- #1
Azurite
- 83
- 0
What's the latest about the origin of the moon?
Is it true the moon is older than the earth? how?
Is it true the moon is older than the earth? how?
What has your research discovered so far?Azurite said:What's the latest about the origin of the moon?
Is it true the moon is older than the earth? how?
phinds said:What has your research discovered so far?
Azurite said:Where can I get all theories and model of the moon origin?
Azurite said:What have we really found out when we did carbon dating on the moon?
Azurite said:Where can I get all theories and model of the moon origin?
Azurite said:Is it true the moon is older than the earth? how?
Drakkith said:Possible, but unlikely. Earth's tectonic activity has buried the oldest rocks, so we may measure Moon rocks as being slightly older (I'm not sure if they've done this). But the Earth is likely to be just as old as the Moon, if not slightly older. Isotope ratios of various elements from the Moon are extremely close to those of the Earth, which is evidence that the Moon and the Earth were formed from the same material. If we look at samples from other planets or bodies in the solar system, we find that they all have unique isotope ratios. If the Moon had formed from a different body of material than the Earth then there should be no reason for these isotope ratios to be so similar.
not likely. as the Moon orbiting the Earth pretty much discounts thatAzurite said:Is it possible the material of the Earth came from the moon? The moon being much larger before and was a planet.. then something happened to the moon maybe a collision that created the Earth (being ejected from the material of the moon)?
Azurite said:What tectonic, observational data refutes this?
Azurite said:Is it possible the material of the Earth came from the moon? The moon being much larger before and was a planet.. then something happened to the moon maybe a collision that created the Earth (being ejected from the material of the moon)?
Azurite said:What tectonic, observational data refutes this?
Drakkith said:The fact that the Earth contains a substantial amount of iron in its core while the Moon does not is pretty strong evidence that the Moon came from the Earth and not vice versa. A collision shouldn't eject most of the heavy elements from an object while leaving behind mostly lighter elements. However, the opposite is certainly possible. The heavy elements sink towards the core (because of their density) while the lighter elements remain near the outside and eventually form most of the crust. A glancing collision then ejects a large amount of this outer material, which gives us a moon made up of light elements with very little heavier elements. And that's exactly what observations tell us the Moon is composed of.
Azurite said:Is it possible the material of the Earth came from the moon? The moon being much larger before and was a planet.. then something happened to the moon maybe a collision that created the Earth (being ejected from the material of the moon)? What tectonic, observational data refutes this?
How is this *actually* different? If we swap the words "Earth" and "Moon" in the descriptions, has anything actually changed?davenn said:not likely. as the Moon orbiting the Earth pretty much discounts that
One of the most well supported models is similar to this but the other way around.Azurite said:Is it possible the material of the Earth came from the moon? The moon being much larger before and was a planet.. then something happened to the moon maybe a collision that created the Earth (being ejected from the material of the moon)? What tectonic, observational data refutes this?
Chronos said:The age of the moon has been pegged at 4.51 billion years [re: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1602365.full] making it slightly younger than earth, which is generally accepted to be 4.54 billion years. It is still generally believed the moon formed from debris ejected during a collision between Earth and a planet called Theia in the infant solar system. This is known as the giant impactor theory. The age of the moon was determined radiometrically through isotopes extracted from zircon crystals in rocks retrieved during the Apollo 14 mission
Azurite said:If moon came from Earth debris.. they should be same age or near
Azurite said:now ignoring for the moment the core concentration data... is it possible the moon has existed for the first 4.51 billion year and then the Earth came from the debris of the moon 2.5 billion years ago.. however, since it came from the moon, then the carbon dating of the materials of the Earth would still be 4.51 billion years or so (remember we only have one sample to determine the age of the moon so let's assume moon and Earth age was identical for sake of this discussion)..
Azurite said:so the theory is living things first evolved in the moon. Then 2.5 billion years ago.. something happened where the moon decayed (accidental or on purpose) and the materials were ejected to form a new planet (earth). Here since the material of the Earth came from the moon, the age would be identical although the Earth just formed 2.5 billion years ago.. is there any carbon dating argument that can refute this possibility (again ignoring core concentration data and others for sake of discussion)?
Drakkith said:Both the Earth and the Moon have been measured as being very close to the same age. Note that these measurements are measuring the age of certain formations of rocks. The material making up the rocks existed as molten lava/magma prior to solidifying into the rocks we see today, and our measurements only date this solidification. Just because we measure a rock as being a certain age does not mean that a body isn't a bit older.
No. That's not possible. The melting of the material as it was ejected and then coalesced again would end up giving us an entirely different date for the formation of the Earth.
Yes. All radioactive dating giving us an age past 2.5 billion years ago refutes this.
Azurite said:why.. if the Earth formed 2.5 billion years ago from 4.51 billion years old material from the moon.. why would carbon dating show 2.5 billion years instead of 4.51?
Azurite said:why.. if the Earth formed 2.5 billion years ago from 4.51 billion years old material from the moon.. why would carbon dating show 2.5 billion years instead of 4.51?
The most widely accepted theory for the origin of the moon is the Giant Impact Hypothesis, which proposes that the moon formed from debris left over after a Mars-sized object collided with Earth around 4.5 billion years ago.
Scientists have found several lines of evidence to support the Giant Impact Hypothesis, including similarities in the chemical composition of the moon and Earth's mantle, the moon's relatively small iron core, and the presence of moon rocks that contain traces of Earth's atmosphere.
Other theories for the moon's origin include the Fission Hypothesis, which suggests that the moon broke off from a rapidly spinning Earth, and the Capture Hypothesis, which proposes that the moon was a separate object that was captured by Earth's gravity. These theories have less supporting evidence and are not as widely accepted as the Giant Impact Hypothesis.
Recent discoveries include the detection of water molecules on the moon's surface, which could provide insight into the moon's formation and evolution, and the discovery of lunar rocks that are significantly older than previously thought, suggesting that the moon may have formed earlier than previously believed.
Ongoing studies and missions, such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the upcoming Artemis program, continue to gather data and samples from the moon that can help scientists better understand its origin. These missions also allow scientists to test and refine theories about the moon's formation and evolution.