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.
..

Two Interesting Uses of Centrifugal Machines
..
As I say on my page about the oil well disaster, Actor Kevin Costner has invested millions in centrifugal stills that are being used in ships to help clean up the oil on the surface by seperating the oil from the water, reclaiming the oil and hopefully saving the water.

As bad as the oil spill is, each year since the Exxon Valdese till now, amateur motorists have dumped the same as 6 Exxon Valdeses into the ecosystem. It would be great it they could keep the well and just change the stars! Soon systems that recycle the grease in bearings and other moving parts of machines may be more generalized to include synthesized oil (finally a use for being able to travel in 300 degree or minus 250 heat in the biz!). Though no one has been able to do without engine oil till now because it cools and cleans the motor, certainly if the same oil was recycled in the engine it would cool just as the coolant in a refrigerator with a complete cycle of the loop. Thus the real need is about how the oil cleans the motor. Centrifugal stills combined with special synthetic oil are one answer that has been innovated, no more oil changes, so much better than even the use of these stills for BP, ect. Now when I go out for a visit I spin around and around the beach too!


Here where I live in SW VA on top of a new natural gas field there's much concern about when they pump the water down by new science and it rises back up with toxic stuff that is a risk to the water here and some believe based on much established evidence may it may make the whole east coast ill. There seems to be no other way to get the gas to the surface than pumping it out if power is the prize.

One cheap and simple solution that's been devised may be the mighty bottle! A 20 dollar bottle with a centrifugal still in the bottom has been devised that is powered by the change of the room temperature, AM to PM. The bottle also gets a lot of its water from the air itself, also cleansing the air too. Clean air and water indefinitely, free, well, just 19.95 with S & H and pats from mom for listening to her and buying her one on Mother's Day!
..

More about Earthquakes and Deep Geothermal Heat Extraction
.
There seems to be a real drawback to deep geothermal for power, earthquakes like the one in Basil in 2006 after deep geothermal was tried there, deep geothermal involves digging deeper than to the steam pockets a few thousand feet down with conventional geothermal. Deeper down the dry rock is shattered with water injected to one well that shatters the rock by pressure and the flow rate. A second well then extracts the water and its heat to the surface, from the shattered rock.

..
Another plan involves dropping a sphere of radioactive waste from atomic power plants that would then use the heat and weight of the uranium inside a tungston sphere to melt downward to 37 miles to bury the waste and also be used with sonar signals from the probe to find out what the inner earth is like, "on the magnitude of importance to a mission to Mars".

..
This seems to be a good idea, no more radioactive waste or as if because it's buried deep down, almost absolutely as if.


An MIT study shows that deep geothermal has 2000 times as much power as the US may use. The problem seems to be about the earthquakes, there are those who glibly predict that the chances of risk by way of deep geothermal (or other power like deep geothermal solar power!) are minimal. "If used far from active earthquakes, the chances of it causing a big earthquake like the ones in SA are quite small". This seems reminiscent of the glib assurances of BP before the oil disaster, there may be no way to tell because shattering the rock seems like drilling a mine, most of the time it won't collapse, but there's always more chance if the mine is being dug there will be than there won't sooner or later. As more and more people move to earthquakes zones, even a small chance might have huge impact on the lives of millions of people. If there was an earthquake like the Basil quake the first time deep geothermal was tried this seems a real caution to the simple plan for geothermal. Even so it seems to be a great type of power, the power is there, if the earthquake risk were extremely minimal and we could extract the heat we all could be richer, for example because the cost of moving food is half of it's price food and many other goods would be half the price..
..

While the Basil method might be good for safety the following plan might be better; To go deeper than 3 miles where the well in Basil was dug we might use the uranium probe not just for research and to reduce the radioactive waste, it also may make an excellent way to move geothermal much deeper. The uranium may be a low cost drill, we let it sink at the tip of the drill well and as it sinks it drills deeper and deeper. The deepest we can go by conventional drills is about 4 miles, at that depth the rock is fluid under pressure. When they pull up the drill bit to go deeper and put another bit down by that time the rock has flowed to fill the well and they haven't drilled much deeper. A uranium bit would solve this problem "well"! It would dig not just a narrow well it would be 10 feet wide.

....
Two wells both dug by the uranium nearby would be used, one on one side and one say five feet to the side. Once the wells were dug the base would be sealed off and connecting wells would be dug by robots between them nearer the depth. Next gravel or other material like rocks of the right worth would be dropped in the wells, alternating with one way flow valves, rock then valves then rock in alternation.
....

To extract the heat water would be pumped down one well, the valves would make it expand deeper as it heats up! It reaches the bottom and then automatically returns to the surface by the valves. To save water the wells are in a simple continuous loop all the way from deeper to the connection to turbines at the top. For optimal use another working fluid than water might be used in combination with the best rock or rock substitute. For example the surface area and absorption of the rock or its substitute might be best if combined with the right type of water to extract the heat the most optimally for the cost, etcetera.

...

If "deep geothermal is safe" far from fault lines, this would make it much safer because the uranium does all the drilling. Thus the higher heat deeper down, a large surface are of the 10 foot wide well and the rocks inside would give the same surface area as the plan in Basil, even so because most of the volume of the well is deeper down where the rock is more fluid (flowing slowly under pressure) all the forces are more in equilibrium. Beyond 4 miles down the risk would not go up! And because the well higher up is much reduced in volume compared to shattering the rock here at 3 miles as in the Basil well the overall risk of earthquakes is almost 0. They say it's safe for the 3 mile plan perhaps because like BP they have their eye on the power, this would be an alternate way that might cost less because of reduced drilling cost, give more heat and it might be much safer for millions of people.

..
Deep geothermal might still have value for earthquake control. After a major quake hits if we have good enough sensors like the new neutrino experiments where a reactor makes the beam and the water sensor finds it after it goes 150 miles through the earth in Japan, if the forces and pressure are reliably sensed by this and other good imaging machines we might then be able to know where the pressure is and dig the wells to then shatter the rock and relieve the pressure before it would build up. This wouldn't stop the California earthquake but it may be useful in the future and after the califiornia quake and others happen. In truth the method of the link below (of balancing the earth's torque) if used in time with the method I describe may actually be used in time to even prevent the California quake too!
　
　
Changes in the earth's torque may reduce unbalanced tidal forces, land and water that generates heat and thus earthquakes, because the Earth is not quite round. Click Here for another possible way Earthquakes May Be eventually Reduced by 50% (by changing the torque).

..

This Is Site IP Protected By Third Party Sites and by The Author

..

A Machine To Solve Future Oil Well Leaks Faster
..
Have you heard of the box that was tried to cap the BP oil well leak? If you take a box and try to drop it on a fountain like near a chateau it will probably either not cap the fountain even in 8 tries and even if it reaches the fountain the oil in the fountain will expand and stop the box from capping the well, it won't seal the well because a seal is needed to stop the flow by the box and even if the box lands just right, the pressure of the oil will just make the seal not probable. If the box is maneuverable enough to reach the well, it won't have enough weight to hold down and stop the flow.
..
Others have proposed implosion (of low implosives no doubt) to move the plug inward and seal the well. This would need a mostly perfect implosion and with lots of turbulence of the water and oil even if a perfect implosion was available, the only way this might be achieved would be by a large inward flow of the seal powered by higher explosives. It would have to convert from the fluid to implode to a solid fast to not leak fast.

..
Kevin Costner the actor has spent millions on centrifugal oil extractors that go in the ships and filter the oil from the water on the surface. Even so a better way to cap an oil well may be a blessing to millions of people who live by the shore.
..
A new way to cap the oil wells has recently been invented. While the implosion method might eventually work as explosives are developed with the characteristics needed, a better solution may be an impeller pump machine with vertical lift.
..
The machine proposed has five components, a large bell rather like a plunger used in drain research, an impeller pump powered by opposite spin of two strong power cables like conventional drilling power, a body of the machine with more buoyancy at the top where the wires connect to the pump deeper in the machine, sensors like cameras wired to the control ship at the surface to direct the machine itself, and small motors on the side to guide the machine to the well by way of the cameras.

..
To operate the machine it could easily be deployed by a ship or even sail out to where the well was on the surface and then go vertical to submerge if it has to be large. The bottom of the machine weighs more and higher has the right lift to first allow it to sink to above the well at the right height, reached by conventional methods like sonar. There are two main improvements over the box. First, the box can be dropped only once and it falls off each go round.. The implosion of the bell would seek the motion of the oil as it would rise and more often reach it by implosion, and the box would fill while the implosion would be continuous so unlike the box the oil wouldn't move the machine. Second, the lift of the machine makes it so it's heavy enough to be stable and yet because the force is more balanced, it's more maneuverable. Even in the improbable event of thirty attempts to connect the well to the machine, once connected it would maintain the implosion of the oil to the surface with tubes. (The impeller is needed lower down to balance the pressure up the pipes. If they used implosion from above, the deep water pressure would make the pipes collapse.) The reason it would be easier to connect would be because of the maneuverability, implosion with attraction, and the sensors to control the motion of the machine well. The training to operate the machine on the ship would be easy to learn and the machine would be much much more rich than BP’s savings so far! I’m not serious when alive 24/7!

... 10 7 14th, The inventor says he now realizes the above plan has one problem, leaks from the side around the well. To make a solid cap once the main implosion of the cap holds the machine to the well, a ring of concrete weights of known weight to more than seal the well would be dropped with the pipes in the center to guide this base foundation. The concrete would drop to the sea floor and the top implosion machine would be stopped and concrete or other stuff to seal the cap might be pumped from the ship above to the cap. The center of the cap would have a valve and a tube to the oil well flow, the valve would be off when the concrete was pumped in to cap the well and stabilize around the foundation. With the large concrete mass already almost enough to hold off the flow, just the lower edges of the ring might need the concrete pumped in via pipes to the edge, even so for more stability to find future oil riches too more concrete might be pumped in to add stability. Because the tube in the center us still connected to the well, for future oil, the valve might only have to be on or off and the oil is available and the oil would also be in reach in months or years.

There has been the new machine that uses booms on the surface and centrifugal machines to seperate the oil from the water, and even though this machine can indeed clean an Exxon Valdese size spill in just a few days, the implosion machine above.is a better way to stop deep continuous spills like the BP, because although the boom machine cleans up the oil on the surface, for the deep spills that may go on for months the implosion machine goes to the well and doesn't have to just retrieve it after flowing from the well and up to the machine. The implosion machine may both save the oil and the fish fast and allows future use of the well.

I thought you might rather hear more about solutions to problems I know of to better help the world, not my awareness of my inner world but judging from the response here's the value to you also about what I think about the oil well,

My other comments on this post were actually hopes that because the oil spill was bad luck for Obama and BP I wouldn't say Obama at any rate is any more to blame than anyone else. Even so this is not the same as my belief. Politics are like hope, nice to be true if possible while my belief about evolution is trueness because strong reason to believe how we treat evolution is our life are my own. Being true is not the same as telling the truth. I don't feel my site is a place for political comment, Great minds are in the idea realm, others are in the realm of events and others just speak of people. Huygens said, Science was his religion and the world is his country. I would always watch Hee Haw and Extreme Trivia shows for years, both add a lot to conversation but I don't tend to try to combine my world and science. I put comics on the comic page and my main political belief is that increasing taxes and reducing spending is the most common sense and that reducing overcrowding because of it's major control of supply and demand is by far the best method we may have to survive and do well. I believe making lots of political labor may be nowhere near the worth of reducing the overcrowding, to increase supply of resources and reduce demand. Other political talk at this time seems to be not the main issue because only by treating the world with kindness in the most general sense can we expect to be blessed by its advantage. This seems to be a deep physical truth. Evolution, not just labor, is 99/100 of our life, and always was for millions of years. I spend as much of my time thinking about why I know as much as what I want to know. I don't usually say my belief, I have no real political belief other than earn my neighbors love, and this is a good way to stay out of trouble if any doubt about what the law and the rules say. Evolution is about common sense, and our knowlege of evolution has saved millions of lives by our science of agriculture the highest big business up in the hills and higher fields!

Portions Of This Site Are IP Protected By Third Party Sites and by The Author