So why did you answer, How so?
Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
So why did you answer, How so?
Because I wanted to know the thinking .
I try not to assume what one is thinking , you tell me .
I disagree with the theory that the moon is a consequence of planet to planet collision .
Moon rock analysis says that the moon is older than Earth is .
Already done.
Do you? Why? Have you any evidence supporting any other hypothesis?
Reference?
WIKIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon
The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios seem to be essentially identical to Earth's.[4] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each Solar System body.[5] If Theia had been a separate protoplanet, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature from proto-Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[6] Also, the Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 parts per million) that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.
"Today it is known that the oceanic crust that makes up this ocean basin is relatively young, about 200 million years old or less, whereas the Moon is much older. The Moon does not consist of oceanic crust but of mantle material, which originated inside the proto-Earth in the Precambrian."
"One of the challenges to the longstanding theory of the collision, is that a Mars-sized impacting body, whose composition likely would have differed substantially from that of Earth, likely would have left Earth and the moon with different chemical compositions, which they are not."
—NASA[1]
https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OK again river, you disagree, so what is your hypothesis about the Moon?
From where I sit or stand, it is certainly strong and convincing, but just as certainly not as strong or convincing as the evidence for the BB, the evidence for both SR and GR and of course the 100% certainty of the theory of evolution of life.
You lied earlier with regards to denial of what you have been told...so more lying, or is it dementia? My apologies if it is. post 239
river:
Or are you asking about some kind of abstract theoretical idea or something?
Thank you!
No.
Who cares? What we observe in our universe is space and matter and energy etc. The aim of science is to describe our universe.
Or are you asking about some kind of abstract theoretical idea or something?
Why not? What's wrong with our current best theories on the formation of the moon?
In general relativity, space and time are described as components of a four-dimensional manifold that we call "spacetime". When we talk about the "curvature" of spacetime, we're talking about the geometrical curvature of the manifold. Space is not said to "curve" in the absence of time. Bear in mind that this is a mathematical model - a description that helps us to predict what we observe when we look at real-world objects.
Who cares what you disagree with? As usual, you give no reasons.
Does it? That's interesting. Please provide a link, since I'm interested in following this up.
Thank you!
None of which explains that real space does not bend , you know real space as in room needed to exist , but space-time does .
OK, I'll settle for stupidity enveloped somewhat by Dementia at this time.
The BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] from t+10-43 seconds as we know them. We do not know the how or the why.
You have also been told that at least four times?
Are you keeping something secret from us???
Space and time are theorised to have started at the moment of the big bang. If they did, then there is no need for any "pre-existing" space or time.
That's because your head is filled with nonsensical anti establishment bias due to the nonsense you read. Try some reputable science books as David wisely told you a few days ago.
But what made up BB in the first place ?
post 234
Just an inadequate answer .
It is theorised that all of the matter and antimatter in our universe came into being at the moment of the big bang. There was slightly more matter than antimatter, so we ended up with a universe that is mostly matter.
If time started at the big bang, then it makes no sense to ask what was there before the big bang. On this view, there was no "before the big bang".
From some who lacks the adequate skills to understand science or put a sentence together.
- Status