Our Moon May Have Formed From Multiple Small Ones, Says Report (go.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Our Moon May Have Formed From Multiple Small Ones, Says Report (go.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday January 9, 2017 @07:00PM from the revised-theories dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: A series of cosmic collisions may have spawned multiple moonlets that morphed into the one big moon we know today. Rather than one giant impact that knocked off part of early Earth and created the moon, a number of smaller collisions may have produced lots of mini-moons, Israeli scientists reported Monday. And those mini-moons, over millions of years, may have clumped together to make one large one. The researchers conducted nearly 1,000 computer simulations and estimate about 20 impacts could do the job. They say that would explain why the moon seems to be composed of material from Earth, rather than some other planet, too. It's actually an old theory revitalized now by the Weizmann Institute of Science's Raluca Rufu in Rehovot, Israel, and his team. Their findings were published in Nature Geoscience.

90 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 19:03 · Score: 1

I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
1. Re: An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  It's what they do with movies.
2. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by sittingnut · 2017-01-09 19:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
  "The researchers conducted nearly 1,000 computer simulations and estimate about 20 impacts could do the job."
  this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
3. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
  "The researchers conducted nearly 1,000 computer simulations and estimate about 20 impacts could do the job."
  this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
  Now they just have to show that the moon has different regions with matter different enough that it can be traced to different origins and disprove an iron core. Time for another moon mission!
4. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by jandersen · 2017-01-09 20:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
  No, this is what science has always been: chasing existing theories, testing them from different angles, trying to find weak points. Only a vanishingly small part of scientific discovery is about making a huge, new discovery. But what we see here, and what you are complaining about is really the poor journalism that tries to inflate good, but humdrum scientific results and make a sexy sounding headline out of it. And once again it has served its purpose: to attract clicks to slashdot's website, which translates into advertising revenue. From their point of view scientific accuracy only matters in as much as it increases revenue - they don't care if the clicks come from real scientists and engineers or clueless teenagers.
5. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Shane_Optima · 2017-01-09 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  "The researchers conducted nearly 1,000 computer simulations and estimate about 20 impacts could do the job."
  this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
  Yeah, when is this Monte Carlo fad going to die anyway??? It's worse than bell bottoms.
6. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
  No, this is what science has always been: chasing existing theories, testing them from different angles, trying to find weak points ....
  Well, unless that theory is AGW.
  That's settled. The only thing in "science" ever to be "settled".</SARC>
  And you got modded up, and this will get modded down - because HERETIC!, errr, DENIER!
7. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
  Well, recycling is rather encouraged with this generation, so perhaps they were just "going green"...
8. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by JonnyCalcutta · 2017-01-09 23:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No, he will get modded up because he's right and you will be ignored because you're spouting shite.
9. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by bmo · 2017-01-09 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should verify the theory of gravity by stepping off from a great height?
  Because it really is still being studied. Maybe you will find some ground-breaking data?
  HTH.
  --
  BMO
10. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by jandersen · 2017-01-10 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, unless that theory is AGW.
  That's settled. The only thing in "science" ever to be "settled".
  And you got modded up, and this will get modded down - because HERETIC!, errr, DENIER!
  No, not really; no science is settled in the sense that it will never be scrutinised and probed again. AGW is only settled in the sense that although the scientists are constantly doing exactly what I said above, they don't find major weaknesses. To put it into context: anthropogenic climate change doesn't come out of thin air and a desire for funding; it is the result of work with models, and not just any old model. These climate models are based on the same physical theories that are used for a very wide range of other models; not just weather forecasting, but all kinds of models to do with fluid flow, I'll bet (I'm not a physicist, but I'm sure somebody who is will confirm this). So, if you want to dispute the climate models, you will have to tread carefully - you'll have to explain exactly why climate models are invalid, when all the other models built on the same science are valid.
11. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by FatdogHaiku · 2017-01-10 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Now they just have to show that the moon has different regions with matter different enough that it can be traced to different origins and disprove an iron core. Time for another moon mission!
  Well, the iron core thing should be easy. First, I'm going to need enough grant money to build a REALLY BIG electromagnet. Going to need lots of power so maybe a dedicated reactor would be a good idea (can't think of a dam to co-opt). Lastly a very brave and possibly stupid person to throw the switch. Might want to make that momentary contact type switch. we don't want to slow anything down, or speed anything up, celestially speaking.
  Man I am gonna be SO famous as long as the moon just wobbles a bit and does not get sucked out of the sky or anything...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
12. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by mrbester · 2017-01-10 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  More likely some bone-breaking data...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
13. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Maritz · 2017-01-10 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Try it and let us know how you get on. Actually, I already know how you'll get on. But you don't.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
14. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Maritz · 2017-01-10 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  And you got modded up, and this will get modded down - because HERETIC!, errr, DENIER!
  Bollocks. There's far more of you intellectual cowards on slashdot than anyone who accepts the science.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
15. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-01-10 01:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is getting the AGW political activists out there to treat the problem in a scientific way, rather than another excuse to scream doomsday. "Deniers" are those of us who have seen these people be wrong about all their other apocalypses, and therefore find it easy to assume that they have to be wrong about this one too.
  A surefire sign of the unthinking activist is their automatic rejection of any real-world solution to the carbon problem.
16. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  But what we see here, and what you are complaining about is really the poor journalism that tries to inflate good, but humdrum scientific results and make a sexy sounding headline out of it. And once again it has served its purpose: to attract clicks to slashdot's website,
  Bingo. Slashdot has had its share of clickbait over the years, but is now officially 100% pure clickbait, at the hands of BeauHD and EditorDavid, who can't even articulate an accurate headline.
17. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  "easily trailered to fit the theory." ....I don't see anything easy about "trailering" a theory.... It's not even a word. What do you mean?
18. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-10 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
  Let's do Phlogiston theory! Just the name reeks of awesomeness.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
19. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-10 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should verify the theory of gravity by stepping off from a great height?
  Because it really is still being studied. Maybe you will find some ground-breaking data?
  HTH.
  -- BMO
  I see what you did there.....
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
20. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is getting the Titanic's watchmen to treat the problem in a scientific way, rather than as an excuse to scream "We're going to run into an iceberg!" "Deniers" are those of us who have seen that this ship has never sunk, so it would be foolish to think it would now.
  A surefire sign of an unthinking reactionary is their willingness to assume that ridiculously large numbers of people are willing and able to coordinate and execute an enormous conspiracy just for an excuse to scream doomsday.
21. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by poofmeisterp · 2017-01-10 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
  "The researchers conducted nearly 1,000 computer simulations and estimate about 20 impacts could do the job."
  this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
  :) News flash: Upon conducting 3,000 more computer simulations, the models indicate that the moon could have been formed from quadrillions of smaller moons. Wait, more runs have shown that it could be in the septillion smaller moon range. Wait..."
22. Re: An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  That's how everything's formed.
  Bang everything becomes small pieces and the pieces nearby cluster together to form planets.
  I can go publish a paper that earth is formed by many small earths and so is mars and everything else.
  Yes I'm an arrogant know-it-all self important asshole who just happen to KNOW that I'm smarted that the scientist that came up with this shit.
23. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by serviscope_minor · 2017-01-10 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is getting the AGW political activists
  OK, so you're critical of activists.
  "Deniers" are those of us who have seen
  Ah so because you don't like the activists, you're denying the science done by a completely different set of people. Yeah, that's a totally logical proposition.
  Are you going to deny evoltion too because you found someone who was wrong about it?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
24. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by jandersen · 2017-01-10 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A surefire sign of the unthinking activist is their automatic rejection of any real-world solution to the carbon problem.
  I don't think there is all that much difference between the doomsdayers on the one hand and the conspiracy theorist deniers on the other. Both sides have decided on their 'conclusion' a priori and mangle the available data to fit. The only real sceptics in all of this are the climate scientists; scepticism is at the very core of what science is. Blindly denying the observable facts - which both dommsdayers and deniers do - has nothing to do with being sceptical or thinking critically; it is nothing more than blind faith and represents the extreme of gullibility.
  That said, it makes good sense to listen to the balanced, scientific viewpoints that are presented by climate science: humans do cause climate change, it is getting dangerous now, and we can actually do something constructive about it, not just in terms of short term mitigation, but also in terms of changing the stupid and wasteful habits that are a significant part of the reasons why we have climate change.
25. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yup, science is the testing of ideas. Even if it is an old idea, they tested this idea, and found it to be (in Mythbusters parlance) plausible.
  Does it mean this is what happened, no, just that their testing could not rule out the idea.
26. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by gnick · 2017-01-10 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  First, I'm going to need enough grant money to build a REALLY BIG electromagnet.
  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
27. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by butchersong · 2017-01-10 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is obviously false though regardless of the age of the theory. It is well known that our moon was created when Nibiru (also known as Marduk) struck the planet Tiamat. Does no one read the ancient Sumerian texts anymore?
28. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by FatdogHaiku · 2017-01-10 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Grants aren't free when you have to lie to get them!
  I realize that in our ever changing economy a soul is not worth what it used to be*,
  but even the current glut market has not devalued it to free...
  
  *Oddly, the wages of sin have held steady for a very long time...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
29. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Whoosh! There is goes!
30. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is getting the Titanic's watchmen to treat the problem in a scientific way, rather than as an excuse to scream "We're going to run into an iceberg!" "Deniers" are those of us who have seen that this ship has never sunk, so it would be foolish to think it would now.
  This is a masterpiece.
  Just checking though, you do know that the Titanic did hit an iceberg and sink right?
31. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Jhon · 2017-01-10 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Grants aren't free when you have to lie to get them!"
  "One way or other, what you get, you pay for." -- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
32. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Coren22 · 2017-01-12 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  While the worst that can be said about AGW is that it sped up the end of the ice age (which we are still in).
  The world will not end.
  Mankind will not go extinct.
  The amount of sea level rise means that people have to move an inch a year to avoid it.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
33. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by Coren22 · 2017-01-12 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  it is getting dangerous now,
  
  What makes you say that? What danger exactly does it pose?
  You sound like an alarmist, rather than a science oriented person. AGW is speeding up the climate change that was already occuring. We are exiting an ice age still, unless we never actually get out of the ice age, all the effects of AGW are things that were already going to happen. The projected sea level rise is not something that will cause massive problems to avoid...unless we keep building on land that should be sea like New Orleans.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
34. Re:An old theory, revitalized! by RockDoctor · 2017-01-12 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  An AC trying to use sarcasm. What an absolute waste of effort. Even more so than normal AC comments.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
So the same theory as before? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 19:14 · Score: 0

This is the theory I have always heard...
Bullshit may have occurred. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 19:15 · Score: 1

An old theory no more proven today than then.
Who cares? by DogDudeIsCool · 2017-01-09 19:23 · Score: 0

I mean this literally... other than moon salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new moon, I go to the moon store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was one moon, multiple moonlets, or made out of FairyDust. A moon is a moon is a moon.
1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  that's no moon...
2. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Warren Moon belongs in the hall of fame.
That's no moon! by Calydor · 2017-01-09 20:02 · Score: 0

Someone had to say it.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
1. Re:That's no moon! by wonkey_monkey · 2017-01-09 20:38 · Score: 2
  
  It's a bunch of small moons taped together!
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re: That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  a bunch of Death Stars cobbled together. pew pew... bam
3. Re: That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  I sense a joke I haven't heard since-
4. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  ...and being Israeli, they're just working out how to put some illegal settlements on it.
5. Re:That's no moon! by poofmeisterp · 2017-01-10 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bunch of small moons taped together!
  You forgot the proper reference and trademark symbol after "Taped(tm)".
6. Re: That's no moon! by diesalesmandie · 2017-01-10 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I sense a joke I haven't heard since-
  Many moons ago?
  
  --
  This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Mostly+a+lurker · 2017-01-09 21:15 · Score: 4, Informative

As I understand it, the Giant Impact Hypothesis has Theia's impact creating debris that gradually coalesced into the moon. That this debris formed several smaller moons before they joined up seems plausible, but I am not sure what is really different about what they are proposing.
1. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by adjustinthings · 2017-01-09 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Its probably confusing to people who the word 'coalescing' and imagine the process to be gradual and organised when in reality it is very chaotic. Will the asteriod belt someday coalesce and become something more significant??
2. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by NotAPK · 2017-01-09 23:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I read the article.
  The main problem is that they claim "the problem" with the impact is that we can't find any evidence or residue from Theia. Well, a lot of the models show that the impacter's core (which would have already differentiated and have a metal core) mostly goes into the core of the earth, and the silicate portion mixes with the bulk silicate earth (BSE). The moon is mostly formed from the earth's mantel, not from the impactor, and this is why the moon has the same composition as the BSE. The problem is working out why there is little to no isotopic fractionation between the moon and the earth, since conventional wisdom suggests a hot violent process such as the giant impact would have resulted in such fractionation.
  The most useful part of the article is the suggestion that we go to venus. The similarities and differences in isotopic fractionation between the moon and the earth can only really be interpreted with a greater understanding of isotopic variation among the terrestrial planets, and failed planets (e.g. Vesta) in the asteroid belt.
  For more information I recommend reading this paper which is fortunately funded to be open access.
3. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Will the asteriod belt someday coalesce and become something more significant??
  I think Jupiter has something to say about that. Jupiter's gravity is too strong compared to the gravity of all of the objects in the asteroid belt for there to be any coalescing going on.
4. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Its probably confusing to people who the word 'coalescing' and imagine the process to be gradual and organised when in reality it is very chaotic.
  Will the asteriod belt someday coalesce and become something more significant??
  The reason why we have an asteroid belt there instead of a planet is because of the gravitational tug between Jupiter and the Sun keeps those asteroids from coalescing.
5. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-01-10 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's because some Vestian pissed off a Martian who grokked away a big chunk of its mantle, causing it to fly apart.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
6. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Their theory swaps out one big impact with over a dozen smaller impacts. Probably not all that unusual for the early solar system but if that was how our moon was created why do we see so few Planet/Moon pairs like our own? My guess would be that you have to have one heck of an impact to give the resulting debris enough energy to enter a high enough orbit to not eventually fall back to the parent body. Probably making the single (at least primary) large impactor theory more plausible at least IMHO.
7. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for that recommendation (I'm the lead author in the link) - feel free to email me questions!
8. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by Coren22 · 2017-01-12 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of like people who accidentally a whole word?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
9. Re:Basically, the mainstream theory, or not? by RockDoctor · 2017-01-12 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  The whole asteroid belt could coalesce into one body - and it would be considerably smaller than the Moon. If it's a "failed planet", then if it were lumped into a single planet, it would be similar to or smaller than Pluto. Maybe smaller than Charon - I haven't checked the numbers.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
And HER team by cbraescu1 · 2017-01-09 21:17 · Score: 2

Raluca Rufu in Rehovot, Israel, and his team.
As "Raluca" is a female name, it should be written "her team".

--
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
1. Re: And HER team by Maritz · 2017-01-10 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ethics in gaming journalism.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2. Re:And HER team by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Raluca Rufu in Rehovot, Israel, and his team.
  As "Raluca" is a female name, it should be written "her team".
  Why is this modded down? This is not SJWism. This is common sense. It's a female, and the summary should say "her" not "his."
3. Re:And HER team by Coren22 · 2017-01-12 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.researchgate.net/p...
  Looks like a female to me...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Occam's Razor by Fragnet · 2017-01-09 22:31 · Score: 2

I know it's a cliche these days but isn't the idea of two bodies colliding somewhat more plausible than twenty? I would say of course the composition is similar to the Earth's. No doubt the bollide formed in a similar orbit and attracted similar materials to the Earth. It just lost the battle of accretion and eventually collided with it.
1. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  isn't the idea of two bodies colliding somewhat more plausible than twenty?
  Only if you think of the collisions as some random chance. If you look at them in terms of orbital dynamics and realize that gravity attracts the objects together, there are tons of scenarios where a bunch of smaller masses in orbit slowly come together over many orbits (and join each other at relatively low relative velocities). Of course, you'll probably want to start with even more masses, because some are liable to be ejected from the system instead.
2. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  You are right with but for the wrong reason according to the paper. Idea is that smalls collision was very frequent and "ordinary" at that early time. The collision with a rare and big bolid was "extraordinary". Occam's Razor choose lots of common and small collision.
  That said, Its my turn to ask : If its so obvius as process then Venus which is the twin of Earth minus the Moon should have also form a noon also as a ordinary process. Proximity of Sun protect Venus?
  The question should be if we accept this theory : is it more plausible that Venus lost its forming moon or that it was a single rare event that occurred for Earth and not Venus.
3. Re:Occam's Razor by RockDoctor · 2017-01-12 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  There's a pretty high probability that Venus also had a large late impact. It's axial rotation is not only the slowest in the planets, but it's also retrograde (in the opposite direction to the rotation of the other planets).
  Uranus is also thought to have had a large late impact - it's rotation axis is flipped at 98 degrees to the orbital axis, which is often described as "orbiting on it's side".
  The Pluto-Charon system is also likely the result of a late large impact. Their size difference is even smaller than between the Moon and Earth. The centre of mass of the system is outside Pluto.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
So many theories... so many on the payroll list... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 23:35 · Score: 0

'It was formed after an asteroid hit the Earth!' - said a so-called scientist and got paid for it.
'Yes, you are absolutely right!' - said another so-called scientist and got paid for it.
'No! It was formed from multiple small ones!' - said a different so-called scientist and got paid for it.
'What a genius!' - said yet another so-called scientist and got paid for it.
'Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble...' - said a real scientist and got fired.
Such is science in XXI century...
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 00:47 · Score: 0

a bunch of crap an AC said and did not get paid a cent
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Maritz · 2017-01-10 00:56 · Score: 1

Thanks for explaining your dumb, ignorant way of seeing science play out. Being stupid is like being dead, you don't know you're stupid, the rest of us have to put up with it.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by geantvert · 2017-01-10 01:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

What you are suffering from is called a displacement.
More precisely you appear to assume that scientists, like the creation myth in your favorite holy book, are claiming an absolute trust.
That does not work like that in the real world. Scientists create models and then try to invalidate them by comparing to reality.
Eventually all models become invalidated and are replaced by newer models that fit better with reality.
No sane scientist will ever claim that a specific model is absolutely true. That is why the article is full of "may" and "suggests". Same for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... page that describes the single large collision model.
The only thing that is correct in your post is that from the 5 scientists involved in your short story, the last one is probably the one that merits the most to be fired.
Why? Because scientists #1 and #3 are both proposing a model. Scientists #2 and #4 are defending those models. The only one that is not contributing in any useful way is scientist #5.
Moon of Minerva by Danathar · 2017-01-10 02:27 · Score: 0

Bah..everybody knows the Moon was once the satellite of Minerva...the planet that existed in between Mars and Jupiter and then was destroyed causing the asteroid belt. The moon was pushed out of orbit and caught by the earth as it fell inward.
Logic Failure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 02:40 · Score: 0

If the early solar system was such a shooting gallery wouldn't more of the inner planets have their own moons? Mars is the only other inner planet with moons and those last I heard were almost certainly captured asteroids. Unless their simulations can explain Earth is the only planet to have gotten a full fledged moon in such an environment the single large impact theory would seem to be the more likely scenario.
1. Re:Logic Failure by Jhon · 2017-01-10 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  " Unless their simulations can explain Earth is the only planet to have gotten a full fledged moon in such an environment the single large impact theory would seem to be the more likely scenario."
  It probably is. And surprisingly enough, the "single large impact" theory ALSO appears to be the same as the "multiple moonlets" theory, only "after the single large impact"
  Am I wrong or reading this wrong? Wouldn't the "single large impact" toss up a ton of rocks and basically form a "ring around the Earth (mutliple moonlets) which would eventually either coalesce in to one larger moon or eventually fall back to earth?
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-10 02:59 · Score: 1

Thanks for explaining your dumb, ignorant way of seeing science play out. Being stupid is like being dead, you don't know you're stupid, the rest of us have to put up with it.
Well, he was at least smart enough to post as an AC, sparing himself the well deserved ridicule.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Cheese? by slazzy · 2017-01-10 03:00 · Score: 0

So the moon is made of cheese?

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
1. Re:Cheese? by Jhon · 2017-01-10 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  That was a grate joke!
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 04:16 · Score: 0

Butthurt?
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 04:18 · Score: 0

have you just commented on your own reply?
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 04:20 · Score: 0

Thanks for explaining nothing in you comment. Not even making a point.
And still getting Score:2.
Wow... Is OP right?
You are supporting each other, paying each other (not your own money of course), giving +1 to each other...
Seveneves by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 05:35 · Score: 0

I'd like to see Neal Stephenson comment on this.
The science in the book (as presented) would contradict this idea completely.
Once smaller pieces are closer together they would not clump, but break into even smaller pieces.
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by h4x0t · 2017-01-10 05:42 · Score: 2

What you are suffering from is called projection.

You see, you were bullishly aggressive and dismissive with your initial assessment. You assumed the informational and detached format used to refute your reductive argument was designed as a personal attack, and therefor assumed it came from a defensive stance aka 'butt hurt'.

I guess what I'm really saying is that you are the one who is butt hurt.
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 05:51 · Score: 0

Glad you found yet another post to interject the fact that you don't believe in God. Good job, stick it to those filthy Christians who don't believe precisely as you do, but who by and large spend their entire days not affecting you at all. You take them down a peg or two.
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 06:12 · Score: 0

Really - seems to me they are completely trying to affect everything around me. (USA of course).
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Jhon · 2017-01-10 08:02 · Score: 1

"What you are suffering from is called a displacement.
More precisely you appear to assume that scientists, like the creation myth in your favorite holy book, are claiming an absolute trust."
What you are suffering from (as are the people you are criticizing) is thinking that science and faith are the same type of thing (like a table, or a rock). When someone who thinks this way (like you apparently do) is on the "side" of science, those of faith become the targets of contempt ("creation myth in your favorite holy book") and those who think this way on the side of faith think see your side as "it's just a theory -- they can't even agree what truth is".
They are two very different things. Having a science vs. theology debate is about as useful as having a color vs. scent debate. Or maybe a dark vs. wet debate...
Theorized in the Early 1960s by DERoss · 2017-01-10 08:46 · Score: 1

This was presented more than 50 years ago by Gordan J. F. MacDonald, at that time professor of geophysics at UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. His paper "Origin of the Moon: Dynamical Considerations" appeared in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences on 7 May 1965. As one of his computer programmers, I did the calculations for that paper. I think, however, that I might have done those calculations a few years earlier and that MacDonald published the same theory earlier than 1965.
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by geantvert · 2017-01-10 09:07 · Score: 1

I could almost agree with you except that my critic was not against religion as a whole but against a literal interpretation of religious texts.
The issue is not science vs religion but reality vs blind faith in an absolute truth.
More generally, the same problem is found in non-religious contexts such as flat earth and other conspiracy theories where people will first assert a truth and then will ignore any evidence against it.
At last! by lhowaf · 2017-01-10 15:29 · Score: 1

Finally, a cheap and effective way to move a large number of people out of Earth's gravity well! When the next strike is going to occur, pile on to the to-be-ejected chunk and: BANG, ZOOM! Straight to the moon!
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Coren22 · 2017-01-12 03:20 · Score: 1

Except that Maritz's comment is unmodded, as you will planely see if you click on the word "Score". It is +2 because he has good karma and used that to contribute to the registered user's automatic 1.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?