Our moon is the result of a big bang splash between a planet-sized astronomical body and our earth. Originally it was thought that the impact was so severe that both Earth and Theia (size of Mars) melted completely due to the high (kinetic) energy.
Careful measurements just released at the Goldschmidt conference show that at the exact opposite of the impact, earth has a different isotope composition suggesting at least a part stayed solid.
To be sure the collision actually took part another team of scientist checked the ratio of isotopes of oxygen, titanium, silicon, and others. These are known to differ within the galaxy so the moon should reflect this if it really was the result of a giant clash.
Earlier measurement showed hardly any differences: moon resembled earth, but with higher precision and after using cleaner samples of the moon (obtained by the Apollo flights) the difference is now confirmed.
Both results stem from biochemistry and are exciting as by further analysis of moon and earth samples we should be able to get a picture of Theia and an event that occurred 4,5 billion years ago.
Even more exciting is that by drilling down (probably literally) on Earth results we can find the original chemistry of ancient Earth before the big bang splash.
What I'm fascinated by is how much of Earth conditions for forming life are a result of this big splash. Did it give birth to life itself by creating the right conditions?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/eaog-smh060614.php
#EveryDayScience #Science #Astrology
This is indeed fascinating, but what is more fascinating for me is the proximity of earth to the moon. Is it not possible that the reason they found these similar elements is because of the distance between the moon and the earth? and not because of a bang the never was 5.bill years ago?
+Sandile Mfecane maybe I didn't explain it well, but what they did find was large differences between earth and some samples of the moon.
I like it – violent collision speeds violently speeds up the rate at which basic life capable of 'randomly' forming.
Makes more sense to me than the standard evolutionary theories.
Then again, I'm very given to catastrophism – it seems more likely to me that plants and animals react to change, not 'slowly over time'. E.g. most evolution events are the result of catastrophic events, such as mutations, diseases, and harsh conditions. Given the evidence we know today that much of our facial features are the results of viruses, I don't see why mutations couldn't be mainly the result of catastrophic events
Real estate investing was dicey back then.
sounds legit
+Gordz Murphy Tnx!
It's really interesting, I hope for more conclusive evidence and even a simulation to show how the impact resulted in the two bodies 🙂
Very precise and mathematically calculated otherwise why did the collide?