Moon formation theories way off orbit

from here

by Tas Walker

Published: 25 July 2013 (GMT+10)

Astronomer Dr Ronald G. Samec reports in the latest Journal of Creation 27(2) that a recent study of moon rocks calls into question the present lunar formation theory.^1,2
“This may bring us back full circle to one of the earliest theories—that of George Darwin’s ‘fission hypothesis’”, Samec said.
Samec explained that according to the fission hypothesis, the early earth rotated faster, as more dense elements sunk to its core. When the earth exceeded breakup velocity, the material that would become the moon tore from Pacific Ocean Basin, leaving a scar (ridges).

“The problem,” Samec explained, “is that the initial spin or angular momentum is not conserved in the present earth–moon system (50% loss). Also, the orbit of the moon and the obliquity of the ecliptic (likewise the inclination of the earth) should coincide, and they do not.”
The earth’s inclination is about 23.5° to the orbital plane (the ecliptic) and the moon’s orbit is inclined by some 5°.
Another theory Samec deals with is that the moon was captured by the earth as it passed by in an earth-crossing orbit. He said that one major problem with this idea is that capture is an extremely rare event.
“Even if this unlikely event took place,” Samec said, “the moon would likely have swung by in a parabolic or an elliptical trajectory, rather than the near-circular orbit of the present day moon.”

A separate article in the Journal about recent moon discoveries by physicist D. Russell Humphreys³ reported findings published by Clément Suavet et al. in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.⁴ Humphreys explained how measurements of magnetization of lava from a basalt ‘sea’ of the moon conflict with models of how the magnetic field works.

“The report shows that uniformitarian scientists, because they assume the world is billions of years old, are still very puzzled about the moon’s magnetic field,” Humphreys said. “They don’t understand why it was formerly strong but now doesn’t exist, or how it could exist in the first place.”
“On the other hand, the moon’s magnetic data fit creation science theories very well. A Bible-based theory for how God created the initial magnetic fields of planets and moons gives a created (6,000 years ago) field for the moon that is about as strong as the earth’s field is today, in accord with the measurements in the latest moon samples.”
These latest findings from the moon are reported in the latest Journal of Creation along with much other creationist research. The latest issue, 27(2), which is mailing now, has other fascinating reports on a diverse range of issues including:

• More evidence ‘Lucy’ was an extinct ape.
• Conflicting approaches to Flood geology.
• Claims that Genesis 1 is just reworked Babylonian myth.
• The subtle connection between ‘global warming’ alarmism and the creation–evolution controversy.
• Appeals to ‘consensus science’ and why they are actually anti-science.
• Whether the relative timing of radioisotope dates can be applied to biblical geology.
• Enlightening book reviews:
1. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson.
2. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Ne-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagal.
3. Revisiting the Days of Genesis by BC. Hodge.
• … and much more.

Subscribe today and receive your Journal of Creation, beginning with the latest issue and its reports on moon formation theories.

Related Articles

• The moon’s recession and age
• The moon: the light that rules the night

References

1. Samec, R.G. Lunar formation—collision theory fails, J. Creation, 27(2):11–12, 2013. Return to text.
2. Meier, M.M.M., Moon formation: earth’s titanium twin, Nature Geoscience 5(4):240–241, 2012. Return to text.
3. Humphreys, D.R. More secular confusion about the moon’s former magnetic field, J. Creation, 27(2):12–13, 2013. Return to text.
4. Suavet, C. et al., Persistence and origin of the lunar core dynamo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, published online before print on 6 May 2013, www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/02/1300341110.full.pdf+html?sid=44d30a0b-9f5a-45e3-8ed5-bafb01b5f5e7, accessed 13 May 2013. Return to text.