🔴 WHOOPS! At 3:19 I said that isotopes are made in chemical reactions, such as those that take place during planet formation. That's NOT correct. Isotopes are made in nuclear reactions, such as in the cores of stars. What I planned to say was that isotope RATIOS are formed in chemical reactions. That's an oversimplification, but one that I thought was fine for the purposes of the video. And yet somehow I never noticed I dropped "ratios". Sorry about that!
Thank you Launch Pad Astronomy!!! I really enjoy your videos, and always learn a ton after watching them...I always look forward to watching your next videos...I was wondering if you could do more videos about Mars, past, present, and future missions, the rovers, etc. etc...Thanks a ton, and can't wait for the next video.
Nothing like getting👍 credit for acknowledging your mistskes. However, Chem & Nuculear are just atomic power scale levels, so you also get credit for both 🤣( if you recall saying "but, planet formation, is chaotic").
That was Donald Trump who needs denial; like, "You're fired", to feel better. You know he remembered this video after our POTUS decided the USA has reasons to go take at least part of it away from everybody else.
Great video Christian, I knew about the previous giant impact theory but was unaware of all the recent discoveries in the literature. Thank you for keeping us all up to date and well informed.
Awesome videos, really really interesting. Well researched, elegantly presented, succinct and easily accessible. Science without all the History Channel BS is always nice. Great Job!
What's missing here are constant sound effects, overly dramatic music and that deep, gravely voice that's had a few years of voice acting coaching. This is merely a simple dissemination of knowledge with no other entertainment value than the joy of comprehension but l suppose l could get used to it.
this synestia hypothesis is like sort of a merger of the fission hypothesis and the giant impact hypothesis. A reminder that a failed hypothesis can contain important truths.
Very interesting, but I didn't get why the Moon couldn't be formed just as a satellite from the primordial dust that was once the Earth? Or perhaps even a small body (a seed) captured by the Earth-original-dust (given that the gravity is roughly the same just more spread than compared to fully formed Earth). A small body would have much lower energy and could be captured easier I guesstimate. Also since the dust material is pretty much the same that formed the Earth they would have the same signature, and the seed object might be hiding deep in the Moon core. I'm sure I'm missing (and probably mistaking) a lot, so you're welcome to correct me! :)
That's the coformation theory championed by Roche in the 19th century. The confusing part is that that theory was not accepted after the Apollo missions because the chemical composition of the Moon was said to be different than earth's (very low in Iron). It is that data that led to the idea of the Giant Impact to explain how the Earth could have swallowed most of the iron core of the impactor leaving the Moon with about 3 grams/cc density vs the Earth's 5 g/cc (approximately). Now I'm being told that the isotopic composition is the same but the chemical composition is not? Like you, I'm missing something here.
I thought the same thing. Tho I hear different answers about the moon’s composition what is consistent is that the moon is at minimum very similar in composition to earth if that is the case why wouldn’t it just have formed with earth? Perhaps it was a double planet an collided
The Earth/Moon proportionality does not even rival Pluto/Charon, which seems to suggest the capture of a proportionally-large satellite is not that unusual. Further, samples from a few moon rocks taken from a surface that is literally covered with the impact zones of craters, would appear slim-basis for concluding the entire moon to be chemically-identical to the earth.
Thanks for sharing new ideas about the formation of the Moon, Dr. Ready! Every next idea is a lot more insane that the previous. And all of them -- much less conceivable than a classical Big Splat Theory.
I have what may be a dumb question. I read somewhere that the moon might be kind of hollow? *Atronauts saying the moon rang like a bell* Is that even possible? If it is, couldn't that change the models for how the moon came to be in orbit?
Very interesting question. The Moon does appear to be much less dense in some areas. My understanding is that this is where the Mare are. That would make sense if the Moon was bombarded a couple of billion years after it formed.
at 14:40 you explained how the Moon's orbit changed the Earth's tilt like a "gravitational lever arm". Can you go into further detail about how this mechanism works? I have a few questions. The first is: Why did Earth's tilt change to exactly 23.5 degrees? My guess is that by the time the Moon got far enough from Earth the Moon's gravity was not strong enough to further change Earth's tilt, which would essentially mean Earth's tilt just so happened to stop changing at 23.5 degrees? Question 2: if the Moon was more massive, say 2% Earth's mass instead of 1%, would Earth's tilt have eventually went to 0 by this model?
You say the Moon is lacking volatiles 2:33 and included Oxygen in the list 2:48 of missing volatiles. How can that be when oxygen is 43% of the lunar crust? It doesn't seem lacking in oxygen at all, sure that oxygen is bound to minerals but it's there.
You're correct. I meant free (O) or molecular (O2) as opposed to SiO2, Al2O3, etc. Those are heavier than what I was implying by 'volatiles'. Good catch!
I think it depends on when we regard the Earth and Moon as having formed. In one context, you could say Earth formed first, then was hit by Theia, and the Moon formed. In another you could argue they both formed after Theia and "Proto Earth" collided, and in yet another you could say the Moon formed first and then Earth. But I've learned that geological timescales are so long it's kind of a wash as to when you "start the clock."
I agree - as we are told that the age of a rock can only be determined once it cools. Being melted/vaporized resets the age of rock to zero upon cooling and solidifying. In this Synestia model the Lunar surface would cool and solidify far quicker than that of the Earth. So - either the Earth’s surface was not fully melted in the GIT, which contradicts the new theory’s claims, or the Moon is older than earth which contradicts our established geologic ages of Earth and Moon rock. That assertion of mine and the fact that Sarah Stewart herself says that the model has very narrow constraints to begin with, leads me to regard this theory as no better than the original GIT. Both theories also include something “Made - up”. Accretion disk and Synestia. Neither have ever been observed or detected to my knowledge.
The gravitational force exerted on the Moon by the Sun is twice the g-force exerted on the Moon by the Earth. This means that the Moon is actually orbiting the Sun, and that it shares a common orbit with the Earth. The Moon just *appears* to orbit the Earth. How might this different perspective effect origin models?
It really doesn't change any models. While it's true that the Sun is gravitationally dominant, the Earth-Moon system still orbit their barycenter, which is inside Earth. This puts the Moon in perpetual free-fall around Earth, hence it's in a geocentric orbit, with the Earth-Moon barycenter in a heliocentric orbit.
Interesting. I was reading a couple months ago that not only do the Earth and Moon have an identical isotopic fingerprint, but that Saturn has that same isotopic fingerprint. Now, how could all 3 have been created together or from Saturn?
"isotopes are formed in chemical reactions" (3:27) - well, only if you mean a molecule of an isotope is split off or joined to another molecule during a chemical reaction, such as if heavy water gets broken down and the deuterium atom is set free of the oxygen atom. The isotope atoms though are formed in nuclear reactions.
You are quite correct. Somehow I didn't catch my error throughout the editing process. In my script, I wrote "isotope ratios are set in chemical reactions such as...". Admittedly, that was an oversimplification, but not nearly the blunder as omitting "ratios." *sigh*
Curious about a specific point. 'Under these conditions the Earth would be spinning so fast' explicitly calls for a set of conditions that the author invokes. As I hear and read, 'these conditions' are theoretical, and more specifically hypothetical. I'm not sure how what happens after is relevant, and I'd like know why it is.
What has ever became of the idea that what collided with Earth was one gigantic life-carrying water comet? The collision occurs where the Pacific Ocean now exist. The impact shears off the material that now makes up our Moon. And the Earth’s remaining crust has been moving to fill up the hole it caused. The comet cools the Earth, brings life, and causes the Moon. All at the same time. I never heard of how that was disproved.
Pretty sure electromagnetic effects within the synestia, and that interaction with the early solar wind would explain most of the other portion of the angular momentum issue. You would think there should be quite powerful, turbulent magnetic forces taking place inside a synestia. Perhaps the dynamics of the early Sun's atmosphere, magnetosphere, and solar wind were different from what we assume.
This last theory you presented- with the moon in an ever-decreasing oscillation- so, can we expect that in some years it will be horizontal to the ecliptic, and then go 5 degrees to the other side? Great video!
It is absolutely wonderful to watch another video of yours . I believed that the formation of the moon happened by the collision of earth with a massive body in a perfect angle . I have to watch again thus video to understand better . Thanks for sharing knowledge.
9None of them are exact. The Moon's orbit has a slight eccentricity (e = 0.0549) so it's not a perfect circle. It's not perfectly spherical (craters, etc., slightly wider on its equator), nor is it always the same angular size relative to the apparent angular size of the Sun (orbital eccentricity). It's kinda close though :)
Mmm - does this explain the duo moon hypothesis? I mean there had to be something to explain the difference in crust depth between the light side of the moon and the dark side of the moon.
Is it possible that this his huge initial angular momentum that the Earth originally had also set it up to keep its spinning magnetic field whereas Venus and Mars, which may not have been spinning as rapidly in the past, lost theirs?
Hello my new friend. You have amazing channel . Full watch and I love it. Thank you for sharing and giving an enjoyable video . I hope to see you again soon . Have a great day:)
I haven't seen the actual literature on the Giant Impact Hypothesis, but on face value, I disagree that it suggests the ejected material would form from the offending projectile. In practical experiments, and under slow motion photography, the projectile stays relatively intact when compared to the material it impacts with. Just like craters we can view from meteor impacts, the meteor is really small when compared to the amount of soil displaced by the force of the impact. Fluid dynamics is also different between substances like water or light oils and substances like molten rock. Think of a lava flow down a slope vs you a thinner fluid like water running down the same grade of slope. I'm sure I'm missing something, but wouldn't a very high velocity projectile impacting a substance like the early forming Earth eject hundreds times more impacted material into space than impactor material? How is someone concluding the other way around? The projectile, most likely, would have been coming from much farther out from the sun than the Earth, and as such had much more time in very cold "space" to cool down and solidify that the Earth. Try putting a glass of thick but still flowing mud on a white bed sheet and then drop a rock or marble about 1/3rd the diameter of the surface of the glass, and see which material you get the most of splattered out on the sheet. Now turn the sheet over (clean surface) and add slightly solidified mud to the top of the glass (simulating the partially cooled and solidified surface of the Earth at that time) and drop the same rock or marble into it. How much of the semi-solid material is splashed out in relation to the projectile material. Much more of the "Earth" will still be splashed out to form that disk than projectile material. Even in the footage you had used from S.T. Stewart, a "chunk" of material was seen being flung way out from the impacted material. I also don't like that model because it looks, to me anyway, to assume both objects to be made up of the same density and same level of solidity material. I'm not saying that I believe 100% that this is how the Moon formed, but just going by my limited knowledge, if an impact would have occurred at that stage of Earth's evolution, the Moon would indeed share a lot of the Earth's elements (genetic twins...of the earth at that time)...with the caveat that the Earth would have additional materials to it "donated" by that projectile as the still molten Earth melted it and incorporated it. The Moon had much less mass so cooled much more quickly making it harder to "incorporate" minerals from projectiles hitting its surface, and also allowing the Moon to skip some element formation that occurs with plasma level temperatures. I believe there could be a combination of factors that incorporate Stewart's team's final model toward the end of your video.
This looks like Roche's coformation theory (on steroids again). I believe that Ackerman came up with the Gian Impact hypotheses in order to explain the difference in density and chemical composition between the Earth and the Moon that was seen from the Apollo Moon samples and which could not be expected from Roche's idea. In the Giant Impact, the Earth would absorb Theia's iron core and the Moon would be left Iron poor and with a substantially lower density. Now, the Moon and the Earth are said to be the same isotopically? Clearly, they are not, chemically.
Why is moon's centre of mass not at it's geometric centre? We know this is it's reason for lunar day being equal to lunar month but is this linked with it's formation?
When the solar system was forming maybe we had a rogue neutron star in the area and it started to RIP the forming planets apart as it flashes three the solar system on it's way out into outer space we have merged in the past with at least 2/3 smaller galaxies it's not impossible our galaxy is about 10 billion years old
this vidoe is the first to show the 5% moon thing which I have noticed for a long time ..... next can someone explain the rising of the moon vastly changing in on month .... that i don't get
Canup’s model sounds far more plausible than the great impact. Love this channel-can’t believe so many others out there talk about the former hypothesis as FACT, but you remind us all that science is about questioning the status quo!
I bet his parents are proud of their son, they spent so much money on his education to find that his guess on how the earth and moon were formed was as good as the next guy on the internet who has a grade school education and came up with the same idea. What a joke, I dont know how these guys get their satisfaction in life, coming up with these ideas that seem great with so limited a perspective in what the solar system is all about.
Very interesting - I wish I had the intellect to truly understand. (lol), a new fan from the UK. ps anytime I hear anybody insulting Americans again by calling them stupid, I’m going to send them this clip!
All massive heavely body elements, started out as energy orbs, gas, ring, to bundle size vortext, even in the shape of a 'donut' at one time. Unlike the sarcasim of exploding impact, very large mass would swap mold each other mass, the Moon is exactly in parallel sync rotation of Earth, making it likely once part of it, or from something impact, which could've turned it once into a donut, before two bodies in Sun orbit.
I agree it's an exotic explanation, and I'm not convinced it's the correct one, but it was so interesting I thought it might make for a video. Occam's Razor doesn't require nature always take the "simplest" approach :)
This is incorrect. Sorry. Earth is in the ‘inner solar system’ and had zero water, as no planets in the inner solar system do. Theia is likely from the outer solar system, was 100% water - a water planet with 0 land and a weak core. It crashed at unbelievable speed, perhaps head on, causing a huge explosion the power of a billion nuclear bombs. The force created a circular disc of rock and dusk. The completely solid rock like planet released the debris that created the moon. Theia, as a water planet, was ingested by Earth, giving us our seas.
Imagine all natural satellites in our Solar systems where ejected from a neighbouring Star that went supernova. Imagine debris the size of the moon flying towards us... No wonder every planet has craters the size of Jesus everywhere. Moon has so many apocalyptic craters, as if it flew through Afghanistan during Ramadan, waving American flag. LoL :D
I was abducted my DNA altered and now I'm just orbiting moon dust! Houston I do see a problem, but I'll tell u I think these dehydrated breakfast meals are awesome! Hey look mom no hands! I'ma go to Pluto now and have a 6 pack of this world famous Walt Disney beer! I'll return shortly see u soon! Go Roswell 👽👽👽👽👽
🔴 WHOOPS! At 3:19 I said that isotopes are made in chemical reactions, such as those that take place during planet formation. That's NOT correct. Isotopes are made in nuclear reactions, such as in the cores of stars. What I planned to say was that isotope RATIOS are formed in chemical reactions. That's an oversimplification, but one that I thought was fine for the purposes of the video. And yet somehow I never noticed I dropped "ratios". Sorry about that!
Launch Pad Astronomy
I’ve also heard of theories saying that multiple giant impacts caused the formation of the moon.
@@MrAqr2598 Certainly as giant impacts were going on all the time back then.
Thank you Launch Pad Astronomy!!! I really enjoy your videos, and always learn a ton after watching them...I always look forward to watching your next videos...I was wondering if you could do more videos about Mars, past, present, and future missions, the rovers, etc. etc...Thanks a ton, and can't wait for the next video.
Nothing like getting👍 credit for acknowledging your mistskes. However, Chem & Nuculear are just atomic power scale levels, so you also get credit for both 🤣( if you recall saying "but, planet formation, is chaotic").
You really need more recognition man, ultimate explanation.
Thank you so much Mohammad, I appreciate it!
Most likely
Who gave the one thumbs down,.... a flat earther???
worse, moon denier
That’s no moon...
There are images of flattened Earth in the video, they actually should be happy
doesnt matter he just died in his steam powered rocket lmao
That was Donald Trump who needs denial; like, "You're fired", to feel better.
You know he remembered this video after our POTUS decided the USA has
reasons to go take at least part of it away from everybody else.
Thank you for all the hard work you put in to your videos 👍
Thank you so much for the kind words, Stephen. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it!
Great video Christian, I knew about the previous giant impact theory but was unaware of all the recent discoveries in the literature. Thank you for keeping us all up to date and well informed.
Thank you very much, I appreciate the kind words!
Awesome videos, really really interesting. Well researched, elegantly presented, succinct and easily accessible. Science without all the History Channel BS is always nice. Great Job!
Thank you so much for the kind words, I’m truly grateful for them!
What's missing here are constant sound effects, overly dramatic music and that deep, gravely voice that's had a few years of voice acting coaching. This is merely a simple dissemination of knowledge with no other entertainment value than the joy of comprehension but l suppose l could get used to it.
I was there when the Moon came to be 3 billion years ago. It got evicted from it’s last gig for trying to overshadow a planet.
That book behind you looks super interesting!
Thanks! It’s picture book of observatories. My kind of reading :)
Launch Pad Astronomy I like those kind of books!
This Channel is Amazing!!
Thank you!
this synestia hypothesis is like sort of a merger of the fission hypothesis and the giant impact hypothesis. A reminder that a failed hypothesis can contain important truths.
Just started checking out your videos, starting with the Planetary Ring Systems vid and I'm really glad I did.
Subbed.
you are such a great educator
Thank you so much!
I love you channel! You rock, Christian!! Thanks for all your hard work!
Thanks Jim I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it!
@@LaunchPadAstronomy I'm so glad!
sound very good , for years we been talking about the earth spinning faster , make scenes
It can't be a coincidence that the moon is tidally locked and the lava mare are only on the earth-facing side.
Very interesting,
but I didn't get why the Moon couldn't be formed just as a satellite from the primordial dust that was once the Earth?
Or perhaps even a small body (a seed) captured by the Earth-original-dust (given that the gravity is roughly the same just more spread than compared to fully formed Earth). A small body would have much lower energy and could be captured easier I guesstimate.
Also since the dust material is pretty much the same that formed the Earth they would have the same signature, and the seed object might be hiding deep in the Moon core.
I'm sure I'm missing (and probably mistaking) a lot, so you're welcome to correct me! :)
That's the coformation theory championed by Roche in the 19th century. The confusing part is that that theory was not accepted after the Apollo missions because the chemical composition of the Moon was said to be different than earth's (very low in Iron). It is that data that led to the idea of the Giant Impact to explain how the Earth could have swallowed most of the iron core of the impactor leaving the Moon with about 3 grams/cc density vs the Earth's 5 g/cc (approximately).
Now I'm being told that the isotopic composition is the same but the chemical composition is not? Like you, I'm missing something here.
I thought the same thing. Tho I hear different answers about the moon’s composition what is consistent is that the moon is at minimum very similar in composition to earth if that is the case why wouldn’t it just have formed with earth? Perhaps it was a double planet an collided
a rugby ball is a prolate spheroid, the earth would have been oblate like a cheese
Very clear and thorough explanation. Well done!
Much appreciated, Victor, thanks!
Amazing video. Loved it.
So glad!
The Earth/Moon proportionality does not even rival Pluto/Charon, which seems to suggest the capture of a proportionally-large satellite is not that unusual. Further, samples from a few moon rocks taken from a surface that is literally covered with the impact zones of craters, would appear slim-basis for concluding the entire moon to be chemically-identical to the earth.
Thanks for sharing new ideas about the formation of the Moon, Dr. Ready! Every next idea is a lot more insane that the previous. And all of them -- much less conceivable than a classical Big Splat Theory.
Awesome again, christian! loved it
Thanks, Karthik I appreciate it!
another great vid , and so fascinating on how all this happened
Thank you, sir!
I have what may be a dumb question. I read somewhere that the moon might be kind of hollow? *Atronauts saying the moon rang like a bell* Is that even possible? If it is, couldn't that change the models for how the moon came to be in orbit?
Very interesting question. The Moon does appear to be much less dense in some areas. My understanding is that this is where the Mare are. That would make sense if the Moon was bombarded a couple of billion years after it formed.
I fin this hypothesis to be both interesting and exciting. What we've discovered about the moon now makes sense. Thank you for posting this!
My pleasure, thanks!
at 14:40 you explained how the Moon's orbit changed the Earth's tilt like a "gravitational lever arm". Can you go into further detail about how this mechanism works? I have a few questions. The first is: Why did Earth's tilt change to exactly 23.5 degrees? My guess is that by the time the Moon got far enough from Earth the Moon's gravity was not strong enough to further change Earth's tilt, which would essentially mean Earth's tilt just so happened to stop changing at 23.5 degrees? Question 2: if the Moon was more massive, say 2% Earth's mass instead of 1%, would Earth's tilt have eventually went to 0 by this model?
You say the Moon is lacking volatiles 2:33 and included Oxygen in the list 2:48 of missing volatiles. How can that be when oxygen is 43% of the lunar crust? It doesn't seem lacking in oxygen at all, sure that oxygen is bound to minerals but it's there.
You're correct. I meant free (O) or molecular (O2) as opposed to SiO2, Al2O3, etc. Those are heavier than what I was implying by 'volatiles'. Good catch!
11:48
*Anyone using Celcius:* "Uh... how hot now?"
roughly half of that number is the Celsius measurement
So if this theory is correct, that means the Moon is older than the Earth? I don't know why but I find that strange.
I think it depends on when we regard the Earth and Moon as having formed. In one context, you could say Earth formed first, then was hit by Theia, and the Moon formed. In another you could argue they both formed after Theia and "Proto Earth" collided, and in yet another you could say the Moon formed first and then Earth. But I've learned that geological timescales are so long it's kind of a wash as to when you "start the clock."
I agree - as we are told that the age of a rock can only be determined once it cools. Being melted/vaporized resets the age of rock to zero upon cooling and solidifying.
In this Synestia model the Lunar surface would cool and solidify far quicker than that of the Earth. So - either the Earth’s surface was not fully melted in the GIT, which contradicts the new theory’s claims, or the Moon is older than earth which contradicts our established geologic ages of Earth and Moon rock.
That assertion of mine and the fact that Sarah Stewart herself says that the model has very narrow constraints to begin with, leads me to regard this theory as no better than the original GIT.
Both theories also include something “Made - up”. Accretion disk and Synestia. Neither have ever been observed or detected to my knowledge.
Oh and I forgot to say “I love your videos”. Thank you for the tremendous effort I Know you are making to create them.
Thank you very much!!
Really interesting video.
The gravitational force exerted on the Moon by the Sun is twice the g-force exerted on the Moon by the Earth. This means that the Moon is actually orbiting the Sun, and that it shares a common orbit with the Earth. The Moon just *appears* to orbit the Earth. How might this different perspective effect origin models?
It really doesn't change any models. While it's true that the Sun is gravitationally dominant, the Earth-Moon system still orbit their barycenter, which is inside Earth. This puts the Moon in perpetual free-fall around Earth, hence it's in a geocentric orbit, with the Earth-Moon barycenter in a heliocentric orbit.
Interesting. I was reading a couple months ago that not only do the Earth and Moon have an identical isotopic fingerprint, but that Saturn has that same isotopic fingerprint. Now, how could all 3 have been created together or from Saturn?
News to me. Will have to check it out!
Great video thanks Christian. Simply adds to the notion we live in the strangest place in the universe.
Thanks Mark! It’s a pretty cool place:)
I wonder what the Mars sized planet would have been if it didn't collide with earth
Pluto 88% mass vs Charon 12% mass of Pluto/Charon system.......
I cant believe most peoples lack of excitement or sheer disbelief about this theory... aye... so amazing to think about
Is it mentioned in their paper if there are any testable hypotheses that we can check out if we do get future rocks for analysis?
Collaboration?
hol up so the memes about donut earth making fun of flat earthers were actually kinda right to a degree 😂😂
What an excellent lecture. Time well spent!
Thank you!
Absolute top notch. Thanks a bunch for yet another great vid!
"isotopes are formed in chemical reactions" (3:27) - well, only if you mean a molecule of an isotope is split off or joined to another molecule during a chemical reaction, such as if heavy water gets broken down and the deuterium atom is set free of the oxygen atom. The isotope atoms though are formed in nuclear reactions.
You are quite correct. Somehow I didn't catch my error throughout the editing process. In my script, I wrote "isotope ratios are set in chemical reactions such as...". Admittedly, that was an oversimplification, but not nearly the blunder as omitting "ratios." *sigh*
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Don't worry, your channel is still one of the best on UA-cam.
Well done. Great presentation.
Love this channel
Thanks David!
Really great video, thanks for sharing
Thanks!
Curious about a specific point. 'Under these conditions the Earth would be spinning so fast' explicitly calls for a set of conditions that the author invokes. As I hear and read, 'these conditions' are theoretical, and more specifically hypothetical. I'm not sure how what happens after is relevant, and I'd like know why it is.
Hay how about giving us a profile on the habit ins on the moon I guess that would be a little much anyway I like your video.....
The only inhabitants on the Moon are rocks :)
What has ever became of the idea that what collided with Earth was one gigantic life-carrying water comet? The collision occurs where the Pacific Ocean now exist. The impact shears off the material that now makes up our Moon. And the Earth’s remaining crust has been moving to fill up the hole it caused. The comet cools the Earth, brings life, and causes the Moon. All at the same time. I never heard of how that was disproved.
Where you wetting the bed at the time you heard that story -
This is the second video on your channel I've seen (2 out of 2) and thinking: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? .....subscribed!
Somehow Sir, the imapct hypothesis doesn't sound right....
People say it is a small deathstar
Pretty sure electromagnetic effects within the synestia, and that interaction with the early solar wind would explain most of the other portion of the angular momentum issue. You would think there should be quite powerful, turbulent magnetic forces taking place inside a synestia. Perhaps the dynamics of the early Sun's atmosphere, magnetosphere, and solar wind were different from what we assume.
I find the synesthesia hypothesis to be interesting and plausible. Great video!
Is the moon Hollow?
I see you went to public school - don't fear google to find answers - no one is watching
How old our moon?
About 4.5 billion years ago, give it take a few million years.
Wonderful, detailed analysis, thank you!
India is in the middle of sending a mission to the Moon's south pole. Any expectations from that mission?
I have great hopes for it. Go ISRO!
This last theory you presented- with the moon in an ever-decreasing oscillation- so, can we expect that in some years it will be horizontal to the ecliptic, and then go 5 degrees to the other side?
Great video!
It is absolutely wonderful to watch another video of yours . I believed that the formation of the moon happened by the collision of earth with a massive body in a perfect angle . I have to watch again thus video to understand better .
Thanks for sharing knowledge.
What about the perfect circular orbit, just perfect distance from Earth, exact size between sun and earth and circular shape of moon?
9None of them are exact. The Moon's orbit has a slight eccentricity (e = 0.0549) so it's not a perfect circle. It's not perfectly spherical (craters, etc., slightly wider on its equator), nor is it always the same angular size relative to the apparent angular size of the Sun (orbital eccentricity). It's kinda close though :)
Mmm - does this explain the duo moon hypothesis? I mean there had to be something to explain the difference in crust depth between the light side of the moon and the dark side of the moon.
Well, if we can detect that the moon's orbit is still oscillating, that would support the theory. Has this been detected?
No one knows but everyone loves theories - since we have been there the green cheese theory is out the window -
Is it possible that this his huge initial angular momentum that the Earth originally had also set it up to keep its spinning magnetic field whereas Venus and Mars, which may not have been spinning as rapidly in the past, lost theirs?
Interesting and exciting information and perspective. It is a real eye opener 👍👍👍👍
Thanks I’m glad you liked it!
The original two objects should be called Gaea (proto-Earth) and Theia, the mothers of Earth and the Moon in Greek mythology
Oh yeah!!,!
Hello my new friend. You have amazing channel . Full watch and I love it. Thank you for sharing and giving an enjoyable video .
I hope to see you again soon . Have a great day:)
Thank you, Gosia I truly appreciate your kind words. Thank you for stopping by!
I haven't seen the actual literature on the Giant Impact Hypothesis, but on face value, I disagree that it suggests the ejected material would form from the offending projectile. In practical experiments, and under slow motion photography, the projectile stays relatively intact when compared to the material it impacts with. Just like craters we can view from meteor impacts, the meteor is really small when compared to the amount of soil displaced by the force of the impact. Fluid dynamics is also different between substances like water or light oils and substances like molten rock. Think of a lava flow down a slope vs you a thinner fluid like water running down the same grade of slope. I'm sure I'm missing something, but wouldn't a very high velocity projectile impacting a substance like the early forming Earth eject hundreds times more impacted material into space than impactor material? How is someone concluding the other way around? The projectile, most likely, would have been coming from much farther out from the sun than the Earth, and as such had much more time in very cold "space" to cool down and solidify that the Earth. Try putting a glass of thick but still flowing mud on a white bed sheet and then drop a rock or marble about 1/3rd the diameter of the surface of the glass, and see which material you get the most of splattered out on the sheet. Now turn the sheet over (clean surface) and add slightly solidified mud to the top of the glass (simulating the partially cooled and solidified surface of the Earth at that time) and drop the same rock or marble into it. How much of the semi-solid material is splashed out in relation to the projectile material. Much more of the "Earth" will still be splashed out to form that disk than projectile material. Even in the footage you had used from S.T. Stewart, a "chunk" of material was seen being flung way out from the impacted material. I also don't like that model because it looks, to me anyway, to assume both objects to be made up of the same density and same level of solidity material. I'm not saying that I believe 100% that this is how the Moon formed, but just going by my limited knowledge, if an impact would have occurred at that stage of Earth's evolution, the Moon would indeed share a lot of the Earth's elements (genetic twins...of the earth at that time)...with the caveat that the Earth would have additional materials to it "donated" by that projectile as the still molten Earth melted it and incorporated it. The Moon had much less mass so cooled much more quickly making it harder to "incorporate" minerals from projectiles hitting its surface, and also allowing the Moon to skip some element formation that occurs with plasma level temperatures. I believe there could be a combination of factors that incorporate Stewart's team's final model toward the end of your video.
This looks like Roche's coformation theory (on steroids again). I believe that Ackerman came up with the Gian Impact hypotheses in order to explain the difference in density and chemical composition between the Earth and the Moon that was seen from the Apollo Moon samples and which could not be expected from Roche's idea. In the Giant Impact, the Earth would absorb Theia's iron core and the Moon would be left Iron poor and with a substantially lower density. Now, the Moon and the Earth are said to be the same isotopically? Clearly, they are not, chemically.
Why is moon's centre of mass not at it's geometric centre? We know this is it's reason for lunar day being equal to lunar month but is this linked with it's formation?
Just 1%? I thought the moon was bigger relative to earth?
I LOLed at "emerging bulge"
The seed moon idea is interesting.
The Moon is 1% Earth's mass. It's about 1/4 the volume (size) of Earth. And yeah, I did say "bulge"...
Scientists aren't lame , just some people they make it lamb
When the solar system was forming maybe we had a rogue neutron star in the area and it started to RIP the forming planets apart as it flashes three the solar system on it's way out into outer space we have merged in the past with at least 2/3 smaller galaxies it's not impossible our galaxy is about 10 billion years old
"Synestia" is an absolutely horrible name for their proposed object.
this vidoe is the first to show the 5% moon thing which I have noticed for a long time ..... next can someone explain the rising of the moon vastly changing in on month .... that i don't get
Both were moons, of Jupiter probably, maybe Saturn.
تقديم رائع
........................No , from a samoosa Earth . Hot inside and crusty outside.
Consider your international viewers and use the Celcius scale
I know big words are hard for some of you - so google them
Both and Moon was formed in instant or hours. That's all.
Shout it from the houstops......Science Rocks!!
So you think the earth before the moon was a bigger planet
I don’t think the model requires it to be much bigger, if I recall correctly.
Canup’s model sounds far more plausible than the great impact. Love this channel-can’t believe so many others out there talk about the former hypothesis as FACT, but you remind us all that science is about questioning the status quo!
I bet his parents are proud of their son, they spent so much money on his education to find that his guess on how the earth and moon were formed was as good as the next guy on the internet who has a grade school education and came up with the same idea. What a joke, I dont know how these guys get their satisfaction in life, coming up with these ideas that seem great with so limited a perspective in what the solar system is all about.
Very interesting - I wish I had the intellect to truly understand. (lol), a new fan from the UK.
ps anytime I hear anybody insulting Americans again by calling them stupid, I’m going to send them this clip!
Thank you so much, and I'm glad to have you along for the ride!
2:00 whaaaat ?
Haha Ćuk. A kind little owl here in europe, I assume he is croat
brother, who does your eyebroughs?
@Smee Self my dad
This is really not the way the moon was formed
So how was it formed then? In your opinion
I didn't realize 3 year olds could type ..... watch this video 10 more times and get back to us .... GOD !
It's not god hahaha
All massive heavely body elements, started out as energy orbs, gas, ring, to bundle size vortext, even in the shape of a 'donut' at one time. Unlike the sarcasim of exploding impact, very large mass would swap mold each other mass, the Moon is exactly in parallel sync rotation of Earth, making it likely once part of it, or from something impact, which could've turned it once into a donut, before two bodies in Sun orbit.
What happened to Occam's Razor
"The simplest solution tend to be the right one"?
I agree it's an exotic explanation, and I'm not convinced it's the correct one, but it was so interesting I thought it might make for a video. Occam's Razor doesn't require nature always take the "simplest" approach :)
When referring pressure please expritit PSI.
@Smee Self PSI is still a widely used measurement of pressure.
This is incorrect. Sorry. Earth is in the ‘inner solar system’ and had zero water, as no planets in the inner solar system do. Theia is likely from the outer solar system, was 100% water - a water planet with 0 land and a weak core. It crashed at unbelievable speed, perhaps head on, causing a huge explosion the power of a billion nuclear bombs. The force created a circular disc of rock and dusk. The completely solid rock like planet released the debris that created the moon. Theia, as a water planet, was ingested by Earth, giving us our seas.
yay im the 648 like! this video should have so much more likes!
Imagine all natural satellites in our Solar systems where ejected from a neighbouring Star that went supernova. Imagine debris the size of the moon flying towards us... No wonder every planet has craters the size of Jesus everywhere. Moon has so many apocalyptic craters, as if it flew through Afghanistan during Ramadan, waving American flag. LoL :D
3:26 - "Isotopes are formed in chemical reactions..." - Are you sure about that? :-D
See my pinned comment ☝☝☝
I was abducted my DNA altered and now I'm just orbiting moon dust! Houston I do see a problem, but I'll tell u I think these dehydrated breakfast meals are awesome! Hey look mom no hands! I'ma go to Pluto now and have a 6 pack of this world famous Walt Disney beer! I'll return shortly see u soon! Go Roswell 👽👽👽👽👽
The Moon was created to give us light at night and the stars to teach us about time.
But none of these examples explains tidal lockness from the moon.
How did the moon 🌝 get started? God created it.