Question Earth Moon Origin

Page 3 - 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.
All n-body orbits are chaotic. It is unavoidable.
Chaotic orbits of large numbers of objects will eventually form a disc as nothing can pass through it, everything must get in line and settle in but one orbital plane.
Collisions will eventually form plantes.
 
I wouldn't put much faith in the current formation theories.

Look closely at the ringlets of Saturn. These ringlets are spinning as they revolve around. And I believe this formation has an inherent ability to reform, after an external stimuli(such as gravity from another satellite) or collision.

I don't believe our science has discerned the motion of gravity completely.

Look real close at all that comprises those rings. They all are in a helical spin. The moons of Saturn travel the same way, only, they only have one spin per rotation, instead of many. Just like our moon and earth. A one turn helix. And orbit is two angular rotations. A small one stretched out inside a large one.
 
Hello one and all.

Science is about discussion of different theories.
Throughout history mob science without evidence leads to a dead end.

Classical Motion
If all the planets have a uniform motion.
You would expect the same origin.
 
The planets are not in formation, the ringlets are......look at them. The trajectory.....the path....is common to all natural orbits. And that trajectory or path is a helical path. The planets and moons have one turn orbits. A one turn helical orbit.......looks like an ellipse.

But the directional forces necessary for an ellipse and a one turn helix.....are completely different.

The ringlets have many turns per orbit, not just one. Like a toroidal coil.

This is the same kind of mistakes our science is full of. It's like the 2 slit experiments. Most think that after seeing the 2 slit in water mode, then photon mode, then electron mode..........that this proves that light is a wave and that electrons can behave like a wave.

This is because of the common interference pattern. But they are wrong again.

And this is why Einstein was half right.....and the work of Bohr and Bell were and are bananas

The cross-hatch pattern of interference of the water wave..........is made by an entirely different dynamic than the pattern of photons and electrons.

But none of our scientists can see it. Just like our orbits. They fail to see it.

The 2 slit EX does NOT show that electrons are wave like. The 2 slit EX shows that photons are quantum. Just like Einstein said. Photons are discreet, intermittent pulses, like a particle. Light has a duty cycle.....NOT a frequency. The crosshatch of photons and electrons is a duty cycle dynamic. The cross hatch of water is a frequency dynamic.

This is what the 2 slit shows me. Just the opposite of what they say. It's always the opposite of what they say.

Because all science is based on a false narrative of light.

This universe only has one physical structure. All objects are made of this ONE structure. So all things have the same origin.
 
There is another aspect about the moon. It seems to be electrified. Charge doesn't seem to dissipate like it does here on earth. We might have to put deep ground rods in. To help with the dust problem. That's new sharp dust.....it's dangerous dust. Electrified dust.

But ground rods might not help, if the whole moon has a charge. Maybe the motion of the moon thru earth's field keeps it charged.
 
Oct 4, 2023
16
12
15
Visit site
How did our moon form?
Smooth on near side
Rough mountains on the dark side.
The formation of the Moon is a fascinating topic in planetary science. The leading theory for the Moon's formation is the Giant Impact Hypothesis.

The Giant Impact: About 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized object called "Theia" collided with the early Earth in a cataclysmic impact. The energy from this collision was so immense that it liquefied both Theia and the outer layers of the Earth.

Moon Formation: Debris from the collision was ejected into space and began to orbit the Earth. Over time, this debris coalesced and formed the Moon. It was initially a molten, hot body.

Differences in Surface: The differences in the Moon's surface between the near side and the far side are due to variations in the cooling and solidification process. The near side, which faces Earth, cooled more slowly, allowing large, solidified pools of lava to form. These are the smooth plains known as maria.

The Dark Side: The far side of the Moon, often mistakenly called the "dark side" (it gets sunlight just like the near side), cooled more quickly and has more rugged, mountainous terrain. This is why there's a noticeable contrast in surface features.

This formation process explains the Moon's surface has these distinct characteristics, with smoother plains on the near side and rougher, mountainous areas on the far side. It's a reminder of the dynamic history and evolution of our celestial neighbor.
 
Static charges will always be a problem on the moon. It dissipates on the Earth because of conductivity of the atmosphere, especially with higher humidity. No air on the moon, the dust has no way to dissipate quickly because there is no contact with anything. The dust motes seem to be at the same charge as the surface since it tends to float because it’s repelled. No, I don’t think ground rods would work.
It may require a shower in the airlock to rinse off the dust before doffing the suit upon entry.
 
Nov 25, 2019
44
16
4,535
Visit site
Static charges will always be a problem on the moon. It dissipates on the Earth because of conductivity of the atmosphere, especially with higher humidity. No air on the moon, the dust has no way to dissipate quickly because there is no contact with anything. The dust motes seem to be at the same charge as the surface since it tends to float because it’s repelled. No, I don’t think ground rods would work.
It may require a shower in the airlock to rinse off the dust before doffing the suit upon entry.
A water shower is one extreme solution. Less extreme is a blast of high-humidity air and then the suspended dust gets sucked through a filter.

Water is a good idea but it is heavy.

Likey the real, final solution is robots that don't need to come back inside. The only reason to send people is because our robots are not very good. This will change.
 
Hello one and all
just dropped in for a sec

I wish I had a time machine.
I have been run off my feet.

OK maybe the blast from the past may have created the moon.

We should have more info in the near future.
 
The formation of the moon has been hypothesized from many theories.
The paper below may have something to offer and is worth reading.
I will leave my comment out for now.

[Submitted on 25 Oct 2023]

Origin of the Moon and Lunar Water​

Nick Gorkavyi
Three principal concepts regarding lunar formation have been examined: the accretion hypothesis, the mega-impact theory, and the multi-impact model. The multi-impact model amalgamates the salient facets of the mega-impact theory and the accretion hypothesis. As per this model, fragments of the terrestrial crust are ejected into space during collisions with numerous planetesimals (proto-asteroids) with diameters around 10-100 kilometers. This ejecta interacts with the accretion disk, augmenting its mass. Different models of lunar formation yield varied conclusions regarding the quantity of lunar water, its subsurface distribution, and isotopic composition. Geomorphological structures in the lunar polar regions (smoothed craters, landslides, regular patterns) suggest the presence of a substantial permafrost layer with an approximate thickness of a kilometer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
FYI, a few simple observations on exomoons compared to explaining the origin of our Moon. When looking for answers to the origin of our Moon, I also look at the exoplanets too.

Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03786

"There are more than 200 moons in our Solar System, but their relatively small radii make similarly sized extrasolar moons very hard to detect with current instruments. The best exomoon candidates so far are two nearly Neptune-sized bodies orbiting the Jupiter-sized transiting exoplanets Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b, but their existence has been contested..."

Space.com has some interesting reports on exomoons and discussions like this thread. https://forums.space.com/threads/th...and-scientists-may-have-just-found-one.53500/

Using the exoplanet sites, https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html, reports 5557 exoplanets confirmed. 946 host stars show exoplanet systems with 2 to 8 exoplanets (multi planet systems). 114 stars show exoplanet systems with 4 to 8 exoplanets. https://exoplanet.eu/home/, this site reports 5558 exoplanets confirmed. 888 host stars reported with 2-8 exoplanets. 112 host stars with 4-8 exoplanets shown. While our solar system has some 200 or more small moons, we do not know at this time if the other solar systems confirmed in exoplanet studies have moons or any analog to a moon formed via a giant impact like claimed for our Moon at Earth. I can always assume this but not presently confirmed. Here is another solar system report that indicates six exoplanets in orbit, no moons known for certain and super-earths too, something very different than our solar system configuration.

The TESS-Keck Survey XVII: Precise Mass Measurements in a Young, High Multiplicity Transiting Planet System using Radial Velocities and Transit Timing Variations, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04635

My note, from the 33-page PDF report, "Here we present a follow-up analysis of TOI-1136, a system with at least six transiting planets first characterized by Dai et al. (2023, hereafter D23), and a candidate seventh. TOI-1136 is a young (700 ± 100 Myr), bright (V=9.5) G dwarf that has several planets that exhibit significant transit timing variations (TTVs), allowing for the precise characterization of most planet masses with photometry alone...TOI-1136 consists entirely of sub-Neptune sized planets, likely none of them terrestrial. Further, none are large enough to call gas giants, either, and the planet sizes do not follow any clear sequence or demarcation, with the largest planet third from the star. We highlight the architectural differences in Figure 9. TOI-1136’s youth is yet another distinguishing feature that adds to the system’s value.", ref - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.04635.pdf

My note. Are there exomoons orbiting these six exoplanets, all six planets larger than earth? Unknown at present and no indication of a moon formed via a giant impact model like used for Earth's Moon. When I read about science model explanations for the origin of the Moon I see using my telescopes, I like to keep things like this in mind :)
 
Last edited:
Looking at similarities between the Moon and the Earth, it seems they have the same origin.

When our Sun last event going supernova, expelling matter in an hourglass formation.
Explains the Iron core in both.
Fe in the solar envelope is one of the most stable elements having a full shell. Any elements formed above FE, photo-disintegrates to FE.

This Iron gives birth to the planets core in the Solar System.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Looking at similarities between the Moon and the Earth, it seems they have the same origin.

When our Sun last event going supernova, expelling matter in an hourglass formation.
Explains the Iron core in both.
Fe in the solar envelope is one of the most stable elements having a full shell. Any elements formed above FE, photo-disintegrates to FE.

This Iron gives birth to the planets core in the Solar System.
Harry, you know our sun has never gone nova. At the same time the sun formed from compacting galactic star material, the left-over stuff from star birth began forming the planets, asteroids, etc.

The originating material, primordial, may have come from some supernova . . . or even the material of a few supernovas . . . or even the material of countless many black (white) holes in ' body finale' of existence as black (white) holes . . . more than one. Repetition, the wheels of time turning (turn: verse (one turn of countless turns . . . one verse -- universe -- of countless verses (versus)).

My "like" to you above is because you are always a cause for thought and inspiration if any is to be had. I, for one, may not always agree with your production from your thought, study and work, but it is a constant cause of inductive reasoning. Never stop going for it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Hello Atlan
I disagree.
For our Solar System to form and have common Iron Core, and distribute planets etc, must have gone through an hourglass formation, yes there is also the possibility of going through a Nebulae.
To say that our sun formed from a compact process, maybe one option.
To form billions of stars, we have to go back to pre-spiral of our Milkyway Galaxy.

How the spirals formed, is the key process to understanding how billions of stars may form.

M87 although it's an Elliptical Galaxy, it has Dipolar Jets, along the jets reside millions of stars.
Compact core such as M87 is over 6 billion solar masses. (In my opinion over 10 billion)
The jets originate from the compact core releasing droplets of condensates that seed stars.

In the case of the Milkyway, the spirals are evidence of time when the condensate core was very active, releasing jets that formed the spiral, and along the spiral now live billions of stars.

Origins and formations of Galaxies and stars, we are at the steps of understanding.

Maybe my way of thinking maybe in error.

Bottom answer is, we are searching for the answers.

The minute we say, we know is the minute we stop searching with an emotion of hunger.
 
Hello Atlan
I disagree.
For our Solar System to form and have common Iron Core, and distribute planets etc, must have gone through an hourglass formation, yes there is also the possibility of going through a Nebulae.
To say that our sun formed from a compact process, maybe one option.
To form billions of stars, we have to go back to pre-spiral of our Milkyway Galaxy.

How the spirals formed, is the key process to understanding how billions of stars may form.

M87 although it's an Elliptical Galaxy, it has Dipolar Jets, along the jets reside millions of stars.
Compact core such as M87 is over 6 billion solar masses. (In my opinion over 10 billion)
The jets originate from the compact core releasing droplets of condensates that seed stars.

In the case of the Milkyway, the spirals are evidence of time when the condensate core was very active, releasing jets that formed the spiral, and along the spiral now live billions of stars.

Origins and formations of Galaxies and stars, we are at the steps of understanding.

Maybe my way of thinking maybe in error.

Bottom answer is, we are searching for the answers.

The minute we say, we know is the minute we stop searching with an emotion of hunger.
Things are in constant movement, a universal constant except for one naked singularity of a constant Horizon Universe of all of infinity of horizon universes. What makes you think stars may move and collide, galaxies may move and collide, but warp bubble universes don't and won't move and collide and/or pass by and through one another. Discreet quanta are universal at all scales of magnitude but the one shared by them all. If that event is on all observed, observable, scales and reaches, microcosm and macrocosm, it projects to all the unobserved, unobservable, scales and reaches.

There are the entities that have always gone away to primordial soup before in the turning wheels of universes and the entities that are always going away to a primordial soup to bang back into whatever it is to be banged back and formed into. Some physicists, also some chemists and so on, are wondering now how many elements are there, to the universe, we know absolutely nothing about because we have none of them . . . that we know of . . . in our own particular yard of universe at this particular time.
 
I added this paper so that we have alternative theories.
Sorry Im holding my opinion back, for now.


[Submitted on 19 May 2004 (v1), last revised 5 Jan 2005 (this version, v2)]

Where Did The Moon Come From?​

Edward Belbruno, J. Richard Gott III (Princeton)
The current standard theory of the origin of the Moon is that the Earth was hit by a giant impactor the size of Mars causing ejection of iron poor impactor mantle debris that coalesced to form the Moon. But where did this Mars-sized impactor come from? Isotopic evidence suggests that it came from 1AU radius in the solar nebula and computer simulations are consistent with it approaching Earth on a zero-energy parabolic trajectory. But how could such a large object form in the disk of planetesimals at 1AU without colliding with the Earth early-on before having a chance to grow large or before its or the Earth's iron core had formed? We propose that the giant impactor could have formed in a stable orbit among debris at the Earth's Lagrange point L4 (or L5). We show such a configuration is stable, even for a Mars-sized impactor. It could grow gradually by accretion at L4 (or L5), but eventually gravitational interactions with other growing planetesimals could kick it out into a chaotic creeping orbit which we show would likely cause it to hit the Earth on a zero-energy parabolic trajectory. This paper argues that this scenario is possible and should be further studied.
 
Feb 29, 2024
2
1
15
Visit site
Harry Costas, interesting question. The present-day science model answer is the giant impact with Theia and a proto-earth. After the giant impact between Theia and the proto-earth, the Moon continues to evolve from the debris disc postulated to form close to the proto-earth and the smaller, proto-earth continues to accrete and grow into its present-day size and mass.

Showing specifics for this scenario is difficult like what was the original length of day for the proto-earth, how much mass did it have, how close was the proto-Moon or Moon to the proto-earth after the giant impact, etc.
The best estimate for day length was 10 hours at first. Planetary scientists have calculated that the moon used to be seventeen times closer (14,000 miles vs. 250,000 miles) when it formed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
hello Atlin
you are assuming primordial.
No evidence to support a start to the universe.
A little late to respond to this one, Harry, but suddenly I want your opinion! What exactly constitutes a universe in your opinion? Any others want to proffer an opinion on what exactly constitutes a universe? Entity? Quality? Quantity? Size (Stephen Hawking advanced the idea of baby universes, possibly including our own (adopted into movies such as 'Men in Black' and questions of how universes could fit on the head of a pin . . . or the old lady's telling that it is one universe to the back of each one turtle, it being turtles all the way down without end))? What exactly constitutes a universe?
 
I consider the universe to be all that we can see or detect. Beyond the CMBR, redshifted beyond detection is another universe. Inside each Black Hole is a different universe, Marin County in CA, South of Houston in NYC other examples. Some call the total assemblage the "Multiverse" but I think "Sluggoverse" has a nicer ring to it. And if you are changing lyrics to songs and poems, "Sluggoverse" has the same number of syllables as "universe" so it would be very convenient. I have more advantages if you are unconvinced. Perhaps I shall start a campaign. First I need to decide on a ribbon. Blue background with bright stars might work. I am just thinking out loud here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pogo and Atlan0001
What is the Universe?

Infinite in space and time.
Infinite cannot contract or expand.

The matter within the universe has a never-ending story of cyclic events.

Our tools through history have expanded our knowledge.

We have a great idea of what is happening out there.

Yet! We have much more to learn.
 

Latest posts