 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.

: -- 
: ______________________________________________________________________
: 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

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
> 
> 

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

> --
> *************begin r.s. response****************
> 
>         left over?
>         huh?
> 
>         generally,
>         this stuff is metamorphic blobs ...
> 
>         it melted and recongealed ...

What is a non sequitur?

Your point is what? That this material is not left over from
the formation of the solar system? What is it from then?

(Your last three lines are not inconsistent with my statement on
the asteroid's origin.)

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
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

dglmal@telis.org wrote:
> 
> 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.

Why on earth (or in space, more to the point) not? What makes
sedimentary rocks so fragile that they won't survive sitting in
space for 4 billion years like any other rock?

> The theory also stated that the moon was apart of the mass used.
> Maybe not a big planet so it was a small one.

The original theory did, to which I replied in my first post on this
thread. The poster above made no such reference, only to the asteroid
belt being the remains of an exploded planet. Even with the moon
it is a very small planet, much smaller than any terrestrial planet.

> 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.

The truth, huh? Based on ... what? Anything at all? Any evidence for
that?

Small rocks form by accretion, that is collisions in the early,
pre-planetary solar nebula. Eventually, some get big, big enough
to sweep in other rocks by gravity. These sweep up most of the
matter in the solar system other than the Sun, and form the planets.
They don't get everything, of course (no process is 100% efficient)
and the bits they don't get are asteroids etc.

How do you think big rocks form, if not via small rocks? Or are
you suggesting that the planets were made on other planets? I don't
know, I don't understand your basis for argument here.

> > : >     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. 

Early seventies. See the last chapter of I. Bernard Cohen's 
"Revolutions in Science".

> 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.

That's a very popular myth. Very few educated people have thought
this since over 2000 years age. (The Columbus stuff is just made up.)
Nobody's arguing that science doesn't get it wrong. It does. But
the revolution comes from inside. The data need to suggest that there
is a problem, and in this case they don't.

> > : 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.

Oh come on. I'm an astrophysicist. Is it unreasonable that I expect
astrophysical arguments to be based upon astrophysical facts? Or am
I supposed to believe any old guff, simply because you claim it
is arrogant for me to do otherwise? On what am I supposed to base my
belief of a theory? (Here's a hint: I'm a SCIENTIST.)

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
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

Brett Holman (bholman@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: Ralph Silverman wrote:
:  
: > 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. All indications
: > : are that they formed in weightless environments (except for martian and
: > : lunar meteorites of cources). 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.

: > --
: > *************begin r.s. response****************
: > 
: >         left over?
: >         huh?
: > 
: >         generally,
: >         this stuff is metamorphic blobs ...
: > 
: >         it melted and recongealed ...

: What is a non sequitur?

: Your point is what? That this material is not left over from
: the formation of the solar system? What is it from then?

: (Your last three lines are not inconsistent with my statement on
: the asteroid's origin.)

: -- 
: ______________________________________________________________________
: 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***************

	there are different kinds of
		planets;
		gas giants,
		terrestrial type
		etc.
	.

	terrestrial type planets have
	molten cores of liquid minerals
	.

	if the molten core of such a
	planet should be violetly
	and suddenly exposed to the frigid
	environment of space,
	(by a kind of splattering);
	the result would be much similar
	to typical asteroids ... 

*************end r.s. response*****************
Ralph Silverman
z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

> > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.

How is this possible. If the ships are invisible, how can you see them???
Could you explain me please

In article <56q4qc$iob@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
Ralph Silverman <z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
>	left over?
>	huh?
>	generally,
>	this stuff is metamorphic blobs ...
>	it melted and recongealed ...

No. With the possible exception of Mars meteors, no known meteors
are metamorphic (rock which formed and was later melted and recrystalized.)
Most are undifferentiated and consistent with rock which formed by
gradual accumulation from relatively low velocity collisions (generally
enough to at least partially melt the rock.) That's just small rocks
hitting each other and sticking together, and nothing like what you'd
expect from a broken up planet. Meteors are (in most cases) believed
to come from the asteroid belt, and represent pieces of asteroids 
broken off by higher energy impacts. The spectra of asteroids matches
this theory. So the asteroid belt really does look like left over
remnants from the formation of the solar system, pieces that
never grew to the size of a planet because of perturbations from
Jupiter's gravity. There are some exceptions, notably 4 Vesta,
which looks like it _may_ have once part of a larger body. But
those are a small fraction of all asteroids, and given the mass
of the asteroid belt, the hypothetical parent body wouldn't have
been of planetary size. (Even when you add in the fact that the
asteroid belt was more massive in the past, the parent body would
probably still have been of less than lunar mass.)

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder

In article <01bbd664$758bf200$4f6062ce@david-lawler>,
 <dglmal@telis.org> wrote:
>Sedimentary rocks would probably not stand up to millions of years of
>space.

And? There aren't any sedimentary rocks in the existing collection
of meteors, and no spectral evidence of such rocks on asteroids.

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

>How do small rocks form without gravity?  

Easily. They hit each other and stick. There is no direct evidence of
how asteroids formed, but several moons of the outer planets and
Shoemaker/Levy-9 indicate that some moons and comets are loosely
bound collections of material. So hitting and sticking is quite
reasonable. Gravity only becomes relevant when an object has
grown to a size of ~100 km.

>...The truth is meteors and
>asteroids were apart of something bigger.

The "truth"? Truth based on what evidence? The spectra of asteroids
shows that they were never part of any body larger than about 500 km.
Meteors probably do come from larger bodies: Asteroids. But, with
the exception of the Mars and Moon meteors, there is no evidence
that they were ever part of a body the size of a planet.

> I am not sure how the recent Galileo
> asteroid fly-bys back this up.

Well, the Galileo data does not indicate that Ida or Gaspara were
ever part of a larger body, and the data is consistent with the
theory that asteroids are left over debris from the formation of
the planets. The main anomaly I'm aware of is that the objects
which have impacted their surface have a different size distribution
than what was expected (i.e. more large impacts relative to small
impacts.) Galileo has observed the same thing on Jupiter's moon,
Ganymede. So it isn't a process unique to the asteroid belt, just
one different from impacts in the inner solar system and from
theoretical expectations.

>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.

Two problems. First, the Moon's chemical composition resembles 
the Earth's mantle, not the bulk composition of the Earth or
any other known planet. Second, the Moon's surface has isotope
ratios that exactly match the Earths, in contrast to other planets
and meteors.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Miguel Luis Silva Schower wrote:
> 
> > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> 
> How is this possible. If the ships are invisible, how can you see them???
> Could you explain me please

Only your parents can explain you!!! ;-}

Frank Crary (fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <01bbd664$758bf200$4f6062ce@david-lawler>,
:  <dglmal@telis.org> wrote:
: >Sedimentary rocks would probably not stand up to millions of years of
: >space.

: And? There aren't any sedimentary rocks in the existing collection
: of meteors, and no spectral evidence of such rocks on asteroids.

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

: >How do small rocks form without gravity?  

: Easily. They hit each other and stick. There is no direct evidence of
: how asteroids formed, but several moons of the outer planets and
: Shoemaker/Levy-9 indicate that some moons and comets are loosely
: bound collections of material. So hitting and sticking is quite
: reasonable. Gravity only becomes relevant when an object has
: grown to a size of ~100 km.

: >...The truth is meteors and
: >asteroids were apart of something bigger.

: The "truth"? Truth based on what evidence? The spectra of asteroids
: shows that they were never part of any body larger than about 500 km.
: Meteors probably do come from larger bodies: Asteroids. But, with
: the exception of the Mars and Moon meteors, there is no evidence
: that they were ever part of a body the size of a planet.

: > I am not sure how the recent Galileo
: > asteroid fly-bys back this up.

: Well, the Galileo data does not indicate that Ida or Gaspara were
: ever part of a larger body, and the data is consistent with the
: theory that asteroids are left over debris from the formation of
: the planets. The main anomaly I'm aware of is that the objects
: which have impacted their surface have a different size distribution
: than what was expected (i.e. more large impacts relative to small
: impacts.) Galileo has observed the same thing on Jupiter's moon,
: Ganymede. So it isn't a process unique to the asteroid belt, just
: one different from impacts in the inner solar system and from
: theoretical expectations.

: >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.

: Two problems. First, the Moon's chemical composition resembles 
: the Earth's mantle, not the bulk composition of the Earth or
: any other known planet. Second, the Moon's surface has isotope
: ratios that exactly match the Earths, in contrast to other planets
: and meteors.

:                                                       Frank Crary
:                                                       CU Boulder

--
****************begin r.s. response*******************

	re..
		"...Easily..."
	(posting cited above) ...

	how long would that take?
	if the earth formed
 	that way ...
	why are these not planets too?

****************end r.s. response*********************
Ralph Silverman
z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

> 
> > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.

And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by 
UFOnuts!

PISS OFF!!!!

David Maclennan

In article <57cncl$2re@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
Ralph Silverman <z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
>: >All indications
>: >> : are that they formed in weightless environments (except for martian and
>: >> : lunar meteorites of cources). 

>: >How do small rocks form without gravity?  

>: Easily. They hit each other and stick. There is no direct evidence of
>: how asteroids formed, but several moons of the outer planets and
>: Shoemaker/Levy-9 indicate that some moons and comets are loosely
>: bound collections of material. So hitting and sticking is quite
>: reasonable. Gravity only becomes relevant when an object has
>: grown to a size of ~100 km.

>	re..
>		"...Easily..."
>	(posting cited above) ...
>	how long would that take?

The theories say this would take something like 100,000 years
before the bodies got big enough for their gravity to really
make a difference. At that point, the biggest would be about the
size of asteroids. After that, they would continue to grow
at a slower rate (as mass collects in sizable objects, the
time between collisions decreases) until the biggest ones
reached the size of large asteroids or possible lunar size.
Then the growth rates slow even more dramatically (this is
the point were the objects have accumulated everything close
to their orbits, and can only grow by having their gravity
perturb more distant objects into crossing orbits.)

>	if the earth formed
> 	that way ...
>	why are these not planets too?

You mean a planet in the asteroid belt? Basically because of Jupiter.
If Jupiter weren't there, they would have. But Jupiter got big
(started acquiring its gas envelope and becoming really massive)
around the time the asteroids were, well, about the size of
asteroids. The influence of Jupiter was enough to perturb their
orbits so that they collided at much higher velocities than they
would have without Jupiter. The higher impact velocities meant
that the odds of hitting and staying together were lower, and
the odds of hitting and braking up were greater. That prevented
the asteroids from growing to larger sizes. The terrestrial
planets (and the material which formed them) were far enough from
Jupiter that its gravity didn't prevent further growth.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Frank Crary (fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <57cncl$2re@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
: Ralph Silverman <z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
: >: >All indications
: >: >> : are that they formed in weightless environments (except for martian and
: >: >> : lunar meteorites of cources). 

: >: >How do small rocks form without gravity?  

: >: Easily. They hit each other and stick. There is no direct evidence of
: >: how asteroids formed, but several moons of the outer planets and
: >: Shoemaker/Levy-9 indicate that some moons and comets are loosely
: >: bound collections of material. So hitting and sticking is quite
: >: reasonable. Gravity only becomes relevant when an object has
: >: grown to a size of ~100 km.

: >	re..
: >		"...Easily..."
: >	(posting cited above) ...
: >	how long would that take?

: The theories say this would take something like 100,000 years
: before the bodies got big enough for their gravity to really
: make a difference. At that point, the biggest would be about the
: size of asteroids. After that, they would continue to grow
: at a slower rate (as mass collects in sizable objects, the
: time between collisions decreases) until the biggest ones
: reached the size of large asteroids or possible lunar size.
: Then the growth rates slow even more dramatically (this is
: the point were the objects have accumulated everything close
: to their orbits, and can only grow by having their gravity
: perturb more distant objects into crossing orbits.)

: >	if the earth formed
: > 	that way ...
: >	why are these not planets too?

: You mean a planet in the asteroid belt? Basically because of Jupiter.
: If Jupiter weren't there, they would have. But Jupiter got big
: (started acquiring its gas envelope and becoming really massive)
: around the time the asteroids were, well, about the size of
: asteroids. The influence of Jupiter was enough to perturb their
: orbits so that they collided at much higher velocities than they
: would have without Jupiter. The higher impact velocities meant
: that the odds of hitting and staying together were lower, and
: the odds of hitting and braking up were greater. That prevented
: the asteroids from growing to larger sizes. The terrestrial
: planets (and the material which formed them) were far enough from
: Jupiter that its gravity didn't prevent further growth.

:                                                      Frank Crary
:                                                      CU Boulder

--
****************begin r.s. response**************

	re.
		"... because of Jupiter ..."
		(posting cited above ...)

	how then,
	were the moons of jupiter formed?
	(and the moons of mars)
	(and the moons of saturn)
	?

	also ...
	why no asteroid belt past jupiter?

****************end r.s. response****************
Ralph Silverman
z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

Miguel Luis Silva Schower wrote:
> 
> > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> Could you explain me please

I can't explain you but I can explain the original post:

    hu'*mor

Unfortunately, this is a poorly understood concept by some.

G'day.
--
David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
Software Engineer
Control Data Systems
2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
(937) 427-6385

In article <57evo0$j6n@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
Ralph Silverman <z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
>Frank Crary (fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <57cncl$2re@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
>: Ralph Silverman <z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
>: >: >All indications
>: >: >> : are that they formed in weightless environments (except for martian and
>: >: >> : lunar meteorites of cources). 
>
>: >: >How do small rocks form without gravity?  
>
snip
>
>--
>****************begin r.s. response**************
>
>	re.
>		"... because of Jupiter ..."
>		(posting cited above ...)
>
>	how then,
>	were the moons of jupiter formed?

   How to explain....

   In the early solar system, you had a proto-Jupiter forming. Most of the 
material was in a disk rotating about a central point. As the center increased
in it's gravitational attraction, it pulled in more material. But, at
a certain distance out from that center, the sidewise velocity of the materials
were sufficient to keep them from getting pulled inward. Within those materials
not pulled in, there were similar mass concentrations. These in turn formed
local concentrations that grew into moons. But, going further out, you get
to the point where the Sun exerts as much, or more, influence than does 
Jupiter. Materials at that point are pulled out of the Jupiter region.

  Some of Jupiter's moons are probably captured asteroids.
 
>	(and the moons of mars)

   Probably captured asteroids.

>	(and the moons of saturn)
>	?
>

   Same way as the moons of Jupiter.

>	also ...
>	why no asteroid belt past jupiter?
>

   There are a number of belts past Jupiter. The belt we know of as the 
Asteroid belt is just one of a number of belts in the solar system.

>****************end r.s. response****************
>Ralph Silverman
>z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
>


-- 
Charles Buckley                   |   I took a multiple choice test once:
cbuckley@swttools.fc.hp.com       |   I checked "All of the Above"...
(970) 229-7607                    |   "None of the Above"..
I definately do not speak for HP  |   Then I set the test on fire

In article <57h7tc$e39@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, alexchen@cco.caltech.edu
(Yebo Chen) wrote:

> timberwoof@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:
> 
> >I read about preliminary work on that theory about twenty years ago in
Science News. Someone had made a simple computer simulation of colliding
terrestrial bodies and found some combinations of planet sizes and
relative speeds that fit very well with the current situation 4.5 billion
years later. I read about it again more recently in Scientific American. 
> 
> >The math works; the geology works. I'm convinced. :)
> 
> Question:  Isn't there a possibilty that the moon was formed at the same time
> as the earth?

Yes ... and no. 

You can take the rate at which the Moon's orbit is decaying and
extrapolate backwards for a long time ... and you end up with scary
results. I don't recall the precise details, but I think you end up with
two planets spinning around way too fast for their own good. 

However, if you accept for a moment the idea that the Earth was bigger and
got hit by something pretty big and very fast, you get a result that fits
with what we observe today. The thing that hit the Earth goes on, and the
ejecta go in three directions: back to the Earth, into orbit as the Moon,
and all over the solar system. Some of these occasionally hit the Earth
again. Tektites are meteorites that originated in this event or in later
impacts on the moon.

-- 
timberwoof@themall.net
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610
You may send me junk mail, but you agree to send me a US$1500 handling fee for each item. 

  'Didn't see the original...

z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Ralph Silverman) wrote:

>Frank Crary (fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>:  <dglmal@telis.org> wrote:
>: >Sedimentary rocks would probably not stand up to millions of years of
>: >space.

>: And? There aren't any sedimentary rocks in the existing collection
>: of meteors, and no spectral evidence of such rocks on asteroids.

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

>: >How do small rocks form without gravity?  

>: Easily. They hit each other and stick. There is no direct evidence of

  Out of a cloud of dust, (small) solid rocks are produced by
dust-particles "hitting and sticking"??  'Sounds dubious.

>: how asteroids formed, but several moons of the outer planets and
>: Shoemaker/Levy-9 indicate that some moons and comets are loosely
>: bound collections of material. So hitting and sticking is quite
>: reasonable. Gravity only becomes relevant when an object has
>: grown to a size of ~100 km.

  What about solid asteroids?  Hitting-and -sticking dust-particles?

>: >...The truth is meteors and
>: >asteroids were apart of something bigger.

  I'd think so..

>: The "truth"? Truth based on what evidence? The spectra of asteroids
>: shows that they were never part of any body larger than about 500 km.
>: Meteors probably do come from larger bodies: Asteroids. But, with
>: the exception of the Mars and Moon meteors, there is no evidence
>: that they were ever part of a body the size of a planet.

  So were asteroids then formed in situ by colliding dust-particles?

>: > I am not sure how the recent Galileo
>: > asteroid fly-bys back this up.

>: Well, the Galileo data does not indicate that Ida or Gaspara were
>: ever part of a larger body, and the data is consistent with the
>: theory that asteroids are left over debris from the formation of
>: the planets. The main anomaly I'm aware of is that the objects
>: which have impacted their surface have a different size distribution
>: than what was expected (i.e. more large impacts relative to small
>: impacts.) Galileo has observed the same thing on Jupiter's moon,
>: Ganymede. So it isn't a process unique to the asteroid belt, just
>: one different from impacts in the inner solar system and from
>: theoretical expectations.

>: >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.

>: Two problems. First, the Moon's chemical composition resembles 
>: the Earth's mantle, not the bulk composition of the Earth or
>: any other known planet. Second, the Moon's surface has isotope
>: ratios that exactly match the Earths, in contrast to other planets
>: and meteors.

  A Mars-sized planet smote the Earth obliquely, sending a spew of
incandescent matter (including Earth mantle) into orbit.  This
accreted to become the moon.  (read it somewhere)

>:                                                       Frank Crary
>:                                                       CU Boulder

>--
>****************begin r.s. response*******************

>	re..
>		"...Easily..."
>	(posting cited above) ...

>	how long would that take?
>	if the earth formed
> 	that way ...
>	why are these not planets too?

>****************end r.s. response*********************
>Ralph Silverman
>z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

  Grantland

timberwoof@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:

>I read about preliminary work on that theory about twenty years ago in Science News. Someone had made a simple computer simulation of colliding terrestrial bodies and found some combinations of planet sizes and relative speeds that fit very well with the current situation 4.5 billion years later. I read about it again more recently in Scientific American. 

>The math works; the geology works. I'm convinced. :)

Question:  Isn't there a possibilty that the moon was formed at the same time
as the earth?

In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
<davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:

> > 
> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> 
> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by 
> UFOnuts!
> 
> PISS OFF!!!!
> 
> David Maclennan

Hey David, 

This was posted as satire, or perhaps better put as sarcasm, by one of the
countless asshole "Skeptics" that pollute the UFO groups. You apparently
didn't catch that. So please, blame one of your own, not your "heretical
enemies."

The best way to deal with the fanatical fringe is to ignore it. Asking it
to "piss off" is a little like hoping an africanized "killer bee" will fly
away if you swat at it.

BTW, how *is* the New Zealand space program doing these days?

In article <57gnvu$fh4$1@newnews.iafrica.com>, mithril@iafrica.com (Grantland) wrote:

> >: Two problems. First, the Moon's chemical composition resembles 
> >: the Earth's mantle, not the bulk composition of the Earth or
> >: any other known planet. Second, the Moon's surface has isotope
> >: ratios that exactly match the Earths, in contrast to other planets
> >: and meteors.
> 
>   A Mars-sized planet smote the Earth obliquely, sending a spew of
> incandescent matter (including Earth mantle) into orbit.  This
> accreted to become the moon.  (read it somewhere)

I read about preliminary work on that theory about twenty years ago in Science News. Someone had made a simple computer simulation of colliding terrestrial bodies and found some combinations of planet sizes and relative speeds that fit very well with the current situation 4.5 billion years later. I read about it again more recently in Scientific American. 

The math works; the geology works. I'm convinced. :)

-- 
timberwoof@themall.net
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610
You may send me junk mail, but you agree to send me a US$1500 handling fee for each item. 

s.iafrica.com>:
Organization: Cloudnet - St. Cloud, MN (320) 240-8243
Distribution: 



ODDBALL ASTEROID CAPTURED ON NEW VIDEO COMPUTER SIMULATION

     A new computer-generated video visualization is giving 
planetary scientists a fresh look at the topsy-turvy rotation 
of the intriguing asteroid Toutatis, which is due to pass 
near Earth on Nov. 29.


     The video is of particular interest as Toutatis nears 
Earth and makes its closest approach on Friday, Nov. 29, when 
it will pass by at a distance of 3.3 million miles (5.3 
million kilometers), or about 14 times the distance from the 
Earth to the Moon.  In 2004, Toutatis will pass only four 
lunar distances from Earth, closer than any known Earth-
approaching object expected to pass by in the next 60 years. 

     Discovered in 1989 and named after a Celtic god, the 
asteroid Toutatis has dimensions of 2.9 by 1.5 by 1.2 miles 
(4.6 by 2.4 by 1.9 kilometers.) It is considered one of the 
strangest bodies in the Solar System, given its peculiar 
rotation and odd shape, which resembles two chunks of rock 
connected by a narrow neck-like structure. The rocky body's 
strange traits are believed to be the result of a history of 
violent collisions.

                         -end-


=============================================================================
Bill Hilbrich           St. Cloud, Minnesota            hilbrich@cloudnet.com

   Death has no sting.. Just the destruction of the Ego and Ultimate Peace
=============================================================================

Miguel Luis Silva Schower (hunter@iactiva.cl) wrote:
: > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.

: How is this possible. If the ships are invisible, how can you see them???
: Could you explain me please

Geez, you guys swallow bait pretty easily around here.

---
Geoff Hamer
Ingenia Communications
Ottawa, Canada

hilbrich@antares.cloudnet.com (WB or CM Hilbrich) wrote:

>s.iafrica.com>:
>Organization: Cloudnet - St. Cloud, MN (320) 240-8243
>Distribution: 

  WHEN THEY KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING THEY PUT ON A GOOD SHOW - THAT'S THE
TICKET!
wally  

Geoff Hamer wrote:
> 
> Miguel Luis Silva Schower (hunter@iactiva.cl) wrote:
> : > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> 
> : How is this possible. If the ships are invisible, how can you see them???
> : Could you explain me please
> 
> Geez, you guys swallow bait pretty easily around here.
> 
> ---
> Geoff Hamer
> Ingenia Communications
> Ottawa, Canada

Well - da same to youse.  (It was a joke response to a joke question.)

Easy now, this is a rev'rent subject 'round these parts.
-- 
TMB
Spammers used to bother me, until I started using "whois" and "nslookup".
now I report and sometimes prosecute!

G1 <goddess1@primenet.com> wrote in article <32A13F03.252E@primenet.com>...
> Geoff Hamer wrote:
> > 
> > Miguel Luis Silva Schower (hunter@iactiva.cl) wrote:
> > : > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> > 
> > : How is this possible. If the ships are invisible, how can you see
them???
> > : Could you explain me please
> > 
> > Geez, you guys swallow bait pretty easily around here.
> > 
> > ---
> > Geoff Hamer
> > Ingenia Communications
> > Ottawa, Canada
> 
> Well - da same to youse.  (It was a joke response to a joke question.)
> 

In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
<davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:

> > 
> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> 
> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by 
> UFOnuts!
> 
> PISS OFF!!!!
> 
> David Maclennan

He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.

Mike Orchard

Mike Orchard (morchar@pacifier.com) wrote:
: In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
: <davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:

: > > 
: > > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
: > 
: > And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by 
: > UFOnuts!
: > 
: > PISS OFF!!!!
: > 
: > David Maclennan

: He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.

: Mike Orchard

... I married one and I became alien too for some time
    [of course it was n't natural so realized the mistake]
    and divorced one ... what a relief!


    I feel goooood :)

morchar@pacifier.com (Mike Orchard) wrote:

>In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
><davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:

>> > 
>> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
>> 
>> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by 
>> UFOnuts!
>> 
>> PISS OFF!!!!
>> 
>> David Maclennan

>He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.

>Mike Orchard

Tu alucinas

ecodes <ecodes@lander.es> wrote in article <58ran4$i2n@lince.lander.es>...
> morchar@pacifier.com (Mike Orchard) wrote:
> 
> >In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
> ><davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:
> 
> >> > 
> >> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> >> 
> >> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup
by 
> >> UFOnuts!
> >> 
> >> PISS OFF!!!!
> >> 
> >> David Maclennan
> 
> >He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.
> 
> >Mike Orchard
> 
> Tu alucinas
> 
So did I
 

ecodes wrote:
> 
> morchar@pacifier.com (Mike Orchard) wrote:
> 
> >In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
> ><davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:
> 
> >> >
> >> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
> >>
> >> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by
> >> UFOnuts!
> >>
> >> PISS OFF!!!!
> >>
> >> David Maclennan
> 
> >He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.
> 
> >Mike Orchard
> 
> Tu alucinas
If the ships were INVISIBLE how did he see them. What was he somking?
Maybe he shoud share

rphjr@bayou.com wrote:
>ecodes wrote:
>> 
>> morchar@pacifier.com (Mike Orchard) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
>> ><davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:
>> 
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
>> >>
>> >> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by
>> >> UFOnuts!
>> >>
>> >> PISS OFF!!!!
>> >>
>> >> David Maclennan
>> 
>> >He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.
>> 
>> >Mike Orchard
>> 
>> Tu alucinas
>If the ships were INVISIBLE how did he see them. What was he somking?
>Maybe he shoud share

Good Lord!!
Listen up, people....
This is the sci.space.history newsgroup. Understand?!
SCI.SPACE.HISTORY!!! It is NOT...repeat, NOT.....
alt.pseudoscientific.horsemanure.
God only knows, there is enough of this garbage in the world already!!
Take this elsewhere!!
R&M

Please, in subsequent followups to this post, remove the newsgroup
sci.astro.planetarium. If you must post a followup to this thread,
address it to the correct news group. The correct newsgroup is not,
I repeat, not sci.astro.planetarium.

Thankyou,

-- 
---------------- B�rge Berg-Olsen <borgeb@npt.uit.no> --------------
 Technical Director / Web-Master, Northern Lights Planetarium, Inc.
           Phone: +47 77 67 60 00 , Fax: +47 77 67 57 00
--------- URL: http://www.uit.no/npt/homepage-npt.en.html ----------

 B�rge Berg-Olsen <borgeb@npt.uit.no> writes:

>Please, in subsequent followups to this post, remove the newsgroup
>sci.astro.planetarium. If you must post a followup to this thread,
>address it to the correct news group. The correct newsgroup is not,
>I repeat, not sci.astro.planetarium.

Oh, I don't know, he might not be far off.  I've met many aliens myself at the 
LA Planetarium.  :>

rphjr@bayou.com wrote:

>ecodes wrote:
>> 
>> morchar@pacifier.com (Mike Orchard) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <329B2A73.3C9@moc.govt.nz>, David Maclennan
>> ><davidm@moc.govt.nz> wrote:
>> 
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > They have invisible ships, I've seen them.
>> >>
>> >> And so it begins -- the pollution of yet another sci.space newsgroup by
>> >> UFOnuts!
>> >>
>> >> PISS OFF!!!!
>> >>
>> >> David Maclennan
>> 
>> >He met an alien...Big Deal...I married one.
>> 
>> >Mike Orchard
>> 
>> Tu alucinas
>If the ships were INVISIBLE how did he see them. What was he somking?
>Maybe he shoud share

Have you seen their faint outlines behind the charcoal clouds on a
vaguely cool, dark night?  The occasional lights on their undersides,
seemingly separated by miles...

I've heard this story, and lived to repeat it! ( ;