Is it true that the moon has been split in the past?
142358
I believe there is no way of telling for all we know it could split at the beginning when it was made.  We have no proof yet
643922
No doubt, it's a fact. Besides all evidence already discussed by other answerers (earthquakes, fossil record, continent shapes, geological models), today there are *direct measurements* of the changing distance between tectonic plates, using laser or radio interferometry (see reference).
985501
Nice idea.... but there is a BIG hole in your theory:\n\nThe moon broke off from the earth somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5 billion years ago.... i.e. the Hadean... the more specific name for the earlier Precambrian.\n\nPangaea didn't even begin moving together until 1.1 billion years ago, and wasn't together as one continent until about 500 million years ago.... during the Permian.\n\nOh... and tectonic plate movement is a result of thermal flows in the mantle.\n\nPangaea has nothing to do with the moon, sorry to say.
455854
Yes, the moon is moving away at a rate of 3.8 centimetres per year. This was discovered by lunar laser ranging. Don't worry though, it's practically nothing.
1117100
yes and no. the man in the moon is mythical. Because craters on the moon give shape and shadow on the surface of the moon you can use your imagination and see about 4 different "men" in the moon. as for the moon looking different from other parts of the world that too is a myth as the moon shows us the same face all the time -to everyone. other cultures may "see" something different but it stems from a different cultural history. the moon may look slightly different from south Africa or Australia but it is a perspective thing (it's upside down). and even then it doesn't really look different as the moon has a wobble to its orbit around earth. that is why there is not a lunar eclipse every month. the moon doesn't always pass through the shadow of the earth. it changes latitude in our sky throughout its orbit.
597835
It isn't "chance" although that is why it is the right/size to produce solar eclipses.\n\nThe moon is not perfectly symmetrical. The crust is thinner on our side, and the core (heavy part of the moon) is displaced towards our side. That acts almost like a handle for the earth's gravity. It has slowed to the point where the earth's gravity now keeps this side pointed towards the earth.\n\nHowever it is not perfect. As seen from the earth, the moon wobbles slightly --- both side to side and up and down. The motion is called libration and allows us to see more than half of the moon. We had a discussion on the yahoo lunar group recently with a link to an animated gif that showed the moon's libration.\n\nIf you are interested in the moon, try\nhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/\n\nChuck
155869
The moon is approx. 4.5 billion years old. It is believed to have been formed when a planet the size of Mars smashed into the Earth. Most of the debris fell back to Earth. Some of it stayed in orbit and formed the moon.\n\nInterestingly - the moon may have formed in a few thousand years. During that time, Earth would have been a ringed planet.
313051
Early speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust due to centrifugal force, leaving an ocean basin (presumed to be the Pacific) behind as a scar. This concept requires too great an initial spin of the Earth and the presumption of a Pacific origin is not compatible with the geological standard model, the theory of plate tectonics. Others speculated the Moon formed elsewhere and was captured into its orbit. Two of the other theories include the coformation or condensation theory and the impact theory, which speculates that the Moon formed from the debris that resulted from a collision between the early Earth and a planetesimal.\n\nThe coformation or condensation hypothesis posits that the Earth and the Moon formed together at about the same time from the primordial accretion disk, the Moon forming from material surrounding the coalescing proto-Earth, similar to the way the planets formed around the Sun. Some suggest that this hypothesis fails to adequately explain the depletion of iron in the Moon.\n\nRecently, the giant impact hypothesis has been considered a more viable scientific theory for the moon's origin than the coformation or condensation theory. The Giant Impact theory holds that the Moon formed from the ejecta resulting from a collision between a very early, semi-molten Earth and a planet-like object the size of Mars, which has been referred to as Theia or Orpheus. The material ejected from this impact would have gathered in orbit around Earth and formed the Moon. This hypothesis is bolstered by two main observations: First, the composition of the Moon resembles that of Earth's crust, whereas it has relatively few heavy elements that would have been present if it formed by itself out of the same material from which Earth formed. Second, through radiometric dating, it has been determined that the Moon's crust formed between 20 and 30 million years after that of Earth, despite its smallness and associated larger loss of internal heat.\n\nThe geological epochs of the Moon are defined based on the dating of various significant impact events in the Moon's history. Analysis of craters and Moon rocks show that there was a late heavy bombardment by asteroids around the period 4.0 to 3.8 billion years ago.\n\nTidal forces deformed the once molten Moon into an ellipsoid, with the major axis pointed towards Earth.\n\nIn 2005, a team of scientists from Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland measured the Moon's age at 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years, which would imply that it was formed only 30–50 million years after the origin of the solar system.[4]
304404
The inclination of the Moon's orbit makes it implausible that the Moon formed along with the Earth or was captured later; its origin is the subject of some scientific debate.\n\nEarly speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust due to centrifugal force, leaving an ocean basin (presumed to be the Pacific) behind as a scar. This concept requires too great an initial spin of the Earth and the presumption of a Pacific origin is not compatible with the geological standard model, the theory of plate tectonics. Others speculated the Moon formed elsewhere and was captured into its orbit. Two of the other theories include the coformation or condensation theory and the impact theory, which speculates that the Moon formed from the debris that resulted from a collision between the early Earth and a planetesimal.\n\nThe coformation or condensation hypothesis posits that the Earth and the Moon formed together at about the same time from the primordial accretion disk, the Moon forming from material surrounding the coalescing proto-Earth, similar to the way the planets formed around the Sun. Some suggest that this hypothesis fails to adequately explain the depletion of iron in the Moon.\n\nRecently, the giant impact hypothesis has been considered a more viable scientific hypothesis for the moon's origin than the coformation or condensation hypothesis. The Giant Impact hypothesis holds that the Moon formed from the ejecta resulting from a collision between a very early, semi-molten Earth and a planet-like object the size of Mars, which has been referred to as Theia or Orpheus. The material ejected from this impact would have gathered in orbit around Earth and formed the Moon. This hypothesis is bolstered by two main observations: First, the composition of the Moon resembles that of Earth's crust, whereas it has relatively few heavy elements that would have been present if it formed by itself out of the same material from which Earth formed. Second, through radiometric dating, it has been determined that the Moon's crust formed between 20 and 30 million years after that of Earth, despite its smallness and associated larger loss of internal heat.\n\nThe geological epochs of the Moon are defined based on the dating of various significant impact events in the Moon's history. Analysis of craters and Moon rocks show that there was a late heavy bombardment by asteroids around the period 4.0 to 3.8 billion years ago.\n\nTidal forces deformed the once molten Moon into an ellipsoid, with the major axis pointed towards Earth.\n\nIn 2005, a team of scientists from Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland measured the Moon's age at 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years, which would imply that it was formed only 30–50 million years after the origin of the solar system.[6]
1727
Yes -- in fact you are living on one.  The earth and moon is quite unusual in being relatively the same size to earth other compared to other moons around other planets in the solar system.\n\nIn that respect you can consider the earth and moon as being twin planets.\n\nAs to how often this happens outside the solar system, you would probably have to wait a few years as we have only just started to be able to detect planets around nearby stars but currently have no real means of actually observing them.
383088
I know what you mean miss nice thing, that the moon was broken before 1400 years before right / if yes give me your email cos i wanna ask you something
654103
While I've never heard that, I don't doubt that it was said. But it is false. Rumors like that start all the time. There has never been anything found on the moon. No alien structures, no "glass domes", nothing like that. Maybe they were seeing a weird inactive volcano of something. I don't know what it actually was, because like I said I've never heard that.
159793
The answer is either “Yes” followed by “but”, or “No” followed by “however”.\n\nThe biggest problem is that meteorites aren’t all one thing. Many are objects from the asteroid belt. However many are comets or fragments of cometss. Some are fragments smashed off other planets like the famous Martian meteorite that was found 15 years back and supposed to contain signs of life. Some are probably fragments of the Earth itself torn lose when the moon formed.\n\nIf we limit ourselves to just meteorites form the Asteroid belt that have swung out of orbit and found us, well the asteroid belt itself is believed to be the result of a planet that was torn apart many billions of years ago. So to answer your question, no, the Earth isn’t formed from the same thing as meteorites. Meteorites are formed from the destruction of another planet entirely. \n\nHowever it is the same thing in the sense it is all solid planetary material. Asteroids aren’t primarily of frozen water and gas like comets are.\n\nIt really does depend entirely on what you mean by ‘thing’. Ultimately everything in the universe is made from the same thing. It depends on how far back you want to go.\n\n______________________________\nTheca said “they think earth is meteorites stuck together\n>>>> after the big boom, so basically yes\n\n\nThey don’t think that. ‘ They’ think Earth is the result of dust and gas condensed out of the cloud left by a supernova. The planet that the asteroids broke off from formed out of the same material, but neither were formed from ‘meteorites’ stuck together.
1073929
Assuming that the moon is at a location visible from both Greece and Texas, which is entirely possible, then yes you will both see a full moon.  If not, then Greece will see a full moon as soon as the moon rises for them.\n\nBut chances are, you are asking about the "fullness" of the moon from different terrestrial vantage points.  Then the answer is still yes, because what people perceive to be a "full" moon is subject to a very wide margin of visual ambiguity.  The moon can be "not quite full" by several degrees and still appear perfectly full and round to the human eye.  This is what lets us see a full moon for an entire night, and in fact most of the time, for several nights in a row.\n\nIf our visual acuity were able to discern the lit versus dark surface of the moon under more strict contrast (much, much more strict), then for most of that time we would see the tiniest sliver of dark and perceive the moon as not-quite-full.  The closer our vision approaches to perfect (and the more perfectly transparent our atmosphere becomes), then the less amount of time we would believe the moon were truly full.\n\nEventually, and technically, the moon can only be truly full for a fraction of a second, but then it would only be so during the peak of a lunar eclipse, which rather takes away from its "fullness", haha.  This is the instant that the moon is perfectly opposite the Earth from the sun.
119440
Spring tides happen when the moon is both new and full, so no the moon is not always full when a tide is spring.  In fact larger spring tides usually happen when the moon is new.
255077
It has to be. A full moon is when the earth is between the sun & moon. Just like a solar eclipce , the moon must be between the earth and sun. That is the definition of what a new moon is. I hope you won your bet.
723622
The phases of the moon are the same around the world. What varies is the rise and set time. The US Naval Observatory is a great site for this.