Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited

On May 20, 2:49 pm, Stevep...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Like Brad Guth, I don't favor the Collision Theory much either since
the Collision Theory has at least a half dozen flaws. These are just
off the top of my head. I didn't spend much time with them so if these
arguments can be picked apart, super.

Opposing Argument #1
-----------------

The collision had to happen early in the creation of BOTH earth and
moon because both bodies had to be extremely molten everywhere,
including at the surface. Why? Because later, the surfaces
cooled and formed crusts so if it occured recently, you'd see
multiple places on both earth and moon where humongous chunks
of crust exist. We're talking magnitudes the size of Mount Everest.
You wouldn't get the perfectly smooth moon and earth we see today.

So it appears that the collision must have happened early in the
evolution of both bodies .. ie "in the beginning". Such a collision
is impossible according to big bang theory/the expanding universe
theory since both bodies would be moving "outward" together at
the same rate and direction so the two bodies would clump together,
which is obviously ruled out, or keep moving outward and away
from each other, cool and form individual planets whcih also
obviously didn't happen. This is a major blow to the collision
theory.

Opposing Argument #2
-----------------

The moon (and earth) are too perfectly shiny round for the collision
theory IMHO. A lot of the initial "soup" would cool and
Iowa sized chunks would fall from relatively close range and
plow into both moon and earth leaving huge tell-tailed signs
of such an event. Yet all the largest things we see today are
mountains which all are the result of volcanic or platonic
action.

Opposing Argument #3
-----------------

The collision contact would have to be more central than
current theoretical models show because of the extremly fast
speed the proto-moon would be accelerating at the earth.
A side blow as shown in these computer simulations would
over spray the blast material forward away from the earth
making it impossible for the earth to recapture them as
shown in the simulations.

Opposing Argument #4
-----------------

Why doesn't the recollection of debris happen to Saturn's ring?

Opposing Argument #5
-----------------
Some scientists claim the moon's core isn't liquid .. which is
somewhat opposes this
theory. But again, nobody knows this since core samples remain hidden.

Opposing Argument #6
-----------------

Is the moon and earth too "foreign" to each other for there to
be such a collision? It appears that way. Supposedly iron ore
and other metals differ dramatically between earth and moon.
A big however, no one has core samples of the moon and I'd
need proof of that first.

BTW if the moon and earth are all that alike especially at the
surface (which is the only available source thus far anyway),
then all the supposed "moon rocks" NASA claims to have are
meaningless.

In addition to your research that puts the status quo collision theory
at risk, I'll try to further the notion of our moon having arrived and
somewhat slightly impacted Earth from the rear, so to speak (aka
glancing sucker-punch), as an icy and lithobraking encounter that did
not destroy this icy proto-moon but otherwise having created a
terrestrial ocean basin, as well as having created the antipodes of
mountains and introducing a much greater seasonal tilt to our planet
that was coming out of the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever
going to see.
.. - Brad Guth
.

Relevant Pages
Loading