PDA

View Full Version : Earth's two moons? It's not lunacy



Teh One Who Knocks
08-04-2011, 12:57 PM
Experts aren't completely sold yet
By SETH BORENSTEIN,AP Science Writer


http://i.imgur.com/lijxe.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth once had two moons, until one of them made the fatal mistake of smacking into its big sister in what is being called the "big splat," some astronomers theorize.

The result: The planet was left with a single bulked-up and ever-so-slightly lopsided moon.

The astronomers came up with this scenario to explain why the moon's far side is so much more hilly than the one that is always facing Earth. The theory, outlined in a research paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature, comes complete with computer model runs showing how it would happen and an illustration that looks like the bigger moon getting a pie in the face.

Outside experts said the idea makes sense, but they aren't completely sold yet.

This all supposedly happened about 4.4 billion years ago, long before there was any life on Earth to gaze up and see the strange sight of dual moons. The moons themselves were young, formed about 100 million years earlier when a giant planet smashed into Earth. They both orbited Earth and sort of rose in the sky together, the smaller one trailing a few steps behind like a little sister in tow.

The smaller one was a planetary lightweight. The other was three times wider and 25 times heavier, its gravity so strong that the smaller one just couldn't resist, even though it was parked a good bit away.

"They're destined to collide. There's no way out. ... This big splat is a low-velocity collision," said study co-author Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

What Asphaug calls a slow crash is relative: It happened at more than 5,000 mph, but that's about as slow as possible when you are talking planetary smashups, Asphaug said. It's slow enough that the rocks didn't melt.

And because the smaller moon was more than 600 miles wide, the crash took a while to finish even at 5,000 mph. Asphaug likened the smaller moon to a rifle bullet and said, "People would be bored looking at it because it's taking 10 minutes just for the bullet to bury itself in the moon. This is an event if you were looking at, you'd need a big bag of popcorn."

The rocks and crust from the smaller moon would have spread over and around the bigger moon without creating a crater, as a faster crash would have done.

"The physics is really surprisingly similar to a pie in the face," Asphaug said.

And about a day later, everything was settled and the near and far sides of the moon looked different, Asphaug said.

Co-author Martin Jutzi of the University of Bern in Switzerland said the study was an attempt to explain the odd crust and mountainous terrain of the moon's far side. Asphaug noticed it looked as if something had been added to the surface, so the duo started running computer simulations of cosmic crashes.

The theory was the buzz this week in Woods Hole, Mass., at a conference of scientists working on NASA's next robotic mission to the moon, said H. Jay Melosh of Purdue University.

"We can't find anything wrong with it," Melosh said. "It may or may not be right."

Planetary scientist Alan Stern, former NASA associate administrator for science, said it is a "very clever new idea," but one that is not easily tested to learn whether it is right.

A second moon isn't just an astronomical matter. The moon plays a big role in literature and song. And poet Todd Davis, a professor of literature at Penn State University, said this idea of two moons — one essentially swallowing the other — will capture the literary imagination.

"I'll probably be dreaming about it and trying to work on a poem," Davis said.

FBD
08-04-2011, 04:49 PM
The moon would also get such a shape from a non-catastrophic collision with the earth...

I see zip for evidence of #2.

Acid Trip
08-04-2011, 05:15 PM
The moon would also get such a shape from a non-catastrophic collision with the earth...

I see zip for evidence of #2.

I hear you. It could have been a collision with Earth, an asteroid, a comet, etc etc. An asteroid or Earth is the most likely cause.

FBD
08-04-2011, 08:41 PM
I disagree with an asteroid or comet - if that was the case then the speed difference would have been astounding and more cataclysmic - probably talking speed differences of 20 or 30,000mph depending on angles of incidence...in which case, unless the impact was dead-on, it would transfer a huge amount of angular momentum to the moon.

of course I cant figure off the top of my head if there would have been sufficient time for all of the angular momentum to have been lost in such a scenario since the moon is facelocked with the earth.

that, and the moon's orbit isnt very eccentric...

5,000 is a crawl and the other moon, if trailing...I dont get the mechanism by which this other moon disappeared - if its happening at the velocities postulated then there should be more evidence, and 5,000 would most likely not even be enough for the other moon to escape the relative gravitation of the earth-moon system.

I may be wrong of course, but I dont see much evidence the other way....aside from a grandiose theory :razz:

Godfather
08-05-2011, 02:22 AM
Love this theory!! Like FBD said, slow speed seems to be a main factor in this theory as asteroids would likely be traveling at far great speeds.

But very true, still a theory. :mrgreen: Hope some testing in the next few decades can conclusively answer this question as to why one side of our moon has 3000 foot mountains and the other is smoothish.

Hal-9000
08-05-2011, 02:33 AM
Love this theory!! Like FBD said, slow speed seems to be a main factor in this theory as asteroids would likely be traveling at far great speeds.

But very true, still a theory. :mrgreen: Hope some testing in the next few decades can conclusively answer this question as to why one side of our moon has 3000 foot mountains and the other is smoothish.

because of the global holocaust that extended out to the moon and almost melted it out of existence...sheesh, you skuled guys sure are dumb

FBD
08-05-2011, 11:02 AM
I'm fully of the opinion that the "slow collision" was between the earth and the moon. It well explains the gravitational facelock and the moon's (very) slowly increasing size of orbit.

:lol: heck if you want to believe the crazy "alien" theories, the moon was purposefully parked here by that same mechanism.

Teh One Who Knocks
08-05-2011, 11:06 AM
I'm fully of the opinion that the "slow collision" was between the earth and the moon. It well explains the gravitational facelock and the moon's (very) slowly increasing size of orbit.

:lol: heck if you want to believe the crazy "alien" theories, the moon was purposefully parked here by that same mechanism.

Wouldn't a collision between the earth and moon left some kind of mark here on earth?

FBD
08-05-2011, 11:10 AM
That supposedly happened when the surface of the earth was every bit as molten as Venus, if not more....there's lots of relatively benign marks here on the planet. Ever wonder why there's a crack in the bottom of the pacific that is dragging material down and it eventually descends into the mantle, while down the middle of the atlantic the resultant pulls of the plates are like somebody pulling a rug away from you at the other end? Not to say that's definitely the cause of that mechanism, but its within the range of plausibility.

Teh One Who Knocks
08-05-2011, 11:23 AM
Ever wonder why there's a crack in the bottom of the pacific...

I thought that was from the Morlocks :oops:

Hal-9000
08-07-2011, 11:04 PM
I thought that was from the Morlocks :oops:

What a morn :slap:

the crack is the drain...where do you think all the rain goes? duhhhh

Shady
08-08-2011, 02:58 AM
Here is my two cents on the subject.


The most widely accepted theory on how the moon was formed was that there was a body orbiting the sun. another large celestial body collided with the first and cause a chaotic scene. A good portion of the colliding celestial body stuck with the first and became the earth. A smaller percentage of the colliding celestial body, after being slowed down considerably coalesced and was caught in a extremely slowly drifting orbit around the earth, aka the moon. The moon actually is moving farther away from the earth by tiny amounts every year. That being said, it is also important to note that the moons rotation is exactly the same of the earth. The same side of the moon is always facing the earth. Now the earth and moon both exert gravitational forces on each other but the earth being of greater mass, exerts the larger force. The way I think of this is, take a large boulder in a raging river. Over time the force of the water will smooth the surface coming in contact with the water whereas if you pull the boulder up there will be rough jagged edges. It makes sense in Newtonian physics. Both objects/forces are large enough that they will not be influenced greatly enough to slow or change direction of force but they do interact and there are consequence of said interaction. This is why the surface of the moon that we see is smoother compared to the dark side of the moon. At least its my theory.