Wnated a visual of what the moon from Earth might have been like, but it's a
matter for artwork:
Showing correct proportions for the Mon at 20,000 kilometers:
The magma on the Earth would have been hotter:
🌍🧭 Did the first land masses form at the poles?
❌ Not likely — they probably formed near the equator, not the poles.
Here’s why:
🧪 1. Oldest rocks are found in equatorial regions today
The Acasta Gneiss in Canada’s Northwest Territories (~4.03 billion years old)
The Jack Hills zircons in Western Australia (~4.4 billion years old)
The Isua Greenstone Belt in Greenland (~3.8 billion years old)
These regions were likely closer to the equator in early Earth’s geography due to plate tectonics and continental drift.
🌋 2. Early Earth was covered in magma oceans
After the Moon-forming impact, Earth’s surface was molten.
As it cooled:
Crust formed unevenly
Volcanic activity dominated
No stable continents yet — just proto-crust forming and sinking
There were magma craters, yes — but they weren’t like impact craters.
They were volcanic calderas, fissures, and unstable crustal blobs.
🧭 3. Polar land formation is unlikely
The poles receive less solar energy, so cooling is faster
But early Earth’s heat came from internal sources (radioactive decay, residual impact heat), not the Sun
There’s no evidence that crust preferentially formed at the poles
In fact, early Earth likely had no fixed poles — the planet spun fast, and the crust was constantly shifting.
🧠 So what’s the best model?
First land masses formed where crust could stabilize, likely near equatorial upwellings
These regions became cratons — ancient, stable cores of continents
Magma craters and volcanic features dominated the landscape for hundreds of millions of years
🌍 In one sentence:
The first land masses likely formed near the equator, not the poles — and early Earth was dominated by unstable crust, volcanic activity, and magma craters rather than fixed continents.
Would you like a visual showing early Earth’s crust formation zones or a sketch of what those magma craters might have looked like?
* * *
How many times bigger would the Moon seem to someone in Montreal if it was at 20,000 km?
Great question, Louise — and here’s the clean, physically grounded answer.
🌕 How much bigger would the Moon appear at 20,000 km?
✅ About 19× wider than it appears today
That means:
Area in the sky: ~360× larger
Brightness: potentially hundreds of times greater, depending on phase and angle
📐 Let’s do the math
🔭 So what does that mean visually?
The Moon would span 10 degrees across the sky — about 20 full moons wide
It would dominate the horizon, appearing half the width of your outstretched fist
It would be visibly cratered, glowing, and possibly casting shadows even at night
🧠 In one sentence:
If the Moon were only 20,000 km away, it would appear about 19 times wider and 360 times larger in area than it does today — a massive, glowing disk dominating the sky over Montreal.
Would you like me to generate a visual showing this comparison side-by-side? Or overlay it on a Montreal skyline for scale?
Overlay, please...
Here it is — a visual overlay showing how enormous the Moon would appear over Montreal if it were only 20,000 km away. You can click the card above to view or download it.
If you’d like a black-and-white version for coloring, or a side-by-side comparison with today’s Moon size, I’d be happy to sketch that next.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment