Another hit for the C's? Moon formation

combsbt

Jedi Master
Q: (L) When and how did planet earth acquire its moon?

A: Was caused by the regular passage of a large comet cluster which caused a gravitational disruption allowing a large chunk of the original earth's surface, which was somewhat less solid at that point in space/time, to break away from the main body and assume a locked in orbit around the main body.


_http://news.discovery.com/space/an-earth-moon-paternity-test-120411.html

The idea here is that the "mainstream view" is that the Earth was hit by a Mars-sized proto planet and the collision caused the formation of the moon. The studies of the mineral composition of the moon suggest that there was no impact, and all of the moon material is from earth.

The article claims that
These results threaten to send planetary scientists back to the drawing board in search of a plausible theory for the origin of the moon, but there are no satisfactory alternative scenarios for the moon's formation.
 

Amarock

The Force is Strong With This One
Sorry, but what mean "Another hit" is this proves or disproves Cs information? I just don't know some English phrases. :-[
 

truth seeker

The Living Force
Amarock said:
Sorry, but what mean "Another hit" is this proves or disproves Cs information? I just don't know some English phrases. :-[
No problem, Amarock. :) Basically it means the C's were correct.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
truth seeker said:
Amarock said:
Sorry, but what mean "Another hit" is this proves or disproves Cs information? I just don't know some English phrases. :-[
No problem, Amarock. :) Basically it means the C's were correct.

or in other words the C's could be right with this specific Topic with a certain probability wich could be more (or much more) then 50 % according to the available data. wich means that what they said about the moon formation is likely true but not certainly true. big difference.
 

combsbt

Jedi Master
Pashalis said:
or in other words the C's could be right with this specific Topic with a certain probability wich could be more (or much more) then 50 % according to the available data. wich means that what they said about the moon formation is likely true but not certainly true. big difference.

Yeah, not proof, but data that supports what they proposed.
 

aimarok

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Any idea how this scenario could be played out from physics point of view? It would require enormous force to tear off such piece of rock from a Earth. I can only think of centrifugal force able to do it. So passing asteroid cluster had to add a lot of angular momentum to Earth, after that Moon was "torn out", Earth lost some of its momentum because of mass loss, asteroid cluster passed away and Moon stabilized on its orbit. Just a hypothesis.
I read that C's said something about Earth's angular speed changes in regard of Cosmic events but can't remember exactly what it was or find source now.
 

aimarok

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Gawan said:
Just wondering, is there any relation between you and "aimarok"?
Hello, Gawan. I believe there is no relation between us, though it looks like we are from the same country.
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
aimarok said:
Gawan said:
Just wondering, is there any relation between you and "aimarok"?
Hello, Gawan. I believe there is no relation between us, though it looks like we are from the same country.

Okay thanks, than it is a funny coincidence (similarity of name and country).
 
Top Bottom