No it doesn't. It's made of mantle.

 

Whatever you studied years ago is incorrect. Yes the moon has a mantle, but the rocks and top layer is vastly different than the earth. The moon has very little iron compared to earth. For this reason scientists have concluded that the moon did not come from the earth in any way. They are still trying to figure out how our moon got there within our orbit. Pick up a book that isn't outdated.

 

Please provide some measurable evidence for your claims.

 

It is a made-up word.

 

I can provide some Discovery shows for you right now. I cannot look up anything else at the moment since I am at work on a small break. Tomorrow is a half day so I cam give more than. The shows that are completely scientific and stated what I said about the moon are "How the universe was made" and "Our solar system.". I am not saying you are wrong, but maybe misinformed or the material you read was out of date. I am not trying to argue or anything, theres enough of that on here already lol. The universe fascinates me and we should try to learn from each other.

 

First off if you 'ain't looking to argue or anything' you saddled the wrong pony my friend because science is the rodeo and you just stuck your spurs in my ass :shock:....that came out horribly wrong....

Um...yeah...and second off!! ...the Thea Impact Theory is the most up to date and widely accepted theory for the origins of the moon.

I don't know which scientific papers you are reading but you're on the wrong page there buddy.

 

*not_secure_link*img266.imageshack.us/img266/1804/afterthelockxl3.png

I'm not a mod

 

Again, you're wrong. Believe what you want buddy, but the Thea theory is out of date and is not the most widely accepted idea. If the moon broke off of the earth, there would be a higher iron content, which there is not. That's why that theory was thrown out. Get your head out of your ass and pick up an updated book.

 

Just want to point out that Inky and Jerry are both partially correct. The currently accepted idea of how the Moon formed is called the 'Giant Impact Hypothesis', which based on it's name, isn't a theory.

A hypothesis of course being the proposed explanation for a phenomenon, and a theory being "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedia).

Now, the Giant Impact Hypothesis isn't the only hypothesis out there regarding the formation of Earth's Moon, but it is currently the most accepted proposal.

There is the Fission Hypothesis, first proposed by Charles Darwin's son, George, which claims that the Moon was formed from a large amount of matter that was expelled as a consequence of the extremely fast rotation of a very young Earth. It was assumed that the floor of the Pacific Ocean was the scar from this ejection. However, today we know the oceanic floor in this region is somewhere around 200 million years old, far too young to have be the remnants of an event that would have had to occur billions of years ago.
The problem with the Fission Hypothesis is that it also cannot explain the the high angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system.

There is also the Capture Hypothesis, which claims that the Moon was captured, fully formed, by Earth's gravitational field. This is considered unlikely, given the sizes of the bodies in question, and that Earth would have needed a large atmosphere extended far enough into space to slow down the Moon and be captured by Earth. The Capture Hypothesis also fails to explain the identical or near identical Oxygen isotopes found on both bodies.
This hypothesis is accepted for how the gas giants of the Outer Solar System captured their many different moons.

The last proposed hypothesis is the Co-Accretion Hypothesis, which states that both the Earth and Moon formed as a binary system from the Solar System's accretion disk. This theory fails to explain the angular momentum and also the why the Moon's core is small, at about 25% of it's mass.

...
...
...


So there you have it. Nobody right now on Earth is 100% sure exactly Earth gained it's satellite. We have a several hypotheses, and each of these hypotheses does try to explain how the Moon formed, but they fail to fully explain, and without continued observations and (most importantly), experiments regarding the creation of the moon (perhaps by trying to construct an artificial planet then throw shit at it until a moon forms!? Think of all the garbage we'd be rid of!), we're simply not going to know for sure how exactly the Earth got it's Moon.

 

Thank you for stating it clearer than I could.

 

Space/time is not really a fabric of such, It is a mathematical construct used to describe gravity. I wasn't implying space was nothing though, It is an infinite sea of virtual particles, It is a medium in which fields can operate in, it has dimensions. Empty space has energy, that means it weighs something. It is definitely not nothing. Also the vacuum energy of space, which has been measured, leads to some very interesting phenomena. But there is such a thing as nothing, and something can be created from nothing,

 

The Moon does not HAVE a mantle. It IS mantle, apart from the top layer being partly made of meteoric debris from impacts.

 

No there wouldn't. The iron's in the core; an impact wouldn't affect it.

 

IT'S MADE OF CHEESE!!

Now please, you guys have destroyed my belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy; torn apart my belief in religion and that bearded guy who lives in the clouds and fucks angels.

Do not take away my moon is cheese theory

 

I tried to explain it to them but they wouldn't listen to me either.

 

Numbers and all of mathematics can be derived from the empty set (i.e., nothing).

The big bang happened. That is not even the question, anymore.

Sheesh.

The big bang was first postulated something like sixty years ago. (Devious, wasn't it a self-taught Roman Catholic priest who first came up with the idea by studying the General Theory of Relativity? What was his name? LeMaitre, I think, or something like that.)

Anyway, the question is no longer whether it happened, but how and why.

You guys really ought to catch up. You sound like a bunch of Baptists arguing over whether people came from monkeys. (Answer: they didn't, because monkeys evolved right along with us.)

We are spending billions on studying the Higgs Particle (at CERN) and Cosmic Background Radiation (in space) to figure out the how and why.

And it's not called the Big Bang Theory, anymore. It's called Inflation Theory.

Get with the times, people.

Sheesh.

 

I agree with you on The Big Bang Theory but the wife still tells me we evolved from monkeys. She claims it happens like this.
*not_secure_link*t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCDqat-4KTrO0YlXrFVIcaXvmkHgGQiMPT1uP-y5aTlH1kLK_zAA

 

Yes, Georges Lemaître. He was also one of the inventors of the FFT (Fast Fourier transform) Which is an algorithm that is familiar to computer engineers, and is invaluable to signal processing engineers like myself . Without it, none of your iPods would play mp3s, and that is just one of the many thousands of applications.

 

The FFT has crossover in computer science, both theoretical (such as quantum factorization) and applied (harmonics as applied to linear maps and eigenvectors thereof). For instance, eigenvectors are used in Google's search algorithm, and the FFT is (suspected to be ) used in the optimization of the algorithm's matrix operations.

I did not know Lemaitre had a role in that. Cool.

I have read many of Catniss Everdeen's posts. I don't think she is this dumb. (Quite the contrary.) She is just trolling.

 

In case anyone asks...

ĝ(r) = N^-1 ∑ ___g(n) e^-2πirn/N
__________nÎZ(N)

​

And by "fast," we mean quick in terms of number of steps. FFT uses linear combinations to reduce steps from exponential to linear (ie, from CN^2 to CNlogN).

My head hurts.

Back to Creationism. Much simpler. Everything's a multiple of seven.