It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Early Earth may have had two moons

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:48 PM
As some of you probably know, Earth's Moon is asymmetric. The near side consists of mainly lowland plains, while the far side is mountainous. Apparently this asymetry may be the result of a collision with a sister Moon that no longer exists.

Earth once had two moons, which merged in a slow-motion collision that took several hours to complete, researchers propose in Nature today.

The report in Nature goes on to discuss a number of competing theories that may explain the Moons lop-sided properties.

"All this is great fun and tells us that there are very fundamental questions that remain about the Moon," he says.

NASA's upcoming GRAIL mission, designed to probe the Moon's interior using precise measurements of its gravity, may help figure out what happened billions of years ago."But in the end," Schultz says, "new lunar samples may be necessary."

Sounds like they might be hoping for more funding for Lunar missions to me. Fat chance of that by the looks of it.

Apparently the next goal is instead an asteroid trip?

Obama: "By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space," he said. "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history."
Obama's Asteroid goal is riskier than The Moon

So, where do you want your taxes spent? Trips to The Moon or an asteroid?

edit on 3/8/11 by Pimander because: typo

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:08 PM
wow, somebody is on target, i just saw this as well
spot on!

and to answer the question, i'd rather spend money on the moon if it was my choice, asteroids are awesome and definitely have come into contact with earth in the past, possibly bringing some much needed life building blocks, but due to the stationery position of the moon, i think it logical that this would be our next study, seeing how it would easily be the jump point for further missions due to the low gravity.
edit on 3-8-2011 by schitzoandro because: add

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by Pimander

It is an interesting story.

But there are ancient cultures on earth that have it in their traditions that there was a time when Earth had no Moon.

I think that their stories are just as likely.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Frater210

Yes, very true. There are also ancient cultures that speak of a time when Earth had two Moons

I would say that it was after the second moon that this thread describes though because if that did happen, then it must of been a long long time ago.

The whole thing kind of makes me think about the whole artificial moon debate... not that i'm saying thats the case.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by iksose7

Really? Where? Not saying there aren't. I just haven't seen them (which means nothing; there's lot's of stuff I haven't seen. I think)


Here is a little starter on the 'no Moon' stuff...

The period when the Earth was Moonless is probably the most remote recollection of mankind. Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the Earth was without the Moon.

Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth; for this reason they were called Proselenes.

Apollonius of Rhodes mentioned the time “when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon.”

A Source is A Source, Of

I think it is interesting that this story at Space.Com not only cites the two-moon theory but repeats the story of a Mars sized body striking the Earth to form the Moon in the first place. I get the feeling that these guys are grasping for straws. I don't care if they are NASA (n.ever a. s.traight a.nswer)

Why all of a sudden are they trying to explain the differences in geography between the 'light' and 'dark' sides? If this is the results of a long term study than what it suggests is either goofy or only part of the truth. That's what I suspect.

edit on 3-8-2011 by Frater210 because: ?

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:09 PM
Ok, I'm not religious at all, and not really a believer in the whole "flood myth" as it is stated in the Bible, but just hear me out.

Considering the tidal effects the moon has on earth, isn't it possible that a collision of two moons could cause such a quick and large scale gravitational effect that could cause massive shifting of the waters on earth?

I know the tides aren't huge enough right now to create a flood of any importance, but is it at all possible the shift of gravity from two separate objects, into one could have caused water to shift in an unusual way, and flooded part of the earth?

Or maybe even massive debris from this collision causing tidal waves?

This was just the first thing that popped into my head.

As far as the "no moon" theory, is it possible that the orbit of these two moons was such that you wouldn't be able to see them from certain spots on earth? Then after the collision, the orbital path changed, making it visible to those people who previously couldn't see anything?

That's assuming the two moon thing is even true. Who knows. It doesn't sound like they are even too sure of themselves.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:29 AM
Just a theory but could the plains side and the mountainous side be caused by centrifical motion.

As a body rotates around another the centrifical motion causes gravitation force to push outward from the center of the rotation. Similarly to the way astronauts and air force are trained to withstand g forces produced by a spinning pod.

Is it possible that the centrifical motion causes the near side to flatten because of higher g forces while the far side would over huge periods of time begin to "drip" away from the center. If you want to see this concept in action you could find a very thick fluid such as honey, syrup, or karo syrup. Then find a ball of some kind preferably large if you'll be holding it in your hands but small if you can tie it to a rope. Now pour the chosen liquor onto the ball (if holding it, avoid getting it all over yourself) oh make sure you do this outside. Now if small ball on rope grab the rope and begin to spin. If large ball do the same but avoid holding where the liquid is, now spin around while holding the ball out in front of you at arms length. While spinning the centrifical force should cause the liquid to flow away from you, if its thick enough it may make mountain like structures on the far side.

Keep in mind that even solids act like a liquid, it just takes drastically more time to observe these changes. This theory could only work on planets/moons that always have the same side facing the rotation buddy. If it spins and alters sides a more equivalent distribution occurs which would even out the centrifical changes.

Eta: s & f for making me think this up.
edit on 4-8-2011 by DarkSarcasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2011 by DarkSarcasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2011 by DarkSarcasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:38 AM
None of the proposed scenarios explain the heavily cratered poles of the moon. But I do favor the tidal forces from Earth that over the eons 'smoothed' the side facing earth. We see the tidal forces the moon has on earth as from the moon's perspective, it gets to see the entire earth. I think tidal tectonics would also have less effects at the poles and the moon could have been rather hot for a very long time, and may still have some molten interior. Unlike Mars, the moon's equatorial zone (facing earth) is smoother than the polar regions, outside of the sun Jupiter probably tidally effects Mars more so than it's tiny moons. To put that in some perspective, Jupiter has somewhere around 1% the tidal effect on earth our moon has.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Pimander

Wrong again.
People do not read recorded history.


The Moon was left battered by Mars as recorded for us.

edit on 8/4/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 07:58 PM

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Pimander

Wrong again.
People do not read recorded history.


The Moon was left battered by Mars as recorded for us.

edit on 8/4/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

You made my day. Star for you. After reading about two moons in the newspaper today I quickly turned to ATS to see what everyone had to say. I never expected your Mars and Moon love affair. I'm still reading that web page.

The Book of Enoch mentioned a plural moon in one of its passages.
Chapter LXIV (Richard Laurence 1883)

9. Afterwards my great-grandfather Enoch seized me with his hand, raising me up, and saying to me, Go, for I have asked the Lord of spirits respecting this perturbation of the earth; who replied, On account of their impiety have their innumerable judgments been consummated before me. Respecting the moons have they inquired, and they have known that the earth will perish with those who dwell upon it, and that to these there will be no place of refuge for ever.

Also, I have to post Dan Bern's song from Youtube because this subject was mentioned.

Dan Bern "Kabbaba"-When the earth had two moons

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by lostinspace

There has to be more accounts of Mars, Moon and Venus action according to Velikovsky
and in solid print than there is of non trauma episodes. The time of Exodus traumatized
the world. Mars and other orbs had their share.

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch) is an ancient Jewish religious work, traditionally ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. It is not part of the ...

Sounds like Enoch was putting down the tagging of god to objects in the sky to mere moons
in a philosophical or religious manner

the earth will perish with those who dwell upon it,

that moon worship (or of false gods) is wrong and does not say there are two or many moons.

Even Velikovsky points out impending cyclic disasters from the heavens predicted in the bible
were considered objects in the sky and not gods.

Velikovsky does go back to the Deluge when Enoch was not around and says Saturn exploded
which shown as a bright light for seven days and the flood started. Jupiter caused the Great
Rift and Sodom and Gomorrah disaster and when Mercury got everyone talking again they were
so scared that forgot their one language had drifted apart into many written accounts by
scribes who each group communicated with.

So I'd say the Moon got lob sided by some massive encounter but not particularly the two
moon theory.

ED: There was a time of no moon:
See The Earth Without the Moon

edit on 8/5/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:20 AM
I'm a bit surprised at the direction this thread has taken, I must say. That's ATS for you. I love it.

While I agree that catastrophes have probably had a greater influence on the planets past than is generally thought, the thrust of my OP a little different to that. As well as pointing folks to the new theory, I was suggesting that scientists are taking every opportunity to indicate that they think that funding for lunar scientific work is important. This flies in the face of some short sighted recent policy decisions taken by Western Government's during the financial crisis - especially in Washington.

Do any readers have thoughts they might like to share about that?

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by Pimander

I hear you but the science we are told seems lacking with better sources
available in my out look.

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

In the link you provided the 3, earth moon origins are grossly implausible or misinterpreted.

#3 is totally misinterpreted or misrepresented. I browsed it earlier to catch the core description and what I remember is that what they say is the theory of a large body collision to earth is very flawed and misrepresented and basically shunned due to their lack of understanding of the theory. The original going theory requires a large body collision with earth near the accretion of the solar system and not much later as they state. The second requirement is a near orbital velocity to earth's that would create a relatively slow collision, that totally is beyond their comprehension.

Which brings us to their number 2.

#2 thinks earth could capture a body in space as large as our moon in a gravitational orbit which is ridiculous seeing how far away the moon is and how much mass it has. Earth cannot capture a passing comet into orbit a million times less the mass of the moon.

#1 is the very best, the moon was brought here by an alien race, LOL!!!!!

You should really spend less time on sites like that. I'm not even going to mention the mystical stuff they spew, their science is seriously flawed to begin with.


log in