Was the moon created by a nuclear explosion on Earth?

S

Shake&Bake

Party Liaison
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
22,258
Reaction score
1,882
Location
Cape Town
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:03 AM on 29th January 2010

How the moon was created and came to orbit the Earth has long puzzled scientists.
The most commonly held theory is that when the solar system was first formed, an object collided with Earth, knocking off a chunk of rock that fell into orbit around it.
But now two scientists have come up with a new explanation. They believe the moon did not break away from the Earth because of an impact or an explosion in space, but because of a nuclear explosion on Earth itself.

Their idea is based on the fission theory which was first outlined in the 19th century.

The fission theory suggested that the Earth and moon were both created out of the same blob of spinning molten rock - with a part becoming separated which later became the moon.
However, aside from an impact, scientists couldn't explain how the blob which became the moon spun off.

Rob de Meijer at University of the Western Cape and Wim van Westrenen at VU University in Amsterdam believe the moon was blasted out of the Earth by a nuclear explosion on our planet.

In their research paper, 'An alternative hypothesis for the origin of the Moon', they explain that if the moon had been separated from the Earth by an impacting external force, the moon would be composed of whatever knocked into it and the Earth.
'Models of solar system evolution show that it is highly unlikely for the chemical composition of the Earth and impactor to be identical,' they state.

Yet recent lunar samples show that the moon is almost identical in chemical composition to the Earth - suggesting there was no impactor involved.

'A more likely possibility for the large degree of compositional similarity... is that the moon derives directly from terrestrial material,' the research paper states.

They believe that the energy that caused the moon to break into orbit around Earth was
'supplied by a supercritical georeactor in Earth’s core-mantle boundary producing sufficient heat to vaporize and eject part of the bulk silicate earth'.
Clay Dillow from Popular Science supports the theory. He states: 'According to their explanation, the centrifugal forces on Earth concentrated heavier elements like uranium and thorium near the surface around the equatorial plane.

'Enough of these elements in high enough concentrations could set off a runaway nuclear chain reaction, similar to the kind that cause nuke plant meltdowns.

'In this way, a natural-born nuclear georeactor was pushed to supercritical levels and: BOOM! The moon was cleaved from the Earth and rocketed into orbit by a massive nuclear explosion.
'It’s a tough theory to test, but we do know that nuclear georeactors existed, their legacy left behind in the uranium we mine from the Earth today. '

De Meijer and van Westrenan conclude that proving their theories will depend on future moon missions returning lunar samples from greater depths.
Click to expand...

A tough theory indeed.

How long ago would it have happened?
Would there be any remnants of the blast crater? Or would the the varying "ages" have covered it up?
 
Erm... remnants of a blast crater? They hypothesise a nuclear reaction during the formation of the earth... a "blob of spinning molten rock" wouldn't preserve a crater very well. ;)

Makes for interesting reading, though. Thanks.
 
So thats where the Grand canyon came from the earth Farted and popped out a moon??
 
Blah, Blah, the ring of fire, Geo nuclear etc, etc. "Unexplained theories" that cannot be proven! Shame!
 
Same argument/theory maybe? Lets hop on a ship and go to those moons to test the theory?
 
why do scientists insist on using the world "created" when they reject anything that has to do with creation as theory? Weird.

Why not use the word "formed" or "generated" or "brought into being"?
 
Garyvdh said:
why do scientists insist on using the world "created" when they reject anything that has to do with creation as theory? Weird.

Why not use the word "formed" or "generated" or "brought into being"?
Click to expand...

Generalizing much? I am a scientist and a Christian...

This article is a theory just like all the others. The problem with our moon, different to the moon of other planets, is its size relative to the earth.
 
Garyvdh said:
why do scientists insist on using the world "created" when they reject anything that has to do with creation as theory? Weird.

Why not use the word "formed" or "generated" or "brought into being"?
Click to expand...

Because created doesn't necessarily denote intent anymore then "brought into being". Confused by semantics much?
 
Nick333 said:
Because created doesn't necessarily denote intent anymore then "brought into being". Confused by semantics much?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with gary, kinda stupid to denounce creation but then carry on about how this or that was created :D. Word is another way for sure.
 
I read somewhere, text book or web, that some wiz backtracked Mar's orbital path and suggested that 4 Billion or so years back, Earth and Mar's had a one night stand and the Moon was the result. (Remember, they were young, hot and sweaty at the time....)
 
Mars has the deepest canyons and largest impact craters and the highest know mountain in the Solar System so if anything i would have said the moon came from that kind of impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X