Study Suggests Giant Impact Did Not Form the Moon...So What Then?

[@decyattysyachpchyol]

Your work is how science journalism should be.

[@u.v.s.5583]

Anton is more like your PhD buddy who likes to browse articles and tell about what he has found out over the dinner in institute cafeteria. If I think freelance science journalist of world class, I think John Michael Godier. He does interviews, you see, and interviews are essential in journalism.

[@zelrex4657]

That's why he's here ✨

[@Greippi10]

@@u.v.s.5583 Interviews are not essential to journalism.

[@SS13934]

Yup! Anton is not Woke fake news science!! 🤔

[@Transilvanian90]

@@Greippi10 They kind of are; it depends on the exact subcategory of journalism you're doing, but they can usually be quite useful if done right.

[@purplexs2506]

Ever since reading Issac Asimov's "The Triumph/Tragedy of the Moon", I have been convinced that the Moon and its origin are fundamental to the uniqueness of Earth and everything on it. This is one of your best presentations Anton, on a subject that is always absorbing.

[@MetastaticMaladies]

Absolutely. Earth would be drastically different without the moon and it’s proximity, including everything on it.

[@Alister222222]

I'm not so sure. I remember finding out most stars are binary as a kid, thinking 'tha't's weird'. It doesnt seem unreasonable to think that many planets are binary, which could imply Earth and Moon are fairly ordinary and not that much of a fluke. It might also suggest that even better combinations of binary planet exist out there, making the moon look a bit sad and stunted by comparison.

[@MattH-wg7ou]

It is likely the moon and tidal forces facilitated the genesis of life on Earth.

[@MattH-wg7ou]

Also, "The Last Question" by Asimov is great!

[@thevoicestoldmetoagain4627]

Life on Earth would not exist without the Moon. The tidal forces helped mix the oceans. And the oceans are where the first life began. Without the mixing of the waters and the compounds within them, life wouldve never formed.

[@jeffmccloud905]

When two planets love each other very very much...

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

😂

[@ray1956]

😂😂😂

[@theradgegadgie6352]

....they get certain urges....

[@R6AAO]

They smash and hot liquids are flung far and wide...

[@Ludak021]

Moon doesn't have a core = not a planet.

[@Mboogy]

Let us all be thankful that this might be the only place on KZbin, where someone cultivates one of the best comment sections I've ever seen... Give this guy whatever KZbin award they got!!!!

[@Biostalker420]

Insert random metaphysical insult about how lost you are, in theory

[@carmenpop]

I have no idea why, but some Romanian stories start like this: "once upon a time when the moon was not in the sky..."

[@MrToradragon]

That is quite interesting coincidence. Do Romanians have some preserved pre-christian world creation stories as well? I am asking because some older world creation myths use this idea that moon came to existence (long) after world's creation.

[@theobserver9131]

That plays nicely into my favorite origin stories involving ETs. I'm basically a science guy, but I can still enjoy a good myth.....that could be true....

[@davidwuhrer6704]

​@@theobserver9131No, it was prehistoric humans, not ETs. All the surface water of Mars disappeared within a few thousand years of the extinction of Neanderthals and Denisovians. Doesn't look like coincidence.

[@fryertuck6496]

Not just Romanians, that is found across a number of peoples.

[@nathanlevesque7812]

@@davidwuhrer6704 lol wat

[@chrisellis1232]

The Magratheans had some building materials left over….won an award for it 🤔😉😬

[@cyberprompt]

can confirm

[@TarisSinclair]

Slartibartfast: "Oh. I think we have some left after carving out all the ocean floors out of the planet. Just dump it into far orbit, that'll do."

[@ripley7t429]

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[@smithologist5272]

Alien monitoring station... I knew it..

[@jeffmccloud905]

That's no moon.

[@fariesz6786]

nu uh winter vacay home for birbs

[@lsmith6378]

I think ive heard it all now

[@dearthditch]

I think AI is writing some of these papers to mess with us 😅 (okay, *now* you’ve heard it all)

[@MRMIKE276]

Unironically lol

[@craigpardy6204]

Somewhere Hecklefish is screaming "I told ya"

[@mechalincoln]

he sucks and I hate his gimmick

[@craigpardy6204]

@@mechalincoln sucks to be you

[@user-li7ec3fg6h]

​​@@mechalincoln Hecklefish is funny. 😊 And his songs too.

[@mechalincoln]

@@user-li7ec3fg6h I hate him

[@mechalincoln]

@@user-li7ec3fg6h I hope he gets deleted

[@arctic_haze]

This is a surprising development. The collision hypothesis has some problems but without an impact, it is even harder had to explain why the isotopic content of both bodies is so similar. My favorite version is that Theia (as we call the hypothetical impactor) was formed in the same region of the Solar System as the Earth and hence had practically the same isotopic content. This would also explain why the collision was inevitable and why it happened so early.

[@CriminalonCrime]

Impact is BS, if an object that large collided with Earth at almost any speed, there wouldn't be an Earth or a moon! There'd be an asteroid belt!

[@jgreystoke]

Great stuff.

[@Sutairn]

I have always liked to think of Theia being a Titan like moon ejected by jupiter or saturn into the inner solar system. It hitting proto-earth very very early in this so not to mess up the orbits of the inner planets. This way it enriched earth with certain things like hydrocarbons and phosphorus.

[@atrayser]

Oh shoot you beat me to it

[@Megararo65]

Yeah, I also like how the collision helped to explain plait tectonics peculiarities and why the earth is so dense too. Hard to explain the other way.

[@WaterShowsProd]

I've not read the paper, but the questions that come to mind are how then to explain Earth's tilt, The Moon's movement away from Earth, and the different-density blobs inside Earth. Perhaps, like Earth, remnants of Theia are inside The Moon. Water would have arrived on The Moon the same way it did on Earth. These may be addressed in the paper - as I say, i haven't read it - but those are the first immediate things that cause me to doubt the doubting of a giant impact. That said, questioning an idea that has traction is good practice, so long as it's done carefully and properly.

[@cynhanrahan4012]

I remember being taught the collision hypothesis in school early on. The teacher said the collision pried the moon out of where the Pacific ocean is now. This was in the early 1970s. Later on in my high school and college years the evidence didn't add up, especially given plate tectonics had shifted the Pacific around and the topography of the floor was not a dent at all. Very interesting, Anton. You always make me think.

[@Mr.Volcanoes22]

I remember hearing that somewhere, "the pacific is the crater of the Theia impact", but thats why i love science. Done properly it doesnt dogmatically stick to old ideas, new evidence challenges our assumptions and we change our theories to reflect that new knowledge. The Pacific being a remnant of the formation of the moon was an interesting idea, but ultimately an epxlanation that did not reflect the evidence.

[@Warp10x]

Makes no sense with plate techtonic theory.

[@mondopinion3777]

" ..The teacher said .." funny! I am 82 and went to school before plate tectonics was understood. In 7th grade the teacher said the mountains were formed because Earth was shrinking, causing its crust to buckle up.

[@huletnadof313]

I remember illustrations showing the moon fitting neatly into the basin of the Pacific Ocean. If that is how it happened then it would mean this part of the Earth had remained relatively stable for billions of years while the rest of the planet was constantly changing.

[@WaterShowsProd]

Funny, I'd forgot hearing about that in school. It was in the early 1970s that the proof for continental drift was found, so teachers were using older books with incorrect information, or recalling what they were taught.

[@stephenbailey8476]

Glad you finally figured it out for us , we were all so worried

[@andrewshelley3858]

Very few parts of the moon have actually been geologically sampled, though.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

All of the moon has been mapped to below metre precision, and half the moon is readily visible to Earth spectrometers. That doesn't tell us anything about the isotopes, that's true, but there is no reason to assume that it would be radically different in other regions with the same types of rock. And while there have only been what, sixteen? seventeen? sampling missions to the moon, the moon is not known for its volcanoes or hydraulic erosion, so they should be fairly typical, especially as they agree across vastly different regions, except for that one Chinese rover.

[@nathanlevesque7812]

@@davidwuhrer6704 it's not an assumption to not rule things out that haven't been ruled out

[@sasha777tube]

Is it possible that the "moon" rocks didn't come from the moon but from earth, like Antarctica?

[@TheGreatDanish]

@@sasha777tube The moon landing wasn't faked.

[@AlexandarHullRichter]

@@davidwuhrer6704 only 6 of those missions landed on the moon.

[@Salamander1269]

This is one of your best videos, a most interesting one. Finally, new ideas, thank you!

[@comzerogaming8794]

The universe is one big mystery, and I'm here until Anton figures it out

[@robotaholic]

I love how you steal man and argument with which you disagree and then completely obliterate the steel man. It is the absolute best way to disprove something completely. You're the man!

[@Arational]

When my Tardis gets back from the repair shop, I'll go and check.

[@tobyglyn]

Mine just had a service but I seem to have forgotten where I parked it :(

[@mm-yt8sf]

it'd be funny if some time lord did go back to see but materialized in the path of the incoming theia. oops...

[@AlbiDartanan]

Sadly the HyperEncabulator for Tardis core is not ready yet ... Maybe after few years ....

[@davidarundel6187]

🙂👍

[@Alondro77]

@@AlbiDartanan I have a functional dematerialization circuit...

[@robharwood3538]

Excellent video, Anton. I can always rely on you to provide such a thorough, scientific-method-focused report on the latest findings. And this challenge to the currently favoured hypothesis definitely needed that care and attention to detail. Thanks!!

[@PrometheusZandski]

Interesting information, but not very convincing. If Earth and Thea formed out of the same ring of material and eventually collided, that would account for the nearly identical match. The different isotopes are mostly spread out based on distance from the sun. These are usually created by radiation from the sun, but can also be daughter products of nuclear decay. If the ring that formed Thea and Earth were roughly the same distance from the sun, they would receive roughly the same radiation and produce the same levels of isotopes.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

"Theia" and "Sun"

[@PrometheusZandski]

@@douglaswilkinson5700 Thanks for the spelling and grammar lesson.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

@@PrometheusZandski I have noticed that misspellings, punctuation and capitalization errors can sometimes harm one's credibility.

[@PrometheusZandski]

@@douglaswilkinson5700 As English is not my first language, I find it nearly impossible to learn everything. Thanks for the help.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

@@PrometheusZandski I understand. I speak Spanish, German, Swedish and Czech. Czech was the toughest.

[@musicsmile]

Thank you Anton! Your videos are always informative and appreciated!

[@HansVanIngelgom]

The unanswered question in this video is why different objects have different oxygen isotopes. The answer to that question would put limits on the formation. Also: 1AM here. I am never drinking an energy drink ever again.

[@LawrenceMclean]

An explanation for the similarity of the isotope similarities of the Earth and the Moon, with the absence of the hypothetical Thea isotope profile is that Thea formed from the same mix of Isotopes as the Earth, that is, in the same solar orbital distance as the Earth, which may explain why they collided.

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

If the Theia hypothesis is correct it was most likely a trojan of the Earth whose orbit destabilized and collided with the Earth when it reached 10% of the Earth's mass via accretion. If the Earth and Theia originally formed in the same orbit, and from the same parts of the same early solar system accretion disk, shouldn't these two bodies also be expected to have been constituted from the same materials and isotopes when they collided? This logic was used to justify the idea that the Earth and the Moon simply formed at the same time from the same area of the accretion disk, so why can't it also explain the similarity of Theia to the Earth when Theia was a trojan of the Earth?

[@marktill1197]

How do you constrain the size of the colliding body to 10%. Isotopic evidence shows an astonishing similarity .

[@ahbsed]

I felt the same doubt initially, though like mark said, the isotopes contain a surprising amount of information. It's not my field, but I believe the papers describe this well. This is from the first link: "The identical nucleosynthetic (O, Cr, Ti) and radiogenic (W) isotope compositions of the lunar and terrestrial mantles, strongly suggest the two bodies were made from the same material, rather than from an Earth-like impactor. Rb-Sr in FANs and Lu-Hf and Pb-Pb zircon ages point Moon formation close to ∼4500 Ma. Taken together, there is no unambiguous geochemical or isotopic evidence for the role of an impactor in the formation of the Moon, implying perfect equilibration between the proto-Earth and Moon-forming material or alternative scenarios for its genesis."

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

@@marktill1197 In simulations you don't constrain the size of the impactor to 10%, 10% is simply the maximum size that a trojan can be compared to the main planet in the orbit before the trojan's orbit destabilizes. The trojan's orbit then starts becoming elongated, moving farther then nearer to the sun than the main planet, until eventually the trojan is ejected from the system, it crashes into the sun, or it crashes into the main planet. In my admittedly simple simulations using a publicly-available simulator at the University of Colorado, the most likely of the three results was the trojan/main-planet impact, where the trojan usually strikes the main planet from behind at roughly a 45 degree angle. I can't simulate realistic speeds with the simulator, but this satisfies two of the three requirements for an impact that would create a large moon - 1) that the impactor is 10% the mass of the main planet, and 2) that the impact angle be 45 degrees. Recent exoplanet discoveries seem to indicate that trojans may not be very rare in new star systems in the Milky Way. Given how frequently trojans can impact the main planet in a large-moon-generating way when they become too large, I wonder if Earth's situation with its large moon is as unique as many people think. There might be lots of them in the Milky Way if we look far enough.

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

@@ahbsed I understand what you and the paper are saying. However I have to wonder about the assertion that was made where this shows that the Earth and the Moon formed simultaneously in close proximity, at the exclusion of other means. The same could be said for the Earth and Theia if Theia formed as a trojan of the Earth at the same distance from the Sun in the protoplanetary disk. Theia would have been separated from the Earth by 60 degrees, but the mix of materials in the disk at the same distance from the Sun should have been just as similar. I'm not saying that the paper is wrong, just that the paper's data could be used as evidence for both hypothesis.

[@AngusRollingWithJesus]

Once again, Velkovski had the best theory which is that the moon resulted from a close encounter with a planet and pulled material out from where the Pacific Ocean is today. And the moon is composed of largely basalt material which is the layer essentially missing from the Pacific Ocean.

[@FitJoey1975]

How about that weird massive anomaly that scientists found inside the Earth near the core of the Earth? That could be Theia's remnant. That would likely the debris from Earth formed the Moon and that could explain why they are identical because Theia ended up inside the Earth.

[@501Mobius]

He mentioned that. We haven't collected samples from the back side of the moon. There might be more differences there.

[@TimJBucci]

Perhaps Theia was a cloud of mostly iron during the solar system's formation - being so heavy and dense it was just caught up to by Earth, and upon combining it sunk into becoming the core. The moon's ejected gravitational momentum keeps up the friction in the core to generate our magnetic field

[@_NicBP]

⁠@@TimJBucci Wouldn’t matter what Theia was made of, after impact heavy material would sink, lighter material would float, regardless. Theia would have been made of the same material that Earth was, given they probably formed at around the same time and by the same material in the accretion disk.

[@WJV9]

@@TimJBucci - I would say the nuclear reactions create the heat that keeps our core molten, that would explain the large amount of Radon gas bubbling up all around the earth.

[@_NicBP]

@@WJV9 Friction and magnetism do a good job too.

[@phillfenton]

This is a fascinating development and one that supports my own hypothesis:- The moon was formed when a massive wandering planet passed within the Roche limit of the Early Earth and pulled away part of the crust which then coalesced into the moon. This would also explain why the earths crust is much thicker on the continental land masses than it is in the oceans. No collision needed to have taken place - the gravitational pull of the passing body (within Earths Roche limit) would have been enough to peel away material from the earths surface.

[@rdchinn]

Interesting, but when we say the isotopic ratios from the Earth and the Moon are way too similar, we kind of need to remember that we only have direct observational evidence from a very thin layer of the Earth's crust. In the deeper mantle and core, we're just guessing. On the moon, we've literally just scratched the surface. As such, another hypothesis could easily be that after the impact event, both bodies were covered by the same dust. Put another way, if you have two rocks covered by dust, you can't tell them apart if you only analyze the dust layer.

[@novanights2chevy597]

But volcanic rock could be from beneath the "dust" layer, right?

[@Poopooprod]

​@@novanights2chevy597rdchinn been real quiet since this dropped

[@mikelouis9389]

​@@novanights2chevy597Really, if you study volcanism it becomes obvious that the only true examples of actual deep (comparatively) magma untainted by shallow crust materials would be kimberlite type events.

[@austinharding9734]

@@mikelouis9389 Lava from hotspots like Hawaii is supposed to have originated all the way from the lower mantle to upper outer core and is probably the source of spreading centers, the viscosity is too low and density too high for it to even be mantle in origin, and its more than likely its plumes of molten magma directly from the surface of the outer core, where its rich in magnesium and nickel, so basaltic rock should give us accurate readings of the inner earth, its the granitic lavas that appear to be from remelted crust and mantle, i've recently had to rethink the dynamics and properties of the mantle, which is much closer to composition to the continental crust, much much less dense material....im trying to remember if olivine is mafic, ultra mafic or not, but i think olivine is closer to mantle material than basalt....actually olivine might be a mineral of basalt......its been a long time since i took my major ok gollll

[@Heathcoatman]

I wouldnt float this hypothesis at a geology convention, it's liable to be quite embarrassing for you.

[@AniaMeteor]

Amazing video, Anton!

[@stevenkarnisky411]

If Theia and proto-earth came from the same materials originally, The resultant collision would give the isotope evidence we observe today. No reason that Theia had to come from "elsewhere". Thank you, Anton.

[@glauberglousger956]

Then the issue becomes why? We don't see this anywhere else

[@_NicBP]

@@glauberglousger956 We haven’t seen what anywhere else?

[@benjiunofficial]

@@glauberglousger956 Maybe we do. New analysis suggests that Phobos and Deimos also formed from a collision, and perhaps Venus was also struck in such a way, on the opposite side, leading to a moon in a decaying orbit and hence no longer existing.

[@glauberglousger956]

@@_NicBP Identical Isotopes for asteroids, surely some from the collision would be somewhere with similar materials

[@_NicBP]

@@glauberglousger956 “Similar materials”? The whole solar system was born from the same accretion disk full of “similar materials”!

[@martymar8993]

Synchronous rotation is the most fascinating thing to me, even as a kid it blew my mind that we only get to see one side of it. It just seems like it is pointed at us for some purpose, watching waiting ominously, lol. Then there is the hollow moon theory and the quote "it rang like a bell" of course sci-fi fans are going to take that and run wild with theories and I need more of that please. Great video as always.

[@aaronrodgers9202]

Why the why files video on the moon it's all about real evidence that backs up all those theories. The moon being hollow and stuck looking at us is only one of many things that are impossible to be coincidence

[@cognitiveconsonance7888]

Actually the study is more so suggesting that the moon is so similar to earth that it really is a chunk of it somehow but it doesn't disprove an impact hypothesis or even present a more plausible hypothesis as matter of fact what this study is suggesting without realizing is that the impactor was likely also isotopically similar to earth which could be explained if theia formed close to earth and thus formed from similar material which made a collision very likely between the 2 bodies. This isn't even particularly far fetched either as an other planet formed in the earth-Venus vicinity would likely be quite similar to earth. There's no real way to get a chunk out of early earth without an impact of some kind this study is seems to be making a counter point without proposing a new hypothesis while reminding us that we still don't have enough details about the actual impact mechanism or the impactor. For all we know Theia and a smaller, but still the bigger of the 2, early Earth formed as a double planet system that eventually spiraled into each other making earth as large and dense as it is now. The only other plausible solution is that Earth and the moon are the double planet system made from same debris but that has its own bigger problems.

[@Mikkelltheimmortal]

So are we thinking low velocity impact? Because if Earth, Moon and Thea all developed at the same time and from the protoplanitary disc and Thea and Earth collision was more of a melding together and Moon was eventually stable in an orbit around Earth, that could explain why the isotopes are the same on both planets. No major impact that would change the isotopes. Just a slow mooshing together of two of three small planets.

[@ThePhysicalReaction]

good points

[@balazsvarga1823]

Ancient alien laser pizza cutter.

[@aaron_d_henderson1984]

the only problem with the new hypothesis in this study is that it doesn't explain all the stuff found inside the earth... other than that, great video

[@RM-yf2lu]

"It rang like a bell"

[@StraightShot2977]

Here to punch a hole in the sky, huh?

[@RM-yf2lu]

@@StraightShot2977 huh?

[@theobserver9131]

And your point is? "It rang like a bell" means what to you?

[@user-li7ec3fg6h]

​@@theobserver9131 This was the result of seismic measurements that still cannot be explained today. There was then talk of large cavities...

[@theobserver9131]

@@user-li7ec3fg6h I'm aware of the story. People went crazy with it, making all sorts of insane theories.

[@mRibbons]

The formation of planets has got to be equal parts majestic and horrifying to behold.

[@russellcrabbs2184]

I hope no flat earthers see the donut model. You know they will misuse it somehow.😅

[@OrbitalCookie]

@@russellcrabbs2184 There are also hollow earthers

[@patrickday4206]

Can a donut planet work gravitationaly if walking on the inner ring would there still be enough gravity 🤔

[@Eddardstark9308]

I don’t understand why they try to explain flat earth through science it’s a magical concept

[@holyassbutts]

They just lookin for attention. They don't actually believe it. Just ignore em 😑

[@demigod1013]

According to Zechariah Sitchin, the Moon originally belonged to/orbitted the planet Nibiru before it collided with Tiamat (proto-Earth), and after the collision the Moon was thrown out of Nibiru's orbit and flung into [the new] Earth's orbit. The collision fragments (debris) became the Asteroid Belt.

[@latetotheparty4785]

You know why Sitchen isn’t referenced by ancient language scholars? There’s no record of him in any university teaching ancient languages, and he doesn’t reference where in the tablets he’s getting his interpretations. So, he’s self-taught and conveniently has left no way to fact-check him. There’s even a website, Sitchen is Wrong. I found it fun and even thrilling to believe pseudoscience. But as I pursued a degree in Anthropology, I found accepted and scholarly data even more stimulating. As a former follower of Graham Hancock, he’s a poor source for what archaeologists know and believe. He never talks about the thousands of papers published yearly, it doesn’t seem he’s reading any professional journals for the past 20 years. I found his opinions mildly interesting but lacking anything I could use to build on. Anymore he talks primarily how everyone’s against him, and those who disagree with him are lying to the public. I invite you to hone your skepticism to serve you.

[@George-rk7ts]

And once again, science shows it was probably wrong before. It's one of the few areas of human endeavor where this happens. Thank you, wonderful sir.

[@davidhoward4715]

If this was a religious belief, the bodies would already be piling up.

[@ThePowerLover]

@@davidhoward4715 Oh, you sweet summer child.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

That's how science works - theories must be falsifiable. Otherwise they are fantasies/faith based ideas.

[@Diversifried]

I remember seeing research many years ago that pointed to a giant skid mark in Canada near Nova Scotia. The study showed the oldest most primordial rocks ever found on the planet.. were on the surface. The best explanation was that a secondary planet skipped across the top of Earth and collected all the dust from our crust and explained why samples matched earth so precisely. So my theory is that is what happened. Planetoid collides during early years of Earth and becomes tidal locked and here we are.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

When the Earth was molten heavy metals sank to its core. Once solid meteor impacts such as the one 214M years ago that created the Manicouagan Crater deposited an enormous amount of iron which is mined today) brought many of the metals that are found on the Earth's surface.

[@fryertuck6496]

What has your theory got to do with the video?

[@Greippi10]

Are you a bot? Anton has literally made a video about the proposed evidence of the remnants of "Thea" that have sunk to the interior, and he mentions it here.

[@mafianoodles]

​@@Greippi10yes it's a bot, 4 digit number after name

[@Greippi10]

@@mafianoodles Eh, I always kinda expect that when I see the numbers, but you never know. It's not like they couldn't find a way to generate names that don't adhere to that formula. I feel like some of them have definitely been people, maybe there's a name generator they use for their 50th account that puts in numbers. But yeah this one is probably a bot.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

@@fryertuck6496 In this video Anton said heavy metals sank down to the Earth's core while it was molten. So why do we find heavy metals on or very near to the Earth's surface today? Most were delivered by meteors after the surface of Earth had solidified.

[@uncletrashero]

Heres a problem that needs to be considered: our samples from the moon are from the surface and they seem like they are earth material. asteroid bombardment can send earth soil into orbit. so perhaps the moon under the surface really is a different object, but the surface has been covered in earth material that had been ejected from earth by asteroid bombardment

[@uncletrashero]

which also would have been easier back when the moon was closer to earth

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. ✌️🥴

[@Michael75579]

My understanding is that one of the reasons for the impactor hypothesis is that it's difficult to see how the moon could have formed from the primordial dust cloud this close to earth; something the size of the earth should have disrupted the cloud around it to the point that the moon couldn't form where it apparently did.

[@gweebara]

Love it❤ Anton challenge my preconceived notions I will listen... I am intrigued but also I wonder could not all of this be two objects in a similar orbital region coalescing and then when the differences in sizes of the objects cause different orbital speeds the capture of the smaller object by the larger object into a binary planet orbit... I love that our moon may have just gotten an upgrade

[@buttafan4010]

In the mid 1970s, researchers proposed the Giant Impact Hypothesis. The new impact scenario envisioned that at the end of its formation, Earth collided with another planet-sized body. This produced a great deal of debris in Earth's orbit, which in turn coalesced into the Moon. (Right around the time the Apollo Missions Concluded and all "The Lunar Rock Samples" had been collected. Also around the time the "NAZA" Moon rock gift to the Netherlands museum turned out to be a petrified tree.) Remember ... Von Braun ran a "not see" V2 rocket factory forced labor death camp in which the 10 slowest machinist were put to death each day. He was Operation Paper Clipped to advise the US space program; which began by using seized V2 rocket engines as the first stage.

[@untouchable360x]

Yes. It’s made out of cheese.

[@mikelouis9389]

But, Swiss? Brie? Romano? American or, gods forbid....Velveeta?

[@scottorgan2255]

Its Wensleydale gromit

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Come on, Bert!

[@lacaz212]

Do we not share the atmosphere with the moon? Would that account for the exchange of isotopes? Interesting ideas. Time to re-consult Velikovsky.

[@MsCrazylegs80]

There’s a lot of hypotheses about how we have the moon in our orbital path,I’ve read so many,but none of them have ever really made sense,but a binary planetary system is more plausible,earth just developed a little bit faster hence blocking the moon’s ability to form much bigger,most notably seen in human twins.

[@QuintessenceMan]

My hypothesis is that Earth and Venus were binary planets at one point, and the Moon was made from contents ripped from both as they broke free of each other, which also stopped the rotation of Venus and flung Earth to its current orbit.

[@LaikaLycanthrope]

​@@QuintessenceMani wonder if Mercury might have been involved as well, being perturbed from an orbit around Venus into a Solar orbit

[@CriminalonCrime]

​​​@@QuintessenceManor it came in through the heliosphere of our galaxy, explaining the molten surface and the gravity of our gas giants slowed it down enough for Earth's gravity to catch it! It probably picked up minerals from the same asteroid groupings that seeded the Earth and they melted into it! It also accounts for the big red spot on Jupiter! Only a speeding moon almost caught in its orbit could cause such gravitational disturbances lasting that long!

[@do_research]

There is still evidence that the scientist who wrote that paper forgot to challenge or explain the evidence that theia remained partially intact: Seismic wave readings: Anomalies in seismic waves have been detected deep within Earth's mantle, called large low-shear velocity provinces (LLVPs). These blobs are roughly twice the mass of the Moon and are located beneath the African continent and Pacific Ocean. Computer simulations suggest that these blobs are remnants of Theia. Theia's composition: Theia's iron-rich mantle may have sunk and accumulated on top of Earth's core. The material that fell back to Earth may have had different physical and chemical properties than the rest of the mantle.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

The impact hypothesis is correct, the moon started ridiculously close to Earth, and got further from tidal friction over time. There's no plausible reason to have that other than impact.

[@realityjunky]

I could never help visualizing it as the blobs in a lava lamp. Specifically, the smaller blob separated from the side of the earth opposite Pangea, leaving that side without crust/continents. Love your videos!!!

[@runawaycatwithbreadaroundm2512]

I hate myself for wondering this but what if the lunar rocks are so Similar to earth rocks is because they are actually from earth ?

[@mondopinion3777]

If someone faked them, they would NEVER use similar rocks. They would use some old meteorites.

[@runawaycatwithbreadaroundm2512]

@@mondopinion3777 I've never really bought into the whole fake moonlanding theory but it really just makes me think " well, what if ? " 🤔🤔

[@charlescowan6121]

I love that now we're planning to return to the moon with modern lidar and other very sophisticated technology; slowly but surely the truth is coming out. The moon being the size it is, having the characteristics that it has, covering the sun just right; it's to much of a coincidence to be natural.

[@jsim5475]

Return 😂

[@TicTac2]

not sure how that is the truth that's coming out

[@obliviouz]

Instead of a collision, a similar event where another body in the same orbit and Earth tore each other apart from gravitational forces and then reformed, coalescing gravitationally, into the Earth and the Moon could also explain all the features of the two bodies.

[@THarSul]

lol, this is a very silly hypothesis, they've completely overlooked the fact that the early solar system was basically a centrifuge, so if Thiea and Earth formed in the same orbit, they would have practically identical elemental compositions, thereby undermining the basis of their entire argument.

[@RawneyVerm]

Sure, but then the current evidence supports both hypothesis, Thea and an independent formation of the Moon in the same orbit. We have no way of figuring out which one is right with the presented evidence. Also, the Moon is smaller than thea, which makes it easier to form from a limited amout of material, so Occams razor indicates this as the most likely choice. Planet accretion models are a mess, most exoplanets we have detected can't be explained by them. And these models were the ones to suggest the impact hypothesis in the first place, back in the 20th century.

[@Lordn_HighMaster]

there is one place on earth that shows what I think is a iron rich exit wound of a collision. a place were the mountains have loads of hematite and quartz. The rocks seems to have a magnetic 'fingerprint' which could only happen in iron rich strata that is closely bound to the cores magnetic field. Crow Mountain Arkansas US.

[@anomamos9095]

There are more possibilities of how the moon happened than there are planets. My theory is that the moon happened fairly early when the planets were still essentially liquid and multiple objects were bouncing around like foot balls , some created large splashes and some started to align in solar orbit and eventually merged like bad drivers at a roundabout. The moon probably a very bad driver swapped paint with the earth then stuck around for the police report and to pick up broken bits and pieces that had fallen off.

[@nR00R]

Then explain the many ancient accounts of "a time before the moon"?

[@PrometheusZandski]

@@nR00R How about the many ancient accounts of dragons and unicorns?

[@anomamos9095]

@@nR00R they’re obviously stories from your home planet

[@nR00R]

@@anomamos9095 Oh I guess I'm just uneducated then. Maybe you should do a little research

[@anomamos9095]

@@nR00R I don’t have access to the records from your planet.

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

In the context of the nebular hypothesis, thIs is a tiny slice of all the mysteries. Very interesting presentation.

[@Futuresolidsnake]

What if Thea and earth were formed from the same materials. It would have been in nearly the same orbit.

[@OrgusDin]

were formed by aliens

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

"Theia and Earth"

[@Futuresolidsnake]

@@douglaswilkinson5700 Thanks for the correction. I couldn’t find my reading glasses when I made that comment. Please forgive my poor spelling. 😃

[@ussassu]

more of heavy material would sink to the core then, with such a big impact than what we see. also there is water trapped on the moon, an impact would not do this.

[@Futuresolidsnake]

@@ussassu If that is the case, why do we have water on earth? Comets? Perhaps after the surfaces on Earth and the moon cooled. At least in the crust may have cooled before the water arrived. It seems logical that if the Earth obtained its water from impacts from icy bodies, then the moon should have had impacts as well.

[@eunoiavision7567]

Anton, you should do a video on the complexity of protein folding and carbohydrate structure. You're highly educated, but your biases shine through in your videos.

[@pooyanshafai7566]

I like the binarry planet system hypotthesis

[@user-p4bl04]

12:05 some samples that were brought back suggests that the exterior of the moon surface is much much older compared to the internal part of the moon. Still can't be explained by normal science.

[@JoeH-f1e]

During the heavy bombardment the Earths surface was probably transported to the moons surface making the planetary objects appear similar in composition.

[@alexanderg-p3z]

Even simpler, during the bombarment both bodies got saturated with similar materials on their surface.

[@Ihavemessageforyou]

If they formed as binary planetary systems, how is that the Earth has so much water, while the Moon has the slightest amount? Did Theia smash into the Moon's atmosphere, depleting it? If so, the water would evaporate into the space, and it is highly likely that the Earth"s gravity would have "caught" all of it. Hence, the huge amount of oceans we have. Hmmm... interesting theory! 🤔 I like it! 😊

[@railgun517]

If I remember correctly, most of our water came from asteroids after the planet was already formed. That aside, even if the moon had larger amounts of water, it'd be blasted away by solar radiation, unlike with Earth and its powerful magnetic field

[@thidios]

I have an hipothesis. Earth and the moon used to be ice giants moons. They just happened to be thrown out because of a colision in the beginning of the solar system and happened to be stuck into the orbit of the sun as a consequence.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Doesn't sound very 'hip' to me!

[@Some_Cat_]

Maybe the Earth and Moon formed out of the same material at the same time due to a disturbance in the material they were formed from by another object. If that other object hadn't come by, the material would have formed only one body.

[@googoogjoobgoogoogjoob]

Has anyone asked the Clangers?

[@stephensmith1118]

alas they do live far far away....

[@ricf9592]

Or the soup dragon?

[@DomingosCJM]

I like very much when a theory is just a theory and not the final answer since we were not there.

[@steveclark2205]

Why all the H³ on the Moon then?

[@marcoflumino]

Blame the Sun Winds....

[@jonathanryals9934]

Speculation is a big part of science. The thing is, when you have a "eureka!" moment, that is where the science begins, not ends.

[@elijahfluw4347]

I haven't had a Eureka moment in years. After marriage it went south real fast 😢...

[@martineldritch]

The oldest known tidal rhythmites (sedimentary layers laid down by lunar tidal forcing) are in the Big Cottonwood formation in Utah and about 800 million years old so we know we had a moon for at least that long

[@MrToradragon]

Interesting. I have googled bit about evidence about tides, and it returned me article about Moodies Group in the Barberton Greenstone Belt in, South Africa which is about 3.2 billion years old. But it must be said that Sun also causes tides. So it would be interesting to know whether there is some difference in those records.

[@rillloudmother]

wow, another great report. thank you wonderful person!

[@terrymckenzie8786]

There seems to be so many theories that we thought were true for years, now turning out to maybe be false. I remember them saying the Milky Way was 100,000 light years forever. Now they say 200,000. I believe in science 100% but it seems to have many obstacles

[@shanerooney7288]

When measuring the Milkyway, did they get the Radius and Diameter mixed up? 😂

[@marcoflumino]

Remember what Albert Einstein said: If a wrong experiment tell us that we are wrong, an successful experiment will not prove that we are right!

[@dearthditch]

A few times using the wrong measurement caused failure. Oh so close to Mars… wait 💥 Too close

[@marcoflumino]

@@dearthditch Oh no.. Not Beagle? ;-)

[@gonzotown9438]

I feel the isotopes section was skipped over a bit. Why are we so sure the isotopes would be so different? Is it from checking the isotopes on Mars?

[@mrslave41]

You forgot to mention that the moon is moving away from earth at about 1 inch per year. It is spiraling away from us. This suggests that it came from us.

[@skyportal]

then over the billions of years ,the moon should have left its orbit long ago

[@nicholashoward971]

​@skyportal, no, it's not that fast.

[@darylbrown8834]

Way' way less than an inch!

[@wally7856]

The moon is spiraling away from us (1.5 inches per year) due to the tides. The Moon causes a tidal bulge but because the Earth rotates, that tidal bulge doesn't line up with the moon, it gets pushed forward and leads the moon. That leading tidal bulge drags the moon forward to go faster which raises it's orbit. That leading tidal bulge also pulls on the Earths rotation creating drag and slowing down our rotation. Earth's day used to be about 5.5 hours long and the Moon a lot closer but over time the moon got further away and earths rotation slowed down. Eventually both the earth and the moon will become tidally locked to each other and then the moons orbit will no longer change.

[@jqpublic9777]

I'm not a fan of the hypothesis, but will still point out that one obvious explanation for the similarity of lunar and terrestrial isotopes is that both came from the earth.

[@glennbabic5954]

Why does it even matter how it formed? I don't like that we contrived this impact hypothesis and especially that we had to name the impactor.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

The International Astronomical Union in Paris has the responsibility and authority to name celestial objects. Ask them.

[@glennbabic5954]

@douglaswilkinson5700 Name something that doesn't exist? We should give Planet 9 a name too?

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

@@glennbabic5954 Don't ask me. I gave you the name of whom to ask -- i.e. International Astronomical Union.

[@ohmbasa]

Aww that's cute. The Earth and the moon have been keeping each other company since the beginning.

[@nome2057]

Easiest option: none of the material we ever examined that supposedly came from the moon did come from the moon it all came from earth, notch one up for the conspiracy theorists.

[@danieldanton1129]

That's what Sherlock Holmes would say...

[@stevenhenthorne2]

I've always had problems with the Theia hypothesis. My proposition is that Terra and Luna formed together initially, separating out very early in the formation of the Solar System. That should explain the isotopes.

[@brrrayday]

they used to think the planets formed from some kind of ejecta from the sun

[@davidhoward4715]

They thought that long, long ago.

[@shanerooney7288]

Ejecta from previous suns.

[@Eddardstark9308]

Well they did form from ejecta from the sun but not in the way they were thinking

[@brrrayday]

@@Eddardstark9308 its not like you're telling me what you're thinking, besides the momentum numbers dont add up for a solar origin of the planets

[@brrrayday]

@@davidhoward4715 what makes you think we won't be "long, long ago" one day?

[@officiallymarvellous]

I feel so smart just by subscribing to Anton's channel since 2015

[@genexu520]

Maybe all the moon rock samples are actually from earth. Oh Hollywood!

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

"Earth"

[@helifanodobezanozi7689]

Conspiracy theories are opiates for people who are both mindless and completely lacking in agency.

[@sandytrunks]

@3:44 Obscure fact: The "fission theory" is called "The Lava Lamp" theory... by me. 😁✌🏼

[@Loglakeliving]

….or the “moon rocks” are actually earth rocks…🤔 😮 💩

[@MegaLoveDoctor]

I feel like your channel is putting scientific discoveries into overdrive. Like how many discoveries are being made everyday

[@barkmaker]

Cheese. Cheese formed the moon. 🌖

[@ttystikkrocks1042]

Wensleydale cheese, Gromit!

[@Techsupport243]

​@@ttystikkrocks1042I love how I get a translate to english prompt under your comment as if it's not one of the most English things in existence.

[@ttystikkrocks1042]

@@Techsupport243 it doesn't get more English than Wallace and Gromit lol

[@reaty05]

Radioactive cheese

[@mcbreezymuffin]

Ty for blessing my eyes ears and soul with your videos wonderful person

[@osmosisjones4912]

What about artificial

[@jeff3741]

"Made of the same stuff” has always seemed the best explanation. Also, consider that EarthMoon was not originally a binary. There are other bits in co-orbit and may be part of the equation.

[@garypalmer997]

The real question you should be asking yourself and maybe even doing a video on. Is why scientists believe in a hypothesis that not only has very weak evidence supporting it but also has more evidence disproving it. This doesn't pass the smell test if you know what i mean?!

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

Why don't you read the three sources that Anton used to create this video so you can answer your own question.

[@markmaki4460]

Catastrophism will always be too attractive for many scientists who should know better - because it is so cool.

[@richardhurts5]

Venus had a moon, it's called Mercury. It's so obvious yet nobody looks into it

[@franzeusq]

Does Mercury orbit Venus?

[@ac12484]

@@franzeusq *had

[@nicholashoward971]

​@ac12484, it never orbited Venus

[@ac12484]

@@nicholashoward971 probably, I'm just highlighting that op said *had and the first reply is *does. So it doesn't make sense to argue with does vs had.

[@MrToradragon]

I don't think som, radius of Moon is about half that of Mercury, but I wouldn't be surprised if Venus had moon which had collided with the planet. So maybe the Earth was just lucky that was just captured. Well, maybe it could be calculated through some equations as such collision would significantly heat up the planet.

[@clauslangenbroek9897]

I imagine Anton standing before his students, ending his lecture with the words: "... and that's basically science at work."

[@kemoni221]

Thanks for keeping us up to date throughout the years, Anton. This sounds very interesting, I had no idea that the Moon is the size of Mercury. Maybe in an alternate universe there is life on the moon

[@ncironjohn4336]

Perhaps early, Venus had a moon, but the earths gravitational pool dragged it, and our moon is the result of it, or a combination of it and something else.

[@derekk8523]

Every other moon has a name. I officially name the moon Russell

[@stargazer5784]

How about Larry, Darrell or Darryl ?

[@derekk8523]

@@stargazer5784 like it. Got to be something better than moon. Chuck Norris or moony mc moon face

[@brandonwalker5011]

Earth's moons name is Luna. Not much better than moon but its more that the word moon is named after the object than the moon lacking a name.

[@derekk8523]

@@brandonwalker5011 no worries I named it. It is. Ow Russel

[@lqr824]

Hyper-similarity of isotopes doesn't rule out out the Thea option, if both Earth and Luna are an equal mix of Thea and EarthZero. However, I believe that different astronomical objects have different isotope mixes not because they're different objects, but because they formed at different distances from the sun. If Earth and Luna formed at about the same distance, then they could also have identical mixes of isotopes.

[@JamesKelleyJr]

From the reading I've done i really feel the moon was formed with the other rocky planets and was captured due to its small size. Its the best hypothesis that fits all the available data in my opinion.

[@Orenotter]

"If it weren't orbiting Earth, it would have been its own planet." That's true of ANY moon, Anton. If Ganymede weren't orbiting Jupiter, it would be a planet. If Deimos weren't orbiting Mars, it would be a minor planet. Zoozve isn't orbiting Venus and it's a minor planet. Very minor, but still a planet.

[@michaelralston9608]

Its incredible to me that astrophysics still limits the possible mechanisms to basically collisions and explosions with coalescing being a type of very tiny collisions. It is ridiculous for so many reasons that have been detailed in hundreds of studies. Studies based on observations showing star and planet formation happens from the same process and most of the planets in a solar system will be made of similar elements. This is because they start from the compression of massive molecular clouds from elecrical currents coarsing through the coulds which form long filimentary structures. These structures are observed throuout space connecting everything together over unfathomable distances. The powerful magnetic fields which maintain the long structures for light years can become powerful enough to form z-pinches along the filiment, which compressses the plasma in many places at once, creating a long line of molten sphears. Described as pearls on a string, the largest of The largrst of the ,groups forming stars and quickly capturing the smaller objects that are within the new star's magnetic influence or its helio-sphear. All the planest captured will cool and after a lond period of plaetary chaos, they eventually find their stable orbits. Or at least that is what the observations seem to show at this point.

[@oldered5663]

This reminds me of the healthiness of butter over the last 40 years... Butter Bad, Butter Good, Butter Bad, some butters good, etc etc

[@loganskiwyse7823]

There is no reason to limit ourselves to one or the other. I personally think the impact has too much evidence to support it happening, but not enough evidence to support this being responsible for the formation of the moon as we see it today. This might actually be an example of the 3-body problem becoming to two remaining objects.