How New Year you will meet, and you will spend. And it's right to talk about more than one holiday, but about everything January. The second month of winter opens the calendar, and it depends on it whether the year will be successful or not.

Auspicious days according to the lunar calendar

Favorable days in January according to the lunar calendar: 1, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 19, 21, 27, 30, 31.

Lunar calendar: unfavorable days

Unfavorable days in January according to the lunar calendar: 2–4, 9–11, 13, 16–17, 22–24, 26, 28.

Lunar days calendar for January 2019

January 1st. The growing Moon in Pisces is a good time for creativity, visiting museums and galleries, reading books. Spend the day in an easy and relaxed atmosphere, as astrologers say that this day will not be up to work.

January 2–4. On the growing Moon in Aries, it is good to do what requires a lot of strength and energy. And both will be in abundance, because the moon is growing, and besides, it passes through the sign of the energetic Aries. But do not rush to make decisions and act - there is a high risk of rash acts, which you will later regret.

January 5–6. Under the influence of the growing Moon in Taurus, days have come that are favorable for solving financial issues.

January 7–8. The pace of life will accelerate, because of the growing Moon in Gemini, a lot of information will flow into your life. You will have enough energy to deal with it, but not concentration, so be extremely reasonable.

January 9–11. A lunar eclipse in Cancer on January 10, and at least one day before and after, does not bode well. These days are best spent at home, sitting on the couch, away from the outside world.

January 12–13. The moon has begun to wane, but the energy of the lunar eclipse will be felt for another two weeks. We advise you to slow down, be careful on the road and behind the wheel, do not take risks.

January 14–15. The waning moon in Virgo is a great time to clean up. And not only in your home, but also in your soul, and in general in your whole life. Feel free to throw away the trash, brush off the dust from the far shelves and wash the windows to a shine. When washing floors, add salt to the water, preferably sea salt, to clean it from negativity.

January 16–17. On the waning moon in Libra, astrologers do not advise making serious decisions. Firstly, they will be painful, and secondly, they may turn out to be wrong in the future.

January 18–19. The days are perfect for planning. If you did not have time to do this before the New Year, urgently get busy - while the Moon passes the sign of the imperious, ambitious and active Scorpio.

January 20–21. On the waning Moon in Sagittarius, take on those cases that previously seemed to you too tough a nut to crack. Today, any sea is knee-deep for you.

January 23–24. The days leading up to the New Moon, even when the Moon is in Capricorn, are ill-suited for any kind of activity.

The 25th of January. But the New Moon in Aquarius is a good time for undertakings. But not right today, on Saturday, but the day after tomorrow, on Monday. Today, just plan while taking a break from work.

January 26th. On the growing Moon in Aquarius, old conflicts will remind of themselves. Be diplomatic and try to extinguish the spark of scandal before it flares up into a fire.

January 27–29. On the growing Moon in Pisces, it is good to flirt, make acquaintances and go to meetings. And not only business, but also romantic. Astrologers advise you to do this.

January 30–31. On the growing Moon in Aries, you need to boldly implement brilliant ideas. But on condition that you have been thinking about them for a long time and even managed to draw up at least some kind of plan.

You can think of anything about the Far Space. It's hard to see and few people know about it. But the Moon hangs over our heads every night, and for sure many people wondered how it got there.

According to one of the most popular models of the formation of the Moon, the natural satellite of our planet could have appeared as a result of a collision of some cosmic body with the Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago. This body was Theia, a protoplanetary object, with the "germ" of the Earth. The collision resulted in the ejection of the matter of Theia and the proto-Earth into space, and from this matter the Moon was formed, which explains its amazing geological and chemical similarity to our planet.

However, there is no unanimity within this version. Scientists identify three of its variants.

1. Foreign body
According to one of the theories, the Moon is nothing more than a fragment of a space object that collided with the Earth more than 4 billion years ago. And scientists even call this object - the small planet Theia (according to some assumptions, the size of Mars). As a result of a powerful impact, the cosmic body turned into a huge cloud of debris, which, once in earth orbit, eventually formed into a satellite. Such a hypothesis, put forward by two groups of American scientists, successfully explained the deficiency of iron on the Moon, in contrast to our planet, and some of the dynamic characteristics of the Earth-Moon system. But it has a weak point. Chemical analysis showed the identity of the composition of the lunar and terrestrial rocks.

2. Fragment of the Earth
According to this version, when colliding with another celestial body, the proto-Earth released the substance from which the Moon was formed. This is how, according to the staff of Harvard University, one can explain the similarity chemical composition Earth and its satellite.

3. Two in one
This hypothesis supplements the previous one, but it states that as a result of a catastrophic collision, part of the mass of terrestrial matter and the striker formed a single substance, which was thrown into a near-Earth orbit in a molten form. This material created the satellite. In this interpretation, the collision occurred before the formation of the Earth's core, which explains the low content of iron in the lunar soil.

As part of a new study, scientists tried to understand in more detail what was the fate of our satellite after this event.

During the Katarchean (geological eon), the Moon looked very different from what it looks like today. It was more like a red-hot lump of lava, which has an exotic super-dense atmosphere of silicon and metal vapors. It was also located 10 times closer to the Earth's surface than it is today.

During the study, a team of scientists concluded that one of the features of the moon may indicate that the Earth was deprived of oceans of liquid water during the first 400-500 million years of its existence. And such conclusions, in turn, impose serious restrictions on the time of the origin of life on Earth.

It is now commonly believed that in the next few million years after its formation, the Moon moved away from the Earth quite quickly as a result of the action of tidal forces, until it finally entered the orbit in which it is today. Subsequently, when the Moon began to always look at the Earth with only one side, this process slowed down sharply, and now it is moving away from our planet at a speed of about 2-4 centimeters per year.

Zhong and his colleagues uncovered one unusual detail of this process, drawing attention to the most mysterious feature of the Moon - its unusual "hump" located at the equator. This structure was discovered by the French astronomer Pierre Laplace two centuries ago. Laplace noticed that the Moon was "flattened" by about 17 to 20 times more than it should have been, given the speed of its rotation around its axis.

“The lunar equatorial “hump” may contain secrets of the early history of the Earth’s evolution that we didn’t even know about,” says researcher Shijie Zhong from the University of Colorado at Boulder (USA).

The researchers believe that the existence of this structure indicates that the Moon rotated much faster in the distant past than it does today. American planetary scientists tried to understand how quickly the Moon “slowed down” by studying how this “hump” works and trying to reproduce its appearance using a computer model of development. solar system.

These observations unexpectedly showed that the generally accepted theories about the rapid deceleration of the Moon in the early years of its existence were erroneous - the rotation rate of the Earth's satellite remained high for at least the first 400 million years of its existence. Otherwise, the Moon would always remain a "liquid" planet or have a completely different shape and size than today.

Such a scenario, as Zhong explains, is only possible if the Earth was not at that time covered by an ocean of water comparable in size to the current hydrosphere of the planet. This means that there was no liquid water on the young Earth. It was either absent on it in principle, or was brought after the formation of the “hump” of the Moon, or was on it in a solid form, that is, in the form of ice.

So, as we have already found out, one of the most popular theories about the origin of the Moon is the Giant Collision theory. This theory does a good job of explaining the size of the moon and its orbital position, but new research published in the journal Nature suggests otherwise: according to scientists, the interaction of the Earth with the cosmic body was like “hitting a watermelon with a sledgehammer.” After conducting a detailed study of samples of lunar rocks mined by expeditions of the Apollo series ships back in the 70s of the last century, specialists from the University of Washington refuted the theory of forty years ago.

“If the old theory were correct, then more than half of the lunar rocks would consist of the material of the planetoid that hit the Earth. But instead, we see that the isotopic composition of the moon's fragments is very specific. The heavy isotopes of potassium found in the samples could only have formed when exposed to incredibly high temperatures. Only a very powerful collision, in which the planetoid and most of the Earth would evaporate on contact, can cause a similar effect. What's more, the impact vapor had to cover 500 times the surface area of ​​the Earth before it cooled and became a solid,” explains Kung Wang, an associate professor at the University of Washington and one of the study's authors.

According to scientists, this discovery will change not only the idea of ​​how the moon formed, but also about the processes that took place throughout the solar system. However, the data is still insufficient, and in order to formulate a new theory, scientists still have a lot of analytical work with samples.

But there are other versions.

Centrifugal separation hypothesis

For the first time, the hypothesis of the separation of the Moon from the Earth under the action of centrifugal forces was put forward by George Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) in 1878. According to supporters of this theory, the speed of rotation of the planet was fast enough for a fragment of matter to separate from the proto-Earth, which later formed the Moon. However, already in the 30s of the XX century, scientists began to treat such an idea with skepticism. They argued that the total rotational moment is insufficient for the occurrence of "rotational instability" even in the liquid Earth.

Capture theory

IN Lately the version put forward in 1909 by the American astronomer Jackson C is gaining popularity, according to which the Earth and the Moon were formed independently of each other in different parts of the solar system. At the moment of the closest passage of the Moon relative to the earth's orbit, the capture of the celestial body by the gravitational forces occurred. This seems to have happened during the human period of Earth's history. The legends of many peoples of the world, in particular the Dogon, tell of times when there was no satellite in the sky. This hypothesis is also indirectly confirmed by a relatively shallow layer of cosmic dust on the surface of the Moon.

"Artificial satellite"

The idea of ​​the artificial origin of the Moon is the most controversial, since the existence of an alien or terrestrial civilization capable of doing this has not yet been proven. Nevertheless, it deserves attention, if only because it was expressed by scientists. In 1960, researchers Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, studying some of the characteristics of our satellite, came to the conclusion that it could be of artificial origin. So, given the size and depth of the lunar craters formed during the bombardment of cosmic bodies, they suggested that the crust of the Moon could be made of titanium, the thickness of which, according to preliminary calculations by Soviet scientists, was 32 kilometers. “When I first came across the shocking Soviet theory explaining the true nature of the moon, I was shocked,” writes American researcher Don Wilson. - At first it seemed incredible to me and, naturally, I rejected it. As our Apollo expeditions brought back more and more evidence to support the Soviet theory, I was forced to accept it.”

Strange indicators

Adherents of the "artificial moon" theory drew attention to the very high ratio of the mass of the satellite to the mass of the Earth - 1:81, which is not typical for satellites of other planets in the solar system. Only Charon and Pluto have higher figures, although the latter is no longer considered a planet. Comparisons of the sizes of satellites are curious. For example, the most major satellite Mars Phobos in diameter does not exceed 20 km, while the Moon has this figure of 3560 km. By the way, it is precisely this size of the Moon, coinciding for an earthly observer with the diameter of the Sun, that allows us to periodically see solar eclipses. Finally, the almost ideal circular orbit of the Moon is surprising, while for other satellites it is elliptical.

hollow moon

Another interesting fact is that the gravitational attraction of the Moon is non-uniform. The crew of Apollo VIII, flying around the satellite, noted that the moon's gravity has sharp anomalies - in some places it "mysteriously increases." Drawing attention to the data of the American crew (which were classified), as well as the low density of the satellite in relation to its mass, nuclear engineer William Bryan in 1982 stated that "the Moon is hollow and relatively rigid." A number of later studies have led scientists to suggest that this cavity is artificial. But the researchers also made bolder conclusions, according to which the Moon was formed "in the opposite direction" - that is, from the surface to the core.

gas and dust cloud

However, in last years scientists are not ready to seriously consider the version of the artificial origin of the moon. Much closer to modern scientific views, for example, is the "theory of evaporation." According to this hypothesis, significant masses of matter were released from the earth's plasma, which, when cooled, formed a condensate - it became building material for protoluna. But there is another - a similar idea, put forward in the XVIII century. First, the Swedish naturalist Emmanuel Swedenborg, and then the French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, suggested that interstellar nebulae - clouds of gas and dust in outer space - shrink and condense into stars and their surrounding planets. The French scientist also suggested that our satellite could have formed from this substance. The Russian academician E. M. Galimov developed a concept that has temporarily gone out of fashion, in which the Moon is the result of “fragmentation of dust thickening”. This hypothesis was based on the results of radioisotope analysis of the satellite and the planet, which show that both bodies have the same age - about 4.5 billion years. In other words, both the Moon and the Earth were formed in the neighborhood from a substance that was at the same distance from the Sun. According to the scientist, the concept of the origin of the Moon from the primary substance, and not from the Earth's mantle, is in better agreement with the facts than the "mega-impact model" that has been accepted so far.

sources

Moon calendar YoIP is happy to tell you about today's lunar phase.

In total, eight periods of the moon's movement are distinguished, which it passes over a period from 29.25 to 29.83 Earth days. The generally accepted duration of a complete change of phases of the moon, a synodic month, is considered early 29 days 12 hours and 44 minutes.

The phases change in the following sequence: new moon (moon not visible), young moon, first quarter, waxing moon, full moon, waning moon, last quarter and old moon.
Scroll to ,
or information.

Today the Moon is in phase: "Full Moon"

There are 17 lunar days, the moon is visible at 97%
Moon in the zodiac sign Leo ♌ and the constellation Cancer ♋

Detailed information about the phase of the moon today

Moon phases in January 2020 by day.

The phases of the moon are shown for the noon of each day of January (12:00 Moscow time, UTC+3)

What zodiac sign is the moon in today?

The moon is currently in the sign ♌ Leo and the constellation ♋ Cancer.

Is the moon in a zodiac sign or a constellation?

Expression "Moon in the sign of the zodiac", for example, in the sign "Pisces", implies its astrological position within the boundaries of the zodiac sign. The zodiac sign is one twelfth of the ecliptic, which is 30°. Belongs to the tropical zodiac.

Expression "Moon in the constellation", for example, in the constellation "Aquarius", implies its astronomical position within the boundaries of the constellation. constellation boundaries are different shape and the moon is them different time. Constellations belong to the astronomical zodiac.

This difference arose due to the precession of the earth's axis and the associated displacement of the vernal equinox for 2000 years by about one sign back. Therefore, you can often hear the following clarification: "The moon is in the sign of Pisces and the constellation of Aquarius." In addition, in the astronomical interpretation, the thirteenth constellation "Ophiuchus" is added to the twelve constellations consonant with the signs of the zodiac. You can read more about the dates of the intersection of the astronomical and astrological signs of the zodiac on the page.

What phase is the moon today?

The moon is currently in its waning third quarter phase.

What are the phases of the moon?

Distinguish household and astronomical phases of the moon. Their names are the same, and the difference is only in the duration of the phases of the new moon and full moon. In everyday life, they last for 2-3 Earth days each, until the moon is practically invisible (new moon) or visible almost like a full disk (full moon). But in an astronomical sense, the duration of these phases is less than a second.

The reason for this is that the moon moves around the earth at a speed of about 1023 m / s, and the full moon and new moon are the moments when the earth, moon and sun line up on the same plane perpendicular to the direction of the earth's movement around the sun. These moments are very fleeting and if you try to calculate their duration with an accuracy of coincidence of the positions of the moon, earth and sun at least up to one meter, then the duration will be less than 1/1023 of a second.

In our calendar, the duration of astronomical phases is calculated with an accuracy of one moon diameter (about 3476 km), which gives approximately 56.5 minutes.

The duration of everyday phases is considered based on the visibility of the moon's disk less than 3.12% for the new moon and more than 96.88% for the full moon.

Which moon is waxing or waning now?

How do you know if the moon is waxing or waning today?

You can understand what kind of moon is now in the sky according to the mnemonic rule for the northern hemisphere: if the moon looks like the letter “ FROM", that is FROM waning or waning moon. If, when adding a vertical stick to the month, the moon becomes like the letter " R", then she R growing.

For southern hemisphere it's the other way around. There, the moon is seen upside down, so musical terms are used to memorize C rescendo (or sign "<„) для растущей луны и D iminuendo (">" sign) for descending.

At the equator, the moon lies on its side, so both of these options will not be applicable. Instead, they are guided by the time when the “boat” of the moon is visible. If in the evening and in the west, then this is the growing moon follows the sun, and if in the morning and in the east, then this is the aging moon. The lunar arch at the equator cannot be seen with the ordinary eye, because. it will always fall in the daytime and the bright light of the sun will make it difficult to see it.

What is the lunar day today?

Now there are 17 lunar days. It's been 10 hours and 2 minutes since the beginning.

Lunar days and lunar days. What is the difference?

Lunar day- this is the period of time that passes from the moment of the new moon to the re-crossing of the meridian line by the moon, over which the moon was at the time of the new moon. The first lunar day begins its countdown at the moment when the center of the moon crosses the line connecting the earth and the sun (the moment of the new moon). The second and subsequent days begin when the center of the moon crosses the meridian over which the moment of the new moon occurred in this lunar cycle.

Average duration A lunar day is about 24 Earth hours, 50 minutes and 28 seconds. This happens because the earth and the moon rotate in the same direction and while the earth makes a complete revolution, the moon has time to run away from it a little forward and the earth has to turn a little more so that the moon is exactly above the meridian as one lunar day ago .

Lunar days are considered from sunrise to sunset of the moon at each specific point on the globe. At the same time, the beginning of the first lunar day occurs as the beginning of the first lunar day at the time of the new moon, and the second and subsequent lunar days are counted from the moonrise. Duration lunar days and their number in each point of the globe is different. The usual number of lunar days is from 29 to 30 per lunar cycle. However, in some places where the moon may not rise or set for several Earth days, the number of lunar days may be much less. This affects the territories beyond the northern and southern polar circles. There for half a year you can not see either the sun or the moon.

Earlier this week, astrophysicists from the Institute of Geophysics of Paris denied the version of the origin Moon, which has so far been considered the most probable. According to this hypothesis, about 4.5 billion years ago, the very young Earth collided with a protoplanet Theia resulting in the formation of the moon.

Computer simulations carried out by experts cast doubt on this version, and along with many of our other ideas about the origin of the cosmic body closest to the Earth.

Editorial "MIR 24" chose the main versions of the origin of the satellite and, together with experts, weighed the pros and cons of popular hypotheses.

Version #1: One Giant Collision

The model of impact formation of the Moon has remained dominant in science for the past three decades. Astrophysicists accepted it almost unanimously after the Apollo 17 lunar module delivered more than 110 kg of lunar rocks to Earth in December 1972 during the last landing on the satellite.

An analysis of the chemical and isotopic composition of the soil led scientists to the idea that at an early stage in the formation of the solar system, the Earth could have collided with a large celestial body - a protoplanet, the dimensions of which were commensurate with today's Mars, that is, approximately 10.7% of the mass of the Earth.

“For both celestial bodies, this event was catastrophic, and the material that was ejected as a result of this collision partially remained in the Earth’s orbit for many millennia, due to which, as a result of evolutionary compression, the earth satellite was formed,” says Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences , senior researcher of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Rodin.

The names of celestial bodies are traditionally given Greek, mythological. Therefore, the hypothetical protoplanet was named after one of the Titanide sisters Theia, who, according to the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, was the mother of Selene (Moon). The connection between the Earth and the satellite turned out to be so strong that over time, the Moon began to cause ebb and flow on the Blue Planet.

This, in turn, formed conditions on the wet firmament for the appearance of the first elements of biological life (nucleotides) from the simplest nitrogenous compounds, a mixture of phosphate and carbohydrates. So, under the influence of lunar activity and sunlight on the earth's surface, the first "laboratory" was formed for the formation of future life.

The mega-explosion theory is supported by the fact that the core of the Earth's satellite is too small for a planet that formed simultaneously with the Earth (the radius of the Moon's core is about 240 kilometers). In addition, in its composition, the Moon is much more homogeneous than our planet. It seems that everything inclined scientists to the point of view that the reason for the birth of the Moon was the proto-beauty Theia.

Suspicions of the validity of such a beautiful hypothesis arose among the astronomers of the Paris Institute of Geophysics. Confused by the chemical composition of the earth's mantle and lunar soil. Something was wrong there. As a result, Parisian astronomers launched a multi-year experiment that has just ended.

During this experiment, they ran 1.7 billion computer simulations of the collision of the Earth and Theia and found that the mass of the hypothetical celestial body that the Earth collided with could not be more than 15% of the mass of our planet.

Otherwise, the earth's mantle would contain many times more nickel and cobalt, and light isotopes of radioactive elements that are present in it now, for example, the helium-3 isotope, would have evaporated from the lunar soil long ago.

Version #2: Multiple Bombing Theory

“The latest study by the French confirms the assumption that the collision was not one - there were many,” Dr. Rodin explains. “The future material for the formation of the satellite accumulated millions of years in Earth orbit, and the bomber bodies themselves were much smaller than the hypothetical Theia” .

However, according to the scientist, this discovery did not make an epochal revolution. In recent decades, the Moon has remained not only the most studied, but also the most actively studied object in the solar system. Every year scientists receive more and more new data that refute one or another of the existing hypotheses.

“Computer simulations only help us simulate certain conditions. Meteorologists work in much the same way, determining the weather for the near future. But we are well aware that even the forecast for tomorrow can be wrong. What can we say about such global events as the birth of living matter, the formation of the Moon or the Earth,” the scientist noted.

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Head of the Department for the Study of the Moon and Planets of the Institute named after V.I. P. K. Sternberg Moscow State University Vladimir Shevchenko.

According to him, French astrophysicists were several years ahead of the Russian scientist, director of the Institute of Geochemistry named after V.I. Vernadsky, Eric Galimov, who analyzed the hypothesis of the protoplanet Teiye and was one of the first in world science who was able to reasonably refute it. True, purely theoretical. Now his theory has received experimental confirmation.

Version number 3: "sister" hypothesis

The hypothesis, to which many Russian scientists are inclined today, is as follows: the Moon and the Earth were formed relatively simultaneously from a single gas and dust cloud. This happened about 4.5 billion years ago, which is confirmed by radioisotope dating of meteorite samples, the so-called chondrites.

The "embryo" of the Earth attracted to itself the maximum number of particles in the zone of their accessibility, and from the remaining fragments in orbit a smaller satellite was formed, but similar in chemical composition.

“This theory removes doubtful questions about the geochemical parameters of the lunar soil,” explains Vladimir Shevchenko. “If a mega-strike had taken place, the Moon would have to contain the same substance that the Earth consisted of at the moment and would be much more like the Earth than it is now,” the professor sums up.

True, such a beautiful hypothesis about a common progenitor cloud does not explain much. For example, why the lunar orbit does not lie in the plane of the earth's equator and why its iron-nickel core formed so tiny compared to ours.

Version number 4: the planet-captive, or "marital" hypothesis

One of the most curious hypotheses, while having the least amount of evidence, is the hypothesis that the Moon was originally formed as an independent planet in the solar system. As a result of the deviation of the celestial body from the orbit (the so-called perturbations), the planet, so to speak, "lost its course" and entered an elliptical orbit intersecting with the Earth.

During one of the approaches, the Moon fell into the field of the earth's gravity and turned into its satellite.

American astronomers under the leadership of Thomas Jackson See were not interested in this theory for academic reasons. The fact is that the legends of the ancient African people Dogon They told about the times when there was no second luminary in the night sky - the Moon.

Despite the fact that the theory did not fit into the “Big Three” academic hypotheses about the origin of the satellite, it was seriously discussed by a group of scientists led by Sergei Pavlovich Korolev when designing a descent automatic station.

Scientists had to "blindly" decide how the moon was formed. The success of landing the station depended on their conclusions. After all, if the Moon revolves around the Earth for billions of years, without a dense atmosphere, a multi-meter layer of dust falling from space should have accumulated on its surface.

If this is true, the station intended to land on the Moonlight would simply have sunk.

The assumption that the Moon was captured by the Earth relatively recently, scientists clearly liked more. In this case, its surface must still be solid. Therefore, the landing apparatus decided to rely on this scenario.

True, this theory has more contradictions than other versions of the origin of the satellite. For example, why do the oxygen isotopes on the Moon and Earth have such an identity?

Or why the Moon rotates in the same direction as the Earth, while the moons captured by Jupiter - Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto - rotate in a retrograde direction, that is, the opposite direction from Jupiter.

Be that as it may, even relatively “foldable” and “attractive” hypotheses do not give an accurate description of how exactly the night luminary arose in the earth's sky. However, such inconsistencies are observed in the description of any other physical phenomenon of this magnitude, notes Alexander Rodin.

Each new discovery, even carried out in terrestrial conditions, can at any moment cast doubt on any hypothesis "established" in science. Even about the origin of the Earth - not like its satellite.

Nadezhda Serezhkina

A rare novel or poem about love does without such a character as the Moon. Where do the most romantic encounters take place? Of course under the moon. And it’s impossible to imagine a serenade under the balcony of your beloved without the moon hanging over the tiled roofs.

Who gave us such a gift, where did the Earth's natural satellite come from? Without dwelling on the versions of the construction of the Moon by ancient super-developed earthlings or the Moon, as a spaceship of aliens periodically descending on our planet and kidnapping a couple of particularly annoying ufologists, we will focus on the most plausible and popular hypotheses in the scientific community.

The moon is a rather large satellite on the scale of the solar system, and if considered in proportion to the parent planet, then it is very large. The largest moon in the solar system is Jupiter's moon Ganymede, twice as massive as the Moon and one and a half times as large. However, compared to its planet, Ganymede is a speck of dust: less than 4% in size and about 0.008% in mass. While the diameter of the Moon is about 27% of the Earth's, and its mass is more than one percent of the mass of our planet.

Until the beginning of the last century, in the scientific community, by and large, there was no question of how the Moon was formed. Most astrophysicists unanimously preached the hypothesis of the simultaneous formation of the Earth together with the satellite from the initial gas and dust cloud. However, later this option began to acquire more and more opponents, who argued that the gravity of the Earth would not allow such a large cosmic body to form in its orbit.

Added points to the opponents of the theory and the study of the soil delivered from the moon during NASA manned flights. As it turned out, the rock samples of our satellite differ from the earth's both in density and in chemical composition: a lower content of iron and some other heavy elements.

Earth satellite surface

Could a piece "fall off" from the Earth

Approximately in the 70-80 years of the twentieth century, a hypothesis was born, according to which the Moon was formed from a substance that had broken away from the Earth. According to her, this became possible when our planet was still in the formation stage and consisted of extremely hot rocks that were in a liquid state.

The substance separated from the surface of the protoplanet as a result of its very rapid rotation under the influence of centrifugal forces. The theory partially explained the difference in chemical composition. The heavier elements were in the central part of the Earth and remained, but the lighter compounds were outside the rapidly rotating sphere, and they were “dropped”.

The assumption was made by the son of the author of the theory of the origin of species - Charles Darwin. It is known that the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth (something about 2 centimeters per year). Based on this fact, as if "rewinding" time back, George Darwin suggested that once the Earth and the satellite were a single entity.

Refuted the theory of mathematics. Careful calculations showed that the Moon could not approach the Earth closer than 7 ... 10 thousand kilometers.

Space detective with abduction

The option of abducting the Moon by the Earth was proposed by the Americans at the very beginning of the 20th century. According to the proposed assumption, the once independent celestial body was captured by the gravity of our planet. The theory perfectly explained the difference in the density and chemical composition of lunar rocks compared to those of the earth.

The same computer models became a fly in the ointment, in the end, and ruined the hypothesis. According to the calculations, the gravitational capture of such a massive body is practically impossible.

"Shock" version

Impact version of the origin of the moon in the representation of the artist

The research of our natural satellite after the delivery of samples of lunar rocks to Earth. About two hundred grams were delivered to Earth by the Soviet apparatus Luna-24, and about two hundred kilograms in total were brought to the planet by American manned missions. The study of the samples gave a new impetus to the solution of the question: how the Moon was formed. So, researchers were struck by two facts revealed during the study of samples of the lunar surface.

Firstly, as it turned out, the soil on the Earth and on the Moon, with all the differences in chemical composition, is absolutely identical in terms of the content of heavy oxygen isotopes (an indicator that is individual for all bodies of the Solar System). This gave researchers evidence that both objects were either once a single entity, or were formed in the same region of the system, at approximately the same distance from the star.

Fact number two was that all the soil that makes up the surface of our satellite was molten in the past (former lava), like all basaltic rocks of the Earth. The astronomers were told about this by the almost complete absence of water and some other easily evaporating elements, such as potassium and lithium, in the samples. BUT modern look lunar soil acquired as a result of a long, over billions of years, bombardment by asteroids and meteorites of various sizes, which turned the surface into dust.

The addition of these two facts gave people the fourth theory of finding the moon, which is currently the main one, accepted by most serious scientific organizations and explaining the largest number of lunar mysteries. This is the Big Collision theory.

It is assumed that at the dawn of the formation of the solar system in the area where our planet now rotates, another celestial body, a protoplanet, was formed, the size of the current Mars. Romantics even came up with a name for it: Teia. During the period when both planets had not yet completely cooled down and were covered with oceans of molten stone, they collided, Theia tangentially crashed into the future Earth.

Part of Theia's substance, together with a heavy iron core, remained forever on Earth. Another, very small part, as a result of the impact, received a speed sufficient to leave the solar system forever. And, finally, a third of the fragments of Theia ended up in Earth's orbit. About a year after the impact, the debris merged to form the Moon.

Immediately, our satellite was extremely hot, its entire surface was covered by a multi-kilometer ocean of liquid lava, from time to time shaken by terrible tsunamis caused by comets and asteroids crashing into the fiery abyss. However, after several hundred million years, the Moon cooled down and slowly began to take on the shape we are used to.

Received qualitative changes as a result of the impact and our planet. Increased its rotation speed. According to some calculations, the day immediately after the collision lasted only less than five hours. In addition, as a result of the merger of the iron-nickel cores of the Proto-Earth and Theia, the inner metallic core of our planet has grown significantly.

And as a result...

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of this cosmic event for earthlings. Perhaps one can agree with those scientists who believe that due to the collision on Earth, there are conditions for the existence of life.

It was as a result of the connection of the Earth and Theia that our planet received a massive iron core. Due to the presence of a natural satellite, which is rather heavy relative to the parent planet, there are tidal phenomena on Earth. And not just in the oceans.

Tidal forces are constantly: either stretching or compressing the earth's core, as a result of which friction forces heat up the heart of our planet. In the liquid hot core, conditions are created for the formation of giant vortex phenomena - the source magnetic field planet Earth.

Our closest neighbor in the solar "home" - Mars does not have such an active core, it does not have a magnetic field. Many astronomers are inclined to assume that it is precisely because of this that there is no dense atmosphere on Mars, no water, no life. The solar wind simply “blew away” all the gases from Mars, making way for deadly cosmic radiation.