Replies

Thank you for that explanation. There are many other questions that don’t seem to have answers: Roche limit, gravitational decelerization, salt in sea, population, age of Redwoods, documented human history, Guadaloupe woman, - these and many other point to a brief age for the earth.
If the moon spun off the earth - why are moon rocks so different from anything found here?
If the planets spun off of the sun - how fast was the sun spinning? Was the sun much smaller back then? Why are some of the moons spinning in a different direction then other moons around the same planet?

"Thank you for that explanation."

You are most welcome.

"There are many other questions...Roche limit... "

Most of the questions you refer to can be cleared up in the typical battery of Physics and Mathematics courses required for an engineering degree. Some of the questions you refer to actually posed incorrectly, using older, out of date information for their basis. For example:

"If the moon spun off the earth - why are moon rocks so different from anything found here?"

We spent a lot of money and went to the Moon to retreive samples. The moon rocks are basaltic, and VERY MUCH LIKE BASALT FROM THE EARTH, with two distinctions: They are VERY DRY, and rocks from the Moon seem to have less "heavy metals" in them. This supports a "collision theory" that a Mars sized planetoid slammed into a somewhat smaller than today Earth, resulting in a fairly large Moon made of mostly lighter, upper mantle material, and a larger Earth. Your question is based on a false premise, as the Moon rocks are more similar to Earth rocks than they are different.

"If the planets spun off of the sun - how fast was the sun spinning?"

No modern astrophysics theory postulates that the Sun "spun" out the planets. Current theory, supported by actual astronomical observations, suggest that planets individually coalesced from a proto planetary disk of material orbiting a new star. Such proto planetary disks have been imaged using Hubble and other high resolution telescopes, along with "cut trails" through them, suggesting that fairly large objects are "sweeping up" material as they orbit. An "accidental" experiment aboard the Space Shuttle with particles in a baggy showed that static electricity could easily "jump start" the process of accretion, when the electrostatic forces are more powerful in thin debris than gravity is. Again, modern theory and observations render the question you pose moot.

"Why are some of the moons spinning in a different direction then other moons around the same planet?"

Collisions, passing body gravitational capture easily account for such things. In fact, such observations point to a violent, disordered and dynamic condition for the early Solar System, much as would be expected if random density conditions of a proto-planetary disk determined planet formation and orbital trajectories.

"...documented human history..."

OK, let's say that I write down a story of an ALIEN ENCOUNTER with a UFO. Let's say I write it down with INCREDIBLE ATTENTION TO DETAIL. Let's say my story of the alien encounter takes place in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. I describe the storefront in vivid detail. I describe the Outback Restaurant in the parking lot in vivid detail. I describe the UFO and the Aliens in vivid detail.

You read the story some years later, and say, "Phhhht! I don't believe it." So I take you to the place. There you see the remains of an Outback Restaurant (having closed years earlier to to Obama-nomics). You see the Wal-Mart with the original sign, but the outside is painted a different color. You can see evidence of the original color under the peeling paint. You can see the black top parking lot I described, and cars still use it. I say, "SEE! Here are the Buildings and Parking lot, JUST AS I DESCRIBED THEM! My alien story MUST be true."

You might intelligently ask me, "I see the evidence of the buildings, where is the evidence left by the UFO?"

This line of reasoning (which I bet under this scenario you agree with) is no different than looking at ancient texts of a religious nature. Sure, the buildings and people it descibes seem genuine, but fantastic claims are on much more shaky grounds. Just as it is smart to question the fantastic claim of a space ship in common surroundings, so it is smart to question the fantasic claims made in the story of Noah's Ark, for example.

"...age of Redwoods..."

I have no idea why the age of Redwoods, or tulips or beagle hounds pose any problem with the concept of an Earth that is billions of years old.

Wasn’t there a theory that the satellites going in the “wrong” direction were subsequently gravitationally captured by the planets in question?