It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
....what the astrophysicist says regarding the original iron core of the Moon falling back to Earth.
".....the inner clump, of the impactor material, is actually composed overwhelmingly of the impactor's core...so that when this inner clump re-collides with the Earth (which happens right there) the vast majority of the iron that came in with the impactor is actually accumulated by the Earth....."
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1questioner
The rings of Saturn will not last forever nor will they form a planet. The tidal forces of the giant planet which caused the destruction of the moon which now forms the rings are too great to allow the debris to coalesce.
The asteroid belt is not orbiting a planet. There are different forces involved. The transitory gravitational effects of Jupiter prevent very large bodies from forming but Ceres is quite impressive.
edit on 1/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Canup's calculations showed that most debris from the collision would either fall back to Earth or fly off into space, leaving only 20 to 50 percent to make a moon. The Big Whack, she figured, required a much bigger whacker—one two to three times the mass of Mars. But that resulted in an Earth spinning at two to two and a half times its present angular momentum. She addressed that problem by introducing a Big Whack II: a second impactor that hit Earth against the grain of our planet's rotation millions of years after the first, thus slowing its spin.
If anyone believes that two precise large impacts happened from two different sides at two different times to get the Earth to rotate at its current speed, I know someone who has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Overall, perhaps the greatest shift in thinking that has arisen from the past
decade of lunar origin studies has been the realization that the impact production of
satellites appears an efficient and probable event during planetary accretion.
The moon is supposed to be older than earth by some margin is it not?
The hollow moon experiment indicates that the moon is Hollow?(crashing itnto it and seismic measurements )
Originally posted by 1questioner
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.