What impact on the Earth scarred the Moon ~4bya?
Why can't a prograde motion asteroid do this?
Just checking, you do know that the Earth and the moon rotate, right? So you can't just say there are impacts on one particular side of the moon that happens to be facing toward the direction of motion, right?
You're assuming only prograde asteroids were flying around in the LHB, thats not what hit the Earth to cause the Moon's maria.
Citation needed.
Like, to a journal article, not a popular science magazine. That is an incredible claim that only someone who doesn't understand physics will make, or has very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very good reasons that will revolutionize physics as we know it.
Do you mean a Hohmann Transfer Orbit? That deals with spacecraft maneuvering. Can you explain how that works with planetary collisions?
The Hohmann transfer orbit is firing the engines twice to change orbit from a lower to a higher, or a higher to a lower orbit. Once to produce the thrust to get into an elliptical orbit tangent to both the target orbit and current orbit, and once more to circularize the orbit.
Large collisions would appear closer and closer to this because of the large momentum transfers at each collisions, and thus you will have a Mars-crossing Earth orbit if your situation is to happen, which will no doubt de-stabilize Mars' orbit within a few decades (not billion years, not million, not thousand, and not hundred. 10s of years). The only possible way is gradual accretion, which is already ruled out because of lack of retrograde material.
I'm not talking about prograde asteroids, but Moon+ sized retrograde object(s).
Which do not exist because of their highly unstable orbits (retrograde motion is more and more unstable during denser and denser locations) de-orbiting them during planetary accretion. You will have almost none left during Late Heavy Bombardment.
The Earth cant be destroyed by an impact, only absorbed? Can it shed enough mass to lose angular momentum?
No. The velocity differences of asteroid-Earth collisions simply is not great enough to allow the Earth to lose mass in collisions.
Then you need twice the mass to deliver the required retrograde momentum. So implying that the Earth formed at 20% of its current mass and then absorbed retrograde mass and sank into its current orbit. The greater the inclination, the more mass you need, as it provides less and less retrograde momentum.
You are as far away from "formed in the asteroid belt" as you can get. That 40% is a minimum mass, not maximum mass.
How did an asteroid hitting the Earth ~4 bya send asteroid sized chunks of crust and mantle into the Moon?
Physical size vs mass is different. An asteroid hitting earth would cause the Earth to gain much more mass overall than it releases, so there is a net gain in mass. Earth will not lose mass that easily.
"Shocks" precludes a large object entering our system 4 bya? I dont know that the debris came from a supernova, or was in orbit around a star that blew up, or just a loose planet.
So, if this is the case, let's revisit your pet theory. Would not this imply a significant chemical dissimilarity between the rest of the solar system and the Earth? Clearly, extra-solar material being thrown onto the Earth would mean a completely alien composition.
Why argue that the Earth formed in the Asteroid belt anymore? Why not just argue that it formed outside the solar system, and was captured by the sun? That's far more likely than an object pin-point targeting proto-Earth of less than 20% the current mass of Earth, from outside the solar system and striking in just the right way to cancel out enough angular momentum to sink it into a 1AU to 3 AU elliptical orbit, which is quickly struck by a large impact coming from the opposite direction from the Z axis (defined as the rotation axis of the sun perpendicular to the ecliptic) to cancel out the Z axis velocity and to circularize the orbit before it can destabilize Mars' orbit, or be disrupted by Jupiter?
do you have a link for a precise integer precession?
Yes. You. You are stating that this is the case earlier.
I am saying that this is absurd as to claim that there is a special connection without physically justifying it.
Let me try it again. This July 1st was a Monday. So does this mean that this is proof that the very first July 1st in human history is also a Monday? This is using your logic on orbital precession and rotational precession, but being very generous as you only need to fit 2 unrelated cycles, not 4.
It is up to you to prove why there would be an integer number of precessions, in addition to proving a mechanic as to how Saturn could have "spat out" Pluto, and as to what caused Pluto's orbit to re-circularize (sorta), and to reconcile that with the fact that it has young rings and much much more problems that I haven't mentioned yet.
Please, go hire a physics tutor if you want help with your high school (or middle school? It's been a while, and I don't know the curriculum at your place) physics class. You don't need to go through this convoluted way at trying to convince people you don't understand basic physics with these claims. You'll learn a lot more of physics and in greater detail and much more relevant to your studies than convolutedly asking about momentum questions to get a lesson on momentum. Try someone who is taking a calculus based high school physics class, or even a classmate who isn't failing. They usually aren't too expensive at the high school level, and can clear up a lot of the confusion you may have.
