Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Moon Just Got 100 Million Years Younger


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 9,206 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Posted 24 September 2013 - 01:00 PM

The Moon Just Got 100 Million Years Younger

The moon is quite a bit younger than scientists had previously believed, new research suggests.

The leading theory of how the moon formed holds that it was created when a mysterious planet — one the size of Mars or larger — slammed into Earth about 4.56 billion years ago, just after the solar system came together. But new analyses of lunar rocks suggest that the moon, which likely coalesced from the debris blasted into space by this monster impact, is actually between 4.4 billion and 4.45 billion years old.

http://news.discover...nger-130923.htm

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#2    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,997 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 24 September 2013 - 01:43 PM

Well its all relative.  4.45 vs. 4.56

The important or relevant fact is that apparently the earth did a lot of settling down during that hundred million years, so that the moon didn't get as much heavy metal as it would have earlier.  It also apparently meant that the earth had to get a new atmosphere.  At least that is what I got from it all.


#3    Aggie

Aggie

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2013 - 01:59 PM

This is what I like about science, scientists never stop doubting and researching.

Regarding the OP, 100 million years in the life time of the solar system is like 100 seconds in the life of a human really, not much difference.

Edited by Aggie, 24 September 2013 - 01:59 PM.

No matter what happens....never stop believing in people.....never stop believing in love♥♥

#4    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,779 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 24 September 2013 - 02:39 PM

View PostAggie, on 24 September 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

This is what I like about science, scientists never stop doubting and researching.
I couldn't agree more with you.

View PostAggie, on 24 September 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Regarding the OP, 100 million years in the life time of the solar system is like 100 seconds in the life of a human really, not much difference.
However one thing good scientists don't do is simply make up facts and statistics to back up their argument.

The solar system is generally believed to be around 4.6 billion years old.

100,000,000 is 2.17% of the age of the solar system.

The life expectancy of a male in the United Kingdom (I chose that because I AM a male in the United Kingdom) is 79 years.

2.17% of 79 is 1.71 years.

1.71 years in seconds is  over 53,960,000 seconds.

Your "statistic" was out by a factor of over half a million.

And that's why scientists don't invent statistics, because there is always some Smart Alec that will do the calculations.

I am sorry Aggie if that seemed harsh. It was not meant as a personal attack at you. The way science is frequently misrepresented gets my goat. Even good science is often badly reported, leading to people not understanding or not trusting science. Just inventing stuff in the way you did (no matter how well meaning the sentiment was) does more harm than good.

Having said all that, the general point you (and Frank) are making is valid. in the context of four and a half billion years 100,000,000 is not a huge inaccuracy. A better (and more mathematically correct) way of portraying that figure of 2.17% in terms of every day experience would be at estimating someone as being 50 years old and then discovering that they are in fact only 49.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 24 September 2013 - 02:42 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#5    Aggie

Aggie

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:01 PM

Well, I'll stick with what I know, eh?...where is the cooking thread?

No matter what happens....never stop believing in people.....never stop believing in love♥♥

#6    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,997 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:08 PM

View PostAggie, on 24 September 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Well, I'll stick with what I know, eh?...where is the cooking thread?
We could all see at a glance without getting out the slide rules that you were off by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't matter; you had the right idea and given time you would have refined it.


#7    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,144 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:32 PM

This is interesting, but not sure what this would change?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#8    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 9,206 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Posted 24 September 2013 - 08:06 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 24 September 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

This is interesting, but not sure what this would change?

The age of the moon I reckon.

:lol:

.

Edited by seeder, 24 September 2013 - 08:07 PM.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#9    Talion

Talion

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Glorious America Union Federal Socialist Workers Paradise TX.

  • I'm a tragic hero
    in this game called life
    my chances go to zero
    but I will always survive

Posted 24 September 2013 - 10:24 PM

Is this one of the reasons we decided to "bomb" the moon a few years ago?


#10    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 9,206 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Posted 24 September 2013 - 11:03 PM

View PostTalion, on 24 September 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Is this one of the reasons we decided to "bomb" the moon a few years ago?

eh? That makes no sense at all.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#11    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,144 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:31 AM

View PostTalion, on 24 September 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Is this one of the reasons we decided to "bomb" the moon a few years ago?
No.... We (The USA) had to bomb the Moon because of the Nazi bases that had been built there. Haven't you seen Iron Sky?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#12    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:25 AM

The leading theory of how the moon formed holds that it was created when a mysterious planet — one the size of Mars or larger — slammed into Earth about 4.56 billion years ago, just after the solar system came together. But new analyses of lunar rocks suggest that the moon, which likely coalesced from the debris blasted into space by this monster impact...

That's from the article.

Now, I'm confused a little. A planet(the size of Mars or larger) slamming into earth, doesn't make much sense to me.
That is, what happened to that "planet" and would it not have changed Earth's orbit, not to mention "cracking" both substanstially?

Maybe it was a relatively "slow" hit. Or, being so long ago and "recombining over time" to once again becoming "spherical", could that "assassin planet" now be what we know as Mars, or Venus? If not, where did it go?

I don't know, it's just confusing to me.

Edited by pallidin, 25 September 2013 - 03:40 AM.


#13    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,997 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:32 AM

View Postpallidin, on 25 September 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

The leading theory of how the moon formed holds that it was created when a mysterious planet — one the size of Mars or larger — slammed into Earth about 4.56 billion years ago, just after the solar system came together. But new analyses of lunar rocks suggest that the moon, which likely coalesced from the debris blasted into space by this monster impact...

That's from the article.

Now, I'm confused a little. A planet(the size of Mars or larger) slamming into earth, doesn't make much sense to me.
That is, what happened to that "planet" and would it not have changed Earth's orbit, not to metion cracking both substanstially?

Maybe it was a relative "slow" hit. Or, being so long ago and "recombining over time" to once again becoming "spherical", could that "assassin planet" now be what we know as Mars, or Venus? If not, where did it go?

I don't know, it's just confusing to me.
When I read that I have to say I was put off by the word "mysterious."  At the time all sorts of things were happening of a violent nature, and stray planets were one of them.

To address your questions, the planet was presumably consumed and its mass was incorporated into the Earth and Moon, with no doubt quite a bit being thrown elsewhere.

Such an event would throw most of the outer parts of the Earth plus the mass of the incoming planet, depending on the relative orbits at time of collision, into a low earth orbit where over a few million years or so it would coalesce into the moon and the earth would settle down again and resume differentiating.  

For this to happen, as I understand it, the earth and the collider would need to have been formed in almost the same orbit, so that they came together relatively gently (as these things go).  Other orbits for the collider would result in complete demolition or the ejection of one or the other or both from the solar system (assuming no actual collision).


#14    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 25 September 2013 - 05:59 PM

Good post, Frank.


#15    Mantis914

Mantis914

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lone Star State

  • You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Plato

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 25 September 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

When I read that I have to say I was put off by the word "mysterious."  At the time all sorts of things were happening of a violent nature, and stray planets were one of them.

To address your questions, the planet was presumably consumed and its mass was incorporated into the Earth and Moon, with no doubt quite a bit being thrown elsewhere.

Such an event would throw most of the outer parts of the Earth plus the mass of the incoming planet, depending on the relative orbits at time of collision, into a low earth orbit where over a few million years or so it would coalesce into the moon and the earth would settle down again and resume differentiating.  

For this to happen, as I understand it, the earth and the collider would need to have been formed in almost the same orbit, so that they came together relatively gently (as these things go).  Other orbits for the collider would result in complete demolition or the ejection of one or the other or both from the solar system (assuming no actual collision).

Would this account for the asteroid belt then?  Plus, from previous times, I thought we were told that the moon was way older than the Earth.  It's just hard to accept all the coincidences of the Impact theory especially when an eclipse comes and you see just how perfect the size of the moon is for the Earth or just how the moon affects tidal waves...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users