Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Was there once two moons orbiting Earth?

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 REC

REC

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 11038
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2010
  • Loc: NC

Posted 25 April 2019 - 01:18 PM

I read a story today about the Earth might have had two moons years ago and the smaller one collided with the larger one to make the current one we have. One explanation is that the moon has two very different looking sides. Maybe the dark side that does not face the Earth has very little creators compared to the side we see???



#2 Astroman007

Astroman007

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6377
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada

Posted 25 April 2019 - 01:29 PM

It is also possible that the Earth went through several moons over the course of the millions of years. The times between moons and their destructions / collisions (either with each other or with the Earth) may have given rise to some of our long past catastrophes, of legend and of lesser or greater residual evidence.



#3 einarin

einarin

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2016

Posted 25 April 2019 - 01:31 PM

Where did you read it ?

Haven't heard that theory before.



#4 StarBurger

StarBurger

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2018
  • Loc: North Country NY

Posted 25 April 2019 - 01:31 PM

Interesting theory but I think you you need to post a link to the article you read.

The current "popular" theory is that the moon was a result of a collision with the Earth by another (possibly Mars sized planet) early in its history.

The far side of the moon,(not the dark side! There is no dark side!) has in fact more craters than we see on the side facing us.

I am sure there are many theories on why this is so. I await the answers from the experts on this.


  • Scott123 likes this

#5 sg6

sg6

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4947
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 25 April 2019 - 01:59 PM

Since the moon is tidely locked to the earth I would suspect that is the reason for the difference in features. The Earth will be in the way of a lot of the crud that would otherwise hit the surface we face.

 

If a second moon had hit the "present" one then I would also have expected to have seen reasonable evidance of the impact. Immaterial of the elapsed time.



#6 homerdt

homerdt

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Astoria, Oregon

Posted 25 April 2019 - 02:14 PM

Since the moon is tidely locked to the earth I would suspect that is the reason for the difference in features. The Earth will be in the way of a lot of the crud that would otherwise hit the surface we face.

 

If a second moon had hit the "present" one then I would also have expected to have seen reasonable evidance of the impact. Immaterial of the elapsed time.

The "Universe" program had an episode about it, it was more a merge than a collision. The far side is more dense than the side that we see.


Edited by homerdt, 25 April 2019 - 02:15 PM.

  • deepwoods1, REC and rowdy388 like this

#7 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 25 April 2019 - 02:16 PM

The lunar crust is much thicker on the far side. One theory explaining that is that a second much smaller moon

slowly collided on the far side with its bigger brother squashing itself across that hemisphere. The thicker crust

prevented meteor hits from causing lava upwellings to fill in the craters on that side. 

 

I also heard of another theory that requires no second moon: The moon was very close to the earth at first

and has been slowly moving away ever since forming. Both bodies were molten from the energy of the

impact. The moon being much smaller, cooled faster . The moon's near side though was facing a still

molten earth and cooled slower than the far side causing the crust to be much thinner there.


Edited by rowdy388, 25 April 2019 - 02:23 PM.

  • Dave Mitsky, homerdt, deepwoods1 and 2 others like this

#8 homerdt

homerdt

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Astoria, Oregon

Posted 25 April 2019 - 02:21 PM

I read a story today about the Earth might have had two moons years ago and the smaller one collided with the larger one to make the current one we have. One explanation is that the moon has two very different looking sides. Maybe the dark side that does not face the Earth has very little creators compared to the side we see???

https://www.history....son-1/episode-5 I think this episode covers that theory.


  • REC likes this

#9 rk2k2

rk2k2

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cool, CA

Posted 25 April 2019 - 02:22 PM

What the heck is this .. there is no dark side?  Sorry,  Pink Floyd told me otherwise.


  • V1rgil4 and Barlowbill like this

#10 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3567
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 25 April 2019 - 02:39 PM

The series "How the Universe Works" covers that in one of the episodes. The "back" of the moon has a much thicker oxide crust. The theory is that there were two primordial hunks that smooshed together at an angle, the smaller one favoring the ~back side~ Note also that the composition of the moon is so nearly identical to earth... that they also have a  body colliding with earth to (eventually) form the moon. Seems there are still several candidate theories in the mix, each with a different recipe as to how one or more collisions came to generate the moon (and earth) that we see today.

 

Further analysis... Trace amounts of Green Cheese were extracted from returned Apollo specimens. Scientists are still debating whether this is evidence of an advanced extraterrestrial cheese-producing civilization, or simply contamination from the astronauts' lunch boxes. A Congressional Committee is interrogating the space men, who are "Taking the Fifth".    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 78.1 astronaut lunch box.jpg

  • homerdt, planet earth, REC and 2 others like this

#11 mich_al

mich_al

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5286
  • Joined: 10 May 2009
  • Loc: Rural central lower Michigan Yellow Skies

Posted 25 April 2019 - 07:25 PM

I think the 2 Moon / merger theory is the current working explanation of it all.  What I don't understand is : if the 2nd Moon was following the main Moon and merged then why is the 'thick' side of the Moon on the side perpetually away from that facing us and not on the 'windward' side ?



#12 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 25 April 2019 - 07:27 PM

Thanks for all the details, Tom. I understand now that you splained it.



#13 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3567
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 26 April 2019 - 10:50 AM

I think the 2 Moon / merger theory is the current working explanation of it all.  What I don't understand is : if the 2nd Moon was following the main Moon and merged then why is the 'thick' side of the Moon on the side perpetually away from that facing us and not on the 'windward' side ?

I believe it is the way ~tidal lock~ settles in. The "lighter side" winds up away from the primary body and the "heavy side" winds up ~down~ toward the primary. Note this is the least energy state... the way objects in force fields sort-out. Nature is lazy that way.    Tom


  • jodemur likes this

#14 RalphMeisterTigerMan

RalphMeisterTigerMan

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 802
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2016

Posted 29 April 2019 - 01:37 AM

Hey! What about the conspiracy theorists theory that the Moon is hollow and was dragged here from an extra-terrestrial location by alien space craft about 10 thousand years ago? After all, we should give equal time to everyone's theory, no matter how insane! Perhaps the killer planet "Nibiru" is somehow responsible for the formation of our Moon. Since their are no conspiracy theorists members of CN, I feel compelled to argue on their behalf. 

 

So, how did we get our Moon? Perhaps Amazon is much older than we realize. Maybe some enlightened, intelligent Dinosaurs who were in possession of Cell phones ordered the moon on-line? You know, none of us were around back then so almost anything is possible! I for one prefer to be more open minded...as well as crazy like a fox!

 

BTW, I am currently marketing a line of compasses for Flat Earthers! If any of you out there in Cloudy Nights land know of any Flat Earthers who are always getting lost and do not believe in using GPS, than they absolutely need my Flat Earther compass. The only problem that I cannot seem to correct is the the needle which is supposed to point North keeps bending and pointing UP! I am at a loss and cannot explain this.

 

Excuse me, but it feeding time for my Unicorns and they get very uneasy when I am late for their feeding time! Also, I have to give Lucky charms cereal for my heard of Leprachans. After all,m they are magically delicious!

 

Insanely yours!

RalphMeisterTigerMan


  • rcg and jodemur like this

#15 jodemur

jodemur

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2017
  • Loc: mid. east., Michigan, USA--Bortle 4.5 skies

Posted 01 May 2019 - 08:45 AM

Wow!! It really does take all kinds. Welcome to the Zoo Ralph. Myself, I kinda like the ole cheese head thing. Two of em would be even better.jawdrop.gif 


Edited by jodemur, 01 May 2019 - 09:09 AM.


#16 RalphMeisterTigerMan

RalphMeisterTigerMan

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 802
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2016

Posted 01 May 2019 - 10:36 AM

Dear Jodemur, I have been an amateur Astronomer for 50 years. I am a man of both Faith and Science and quite honestly I do not see why the two cannot be compatible, but that is both very personal and private. Now, having said that, I prefer to investigate and uncover the truth and find plausible, scientific and rational answers to theories and questions. I am absolutely amazed at the amount of psuedo-science and insanity that is being put out there by conspiracy theorists and whack-jobs who are professing to use "science" to rationalize the insanity that passes for scientific truth, ie, Flat-earthers, Astrology, Apollo landing nay-sayers and the list goes on and on.

 

So sometimes I just have to bow to the absurd and vent out loud and add my own craziness and insanity by injecting my own brand of conspiracy theory whack-a-doodle ness. What ever happened to 21st Century technology and "brave new world" scientific enlightenment and forward thinking? It seems that we in the scientific community and especially Amateur Astronomers are fighting a new War being waged by a new generation of back-ward thinking, anti-science revolutionaries hell-bent on turning back time 500 years or so and sending us back to a time where science is too difficult to understand and possibly even heresy. 

 

I recently watched a documentary where scientists had gathered a large group of flat-earthers and confront them with an experiment which would prove that the Earth is indeed round! At the conclusion, the flat-earthers were not convinced and even more committed to their "cause". One particular flat Earth Zealot actually said that "science has had it's chance and that the Flat Earth movement would usher in a new Golden Age". WOW! I was flabbergasted and shocked. A "Golden Age" of What? Ignorance and turning our backs against science and returning to the Middle ages where people were burned at the stake and murdered because their beliefs went against the status-quo of Earth centered thinking and Science being evil? 

 

 

I am becoming more and more concerned about this movement towards superstition and the power of magic controlling electric lights and appliances with the power button summoning the forces which make these devices work and not closing a circuit which completes the path the electrons take to turn on what-ever electrical device that you're trying to make use of.

 

So what is compelling so many people to step back into the "stone age"?

 

Let's keep fighting to move forward and to teach and enlighten members of the general public!

RalphMeisterTigerMan


  • jodemur likes this

#17 mich_al

mich_al

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5286
  • Joined: 10 May 2009
  • Loc: Rural central lower Michigan Yellow Skies

Posted 01 May 2019 - 11:36 AM

I believe it is the way ~tidal lock~ settles in. The "lighter side" winds up away from the primary body and the "heavy side" winds up ~down~ toward the primary. Note this is the least energy state... the way objects in force fields sort-out. Nature is lazy that way.    Tom

 

OK but isn't the 'heavy side' the side with the thicker crust and away from us?



#18 droe

droe

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Fenton, Mi

Posted 01 May 2019 - 11:51 AM

I saw 2 moons in a car once moving really fast. Not sure the car was in orbit though.

 

(sorry, low hanging fruit, someone had to do it)


  • BFaucett and jodemur like this

#19 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3567
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 01 May 2019 - 01:47 PM

OK but isn't the 'heavy side' the side with the thicker crust and away from us?

Because of the iron underneath... the crust is actually the relatively light stuff that ~floats~ on top... like slag in a pool of steel.    Tom



#20 mich_al

mich_al

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5286
  • Joined: 10 May 2009
  • Loc: Rural central lower Michigan Yellow Skies

Posted 01 May 2019 - 06:32 PM

Because of the iron underneath... the crust is actually the relatively light stuff that ~floats~ on top... like slag in a pool of steel.    Tom

 

Got it,  thanks for the explanation.



#21 jodemur

jodemur

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2017
  • Loc: mid. east., Michigan, USA--Bortle 4.5 skies

Posted 02 May 2019 - 02:06 PM

Yes Ralph, I do prefer analytical reasoning in my pursuit of truth also. A large cross section of folks out there do find the scientific method a bit daunting and prefer the ease of faith and well established superstition.

I am not a professional and from time to time I like playing with the old superstitions but my overwhelming preference is the well researched and  thought out conclusion with a willingness to change the paradigm. 



#22 Tom Glenn

Tom Glenn

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2018
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 05 May 2019 - 12:00 AM

I believe it is the way ~tidal lock~ settles in. The "lighter side" winds up away from the primary body and the "heavy side" winds up ~down~ toward the primary. Note this is the least energy state... the way objects in force fields sort-out. Nature is lazy that way.    Tom

The Moon became tidally locked very early after forming, and at that time the lunar crust was likely very symmetrical, and the Moon had a continuous magma ocean underneath its surface.  Competing theories for the differential crust thickness between the lunar near and far sides include differential cooling and crystallization of the crust, with the far side being cooler and thicker, as the near side faced an early Earth that was some 2500 degrees.  Another theory is that a secondary impact of a large, relatively slow moving object with the early Moon deposited what was to become the thicker far side crust.  The differential tidal heating, coupled with differing crust thickness, is further hypothesized to have contributed to the increased evidence of volcanism on the near side, resulting in the huge disparity between the two sides with respect to visible maria.  Here are a few links to research papers, relatively recently published (within ten years), as well as a summary of one of the papers by NASA (the original papers have paywalls, but you can read the abstracts).

 

https://science.scie...0/6006/949.long

https://sservi.nasa....moon-explained/

https://www.nature.c...les/nature10289

https://science.scie...2/6159/724.long


  • Greg_74 likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics