What if there was a scientific and geological explanation for the formation of the lunar seas other than the current scientific explanation?
Question What is the scientific and geological explanation for the existence of lunar seas?
- Thread starter Adel
- Start date
Such as? What are your thoughts on this?
On a forum, you should share your ideas/theories to start a discussion. Not just pose an open-ended question.
Last edited:
I do not think that meteorites and asteroids are the reason for the existence of lunar seas for several reasons, the most important of which is the absence of these seas on the far side of the moon.
I will start publishing my theory in order to discuss the scientific evidence on which the theory is based.
Okay. I'm sure members will be glad to comment when you do.
Thank you for your interest and I want to tell you that I have done what you asked of me and published the topic. I hope you will take a look. I would like to know your opinion. Best regards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clearly you have not formulated your theory.
Current theory is that the gravity of Earth pulled the more mantle of the Moon more toward the nearside surface, explaining why the crust is thinner on the Earth facing hemisphere than the outward facing hemisphere, thus, when large impacts occurred they not only resulted in large craters, capable of penetrating to the mantle boundaary, but also resulted in tectonic acivity that resulted in the flooding of these basins with magma, similar to the Large Igneous provinces we see on Earth, although the cause of these latter ones is not understood at this time.
Take a look at these two topographical maps NASA made of the Moon, as you can see, the dark blue are majhor magma deposits (Mare) and whilst they can be said to "dominate" the near side, they are far from devoid on the far side, in fact, as a pecentage of the surface, Mare on the near side cover 16% of the hemisphere, whilst the far side this is only 9%, but notice how dark blue the SPA Basin is (South Pole-Aitken Basin), that is because it is deeper and larger than any of the Mare on the nearside, comprising over 86% of the mare on the far side which was the result of an impact of an object estinmated to be around 250km across.
The other main reason for the difference is the afor mentioned crustal thickness, the average crustal thickness of the far side is double that of the near side. This means that any impacting object has to have around 4-6 times the energy on impact to punch through the surface to cause a tectonic reaction that resulted in a magma flooding of the crater floor.
Current theory is that the gravity of Earth pulled the more mantle of the Moon more toward the nearside surface, explaining why the crust is thinner on the Earth facing hemisphere than the outward facing hemisphere, thus, when large impacts occurred they not only resulted in large craters, capable of penetrating to the mantle boundaary, but also resulted in tectonic acivity that resulted in the flooding of these basins with magma, similar to the Large Igneous provinces we see on Earth, although the cause of these latter ones is not understood at this time.
Take a look at these two topographical maps NASA made of the Moon, as you can see, the dark blue are majhor magma deposits (Mare) and whilst they can be said to "dominate" the near side, they are far from devoid on the far side, in fact, as a pecentage of the surface, Mare on the near side cover 16% of the hemisphere, whilst the far side this is only 9%, but notice how dark blue the SPA Basin is (South Pole-Aitken Basin), that is because it is deeper and larger than any of the Mare on the nearside, comprising over 86% of the mare on the far side which was the result of an impact of an object estinmated to be around 250km across.
The other main reason for the difference is the afor mentioned crustal thickness, the average crustal thickness of the far side is double that of the near side. This means that any impacting object has to have around 4-6 times the energy on impact to punch through the surface to cause a tectonic reaction that resulted in a magma flooding of the crater floor.
- Near side: The crust is about 43 miles (70 kilometers) thick
- Far side: The crust is about 93 miles (150 kilometers) thick - some of the highland areas exceed 120 miles (194km)
I have formulated the theory but all I have to do is look for a scientific journal to publish the theory with scientific and geological evidence that proves the theory is correct. I want to clarify that the lunar seas are the geological trace that proves the existence of a geological relationship between the Earth and the Moon through a collision between the Earth and the Moon that resulted in the Earth gaining a crust from the surface of the nearby Moon. This crust was the reason for the existence of the lunar seas and the continents of the Earth, and this explains the reason for the decrease in the thickness of the crust of the near side of the Moon, and also the reason for the increase in the thickness of the crust of the Earth’s continents compared to the thickness of the crust of the ocean floor. It also explains why there is a difference in the properties between the continental crust and the oceanic crust, the geophysical and chemical properties, and also explains why the properties between the continental crust and the crust of the near side of the moon are identical. For example, the oxygen isotopes match between the crust of the continents and the moon, and what confirms this is that it has been shown that the moon is older than previously believed. The theory I have arrived at will be a scientific and geological explanation for a number of scientific questions that have baffled scientists and are still being researched and studied to this day without a scientific explanation.
The conclusion I reached is that the existence of the lunar seas is the result of a geological relationship between the Earth and the Moon, and the lunar seas are the geological effect on the existence of this geological relationship. This relationship resulted in the Earth gaining a crust from the nearby surface of the moon. This acquired crust was the reason for the existence of the lunar seas and the continents of the Earth. You can take a look at the topic that I wrote about. Title: The Missing Crust of the Near Side of the Moon
Last edited by a moderator:
There was never a collision between the Earth and the Moon, the mass of the upper crust of Earth, above the Mantle, is around 3 million times less massive than that the Moon.
The commonality between the Moon and the Earth is indeed a mystery, it is why they developed the Giant Impact Theory (GIT), however, as I have already posted, there is now evidence to demonstrate the Moon is at least as old as Earth itself, largely disproving the GIT (Thankfully) and explaining a lot of mysteries. We also now now that whilst the lunar regolith is the driest material we know of, so assumptions were made years ago about the water content of the Moon, another part of the GIT, this has now also been disproven, the Moon contains as much water as the Oceans on Earth, just buried deep in hydrated minerals or within crystals within its structure, as we now know the Earth does - the estimates are now that the Moon is around 5.6% water by mass, this definitively rules out the GIT or any impact between the Moon and any body large enough to cause a global melt.
Two bodies the size of Earth and Moon could not approach each other without one of them being totally disrupted by the gravity of the other, as the Earth is 81.3 times the mass of the Moon, as soon as the Moon entered Earth's Roche Limit, the Moon would undergo gravitational disruption and be pulled apart as the surface nearest Earth would undergo gravitational forces much more powerful that the furthest surface, this would be fatal for the Moon.
Unlike the Moon, your idea does not hold water.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
NASA won't decide on Mars Sample Return plan until mid-2026
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 8
-
-
Scientists find quantum entanglement on incredibly tiny scales — within individual protons
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
Blue Origin to launch its 1st New Glenn rocket on Jan. 10
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 7
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram