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

On May 20, 6:39 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<27bc2272-5fc7-424b-bd0c-049f8beba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 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 \

I could tell.

Troll alert alarm already flashing.


so if these
arguments can be picked apart, super.

Perhaps you could learn a bit from my picking...

Ok Slim Pickings. not holding my breath to find out.





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.

Except for the minor detail that the Big Bang occurred ~ 13BYA and did
not create the moon or the Earth. Those were created ~4.5BYA out of
elements that were created in stars which formed long after the Big Bang

Where you pull those figures out from? Oh, I know, one of your
reliable books. Fact is no one knows if the big bang occurred let
alone the date. It's a theory. So off to a bad start. But let's say
you are God and know these dates are correct. So what.

was a faint glow in the cosmic background.

cosmic background? what's in the foreground? Who else talks like this?
Guth take lessons from you?

You need to go read up on cosmology and planetary formation.

And you are over-Guthed with that kind of nutty dialog.

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.

You mean like craters? Isn't the moon totally covered in craters? Have
you ever wondered why the Earth isn't also totally covered in craters?

Where have I said no craters exist?!! You know what, this crater
comment just broke the camels back of tolerance. If people have to
make up crap and lie in order to impress themselves into thinking they
are great debaters, they are hopeless. C-ya troll.

Anything you post from here on will be assumed to be friggen nutty, a
safe asumption, based on nearly everything you've posted up till now
in other threads and will be happily ignored.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So how can we afford that ?
    ... method of "so what's the difference" worth of artificial inflation via ... Since most anything about our moon and especially if pertaining Venus, ... Megatonnes of moon rock resides upon Earth; ... Of course there's been absolute loads of smaller than 100 km craters ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
    ... the Collision Theory has at least a half dozen flaws. ... moon because both bodies had to be extremely molten everywhere, ... multiple places on both earth and moon where humongous chunks ... Some scientists claim the moon's core isn't liquid .. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
    ... the Collision Theory has at least a half dozen flaws. ... Opposing Argument #1 ... moon because both bodies had to be extremely molten everywhere, ... multiple places on both earth and moon where humongous chunks ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
    ... the Collision Theory has at least a half dozen flaws. ... moon because both bodies had to be extremely molten everywhere, ... You wouldn't get the perfectly smooth moon and earth we see today. ... nobody knows this since core samples remain hidden. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
    ... the Collision Theory has at least a half dozen flaws. ... Opposing Argument #1 ... moon because both bodies had to be extremely molten everywhere, ... multiple places on both earth and moon where humongous chunks ...
    (sci.geo.geology)