Earth and moon facts?

I have read the moon was once part of earth and was dislodged after meteor strike if this is so is not the earth older than the moon? If they cool near the same time why does the earth have lots of water and a atmosphere and the moon has neither. Also I read the moon moves away from the earth at the rate at (about) inch a year. So that means at one time the moon was closer to the earth. My question there is if the was closer to the earth was it not subjected to stronger forces of gravity? And as it gets fourth away won't it be less subjected to the earths gravity and able to move away at a faster rate of speed than it is now and won't it eventually completely escape the earths gravity all together one day?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That must have been a very old book.

Originally, there were 3 theories of Moon Origin:

1) Capture Theory: The Moon was a rogue body and the Earth captured it.

2) Pinch Theory: Early in the Earth's formation, the Earth began to bulge and that bulge eventually "pinched off" and formed the Moon.

3) Coalescence Theory: The Earth and Moon formed at the same time, with the Moon orbiting the Earth.

In the 1980s, all three of those theories were handily destroyed by a Cray Super II.

However, that didn't stop the sniveling hand-wringing Capture Theory pukes from continuing to proffer their ridiculous theory, the Pinch Theory idiots re-emerged with a new theory, called the Ejecta Theory where a body strikes Earth and the ejecta coalesces as the Moon, and the Coalescence people came back with the Co-Accretion Theory since the whole theory of Planet formation had changed.

So, in the 1990s, Cray's newest incarnation of the super-computer "Big Red" put all three theories to the test and totally demolished two of them. The primary difference between Big Red and a Cray Super is that Big Red can establish the conditions necessary. Back to the three theories:

1) Capture Theory: There is no possible set of conditions or circumstances that would ever allow Earth to capture the Moon.

2) Ejecta Theory: There is no possible set of conditions or circumstances that would ever allow an object to strike Earth, eject a sufficient amount of mass to form the Moon, and allow the Earth survive. In every case, the Earth was obliterated, knocked out its orbit or more than one Earth/Moon was created.

The only theory that survived was the Co-Accretion Theory. The sticking point for the Moon is something called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. That is what dooms most theories before they're even tested.

Anyway according to the calculations of Big Red, the only possible conditions under which the Earth and Moon could have formed together is if the mass of the Earth was 30% to 40% greater than it is today.

The Earth's present mass is about 5.97223e+25 kg so that would make the Earth somewhere between 7.763899e+25 kg and 8.361122e+25 kg.

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of romanticists who cling to the Capture Theory, even though the only two possibilities are the Moon blows by Earth without being captured or smashes into Earth.

And a lot of them just won't give up on the Ejecta Theory, even though angular momentum and a dozen other problems crop up that they cannot explain away.

Some of the problems are that a large body would not eject much mass, but it would slow the Earth's rotation, so much so that a normal "day" on Earth would be somewhere between 40 to 120 hours. The body's speed would affect that a lot. That faster it was moving at collision, the more the Earth's axial rotation would be slowed. Suppose it was moving at 25 km/s, then a "day" on Earth would be 7 current days/nights, or about 170 hours.

There are many other issues as well. In order for the ejecta to escape Earth's gravity, it would have to be moving at 25,000 mph or about 11 km/s and that isn't likely to occur during an impact (Cray's Big Red addresses all of these problems much better than I ever could).

As far as the Moon's atmosphere etc, there was a period in early Earth history called the "heavy bombardment" era where the Moon was repeatedly struck by massive Near Earth Orbiting Asteroids. Those impacts are quite obvious on the Moon. While there is no real evidence that Earth suffered, it is hard to believe that the Moon would have been so heavily bombarded and the Earth remain unaffected, especially since the Earth's gravity is much stronger.

Here's an artist's rendition:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Okay, pretty cool. No one actually witnessed it (obviously) but I guess a little artistic license is okay here.

It's known that pieces of the Moon ejected during the bombardment subsequently landed on Earth. It's also believed that pieces of Earth ejected by asteroid strikes may have eventually struck the Moon.

The interesting thing is that life is believed to have formed during the bombardment period. There's evidence of microbial organisms at 3.8 Billion years.

As far as the Moon escaping Earth's gravity, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Long before that ever happens, the Sun will turn into a big Red Giant, expand out and incinerate both Earth and Moon.

And long before that happens, an Extinction Level Event Asteroid will turn Earth into a ball of molten goo.

And millions and millions of years before that happens, Earth will be dead; it will be totally depleted of all resources. In fact, you won't even have to wait that long. Unless someone comes up with one of those cool Star Trek:TNG replicators, the Earth will be totally denuded within 5,000 years. If anyone is still living on Earth then, shame on them.

According to NASA, Sunspots are disappearing, sort of like NASA's budget.

If NASA ever gets a decent budget and doesn't act stupidly, hopefully it'll get a chance to send up its asteroid probe. I can't remember the catchy project name it had, but the probe is destined to be parked in the Asteroid Belt, where it will use a variety of methods to catalog all of the asteroids in the Asteroid Belt, determining their size, axial rotation, speed, density, water volume and mineral content. That should be very, very revealing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting.

You say that co-accretion is the only theory of the three that survives Big Red, but requires 30-40% more mass - so presumably is now dismissed as a theory?

Further, how does co-accretion theory explain the lack of iron in the moon? If they were formed in the same general vicinity, surely they would have similar composition?

I also thought that the ejecta theory is the most widely accepted current theory, with the main sticking points being why only a single large moon was formed rather than a number of smaller ones, and also why we haven't observed it happening elsewhere... as well as the relative sizes of proto-earth and the impacting body, currently thought to be larger than Mars.

But I'm fairly sure that Big Red has not enabled scientists to rule it out as the predominant theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like that, sounds pretty good. Good sales job

 

The moon is too far away and too small to have any gravitational effect (including tides) on the Earth. Sounds like you are saying that objects on the Earth will float off if the moon gets to a certain point, is that correct?

 

The theory first came about because the moon has no solid core. As such, a large enough asteroid or planetoid could "shear off" a HUGE top-chunk of the Earth leaving it to I dunno- form an ocean which this huge below-sea-level-chunk now missing. NOTE: it sheared off from the Earth- it did not touch the metal core... this is why we have a metal core and the moon does not... this was the original line of thinking to suggest the Moon was once part of the Earth. I can agree with this premise.

The Moon was once much closer and a million years from now it will be 16 miles further away... we'll all be dead a million years by then so I can only guess.

No- the moon is locked- we only see one side of the Moon. They're gonna be with us a long time- millions of years...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And there you are children. If you fall asleep in class you, too, could spend the rest of your life being this silly.

 

Start a thread and i will prove it, so not to hijack this thread.

 

You made the claim...

And for reference, you have yet to back up any argument you've made over the years so I doubt that you'd do so (and I doubt you could (since you lack the competency) even if you were so inclined, plus the fact that you're wrong).

 

This information is valuable. Start a thread or you will NEVER know. And remember i found this out first. Nothing will ever change that.

 

Okay. Thread being created now.
Put up or shut up.

 

Lets see what the title is.

 

Here:
The Moon does not cause tides: John99 proves science wrong.

 

I started this thread to get people to think of the creation of the moon. I will state my new theory in a new thread

 

Go ahead. I hope you're better at "theories" than John99.