This figure for the orbital period (and Earth's rotational period) is wrong, and obviously based on some kind of retrocalculation under the assumption of an impact origin. Gedney's explanation is clearer, older, and based on the fossil evidence. Although the nautiloid fossils have been used to prop up the impact origin for the Moon, the fact that more than 50 per cent of the Earth-Moon distance has accumulated in about ten per cent of the purported age of the Moon shows it isn't so.The MoonThe moon is Earth's only natural satellite... The Moon's orbit is expanding over time as it slows down (the Earth is also slowing down as it loses energy). For example, a billion years ago, the Moon was much closer to the Earth (roughly 200,000 kilometers) and took only 20 days to orbit the Earth. Also, one Earth 'day' was about 18 hours long (instead of our 24 hour day). The tides on Earth were also much stronger since the moon was closer to the Earth.
Enchanted Learning
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
A really, really old topic ping...
Study Details Crash That Created Moon
News/Current Events News Keywords: X FILES SECTION
Source: discovery online
Published: aug-16-2001 Author: discovery online
Posted on 08/16/2001 18:00:03 PDT by green team 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7c6c932c43.htm
New Details on Planetary Crash That Created Moon
Culture/Society News
Source: Yahoo
Published: 08/15/01 Author: Deborah Zabarenko
Posted on 08/15/2001 20:43:08 PDT by Moonman62
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b7b414c3f78.htm#31
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b7b414c3f78.htm#34
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b7b414c3f78.htm#41
In the shadow of the Moon
New Scientist ^ | 30 January 1999 | editors
Posted on 08/31/2004 8:42:25 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1203912/posts
...the Moon clearly could not have been the satellite of the Earth then, for a total period of about 2,000 million years... Spurr points out that the face of the Moon shows two systems of great surface fractures, or faults, lying about 30 degrees from the two poles and trending from west-south-west to east-north-east. This is explained by him as a result of the halting of the Moon's rotation... Curiously, the face of the Earth, too, shows a similar structure, with the same general trend -- the Highland Boundary Fault... The poles of the Earth would also seem to have shifted place on at least three occasions, in the Cambrian, Permian, and (lastly) Quaternary Periods, brining ice and cold to previously warm lands... some mighty force made the crust of the Earth slip (the rotational stability of the axis of a mass as large as the Earth is enormous) and the position of the poles wobbled... there exists on the Moon a triple grid of surface fractures... perpendicular to each other within each grid, the grids being of different ages... Cambrian, Perm-Carboniferous, and Tertiary.Fascinating idea, based though it is on outmoded ideas about impact (i.e., Firsoff's view that there was no role for impact). He's basically given us a snapshot of the problems inherent with a fission origin (either by overspin or by impact), not least of which is that the fission origin also requires in orbit formation of the lunar sphere and capture by the Earth, while showing that capture is possible.
Unlike any other satellite, the Moon completes her revolution round the Earth outside the sphere of the latter's gravitational predominance. Solar and terrestrial gravity draw level with each other at the distance of 161,800 miles from the center of the Earth, whereas the Moon never comes any nearer it than 221,463 miles.But I dunno if this is true. Objects in prograde orbit around the parent body will accelerate and thus raise altitude, while those in retrograde do the opposite. So, a body in orbit could wind up in escape, particularly if a third body were givin' it a come-hither.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Genesis' Broken Capsule Holds Good Science - NASAThe charged particles of solar wind, ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun, are expected to help scientists learn how the sun and planets formed some 4.5 billion years ago, and could give clues on the evolution of the solar system.
Reuters via Yahoo ^ | Sept 13 2004 | Deborah Zabarenko
Posted on 09/13/2004 9:24:30 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist
another GGG topic (from the Catastrophism subsection):
Small Comets and Our Origins
University of Iowa ^ | circa 1999 | Louis A. Frank
Posted on 10/19/2004 11:13:25 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1250694/posts
other lunar topics I've started:
A Celestial Collision
Alaska Science Forum ^ | February 10, 1983 | Larry Gedney
Posted on 09/15/2004 9:04:28 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1216757/posts
It Came from Outer Space?
American Scientist ^ | November-December 2004 | David Schneider
Posted on 11/25/2004 5:13:07 PM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1288537/posts
bttt, plus some links to other FR topics:
Earth's magnetic poles on verge of flipping
World Net Daily | December 12, 2003
Posted on 12/13/2003 8:38:30 PM PST by gitmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039977/posts
In the shadow of the Moon
New Scientist | 30 January 1999 | editors
Posted on 08/31/2004 8:42:25 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1203912/posts
Jupiter's Spots Disappear Amid Major Climate Change
Space.com | 21 April 2004 | Robert Roy Britt
Posted on 04/21/2004 2:04:19 PM PDT by Yo-Y
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121982/posts
Massive Object Calls Planet Discoveries into Question
Space dot com (via Yahoo) | Thu, Jan 20, 2005 | Robert Roy Britt
Posted on 01/21/2005 9:19:56 AM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1325494/posts
Scientific maverick's theory on Earth's core up for a test
SF Chronicle | Monday, November 29, 2004 | Keay Davidson
Posted on 12/05/2004 11:17:28 AM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1294934/posts
Scientists Find That Saturn's Rotation Period Is A Puzzle
University of Iowa | June 28, 2004 | Gary Galluzzo and Don Gurnett
Posted on 01/13/2005 6:00:04 PM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1320410/posts
Sun's rays to roast Earth as poles flip
The Observer (U.K.) | 11/10/2002 | Robin McKie
Posted on 11/09/2002 5:59:37 PM PST by Pokey78
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/786012/posts
A Celestial Collision
Alaska Science Forum | February 10, 1983 | Larry Gedney
Posted on 09/15/2004 9:04:28 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1216757/posts
Giordano Bruno, the June 1975 Meteoroid Storm, Encke, and Other Taurid Complex Objects
Icarus (Volume 104, Issue 2 , pp 280-290) | August 1993 | Jack B. Hartung
Posted on 12/27/2004 2:37:46 PM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1309198/posts
It Came from Outer Space?
American Scientist | November-December 2004 | David Schneider
Posted on 11/25/2004 5:13:07 PM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1288537/posts
Early Earth Not So Hellish, New Study SuggestsWatson claims there were oceans and continental crust similar to what we have today. "Our data support recent theories that Earth began a pattern of crust formation, erosion, and sediment recycling as early in its evolution as 4.35 billion years ago," he said. Even with the existence of water and crust, the Earth was not the friendly place we now know. The planet would still have been quite hot, and the atmosphere would have consisted only of carbon dioxide, water, and volcanic gases. But life may still have been able to exist in these types of conditions. After all, scientists today find bacteria and other microbes living in similarly hostile conditions.
by Bjorn Carey
5 May 2005New View of Early Earth: A Habitable PlaceA new study concludes Earth had continents and oceans 4.3 billion years ago, which is just a geological eyeblink after the planet is thought to have formed, in the wake of the Sun's birth 4.6 billion years ago. A separate study reported in May came to a similar conclusion, also suggesting that notions of a fiery, hellish planet back then have been overblown... A world with water and land and somewhat moderate temperatures and volcanic conditions would have been habitable. That does not mean there was life, but the conditions were in place... The conclusion is based on an analysis of hafnium, a rare element in ancient minerals from the Jack Hills in Western Australia. The rocks are thought to be among the oldest on Earth, dated to 4.4 billion years ago... The research, led by Mark Harrison of the Australian National University, builds on work Mojzsis and colleagues reported in 2001 that showed evidence for water on Earth's surface roughly 4.3 billion years ago... Scientists do not know exactly when life began or how it got started. If it did begin 4.3 billion years ago, it may have been wiped out by space rock impacts, only to start up again, other theorists say. At any rate, Earth was a treacherous place for the first billion years or so, until it had helped scoop up many of the asteroids and comets that filled the early solar system.
by Robert Roy Britt
18 November 2005
The abundance of high melting point compounds on the lunar surface shows once again the consequence of near-zero atmosphere, and impact as the dominant force at work on the moon. I'm amused that the supposed match of oxygen isotope ratios on the one hand, and a lack of a match in other materials, are both used to "prove" the impact-fission origin. Heads they win, tails you lose.Ironclad proof of the moon's origin?Did earth and moon "coaccrete" at the same time? That is, did two clouds of debris simultaneously collect and coalesce into two rough spheres, which then began orbiting about a common center of gravity? Or, perhaps the earth and moon were once a single mass that ultimately fissioned due to the gravitational tugging of a passing massive object. If either of these scenarios were correct, earth and moon would have similar bulk compositions. This, however, does not seem to be the case.
by William R. Corliss
Science Frontiers #101 Sep-Oct 1995
The abundance and distribution of iron on the moon's surface, as measured by the lunar probe Clementine, indicates that the moon is richer than the earth in refractory (high melting point) compounds. The moon, therefore, almost certainly originated elsewhere, contrary to what most astronomers have long believed. Given the constraints of celestial mechanics, the most likely hypothesis postulates a colossal impact involving protoearth and the interloping protomoon. After considerable havoc, the two battered spheres settled down into their present configuration. Thus expire the two most popular theories of the moon's origin. (Lucey, Paul G., et al; "Abundance and Distribution of Iron on the Moon," Science, 268:1150, 1995)
Planets Around Planets?
Sky and Telescope | 06/05/06 | Robert Naeye
Posted on 06/05/2006 10:32:33 PM EDT by KevinDavis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1644037/posts
Moon Chemistry Confirms Violent Origin
SPACE.com | 22 August 2006 | Jeanna Bryner
Posted on 08/23/2006 1:24:06 PM EDT by Boxen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688715/posts
Earth’s Moon is Rare Oddball
Space.com on Yahoo | 11/20/07 | Dave Mosher
Posted on 11/20/2007 10:40:12 PM EST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1928673/posts
Earth’s Moon is ‘cosmic rarity’
BBC News | 21 November 2007 | Paul Rincon
Posted on 11/21/2007 4:12:51 PM EST by Aristotelian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1929042/posts
The moon is speeding up.
If it were slowing down, it would fall closer to Earth.
The Earth is the one that is slowing down, due to tidal effects of the moon. That energy is being transferred to the moon.
I think so, anyways!
