ProfessionalMackem
Striker
What is the Moon and where did it come from? Quite a simple question you might think. In an age of quantum mechanics, theories of general relativity, big bang hypotheses etc, you would think we would know the exact origins of the moon and its composition. Well we don't, not really. The 5 most common theories doing the rounds are:
1.) Capture - This theory proposes that the Moon was captured by the gravitational pull of the Earth. The one main problem is the capture mechanism. A close encounter with Earth typically results in either collision or altered trajectories. This hypothesis has difficulty explaining the essentially identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two worlds or the near circular orbital pattern. Not likely.
2.) Fission/Split Earth – This theory states that during a time when the Earth was forming and was still molten, the spinning of the planet projected out material which became our moon today. The Pacific Ocean was supposedly the area where the Moon came from, however this was debunked considering the immaturity of the ocean floor crust and the knowing that the moon formed much longer ago. Not likely.
3.) Accretion/Twin planet – This hypothesis states that the Earth and the Moon formed together as a double system from the primordial accretion disk of the Solar System. The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system (why it isn't at 90degrees to the equator) or why the Moon has a relatively small iron core compared to the Earth (25% of its radius compared to 50% for the Earth). Not very likely.
4.) The Giant Collision Theory – This was the most commonly accepted theory up until recently. This theory suggests that long ago a planetary body the size of Mars crashed into Earth expelling a large piece of mass into space which became our Moon. While this hypothesis explains many aspects of the Earth-Moon system, there are still a few unresolved problems facing it, such as the Moon’s volatile elements not being as depleted as expected from such an energetic impact. Another issue is Lunar and Earth isotope comparisons. In 2011, the most precise measurement yet of the isotopic signatures of lunar rocks was published. Surprisingly, the Apollo lunar samples carried an isotopic signature identical to Earth rocks, but different from other Solar system bodies. Since most of the material that went into orbit to form the Moon was thought to come from Theia (the name scientists gave to the impactor), this observation was unexpected. In 2007, researchers from Caltech showed that the likelihood of Theia having an identical isotopic signature as the Earth was very small (<1 percent). Published in 2012, an analysis of titanium isotopes in Apollo lunar samples showed that the Moon has the same composition as the Earth which conflicts with the moon forming far from Earth’s orbit. Quite likely but has large discrepancies for the theory to work 100%
5.) Georeactor Explosion – A more radical alternative hypothesis, published in 2010, proposes that the Moon may have been formed from the explosion of a georeactor located along the core-mantle boundary at the equatorial plane of the rapidly rotating Earth. Not plausible.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-this-one-the-moon-is-hollow-and-this-is-why/
The problem is, all of these theories have holes in them and can't fully explain all of the moon mysteries. The age if it, the size, the shape and angle of its orbit, the composition and many more. We have to think outside the box, possibly to think that the moon is artificial and not natural.
This is not a thread on special moon water nor is it a hoax moon landing thread. I do now believe that Man landed on the moon, but NASA doctored 100's of photos and film. except we have only been given a highly censored version of those events.
1.) Capture - This theory proposes that the Moon was captured by the gravitational pull of the Earth. The one main problem is the capture mechanism. A close encounter with Earth typically results in either collision or altered trajectories. This hypothesis has difficulty explaining the essentially identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two worlds or the near circular orbital pattern. Not likely.
2.) Fission/Split Earth – This theory states that during a time when the Earth was forming and was still molten, the spinning of the planet projected out material which became our moon today. The Pacific Ocean was supposedly the area where the Moon came from, however this was debunked considering the immaturity of the ocean floor crust and the knowing that the moon formed much longer ago. Not likely.
3.) Accretion/Twin planet – This hypothesis states that the Earth and the Moon formed together as a double system from the primordial accretion disk of the Solar System. The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system (why it isn't at 90degrees to the equator) or why the Moon has a relatively small iron core compared to the Earth (25% of its radius compared to 50% for the Earth). Not very likely.
Logon or register to see this image
4.) The Giant Collision Theory – This was the most commonly accepted theory up until recently. This theory suggests that long ago a planetary body the size of Mars crashed into Earth expelling a large piece of mass into space which became our Moon. While this hypothesis explains many aspects of the Earth-Moon system, there are still a few unresolved problems facing it, such as the Moon’s volatile elements not being as depleted as expected from such an energetic impact. Another issue is Lunar and Earth isotope comparisons. In 2011, the most precise measurement yet of the isotopic signatures of lunar rocks was published. Surprisingly, the Apollo lunar samples carried an isotopic signature identical to Earth rocks, but different from other Solar system bodies. Since most of the material that went into orbit to form the Moon was thought to come from Theia (the name scientists gave to the impactor), this observation was unexpected. In 2007, researchers from Caltech showed that the likelihood of Theia having an identical isotopic signature as the Earth was very small (<1 percent). Published in 2012, an analysis of titanium isotopes in Apollo lunar samples showed that the Moon has the same composition as the Earth which conflicts with the moon forming far from Earth’s orbit. Quite likely but has large discrepancies for the theory to work 100%
Logon or register to see this image
5.) Georeactor Explosion – A more radical alternative hypothesis, published in 2010, proposes that the Moon may have been formed from the explosion of a georeactor located along the core-mantle boundary at the equatorial plane of the rapidly rotating Earth. Not plausible.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-this-one-the-moon-is-hollow-and-this-is-why/
The problem is, all of these theories have holes in them and can't fully explain all of the moon mysteries. The age if it, the size, the shape and angle of its orbit, the composition and many more. We have to think outside the box, possibly to think that the moon is artificial and not natural.
This is not a thread on special moon water nor is it a hoax moon landing thread. I do now believe that Man landed on the moon, but NASA doctored 100's of photos and film. except we have only been given a highly censored version of those events.