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

Originally posted by uSNUUZuLUUz
reply to post by isyeye

 

Hate to be CAPTAIN OBVIOUS here.. but after sampling the moon rocks and earth rocks and finding out they are exactly similar, Didn't anyone ever think that we NEVER went to the moon? That those 'moon' rocks are actually 'earth' rocks. Logical conclusion, eh?

Consider demotion to corporal. Any geologist can readily determine if a rock is earth, moon, or meteor is the short answer.

Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.)

For the detailed differences one can browse here.

Originally posted by Illustronic

Originally posted by uSNUUZuLUUz
reply to post by isyeye

 

Hate to be CAPTAIN OBVIOUS here.. but after sampling the moon rocks and earth rocks and finding out they are exactly similar, Didn't anyone ever think that we NEVER went to the moon? That those 'moon' rocks are actually 'earth' rocks. Logical conclusion, eh?

Consider demotion to corporal. Any geologist can readily determine if a rock is earth, moon, or meteor is the short answer.

Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.)

For the detailed differences one can browse here.

Now can any of what you just said me MAN-MADE or MAN-CHANGED? As if, scientists in a lab, took earth rocks, did some things to it (radiation, extreme heat/cold), and then called them 'moon' rocks.. which may explain your 'differences' ?
-Sincerely corporal Obvious

reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz


Please browse the link to understand why geologists could not undertake creating moon rocks from earth rocks in any lab with any resources besides the obvious obstacle of passing the radioisotope dating thing. Earth is tectonically active so no samples as old as lunar rocks can be faked because tectonically active means recycling crust.

Originally posted by The_Seeker
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?

This is a Meteor They bounce off the earth’s Atmosphere...
Venus is a Planet, there is a huge difference. No offense, but let’s not confuse the two.

Earth has many names. One of the oldest is Gaia. It means "cleaved planet". The Sumerians stated, one of four moons of Nibiru smashed into the Earth. This would be the huge scar in the Pacific Ocean. The side of the moon facing us appears to have significant scarring. Heavy interior elements of the Earth were fused with the invading moonlet. Before the impact, Earth was known as Ti.amat or "The Watery Monster". This was because the entire planet was covered by Seas. Note that in Genesis when the "lights" struck the waters of the deep, all of the water was gathered into one place. That was when Pangea and the Primeval Ocean were created.

Yes..the moon ( IMO ) is from the earth.. but not like you think.

It was Not an impact..but a flyby from a dense celestial object.

Kinda ripped off the potato skin per say..creating what we now know as the 'left overs' as far as land mass that we see today.

If you look at the moons surface and study crater formations..you will probably find that most of the impacts on surface was more 'fluid' then rocky crusty.

Find a book called 'Birth of the moon' and it will give you all your answers. I have been looking for the book for 15 years to no avail. ( I used to have it and was stolen ).

It will give you data that you could feed on for months ..

If anyone finds the book..please PM me with info on the ISBN # or something..Please..

Also .. If you can find any old 'national geographic' maps that are still in the mags..get your hands on those .. especially the 'physical maps' ..

Good luck.

JG.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Maybe it's covered in water. I also call it the Pacific Ocean.

reply to post by isyeye


i find it funny the source states the moon rock samples still have to be analyzed,

yet NASA let the moon landing videos get "lost"..

Originally posted by Unity_99
Considering the moon is older than earth, that is not the answer.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Strange Moon Facts.

No, the oldest moon rocks are about 4.5 billion years old not 5 or 6 billions years old as that site erroneously claims.

Where did they get their "facts?"

The "space brothers" of the Hopi (called the Katsinyam in Hopi parlance) have instructed the Hopi Elders that our moon use to be the core of Venus. Venus birthed the moon (sounds incredible I know) when all the planets jumped one orbit in towards the Sun at the last Great Purification. That is why the moon has similar traces to Earth as both planets have similar compositions AND has Venus no magnetosphere (i.e. no core to generate one). This process of planets birthing cores and moving one orbit closer to the Sun is referred to by the ancients as "the sacred path of the migration of the planets" and is yet to be revealed to the masses for general digestion (you can imagine the social implications of doing this). But the migration of the planets is a universe-wide phenomena (apparently according to the Hopi) and you guessed it - Our Mother the Earth is soon to birth her core. Which will, in turn, become the new moon for Mars when it moves into our orbit and we move into that of Venus. All the planets move one orbit inwards in unison in response to an enormous pulse from the centre of the galaxy (refer to Dr La Violette's work).Venus and Mercury (which use to be the core of a planet called David - strange I know) will both be moving into the Sun on their spiritual evolution upwards into matter-less (as we comprehend it) existence. Our Earth (and accompaning moon) will replace Venus and Mercury in their orbits, Mars moves into our orbit with our core as their moon, Jupiter into Mars orbit and becomes solid from a gas giant etc etc. More info (and all the drama that is coming) at:

motherearthfathersky.org...

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?

Well you see the thing about that is......um......hmmm......That actually makes a Hell of a lot of sense!

Surely the scientists have thought about that, and ruled it out somehow.......you'd think anyway....Then again sometimes it's the most simple answers that escape the smartest of us!

reply to post by budaruskie


That is my belief as well. They have ruled out the moon being a satellite that was somehow captured by Earth, but their findings seem to go along with the collision theory. The same material that is on Earth would be on the Moon since most of the planet crashing into the Earth would have stayed on Earth.

reply to post by aaronez


Ummmm then the moon would have the same composition as Venus, it doesn't, meaning that is a load of crap. And any time I hear Hopi I immediately call BS, the Hopi are very private and don't share their beliefs like that, making them ripe for people to use as a "source".

they couldnt have formed at the same time from the same material initially, not as 2 seperate spheres, remember the moon used to be 15 times closer to the earth at one point, so its not possible. the dust couldnt have clumped together as two seperates because of the closeness, one sphere or no sphere basically.

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia


Does that mean the moon also has oil?

Nope, even if your theory was correct about a volocano spewing the material that made the moon up from earth...Nope. Oil is formed over a very long period of time from decaying organic mass, bodies, trees, leaves, etc. The moon's been there longer than the time its taken for oil to form here on earth, thought I would clear that up for you...
PEACE!!

reply to post by eriktheawful


that presentation works for me...


the Thera planetoid did not come from some distant place, it was created in the same area of the early solar system accretion disk, but likely had a more eccentric and developing orbit which eventually intersected the Earth orbit.
I think that there is a thought that the Pacific plate is the crater area from that collision...even though the Plate is in constant motion the Pacific is more or less anchored in place wheras all the other tectonic plates actually travel laterally in relation to the Anchor Plate 'Pacific'.... do not Quote me on this... perhaps i am recollecting info i read in pseudo science

reply to post by St Udio


It would stand to reason, being that the ancient collision had to be a relatively slow one for the earth to stay in tact, and the ejected matter to still orbit the earth. Just think how a Mars sized cometary like impact at a great orbital crossing trajectory would play out. The collision would be so violent that the mass of both bodies would be scattered in a huge solar orbit that coalescing back into a large body with a smaller one in orbit would be unlikely to say the least. That more violent collision scenario is more likely to have formed another asteroid belt of smaller cooling bodies that never really ever coalesced again into one large body let alone two large bodies locked into a planetary/moon system, even considering the possibility that the early solar system could have been much hotter than today at 1AU distance from the sun.

Just saying the likelihood of the more violent collision is less than a slower collision.

I'm pretty sure that I once heard it said that the earth had rings, the same as saturn, then the moon formed from those rings....

reply to post by DARREN1976


The Earth did not have rings. The most likely scenario was a mars sized planet crashed into Earth. Heavier materials were less likely to escape Earths gravity, with some still making it, and lighter materials more likely to make it. This is why the Moon most likely has a very small core of heavy materials, and is mostly made up of lighter elements.

reply to post by isyeye

Is this proof that the moon comes only from earth, and giant collisions are completely ruled out?

Not at all. This is what the original research article says.

The isotopic homogeneity of this highly refractory element suggests that lunar material was derived from the proto-Earth mantle, an origin that could be explained by efficient impact ejection, by an exchange of material between the Earth’s magma ocean and the protolunar disk, or by fission from a rapidly rotating post-impact Earth.

www.nature.com...

Explaining why the ratios of certain titanium (and oxygen) isotopes so closely matches those of Earth is problematic but the theory that the Moon was formed as a result of at least one giant collision is still valid. Indeed, this study affirms that the Moon is mostly a piece of the early Earth. But the theory requires more adjustment to figure out why more foreign material is not found on the Moon. That is how science works. Data results in a theory. More data may cause a theory to be modified or, in some cases rejected entirely.

Contrary to the claims in the article of the OP, the Giant Impact theory has not been rejected as a result of this study. What needs to be understood is why the ratios of oxygen and titanium isotopes are so similar on Earth and the Moon. What is pretty certain is that an impact such as would create our Moon may have been a lot more complicated that thought and the models need to reflect that.