It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Was the Moon Once Powered by a Dynamo Core? MIT Research Says "Yes"

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Was the Moon Once Powered by a Dynamo Core? MIT Research Says "Yes"


www.stumbleupon.com

MIT's research on an ancient lunar rock suggests that the moon once harbored a long-lived dynamo — a molten, convecting core of liquid metal that generated a strong magnetic field 3.7 billion years ago. The findings, published today in Science, point to a dynamo that lasted much longer than scientists previously thought, and suggest that an alternative energy source may have powered the dynamo.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Scientists at MIT found that the moon harbored a long lived dynamo which lasted for longer than once previously thought.

"However, Weiss and his colleagues found some surprising evidence in a bit of lunar basalt dubbed 10020. The Apollo 11 astronauts collected the rock at the southwestern edge of the Sea of Tranquility; scientists believe it was likely ejected from deep within the moon 100 million years ago, after a meteor impact. The group confirmed previous work dating the rock at 3.7 billion years old, and found that it was magnetized — a finding that clashes with current dynamo models."

After seeing one of today's top posts was moon related I thought it was interesting and worth a share.

www.stumbleupon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I don't know much about cosmology, but what is the current accepted theory on how the moon formed? Did it form like a planet or was it a result of a planetary crash (possibly with Mars and another planet) which it then broke off and was "captured" by earth gravity? Liquid metal core hmmm....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


I believe the current idea is the moon was part of the earth and was torn off in an impact,

There are many strange facts about the Moon, things that we take for granted simply because its been there the whole time.

Earth could almost be a binary planet with the size our moon is, largest in the solar system.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


So what crashed into the earth that would cause a moon 1/4 (I think) the size of the planet? And if that was true why would the moon have at one point a Dynamo Core? Sorry for the ignorance, not too versed in cosmology but the subject does interest me.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 
Wasnt the moon dust dated millions years older than earth? That imo takes away the theory that it was part of the earth.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I'm sorry I can't find the original source, but I recently read a NASA article that supported the capture theory for the moon. The moon has a retrograde orbit and its composition doesn't match Earth very closely. This article said the Earth probably had about six moons until the current moon was captured and gobbled-up the native moons. The mass concentrations on the moon might be the remains of these collisions with the native moons.

I don't know if this is the latest theory, or an old theory, or one of many theories.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I've always been under the impression that the moon was the result of an impact on Earth, asteroid or comet struck Earth and the force knocked a giant chunk of Earth into space. This mass got caught into orbit of Earth and just spins around us, which "explains" why the Luna has no rotation.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Maybe the moon was another planet that crashed into earth, mixing life and cores, making earth as unique as it is today.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vortiki
 


The thing is what space object has enough mass to break off something the size of moon? Wouldn't it have to be another planet?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottbob
Maybe the moon was another planet that crashed into earth, mixing life and cores, making earth as unique as it is today.


One day we will know the truth but not today.

My guess is that the Earth and the Moon are both 4.6 billion years old.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
First of all, science does not know the origin of the Moon. There are four major theories and all of them have major flaws. The Co-accreation and Fission theories were dismissed once lunar rock samples showed that the Moon had a much different composition than the Earth. The Capture theory has been dismissed because the orbit of the Moon would have to be more elliptical than it is. The prevailing theory now is the Giant Impact theory. However, even the astrophysicist who developed the simulation admits that her own model is predicated on the fact that the Earth could not have had any rotation when this impact occurred. The angular momentum caused by the impact would have increased the Earth's rotation so much that if the Earth was rotating at its present rate when impacted, the length of our days would be two hours and not twenty-four. Every planet in the solar system rotates so for the Earth to have no rotation when impacted makes the theory unlikely.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
What other types of objects stay in static positions up in space? Curious to know.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 
Yeah, our moon is full of mysteries. Who knows what it is, but I wouldnt call it "natural" satellite, like the mainstream does.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Just spit it out ATS. Our moon is either artificial, or it was intelligently placed in its current location for whatever reason. No need to tiptoe around that here is there?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 

Actually the giant impact theory is the best fit for the circumstances. There is no reason it would have increased the Earth's rate of rotation.

The accretion of debris from the collision would have resulted in a small molten core, which the findings in the article in the OP also support.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Would you agree the moon is about 4.6 billion years old?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Astrophysics consider the giant impact theory to be a "default" theory. In other words, it's the best they can come up with now.

As far as introducing angular momentum to the Earth, the simulation calls for a planet about the size of Mars to hit the Earth in a perfect glancing blow. If the impact was too direct, the Earth would break apart. The impact must be glancing for that not to happen and that glancing will increase the speed of the Earth rotation.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 

Nope.
The oldest moon rocks returned by the Apollo missions are dated at 4.46 billion years. This coincides pretty well with the giant impact theory which puts the collision at about 4.53 billion.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 




Astrophysics consider the giant impact theory to be a "default" theory. In other words, it's the best they can come up with now.


No, it's not the "best they can come up with". It has the most evidence to support it.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join