UM-Bot Posted January 29, 2016 #1 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Scientists have determined that the Earth and moon are made up of material from two separate worlds. Somewhere around 100 million years after the Earth was formed it had a run-in with another planet known as Theia, but while previous studies had suggested that the two worlds had only side-swiped one another, new research has revealed that they were most likely involved in a head-on collision. Read More: http://www.unexplain...lanets--not-one 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 29, 2016 #2 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The article has been revised to fix an error - the first sentence should read "Somewhere around 100 million years after the Earth was formed". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungleboogie Posted January 30, 2016 #3 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Now it begs the question, where did life originate, Terra or Theia? Or was it that interaction of the two bodies that caused life to form, something about the collision which over time ushered in life? What a fascinating discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Mirdad Posted January 30, 2016 #4 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Isnt this the same story Zacharia Sichin was pitching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codenwarra Posted January 30, 2016 #5 Share Posted January 30, 2016 This isn't exactly new, the idea has been around for a long time, particularly since the chemical and isotopic analyses of Moon rocks from the Apollo program were published. The argument has been whether it was a sideswipe or a head on for some time and I doubt that it is finally settled. Isnt this the same story Zacharia Sichin was pitching? The idea has been around since before Sitchin started his lying in 1976. It is also noteworthy that a Dr Who story where the Cybermen first appeared involved a stray tenth planet inhabited by beings who were killed or incapacitated by gold dust. That was broadcast in 1966, long before Sitchin's first book and a few other Cybermen stories ran after that. Give that a little switcheroo, keep the 10th planet, but make the inhabitants "annunaki" and have them seek for gold, not try to avoid it. Voila, we have a faked up book with the addition of some lies about Sumerian texts ready to publish in 1976. Now it begs the question, where did life originate, Terra or Theia? Or was it that interaction of the two bodies that caused life to form, something about the collision which over time ushered in life? What a fascinating discovery. Doubt it. Oldest estimate of the time life originated was about 4.1 billion years ago and that was around 300 - 400 million years after the supposed collision. It might actually have been another 200 million years after that. Took quite a while for things to cool down enough, I suppose. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 30, 2016 #6 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Now it begs the question, where did life originate, Terra or Theia? Or was it that interaction of the two bodies that caused life to form, something about the collision which over time ushered in life? What a fascinating discovery. This would have happened well before there was any life on earth. 100's of millions of years before. Earth was still a molten ball of slag at the time, Isnt this the same story Zacharia Sichin was pitching? No. Sitchin was a moron who thought he could translate Babylonian tablets. Spoiler: He could not. He made everything up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnicolette Posted January 30, 2016 #7 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Then why is it coming true? There must be some reason it's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 30, 2016 #8 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Then why is it coming true? There must be some reason it's right. Why is what coming true? Certainly nothing Sitchin said. In any case, what Sitchin was talking about had nothing to do with the article liked in the OP, which relates to an event which happened more than 4 billion years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 30, 2016 #9 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Then why is it coming true? There must be some reason it's right. Absolutely nothing he said is coming true. I feel sorry for you if you believe anything he wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twin Posted January 31, 2016 #10 Share Posted January 31, 2016 If two planet sized worlds collided head on I don't think there would be any chance of pre-collision life surviving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnicolette Posted January 31, 2016 #11 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I dont know i didnt read what he wrote i was just going off the other comments thanks for the usual melodrama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 31, 2016 #12 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I dont know i didnt read what he wrote i was just going off the other comments thanks for the usual melodrama. You don't know what he wrote, yet you think it is coming true? Do you not see the problem there? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 31, 2016 #13 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I am not a biologist but I think the idea of a head-on collision of two planets has interesting connotations for the evolution of single-celled life. Life involves lots of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen as well as essential metal ions. These elements are common in abiotic environments but usually are ``trapped'' in stable minerals (oxygen is especially trapped in silicate rocks) or gasses (CO2 is quite stable and unusable by life except in photosynthesis). The head-on collision *might* (again, not an expert so take what I am saying with a grain of salt) smash open enough minerals and dramatically rearrange existing atmosphere and any gasses trapped underground and provide enough free radicals and reactive molecules to form precursors for life. Theories regarding the abiotic origin of life do suffer, to some extent, from the old chicken-and-egg problem. A freak event like a head-on planetary collision might have provided the impetus for the evolution of life. My two cents, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanthurion2 Posted January 31, 2016 #14 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Is this still just a theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 31, 2016 #15 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Is this still just a theory? "Just?" The Giant Impact theory is a scientific theory in that it's the best explanation of the origin of the Moon which scientists have come up with. That is, it provides the best explanation of the evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted January 31, 2016 #16 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Is this still just a theory? Depends on what do you mean by "just a theory" ? Do you mean "it's a scientifc hyphothesis making predictions that have been supported by physical evidence" ? In that case the answer is : Yes Edited January 31, 2016 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyKrajeski Posted January 31, 2016 #17 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Or... Maybe the moon rocks are from earth, because the moon landings were faked. Occam's razor, people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted January 31, 2016 #18 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Or... Maybe the moon rocks are from earth, because the moon landings were faked. Occam's razor, people. Unless that is meant as a joke, take it to the conspiracy section please. If it is meant as a joke, please use the appropriate smiley. Anyway wellcome aboard ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted February 1, 2016 #19 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Or... Maybe the moon rocks are from earth, because the moon landings were faked. Occam's razor, people. G'day JimmyKrajeski, and welcome to UM. Ockham's Razor is always a good place to start when looking at a problem. However it's also important when using it to ensure we have all the information when using OR. In this case, where the only mention of Moon rocks is their similarity to Earth rocks, it's tempting to assume they actually are Earth rocks. If that was all the information we had to judge whether the Apollo missions were faked, then that would be a tempting conclusion. But what the article doesn't mention is all the other aspects of the Moon rocks which makes it clear they're different from Earth rocks in significant ways. Here are a few examples: 1. Moon rocks have a lot less volatile chemicals and elements in them, such as water, when compared with Earth rocks. 2. Moon rocks are covered with tiny craters called zap pits. These are caused by dust particles hitting the rocks at tens of kilometres per second. 3. Moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a vacuum. 4. Moon rocks show evidence of experiencing tens of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation. All of these things are impossible to fake. In other words, there's no way you can take an Earth rock and do...things...to it that remove the volatile elements and chemicals, or cover it with zap pits, or impregnate it with millions of years of solar radiation, or make it look like it formed in a vacuum. So rather than the similarities between Earth rocks and Moon rocks being evidence that the Apollo missions were faked, instead, the differences between Earth rocks and Moon rocks are evidence that the Apollo missions were real. Plus, the Giant Impact theory of the Moon's formation was developed in the first place as a result of scientists examining the Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. Edited February 1, 2016 by Peter B 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticStrummer Posted February 6, 2016 #20 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Coming up after the Superbowl... Theists vs Theiaists! *makes popcorn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted February 6, 2016 #21 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I dont know i didnt read what he wrote i was just going off the other comments thanks for the usual melodrama. Oh please. There was no "melodrama". You were rightfully and unmelodramatically called out by a total of two people for claiming that what Sitchin wrote "was coming true" when Sitchin's fantasies are nothing like what is being proposed by actual scientists. You should grow a thicker skin if you're going to be posting online. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted February 6, 2016 #22 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I tend to go with the collision theory, where the Earth and the other planet collided and it was debris which formed the Moon. Due to the fact that so little heavy elements ended up on the Moon. (Or has that idea been debunked??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted February 7, 2016 #23 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I tend to go with the collision theory, where the Earth and the other planet collided and it was debris which formed the Moon. Due to the fact that so little heavy elements ended up on the Moon. (Or has that idea been debunked??) No, it remains very much at the core (okay, pun intended) of the Giant Impact theory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Acid Posted February 8, 2016 #24 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Or... Maybe the moon rocks are from earth, because the moon landings were faked. Occam's razor, people. I don't think you understand what Occam's Razor is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cerberusxp Posted February 12, 2016 #25 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Now it begs the question, where did life originate, Terra or Theia? Or was it that interaction of the two bodies that caused life to form, something about the collision which over time ushered in life? What a fascinating discovery. Plus where did the other planet originate the galaxy that collided with the spiral or the spiral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now