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.
That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions.
Even Neolithic peoples were acutely aware of the sun and the moon. Until last year, the oldest recorded map of the moon was one drawn by Leonardo daVinci about 1505. That was until a Canadian archaeologist discovered a rock carving depicting the surface of the moon in a prehistoric tomb in Knowth, County Meath in Ireland that is nearly 5000 years old.
Q. Will the observation performed by SELENE provide key data on the origin of the Moon?
I think to a certain extent it will. We'll be able to learn about the formation process of the initial lunar crust. Once the temperature at the initial stage of lunar history is determined, it will be possible to derive the temperature conditions just after the Moon's birth, which will then enable us to calculate the speed of the Moon's formation. It could be a month or a million years, but at least, if it becomes evident that the formation took more than a month, it will affect the theory of the origin of the Moon. If, as depicted by the giant impact hypothesis, it is a result of the impact of a large body on the Earth, the Moon would have had to have formed very quickly, in about a month, before dust from the impact scattered away.
Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by internos
Out of curiosity, which theory do people here favor? And what are your reasons for choosing this theory over others?
I myself hold with the capture theory, lacking as I do more data, as it seems the least complicated and therefore the most likely. However, I am certainly not above changing my mind on this issue.
New observations made by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope of stellar dust clouds suggest that moons like Earth's are—at most—in only 5 to 10 percent of planetary systems.
"When a moon forms from a violent collision, dust should be blasted everywhere," said Nadya Gorlova, an astronomer at the University of Florida in Gainesville who analyzed the telescope data in a new study. "If there were lots of moons forming, we would have seen dust around lots of stars. But we didn't."
Originally posted by Rigel
The moon "appeared" between sixth and fourth millenium BC.
Originally posted by NGC2736
Care to expand that statement? Maybe a few supporting links? I'm not being snarky, just want to know the source for this idea.
Oh, and by the way, if you read the rules around the board, you'll find that some of the local moon gods frown on one line posts.
For nearly a decade, the giant impact theory was not believed by most scientists. However, in 1984, a conference devoted to lunar origin prompted a critical comparison of the existing theories. The giant impact theory emerged from this conference with nearly consensus support by scientists, enhanced by new models of planet formation that suggested large impacts were actually quite common events in the late stages of terrestrial planet formation.
The basic idea is this: about 4.45 billion years ago, a young planet Earth -- a mere 50 million years old at the time and not the solid object we know today-- experienced the largest impact event of its history. Another planetary body with roughly the mass of Mars had formed nearby with an orbit that placed it on a collision course with Earth. When young Earth and this rogue body collided, the energy involved was 100 million times larger than the much later event believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs. The early giant collision destroyed the rogue body, likely vaporized the upper layers of Earth's mantle, and ejected large amounts of debris into Earth orbit. Our Moon formed from this debris.
The "giant impact" theory, first proposed in the mid-1970s to explain how the Moon formed, has now received a major boost. New computer simulations demonstrate how a single impact could yield the current Earth-Moon system. According to these new results, which appeared in the August 16 issue of Nature, the Moon is a chip off of the terrestrial block.
Ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not consistent with the giant impact hypothesis.
There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis), and some material was found which may never have been in a magma ocean.
Iron oxide (FeO) content of 13% of the bulk Moon properties rule out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of Earth's mantle.
If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient of those.
Certain simulations of the formation of the Moon require about twice the amount of angular momentum that the Earth-Moon system has now. However, these simulations do not take into consideration Earth's rotation before impact.
Originally posted by Rigel
Nasa-like scientists unanimously "debunked" Velick'. Among others claims, he stated that Venus was a sort of -giant- comet, not a planet.
In the mid-90's, NASA established that Venus does have an electromagnetic trail of hundred of thousand of kilometers, fact that is still unexplained by the planetary theory. And that is totally back-up, so, by Velickovsky 30's-50's theory.