It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The moon is Earth's closest celestial neighbor. It has a huge influence upon our lives, governs the tides (the sun plays a small part, but not nearly as much as the Moon), and is responsible for eclipses. Some biologists say that the moon is even responsible - in part - for life on Earth, for without the tides causing currents and mixing of chemicals, life might never have formed.
There are four main theories about the creation of the moon, although only one is generally considered to give an accurate description of what actually occurred.
The first theory states that the moon was created the same way the planets were - through the coalescing of gas and dust during the solar system's formation. The second theory says that the moon is a captured asteroid. The third theory says that when the Earth was first formed it was spinning so rapidly that it split in two; this is often referred to the "fission" theory*.
The fourth theory is the one that most scientists currently believe is correct. It states that when the Earth was quite young, a Mars -sized planet crashed into it. The planet crashed with such speed that it was completely destroyed, and almost destroyed the Earth. The planet was coming in with such force that when it was destroyed, the molten iron in its core continued to travel through Earth, to eventually be included it its core. This explains why the Moon has very little iron. The crash, comically dubbed the "Big Splash," sent tons of rock and debris into orbit. These fragments eventually coalesced to form the Moon. The tidal and rotational forces in play also account for why the moon's day is exactly the same as it's "year."
Originally posted by Xeven
I think if the moon was created by a collision with earth then there should be plenty of evidence to support it. Such a collision would have had to release massive amounts of debris that would still be orbiting the sun allthough not exactly folllowing the earths path.
The rocks that were collected from the moon have been studied extensively for their mineral composition. Examination of "moon soil" samples (called regolith) have revealed some strikingly similarities to earth's geology. Rocks made of basalt from volcanic eruptions and minerals, such as plagioclase feldspar and olivine, are exactly the kinds of rocks we find here on earth. In striking contrast to the true soils that we have here on earth
Originally posted by spacedoubt
The persitence of a ring system relies on a system of moons and moonlets. Both taking from, and recontributing to the ring systems..
Originally posted by elevatedone
The planet was coming in with such force that when it was destroyed, the molten iron in its core continued to travel through Earth, to eventually be included it its core. This explains why the Moon has very little iron.
The lack of a large amount of iron in the moon's core I have to question how they were able to determine this.
I would be more evidence out there floating around.. has anyone even looked?
The Moon doesn't have the same geological make-up of Earth; in other words, it could NOT have been created by any Earth moving scenerio, because it isn't made of the same mineral/geological percentages.
Mountians rising from nothing! (think about it, there are sea shells on mountian tops?)
It requires that our world was still is a semi-liquid state
the universe was supposedly created/formed at the same time and same manner, what was solid enough to rupture our integrity?
But wouldn't an impact left a visible ring, like with our larger planets?
The world suffering from daylight alterations (any 'sun stood still' or 'sun moved backwards' legends).
I think the Pacific basin, might be the source of the material..
The whole scenario may explain how plate tectonics were put into motion