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.

 

How Was "The Moon" Created ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
When the impact happened, for all intents and purposes the resulting body was liquid, due to a huge energy release. It spent some time (some simulations came out with 48 hrs) in a highly deformed, rotating, probably dumbell shape, which then broke up. We got the core, Moon got none.

There will be no scars (liquid) and no man could possibly survive on the surface of a lava ball!




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I think it's a dramatic understatement to say the collision with Orpheus "almost" destroyed earth. It did destroy earth as it was known at that time, and it took millions of years for the planet to re-solidify.

I believe I saw the same Discovery channel show, and didn't they determine it was a double collision? Orpheus slammed into Earth, ejecting a huge combination of both masses, and then that mass of material swooped back in and struck the planet again, creating a cloud of material which solidified into the two bodies we know today.... Earth and the Moon.

This TV show made it seem like the specualtion is coming to an end and most mainstream scientists are now accepting of the Orpheus collision theory.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
now I havent had the chance to read all the posts on this topic, but I have been studying the universe since I was about 8 years old. im 18 now. thats about 10 years of picking up information. recently for the past 4 years it has become more of an interest to me. but I will point out some things.

Facts:
There less than 5 inches of dust on the moon indicating less than 10,000 years of accumilation. no one disagrees,
The moon does have a core that is still hot. it has not cooled down.
The moon as moving away from the earth.
and the moon controls the ocean tides.

there is more than one way to look at this... they was I look at it. the moon was not formed by another object crashing into the earth. it would not have a core if it did. and the moon probably would have took on a partial atmosphere of any gases if it had crashed into earth. thats just what
i think



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
This site does a good job of explaining it rather well. It calls it "The Big Whack" in keeping with "The Big *" trend.


The Big Whack stands up nicely against what we now know of the moon. According to theoretical models, the impact would have destroyed the impactor, sending most of its remains, along with huge amounts of the Earth's mantle, into an Earth-orbiting debris cloud that ultimately coalesced into the moon. This would explain the reduced density of the moon, which is believed to be composed of two-thirds impactor and one-third Earth mantle. And it explains its tiny core: Since the models suggest that all of the impactor's core wound up in the Earth's core, the moon must have got its core iron from later, smaller impacts.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I'll never forget him saying

that the MOON was towed there !

I'm afraid , we'll never know...eh ?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
Facts:
There less than 5 inches of dust on the moon indicating less than 10,000 years of accumilation. no one disagrees,

Most people disagree. This argument relies on estimates of dust accumulation made by scientists R. A. Lyttleton in 1956 and Hans Petterson in 1960 that were inaccurate. Today, creationists still try to use that argument.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.cincinnatiskeptics.org...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
"With no atmosphere and a rarely disturbed surface, a fine layer of dust accumulates. If the layer were deep, this would show an old moon and early formation, but since the layer is slight, this proves a recent creation."

My point exactly



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Well... you are saying that the dust that has settled would be thicker than 5 inches... and that 5 inches indicates that the moon was created 10,000 years ago.

This doesn't work well with the facts at all. Humans were around 10,000 years ago... they would not have survived.... 65 million years ago? maybe.

Maybe ... the moon or orpheus crashed into earth a long time ago ... 65 million years ago... and then it took a while for the moon to cool down from being a little gas planet. Then it was finally cooled about 10,000 years ago and was cool enough to collect dust on its surface without turning adding it into molten rock.


My personal opinion is that the Earth and Moon were created at the same time. They were supposed to be 2 seperate planets. That the moon cooled down first and was caught up in Earth's Magnetic Field because it was still cooling. Because Earth was still hot it was more liquid and a smaller crust, it would have had a larger magnetic field capable of collecting the moon as its satilite... No collision. Just formed as sister planets, and one was captured by the other.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
My point exactly

You obviously didn't bother to read my post.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
There less than 5 inches of dust on the moon indicating less than 10,000 years of accumilation. no one disagrees,

Actually, everyone disagrees. IF you have been studying the universe for 10 years, and beleive that moon dust indicates that its around 10,000 years old, then you have studied very poorly.

simon666
You obviously didn't bother to read my post.

I guess he is too busy 'studying the universe'.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
.
Don't Panic!

Yeah, my understanding is that generally accepted scenario is a collision with a planetoid was how the Moon Earth combo formed. The oldest rocks on Earth are i believe from around the same time as the entire surface cooling of the Moon, minus the craters from subsequent impacts.

Since the particular origin of the Moon doesn't have a huge effect on my life, I will defer to the experts on this one.
.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Sorry wrong thread

[edit on 21/6/05 by The Block]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   


My personal opinion is that the Earth and Moon were created at the same time.

this may be your opinion, and is also in fact what I believe. but here is the difference in what you believe and I believe.

they where both created at the same time, you believe that they formed, or evolved.

also,


Maybe ... the moon or orpheus crashed into earth a long time ago ... 65 million years ago... and then it took a while for the moon to cool down from being a little gas planet. Then it was finally cooled about 10,000 years ago and was cool enough to collect dust on its surface without turning adding it into molten rock.


well if the moon was ever a hot gas planet. why hasnt the moon cooled down yet?

see I have a theory about that, I believe that about 6,000 years ago God created the heaven and the earth. im not saying your wrong I just disagree.




Humans were around 10,000 years ago...


I believe that the human race started about 6,000 years ago. I believe the bible if you havent noticed.

there is scientific evidence that the earth was never a hot molten mass... if you wanna check it out. go to Halos



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
I believe that the human race started about 6,000 years ago. I believe the bible if you havent noticed.

Everything in it? Including the mass murders, genocides and massacres commanded by God? The racism, sexism and unscientific crap?

[edit on 21-6-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   


Everything in it? Including the mass murders, genocides and massacres commanded by God? The racism, sexism and unscientific crap?


yes actually. and there is no crap about it. yes there were mass murderers and there are still some today. racism is not in the bible. and if there is, I would like to see it. sexism is not in the bible. and if there is I would like to see it. massacres? where?

you cant just start naming things and not have proof, show me some proof and ill show you mine.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   


I think it's a dramatic understatement to say the collision with Orpheus "almost" destroyed earth. It did destroy earth as it was known at that time, and it took millions of years for the planet to re-solidify.


if that were true, how does the moon control the tides with suych perfect control. or another way to say it, how does this work? why isnt the moon closer or farther away? its in the perfect position that enables life to exist without drowning... unless we evolved from the water, but thats another part of the evolution theory we shall not get into, I can prove the whole thing wrong in about 1 paragraph



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

The lack of a large amount of iron in the moon's core I have to question how they were able to determine this.

You know the radius of the moon and its mass, which allows you to calculate its density. As heavier elements sink to the core, a low density of the moon means that it has a small core of heavy elements like iron. You may also ask what is special about iron, in comparison with other heavy elements. Well, iron is the end product of all fusion reactions, beyond iron you need to add energy to fuse elements together. The absence of a strong magnetic field usually also gives a clue as to the presence of iron.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
if that were true, how does the moon control the tides with suych perfect control.


Perfect? What's perfect about it? Anything with gravity influences the tides, just nothing else very much.


why isnt the moon closer or farther away? its in the perfect position that enables life to exist without drowning


No, it's just there. If the tides we lower we'd start lower, if they were higher we'd start higher. Simple.


I can prove the whole thing wrong in about 1 paragraph


I'd like to see you try.
Why don't you start a thread on it in the right place?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
well if the moon was to close, the whole earth would be covered with water, and there is enough water on the earth to cover the whole earth about a mile and a half to two miles deep. thats a lot of water. now if the moon too close, everything would be underwater, so what made the moon where it is now? why is it where is it now? I think that if you do the calculations, you will find that about 150 million years ago the moon would be touching the earth, if you drew it out on a graph that is.


obviously the earth and the moon were created along with all the stars and other planets and galaxies and other stuff. this was not an accident. and there is no way that all the matter in the universe can fit into a little dot. and then a big bang. so your theory is puely religious, and so is mine. none are scientific, however the scientific evidence that supports either theory, shows which theory would be more logic.

and to me, the evolution theory has no proof and its a flawed logic



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
IIRC the moon is slowly leaving us.

From what I have seen the collision theory (whilst the 'mk1 Earth' was very very young) is the most complete answer as to how it all happened.

This explains the lack of debris (over the odd few billion years it was either hoovered up by Sun, Earth, Moon or lost to space), the compsoition of the Moon itself and the fact the Moon is leaving the Earth at the rate of (I think) around an inch to an inch and a half a year.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join