Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Hello Robert and list, My understanding of planet formation in a nutshell is that debris orbiting the Sun gradually merged and formed planets. Right? Why couldn't two bodies have formed from the same debris in the same orbit and orbiting around the sun together in the same direction and the same orbit, Gradually the Moon slowly caught up with the earth and got caught up in the earths gravity? Or the earth came up behind the Moon and captured it? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Matson, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:01 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Tom wrote: I do not believe the moon was made by a asteroid impact on the earth. What, specifically, about this theory bothers you? I would first stand by the theory that it was caught up in our gravity. While this is a ~possible~ scenario, you have to understand how extremely unlikely graceful capture is compared to impact. The capture idea also has a difficult time explaining why the Moon doesn't have a normal-sized core for a body of its size, which the impact theory explains nicely. Finally, why the oxygen-isotope similarity of earth and the Moon if the two bodies formed in different parts of the solar system? Prior to the Apollo sample return missions (and the discovery of our beloved lunar meteorites), the capture theory at least had some wobbly legs to stand on. But O-isotope analysis of the moon rocks knocked one leg out, and the other leg was swept away by Lunar Prospector's confirmation that the moon's core comprises less than 3% of the moon's mass. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Hi List, Would there be anything in the geological comparison between Earth and Moon that would lean toward the capture rather than same debris theory or vice versa ? Regards Ken O'Neill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom aka James Knudson Sent: 11 July 2003 21:48 To: Matson, Robert; meteorite-list Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hello Robert and list, My understanding of planet formation in a nutshell is that debris orbiting the Sun gradually merged and formed planets. Right? Why couldn't two bodies have formed from the same debris in the same orbit and orbiting around the sun together in the same direction and the same orbit, Gradually the Moon slowly caught up with the earth and got caught up in the earths gravity? Or the earth came up behind the Moon and captured it? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Matson, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:01 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Tom wrote: I do not believe the moon was made by a asteroid impact on the earth. What, specifically, about this theory bothers you? I would first stand by the theory that it was caught up in our gravity. While this is a ~possible~ scenario, you have to understand how extremely unlikely graceful capture is compared to impact. The capture idea also has a difficult time explaining why the Moon doesn't have a normal-sized core for a body of its size, which the impact theory explains nicely. Finally, why the oxygen-isotope similarity of earth and the Moon if the two bodies formed in different parts of the solar system? Prior to the Apollo sample return missions (and the discovery of our beloved lunar meteorites), the capture theory at least had some wobbly legs to stand on. But O-isotope analysis of the moon rocks knocked one leg out, and the other leg was swept away by Lunar Prospector's confirmation that the moon's core comprises less than 3% of the moon's mass. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Hello Ken And list, If the moon was made by the giant impact theory, it would make the chemical make up of the two very similar, wouldn't it? If the moon was made by the same debris theory it would make the chemical make up of the two very similar, wouldn't it? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Ken O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Tom aka James Knudson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-List (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hi Tom list It's beyond me as well ! Robert Matson seems very much on the debris side, I was just wondering if the debris was correct should there be little difference in the chemical make up of the Moon and Earth ? What is the comparison ? How different are they ? Its just a general question for the list. Regards Ken O'Neill Ken O'Neill Computing - The Small Business Education IT Specialists Networks - email - Internet Access - PC's - Security - Cost Efficient IT Solutions www.kenoneill.com http://www.kenoneill.com Phone 042 9694683 Mobile 087 9118186 -Original Message- From: Tom aka James Knudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 July 2003 22:40 To: Ken O'Neill Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hello Ken, I hope your not directing this question to me, It is beyond my knowledge! What do you think of the same debris theory, that as far as I know I first came up with a few minutes ago? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Ken O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-List (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hi List, Would there be anything in the geological comparison between Earth and Moon that would lean toward the capture rather than same debris theory or vice versa ? Regards Ken O'Neill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom aka James Knudson Sent: 11 July 2003 21:48 To: Matson, Robert; meteorite-list Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hello Robert and list, My understanding of planet formation in a nutshell is that debris orbiting the Sun gradually merged and formed planets. Right? Why couldn't two bodies have formed from the same debris in the same orbit and orbiting around the sun together in the same direction and the same orbit, Gradually the Moon slowly caught up with the earth and got caught up in the earths gravity? Or the earth came up behind the Moon and captured it? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Matson, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:01 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Tom wrote: I do not believe the moon was made by a asteroid impact on the earth. What, specifically, about this theory bothers you? I would first stand by the theory that it was caught up in our gravity. While this is a ~possible~ scenario, you have to understand how extremely unlikely graceful capture is compared to impact. The capture idea also has a difficult time explaining why the Moon doesn't have a normal-sized core for a body of its size, which the impact theory explains nicely. Finally, why the oxygen-isotope similarity of earth and the Moon if the two bodies formed in different parts of the solar system? Prior to the Apollo sample return missions (and the discovery of our beloved lunar meteorites), the capture theory at least had some wobbly legs to stand on. But O-isotope analysis of the moon rocks knocked one leg out, and the other leg was swept away by Lunar Prospector's confirmation that the moon's core comprises less than 3% of the moon's mass. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Hi Tom list I would expect so. Could a difference occur if through a giant impact as there would be extra mass in the debris from the impact object. Would more of that impact object mass go toward the make up of the moon ? Regards Ken O'Neill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom aka James Knudson Sent: 11 July 2003 23:05 To: Ken O'Neill; Meteorite-List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hello Ken And list, If the moon was made by the giant impact theory, it would make the chemical make up of the two very similar, wouldn't it? If the moon was made by the same debris theory it would make the chemical make up of the two very similar, wouldn't it? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Ken O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Tom aka James Knudson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-List (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hi Tom list It's beyond me as well ! Robert Matson seems very much on the debris side, I was just wondering if the debris was correct should there be little difference in the chemical make up of the Moon and Earth ? What is the comparison ? How different are they ? Its just a general question for the list. Regards Ken O'Neill Ken O'Neill Computing - The Small Business Education IT Specialists Networks - email - Internet Access - PC's - Security - Cost Efficient IT Solutions www.kenoneill.com http://www.kenoneill.com Phone 042 9694683 Mobile 087 9118186 -Original Message- From: Tom aka James Knudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 July 2003 22:40 To: Ken O'Neill Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hello Ken, I hope your not directing this question to me, It is beyond my knowledge! What do you think of the same debris theory, that as far as I know I first came up with a few minutes ago? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Ken O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-List (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hi List, Would there be anything in the geological comparison between Earth and Moon that would lean toward the capture rather than same debris theory or vice versa ? Regards Ken O'Neill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom aka James Knudson Sent: 11 July 2003 21:48 To: Matson, Robert; meteorite-list Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hello Robert and list, My understanding of planet formation in a nutshell is that debris orbiting the Sun gradually merged and formed planets. Right? Why couldn't two bodies have formed from the same debris in the same orbit and orbiting around the sun together in the same direction and the same orbit, Gradually the Moon slowly caught up with the earth and got caught up in the earths gravity? Or the earth came up behind the Moon and captured it? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Matson, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:01 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Tom wrote: I do not believe the moon was made by a asteroid impact on the earth. What, specifically, about this theory bothers you? I would first stand by the theory that it was caught up in our gravity. While this is a ~possible~ scenario, you have to understand how extremely unlikely graceful capture is compared to impact. The capture idea also has a difficult time explaining why the Moon doesn't have a normal-sized core for a body of its size, which the impact theory explains nicely. Finally, why the oxygen-isotope similarity of earth and the Moon if the two bodies formed in different parts of the solar system? Prior to the Apollo sample return missions (and the discovery of our beloved lunar meteorites), the capture theory at least had some wobbly legs to stand on. But O-isotope analysis of the moon rocks knocked one leg out, and the other leg was swept away by Lunar Prospector's confirmation that the moon's core comprises less than 3% of the moon's mass. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
While this sounds good. It is very hard for two bodies to capture each other due to laws of celestial mechanic of Newton. Conservation of energyrequires a third body to take away excess energy from the system. This is a simplified explaination before you realphysicists jump in. Howard WuTom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Robert and list, My understanding of planet formation in a nutshell isthat debris orbiting the Sun gradually merged and formed planets. Right?Why couldn't two bodies have formed from the same debris in the sameorbit and orbiting around the sun together in the same direction and thesame orbit, Gradually the Moon slowly caught up with the earth and gotcaught up in the earths gravity? Or the earth came up behind the Moon andcaptured it?Thanks, TomPeregrineflierThe proudest member of the IMCA 6168- Original Message -From: Matson, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: meteorite-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:01 PMSubject: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Tom wrote: I do not believe the moon was made by a asteroid impact on the earth. What, specifically, about this theory bothers you? I would first stand by the theory that it was caught up in our gravity. While this is a ~possible~ scenario, you have to understand how extremely unlikely graceful capture is compared to impact. The capture idea also has a difficult time explaining why the Moon doesn't have a normal-sized core for a body of its size, which the impact theory explains nicely. Finally, why the oxygen-isotope similarity of earth and the Moon if the two bodies formed in different parts of the solar system? Prior to the Apollo sample return missions (and the discovery of our beloved lunar meteorites), the capture theory at least had some wobbly legs to stand on. But O-isotope analysis of the moon rocks knocked one leg out, and the other leg was swept away by Lunar Prospector's confirmation that the moon's core comprises less than 3% of the moon's mass. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list__Meteorite-list mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-listWant to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger
RE: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
At 10:19 PM 7/11/2003 +0100, Ken O'Neill wrote: Hi List, Would there be anything in the geological comparison between Earth and Moon that would lean toward the capture rather than same debris theory or vice versa ? Regards Ken O'Neill Just quickly ( I haven't read all the responses so apologies if this is a repeat) - if the Earth and Moon had co-accreted in similar neighborhoods and then the Earth captured the Moon, you would expect the ratio of core to mantle+crust to be the same. The moons core is much too small for that. This fits neatly into the impact scenario in which the cores of the impactor and proto-Earth are fused, leaving little core material for what would become the Moon. Also, the Moon is very depleted in volatile elements - Na, K, H2O. Again, if they had co accreted in the same neighborhood they should have the same make up. Again, this fits nicely into the impact scenario where the volatiles are blown off. Steven Steven Singletary 54-1224 Dept. Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences M.I.T. Cambridge, MA, 02139 Tel-617.253.6398 Fax-617.253.7102 Blue Skies! __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Hello List, Does any one know the estimated time of the creation of the asteroid belt? From what I understand, the theory is, that it was once a planet that was destroyed by a collision? I am wondering if the moon, how ever it was formed could be a result of the asteroid belts collision? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-List (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory Hi, Howard's already pointed how hard (and unlikely) capture is. Before the capture theory was popular, the theory was fission: that the Moon split off from a rapidly spinning early Earth. While this may sound whacky today, the theory had a lot going for it. First, the density of the Moon as a whole is exactly the same as the bulk density of the Earth's crust to within less than 1% difference. Wow, how could that be coincidence? Second, the tidal action of the Moon is enlarging it's orbit, slowly moving the Moon further away and lengthen the month. If you run this progression backwards, you end up with a Moon in contact with the Earth's crust and the Earth's equator spinning at a speed just a hair faster than orbital velocity! And third, there is this bleeping big hole in the side of the Earth called the Pacific Ocean whose excavated volume is roughly Moon-sized (1-1/4% of Earth)! Hey, sounds pretty good, don't it? This theory was still going strong up to about 1950. The author of this theory was Charles Darwin. No, not THAT Charles Darwin. His nephew (or was it grandnephew? can't remember). The density WAS a coincidence. The tidal equations run backward, once you have a computer to do the crunching, reveal that there are unstable oscillations in the Moon's orbit that limit how close the Moon could ever have been. Since continents move and oceans spread, the Pacific Ocean basin is not an ancient feature of the Earth. Bang! One Dead theory. The problem with James'slow capture theory is that the more we learn about planetary accretion, the more it looks like the final stages of big planetesimals (1000 km objects) growing to bigger planets at last goes wizz-bang FAST. And, the Earth and the Moon are SO different, that it's impossible to imagine them both forming in the same region of the solar nebula. One of us doesn't belong here... The impact origin of the Moon, if true, is an unbelievably messy complication. We would like to be able to extrapolate from the Earth's composition the composition of the planetesimals at this distance from the Sun, but if the Earth is partly made up of some rogue Mars-sized impactor that came from somewhere else in the system, well, you can toss all that research out of the window! Because the Earth would no longer be representative of this neighborhood in the nebula. Well, why can't we figure out from the Moon's composition where in the solar system it came from and learn about the composition of the solar nebula there? O, yeah, take a planet and smash it into dust and gas and let recondense. Where have all the volatiles gone? Were there any volatiles to begin with? Are all those refractories in the Moon the result of them surviving the impact, or was the Moon rich in those refractories to begin with? (The Moon should be called Titaniumville, and I have no doubt that someday some burg on the Moon will be named just that, maybe in Chinese...) Maybe the Earth is so rich in water (instead of being normal like Venus) because it captured all the volatiles from the ur-Moon. Maybe the Earth had oceans 80 kilometers deep BEFORE it got whacked with a bleeping planet and this little bit of water is all that's left! And then there's the core. We have always assumed that the Earth's core is a native feature of the planet, but if the Moon impactor theory is correct, some percentage of the Earth's core is really the Moon's core, captured by the heavier Earth in the impact. That means it can't be a normal core (whatever the H*** that is) and we can't know how normal the other terrestial planets' cores are. Maybe the Earth is the only planet with tectonics because it has this extra big core? (Personally, I think it's the extra water, but...) You see, this impact thing just messes up everything! Sterling K. Webb -- -- Ken O'Neill wrote: Hi List, Would there be anything in the geological comparison between Earth and Moon that would lean toward the capture rather than same debris theory or vice versa ? Regards Ken O'Neill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom aka James Knudson Sent: 11 July 2003 21:48 To: Matson, Robert; meteorite-list Subject: Re
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Hello, Tom and the list, at the moment it looks to me, the theory, that the asteroid belt was formed from the material left over, when our solar system was formed, is more recent. The former theory of the missing planet was thought accoriding the Bode´s law. This law stated that the distances of the planets from the sun could be predicted by a mathematical equation (which was eventually proven to beincorrect). And between Mars and Jupiter should have been a planet according this law. So the todays astronomers belive, that the asteroid belt is simply made up of material left over from the formation / creation of the solar system. At least Jupiter has catched some of it´s moons (perhaps from asteroids), but don´t know, is this a possible opportunity with the moon of the Earth. (Levin, Brush; The Origin of the Solar System, Reynolds; Falling Stars) take care, pekka Tom aka James Knudson wrote: Hello List, Does any one know the estimated time of the creation of the asteroid belt? From what I understand, the theory is, that it was once a planet that was destroyed by a collision? I am wondering if the moon, how ever it was formed could be a result of the asteroid belts collision? Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-List (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
In a message dated 7/11/03 9:11:22 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: at the moment it looks to me, the theory, that the asteroid belt was formed from the material left over, when our solar system was formed, is more recent. But if it's truly "left over", how do you account for iron meteorites, which are (generally?) assumed to be the cores of these "missing" planetsleftover random junk wouldn't have formed to the mass to generate the thermal activity to differerniate into solid metal, would it?
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
In a message dated 7/11/03 7:23:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But if it's truly "left over", how do you account for iron meteorites, which are (generally?) assumed to be the cores of these "missing" planetsleftover random junk wouldn't have formed to the mass to generate the thermal activity to differerniate into solid metal, would it? Another explanation I've read for iron meteorites coming to be was from the magnetic field of the proto-sun, generating heat high enough to melt the iron planetesimals in the regions of roughly Mercury out to earth. I don't know the mechanics, but I can visualize such a possibility rather than a broken up planet after differentiation. George Zay
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
In a message dated 7/11/03 9:39:17 PM Central Daylight Time, GeoZay writes: magnetic field of the proto-sun, generating heat high enough to melt the iron planetesimals in the regions of roughly Mercury out to earth But the asteroid belt is beyond the earth...so how did that material suddenly move MANY millions of miles away from the supposed inner orbit?
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
Well, if we think the bigger ones of the asteroids (maybe 40.000 - 50.000 alltogether), like Ceres, Pallas, Juno or Vesta etc, we can call them as "small planets", if we want, there is not an "exact" mean for this word. When Pluto was found, scientists argued, was it a planet or not, and then just aggreed, it is. The bigger asteroids have same kind of formation with planets like Earth, the dense nickel-iron core (iron meteorites), intermediate zone of cellular nickel-iron and silicates (MES, PAL) and outer layer of silicate minerals (stones). When the asteroids collides, the parts of the core will product the iron meteorites. We call all these meteorites as differentiated. In undifferentiated meteorites the forming process has not ever been "ready", so they are "mixtures" of the early Solar Nebula or in some cases formed in later impacts. So the age of the asteroid belt (or most of it) is aprox same with the earth. The most primitive material found are C-chondrites, in which you can clearly see, the formation process has not even started. take care, pekka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/11/03 9:11:22 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: at the moment it looks to me, the theory, that the asteroid belt was formed from the material left over, when our solar system was formed, is more recent. But if it's truly "left over", how do you account for iron meteorites, which are (generally?) assumed to be the cores of these "missing" planetsleftover random junk wouldn't have formed to the mass to generate the thermal activity to differerniate into solid metal, would it? -- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin Group Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory / asteroid formation etc...
The orbital-system in asteroid belt is quite complicated, several "families" have clear orbits and so on. The biggest quilty for the changes of the orbits of the asteroids may be Jupiter, wich is a big planet with very high gravitation, so it can easily change the orbits of the asteroids / parts of asteroids (meteors), and when you once push something to speed in space, it will stop next time, when some bigger piece catches it. In the case of our meteorites this "catcher" is the Earth. take care, pekka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/11/03 9:39:17 PM Central Daylight Time, GeoZay writes: magnetic field of the proto-sun, generating heat high enough to melt the iron planetesimals in the regions of roughly Mercury out to earth But the asteroid belt is beyond the earth...so how did that material suddenly move MANY millions of miles away from the supposed inner orbit? -- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin Group Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
In a message dated 7/11/03 7:45:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But the asteroid belt is beyond the earth...so how did that material suddenly move MANY millions of miles away from the supposed inner orbit? Actually I don't know how far out the material was when it was suppose to be effected by the proto sun's magnetic field. It could very well have reached the asteroid belt. I know it was a long ways out and I merely took the liberty to use the earths orbit as a cut off point. I don't understand the mechanics, but in recently read articles about the newly discovered extra solar planets, some of the large planets are very close to their star. In attempts to explain their formation, it mentions that the planet originally formed far from the sun (like jupiters distance) and somehow manuevered itself very close to the star. So in the astro physicists world, I guess moving material far from it's place of origin is very possible. George Zay
