http://www.physorg.com/news183884450.html
They theorize billions of years ago a natural georeactor set off a huge fission reaction when the Earth was spinning faster and gravity just barely held the planet together.
They say the impact theory of a mars sized body smashing into the Earth and blasting off a chunk that became the moon has a big problem because if so there should be a huge difference in the isotopes and chemicals in moon rock, 80% earth and 20% impactor (the planet that hit Earth). The actual rocks brought back from the moon show the isotope ratios to be identical to Earth rocks, so the reactor theory fits the facts better. Georeactors are known to have been present in the deep past on Earth, several have been found which says the theory is at least plausible.
The blast would have simply launched a good chunk of Earth into an orbit because the crust was too close to flying apart due to centrifugal forces and a good nudge by a reaction like that could have sent an already unstable chunk into orbit.
What do you think?
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, I don't think so.
http://www.physorg.com/news183884450.html
They theorize billions of years ago a natural georeactor set off a huge fission reaction when the Earth was spinning faster and gravity just barely held the planet together.
They say the impact theory of a mars sized body smashing into the Earth and blasting off a chunk that became the moon has a big problem bec ...[text shortened]... reaction like that could have sent an already unstable chunk into orbit.
What do you think?
Originally posted by FabianFnasOne valid point they made: Moon rock composition is extremely like Earth crust to a great degree, greater than can be explained by a Mars sized body whacking Earth and doing the spin-off thing.
No, I don't think so.
What they are pointing out is the instability of the Earth's crust during the formative era, with the crust so lightly held in place a disturbance by some natural reaction like this fission thing was enough to tip it over the edge and split off some of it to form the moon.
Here is a puzzle for you: Suppose something like that happened, we know that at least the majority of Luna came from Earth and lets suppose only half of the ejecta became the moon.
What would Earth's gravity have been before the split event, however it happened?
Doubling the moons mass and sticking back on Earth, how much bigger would Earth have been?
Originally posted by sonhouseStill think there was no nuclear explosion.
One valid point they made: Moon rock composition is extremely like Earth crust to a great degree, greater than can be explained by a Mars sized body whacking Earth and doing the spin-off thing.
What they are pointing out is the instability of the Earth's crust during the formative era, with the crust so lightly held in place a disturbance by some natura ...[text shortened]...
Doubling the moons mass and sticking back on Earth, how much bigger would Earth have been?
Originally posted by sonhouseWouldn't this also require that a higher concentration of thorium and uranium would be found on the moon?
http://www.physorg.com/news183884450.html
They theorize billions of years ago a natural georeactor set off a huge fission reaction when the Earth was spinning faster and gravity just barely held the planet together.
They say the impact theory of a mars sized body smashing into the Earth and blasting off a chunk that became the moon has a big problem bec ...[text shortened]... reaction like that could have sent an already unstable chunk into orbit.
What do you think?