>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

PermeateFree said:

>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

> According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.

The speed with wich the Moon formed from the ring of debris is startling. Yes, a few dozen years. But the Earth formed even faster.

That 1,000 years may be the time required for Earth to cool to the point of having a solid crust, which differs from the time it took to “form”.

Haven’t read link yet.

PermeateFree said:

>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

Have read link now.

> Most astrophysicists today suggest that the moon formed through a collision, but that theory is a bit different from the synestia approach.

> Here’s how the moon formed as proposed by the new, synestia theory. A giant collision smashed into the proto-Earth, vaporizing about 10 percent of the rock and liquefying the rest. This created a synestia. Over time, a little bit of liquid rock condensed near the center of the cloud of material. As the molten structure lost its heat, rock continued to condense and rain toward the synestia’s center.

Or to pout it another way. Not even the slightest difference between the supposed new theory and the supposed old theory.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

Have read link now.

> Most astrophysicists today suggest that the moon formed through a collision, but that theory is a bit different from the synestia approach.

> Here’s how the moon formed as proposed by the new, synestia theory. A giant collision smashed into the proto-Earth, vaporizing about 10 percent of the rock and liquefying the rest. This created a synestia. Over time, a little bit of liquid rock condensed near the center of the cloud of material. As the molten structure lost its heat, rock continued to condense and rain toward the synestia’s center.

Or to pout it another way. Not even the slightest difference between the supposed new theory and the supposed old theory.

I sometimes worry about you moll, but fortunately not that often.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

Have read link now.

> Most astrophysicists today suggest that the moon formed through a collision, but that theory is a bit different from the synestia approach.

> Here’s how the moon formed as proposed by the new, synestia theory. A giant collision smashed into the proto-Earth, vaporizing about 10 percent of the rock and liquefying the rest. This created a synestia. Over time, a little bit of liquid rock condensed near the center of the cloud of material. As the molten structure lost its heat, rock continued to condense and rain toward the synestia’s center.

Or to put it another way. Not even the slightest difference between the supposed new theory and the supposed old theory.

I sometimes worry about you moll, but fortunately not that often.

Thank you. The dominant difference between mollwollfumble and the original zarkov is that mollwollfumble does not believe what it says.

Allow me to explain the old collision theory in more detail.

• A collision between two large protoplanets in a deep glancing impact resulted in the smaller protoplanet being completely mixed with the larger’s mantle. The inner heavier core of iron of the larger protoplanet stayed with the Earth, explaining why Earth is denser than the Moon.

• The collision almost completely liquefied the larger protoplanet and resulted in a spray of small solid and liquid particles into a torus of around the liquid proto-Earth. You can call this torus a “synestia” if you like, it doesn’t change the physics.

• Gas from the original protoplanet atmospheres ended up in orbit around the Sun and some, notably hydrogen, was completely lost through interaction with the solar wind.

• Material in the torus (synestia) came together into the one major Moon within a remarkable short time, decades. There may or may not have initially been one or two, no more than three, smaller moonlets formed at the same time. Material in the torus cooled very rapidly (the temperature out there was about -50 degrees C) but heated up on impact with the proto-Moon, keeping its core liquid, initially.

• The lunar highlands are composed of breccia, crushed solid rock fragments. So the Moon was never totally liquefied.

• Material from the torus continued to rain down on the Earth for decades. Any moonlets ended up crashing into the Earth or Moon. Some small amount of material in orbit around the Sun was drawn back to Earth by its gravity.

• Outgassing of nitrogen and water from the mostly-liquid Earth formed the Earth’s secondary atmosphere, and some of hydrosphere.

• The Moon, through tidal action, started moving further away from the Earth and the Earth’s rotation slowed at the same time. The Moon’s rotation slowed until it kept one face always pointed at the Earth.

• Much later in time – late heavy bombardment and more water from comets added to the Earth’s hydrosphere.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have read link now.

> Most astrophysicists today suggest that the moon formed through a collision, but that theory is a bit different from the synestia approach.

> Here’s how the moon formed as proposed by the new, synestia theory. A giant collision smashed into the proto-Earth, vaporizing about 10 percent of the rock and liquefying the rest. This created a synestia. Over time, a little bit of liquid rock condensed near the center of the cloud of material. As the molten structure lost its heat, rock continued to condense and rain toward the synestia’s center.

Or to put it another way. Not even the slightest difference between the supposed new theory and the supposed old theory.

I sometimes worry about you moll, but fortunately not that often.

Thank you. The dominant difference between mollwollfumble and the original zarkov is that mollwollfumble does not believe what it says.

Allow me to explain the old collision theory in more detail.

• A collision between two large protoplanets in a deep glancing impact resulted in the smaller protoplanet being completely mixed with the larger’s mantle. The inner heavier core of iron of the larger protoplanet stayed with the Earth, explaining why Earth is denser than the Moon.

• The collision almost completely liquefied the larger protoplanet and resulted in a spray of small solid and liquid particles into a torus of around the liquid proto-Earth. You can call this torus a “synestia” if you like, it doesn’t change the physics.

• Gas from the original protoplanet atmospheres ended up in orbit around the Sun and some, notably hydrogen, was completely lost through interaction with the solar wind.

• Material in the torus (synestia) came together into the one major Moon within a remarkable short time, decades. There may or may not have initially been one or two, no more than three, smaller moonlets formed at the same time. Material in the torus cooled very rapidly (the temperature out there was about -50 degrees C) but heated up on impact with the proto-Moon, keeping its core liquid, initially.

• The lunar highlands are composed of breccia, crushed solid rock fragments. So the Moon was never totally liquefied.

• Material from the torus continued to rain down on the Earth for decades. Any moonlets ended up crashing into the Earth or Moon. Some small amount of material in orbit around the Sun was drawn back to Earth by its gravity.

• Outgassing of nitrogen and water from the mostly-liquid Earth formed the Earth’s secondary atmosphere, and some of hydrosphere.

• The Moon, through tidal action, started moving further away from the Earth and the Earth’s rotation slowed at the same time. The Moon’s rotation slowed until it kept one face always pointed at the Earth.

• Much later in time – late heavy bombardment and more water from comets added to the Earth’s hydrosphere.
  

For a start you don’t need to believe it, as it is just a theory as are all the others. However to say this theory is the same of the old theory makes a mockery of what the article says and the people who put it together. Just because you say something does not make it so, in fact going on previous comments of yours I fully support what most other people say who are qualified to do so.

PermeateFree said:

>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

TED Talks: Ideas Worth Spreading

Where did the Monn Come From?
A New Theory

>… Just because you say something does not make it so, in fact going on previous comments of yours I fully support what most other people say who are qualified to do so.

probably not necessary, doubt bother moll anyway.

I sort of agree, you take a wagon wheel, turn it on its side and make it children’s play equipment, you know the physics is the same.

Ogmog said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Earth’s moon formed inside a cloud of molten rock, and may have done so before our planet itself formed, a new theory suggests.

Scientists call such a cloud a synestia, a doughnut-shaped ring of debris full of molten rock that forms in the aftermath of a protoplanet collision. In this case, it would have been a massive collision early in our solar system’s history. According to the new theory, the moon formed within a few dozen years after the crash, as the synestia shrank and cooled. The Earth subsequently emerged about 1,000 years after the moon.<<

>>“The moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences,” she added. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”<<

https://www.space.com/39841-moon-formed-from-synestia-earth-crash-theory.html

TED Talks: Ideas Worth Spreading

Where did the Monn Come From?
A New Theory

Thanks for that, it explains the new theory very well.