Moon younger than previously thought

University of Copenhagen ^ | August 17, 2011 | Unknown

[decimon]

MOON RESEARCH

Analysis of a piece of lunar rock brought back to Earth by the Apollo 16 mission in 1972 has shown that the Moon may be much younger than previously believed. This is concluded in new research conducted by an international team of scientists that includes James Connelly from the Centre for Star and Planet Formation, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen. Their work has just been published in Nature.

The prevailing theory of our Moon’s origin is that it was created by a giant impact between a large planet-like object and the proto-Earth very early in the evolution of our solar system. The energy of this impact was sufficiently high that the Moon formed from melted material that began with a deep liquid magma ocean.

As the Moon cooled, this magma ocean solidified into different mineral components, the lightest of which floated upwards to form the oldest crust. Analysis of a lunar rock sample of this presumed ancient crust has given scientists new insights into the formation of the Moon.

[decimon]

New moon ping.

[Octar]

The Universe, however, is very old.

[laweeks]

These “scientists” have no more idea of the age of the moon than they do as to where Obambi was born in Kenya or where Obambi got his Soc Sec number.

[cripplecreek]

That hundred million years seems kind of inconsequential when you’re talking about more than 4 billion years.

[CygnusTheSwan]

The extraordinarily young age of this lunar sample either means that the Moon solidified significantly later than previous estimates – and therefore the moon itself is much younger than previously believed - or that this sample does not represent a crystallisation product of the original magma ocean.

Hmmm, I dunno. One sample dated and the headline claims "Moon younger than previously thought"?

Very interesting story, and congrats to the folks who did the work, but I'm leaning towards the latter in the quote above until more data is available.

[KarlInOhio]

Once we removed the contamination, we found that this sample is almost 100 million years younger than we expected,"

The team analysed the isotopes of the elements lead and neodymium to place the age of a sample of a FAN at 4.36 billion years. This figure is significantly younger than earlier estimates of the Moon’s age that range to nearly as old as the age of the solar system itself at 4.567 billion years.

So it is about 2% younger than expected. That's like Obama being a year younger than he claims. It's not a huge experimental error and it won't reform the theory of the creation of the solar system.

[HighWheeler]

------------

There are several significant differences in the Earth and Moon following that impact with a Mars sized object.

First off, the Earth's molten iron core is significantly larger than the proportion of iron in the rest of the known Universe. This collision explains how the Earth acquired such a high content of iron.

This combined iron core was heated up, absobing the massive energy of from the impact, and this keeps our magnetic field extremely strong. This inherent magentic shield keeps the Earth protected from deadly radiation by diverting the high speed radiation and particles to the Earth's poles.

[Publius6961]

This is the real story, in an otherwise unimpressive article :

Although the samples have been carefully stored at NASA Johnson Space Center since their return to Earth, we had to extensively pre-clean the samples using a new method to remove terrestrial lead contamination.

Which is it?
It was either carefully stored or it was contaminated. It can't be both.

As to the age theory, nothing in the article supports or excludes any of many other possible theories about the formation of the moon. Or even a hint of, if the age is different from earth's age, but was once part of it, what are the possible explanations?

There is just an unpleasant whiff of James Hansenism in the whole thing.

[Leroy S. Mort]

"Put me in, coach."

[Little Ray]

Don’t you guys read David Weber?
Its actually a camouflaged Battle Planetoid.

[GAB-1955]

This sounds like the Apollo 16 samples could have come from the postulated second moon which sort of splattered onto Luna’s surface 100 million years after both bodies were formed in orbit around the Earth. This would be evidence strengthening that hypothesis.

[tlb]

>>> we had to extensively pre-clean the samples using a new method to remove terrestrial lead contamination.

Perhaps that implies samples were stored in lead-lined containers.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks decimon. Looks like a scramble to find the very first valid evidence that the Moon was formed from an impact between a Mars-sized body which no longer exists (per se) and the proto-Earth.

• When the Days Were Shorter

---

join or quit view topics view or post blog bookmark post new topic subscribe

---

[SunkenCiv]

Ooh, good thinkin'! Thanks GAB-1955! All, here's the related topic:

• Earth's two moons? It's not lunacy, but new theory

[mtg]

Not that it’s all that important, but it’s highly unlikely scientists will ever be able to nail down the exact year God created the moon.

[Fred Nerks]

Once upon a time, within the memory of mankind, it just wasn’t there:

The Earth Without the Moon

The period when the Earth was Moonless is probably the most remote recollection of mankind. Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the Earth was without the Moon.(1) Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth; for this reason they were called Proselenes.(2)

Apollonius of Rhodes mentioned the time “when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon.” (3)

Plutarch wrote in The Roman Questions: “There were Arcadians of Evander’s following, the so-called pre-Lunar people.”(4) Similarly wrote Ovid: “The Arcadians are said to have possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and the folk is older than the Moon.” (5) Hippolytus refers to a legend that “Arcadia brought forth Pelasgus, of greater antiquity than the moon.”(6) Lucian in his Astrology says that “the Arcadians affirm in their folly that they are older than the moon.”(7)

Censorinus also alludes to the time in the past when there was no moon in the sky.(8)

Some allusions to the time before there was a Moon may be found also in the Scriptures. In Job 25:5 the grandeur of the Lord who “Makes peace in the heights” is praised and the time is mentioned “before [there was] a moon and it did not shine.” Also in Psalm 72:5 it is said: “Thou wast feared since [the time of] the sun and before [the time of] the moon, a generation of generations.” A “generation of generations” means a very long time. Of course, it is of no use to counter this psalm with the myth of the first chapter of Genesis, a tale brought down from exotic and later sources.

The memory of a world without a moon lives in oral tradition among the Indians. The Indians of the Bogota highlands in the eastern Cordilleras of Colombia relate some of their tribal reminiscences to the time before there was a moon. “In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens,” say the tribesmen of Chibchas.(9)

http://www.varchive.org/itb/sansmoon.htm

[decimon]

Glad you could make it. Thought you might be too tied up in a wrestling match in the Hercules thread.

[Talisker]

Moon younger than previously thought.

Way, way, WAY younger.