Traces of another world found on the Moon (BBC)

a reply to: bottleslingguy

More than likely Uranus was knocked off it's axis by a near miss or strike by some relatively large object. Since we weren't watching all we can do is postulate.
It is clear, though, that some event in the past would have caused it, provided Uranus was present at the beginning of the solar system. If it was captured then all bets are off.

a reply to: Denoli

so what if you are moving at 200 miles per hour and strike shoulders with another person moving 200 miles an hour in another direction...would one or both of you lose body parts?

The scenarios you present are not realistic at all.

But... I will agree that you are smarter than everyone else and the solar system is equivalent to pool balls on a pool table and if the earth was struck by another pool ball there would not be debris to be captured by the earth's orbit.

I mean, heck, when cars collide they never leave debris behind... they remain fully intact and bounce off one another like pool balls also.

It's not like the vast majority of our planet is molten... we are completely solid and the earth being struck by another planet would not even deform the planet...we would simply just bounce!! Right?

a reply to: bbracken677

Ah, the voice of reason!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: IsaacKoi

To layman like me, sounds like a pretty big stretch in conclusions. All this looking at rocks and reading billions of years of unwritten history is rather iffy for me.

Just like carbon dating.

I'm pretty sure sooner or later we will find these methods somewhat flawed.

I couldn't agree more. This is just some assumption by these peeps and nothing more. I don't believe anything they have to say. It means nothing. If NASA and many of the lame stream scientists told me it was raining I'd have to go outside and look for myself.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Denoli

so what if you are moving at 200 miles per hour and strike shoulders with another person moving 200 miles an hour in another direction...would one or both of you lose body parts?

The scenarios you present are not realistic at all.

But... I will agree that you are smarter than everyone else and the solar system is equivalent to pool balls on a pool table and if the earth was struck by another pool ball there would not be debris to be captured by the earth's orbit.

I mean, heck, when cars collide they never leave debris behind... they remain fully intact and bounce off one another like pool balls also.

It's not like the vast majority of our planet is molten... we are completely solid and the earth being struck by another planet would not even deform the planet...we would simply just bounce!! Right?

I'm just giving an out of the box theory so your saying if two bodies collided the debris would stay in an orbit to create a moon and not fall to earth or be thrown out into deep space ! Ok I'll dive down the rabbit hole make room if there is any!

originally posted by: Denoli

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Denoli

so what if you are moving at 200 miles per hour and strike shoulders with another person moving 200 miles an hour in another direction...would one or both of you lose body parts?

The scenarios you present are not realistic at all.

But... I will agree that you are smarter than everyone else and the solar system is equivalent to pool balls on a pool table and if the earth was struck by another pool ball there would not be debris to be captured by the earth's orbit.

I mean, heck, when cars collide they never leave debris behind... they remain fully intact and bounce off one another like pool balls also.

It's not like the vast majority of our planet is molten... we are completely solid and the earth being struck by another planet would not even deform the planet...we would simply just bounce!! Right?

I'm just giving an out of the box theory so your saying if two bodies collided the debris would stay in an orbit to create a moon and not fall to earth or be thrown out into deep space ! Ok I'll dive down the rabbit hole make room if there is any!

And by the way the earths more rounder than a pool ball if a pool ball was to scale so sorry for throwing a curve ball

a reply to: IsaacKoi

This is pure BS.

They do Not have rocks from the planet Theia to compare to the chemical signatures they claim to have found in moon rocks. There is no real evidence of anything here except that perhaps as we all know, at some point something hit the moon and broke up into rocks - as does happen all the time with comets and meteorites.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

Doesn't this information corroborate the Sumerian writings of the Enuma Elish and Zecharia Sitchin's translations?

He also suggests that Tiamat was the 5th planet (now asteroid belt) from the Sun and Marduk crashed into Tiamat and what was left of this celestial cataclysm was thrust into what is now Earth's orbit, the debris became the asteroid belt (5th planetary zone), and Tiamat's moons were scattered (could be some smaller planets and some unknown still).

The Sumerians had accurate descriptions of Uranus and Neptune "watery twins", why not of this ancient celestial cataclysm?

And before some scoff, there are many legends in other cultures that corroborate celestial facts - like the Greeks mythology of "eating and disgorging his children" where the planet Uranus covered its moons or the mythology of Mars having two fiery horses only to be discovered that Mars in fact has two moons. Facts disguised as legend/mythology.

At any rate, very interesting stuff but not all too surprising. I hope one day scientists finally realize the true knowledge base that exists in our ancestors.

a reply to: Denoli

I was always lead to believe our Earth resembled more of an egg shape than a perfect sphere.

Consider this, our Earths diameter from pole to pole is shorter than the diameter at the equator. The equatorial diameter is about 12,700 km, and the pole to pole diameter is about 40 km shorter. The reason for this difference is the Earth's rotation which creates a centrifugal force perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

I find this thread interesting in that people who have no expertise in the subject, who have not devoted decades of their lives to the physics, geology, chemistry, and/or dynamics, think that their gut feeling trumps all the science. That the thousands of people who've worked on this problem for over a century and gotten to this point are wrong because - hey! - the methods are flawed (never mind the other uses and corroboration in completely unrelated fields) or the scientists are just making some vague assumption!

And I am being genuine -- I do find this phenomenon interesting.

a reply to: Denoli

What andy06shake said. And ...

While the rules for pool balls have a tolerance of 2.2% (they're supposed to be 5.715±0.127cm), in actuality, the variation is more like ±0.6 (ish) µm, or ±0.00006 cm, or a tolerance of 0.00105%. Scaled up to Earth, that's ±70 METERS (I get about half the value that the poster at that site got, not entirely sure why, but the point remains). Given that I live at about 6200 ft, or 1900 m above sea level, Earth is NOT smoother than a pool ball, unless you use the actual official regulation tolerances as opposed to what a real pool ball looks like.

a reply to: smurfy

It's early days yet though.

yeah they haven't had Apollo rocks to study for long :-(

originally posted by: astrostu
I find this thread interesting in that people who have no expertise in the subject, who have not devoted decades of their lives to the physics, geology, chemistry, and/or dynamics, think that their gut feeling trumps all the science. That the thousands of people who've worked on this problem for over a century and gotten to this point are wrong because - hey! - the methods are flawed (never mind the other uses and corroboration in completely unrelated fields) or the scientists are just making some vague assumption!

And I am being genuine -- I do find this phenomenon interesting.

I just can't see it having a greater chance than my theory for all the years and scientist to say that is not much progress really without hard evidence

a reply to: WhiteAlice

you asked where was our scar that's what I was responding to my bad

a reply to: Denoli

What do you count as "hard evidence"? It doesn't seem like you understand the scientific process.

What you claim has to fit in with everything else we know from all other fields of science. The "Big Splash" model does not explain EVERYTHING about the moon, and there are some small, potential problems, but those could be explained within the framework of the model. It is also the ONLY model that we have that can explain all the other observations consistently.

Meanwhile, you said that if another planet came in, it would bounce off Earth like a billiard ball. That's simply wrong. It's a non-starter, it's not how things work, there is no branch of science that would support that in any way based on how planets and impacts/collisions work. Saying that is a problem with the Big Splash model is like me saying airplanes can't fly because they don't have flapping wings. It's just a head-shaker and non-starter.

I'm not trying to make you , I'm trying to point out that you sound stubborn without any evidence to justify your supposition except an analogy that doesn't apply. There's also a remarkable arrogance in people who think that they know better than scientists do about something they have no expertise in.

originally posted by: WanDash
a reply to: IsaacKoi
Interesting that no-one is mentioning the giant elephant in the you-know-where...
Being - Sitchin said that such a collision was described in the ancient texts.
Correct, or not, I find it interesting.

Yeah and Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a book about the theory Venus was a rogue comet that went past the earth and caused a catastrophic change in our planets alignment millenia in the past (which he talks of ancient astronomical observations), 20+ years before Sitchin wrote his book... doesnt mean anything Sitchin wrote had any merit or truth.

I only really know the basics of what Sitchin was on about, and the more I occasionally see of his stuff the more I realize what a plagiarizer of other peoples ideas he was. No wonder he is and was considered a hack. The moon is here, where it came from is simply a matter of fulfilling curiosity in my opinion since we arent ever going to find the definitive proof/truth anyway, what we gotta do is get back to the damn thing and start using it as the greatest resource the Earth has, as it is... regardless of how it came to be.

Someones probably said it, but dont forget that large belt of debri we have in our solar system, that may or may not have been a planet at some point, im sure there where some pretty big pieces that came off that event early on, and im sure alot of em came solarward.

I've always liked the collision theory, and have assumed it to be true. it's simple and makes sense.

I think it was mars that collided, and this formed the scar on mars. This could of happened if mars, or the earth, had an eliptical orbit that intersected with the earth's orbit, making the two planets skim against one another instead of a direct impact. In such a scenario, the debris would be focused in a stream behind the impact, which would form the moon ( first a dense and narrow ring, then the moon ). This would of also changed the orbits of both planets.

Now, if we want to assume the above true and let the mind wonder a little, we could think that much of our atmosphere, and possibly even life itself, could of been a result of this collision.

Of course, I haven't done any research here to know if what I just said matches up to the scientific facts or not... I just like how the pieces fit together.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Telos
I thought the moon once part of earth theory was just that, a theory and not scientifically proven.



Was the moon once part of Earth?


Did Venus Give Earth the Moon? Wild New Theory on Lunar History



etc... There are to many theories out there. Just pointing out that.

It's all but certain the Moon came from the Earth after another planet collided with the Earth. It's impossible to determine the evidence any other way.

I know that in threads like this one is very important to back up everything we say but (unfortunately I cannot recall where) I've read that moon's composite is different from earth's which makes a once part of earth argument not valid. Again, I cannot remember where I've read it but I can recall was an extensive study with a lot of scientific data.

And since I like the topic a lot I've tried to keep myself updated on the matter. So far I haven't read anything that makes it such a sure thnig or all but certain (as you state it).

False. The moon has been scientifically verified to be identical to the Earth. It's actually curious because the Moon should be made up more of Theia, but it appears to be mostly made up of Earth material.

Far more of the moon may be made of material from Earth than previously thought,

researchers had expected this alien world to be chemically different from Earth, and past studies have revealed that the moon and Earth appear quite similar when it comes to versions of elements called isotopes

www.space.com...

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: ionwind

why isn't the Moon spinning and/or wobbling if it formed out of an accretion disk of debris from the impact not very long ago? what accounts for it's stability? maybe the Moon belonged to the planet that hit Earth and was captured after the impact?

Then why is it proven that the material came from Earth?

originally posted by: astrostu
a reply to: Denoli

What do you count as "hard evidence"? It doesn't seem like you understand the scientific process.

What you claim has to fit in with everything else we know from all other fields of science. The "Big Splash" model does not explain EVERYTHING about the moon, and there are some small, potential problems, but those could be explained within the framework of the model. It is also the ONLY model that we have that can explain all the other observations consistently.

Meanwhile, you said that if another planet came in, it would bounce off Earth like a billiard ball. That's simply wrong. It's a non-starter, it's not how things work, there is no branch of science that would support that in any way based on how planets and impacts/collisions work. Saying that is a problem with the Big Splash model is like me saying airplanes can't fly because they don't have flapping wings. It's just a head-shaker and non-starter.

I'm not trying to make you

, I'm trying to point out that you sound stubborn without any evidence to justify your supposition except an analogy that doesn't apply. There's also a remarkable arrogance in people who think that they know better than scientists do about something they have no expertise in.

My dad once said "son u can play golf for 30 years and still be crap at it " were someone might not have played before and be better straight away . Experience helps but doesn't make u better .
And they've studied 3 rocks and come to that assumption because it fits into a theory well what make the other few million craters on the moon don't tell me it was theia , just cos it's in the journal science makes it right ! So if they was a collision I think no material would hang around to create the moon it would just fall to earth or be thrown into space , what's the odds on it making a moon , virtually impossible we're as eruptions on a mass scale is far more probable arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1001.4243