Medellín, November 2009
THEORIES ON THE FORMATION OF THE MOON
1. General considerations
All cultures have developed theories about the formation of the Moon. These theories have been consistent with the culture of each era and the advancement of science.
C
HTMLXC monotheistic cultures: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have given any credibility to the story of Genesis, Old Testament for Christians and the Torah for Jews.
Genesis 14. And God went on to say: Come to have lights in the firmament of heaven to make a division between Diaye night, and must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15. And they have to serve as lights in the expansion &; Oacute; of the heavens to shine upon the earth. And it came to be. 16. And he proceeded to make two great lights-the greater light to rule the Diaye the lesser light to rule the night and the stars . "
However, only very fundamentalist people of these religions believe that this was done with a magic wand and in a moment, by magic, appeared the Sun, Earth, Moon and stars and remained static, as we know them today. What weobserved during the civilizacióny leading knowledge, is that these stars have been changing slowly and that creation was not static. The Sun, every second, you are getting your energíay one day will lose. The Moon is receding from Earth about 3 cm. by Anoy although very little, sooner or later the seriousness of the Earth will not be able to keep it in orbit. The Milky Way is on collision course with the Andromeda galaxy and the collision will be presented in a few million years. Famous Aries point, that at the time of Jesus was in la constellation of Aries is now in the constellation of tread. . That is, the creation is underway
The Creator, at some point, 14.000 billion years ago, we started the time, space and matter in the big bang, known as the big bang. Thereafter the laws of physics have been shaping our universe and is based on this idea they have developed theories about the formation of our natural satellite: the Moon.
CH TMLXC recognized
There are currently five (5) theories about the formation of the Moon. All have strengths and weaknesses, but one of them is the one that has more acceptance in the scientific community and known as "The big collision."
1.1 fission
When I was in the school, the theory that marked the pauta on the formation of the Moon, was that this was a piece of earth that had fallen and was now orbiting our planet. It was believed that the mass detached pertenecíaa the Pacific Ocean basin.
fission hypothesis is that originally there was only the Earth and that part of the mass was ejected, due to instability caused by the strong rotational acceleration at that time experienced our planet. (Something contrary to what follows from the impact theory) The part that moved "was" part of the angular momentlar initial system and, therefore, remained in rotation, with the passage of time, synchronized with the period of movement.
the area is believed to be off for the Pacific Ocean, which has about 180 million square kilometers with an average depth of 4,049 meters. Those who do not believe in that hypothesis, saying that to have that release, required the initial angular momentum would be incredibly large. So great that if it had existed at some time, it was not possible to form, or the Earth or the Moon.
This theory has a very remarkable merit and which was proposed in 1878 by Charles Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution and a person since the beginning of the nineteenth century been highly respected by the world scientific community.
1.2 Capture
Moon was a star independent, passing close to Earth, is & oacutee; captured into orbit, thanks to action by the mutual gravitational force between two bodies.
is believed that before the capture, the Moon was a protoplanet having an elliptical orbit, not clean, it was interference with the orbits of rocky planets and wandered among the planets Mercury and Mars. This orbit would have been altered by the gravitational effects of the giant planets, which altered the whole planetary system forced from their orbits to various bodies, including our satellite. Orbited the moon in this space to near Earth and was captured by the gravitación it.
This theory is good, but it has an Achilles heel. Earth's atmosphere, or the present or the past, have had the strength to slow a body the size of the moon and not capture this slowdown appears to be an impossible event realization.
1.3 Accretion
is
your theory is based on the assumption of both stars are formed simultaneously in the material which formed the solar system.
This assumes the formation at the same time, both the Earth and the Moon, from the same material and in the same part of the giant cloud from which the system was formed solar. When Apollo astronauts brought the material of the Moon, and this material was dated, it was found that the samples were approximately between 4,500 and 4,600 million years, ie, the moon age, approximately equal to the age of the Earth.
This theory, in a nutshell is about equal to the second, for that implicitly, speaks of a star that wandered near the Sun and the Earth and the parallel education is just a conclusion logic. Like the second, the accretion theory also raises questions. The density is 5.52 ton/m3 Earth and the Moon is 3.34 ton/m3, being so close and having been formed at the same time and same source of material that would have more or less the same composition. The Earth has a huge iron core does not seem to exist on the Moon and also the pair Luna
ece be plenty of minerals such as titanium, which are scarce in our world.
Finally, the astronauts of the Apollo missions, brought a total of about 400 kg of rocks, a sample too Pequena very unrepresentative of the material from the surface of the moon. Therefore, it is daring to speculate and projected on a body whose mass is estimated at 7.35 x 10
22 kg. based on a small sample of 400 kg.
This theory is also a variant of the second. Do not go to the capture, but accepts the temporary parallel education of the two stars.
1.4 The impact
Figure 1 Theory of impact
http://blogs.que.es/blogfiles/zenda-caballero/la-teoria-del -great-impacto.jpg
& nbsp;
This hypothesis is widely accepted today. Assumed that the Moon was formed after the collision with the Earth, protoplanet a scale size of Mars, whose name was Theia. The impact was not head on. The collision was at an angle and made huge blocks of matter of the two stars and then jump into space and for a
accretion process, similar to what occurred in the formation of the rocky planets, the Moon was formed.
This hypothesis helps to understand the current rotation of the Earth. It cree that this impact was the one who gave energy to the Earth to rotate 360 degrees every 24 hours, which is also optimal for life. Because if slower, the part exposed to the sun is too hot, while the opposite side would be very extreme negative temperatures.
Like most theories of astrophysics, it has been modeled using computers to simulate a collision with an object whose size would be equivalent to that of Mars and which is slower than the 50,000 km / h, would allow the formation of satelliteste.
Tehia This theory says that was formed by accretion in one of the unstable Lagrange points in Earth system - Sol, located on the Earth's orbit. The continuous accretion Tehia was increasing its mass, until it escaped protoplanet Lagrange point and increased his speed on the Earth's orbit until it produced the greatest impact.
Figure
2 Theory of the great impact
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teoría_del_gran_impacto
;
impact theory was first published in the journal Icarus, by Dr. William Hartman and and Donald Devis in 1975.
1.5 The precipitation
The latest theory is called the hypothesis of precipitation. According to this, the energy released during the formation of Earth heated part of the material, forming a hot, dense atmosphere, mostly composed of metal fumes and oxides. These were extended to form a giant belt micro beads, which by accretion, when condensed, formed the Moon.
Juan Fernando Sanin
