| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Science & Technology | |
| Nuclear explosion on Earth created Moon? | |
| 2010-02-01 | |
| [Iran Press TV Latest] Scientists have suggested a new theory saying that the Moon was created as a result of a nuclear explosion on Earth. The new hypothesis is based on the 19th century fission theory, which said Earth and Moon were created after a molten rock collided with the planet and part of it was thrown into the orbit around it, becoming the Moon. Rob de Meijer of the University of the Western Cape and Wim van Westrenen of Amsterdam's VU University, however, do not believe that this was the case. They believe that if the Moon was had been knocked off by an impacting external force, it would have the same composition as that of the Earth and the object that hit it. "Models of solar system evolution show that it is highly unlikely for the chemical composition of the Earth and impactor to be identical," they wrote in their research paper 'An alternative hypothesis for the origin of the Moon.' Recent lunar samples, however, showed that the moon has almost the same chemical composition as of the Earth, mailOnline reported. "A more likely possibility for the large degree of compositional similarity... is that the moon derives directly from terrestrial material," the paper said. "Supplied by a supercritical georeactor in Earth's core-mantle boundary producing sufficient heat to vaporize and eject part of the bulk silicate earth." Clay Dillow of the Popular Science supported the newly suggested theory, saying, "According to their explanation, the centrifugal forces on Earth concentrated heavier elements like uranium and thorium near the surface around the equatorial plane." "Enough of these elements in high enough concentrations could set off a runaway nuclear chain reaction, similar to the kind that cause nuke plant meltdowns," he explained. "In this way, a natural-born nuclear georeactor was pushed to supercritical levels and: BOOM! The moon was cleaved from the Earth and rocketed into orbit by a massive nuclear explosion."
| |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 It is my understanding that the impactor, if smaller than Earth, would likely have its outer layers removed and mixed with Earth's crustal material. So you would end up with what is left of the impactor being left with pretty much just its core and the crustal material of both bodies being mixed together in orbit around Earth. Some of which would fall back to Earth, the rest would clump together and form the moon. So when all is said and done, Moon and Earth have pretty much the same crust composition and what is left if the impactor ends up looking a lot like the planet Mercury. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-02-01 17:01 |
| #5 The best best is probably the foreign body collision theory, but not, as is supposed by a Mars-sized rocky body, but by something more like a high speed black hole, that tore off a quarter of the Earth and dragged it away from Earth, but did not consume it. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-02-01 15:22 |
| #4 I thought the impactor theory was sufficient, but what is curious is that this is reported in Iran Press TV, meaning it's either a really slow news day, or there is some substance to the teal comment at the end of the article. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-02-01 06:08 |
| #3 Actually, there is evidence of natural georeactors. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/all-natural-all-nuclear At the time of the moon's formation the Earth would have been much more radioactive than it is now. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-02-01 02:15 |
| #2 Hey! The Illudium Q-36 really does work. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-02-01 00:42 |
| #1 Space -1999! |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2010-02-01 00:31 |