Traces of another world found on the Moon (BBC)

a reply to: bbracken677

first of all you brought up Stitchin (no that's not a typo I'm mocking your mocking him by misspelling his name. a very childish tactic of ad hominem argument) I've been sticking to current scientific based topics and asking you to explain the parts science has no answer for currently. All I get from you is "no one knows" so since you've reached the limits of what you got out of your degree you start focusing on the controversy around him.

And not only that, the "answers" you gave earlier on in our discussion showed clearly you are out of your realm as a geologist discussing this kind of subject. Every time I press you on things like "why is the Moon dead if it accreted the same time as Earth?" or "Why isn't the custard skin on Earth spread out evenly? why did it form all clumped together and then decide to start spreading out?" or "Why COULDN'T the Moon have been captured if its companion collided with a larger, watery giant?" and all I got from you was "No one knows" ( well actually I think you said that last part was possible and ironically for you that is one of Stitchin's contentions so you actually agree with him on that lol) and then when you have nothing intelligent to say, or add or to make a coherent point all you want to do is focus on good ole Stitchin.

It's quite clear YOU DON'T KNOW JACK and are just here trolling

Im going to Add more fuel to the fire !!


Keep on Stoking People !


MMM >>>?

There May Be an Ancient Earth Inside Earth, Say Harvard Scientists
A team of Harvard scientists believe the remnants of an ancient Earth, dating to the time another planet collided with ours to produce the moon, may still be lodged deep within the Earth’s mantle
ultraculture.org...

The current favored theory says that the Moon was formed 4.5 billion years ago when the Earth collided with a mass the size of Mars, dubbed “Theia.” This theory states that the heat generated by the collision would have melted the whole planet before some of the debris spun off to create the Moon. But now, the team at Harvard, led by Associate Professor Sujoy Mukhopadhyay, believe that they’ve found evidence to support that only part of the Earth melted, and that an ancient part still exists within the Earth’s mantle. According to Professor Mukhopadhyay: “The energy released by the impact between the Earth and Theia would have been huge, certainly enough to melt the whole planet. But we believe that the impact energy was not evenly distributed throughout the ancient Earth. This means that a major part of the impacted hemisphere would probably have been completely vaporized, but the opposite hemisphere would have been partly shielded, and would not have undergone complete melting.” The team analyzed the ratios of noble gas isotopes from deep within the Earth’s mantle and compared the results to isotope ratios closer to the surface. They found that 3He to 22Ne ratio from the shallow mantle is significantly higher than the equivalent ratio deep within the mantle. Professor Mukhopadhyay remarked: “This implies that the last giant impact did not completely mix the mantle and there was not a whole mantle magma ocean.”

A More Legit Site..


New isotopic evidence supporting moon formation via Earth collision with planet-sized body
Jun 05, 2014


Read more at: phys.org...

phys.org...

Most planetary scientists believe that the Moon formed from an impact between the Earth and a planet-sized body, which has been given the name Theia. Efforts to confirm that the impact had taken place had centred on measuring the ratios between the isotopes of oxygen, titanium, silicon and others. These ratios are known to vary throughout the solar system, but their close similarity between Earth and Moon conflicted with theoretical models of the collision that indicated that the Moon would form mostly from Theia, and thus would be expected to be compositionally different from the Earth. Read more at: phys.org...

Now a group of German researchers, led by Dr. Daniel Herwartz, have used more refined techniques to compare the ratios of 17O/16O in lunar samples, with those from Earth. The team initially used lunar samples which had arrived on Earth via meteorites, but as these samples had exchanged their isotopes with water from Earth, fresher samples were sought. These were provided by NASA from the Apollo 11, 12 and 16 missions; they were found to contain significantly higher levels of 17O/16O than their Earthly counterparts. Read more at: phys.org...

Theia seems to have been similar to what we call E-type chondrites**.If this is true, we can now predict the geochemical and isotopic composition of the Moon, because the present Moon is a mixture of Theia and the early Earth. The next goal is to find out how much material of Theia is in the Moon". Read more at: phys.org...

Most models estimate that the Moon it is composed of around 70% to 90% material from Theia, with the remaining 10% to 30% coming from the early Earth. However, some models argue for as little as 8% Theia in the Moon. Dr Herwartz said that the new data indicate that a 50:50 mixture seems possible, but this needs to be confirmed.

Read more at: phys.org...

Most models estimate that the Moon it is composed of around 70% to 90% material from Theia, with the remaining 10% to 30% coming from the early Earth. However, some models argue for as little as 8% Theia in the Moon. Dr Herwartz said that the new data indicate that a 50:50 mixture seems possible, but this needs to be confirmed.



I love the accuracy lol

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: bbracken677

first of all you brought up Stitchin (no that's not a typo I'm mocking your mocking him by misspelling his name. a very childish tactic of ad hominem argument) I've been sticking to current scientific based topics and asking you to explain the parts science has no answer for currently. All I get from you is "no one knows" so since you've reached the limits of what you got out of your degree you start focusing on the controversy around him.

First, you brought up "Stitchin" first. 2nd, you take "no one knows" totally out of context. A theory is a theory and not knowledge. Therefore a theory is something which "no one knows for sure". You seem to want confirmed answers when there are none and by your constant twisting of statements, you are the troll. Plain and simple, no?

And not only that, the "answers" you gave earlier on in our discussion showed clearly you are out of your realm as a geologist discussing this kind of subject. Every time I press you on things like "why is the Moon dead if it accreted the same time as Earth?" or "Why isn't the custard skin on Earth spread out evenly? why did it form all clumped together and then decide to start spreading out?" or "Why COULDN'T the Moon have been captured if its companion collided with a larger, watery giant?" and all I got from you was "No one knows" ( well actually I think you said that last part was possible and ironically for you that is one of Stitchin's contentions so you actually agree with him on that lol) and then when you have nothing intelligent to say, or add or to make a coherent point all you want to do is focus on good ole Stitchin.

It's quite clear YOU DON'T KNOW JACK and are just here trolling

Well...then perhaps, since you do know all the answers, you should apply to the USGS for Godhood. All I can do is present current theory.

I focus on "good ole Stitchin" because you seemed to keep trying to draw me in that direction. Stitchin was a fraud and anyone buying into his crap is a fool.

The capture, or creation model for our moon are theories and NO ONE KNOWS. This started with you questioning my using boiling water as an illustration of how convection currents work, ergo, in a simplistic way, how convection currents work in the mantle. Any yet you maintained that plated tectonics and mantle convection does not account for "all that we see". Funny, but when asked what it was that we saw that couldnt be accounted for you failed to answer that (amongst many other questions I asked) and pressed on to the next subject: the capture or creation of the moon.

I will let others decide who is the true troll here. I will let others decide who presents science and who .. trolled. I am secure in my knowledge, experience and I know an idiot when I speak to one.

a reply to: bbracken677

lol

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Good answer, given that you have provided nothing scientific to the discussion. You have provided questions and derision, but that's about it.

a reply to: bbracken677

I could say the same for you.

let me ask you this: why would someone with as firm a grasp on reality as you come here?

a reply to: bbracken677
troll much?

I have not read the whole thread yet, so as it stands now I am not completely sold on this concept. Could very well be true and people (obviously) know more than this than I do.

One thing that puzzles me is how did the moon become perfectly round? I guess people will say from friction and spinning...just seems odd to me that if it was a collision that the moon is so round.

originally posted by: Harvin
One thing that puzzles me is how did the moon become perfectly round? I guess people will say from friction and spinning...just seems odd to me that if it was a collision that the moon is so round.

the simple answer is gravity. The reason planets/moons appear spherical is because gravity compresses the planet into a shape that most evenly distributes the gravitational force among the planet’s mass. it's mother nature way of dealing with so much mass in order to minimize its enormous volume. It's not as if two celestial objects collided and a big enough chunk broke off of one to create the moon. After the collision, everything from both original planets was reduced to massive spheres of molten magma. the much larger piece coalesced into what is now earth, the smaller into the moon. Even if it weren't a heaping, molten mass, gravity would have corrected for this over time.

a reply to: peter vlar

OK, now i can see. Molten magma makes sense and I assume hills and valleys were from irregularities. And large rocks flying around will never be completely round since i am guessing they were never molten.

a reply to: Harvin

Wikipedia is your friend: en.wikipedia.org...