posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 04:45 PM
The key point in the BBC article was this:
They know, for instance, that the parent body had "differentiated" - that is, had been reprocessed into a layered object, usually with a core, a
mantle and a crust. Stony meteorites which have undergone this reprocessing are known as achondrites.
The rocks were a type of Feldspar, which by looking at the photo I would term as Olivine. A type of glass crystal formed by the heat of volcanoes.
This tells you that the asteroids are not the aggregate of an early proto sun. It tells you that the moon and earth did not form from asteroids
It tells you that asteroids came from a shattered planet.
Our moon is so different from the geological chemistry of Earth that it did not come from the same material earth did either.
Take a good long think about the implications of these two things together.
I say that there was a planet where the asteroid belt is now and it was hit by a giant interstellar wanderer of planetary size.
That the brittle outer mantle shattered and splintered into the asteroids we see today, but the moon according to my theory was the hot core of that
shattered planet which fell out of orbit towards the sun and became captured by the earth 4.6 billion years ago.
People who say that the solar system or the earth are just 4.6 billion years old ignore the fact that Apollo astronauts returned rocks from the moon
which were even older.
The so called Genisis rock was 5.3 billion years old but that does not fit the theories of scientists who claim the earth formed from the acreation of
[edit on 14-3-2008 by sy.gunson]