A Simple Theory to Earth's Moon Origin

[ronksf]

Most are aware that the dinosaurs and a moist tropical climate for most of earth's land surface existed possibly 225,000,000 years ago and then suddenly after millions of years at about 65,000,000 years ago all large living creatures(dinosaurs) suddenly became extinct and so did the climate that existed. Also, many scientists and archaeologists believe there was a continental divide(a shifting of tetonic plates) which turned one large land mass on earth into the basic land conformity we have today in the world. I have heard and read many theories of the ice age but it can't account for the enormous destruction and transformation that occurred to life on earth. First, I would like to explore the global tropical climate during the days of the dinosaurs and the giant vegetation for that period. A good reminder of that is on the coast of Maine at and around Kenny Bunkport. All those giant bamboo type petrified trees piled high along the coast line and people everyday walk over them, thinking they are rocks. This is an amazing display of an enormous ancient explosion or land movement. Also, has anyone wondered why the giant vegetation doesn't exist today. We have bamboo and giant redwoods, but they are dwarfed compared to those ancient trees. Also, what ever occurred created enough force to cover the existing vegetation of that time within a very short time frame or natural rot and decay would have taken place. Our oil deposits derived from this action. North of Austin Texas on Interstate 35 are caverns discovered during the inital construction of that highway. They are called InnerSpace Caverns. Many different forms of prehistoric life are found there. These caverns are accessible by a man made entrance. They have found two natural entrances to the caverns that were sealed with mud during a catastrophic event. With all prehistoric species found there it appears that a very quick and violent flood moving millions if not trillions of tons of material had sealed the fate of those animals. Also, with the global positioning system used to locate our moon it shows that the moon is moving away from the earth by about seven inches per year. I am taking a gamble that most readers have played a friendly game of pool or billiards or something similar that requires hitting one hard ball into another. Here is my theory: During pre-dinosaur and existing dinosaur age the Earth was on a wobbly axis and rotated very slowly with considerably less gravity(something close to the moon I would think). That gives us a reason for the tropical climate and large animals and vegetation. Here comes a meteor or small planet on a collision course with earth only it's impact with earth is a glancing blow and not a direct hit. If this occurred on the water side of the earth opposite of the large single land mass, the shock going through the earth's mantle could have caused the land mass to split apart and then the land masses were ravaged by the impending enormous ocean covering event from the impact. I could envision two to five thousand foot tidal waves covering all the continents that are sliding away from the primary(stationary) land mass that did not drift or move(Africa and Europe). This would have definitely covered all the vegetation and dinosaurs leaving only those surviving animals that lived or got to elevations over 6000 feet. Some dinosaurs survived but not for long because the impact would have caused the earth to straighten up on it's axis and increased it's rotational speed creating more gravity. Large animals and large vegetation could not survive the new increased gravitational force. The smaller planet/meteor would have rebounded a short distance from earth and started rotating also. Since, the moon's gravity is much less than ours I would think that that the larger mass of the earth started it rotating, but at a slower speed. This would also suggest the moon was not rotating prior to impact. Now, we know what effects the moon has had on earth in our current time. It is amazing to ponder what effects the moon had on the earth when it was 200,000 miles closer. The ocean waves must have been enormous for millions of years. I don't believe this impact would have sent the earth into the ice age if the initial impact occurred in the oceans on the opposite side of the earth's land mass. I also believe that the moon after impact with it's new gravitational influence on the earth and it's closer position to earth, would have created an atmosphere with a large electro-magnetic influence and helped influence the development/evolution of life on earth that was more neural electrically enhanced.

 

[UFmbutler]

First of all, please use paragraphs, that was painful to read through.

About your suggestion, it is believed the moon was created(most likely) when a Mars-sized object collided with the very early Earth, in the early stages of our solar system's formation. I think it is far simpler to assume the moon was already there when the dinosaurs were and a simple asteroid caused their extinction. Conceptually(because physically your idea is probably impossible), it seems too complicated to be what really happened. Usually the simpler solution is the correct one.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...A Simple Theory to Earth's Moon Origin..

Ummmm.. No. But, welcome to SDC anyway!

Do a quick search for "Tidal rhythmites."

http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/conte ... /69/6/1154
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ancient+t ... a015831844

Earthbound, evidence clearly shows a Moon existing substantially before the time you indicate. Of course, this is completely aside from the obvious data involving Moon's creation. The age of the rock specimens collected during Apollo, by estimates would be about 4.5 billion years, give or take.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes, please use paragraphs.

You will need to demonstrate (in a readable form) why your theory is better than the current best theoy of a lage impact with earth a few hundred thousand years after the solar system formation.

 

[ronksf]

To all who was concerned about the moon's age. I only suggested at to when the mass became earth's moon and I did not theorize how old the mass was. Additionally, moon rocks brought back from the Apollo mission have been found to be very similar to core samples tested from several oil and gas drilling rigs across the world. I have watched the high speed impact movie from NASA showing two planets colliding and a moon being formed. I wasn't suggesting a high speed impact. I was suggesting a very near miss or glancing blow. Ancient petrified tree rings are also suggestive of a much slower revolution of the earth during their life span when compared to modern time tree rings. The study of ariythimites is still conjectual theory and not proven science. We do know however, that the earth's rotation is slowing down in milliseconds every year and that it is believed the moon's gravitational pull on the earth is the greatest cause for this.

 

[origin]

I detect a couple or 3 things about your theory that are, uh, implausible but one thing in particular caught my attention:

You said:

Here is my theory: During pre-dinosaur and existing dinosaur age the Earth was on a wobbly axis and rotated very slowly with considerably less gravity(something close to the moon I would think).

Why was there less gravity?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Why was the earth on a wobbly axis? Why was it rotating more slowly, since physics doesn't permit that?

 

[ronksf]

Why was the earth on a wobbly axis? Why was it rotating more slowly, since physics doesn't permit that?

Physics does support the earth wobbling or spiraling on a slower rotation. A simple experiment would be to place a basketball on the floor and spin it and watch what occurs as it slows down. Do the same thing with a top(play toy).
All planets that we know of has a gravity from equal to or greater than 0, corresponding to the amount of rotation it has. On the question of why was it rotating more slowly? I can only ponder that it could have been caused by forces exerted on it from the big bang(creation) or from the rotating forces of anti-matter as a result of a dying star, etc.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Invalid response. Since the Moon has been around for more than 4 billion years, and muliticellular life only for a billion or two..and the dinosaurs up until 65 million years ago or so, the assertion that the earth's axis was wobbly so recently is silly.

Bzzzzzt
:roll:

 

[ronksf]

Is it? I haven't found anyone yet who saw our moon there 4 billion years ago, nor is there any scientific proof that the moon was orbiting the earth 4 billion years ago. Last I looked we are still using carbon dating techniques based on the life span of certain radioactive material. I agree that this is probably the most accurate system available, so far it still can not tell us with any degree of certainity how old the moon is, based off a few rock samples brought back from the moon. They will have to carbon date some pretty deep core samples on future moon explorations to tell us that. We don't even begin to theorize with any scientific certainity that the rock samples brought back from the moon, actually originated on the moon. If the earth was rotating much slower at one point in time than it is now, as I have theorized, that would also change the carbon dating equation for determining the half life decay of uranium thus changing all data related to dating of material. I am glad you found it entertaining or amusing.

Invalid response. Since the Moon has been around for more than 4 billion years, and muliticellular life only for a billion or two..and the dinosaurs up until 65 million years ago or so, the assertion that the earth's axis was wobbly so recently is silly.

Bzzzzzt
:roll:

 

[MeteorWayne]

You need to educate yourself a little more.

Carbon dating is only useful for tens to about 100 thousand years.

The dating of earth and lunar materials uses radiactive decay of isotopes with much longer half lives such as U-Pb, Thorium, Hafnium-Tungsten, etc.

The age of the oldest earth rocks and the age of the lunar rocks are known with pretty high precision. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago, about 30–50 million years after the origin of the Solar System.

 

[Astro_Robert]

Ronksf,

The whole spining top thing you discussed is known as Precession. I am certain it is well known to the folks on this board. In fact, the Earth does Precess a little, which is why the 'North Star' changes on a time scale of ~26,000 years if I recall correctly. However, if you are suggesting that the Earth was slowly wobbling, when suddenly an event 65 million Years ago caused the moon to form at its far orbit and stabilize the earth at a faster rate, that is a truly fantastic claim that is not self consistent with the evidence.

Using gravitational tidal effects it is possible to work back in time to when the moon was closer to about geosynchronus orbit. Being a large object past this point, tidal interactions 'pull' the moon farther ahead and cause it to increase its orbit a very small amount each year. After a couple billion years this amounts to 250,000 miles. To presuppose that the moon could form out in its current vicinity, or otherwise migrate their in 65 million years is not credible. No, it is not.

As far as 'a few rock samples', keep in mind that weathering on Earth tends to eliminate many Earth rocks, which is why we usually have to dig deep to find old rocks. Sometimes the Earth's crust folds up on itself due to plate tectonics and reveals older crust from past climates (such as fosilized tropical plants in colder climates such as Maine today). On the airless moon, the principle forms of weathering are impacts and solar wind which work much more slowly. Thus it was not overly difficult for the Apollo astronauts to pick up old rocks from the surface. Also recall that NASA sent a trained geologist on one trip, specifically to choose interesting rocks.

Finally, I would really go with Meteor Wayne on the ancient origin of the moon on this one. I am not certain why you believe that Earth's rotation rate has such a drastic impact on dating techniques on the moon but not on Dinosaur fossils. Hint: the same family of techniques that date the Dinosaurs to 65 million years ago, date the moon to 4.5 billion years ago as Meteor Wayne has said.


Astro

 

[ronksf]

Astro, Thanks for your input and I appreciate the opportunity for discussion. It has been 30 or 40 years since I last reviewed the carbon dating equation and I found it has not changed. Yes, I was aware of using radioactive isotopes to date items beyond 50,000 years old. I guess the key point I was trying to make is that the whole dating equation regardless of what isotope you use, is based on half-life theory of decay. That is expressed in "current earth year data" and not a more consistent light year data. Using earth years, (if the earth was rotating 3 to 6 times slower 250 million years ago) and if that was applied to the dating equation it would definitely make everything over "65 million years old or whenever the earth and pre-moon object impact took place " much, much younger than we presume it to be now. For example if a radioactive isotope believed to have a half-life span of 3 million years, however, and the earth was 4 times slower than previously known, when dating ancient objects of that period the half-life of the same isotope would only be about 273,000 ancient years and this type of data would need to be put into our modern day equation to develop precise data for actual dating. Another thing you might want to consider about surface moon rocks. The moon's surface is not subjected to erosion as we know it on earth but, it is subjected to a very large amount of space erosion and contamination. With out a suitable atmosphere that would incinerate or vaporize more than 80 percent of all space material entering it as it does here on earth, the moon's surface for however old it may be, has been subjected to this constant barrage of space material and ice. To think that a single geologist who once visited the moon for such a brief period of time,would be able to select the most valuable specimens of material that would definitively represent the origin and age of the moon. Well, I'll just say the thought of that has lost all scientific objectivity. That is like someone taking a piece from a meterorite here on earth and trying to proclaim factual data on the earths age. Once we gain more exposure to the moon's surface and have exploration teams or colonies living there, I am sure, as history has too often recorded, that what some believe now will be different tomorrow.

Ronksf,

The whole spining top thing you discussed is known as Precession. I am certain it is well known to the folks on this board. In fact, the Earth does Precess a little, which is why the 'North Star' changes on a time scale of ~26,000 years if I recall correctly. However, if you are suggesting that the Earth was slowly wobbling, when suddenly an event 65 million Years ago caused the moon to form at its far orbit and stabilize the earth at a faster rate, that is a truly fantastic claim that is not self consistent with the evidence.

Using gravitational tidal effects it is possible to work back in time to when the moon was closer to about geosynchronus orbit. Being a large object past this point, tidal interactions 'pull' the moon farther ahead and cause it to increase its orbit a very small amount each year. After a couple billion years this amounts to 250,000 miles. To presuppose that the moon could form out in its current vicinity, or otherwise migrate their in 65 million years is not credible. No, it is not.

As far as 'a few rock samples', keep in mind that weathering on Earth tends to eliminate many Earth rocks, which is why we usually have to dig deep to find old rocks. Sometimes the Earth's crust folds up on itself due to plate tectonics and reveals older crust from past climates (such as fosilized tropical plants in colder climates such as Maine today). On the airless moon, the principle forms of weathering are impacts and solar wind which work much more slowly. Thus it was not overly difficult for the Apollo astronauts to pick up old rocks from the surface. Also recall that NASA sent a trained geologist on one trip, specifically to choose interesting rocks.

Finally, I would really go with Meteor Wayne on the ancient origin of the moon on this one. I am not certain why you believe that Earth's rotation rate has such a drastic impact on dating techniques on the moon but not on Dinosaur fossils. Hint: the same family of techniques that date the Dinosaurs to 65 million years ago, date the moon to 4.5 billion years ago as Meteor Wayne has said.


Astro

 

[MeteorWayne]

ronskf,
You have a completely incorrect assumption in your analysis. The rotation rate of the earth has no measurable effect on radiactive decay rates, so your whole analysis is false.

If you want to discount decades of scientific work on radioctive decay dating of the earth, moon, and meteorites, you're going to have to come up with something better. This is not an emerging field of investigation, it has been well established and verified science (using multiple methods) for decades.

I think it is you who has lost all scientific objectivity.

 

[drwayne]

"Using earth years, (if the earth was rotating 3 to 6 times slower 250 million years ago)"

Rotating in what sense, about it's own axis, or about the sun?

If about it's own axis, are you trying to say that a "day" would be longer, therefore 365 days would
be longer?

Wayne

 

[ronksf]

Yes, about it's own axis and possibly in a slower orbit about the sun. There would not have been 365 days to a year. I would say a day might have been 80 to 120 hours long, with 120 to160 of these days to one year if the orbital speed around the sun was the same as it currently is. I suspect it was slower. It would actually depend on the direction from which the impact came. The impact would have to come from a 4:00 oclock to 8:00 oclock rear earth orbital direction to increase the earth's orbital speed forward. I don't know if this minimal type of impact would increase the earth's orbital speed around the sun but, there would have been a lot of energy there not to have some type of opposite reaction. With the mass to mass ratio of the moon to earth, it probably would affect it some, shortening the seasons on earth somewhat to what they currently are. Additionally, if the moon was 250,000 miles closer, the earth would certainly be receiving more reflective light from the lunar surface at times. ronksf

"Using earth years, (if the earth was rotating 3 to 6 times slower 250 million years ago)"

Rotating in what sense, about it's own axis, or about the sun?

If about it's own axis, are you trying to say that a "day" would be longer, therefore 365 days would
be longer?

Wayne

 

[trumptor]

All planets that we know of has a gravity from equal to or greater than 0, corresponding to the amount of rotation it has.

and

increased it's rotational speed creating more gravity.

Wouldn't the Earth's mass be the reason for our gravity, and not our rotational speed? And, wouldn't a faster rotational speed create a centrifugal force opposing gravity and not aiding it?

I saw you referring to an increased rotational speed creating a greater gravitational effect several times in the above posts. I'm trying to understand what you are saying and the only thing I can imagine that would make sense to me is that you think we live in a hollow Earth, which would create a larger gravitational effect with increased rotational speed as long as we lived on the inside. Is this what you are implying?

 

[ronksf]

No, I'm not implying that we live inside a hollow earth. And Newton's law on gravity utilizing the masses formula is the most common practiced theory used today. Additionally, I am not an astrophysicist, but I have read several of their discussions lately acknowledging that gravity is the least understood of physics today, especially after the detection of micro gravity existing in deep space away from masses. I relate to you that something occurred to planet earth that prevented the very large animals and vegetation from rebirth, and regrowth. I do not believe that we will find more oil deposits in the earths surface below 30,000 feet, unless it is found at the greatest depths of the oceans. My theory of earth rotation is based on your statement somewhat. Artificial gravity when produced from within a rotational hollow structure creates gravity. Although, NASA's attempts to create artificial gravity on previous space flights have only resulted in micro-gravity being produced and the crew could not feel it's effects on their bodies, the fact still remains that gravity (however small) was produced by rotational action. We know that gravity does not just apply to the inside of the spacecraft, but if it could be generated strong enough it would also affect the area outside the aircraft proportionate to mass. The gravity created by the earth affects everything on it's surface and many miles out. Why can't the theory of creating artificial gravity and the earth's gravity concur and support each other. I am saying that rotation and mass determine the gravitional pull. We look at our moon and we think well because of Newton's law, it is smaller in mass and thus, the gravity is less. But, it also has a slower rotation than earth. I think we will also find, the earth's core is not moving as fast if at all and is also responsible for creating gravity. If that were to be true, than mass and rotation would have to be applied to determine gravitional pull.

 

[lewislink2]

Yes, about it's own axis and possibly in a slower orbit about the sun. There would not have been 365 days to a year. I would say a day might have been 80 to 120 hours long, with 120 to160 of these days to one year if the orbital speed around the sun was the same as it currently is. I suspect it was slower. It would actually depend on the direction from which the impact came. The impact would have to come from a 4:00 oclock to 8:00 oclock rear earth orbital direction to increase the earth's orbital speed forward. I don't know if this minimal type of impact would increase the earth's orbital speed around the sun but, there would have been a lot of energy there not to have some type of opposite reaction. With the mass to mass ratio of the moon to earth, it probably would affect it some, shortening the seasons on earth somewhat to what they currently are. Additionally, if the moon was 250,000 miles closer, the earth would certainly be receiving more reflective light from the lunar surface at times. ronksf

I feel the need to kick in here and add some perspective. There are some physics that aren't being taken into consideration...though you have presented a very intersting read. If the Earth were rotating slower, days would be longer, but the orbit of the Earth around the Sun can't slow down because of the balance of the Earth's momentum, propelling it out into space based on its mass, versus the Sun's gravity pulling it into itself. Earth's orbital speed currently counteracts the Sun's gravitational pull.

If the Earth were to slow down in orbit, we'd all get an eyeful of Venus, and then Mercury, as we passed by them on inward to give a hug to the Sun.

However, if the Earth were larger at the time you refer to, this would provide greater mass which would need a slower orbital speed. Though I'm not certain about this. I can't seem to rationalize the needed amount of mass ...lesser or greater...to make the need for a slower Earth orbit. Then again, according to Newtons two different masses falling from a watchtower, it may not make any difference, since the two different mass values fell to Earth at the same rate.

 

[MeteorWayne]

For all intents and purposes, the mass of the orbiting body is irrelevant. A doubling of the earth's mass would make no change of any significance in it's orbit around the sun.

 

[lewislink2]

For all intents and purposes, the mass of the orbiting body is irrelevant. A doubling of the earth's mass would make no change of any significance in it's orbit around the sun.

That's correct, which is why I qualified my words. The size or mass of the Earth could be about anything and it wouldn't make any difference in the gravitational pull of the Sun. The Sun, just like the Earth as demonstrated by Newton, will pull at the same rate on entirely different masses.

The idea being put forth was the possibility the Earth's orbit around the Sun was originally slower than it currently is. If the Earth were orbiting slower at some point in the past, it wouldn't have the correct amount of repulsion to counter the Suns pull. It would therefor be pulled into the Sun. However, there is a way to rationalize a slower Earth orbit by repositioning it farther away from the Sun. A farther position would require less repulsion, which means a slower orbital velocity.

Unfortunately, unless the Earth were of a different composition, this would cause climate problems. Currently, where the Earth is in orbit around the sun, it is in the sweet spot for a temperate climate. Theorizing - If the Earth were twice the current mass at a farther orbit around the Sun, there might possibly could be climate stability. But nobody knows if this could be the case.