Evolution and Geological Planet Formation
  Origin of the Moon
 
Planet Formation and Evolution 2016 - Moon Formation - Lunar Formation - Origin of the Moon - Eva Nessenius

               The arrows show where the moon came out of the earth.         Moon Origin

Globe: Ron Blakey. Inserted arrows: Eva Nessenius.
This image may not be used without the prior permission of Ron Blakey and Eva Nessenius.
  

Hypothesis of Eva Nessenius:
The Precambrian earth and the Paleozoic earth before Permian was a "puffy planet". Its density increased during the evolution of our solar system.
In Precambrian time the moon originated inside the earth and left the earth in Permian. For this reason the continental plates started moving apart into opposite directions.   An impact was unnecessary as the moon left the earth by fission and endogenic forces.  
The giant impact hypothesis is a projection of militaristic thinking into nature. Science is getting abused politically to make people beleive in violence. Popular science is painting a false picture of a cosmos full of collisions without evidence using therms like "colliding dust grains" "colliding planetesimals" "collision with a mars-sized orb" "colliding stars" and "colliding galaxies". If two galaxies cross each other's way, there is plenty of empty space between their stars to pass by quietly and elegantly without any collision. Collision causes destruction. All the experiments trying to prove the planetesimal-theory failed, because planetesimals destroy each other when they collide. The scenarios shown on paintings of earth formation are what J. M. Herndon calls: "magma-ocean-nonsense".

I am not denying that collisions are happening in space. But isn't it too comfortable, to assume a collision for everything we still have no explanation for? And then taking some hypothetical collision as premise and placing everything else around it, until it seems to mach? This questionable method reminds me of baking cakes in the sandbox.

Wikipedia: Giant impact hypothesis: "This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties ... for example, the giant impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed by a magma ocean. There are a number of compositional inconsistencies that need to be addressed. The rations of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the impact hypothesis. The presence of water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain, an impact would have entailed a catastrophic heating event. If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from an impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in those. The Moon's oxygen isotopic rations are essencially identical to those of Earth. If a separate proto-planet Theia had existed, it would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material. The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm)..." [28].

Although the hypothesis of planetesimal-accretion is wrong, scientists keep working on frustrating attempts to prove it because of the funding. The earth originated as a gas giant (Herndon). We'd rather compare the protoearth with a Low-Density-Superearth:
 



The composition of the lunar material equals the material of the protoplanet earth. Components of an hypothetical impactor are missing: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/exploration/moon-to-mars/titanium-paternity-test-says-earth-is-the-moons-only-parent/
"... The isotopic homogeneity of this highly refractory element suggests that lunar material was derived from the proto-earth mantle, an origin that could be explained by … fission from a rapidly rotating … earth" (Junjun Zhang 2012)
.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NatGe...5..251Z  

The material of the moon has the same age as the earth (Precambrian) because the moon originated inside the earth a long time before it came out. The age of the lunar material cannot be used as indicator for the time the moon left the earth. It is an indicator for the time of its origin in the interior of the Precambrian proto-earth. Earth-rotation accelerated in Permian because its volume decreased and its radius became smaller, due to T-Tauri-phases of the young sun. The emerging of the moon by fission was possible because the conditions on earth were different than previously assumed. The earth lost most of its voluminous atmosphere during the T-Tauri phases of the sun.


Hot phases in paleoclimate were caused by T-Tauri-Eruptions of the sun. After Permian there were some more hot phases (Trias, Cretaceous) drying out the earth enhancing metamorphosis of sediments. In Permian the earth lost large parts of its atmosphere. Water and gases escaped from the earth's interior as well. After that the atmosphere was still denser and more voluminous than today, as there were some more hot phases to come.  

The emerging moon didn't consist of dense rock-material like today. It was rich of water and gases because the earth mantle the moon emerged from, still had these ancient properties. The newborn moon was not too heavy in relation to the density of the dense ancient atmosphere with its high atmospheric pressure. Earth had less mass and therefore less gravitation. For all these reasons less energy was necessary to overcome the lower gravitation of the smaller Permian earth. The buoyancy eased the emerging, while endogenous and centrifugal forces worked synergetically:
http://physatwes.com/images/Buoyancy.png
 
Earth's rotation accelerated in Permian. Endogenic forces provided additional energy:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4243

http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/features/birth-moon/


After its emerging the moon was affected by hot phases again just as Earth and Mars becoming dryer and denser each time. Later on earth's rotation slowed down again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

The moon's pathway under the Paleozoic lithosphere along the equator is the cause  for the opening of the Mediterranean Sea, the Central Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. Then continental drift caused repercussions on the paleoclimate:
http://www.crafoordprize.se/press/arkivpressreleases/thecrafoordprizeingeosciences2014.5.bc93e6614373c935089a3.html

Some people say: "If the moon had left the earth by fission, it would be orbiting around the earth in the equatorial plane".  Thinking thoroughly you realize:  The postion of the rotation-axis of the earth changes with its axial precession. Therefore we cannot expect the moon to always orbit in the equatorial plane. The moon keeps orbiting in the same plane (although it's not really a plane but a spiral along Earth's orbit around the sun) but the position of the equator is changing with the axial precession:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
   
When the moon opened the earth-surface that definitely took place at the equator of that time. The continents were still together and had a different position. In Permian the opening between today's northern and southern continents, splitting the Pangea into Gondwana and Laurasia, did happen at the equator of that time. It was caused by the moon. Before the moon left the earth it was moving from east to west under the earth-surface in the equatorial plane of that time as you see on Ron Blakey's globe (top of the page). Climate and geophysical conditions changed dramatically in Permian. The moon emerged and left the earth by fission.

Thanks to Professor Nicolais Dauphas, Dr. Junjun Zhang and colleagues for working with clean scientific methods with the result, that the earth is the moon's only parent.

 
  There have been 23475 visitors on this page!