What's the Source of The Lunar Maria? How Earth's Dynamo May Improve The Impactor..

In the history of the moon the maria are found to have been created between 3.2 and 3.7 billion years ago. The question seems to be why then and not before or after? Other questions raised by the evidence from the moon rocks are why there is so much uranium and other heavy radioactive elements in the rocks on the surface. If the moon is radioactive "through in" it would have so much heat it would be molten. Yet another problem has been found to be about the magnetic fields of the rocks. They were formed in a region of strong magnetic fields, but the Earth's magnetic field isn't strong enough now to have caused the rocks to be so magnetised and if the moon was closer when the rocks were created it would have been demolished by the gravity of the earth.
..
No doubt most in geology consider moon capture the current best way to explain the cause of the moon's origin based on the evidence found in the moon rocks. By this spin on an "old world transit gloria munday", the strong magnetic field when a Mars sized impactor smacked off was the cause when it moved in and then to level orbit.


I've tended to believe in a more moon sized impactor instead of a Giant Impactor because of no extra realm of the solar system where the impactor would have been created because it would have not fit in any other place by Bodes law; all the "allowed orbits" of the solar system for larger planet sized worlds are taken up other than the realm of the asteroid planet where the asteroids were before the asteroid planet broke up. Other realms of origin may be ruled out too; an impactor from outside the solar system wouldn't be gravitationally bound and would move at too high a relative "interstellar" speed to have been captured. Origin around a massive planet like Saturn would not allow even a moon sized body to have been removed from the gravity of the planet without so much force in the removal by impact it would have been destroyed by the extraction from the gravity of the massive planet. Planets were probably formed by smaller bodies like asteroids but once in orbit it takes a big impactor to move them and this is not easy to do because an impactor causes as much destruction when it hits as there is in the cohesive force of the gravity or to much change the huge inertia. For these reasons and others my best candidate for the moon impactor is the breakup of the asteroid planet itself by another impactor. If the proto moon impactor to make our moon was the asteroid planet and not it's own satellite other planets would also roam the solar system and they haven't, if the asteroid planet was larger and broken up by the proto moon's gravity in orbit around the original planet this would explain how a relatively large impactor, the moon was loosened from it's world of origin and not destroyed in the process.


If the moon was actually more the size it is now before the capture, it would take less centrifugal force to remove it from the Earth's gravity when the moon was found by rhymers and howling hounds to be of worth. A problem with the Mars sized impactor has been it would have formed a magma ocean of which there's no evidence on the Earth's geology of it. We may say it dug out the Pacific Ocean, but if the large bowl of the ocean there is retained from the capture, evidence would be seen for the magma ocean caused by the capture. What the evidence actually shows is not a central magma ocean, rather the spreading centers where the plates separate are in a wavy line where I think the smaller moon may have rolled round what was then the equator in the center of the Pacific and then after picking up centrifugal force past the peak compression off of what's now the coast of SA where the motion of the plates is fastest anywhere in the world the moon would have been flung off and settled to a nearer stable orbit. Click here for my page, the map and the link to my complete small impactor idea is on the link you see there.
..
Once the moon was in orbit if with the Great Impactor it would first have picked up a good bit of regolith (gravel rock) around the outside and have still have been hit by the leftover impactors from the breakup of the asteroid planet after the moon was captured. It's believed the Giant Impactor would have built up the regolith which with this cause was formed by rocks blasted away from the Earth by the capture then recaptured by the moon as it spun around in its orbit. However it's possible the regolith was formed anywhere the moon was created and the burning of the moon and the fusing of the regolith seen may be enough to account for its fused rocks, formation by mere compaction by cooler rocks blasted away from the capture may have less melting of the regolith than the rocks being more molten by the heat of moving near the Earth, this is one way to prove or disprove if the impactor was small or big. A giant impactor would have a uniform regolith formed by the buildup of the cooler debris leftover from the capture while a smaller impactor mostly intact might have more burning on the outside. The moon is known to be 100 times as rigid as the Earth by data seen about moonquakes , this would make a smaller proto moon able to roll around the Earth without being destroyed. A larger proto moon would have had more gravity and would have had more tides and needed more centrifugal forces to remove it from where the Earth was to capture the moon. In general a smaller proto moon seems both more possible and more probable, if the impactor was almost the size of the Earth it would have lost as much mass as the Earth and there is no explanation by way of a more Giant Impactor. The general makeup of rocky planets is much the same about cohesive chemical forces, the planets are round because gravity has more influence here than the chemical forces. And the impactors being the same in general from the vantage of the mass would have lost more the same mass. The great impactor somehow has the proto moon somehow going from near Earth sized to much less than it's present mass. If the regolith was formed before the capture and was already mostly solid the moon was moon sized with a source being a moon of the asteroid planet, so there's both a source of the moon and a way for the capture allowed.
...
A Mars sized impactor with the "smack off" of the giant impactor would have been much like Mars where the N and S hemispheres have been at different altitudes because a giant impactor is also believed to have hit Mars in it's history and causing the observed altitudes of the geology of Mars. Thus a giant impactor proto moon would stay Mars sized in radius with a lower altitude zone where the smack off was, so the moon wouldn't have been so reduced in size as it might have been by rolling around the Earth. With a smack off most of the rest of the impactor would stay Mars sized because the smack off would have needed more resilience to overpower the gravity, more mass needs more smack off. A giant impactor would fit into the pacific ocean basin only with the smackoff and not rolling around to remove the moon, and a moon sized impactor would allow both the lines of the spreading center stretching from the gulf of Alaska to the Red Sea and no magma ocean in the center of the Pacific. Older geomaps lof the archeozoic show a wider zone between what is now Saudi Arabia and Africa that would fit in with the width of a small protomoon, round but not Mars sized or it wouldn't have rolled around and dug out the trough here.. If the Non Giant proto moon's centrifugal force merely spun the crust at the center of the pacific ocean downward and outward from the pole to the equator by way of some of the moon's spin on one side, no magma ocean would be created by the capture at the middle depth even if the pacific is at lower altitude (it was above sea level for thousands of years no doubt!). A smaller impactor would also be the solution to why the angular momentum of the Earth and moon here in the cenozoic is not nearly enough to fit in with a giant impactor. As I say on the page above (blue click) there would need to be three times as much angular momentum as there is seen in the earth and moon's rotation as the math shows and this seems to be a definite limit on the size of the impactor. A small impactor would give way with force like the moon in its orbit around us each month with the Earth most at rest.
..
To solve why the maria formed when they did, the moon would have been closer to the Earth in its orbit and the Earth and moon might have had for the most high angular momentum (great though lower overall relative to a Mars sized Impactor) following the capture and this would have caused heating of the moon, even so the uranium and elements like plutonium just on the outside of the moon must have come from another source, not the Earth or the Earth itself would also overheat. For this reason I believe yet another asteroid sized radiant impactor or even impactors may have hit the moon in this phase following the capture. The impactor here seems to not be of the same type as the other late heavy bombardment rocks, or if so at any rate where these impactors also hit like on Mars we might expect to see similar radioactive elements in the impact sites like on Mars or the moon. The post capture moon would have had the combination of strong tides, rotation, and the radioactivity where the impactor(s) had hit just on one side of the moon by luck. This would have caused the maria to melt when and where they did. Or perhaps if this post moon capture impactor reactor was unique about the uranium, it's possible it was the Earth's original moon before the proto moon was captured, this would explain why the maria are on only one side of the moon. The impactor that hit the captured moon with its uranium would have been moving to the other side like in retrograde motion and what was then the far side would have been out of this impactors realm of influence.
..
About the moon's magnetic field, the rocks that prove it were created after the capture because the moon missions landed in the maria, and the maria were formed then. Thus a strong field was around the Earth even after the moon moved farther away from the Earth, caused by the disk dynamo way of explanation of the Earth's magnetic field.
..
It's believed by geologists the dynamo is the cause of the Earth's magnetic field instead of the sun because the earth's field moves with regular motion to the West like the center of gravity of the Earth and moon. The fluid core gives way to the west and generates the field also caused by the pressure the central solid core exerts on the iron core as it goes around each day under the influence of the tides. The main problem with the dynamo is the reversal of the poles of the Earth as they have hundreds of times over the history of the Earth's geology. A dynamo needs to reverse to reverse the poles and the Earth has never had day to day rotation to the West. For this reason I believe the sun may be stronger and reverse it's own field periodically under the influence of Jupiter which has a field of 100 Gauss while the sun has just .5 Gauss, even so it may resonate quite well with the 11 year solar cycles about the period of Jupiter's orbit. If the field between Jupiter and the Earth is reversing regularly and the Earth is tilted enough at the right time, the Earth's field would be permeable enough to reverse. It has to be both able to change under outside influence and yet impermeable enough to retain the change once in place. The iron part of the core is molten so it wouldn't hold the field. Even so it may amplify up the field of the more solid part of both the solid core inside the iron or the lower mantle which would hold most of the field in order to overcome the tendency of the dynamo to make the poles stay the same even under outside influence.
..
If the moon was much closer in and the tides are much stronger the sloshing of the liquid iron core to the west relative to the Earth's spin would have fired up the dynamo to magnetize the field without here tearing the moon to bits by the tides with the moon otherwise too near for millions of years of tidal forces when the moon was close. With a larger moon from the outset and not being built up from the outside, the Earth's magnetic field would have increased suddenly and fallen and then gradually increased by more and more rocks added on to the moons power to boost the Earth's field by way of the moon's gravity. A small more solid impactor wouldn't have this second phase. While older rocks on the surface of the Earth are tough to find because of weathering, drilling by using better machines like artifical radiation from accelerators to both find and drill for the rocks may eventually make it possible to find older rocks to prove this.
..
When the moon was captured as most believe, if it was nearer and powering the dynamo with much more force, the Earth's magnetic field would have increased a lot when the moon was captured. It's believed one of the reasons Mars has a thinner atmosphere than the Earth is because it has no field to shield from the solar wind which boiled off the air. So it's believed life on Earth has only been possible because of our own world's strong magnetic field. Another way the moon is essential to life on Earth is because it causes tides today which most life has depended on near the shore where most life is today and about the origin of life, bringing nutrients and life to the estuaries. On most other worlds even with water for awhile like Mars the oceans and lakes wouldn't circulate by the tides and life wouldn't evolve as often. Ice ages too wouldn't be revived if they are caused often by the poles tilting over with one side more with ice than the other as many believe because of the evidence about the cycles of the ice age, e.g in the Verangian there are two simple cycles of 1 million years each as if caused by precession periods of 1 million years. 75% of of volcanoes outflow is steam, and 2/3 of the eruptions are within 10 days of the first of the month, thus the moon also has separated the water from the rocks by way of the tides and so we might owe both our ocean and air to the moon, and circulations of the oceans. The moon by its tides may be the cause of most of the mountain building and other changes in the geology so it may have also dug up a lot of the nutrients essential to life by way of it's active influence on geology, and thus the moon has had major influence on life that may not be seen on other Earthlike worlds. This may reduce the number of inhabitable worlds and worlds thus with advanced civilizations we may find in the methods of predicting how many there may be by the usual method of finding the probability of life as Carl Sagan mentions in his best seller Cosmos, all real!
...
If the Earth's magnetic field suddenly increased at the time of the moon capture, this would support the conclusion that the moon was captured, and add more proof to the dynamo as the cause of the Earth's field. Even so to allow the other evidence about the field reversal with time the dynamo must be modified and a stronger field at the time of the capture (or perhaps at other times, like with ice caps blocking the field) wouldn't allow so much outside influence from the external field, and we might expect the field to reverse less often in those times if the outside changes were also common at that time in the history of the solar system. The general reversal of the solar field might be seen in the rocks from Mars with geologic time or other rocks, there would seem to be rocks seen elsewhere in the solar system that would change with reversing fields at about the same time (just before each change of the field) like with the Earth.

6-28-2010 The coast guard saved a man at the beach in GA who was aleep three miles offshore on an air cushion. He said no problem to sleep walk in a hydro bed, swim fins mobile! In the interview they asked how he got so far from the land and he said he passed out because he was eating pizza and other dishinformation was involved!

FOR MORE COMIC CULTURAL LINKS BY ME, CLICK HERE.
..