- Thank you received: 0
Cassini
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
20 years 6 months ago #9573
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />What is the maximum planet-moon distance at which one could logically conclude that a moon was captured through gravitational screen capture?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That process would become highly inefficient at more than roughly five planet diameters' distance. -|Tom|-
<br />What is the maximum planet-moon distance at which one could logically conclude that a moon was captured through gravitational screen capture?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That process would become highly inefficient at more than roughly five planet diameters' distance. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Astrodelugeologist
- Offline
- Senior Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 5 months ago #9615
by Astrodelugeologist
Replied by Astrodelugeologist on topic Reply from
Tom,
Do you think that Saturn's moons Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus originated through capture or fission?
What about Uranus' moons Miranda and Puck?
And Neptune's moon Proteus?
--Astro
Do you think that Saturn's moons Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus originated through capture or fission?
What about Uranus' moons Miranda and Puck?
And Neptune's moon Proteus?
--Astro
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 5 months ago #9681
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />Do you think that Saturn's moons Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus originated through capture or fission?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All the satellites you mention are sub-standard size for Saturn (by far), and Titan's "twin" is missing. So I suspect that a cataclysm disrupted the system. Perhaps Titan's twin blew up and its fragments are the other moons. In that case, neither capture nor fission would be the right answer.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What about Uranus' moons Miranda and Puck?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Captured asteroids.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And Neptune's moon Proteus?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Either captured or a left-over disrupted-ring moon from the same event that ripped off Pluto & Charon. -|Tom|-
<br />Do you think that Saturn's moons Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus originated through capture or fission?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All the satellites you mention are sub-standard size for Saturn (by far), and Titan's "twin" is missing. So I suspect that a cataclysm disrupted the system. Perhaps Titan's twin blew up and its fragments are the other moons. In that case, neither capture nor fission would be the right answer.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What about Uranus' moons Miranda and Puck?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Captured asteroids.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And Neptune's moon Proteus?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Either captured or a left-over disrupted-ring moon from the same event that ripped off Pluto & Charon. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13294
by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
Tom,
Where is your prediction located, which shows the prediction existed before it was applied to the thin layer of dark material.
You seem to make predictions with the Meta Model as you go along.
Robert Grace
rgrace@aemail4u.com
Where is your prediction located, which shows the prediction existed before it was applied to the thin layer of dark material.
You seem to make predictions with the Meta Model as you go along.
Robert Grace
rgrace@aemail4u.com
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 6 months ago #14165
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Meta</i>
<br />Where is your prediction located, which shows the prediction existed before it was applied to the thin layer of dark material.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many predictions based on the exploded planet hy[othesis (EPH) appeared in my 1993 book (2nd edition 1999, with predictions unchanged), <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. Related developments and predictions since then were published in the "Meta Research Bulletin" (see index of past articles at metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/index.asp ), with many of them also published in peer-reviewed journals. Selections of these appear on our web site.
The whole discussion of the dark material resulting from the blast wave following a planetary explosion is called the "black axiom" in my book, and discussions of it can be found in the subject index under that name.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You seem to make predictions with the Meta Model as you go along.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "Meta Model" is a cosmological model for the origin and nature of the universe. It has nothing to do with solar system specifics such as the black axiom.
New predictions constantly appear, but always based on the same EPH model. And I am always very careful to distinguish PREdictions from POSTdictions. (People challenging paradigms have to be especially above-board and open in their behavior.) For example, this coming Sunday, we will release predictions on our web site (to appear in the June 15 Meta Research Bulletin) about the nature of comet nuclei in connection with the upcoming July 4 impact of a massive probe into a comet nucleus to find out what it is made of. The mainstream model has issued "descriptions" that cover all reasonable possibilities, and discussed how their models will accommodate any scenario. The EPH makes one very specific prediction, and places that part of itself that involves the nature of comets at risk to be falsified if the specific prediction is wrong.
If you "wait for the dust to settle" (wait for considered analyses to appear, and not judge by quick-look "sound bytes" that every expert will issue to reporters on the day of impact to explain why the results support his/her own pet model), the EPH won't be wrong. -|Tom|-
<br />Where is your prediction located, which shows the prediction existed before it was applied to the thin layer of dark material.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many predictions based on the exploded planet hy[othesis (EPH) appeared in my 1993 book (2nd edition 1999, with predictions unchanged), <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. Related developments and predictions since then were published in the "Meta Research Bulletin" (see index of past articles at metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/index.asp ), with many of them also published in peer-reviewed journals. Selections of these appear on our web site.
The whole discussion of the dark material resulting from the blast wave following a planetary explosion is called the "black axiom" in my book, and discussions of it can be found in the subject index under that name.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You seem to make predictions with the Meta Model as you go along.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "Meta Model" is a cosmological model for the origin and nature of the universe. It has nothing to do with solar system specifics such as the black axiom.
New predictions constantly appear, but always based on the same EPH model. And I am always very careful to distinguish PREdictions from POSTdictions. (People challenging paradigms have to be especially above-board and open in their behavior.) For example, this coming Sunday, we will release predictions on our web site (to appear in the June 15 Meta Research Bulletin) about the nature of comet nuclei in connection with the upcoming July 4 impact of a massive probe into a comet nucleus to find out what it is made of. The mainstream model has issued "descriptions" that cover all reasonable possibilities, and discussed how their models will accommodate any scenario. The EPH makes one very specific prediction, and places that part of itself that involves the nature of comets at risk to be falsified if the specific prediction is wrong.
If you "wait for the dust to settle" (wait for considered analyses to appear, and not judge by quick-look "sound bytes" that every expert will issue to reporters on the day of impact to explain why the results support his/her own pet model), the EPH won't be wrong. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Astrodelugeologist
- Offline
- Senior Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 7 months ago #14941
by Astrodelugeologist
Replied by Astrodelugeologist on topic Reply from
I'm bringing back a very old thread here, but do you think that Cassini's observations of Iapetus confirmed your predictions?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.297 seconds