I simply do not think
so. Any moderate accumulation will
quickly cook off. And yes we do have shallow
georeactors that did cook off. So relying
on nuclear energy to do much besides heating the core is not reasonable.
I am more
inclined to accept that the accumulation developed two centers and that the
moon had a large enough nucleus to force assembly and to scour the surrounding
space. We suffer from a lack of a decent
comparable.
It may also have
come about during the calving of Jupiter as an oversized unbalanced planet that
then shed the moon. The plum pudding
structure of the moon accommodates that as the secondary calving took place the material cooled making it less flexible..
The day the
earth exploded:
Scientist claims moon was created by massive nuclear
blast which tore apart our planet four billion years ago
Controversial new theory suggests that a giant
explosion originating from the Earth's core somehow led to the formation of the
moon
Planetary scientist Wim van Westrenen believes
that this violent event took place approximately four-and-a-half billion years
ago
Some scientists agree that a nuclear blast is the
only thing that could produce the necessary energy quickly enough to blast the
moon into space
There are many theories about the origin of the
moon, including the 'big splat' theory
PUBLISHED: 17:50 GMT, 4 July 2013 | UPDATED: 18:43
GMT, 4 July 2013
The origin of our moon has long been debated.
Now, a scientist has claimed that Earth effectively
'gave birth' to the moon four-and-a-half billion years ago.
A controversial new theory has been proposed that a
giant explosion equivalent to 40 billion atomic bombs originating from the
Earth's core somehow led to the formation of the moon.
Planetary scientist Wim van Westrenen believes this
violent event took place approximately four-and-a-half billion years ago and
could answer the hotly contested question of where our moon comes from.
A Dutch scientist has claimed that the moon was
created by massive nuclear blast which tore apart our planet four billion years
ago
The scientist, from VU University in Amsterdam,
told New Scientist magazine that previous explanations
about how the moon came to be simply do not add up.
Charles Darwin's son, astronomer George Darwin,
proposed that the early Earth spun so fast that it fell apart, hurling a part
of itself into space that became the moon.
His theory was popular but was then eclipsed by the
giant impact hypothesis, or 'big splat', which said that a Mars-sized object
crashed into an infant Earth and shattered on impact, the magazine
reported.
In this theory, the debris formed the moon. However,
it was largely thrown-out when astronauts brought back rocks from the Apollo
moon landings.
George Darwin, astronomer son of famous scientist
Charles (pictured) proposed that the early Earth spun so fast that it fell
apart, hurling a part of itself into space that became the moon
Chemical analysis of the rocks last year by the
University of Chicago found that they shared identical oxygen, silicon and
potassium isotopes with Earth, hinting that the Moon shares its origin with the
Earth.
Van Westeren said that taken at face value, the
findings suggest that the moon was once part of the Earth that was blasted into
space by an enormous explosion from the Earth's fiery core.
To do this, he believes that there must have been a
'massive energy kick' delivered quickly and he calculates that the explosion
was the strength of 40 billion atomic bombs the size of those dropped on
Hiroshima.
The idea that the Earth's core harbours a huge
nuclear reactor has been around for over 60 years.
There is also evidence of much smaller natural
fossil reactors up to 10 metres across in West Africa that were active around
10 billion years ago.
Van Westeren said that: 'A nuclear blast is the
only thing we could come up with that could produce the necessary energy quickly
enough' to blast the moon into space.
Scientists have reasoned that heavy elements like
uranium and plutonium in heavy rocks sank deep into the Earth after it was
formed and collected on its outer core where they formed large liquid
reservoirs.
The radioactive material in the rocks set off mini
reactions, which when combined with enough fuel, produced an enormous
explosion.
View of the Earth from the moon. There have been
numerous theories about how the moon was formed including the 'big splat'
theory that a Mars-sized piece of rock collided with the Earth and the moon was
formed from its debris
This theory of an internal nuclear reactor
could explain why Earth gives out more energy than it receives from the sun.
However, experts have said that even if evidence of
'global georeactors' was found, many scientists would need convincing that they
were capable of creating the moon.
There are many conflicting ideas of exactly how the
moon came to be and scientists are starting to re-question older theories.
Matija Cuk, a planetary scientist at Harvard
University said: 'I don't think you can separate the moon's formation from a
giant impact.'
But he draws upon Darwin's idea and the big splat
and believes that a peculiar alignment of the sun, earth and moon is the reason
why the moon orbits the Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment