[_ Old Earth _] Was the moon once part of the earth which broke off

[brother Paul]

This is often what we are told yet the earth bears no evidence that it is so...and then how did "moons" so round, uniform, and necessary for our positional maintenance in regards to our orbit in relation to the sun, appear for the other planets? The moons of Jupiter for example demonstrate such a wide variety of characteristics it seems unlikely they came from the same source in the same way....

Thoughts?

 

[Obadiah]

From what I understand of this is that for a moon to form it doesn't necessarily have to be from material that somehow broke off of the main planet. I don't think we know enough about Jupiter and it's moons yet to know if this was how they were formed or not. I've read one theory that moons can be formed by local space debris collecting together, which creates a stronger gravitational force to bring in more debris. If conditions are right it creates a vicious circle kind of effect that attracts more and more space debris until a small globe shape is formed. If this mass of debris is traveling at the right speed and right altitude from a planet it can become an orbiting moon.

As for the moon of the Earth, I've read that the current theory is that early in history an asteroid hit the young Earth causing a large section to break off, which became our moon. They believe that the section where the moon broke away is what is now the Gulf of Mexico. (I would imagine it was actually a lot of chunks that broke away with enough force to send them into space where they coalesced again.) Today the moon is very round due to the force of it's own gravity eventually forcing it into that shape. At least that seems to be the current theory that I've heard about and I know it doesn't line up with the beliefs of a literal creation story in Genesis. Who other than God really knows for sure?

 

[Barbarian]

This is often what we are told yet the earth bears no evidence that it is so...

Moon does, though. It turns out to be very like a big chunk of Earth crust and mantle (but not core). It look remarkably like a big piece of Earth knocked off after which much of it went into orbit around the Earth.

and then how did "moons" so round, uniform, and necessary for our positional maintenance in regards to our orbit in relation to the sun, appear for the other planets?

Which other moons do you think measurably affect our "positional maintenance? Your dog, a few feet away, exerts more gravitational force on you than any other moon in the solar system, apart from ours. (inverse square law, you know)

The moons of Jupiter for example demonstrate such a wide variety of characteristics it seems unlikely they came from the same source in the same way....

Most look as though they formed from the accretion disk of the planet, unlike that of the Earth.

Here's a clue to start you off. Do a summary of the moons of the rocky planets. Then do a summary of the moons of the gas giants. Include density, diameter, and moon/planet diameter ratios.

Do you see something surprising? Guess why.
Thoughts?

 

[brother Paul]

The composition of the mantle is only inferred at this time and most of the evidence is taken by volcanic matter brought up from deep below.

It is pretty much concluded that the composition of our mantle is estimated to be 46% Silicon Oxide, 38% magnesium oxide, 8% iron oxide and other compounds like “garnet”, while

the composition of the moon has been estimated to be 43% oxygen, 20% silicon, 19% magnesium, 10% iron, 3% calcium, 3% aluminum, 0.42% chromium, 0.18% titanium and 0.12% manganese.

Apparently the “like our mantle” theory has been falsified.

The crust of the earth however is much closer…47% oxygen; 27% silicon; 8% aluminum; 5% Iron; 4% calcium; another 2% is a mixture of magnesium, potassium and sodium…yet still vastly different.

 

[Barbarian]

The composition of the mantle is only inferred at this time and most of the evidence is taken by volcanic matter brought up from deep below.

There's the issue of physics. How could we know the composition of the mantle? Well, we can do a sonogram of the Earth.

Or rather, we can watch when the Earth does it for us:
When an earthquake occurs the seismic waves (P and S waves) spread out in all directions through the Earth's interior. Seismic stations located at increasing distances from the earthquake epicenter will record seismic waves that have traveled through increasing depths in the Earth.

Seismic velocities depend on the material properties such as composition, mineral phase and packing structure, temperature, and pressure of the media through which seismic waves pass. Seismic waves travel more quickly through denser materials and therefore generally travel more quickly with depth. Anomalously hot areas slow down seismic waves. Seismic waves move more slowly through a liquid than a solid. Molten areas within the Earth slow down P waves and stop S waves because their shearing motion cannot be transmitted through a liquid. Partially molten areas may slow down the P waves and attenuate or weaken S waves.

When seismic waves pass between geologic layers with contrasting seismic velocities (when any wave passes through media with distinctly differing velocities) reflections, refraction (bending), and the production of new wave phases (e.g., an S wave produced from a P wave) often result. Sudden jumps in seismic velocities across a boundary are known as seismic discontinuities.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm

It is pretty much concluded that the composition of our mantle is estimated to be 46% Silicon Oxide, 38% magnesium oxide, 8% iron oxide and other compounds like “garnet”, while

the composition of the moon has been estimated to be 43% oxygen, 20% silicon, 19% magnesium, 10% iron, 3% calcium, 3% aluminum, 0.42% chromium, 0.18% titanium and 0.12% manganese.

Apparently the “like our mantle” theory has been falsified.

Never heard of that one. The moon looks more like crust and mantle, and the theory is that a chunk of mantle and crust got gouged out by a large body. BTW, whoever gave you that data did a little switch on you; by shifting from the actual minerals (for Earth) to a list of elements, (for Moon) it's possible to make the two appear different.

The crust of the earth however is much closer…47% oxygen; 27% silicon; 8% aluminum; 5% Iron; 4% calcium; another 2% is a mixture of magnesium, potassium and sodium…yet still vastly different.

They did the switch here, too. But the elemental compositions you listed are very much alike. The crust of the Earth is mostly oxygen and silicon. So is the moon, according to your data. Let's try an apples to apples comparison:

Earth's mantle: 44% oxygen Moon: 43% oxygen
Earth's mantle: 21% silicon Moon: 20% silcon
Earth's mantle: 22% magnesium Moon: 19% magnesium
Earth's mantle: 6% iron Moon: 10% iron

This is one of the reasons why the collision theory is gaining adherents. The elemental composition of each is so similar.

 

[Edward]

This is often what we are told yet the earth bears no evidence that it is so...and then how did "moons" so round, uniform, and necessary for our positional maintenance in regards to our orbit in relation to the sun, appear for the other planets? The moons of Jupiter for example demonstrate such a wide variety of characteristics it seems unlikely they came from the same source in the same way....

Thoughts?

They want us to believe that, but I'm mighty skeptical of them shows. I believe it's an effort to counter the other information that's coming out lately. Like...the moon don't make sense, the size, location, and lots of other stuff. They think that our moon is artificially designed into our system. Rather than go from memory, I'll just link to an article about it. Good stuff.
Http://www.whobuiltthemoon.com/the-moon-is-not-a-natural-planet.html

 

[Obadiah]

They want us to believe that, but I'm mighty skeptical of them shows. I believe it's an effort to counter the other information that's coming out lately. Like...the moon don't make sense, the size, location, and lots of other stuff. They think that our moon is artificially designed into our system. Rather than go from memory, I'll just link to an article about it. Good stuff.
Http://www.whobuiltthemoon.com/the-moon-is-not-a-natural-planet.html

Really? The moon was artificially made? Short of being "made" by God, this is just ludicrous. Besides, the link gives no real information. It's nothing more than a tricky advertisement to try to get people to by his rather dubious book.

 

[Lewis]

God put them in place for balance

 

[Edward]

Really? The moon was artificially made? Short of being "made" by God, this is just ludicrous. Besides, the link gives no real information. It's nothing more than a tricky advertisement to try to get people to by his rather dubious book.

Not artificially, that would be made by man. What I meant was that the moon didn't get there in normal fashion with regards to moons and planets.

It's too big, it's orbit is weird, and lots of other technical stuff...it don't belong. It's not just one guy trying to sell a book, lol. There's others saying the same things.

I think it's prolly true. Whether whether it was done by God, to provide balance and perhaps provide more evidence to us to indicate intelligent design, or maybe by fallen one's as a place for them to live and monitor us from (?)...it's shady in that it doesn't make sense with regard to conventional knowledge and thinking.

Some say it's hollow and rang like a gong when they landed on it. I don't know which is the truth but we can't trust NASA for sure and something is fishy about it.

It might be a Death Star, . Lol

 

[Obadiah]

Yeah, this all sounds like the modern day version of "The moon is made of cheese" to me. Too many people are watching too many science fiction movies I think.

 

[Edward]

God put them in place for balance

This could be true. The moon affects the earth in many ways and is essential for life to continue here. But no big bang put it here. If a big bang, then the bigger planets would wind up closer to the sun, and the smaller ones further out...our solar system isn't laid out that way.

The size of the moon isn't right. It's much too big, and coincidentally, is sized for discovery. It's the exact size needed for eclipsis to happen, allowing us to study the corona from the sun. So the size & distance from sun is unique.

Also, apparently the mass of the moon doesn't coincide with its size with regards to gravitational pulls and so on. We live in a so-called goldilocks zone from the sun which allows life here. Any closer to the sun and it wouldn't work, any further away and it wouldn't work.

Our solar system is so finely tuned and balanced that, if even one of a thousand things were changed,life would be impossible here. We're figuring these things out over time. It all points to the Lord and intelligent design & maintenance...

 

[Obadiah]

It all points to the Lord and intelligent design & maintenance...

And in that I think you're exactly right.

 

[Edward]

Yeah, this all sounds like the modern day version of "The moon is made of cheese" to me. Too many people are watching too many science fiction movies I think.

So if something is out of the ordinary, fall back to what was taught in elementary school and reject new info/theorys?? Lol.

Go to the corner...

 

[Edward]

And in that I think you're exactly right.

Yes! I know I'm right about that part. It can be a bit exasperating to try'n figger things out, when we know they lie and deceive about most things, but do know some things, and it seems like everyday they come out with some new truth/lie.

It gives me a headache, lol. It's easier to regress to earlier teachings but I like keeping an open mind and considering new input. Some will be false, some will be true and where's the aspirin?! 2

When all is said and done, I suspect that the real complete truth will be far removed from what we were taught to believe.

 

[Obadiah]

So if something is out of the ordinary, fall back to what was taught in elementary school and reject new info/theorys?? Lol.

Go to the corner...

LOL! Ok, I'm there teacher. :dunce

 

[Edward]

I heard that at this point in history, because of technology...mans knowledge/information is fully doubling like, every week. With the blur of so much new info, and the proving/disproving of older theories so much, it's rocking the world into what seems like psychological chaos as many existing world views are proven wrong.

Reminds me of a quote-joke I heard, lol.

The amount of new discoveries lately is staggering. So much so, that if you haven't changed your worldview in the last 10-20 yrs...check your pulse! You may be dead.

 

[brother Paul]

Anyone hear about how quantum physicists are discovering the probability that consciousness of the individual lives on after death? Ya think? They call it in another universe but we know better....http://www.learning-mind.com/quantu...usness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I would be intreasted in theories of how a moon is formed. (Or our moon if that's the only one with theories.). And compare that to theories to how rings around a planet are formed. The splash of hot molten earth forming the moon sounds great, and for a lay person like me, who can challenge it or confirm it. But why even come together to make one mass for the moon instead of having an orbiting ring like Saturn has? Size of the planet? Liquid or molten form to create the moon verses an unknown reason for planetary rings forming.

 

[Barbarian]

It's too big, it's orbit is weird, and lots of other technical stuff...it don't belong. It's not just one guy trying to sell a book, lol. There's others saying the same things.

You got it. It's why I suggested people look at other planets and their moons (or lack of them) to get a sense of why our moon is such an odd companion for the Earth. Very unlikely to have formed in the way that most moons do. And the close match to the composition of crust and mantle indicates a collision followed by the formation of the moon from the debris.

 

[brother Paul]

And the close match to the composition of crust and mantle indicates a collision followed by the formation of the moon from the debris.

Not really...close match of composition does not indicate a it resulted from a collision at all