Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Creation of the moon

  1. Dec 31, 2003 #1
    I saw this real cool show last night on the science channel about the formation of the moon where it talks about a Mars sized planet that was between the Earth and Mars. This planet crashed into Earth creating the moon. I was aware of this theory, but had not heard that the space rock that did the damage was actually another planet. They mentioned the name of this planet, but I can't recall. Does anyone remember what it was called?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 31, 2003 #2

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    odd...I don't recall that impactor having a name (but then again, I did not see that show)

    But, yes, during the early formational period of the solar system, the objects with non-stable orbits (even planetary-sized objects) played a bit of celestial pinball. It's still going on today with the smaller leftovers (e.g., asteroids).
     
  4. Dec 31, 2003 #3
    well i ordered the DVD today, so once i get it I will post again stating what name has been given to this planet that helped make Earth what it is today
     
  5. Jan 1, 2004 #4
    Orpheus is the name of the planet they believe was between the Earth and Mars and hit the Earth to form the moon
     
  6. Jan 1, 2004 #5

    zeb

    User Avatar

    The Twelfth Planet by Zacharia Sitchin (spelling?) is a very interesting essay on the formation of the solar system and the evolution of humans. I won't get into that subject here as it will very likely cause a debate, but he talks about a rogue 12th planet as recorded by the Sumerians (the Sun and Moon were then counted as planets - making 11) called Marduk, which was sucked into orbit around our sun by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Jupiter. Anyway, according to this book, the Earth, Moon, and Asteroid belt were all one larger planet called Tiamat. As Marduk (a very large planet) swung into orbit one of it's moons collided with Tiamat creating the Earth, Moon, and the Asteroid belt (which makes sense when looking at the "pangea" theory - most of the land mass over to one side of the planet). And in the process, I think he talks about life (probably microbial) being "seeded" here... not necessarily the first life-forms, but life-forms none-the-less. This 12th planet apparently continues to orbit the Sun in a VERY large orbit extending out far beyond Pluto with a orbital period of about 3700 years. The cool thing is that he uses this concept of a large planet reentering our vicinity and effecting things like our own rotation, which has been documented in the ancient times as a day that the sun didn't rise/set by cultures around the world.

    Anyway, just thought I'd throw my 2¢ in.
     
  7. Jan 5, 2004 #6
    is this planet supposed to be past the kupier belt? also, is it still a large planet? I think we would be able to detect it if it still was orbiting the sun...

    also if this planet created earth as we know it... how did the Sumerians record these events???

    maybe i just read your post wrong???
     
  8. Jan 5, 2004 #7

    zeb

    User Avatar

    I seem to remember the book describing the planet as very large, but I don't have it on hand to quote it. I would suspect that with a 3700 year orbit (and probably quite an elliptical one) that it'd be hard to detect - but I know very little of the methods involved in finding other planets.

    And, not you probably didn't read my post wrong, I just purposefully left out information that the book goes into with great detail in hopes of avoiding a deeper debate which is better left for it's own thread. The whole book (actually the first of a series of 6 called The Earth Chronicles) talks about the inhabitants of this rogue planet (Marduk) and their interaction with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon humans and the evolution of humans... The texts of the Sumerians were records of stories received by these "aliens" and those texts eventually became the mythology of today, and the basis for much of Sitchins theories. Like I said, it's very controversial.
     
  9. Jan 5, 2004 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ...is worthless. His translations are suspect and the science is flawed.
    Thats generous. Sitchin's work is complete and utter trash. For more info, see www.badastronomy.com : Px Debunking
    Forum

    ding, ding - good questions. Your crap-o-meter is doing its job well.
     
  10. Jan 5, 2004 #9

    zeb

    User Avatar

    Yeah, he was pretty much ousted from the scientific community. As you can see:
    most people have a very childish response to something that challenges the common belief. Scientists can theorize and argue all they want, but we will never really KNOW what actually happened... It's all speculation and theory.
     
  11. Jan 6, 2004 #10
    well in that case... I created the universe
     
  12. Jan 10, 2004 #11

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since we know that Neptune and Pluto are too faint to be seen with the naked eye, and as we know that the Sumerians didn't have telescopes, we can be pretty sure that Zacharia Sitchin's ideas are wrong.

    Taking kleinma's point ("is this planet supposed to be past the kupier belt? also, is it still a large planet? I think we would be able to detect it if it still was orbiting the sun..."), a planet with a period of 3700 years would have a semi-major axis of ~240 AU. Given details of such a body's orbit, and its size and albedo, we could work out what its brightness today should be.

    However, knowing that it was clearly visible to the Sumerians (so its then brightness would have been <~4th magnitude), we might be able to constrain its orbit fairly well if only we knew when the Sumerians saw it! An interesting exercise for someone's high school physics class.
     
  13. Jan 10, 2004 #12

    zeb

    User Avatar

    The book doesn't suggest that the Sumerians tracked the planet's orbit, or even saw it - except (of course) when it's orbit came close to the Earth to be seen with the naked eye. He talks about how many ancient documented "phenomena" could possibly be explained by the gravitational effects of a large planet coming into our vicinity. Also, Sitchin's interpretations and translation of the Old Testament and other documents written by these people suggest that everything the these people knew was taught to them.

    I'm not claiming that Sitchin is right, or that his math/physics were accurate (he is an archeologist and a anthropologist), but I get the idea that you folks are making blind arguments against the idea without even reading the books...
     
  14. Jan 10, 2004 #13

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh dear!

    The "math/physics" can be done by any bright middle school kid, it involves little more than simple algebra and arithmetic.

    So, either Sitchin's archeological and anthropological training lacked such fundamental scientific method tools as looking up high school physics texts in the library, or you have seriously let him down in your summaries of his work. Either way it's a sad statement about the standards of physics education in the US (this sort of really basic ignorance wouldn't be tolerated in many a developing country, IMHO).

    BTW, why did you omit the comment about Neptune and Pluto not being visible to the naked eye? That's about as big a howler as 'I saw a herd of kangaroos in the wild in Tanzania, feasting on polar bears they had just killed.'[b(]
     
  15. Jan 10, 2004 #14
    Was it that documentary "What If There Were No Moon?" narrated by Patrick Stewart? That was an excellent documentary. It makes you appreciate that little ball of rock in the sky.
     
  16. Jan 11, 2004 #15

    zeb

    User Avatar

    I'll accept that. Like I originally said, I didn't want to get into a debate, I was just pointing out a different theory and (more specifically) the names of the involved planets. I would hardly call it an attempt at a summary.

    Because the tangibility of his theories was not what I was arguing - I have no doubts about the unlikelihood of such a planet being visible.
     
  17. Nov 12, 2006 #16
    Sorry about ressurecting such an old thread but isn't the planet named Theia?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Creation of the moon
  1. The moon? (Replies: 10)

  2. No moon (Replies: 13)

  3. The moon (Replies: 5)

  4. The Moon! (Replies: 16)

Loading...