Tricky RC

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:02 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Tricky RC

by champmag » Mon May 09, 2011 2:59 am
Before the age of space exploration, astronomers assumed that the Moon's core was smaller than the Earth's, in both relative and absolute terms - the radius of the Earth's core is 55 percent of the overall radius of the Earth and the core's mass is 32 percent of the Earth's overall mass - but they had no way to verify this. Two sets of data gathered by Lunar Prospector have now given astronomers the ability to determine that the Moon's core accounts for 20 percent of the Moon's radius and for a mere 2 percent of its overall mass.
First, scientists measured minute, relatively rapid variations in the wavelength of radio signals from Lunar Prospector as the craft moved towards or away from the Earth. Using these variations, scientists accurately determined even slight changes in the craft's velocity while the craft orbited the Moon, changes resulting from inconsistency in the gravitational pull of the Moon on the craft. The data were used to create a "gravity map" of both near and far sides of the Moon, highlighting new details of the distribution of the Moon's internal mass. Scientists thus determined that the Moon has a small, metallic core, which, if composed mostly of iron, has a radius of approximately 350 kilometers. The second method involved examining the faint magnetic field generated within the Moon itself by the Moon's monthly passage through the tail of the Earth's magnetosphere. This approach confirmed the results obtained through examination of the gravity map.
The size and composition of the Moon's core have serious implications for our understanding of the Moon's origins. If the Moon and Earth developed as distinct entities, the sizes of their cores should be more comparable. In actuality, it seems that the Moon was once part of the Earth and broke away at an early stage in the Earth's evolution, perhaps due to a major asteroid impact that could have loosened a chunk of iron, allowing it to form the core around which the Moon eventually coalesced. Alternatively, according to fission theory, the early Earth may have spun so rapidly that it ejected a quantity of material by so-called centrifugal force, material that later coalesced by mutual gravitational attraction into the Moon.

It can be inferred from the passage that the impact theory and the fission theory of the Moon's origin are similar in that they both

1.)explain the congruence in the size and mass of the Earth's and the Moon's cores

2.)assert that the Moon did not predate the Earth

3.)imply the development of the Earth and Moon as distinct entities

4.)propose that iron ejected from the Earth coalesced the rest of the Moon through magnetic attraction

5.)account for the inconsistency in the gravitational pull of the Moon

This is a really tricky one.

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:51 am

by aravindan_v » Mon May 09, 2011 9:38 pm
Hi,

Is option (2) the correct one?

cheers
Aravindan

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:09 am
Location: Los Angeles
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:27 members

by LIL » Tue May 10, 2011 6:41 pm
i would go with option (b)

according to the passage, impact theory suggests that the moon is a chunk of the earth that broke off, perhaps because of a major asteroid impact. fission theory, on the other hand, suggests that the earth spun so rapidly that material flew off of it and later coalesced *by mutual gravitational attraction* into the moon.

(a) says the two theories explain why the moon's and the earth's cores have similar size and mass. however, according to the passage, the moon's and earth's cores have very different size/mass. (it says the earth's core has a radius that is 55 percent of the earth's radius and a mass that is 32 percent of the earth's mass. by contrast, it says the moon's core has a radius that is 20 percent of the moon's radius and a mass that is 2 percent of the moon's mass.)

(b) "assumes that the moon did not predate the earth" just means the moon came after the earth did. since both theories suggest that the moon was created from pieces of the earth, we must assume the earth was already there.

(c) both theories suggest the moon came from pieces of the earth, so (c) is incorrect. (c) suggests that the moon did not come from pieces of the earth, but that it "developed as a distinct entity," separate from the earth.

(d) according to the passage, fission theory suggests that the material that made the moon coalesced through *gravitational* attraction, not magnetic attraction, so we can rule this answer out as incorrect. (also, "impact theory" does not talk about attraction at all, magnetic or not)

(e) neither theory talks about the inconsistency of the moon's gravitational pull.