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.
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I prefer the "capture theory myself.
The 4th scenerio, has a couple of drawback to it for me to accept it.
If you go by it, then you would (probably) have more than one moon.
Also the ejection of material to the Roche limit would require one heck of a collision.
The lack of a large amount of iron in the moon's core I have to question how they were able to determine this. As the normal method of determining the composition of extra-terrestrial bodies is through the use of spectral analysis.
This method would indicate iron deposits on - near the surface.
The moon being as cold as it is, the core could very well be solid. Without there being an expedition to drill down to the core to verify it's composition, how can they be sure?
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]
Originally posted by michaelanteski
If we accept the deduction (based on calculations of lunar density indicating it cannot have a planetary core of Iron) that the moon came out of the Earth surface layers (crust and mantle) then what about this theory: after the cosmic event that ejected the moon from the earth, there was a truly gaping "hole" in the earth's sphere. To "compensate" and "try to even out" the surface shape, the earth started to split the bulge in the crust that up to then was "pangeia," or the original single land mass continent, and that was what started continental drifting. The Pacific Basin therefore would have been much larger prior to continental drifting, and if we were to figure out the original size of the massive hole or original Pacific Basin, we would have to include the basins of the other oceans, especially the Atlantic Ocean Basin, which is where the mid oceanic ridge now continues to widen the Atlantic Basin a few inches per year. I haven't seen this theory spoken about though it seems simple enough.