Moon's Age Revealed, and a Lunar Mystery May Be Solved!

Scientists have pinned down the birth date of the moon to within 100 million years of the birth of the solar system — the best timeline yet for the evolution of our planet's natural satellite.

This new discovery about the origin of the moon may help solve a mystery about why the moon and the Earth appear virtually identical in makeup, investigators added.

As it has been speculated in the past the moon was formed with another planet and Earth.

www.space.com...

did they use the same computer models that they use for Global warming? not sure I put much stock in that


Last book by Louis Proud that just came out about Moon orgin
interview Secret Influence of the Moon



reply to

There are myths from some native tribes that describe a sky with no moon,
Interesting thought that maybe its not as natural as we think.

But i think it could have been a passing body that eventually got locked into our orbit.

reply to post by nighthawk1954


I am trying to remember where I saw the info at, but was there not a tribe (not sure if its in the Americas or on the African continent) that described a period when there was no moon at all, only to have one show up?

I love science...

Its a pretty cool reality / thought when humanity, right now in the present, gazes up at the sky and the stars and envisions the future, while the past is looking back at us from the cosmos.

As for the OP I am curious if this might lend credibility to some of the conspiracies. NASA just announced they located a dwarf planet way out past Pluto and speculated that there has to be another large object beyond that to explain the weird orbit.

AzureSky
There are myths from some native tribes that describe a sky with no moon,
Interesting thought that maybe its not as natural as we think.

But i think it could have been a passing body that eventually got locked into our orbit.

Another conspiracy MYTH!!!! show one link for that ,one that can be proved.

wmd_2008

AzureSky
There are myths from some native tribes that describe a sky with no moon,
Interesting thought that maybe its not as natural as we think.

But i think it could have been a passing body that eventually got locked into our orbit.

Another conspiracy MYTH!!!! show one link for that ,one that can be proved.

This is not a confirmation however it discusses the specific time period and lists the tribes whose oral tradition says there was a time of no moon.

source

again, not confirmation / not being put forward as confirmation. Just a resource.

About the fact there might not have been a Moon before "recent" times... Maybe it's Nibiru that got locked on the Earth's orbit, accidentally, or intentionally??

No Moon prior to 11,713 years ago

When was the moon put up there? ....It’s a question a child would ask but nobody on this planet can answer it.

Was the moon put into orbit as part of a geoengineering project to make Earth livable?

reply to post by Xcathdra


The article leaves out the more popular and more generally accepted hypothesis by scientist, which is the Giant Impact Hypothesis

Reading some of the descriptions, I have to wonder a couple of things:

Personal opinion on how ancient text or story is translated. And Context.

Is it merely a expression, IE "Older than the moon." as a saying too express something as very old? Not a literal meaning as in: there was no moon before that time?

Is it being used to exaggerate a claim? IE "They occupied the land before there was even a moon", is that an accurate statement? Or is it an exaggerated claim to indicate a very old claim to something?

There are many problems with the moon originating else where in our solar system, or beyond, and being captured by the Earth.

The two major problems with those theories is: the make up of the moon matches too closely to the make up of the Earth.

Capture by the Earth, that produces the orbit the moon has, including the fact it's receeding from us at 3.8 centimeters per year, problematic in any model that tries to make that happen.

You can try to do it yourself with a program like Universal Sandbox. Use the editor and try setting up where the moon tries to pass by the Earth or get close enough for capture. It never quite works out correctly (eg, it doesn't get captured, or swings to far in, or produces an orbit that is not like what the moon has at all).

eriktheawful
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

the make up of the moon matches too closely to the make up of the Earth.

Is this only based on the moon rock samples taken during the apollo missions ,,what other data is there to confirm this?

reply to post by Hoaxster

--
That is an interesting theory.

I have been thinking about this for quite a bit and managed to piece a few things together, in doing so a new radical theory came to light.

Radical Theory:

If myths have tribes in the past revealing no moon at all, perhaps there wasn't.
Over time, a race of beings came to our solar system, saw a couple of planets worth examining. Their vessel? what we call our "Moon". This advance race of beings could have known the impact of a large body next to a planet, creating conditions for favorable life on the planet.
The Moon is special in regards to all other moons in our solar system, take that into an account.
For thousands of years people wouldn't have know, how could they? or perhaps some ancient advance civilization did, like Atlantis, the Indian Empire or Continent of Mu.
Bridged a line of communication and created alliances with these beings from the moon, would explain structure's on the moon. Something happened, resulting in the failure of that age.
This new age, a not so spiritually advance one, but a growing Technological one, found their way to the moon.
Perhaps the Moon landing did happen, but warned off and to never returned , at least not right now.
It could be very well that these beings have been orchestrating events around the world.
I think perhaps one day we will see the moon for what it is.
--
**NOTE**
This is just a theory, a radical one at that, all typed out using my Galaxy Note 3, so I wasn't able to go more in depth and provide links.
Do I believe in this theory? No, but I like the perspective of it and may look further into it if I had the time and resources, it just seemed like a great idea to post it while it was fresh in my mind, puffing on an E Cig and drinking coffee.
So please, its an interesting theory that is WAY ABOVE TOP SECRET and has no basis for truth, again, a crazy theory.

The Moon was not formed by a collision. The theory has too many holes. Even this evidence was a computer simulation. A collision would create a moon with a different chemical makeup.

I have found the answer to the moon question. Of course, I am aware that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and I have none other than logic and the chemistry of the rocks. I got stuck on the magnetic iron- but I've solved that as well.

The simple answer is volcanoes. Giant phreatic eruptions ejected magma into orbit. I call my theory VME. Volcanic Mass Ejection.
It is like a CME. So there. Now you know. The moon was born of the earth directly. The problem has always been how did the material get there. Charles Darwin's son George Darwin suggest that material from the earth flew off by centrifugal force. The problem was that even though the moon is moving away from us, when you rewound the clock and try to find the originating point of the magma, to was too far away from earth to be by centrifugal force. Which why we now have the impact theory. We needed to find a way to get the magma out away from earth. However, if you eject material into space by force of a massive eruption, you have material thrown far enough to not be pulled back by earth's gravity. It's like a rocket. With a phreatic eruption, the key ingredient is water. Hydrogen and oxygen. Rocket fuel. When water inundates a magma chamber, you have a pressurized explosion. Etc, etc, etc, i'm so tired.


The most import driver of evolution is not the asteroid or the impacts. It's the volcanoes. They have been the engine that drives the earth and even the moon. I would rewrite the history of earth and mankind, but,... carry on.

So remember, VME

Imagine if Yellowstone Lake emptied into the magma chamber through a sinkhole like Louisiana.

reply to post by Xcathdra

With all the new telescopes coming on line we seam to hearing of amazing new information every week.

reply to post by ericblair4891


Things to consider for the VME hypothesis:

The moon masses 7.3477×10^22 kg.

You'll need to find the amount of energy it takes to get that mass into orbit (it's a lot), even if it's a LEO that spirals gradually outward. Keep in mind that the escape velocity needed to achieve this will be greater as you'll need to add the above mass to the Earth's current mass of 5.97219×10^24 kg, so escape velocity will be higher, requiring even more energy.

Next, you'll have to take into consideration of Newton's laws of motion. Specifically: "For every action, there is a opposite and equal reaction."

As you said: the VME would act like a rocket. There will be a reaction if you have that amount of mass ejected from the Earth, with the energy required to do so. How will that affect the Earth? Axis spin, tilt and orbit around the sun to be considered.

However, the first consideration: the amount of energy required to get that amount of mass from in the Earth to orbit. That will be the biggest hurdle. Simply because I think you'll find the numbers involved is enough to where the Earth would not survive such a energetic reaction.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Very good. You figured out how earth got her spin. The reaction to the eruption sent earth spinning. I should have mention it was not one eruption. It would probably take several eruptions to get enough material to account for the moon. The earth has not always been in the same spot in relation to the sun. We've wandered around until the last of the massive VME's. We still have had other large phreatic eruptions like Santorini/Thera. Or even Tambora and Krakatoa. But compared to the first VME's, these eruptions are tiny. The key to the eruption being energetic, is the water that enters the chamber is turned to steam. The whole thing is under pressure, the ultimate pressure would be different depending on the thickness of the crust. The steam inflates the ground. As this happens, the crust is cracked allowing more water to flow in. The key is the water is separate into their elemental form. At some point, you reach a critical mass. I'm arguing with myself about whether it would then be fusion or fission.

I'm glad you've entertained my idea. If you want to do some calculations about how big a chamber could get and a large caldera, then look at Hudson Bay. The southeastern part has an arc. You take that arc and fill it out until you get a circle. This is a caldera. From the diameter of this crater, you may get some idea about how powerful a VME's can get. This caldera in my estimation is from 335 Million years ago. When compared to those some 4 billion years ago, I would say those were twice the size as the caldera in Hudson Bay. Of course that's a guessimation. Not all of our ejected material made into orbit far enough away to become the moon. Much of it rained back down on earth. We were pelleted by our own meteorites.

sorry.

One last thing. I think Soddom and Gommorah was destroyed when the magma chamber from Thera exploded. The entire magma chamber was thrown into the atmosphere. It turned to a gas cloud. It then condensed and rain down on the Dead Sea. The cities were destroyed by a super acid rain. If any of my theories could be proved, it would be this one. If I could find sulfur in the Dead that matched the chemical signature of Thera, then we could make the connection. The problem is the area has it's own sulfur source. But it you look for the differences, you can find where it came from. And, it wouldn't be easy given the nature of the disaster. That's enough said....

This should really be "Moon's Age Theorized". There is little here that is true evidence of certain age. A computer sim always based on assumptions and in this case many of them. Even a fairly crude model would have to take into account some idea of accumulation of mass due to debris which is a giant guess considering we have a potential data set of decades at best. To extrapolate that as well as hazard a guess at whether or not there were any major impact events is just compounding the problem. I am not arguing that the age is this or that, just that nothing has been "pinned down" whatsoever.

Hoaxster

eriktheawful
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

the make up of the moon matches too closely to the make up of the Earth.

Is this only based on the moon rock samples taken during the apollo missions ,,what other data is there to confirm this?

Samples returned by the Russians and spectral analyses by probes from various countries.

AzureSky
There are myths from some native tribes that describe a sky with no moon,
Interesting thought that maybe its not as natural as we think.

But i think it could have been a passing body that eventually got locked into our orbit.

Meh. I hear there are stories of the first man and woman who lived in paradise until a snake told them to eat an apple that they were told they couldn't eat.

I don't necessarily think that story is accurate.

eriktheawful
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There are many problems with the moon originating else where in our solar system, or beyond, and being captured by the Earth.

The two major problems with those theories is: the make up of the moon matches too closely to the make up of the Earth.

Capture by the Earth, that produces the orbit the moon has, including the fact it's receeding from us at 3.8 centimeters per year, problematic in any model that tries to make that happen.

You can try to do it yourself with a program like Universal Sandbox. Use the editor and try setting up where the moon tries to pass by the Earth or get close enough for capture. It never quite works out correctly (eg, it doesn't get captured, or swings to far in, or produces an orbit that is not like what the moon has at all).

So if it was done, it had to be done articicially. As for the matching elements with the earth.. maybe they just dumped a bunch of earth dust 9th the moon to hide it's mechanical nature? I know it couldn't be enough to cover the whole moon, but what happened to all that dirt that came from the mountains at Nazca that appear to have their tops sheared off? Combine that with ancient mining or excavation and maybe they had enough. I wonder how much dirt it would take to cover the moon about 12 feet deep? I wonder how deep have they actually claimedto have drilled into the moon?

Just some speculative thoughts, nothing more. I can just as well entertain any other theory...

I could be wrong here, but I was under the impression the moon WAS part of Earth at one time, until it was hit by massive asteroid that chunked a portion out of the earth to create what we now know as the moon?

Or does science now subscribe to the asinine theory that it's some sort of space ship or something?