Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Birth of the Moon: a Runaway Nuclear Reaction?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the that's-not-no-moon dept.

An anonymous reader writes "How the Moon arose has long stumped scientists. Now Dutch geophysicists argue that it was created not by a massive collision 4.5 billion years ago, but by a runaway nuclear reaction deep inside the young Earth."

7 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. Wouldn't there be an empty space? by mnslinky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't there be evidence of this on the surface somewhere? I know the crust has shifted considerably, but that's a *lot* of material to suddenly vacate.

    1. Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it happened during the time that the earth was mostly molten, then no, there would be on evidence...

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Others mentioned the Earth being molten, but even as it is now, the Earth is plastic enough that if you removed a big enough chunk, the rest of the planet would flow and deform until it was spherical again.

    3. Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone who has replied so far makes fair points, but misses the biggest point: the Moon is over 4 billion years old. There are virtually no rocks on the Earth's surface that even approach its age. That means that the ENTIRE Earth's surface has been replaced and reshaped in the interim. Things haven't just "shifted considerably", we've got a totally different surface. Any scar from that period is long, long since erased. And hole as deep as the Moon has long since filled in since the Earth is still very much a fluid over these timescales.

    4. Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? by WhiplashII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure I agree - The moon has an ungodly amount of angular momentum. I'm having trouble coming up with a method whereby a section of object a leaves object a, and then has enough thrust perpendicular to the direction of object a to get up to it's 1km/s orbital velocity.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it is -- it's akin to trying to draw strong conclusions from the weak anthropic principle. How many "trials" have there been in the history of the whole universe? On an astronomical scale, rare events are relatively common, if you see what I mean. Since the presence and nature of our moon appears to be a great benefit to the development of advanced life forms, it's hardly surprising at all that we happen to be on one of the (possibly very many) planets with a moon like ours.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    6. Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? by hkgroove · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tidal Forces, also, it could act as a blocker for rogue material headed Earth's way. Jupiter is also extremely important in deflecting comets and debris also keeping the asteroids at bay. But at the same time, Jupiter is most likely responsible for the belt.

      http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/earthmoon.html

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_jupiter_030122-1.html