PDA

View Full Version : Claim the Moon was captured by the Earth 39,000



Hans
2009-May-26, 07:15 PM
years ago

Does anyone know where this wooish claim comes from?

TIA

astromark
2009-May-26, 07:33 PM
Just searching the 'Wicki' article soon shows this is the least favoured option for the moon's formation. Captured is not the mainstream excepted history. Woo woo is my judgement of this also.

"Does anyone know where this wooish claim comes from?"

I do not. Looks like a tabloid attempt at science.

Swift
2009-May-26, 07:33 PM
Who told it to you Hans?

Celestial Mechanic
2009-May-26, 09:17 PM
A long time ago at a public library very, very nearby I recall a book called Moons, Myths, and Man by someone named Bellamy. I'll do a quick Google tonight to fill it in, I don't have the time right now. He collected together many myths suggesting that the Moon was captured during pre-historic memory, although he put it at 11,000 years ago.

As a teenager it impressed me, but I soon grew out of it. :D

Hans
2009-May-27, 01:34 AM
Who told it to you Hans?

Read it as part of evidence put up for an Atlantis claim.

http://tuat-web.info/zajimavosti/pannonian-sea/atlantida.pdf

Slide 7

The 2nd International Conference “Atlantis Hypothesis: Searching for a Lost Land”


Quote

f. The Iron Gates Gorge (s.l.) formation,
respectively the interruption of the endorheic
character of the Pannonian Basin, can be
connected to the moment of the Moon capture
by the Earth, about 39.000 years ago


Unquote

I took this as complete nonsense but was looking for where this claim might have come from or been based on?

astromark
2009-May-27, 05:27 AM
Yes Hans you are right... It is rubbish. Based on not a single fact.

SkepticJ
2009-May-27, 08:07 AM
It is rubbish. Based on not a single fact.

And contradicted by many--fossil evidence that could only have come about if there were a Moon goes back hundreds of millions of years.

It's made of material that could only have come from the Earth. Those pesky Apollo missions, giving us facts about the Moon.

Essan
2009-May-27, 02:45 PM
I believe some folk have been known to interpret some ancients texts as implying the Moon is a recent addition to the skies. Some references here:

http://www.varchive.org/itb/sansmoon.htm

Obviously the idea is debunked by the evolution of life on land ..... though I guess some would say you can't debunk an idea with something which is 'only' a 'theory'

Not sure where the 39,000 year date comes from off hand, but pretty sure there's a woo-woo book out there that asserts such a thing. Indeed, I'm sure discussions have come up before on places like ATS about the age of the moon based on such assertions.


btw Hans, in that paper I was more intrigued by the idea that the 'meteorite rain' that fell on Earth was cause by Halley's Comet I suppose it makes a change from much maligned Comet Encke!

Hans
2009-May-27, 04:59 PM
Howdy Essan

Is this the same Essan famous for his particaption at the Ancient and Lost Civilization sub forum of ATS? If so a mighty howdy

Yeah I like to find out where these odd ideas come from. It sometimes help when debunking them to know it was written up in a book or comes from a misinterpretation of an actual scientific theory or idea

Thanks

Celestial Mechanic
2009-May-27, 05:11 PM
You might want to look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Schindler_Bellamy) Wikipedia entry concerning the Bellamy book I mentioned earlier.

Damburger
2009-May-27, 05:38 PM
Wrong for two reasons I can think of

1) It would take a long time after a capture to settle into a stable, circular orbit. My gut instinct tells me this would take longer than 39,000 years.

2) Capturing something that massive would've altered the speed of the Earth's rotation and possibly its orbit; having something like this happen 39,000 years ago isn't consistent with the number of organisms well adapted to the day and year length we see now.

Hans
2009-May-27, 10:12 PM
You might want to look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Schindler_Bellamy) Wikipedia entry concerning the Bellamy book I mentioned earlier.

That is interesting. That body of theory may be the womb of this wooish idea then.

thoth II
2009-May-27, 10:19 PM
years ago

Does anyone know where this wooish claim comes from?

TIA

To capture the moon into an almost circular orbit seems almost impossible. If the moon came from somewhere else in the solar system, what slowed it down into orbit? Only a big asteroid collision with earth 39k years ago could do this, but there is no fossil evidence of this.

And since I'm not a senior member, but rather a real senior, what does "wooish" mean (not in my gens vocabulary?)

Van Rijn
2009-May-27, 10:25 PM
And since I'm not a senior member, but rather a real senior, what does "wooish" mean (not in my gens vocabulary?)

It's probably based on "woo." From:

http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html

"Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers."

thoth II
2009-May-27, 10:35 PM
good,

The Tower of Woo on youtube is a good primer on woodom

Paul Beardsley
2009-May-27, 10:46 PM
Perhaps two halves of the moon came in from opposite directions, one just a little slower than the other, and they collided about a quarter of a million miles from Earth.

Well, it fits some of the facts.

Van Rijn
2009-May-27, 11:18 PM
This recent moon capture idea is a key plot element in





(and this is a major spoiler, if you care . . .)





James P. Hogan's Inherit the Stars which, weirdly, is often referred to as "hard science fiction." I would refer to it as truly horrible pseudoscience fiction, reminiscent of Velikovsky's nonsense. (Not a surprise, Hogan is something of a Velikovsky proponent.)

That book has been around since '77, so it wouldn't surprise me if some woo-woos picked up the idea from there. All the problems apply to the story that have been discussed here: There is long term geological evidence for lunar tidal effects, capture to its current orbit in that time period is essentially imposible, evidence from the Apollo missions, etc.

Hans
2009-May-27, 11:23 PM
Following Celestial Mechanics hint I found some more about Horbiger and his theories of Welteislehre which were expanded on by Bellamy

Quote

Hörbiger had various responses to the criticism that he received. If it was pointed out to him that his assertions did not work mathematically, he responded: "Calculation can only lead you astray."

If it was pointed out that there existed photographic evidence that the Milky Way was comprised of millions of stars, he responded that the pictures had been faked by "reactionary" astronomers.

He responded in a similar way when it was pointed out that the surface temperature of the Moon had been measured in excess of 100 C in the daytime, writing to rocket expert Willy Ley: "Either you believe in me and learn, or you will be treated as the enemy."

Unquote

Sounding very wooish there!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre

Van Rijn
2009-May-27, 11:27 PM
By the way, David Weber did a better job of the idea in Mutineers' Moon. In that story, around 50,000 years ago, the moon was replaced by a giant spacecraft based on radically advance technology, that was given identical surface features and had the same effective mass. Nobody could tell the difference. :lol:

It's a ridiculous idea, though not as ridiculous as Hogan's, and it's a fun story.

AndrewJ
2009-May-27, 11:42 PM
39,000 years ago is a strange dating to linger: too recent to be plausible, but too distant to impress scriptural literalists who might welcome support for such an interjection.

bknight
2016-Mar-27, 05:00 PM
IIRC, back in the 40's and 50's perhaps earlier the main theories were
1. Capture
2. Formation at geologically speaking same period as Earth.

Only recently in the 60's did the notion of an impact theory was proposed. Since the Lunar samples resembled Earth's this theory has become accepted by the scientific community. This collision +/- bya fits the evolutionary traces found in Earth's rocks. 39000 is too short a time span to fit any evolutionary evidence found to date.

swampyankee
2016-Mar-27, 06:19 PM
39,000 years ago is a strange dating to linger: too recent to be plausible, but too distant to impress scriptural literalists who might welcome support for such an interjection.

Why would they welcome that? Scripture tends to show the sky as largely unchanging, except for trivia like meteors and comets, and the Star of Bethlehem. For a lunar capture to be welcomed by the Biblical literalists, there'd need to be a passage like "On the evening of the third day, He placed the moon into the sky to illuminate the nights."

slang
2016-Mar-27, 08:05 PM
This thread is about 7 years old, and AndrewJ hasn't logged in since 2011.

Hans
2016-Mar-27, 09:27 PM
Let me ask an unrelated question on rogue planets (not the moon) can someone link me to a discussion/website about the issues of gravity and how long it would take such an extra-solar rogue entering the system to be captured and to normalize its orbit?

antoniseb
2016-Mar-27, 10:25 PM
Let me ask an unrelated question on rogue planets (not the moon) can someone link me to a discussion/website about the issues of gravity and how long it would take such an extra-solar rogue entering the system to be captured and to normalize its orbit?
It probably wouldn't get captured. It would pass through, unless it had a very low relative velocity AND had a close encounter with Jupiter, or an extremely close encounter with another planet, in either case, it would need to be a capturing, not accelerating encounter. The chances are very low.

cjameshuff
2016-Mar-28, 12:29 AM
It probably wouldn't get captured. It would pass through, unless it had a very low relative velocity AND had a close encounter with Jupiter, or an extremely close encounter with another planet, in either case, it would need to be a capturing, not accelerating encounter. The chances are very low.

A bit more likely would be for a binary planet or gas giant with a planet-s to make a close pass of the sun, one of the pair being ejected at higher velocity as the other is captured. You don't need a chance near-collision with a planet large enough to drag the newcomer below solar escape velocity that way.

Another option is such a close pass that tidal drag dissipates enough orbital energy to capture the newcomer. That's probably only feasible for stars, not planets, and it would require a very close pass.

Subsequent interactions would also have to circularize its orbit instead of just ejecting it again.