Mars

[conman]

I read the other day some scientists theorise that we hade a second moon witch collided with our existing moon, made me think ?

 

Here goes my theory !!!

 

Mars was millions of years a lot closer to earth, maybe also supported life. Then a huge piece of space rubble smashes into its moon witch in

turn smashed into mars knocking it out of orbit.

 

This will explane : The odd forms of the Mars moons ( Puzzle them, they fit ! )

 

The extinction of dinosaurs on Earth ( Cosmic dust storm that blocked out sunlight for a thousand years )

 

Marsian rocks found on our blue planet.

 

Evidence of old rivers & seas on Mars.

 

The odd irregular density of our moon on only one side. ( Cosmic dust again ! If your smart enough you can use that to calculate where the collision took place ! )

 

 

Now non of my theory's is science fact. What I hope to achieve is a fun debate if this at all possible, come play a bit of devils advocate !

 

[Leader Bee]

I

The extinction of dinosaurs on Earth ( Cosmic dust storm that blocked out sunlight for a thousand years )

 

 

In the history of our solar system the dinosaurs extinction has been a relatively recent event. The time when there were rogue planets flying around space however was billions of years ago, so long ago infact that the planets were still hot and molten from the collection of dust from the suns accretion disk. Long before the earth could even support basic single celled life, never mind complex organisms like the dinosaurs.

 

The timing just doesn't fit.

[Ophiolite]

I read the other day some scientists theorise that we hade a second moon witch collided with our existing moon, made me think ?

I think this is what you are referring to. It is also discussed here. The preview of the Nature article can be found here.

 

Keep in mind how this hypothesis was arrived at. The peculiarities of the chemistry of lunar rocks, their similarities and differences with Earth rocks, the age of events on the moon, the lunar structure, all led to the conclusion that the proto-Earth was struck by a Mars sized planet. Some of the material from the collision later coalesced to form the moon. Detailed computer simulations using finite element analysis confirmed this was possible and even allowed us to estimate the size of the impactor and the angle at which it struck.

 

We were still left with the oddity of the difference between the two hemispheres of the moon: the far side has no significant 'seas' to speak of and a thicker crust. This latest hypothesis is an attempt, using computer simulations again, to demonstrate why this is so.

 

The point is that key features of the Earth-Moon system are explained by the large impactor theory that are not explained by your suggestion. Intuitively one suspects that what you have proposed would not be dynamically possible, or certainly very much less likely than the current theory. That means you would have a huge challenge to demonstrate your idea was plausible.

 

This will explane : The odd forms of the Mars moons ( Puzzle them, they fit ! )!

Would you like to detail how that explains the character of Phobos and Deimos? The current explanation that they are captured asteroids seems reasonable.

 

 

The extinction of dinosaurs on Earth ( Cosmic dust storm that blocked out sunlight for a thousand years )

Leader Bee has explained why the timing of this event simply does not fit the timing of the formation of the moon.

 

 

Evidence of old rivers & seas on Mars.

This is simply evidence that Mars was once much wetter than today. It does not provide any evidence of a collision. (If you want that sort of evidence you might consider the Martian crustal dichotomy.)

 

 

Martian rocks found on our blue planet.

This is perfectly adequately explained by asteroids impacting Mars and ejecting rocks into space some of which drift towards the Earth. Now if your idea was correct these rocks would have spent billions of years in space before falling to Earth to be discovered. Yet we can tell from the isotope chemistry of the rocks that they have been in space for only a few million years. This, in combination with the other issues, invalidates your thesis.

 

It was an imaginative idea, but the facts are against you.

[ydoaPs]

I think this is what you are referring to. It is also discussed here. The preview of the Nature article can be found here.

 

Keep in mind how this hypothesis was arrived at. The peculiarities of the chemistry of lunar rocks, their similarities and differences with Earth rocks, the age of events on the moon, the lunar structure, all led to the conclusion that the proto-Earth was struck by a Mars sized planet. Some of the material from the collision later coalesced to form the moon. Detailed computer simulations using finite element analysis confirmed this was possible and even allowed us to estimate the size of the impactor and the angle at which it struck.

 

We were still left with the oddity of the difference between the two hemispheres of the moon: the far side has no significant 'seas' to speak of and a thicker crust. This latest hypothesis is an attempt, using computer simulations again, to demonstrate why this is so.

 

The point is that key features of the Earth-Moon system are explained by the large impactor theory that are not explained by your suggestion. Intuitively one suspects that what you have proposed would not be dynamically possible, or certainly very much less likely than the current theory. That means you would have a huge challenge to demonstrate your idea was plausible.

 

Would you like to detail how that explains the character of Phobos and Deimos? The current explanation that they are captured asteroids seems reasonable.

 

 

 

Leader Bee has explained why the timing of this event simply does not fit the timing of the formation of the moon.

 

 

This is simply evidence that Mars was once much wetter than today. It does not provide any evidence of a collision. (If you want that sort of evidence you might consider the Martian crustal dichotomy.)

 

 

This is perfectly adequately explained by asteroids impacting Mars and ejecting rocks into space some of which drift towards the Earth. Now if your idea was correct these rocks would have spent billions of years in space before falling to Earth to be discovered. Yet we can tell from the isotope chemistry of the rocks that they have been in space for only a few million years. This, in combination with the other issues, invalidates your thesis.

 

It was an imaginative idea, but the facts are against you.

At least this guy made predictions (although lacking precision, they are predictions nonetheless) which provides falsifiability.

[Ophiolite]

At least this guy made predictions (although lacking precision, they are predictions nonetheless) which provides falsifiability.

Which is why I congratulate him on his imagination, but tried to demonstrate the area where the facts are against the thesis. I've also given him a lifeline with the Martian dichotomy. If he pursues this he won't prove his thesis, but he'll learn a lot.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved from Science News (since the discussion doesn't revolve around the news story mentioned) to Speculations (since this thesis is not part of accepted science).

Spammy comments about how "pretty" and "funny" this thread is have been deleted. Those who made these comments are under review as spammers.

I would also like to applaud the OP for trying to make some predictions with this thesis (not quite a "theory" until it's reviewed and tested very thoroughly). It's something very few people do to help support their ideas, and it lends a lot more credibility even if an idea doesn't pan out. Scientific Method Rules!