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

Let's Start with Earth First

  1. Aug 8, 2004 #1

    What does this model tell us?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2004 #2
    Or Maybe with the Moon

    Why Iron?


    Gamma-ray spectrometer (GRS). Gamma rays are produced on the lunar surface through the decay of radioactive isotopes, and via the bombardment of the surface by high-energy cosmic rays. Since the energy of the resulting gamma ray is characteristic of its parent element, the GRS can map the lunar distribution of these elements
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2004
  4. Aug 26, 2004 #3
    One has to become accustom to how we percieve Window on the Universe.

    http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/swift/Swift.jpg [Broken]

    The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission (Scheduled launch: October 7, 2004)





    If we take in the theoretical views of what is on the horizon in terms of our research predictions, they must follow some predetermined framework.

    The elemental response then to early universe formation asks us to consider the phase changes from the Planck Epoch, through Grand Unification and standard models arise from this. This leading perspective then asks us how we shall see this most outer boundry of these shells, and if current day elemental consideration are self evident in the matters around us, then how shall we percieve this in the early universe?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Sep 17, 2004 #4


    I am looking at this in context of post on moon(cooling) and its elemental distribution as it did so? What is the age of the moon? Is it older then earth?


    Live and learn eh?

    If strings can congregate in the blackhole, and the blackhole contracts, what can happen with the energy? Can it become very hot?

    Thought I would continue posting here, as they intend to axe this section of the forum. I think I can save the moderators some work.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2004
  6. Sep 17, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The binding energy is pretty irrelevant to the elemental distribution in planets (and the Moon). These processes proceed by chemical interactions, not nuclear ones. The present ideas of the origin of the Moon, from a glancing collision of the early earth with another body, are pretty consistent, if not absolutely dominant. Looking for an exotic origin, looks like a futile task.

    As to the supernova production of the elements, that is something that affected the whole primeval cloud, not just the earth-mooon system. The heavier elements drifted to the inner cloud (lower gravitic potential), so the inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth-Moon, and Mars, and the asteroids, are richer in iron and heavy elements than the ourter planets.
  7. Sep 17, 2004 #6
    Would the Iron on the near side of the moon, be concentrated there, because of the attraction between Earths magnetism, and the Iron that was there when the moon coalesced in to an orb, from a fragmented state?
  8. Sep 17, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I doubt it. Migration through the liquid magma unde gravity toward the common center of gravity would seem more likely. And remember the Moon was much closer to the Earth in the remote past.
  9. Sep 17, 2004 #8
    That is such an interesting image of the iron concentrations on the moon. Is it possible that it mimics what would have been the shape of Pangea, the old super continent?
  10. Sep 17, 2004 #9
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/reallywild/amazing/images/peacock2.jpg [Broken]

    See you capture the thnking in terms of shells. I mean certainly, weak gravitational interaction at a level that has manifested into today's view of the solid balls. From the Planck epoch to today

    But really if we are to arrive at any exploded view of the standard model arising from a supersymmetrical world( consider a tree fractal that has a base signature to it), and all the time, it looks quite different when it has traversed from a beginning, as a evolution of design.

    So we call it a string? Quantumly and cosmologically? From a one dimensional perspective, it contained gravity.

    So I look at the moon, and I see it's layers, and the stratification like shells. It made sense in this cosmological scenario, did Chandra see more?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. Sep 18, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It's not just seeing, it's understanding. They can draw amazing conclusions from the CMB because it's just radiation and since the 19th century they've learned more and more about radiation. So when they draw conclusions about inflation, or big-bang nucleosynthesis they are on sound ground. By contrast, nobody has more than a speculative idea of how the iron layers of the Moon got distributed the way they are, and generic thinking about shells or "limnocentric structures" doesn't add specific undrstanding.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook