A new theory/question.

It is a "somewhat" common belief that the Moon is actually the "former" surface of the Earth. All of Earth's life is still only a number of millions of years old. Because of this, the moon could possibly be a stripped off layer of the planet from pre-bacteria days. This could only be caused by a cataclysmic event in which case, there was probably great heat involved. However, an atmosphere would not burn for very long, so if the Moon did have one, it burned off in a short timespan (way too short to have a great effect on Earth). Also, if the Moon was on fire, it probably had a greater mass (fuel to burn). If it did, the gravitational field would be greater and it would probably collide with the Earth in a relatively short time. The Moon, as far as I know, has kept a relatively constant gravitational field, thus keeping it in its proper orbit with the Earth.

I guess this is just my view of the situation.

At one point, I'm sure the Moon was volcanic (because of the natural formation of heavenly bodies). That could account for some of the ash, as well as space dust because it has no atmosphere (so it doesn't burn up like a "shooting star").

Originally posted by AnonymousPoster4
Oh, so their theories are good enough?


But seriously, you don't know, and therefor, can't dismiss this theory.

No, I'm not saying that at all AP4.

I'm saying this is like a play ground argument, where two children dispute something. It runs something like:

"It is"

"It isn't"

"It *is*"

"It *isn't*"

"It is!"

"It isn't!"

(Then follows an increasing escalation of denial, counter-denial, etc).

Of course, the Moon may have had the attributes you describe way back 4 billion years ago. And, using this logic, the Earth may have been made of cream cheese - show me how it wasn't AP4. Prove it.

See what I'm saying here? Constant repetion of "It might have been..." etc doesn't move the discussion on. It becomes a playground argument instead.

Now, about the Earth being made of cream cheese AP4 - any rebutal to that statement?

Oops sorry guys, I wasn't paying attention to this thread.

AP4, in another thread you are asking how the Sun 'burns' without any oxygen.

Here you have posed an idea, which is fine. But then you proceed to ignore the answers to your questions (and challenges to the theory) by people who are clearly more knowledgeable about the issues than you are. As such you are embracing ignorance when here was an excellent opportunity for you to learn. Thread locked.