Moon's Origin

[BrainForce]

:eek2:

What do u think of moon's origin?:doh:

 

I myself believe that moon was once a part of earth ,but this is somewhat having a contradiction

:( how can such a big part be parted from earth since the earth and moon's core are being unfamiliar?

[Tormod]

how can such a big part be parted from earth since the earth and moon's core are being unfamiliar?

 

I don't understand what you mean by this...and how it is a contradiction. :doh:

[C1ay]

I seem to remember reading that an analysis of lunar rocks and dust showed them to have the same oxygen isotope as the Earth...

[CraigD]

What do u think of moon's origin?

For what my opinion’s worth, I accepts the mainstream ”giant impact hypothesis”.

 

From what study I’ve done, I’ve gotten the impression that having a noteworthy opinion about the moon’s origin requires a very detailed understanding of planetary astronomy that a non-specialist like me is unlikely to acquire, so, on this subject, I’ve largely just read popularized descriptions of such experts work, and accepted their conclusions.

 

Also, the giant impact scenario is dramatic and fun to imagine.

 

Being a very empirical person, the only way I suspect I’d ever have a satisfied sense of confidence in a theory of the moon’s origin is if I could actually witness it happening – either though observing similar events in extra-solar planetary systems, or thought the realization of something like my highly speculative idea for a ”time machine telescope”.

[InfiniteNow]

God made it... ;)

 

 

:shade:

[Jay-qu]

Collision theory is a cool one and it is the main one we where taught about at uni, but I have a hard time conceptualising how such a collison would happen.. doesnt make it any less plausible, just that I struggle to see how it would occur.

[Drip Curl Magic]

God made it for poets and writers.

 

A metaphor.

 

A symbol for so many different things. (See Tom Robbin's Still Life with Woodpecker)

 

No, actually. I'm pretty sure it was an impact.

 

I remember seeing a 3 dimensional computer model made to show what the impact may have looked like. It was a nifty model.

 

Although, I wish I had a stronger interest in science back then. Maybe I would have absorbed more of the information behind it.

[HydrogenBond]

A theory I developed last year is connected to fusion eddies. This is where the fusion core of a star, in a young less dense state, splits to increase the surface area for fusion. The sun still sort of creates fusion eddies, but these eddies recombine due to the higher modern solar density. The result of the fusion eddy attempt/abortion are solar flares.

 

At lower solar density, these eddies will kick out. The same rotation of all the planets shows the planetary fusion eddies were all formed the same way, having opposite or repulsive spin to the primary solar eddy, assuring the pepetuation of the higher surface area. A fusion eddy may or may not last long outside the early sun, but lasted long enough to become spiraling centers from which the planets would form.

 

This theory is based on the assumption that once fusion is ignited it is self sustaining and does not require extreme gravity to remain lit. If one thinks about the controlled fusion, we are trying to achieve on the earth, we all assume once it is lit, as long as we trickle in fuel it will keep going until the fuel is gone. This has been demonstrated with H-bombs. Extreme gravity is not assumed needed to keep lab fusion burning, right! If it requires solar magnitude gravity we should throw in the towel, right!

 

Gravity force feeds the self sustaining fusion fire, like a turbo. While the satuation of the fusion fire with too much fuel causes eddys to forms; these create more surface area for a higher rate of burn. It is simple geometry; two spheres that add to a given volume will have more surface area than one large sphere of the same volume.

[maxc]

I've read that the moon has 10,000 times more titanium than the earth dos?:)

 

Also I've heard the moon rang like a bell for 2 weeks after the Apollo missions. As the left over orbiter module fell out of orbit and hit the surface.

[Turtle]

I've read that the moon has 10,000 times more titanium than the earth dos?:)

 

Also I've heard the moon rang like a bell for 2 weeks after the Apollo missions. As the left over orbiter module fell out of orbit and hit the surface.

I don't know about the titanium amount, but here's a good link that may have that data:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm

 

 

ESA just crashed their SMART-1 satellite into the Moon to make her ring.;)

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM8SH7LURE_index_0.html

 

The Moon does have its own quakes as well:

http://solarsystem.dlr.de/TP/lunamotos_en.shtml

[CraigD]

A theory I developed last year is connected to fusion eddies. This is where the fusion core of a star, in a young less dense state, splits to increase the surface area for fusion. …

Gravity force feeds the self sustaining fusion fire, like a turbo. While the satuation of the fusion fire with too much fuel causes eddys to forms; these create more surface area for a higher rate of burn. It is simple geometry; two spheres that add to a given volume will have more surface area than one large sphere of the same volume.

I believe HBond is taking the phrase “fusion fire” too literally.

 

Fusion is not a fire in the usual sense of a heat-and-light-generating chemical reaction requiring fuel and an oxidant. Fusion depends on sufficient force to bring the nuclei close enough together overcome the that the attractive strong nuclear force exceeds the repulsive electrostatic (electromagnetic) force between protons in atomic nuclei (usually hydrogen). For such a force to occur, the nuclei must be confined, preventing them from moving away from one another before reaching this critical distance. In the sun, “gravitational confinement” results from the very high pressure due gravity and the suns great mass. In a fusion bomb, high pressure is created by precisely shaped and timed conventional and fission explosives, which also causes nuclei to approach one another at higher speeds. In a particle accelerator, “inertial confinement” results from nuclei being accelerated toward one another at very high speeds. Other methods of confining nuclei sufficiently to cause fusion, such as within the cavities formed by collapsing bubbles in a liquid, are believed to be possible, but it is uncertain at present if experiments to cause fusion with such methods have been successful.

 

Unlike burning wood in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, the rate of fusion in the sun’s core is not dependent on the area of a surface where the fuel contacts the oxidant, but on the temperature, pressure, and composition of elements in the core.

If one thinks about the controlled fusion, we are trying to achieve on the earth, we all assume once it is lit, as long as we trickle in fuel it will keep going until the fuel is gone. This has been demonstrated with H-bombs.

Though some enthusiast of fusion power may assume this, sustaining a fusion reaction by “trickling” light elements such as hydrogen from a low-temperature, low pressure container into a high-pressure, high-temperature zone of fusion, poses significant engineering challenges. Fusion bombs are just that – bombs, precisely shaped to initiate fusion (then fission – about 50% of the energy released by modern fusion bombs is the result of secondary fission). It’s not possible to simply add hydrogen to a fusion bomb flash or fireball and sustain the fusion.

Extreme gravity is not assumed needed to keep lab fusion burning, right! If it requires solar magnitude gravity we should throw in the towel, right!

Fortunately, fusion requires containment, of which gravity is only one possible method. The wikipedia article “fusion” has a good summary.

[BrainForce]

seem to remember reading that an analysis of lunar rocks and dust showed them to have the same oxygen isotope as the Earth...

 

:) I also read it sometime ago,that's why i came to the conclusion that i will be voting for great impact.

Moreover earth's core composition is very different from moon's but composition of outer rocks and dust have some great similarities.This shows that moon if formed from earth ,was formed by earth's very exterior part.But this parting could happen in many ways !:)

[Turtle]

One simple explanation for different relative compositions of elements between the Moon and Earth in a large collision scenario, is the constituents of the impacting body. :)

[HydrogenBond]

It is good to speculate about the universe. However, what most people forget is that all we asume to be true is only speculation. The reason I say this is because very limited data is always used to make bold claims.

 

As an analogy, if one was looking at the living cell with a mircroscope, which could only see the exterior of cells, one might notice many different types and shapes of cells, ie., little dwarf and red giants. They may also measure the input and output chemical characteristics. But this limited surface data an dobservation would not be enough to tell us there is DNA inside any of the cell. The DNA does not leave the cell, and its monomer constituents are made insitu beyond the looking glass. Because we can not see it, DNA does not exist since it shows not outwards signs. One can see proteins, therefore we are certain, cells are made of only proteins. One might win a prize for claim, even though it is out of touch with the reality.

 

Here we have stars trillions of miles away, giving off light from billions of years ago, and we know for certain how the innards work? We don't even know about the inside of the earth with hard data.

 

As far as I know, nobody have been able to integrate gravity to the strong nuclear force and nuclear repulsion, to know for certain how much gravity is required to spark fusion. I am not talking about pressure.

 

I call it a fusion fire, not to confuse the discussion, but to treat fusion in an analogus way to chemical reactions, since nature recycles affects and we have inner data for chemistry. One general obervation that is characterized with inner data is that exothermic reactions will cause reactants to diffuse to the reaction. This would suggest fusion having its own attraction potential for fuel, since it is highly exothermic. The fuel has an incentive to diffuse to the fusion flame since it can lower it energy if it fuses.

 

Another observation, that is well characterized with inner data, is that chemical reactions, which are exothermic, must first gain energy, i.e, climb an endothermic activation energy hill, before they react and release energy. In the case of fusion, the hill that needs to be climbed is nuclear repulsion. After climbing that hill, the reaction goes down into a deep energy well due to fusion. In other words, the very exothermic nature of fusion makes nuclear repulsion a bump in the road before going down the steeper hill to more stable products.

[Mohit Pandey]

:) I also read it sometime ago,that's why i came to the conclusion that i will be voting for great impact.

Moreover earth's core composition is very different from moon's but composition of outer rocks and dust have some great similarities.This shows that moon if formed from earth ,was formed by earth's very exterior part.But this parting could happen in many ways !:)

As BF has said that earth's core composition is very..................

Moon has no atmosphere and therefore is subjected to frequent collisions. That might have any difference.:)