The earth has had two moons for about a hundred years now according
Article in the Mother Nature Network:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Speaking of moons, there is some speculation that we originally had 2 moons
back when our "main" moon was formed by a collision with a Mars-sized objec
It is generally accepted that our moon was formed by chunks of material tha
flew off into space after the collision and then coalesced into our moon.
There are some that now believe that 2 moons were formed in that manner and
that sometime afterwards the 2 moons became one.
The theory goes that there was a low-impact collision between the 2 moons o
the far side of our moon. This low-impact collision essentially spread the
material from the smaller moon across the surface of the larger one. This
would account for the thicker crust and less evidence of volcanic action
on the far side. The thicker crust would prevent smaller collisions from
disturbing the surface "deeply" which would limit the amount of magma that
Note: The article sited above discounts that theory in a manner that I feel
is contradictory. Follow my logic here:
First they say that the original "collision then coalesce" theory related
to our moon makes sense because "It explains why the Moon has some chemical
similar to Earth".
Then, when they introduce the 2 moon theory, they say: "...a smaller moon
also coalesced out of the ejected material" which implies that the 2nd moon
also had "some chemicals similar to Earth".
OK, so with that background, how can they discount the "absorption" of the
smaller moon by the larger one by saying "The chemical composition of the
lunar surface doesn’t have a sharp transition between the far and n
as you’d expect from this."
Why would I expect that 2 moons that coalesced from the same Earth material
would produce a "sharp transition" in the "chemical composition" when compa
to each other?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.