Slashdot Mirror
Evidence of Protoplanet Found On Moon
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes 'Researchers have found evidence of the world that crashed into the Earth billions of years ago to form the Moon. Analysis of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts shows traces of the "planet" called Theia. The researchers claim that their discovery confirms the theory that the Moon was created by just such a cataclysmic collision. The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5bn years ago. It is the simplest explanation, and fits in well with computer simulations. The main drawback with the theory is that no one had found any evidence of Theia in lunar rock samples. Earlier analyses had shown Moon rock to have originated entirely from the Earth whereas computer simulations had shown that the Moon ought to have been mostly derived from Theia. Now a more refined analysis of Moon rock has found evidence of material thought to have an alien origin.'
It is the simplest explanation, and fits in well with computer simulations.
Oh heck no: turtles all the way down, biz-rotches!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I haven't read the Science article yet, but from the BBC report it seems that the differences between the isotope ratios in moon rocks and earth are still a lot smaller than expected. This would suggest the Theia hypotheses to not be true, contrary to what the title says. I'm going to track down the original paper, because this BBC article has me somewhat confused.
Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese!
I'm ignorant, but today's science seems like "Tell me what is your theory, and i will find data to prove it's true"... :-)
Or as a law predicts, "Given an enough amount of data, ANY theory can be proved"...
And the rest of the article discusses the skepticism of this "evidence". To sum it all up, the evidence is the different ratios of oxygen isotopes found between 3 moon rocks and Earth. Most experts are saying the difference in the ratios should be much, much larger, because of how different the ratios of isotopes are in meteorites and other outer solar system bodies. The difference between the earth and moon is so small that other theories are just as likely for explaining it. The counter argument is that maybe all of the inner planets have the same ratios of oxygen isotopes as one another, and it was an inner planet that struck Earth and basically everything involved was made of the same stuff so the differences are small.
I think that until we have actually measured the ratios from Mecury or Venus, we can't assume that every inner planet is exactly the same in that regard, and thus the "evidence" this study has found is actual evidence one way or another. The only thing we know for certain is all the extraterrestrial material we have analyzed so far from the rest of the solar system has had very different ratios of the isotopes, and so this evidence requires a whole new theory about the homogeneousness of the solar system to be true.
Better known as 318230.
So how do they know the Planet was called Theia; was someone alive at the time to name it?. It's a nice fantasy but about as reliable as saying some Alien World crashed into Jupiter and formed it's Moons, which is kind of silly since it's a Gas Giant. The truth is, nobody really knows anything and most likely never will.
Fantasy land is a nice place but I wouldn't want to live there.
What are you even on about? Was someone around to name it? I don't know, was there someone around when the Earth was formed to name it Earth? Or what about the Sun? How do we know it's REALLY named the sun since we don't know who was around when it formed to name it?
That's like asking, "how do we know that the Cretaceous period was called the Cretaceous period, the dinosaurs didn't have written language".
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
... where all those pesky Thetans came from
Hey, submitter, there were several moon landings during the Apollo program. Which one are we talking about here/?
No they did have a written one though. some punk kids would write it down on the bones of their victims.
oddly enough it was why they theories the T-rex's were pissed off all the time. the short arms meant they couldn't even lift bro.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Yea but why are they giving a specific name to something only hypothesized to exist? Sure we can give names to imaginary things like Santa Clause, but its odd the scientists are doing it. Wikipedia gives this reason:
"Theia's mythological role as the mother of the Moon goddess Selene is alluded to in the application of the name to a hypothetical planet which, according to the giant impact hypothesis, collided with the Earth, resulting in the Moon's creation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia
This means two things: firstly we can now be reasonably sure that the Giant collision took place; secondly, it gives us an idea of the geochemistry of Theia
Well they have The Doctor and I am sure he knows, he probably watched it happen
And that's how baby planets are made.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Maybe the IAU has retroactive naming powers
Okay, so these rocks are found on earth and the moon. So um...how do we know they're alien? And not native to the Earth/Lunar system?
Simply saying it was called Theia like that implies that somebody was actually around back when this actually happened, and gave it that name.... There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with giving it a name, however... but I would suggest that it would be less ambiguous to explicitly state that they gave the name Theia to the other planet, rather than simply that is what it was called. It may be called Theia now, but it certainly wasn't called Theia then, while how the quoted sentence from the summary is phrased heavily implies the latter.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
[excerpts from Secretary of State testimony before the UN]
"... Numerous sources tell us that they are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but Protoplanet fragments to keep them from being found by inspectors. [...] In this next example, you will see the type of concealment activity [...] We must ask ourselves: Why would the Moon suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what [evidence of Protoplanet impact] they had or did not have? [...] While this -- less than a teaspoon of Protoplanet dust, [shows small glass vial] a little bit about this amount -- provides evidential clues of a Protoplanet impact, UNSCOM estimates that the Moon could be harbor TONS of Protoplanet material, enough to wipe out every competing Lunar formation theory on Earth [...] The Moon has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows the Moon to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately. [...] There can be no doubt that the Moon has in its possession evidence of planetary impact and the capability to rapidly produce more, much more. [...] My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens, we have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give the Moon one last chance. The Moon is not so far taking that one last chance. We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body..."
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW. We must move on the Moon, in waves of human exploration and occupation to establish the Protoplanet theory, secure all available Protoplanet evidence, and ensure the evolution of our species' manifest destiny to expand into space. Also.
And then, ON TO MARS to further secure the region. We must gather an invasion force, resolve to stay the course until 'mission accomplished', and declare war on Martian aggression (which has been implicated in the sudden disappearance of Pluto).
As an alternative to conquering the rest of our world so as to destroy the currency of others to protect the value of our own... as an alternative to easing into authoritarian government to enable the building of gulags that could encircle those unrepentant, those dissenting... as an alternative to this sewer of cultured dependencies and endless terrestrial wars...
We choose to broaden our horizons. This means space war.
We choose to meet this Lunar threat head-on and go to the Moon. And We Choose Mars also.
If it is war they want, such a war we shall give them.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Theres tons of material on the moon of an "alien origin" just like the earth the moon is constantly bombarded with non terrestrial stuff. Where do you think all those craters came from?
Or one enormous mutant star-goat.
Does the theory fit the simulation, or was the simulation designed to fit the theory?
That's Kuiper, not Kyber. Named for one of the most famous american astronomers.
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Kuiper
> I'm ignorant, but today's science seems like "Tell me what is your theory, and i will find data to prove it's true"...
The complementary and alternative medicine (Reiki, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Homeopathy) pseudoscientists have that philosophy. They use junk science to try to show that they are of benefit. Well controlled studies have never shown any significant benefit over placebo (save for Chiropractic for low back pain ONLY).
The best study that I've seen evaluating physiologic changes with traditional medicine and some CAM is from the New England Journal of Medicine, and is available at:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103319
It showed that the albuterol inhaler treatment resulted in an ~20% improvement in air flow, while no treatment, placebo inhaler treatment, and sham-acupuncture resulted in 7.1%, 7.5%, and 7.3% respectively. The patient's perceived improvement was 50% with albuterol, 21% with no intervention, 45% with placebo inhaler, and 46% with sham-acupuncture.
The take-away from this study is that if you want 'real' improvement and to 'feel better', take the medicine, if you want just to 'feel better', do whatever you want.
I knew that something was wrong with the cretaceous period - thank you for pinning it down.
Why didn't the lab work reveal that the "moon rocks" are just petrified wood?
It's not like the Earth was chugging along happily until something came along to disturb it. The Earth as we know it was created from other things at the moment of impact. Both young worlds were alien, and so neither one really is.
On a marginally related note, I know the solar system was way too young at the time for there to have been anything you could reasonable call "life". Still, I think about what if there was life on either or both of those bodies, and it was intelligent enough to look up into the early, hostile sky and wonder what that brightly glowing, daily growing circle in the sky was. Were little animals awakened in terror at the sound of their world ending? Did an ancient family hug each other one last time and close their eyes as the tidal earthquakes began?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Oral tradition? :-D
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Just a thought, but if there was a major impact from another planet, wouldn't we see a lot of that planet here on earth? Seems odd that they would just find it on the moon.
Yea but why are they giving a specific name to something only hypothesized to exist? Sure we can give names to imaginary things like Santa Clause, but its odd the scientists are doing it. Wikipedia gives this reason:
"Theia's mythological role as the mother of the Moon goddess Selene is alluded to in the application of the name to a hypothetical planet which, according to the giant impact hypothesis, collided with the Earth, resulting in the Moon's creation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, and why does the Tachyon have a name, it is only theoretical too! Also, the Higgs Boson shouldn't have had a name until recently, they should have called it "The boson that Higgs postulated" until they actually observed it.
Sometimes, when you are talking about something it is helpful to give it a name so that every time you talk about it you don't have to refer to it as "the planetoid that may or may not have crashed into the Earth in its early history, forming the moon".
Enigma
The problem, I think, is in the wording of the sentence... The sentence in question:
Simply saying it was called Theia like that implies that somebody was actually around back when this actually happened, and gave it that name.... There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with giving it a name, however... but I would suggest that it would be less ambiguous to explicitly state that they gave the name Theia to the other planet, rather than simply that is what it was called. It may be called Theia now, but it certainly wasn't called Theia then, while how the quoted sentence from the summary is phrased heavily implies the latter.
Going to venture a guess that someone who is confused about the naming conventions in scientific process of hypothetical worlds (or anything, for that matter) probably has no business rooting around in such articles; they've got bigger, more remedial issues to work out. The article is fine; it does not need to dumb down the conversation to explain something so obvious to anyone who has even a modicum of understanding in basic astronomy.
They need to go visit the site, and then excavate. They will find a large smooth object with dimensions in the ratio of 1 : 4 : 9.
Every time someone mentions the "another world collided with our to form the moon" argument I ask them, "Ok smart guy, where's crater on earth indicating this happened?"
Then they promptly shut the fuck up.
I think the moon has a probability more likely that it was towed here by an alien race than a world magically just colliding with ours.
"The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be, and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for it's presence are fraught with difficulties and none of them could be considered remotely water tight"
It's not a matter of dumbing down the conversation... the sentence says that it was called something... when it was not... that is what they are call*ING* it... in the present tense.
It's about using words that actually mean what they say.... and saying it was called Theia is ambiguous.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
How is it hard to get? The physics don't work out in the case of the Earth and its moon, but they do work out in other cases.
. . . if you think a theory can be proven to be true.
Who modded you insightful for that comment?