It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


If the GIANT IMPACT Hypothesis is 'true' ...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:40 AM

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

nah, Alice... what i'm thinking of is

Why can't we find, trace the 'shockwave' of debris from such an event?

even the ieds in the middle east create quite the shockwave, lightning-fast debris field, etc.....

given the grand Scale and Scheme of things I'd have to think scientists that support the GIh would at least be looking for or able to identify an expanding debris field that could/would correlate to the timeframe with which to study further as suspect.


There's no air in space around the Earth or moon, or this stellar orbit to propagate a shockwave.
Any debris field from GIH would follow the laws of physics in space.
There's the gravitational influence of the sun, plus the Earth, and the Moon.

We do have computer models run on supercomputers which explore the possibility of any of the main theories.
The model that best describes our current observations indicates our current observations are the result of GIH.

One of these data sets, thanks to the Lunar Laser Ranging reflectors left on the moon by our Astronauts indicates the moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of 3.8cm/year.

Some of the findings of this long-term experiment are:
The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. This rate has been described as anomalously high.
The Moon probably has a liquid core of about 20% of the Moon's radius.
The universal force of gravity is very stable. The experiments have put an upper limit on the change in Newton's gravitational constant G of less than 1 part in 1011 since 1969.
The likelihood of any "Nordtvedt effect" (a differential acceleration of the Moon and Earth towards the Sun caused by their different degrees of compactness) has been ruled out to high precision, strongly supporting the validity of the Strong Equivalence Principle.
Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) predicts the Moon's orbit to within the accuracy of the laser ranging measurements.

This movement can then be modelled backwards through time to lunar formation.
3.8cm a year?
It requires some arithmetic, but, over 4.5 Billion years, how far will the moon have travelled?
okay, well, some quick calcular work shows a movement of 106254.474 miles in 4.5 Billion years.
Since the average distance between the Earth and Moon are:

The average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km (238,900 mi).[1] (about 389 LD is 1 AU, the Earth-Sun distance) The actual distance varies over the course of the orbit of the moon, from 363,104 km (225,622 mi) at the perigee and 405,696 km (252,088 mi) at apogee, resulting in a differential range of 42,592 km (26,465 mi).

Since there's some discrepancy there, we have to consider the moon formation, if GIH occurred quite a bit before 4.5 Billion years ago as we currently date Earth.

All in all, GIH is just the best model.
the future may hold alternative models, as well as revisions on the current list of contenders.

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:50 AM

reply to post by LABTECH767

and the moons of mars are another puzzle phobos and demos loved all this stuff when i was young and it is so easy to find online now the kids are lucky to have the net to find things these days .

when i was young in the 60s/70s what looks you got in the library asking for those books here;s the crazy kid again i heard once

Huge cavities inside the martian moon...

Hollow Phobos and it was not captured by Mars! Scientists Says.

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Hmm, Ah there, shockwave's also occure in magnetic and gravitic field's, indeed the universal field theory would suggest other form's of shock wave may very well still dissipate in what we percieve as empty space, now If I throw a cloud of talcum powder into space it is still a cloud of talc but more accurately it is a cloud of particle's which over time will likely fly apart under there own intertia but were that inertia is cancelled there own gravitation may very well attract them back together.
When you see a supernove it is a shockwave from an exploding star and even empty space is not empty, In deep space it is estimated at one hydrogen atom per cubic meter to though sparse it is not vacuum in the true sense of the word and in the solar system the density is actually far far higher with all manner of particle's and bit's floating around including particle blown off the sun by the solar wind.
You do not need air for a shockwave but a kinetic blast like a nuclear bomb detonated in space would have hardly any effect on an asteroid except to bathe it's surface in neutron's and slightly ablate it unless it was inside the asteroid so it is attenuated very very greatly.
I think the poster does not mean shock wave so much as dissipating cloud of ejecta from the impact which as achieved escape velocity and how long it would continue to expand.

edit on 27-2-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:01 AM

I think the poster does not mean shock wave so much as dissipating cloud of ejecta from the impact which as achieved escape velocity and how long it would continue to expand.

exactly ...

with all the models and tech, i'd think we should at least be able to 'identify' a particular expanding field which would correlate with the suggested/supposed timeframe in earth's history for such an event.


thinking further on the earth/adam - moon/eve aspect ... it would sort of explain the oceanic [ebb/flow] draw, effect(S) and whatnot that 'she' has on the earth ....

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

tires leave tread .... impacts leave 'signatures'... no!?

True ... but over time the evidence becomes ever harder to reconstruct. Knowing the ages of our solar system's astronomical bodies would be a good start ... and there's disagreement even on the age of the Earth. I, for one, would guess the Earth to be closer to 14BYO ... but then I'm just an armchair speculator.

is the biblical reference to the 'creation of eve' just a passed down tale over the cosmos of the moon's creation from being carved of earth?

I have a great deal of respect for religious text from a certain POV. Somebody thought something was important enough to write it down ... at great effort and expense. The one thing that is obvious to me is the reverence with which they did so. I liken what remains, across the entire spectrum of religious belief, to efforts of people barely literate making an attempt to reconstruct some common knowledge and lacking the most rudimentary skills and supplies. Imagine SHTF and you're stuck in the woods. Are you going to teach your kids with your voice or carve lessons into tree bark?

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:36 PM
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

Sorry, but you'll not find that shock wave or expanding cloud of debris. Here is why:

This impact happened billions of years ago. Almost 4 billion years ago.

The sun rotates around the center of the galaxy once every 250 million years.

Our solar system, and the Earth with it, have gone around the Milky Way galaxy 16 times since that impact.

You're asking people to find a debris field that has been strung out how many light years?

The other problem is that the majority of those debris is what became the moon in the first place. The moon formed just outside the Roche Limit, so it was very, very close to the Earth. The gravitational effect of both the Earth and that very close moon, would have accreated almost all of that debris to either the Earth and the moon.

So if you want to find the debris of that impact: look up at the moon. That's where it is.


Also "carve the moon out of the Earth" is a not quite accurate.

A Mars sized body impacted the Earth at a oblque angle, shattering the Mars sized planet, and just about shattered the Earth. What was left of that Mars size planet (it's core), swung around and impacted the Earth again, sinking down, giving the Earth a very large core.

What was left up in orbit around the now more massive Earth, was what was left of that Mars sized planet, and part of the Earth, which accreated and made the moon.

If you read the papers on this model, you see that the moon actually forms quickly, and much of that debris is absorbed by it or the Earth in a very short amount of time.

Better still: the computer models done for this, not only work for this, but also has the moon slowly moving outward until it's where it is today.

As Alice said earlier in the thread: it's only a model, with supporting evidence (the make up of the moon rocks being so close to those here on Earth), but it fits better than all the other models and theories.

Doesn't make it "fact". But until someone comes up with an even better model (one that fits all the questions), it's the best that we have.
edit on 27-2-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 10:37 AM
I have the answer. My hypothesis explains it all.
I'm keeping this brief because I am sick of hearing myself think.

The answer is simple. Volcanoes. The Moon was formed from the ejected material from massive eruptions on Earth.
I even have a name for the process. VME. It's similar to a CME. Volcanic Mass Ejection. The key factor in the evolution of earth is water. Shortly after the crust formed, water formed. Eventually, when the pools of water inundated magma chamber, the eruption ejected material into orbit. Today, we have similar eruptions but they are tiny in comparison to those back some 4 billion years ago. They are call phreatic eruptions.

In our history, there have been a few notable phreatic eruptions. Santorini/Thera (1600 BCE), Krakatoa (1883, heard 4800 km away) and Tambora (1815).

Even these in comparison are small.

Charles Darwin had a famous son. George. George Darwin came up with a hypothesis which was almost correct. Except, when you calculate where the first debris began, it did not origin directly from earth's surface. The material started in a near earth orbit. My hypothesis explains how that material got there. It was ejected. Just like a rocket. The magma was thrown into space. The fuel was water. Hydrogen and Oxygen make great rocket fuel when you break that bond. With the heat and pressure within the exploding magma chamber, you get a chain reaction which causes the molecules to separate.

What's the sun made from? Hydrogen and helium. So, within the magma chamber, hydrogen starts to fuse together. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Did you know recently they've discovery that Yellowstone is producing helium?

If you compare Earth's isotopes to those on the moon, you find the are the same.

So, how did the moon form?
It was born of the earth. And the earth, alone.
In essence, it's our child.

edit on 28-2-2014 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

I'm going to add a few articles that support my theory. Simply put, the earth's crust is older than thought. And, the moon is younger than thought.

I haven't comment on the Impact Theory, because I think the arguments already presented against it, are already sufficient to start looking elsewhere.

The earth and moon do not have the exact same composition. Mainly, the difference is magnetic iron. The reason for the difference is the age and size of the earth. Early in earth's evolution, the denser material we're pulled to the core while the lighter materials circulated near the surface. It is in this way that the first water vapours were formed. After the vapours condensed forming bodies of water, the explosions were shallow. The material ejected would be the lighter materials since the heaviest were already too deep to be ejected.

I can even explain the spinning core.
When the eruptions were launching material into space, there would be a force like a rocket engine. This would spin the earth, and even change our orbit in relation to the sun. Earth would have been spinning and moving around like that spaceship in the Asteroids video game. You can think of the thrust in the same way.

That's enough.

Oh, you don't think we have had giant volcanoes on earth. Well, they recently found the biggest on earth.

edit on 28-2-2014 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

I wish I could shut off my brain. Here's a theory about Venus being the origin of our Moon.

Funny thing about Venus. It's very volcanic. Also, Mars has a giant volcano. It seems to be a theme. Even our moon had volcanoes.

Jupiter's moon volcano.

edit on 28-2-2014 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in