[meteorite-list] fire flies or flying fires

From: Dawn & Gerald Flaherty <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Jun 27 20:48:22 2005
Message-ID: <02b201c57b78$9bd5f6f0$6502a8c0_at_GerryLaptop>

I suppose I shouldn't keep encouraging all this "OT"[as perceived by some]
BUT [and I'm sure I'll get "some" diagreement] you certainly can't buy this
kind of entertainment or it isn't easily available on the "BOOB TUBE". Take
it from a connoisseur[or is that a kind of sewer] of Direct TV.
Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <kelly_at_bhil.com>
To: "Chris Peterson" <clp_at_alumni.caltech.edu>;
<Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>; "Dawn & Gerald Flaherty"
<grf2_at_verizon.net>; "Graham Christensen" <voltage@telus.net>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] fire flies or flying fires


> Hi,
>
> Again, it's all in the timing. But you made me re-think some things.
Like
> Newton, you form no hypotheses. I, on the other hand, am a hypothesizing
fool.
>
> If the Moon is a molten liquid drop of uniform density
(undifferentiated),
> then Earth's gravity distorts it into a spheroid, and cooling and
> differentiation take place in an egg-shaped Moon, creating a thick
equatorial
> crust and thin polar crust with a centered core until the Moon is cooled.
So, it
> didn't happen that way.
>
> So, it was only when mass concentrated toward to the Moon's center
(after at
> least partial differentiation) that the warm gooey center was tugged and
shifted
> toward the Earth, moving easily in the hot liquid and slush.
>
> Now the internal heat has two different length of cooling paths to
nearside
> and farside centers. The nearside cools faster and the mantle
crystallizes
> sooner: thinner crust. The farside cools more slowly and the crust
continues to
> thicken until the mantle separates: thicker crust. As the interior
stiffens up,
> it forces the off-center core back, almost but not all the way back,
towards the
> center.
>
> But I'm worried about my little pet theory, It doesn't look so
healthy as
> it did last night (more research). There are spots in Crisium where the
crust
> thickness is essentially zero and north of Korolev it's up to 107 km
thick.
> That's a little extreme. The Moon is, to generalize, lumpy and uneven, and
the
> crust differential, which I had always though of as relatively uniform, is
far
> from it. There are spots on the farside where the crust is as thin as the
> thickest parts of the nearside crust. My pet theory might have to go the
pet
> theory hospital...
>
> This argument depends on a fully locked rotation rate from the very
start.
> The fact is, we don't know about that. There are no clues. Present
librations
> and precessions are all accountable for by gravity and orbital parameters;
there
> are no residual motions. 4500 million years is a long time...
>
> Even the truly odd thing, the Moon's orbital inclination to the Earth,
can
> now be accounted for by the collision model as presently refined. It seems
the
> debris disk's gravity waves can incrementally crank up the inclination to
15
> degrees or more (and the Moon's is only 5).
>
> Interestingly enough, for this scenario to work, they say, the Moon
has to
> accrete on the outermost edge of its accretion disk around the Earth,
which
> would certainly account for nearside preferential impacts. (That one just
fell
> in my lap!)
>
> I think accretion in orbit virtually guarantees a lock. The Moon is
orbiting
> initially very, very close to the Earth, and we outweigh the opponent 80
to one.
> The fight is fixed. The smart money is down.
>
> But the model, in its present highly tweaked state, is still
primitive. Its
> equation of state, which underlies the whole thing, is crude and
simplistic,
> says Jay Melosh. Currently, the model only works if the Big Impact happens
while
> the Earth is still assembling, at about half its present mass, and Moon
> formation is part of the accretion process.
>
> This puts it on the timeline at about 4530-4540 mya. A breathing space
for
> the happy zircon? If impact happens later, there's too much angular
momentum in
> the system for it to work unless you compensate with a larger and larger
> impactor.
>
> Oddly enough, after last night, I was thinking about angular momentum.
> (Really, I was, that's why it's odd.) There really is no reason why any
> terrestrial planet should any angular momentum to speak of. Accrete a
planet by
> rocky impacts with totally randomized force vectors and you get NO
residual
> angular momentum. Everything cancels out (always neat). The giant planets,
> formed by a different mechanism than rocky accretion, all spun up nicely,
the
> bigger the faster.
>
> Mercury and Venus have very little angular momentum. It's pitiful.
Mars has
> more. My theory on that is that Mars accreted on the inner edge of a
reduced
> accretion disk because the newly fattened-up Earth Moon system was
increasingly
> stealing of Mars' planetesimals on the sunward side. Because Mars accreted
more
> from the outward side, the impact vectors were prograde preferential and
added
> angular momentum to the Mars system.
>
> Maybe our Big Impactor was the largest proto-Mars planetesimal and we
stole
> it. Maybe the Earth was trudging toward being a small warm dry planet and
Mars
> was on the road to being big and wet and cool, teeming with life and
firmly
> believing itself to be the Center of the Universe, when suddenly, its
glorious
> destiny was snatched away by that sneaky little Earth!
>
> No wonder the Martians hate us! That's probably why they're always
doing
> that War of the Worlds thing of theirs. They're only reclaiming what was
> rightfully theirs... Being minds "vast and cool and unsympathetic," as
Wells
> says, their superior computer simulations have demonstrated it to be true
beyond
> all possible doubt.
>
> With planet-wide super-cooled quantum-state computers, their equation
of
> state is so refined that they can trace the Big Impactor back toward Mars
orbit.
> "It's ours! The Earthlings stole it!" they say, wiggling those three
fingers in
> righteous indignation.
>
> The Earth's angular momentum is truly colossal. Having that lunar
> counterweight, light as it is compared to the Earth's mass, out there on a
long,
> quarter million mile lever arm does it, just as Jupiter holds most of the
> angular momentum in solar system.
>
> I imagine cranking up the Act Of God Machine and instantaneously
snatching
> the Moon out of orbit and putting Mars in an identically configured orbit,
only
> further in, since Mars weighs about eight times what the Moon does.
>
> I'm still scribbling on the back of a really big envelope when the Act
Of
> God Machine abruptly fires, having adjusted all the parameters with an
accuracy
> of +/- 100 microns, and POP!
>
> There's Mars, covering more than 10 sky degrees, like a Great Pumpkin!
Mars
> Rise and Mars Set are spectacular beyond belief! The month is less than
two
> weeks long. The light of a Full Mars is not only bright enough to read by
at
> night but as bright as a dim overcast day. And the surf and tides are
amazing --
> SURF'S UP! all the time.
>
> The trip to Mars is now a breeze. If you can't afford the ticket, you
can
> sit in your back yard with an inexpensive amateur telescope and spot the
dust
> clouds being raised by the construction of Marineris City by our huge
machinery.
> Over in the night hemisphere, the lights of Newer York sparkle like stars
on the
> planet's face. The Moon is gone.
>
> Angular momentum is perfectly conserved.
>
> I read in the newspaper (by Marslight) that, despite the recent
treaty, the
> Martians are starting to grumble about the hot wet air and the noise
pollution
> again. What they griping about? If this deal was so bad, why are there so
many
> Martian tourists everywhere you go? You should see the lines at
McDonald's! And
> at SpaFon's too! There are lots of Martian businesses on Earth now that we
> explained money to them. They seem to like money just fine, if you ask me.
>
> Note: the price of "Martian" meteorites has plummeted again, and are
clearly
> headed to way below a dime a gram. The Martians just fill their pockets
with
> pretty rocks from their back yards and sell'em to brokers or trade'em for
taxi
> rides whenever they make the short hop to Earth. The price of Lunaites is
WAY
> up, though.
>
> Then the big machine's screen blinks, "What do you want me to do with
the
> Moon? It's starting to get pretty hot here in stasis!" I tell the Act of
God
> machine to put it in a very close orbit around Venus, so it can start
spinning
> up the planet, a dry moon for a dry world. I make a note to myself for the
next
> time I feel like cranking up the Act Of God machine, "Do something about
Venus."
>
> Yup! Definitely got to do something about Venus...
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Peterson wrote:
>
> > Hi Sterling-
> >
> > Yeah, I guess you're right, we're doomed to disagree <g>. (Did you see
the
> > cleverly packaged MIT T-shirts distributed to MIT freshman at last years
> > orientation? The ones that nobody noticed until too late had "Because
not
> > everyone can go to Caltech" printed on the back?)
> >
> > I take exception to your point that the Moon "obviously" has a uniform
crust
> > early on. This isn't obvious at all, and nobody has a good explanation
for why
> > the Moon does not now have a uniform crust. This feature does not fall
out of
> > any models. Gravity does not obviously explain why the crust should
> > be thinner towards the Earth. If the crust thickness variation developed
early
> > (and the maria are certainly old) this would explain the reason that
maria are
> > only present on one side. Since it is likely that the Moon was not yet
tidally
> > locked when the basins formed, I don't see the effects of the Earth as
having
> > contributed in an obvious way to their formation.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > *****************************************
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
> >
>
>
>
Received on Mon 27 Jun 2005 08:30:37 PM PDT