Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History

From this article: Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History

Robert Malcuit's Bio

Sounds like an interesting theory. I wonder how it will be accepted by mainstream scientists. The crash and debris moon forming theory seems a bit more likely to me, but they are saying that the debris thay are finding does not coroberate.
Or maybe the moon is a hollow base! <--- jk

-E-

[edit on 22-10-2009 by MysterE]

Isnt the size ratio between Earth and the moon an anomoly already? I would find it even more odd if the moon were originally around mercury. Unless the moon was actually the planet and Mercury was the moon and after the moon drifted out towards Earth, it's moon got hung up in orbit around the sun and eventually became Mercury.

Hmmmmm .... still lots of theroies about this one. I just hope there is a moment of clarity when we die and all these answers are given to us somehow.

I saw this article on Discovery this morning. The first thing that crossed my mind was...hmm, haven't we heard this theory before (a rogue moon pulled into Earth's orbit)...I guess the new twist is that they are saying that the moon formed within Mercury's orbit and then migrated to Earth, right?

S&F

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

Just to clarify what I think they are saying...
...They're saying it may have been another body inside the orbit of Mercury, but still in its own orbit around the Sun -- not in orbit around Mercury.

The "Giant Impact Hypothesis" may have some holes that need to be reconciled, but it sounds likely to me, also. I suppose we'll need to hear more from this "adopted Moon" hypothesis to see if it, too, has any holes that can't easily be "buttoned up".

[edit on 10/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

---

Yeah ... I got that now after a re-read. It is an interesting idea but I have no idea how we are going to be able to prove any moon origin theory unless we get up there and find dinosaur fossils or some mineral linking it directly to another object in our solar system. For now it seems like a race to see who can come up with the most "believeable" story and get enough people to say ... "yup, that makes sense to me."

S&F for you

See this is what i was talking about in another thread. This dude is taking a different route to explain the presence of the moon. And as usual a theory (they call it hypothesis) is treated as fact. I can understand if it's the best explanation but hell, it is still a theory.

When usual when someone comes along to challenge that theory its cosmic blasphemy? How? Because he doesn't believe what everyone else does? This guy can prove his theory as strongly as this the other one, so who do we believe?



--underduck

That's exactly how i feel.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by cenpuppie]

In my opinion, lots of uncertainties are present in either model. It seems to me that the discovery of the rock in Australia is just too slim a data point to build this theory on. If the alleged collision happened in the the way that involved the northern hemisphere, the south was spared -- this makes sense.

Anyone who played space flight simulator and tried to land on the Moon (or do any other landing) knows how hard it is. Gravitational capture is similar. To have just the perfect combination of kinematic parameters for Moon capture seems to have a vanishing probability to me.

reply to post by cenpuppie

---

Well, the Giant Impact Hypothesis was considered "blasphemous", too, when it was first proposed, but it caught on. If this new hypothesis does not have too many holes in it, and fits in with observations, then it too may become the predominant hypothesis.

By the way -- they are called "hypotheses" and not "theories" because they are simply ideas that need to be tested. The Giant Impact Hypothesis nor the "Adopted Moon" hypothesis have not yet been fully tested, so they are not theories.

and -- underduck -- I know you were probably just brainstorming ideas when you mentioned the "dinosaur fossils" would be evidence that the Moon was one part of the Earth -- but dinosaurs lived a very short time ago (230 Million years ago) in relation to when the giant impact is said to have occurred (4.5 Billion years ago) when the earth was basically brand-new (only about 50 million years old).

There was probably no life at all on the Earth before the hypothesized impact happened, so there would probably be no signs of Earth life on the Moon.

Here's another way to look at the time scales involved:
If the time of the impact was imagined to have happen one 24-hour day ago, then the time of the dinosaurs on Earth would only be about the last hour of that day. Dinosaurs are among the "newest" life forms on the Earth.

[edit on 10/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I agree.

While inconsistencies between the impact hypothesis and known observations need to be addressed, it is not necessarily a "deal breaker".

Perhaps someday, all of inconsistencies with the impact hypothesis will be reconciled, or perhaps someday more inconsistencies will be found. If more are found, then perhaps the impact hypothesis will fall out of favor and be supplanted by some other hypothesis -- maybe by the "capture" hypothesis as mentioned in the OP.

HOWEVER, capture hypotheses have been proposed before, and all have had there own share of problems and inconsistencies. Perhaps Robert Malcuit's hypothesis has answers for these problems, but that is yet to be seen.

[edit on 10/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I personally think the theory that there was a planet that exploded creating the asteroid belt... and its moon was trapped by the earth is more likely.

Then there is the theory that the moon is hollow and was brought here by aliens.. Maybe the moon WAS a big space ship that brought our ancestors here. That explains the strange deal of one side always facing earth thing..

I always thought that business of the moon being carved out of the Earth was not very believable.

I think the answer will ultimately lie in future "selenology", when they drill deep into the lunar crust and do real analysis. Then, by looking at chemistry and isotope composition, a link between Moon and Earth can be fairly strongly established, or rejected.

Lack of iron on Moon indicates that if a collision took place, it could have been a peripheral one. That might explain the remaining rock in Australia.

The actual collision would be damn hard to simulate, too complex a process...

Yeah I figured that but as long as we are just throwing out hyposthesis why not have a dinosaur one? I also have an idea that involves the moon, apollo (the god not Creed), and a slingshot if you want to hear it.

There are problems with the "asteroid belt was a planet" idea.

There is actually very little material in the Asteroid Belt. All of the material in the asteroid belt put together is only about 1/20 or 5% the mass of the Moon. There isn't enough "stuff" there to make a planet.

Also, from what scientists know of individual pieces of the belt, they can tell that the asteroids have various compositions -- which would seem to point to the idea that they were never part of one big piece.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

---

No doubt baby no doubt. But since i've been watching the History Channel (i hardly watch it anymore, it's too slanted), particularity the ones that deal with space, the Giant Impact Hypothesis is presented as scientific FACT no lie! It was that program that had the dude from star trek the next generation narrating (you know, Jonathan Scott Frakes)

If the astoriod belt was a planet at some stage, do you really think if there was a collison with another object or whatever that all the remaining "bits" would just orbit in the same positon? Don't you think they would have been flung all over the show? Maybe alot of debris got flung out of the Solar system?

Personally, I think that the Giant Impact Hypothesis explains the origin of the Moon very nicely. The density of the Moon is relatively low because it is composed of lighter, rocky material (from the mantles of both Earth and the impacting object). The relatively rapid rotation of Earth can also be explained by a high speed, glancing blow (which fits the facts).

You might wonder why Mars has a similar rapid rotation, but recent evidence seems to point to that planet also having suffered a giant impact in the past (an object estimated to be the size of Pluto). This is because the two hemispheres of Mars have surprisingly different geological features (one is heavily cratered, and the other has smooth plains and volcanoes). Of course, you could then ask.....why doesn't Mars have a large moon? Well, it's possible that the lesser gravitational field of Mars when compared to Earth simply wasn't strong enough to keep the debris in orbit. It's also possible that it was more of a direct impact, and that Mars simply absorbed most of the energy. Maybe Phobos and Deimos (the two small moons of Mars) are what's left of any debris that was blasted into orbit?


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Mogget]

The intact-capture theory certainly isn't a new one - it was discussed at the Conference on the Origin of the Moon held in Hawaii,1984.

www.studyworld.com...





Conspiracy book -Who built the moon:
www.newdawnmagazine.com.au...

reply to post by MysterE

---

Allow me to use nothing more than simple deductive reasoning to settle the score!

If the moon came OUT of the earth, then it would be "earth-like". Hello? It's not earth-like according to what we are being fed.

If the moon came from inside Mercury's orbit, then it would have to have somehow developed an AMAZING amount of velocity to come towards Earth. IF that is the case, then the Earth must have had a MASSIVE amount of gravity or had been DIRECTLY in the path of the moon on it's way away from the Sun for this to be possible. None of this makes sense at all according to what we are being fed.

IF the moon came from a planet that blew up and left the asteroid belt, then the moon must be impervious to damages. Not Likely according to what we are being fed.

Let's not even play with Sitchin's theories. Not likely according to what we are being fed.

So, if none of this is likely at all according to what we are being fed, then what is the ONLY likely explanation?

You guessed it. The ONLY likely explanation according to what we are being fed is that the moon was placed their by an intelligent being or beings.

So, are we being fed the right kinda dinner? Or is our dinner a true dinner and the nutritional breakdown amounts to this knowledge that the moon AND the rest of the universe is -oddly out of place- and the current understanding requires that everything has been intelligently placed and/or modified?

So much for logic.

The crust and mantle of the Moon are made of very similar materials to Earth. The big difference is the lack of a huge iron-nickel core in the Moon, and the reason for this is because Earth absorbed most of the impacting planet's metallic core. The Moon is made of the shattered remnants of the crust and mantle of both planets (Earth and the impactor).

Computer simulations have demonstrated how this happened, and in fact have enabled astronomers to determine the size of the impacting object, its velocity, and the angle at which it struck Earth.