Surprise Evidence That The Moon Is Much Older Than We Thought

[@upyermaw2732]

One of the best KZbinrs straight to the point and genuinely cares about what he talks about, so rare in this pool of slop

[@hamyncheese]

[phone]

[@TagueMcBride-r6x]

lol, 30-minute long videos with Wikipedia-sourced, surface-level infotainment are not slop. What on earth do you mean? XD

[@slartibartfast7921]

@@TagueMcBride-r6x …with text to speech many of them too.

[@slartibartfast7921]

THE best science channel imo. No hyper curated background, no. “let’s get into it”, no lame add reads… just great content and super chill, genuine attitude. Anton freakin rocks.

[@Spectre4913]

I just wish he wasn't such a mouthpiece for the main stream. He just totally skips the fact that they've been telling us the wrong dates for how long. Preach it as absolute fact only to be proven wrong again.

[@reddportal]

Anton is the only person I support on Patreon and it's well worth it - not because he shares more content on there - but because his KZbin content deserves to be paid for. It's still wild to me that we get this content for free. Kudos, as always.

[@notaseriousbeaver]

We get it for free because people like you pay! So the kudos goes to you!

[@jackesioto]

Anton appreciates it.

[@FirstSword-o6f]

Word!

[@RobertBrown-i4r]

Great stuff Anton ! At age 76 -- you give me something new and fascinating each day

[@danglss76]

He looks good for 76 . Lol .jk

[@expat53]

Right on, Robert. I am 72 and also fascinated.

[@slartibartfast7921]

Legend 👊🏻

[@tanasovpetrut2673]

I’m 28 and i sometimes get amazed how much we learned in my lifetime, if u guys followed science from a young age, it mut have been a marvellous journey to 2025 👏👏 enjoy and keep going 👏

[@antonbelsky]

Anton is 77, actually.

[@Bassotronics]

Happy 2025 Wonderful Person!

[@Stevestevestevestevestevesteve]

Yeah he says that

[@jamesbarber5410]

Thank you for being so honest. Many people in your space would not report on this because it goes against their pet theory. Your integrity is your best attribute it makes you a wonderful person ❤. Keep up the amazing work bringing us all the newest information.

[@Joe-lb8qn]

When i was a kid, in the 60's, i had a kids astronomy book which explained how the earth and moon formed together from a cloud of debris. I should have kept that !

[@hektor6766]

But that tilt off the Ecliptic...

[@XxxThePsyCheMisTxxX]

Giant impact creating a debris field ("synestia") that then formed the Earth and Moon - essentially both the impact and simultaneous formation theories are both right - as far as we know.

[@AlexAnder-rv1gu]

Hecklefish was right! :O It IS a giant hollow alien space ship! :O

[@dingickso4098]

Lizard people!

[@urphakeandgey6308]

@@dingickso4098 *Lizzid

[@rosepurdy6301]

Lol 😂

[@AaronAlso]

The Moon has always been a very strange object. The more we learn about it, the stranger it gets.

[@804_Rider]

​@@dingickso4098 *Lizzaad people 😂

[@m4rvinmartian]

*7:00** Remember kids! When someone says "The Science is Settled", they are lying to you. Science, is NEVER SETTLED.*

[@shmuck66]

is the science in this statement settled?

[@davidh.4944]

Yes and no. There are degrees of tentativeness. "The science is settled" does not usually mean the findings are irreversibly set in stone, but that the amount of supporting evidence is so strong that it would take a nuclear level of counter-evidence to dislodge it, and would likely require a complete re-thinking from foundational principles on up on top of that. In short, it has been confirmed _beyond a reasonable doubt_ . Once again I recommend reading Asimov's 1988 essay _The Relativity of Wrong_ for more.

[@hugegamer5988]

Remember kids, it’s never settled, rather it remains in the solution.

[@bobcousins4810]

I think that's also misleading. Of course, all science is based on our current state of knowledge, but some areas are much more advanced than others. Some scientific theories are settled to the point of near certainty, others are more in a state of flux. I mean, we could still theoretically find that our observable Universe is a simulation where anything is possible. Unfortunately while scientists intimately involved know what the level of certainty is, this is not usually communicated well to the public. So you get people saying maybe gravity is wrong and the Earth is flat, or maybe laws of thermodynamics are wrong and free energy is possible.

[@spencerhardy8667]

Sometimes, the next step can really discombobulate. Like when Einstein claimed time can be variable.

[@larry785]

The problem is those samples are taken from the surface. We need to drill a deep hole into the moon to get past the layer of meteorite impacts.

[@togowack]

That's not the moon, its the glass that covers the moon, there is (in the dark areas or Mera) a giant gap of 1-2 miles to the actual surface of the moon which is full of life.

[@RoscoesRiffs]

One of the many, many weird things about our moon is its surface is millions of years older than the layers beneath -- as if composed of tailings mined from the core. I love the bizarre impossibility of our moon. And yet mysteriously -- it is THERE.

[@nR00R]

​@@RoscoesRiffsIt seems much easier to explain the nonexistence of the moon than its existence. -PDK

[@MachinaSapien]

​@@togowack please consult a doctor i think youre experiencing schizophrenic delusions

[@SMac86]

Good point

[@jameswhite5427]

This guy is one of the few whose content is well done, accurate, and interesting.

[@davidc5191]

I remember doing a college paper on the origin of the Moon back in pre-Internet days when you actually had to rely on books for research. I mostly used a book by Harold Urey who advanced three theories: the Moon was captured by the Earth; it collided with the Earth; or that it was formed at the same time as the Earth. The capture theory was discounted even in Urey's time, but the other two theories still seem to be viable.

[@burtlangoustine1]

I like the hypothesis that the Moon was placed there. Previously a mining-mega structure. Used to save Earth, long ago.

[@thenonexistinghero]

It could be something else entirely as well. We don't really know much about both the origin of the Earth and the origin of the Moon yet. Even the Earth's age could be vastly different than the 4.5 or so billion that's widely theorized.

[@who-nobody-never]

@@burtlangoustine1 The idea the earth was "remade" in Genesis, as it was without form and voided. Same with the idea stars could be devices of some sort. I like a lot of the "deny all science" and "history is probably faked" ideas. A generation ship arrived and they printed of a few millions clones, and moved into the previous civilizations ruins and their irrigation districts and trained the clones as if they were orphans in orphanages then had an AI make a fake series of histories that map onto the geographies and spat it out and they went from there. Or the real inhabitants always lived underground, and they don't mind the people as microflora on the surface skin. If anything, itd be a fun movie.

[@lajohnson1967]

It’s the first one. It was captured.

[@drfirechief8958]

Anton is like having an "inside man" to a lab or multiple labs and then passing on new information to us. Thanks Anton.

[@harryrabbit2870]

Anton, you are a jewel, buddy. Thanks for this post. Always enjoy listening to scientific information being presented as science and not infotainment.

[@jackesioto]

Anton really is a jewel.

[@joestrat2723]

Very interesting. Imagine looking up at the moon 4 billion years ago and seeing it as a steaming fireball. Of course you'd be standing knee deep in lava, so it would be a brief look.... Thanks Anton!

[@truthdrifter]

God created the Moon and the Earth. It's the only logical explanation.

[@bobhope8404]

God is the truth. Do not believe their lies. It is much simpler than you think.

[@jackesioto]

Imagine that.

[@arctic_haze]

Why couldn't the zircon crystals come from the original pre-impact Earth or even the giant impactor (Theia)?

[@ianbcnp]

I think the idea is that it would all have melted and re-crystalised so no original material would survive.

[@RealComp5]

@@ianbcnp That seems like a pretty weak assumption to me. If thea had no atmosphere, surely some material could have been ejected without much friction. The side facing away from the impact and towards the direction of travel could almost just float away, and then have plenty of time to softly coalesce with other mass.

[@ralphditchburn1456]

Exactly​@@RealComp5

[@blackoak4978]

Or older zircons landing on the moon after formation

[@arctic_haze]

@@ianbcnp I know but I wondered about it. Some parts of the Earth mantle seem not to have been remelted based on their hight He3 content (under Hawaii if I remember correctly). So maybe the Moon inherited also a fraction of unmelted fragments.

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. ✌️☺️

[@David-fu4vi]

The problem with dating material from the moon is we don't really know where it came from. Every crater represents a possible foreign object from outer space or even interstellar space.

[@MichaelAlexander-c3x]

You're Wonderful Anton keep it up

[@BackUp-z4t]

The Earth and humanity are extremely unique fro what little i understand. And yet some of us want to destroy all of us. Makes no sense. My 75 years seems pretty insignificant. Glad i believe in an after life. Thanks Anton.

[@punditgi]

These videos are no surprise evidence that Anton is a wonderful person! 🎉😊

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

I deeply respect how you always get right to the point, back your videos full of information with no fluff, and stick solely to scientific studies while stating which is verified and what is still supposition.

[@ryandelgaty5793]

I don't understand how finding only like 1 piece of this crystal is proof enough, that could be many different things

[@bobjoatmon1993]

They found many microscopic crystals in the multiple lunar sample missions, he just only showed a picture of one Zircon and a bunch of Earth quartz which was not valid, just filler for his video.

[@ryandelgaty5793]

@@bobjoatmon1993 oh lit ty, didn't realize that about the video, I was just high while listening lol

[@AAA-fb3bm]

Hello wonderful KZbinr Anton, Happy New Year!

[@rosepurdy6301]

I'm a huge fan of your channel. I love it! This one was particularly fascinating, but do me a favor next time, will ya? When you talk about zircon crystals don't show quartz crystals! They don't have the same composition or crystalline structure. ❤

[@hugegamer5988]

This bothered me too.

[@despoticmusic]

Sshhhh…. As long as my wife believes they are diamonds, my life is good! 😂😂😂

[@hikosaemon]

Hi Anton, Happy 2025! Thank you for these videos - I never miss an episode, have your t-shirt and always add them to my Watch Later list to binge watch. If I can make one suggestion for videos this year - I think it's great you feature all your Patrons at the end of videos but one thing I'd appreciate would be if you could do something like what Marcus House does showing the Patreons on the side of the screen during the final 1:40 of the video rather than at the end. It would actually give better visibility to the Patreons, and shorten the videos by 1:40, which I hope would help with clicks since that is about 15% of your average video runtime. Plus selfishly, it makes it easiier to watch your vids in my Watch Later list. Just a thought - I really love what you do. Wishing you and your family a happy 2025!

[@goatbut29]

Best dude on youtube!!! Love your work Anton!!!

[@stevevillanueva2803]

There could still be a Thea impact, it just would have occurred earlier in the accretion era. Accretion lasted between 10 and 100 million years. Plenty of time for Thea to impact and have Luna be a bit older than previously thought.

[@joestrat2723]

Or no impact at all, just some anomalous material within the accretion buffet that has resisted dissemination. You make a good point though, Thea may have impacted earlier and could have been a smaller object that only influenced Earth.

[@braysniper58]

always very interesting stuff, my favorite channel on KZbin I've been watching for almost a decade and I want to thank you for feeding the wonder, curiosity and questions I have. Lots of love and support from Canada 🇨🇦💖❤️

[@JohnDlugosz]

Rocks often contain very tiny zircon crystals that are older than the rock. Zircons are very difficult to destroy, as you point out at 6:00, so that does not invalidate the age of the rock.

[@ThisDique]

I love coming to your channel to learn about space and give back positivity to the community.

[@roybatty2030]

I just had my roof replaced with Uranium sheeting. I was a bit concerned but the roofer reassured me it would turn into lead in no time.

[@despoticmusic]

I’m not doing my homework until my uranium pencil stops glowing in the dark! 😂

[@GregoryMerritt-o1f]

Multiple Anton uploads? We're eating good today.

[@RobertRedman1975]

I enjoy your content Anton. Keep it up.

[@Aleiza_49]

Ah...one of the few channels that I look forward to at the end of the day. Anton always brings interesting topics, interesting follow ups on those topics, and genuinely loves science. ❤

[@robdevilee8167]

Interesting. Makes more sense to me than the impact theories, which require a lot of coincidences. This is a much more solid story.

[@Mr.Ekshin]

Well, there's a flag and a bunch of other stuff up there on the moon's surface dated to the 1960's thereby proving that the moon must have been formed in the 1960's. Sounds like a rather bad theory, right? Well so does finding something very old up there and then assuming that puts a firm date to the entire moon. This is the same mistake they keep making in archaeology. They find one artifact they can date, then assume everything else in that area is from the same time period.

[@jmchez]

The coformation theory needs way many more coincidences than the Giant Impact Theory.

[@Mr.Ekshin]

@@jmchez - Yup... if we find a bit of a meteor here on earth that dates to about 10 billion years old, we don't use that to claim the earth must therefore be 10 billion years old.

[@robdevilee8167]

From what I read, Zircons are tiny crystals that form in the host rock, so they cannot come from anywhere else.

[@Mr.Ekshin]

@@robdevilee8167 - Wait... so zircons are native to the moon and can't form anyplace except the moon? Gee... that's weird.

[@erinm9445]

I love the way Anton says, "the moon." It's very charming!

[@MrBishop077]

I find it very interesting that those crystals formed so long ago and even after a "resurfacing" event on the moon there were still so many crystals left on the surface that we gathered so many in those samples. were they light enough to float on the surface of the moons magma? I understand they are heat resistant enough to survive.

[@beasta81]

Hey mate, I'm so glad I discovered your channel. I love your videos and the way you present them along with the information provided I hope you keep being the awesome person you are stay safe mate, cheers. 👍

[@Bora_H]

It seems that Theia and proto Earth would have formed at the same time, in similar orbits. The impact did not necessarily melt all the zircon crystals, which would have been deposted on the surfaces of both the Earth and Moon. I look forward to more discoveries in this area!

[@hugegamer5988]

Sounds like zircon crystals are just natures pepper.

[@entropybear5847]

Yeah, the notion the moon formed from the same cloud as the Earth just raises more questions than it answers. Awkward questions. We've been led to believe it's extremely unlikely for such a large moon to form around such a small terrestrial planet. Observation seems to support this. I think the people studying those zircons might be jumping to conclusions on one slightly curious piece of evidence, but worth exploring further.

[@martinfinn674]

How old was Thea? If this impact actually occurred we will logically observe ages that are noticeably different.

[@slartibartfast7921]

@@entropybear5847 …………. ………….. Aliens

[@togowack]

Our moon was brought here from somewhere else.

[@RAYRAAMSALU]

As usual clear and concise information with no unnecessary waffle. Thank you.

[@orionspur]

That's no Moon... It's a space station. ✨

[@gregorygant4242]

There is a moon but it's artificial, put there by someone and not formed by impact or accretion nor simultaneously with the Earth that's humbug. It's an observation station for whatever happens here on Earth.

[@joaocarlos6477]

Best science channel ever. Happy year for you and all the best.

[@jjj_027]

give it a couple months “The moon is younger than we thought”

[@minacapella8319]

This is crazy. Thank you for such a perfect breakdown of this one, anton. You are such a gift to the world.

[@NeithanDiniem]

How do we know the zirconium was formed on the moon itself, and not on Theia? if the impact theory is correct, the smaller planet would have slammed into Earth, and part of it and earth was ejected into orbit that coalesced into the moon. Earth and Theia would have formed at similar times as one another. This would account for the zirconium crystals and the impact theory both.

[@MattNolanCustom]

if a Theia / proto-Earth impact vapourises iron, I think it also melts zirconium crystals. Impacts like that are insanely hot.

[@phillm156]

@@MattNolanCustomyes, it would reset the whole process.

[@jpdemer5]

@@MattNolanCustom Zircon melts at 2,717 °C (4,923 °F). It could well survive impact - and escape impact entirely as tidal forces break up the planet pre-collision. The referenced paper actually makes this point: "We show that during passage through the Laplace plane transition, the Moon experienced sufficient tidal heating and melting to reset the formation ages of most lunar samples, while retaining an earlier frozen-in shape _and rare, earlier-formed zircons."_

[@MattNolanCustom]

​@@jpdemer5in that case, why is the paper being touted as evidence that there wasn't a collision? Has Anton misunderstood or not dug deep enough?

[@jpdemer5]

@@MattNolanCustom Nobody is saying there was no collision. Working out the timeframe is the tricky bit, with a mix of pre-collision, post-collision, and re-melted minerals to sort out.

[@brucehemming9749]

Great video thanks for sharing this theory 🍻happy new year!🍻👍

[@WaterShowsProd]

Well, this year is off to an odd start. The crystals present an issue with the impact hypothesis, yet that hypothesis answers other questions that don't have other explanations. This is going to get messy.

[@mitchlinville1984]

I always appreciate your updates thank you for being so precise about everything

[@someguy-k2h]

Thank you Anton. This is very interesting. After reading the paper, I don't see anything that is inconstant with the Theia impact hypothesis. There are older zircons on the moon than have been found on Earth, but most of that can be attributed to the radiative cooling of smaller pieces in space. It obviously took the Earth much longer to cool than the moon. Am I missing something in this paper?

[@hektor6766]

Also, the Earth is tectonic, subsuming and obliterating the oldest rocks, while the Moon is static thus preservative.

[@someguy-k2h]

@@hektor6766 Good point about the potential loss of oldest zircons. Lucky for us most of the continental crust rides on the oceanic plates. Some parts get lost, but for the most part we have a good geologic record on land. The sea floor is constantly recycled over hundreds of millions of years.

[@danielsharp2012]

The moon is a space ship. It was sent here to monitor the planet observing the life ect. That's why the creators on the surface are only so deep regardless of the impacts size.

[@Placebo6]

We went to the moon once but they didn't let us in it was a full moon

[@Bassotronics]

🤣

[@Bassotronics]

At least you did not arrive to a Fool Moon.

[@troyjacobs8530]

Badum tss

[@ChrisFord-wh1gl]

They told us to go home, sit down, and shut the fuck up.

[@ChrisJones-xd1re]

Could have just waited for a new moon.

[@pipestone67]

Another sweet post.

[@blackoak4978]

Doesn't the impact hypothesis better explain why the Earth-Moon type system appears to be so rare? I would think that developing from the same cloud would make such systems more common. Since there is evidence of Earth having had a ring system in the past, maybe there was a larger body orbiting the Earth and crossed the Roche limit, with the Moon coalescing from what was left from what got thrown into a higher orbit? Assuming that the Moon did form at the same time as the Earth there are a lot of questions that need to be studied. Having said that, there are also explanations for how older zircons could be found on the moon, so I'll need more evidence before I accept it

[@ghostbeetle2950]

Very cool! Thanks, Anton!

[@terrywhite6269]

This favors the Synestia Hypothesis which says that the Earth and Moon formed simultaneously in a torus of vaporized rock. The fact that the Moon is poor in iron can be explained since the iron would have migrated toward the center of the synestia where the Earth eventually formed. Thus the surface of the moon resembles the Earth's crust, but with a lower iron content.

[@marktill1197]

Absolute rubbish . Firstly if they both firmed in the same orbital path why would Iron migrate to earth and not the moon , by what mechanism . What the centre of a torus ?

[@michaeloreilly657]

Could I suggest the barycenter, which lies within Earth's crust?

[@terrywhite6269]

@@marktill1197 It's not rubbish to anyone who understands physics. The collective gravity of a massive cloud of rock vapor will differentiate rather quickly into a more massive core and a less massive shell. Massive particles containing iron (at. wt. =55.85) are less mobile compared to lighter particles made up of mostly silicon (at. wt. = 29). These relatively lighter silicon particles have a relatively higher mobility compared to iron particles and will migrate toward the surface and away from the center. Once this cloud of rock vapor starts to condense into a fluid this differentiation process will only accelerate. That's why the Earth has an iron core.

[@CrRodney1]

Great! Happy New Year wonderful person

[@501Mobius]

Yeah. What about the giant structures inside the Earth? How are those explained with this theory?

[@mpetersen6]

Geophysicists using Tomography data are finding that Tectonic Plates when subducted do not necessarily just melt back into the mantle. They can pile up in the Lower Mantle. Oceanic Plate material that was subducting say 80 to 70 million years ago under Western North America is now under the East Coast. Think of ribbon candy held vertically for an analogy. Nick Zenter has a whole series of videos concerning this stuff on his channel. On which he has the people involved in the research.

[@theshadowoftruth7561]

Not to mention the differences in densities of the Earth and Moon.

[@mpetersen6]

@theshadowoftruth7561 Also the general paucity of volatiles. That we know of.

[@clay-tw5gc]

One thing that was not mentioned is that in the past, the moon was notably closer to Earth. It has been slowly but steadily moving away. The moon may have formed at the same time as Earth as a close in ring that slowly moved away, eventually coalescing as a moon. The zirconium/iron would have been more or less the same for both. When the moon did form, it was probably still close to Earth and experienced tidal stresses until it moved sufficiently away to where the tidal stresses were reduced significantly.

[@paulhunter7002]

Okay so if there was no ancient impact with Thea then we will have to re-think the origins of those giant structures in the earths mantle - The large low shear velocity provinces (LLSVPs) - as they were thought to be the remains of the Thea impact as I recall.

[@joestrat2723]

Those geophysical anomalies could also represent differential heating/pressure within the planet, and not just a planet slam.. Shear waves travel more slowly through very hot rock, and cannot propagate through liquid. I think the whole 'Thea' idea is premature. We know our plates are moving, and there's a lot going on down there that we don't fully understand. During accretion Earth may have sucked in some weird material that won't disseminate. Could be a planet slam. At this point it's just speculation. Fun though....:)

[@tamjammy4461]

Ta Anton. You certainly find interesting stories to cover.

[@TiriBakshoori-y6v]

They keep saying that the moon stabilises the earth and they say that if there was no moon the earth would would’ve been in chaotic rotation ! Then how come Mars isn’t in a state of chaotic rotation because the “ moon “ of Mars is just a small rock that has no influence on Mars’s rotation. But we can see that Mars has a 24 hour cycle of day and night and it’s not out of whack . No one says anything about that old assumption that makes no sense .

[@defies4626]

Mars is in a case of such. It regularly flips over, geologically speaking. Chaotic does not necessarily mean 'in human lifetime'

[@OperationDx1]

Mars' rotation is considered unstable, with studies showing that its rotational pole orientation is subject to large excursions over time, meaning the planet's axis can significantly shift relative to its surface geography

[@sinoevc]

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and experience

[@hope2someday691]

Can’t wait for the peer review on this one…

[@RedJay]

Great work Anton covering the new research.

[@rogerphelps9939]

None of this disproves he giant impact heory. Zircon crysals could have formed during the formation of Theia and survived the giant impact 200 milion years later. The impact would have reset the clock for everything except the zircons.Iron could easily have sunk towards the core of he moon.

[@MattNolanCustom]

I think you might be underestimating how hot things would get in a Theia type impact scenario.

[@bubaks2]

I think you mean hypothesis. There is a lot of ‘would have’ and ‘could have’ in that hypothesis with little evidence.

[@ChrisFord-wh1gl]

Maybe when they were parking the moon they had a fender bender and traded a little paint or dust or whatever The size distance relation of earth moon sun. Can not be coincidence. Like evolution it’s mathematically impossible

[@lolocemoipopo7537]

The moon comes from the tearing up of another planet in another solar system

[@jamesbarber5410]

This doesn’t prove or disprove anything but in conjunction with the other studies it makes the impact theory much less likely. Giant impact is a good idea but it’s much like the “slaves built the pyramids” theory, sounds easy enough until you really think about it critically.

[@laurabedford5095]

Excellent information and delivery, thankyou

[@InstigatorDJ]

I find it a little weird that the moon is the perfect size for full eclipses on Earth. The chances of that are astronomical.

[@cloudsteele1989]

It's not really weird at all. The sun is big, but VERY far away; The moon is small, but very close. Isn't it a little weird that the human thumb is the perfect size to fully eclipse the sun?

[@danwebber9494]

I see what you did there.

[@qevvy]

It happens to be the perfect size (or rather angular size) *right now*, which is a neat coincidence for us; in the past the Moon was much closer and appeared much larger in the sky, and in a billion years or so it'll be too far away for there to be total eclipses.

[@despoticmusic]

@@cloudsteele1989you are sounding like the Father Ted explaining the size of a cow… 😂

[@InstigatorDJ]

@@qevvy I'm aware, the odds are STILL astronomical. Picture Saturn's Moons. All shapes and sizes. We hit the lottery.

[@earlworley-bd6zy]

Always a great video,Thanks.

[@stellrculling]

Why does imagining Anton saying, “this video was brought to you by…raid, shadow legends” crack me up so bad🤣

[@DannyJoh]

Ohhh, exciting! Now we might need to find another explanation for the LLSVPs as well 🤔 I love the cliffhanger 😊

[@hineang5927]

I wouldn't think earth's gravity is strong enough to melt the moon's surface.

[@qevvy]

Tidal forces can have significant effects across large bodies, and the Moon was much closer to Earth when it first formed. The Roche limit for the Earth-Moon system is about 20000 km: any closer than that and the tidal forces would tear the Moon apart into a ring system (and a cataclysm down here as a bunch of it falls on us XD).

[@eagle1de227]

A thought experiment: we know zircon crystals are heat resistant and we can determine when they formed. But we cannot determine WHERE they formed. If we stuck with the collision theory couldn't it be possible these crystals formed on Theia before the collision?

[@jorgseidel4893]

I love your videos. In other words, I find them great. In essence, this means, I like them a lot.

[@itsabouttthattime]

Love your channel, buddy!🤘

[@Speak_Out_and_Remove_All_Doubt]

I thought we already knew the Moon is not a natural satellite but a hollow structure created by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization to observe Earth.

[@jonathancardy9941]

You flatter us. We are only advanced in comparison to you Earthlings.

[@stephengrant6316]

Uh no, we don't know that the Moon is a hollow artificial construction. That's comic book science fiction. However the crust of the Moon is 600 miles thick; meteor impacts cause that to reverberate like a Christmas bell.

[@pablorages1241]

Anton has a very soothing voice

[@matthewcasady6276]

I never have thought the evidence for the theory that moon formed in a giant impact was particularly strong. This certainly reinforces my scepticism.

[@arctic_haze]

The paper actually does not deny the impact. It just re-dates it. I read the whole paper by now. I do not think Anton had time for that.

[@OrgusDin]

it's probably aliens though

[@blackoak4978]

This doesn't really sound like much evidence. How does this hypothesis explain the massive difference in density while maintaining a similar chemical composition? Also, if the Earth-Moon developed from a single cloud, wouldn't it be easier to find similar system around other stars? Until I see an explanation for those two questions I will maintain my acceptance of the large impactor hypothesis.

[@tomholroyd7519]

The moon used to be MUCH closer, the Earth was spinning faster, tidal effects were stronger, and clearly the mare on the near side are there because it's the near side

[@urphakeandgey6308]

I'm kind of on that boat too. I never denied it, but a part of me always thought it was a pretty wild guess and would be very difficult to prove with much certainty. Granted, it is called The Giant Impact HYPOTHESIS, so it's not a theory. Very important distinction to make in science and something way too many laymen screw up on.

[@seanoneill2098]

I appreciate these presentations and the persona you bring to them.

[@WillyKling]

"Trust the science" Science constantly changing.

[@thegodofsoapkekcario1970]

The only people who say “trust the science” are nimrods who have never read a scientific article beyond the title.

[@NoSuRReNDeR001]

Hello wonderful Anton thank you for today's facisnating video!

[@osmosisjones4912]

Could life from earth have made it to the moon

[@ticketforlife2103]

Even if it wouldn't survive.

[@osmosisjones4912]

​@@ticketforlife2103 just in ocean or radioactive rods or space station

[@barryon8706]

It did, starting in 1969.

[@Book-bz8ns]

​@@barryon8706beat me to it😆👍

[@robertnewhart3547]

Sure, with a big enough impact to the earth, thus flinging stuff with life on it everywhere/ towards the moon. But the energy involved would likely sterilize everything and so no propagation of life there.

[@Nebarus]

Happy new year to Anton and all viewers :)

[@lowcorrelation]

hooooold up. zircon from the moon being dated? if they date earth bound rocks, they actually date the organic carbon matter found in the same stone as they cant test straight rock. so how are they dating rocks from the moon? geniuly curious nvm, I should learn to be patient before commenting before the video is done lol

[@backgammonbacon]

Zircon will not allow lead to form in its crystal matrix but it will allow Uranium. However over time that Uranium will turn into Lead the more lead to Uranium in the crystal the longer it has been since the Zircon formed. Zircon is an uber mineral for dating as there are three possible ways to date it. It is also almost indestructible so any dating of it normally tells you about how old it was when it formed which is always by crystalising out of magma. Its what tells how old the Earth is. Earth bound rocks are not dated using carbon matter as carbon dating only works on "live" material not fossilised material additionally it can only go back as far as 50,000, its great for dating human remains though which is probably where you are getting your knowledge of it from. The Earth is 4.4 Billion years old or 88,000 times older than radiocarbon dating allows for.

[@stephengrant6316]

Anton explained that Uranium is preferentially selected by the crystallizing Zircon to be incorporated into it's atomic structure, while Lead is blocked. After the Zircon has completed, forming any Lead that occurs was derived from the decay of Uranium alone. Anton concluded that this decay makes an excellent clock for dating the age of the Zircon.

[@yvonnemiezis5199]

Moon is always interesting,nice video,thanks Anton ❤👍

[@israelSamuel-ur4vq]

Name: Moon❌ Moon✅

[@Un_Abandoned]

Okay...

[@davidboyle1902]

Amazing how the scientific method works. The impact theory worked very well - and in any case was at work during the construction of planet earth - and yet may be superseded by an even earlier theory. As one commentator noted, finding the real answer may await deep core samples from many lunar sites. Your presentations are without equal. You Anton, are an internet gem. Love your stuff.

[@seanivore]

If NASA never made such a strong visual of “theta impact” people wouldn’t be so god damn attached to this hypothesis as if it was though of as fact

[@foxgeist3129]

I mean, that's pretty much everything thought wise. Policies, ideologies, religions, scientific pursuits. 100 years from now we'll make some revolutionary discovery of math that totally throws what we are doing out the window somehow and 200 years after that those humans will be laughing and mocking us over the time wasted. Everything is a placeholder. All things discovered merely a stepping stone. Nothing will ever be fully solved, because we do not know the limits of anything. We can't think negatively when we run something to what could only be defined by our current capabilities and logic as wrong. Rejoice that we feel concluded in our pursuit, and can now do another one for more understanding. If we are wrong, let us be wrong quicker and check it off our list.

[@nzmason]

Yea it’s insane.

[@chrisschultz8598]

Interesting discovery about the Moon. So, did the Theia collision ever happen? And if not, what formed the two structures discovered near the Earth's mantle? Mysteries, mysteries. I love it!

[@johnhearn4622]

Could the moon have been made in China?

[@mikelouis9389]

It would have fallen apart billions of years ago. Not cheese...tofu dregs.

[@blackoak4978]

Pretty sure the Moon is older than the Asian Continent

[@sergioturrado9941]

Really interesting video! One of the strongest supporters of the giant impact hypothesis is the orbit of the moon being close to the ecliptic rather than Earth's equator. I wonder how formation from one single cloud (where conservation of angular momentum should hold) would explain that?

[@ryandavis4448]

I bet if the moon proved to be older than earth, that'd really blow ur mind, wouldn't it?

[@leoblais6350]

Thanks for update, my Theory is when the earth was forming it was larger and got hit with a large ice slab so the earth lost some outer cooling surface and that turned into the moon and we the earth got the water because the heavy metals had already migrated towards our core, Magnetics did the rest. Happy New Year

[@Oblithian]

Yeah...I always thought the impact theory was ridiculous.

[@rogerphelps9939]

No. Still the most likely by far.

[@blackoak4978]

How so? I have found that the more planets we find around other stars without finding systems with the special relationship of the Earth-Moon system the more I believe in the impact hypothesis. Two bodies developing from the same cloud should be a more common event then it appears to be. Add in the significant density difference between the two while maintaining a very similar chemical make-up, and those anomalies sitting at the bottom of the mantle and the signs really do point to that being the case. At this point I would want to see a good explanation for at least the rarity of the Earth-Moon type system, and for the density difference between the two before I'd reconsider my stance on it

[@shantiescovedo4361]

@@blackoak4978Exoplanet research is in its infancy. The only exomoons we will find for a long time yet will be huge. We will need more powerful telescopes to find Earth corollaries around sunlike stars, much less see moon sized objects at 1 AU.

[@jme23]

The impact theory is obviously ludicrous. There was a time on this planet when there was no moon. People wrote about it. 200 million years old?! Where’d they get that number, their ass? I seriously doubt the entire friggin’ galaxy is even TWO million years old.

[@shantiescovedo4361]

@@jme23 Why do you watch science channels if you are not interested in science?

[@beta1451]

what i learned today: we know nothing about anything and are always learning new things and then learning we were wrong i love how mysterious the universe is

[@louislorenzi-prince3842]

The Moon is Planet 10.

[@fgadenz]

🤯

[@christianartman]

Hardly.... Ganymede, the largest moon in the solar system, is more than twice as massive as Earth's moon: Diameter Ganymede has a diameter of about 5,270 kilometers (3,270 miles), while Earth's moon has a radius of 1,738 kilometers Mass Ganymede's mass is 1.48×1020 tonnes (1.48×1023 kg; 3.26×1023 lb), which is more than twice the mass of Earth's moon

[@derringera]

​@@christianartman Don't get too wound up. There are so many ways to take the original post that make your comment irrelevant, including not taking it so literally.

[@christianartman]

@@derringera 🤡

[@SamtheIrishexan]

The Annunaki base never left Earth me thinks

[@Johannes7707]

Thank you Anton! Great video!

[@Terran.Marine.2]

Hello wonderful people.

[@paulmicks7097]

Thank you Anton , great topic

[@dg-vg9di]

Moon was towed into orbit. It’s not a local boy.

[@paulhefferon3749]

Very scientific!

[@kitwalker520]

A vehicle that delivered the seeds of life

[@bobo-cc1xw]

We are not saying it's aliens but aliens magicing to place would make sense. Not that there is a good reason to do that and better explanations. But still aliens dudes

[@dg-vg9di]

@ could be or perhaps a colony ship?

[@dg-vg9di]

@ perhaps we are the aliens. We came, we terraformed. We stay. We brought our ship with us. We parked it in orbit to stabilize the biosphere. Here we are trying to sort out it all out. Species of amnesia.

[@MrJerrybrooks313]

I think Antoine is awesome. He gets right to the facts!