Talk:Origin of the Moon

Fission

The not peer-reviewed publication of Eva Nessenius gives support to Ampherer's hypothesis . Geo-Science-International (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Max Coleman [1] wanted to pubish it in the journal Terra Nova, but because the author had already published it in the internet, he couldn't do it.

Geo-Science-International (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the publication is not peer-reviewed. it doesn't qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Fission hypothesis does not have enough support to appear in this article. Wcmead3 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Origin of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130807172422/http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2013/05/earth-moon-a-watery-double-planet/ to http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2013/05/earth-moon-a-watery-double-planet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Shape and orbit

The asymmetrical shape of the Earth following the collision then causes this [ejected] material to settle into an orbit around the main mass. How would that work? Isn't it the tangential velocity of the new blob and gravity that make it orbit, rather than the shape of the remaining Earth? --2001:8A0:7AEB:8400:B838:CB52:C581:CCE6 (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the asymmetric shape of the earth after a collision would likely inhibit formation of a stable orbit rather than aid it. The tangential velocity of the secondary mass would provide the angular momentum that might lead to a second, orbiting body.

I'd recommend removing this statement unless a reference supporting it is found. Wcmead3 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange insertion

In the paragraph ’Formation’ there is some strange insertion ’This is not a cientific reference, it should be a valid scientific publication’ within (!) the word ’recollided’ that needs somehow to be reworked/reformated (and an s needs to be added to ’cientific’ BTW) Bmhome (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Material of Theia

the lede explains about isotopes etc. Where did the material of Theia go if not into the Moon? And if the Moon and the Earth are so similar, it can't be in the Earth either. --142.163.195.153 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"The identical oxygen and titanium isotopic compositions in Earth and Moon are surprising in light of what we think we know about planet formation and formation of the Moon after a giant impact. The variations in oxygen and titanium isotopes among meteorite types suggest that it is unlikely that the Moon-forming giant impactor would have had the same isotopic composition as the Earth. Simulations show that the Moon ends up constructed mostly (40-75%) from the impactor materials. Thus, the Moon ought to have different isotopic composition than does Earth." G. Jeffrey Taylor, 2021: Titanium isotopes provide clues to lunar origin. Junjung Zhang: The proto-Earth as a significant source of lunar material Sciencia58 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This comment agrees with my intuition and, in my opinion as a physicist with experience in fluid dynamics, the isotopic similarities between the Earth and moon are a significant problem for the massive collision hypotheses. Two scenarios might produce this condition, both unlikely. 1) The two colliding bodies were formed from the same accretion ring, so they start out with similar material mixes. In this case, where would the two bodies acquire enough difference in speed to create a violent collision? 2) If the colliding bodies had significantly different origins, the two bodies would have to fortuitously have similar isotope ratios or else the collision would have to produce a single body with a dwell time long enough to mix the materials of the two colliding bodies. A sufficient dwell-time would make a subsequent fission into two bodies very unlikely.

An experimental check of key features of the composition of other planets in the solar system would be helpful in assessing these scenarios. Wcmead3 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW, Ref. 5 is a first step in a survey of oxygen isotope ratios in the solar system. It indicates that these ratios differ from earth's for both asteroids and mars: "The mixtures of oxygen isotopes in the Earth, Mars, and the asteroids differ slightly." Even this limited data makes scenario (2) improbable. Wcmead3 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience removal

The material added in this revision in 2020 is poorly-sourced non-notable pseudoscience. The "common-donor capture theory" does not exist on the internet outside of the linked external site, spam sites, a self-published e-book, and one set of comments on a christian pseudoscience blog. Said blog comments and ebook are both under the name "Philip Heywood", who also claims ownership of the external site, and this edit was made by a "Daniel Heywood". The most cursory perusal of the site itself reveals it to be a pile of creationist pseudoscience nonsense. The other two listed sources have tangential to minimal relevance at best. In other words, this is a piece of pseudoscience added as self-promotion, and both has no reliable sources and is not notable, hence my deletion. 2601:401:100:2330:186D:B495:5B54:D1FF (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)