The Moon is the eye in the sky to the inhabitants of Earth. It provides us with the natural tidal cycles which are said to maintain the equilibrium of all species on the planet.
Peculiarly, certain phases of the Moon cycle are even known to affect our moods and emotions. Most will likely never question the existence or makeup of the Moon as it does its usual routine of lighting up the night sky and circling the planet, however many scientists are not convinced that the narrative of its origin is as ‘solid’ as we are lead to believe.
Much controversy exists around the origin and makeup of the Moon today, and one of the largest arguments surrounding the satellite is the solidity (or lack thereof) of its center and the process by which we got our Moon in the first place.
“What in blazes is our Moon doing way out there? It’s too far out to be a true satellite of Earth, it is too big to have been captured by the Earth.
“The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up a nearly circular orbit about the Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible...
“But, then, if the Moon is neither a true satellite of the Earth nor a captured one, what is it?” – Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Astronomy,” Doubleday, 1974; Mercury Press 1963; also quoted in Don Wilson’s book, Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon (1975).
Currently there are around 5 widely discussed theories of Moon formation. They are as follows: 1.) Capture -This theory proposes that the Moon was captured by the gravitational pull of the Earth. The one main problem is the capture mechanism. A close encounter with Earth typically results in either collision or altered trajectories. This hypothesis has difficulty explaining the essentially identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two worlds.
2.) Fission – This theory states that during a time when the Earth was forming and was still molten, the spinning of the planet projected out material which became our moon today.
The Pacific Ocean was supposedly the area where the Moon came from, however this was debunked considering the immaturity of the ocean floor crust and the knowing that the moon formed much longer ago.
3.) Accretion – This hypothesis states that the Earth and the Moon formed together as a double system from the primordial accretion disk of the Solar System. The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system or why the Moon has a relatively small iron core compared to the Earth (25% of its radius compared to 50% for the Earth).
4.) Georeactor Explosion – A more radical alternative hypothesis, published in 2010, proposes that the Moon may have been formed from the explosion of a georeactor located along the core-mantle boundary at the equatorial plane of the rapidly rotating Earth.
5.) The Giant Impact Theory – This was the most commonly accepted theory up until recently. This theory suggests that long ago a planetary body the size of Mars crashed into Earth expelling a large piece of mass into space which became our Moon.
While this hypothesis explains many aspects of the Earth-Moon system, there are still a few unresolved problems facing it, such as the Moon’s volatile elements not being as depleted as expected from such an energetic impact. Another issue is Lunar and Earth isotope comparisons.
In 2011, the most precise measurement yet of the isotopic signatures of lunar rocks was published. Surprisingly, the Apollo lunar samples carried an isotopic signature identical to Earth rocks, but different from other Solar system bodies.
Since most of the material that went into orbit to form the Moon was thought to come from Theia (the name scientists gave to the impactor), this observation was unexpected.
In 2007, researchers from Caltech showed that the likelihood of Theia having an identical isotopic signature as the Earth was very small ( less than 1% ).
Published in 2012, an analysis of titanium isotopes in Apollo lunar samples showed that the Moon has the same composition as the Earth which conflicts with the moon forming far from Earth’s orbit. [3]
Unfortunately none of the previous theories provide the answers to the big questions surrounding the Moon’s origins. What’s apparent however is the number of strange facts about the Moon which conjure up many ‘hmms’ about its existence. Let’s take a look at some of them:
1. Moon’s Age: The Moon is far older than previously expected, maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; Moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.
Some argue that the Moon may seem older only because its surface never renews itself, whereas the Earth may have rocks that old but have since been recycled through the natural resurfacing of the planet. [4]
2. Rock’s Origin: The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else. [5]
3. Heavier Elements on Surface: Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the Moon. Don Wilson writes in his book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon.
“The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the Moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned.”
4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the Moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles. [1]
5. Magnetic Rocks: Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the Moon itself. This could not have originated from a “close call” with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the Moon apart.
There have been many theories that aim to explain this magnetism however they all still sit as theories.
6. Seismic Activity: Hundreds of “moonquakes” are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the Moon near the crater Alphonsus.
He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region.
These observations have proved to be precisely identical and periodical, repeating themselves as the Moon moves closer to the Earth. These are probably not natural phenomena.
7. Hollow Moon: The Moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated,
“If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.”
Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the Moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the Moon where there is “simply a cavity.”
MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote,
“The Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field… indicating the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow.”
In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated,
“A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object.”
Therefore, the Moon may not be a “natural” satellite at all.
8. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the Moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the Moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour.
This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the Moon), with even more startling results.
Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the Moon has an unusually light — or even no — core.
To put it into perspective, when the Earth experiences a large earthquake, the reverberations from the quake usually only last minutes due to the density of the planet.
9. Moon’s Origin: Before the astronauts’ Moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the Moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago. Another theory was that the Moon was created from leftover “space dust” remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also.
Another popular theory is that the Moon was somehow “captured” by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov, stated,
“It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been affected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”
10. Weird Orbit: Our Moon is the only Moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit (although it is still elliptical).
Stranger still, the Moon’s center of mass is about 6,000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the Moon’s bulge is on the far side of the Moon, away from the Earth. It seems that “something” must have put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.
11. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the “coincidence” that the Moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds,
“There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”
SOURCE
