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.

 

Revisted Theory Regarding Formation of Moon.

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Planetary scientists have revisited an old theory regarding precisely how our moon was formed, and with the help of simulations, have again put forth the hypothesis that the moon is the composite of many "mini-moons" rather than a single impact as was previously thought.

Science News discusses the findings in the following article:
www.sciencenews.org...

Here's an excerpt:



Planetary scientist Raluca Rufu of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues dusted off a decades-old, largely disregarded hypothesis that the moon instead formed from multiple impacts. In this scenario, the early Earth was hit by a series of objects a hundredth to a tenth of Earth’s mass. Each impact could have created a disk of debris around Earth that assembled into a moonlet, the researchers’ simulations show. Over tens of millions of years, about 20 moonlets could have ultimately combined to form the moon.



According to researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, the theory of a single-impact forming the moon falls short when faced with the similarity of earthly and lunar compounds.



Multiple impacts help explain why Earth and the moon are chemically similar. For example, each impact may have hit Earth at a different angle, excavating more earthly material into space than a singular impact would.


So now for my disclaimer: I am not a scientist. Far from it. But this theory does not resonate with me, nor does this quote from linked article:




The single impact hypothesis has about a 1 to 2 percent chance of yielding the right lunar mix based on the makeup of potential impactors in the solar system. In the researchers’ simulations, the multiple impact scenario is correct tens of percent of the time.


Tens of percent of the time? Is that meant to be convincing?

ATS, what do you think about this theory? Does it make more sense to you than the single-impact hypothesis? Or is there yet another theory that you are more inclined to believe and why?



edit on 9-1-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov
I made a thread about an unlikely but perhaps possible hypothesis of the moons formation:

Did the Moon Form from a Nuclear Explosion?
The scientist who made that hypothesis admitted it may very well be wrong but even if it is he still suggested we needed to look for better explanations of the moon's formation than the single impact hypothesis because of some of the same reasons cited in this article about the composition of the moon and Earth's crust matching too closely.

However I thought one of the ways this issue might have been addressed was by varying the hypothesized angle of impact of Theia and that later simulations solved some of the compositional discrepancies that were present in earlier simulations.

Anyway the bottom line is that we aren't sure exactly how the moon formed so this falls right in line with the other scientist's suggestion to put some more ideas on the table for consideration to get a better match between simulations and actual data, though I have to agree with you that I don't find "tens of percent" any more compelling than you do.

Personally I'm going to keep my mind open regarding some alternatives for the moon's formation though some possibilities have been ruled out. Maybe even something in-between a single impactor and many impacts could be true, like maybe a few impacts, say 2 or 3. The problem I have with many small impacts is that as the impacts get smaller and smaller it becomes more and more difficult for the ejected material to achieve Earth orbit because there isn't as much energy in the smaller impacts and a lot of energy is needed to reach Earth orbit.

edit on 201719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov

Tens of percent of the time? Is that meant to be convincing?

ATS, what do you think about this theory? Does it make more sense to you than the single-impact hypothesis? Or is there yet another theory that you are more inclined to believe and why?




10% chance when talking about events like this is, i think, pretty high.

considering that a chance of an extinction level event is excessively unlikely (much much lower than 10%) yet it has still happened a few times.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey, thanks for the response. I will check out your thread momentarily.. it sounds like an interesting and fun read!

You make an excellent point regarding the low chance of material from smaller impacts reaching the earth's orbit.

It's crazy how little we have really explained regarding our existance, and that of our surroundings. But the quest for knowledge is almost as fun as its attainment, imo.


edit on 9-1-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos


10% chance when talking about events like this is, i think, pretty high.

considering that a chance of an extinction level event is excessively unlikely (much much lower than 10%) yet it has still happened a few times.


Hmm, thanks. That is certainly something to consider. What are the chances of sentient life forming from chemical compounds? And yet here we are..



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Using my imagination and the Electric Universe model I can imagine materials being collected in some kind of static plasma node .The thing that gets me is how does things that rotate keep rotating . If maybe by some unseen electrical current or other things its hard to say . Its a mystery to me and it seems that it is for the scientific community or they wouldnt be dusting off old theory's ...we may never really know imo



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Hey there, thanks for weighing in.

Funny point of yours about "dusting off old theories." Thanks for the chuckle.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This is severely interesting, and I have always thought that the single impact theory would have been just too catastrophic to allow the moon to be in such a stable orbit. We know that the Earth and Moon are made of similar materials and in the ballpark ratios, so this theory does not violate it. Really cool to think about it's formation now.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Don't believe any of this nonsense. We've known the moon is made of cheese for a very long time.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

Continued random guesses by science.

Everybody knows the moon is an artificial construction towed into position eons ago by aliens.

Billy Meier says his contacts claim Earth originally had two natural moons.

Neither of those is the one thats up there now.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
A place like Saturn seams like a good start if I was going to make a moon. Heaps of different resources amongst all the different moons there. Then there is the rings, could help act like a filter when looking for specific stuff.

I am considering a theory that the moon is like an ark, or a seed that travelled through space. It does have a nice strong shell for all kinds of asteroid impacts. I am not sure on the propulsion systems, but the idea that it took 40 days and nights to enter a stable orbit around the earth does account for all the floods and wet weather that took place, as the myths go...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
All great replies here. This gives me plenty of interesting theories to check into.

Our moon sure is beautiful and compelling, wherever its origin may be!



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

Crazy people, don't you know our Moon is made of Cheese.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join