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.


- - - - -

Water on the moon: Itís been there all along

moon planetary formation water apollo

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#16    onereaderone

onereaderone

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Joined:21 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:earth

  • interfacing transdimentional inverse mobius feed back loop

Posted 24 February 2013 - 01:24 PM

it  is  important  to  remember...   because  of  the  near  zero  pressure ,   water  goes  from  solide  to  gas  with  out  a liquid  state.
also...  the  magnetic  feild  of  the  earth does  not  currently  sheild  the  moon  from  solar  wind...  

togather  :  when  ever  the  sun  shines , surface  water  is  carried  away  that  is  heated  above  frozen .  if  this  is  true ,  then  for  there  to  be  water  on  the  moon...   either   there  was  a great  deal  of  water  at  one  time  in  the  past....   or....  the  earths  magnetic  feild  was  pretty   far  out  there ....or....  there  is  something  going  on  here  that  we  do  not  understand .


#17    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:06 PM

The ice deposits either found or inferred to exist on the Moon are in permanently shaded areas, near the poles, or well beneath the surface. Sunlight never strikes them. There is virtually no atmosphere on the Moon to conduct heat to these areas. They could remain frozen indefinitely.
In any case, this does not appear to apply to the water ( actually hydroxyl ) found in certain minerals on the Moon. This is not ice, but merely the chemical constituents of water.
This substance should not be found in Lunar minerals at all, if the Moon was created by the process detailed in the Giant Impact scenario, the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the existence of the Moon. The great heat involved would have boiled all traces of it out of the rocks, and reduced it to gases.
If this discovery of the constituents of water in Lunar mineral stands, the Giant Impact scenario, and presumably any impact sufficient to create the Moon will have to be discarded.
Given the failure of other explanations for the origin of the Moon to stand up to careful scientific scrutiny, we are left with a real mystery, right in our own cosmic back yard. Why does the Moon exist at all?  It hangs above us in sky, like a giant question mark.


#18    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:05 AM

The Moon appears to be radically deficient in iron. Its small core of this element is about one quarter of its radius wide. Earth's iron core is about half the planet's radius. Yet the Moon has isotope ratios of several other elements very similar to those of our planet.
It appears possible that the Moon largely formed elsewhere in space, then acquired a coating of Earth-like materials when it came into the vicinity of our planet. How it might have approached Earth, and have gone into close orbit of our planet is not clear.
The idea that a passing body the size of the Moon could be captured by Earth, and end up it its present orbit appears so improbable as to seem almost absurd. It would be far, far more likely to collide with the primordial Earth and be absorbed by it, or be thrown into a grossly elliptical orbit, or be thrown free of Earth, altogether.

Edited by bison, 26 February 2013 - 01:07 AM.


#19    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:29 PM

The Moon is conspicuously asymmetric in its appearance. The near side is marked by many large, dark 'maria', or 'seas', areas of dark, basaltic stone. The far side has almost none of these. The maria are thought to be fields of volcanic eruptions that occurred eons ago, before the Moon lost most of its heat.
It is interesting to observe that many of the maria are distinctly round. Current scientific thinking about the Moon does not rule out the possibility that the maria were huge impact basins, into which lava flowed. These impacts may have even triggered the eruptions, by fracturing the the lunar rock to a considerable depth.
It seems natural to wonder why huge impact basins should appear on only one side of the Moon. Perhaps this happened to the Moon, if it moved through a great distance before arriving near Earth. One can imagine it moving through space, and, for some reason, not rotating. It would sweep up impacts on its leading side; plowing through the heavy debris known to exist in our solar system, about  4 billion years ago, during the time known as the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Edited by bison, 26 February 2013 - 11:33 PM.


#20    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:40 PM

The idea of a celestial body not having rotated at all, at some point in its existence, even a modest-sized one like the Moon, seems absurd. Every such body of which we are aware rotates in some fashion. Rotation is integral to our understanding of how natural bodies form in space, from in-falling debris.
If there is a credible alternative explanation for how the Moon came to have large impact basins on only one of its sides, I would like to hear of it.  In the meantime I will muse about the apparently very unnatural motions of the Moon, both in seeming not to rotate at one time, and in the odd way, and against all probability, it appears to have inserted itself into a nearly circular orbit of Earth.


#21    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:28 PM

Given the possibility that the Giant Impact scenario will not prove to be the most likely version of Earth/Moon history, a look at an alternate timeline seems worthwhile: Earth and the other planets of our solar system are believed to have condensed out of circumsolar debris about 4.6 billion years ago. The origin of the Moon and its oldest surface, represented by the highlands terrain, is thought to have been about 4.5 billion years ago.
     If we speculate that the Moon was in transit from elsewhere from that point, until around 3.8 billion years ago, we can account for it receiving the large impacts on its nearer side, in the Late Heavy Bombardment, which probably ran from about  around 4 to 3.8 billion years ago. Once it can into orbit of Earth, the Moon presumably soon became tidally locked to our planet, assuming a rotation period of the same length as the time it took to orbit around Earth. Since this would have exposed nearly the entire surface of the Moon to the Late Heavy Bombardment, it appears that this must have been nearing its end by this time.
Given the several isotopic ratios which are very similar on both Earth and Moon, it seems reasonable that a good deal of debris kicked up from Earth by the LHB could have fallen onto the Moon, which was much closer to Earth than it is now. This could account for the confusing clues that otherwise seem to indicate that the Earth and Moon are made of the same material, and were thus formed in the same immediate region of circumsolar space.

Edited by bison, 28 February 2013 - 05:29 PM.


#22    onereaderone

onereaderone

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Joined:21 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:earth

  • interfacing transdimentional inverse mobius feed back loop

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

View Postbison, on 27 February 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

The idea of a celestial body not having rotated at all, at some point in its existence, even a modest-sized one like the Moon, seems absurd. Every such body of which we are aware rotates in some fashion. Rotation is integral to our understanding of how natural bodies form in space, from in-falling debris.


If there is a credible alternative explanation for how the Moon came to have large impact basins on only one of its sides, I would like to hear of it.


In the meantime I will muse about the apparently very unnatural motions of the Moon, both in seeming not to rotate at one time, and in the odd way, and against all probability, it appears to have inserted itself into a nearly circular orbit of Earth.

lets  give  the  moon  a rotation ( common  sense  tells  us   that  there  is  currently  no  body  in  space  at  this  time  that  does  not have a period  of rotation  [  not  one ] ).   if   the  moon  were  traveling  in  the  direction  of  axis ...   then the north  traveling   body  would  have only  one  side   north  facing ,  and  only  one  side  would  plow  threw  the northern  derbis ...  

the  shape  of  the  moon  suggests that  it  was  born  a  moon...  but  its  core  suggests  it  was  not  the  child  of  the  earth .
venus  has  a  iron  core  the  size  of  earths...   and  mars  has  a smaller  core  than  earth  ,  but  still  not  a  good  parent  match  for  the  moon...

the  astroid  feild  between  mars  and  earth  is  the  best  hope  for  a match ...  but  the  location  of  the  feild  would  make  a  planetary  body  hard  to  speculate   with  precsion...   but  thats  where  i  would  start  looking ...

best  guess ,  earth  and  mars  ripped  the  sibling  planet  apart...    and  earth  stole  its  moon .
the  moon  took  a slow  degenarate  path ,  falling  into  the  sun ...   and  then   parked  in a paraellel  orbit  with  earth ,  stealing the  orbital  gravity  energy  of  earths   well...   slowing  and  speeding....   untill   we  have  what  we  see  now .

the  moon  did  not  have  the  speed  or  dencity  to  fly  out  of  the  solar system ,  and  it  had  the  mass  needed  to  get  the  suns attention .
it  was  on  its  way  to  the  sun when   it  slipped  in  to  earths  solar  orbit ,   its  parent  planet  was  traveling  in  the  same  orbital direction  as  earth so  the  meeting  was  not  so  remarkable .   the  current  face  of  the  moon  was  out  facing ,  away  from  earth ...  and  it  very  slowly  turned  to  face  the  earth...   but  we  see  the  history  of  what   life  was  like  for  an orphan moon .


#23    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:34 AM

Thanks, Onereaderone, for your reply.  I agree, common sense would seem to indicate that the Moon has always had some rotation, not just since it encountered Earth. Common sense comes from past applicable experiences. What if the Moon is, as it appears, unique, and unprecedented? If it is, we will not have the experiential basis for common sense, where it is concerned.
I'm not familiar with an 'asteroid field' between Earth and Mars. True, some asteroids spend much of their time in this part of the solar system, but I've never heard it called a field. There is the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter,  but that is gravitationally under the sway of Jupiter, not Mars, or Earth.
The capture of the Moon by the Earth as it flew near, has a serious problem. The Moon's orbit is nearly circular, not what would be expected of a captured body. The capture hypothesis has been considered nearly untenable for a long time, which is why the giant impact hypothesis was advanced. Now it too begins to look doubtful.
I'm not saying that the Moon was captured by the Earth, merely that it presumably went into orbit of our planet at some point. I'm not saying that the Moon just happened to have no rotation, but that non-rotation is a relatively simple means of explaining the asymmetry of large impact basins on only one side.

Edited by bison, 01 March 2013 - 12:38 AM.


#24    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:38 PM

To cover a couple more points of Onereaderone's post:   The idea of the Moon traveling in the direction its axis pointed, and so accumulating impacts on what we'll call its Northern hemisphere is interesting. I considered this possibility myself.  
A problem I perceive with this idea is that the Moon's rotation would have to be stopped, and then restarted with a different spin axis 90 degrees from the original one. Merely flipping the axis by about 90 degrees wouldn't do, because then half of the Moon nearside would have large impact basins, and presumably 'seas', and the other half wouldn't. Also, half of the Moon's farside would have large basins and seas. This isn't what we observe.
I can see the Moon acquiring a tidally locked spin fairly easily when it went into orbit of the Earth. Canceling out its former supposed rotational momentum looks more difficult to explain. We might have ended up with a Moon that keeps the same longitude pointing at Earth, but rotating at 90 degree or so, pointing an ever-changing latitude our way.
The near passage of the Earth by the Moon, in the usual way of thinking, could have one of four possible outcomes. 1.) The Moon has its path modified by the Earth's gravity but fails to go into orbit, instead assuming an independent orbit of the Sun. 2.) The Moon is captured in an eccentric orbit of Earth. 3.) The Moon strikes the Earth, and is absorbed into it. 4.) The Moon assumes a nearly circular orbit of Earth.
There are many different solar orbits that could have been assumed by the Moon in the first possibility, depending on the circumstances. So, too, many highly eccentric orbits of the Moon around Earth are possible. There are also many ways the Earth could have been struck by the Moon. Dead center, offset from the center in any direction, and any of a number of different glancing blows.
The fact that, on average, the Moon's nearest approach  to Earth is nearly 90 per cent of its farthest passage shows that its orbit is remarkably close to circular, given all the other possible outcomes. The chances of this just happening to be the case are remote enough to make the capture process, as it is usually understood, almost untenable. It's no wonder the Giant Impact hypothesis was proposed as an alternative, and that it became so widely accepted in scientific circles. A pity that it now looks as if it, too, may have to be discarded. A beautiful theory spoiled by an ugly little fact?

Edited by bison, 01 March 2013 - 06:00 PM.


#25    Mr Supertypo

Mr Supertypo

    Hi...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,878 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:somewhere in Europe

  • I'll be back....

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:53 AM

View PostOverSword, on 18 February 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

What, you wouldn't call this disclosure?  It seems like they just disclosed that there is water on the moon.

About the water on the moon, this has been known for decades. Its not a news at all....

Finally got my black belt....

#26    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:09 AM

It's true that water ice has been observed on the Moon for some time. What is new is that the constituents of water, hydrogen and oxygen, as hydroxyl, not ice, have been found bound up in the oldest known Lunar minerals.
The samples from the Lunar highlands brought back by one of the Apollo missions have been examined before, but with relatively insensitive instruments. Reexamined with more sensitive ones, the hydroxyl was discerned only now.
Since the minerals from the highlands are believed to have been present from the time of the supposed creation of the Moon, in the Giant Impact hypothesis, they should have had the hydroxyl boiled out of them, by the great heat caused by this impact. Since the constituents of water are still present in these rocks, that casts considerable doubt on the idea that a giant impact occurred at all. And that is news.


#27    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:47 AM

There appear to be several advantages conferred on Earth by the presence of the Moon. Among these are a marked increase in the range and complexity of the patterns of ocean tides. This provides many additional biological niches in the intertidal zone, and increases the diversity of life. It also allows minerals to be more readily transferred from the land to the oceans, which is beneficial to the development of life.
The rotation of the Earth has been slowed by the tidal effects of the Moon, over billions of years, so that its days have probably been about tripled in length, over what they would otherwise be. This has made for a world with much milder weather, and calmer winds. Given what we know about the limitations placed on land-based life in very windy environments on Earth, this should also be considered an improvement in the conditions for life on our planet.

Edited by bison, 03 March 2013 - 01:48 AM.


#28    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:18 AM

Dr. Hejiu Hui and Dr. Clive R. Neal  recently wrote about their new discovery of water integrated into lunar highlands minerals, for the Huffington Post. I found it interesting that they made reference to the Moon's 'supposed energetic origin'. That sounds a little less definite, a little more tentative than one might expect. In recent years it has practically been assumed that the Moon did have an energetic origin, in the impact of a Mars sized planetesimal on Earth. In the light of  their new discovery this is indeed looking somewhat more suppositious than it once did. They still seem to want to reconcile a 'wet' Moon with one created in a Giant Impact, which should be dry, without seeing how they can do this. There is, no doubt, a conservative scientific tendency to try to save a highly regarded and widely accepted hypothesis, if at all possible.                                                                                   link to Huffington Post article:     http://www.huffingto..._b_2767433.html


#29    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:05 AM

Perhaps the object that would become Earth's Moon somehow underwent a process that converted it's rotation to linear motion, and it was this latter motion that propelled it from wherever it originated, to Earth. This would also explain its apparent, peculiar lack of rotation, prior to settling into Earth orbit. We know that momentum is conserved. It can change its direction, or even the object it acts upon via tidal gravitational effects, but it does not simply disappear. This is quite an interesting problem, it seems. If the momentum of a spinning object could all be concentrated at its very center, it appears that it might be changed to linear motion. How this could be accomplished isn't immediately clear.


#30    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

It appears that the Moon, initially very close to Earth, had receded enough by 400 million years ago, that the ocean tides were much as they are today. This is fortunate, as this is the point in time when life is thought to have begun to emerge from the sea, and live on the land.  If the Moon had assumed an orbit around Earth substantially later than it did, it could have delayed the start of land-based life by hundreds of millions of years.
This could have occurred because the intertidal zone where such life began would be frequently inundated  by huge tides, probably destroying any pioneering potential quadrupeds. Earth would have had to wait for the tidal effects of the Moon to wane, before life could progress further, on land. We might, to this day, be in Cambrian era of relatively simple, water-based life.

Edited by bison, 06 March 2013 - 11:28 PM.






Also tagged with moon, planetary formation, water, apollo

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users