Why is the moon in the wrong place?

@redredred Nope try again. You need to do some actual reading. The moon rocks brought back by Apollo show quite a bit of difference.

Yes they do but not on an elemental level. The differences are just what would be expected if molten earths crustal material were ejected into space and reformed in a low gravity vacuum.

Your original question showed several unsupported assumptions. You assumed the moon was the same age as the earth. Show your proof of that. You assumed the rate of recession was constant. Show your proof of that. If you cant prove both of those than your original question has been invalidated.

By the way, I'm sticking to these two points no matter what diversion you attempt so either answer them now or admit you can't. They are the weak links in your reasoning. @hippyjoe1955

@MalteseFalconPunch actually they do. I have talked to guys that actually worked on the stuff. It is similar but not identical.

@redredred wrong. The moon arocks are similar but not the same.

You can delete my responses if you cant answer them or you can man-up and admit you cant answer them

You've made two unsupported assumptions. One, that the earth and moon are the same age and two, that the rate of recessession is constant. Prove those or admit you can't

By the way, the minor differences in the moons regolith and the earths crust are, as I told you but you deleted, that the ejecta re-coalesced in a vacuum and low gravity environment.

@redredred Why would I delete anything? Questions for you. When was the moon formed? Of what was it formed? What was its initial orbit? What rate was it moving away from the earth originally. Why is it moving away and not toward the earth? If the rate has varied over time what is caused that variation?

I'd rather have questions I cant answer than answers I cant question. Answer mine first and then Ill tackle yours. I asked mine first. Upon what evidence do you assume the moon formed as early as the earth and what evidence supports your assumption that thecrate of recession is constant.

As i told you awhile ago, Im not letting you off the hook for these answers.

@redredred I simply asked the same questions you asked of me. Since you seem to know I thought I would ask. If you don't know then all your questioning me is showing your own ignorance. I simply used numbers common in the science literature. If you refute them then please provide your data. If not you are simply a clanging gong. Lots of noise but no point to your blatherings.

@MalteseFalconPunch Ever hear of that stuff called gravity? Seriously you are making a complete fool of yourself. Back in the day how did the space shuttle re-enter the atmosphere? It fired retro rockets and slowed down which caused it to fall to earth because of gravity and loss of angular momentum. You weren't very good a physics were you?

@MalteseFalconPunch There are lots of competing theories. Yours is just one of them. Impact seems to be very unlikely because it would have serious effect on the earth's orbit. That and there would be lots of other material left behind. Nice theory. Lots of scientists don't agree with it. Not surprising there are lots of theories out there and each has its supporters and detractors.

@MalteseFalconPunch If you accept the impact theory. I don't accept it. Too much left unanswered.

@hippyjoe1955 No, no, no you didn't. Find me a reputable scientific citation that say the rate of recession is constant. Here's a tip, even the spin of the earth is not exactly constant. Find me a reputable scientific citation that pegs the exact age of the moon or claims it is as old as the earth. You can't.

You asked your original question assuming facts not in evidence. You've yet to admii tto that

@redredred Did I ever say that I believed any of what I posted? I simply engaged in a bit of fun with math and have had great fun watching the loons rush to make excuses and spit vitriol . You are just one of the loons. Your whole chain of posts simply repeats "I don't know over and over and over again".

You based you math on two faulty assumptions. Ive pointed out where you made those mistakes. You lack the balls to admit you made those mistakes. You are a very poor excuse for a man.@hippyjoe1955

The bible barely meets the standard of a hypothesis@MalteseFalconPunch

@MalteseFalconPunch It would take way to fine a chip shot for it have happened. A greater miracle than I can believe in. It is akin to the life didn't form on earth it was brought here by comets. Nice. How then did life form on comets? It would make much more sense to say that the earth and moon came into being at the same time using the same processes. If those processes can form a planet they can also form a moon. There is no need for chip shots from space by an object we can't find or explain.

@MalteseFalconPunch If you notice something lets say an elephant in your living room do you question it or do you simply assume that someone somewhere can explain why there is an elephant in your living room. I like to question things. I like to challenge assumptions based on speculation. I am not religious like you so I don't just take things on 'authority'.

@redredred Funny how you are the first one to bring up the Bible. I don't talk about it when I discuss science. Why do you?