Posted on 10/04/2004 10:31:59 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Present-day nautilus shells almost invariably show thirty daily growth lines (give or take a couple) between the major partitions, or septa, in their shells. Paleontologists find fewer and fewer growth lines between septa in progressively older fossils. 420 million years ago, when the moon circled the earth once every nine days, the very first nautiloids show only nine growth lines between septa. The moon was closer to the earth and revolved about it faster, and the earth itself was rotating faster on its axis than it is now. The day had only twenty-one hours, and the moon loomed enormous in the sky at less than half its present distance from earth.
(Excerpt) Read more at dogbert.gi.alaska.edu ...
Early Earth Likely Had Continents, Was Habitable, According To New Study
University of Colorado at Boulder | 2005-11-18 | University of Colorado at Boulder
Posted on 11/18/2005 8:32:59 PM PST by dila813
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1525001/posts
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
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b7b414c3f78.htm#31
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b7b414c3f78.htm#34
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b7b414c3f78.htm#41
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
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Did the new moon lose its iron heart?The current theory says that the material that now forms our moon was ejected when Earth was struck by another planet-sized body. But Peter Noerdlinger at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Canada, says this theory has problems. "The collision has to be implausibly gentle. You practically need someone to hold a Mars-sized object just above Earth and drop it, to avoid messing up Earth's orbit."
New Scientist
January 23, 2007
The simpler idea that Earth and the moon were both created from the same gas cloud had been rejected because it could not explain why Earth formed an iron core and the moon did not. Now, Noerdlinger has an answer for that.
He suggests that the proto-moon did have an iron core, but that the satellite was ripped apart in a close encounter with Earth. His calculations show that iron from the core would be pulled towards Earth, while the remains of its rocky outer shell reassembled into our iron-free moon.
This fits with evidence that the Earth acquired a veneer of iron after it formed, Noerdlinger says. He presented the work at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle, Washington, last week.
From issue 2587 of New Scientist magazine, 23 January 2007, page 16
Tides would have been much stronger, as well.
Eventually the Earth will be tidally locked to the Moon, with a period of about 48 current days, and stop slowing down. The month and the day will each be 48 of our current days in duration.
Hello again, L in M.
That’s mentioned up there somewhere. In fact, I believe that’s been offered as a claimed refutation of the nautiloid data. :’)
but anyway...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1234919/posts?page=4#4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1234919/posts?page=10#10
new image location for message 23:
http://cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio_main/displayimage.php?pos=-64
link is still good:
Ironclad proof of the moon’s origin?
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf101/sf101a99.htm
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
Chinese Scientist Gives New Hypothesis on Origin of the MoonA planet collision may have helped form the Moon. This is the new hypothesis on the origin of the Moon by Huang Jinzhong, a geographer from the Seismology Bureau of Quanzhou City. Huang said two planets, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, collided and split some 4.6 billion years ago, and one of the fragments formed rudiments of the Moon. Huang supported his hypothesis with evidence of the Moon's internal structure and chemical components, the age of rocks on the Moon, and other geological data. A planet collision may have helped form the Moon. This is the new hypothesis on the origin of the Moon by Huang Jinzhong, a geographer from the Seismology Bureau of Quanzhou City, Fujian Province, according to latest issue of Beijing Review.
People's Daily
Thursday, November 29, 2001Rudiments of the Moon Comes From FragmentsIn a paper submitted to the annual meeting of the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Huang said two planets, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, collided and split some 4.6 billion years ago, and one of the fragments formed rudiments of the Moon.
This rudiment Moon was a melting celestial body, circling the Sun, according to Huang. Influenced by Jupiter's gravitation, its orbit began to change. The rudiment Moon collided with the South Pole region of the Earth some 4.46 billion years ago, and rebounded from it. The rebound force and Earth's centrifugal force then caused the Moon to circle around the Earth, he said.Evidence from Structure & Chemical ComponentsHuang supported his hypothesis with evidence of the Moon's internal structure and chemical components, the age of rocks on the Moon, and other geological data. Huang's hypothesis on the origin of the Moon comes from his theory of the genesis of the Solar System. Japanese geologist C. Hayaci said Huang's theory is an innovative school of thought in the field.
There have been four hypotheses on the origin of the Moon so far: First, the Moon was a fragment separated from the Earth; second, the Moon was an independent planet captured by the Earth's gravitational pull; third, both the Moon and the Earth were formed by the same cluster of celestial material; and fourth, the Moon was formed by substances sent out after a huge planetestimal collision with the Earth. Yet all of these theories are considered flawed in certain aspects.
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!
Thanks. The tidal transfer of momentum occurs in both directions; but the Moon is about one per cent the mass of the Earth, so it shows the same face to us as it orbits (and slowly turns on its axis). A satellite in prograde orbit (moving in orbit the same direction as the parent body turns on its axis) will enjoy a transfer of momentum and its altitude will increase. Even its own transfer of momentum to the parent body will do that. If there’s enough momentum to start with, the satellite will eventually fly off.
Who?
The moon is about 15% of the mass of the earth.
No, the mass of the Moon is about one per cent of the mass of the Earth.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
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.
