It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Earth is actually 2 planets" Scientists conclude

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+33 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
It appears that scientists have come to the conclusion that the early Earth was mixed with a baby planet called Theia following a head on collision 4.5 billion years ago - based upon oxygen isotope evidence resultant from examining moon rocks.


Initially it was believed that the Moon was created when a smaller planet called Theia grazed the Earth and broke up, sending a smaller chunk into space where it was caught in Earth’s gravity.

But if that was the case the Moon would have a different chemical composition to the Earth, because it would be made up, predominantly, of Theia.

"Theia probably would have become a planet if the crash had not occurred" - Prof Edward Young, University of California

However, after studying Moon rocks brought back by astronauts on the Apollo missions, scientists at the University of California have found that their oxygen isotopes are the same as on Earth.

It means that the collision between Their and the early Earth was so violent that the two planets effectively melded together to form a new planet, a chunk of which was knocked off to form the Moon.

“We don’t see any difference between the Earth’s and the Moon’s oxygen isotopes; they’re indistinguishable,” said Edward Young, lead author of the new study and a UCLA professor of geochemistry and cosmochemistry

science.sciencemag.org...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
I also remember Zecharia Sitchin interpreting Sumarian texts about the Anunnaki whereby the ancient civilization annotated a very similar testimony about the Earth and moon creation that involved a cosmic impact of sorts.

Anyway, this is the type of stuff that I love reading about - where science and mythology meet....and after reading this article, it really does not seem to be too much of a stretch that this scenario (as articulated by the University of California science team) indeed may have been the case.




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Apparently, there were two moons produced by the collision as well which smeared into each other producing the dramatic crust thickness anomaly.




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Why did they feel the name to posthumously name the baby planet?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Sometimes I just don't get this news, wasn't this known from 10+ years ago due to silicon signals?

www.dailygalaxy.com...

2001 scientific article about oxigen on moon




We have determined the abundances of 16O,17O, and 18O in 31 lunar samples from Apollo missions 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 using a high-precision laser fluorination technique. All oxygen isotope compositions plot within ±0.016 per mil (2 standard deviations) on a single mass-dependent fractionation line that is identical to the terrestrial fractionation line within uncertainties. This observation is consistent with the Giant Impact model, provided that the proto-Earth and the smaller impactor planet (named Theia) formed from an identical mix of components. The similarity between the proto-Earth and Theia is consistent with formation at about the same heliocentric distance. The three oxygen isotopes (Δ17O) provide no evidence that isotopic heterogeneity on the Moon was created by lunar impacts.

edit on 29-1-2016 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
Why did they feel the name to posthumously name the baby planet?


We're humans. We have to label everything, it's in our DNA.

I read this theory quite a few years ago. Nice to see it come to a conclusion.
edit on 29/1/16 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
This is very interesting but I'm skeptical of this report. The reason why is because Wikipedia mentions this is based off the "Giant impact hypothesis", which is bring in discussions and debates for future conclusions. So I think this is 100% fact like the articles want you to believe.

Giant impact hypothesis


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

I also remember Zecharia Sitchin interpreting Sumarian texts about the Anunnaki whereby the ancient civilization annotated a very similar testimony about the Earth and moon creation that involved a cosmic impact of sorts.
You remember wrong. First, he did not derive his story from Sumerian texts. He reached that conclusion based on his misinterpreation of symbolism. There is nothing resembling his claim in Sumerian texts. Second, his story has nothing to do with the formation of the Moon being involved with a collision between the Earth and another planet.

Sitchin states that when struck by one of planet Nibiru's moons, Tiamat split in two, and then on a second pass Nibiru itself struck the broken fragments and one half of Tiamat became the asteroid belt. The second half, struck again by one of Nibiru's moons, was pushed into a new orbit and became today's planet Earth.

en.wikipedia.org...

Third, he claimed that Nibiru comes back into the inner Solar System every 3,600 years.


The "giant impact" theory has been around for quite a while and does not add any credence to Sitchin's made up planet, Nibiru.

edit on 1/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I found Immanuel Velikovsky a very interesting chap with a take on it that is fascinating



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
Why did they feel the name to posthumously name the baby planet?


I believe the LDS has posthumously baptized it as well so it's retroactively a Mormon planet.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Apparently, there were two moons produced by the collision as well which smeared into each other producing the dramatic crust thickness anomaly.



That's interesting. They say that all the heavy elements on the crust of the earth (uranium, plutonium, lead, tungsten, cadmium etc...) come from meteorite impacts. Imagine when Earth was in a molten state, all the dense metals would have moved to the core of the planet. Then comes the collision, popping out two chunks of planetary core to form the Moon and another bit. That other bit falls back to Earth and breaks up forming the crust. The remains of the early planetary crusts then get embedded in the Earth's mantle and appear as density changes in simulations:

www.princeton.edu...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

Selene maybe?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

So close to the truth yet so far away, keep on truckin, i know you can open the magic door!



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Atsbhct
Why did they feel the name to posthumously name the baby planet?


I believe the LDS has posthumously baptized it as well so it's retroactively a Mormon planet.


Oh god. It signed up for Ancestry.com. Amateur mistake.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I predict soon there will be a generation of kittens named "Theia". Owners will be ATS members. Kitty kitty.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

that Mars sized planet in the early Earth formation collision (of which the Moon was a result)

ii's pretty apparent even today....
the Pacific Ocean & the super deep trenches might be what remains of that early solar-system Planetary collision

the plate tectonics & continental drift continued but the great basin of the combined Pacific/Indian Oceans - Arctic and China Seas provide us with a reminder of that cataclysm so-long-ago



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I thought they already knew this? Like a planet the size of Mars came and crashed into whatever planet existed back then. They formed the Earth and the dust formed into the moon.

It's cool they have some more "evidence" for it, it being just a theory.

And if we want to get technical, the Earth is actually made of star dust!



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

ii's pretty apparent even today....
the Pacific Ocean & the super deep trenches might be what remains of that early solar-system Planetary collision

No. Such a collision would have turned the Earth (and the impactor) into a molten mass. It was a reset button on Earth's formation. The title of the paper is "Oxygen isotopic evidence for vigorous mixing during the Moon-forming giant impact."

Vigorous mixing. I like that.

edit on 1/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Vigorous mixing. I like that.

Do you like yours shaken and not stirred?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: St Udio

ii's pretty apparent even today....
the Pacific Ocean & the super deep trenches might be what remains of that early solar-system Planetary collision

No. Such a collision would have turned the Earth (and the impactor) into a molten mass. It was a reset button on Earth's formation. The title of the paper is "Oxygen isotopic evidence for vigorous mixing during the Moon-forming giant impact."

Vigorous mixing. I like that.


The majority of the Earth is the consistency of Australian Air Force custard* anyway.

Just 'cause the custard's got a skin on top, isn't indicative of its gloopiness, the same with the Earth.

* Note: Australian Air-Force custard is made with powdered eggs (whatever that may be) and the rumor is that, should an aircraft be unable to deploy its landing gear, the custard would be pumped onto the runway. The imperiled aircraft would land on the custard, immediately adhering to the runway with a comic book "sproing" like motion and the 'plane would be spared, only requiring dissolution of the custard by toxic chemicals to attain release.




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
It was a reset button on Earth's formation.

So, how old do you think our solar system 'really' is?

I've never been a big fan of the 4.5B year old theory.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join