Making the moon: Study details new story for how the moon formed

moon
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Simon Lock wants to change the way you think about the Moon.

A graduate student in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Lock is the lead author of a study that suggests the Moon - rather than being spun out of the aftermath of a collision - emerged from a massive, donut-shaped cloud of vaporized rock called a synestia.

Along with Lock, the study, published February 28 in Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, is co-authored by Sarah Stewart (UC Davis), Michail Petaev (Harvard), Zoë Leinhardt (Bristol), Mia Mace (Bristol), Stein Jacobsen (Harvard), and Matija Ćuk (SETI).

"The commonly accepted theory as to how the Moon was formed is that a Mars sized body collided with the proto-Earth and spun material into orbit," Lock said. "That mass settled into a disk and later accreted to form the . The body that was left after the impact was the Earth. This has been the canonical model for about 20 years."

It's a compelling story, Lock said, and it's also probably not correct.

"Getting enough mass into orbit in the canonical scenario is actually very difficult, and there's a very narrow range of collisions that might be able to do it," he said. "There's only a couple of degree window of impact angles and a very narrow range of sizes...and even then some impacts still don't work."

"This new work explains features of the Moon that are hard to resolve with current ideas," said Stewart, a professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at UC Davis. "This is the first model that can match the pattern of the Moon's composition."

What's more, he said, tests have shown that the isotopic "fingerprint" for both the Earth and Moon are nearly identical, suggesting both came from the same source. But in the canonical story, the Moon formed mostly from the remnants of just one of the two bodies that collided.

But just as similarities between the Earth and Moon raise questions about the accepted story for the Moon's creation, so too do their differences.

Tests have shown that the Moon is far less abundant in many - such as potassium, sodium and copper - that are relatively common on Earth.

"There hasn't been a good explanation for this," Lock said. "People have proposed various hypotheses for how the Moon could have wound up with fewer volatiles, but no one has been able to quantitatively match the Moon's composition."

The scenario outlined by Lock and colleagues still begins with a massive collision, but rather than creating a disc of rocky material, the impact creates a synestia.

"It's huge," Lock said. "It can be ten times the size of the Earth, and because there's so much energy in the collision, maybe 10 percent of the rock of Earth is vaporized, and the rest is liquid...so the way you form the Moon out of a synestia is very different."

It begins with a "seed" - a small amount of liquid rock that gathers just off the center of the donut-like structure. As the structure cools, vaporized rock condenses and rains down toward the center of the synestia. Some of the rain runs into the Moon, causing it to grow.

"The rate of rain fall is about ten times that of a hurricane on Earth," Lock said. "Over time, the whole structure shrinks, and the Moon emerges from the vapor. Eventually, the whole synestia condenses and what's left is a ball of spinning liquid rock that eventually forms the Earth as we know it today."

The whole process happens remarkably fast, with the Moon emerging from the synestia in just a few tens of years, and the Earth forming about 1,000 years later.

More importantly, Lock said, it addresses each of the problems with the canonical model for the Moon's creation. Since both the Earth and Moon are created from the same cloud of vaporized rock, they naturally share similar isotope "fingerprints." The lack of volatile elements on the Moon, meanwhile, can be explained by the fact that the Moon formed surrounded by tens of atmospheres of vapor and at temperature of 4000-6000 Fahrenheit.

"Basically, this is the first model that that has been able to explain the complications, and that has been able to do it quantitatively," Lock said. "This is a dramatically different way of forming the Moon. You just don't think of a satellite forming inside another body, but this is what appears to happen."

While the model appears to address some long-standing questions regarding the creation of the Moon, Lock said the work is still in its preliminary stages, and more work must be done to refine the model further.

"This is a basic model," Lock said. "We've done calculations of each of the processes that go into forming the Moon and shown that the model could work, but there are various aspects of our theory that will need more interrogation.

"For example, when the Moon is in this vapor, what does it do to that vapor? How does it perturb it? How does the vapor flow past the Moon? These are all things we need to go back and examine in more detail."


Explore further

How does water change the Moon's origin story?

More information: Simon J. Lock et al. The origin of the Moon within a terrestrial synestia, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (2018). DOI: 10.1002/2017je005333
Provided by Harvard University
Citation: Making the moon: Study details new story for how the moon formed (2018, February 28) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-02-moon-story_1.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
262 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 28, 2018
There are many possible stories. The problem is that only God was there to observed and he told us about it in Genesis 1.

Feb 28, 2018
There are many possble stories (v.g. fission, condensation, capture, giant impact; donut cloud). The problem is that we can never be sure. No scientist was there to observe. Only God was there to observe the creation of the Moon and he told us just that:

"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." (Genesis 1)

Until now, no man-made story can really explain the origin of the Moon.

Feb 28, 2018
^^^^^^^Errrrrr, I think you'll find that the bible IS a man made story. A not particularly believable one, at that.

Feb 28, 2018
Hey BEGGING, the Sumerians want their mythology returned! They had stolen it, fair & square, from the Neanderthals. And they resent how much you have bungled the translation.

Feb 28, 2018
jonesdave says definitively and baldly that the Bible is man-made. What is jonesdave's proof? Give the proof, stop the arguments, end the disagreement, answer the question.

Feb 28, 2018
From the article:

"While the model appears to address some long-standing questions regarding the creation of the Moon, Lock said the work is still in its preliminary stages, and more work must be done to refine the model further."

I'll say.

Firstly, he'll need to explain just what sort of collision --and with what-- would be capable of vaporizing the combined masses of both the Earth and the Moon, why this collision would form a "synestia", rather than some other debris cloud, and what happened to the other planetesimal involved in the collision --which would have had to've been huge, indeed, to produce this complete vaporization in the first place.

Feb 28, 2018
jonesdave says definitively and baldly that the Bible is man-made. What is jonesdave's proof? Give the proof, stop the arguments, end the disagreement, answer the question.


j-rod--

Do you mean to say that The Bible was written by God Himself?

How do you know this?

Did He, Himself, tell you it was so?

Feb 28, 2018
jonesdave says definitively and baldly that the Bible is man-made. What is jonesdave's proof? Give the proof, stop the arguments, end the disagreement, answer the question
Youve seen the PROOF julian you just dont have the GUTS to accept it.

"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

... well?

Feb 28, 2018
Do you mean to say that The Bible was written by God Himself?

How do you know this?

Did He, Himself, tell you it was so?
Of course he did... in the book he wrote. just like muhammads book. And Joseph Smiths book. And adolph hitlers book. And Karl Marx's book.

Books written by gods and their prophets are invariably infallible.

Feb 28, 2018
jonesdave says definitively and baldly that the Bible is man-made. What is jonesdave's proof? Give the proof, stop the arguments, end the disagreement, answer the question.


Because if there really was an all-knowing, all-seeing God, then he/she/it would have come up with a better story than that.

Feb 28, 2018
Sources that I've read state that there are over 4,000 religions in the world. That means there are 4,000 different versions of god.

To the religious posters: please clarify which god you are talking about. This would help me to better understand your points and put it into a proper historical and present day perspective.

Feb 28, 2018
There are many possible stories. The problem is that only God was there to observed and he told us about it in Genesis 1.

One more for the ignore list......

Feb 28, 2018
Sources that I've read state that there are over 4,000 religions in the world. That means there are 4,000 different versions of god
I doubt it. Not every religion believes in a supreme God.

Feb 28, 2018
Sources that I've read state that there are over 4,000 religions in the world. That means there are 4,000 different versions of god
I doubt it. Not every religion believes in a supreme God.
Details are immaterial. They are all identical in that they promise you absolutely anything and everything you ever could want in return for service. And that service usually involves believing that unbelievers are intrinsically wicked, and treating them accordingly.

That's it. Religion is all one thing and it's all BAD.

Feb 28, 2018
jonesdave says definitively and baldly that the Bible is man-made. What is jonesdave's proof? Give the proof, stop the arguments, end the disagreement, answer the question.


All of the bible's authors were men (and a few woman). That is pretty solid evidence that it was created by man. If you wish to provide evidence that the mental state of the authors to prove they were "inspired by God" and thus the bible was god created, I suggest you get started early. Thats a journey you will not be returning from.

Feb 28, 2018
That's it. Religion is all one thing and it's all BAD.


I wouldn't go that far. In an evolutionary context, Religion tends to create tribal unity and was probably invented for just that reason. It is also comforting to the very old.

But for the most part, tribalism and thus religion in modern society is almost a uniform unmitigated evil.


Mar 01, 2018
So interesting that an article about the formation of the moon spurs so many comments about God and Creation. I think the majority of persons writing these comments deep down have a feeling that indeed there is a God, and the Bible could be true. Of course there are a few ignorant wackos who make all kinds of really dumb comments like "I THINK you'll find that the bible IS a man made story" without any kind of arguments of why. I for one have found that the history recorded in the Bible is the most realistic account of why we are here. The theory of evolution and that life came from nothing is THE MOST unbelievable hypothesis of all times.

Mar 01, 2018
Firstly, he'll need to explain just what sort of collision --and with what-- would be capable of

Secondly, he'll need to explain just how it happened that the moon then had the almost precise proportion relative to the mass of the earth of 1:4.
Next he'll have to explain how it happened that the moon is just the right diameter and at just the right distance to block out the sun at a solar eclipse.
Then to top it all off he'll have to explain how it is that the moon provides the precise balance to keep the wobble of the earth in check.

It was using some of these kind of facts that led Newton to formulate the law of gravity because of the very simple mathematical relationships involved.

He is certainly going to have a heck of a time explaining these issues if he EVER gets over the first hurdle of explaining where the massive body that collided with the earth came from and what happened to the evidence. Good luck to him who rejects the biblical account.

Mar 01, 2018
I would rather only have seen comments concerning the topic of this interesting article.

Mar 01, 2018
I THINK the majority of persons writing these comments deep down have a feeling that indeed there IS a God
Religion might be a solution for some of our shortcomings. But its certainly not the RIGHT solution.
and the Bible could be true
-But its not. See the small sampling I posted above, of the tons of incontrovertible evidence.
Of course there are a few ignorant wackos who make all kinds of really dumb comments like "I THINK you'll find that the bible IS a man made story" without any kind of arguments of why
Notice how these godders refuse to acknowledge evidence? This one half of the 'ignorant bigot' aspect of religion.

Which is why religion is no good solution for anything.

Mar 01, 2018
The moon was not 'formed' it was constructed. It is an artificial body, and hollow.

Mar 01, 2018
Which is why religion is no good solution for anything.

You are completely right in saying this, of course. The best thing is to be connected to God via the one he sent to save us: Jesus, the Messiah. So having this relationship totally negates the need for strictly formulaic religion. Instead the "religion" becomes alive because we're trying to live the way He prescribes since it's for our own good. He made us. He knows us thru and thru and knows and wants what is best for us because He LOVES us.
Religion as normally understood simply falls by the wayside.

Mar 01, 2018
He is certainly going to have a heck of a time explaining these issues if he EVER gets over the first hurdle of explaining
Very difficult to discuss evidence with people who are so willing to ignore it, and make it up, to fit their sacred preconceptions.

But the discussions do serve to highlight the 'ignorant bigot' nature of the typical believer. In that respect religion DOES serve a purpose. Believers are so eager to demonstrate just why it is so wrong, so dangerous, so foul.

Mar 01, 2018
That's it. Religion is all one thing and it's all BAD.

Well then perhaps you should reject the principles espoused by many religions, specifically Christianity.
You should reject the teaching to not murder, to not steal, to not lie, to not covet anything of your neighbour, to not commit adultery and be obedient to your parents and elders, to take some time off from work and to regard these principles as sacrosanct not because some human instituted them but the very creator Himself. If there's no higher authority than men than anything goes and only the ones with the most power rules.
You should also reject the principle of loving your neighbour as yourself.
The last time I checked, the world is absolutely demanding that these principles not be violated - see what businesses demand in employees, customers and suppliers. See what your neighbours desire in regard to their own property and families.
Go ahead, reject these principles at your own peril.

Mar 01, 2018
thing is to be connected to God via the one he sent to save us: Jesus, the Messiah
I was talking with a young xian woman once who explained that she didn't consider her particular faith a religion.

Of course. All believers think that their religion is the one true way to serve god and receive his grace, and they believe that all the others are so wrong, so dangerous, so foul.

Religion is tribalism. Enemy tribes are always a little less human than they are. Religion gives them the edict they need to shun, victimize, persecute, purge, and eliminate the enemy.

It's in all the books dontcha know.

Mar 01, 2018
Religion is tribalism. Enemy tribes are always a little less human than they are. Religion gives them the edict they need to shun, victimize, persecute, purge, and eliminate the enemy.

It's in all the books dontcha know.

Actually, you are now getting very close to describing the religion that results from believing in evolution. Just think about it: There is absolutely no reason for any evolutionist to be honest, to not kill or steal or not commit adultery and basically do as s/he pleases. Contradict me if I'm wrong. Show me just what restrains the evolutionist from going ballistic.

Or more to the point:

Where does your moral values come from if you "evolved"? What is the basis of such morality? What holds you to that?

Be very careful in how you answer those questions. Be especially aware of any assumptions you make in the process.

Mar 01, 2018
You should reject the teaching to not murder, to not steal, to not lie, to not covet anything of your neighbour, to not commit adultery and be obedient to your parents and elders
This is tribal law Fred. It existed long before your religion tacked on the first four commandments which declared that if you didn't believe and worship YOUR god, you were incapable of following the rest.

Hence the 'ignorant bigot' display.

It's just one of the many lies that are the foundation of every religion on the planet.

BTW your book goes on to explain how to break every one of those commandments in service of your lord.

Not suggested. Required.

Mar 01, 2018
This is tribal law Fred. I

Where does your tribal law come from Ghost? Given the natural propensity of human beings to do evil ( and there's another trip up right there!) - how is it that they managed to get to these moral laws?

By the way - what basis do you have for calling anything good or bad? Is it bad to kill or bad to heal someone? How does an atheistic-evolutionary worldview summon up the definition of good or bad?

Mar 01, 2018
There is absolutely no reason for any evolutionist to be honest, to not kill or steal or not commit adultery and basically do as s/he pleases
So says your book. Humans developed in the context of the tribe. As such they are inherently altruistic toward fellow tribesmen, and inherently hostile toward outsiders.

Your book gives many example of this system at work. It requires BOTH to receive gods rewards.

Our salvation is the concept of the universal tribe. Religions will fight each other to the death to make this happen. But along the way new sects always form, intent on making their way to the top, and so the bigotry and the ignorance and the violence never ends.

This is one reason why religion is so wrong, so dangerous, and so foul.

Mar 01, 2018
@Ghost. What exactly is it that makes all religions "bad" in your worldview?
What is "good" and what is "bad"? Where does your definition come from and who is the authority that should be obeyed in that? Are you simply afraid of the punishment that the human law holds out or is there something intrinsically and objectively "bad" about something?

Strictly speaking, in the atheistic evolutionary view of life, there is no good or bad, just what is. Perhaps you should look at the exact consequences that that statement holds out for society.

Mar 01, 2018
Where does your tribal law come from Ghost? Given the natural propensity of human beings to do evil
Evil is that which weakens your tribe and/or benefits others. Of course your tribal god tells you to expect it of outsiders.

In order to understand the human condition you must first be able to give up your religions own definition of it. And I know you are incapable of doing that.

That's the power if faith.

Mar 01, 2018
This is one reason why religion is so wrong, so dangerous, and so foul.

Then you should look at the consequences that the evolutionary religion has so vividly brought us:
The killing of millions of Jews by the one true pragmatic evolutionist.
Followed by the other truly sadistic one in Russia.
Followed by those in China.

Perhaps you should look at the precise definition of religion and see that atheism and evolution is just another one. There is a "god" and there is a way of life according to the thought patterns it espouses.

Examine your very own religion.

Mar 01, 2018
Evil is that which weakens your tribe and/or benefits others.

According to whom? Who made this law? YOU? How can this be "right" when there's actual evolutionary survival advantage in getting rid of the competition? What is "evil" in a purely materialistic universe? How does a purely materialistic universe give rise to the abstract entity of "evil"?

Think carefully about your religion, Ghost. Go spend some quality time discussing its ramifications with the other disciples and prophets in your life.

Mar 01, 2018
Where does your definition come from and who is the authority that should be obeyed in that?
All religions lie and say that you have to believe in order to be good. You guys love John 3:16, which describes the spectacular rewards you will receive in return for service, but it doesn't stand without 3:18-24 which describes why you can't be good without belief in YOUR god.

Every religion proclaims this. Yours isn't unique. To believers outside your faith you are just as corrupt and evil as you think they are.

Tribalism is inherent. We became human in the context of the tribe. We have been selected over the course of 1000s of gens to love our brothers and smite the enemy, and to take all he's got.

In order to understand human morality you've got to accept the reality of the tribe, and of how religions have learned to exploit this condition for their own gain.

The religions that couldn't do this have all been extincted by those that could.

Mar 01, 2018
Of course your tribal god tells you to expect it of outsiders.


I'll leave this with you Ghost: Go read what Jesus said about who our neighbours are:
Luke 10:25-37
Read about what he says about forgiveness and your enemies:
Matthew 5:43-45.

I'm leaving this with you because your words indicate you have not read it at all.
Google is your friend. Have a lovely day (or night ) as it may be. Cheers.

Mar 01, 2018
According to whom? Who made this law? YOU?
It's natural freddy. The human equivalent of speciation. The urge to diverge. A species living in a certain environment has an evolutionary investment in adapting to that environments foods, climate, diseases, resources, etc.

Comingling with outsiders without these adaptions weakens the gene pool.

Hey did you see that article about the ants who battle termites and rescue their fallen comrades? No marine left behind. Altruism is not unique to the human species.

They also tore the hell out of those termites. Onward xian soldiers.

Joshua would be proud.

Mar 01, 2018
Because if there really was an all-knowing, all-seeing God, then he/she/it would have come up with a better story than that

Particularly he wouldn't tell the same story four times in the same book (Gospels) or keep contradicting himself in his own book.

So while this doesn't disprove a god it proves - if a god exists - that he's a hopeless incompetent.

Mar 01, 2018
Good Samaritan eh? The Jewish priest and levite both passed the poor bugger by. Only the gentlile had the required empathy.

Luke himself was a gentile did you know it?

And who was it exactly who killed christ? Hint: the pope only forgave them in 1965 for that heinous act.

One must be able to read the bible objectively, in the context of history, to fully understand it's purpose.
So while this doesn't disprove a god it proves - if a god exists - that he's a hopeless incompetent
-Or a committed obfuscator, or a consummate liar. Certainly not the perfect god described in the book he wrote. THAT god cannot exist.

Mar 01, 2018
What is infinite, indestructible and uncreatable? Energy! There's our God. Science is the language. Therefore, science is God and God is science. Now that that's out of the way, you smart science posters can get back to posting smart science stuff. And the religious posters can stop anthropomorphising God because God is energy and anthropomorphising it is dumb.

Mar 01, 2018
Our "Bible", which literally means The Book, is at best the history of a certain family/tribe and how they survived thru the ages. It has obviously been edited along the way, sometimes to hide embarrassing things (kingdom of Israel very small and only local) and make things seem bigger than they were (taking earlier buildings from past civs and calling it the base of your destroyed temple, even though your people could not move such stones, let alone do the work to make it seem like Your King and Church are bigger/better than all the rest.), or it may be done for political reasons, best exemplified by good ol King James who wanted to be able to divorce, which the Old Bible said was a nono, so, he had it specifically re-written.

Yes the bible is manmade, but there is a lot of history there, and some things HAVE been proven, but it is no better than a word of mouth history from any South Sea or Aussie Aboriginal peoples.

Mar 01, 2018
Because if there really was an all-knowing, all-seeing God, then he/she/it would have come up with a better story than that

Particularly he wouldn't tell the same story four times in the same book (Gospels) or keep contradicting himself in his own book.

So while this doesn't disprove a god it proves - if a god exists - that he's a hopeless incompetent.


And lazy, don't forget that! Having done all that star and planet building stuff, he was too buggered to devote much time to his ultimate creation, and based it on >98% chimp DNA!

Mar 01, 2018
Who created BEGINNING's God? Please keep your 'God' out of scientific explanations of the universe.

It is never too late to accept that everything evolves, and is not created. Nothing 'was formed'. Nothing 'was created'. Evolution is a continuous, never-ending process.

Mar 01, 2018
Yes the bible is manmade, but there is a lot of history there, and some things HAVE been proven
It bears repeating...

"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

Mar 01, 2018
-The entire biblical history of that family/tribe, is a lie.

re history, we know NYC exists and we also know Spider-Man does not live there.

The holy books dont record history, they exploit it. Nothing in them is reliable.

Mar 01, 2018
BTW there IS no mt sinai.

Mar 01, 2018
Dr. Vijai S Shankar says that human beings and every living being and non-living entities, are illusory beings of consciousness.

Mar 01, 2018
Dr. Vijai S Shankar says that human beings and every living being and non-living entities, are illusory beings of consciousness.


Well, that makes Dr. Shankar an illusion. In which case I'll ignore him.

Mar 01, 2018
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe you're all being trolled. Just for the sheer fun of generating yet again a very great deal of sound and fury. Oddly, it seems to work every time it's tried on this website.

Mar 01, 2018
Open access at arXiv: https://arxiv.org...0223.pdf

The abstract seems plausible. The main challenge they need to overcome is simulating the formation of the nascent Earth from the remainder of the synestia after the size of the synestia recedes beneath the orbit of the Moon. Reading through it now to see if any of that is covered in the bulk of the article.

Mar 01, 2018
Wow, it's a huge paper. For a good overview in graphical form of what they're proposing see page 34. The main takeaway here is that the Earth and Moon formed from a single event, a massive impact on the proto-Earth during the late planetesimal that vaporized the two bodies and formed a synestia; the authors seem to have done their homework in terms of this synestia formation and it seems highly plausible and much less constrained than the glancing impacts of the current late-formation, post planetesimal phase canonical theory. I was, however, right; they have not yet completed simulation of the formation of the Earth.

There is very much more to this, including evidence like the inclination of the Moon's orbit, isotopic abundances of both light and heavy elements, and much more, and I recommend that anyone who wishes to discuss this with any sort of understanding read at least section one of the paper. The article leaves a lot out.

Mar 01, 2018
I'd really like to see some comments by the knowledgeable here on the site on this. Hopefully the Babble-thumpers won't scare them away.

Mar 02, 2018
Jones Dave
Dr. Shankar is a living human being, albeit illusory. Illusory means that it changes and is temporary. Real is that it does not change and is permanent. The smart phone and computer are evidence that proves what the illusory Dr. Shankar says "human beings and every living being and non-living entities, are illusory beings of consciousness." You ignoring what Dr. Shankar says is illusory as well Jones and not real.

Mar 02, 2018
^^^^^^Well, if I'm illusory and he's illusory, then nobody is ignoring anyone, are they? In fact, you can't possibly see this message, because it is a figment of my imagination. Which is illusory in itself. Hard to understand why anybody bothers, really.

Mar 02, 2018
Dr. Shankar is a living human being, albeit illusory. Illusory means that it changes and is temporary. Real is that it does not change and is permanent.
Nobody else defines those words that way, so Dr. Shankar has created a meaningless (metaphorical) pile of shit to which you have flocked.

Mar 04, 2018
Jones Dave
You wrote quote" In which case I'll ignore him." Unquote. Understand even ignoring is illusory. It surely is your figment of imagination just as everything is, albeit illusory. It is easy to understand why anybody should bother, because when you understand that daily life is illusory, it brings patience and trust in life in every moment.

Mar 04, 2018
Barakn
The meaning conveyed by words in knowledge is superficial, whereas the same words in wisdom the meaning is deep and not superficial. It depends on whether you understand knowledge or wisdom. If you understand knowledge, wisdom appears as metaphorical shit.

Mar 04, 2018
The Earth formed AFTER THE MOON???

Mar 08, 2018
Well DS, I have always held really heavy doubts concerning the ways planets form, and this paper, with how to describes the vaporization of both bodies and the form it would Have to take in that narrow degree of impact and destruction, thus we get the moon from the urter edges of the synestia, However, and here is the doubted part: Could the planet Earth actually be a thick-skinned hollow structure given that it was formed via synestia with another gravitational body just nearby so as to possibly give rise to either a hollow structure, or a concentric hollow ball about a central ball, with some space between, possibly cellular (cavelike) structures filled with air or water, but likely experiencing a low gravity towards the exterior of the planet?

The entire synestia-with-body means the barycenter is going to be offset towards the moon, such that it would help form a shell at said barycenter.

Starts into strange gyroidal mechanics, but not impossible, I would think.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more