The Moon may have formed in a nuclear explosion

A new theory suggests the Moon was formed after a natural nuclear explosion in the Earth's mantle rather than after the impact of a massive object with the Earth, as previously thought.

The problem with the impact hypothesis is that simulations calculate the Moon should be composed of 80% impactor and 20% Earth, whereas in fact the isotope ratios of light and heavy elements found in Moon rocks so far examined are virtually identical to those on Earth.

The fission hypothesis is an alternative explanation for the formation of the moon, and it predicts similar isotope ratios in the Moon and Earth. The hypothesis (credited to Charles Darwin’s son George in 1879) is that the Earth and Moon began as a mass of molten rock spinning rapidly enough that gravity was just barely greater than the centrifugal forces. Even a slight kick could dislodge part of the mass into orbit, where it would become the Moon. The hypothesis has been around for 130 years, but was rejected because no one could explain a source of the energy required to kick a moon-sized blob of molten rock into orbit.

This is quite interesting I had never given any thought to a theory other than the impact theory as the source of our moon.

The article goes on to say

Their hypothesis is that the centrifugal forces would have concentrated heavy elements like thorium and uranium on the equatorial plane and at the Earth core-mantle boundary. If the concentrations of these radioactive elements were high enough, this could have led to a nuclear chain reaction that became supercritical, causing a nuclear explosion.

De Meijer and van Westrenen calculate the concentration of radioactive elements could have been high enough for a supercritical nuclear reaction to take place. After it became supercritical the Earth basically became a natural nuclear georeactor that exploded and ejected into orbit the lunar-sized blob that became the Moon.

The researchers suggest the hypothesis explains the identical isotopic composition of light and heavy elements

www.physorg.com...

It really makes alot of sense. It would explain quite well the similarities in isotope distribution between the earth and the moon. I've always been fascinated by the moons origin and this theory seems to work out some of the known problems with the other leading theory.

Wouldn't this make moon rocks unusually radioactive?

Or it happened so long ago the isotopes decayed?

ive heard this before, it explains why some scientists claim there is radiation on the moon.

The formation of the Moon from the Earth was definitely a collision event because of its sympathetic orbital characteristics and mass relativity, yet the forces in the event occurring may well have involved nuclear reaction also, not everything is either one or the other but more likely both.

The Earth itself having healed from this impact is why there are Tectonic plates in Continental drift and Earthquakes along with Volcanic activity.

If one turns back time to bring the continents back to Pangaea it opens up the impact area to accounting for the Moon's mass, also explaining the tilt of the Earth and the rotation on this axis, as well as our elliptical orbit around the Sun.

[edit on 2010/1/28 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]

Originally posted by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU

If one turns back time to bring the continents back to Pangaea it opens up the impact area to accounting for the Moon's mass, also explaining the tilt of the Earth and the rotation on this axis, as well as our elliptical orbit around the Sun.

[edit on 2010/1/28 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]

I'm truely sorry but this is incorrect. Pangea exsisted during the paleozoic era... This is only 250 million years ago. The moon predates pangea by many BILLIONS of years.

About 600 million years ago another supercontinent named Pannotia began to drift apart. If we go back even further there was another super continent named Rodania which exsisted about 1.1 billion years ago.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Moon's surface cooled and solidified to make its current grey and white face more than 4.5 billion years ago, say researchers who have applied new dating techniques to rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts.

This age puts the Moon's first solid rocks at about the same age Earth's first crust

www.abc.net.au...

Making outrageous claims out to sound true is a detriment to the entire science board. It only takes a little research to validate most posts so please use that google before making preposterous claims.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by constantwonder]

How does the "spin off" theory explain the fact that the Moon does not orbit on Earth's orbital plane?

It's interesting, but I don't think the scientists really have clue. But it's fun to speculate.