Hollow Moon Theory Part 2—Possible Origins Of The Moon Excerpt From: For The Moon Is Hollow And Aliens Rule The Sky
Hollow Moon Theory Part 2—Possible Origins Of The Moon
Excerpt From: For The Moon Is Hollow And Aliens Rule The Sky
--Author, Rob Shelsky
In my last article, I discussed how very odd our moon is, and as that article showed, the Moon is very strange, indeed. In this second part of the Hollow Moon Theory, I will discuss possible origins of our Moon and the problems with them. There are five mainstream theories as to how we “got” our Moon, and they are:
1. The Theory of Capture. Up until the time of the 1980s, this theory was probably the most widely accepted idea of how the Moon came to be with the Earth. The premise is simple. The Moon was a wandering planetary body that just passed too close to the Earth and so was captured. It locked into orbit around our planet.
This theory has some advantages. It explains the large size of the Moon. This is because it had nothing to do with Earth, but just wandered by and was captured. This theory also has the advantage of explaining the Moon’s orbit and the fact only one face of the Moon turns always towards the Earth, because it is tidally locked in position that way. In other words, Earth just grabbed the Moon as a companion and kept it.
Problems with the Capture Theory. There are major problems with this idea. For one thing, any satellite, such as the Moon, or any planet wandering so close to the Earth is much more likely to collide with the planet, or cause resulting wild orbits for both, and the two worlds, Earth and the Moon, getting sent off on extreme tangents, maybe even sailing out of our solar system for good.
Furthermore, this whole theory rests on the idea the early Earth must have had a very extensive atmosphere at one time. It had to have reached much farther out into space than it does now. This could then have acted as friction, a brake on the Moon. It then slowed the Moon enough so that it could be “captured” and allowed to go into orbit around our world, instead of ending up in one of those other two possibilities—collision, or sent off spinning into space, never to be seen again.
Another problem with this theory is we have absolutely no evidence of the Earth’s atmosphere ever having extended so far into space. We just see no supporting or corroborative evidence for this idea at all.
There are more problems with this theory. One of them is the oxygen-ratio of rocks found on the Moon. They are almost identical to that of Earth’s, and this would seem unlikely, if the Moon had come from somewhere else.
You see, each planet and planetoid, even asteroids, all have unique oxygen-ratio “signatures” to their rocks, their physical makeup. These can be very accurately measured. So the fact of the Moon being captured and having the exact same signature as minerals on Earth, just seems very improbable. Almost all scientists now discount this idea of a “captured Moon” and think it is just wrong.
There is also the whole idea of the Capture Theory just being an incredible one, one hard to believe. No less a famous person, scientist and author, than Isaac Asimov, stated:
“It’s [the Moon] too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”
Therefore, the Capture Theory has major problems and ones that some very famous, learned, and respected people have severe doubts about being possible at all. In short, nobody really buys the theory as credible anymore.
2. The Theory of Accretion. This theory accounts for the oxygen-ratio problem by saying that both worlds formed out of the early accretion disk, those rings of rubble that slowly formed planets during the early stages of the creation of our solar system. The Earth and Moon became a double-planet system, one born of the same material.
Problems with Theory of Accretion. Yes, again we have problems with this theory, as well, and they are major ones. If the Moon and Earth formed as a double planet system to begin with, this does not explain the problem of the angular momentum.
Don’t let that term throw you. It simply means the degree of rotation any given body has. The Earth rotates on its axis and this is angular momentum. What’s more, the Accretion Theory doesn’t explain why the Moon has such a small iron core, comparatively speaking, to that of the Earth. They should be more proportional if the theory is valid, but they simply are not. So this theory doesn’t work too well, either. In fact, most scientists don’t think it’s correct.
3. The Theory of Fission. This is a very old theory and dates back to Charles Darwin. The theory states that the early Earth was spinning so quickly, that due to centrifugal force, it literally threw off a piece of itself, which later became the Moon. The Pacific Basin was the place where this might have happened, and that it was literally a “hole” left by the Moon leaving the early Earth.
Problems with Theory of Fission. Although the theory accounts for why the Moon has the same oxygen-isotope ratio as rocks on Earth do, we now know the Pacific Basin is the result of continental drift, and not because the Moon blasted away from it.
In addition, there is the problem of age. The material that makes up the Moon is far older than the Earth’s crust in the region of the Pacific basin, or anywhere else for that matter. Furthermore, the theory does not explain away the angular momentum problem, either. So again, we have a largely discredited theory.
4. The theory of a Georeactor Explosion. This is an interesting theory. It hypothesizes the Moon is the result of a “georeactor” exploding deep in the Earth, where the mantle meets the core.
Again, don’t let the term “georeactor” throw you. Nuclear reactors are possible because of radioactive elements. Put enough radioactive material too close together and you get “critical mass.” This just means you have enough material in close enough proximity to other such similar material, to cause a chain reaction resulting in an explosion, or if controlled, in the production of energy, as with nuclear reactors producing electricity. Of course, as we’ve found out with the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns, sometimes even these get out of control.
A georeactor is just a naturally occurring one of these, where by chance there is enough fissionable material in close enough proximity to trigger such a “natural” explosion.
For this to work in order to create the Moon, it had to have happened right at the equatorial plane of the Earth. In other words, it had to be very close to the region of the equator.
Moreover, it must have been a big explosion, a very big one, indeed! Obviously, there would seem to be some problems with this theory, with such a coincidence as having so very much fissionable materials right at the equator being just one of them, but it does explain some things, as well. It explains why the Moon is made up of the same material as the mantle layer of the Earth, for instance.
Problems with Georeactor Theory. However, the theory does present other problems. For instance, there is the problem with angular momentum again, the circular orbit of the moon, it’s comparatively low density to Earth, etc. They aren’t the predicted results for such an event. This theory is a very new one, by the way, and only first proposed in 2010. The reason it was developed was problems with the most popular theory, The Theory of a Giant Impact.
5. The Theory of a Giant Impact. According to many scientists, the most reliable theory of the Moon’s origin is that a planet or protoplanet (referred to as “Theia”) just about the size of Mars, struck the Earth early on, about 4.36 billion years ago, during the still formative period of the solar system and the Earth.
The impact was catastrophic, almost resulted in destroying the Earth in the process, and threw massive amounts of material out into a ring around our young world. This material quickly, and we mean very quickly, supposedly coalesced into the Moon. Again, this is known as the “Giant Impact Theory.”
Mind you, this is only a theory, the best scientists can come up with for now, because it explains some of the things about the Moon. Nevertheless, just as with the other theories, not all things can be explained, unfortunately. In any case, our Moon then supposedly formed out of this ring of material, coalesced into a molten ball in what many scientists say had to be in just a hundred years or less in time.
Problems with Giant Impact Theory. As with the other theories of the Moon’s origin, there are a number of problems and they are large ones, as well. As an example, if this happened, surely, there should have been some material from the original Theia protoplanet also composing the Moon, as well as material from the Earth? However, there doesn’t seem to be any material from Theia at all, in fact.
How can this be? If the scenario is valid, if two worlds collided, smashed apart, and then reformed, this just doesn’t seem to be a likely result. The Moon should have, some say must have, material from Theia in order for this theory to be true.
There are other ramifications, as well. As just an example, the far side of the Moon has the oddity of a crust that’s thicker than the near side. So scientists tinkered with the Impact Theory and said a second and smaller moon struck our Moon, and that two such moons formed out of the ring of debris. Again, the makes the theory increasingly complex and unwieldy, and so begins to become a problem. The principle of Occam’s Razor says that given several theories, the simplest one that fits the facts is probably the correct one. The Impact Theory is not the simplest, since it seems to gain in complexity as time goes by. It must do this in order to explain all the problems with our Moon, and still it does not, not even close!
So is there any mainstream theory that answers all these questions and problems about our Moon and is relatively simple by comparison? Yes, there is, and in the final part of this three-part article series, I will discuss the one theory that does this—answers all the questions and problems about our Moon. Then, one can decide for themselves as to which theory they adhere to, the one they think is the most likely. For me, it will be this last theory, which I will explain in detail in the next article. However, each of us must make our own decisions.