Posted on 01/09/2017 9:59:14 AM PST by Red Badger
Currently, the leading theory of the creation of the Moon is that it formed from a giant impact between a very early Earth and another Mars-sized planet.
Yet new research from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel has put forward a theory that the Moon may have actually formed from a series of large impacts, rather than just one.
The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, explains why the Moon appears to be made mostly from Earth-like materials, rather than a mixture of our elements and those of another mystery planet.
Lead author Dr Raluca Rufu and her colleagues conducted some mathematical simulations of what it would look like if large planetary bodies collided with our Earth way back when it was newly formed around 4.5 billion years ago. In these tests, the impacts produced disks that shot off from Earth and the other body, but were mostly made up from Earth materials.
According to their results, it would take about 20 of these collisions to assemble the moon. Rufu told Business Insider that it is much more likely that the Moon formed from many smaller collisions, because it is a more organic process.
“The multiple impact scenario is a more ‘natural’ way of explaining the formation of the Moon,” Rufu said. “In the early stages of the Solar System, impacts were very abundant, therefore it is more natural that several common impactors formed the Moon, rather than one special one.”
Also, Rufu said that the current theory doesn’t really explain why the Moon is so similar to rocks on Earth.
“If multiple of bodies contribute to the final Moon, their chemical signatures can even out, therefore the traces of the various impacts will be masked,” she said. “Also, higher velocity impactors can excavate more Earth material, hence the moonlets will resemble the Earth’s composition.”
The team suggest in their paper that moon-forming impacts between the early Earth — known as the proto-Earth — and other large bodies floating around were very common during the early days of the Solar System. Therefore, this series of events can probably be applied to other planets and moons.
“We see evidence of past impacts on all the terrestrial planets,” said Rufu. “This paper shows that moonlets can be commonly formed, therefore the lack of moons around Venus is an interesting follow up question of how planets can sometimes lose their moons.”
Proof of this new theory may lie in the heart of the Moon itself. If multiple impacts are the key, this implies that the Moon formed over many millions of years, rather than in a single massive crash. This would mean that the Earth and Moon’s interiors could be less mixed up, and may have preserved a record of the events.
Like I always say, we will never know as much as we don’t know. #;^)
Amazing, thank God for the Moon!
Grace, you appear to be very knowledgeable about this subject, so I’ll just tag this additional item on to what you’ve already posted:
In 1969, NASA had the Apollo 11 astronauts place a seismometer on the surface of the moon to study and record potential ground movement.
When Armstrong and Aldrin had rejoined the command module at the end of their excursion, the L.E.M. was jettisoned and allowed to crash to the moon’s surface.
When it did, Mission Control operators in Houston, who were monitoring the moon seismometer, recorded a resultant seismic tremor that went on for more than an hour, prompting one NASA official to comment that, the moon “rang like a bell.”
If the moon is indeed a solid body, that shouldn’t have happened.
Seeing how truth is often stranger than fiction, and the well known fact that our military technology is always years (or even decades) more advanced than what the general public is aware of, it would not surprise me to find that we've been regularly flying to the moon and building bases there.
TR3-B, anyone?
There is so much about the moon that is just danged weird.
Some of the "lunar anomaly pictures" are very interesting.
Not sure how many of them are legit, vs. rocks that looks like other things, ie.. how you can see things in clouds.
Moon Picture ( At NASA Site ):
copy and Paste to new window and Zoom in: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/images/content/393894main_ACD09-0220-089_full.jpg
Right Click pic and select "view image" then zoom in under the guy's arm. weird indeed.
Real science is seldom if ever really settled.
I did that, but I'm on my tablet and can't make it out.
What do you see?
There is a square structure in the crater
I have met the author. I think he's a card-carrying nutburger. But he's at least as entertaining as Erich von Dankien.
Asimov’s point is a good one. If the article were correct, then the probability of other small planets having large moons would be larger. If a lot of small hits should produce a big moon, then Venus and Mars should have big moons. That Earth appears so unusual argues for the single big hit in just the right way at just the right angle theory.
“If the moon is indeed a solid body, that shouldn’t have happened.”
We know the mass of the moon. Is that consistent with a hollow body?
The Earth captured our Moon...there was no collision.
The whole concept of 'settled science' is a thought stopping tool of the elite status quo in academia, which suppresses and retards real advancement in the sciences.
Young researchers are cowed by their elders into toeing the line of accepted paradigms, and to spend their careers, not in fruitful exploration of better answers, but in reinforcing leaden dogma and concepts that fail to truly break new ground in our understanding of the universe.
I see that thought stopping process at work every time the subject of faster than light travel comes up on this website.
but no atmosphere." Marvin
Sumerians say that it was the result of a collision between Tiamat, a watery planet orbiting between Mars and Jupiter, and the long orbit Brown Dwarf Nobiru. I guess one unproveable theory is as good as the next.
All cosmology is guesses. Good guesses sometimes, but guesses nonetheless. Some theories are more fun than others.
Interesting.
If I can get to my desktop computer today, I'll post an interesting photo from the NASA moon archives here.
It shows what looks like the nose cone of a large craft of some sort, sticking out of a crater.
I almost got in a fight in the Army trying to explain to some fellow soldiers that the dark side of the moon is not always dark.
It's been noted by some outspoken scientists, that the mass of our moon does not correlate with its size, if you accept that it's a solid body.
I'm convinced that there will be some mind bending, paradigm shifting discoveries in the space sciences over the next fifty years.
Real science is seldom if ever really settled. The whole concept of 'settled science' is a thought stopping tool of the elite status quo in academia, which suppresses and retards real advancement in the sciences.
Young researchers are cowed by their elders into toeing the line of accepted paradigms, and to spend their careers, not in fruitful exploration of better answers, but in reinforcing leaden dogma and concepts that fail to truly break new ground in our understanding of the universe.
I see that thought stopping process at work every time the subject of faster than light travel comes up on this website.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.