Finding shows the moon comes only from earth, not giant collision

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

How would piece of earth just enter separate orbit around itself? LOL

Aha the old poop in the pool theory.
According to this theory the greater the mass of the host object the greater the gravitational pull it exerts on the loose object.
ie. the fatter the pooper the more difficult it is to swim away from the poop.

Originally posted by iforget

Nicolas Dauphas, UChicago associate professor in geophysical sciences, holds vials of material collected from the moon during the Apollo 14 mission. He and graduate student Junjun Zhang also worked with samples from the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 lunar missions in their new study on the origin of the moon.

source

soundstage sweepings would test out to be rather terrestrial, no

It's really the wrong thread to start arguing the Apollo hoax thing. There's a ton of other threads about that on this site.

I thought they threw this theory out. Due to a number of reasons, one of them being that a lot of the minerals and metals etc found there are not found here on Earth.

news.discovery.com...

Also in my readings, there is another theory that Venus was a Meteor, that crossed paths with earth (there is a lot of ancient writings out there that support the theory that there was no moon originally, and that they saw Venus move into our star system, as a meteor...) Could the moon be part of her?

Also - there are many impact basins in our solar system, anyone of these could have been the mother of our moon.

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I think it would be fairly easy for scientists to detect if that were the case. One part of the Earth (the collision point) would contain a high concentration of the materials left by the foreign mass. They could simply look at the composition of the moon and then search for a large area of Earth which is similar, which they obviously cannot locate.

Well, if the Giant Impactor theory is correct, the size of the object that would have hit Earth Mark I would have been about the size of Mars and Earth would have been a bit smaller than it is now. Such a huge collision would have completely melted both the object and Earth Mark I and they would be absorbed into each other by this process. The whole thing would have become a molten ball again, which then had to cool a second time. So, you see, there really isn't a specific location on the Earth where you could find this impact because the process was so violent that it would have remade the Earth completely into Earth Mark II, which would be the Earth we live on now. The material that made up Earth I and the impactor (called Thea) is now the material that makes up Earth II and the Moon.

Hmmm, well the why would they expect to see anything different in their analysis? Wouldn't it be normal to find that the Earth and Moon are so similar in composition?

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Well, if the Giant Impactor theory is correct, the size of the object that would have hit Earth Mark I would have been about the size of Mars and Earth would have been a bit smaller than it is now. Such a huge collision would have completely melted both the object and Earth Mark I and they would be absorbed into each other by this process. The whole thing would have become a molten ball again, which then had to cool a second time. So, you see, there really isn't a specific location on the Earth where you could find this impact because the process was so violent that it would have remade the Earth completely into Earth Mark II, which would be the Earth we live on now. The material that made up Earth I and the impactor (called Thea) is now the material that makes up Earth II and the Moon.

Hi LifeInDeath thanks for elevating the thread from the depths that I was dragging it down to with crap humour. All joking aside I am genuinely interested in all theories regarding our moon and its origins.
Are you saying that Earth ii is basically a composite of the impactor and Earth i and the moon is a smaller piece of the composite? The spherical natures of both moon and earth would be a result of aeons of revolution and such a collision as you suggest would most definitely been of such magnitude as to push the earth into its current solar orbit from the one that it was previously on. Thus creating the perfect conditions for our form of life to exist and thrive. If that was so then in theory every element found naturally on earth would exist in some form on the moon. Does it?

Edit: The_Seeker just answered my question above. Thnx. I was wondering were there any elements found on the moon that do not exist on Earth?

reply to post by isyeye


I'm sorry, but the mission statement on your source doesn't suggest to me that I could use it as a source for a college paper. I'm sort of glad there was no internet in 1980.

About Us

TechZwn is an independent technology news website, based mainly around features on indie game developers, news on gaming and digital rights, and gems from the public domain.

We have set out to create an online media that upholds traditional standards of journalism, and chart our own path through the vast expanse of cyberspace. If you like what you read, please be sure to subscribe.

reply to post by The_Seeker


If the impact theory is correct, you would not see any impact basin of the event. The collision with a planet the size of Mars, would have made the Earth completely molten again.

Here's a video on it (they use CGI from a Nova show I think), I just like the music with it.





If the nothing else, the special effects are awesome to watch!

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I think it would be fairly easy for scientists to detect if that were the case. One part of the Earth (the collision point) would contain a high concentration of the materials left by the foreign mass. They could simply look at the composition of the moon and then search for a large area of Earth which is similar, which they obviously cannot locate.

Well, if the Giant Impactor theory is correct, the size of the object that would have hit Earth Mark I would have been about the size of Mars and Earth would have been a bit smaller than it is now. Such a huge collision would have completely melted both the object and Earth Mark I and they would be absorbed into each other by this process. The whole thing would have become a molten ball again, which then had to cool a second time. So, you see, there really isn't a specific location on the Earth where you could find this impact because the process was so violent that it would have remade the Earth completely into Earth Mark II, which would be the Earth we live on now. The material that made up Earth I and the impactor (called Thea) is now the material that makes up Earth II and the Moon.

Hmmm, well the why would they expect to see anything different in their analysis? Wouldn't it be normal to find that the Earth and Moon are so similar in composition?

If I remember correctly, all 4 inner rocky planets are pretty much made up of the same stuff, just some have different ratios is all.
Considering the theory has the impactor in the same orbit as the Earth (or very close to it), it would make sense that most of the materials would be the same.

If I remember right (I stress this, as I don't have the source with me), the reason that the impact theory is so accepted, is because it answered a lot of questions that otherwise remain:

The moon spiraling out from Earth: the moon was a lot closer and Earth's rotation was a lot faster billions of years ago. The capture and spin off theories conflict with this if I remember right.

The simple fact that the moon and earth have such different mass (and earth formed an atmosphere and magnetosphere the moon couldn't) that elements found over 4 billion years after the collision would have undergone much different mutations, and exposure (this is evident by looking at craters). We also know this fact because we have moon rocks, analyzed in laboratories, some third party ones too.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Awesome vid thanks erik. Have you seen the movie 'Melancholia' by Lars Von Trier?
Stunningly visually beautiful film, when worlds and humans collide.

Originally posted by isyeye
If this finding is true, they may have solved a few mysteries in space exploration. What does the ATS experts have to say about this? Is this proof that the moon comes only from earth, and giant collisions are completely ruled out?

techzwn.com...

The giant-collision theory of the moon’s origin just got blown out of orbit. Using a comparative analysis of titanium from the moon, Earth, and meteorites, researchers at the University of Chicago found the moon comes from just a single source: Earth.

The giant-collision theory holds that the moon formed after the Earth crashed into a Mars-sized object scientists dub “Theia” some 4.5 billion years ago

Despite the discovery, however, the moon’s origin remains a mystery. Dauphas said “We thought we knew what the moon was made of and how it formed, but even 40 years after Apollo, there is still a lot of science to do with those samples that are in curatorial facilities at NASA.”

I did find the above comment interesting. I think it only shows that no matter what they may think they know, science is constantly changing and we may never completely understand our universe.

Lol, in the year 2056 ,scientist will find an ancient book. This book will show how long it took to find the right combination of which moon is for which planet.

The book will even show a map of earth, with out a moon.It will show by the illustration it self that mars once had the moon that is in your atmosphere and will show a map of the solar system that you never ever knew existed, as far as which moon was where, when this recording took place.

The people and scientist of your earth can always explain the moon hitting something and for some reason being caught in the gravitational pull.

Lp527.The universe has a trillion days of history ,and some time within that trillion years of space history there was a war, a ‘War for Moons’

In addition, in the year 3123, scientist will have the knowledge to actually move a moon…but of course, the world will have already ended, and only 20,000 humans were able to go into the ark.

You really want to know what the aliens want from you earthlings…they want your moon that is why NASA shot that virus at the moon, to keep them from taking it from you all.

Look at all the planets in your solar system, they all have moons.

Theses moons are not systematic collisions that took place as your scientist have taught you all, they were placed there…they was placed there as a giant balance beam needed to keep earth from spinning out into the solar system.

40 pounds of the moon surface is all that is needed to run this entire planet with energy for more then 500 years.

reply to post by LastProphet527


Dude, you are in the wrong forum.

FYI.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by LastProphet527

 

Dude, you are in the wrong forum.

FYI.

Is this proof that the moon comes only from earth

fyi,So what forum am i suppose to be in?

Originally posted by Illustronic
The simple fact that the moon and earth have such different mass (and earth formed an atmosphere and magnetosphere the moon couldn't) that elements found over 4 billion years after the collision would have undergone much different mutations, and exposure (this is evident by looking at craters). We also know this fact because we have moon rocks, analyzed in laboratories, some third party ones too.

Do elements mutate? I always believed that elements were the basic building blocks and could not be reduced only combined. For example the element copper (chosen at random) ,could moon copper be of a different (mutated) composition than copper found on earth?
I never knew that an element could mutate due to exposure or time, under certain conditions (say during oxidisation) elements can combine but surely their basic form stays stable on a molecular level? Rust still contains iron molecules does it not? or is its transformation irreversible ? (at a molecular level)
Sorry about all the questions I am just very interested.

Originally posted by budaruskie
Just playing devil's boyfriend here but, if something collided with Earth in the past...wouldn't it make sense that the earth would have absorbed some of its material as well as the moon? Wouldn't that make it reasonable that they would both have similar compositions?

You my friend just hit the one-million dollar question, thus this supposed scientific methodolgy is a farse. As their are properties on the moon, that are no where to be found on earth,


AND would you not think if the op's hypothesis was correct, that the moon, would be a bit smaller than what it is presently at

Just a question, as our moon, if had been hit, would not be the biggest moon still in our solar system. I call bull-shizzle on this

Originally posted by HumansEh
Do elements mutate? I always believed that elements were the basic building blocks and could not be reduced only combined. For example the element copper (chosen at random) ,could moon copper be of a different (mutated) composition than copper found on earth?
I never knew that an element could mutate due to exposure or time, under certain conditions (say during oxidisation) elements can combine but surely their basic form stays stable on a molecular level? Rust still contains iron molecules does it not? or is its transformation irreversible ? (at a molecular level)
Sorry about all the questions I am just very interested.

Well, yes and no. Most elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were created inside stars or when stars go supernova due to extreme heat and pressure. The hydrogen and helium gets "cooked" into heavier elements, which in turn get cooked into yet heavier elements. There are other ways that new elements can be created out of others, such as radioactive decay, but this happens in such minute amounts as to not really be relevant in the grand scheme of things. So no, elements on the Moon are not "mutating" differently in any significant way than on the Earth.

Given enough time, all elements in the Universe would eventually transition into iron (we're talking over something like quadrillions of years), but there probably won't be enough time in the future history of the Universe for this to happen because we'll experience its heat death first. The process just takes too long.

didn't they just discover rogue planets scour the galaxy?

wouln't it be reasonably logical to assume one of those hit earth at some point 4.5 BILLION years ago?

Some astronomers have estimated that there may be twice as many Jupiter-sized rogue planets as there are stars.

While a recent study has speculated that there may be one hundred thousand times more rogue planets than stars.

thats a lot of planets going every random direction. you want to tell me it's not possible that one of those things either hit earth directly or just grazed the earth and took a good 1/4 chunk off which got caught in new earth's gravitational pull.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
You my friend just hit the one-million dollar question, thus this supposed scientific methodolgy is a farse. As their are properties on the moon, that are no where to be found on earth,

What properties? There's a lot of helium-3 there, but that's because the Solar Wind has been slamming the regolith with the stuff or billions of years. What else?

AND would you not think if the op's hypothesis was correct, that the moon, would be a bit smaller than what it is presently at

Why would it be smaller?

Just a question, as our moon, if had been hit, would not be the biggest moon still in our solar system. I call bull-shizzle on this

It's not the biggest moon in the solar system, it's the 5th biggest after Ganymede, Titan, Callisto and Io.

reply to post by HumansEh


Rocks on the moon are exposed to more cosmic rays than rocks here on Earth. The elements don't mutate exactly, but it is possible to tell how long from a rock's formation that it's been sitting on it's surface.

If we are to follow this new premise that the moon originated from earth, then how bout the following method?

The eruption of a supervolcano spewing Lava so high it exists orbit and as it cools it solidifies into the moon.

Yeah, maybe far fetched but isnt every theory these days?

Would kind of help explain why the moon doesnt rotate? because it was "made" from within earth, so whilst the supervolcano was erupting spewing lava into space, the material was conforming into a ball.

As the volcano was dying down, the thin "geyser" of lava dies down and detached from the in orbit moon like an umbilical chord.

Does that mean the moon also has oil?