Re: stumped
Posted by Mike Kremer on Jul 19, 2002 at 17:27
(62.188.48.74)Re: stumped (paul)
Around about the 1920's it was proposed that the Moon had originaly broken off from the Earth.ie a lump had gradually spun of from a point on the Earths equator, separating like a lump of taffy, to become the Moon. This theory was originally proposed to account for the fact that the Moon revolved around the Earth always keeping the same face towards us...like it was connected to us with an iron bar.
This theory has no been replaced with one that the Moon was captured by the Earth, and has settled down into an exact synchronous rotation with the Earth... using tidal forces? i.e-one revolution per 24 hours.
Which is even harder to believe, than the first concept. Since before the Moon's body was captured
it could only have been in three states.
1/ Not spinning
2/Spinning..faster or slower than us
3/Spinning..faster or slower, but in the opposite
direction of our spin.
Not only that, but it had to get to be spinning WITH ITS equator perfectly parallel to our own!I personally prefer to believe the first concept.
Since it is proven that there WAS just ONE large landmass on the Earth..Gwondalaland.....which started to break up and form our existing continents.....BUT WHY DID IT BREAK UP?(Its my personal opinion) that Gwandanaland slowly levelled up the void left by another land mass which pulled and stretched away from the Earth at a time when early Earth was larger, hotter and more plastic.
My personal belief is more strengthend by the fact that there is no magnetic field on the Moon
inspite of the fact that remains of a few very ancient volcanoes are to be seen (not the impact craters). Implying that its material could have come from the Earths surface, magnetic iron being
held much deeper within the Earth.
I do stress again ...this is my personal belief.