Moon By Spinoff

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If it is not asking too much, may I suggest reading the paper at the reference I gave before criticizing with a strawman argument?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I've read and many times re-read all the articles at your site. The specific one you send me to provides very little if any explanation of the specific mechanism that would make the primary body to behave like you proposed. Meanwhile, the material and processes in the fissioning body have to be rather non-trivial for that specific fission mode. There must be some other force about as strong as gravity and cenrifugal one, the "extra bond" from my post above. The matter of the fissioning body should be exactly like a liquid with ultra-high surface tension, and to make a gas blob to behave likewise requires an active nuclear/thermonuclear reaction to create acoustical/shock waves contained within the body, better yet with inverse distribution of atomic masses of the material from the centre in radial direction (otherwise it all turns into heat instead of reflecting back to the centre). I think I've described a very dense plasma here. A steady thermonuclear reaction fits the picture best. And the model described in the article does not necessarily require overspin, a strong turbulence deflecting the internal wave pattern is quite sufficient, btw.

Meanwhile, there's a simple model that could provide an approach to planet forming. When an eddy in water is met with fast enough water current, that eddy starts to bring up secondary progradely rotating eddies orbiting the parent; that's a frequent phenomenon in fast river streams... So a nebula with a higher angular momentum flying into another nebula of lower density and lower angular momentum would promptly get planets formed in itself. Such a collision is hardly a frequent event, and the planetary systems are rare as well.

BTW, why exactly should you call my arguments strawman? My arguments provide some insight into the basic mechanism, while your article is very weak at that very point.

So, are you saying the moon formed about 250mya? And then somehow got to where it is now? Also, since the ocean crust is very young why do you say there is an old ocean basin?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: are you saying the moon formed about 250mya? And then somehow got to where it is now?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, tidal models indicate the Moon was formed at least 2 billion years ago, and radiometric rock-dating indicates 4.6 billion years. I merely concluded that, if the Atlantic basin did indeed begin to opne at 250 Mya, then that wasn't caused by the Moon. The explosion of Planet K might be a better bet as a possible cause.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>since the ocean crust is very young why do you say there is an old ocean basin?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't recall mentioning an "old ocean basin", so I don't know the context for your question. But in all current models, the Pacific basin is much older than the Atlantic, and we have very few deep Pacific samples to do reliable dating there. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[AB]: The specific

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
?? I don't understand. The article outlines the standard fission model, wherein contraction spin-up leads to overspin, formation of McLaurin spheroids, and finally fission. It even has an animation so the mechanism can't be missed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's not what I call mechanism. As the mechanism I consider the lower-level processes in the body matter. Applying this approach to that animation makes me think that the matter of the body is exactly a liquid with an absolutely improbable ultra-high surface tension. Thus all that animation is rather deceiving.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Cohesion need only be a minor supplement to gravity, holding things in place until a sudden "breaking" event overcomes cohesion.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In case of a gas or liquid body there's absolutely no cohesion or extra bond for surface material. For a solid matter the cohesion is also negligible for large enough bodies. Thus surface overspin of large enough bodies can't happen at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If Earth mildly overspun today, the rate of escape of atmospheric gases would be increased, but some of the atmosphere would still last a long time, possibly even a millemium or so.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Had Earth mildly overspun today, there'd be a pile of rocks and water levitating around the equator, kinda horrible mud ring. Earthquakes would tear the crust into gravel, volcanoes would erupt through all the equatorial area, the atmosphere would be mostly gone by the volcanic heating.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As you know, I have repeatedly had trouble understanding your models, not because of what you say downstream, but because I could not understand the starting point, the point to which all else was attached.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's most likely because of the highly different models of education we've been through. Don't forget that I'm a Russian russian from Russia and in Russia.

Now back to discussion of the spin-off model. The absolute impossibility of the off-surface overspin spin-off still doesn't mean the complete improbability of overspin-induced fission. The conditions inside a heavy gas or liquid body provide the necessary pressure to contain the overspun matter inside. Then the friction between layers of different angular velocity can produce secondary centres of rotation inside the body; then such eddies might float towards the surface and there eject some matter into space in form of protuberances. In fact, it's just a minor correction to the overspin fission model. But this correction makes the whole model physical...

I'm no geologist but I'll put my dibs in too. What were the oceans doing during the overspin condition? I tend to agree with Agora to the extent that the crust is more rigid than the ocean, it seems to me that any existing ocean would tend to "heap" up more because it adjusts to equilibrium faster than the crust can. At the moment of disruption wouldn't a tremendous amount of ocean water fly out into space along with the rubble and coorbit with the Moon? And if this is so then didn't Earth have much more water than what we see now?