Originally posted by Raven_on_a_pedestal
Well i haven't followed this particularily because i have just joined but, how could we test the splash method when most of the crust then is now
liquid mantle? most of the current soil and rock is more recent than... well however long ago it supposedly happened. its just decayed plants animals
and other living beings and the rock is from plate tectonics and volcanoes more recent than 3 billion years. i don't sound proffesional because im
only 14 and doing a project about the moon and its phases. and since we havent tested the moons core we couldnt tell whether it was the splash method
or not.
[edit on 28-1-2006 by Raven_on_a_pedestal]
I already explained the reason the impact theory is most plausible.
You are wrong about the age of rocks, cratons, continental interiors, stable platforms are names for areas where the rock often is older than 3 and as
old as 4 billion years.
These are the oldest continents, before accretion created the larger continents we know today...
Thus we can get an idea of what composition was like of the Earth's crust back then...and mantle material.
P.S. Another reason that the Moon probably came from the Earth is that the Moon has been moving away from the Earth...hundreds of millions of years
ago it was so close that the lunar cycle was only a matter of about 20 days, instead of today's 27 or so...this is recorded in laminae caused by
tides in now lithified sediments.
If an object were captured, it'd be in a highly irregular orbit (much like asteroids and other bodies in motion that were captured by the sun's
gravity or other object's gravity).
Objects that are in very circular orbits were formed while in orbit of what they orbit...the Moon's moving further away at such a rapid speed
suggests that it began very close, and has slowly progressed away.
[edit on 9-2-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]
|