singularity

The lunar ranging data would be great if it was accessable-I have tryed to get it for a long time. But that could be my lack of computer skills. The geological evidence that you say proves the moon was closer a billion years ago is not all that reliable and other facts are being found that show the moon was exactly where it is now way back. The sources you are using may be out of date. Think about this stuff most of it feeds on itself-one item of evidence can be shown to prove 3 or 4 theories and when they are around as long as this one no body even thinks to question weather or not it is valid. I'm glad you never said Newton proved any of this.

To clarify the cause of inertia is not a gravity effect. The tide is raised by the force of gravity and the neap/spring tide effect is a result of inertia. I misstated some of this not thinking before typing and that is not too important. The real issue is there is no solar tidal effect and inertia causes the neap/spring effect. Newton observed the neap/spring effect was proportional to the 3rd power of the distance times the mass and that is how this got to be. I hope I have clearly corrected the issue of merit if not the details.

I have been reading about how a moon can be captured and it is quite an unlikely event using the current state of the art understanding of gravity. With the addition of inertia the orbital capture can be made more likely. The moons of Jupiter must be captives and there are some models that indicate capture was how the moon of Earth appeared.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: I have been reading about how a moon can be captured and it is quite an unlikely event using the current state of the art understanding of gravity. With the addition of inertia the orbital capture can be made more likely. The moons of Jupiter must be captives and there are some models that indicate capture was how the moon of Earth appeared.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gravity is a non-inertial force, so you are right that capture theories are not generally viable, and always require an improbable event. Chapter 6 of my book describes why this is, and offers three capture scenarios that do not require coincidences or improbable events.

As this applied to the moons of Jupiter, the large Galilean moons and the small asteroids have two different origins. The former are likely the products of fission, as is true for Earth's Moon. See "The Original Solar System" at the "Solar System" tab, "EPH" sub-tab at this web site.

The asteroidal moons of Jupiter were most likely captured all at once into temporary orbits around Jupiter during a planet explosion event. Then subsequent accretion of mass from the exploded body by Jupiter would have made the temporary orbits into permanent ones. -|Tom|-

There is a difference between models and real events. None of the models seem very logical to me and so I tend to favor the idea there is a problem with the model or math. If models have any value it seems to me it is not in their explaination of real events. I like models but they have faults. As for moons capture seems more likely than a birthing type fission or impact induced mooning.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: There is a difference between models and real events.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In good models, this difference is made as small as possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As for moons capture seems more likely than a birthing type fission or impact induced mooning.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So you prefer the "one chance in a 100 million" event (capture) to the "almost certain" event (fission)? I see no logical reason for that except that you haven't read up on the fission model. Why comment on it, much less reject it, before you know how it works? See the web reference in my last message.

In essence, as a forming planet (or star) cools and contracts, it is forced to spin up to conserve angular momentum. (This is like an ice skater who spins faster if she pulls her arms in.) If the contraction continues, that spin must eventually reach the point where centrifugal force is stronger than gravity, and the body fissions. What must happen next is detailed in the reference.

This model nicely explains two mysteries about the planets that current theories (based on formation in place and/or capture) cannot. (1) How did the planets acquire 98% of the solar system's angular momentum? (2) Why are all the unmodified planet spins so strongly prograde? [Mercury, Venus, and Pluto no longer have their original spin, and some event (probably an impact with a large trans-Neptunian object) tipped Uranus over about 90 degrees.] -|Tom|-