Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History, page 1

The moon may have been adopted by our planet instead of descended from it.

If a new twist on a decades-old theory is right, conditions in the early solar system suggest the moon formed inside Mercury's orbit and migrated out until it was roped into orbit around Earth.

The idea flies in the face of scientific consensus, known as the giant impact hypothesis, which holds that the moon formed from red-hot debris left over after a Mars-sized object collided with Earth around 4.5 billion years ago.

However, the moon has several curious traits that go unexplained with that theory, and Robert Malcuit of Denison University has argued for decades for an alternative view of our moon's history.

Malcuit's version of events is tantamount to cosmic blasphemy, but scientists have recently found 4 billion-year-old minerals in Australia that suggest our planet was too cool to have sustained a cataclysmic moon-forming impact early in its 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]

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."

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]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by cenpuppie

---

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]

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.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

---

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.

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)

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...

In 1983 there was an international conference in Koni,Hawaii.
Its scientific goal,to arrive at a global consensus on moon origin.
Many interesting points of view were aired at this conference.
Through the years many different theories have prevailed.
In Edwardian England ,the accepted theory was the 'Intact capture theory'.
This postulated that the moon was brought from elsewhere by the pull of the earths gravity;this theory has now been discredited as being scientificaly unviable.
Next it was the turn of the 'Coaccretion theory',this speculated that the moon was the result of an incremental build up of materials(similar to the rings of saturn).This theory has also now been discredited.
What we are left with nowadays is the 'Fission theory'('Dollop theory') which states a large planet or body crashed into the earth,the ejecta resulting in the formation of the moon.
There are a large number of discrepencies with this theory.
The 'Giant impact hypothesis of collision ejection theory' fails to explain a number of facts.
Firstly, that the massive impact of a body hitting the earth could not have failed to speed up the earths rotation far beyond the situation we find ourselves in today.
To counteract this scientists have said another body coming from exactly the opposite direction with a specific speed must have hit the earth and offset this.This seems highly unlikely and implausible.
Secondly the 'Fission theory' requires that the entire moon be initialy molten and accreted from devolatilized material.It in no way accounts for the moons lower mantle's apparently largely undifferentiated compositions.
Thirdly ,the Fission theory also utterly fails to account for a necessary density reversal below the upper mantle of the moon.

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.

Newfound "super-Earth"
  Posted 9 days ago with 56 member flags

Enceladus Backlit by Saturn
  Posted 3 days ago with 50 member flags

Mysterious Signal From Outer Space - Is Someone Trying To Contact Us?
  Posted 11 days ago with 29 member flags

Toronto teens send Lego man into space: video
  Posted 16 days ago with 28 member flags

Amazing new photo of Earth. The Blue Marble 2012
  Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags

It\'s already begun?The reverse of the Magnetic Poles.Sun and Earth.
  Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags

Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
  Posted 0 days ago with 20 member flags

NASA Probe Captures 1st Video of Moon\'s Far Side
  Posted 9 days ago with 19 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: