Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Origin of the Moon, Asteroids & Kupier belt

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
In a thread about the Hollow Moon I posted this theory which I developed as a teenager in 1977. In those days we had no internet and if you were not an accredited astro-physicist it was near impossible to publish your views.

I am publishing this original theory here because i believe it has stood the test of time with discoveries since 1977 and is still the only theory which can explain the origin of the Moon, the asteroid belt and the Kupier belt all in one theory.




My theory was this:

Where tha asteroid belt now exists there was a planet similar to earth with a molten core and magnetic field. It's core was dense nickel iron and it's surface was stoney like our earth.

At about 4.6-4.7 billion years ago a large wandering gaseous planetoid drifting through interstellar space fell through our solar system attracted by the pull of our sun. Had it not struck anything it would have sling-shotted past the sun back out into interstellar space, but that was not to be.

It hit the planet where the asteroid belt is from the opposite direction of that planet's orbital direction. The impact had four powerful effects:

(1) It shattered the earth like planet smashing off it's mantle and crust. The shattered pieces became asteroids, some huge some small. some decelerated into lower orbits. Some flung out as far as Jupiter.

(2) The molten core however expanded as if released from the pressure of it's containing mantle. The sudden cooling caused a huge reduction of the mass at it's centre like a spring which had been released. Some shards of it's mantle fell back into the hot remains of it's core to form "Mascons." because this core was no longer contained by it's mantle, it cooled very quickly and the loss of heat meant that it could no longer generate a magnetic field. Basalt near the surface crystalised freezing the magnetic influences before the field died entirely.

(3) The core of that earth like planet stayed in one piece, but decelerated and fell towards the Sun. As it's fall slowed, it was captured by the earth and today is our moon with a whole bunch of elements found on it which you would not normally expect to find on the surface of an earth like planet but rather from it's core. After it's collision with the wandering gas giant of course there was a dense cloud of dust from the former planet which remained close due to gravitational influence. This dust settled back onto the molten core to give us the crazy paradox of moon dust so different from moon rocks. The so called genesis rock of 5.3 billion years old was a shattered remnant of the original planet which fell back to the original core.

(4) And what became of the gaseous giant which collided with that earth like planet ? Look at the comets which still rain down from the Kupier belt, what do you think formed the great snowballs of dirty ice which we call comets ?
Why is the orbit of Pluto so erratic ? Why is Pluto more like a giant iceberg than a regular planet ?

Why are the oldest rocks on Earth no older than 4.7 billion years old ?

Because that was a period of massive bombardment by space debris and the entire surface of the earth was melting in spasms. Our solar system is older than the oldest rocks on Earth. Just that none of the rocks on earth survived that period, whilst shattered remnants in the cold of space retain the older ages of our solar system.

This is the Gunson theory. It fits all the facts. It's the only theory which does.




posted on May, 27 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Dude, google "phaeton planet". This theory has been around since the early 1800's. The planet that hit Phaeton is speculated to be Nubiru. I wonder what would happen if a large piece of planets crust impacted the surface of Earth - oh wait, I'll ask the dinosaurs!


Good theory if you came up with it by yourself!



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
Dude, google "phaeton planet". This theory has been around since the early 1800's. The planet that hit Phaeton is speculated to be Nubiru. I wonder what would happen if a large piece of planets crust impacted the surface of Earth - oh wait, I'll ask the dinosaurs!


Good theory if you came up with it by yourself!


Maybe you could tell us o mighty one, _if_ dinosaurs were actually killed by a massive chunk falling on the earth why did it only kill of the dinosaurs and nothing else? Thats one picky chunk of a planet... Also theres some proof that birds today are what remains of the dinosaurs. So what the birds were not killed cause they made a deal with the chunk? I also find it funny that theres no proof anywhere of this supposed rock. One might think such a thing would leave a big crater in the planet. Something like the ones on Mars.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gonjo
Maybe you could tell us o mighty one, _if_ dinosaurs were actually killed by a massive chunk falling on the earth why did it only kill of the dinosaurs and nothing else?


Um, no offense, but what are you talking about?

The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs wiped out most of the life on the planet,
in fact with out looking it up I think it was something like 90% of the species on the
planet went extinct.

The only things that survived were animals and plants that lived in the deep sea and
those land animals that were capable of burrowing, which were generally small rodentesque
creatures and smaller lizards.




Also theres some proof that birds today are what remains of the dinosaurs. So what the birds were not killed cause they made a deal with the chunk?


Yes, dinosaurs are the modern day descendants of dinosaurs, just as we are descendants
of early rodent-simians, the birds evolved from the very few dinosaur species and early
proto-birds that existed at the time.




I also find it funny that theres no proof anywhere of this supposed rock. One might think such a thing would leave a big crater in the planet. Something like the ones on Mars.


There's plenty of proof, the Iridium layer for one, apart from that we know where it hit,
because we have identified it, the Chicxulub impact crater.

The reason you don't see big crater all over the planet like on Mars is because the Earth
is geologically, climatologically and biologically active, volcanoes, earthquakes and
general shifting of the crust collapse and fill in craters, the climate weathers the craters away
and biology overgrows what is left of it.





Now, as to the hypothesis of a planet once being made from the Asteroid belt.

While a dwarf planet, something like Pluto could have existed if the entirety of it
were at one time a single object, however there is not enough material to make an Earth
or even Mars sized object in the Asteroid belt.

The Kuiper belt is an area that starts at Neptunian orbit and extends about 50AU,
and is made up of relatively small objects.

If indeed some catastrophic collision had occurred detonating a planet producing the
debris of the Asteroid belt and Kuiper belt, we should see at least several other belts
between the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt, or a semi-even distribution of debris between them.

The Asteroid belt and Kuiper belts are primarily composed of the excess matter that never
made it into planet formation, dwarf planets and comets.

[edit on 5/28/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Gonjo, if you are looking for something that has no proof try for structures on Mars. A bit touchy because nobody else sees them? Oh, and sir will be just fine.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuncanIdahoGholem
Gonjo, if you are looking for something that has no proof try for structures on Mars. A bit touchy because nobody else sees them? Oh, and sir will be just fine.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

Wow, what are you, 10?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Gonjo, don't throw stones if you don't want them thrown back. You started it by belittling the post above yours and calling people "o mighty one" and the like. Try to respect other peoples opinions even if they are 10.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Ah wouldn't it be wonderful to be ten again ...?

Anyhow I have heard of the Phaeton concept over the years, but not Niburu. I did see there was a thread here about Nibiru and hadn't bothered to read it because the name Nibiru sounds like some weird new age religion. I will take some steps now though to read up on Nibiru... Thanks.


The Phaeton concept does not by itself answer what happened to the mass of the original planet (Phaeton).

...and yes my theory was evolved by myself largely in ignorance of the other theories, however I had in 1977 heard the theory of accretion (which is rubbish) and the other theory that the moon was ejected from the earth (which is also rubbish).

My theory is that the missing mass of Phaeton is in orbit around our earth. It's that great big satellite with geochemistry entirely unlike ours.

Since you've alerted me to the Nibiru concept I have read the Wikipedia article on it. My first exposure to the concept. It almost get's it right except it is not the Earth which is a remnant of Phaeton but the moon which is.

Of course the asteroid belt has insufficient mass to represent a former planet. My theory however explains all of the unexplained anomolies.

To borrow from Nibiru, the planet which struck Phaeton is the origin of the Kupier belt in my theory.

I also reject the suggestion that the asteroids are from the formation of our solar system but failed to accreate. Boulders in space when they strike each other do not glue together. They impart energy which at the very least repel and at worst shatter one another.

Also any study of meteorites will reveal that the nickel iron meteorites in particular are extremely heavy and dense, crystaline remnants of metal which had been under imense pressure and then cooled quite suddenly.

Well you can't cool metal so suddenly in a vacumn. You need a gas or liquid to draw off the heat. The source of that coolant is the gaseous collider planet for which I will adopt the name Nibiru to simplify explanation.

The other problem with the accretion theory is that geological evidence from earth suggests no dates older than 4.7 billion years old, however rocks recovered from the moon are much older.

If the asteroids show a uniform age of 4.7 billion years then this is merely the marker for the Nibiru/Phaeton collision.

orthisguyoverhere my theory is that this gaseous planetary wanderer (aka Nibiru) struck a blow which shattered the brittle crust and mantle of the former planet Phaeton. I don't suggest that huge chunks of crust stayed in one piece like some spinning orange rind in space.

Well the dinosaurs died out a mere 65 million years ago so I guess they weren't around 4.7 billion years ago either ?

I am glad you guys draw attention to the dinosaur extinction theory, because that means that you do buy into the established fact that asteroid geochemistry is different to earth's geochemistry.

Indeed the dinosaur extinction coincides with the global KT-layer of Iridium deposits. Iridium is rare on earth but the moon is rich in Iridium as too apparently are the asteroids pointing to a common origin for the moon and the asteroids. Just more corroboration for my original theory.

The Moon has so many geochemical and other anomalies which can not be explained except by my theory.

Actually my theory also explains what became of the Martian atmosphere and seas, because a massive bombardment about 4.7billion years ago boiled off the atmosphere. I suspect it will someday also answer many enigmas about mars which we shall only discover from manned exploration there.



I wont discourage you guys calling me "o mighty one" however as I know how important it is not to discourage spontaneous displays of affection.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
In my OPINION, the core of the other planet may have become pluto. By the way, any debris in the Martian or Jovian orbit would have since been sucked in and impacted with these planets. Mars would have massive craters, so would our moon and some of the few that got past the moon. Some of the larger chunks may have been captured as odd moons, some debris may have been so far flung that the other gas giants such as Saturn (Less gravity than Jupiter) captured some of this debris but instead of the debris crashing to the surface its velocity and tragectory may have put it in a high planetary orbit. This would create the rings of Saturn and Neptune.(Gas giants).(Centrifigul motion around poles not necessarily magnetic would create a disc.) . Also, any debris that came earths way 4.7 billion years ago would have been reduced by our new moon taking a fair few hits, the rest wouldn't matter, little or no life was here then. Imagine a large chunk of rock that settled out of all this chaos between the Mars and Earth's gravitational field. It may take while for the orbit to be captured and decay to the point of impact. Impacts are very frequent in the beginning, bringing microbes and single celled organisims of the extremophile veriaty. Millions of years pass, enough time for dinosaurs and the like to develop.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I like where your theory could go, it seems to have a lot more flesh than the 1800's theories. Also, pluto's orbit is different to Neptune, sometimes Neptune was further out than Pluto. Could Neptune be in the process of capturing Pluto and Sedna as moons? Also how big of an asteroid would tear off an atmosphere on Mars?

P.S Look at a record player, the needle moves really fast in the centre and then slows down towards the outside.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Thanks Duncan for your confidence. It does have more credibility than the current Moon creation theories.

iori_komei you may have misunderstood what my theory is saying:



While a dwarf planet, something like Pluto could have existed if the entirety of it were at one time a single object, however there is not enough material to make an Earth
or even Mars sized object in the Asteroid belt.


iori_komei I am saying if the Moon was part of the original mass of the present day asteroid belt then there would be enough mass to account for the lost planet Phaeton.

The fact that the Moon contains large amounts of the same rare earth materials as you note are also found on the KT-layer from an asteroid strike 65 million years ago, shows a definite link between the Moon and asteroids. The same geochemistry is vastly different from the earth’s chemistry and your conventional science can’t answer that. Mine can.

I also dispute that a collision would leave behind shards spread evenly across the solar system. The existence of belts make it self evident that this is not so. There is a mechanism which causes these belts and because you don’t understand or can’t explain the mechanism does not mean there isn’t one.

There is evidence in the Kupier belt of large spinning shards from a collision for example EL61:

www.thunderbolts.info...

There is a spread of Asteroids in different orbits, including some which cross earth’s orbit giving credence to my theory that part of the original matter from the asteroid belt did decelerate towards the sun, into lower orbits.

The majority of asteroids however are shards which I say were neither accelerated nor decelerated into different orbits, but which remained at the latent orbital speed and in the original orbit of the former planet Phaeton. Thus they stayed in place as the current asteroid belt.




The Kuiper belt is an area that starts at Neptunian orbit and extends about 50AU,


I dispute what you say about the size of fragments in the Kupier belt. It may be that one size [theory] does not fit all and may not explain the origin of all objects in the Kupier belt, however there are a lot of massive objects in the Kupier belt known as Trans Neptune Objects whose orbits fit with my theory too.

For example Eris is bigger than Pluto. EL61 is almost the same size as Pluto. 2005 FY9 is just slightly smaller whilst Sedna is more than half the size of Pluto. Orcus and Quaoar are as big as or bigger than Pluto’s moon whilst Aruna is of considerable mass too.

I dispute that they are:



primarily composed of the excess matter that never made it into planet formation, dwarf planets and comets.


When we recover asteroids which have fallen to earth as meteorites, we find that they have physical properties like dense Nickel Iron crystals which could not have formed without immense pressure and heat from the interior of a planet.

www.exploritorium.com...

If you would say that the heat witnessed in these meteorites came dfrom the origin of our solar system then unwittingly you are also admitting your accretion theory doesn’t work. If we look at these nickel-iron meteorites in terms of the accretion theory, then infact they prove that not even with immense heat and pressure can asteroids fuse into a single planet. These meteorites/asteroids disprove accretion.

Duncan I can't give any more than uneducated guesses about the energy required to burn off the atmosphere of Mars, however everything i have ever seen or read about ancient seas on Mars suggests to me there was a fairly cataclysmic end. Whole ocean basins appear to have formed river like alluvial fans.

On earth the nearest example I can remember like that was when that volcano in Iceland melted a glacier which created a huge alluvial fan flowing to the sea. Boulders bigger than buses were deposited. If there are the same types of boulders deposited on mars it would suggest a similar process wouldn't it?

There would need to be a huge storm of asteroids impacting mars all at once to burn off the atmosphere. It may be that the original atmosphere was not CO2 at all but that CO2 was created by huge fires or the combustion of a previous oxygen based atmosphere.

I note that when the Bikini atmospheric H-bomb tests occurred several scientists were quite worried that it might trigger spontaneous combustion of the Earth's entire atmosphere. Obviously one nuclear blast did not reach that tipping point but what if there were multiple explosions from multiple asteroid strikes ?

There must have been some form of sandblasting effect too such that the stream of debris actually physically carried away gases.

The final point is if the bombardment caused significant cooling of the core of Mars (suggested by the lack of a magnetic field when there used to be one present) then perhaps an important function of vulcanology to pressurise the atmosphere with gases was lost from the planetary model.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by sy.gunson]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
yes that is a good theory that Nibiru's collision with the planet Tiamat between Mars and Jupiter resulted in the moon
good one



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
thanks Junglelord. hopefully it has inspired the imagination of a few people. Please feel free to challenge the theory because debate is a good way to sharpen and define it. Long Lance made a useful contribution to my understanding of it.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
hard to challenge.
I am looking at it right now and its orange and full

I think its a better theory then the official ones.

Kudos to you.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Thank you. I hope it catches on. I gave birth to it but it is time to turn it free like one does with all ones children. It belongs to all humanity now.

It thrilled me back in 1977 when I first worked it out, because it stimulated the imagination. Now i want it to stimulate others.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   


Flag this thread ya'll! I wonder if anybody has an software simulating orbital mechanics we could run a few tests on?




posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
well someone else thought about it too
its here on wiki

The majority of the planet Tiamat survived the impact and was thrown into a more stable orbit around the third planet in the solar system, Earth, forming the moon.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 30-5-2007 by junglelord]






top topics



 
1

log in

join