History of Earth and the Solar System

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

There are genuine questions about the current collision lunar origin theory involving data that doesn't fit, particularly geological, chemical, and thermal issues. But those questions and data are typically relegated by supporters of the collision theory to the 'trivial', as if that will make such data go away.

1. What data?
2. Propose an alternative?

[blackbird71]

blackbird71 last edited by

The collision theory implies a celestial body smacked into the earth and tore out great chunks of crust that somehow were trapped in orbit and coalesced into the moon. The heat generated from such an impact would have been tremendous and according to the collision theory, the impacting object was vaporised in the event. Yet analysis of lunar material shows it has never been subjected to heat over 1200K, which is far too low to have been associated with the vaporization of an impacting object. The moon also is lacking in water-bearing mineral compounds, which implies its material did not come from the mineralogical material from a water-rich earth. Finally, a collision throwing off such a large mass of material from the earth would have so greatly affected the earth's momentum that to attain a post-impact (and current) 24 hour rotational day, the earth would have had to have a pre-collision rotational day of 2.5-hours (conservation of momentum being one of those unpleasant 'laws' that inconveniently intrudes into such a pat little theory as the collision origin). Beyond that are multiple thermal heat transfer issues and contradictions within the time-frame incorporated in the theory, as well as geological issues such as the Apollo Radon gas observations that are incompatible with the collision theory. And it goes on...

Frankly, I don't know of any current 'airtight' theory regarding the origin of the moon. All of them have problems of one sort or another, but if I had to put my money down on one, it would probably be the binary theory at this point of the science. I have no problem answering the question: 'what is the origin of the moon?' with a response of: 'we don't really know, but there are a couple of ideas being suggested.' My problem lies with a science and observers that imply or in some cases state that "this is how it happened." Truth be told, we don't really know how it happened, and no human was there to observe or record it.