Did moon come from earth?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billslugg

Guest
Will<br />Yes, sulfide of course. But with an iron situation, sly on sulfur, oxygen predominant, reddish/orange should show, In an excess of oxygen, hematite (Red), Fe2O3 will prevail. If you scrape off the reddish/orange stuff and get down to the bottom you will find a black stuff - magnetite) Fe3O5. So, in essence - you are right. The moon, if it had been created with Fe and 02 from the same interstellar mix as earth, mostly in a vacuum, with a dearth of O2, black should predominate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
To me the results of Apollo do support this theory. Here is some more argument for it in regard the earth moon formation.<br /><br />There are important considerations in terms of gravity and atmosphere. The larger body will have more thickness of atmosphere to slow a meteor before impact, and help contain the residual splatter. A smaller body with little atmosphere will have pretty much full impact with much more splatter of the surface and much of that will escape the weaker gravity of that body. Some of that splatter will end up here, where very little of earth’s splatter would get to the moon. <br /><br />The moon was a smaller target in the first place for space matter to collect. <br /><br />If lets say many of the meteors in those days were iron, there would over time be a difference in surface content of the two bodies. I’m thinking due to meteoric impact the earth at least doubled in size during its cooling period, but that might be hard to determine since in a plastic state the earth would heat this matter and absorb it and not produce definable strata in those early times. One clue might actually be the moon because being smaller it would cool much faster in the period after first formation than the earth. So the moon’s surface should contain more definable strata.<br /><br />Water would come from comets later and we know the moons gravity is insufficient to hold much of an atmosphere let alone water. I think there are fewer problems with these notions than there are with the impacter notions.<br /><br />
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
moon and earth were born simultaneusly.Can we think?Its all the same nebula.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
It's just not possible to rob a body created simultaneously of THAT much Fe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
I don’t think much robbery was going on. The Earth being a larger target and with much more of an atmosphere simply retains more of the incoming material coming from everywhere in the solar system at that time.<br /><br />My main contention is that at that time there were tremendous amounts of meteoric material in small to medium size that had iron in it that biased the earth’s quota eventually over the moon and happened when both were still molten but the moon cooling somewhat faster than earth due to its smaller size.<br /><br />This notion has some logical support whereas the notion of an impacter fails in regard any residual evidence and also does not explain adequately why the earth and moon surfaces are different both in terms of appearance and content. If a large impacter had occurred, then some kind of evidence should be found, yet there is none.<br />
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />For me, the part about what is left of the impactor becoming Mercury is unlikely. As I see it, heavier elements, like Iron, would sink down the gravity wells towards the center of planets and the Sun. If you look at the solar system, we have the planets mostly sorted by density.</font><br /><br />I don't see how you can disagree with the hypothesis that Mercury could have hit the Earth, when your statement agrees with wiki:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29<br /><br /><i>Mercury is one of the four terrestrial planets, being a rocky body like the Earth. It is the smallest of the four, with a diameter of 4879 km at its equator. Mercury consists of approximately 70% metallic and 30% silicate material. THE DENSITY OF THE PLANET IS THE SECOND HIGHEST IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM at 5.43 g/cm³, ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS THAN EARTH'S DENSITY. <br /><br />Mercury’s density can be used to infer details of its inner structure. While the Earth’s high density results appreciably from gravitational compression, particularly at the core, Mercury is much smaller and its inner regions are not nearly as strongly compressed. Therefore, for it to have such a high density, its core must be large and rich in iron.[7] Geologists estimate that Mercury’s core occupies about 42% of its volume. (For Earth this proportion is 17%.) <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_Internal_Structure.svg</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The problem is there's no logical way to get an earth impactor into Mercury's orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Agreed - no way to get Mercury there. And even the suggestion that it bounced off something else near Sol is darned near impossible. Relativity tells us that anything massive enough to bounce Mercury from continuing on would also perturb the orbits of the inner planets, and would therefore be detectable, even if we couldn't see it. No more planets awaiting discovery betwixt here and Sol, I'm afraid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />One way your scenario could happen would be for an object to smack into the Earth, come to a near stop, fall to the sun, hit another object and then fall into current Mercury orbit. There must be another body somewhere down there near the sun to settle into a near sun orbit. </font><br /><br />Ok, what if Mercury hit another object (in it's present orbit), and knocked that object into the sun? Keeping in mind, that 4 billion years ago, there was a lot of stuff floating around the sun, at various distances. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The energy just doesn't work. An object that is on it's way to the sun and hits Mercury, is going to wind up as toast, IN the sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
As noted in my post, the planets are mostly sorted by density. Mercury resides exactly in that order -- densest material at the bottom of the gravity well. How would so much heavy material end up near the Earth's orbit that would allow the collision. If the heaviest material fell past the Earth's orbit before becoming part of a planet, you get Mercury -- not the impactor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
A

ashish27

Guest
Okay, I created the moon and thats final <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
I was definitely in topic. A previous poster in this branch suggested that the Moon was created when an impactor was not destroyed and became what we know call Mercury. Then another poster asked why I didn't believe that. As noted, I question that Mercury could have been formed away from its current position because of the sorting of the planets' density. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY