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 old is the Moon?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Wikipedia states that it is ~4.5 billion years old (The Moon @ Wikipedia)

This article states that it should be ~1.5 billion years old:


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.


Full Article

Then...


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.


Read this Article

There are no earlier accounts of the moon, except, I think old Chinese sky maps and the Chinese Calendar, which was based on the moon...

How old is the moon? Has it been always there? How come we have not found any drawings of the moon in prehistoric caves (if we have, please, point - I've not found any accounts).

Thank you.

Edit: Tagging...

[edit on 18/11/07 by MastaG]




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
IMHO, a very important step will be to be able to determine which one of the theories about its formation
is the correct one:

The Fission Theory
The Capture Theory
The Condensation Theory
The Giant Impact Theory
starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Hope i'm not missing something (something of NOT "esotic" i mean)

Anyway take a look here too

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Some infos:

www.spacedaily.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.swri.org...

(are just a little bit: you can google "Theories of Formation for the Moon" to find more)

Pheraps JAXA SELENE's observations will be able, at least partially, to answer this puzzling question.
Of course, i'm NOT able to


You could find interesting this interview to Hitoshi Mizutani, chief editor of the science magazine "Newton"





Hitoshi Mizutani

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.


Read full interview here
www.jaxa.jp...

Hope it helps


[edit on 19/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
hmmm.. let me see.. when did the Gods arrive?


all my whackiness aside, it amazing me that people even think they could know... knowledge is such a fluid medium... today's "facts" are tomorrows "legends" and yesterday's "visions"... as a wiseman once said, "he who thinks he knows everything, knows nothing" ... ya, what he said...



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.


I think that each one of these theories has valid points:
i find more convincing the Giant Impact Theory, but only because i've read more about it than about the other ones;
of course none of them could have been ruled out, so far



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


I too find the Impact Theory good, and it is a close second place in my choices.

I imagine we'll soon hear from those who think it was engineered and directed into place by a sentient outside group.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
that's me! yep.. it's a hollow space craft the gods have been living in since the beginning... designed to take the hits from oncoming asteroids and astral debris... the home of the gods.... .. i suppose you want proof? jeez i thought my "visions" would be enough for you



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The impact theory would be last on my list, I'm leaning more on the capture theory for now. The impact theory would make our moon a rarity, separate to the origin theories of other moons in our solar system.

This article is saying just that, it is unusual, or is that the theory is simply wrong?


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."


www.space.com...

Can't rule anything out of course, my personal opinion is that moons, planets and stars form by way of plasma z-pinch effect. (Electrical concretion). Currents flow through plasma filaments creating magnetic fields that interact with each other and pinch together to condense the plasma. Spherical objects have been created this way in the lab. Accretion by gravity is too slow and is known to have many problems associated with it.



[edit on 22-11-2007 by squiz]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The moon "appeared" between sixth and fourth millenium BC.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel


The moon "appeared" between sixth and fourth millenium BC.



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.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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.


Velikovskian evidence, kamarat - this, as for some existing reference. Further reflexion around early hebraism and sumero-egyptian stories make it clearer, - sure it's demanding a wide open mind.

Age of the moon as mainstream science evaluates it explains the age of the outer material, not of the object itself.




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.



When the question is simple and the answer short, I don't see why put words as none is need.



[edit on 22-11-2007 by Rigel]

[edit on 22-11-2007 by Rigel]

[edit on 22-11-2007 by Rigel]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   


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.


From:
Where did the Moon come from?
By:
High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC)
starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...



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.

From:
Making the Moon
By: NASA Astrobiology News staff writer
nai.nasa.gov...

As i said, IMHO all the theories have very good points:
since so far the scientists haven't been able to rule out no one of them, we'll be in the field of hypotesis till some conclusive evidence will be provided.
For example, every time i've read some articles about one of these theories, i've found it compelling: but no one is able to say which is the right one.
The giant impact hypothesis is the now-dominant scientific theory in the opinion of many scientist, but this does not mean that it's the right one.

Despite i find it the more compelling one, honestly i admit:
1) That i haven't well studied the other ones, so i'm not a reliable source


2) That there are some difficulties with this theory: (and not small ones):




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.


But there's an amount of problem even with each other one of these theories.

IMHO, the next 15 years could give us a conclusive answer to this basic question, but i guess that Kaguya will send to Earth some interesting clue in the next weeks.


And yes, the capture theory has been studied for longer time,
and the fact that still hasn't been debunked is the proof that is a VALID one with strong arguments, IMHO.


[edit on 22/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


Rigel, you may be one of the brighter stars, but your sources are far from illuminating. They remind me of the vague predictions of Nostradamus, in that they can be taken many ways, and made to fit many wonders. While science can, and should, learn from the past, care needs be given not to contaminate truth with speculation and fable.

As to the one liners. I was only trying to inform you of what is, not what should be. I too appreciate brevity, within reason, though I'm not an active practitioner of this art. However, I didn't make the rules for this site, and since I too am a guest here, I just try to follow them.

I came. I saw. I conquered. Now there is an example of minimalism with three sentences.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Answering your question in detail would be worth an entire thread.

I'm afraid that here on ATS many members are too obsessed with sources when it's all about some wide paradigme axis that no link would back up in any sense more than stating it roughly as I do. What are you really asking for ? An URL to some guy stating taht Moon's is six thousand yrs old ? Well, I tell you so !

You can consider Velikosky as a shaddy ref, but his entire theory is largely plausible, which state that Venus is ten to twelve thousand yrs old, smashed away from Jupiter's core by a olid that might be Mercury - the all stuff giving the cold time of Young Dryas on Earth, then, some millenium later, the burst of megalithic (if not annukakite !) civilisations.

The moon is IN MY ULTIMATELY HUMBLE VERY OWN PROPER OPINION, born from Venus around - 5000, first as a dead ball of matter...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Since nobody answered the original question about the moon's age, here are some ages of the moon I've heard based on radiometric dating of the moon. 6 billion years old, 5.3 billion years old, 2 million years old (yes that's million not billion), 28 billion years old. Since I believe the Giant Impact theory is the latest trendy theory and needs the moon to be the same age as earth that's why they now say it's 4.5 billion years old. Seems it can be whatever number they slap onto it.

It's been awhile since I've heard all the details of the Giant Impact theory, but it seems hard to believe that the debris from a collision wouldn't either fall back into the earth or fly off into space, but instead manages to find the exact speed and orbit and conglomerate into a huge nice round moon. But we're always expected to believe the lottery always hits that perfect number every time. It's fortunate that after our earth formed at the proper time in the universe's history it was bombarded by icy comets to fill our planet with oceans, and magically stop before covering all the land with water too. And it's nice that after billions of years the continents came together to form Pangia when land animals evolved so they could travel to all parts of land before Pangia drifted apart again.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


And it is entirely right that you should have an opinion. I simply asked, in what was perhaps not my finest manner, for the basis of this belief. And if it seems that "V" is not well accepted for his theory, then could that be because his ideas are as loose with known science as it is possible for them to be?

I was, in my admittedly left handed way, giving you room to use a bit of accepted and reworked science or logic to show the value of these ideas. I was NOT implying they had zero merit for consideration; only saying that as they now stood, they had been rightly dismissed as without any sound basis built on known science.

We can't just chuck every bit of science out the window because of an entertaining idea. For a theory to have some merit, it must nestle inside known science, maybe stretching and straining it in places, but still within the framework.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Although I do not have any solid facts to back it, My theory / belief is that the moon has been in orbit around the Earth for about 5 to 10 thousand years.
The actual "age" of the moon would be fairly equal to the age of the rest of the solar system's planets / moons etc since it is made up of the same materials.
I qualify the difference between the age (your question) and the age of the moon since I believe that the age of the Earth Moon relationship is more fitting an answer to your question.
I believe in the Capture Theory for the moon for many reasons.
Primarily though is that the make up of the moon is too dissimilar to Earth's to have been a part of it at one time.
Another reason that I believe in the Capture theory is simple observation. Yes, the moon has it's own rotation like the Earth's but the rotation is such that only one side of the moon is facing the Earth. Now look at the Moon, notice how pockmarked it is by meteor craters etc. If the Moon originated from a collision and separated from the primitive Earth, there should/ would be far far fewer impact craters.
If the Collision theory were correct, yes there would be some impact craters on the Earth facing side, but since the moon would have been in the semi-magma state as the Earth was at the time of the collision, most of those impact craters would have disappeared due to it's fluidic properties.
Just my thought son the matter



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


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.

Albert Einstein (a scientist, was he ?) took Velikovsky claims rather seriously. His grotesque side, probably.

Btw I gave you scientific clues, if not proofs : Young Dryas as caused by a solar-system wide "storm". You seem to don't care. So don't I... Give'em a clue, they'll need a proof, give'em a proof they'll bring a counter-proof...

Scientist are not to be genius by the only fact they knows that 1+1=2. Rather the opposite.

In Memoriam Giordano Bruno.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

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.

What does Venus' induced magnetotail have to do with comets? Comets are small balls of rock and amorphous ice, Venus is not a comet. And Venus' induced magnetosphere has already been well explained by planetary "theory." Venus has a very thick atmosphere and its ionosphere serves as an obstacle to the solar wind.
www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join