Slashdot Mirror
Birth of the Moon: a Runaway Nuclear Reaction?
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."
Can't get to the article, but - if you haven't heard of this before, it's pretty cool: the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor in Gabon. And while you're at it, you can read about how this natural reactor has scientists rethinking how constant the fine structure constant really is.
Cuban Music MP3's - cuband.com
We may never *know* for certain. We can have hypothesis after hypothesis, and although the giant impact fits the data nicely, and is unlikely to be wrong, the only way we'll really challenge that is by having other ideas. What really throws this theory out for me however (And I admit, I can't view the page, it's been /.ed) was that most of Earth's fissle material is in the crust, not the core. So any 'deep explosion' would have to have been in the crust or mantle, not the center.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
My problem with it is simple that the impactor idea seems to fit all the data so well I think it's unlikley to be wrong.
Further on they say that the impactor theory doesn't exactly fit the data. I'd blockquote, but I'm stuck on page three, I think we slashdotted it.
They give several reasons; one is that the object would have had to hit at a precise angle to become the moon and not completely vaporize the earth. Another is that the object would have had to have been formed very near the earth; they calculate from the moon rocks it would have had to be between Venus' and Mars' orbits.
Free Martian Whores!
Christian-minded skepticism would sound a lot less idiotic (no offense to those of you who can't stand that), and something like:
Why do we think this might have happened? Because it might be possible. Do we have any proof of it? None whatsoever. Does it seem likely or probable? Not enough data. Could the moon have been spontaneously created by an infinitely powerful being instead? Sure.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Just how much crust there is is often misunderstood.
Example: imagine a model of the earth where 1 mm = 1 mile. (or you can use 1mm = 1 km, if you like)
The earth is 7926.28 miles (12756.1 km) in diameter.
At this scale, you can make out significant mountain ranges, etc. The Atmosphere would be 4 or 5 inches deep. The crust is an inch or 2 thick.
And the Earth itself is more than 8 yards across. That inch or two of crust is sitting on a chewy molten insides. (check volcano flows, etc.)
The Earth is really a molten droplet spinning in space with the thinnest external layer where life has happened to accumulate, like the layer of tarnish on a coin.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The sun's gravity accelerates things near the Earth by 0.006 m/sec^2. Two objects close enough to be meaningfully gravitationally linked while orbiting the sun in the Earth's orbit will have a maximum differential acceleration of maybe a thousandth of that. So to get to 1000m/s takes 5 years.
So this essentially posits that an explosion had enough force to blown the planet apart, and send the pieces into space, but not to escape velocity (11.2 km/s) but instead to a velocity just short of that (11.19 km/s or so), so that the moon goes flying away for 2.5 years but 2.5 years later comes back and settles into a nice, circular orbit.
That would be hard to accomplish on purpose - saying an accident did it is beyond belief.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
It's really not the same at all, but the article did call this story immediately to mind.
"Blowups Happen" is a classic 1940s SF story about a future in which society is total dependent on nuclear power plants. The engineering theory behind them shows that they are intrinsically safe and cannot blow up like a bomb. Then someone discovers that there is a false assumption in the equations and that, in fact they can blow up like bombs.
Meanwhile, an expert in the theory of lunar formation has concluded the lunar craters cannot have been formed by meteor impact, because of the "rays." There had to have been enough energy to "crack an entire planet." The only possible explanation, he says, is that the Moon was once an inhabited planet with an atmosphere and that "Here at Tycho was located their main power plant, and here at Copernicus and Kepler, on islands of the middle of the great oceans, were secondary power stations."
In other words, not only can they blow up like bombs, but that is what reduced the Moon to its present airless, lifeless, cratered and cracked state.
As I say, that's a completely different theory from the one being discussed. Nevertheless, I would bet a nickel that at least one of the authors of that article had read "Blowups Happen."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
A Spherical estimation is good enough for most purposes.
True, at least by the old engineer's rule of thumb that only three places are significant for practical purposes.
But there are some situations where it's not good enough. One is if you're dealing with the orbits of satellites. To the satellites, the Earth is decidedly lumpy, enough so to affect orbits on a time scale of weeks or months.
A fun case I ran across some years ago was a geography trivia question: Name the three "highest points on Earth", and for each, give the definition of "highest point" that it satisfies.
The only answer that most people know is Mount Everest, which is the point that's the highest above the local "geoid" (which is the extension of "sea level" to handle areas far from the closest open ocean).
Some people know another answer: Mauna Kea, which is the point that's the highest above the mean level of the surrounding land. Everest rises some 3,000 m above the surrounding land, the Tibetan Plateau, Mauna Kea rises from the bottom of the central Pacific Ocean, and it's a much taller pile of rock than Everest. Its peak is more than 10 km above its base.
Hardly anyone can even guess the third answer. It turns out to be Mount Chimborazo, which is on the equator in Ecuador, and is the point that's farthest from the Earth's center. It's a good-size volcano that rises some 2,500 m above the surrounding land, but its peak is estimated at 6,384.4 km above the Earth's center, several km higher than the peaks of Everest or Mauna Kea.
All of these "highest point" claims are mentioned in the wikipedia articles about them (which is where I checked the numbers). And you could probably find them reasonably quickly by googling for that phrase, though I haven't tried it. I also wonder if there are other definitions of "highest point" that have different answers.
(And Chimborazo is one of the answers to another trivia question that's fun in "global warming" discussions: What are the two places where there are glaciers on the equator? So far, nobody I've asked this one has got either answer right, though some people get close to the other answer. Both places' glaciers are retreating rapidly, and are predicted to disappear in a few decades.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.