New research eclipses existing theories on the Moon formation

Aug 29, 2012
Moon. Photo courtesy of NASA

The Moon is believed to have formed from a collision, 4.5 billion years ago, between Earth and an impactor the size of Mars, known as "Theia." Over the past decades scientists have simulated this process and reproduced many of the properties of the Earth-Moon system; however, these simulations have also given rise to a problem known as the Lunar Paradox: the Moon appears to be made up of material that would not be expected if the current collision theory is correct. A recent study published in Icarus proposes a new perspective on the theory in answer to the paradox.

If current theories are to be believed, analyses of the various simulations of the Earth-Theia predict that the is mostly made up of material from Theia. However, studying materials from both Earth and the Moon, shows remarkable similarities. In fact, elements found on the Moon show identical isotopic properties to those found on Earth.

Given it is very unlikely that both Theia and Earth had identical isotopic compositions (as all other known solar system bodies, except the Moon, appear to be different) this paradox casts doubt over the dominant theory for the Moon formation. Moreover, for some elements, like Silicon, the is the result of internal processes, related to the size of the parent body. Given Theia was smaller than Earth, its Silicon isotope composition should have definitely been different from that of Earth's .

A group of researchers from the University of Bern, Switzerland, have now made a significant breakthrough in the story of the formation of the Moon, suggesting an answer to this Lunar Paradox. They explored a different geometry of collisions than previously simulated, also considering new impacts configurations such as the so-called, "hit-and-run collisions," where a significant amount of material is lost into space on orbits unbound to the Earth.

"Our model considers new impact parameters, which were never tested before. Besides the implications for the Earth-Moon system itself, the considerably higher impact velocity opens up new possibilities for the origin of the impactor and therefore also for models of terrestrial planet formation," explains lead author of the study, Andreas Reufer.

"While none of the simulations presented in their research provides a perfect match for the constraints from the actual Earth-Moon-system, several do come close," adds Alessandro Morbidelli, one of the Icarus' Editors. "This work, therefore, suggests that a future exhaustive exploration of the vast collisional parameter space may finally lead to the long-searched solution of the lunar paradox."

Explore further: Testing immune cells on the International Space Station

More information: The article "A hit-and-run Giant Impact scenario" by Andreas Reufer, Matthias M.M. Meier, Willy Benz, Rainer Wieler (doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07), appears in Icarus.

Related Stories

Pluto-Charon origin may mirror that of Earth and its Moon

Feb 02, 2005

The evolution of Kuiper Belt objects, Pluto and its lone moon Charon may have something in common with Earth and our single Moon: a giant impact in the distant past. Dr. Robin Canup, assistant director of Southwest Research Ins ...

'Big splat' may explain the moon's mountainous far side

Aug 03, 2011

The mountainous region on the far side of the moon, known as the lunar farside highlands, may be the solid remains of a collision with a smaller companion moon, according to a new study by planetary scientists at the University ...

How common are earth-moon planetary systems?

Sep 18, 2011

Sebastian Elser, Prof. Ben Moore and Dr. Joachim Stadel of the University of Zurich, Switzerland, in cooperation with Ryuji Morishima of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, tried to estimate how common Earth-Moon ...

The Moon may have formed in a nuclear explosion

Jan 28, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new theory suggests the Moon was formed after a natural nuclear explosion in the Earth's mantle rather than after the impact of a massive object with the Earth, as previously thought.

Recommended for you

Testing immune cells on the International Space Station

11 hours ago

The human body is fine-tuned to Earth's gravity. A team headed by Professor Oliver Ullrich from the University of Zurich's Institute of Anatomy is now conducting an experiment on the International Space Station ...

Easter morning delivery for space station

17 hours ago

Space station astronauts got a special Easter treat: a cargo ship full of supplies. The shipment arrived Sunday morning via the SpaceX company's Dragon cargo capsule.

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Apr 19, 2014

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Sun emits a mid-level solar flare

Apr 18, 2014

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 9:03 a.m. EDT on April 18, 2014, and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured images of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jitterbewegung
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
Well it's either an eclipse or they left the lense cap on.;-)
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (25) Aug 29, 2012
"This work, therefore, suggests that a future exhaustive exploration of the vast collisional parameter space may finally lead to the long-searched solution of the lunar paradox."

For all you rubes that don't understand how modern cosmology works, that's code for job security.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
The story is fascinating, though the title is a bit misleading. I can see that they were trying to be clever, but it doesn't really fit with the content.

Something more like "New Research Strengthens Existing Theories" would have been more informative.
verkle
1 / 5 (26) Aug 29, 2012
The moon is one of many paradoxes that evolutionists strive hard to explain. Previous "capture" theories have been shown to be basically impossible, and current "collision" theories likewise are nearly impossible to simulate, even with choosing the most ideal conditions.

R2Bacca
5 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2012
and current "collision" theories likewise are nearly impossible to simulate

I fail to see how this disproves evolution. It isn't possible for me to simulate the creation of earth in seven days, either.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2012
The moon is one of many paradoxes that evolutionists strive hard to explain. Previous "capture" theories have been shown to be basically impossible, and current "collision" theories likewise are nearly impossible to simulate, even with choosing the most ideal conditions.


Evolutionists? What are you talking about? This article has nothing at all to do with evolution or evolutionary biologists. I think you are very confused...
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2012
The moon is one of many paradoxes that evolutionists strive hard to explain. Previous "capture" theories have been shown to be basically impossible, and current "collision" theories likewise are nearly impossible to simulate, even with choosing the most ideal conditions.


Evolutionists? What are you talking about? This article has nothing at all to do with evolution or evolutionary biologists. I think you are very confused...

No, just very stupid.

THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK VERKLE! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND RETURN TO REALITY AND NOT YOUR CHURCH FANTASYLAND WHERE "Well, we cant explain it totally yet, most of been god." IS YOUR ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.
Calenur
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
o.O Are you guys trolling? If so, this is the second time I've fallen for it today, and I definitely need to just go home. They're definitely referring to lunar evolution, not biological evolution.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2012
o.O Are you guys trolling? If so, this is the second time I've fallen for it today, and I definitely need to just go home. They're definitely referring to lunar evolution, not biological evolution.


Are you serious? I've NEVER heard anyone use the term "evolutionist" to refer to someone who believes the Moon evolved... In this context evolve simply means change, who doesn't believe the moon changed? What's the alternative if you are not a lunar evolutionist?

I think you're as nuts as Verkle...
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012
Eminently suggestive, if not revealing, that no "discussion" on the collision theory points out the fact that it would have thrown the earth out of its orbit. And there is nothing evident that forces a planet thrown out of orbit to attain another stable orbit. The chances are greater than such a collision would cause the earth to leave th sun or fall into the sun.
And is jsdarkdestruction necessarily so qualified to comment on absolute truth, with their need to "shout", and their use of "mostof been" instead of the grammatically correct "must have been"?
And where is jsdarkdestruction's criticism of modern "cosmology" saying "dark matter" must be the cause of so many things, even though they can't see it, and despite the fact that, leaving aside nothing they claim to exist has been independently proved, there are alternatives that "science" denies by simply refusing to admit them!
Calenur
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
Are you serious? I've NEVER heard anyone use the term "evolutionist" to refer to someone who believes the Moon evolved... In this context evolve simply means change, who doesn't believe the moon changed? What's the alternative if you are not a lunar evolutionist?

I think you're as nuts as Verkle...


Nor have I, but these articles are summarized by non-scientists. I can tell you that there are lunar evolution groups out there, and it in no way refers to biological evolution. You're right, in this case it simply means changed, or how our current moon came to be. Creationists really do have everyone on this site on edge =P
Calenur
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2012
Ah -_- I trolled myself....I thought that was from the article. It's definitely time to go home.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
Eminently suggestive, if not revealing, that no "discussion" on the collision theory points out the fact that it would have thrown the earth out of its orbit.


Why?

Orbits are fairly robust, in fact most planetary orbits vary over long time scales, they are not so fine-tuned that any change causes them to de-orbit. You would also have to know the angle of incidence of the impact in order to make any such statement... an impact that was perpendicular to the planets trajectory may have knocked it out of orbit... but the theories state that this was a glancing blow (or else the Earth would have been split most likely) and it may have been mostly parallel to the planets trajectory, which would not have affected it's orbit significantly.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
It can be questionable whether anything the size and mass of the earth could, under all but almost infinitesimally unlikely cases, undergo a "glancing blow". And anything that can separate such a huge portion of the planet from the body of the planet cannot be called minor! Too, try rolling a billiard ball so it only touches another, the other will still take off on an entirely different path.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
In fact, orbits are, to a degree, self-correcting. Planets orbit due to two competing forces, the planets own inertia and the gravitational pull of the star. If you were to "push" a planet toward or away from it's star the vector of it's own inertia would change in a such a way that it either slowed or sped up along the vector tangent to the stars gravitational acceleration. What happens is the planet begins to oscillate, and this oscillation eventually decays back into a stable orbit.
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2012
It can be questionable whether anything the size and mass of the earth could, under all but almost infinitesimally unlikely cases, undergo a "glancing blow".


You're forgetting the fact that since so much material was stripped off this absorbed much of the force of the impact... the billiard ball analogy is not valid because the billiard balls do not crush, deform, and shear apart with the impact. Crumple zones on cars work on the same principle, they are built to deform to absorb the impact such that the full energy of the impact does not reach the occupant.

A glancing blow (which is of course possible regardless of scales) that shears off a large of amount of the mass of both objects would transfer little energy to the planet itself because most of the energy would be absorbed by the deformation of the surface material.
Skepticus
3.1 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
Given it is very unlikely that both Theia and Earth had identical isotopic compositions (as all other known solar system bodies, except the Moon, appear to be different) this paradox casts doubt over the dominant theory for the Moon formation.

What if Earth and "theia" were formed at the same time from the same proto-planetary disk, co-orbit or very close orbits? then the composition problem may not be a problem?
avengers
1 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
This "paradox" means we've never been to the moon.

NASA gave us the earth samples.

Oops. Emperor is naked.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2012
@ cantdrive85:

Yes, job security, but only if the work is needed. In this case they would want to increase the likelihood of the result so it becomes even more competitive. "While none of the simulations presented in their research provides a perfect match for the constraints from the actual Earth-Moon-system, several do come close,". They matches, and over over many runs.

@ verkle:

Poe or science denialist? It is the same BS.

@ julianpenrod:

Do you really think they didn't figure Earth orbit in. One of the _successful_ predictions of these types of models is exactly the Earth-Moon oribital elements, that _no other theory can make_.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
To begin with, inertia is not a force. It is not a competing directional influence that counters the gravity of the star. To even say something like that demonstrates a lack of understanding that renders any attempt at pretending to know "science" unreasonable.
And if you fired a bullet at a billiard ball, that would also strip away material, but the billiard ball would move. If you want to suggest the deformation keeps the object from changing their motion, consider, say a baseball, being hit by a bat. The baseball deforms on contact with the bat, but its movement is changed.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012
[cont]

As for cosmology, the current standard cosmology is also the result of that all the contenders didn't measure up. See the literature for the many cosmologies that have been "admitted" for test - and failed.

It behooves you to reference extraordinary claims, such as that only one theory per area ever has been considered which is the prediction of your idea of science, with extraordinary evidence.

@ Skepticus:

The orbital parameters need a hypervelocity impact to arrive at the current Earth-Moon orbital parameters (contra julianpenrod fantasies).

The original impact theory was as you claimed, but that changed by simulations after it got accepted, IIRC. (I believe the history is described in the Wikipedia entry on Theia.)

@ avengers:

LOL! No, there are definite differences too. You can see irradiation effects (and impact remains, IIRC) that stems from atmosphere-less processes, for example. Moreover, regolith is definitely not produced anywhere on Earth, it makes soils.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
To begin with, inertia is not a force. It is not a competing directional influence that counters the gravity of the star. To even say something like that demonstrates a lack of understanding that renders any attempt at pretending to know "science" unreasonable.


wow... nice try, but trying to discredit my argument based on semantics is a desperate move and no one is buying it.

And if you fired a bullet at a billiard ball, that would also strip away material, but the billiard ball would move. If you want to suggest the deformation keeps the object from changing their motion, consider, say a baseball, being hit by a bat. The baseball deforms on contact with the bat, but its movement is changed.


These stupid analogies have nothing to do with what we are talking about. The dynamics of planetary collisions have NOTHING to do with bullets, billiard balls, baseballs, or bats. Stop being ridiculous.

You're a joke, you post some of the dumbest things on this site.
Frostiken
3 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
The dynamics of planetary collisions have NOTHING to do with bullets, billiard balls, baseballs, or bats.


Out of curiosity, why wouldn't it? Physics is physics.

The real argument is that it's extremely hard to knock something out of orbit. Earth has an elliptical orbit. Who's to say that earth's orbit wasn't less eccentric in the past, or that maybe the planet had a different rate of spin. The delta-V to drastically change the orbital properties of a ~5 Yg planetary body is immense. Sufficient force to change the earth's orbit would probably just smash both bodies to dust.
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2012
This "paradox" means we've never been to the moon.

NASA gave us the earth samples.

Oops. Emperor is naked.

wow. that is quite a big leap to make.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
Maybe we should look at what floats around at the Lagrange points L4 and L5 of the Earth-Moon system? It's possible that some debris of such a collision could have ended up there.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
verkle got mixed up yet again
The moon is one of many paradoxes that evolutionists strive hard to explain.
No. Solar system collisions continue to happen, albeit at a lower rate, recall the comet that hit jupiter not long ago - twas photographed !

Not a paradox as such ie. Not a recursive problem such as the conventional view of a paradox as per the time travel issue if you were to prevent your grandfather meeting your grandmother etc.

Bible is a story verkle, get with the program. Universe is far far far bigger than a mere story from a deity that is a bad, impotent and pathetic communicator. Its people that communicate flakey undisciplined ideas from a book where the writer (and his associates) put himself into the story - dont people like you see the obvious egotism ?!
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
Frostiken got upset (maybe) BUT forgot something really important
The dynamics of planetary collisions have NOTHING to do with bullets, billiard balls, baseballs, or bats.
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't it? Physics is physics.
The gravity between two billiard, base balls etc separated by 10 times their size is a damn sight less than two planets (or moons) with equivalent separation...!

Deathclock
3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2012
Frostiken got upset (maybe) BUT forgot something really important
The dynamics of planetary collisions have NOTHING to do with bullets, billiard balls, baseballs, or bats.
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't it? Physics is physics.
The gravity between two billiard, base balls etc separated by 10 times their size is a damn sight less than two planets (or moons) with equivalent separation...!



They also do not behave the same when they collide... at all... not even close. The analogies that that clown julianpenrod presented were beyond useless. Two planetary bodies colliding causes much of their surface material to be stripped off and ejected into space... I've never seen this with two billiard balls or a baseball hitting a bat, have you?
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
The dynamics of planetary collisions have NOTHING to do with bullets, billiard balls, baseballs, or bats.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't it? Physics is physics. ...Sufficient force to change the earth's orbit would probably just smash both bodies to dust


A minor point of common misconception: Planet-sized objects are gravitationally bound. Gravity is a relatively weak binding force at this scale. Two planet-sized objects colliding would not behave like billiard balls. A better comparison would be something a bit like a drop of water. Try tossing a half-filled water balloon at another, larger water balloon, and you get the idea, sorta, kinda. Only the water could mix between the two and some could splash out without breaking the balloons. Not a good analogy, but the best I can think of.

I wonder if it's possible that they bounced off of each other more than once as gravity slung them around, before they ended up in an orbit pattern?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
Fluid dynamics is certainly more applicable to planetary collision simulation than solid (and especially elastic) collision models. At the area of contact such large forces are liberated that nothing could remain solid.

We're also talking about an impact that happened (supposedly) 4.5 billion years ago - which is just a few million years after the formation of the Earth itself - so it probably doesn't even have a solid crust at that point. (As if that mattered. For things on planetary scales the Earth is still a liquid ball with a negligible crust. We all too often forget that because to humans the crust is rather crucial. But as one of my favorite authors likes to say: " 'personal' is not the same thing as 'important' ")
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2012
Yep, all the inner planets would have still been molten at that time. And yep, at planetary scales, a gravitationally bound solid will act as a fluid, so it wouldn't matter much anyway. And yep, Terry Pratchet is cool.
TheBoss
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2012
@antialias_physorg Only problem with that theory is the amount of time time that has passed since the collision. Who knows were the collision really happened. Any materiel that would be left would of been pulled into another planet or the sun. Interesting idea but i don't think there would be anything left over from that point.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 31, 2012
L4 and L5 are stable (unlike L1, L2 and L3), so they any material deposited there would likely still be there - even after all this time. But we really don't know until we go and have a look. The recently discovered asteroid at L4 might be a good candidate.
http://de.wikiped...2010_TK7

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2012
The english link is of course here:- http://en.wikiped...2010_TK7

Valgand
1 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2012
My own personal theory, emailed years ago to Steven Hawkins so no one can steal my credit was:

When the earth was still molten and the surface began to cool into a crust before the water condensed as it was still in the atmosphere, the earth was under great cooling surface pressure from the coolness of space and it's own rotation adding to this pressure, and it spat out the moon due to this pressure much like an erupting skin pimple.

This explains the lack of iron on the moon because earth's magnetics held it to it's own molten core.

This explains why the moon does not spin since it was erupted at such a straight angle from the earth's material.

This can even explain why the moon is slowly drifting away from the earth, with the old motion remains in motion theory.

I will listen but I don't care what any scientist or theorists try to tell me how "mysteriously" the moon came into being, I am certain my theory is the correct one.
No meteor impact was necessary to creates the moon.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2012
My own personal theory, emailed years ago to Steven Hawkins so no one can steal my credit was:

Which was wasted time, sincw he's concerned with different subjects.

I am certain my theory is the correct one.

Then you have failed the first lesson of science.
What you have is (untested) belief in your theory. That's is religion.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
Valgand appears to be seriously confused and comfortable with his ignorance of physics
..before the water condensed as it was still in the atmosphere, the earth was under great cooling surface pressure from the coolness of space and it's own rotation adding to this pressure, and it spat out the moon due to this pressure much like an erupting skin pimple.
Several problems with your idea (its not a theory as there is no evidence to support it) but, lets see if you can answer some simple questions:-

a. How does 'its own rotation adding to pressure' and how can this be so much greater than gravity ?

b. You are wrong the moon does spin, it is tidally locked, see here:- http://en.wikiped..._locking What makes you think the Moon doesnt spin, have you drawn a diagram ?

c. Have you looked at the specific heat of crust vs mantle, what makes you think the crust is rigid and not subject to deformation and some sort of insulator ?

That should do...
jsdarkdestruction
2 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2012
"
I will listen but I don't care what any scientist or theorists try to tell me"

what is the point? it sounds to me like youve got it all figured out and refuse to take any contradictory evidence into consideration because you dont want to because you know you are right......
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2012
According to the most ancient of scripts, that found in Babylon and etched in cuneiform, the pre-collision Earth was called Tiamat, its colliding partner the moon of Nibiru (planet X), and references to the asteroid belt - the "bracelet" - are made because they are the residue of that collision, which tore off the "skull cap" of Tiamat, probably the north polar region, which might have become the moon. There is no rule that states that planets cannot be similar in composition, and we have only moon rocks to compare Earth to. We need physical evidence. It is also possible that the collision occurred when the two planets were still in a semi-molten state and had not yet acquired their shape. That would explain the spherical shape of our moon, which yet needs to be named, by the way.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2012
baudrunner offered
..explain the spherical shape of our moon, which yet needs to be named, by the way.
If it does have a bit of Earth on it as seems most likely then it might explain why its never been given a proper name, ie. Probably out of sheer confusion and lack of ego (for a change). Much like the state I live in Western Australia (its a direction) not a name per se' before battlestar galactica scifi series many wanted to name our state 'Capricornia' and our capital Perth, 'Caprica' (sigh)...

eachus
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
First as an expert on the type of simulation they are doing here, one simulation run can take weeks. Even if you use a large supercomputer, for these simulations more nodes means more resolution in the model, but the running time doesn't change much.

This is an extreme case of Amdahl's Law. Adding more points to the simulation increases the amount of computation to be done, but the scalar thread for any point doesn't get significantly longer. So there is a maximum number of useful CPU cores for any size simulation, and the speed of the individual elements determines how long it takes to simulate say, 100 years. "Bigger" simulations will take longer, but increasing the number of chunks of matter tracked is logarithmic (sub-linear) in its effect on running time.

All that is a fancy way of saying that this team will be able to refine their models to get a better fit. But this will take months, if not years, of using either a "mini-super" or a small section of a supercomputer.
Caliban
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012
Maybe we should look at what floats around at the Lagrange points L4 and L5 of the Earth-Moon system? It's possible that some debris of such a collision could have ended up there.

Well - there's this:

"WISE has exposed a menagerie of hidden objects," said Hashima Hasan, WISE program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. [["We've found an asteroid dancing ahead of Earth in its orbit]], the coldest star-like orbs known and now, supermassive black holes and galaxies hiding behind cloaks of dust.

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

From another article published here this week.
NOM
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012
Does Thea actually have to impact the Earth to break it up enough to form the Moon?
When Jupiter was in the process of clearing its orbit, it would have been flinging asteroids and planets all over the place. A near miss from an Earth sized or larger planet may have been enough to shatter the Earth and leave very little evidence.
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
@eachus - Have you thought of distributed computing for your research? There are millions of us around the world that contribute computer power for medical and scientific projects. Combined we are more powerful than any super computer. My son and I personally contribute to einstein@home and folding@home. In fact the 8-core system I am using at this moment is using all its cores and its GPU (GTX580) 24/7 on einstein@home at 100% while I write this. My stats on the einstein@home project:

http://stats.free...;team=19

Big problems can be broken down into many small problems that can be worked on by home computers around the world. If you are not aware of distributed computing you may be interested in how many countries are represented in research projects for the common good of humanity.

For more on distributed computing: http://en.wikiped...ki/BOINC

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
SteveL offered his experience of what seems to be BOINC
In fact the 8-core system I am using at this moment is using all its cores and its GPU (GTX580) 24/7 on einstein@home at 100% while I write this.
Admirable, have you worked out the energy cost, not just the KWHrs but the actual dollars spent to achieve this "100%" over monthly, yearly period ?

I also used BOINC for a few issues including protein folding, my cost differential for "100%" usage equated to AUD$346/year. Since I have addressed this and shifted also from a desktop to a medium capacity laptop for the bulk of my online and computing requirements (other than a high performance lab 32core data acquisition PC), costs per year dropped by ~AUD$580 without significant loss of functionality.

Look forward to hearing from you SteveL and others as this issue seems to be looming larger given electricity price increases here in Western Australia - although only 9% this last 12 months or so and likewise elsewhere...
SteveL
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012
No, I haven't done any studies. Others have and from what I've been told the best bang for the buck is in the GPUs, specifically the GTX570 and GTX580 video boards provide very good production per watt.

On a monthly basis I get a report from Duke Energy on my KWh usage compared to last year, compared to other similar sized homes in my area and compared to an ideally efficient house (their standard anyhow). I consistently rate under the efficient standard and far more efficient than my housing peers.

Were it not for my computer running I would blow them away. I imagine I do as well as I do because my AC unit is small and usually on 80F. I use ceiling fans set on slow and I keep my door closed and CFL lights off when not needed. Other than my computer, and PS3 for folding@home during the winter for heating, I live a very frugal life. I don't use my TV much and mainly read for entertainment. I never use over 1,000KWh a month except every now and then during the winter.
SteveL
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012
I have my home networked and can use PS3's to heat individual rooms. I like the idea of heating a room by helping in the study of protein folding. I find the idea much more attractive than just using a 1000w heater. My house doesn't have central heating or AC.

If you have a PS3 and it is hooked up to the Internet you can also contribute. Folding@home is the PS3's "Life with Playstation" application. A word of caution though: Make sure the vents are clean and the unit has plenty of clearance and ventilation. This application produces a good bit of heat and you don't want to fry your unit.

http://en.wikiped...ing@Home
Guy_Underbridge
not rated yet Sep 03, 2012
'personal' is not the same thing as 'important'

just re-read it this w/e :D
averageman
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2012
Let's start off saying I am no scientist so I admit I don't know all the ins and outs of this discussion. That being said,if there was a collision glancing or not, how is it that earth's orbit is not oblong but nearly identical to other planets orbits around it. Also, the collision was perfectly aligned with earth's orbit that it didn't change the tilt noticably compared to other near earth orbits as well? That seems highly improbable to me.
But smarter people then me have been working on this for years so I don't claim to know anything.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2012
What if Earth and "theia" were formed at the same time from the same proto-planetary disk, co-orbit or very close orbits? then the composition problem may not be a problem?


If "Theia" formed from the same material then you've defeated the purpose of the collision theory anyway, since if "Theia" could form there then the Moon itself could just as well have formed in the same manner.

Just because a hypothesis is non-falsifiable it is not necessarily false.

Modern "science" takes the stance of ignoring non-falsifiable truths because they don't know what to do with them, but secondary reality can probably never fully understand fundamental reality, so as long as the "non-falsifiable" is treated as being "false" or "non-consequential" you will never have the answers you seek.

There are only so many isotopes in the universe, and so many combinations of isotopes, it is nothing too special if two rocks orbiting the sun share similar isotopic properties.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2012
If something is absolutely true, then one cannot conceive of a legitimate way to prove it false, therefore it is not falsifiable.

This does not mean that all non-falsifiable things are true, but it does mean that some non-falsifiable things probably are true, and in fact their truthfulness is what makes them non-falsifiable.

The reason one cannot disprove the belief that God exists is because there is no condition under which he could not exist.

On the other hand, a flying spaghetti monster is allegedly composed of lesser, discreet parts which are composed of matter existent in the physical universe. Therefore the flying spaghetti monster is a fictional, falsifiable hypothesis which is easily disproven by pointing out the fact that it is made of something which is provably man-made...

The same is not true for God or fundamental reality.

How did the moon get there?
You can offer any number of physical explanations, but ultimately "God did it" is more true than you admit...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2012
If something is absolutely true, then one cannot conceive of a legitimate way to prove it false, therefore it is not falsifiable.

Since nothing can be absolutely true (other than tautologies) that's not really a problem. Theories and physical laws are a map to reality. But the map is not the terriitory. Any law is necessarily an approximation of reality (otherwise the law would be reality and one could map 1:1 between law and reality..i.e. the reality and the law would be indistinguishable)

The reason one cannot disprove the belief that God exists is because there is no condition under which he could not exist.

Neither can you disprove froodelfrums. And they are as much relevant to anything as gods are. Something that cannot be falsified is irrelevant - since it cannot interact with anything (if it interacts then it has properties and then these properties can be tested for).

alohim_haushulamee
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2012
Is it possible, that the ice/water/air on Earth has come from The Moon or another Planet in a pass or collision, where the Ice in near space was attracted to the cooling Earth forming into our miraculously living planet.!?
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2012
alohim_haushulamee guessed
..Ice in near space was attracted to the cooling Earth forming into our miraculously living planet.!?
Attracted to ? Doubt it. The early earth would have been far warmer than now, space is colder than the earth and the region in which earth orbits has a sizable proton flux and solar wind which tends to push smaller particulates away from our orbit...

The debris from which the earth formed may have had ice and over the course of long periods is also likely comets collided shedding their ice.

@ averageman
No one can say for sure what all the collision events were from the beginning and especially so we dont know what the orbital status of earth was prior to a moon forming collision. Earth's orbit is elliptical and by degree there is no metric to compare prior events with resulting orbital patterns and tilt...
If its an area of interest best to do a short course in astronomy at a local college, meet people and widen formal education.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2012
This explains why the moon does not spin since it was erupted at such a straight angle from the earth's material


The moon is tidally locked because of the relative size of the Earth and Moon and their distance apart. There's an equation that shows the size and distance ranges which will result in the smaller body being tidally locked. No gravitationally bound object is perfectly round. If they spin, they will have an equitorial bulge, like the Earth does. If they are close to another gravity source, then they will have a bulge in that direction also. That is the source of our ocean tides. Our plant bulges toward the moon all the time. The moon also bulges toward the Earth, and since the moon's mass is so relatively small compared to the Earth, that bulge causes enough of a tug that it eventually made the moon get stuck with one side facing us. The moon was probably spinning on its axis when it first orbited the Earth.

More news stories

Easter morning delivery for space station

Space station astronauts got a special Easter treat: a cargo ship full of supplies. The shipment arrived Sunday morning via the SpaceX company's Dragon cargo capsule.

Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans

Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they have more skepticism than confidence in global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and have the most trouble believing a Big Bang created the universe 13.8 ...