Lunar Capture Theory

[Moontanman]

I ran across this the other day while surfing, it would seem that there is a Hypothesis/theory that the moon was captured by the Earth at the Permian/Triassic boundary. any thoughts?

 

 

http://lunarorigin.com/

 

Around the time of the Permian-Triassic (P-T) boundary, a series of devastating events struck Earth. Some 90% of Earth’s species and perhaps 95% of all marine species went extinct (10). The tectonic system of Earth fundamentally changed and Pangaea, a stable tectonic block before the P-T boundary began to break up. The rapid development of the tectonic system on Earth literally tore Pangaea apart and sent continental blocks spreading around the globe in a dynamic gyro. Continental flood basalts began to occur, beginning with the largest (the Siberian traps) and continuing with lessened severity up to the Columbian flood basalts of the present day Pacific Northwest. The tectonic activity that we witness today is actually the tail end of a string of events that began at the Permian-Triassic boundary.

 

Probably should have gone into speculations...

[D H]

I ran across this the other day while surfing, it would seem that there is a Hypothesis/theory that the moon was captured by the Earth at the Permian/Triassic boundary. any thoughts?

Crackpot. Very nicely presented, but crackpot nonetheless. There is no lunar time-scale problem.

 

Let's look at the author's own numbers. The author stated a current lunar recession rate of 1.5 inches/year. The Permian–Triassic extinction event occurred 251.4 million years ago. A linear extrapolation of that current rate says the Moon would have been 6000 miles closer to the Earth at the time of that extinction event, or 233,000 miles distant (the distance between the centers of the Earth and Moon is currently 239,000 miles).

 

So, the theory is an absolute no go assuming that the Moon has been receding at a constant rate of 1.5 inches/year for the last 250 million years. It turns out that is not a good assumption. The current recession rate is abnormally high, which in turn means that the above 6,000 mile figure is high. The average recession rate is about half the current value. At the time of the P-T extinction the Moon was about 236,000 miles from the Earth. The Roche limit for a body the size and density of the Moon with zero tensile strength is about 12,000 miles.

 

The reason the current recession rate is abnormally high is because the of the current configuration of the continents. There are two north-south barriers to a world-girdling tidal flow. The Americas present a solid land barrier from 56°32′ south to 71°58' north while Africa and Eurasia present a solid land barrier from 34°51' south to 77°44' north. The configurations of the continents also arise in resonances that accentuate these barrier effects.

 

Finally, and most damning, the hypothesis disagrees with observation. There is a very good historical record of the number of days per month and number of months per year frozen in various fossils and rock formations. This record now goes back to 3.2 billion years ago. The length of a day and the distance between the Earth and the Moon can be determined from this record. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this record is that Moon has been orbiting the Earth for at least the last 3.2 billion years.

 

The most widely accepted theory of the Moon's formation is that it was indeed captured (by means of collision), but this occurred 4.5 billion years ago, not 250 million.

[Ophiolite]

Wholly invalid. A new hypothesis should answer more questions than current theory. This raises more questions than current theory and actively suggests 'facts' that are false.

 

The lunar mare are supposed to have erupted at the time of capture. How then do we have ages for these that are more than 3 billion years old?

 

There is no effort to explain the geochemical similarities and differences between the Earth and the moon via this capture hypothesis.

 

The paper states that with a 'dancing' capture, spread over time, less energy needs to be dissipated. Rubbish! The rate of dissipation may be less. The total amount is the same.

 

And so on......

[Moontanman]

I noticed several discrepancies in the article as well, they did a pretty good job of hiding the discrepancies but they are there. I had just skimmed it when I posted, sorry... I kept feeling like Noah's Ark was gonna come up at any time while I read it...