Slashdot Mirror
Findings Cast Doubt On Moon Origins
sciencehabit writes "A new analysis of isotopes found in lunar minerals challenges the prevailing view of how Earth's nearest neighbor formed. Geochemists looked at titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil, and found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system. This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon."
That's no moon!
We have the technology to find and look very deep or far where isotopes are or where the fartest solar system is. But yet, I can't find my damn keys in my house sometimes.
So, if it wasn't a big impact, what was it? What's the next best theory?
It doesn't contradict it at all. The current version of the impactor theory pre-supposes that Theia was formed at Earth's L4 or L5 point. There, the fractional distillation effect in the solar nebula would give the same Ti isotope ratios as in Earth, since Theia would be orbiting at the same distance. Formation at L4 or L5 also gives a nicely low impact energy, agreeing with what is needed to form the moon.
"Geochemists looked at titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil, and found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system"
and
" This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon."
SO discovering that the Moon's and Earths isotopes match means it could NOT have formed from a splash of magma from the earth?
This whole thing contradicts it's self. How do they know that the other body was not a twin of the earth and formed from the same disc of dust and debris? do they have samples of this other planet?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Conclusion sounds good, written logic is horrible.
found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's
This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon.
Does not explain why that doesn't work. The summary makes it sound very likely that something "smooshed off" the earth and became the moon, because both have the same ratios. Also does a poor job of explaining the more likely alternative explanation, by not discussing it at all. Fail.
I think part of the fail is assuming:
different from elsewhere in the solar system
That means we've sampled everything in the entire solar system both now and infinitely in the past? ha ha I think not.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Is there evidence to suggest that the simplest explanation (accretion disk formed the earth and the moon at roughly the same time, along with all the other rocky planets) is not the correct one? I honestly can't remember, it would be nice for someone more knowledgeable than I to set me straight. We seem to be obsessed with "fantastic" explanations, maybe because we are trying to get folks interested in science. The simple explanation is still pretty friggin' interesting to me.
The Moon is a giant alien battleship.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
It's times like this that I'm happy to be a creationist.
From the article: "[...]and the researchers aren't claiming to have refuted the giant impact hypothesis."
You know how you can tell astronomy is a real science? The people doing it are willing to look at new evidence... even if it casts doubt on their current beliefs.
If you see people in a field of "science" doing any of the above, it's not science but something else entirely.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1429.html
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
The joke goes back a little bit further than 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory
That's the silliest thing I've ever read. Anyone with half a mind knows it wasn't built by Aliens, it was built by a previously advanced civilization on Earth that now controls our governments from the safety of their Lunar Habitat. Geesh, get an education or at least watch the History Channel!
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Recent re-analysis of lunar volcanic samples shows the interior of the Moon is allot wetter then we thought. Some parts of the Moon interior, at least, contain as much water as the Earth's upper mantle, far wetter than predicted by the Giant Impact Hypothesis (the water should have boiled off).
Less sophisticated analysis in the 1970s indicated the Moon is very dry (less than 50 parts per million water). But water was lost to the vacuum of space during lunar volcanic eruptions, giving a false impression the Moon was dry. New techniques detected water trapped inside fluid inclusions (bubbles) in olivine crystals, showing the interior of the moon is quite wet. Zhang at al. 2012 is one of several resent studies that calls the Giant Impact Hypothesis into question.
Hauri et al., 2011. "High Pre-Eruptive Water Contents Preserved in Lunar Melt Inclusions" 333(6039), 213-215.
Bah what nonsense.
The mice obviously commissioned the moon at the same time as they had the earth built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Mice
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
While everyone is talking about the moon, I once read about a creationist explanation about it and I was wondering how does the recession compare?
Is the math correct? That the moon would be in the Roche limit in only 1.3 GA?
http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age
I'll accept your plea that you're not trolling. The math (apparently from Deyoung 1990) is not incorrect, but it's meaningless as it's based on the wrong assumption that tidal dissipation and deformation is constant over time, which has been refuted by strong paleontological evidence. The recession rate of the moon has in fact increased over time. Even if the article you're linking to were not flawed to the extent that it ignores research from the last 35+ years, the argument "Science seems to not agree on this, therefore God" is also obviously false.
Sorry I am not trolling, I am just curious about the math presented in that article. Is that formula correct? or are there any mistakes?
Depends on how you define "mistakes". Deyoung obviously has an agenda, and knew fully well that he was wrong when he wrote his article. It was no mistake, but it is deliberately misleading. It saddens me when Creationists try to invalidate large bodies of scientific evidence to justify their beliefs in a particular creation myth.
For a summary of why the science is not wrong either, this article seems to sum it up nicely. Look for the headings "The Paleontological Evidence" and "The Creationist Arguments".
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!