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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 



....what the astrophysicist says regarding the original iron core of the Moon falling back to Earth.


I have seen Dr. Robin Canup in videos before, and segments of that same one.

At about 2:00 onwards, listen very carefully to what she says...and starting at 2:20:

(quoting from the video)----

".....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....."



See? Watch the video too, so you can see that the "clump" mentioned was only a portion of the original impactor that hit the proto-Earth, and that portion did not achieve a stable orbit, but degraded and fell back, under the proto-Earth's gravitational influence. It is now a part of our planet, and mostly in our core.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present my findings for you to disclose...

static.ddmcdn.com...


edit on 28-1-2012 by Just Chris because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
He's on the right trail. According to the Hopi Elders, our moon WAS a dynamo core all on it's little lonesome. It originally powered VENUS.... as our core will soon orbit MARS...

motherearthfathersky.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
In the major impact theory simulations, do they include whatever natural Earth satellites existed before the impact? I assume Luna gobbled-up the native satellites, but would this have happened while Luna was a cloud of debris, or a molten sphere, or fully reformed? Are these related to the mass concentrations? Or were the native moons ejected from orbit or crashed into the Earth?

It would be interesting if one of these native moons is still orbiting around somewhere in the solar system.
edit on 28-1-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

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)


Ceres looks like a planet to me.

It's hiding in the asteroid belt. If we start mining out there i would orbit Ceres.

- Looks like a planet to me - Ceres
edit on 28-1-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Interesting vid here folks...




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Great video. I liked that one.


I can't wait to visit the Lunar1 Colony in say about 5 years?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Jeebus Crist!!!

David Icke?!?

Seriously.....you bring that nutter, David Icke. into an intellectual and scientific discussion??

:bnghd:



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
For all those who passionately support the Giant Impact Theory, the astrophysicist who modeled the simulation is Robin Canup. After her first attempt at modeling the simulation, she realized something:




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.


So now we have to have two separate impacts to resolve the problems of angular momentum.
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.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 


I would be most interested in a source to back up the latest statements made by Dr. Robin Canup, as you posted.

This is "news" to me......
edit on Sat 28 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 


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.


What do you mean by precise? If there was a second impact with different parameters the rate of rotation would be different than it is now. Where's the problem with that?

The early Solar System was a chaotic place. It is possible that two impacts knocked Uranus on its side.
www.scientificamerican.com...
It's possible that the extreme tilt of the axis of Venus is due to an impact.
www.universetoday.com...
It's possible that Mars lost its magnetic field due to multiple large impacts.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

The early Solar System was a very dangerous place.

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.

isotope.colorado.edu...

BTW, your unsourced quote goes on to say that Canup is still refining her single impact model.

edit on 1/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Ya.I tink so Ollie....
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 )
Or.alternately it may be prorous or composed of materials which are some how able to transmit and recycle the crash vibrations for hours......

There is some splainin to do over the very precise configuration of our relationship with moon and sun is there not?
Something about the eclipses being exact ly sized etc?
Also the rotation showing only one face earthwards...

I think somebody will have to come up with the model that produces all pertinent data from the extrapolated crash.....
Then maybe the theory would be worth paying homage to a bit more religiously....
Till then i remain an agnostic on the subject till there is something more detailed and definate than suppositions.

Topping this off with reports of objects flitting about the moon surface and near space,Lights and anomalies of permanent and transient nature...ie domelike structures inside craters,seemingly tracks across its surface ending in some kind of object....

Is there any way of comming to some understanding of the process she models by working backwards through the rotational, and mass calculations to come up with more definate parameters for the formation of luna?
Ie so much mass such an orbit and rotations, worked backwards to ahow what size and speed the pobject that hit us had? maybe even direction of rotation too
Any pool player know that its the fine control of the balls english or spin which directs the two bodies after impact.....so, perhaps, phage could make some kind of sense out of what i propose, though my science is pretty rough.....Is this possible? are enough factors know to figure the unknown?

Reducing it to imagining a pool shot may illustrate better what i am getting at.....
Maybe God doesnt play dice with the universe.....maybe snooker is his game.....



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


The moon is supposed to be older than earth by some margin is it not?

No.


The hollow moon experiment indicates that the moon is Hollow?(crashing itnto it and seismic measurements )

No.

edit on 1/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 1questioner
 


I would be most interested in a source to back up the latest statements made by Dr. Robin Canup, as you posted.

This is "news" to me......
edit on Sat 28 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


Here you go...
www.pbs.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 


And.....your "point"??

I see more of the same...this time, the "not-very-scientific, but designed-for-the-masses-to-understand" term. the "Big Whack"

If That ( ^ ^ ^ ) was your point? Well....might wish to re-think it a bit.....



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Just for the record, this theory is not entirely new. When lunar samples from the Apollo missions showed that some rocks may have formed within a magnetic field, some scientists speculated that the Moon, then thought to have coalesced separately, may have had a small, molten, nickel-iron core that cooled more rapidly than Earth's. I'm too lazy to track the paper down at the moment, however.

Edit to add: I'm not that lazy:

www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...(8)/
edit on 28-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
My point has remained consistent from the beginning of this thread.


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.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yup, impacts are the common explanation for most anomalies within the solar system.

Due you think Mercury's reverse rotation is also due to an impact? That was the one anomaly that I was always curious about.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Could the impact of the other planet have left it's own dust on the moon and supposing why moon dust is older than earth? I mean if the hitting planet was older than earth and the dust found on moon could be from that planet?




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join