Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 22, 2022, 3:29 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Splitting of the Moon
#21
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 21, 2019 at 12:45 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(October 21, 2019 at 9:03 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: So?

God is an incompetent

God did create perfect world. It's called Heaven.
What is evolutionary purpose of subjective experience if p-zombies are just as good at survival as conscious humans?
Reply
#22
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 21, 2019 at 9:11 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote:
(October 21, 2019 at 12:45 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: God is an incompetent

God did create perfect world. It's called Heaven.

Got pictures?
Dying to live, living to die.
Reply
#23
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 21, 2019 at 12:45 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(October 21, 2019 at 4:07 am)The I AtlasS33 Wrote: Did the verse say that the moon was split in Mohammed's time?
I expect you to prove what you claimed. Here is the original verse, from the source, in both Arabic and English:

https://quran.com/54/1?translations=20

The verse didn't even mention Mohammed. So how did you form your claim?
With that dealt with, you totally ignored the scientific proof that the moon was actually split from the earth; after a collision; and that this is the widely accepted scientific theory.



Uhhh:
Oooh..
Quote:1.  The moon didn't split.   It accreted.   

No.

Quote:Computer simulations show a need for a glancing blow, which causes a portion of the collider to form a long arm of material that then shears off. The asymmetrical shape of the Earth following the collision then causes this material to settle into an orbit around the main mass. The energy involved in this collision is impressive: possibly trillions of tonnes of material would have been vaporized and melted. In parts of the Earth, the temperature would have risen to 10,000 °C (18,000 °F). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

There was a glancing blow that caused a collision which caused materials of the hit planet -earth- at point of impact to evaporate then reform in an independent orbit.

Quote:2 .  The current hypothesis is the moon formed from a combination of material that was in the proto-earth, and the other planet which struck the proto-earth.   The moon wasn't split from the earth.  When the material that would become the moon arrived in orbit, There was as yet no earth.   There was the proto-earth, which was a substantially different planet than what earth is today.   It had a substantially different composition, was likely somewhat smaller and less massive, than earth.    Scientists say "earth" was struck mainly to humor simple minded morons like you whose power of comprehension is stuck in the 7th century and incapable of grasping the seemingly subtle yet profound differences of the kind that permeates reality, but absent from infantile fantasies.    

If we both agree that a part of earth cracked due to an impact and formed its own orbit and became independent from the mother object -earth-, then what are you debating? 

Quote:The more accurate way to visualize the hypothesis is there were two primitive planets, one about twice as large as the other.   They came from somewhat different parts of the accretionary disk out of which the planets and moons of the solar system formed.   So their bulk  composition and volatile contents were somewhat different.    


Furthermore, they experienced not one, but two off-center collision.   This is necessary to add enough angular momentum to account for the present earth moon system, without adding so much collisional energy in the process that the two bodies would gravitationally dissociate and end up as a debris disk around the sun.    During the initial collision the mantles of the two planets struck, and became severely disrupted, while the cores of the two bodies missed each other and sailed past each other, although the friction of the mantle collision slowed the cores relative to eachother.   Immediately after collision, the larger of the two bodies retained majority of its mantle, while the smaller planet lost majority of its mantle.  Much of the mantle material material lost by both bodies then mixed and formed a debris cloud around the site of the collision.   Note the debris cloud would proportionally have a much higher contribution from the smaller of the two planets than their pre-collision relative mass would suggest.    This is necessary to account for why the present earth retained so much larger inventory of volatile materials than the moon.  


The cores then slowed, stopped and fell back towards each other under their mutural gravities, before they underwent a second collision.  This time they stuck, and the two cores sank through the remaining mantle envelope of the larger of the two bodies towards their new common center of gravity, and eventually merged into a single new core.   While much of the debris cloud from the collision fell back onto the new merged body to form the new mantle, this completed the formation of the new earth.   The key here is the new earth is a substantially different planet from either of the pre-existing bodies that collided, with total newly formed internal structure, made from mix of the materials from the two pre-impact bodies.   Note the moon still didn't exist.   And yet earth would never lose any substantial amount of mass, or split, ever again down to the very present.

The remaining materials in the debris cloud than formed into a debris disk, the debris disk than likely accreted over hundred to thousands of years into most likely more than 1 moon, well after the new earth has formed.  These multiple moons than likely accreted into eachother to form earth's one single giant moon, note the moon(s) didn't split, the earth didn't split.   Instead moon(s) merged around the earth.   


So, no, my scientifically ignorant friend, science does not say the moon split.   It also does not say the earth split to form the moon.


In all versions, the moons merged without ever having split in the first place.   The earth also didn't split to form the moon.   There was really not  an earth to split when the material for the moon arrived at where the moon would later form.  


Instead of wasting you life reading the koran and racking your brains to justify the unjustifiable,  try to actually gain enriching understanding of the subtle essences of science, instead of trying to hijack gross caricatures if science for use in your lamentable effort to justify the unjustifiable.  
 
I didn't ask for an essay about how the moon split written in your words..

Quote:BTW, once upon a time, the notion that the moon was truly split from the earth, with pacific ocean basin being the scar from the separation, was a viable scientific hypothesis.    It has since been proven dynamically untenable.   Laws of physics could not be made to allow that possibility.    So science progressed.   But that was a 20th century development.   Beholden as you are to rambling of the more ignorant of the denizens of the 7th century, it is of course to much to ask that you take note of what wouldn't happen until humanity progressed another 13 centuries.     

Now we are in the 21st century, the latest results from analysis of the detailed composition of the moon, using methods not available a decade ago, have shown the moon contained more volatile material than would be expected if it formed from in so energetic a way as a planetary collision between proto-earth and another planet half as large.   This opened the big splat hypothesis of the lunar formation to fresh debate and analysis.  So should you "splitting earth" science turned out to be wrong, what will you say then?



That "once upon a time" don't represent me.

I quote again from wikipedia:

Quote:The origin of the Moon is usually explained by a Mars-sized body striking the Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon



I choose the usually explained opinion over yours

(October 21, 2019 at 9:15 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:
(October 21, 2019 at 9:11 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote: God did create perfect world. It's called Heaven.

Got pictures?

Just one question: why are athiests obsessed about finding a visual proof of God? I mean a real God would be so great that we get blinded if we saw him from greatness, only we can see him if he wanted to.
Reply
#24
RE: Splitting of the Moon
People want us to believe their claims and expect us to do so without anything but their claims.

We simply ask for verifiable evidence.

Why is that a problem?
Dying to live, living to die.
Reply
#25
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 22, 2019 at 12:33 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: People want us to believe their claims and expect us to do so without anything but their claims.

We simply ask for verifiable evidence.

Why is that a problem?

Not trusting the opinion of people sometimes is a big mistake. Sometimes people say the truth.
For example; "Dark Matter". We know it's there, we even calculated it's mass, but pictures can't detect it, the only way to find out about it is to use complex calculations to measure it.

So taking pictures for "Dark Matter" makes no sense because it doesn't reflect light.

The more you venture into outer space, the more detecting objects using tools like Cameras becomes meaningless. Other tools must be used.

You have to trust indirect calculations and keep testing it until you find something; and probably it won't even be seen directly.
Reply
#26
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 22, 2019 at 12:16 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:
(October 21, 2019 at 12:45 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Uhhh:
Oooh..
Quote:1.  The moon didn't split.   It accreted.   

No.

Quote:Computer simulations show a need for a glancing blow, which causes a portion of the collider to form a long arm of material that then shears off. The asymmetrical shape of the Earth following the collision then causes this material to settle into an orbit around the main mass. The energy involved in this collision is impressive: possibly trillions of tonnes of material would have been vaporized and melted. In parts of the Earth, the temperature would have risen to 10,000 °C (18,000 °F). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

There was a glancing blow that caused a collision which caused materials of the hit planet -earth- at point of impact to evaporate then reform in an independent orbit.

Quote:2 .  The current hypothesis is the moon formed from a combination of material that was in the proto-earth, and the other planet which struck the proto-earth.   The moon wasn't split from the earth.  When the material that would become the moon arrived in orbit, There was as yet no earth.   There was the proto-earth, which was a substantially different planet than what earth is today.   It had a substantially different composition, was likely somewhat smaller and less massive, than earth.    Scientists say "earth" was struck mainly to humor simple minded morons like you whose power of comprehension is stuck in the 7th century and incapable of grasping the seemingly subtle yet profound differences of the kind that permeates reality, but absent from infantile fantasies.    

If we both agree that a part of earth cracked due to an impact and formed its own orbit and became independent from the mother object -earth-, then what are you debating? 

Quote:The more accurate way to visualize the hypothesis is there were two primitive planets, one about twice as large as the other.   They came from somewhat different parts of the accretionary disk out of which the planets and moons of the solar system formed.   So their bulk  composition and volatile contents were somewhat different.    


Furthermore, they experienced not one, but two off-center collision.   This is necessary to add enough angular momentum to account for the present earth moon system, without adding so much collisional energy in the process that the two bodies would gravitationally dissociate and end up as a debris disk around the sun.    During the initial collision the mantles of the two planets struck, and became severely disrupted, while the cores of the two bodies missed each other and sailed past each other, although the friction of the mantle collision slowed the cores relative to eachother.   Immediately after collision, the larger of the two bodies retained majority of its mantle, while the smaller planet lost majority of its mantle.  Much of the mantle material material lost by both bodies then mixed and formed a debris cloud around the site of the collision.   Note the debris cloud would proportionally have a much higher contribution from the smaller of the two planets than their pre-collision relative mass would suggest.    This is necessary to account for why the present earth retained so much larger inventory of volatile materials than the moon.  


The cores then slowed, stopped and fell back towards each other under their mutural gravities, before they underwent a second collision.  This time they stuck, and the two cores sank through the remaining mantle envelope of the larger of the two bodies towards their new common center of gravity, and eventually merged into a single new core.   While much of the debris cloud from the collision fell back onto the new merged body to form the new mantle, this completed the formation of the new earth.   The key here is the new earth is a substantially different planet from either of the pre-existing bodies that collided, with total newly formed internal structure, made from mix of the materials from the two pre-impact bodies.   Note the moon still didn't exist.   And yet earth would never lose any substantial amount of mass, or split, ever again down to the very present.

The remaining materials in the debris cloud than formed into a debris disk, the debris disk than likely accreted over hundred to thousands of years into most likely more than 1 moon, well after the new earth has formed.  These multiple moons than likely accreted into eachother to form earth's one single giant moon, note the moon(s) didn't split, the earth didn't split.   Instead moon(s) merged around the earth.   


So, no, my scientifically ignorant friend, science does not say the moon split.   It also does not say the earth split to form the moon.


In all versions, the moons merged without ever having split in the first place.   The earth also didn't split to form the moon.   There was really not  an earth to split when the material for the moon arrived at where the moon would later form.  


Instead of wasting you life reading the koran and racking your brains to justify the unjustifiable,  try to actually gain enriching understanding of the subtle essences of science, instead of trying to hijack gross caricatures if science for use in your lamentable effort to justify the unjustifiable.  
 
I didn't ask for an essay about how the moon split written in your words..

Quote:BTW, once upon a time, the notion that the moon was truly split from the earth, with pacific ocean basin being the scar from the separation, was a viable scientific hypothesis.    It has since been proven dynamically untenable.   Laws of physics could not be made to allow that possibility.    So science progressed.   But that was a 20th century development.   Beholden as you are to rambling of the more ignorant of the denizens of the 7th century, it is of course to much to ask that you take note of what wouldn't happen until humanity progressed another 13 centuries.     

Now we are in the 21st century, the latest results from analysis of the detailed composition of the moon, using methods not available a decade ago, have shown the moon contained more volatile material than would be expected if it formed from in so energetic a way as a planetary collision between proto-earth and another planet half as large.   This opened the big splat hypothesis of the lunar formation to fresh debate and analysis.  So should you "splitting earth" science turned out to be wrong, what will you say then?



That "once upon a time" don't represent me.

I quote again from wikipedia:

Quote:The origin of the Moon is usually explained by a Mars-sized body striking the Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon



I choose the usually explained opinion over yours

(October 21, 2019 at 9:15 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Got pictures?

Just one question: why are athiests obsessed about finding a visual proof of God? I mean a real God would be so great that we get blinded if we saw him from greatness, only we can see him if he wanted to.


You should read my essay.   It said the moon didn’t split.   It expresses the usual explanation far better than your are capable of understanding it.   But even though it sails right over your head, your reading it will still make a you a better person because you would not be using the time to become worse by reading the Koran.  

And the usual explanation is currently seeing apparently new and contrary evidence.  But even if the usual explanation, when new evidence is fully digested and slotted into their places. Prove to have been wrong, there would absolutely certainly still be infinitely more that is right that went into it,  than there could ever be right in your ridiculous Koran.
Reply
#27
RE: Splitting of the Moon
This is one of the moments that helps you to realize that what a person doesn't believe from their preferred magic book will tell you more about them than what they do.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#28
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 22, 2019 at 12:33 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: We simply ask for verifiable evidence.
Life, consciousness, Universe.
What is evolutionary purpose of subjective experience if p-zombies are just as good at survival as conscious humans?
Reply
#29
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 22, 2019 at 2:37 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: You should read my essay.   It said the moon didn’t split.   It expresses the usual explanation far better than your are capable of understanding it.   But even though it sails right over your head, your reading it will still make a you a better person because you would not be using the time to become worse by reading the Koran.  

And the usual explanation is currently seeing apparently new and contrary evidence.  But even if the usual explanation, when new evidence is fully digested and slotted into their places. Prove to have been wrong, there would absolutely certainly still be infinitely more that is right that went into it,  than there could ever be right in your ridiculous Koran.

I did read it. But sections like the following made me understand your objective from it. For example (and now I'm quoting you):

Quote:Furthermore, they experienced not one, but two off-center collision.   This is necessary to add enough angular momentum to account for the present earth moon system, without adding so much collisional energy in the process that the two bodies would gravitationally dissociate and end up as a debris disk around the sun.    During the initial collision the mantles of the two planets struck, and became severely disrupted, while the cores of the two bodies missed each other and sailed past each other, although the friction of the mantle collision slowed the cores relative to eachother.   Immediately after collision, the larger of the two bodies retained majority of its mantle, while the smaller planet lost majority of its mantle.  Much of the mantle material material lost by both bodies then mixed and formed a debris cloud around the site of the collision.   Note the debris cloud would proportionally have a much higher contribution from the smaller of the two planets than their pre-collision relative mass would suggest.    This is necessary to account for why the present earth retained so much larger inventory of volatile materials than the moon.

What the heck does the existence of two collisions -not one,not half, not even a million- relates to the simple sentence "the hour became near and the moon was cracked"?
Let be cracked -or split- because of one collision; two; five or even 10. How does this relates to the verse, or to my post ?

I don't care about the numbers of collisions. I care about the conclusion of the collisions; i.e a piece of earth cracking becoming what we know as the moon.


Quote: The cores then slowed, stopped and fell back towards each other under their mutural gravities, before they underwent a second collision.  This time they stuck, and the two cores sank through the remaining mantle envelope of the larger of the two bodies towards their new common center of gravity, and eventually merged into a single new core.   While much of the debris cloud from the collision fell back onto the new merged body to form the new mantle, this completed the formation of the new earth.   The key here is the new earth is a substantially different planet from either of the pre-existing bodies that collided, with total newly formed internal structure, made from mix of the materials from the two pre-impact bodies.   Note the moon still didn't exist.   And yet earth would never lose any substantial amount of mass, or split, ever again down to the very present.

You can sum all of this nice talk with the sentence ("The cosmological history of Earth").

Quote:The remaining materials in the debris cloud than formed into a debris disk, the debris disk than likely accreted over hundred to thousands of years into most likely more than 1 moon, well after the new earth has formed.  These multiple moons than likely accreted into eachother to form earth's one single giant moon, note the moon(s) didn't split, the earth didn't split.   Instead moon(s) merged around the earth.  

But aren't these debris can be referred to easily in language as "split/cracked bodies"? I mean their origins are materials from earth and also the cosmos. But the larger chunks came from earth; split/cracked then floated in their own orbits, then merged together. Or in other, simpler (and more summed) words "the hour became near and the moon was cracked/split".

It all began with the earthen debris "splitting/cracking" out towards another orbit..

Quote:So, no, my scientifically ignorant friend, science does not say the moon split.   It also does not say the earth split to form the moon.

No. It did; revise my comment.

Quote:In all versions, the moons merged without ever having split in the first place.   The earth also didn't split to form the moon.   There was really not  an earth to split when the material for the moon arrived at where the moon would later form. 


You mean the moon is connected to earth; and it is a part of it?
Damn; I knew NASA lied all along..also earth is flat.

Quote:Instead of wasting you life reading the koran and racking your brains to justify the unjustifiable,  try to actually gain enriching understanding of the subtle essences of science, instead of trying to hijack gross caricatures if science for use in your lamentable effort to justify the unjustifiable. 

No, I was so gifted having the Quran as my book. First of all it taught me that humans are the same creatures, it taught me to hate racist, it taught me to never treat the poor bad, it taught me to respect women, it taught me to respect animals (that's why I talk to them), it taught me to respect your choice even if you choose a different religion than mine.
Reply
#30
RE: Splitting of the Moon
(October 22, 2019 at 3:45 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:
(October 22, 2019 at 12:33 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: We simply ask for verifiable evidence.
Life, consciousness, Universe.

Do you know what those are evidence for?

Life, consciousness, and the universe.

Not for a deity.

What’s your next evidence “look at the trees”?
Dying to live, living to die.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Quranic Reflection]: moon absorbed by the sun in the Quran: far future. WinterHold 253 5296 December 18, 2020 at 9:25 pm
Last Post: polymath257
  By the sun and its morning. ( 2 ) And [by] the moon when it follows it WinterHold 45 3246 April 11, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Last Post: WinterHold



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)