Planet Formation and Evolution - Moon Formation - Lunar FormMation - Origin of the Moon - Origin Moon - Eva Nessenius
Globe: Ron Blakey. Inserted arrows: Eva Nessenius.
This image may not be used without the prior permission of Ron Blakey and Eva Nessenius.
Origin of the moon: The arrows show where the moon came out of the earth. The moon's pathway under the Paleozoic lithosphere along the equator is the real cause for the opening of the Mediterranean Sea, the Central Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.
In Precambrian time the moon originated inside the earth and left the earth in Permian opening the lithosphere from underneath the surface. Therefore the continental plates started moving.
The giant impact hypothesis is wrong.
An impact was unnecessary as the moon left the earth by centrifugal and endogenic forces.
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]
The composition of the lunar material equals the material of the protoplanet earth. Components of an hypothetical impactor are missing:
https://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).
https://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. Earth's rotation accelerated in Permian. Endogenic forces provided additional energy:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
https://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:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
