# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Scientist claims moon was blasted into space from Earth 4 billion years ago

## Warlord

The origin of our moon has long been debated.

Now, a scientist has claimed that Earth effectively 'gave birth' to the moon four-and-a-half billion years ago.

A controversial new theory has been proposed that a giant explosion equivalent to 40 billion atomic bombs originating from the Earth's core somehow led to the formation of the moon.Planetary scientist Wim van Westrenen believes this violent event took place approximately four-and-a-half billion years ago and could answer the hotly contested question of where our moon comes from.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2YA5x5k00

----------


## Generalissimo

The moon doesn't actually exist.

----------


## Original_Intent

Well, the fact that the moon's rotation EXACTLY matches it's revolution around the earth has always convinced me that it came from here.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Well, the fact that the moon's rotation EXACTLY matches it's revolution around the earth has always convinced me that it came from here.


If the moon were real, which it isn't, I'd be convinced it came from earth because a lunar cycle is approximately the same as a human woman's menstrual cycle.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If the moon were real, which it isn't, I'd be convinced it came from earth because a lunar cycle is approximately the same as a human woman's menstrual cycle.

----------


## amy31416

Obviously it came from the Wisconsin area because it's made of cheese.

----------


## libertyjam

This theory is not new at all, it has been around a while, and this particular astronomer was probably not the first one to propose it.

----------


## Acala

> Well, the fact that the moon's rotation EXACTLY matches it's revolution around the earth has always convinced me that it came from here.


My recollection is that the tidal forces the earth exerts on the moon create a kind of friction to the moon's rotatation that ultimately brought it to a standstill relative to earth.  But maybe I just dreamed that?

----------


## Bern

Ever read Sitchen's interpretation of Sumerian and Babylonian stories?

http://www.tokenrock.com/explain-Tia...heory-144.html

----------


## FunkBuddha

> Ever read Sitchen's interpretation of Sumerian and Babylonian stories?
> 
> http://www.tokenrock.com/explain-Tia...heory-144.html


This is what I thought of when I saw the thread title.

----------


## torchbearer

the moon is also getting furthur away from the earth with every revolution. meaning, eventually- it will sling off into space.
but also, you can rewind the motion and see that it came from earth.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> This theory is not new at all, it has been around a while, and this particular astronomer was probably not the first one to propose it.


Yup. I remember watching "How the moon was made" documentaries talking about this a while back.

----------


## Dr.3D

Another theory is that the earth was hit by a very large meteor and that knocked off a chunk of land that then orbited around the earth.

----------


## mczerone

> This theory is not new at all, it has been around a while, and this particular astronomer was probably not the first one to propose it.


The theory that's been around is that there was a mars size impactor that merged with proto-earth and had enough phase velocity/momentum for the moon-sized body to escape the primary body that made the current Earth.

This new theory seems to be that the ejection of the moon was entirely endothermic from mechanical and nuclear forces from a large proto-earth that gave birth to the two-body system of Earth and Moon.

The first theory seems more plausible to me. If the second theory was likely, why didn't the Sun eject numerous Jupiter-sized bodies due to it's own internal thermal reactions, which were likely to be more powerful that those a proto-earth could muster.

----------


## Acala

> the moon is also getting furthur away from the earth with every revolution. meaning, eventually- it will sling off into space.
> but also, you can rewind the motion and see that it came from earth.


The moon isn't really even a moon.  It's a planet that is part of a double planet system.  It is a planet rather than a moon of Earth because its gravitational attraction to the Sun is stronger than it is to the Earth.  If you pushed the Earth out of its orbit, the moon would stay behind and continue orbiting the sun.

----------


## mczerone

> Ever read Sitchen's interpretation of Sumerian and Babylonian stories?
> 
> http://www.tokenrock.com/explain-Tia...heory-144.html


The evidence shows that Sitchen didn't even know cuneiform script enough to translate it into a "planetary theory."

Beyond that, there is no evidence for Nibiru - even though astronomers have identified hundreds of moon+ sized bodies in and around the solar system. Even taking a 3600 year orbit, it should have came into the inner solar system at least 3 times since recorded history - and no culture has recorded such a transient planet, despite thorough record-keeping of the skies.

There are much better pseudo-science planetary history theories than Sitchen's, and these all have fatal flaws, too. Velikovsky did better than Sitchen, and the Electric Universe Cranks have even more elaborate and harder to debunk theories trying to overthrow accepted planetary chronology. The last group have some insights that might be valid for astronomy/cosmology, but they aren't critical enough with the vast array of crank theories they embrace into their sphere to give them the credibility for their serious insights to be taken seriously.

----------


## torchbearer

> The moon isn't really even a moon.  It's a planet that is part of a double planet system.  It is a planet rather than a moon of Earth because its gravitational attraction to the Sun is stronger than it is to the Earth.  If you pushed the Earth out of its orbit, the moon would stay behind and continue orbiting the sun.


they are all spherical bodies in space. whether its a planet, dwarf planet, or moon- is minor differences in this context.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The moon isn't really even a moon.  It's a planet that is part of a double planet system.  It is a planet rather than a moon of Earth because its gravitational attraction to the Sun is stronger than it is to the Earth.  If you pushed the Earth out of its orbit, the moon would stay behind and continue orbiting the sun.


Ehhh... the moon orbits the Earth.   If you moved the Earth, it would move with it.

----------


## torchbearer

the moon earth relationship is like a magnetic stirrer.

not exactly in physical principle, but the moons gravity works as a mover of the chemistry of each.

----------


## AFPVet

> The moon doesn't actually exist.


Of course not... we just get our tidal forces from a giant Hollywood effects engine that illuminates at night lol

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The evidence shows that Sitchen didn't even know cuneiform script enough to translate it into a "planetary theory."


Where is this evidence? Share, please. Aside from that, I don't think he was trying to translate it into _planetary theory_. That's kind of begging the question and doesn't have anything to do with deciphering what it was that the ancients recorded. It actually changes the terms of controversy in general discussion like this.

I agree that there may be some flaws in Sitchin's work but would still like to see some sources as far as who exactly is saying that they have shown some sort of evidence. Especially evidence that looks to be presented in a manner that would redirect the terms.

----------


## CPUd

> Where is this evidence? Share, please. Aside from that, I don't think he was trying to translate it into _planetary theory_. That's kind of begging the question and doesn't have anything to do with deciphering what it was that the ancients recorded. It actually changes the terms of controversy in general discussion like this.


Criticism of Sitchin on an academic level is indexed on this site:
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors.htm

----------


## mczerone

> Where is this evidence? Share, please. Aside from that, I don't think he was trying to translate it into _planetary theory_. That's kind of begging the question and doesn't have anything to do with deciphering what it was that the ancients recorded. It actually changes the terms of controversy in general discussion like this.
> 
> I agree that there may be some flaws in Sitchin's work but would still like to see some sources as far as who exactly is saying that they have shown some sort of evidence. Especially evidence that looks to be presented in a manner that would redirect the terms.


I'm not going to do all the research for you, but here's the relevant section from Sitchin's wikipedia entry:




> Translations and interpretations[edit]
> When Sitchin wrote his books, only specialists could read the Sumerian language. However, sources such as the 2006 book Sumerian Lexicon[19] have made the language more accessible to non-experts.
> 
> Ancient language scholar Michael S. Heiser states he has found many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations and challenges interested parties to use this book to check their validity.[15][20] Prof. Ronald H. Fritze,[21] author of the book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions,[21] mentions the example of Sitchin's claim that the Sumerian sign Din-Gir means "pure ones of the blazing rockets", adding that "Sitchin's assignment of meanings to ancient words is tendentious and frequently strained."[22] Fritze also commented on Sitchin's methodology, writing that "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions. Evidence is presented selectively and contradictory evidence is ignored."[22]
> 
> Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243. Sitchin wrote that these ancient civilizations knew of a twelfth planet, when in fact they only knew five.[23] Hundreds of Sumerian astronomical seals and calendars have been decoded and recorded, and the total count of planets on each seal has been five. Seal VA 243 has 12 dots that Sitchin identifies as planets. When translated, seal VA 243 reads "You're his Servant" which is now thought to be a message from a nobleman to a servant. According to semitologist Michael S. Heiser, the so-called sun on Seal VA 243 is not the Sumerian symbol for the sun but is a star, and the dots are also stars.[23][24] The symbol on seal VA 243 has no resemblance to the hundreds of documented Sumerian sun symbols.
> 
> In a 1979 review of The Twelfth Planet, Roger W. Wescott,[25] Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, noted Sitchin's amateurishness with respect to the primacy of the Sumerian language:
> 
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Criticism of Sitchin on an academic level is indexed on this site:
> http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors.htm


Thanks. I'll read over it. Am often curious about these self proclaimed "debunkers". 

There are some excellent counterdiscussion on Sitchin's work but rarely from some dolt on the www with a web site and an opinion with a bit of free time.

The best counter discussion comes from those who have the most to lose in the history department though. Would be a crying shame if folks ever heard an alternate._.documented._.history of the chosen land.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm not going to do all the research for you, but here's the relevant section from Sitchin's wikipedia entry:


Yeah, I don't really need you to do that. Ancient history actually renders itself often in my field. I've always found interesting little quirks along the way that are often less discussed in the context for which they left them for us to appreciate. Thanks for the follow up though. I'm going to read over the other site first.

----------


## Acala

> Ehhh... the moon orbits the Earth.   If you moved the Earth, it would move with it.


Do the calculations.  I think I first saw it proved up in a book by Isaac Asimov.  The math isn't complicated.  Our moon is held more strongly in its orbit around the sun than in its orbit around the earth.  If you moved the earth, the moon would stay in orbit around the sun.  Also, if you look at relative sizes ratios of planets and their moons and also distances from planets to moons, you will see that our moon is totally in a category of its own.  We live on half of a double planet system.

----------


## Acala

> they are all spherical bodies in space. whether its a planet, dwarf planet, or moon- is minor differences in this context.


It makes a huge difference if you are talking about the moon moving away from the earth, which was the post I responded to.  I'm not merely talking about names but about which body is truly orbiting which body.

----------


## torchbearer

> It makes a huge difference if you are talking about the moon moving away from the earth, which was the post I responded to.  I'm not merely talking about names but about which body is truly orbiting which body.


the gravity well the moon is escaping is the earth's, which is contained within the sun's secondarily.
when the moon leaves earth's orbit, it may not stay in our solar system...

----------


## Acala

> the gravity well the moon is escaping is the earth's, which is contained within the sun's secondarily.
> when the moon leaves earth's orbit, it may not stay in our solar system...


The moon is more strongly attracted to the sun than the earth, so no it won't leave the solar system.  That's my point.  If you do the calculations you can see for yourself that the gravitational attraction between sun and moon is greater than between earth and moon.

----------


## torchbearer

> The moon is more strongly attracted to the sun than the earth, so no it won't leave the solar system.  That's my point.  If you do the calculations you can see for yourself that the gravitational attraction between sun and moon is greater than between earth and moon.


have u tried entering velocity and trajectory to that equation?
what say about the moon, is true of all bodies in the solar system that don't escape its gravity well.
but there are minor wells within the bigger. the moons flight path shows you the gravity well around earth.

----------


## acptulsa

What's more, there are two earths.  We just don't know it, because they share their orbit exactly, and are always on opposite sides of the sun.  Therefore, we can't see the other one without hurting our eyes.

We'd have discovered this fact by now, except it didn't occur to us to equip _Voyager_ with a rear-view mirror.  It was considered too low-tech.  Ah, the folly of man...

----------


## erowe1

Here's a good book about the subject. I read a much older edition of it a long time ago, but I remember liking it.
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Created-Mo...dp/B00CF6GD76/

----------


## torchbearer

> What's more, there are two earths.  We just don't know it, because they share their orbit exactly, and are always on opposite sides of the sun.  Therefore, we can't see the other one without hurting our eyes.
> 
> We'd have discovered this fact by now, except it didn't occur to us to equip _Voyager_ with a rear-view mirror.  It was considered too low-tech.  Ah, the folly of man...


voyager was turned around to take snapshots(rear view) of earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Interesting thread is interesting. Thnx, y'all.

----------


## Acala

> have u tried entering velocity and trajectory to that equation?
> what say about the moon, is true of all bodies in the solar system that don't escape its gravity well.
> but there are minor wells within the bigger. the moons flight path shows you the gravity well around earth.


I don't understand what you are saying.  The gravitational attraction between the sun and moon is about twice what it is between earth and moon.  Probably the most accurate thing to say is that the earth and moon revolve around the center of gravity of the earth-moon system and that system orbits the sun.

BUT, and this ansers your point, in the absence of the earth, the moon would still continue to orbit the sun, although in a smoother orbit.

On the other hand, by a certain geometric criteria called the "Hill Sphere", the moon could be said to be dominated by Earth's gravity.  Still ain't going to leave the solar system.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Of course not... we just get our tidal forces from a giant Hollywood effects engine that illuminates at night lol


The tide is obviously just an effect of all the fish moving around in the sea. Obviously. Have you never been splashing around in a swimming pool? Same effect. 

Trust me, I know my stuff. I'm a marine biologist. I once saved a whale which had a golf ball stuck in its blowhole.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The tide is obviously just an effect of all the fish moving around in the sea. Obviously. Have you never been splashing around in a swimming pool? Same effect. 
> 
> Trust me, I know my stuff. I'm a marine biologist. I once saved a whale which had a golf ball stuck in its blowhole.


Did you perform the hind lick maneuver on it?

----------


## Acala

> Did you perform the hind lick maneuver on it?


Does a whale even HAVE a hind?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Does a whale even HAVE a hind?


I guess it would be a fluke if it did.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I guess it would be a fluke if it did.


ARRRGH! *pelts Dr. 3D with rotten vegetables*

----------


## Henry Rogue

> The tide is obviously just an effect of all the fish moving around in the sea. Obviously. Have you never been splashing around in a swimming pool? Same effect. 
> 
> Trust me, I know my stuff. I'm a marine biologist. I once saved a whale which had a golf ball stuck in its blowhole.


Did you ever work for Vandelay Industries?

----------


## Henry Rogue

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.88 centimeters per year.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=124

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

The prevalent theory is that another large planetoid size object collided with primitive Earth during the formation of the Solar System leading to the moon's formation from the debris field left over. This theory seems to say that some unknown force exploded in the core of the Earth releasing equivalent sums of debris...yeah...that one seems a bit stretched to me.

----------


## James Madison

> The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.88 centimeters per year.
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=124


This will continue. Should the Earth avoid being engulfed by the Sun, in about 5 billion years the Earth and Moon will become tidally locked to one another. Most estimates, however, have the Earth meeting a very...hot death.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

If this were true, that the moon is just a chunk of debris, you'd think it would be a lot less.... round.

----------


## Lafayette

> If this were true, that the moon is just a chunk of debris, you'd think it would be a lot less.... round.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQCQuazeoE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUMMKQhCXqU

----------


## Natural Citizen

Our moon may be 100 million years younger than previously thought...



> The moon is likely to be 4.4 billion to 4.45 billion years old, or about 100 million years younger than previously thought, according to new research by geochemist Richard Carlson of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.


http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...,4295431.story

----------

