A huge explosion happened on earth, and dust from that explosion formed the moon. If you want to see where that hole is then see earth pic without oceans (just google it), and you will be amazed how non-smooth earth looks like. It looks like an ugly blob then a smooth spherical body.
Earth and Moon are made at the same time from the same material.
Moon was wandering around and earth gravity caught in in this orbit.
Which one do you support, or think makes more sense?
Option 3 is very unlikely for a few reasons. Moon is made of the same stuff as Earth. Moon's mineral makeup is very similar to Earth's. They are so similar that the idea of Moon being from some distant space region seems impossible.
Option 2 is half true for certain. It is made of the same stuff as proven. Moon is younger than earth by 100 million years so does that mean it formed at the same time? :/
Option 1. Current research shows this to be the most plausible theory. There is a lot of supporting evidence.
^ i agree. Option 3 does not sound right for another reason. Our solar system has total of 168 moons orbiting the planets. If we caught our moon then same must be true for all the other moons. Fishing168 huge wandering bodies from this amazing emptiness of space sounds little unbelievable.
But then if option 3 sounds inconceivable because probability of it repeating itself 168 times is very very little, then so is the probability of option 1 repeating itself that many times.
I think that all the moons were made out of the same dust that created their parent planets. It's just that it took longer for the moon's dust to condense, hence the age difference.
^ i agree. Option 3 does not sound right for another reason. Our solar system has total of 168 moons orbiting the planets. If we caught our moon then same must be true for all the other moons. Fishing168 huge wandering bodies from this amazing emptiness of space sounds little unbelievable.
But then if option 3 sounds inconceivable because probability of it repeating itself 168 times is very very little, then so is the probability of option 1 repeating itself that many times.
I think that all the moons were made out of the same dust that created their parent planets. It's just that it took longer for the moon's dust to condense, hence the age difference.
A moon forming from a collision or with the leftover stellar dust from planet formation, the two are not mutually exclusive. The end result could or could not be similar mineral makeup of the planet and its moon. A planet in the making can sustain many collisions but those collisions may or not help form a moon or moons.
The reason 3 appeals to me is cause it's a random event. It is not necessary for earth to repeat this gravity thing 168 times. All the stars aligned. Moon came with right distance etc. And got trapped.
OK so if moon was formed out of the same dust as earth then there are 2 scenarios that could make that happen as you mentioned.
1.****** Collision: In this case the earth has already taken its solid shape, and huge chunk of earth soil ejected out of the sphere because of the collision. In such scenario, lunar soil composition should be very similar to earth’s soil composition.
2.****** Left over dust after earth’s formation: In this case, though the lunar composition would have same elements as earth, but I believe that in such case, lunar soil should have a higher percentage of heavier elements than earth. Why? *Before the formation of the earth, when all the dust was rotating in the shape of disk, the heavier elements would tend to move to the outer layers because of the centrifugal force. So if earth is formed from the inner matter of that disk and moon from the outmost layers, then moon must contain higher content (percentage wise) of heavy elements than earth.
I don’t know if my theory holds any weight in real scientific world, but the logic is right at least. Look what I found when I googled the composition comparison
Earth did not have to repeat it 168 times, but we have 168 moons just in our planetary system. If gravity trap is the only way for a planet to have a moon, then that incident definitely repeated itself 168 times. Similarly, if collision is the only way, then 168 collisions needed to happen.
There could be an exception in our case, but collision cannot be the general way of having a satellite. In case of gas giants, I don’t think that collision could eject mass, let alone eject mass to form solid moons. Mass ejected from gas giants would remain in gaseous form, I believe. Plus, Jupiter alone has 63 moons, so either 63 collisions happened (almost impossible just for the fact that all the moons are solid), or Jupiter grabbed in its orbit 63 wandering bodies.
For the gravity trap theory to be true, our inner solar system where all the eight planets sit, has to trap one moon size body every six million years (168 moons over 4.6 billion years of solar system). For one moon captured per 6 million years, several should pass by our solar system every million years, and many should collide also. A moon size object colliding with earth size planet means total disaster.
In recorded history, we have not even observed a single moon size object floating by our solar system. Obviously we have no planetary debris in our solar system. Non existence of these two occurrences make me believe that gravity trap theory or collision theories are weak.
What I am trying to say is that the collision or planet formation can and sometimes do happen at the same time. They don’t have to be two separate unrelated events. Collisions can and do happen during planet formations and planets still get their shape although the process is delayed. This doesn’t defy your theory of finding lunar surface to be richer in heavy minerals than the earth.
Maybe I am not saying it right. Let me try again. The similar mineral makeup can be caused by either collisions with the planet or the left over dust from the planet formation. Whether a collision happens during planet formation or after, it vaporizes whatever surface it comes in contact with. That dust shoots up into space that could or could not form another celestial body. Whether that dust is the result of planet formation or a collision, it doesn’t really matter. The end result is similar. Again, it doesn’t go against your theory.
I am not sure if I got that right. What do you mean by ‘during planet formation’? It’s either formed out not formed. Or do you mean when it’s clustering up but haven’t taken a rock solid state?
Have there been comparable collisions in other star systems?
You mean a Mars size object hitting another planet? I am sure there has but we have no way of knowing for sure since we can't examine their surface and the bigger planets are mostly gas giants. The fact that every observable planet shows craters makes me think that collisions are frequent and common occurrences in planet formations. Of course the time lapse in between each hit is far too great for us to witness such an event.
