|LoFi version for PDAs||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
|Robittybob1||Posted on Today at 6:29 PM|
I see there needed to be a correction here. On the timeline revision I did last night I see the Snowball Earth happened at about 3 billion years ago rather than 3.5 billion.
That doesn't change the Yo-yo theory, and may even make it easier to explain for the time of deceleration is lengthened.
|Robittybob1||Posted on Today at 9:47 AM|
| Can the Yo-yo Moon Capture Theory allow for the Moon to become molten sometime in the past that is sufficient to account for the paucity of water in the Moon rocks?
When would this have happened? Obviously it wasn't when the Moon was captured and it wasn't when they were tidally locked, but what about as the Moon tidally decelerated in toward a really massive Earth. Imagine if the Earth still had 3-4 times its current mass at that stage, the Moon had by now been reduced from the 42 at the time of capture down to just 1 Moon mass at the 4.4 billion years ago.
The tidal energy in the Moon flexing the Moon substance to the point of melting the surface. Is there a thermal maximum at sometime during the capture process. I had proposed that at 3.5 Billion years the whole Earth and Moon tidally locked together, so that is a definite thermal minimum. Maybe the Thermal maximum was at 4.4 billion years ago.
What causes this heating? Io one of Jupiter's moons is molten due to gravitational flexing.
If the Moon still had rotational energy and excessive kinetic energy left over from the capture maybe this was enough. Momentum is being transferred to the Earth as rotational energy so the Moon has to lose the huge amounts of orbital energy as result of being captured by a massive primordial Earth.
But since mass is being lost by the Moon and the Earth it is very difficult to put figures to the situation, but it may be possible to make some estimates if we say the maximum heating occurred at 4.4 bys.
|Robittybob1||Posted on Today at 8:27 AM|
| must be the full Moon.
Why are the oldest moon rocks older than the oldest Earth rocks?
Was it really the oldest Moon rock? No it may just be the oldest of the few rocks brought back from the Moon. But on Earth they have really searched for the oldest rock and nothing comes real close.
|Robittybob1||Posted on Today at 4:17 AM|
| The Moon forming first explains why the Moon orbits the Sun close to the ecliptic. (The ecliptic is the plane of the Solar system.)
I'm not saying it did form first but in the Yo-yo Moon Capture theory there is nothing saying it couldn't do this.
I tend to think it may have been at the same time, but that is just as unlikely really.
|Robittybob1||Posted on Today at 4:05 AM|
Well there are extensive writings on this topic in Wikipedia "History of the Earth"
It ends up that the rocks on the Moon are older than any discovered on the Earth!
OK this is probably explained by weathering of the Earth rocks, and no weathering on the Moon.
The earliest Earth rocks formed in oceans yet the Heavy to Late Bombardment had not yet occurred.
So even I can see the possibility that the Moon formed before planet Earth did
Could it have formed at L3 Lagrangian point and remained there till the Earth formed? If things were symmetrical it could of worked for a while?
There is very little to go on but this is what has been written up in Wikipedia.
Based on the raw data you have to have the Moon forming first.
|Robittybob1||Posted on Today at 1:11 AM|
How are these times established anyhow? I think we need to refresh on the timing of the events, and how they can be established. How accurate are these estimates?
|Robittybob1||Posted on Yesterday at 8:21 PM|
Interesting related article as well:
"Organics Probably Formed Easily in Early Solar System"
You seem to think comets will bring enough chemicals to a planet to kick start the life forming process. I tend to the view it was the planet building process that brings the chemicals to the planet. So you might think we are saying the same thing but I tend to disagree. To me a planet is the condensation of a torus that formed in the protoplanetary dust disc. Comets are formed later from the off-pouring of the primordial oceans that formed on the planets. They go out and then a few return; with simply quite insufficient amounts to do the job.
|Robittybob1||Posted on Yesterday at 8:03 PM|
| So to recap some general discussion and the features of the Giant Impact theory that are not conducive to life, covered in the previous page:
1. The predominant motion of the Moon is an orbit around the Sun and secondarily it orbits the Earth.
2. Because of the mass differences the Earth and planet Luna orbited the Sun as co-planet but at different speeds, so from time to time they would pass each other.
3. The two orbits have an inherent instability and the eccentricity of the Moon gets larger as time passes.
4. Life would need temperatures under 100 degrees Celsius, so how does the Earth cool after the Giant Impact – unexplained.
5. The Hiten Mission (Japanese Space Agency) which flew through the Earth–Moon L4 and L5 Lagrangian points in 1992; found no increase in dust levels. – Does not support the Giant Impact theory (GI).
6. The physics of forming a Moon after the GI is suspect
7. I still feel all these major impacts would sterilize the Earth. No Chemical left to become the building blocks for life.
|Capracus||Posted on Yesterday at 11:26 AM|
| At the time of the Giant Impact the Earth was only midway through its 100 million year accretion period. The volatiles and organics necessary for life still had hundreds of millions of years to be delivered by asteroids and comets before life would arise some 700 million years after the end of accretion.
How Life Arose On Earth: Researchers Brew Up Organics On Ice
|Robittybob1||Posted on Yesterday at 10:48 AM|
I still feel all these major impacts would sterilize the Earth, all the preformed organic molecules so essential for life are going to be totally lost in a major impact. Without these chemicals life would just not be able to commence.
That is my fear, so how do you explain the source of the building blocks for DNA and proteins? Sensitive molecules that seem unlikely to survive a melting of the Earth.
Non-volatile also, so you can't just make them float in the clouds to rain down at a later stage.