The formation of the moon Luna trends in the scientific world with many scientists attempting to develop theories of formation. Numerous theories endeavor to explain the formation of the moon Luna (Casey 14). Nevertheless, every theory has its disadvantages. Thus, scientists are continually conducting research to determine the most feasible theories. Explanation of formation of moon Luna has always been of focal importance to scientist. Several theories have come forth with attempts to demystify the formation of the moon Luna. Most of them at some point have fallen short of satisfactory evidence to support their claim. With the research in progress, each time a discovery came up, it seemed to discredit the legibility of a theory. The universally accepted theory by most scientists is the Giant Impact Theory. An examination of the possible theories lists them as capture theory, co accretion theory, fission theory and the giant impact theory (Schrunk 14).
The co-accretion theory
The co-accretion theory widely known as the condensation theory claims that the moon`s formation took place the same time as the planet earth`s formation. Both the planet earth and the moon were formed from the original nebula cloud that composed the sun and the planets- galaxy. The theory suggests that the earth and the moon individually condensed at the same time. The moon was formed in the orbit around the planet earth. The shortcoming of the theory is that: the earth and the moon were condensed at the same time (Galimov 17). The earth`s gravitational pull would pull the moon towards the earth, forming part of the planet as opposed to a satellite. Another explanation that disapproves the theory bases its argument on their composition. Had they come from the same material they would have similarities in properties, such as densities, the inner core, gravity force, etc.
The capture theory
The capture theory claims that the earth captured the moon making the moon form elsewhere. The orbit of the moon came near to the earth making the gravitational attraction of the earth capture the moon. The theory is impoverished because the moon and the earth must have passed near each other at minimal speed making the moon’s orbit weak by making it loose energy in the event it moved near earth. It is also opposed by scholars on grounds that in the event that the moon moved near the earth the moon’s capture would have happened simultaneously. The energy emitted from the earth would have been less making it capture the moon. The chemical composition of the moon is only explainable if it was captured somewhere out of the solar system (Galimov 78). However, the theory would have been best explained by the composition and densities of the earth and the moon never the less it would be hard to clearly explain why the moon does not contain an iron core. The capture theory is a theory with science proof and opposition.
The fission theory
The fission theory suggests that the moon and the earth were joined together at one point, but the moon split apart from the earth separating its self during the solar system`s formation. The fission theory explains that a rapid spinning proto-Earth broke away from the moon. The part of the Earth that split away, forming the moon came from the basin of the Pacific basin. The theory was acceptable because of the compositional resemblance between the moon and the mantle of the Earth. An element known as siderophile is a composition of the earth`s mantle, siderophiles are also found on the rocks in the Moon. The theory does more than assert its claim on existence of siderophiles on both the moon and the earth, but goes as far as explaining the iron core of the moon. Factors that discredits the fission theory include, absence of fossil proof of the rapid circling of the earth- known as spin. According to the theory, the moon would not orbit around the earth along the equator plane. In order for the theory assumption to be true, the once co-joined earth would have to be rotating incredibly fast that it is held to be extremely improbable (Galimov 120)
The Giant Impactor Theory
The Giant Impactor theory is also referred to as the Ejected Ring Theory. The theory claims that a small planet- planetesimal-, Mars`s size hit the earth`s surface shortly after formation of the galaxy. The impact expelled a vast amount of molten material from the surface of both the earth and the planetesimal. A ring of circling material was created and ultimately stuck together forming the moon in a circling motion around the earth. Evidence of common occurrences of such collisions in the later stages of formation of the galaxy is visible in many places. A simplification of the theory elaborates that: 4.5 billion years ago, a fifty million-year-old earth- not solid- experienced a large impact. A small planet, size of Mars, formed adjacently in an orbit with a collision course to earth. The later collision involved a high amount of energy that is thought to have exterminated dinosaurs from the earth. The initial grand collision wrecked the rogue body, possibly vaporizing the Earth's mantle upper layer and ejecting larger quantities of material onto Earth`s orbit. The Moon is likely to have formed from this debris material.
For the most part of the mid 1900s, the Ejected Ring Theory was not popular amongst most scientists. In the late 1900s, a seminar organized to draw explanations of the Lunar origin, sparked a crucial comparison of all existing theories. The Ejected Ring Theory received a consensus support from the scientist in this conference to emerge as the lead Theory. The Theory strong footing was further boosted by later models planet earth formation, suggesting great collisions were a norm in the final stages of planet formation (Sarah 7). The theories of formation of the moon Luna, however, attracts various constraints.
Scientists have attempted to connect the earth to the formation of the moon Luna. Nevertheless, recent information on the composition of the moon Luna suggests that it is most unlikely that the moon was formed from the earth. The deduction arises from the fact that there exists a huge elemental difference between the moon and the earth (Chu et al 45). Various other theories, similarly, attempt to explain the origin of the moon Luna. Other theories that endeavor to explain the origin of the moon include the Colliding Planetesimals Theory and the Ejected Ring Theory. The theories are based on different deductions regarding the formation of the moon Luna. Regardless of the theories selected, they all relate the earth to the formation of the moon Luna.
.
Works Cited
Casey, Paul I. Apollo: A Decade of Achievement. S.l.: Joseph R Sweeney, 2013. Print.
Chu, Alan, Wolfgang Paech, Mario Weigand, and Storm Dunlop. The Cambridge Photographic Moon Atlas. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.
Galimov, Ėrik M, and Anton M. Krivtsov. Origin of the Moon, New Concept: Geochemistry and Dynamics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Print.
Sarah L., Solar system and Lunar. ABOUT NASA. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 17th, Sept 2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/index.html#.VGvWkiixj5M
Schrunk, David G. The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement. Berlin: Springer, 2008. Internet resource.
