Posted on 11/21/2007 1:12:51 PM PST by Aristotelian
Moons like the Earth's - which are formed in catastrophic collisions - are extremely rare in the Universe, a study by US astronomers suggests.
The Moon was created when an object as big as the planet Mars smacked into the Earth billions of years ago.
The impact hurled debris into orbit, some of which eventually consolidated to form our Moon.
The Astrophysical Journal reports that just 5-10% of planetary systems in the Universe have moons created this way.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
alas...
Earth’s Moon is Rare Oddball
Space.com on Yahoo | 11/20/07 | Dave Mosher
Posted on 11/20/2007 10:40:12 PM EST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1928673/posts
Yes, his "bill-yuns and bill-yuns" of molecules have been appropriated by worms.
Re: planets observed in other galaxies
While you’re right that there ars billions of other galaxies and rach of those have billions of stars, I don’t think we are capable of resolving images, visible or radio frequencies, of stars in other galaxies sufficient to discern the tell-tale wobble of even a binary star much less the wobble of a planet. Our extra-solar planetary discoveries are pretty much limited to the local area in our own galaxy and that is a pretty small volume... as astronomic volumes go. We actually are working with a very small dataset.
I agree with the article’s premise that our moon is a rarity. But I think the postulated 5-10% is way too high. That percentage would almost guarantee that every star system with a planetary population of ten or more planets would have a similar dual planet created from a similar hypothetical ancient collision. I find that hard to believe.
Such collisions would require large numbers of planetary bodies having formed by accretion with wildly differing orbital shapes... Something that the stellar accretion ring to planet theory does not support. Any planet formed from such an accretion ring around the same star would orbit in essentially the same plane and in the same direction in orbits mimicking the circular orbits of their accretion ring.
The forces necessary to change the orbit of any planet accreted in the same stellar system from its original near circular orbit to a potential collision prone parabolic orbit are, well, astronomic. Gravity alone cannot account for it... Tidal forces will have already been automatically adjusted during the billions of years of accretion (otherwise the planets could not have formed).
The odds that numerous planet/moon combinations like ours were caused by collisions with cosmic interlopers, planets from outside the stellar system, are also beyond astronomic. First we would have to postulate a free roaming planet that had somehow escaped its own birth star. Then we would have to have sufficient time for this hypothetical impacting planetoid to cross interstellar distances while only moving at non-relatavistic speeds. And then it would have to either pass by the target planet at just the right velocity to be captured or be vectored just exactly right to impact another planet of similar size (too large and no material is blasted off to form a moon; too small and the interloper is not even captured by the star). Space is huge... A miss is far more likely than a hit.
Neither of these scenarios is likely to have occurred often enough for there to be that high of a percentage... I think one in a million would be too high.
Or perhaps planets are not formed as we think and some other mechanism than gravity is at work in their formation.
Current estimate is 100 billion galaxies inside the Hubble volume. Odds are no other earth. Some may be close eough in the major parameters that they could be made livable, but we as a species of engineering creature are not equipped to do anything of the sort. About all we can do is pass a law against Global Warming.
Hoagland now claims that the three degree microwave background radiation is a local phenomenon and is the residue of the explosion of Planet V 65 million years ago.
What was in #24? :’D
Double post
An accidental double of the previous post...
Whoever penned the piece didn’t think it as rare as the headline writer either. I wouldn’t call 5 to 10 percent of planetary systems with similar features extremely rare. Extremely rare is more like White Sox world championships.
:’) Okay, but was it a double post? ;’)
One of those rare double posts caused by an internet collision...
Maybe it was just a lensing phenomenon...
Maybe it was just a lensing phenomenon...
Nuts, I was hoping it would be online.
December 2007
Features
Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeperinsights?
DRAGAN HUTERER
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ci&id=24
http://huterer.physics.lsa.umich.edu/~huterer/publications.html
http://astro.uchicago.edu/people/dragan-huterer.shtml
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/author/D.Huterer
I see some discussion online but one article that seems appropriate is by subscription only. This COBE multipole study has been around for a while but only now is it getting some attention from the common people. This could change everything in cosmology.
Rumor has it that the DRAGAN HUTERER article can be found at http://huterer.physics.lsa.umich.edu/~huterer/PLOTS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
Very interesting and informative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.