An alternative hypothesis for the origin of the Moon

Forgive me if this was posted before, but it is really awesome actually.
I did a search by the way.

This is an actual scientific paper. I'm not busting anyones be- hind or something.


Two Dutch scientists come with an alternative and pretty remarkable explanation of how our Moon came to be.
Rob de Meijer (University van de Westkaap, Zuid-Afrika) and Wim van Westrenen (Free University) .

Basically they say something like this:

Uranium was in Earths young years available in much larger quantities as a lot of it simply broke down into more stable elements. Don't shoot me for being a bit off...

Do to the large amounts of uranium back then and the Earths rotation which was only 6 hours a day back then.
as well as the rotation as the radioactive stuff around the Earths equator reached a critical mass and BAMM !

A natural atomic bomb which slung a big piece of the Earth out there.

They say if the hypothesis is right that there should be high amounts of xenon-136 and helium-3 to be found from deeper within the Moon rocks. At the survace, solarwinds scramble any meassurement taken.

Anyway... I hope I got your attention.

Conclusions from their paper.

6. Conclusions
A run-away georeactor in the CMB can provide the missing energy source
for the Darwin-Ringwood-Wise fission model for Moon formation. Our
hypothesis provides an alternative explanation for the striking similarity in
elemental and isotopic composition of the Earth’s mantle and lunar rocks, and is
consistent with the sequence of differentiation events during our planet’s earliest
history. Future Moon missions returning lunar samples from greater depths may
contain conclusive evidence for the validity of our hypothesis. The 3He contents
and xenon isotopic compositions in particular, will be a crucial test.

Read all about it in here :

An alternative hypothesis for the origin of the Moon


Well how about it does it sounds more believable then a giant proto planet collision between two early celestial objects a long time ago or what ?


Regards

~ Sinter

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt. Cash crop of the moon.

Space.com

EDIT: I know 1 million tons is a lot but how much is it really in the grand scheme of things? I guess here on earth it is pretty rare and we resort to making it so maybe it is a lot.

reply to post by Rhadamanthus


I guess that's one we can add to the evidence in favor.

Thanks

There are two theories that I've always found to be more feasible.

[1] A huge, massive comet or meteor slams into earth, knocking a chunk off which over time "rounds", as large objects in orbit are want to do, and becomes our moon.

[2] A huge massive meteor smashes into the earth, bounces off and settles into orbit, rounding over time and becomes our moon.

We're pretty sure that most of the water of Earth is a result of comet strikes over billions of years. Its perfectly believable that our moon is a result of one of these celestial strikes.

reply to post by Mactire


Well...

It seems we are finding more water at more places previously thought of as hostile towards water.

IMO it is save to assume water is omnipresent. That would mean no need for big space rocks full with water. Which If I'm remembering it correctly, hold a different type of water then the type we have on Earth. Well at least the few we were able to take a look it.

Second A big meteor or asteroid impact is of a massive smaller scale then what the "so called proto planet Thea" supposed to have caused resulting in that big pile of space debris we call our Moon.

But I'm no expert so don't take my word for it...

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I think that is close, but I believe that a brown dwarf star came by and caused the reaction.
www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Mactire

 

Well...

It seems we are finding more water at more places previously thought of as hostile towards water.

IMO it is save to assume water is omnipresent. That would mean no need for big space rocks full with water. Which If I'm remembering it correctly, hold a different type of water then the type we have on Earth. Well at least the few we were able to take a look it.

Second A big meteor or asteroid impact is of a massive smaller scale then what the "so called proto planet Thea" supposed to have caused resulting in that big pile of space debris we call our Moon.

But I'm no expert so don't take my word for it...

While the debate about the origins of the moon are on going, the water on Earth theories are pretty much solidified. While some water may have been created during the cooling and condensing of the Earth, it would not have been enough to account for the amount of water that the Earth has presently. Moisture and Ice trapped in asteroids and comets would carry the water necessary to get us to the amount we have now. While not all water is exactly the same as Earths, through the process of evaporation and condensing the "water" would've broken down and evolved over time becoming the H20 we know now, while the excess gases evaporated becoming a part of the atmosphere. Our distance from the sun, and the make up of this atmosphere is the reason our water remained intact.

reply to post by Mactire


Well... I'm actually aware of that information...

It's just that the subject was our Moons origins. One I knew of was the impact with a proto planet called Thea.

Maybe there are more I've never heard off... Very possible... But... Now there is an older hypothesis that is brought back in the picture, by these young scientists. There findings seem to have some real grounds here.

Could we please contribute on this particular subject... ? Please?

No offense.

If you know other theories... Please share ? I'd love to learn about them.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


The Thea theory was my reference for the large "meteor" that settled into orbit. I should've typed "planet" instead of "meteor". My bad. Its the whole "When Worlds Collide" idea (Speaking of which, Spielberg is looking to direct the movie in the next few years )

Star for your patience.

reply to post by Mactire


Thank you.

No need for impatience on a little misunderstanding.

That could very well be the case. I prefer to think of the earth as a living thing though, and this action would seem to suggest just that. Take this article for example. I think that, if the earth's core really is growing, that there must be a point at which the core becomes too big to be kept inside of the planet, as it is now. Perhaps it then bursts the outer shell, like a newborn chick as it cracks it's shell while being born. In essence, the Earth could have given birth to the Moon. It's an odd concept, but one that I think may have some serious evidence to support it.

Besides, who wouldn't like to know that we're not the only things in this universe??!?

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


Wow... Thanks.

That sounds very interesting.

When I was working on a thread called : The Expanding Earth hypothesis. which gives a walkthrough of the ideas of one of the latest generation of expanding Earth scientists. James Maxlow.

( I've posted his lecture and I've taken the time to write down what was mentioned in each separate episode. Along with his studies in writings of course. ) A personal recommended must view !

Dr. Maxlow mentions in Part 5 his personal ideas on planet forming and they sound like similar way your link explains. ( Not entirely tho )

I've also read about huge releases of solar matter that get ejected from the suns surface that would end up as planets. It seems I'm unable to find the source of that info. Sorry.

My guess is that that isn't such a bad idea.... But, who am I.

Thank you for posting

reply to post by theuhstuf


Hey

That is a really interesting link you posted.

Thank you very much

I can not find a post date as easy as I want to. Do you have or know that date ?

Thank you for posting

S&F for you for putting this on here for discussion.

Being a novice about space etc, I find it fascinating.

It's funny how some things one just doens't think about-until one sees the idea/concept etc here.

Now I will be dwelling on this most of the day.

Good work (and to the posters). I am enjoying it.

reply to post by anon72


You're welcome

I find myself having the same reaction you have on this topic.

Completely unaware of any knowledge on this topic just a year ago... I've learned a lot since.

Enjoy

well, if the moon was part of earth once wouldnt the moon have a more soild core?
and wouldnt it have lots of evidence that it was once down here.
if there is any info about this. id love to see it!

thanks

reply to post by JayXBraun

Internal structure
Main article: Internal structure of the Moon
Chemical composition of the lunar surface regolith (derived from crustal rocks)[22]Compound Formula Composition (wt %)
Maria Highlands
silica SiO2 45.4% 45.5%
alumina Al2O3 14.9% 24.0%
lime CaO 11.8% 15.9%
iron(II) oxide FeO 14.1% 5.9%
magnesia MgO 9.2% 7.5%
titanium dioxide TiO2 3.9% 0.6%
sodium oxide Na2O 0.6% 0.6%
Total 99.9% 100.0%


The Moon is a differentiated body: it has a geochemically distinct crust, mantle, and core. This structure is thought to have developed through the fractional crystallization of a global magma ocean shortly after the Moon's formation 4.5 billion years ago.[23] Crystallization of this magma ocean would have created a mafic mantle from the precipitation and sinking of the minerals olivine, clinopyroxene, and orthopyroxene; after about three-quarters of the magma ocean had crystallised, lower-density plagioclase minerals could form and float into a crust on top.[24] The final liquids to crystallise would have been initially sandwiched between the crust and mantle, with a high abundance of incompatible and heat-producing elements.[1] Consistent with this, geochemical mapping from orbit shows the crust is mostly anorthosite,[5] and moon rock samples of the flood lavas erupted on the surface from partial melting in the mantle confirm the mafic mantle composition, which is more iron rich than that of Earth.[1] Geophysical techniques suggest that the crust is on average ~50 km thick.[1]

The Moon is the second densest satellite in the Solar System after Io.[25] However, the core of the Moon is small, with a radius of about 350 km or less;[1] this is only ~20% the size of the Moon, in contrast to the ~50% of most other terrestrial bodies. Its composition is not well constrained, but it is probably metallic iron alloyed with a small amount of sulphur and nickel; analyses of the Moon's time-variable rotation indicate that it is at least partly molten.[26]

I believe a couple of things that would proof this theory are mentioned. The helium argument seems in favor of this theory.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


some more info to ponder:
www.dailygalaxy.com...

Was Earth's Moon Created by a 'GeoReactor' Explosion?

The moon was created by an explosion of matter from of the Earth's interior, where it formed in a runaway uranium fission georeactor at the boundary between the core and mantle according to a radical theory by Rob de Meijer of the University of the Western Cape in South Africa and Wim van Westrenem of VU University Amsterdam.

maybe the study didn't take into consideration that a second star in our solar system could account for starting this "georeator." the article does go on to say that it is a long shot, but who really knows. I like to keep my mind open, hoping that we still don't know things about this place in the universe we call home.

reply to post by theuhstuf


Thank you for your post, however .... It's kind of the same news with the two same scientists from the OP.

Lol.

It happens