Well, let's just suppose that the plate tectonics theory that currently exists is exactly on target: magma heat transfer drives convection, which drivesthe plate motions, which moves the continents.
If a large bolide cracked the Earth's crust (say, along the Atlantic ridge), would that encourage the crack to direct the magma heat release, and then the convective flow?
I'd think it would. So I'd guess, yes, that bolide impacts could affect plate tectonics. But it's a guess, that's all.
Hmmm... just for brief science fiction, suppose that......back in the Pliocene, when dinosaurs roamed the planet, just suppose there was one species that was, say, superintelligent. And suppose that species mined asteroids, and then one megalomaniac crashed an asteroid at a shallow angle, into Africa, right about where the South Sandwich islands are today (but crust-wise, at the location of the Vredefort.)
And, that location, perhaps, was just where there was a uranium-calcium georeactor in the mantle. And it blew.
And, just for argument's sake, suppose the crust completely shattered, and blew out about 1/3 of the moon's mass, and the exposure of the kimberlites in the crust created all those nice diamond mines in a big circle that includes Australia, Northern India, central Africa, and Brazil.
Much more recently than people imagine... but those U-U dates were thrown off by all the Uranium from the explosion.
And, just for entertainment's sake, suppose that the shock waves set off another explosion in a georeactor directly under the Hudson Bay, shattering that crust like a bullet shot through a pumpkin, and sending *that* mass into orbit as well, and creating all those kimiberlites that circle the Hudson in a 950-mile radius.
And, just for imagination's sake suppose there was yet *another* explosion, say, underneath a continent located, say, about where Polynesia was today, and that one threw out most of the moon's mass, and created a large enough hole that the continents slid far more quickly than anyone today realizes.
Just supposing... maybe playing with asteroids is a _bad_idea_.
Well, thank goodness that's all sci-fi, and there *aren't* kimberlites all around the Hudson, or in a giant arc that aligns well in Pangea.
Hmmm... just for brief science fiction, suppose that......back in the Pliocene, when dinosaurs roamed the planet, just suppose there was one species that was, say, superintelligent. And suppose that species mined asteroids, and then one megalomaniac crashed an asteroid at a shallow angle, into Africa, right about where the South Sandwich islands are today (but crust-wise, at the location of the Vredefort.)
And, that location, perhaps, was just where there was a uranium-calcium georeactor in the mantle. And it blew.
And, just for argument's sake, suppose the crust completely shattered, and blew out about 1/3 of the moon's mass, and the exposure of the kimberlites in the crust created all those nice diamond mines in a big circle that includes Australia, Northern Italy, central Africa, and Brazil.
Much more recently than people imagine... but those U-U dates were thrown off by all the Uranium from the explosion.
And, just for entertainment's sake, suppose that the shock waves set off another explosion in a georeactor directly under the Hudson Bay, shattering that crust like a bullet shot through a pumpkin, and sending *that* mass into orbit as well, and creating all those kimiberlites that circle the Hudson in a 950-mile radius.
And, just for imagination's sake suppose there was yet *another* explosion, say, underneath a continent located, say, about where Polynesia was today, and that one threw out most of the moon's mass, and created a large enough hole that the continents slid far more quickly than anyone today realizes.
Just supposing... maybe playing with asteroids is a _bad_idea_.
Well, thank goodness that's all sci-fi, and there *aren't* kimberlites all around the Hudson, or in a giant arc that aligns well in Pangea.
Does anyone know, is there a caldera there? When I google it, I see that there was one formed 12k years ago, but if there was one today, then you'd want to watch for a supersonic outgassing, because if that happens, the city needs to evacuate ASAP.
With the outgassing, my understanding is that the pressure reduces to one that is insufficient to hold up the ceiling of the caldera, so you then get a collapse, and a mega-explosion, a la Santarini, Krakatoa, and other such megavolcanos.
Okay, so the fact that there was an intelligent designer and the fact that the Earth was intelligently designed are only correlations, not causation. But Occam's razor makes it reasonable for me to believe the causation, unless you can find a simpler explanatioon.
Ah, for the good old days of trial by battle. Then you KNEW your lawyer would give you his best. Just, not everyone could afford a lawyer. Maybe we ought to have court-assigned lawyers AND trial by battle. (Just kidding)
Then I turn the key and crank the engine. Since the transmission is already in reverse, I simply apply gas, and suddenly release the clutch.
That said, I try to avoid back ups as much as possible, because the hard drive seems to cause crashes more often than not.
(Mod me+1 Flamebait)
Funny. In my Apple 2+ days, I just typed the hex code, and skipped the assembler. In my PC days,though, I cheated and used Dos debug plus recursive C code and.bat programs to make a mini assembler.
For logs, it is easier and faster to [1] convert the number to binary (2^x) (1.yyyy). Save the power x for later. For the other number 1.yyyy, break the number down to [binary]
(1+0.a)(1+0.0b)(1+0.00c)... Where a, b, and c are binary digits. There is an algorithm like a single binar divide that will generate a,b,c all at once .
Then for every nonzero a, b, and c... you look up the log-base 2 and sum those together. That will give you the binary digits to the right of the decimal. The number to the left is the power of 2 from the first conversion.
I think that you are describing a trait of written law governments as opposed to common law. As a matter of course, the theory of common law is that the government does not have the right to create law, but only the right to declare and order natural law. The US used to be, and nominally still is, a common law government. But in fact, ever since the beginning, we have been increasingly of a written law nature, so that now we are indistinguishable from a written law system.
I dunno.... for myself, I prefer the wines made from scuppernog grapes. That has to do with the taste of the grape, as well. Yes, it's a cheap wine. But I could eat the grapes all day long. Oh, and I like the taste of red wines much better than white. I would absolutely hate it if I ordered a red, and they handed me a white, telling me it was red.
But they both can be bad. Or they can be good. Good is rarer than bad.
I suspect that the most definite answer you'll get to this question, depends on whether the person you're asking is male or female, and whether they want to be boss.
How about, maybe the surface is in a periodically slightly liquid glass state, and is, well, boiling?
Also, Mercury nominally keeps the same side of the planet to the sun. How true is that? Does it change by so many degrees within 1000 years? Or is it absolutely constant [which I would doubt, without some process holding it there, like the core being magnetically fixed and solid... which I understand it isn't].
And since the government holds that it cannot be sued, then that means that the seventh amendment no longer applies to anything. Yes, I am trolling when I say that it looks to me like it jives with the rest of the United States Constitution.
Just as a disclaimer: I *do* believe that God created the universe. I also believe that not only does He intervene, but He also holds the universe in existence, and is He intimately aware of everything that goes on.
I've seen enough evidence, for myself, that I couldn't believe otherwise. I've seen evidence that He actually loves his creation, and is Himself the definition of goodness. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes, though I won't go into it here.
But I also believe that our science is basically valid while at the same time being nowhere close to holding the complete truth. There's an eternity of digging yet to be done, and we still won't hold all truth. [That, by the way, is the Catholic definition of a Mystery. But I am saying that just as there is a terribly important Mystery of the Incarnation, there is also a much less important Mystery of God's Creation. Our search into that mystery is called Science, or sometimes Math. To be worthwhile, the search into the mystery of Creation has to be guided by insight, but limited by the rules of logic and reason: A goal, A Given, and {Statement/Reason]x N ]
Ummm... this isn't a troll, or biting a troll, but *why* wouldn't you prefer the scientists' views on science, and the theologians' views on theology, and the political advisors' views on politics?
Or, even better, why wouldn't you maintain an interest in everything, and try to fit it together, yourself, into a world view that makes sense?
Actually, I kindof would expect you to.
For myself, though I allow for all things to happen, I nonetheless hate seeing religious belief in science or scientists. I hate hearing 10000 parrots all saying at once, "I think for myself", because that's the popular thing to say, as if other people who have different conclusions *don't*. I hate seeing people use scientific assumptions to try to deduce theology [where they don't apply] or vice versa, and in the process demonstrate that they don't have a grip on reason.
Give you an example: evolution. Religious faith in science says "Evolution is proven. Anyone who believes otherwise is batty." A more scientific viewpoint of it would look at the progression of evolution theory, and see that evolution is simply a pretty good theory that definitely has needed refinement, and almost as definitely will still need refinement. A person with that second viewpoint will look at creationists' arguments against it -- and they do have some good ones -- not as being batty, but actually as pushing the theory to account for holes that still exist.
Look at the creationists' arguments against evolution, based on the need for a massive ordovician disaster, or their arguments against the continents somehow just sitting still for a billion or so years, and then jumping into action. Or look at their arguments against the various isotope dating methods. Those are actually very good arguments. Rather than saying "oh, they're just batty", scientists should be looking at that as an opportunity to discover *why* the Pb/Pb isotopic dating disagrees with the U isotopic dating in [for example] the age of the moon rocks or the rock around the Hudson.
Let me assure you: it isn't that the creationists are wacko. It is that they've really found a flaw in the theory. That flaw means that there is a refinement out there in our understanding that *needs* to be addressed. When a valid answer is found, then the flaw will not be a flaw any more, it will be a new, key, important theory, that will then push our science forward.
Nonsense. Don't you remember the fiasco about them claiming to insure against fraud? Then it turned out that they were "self insuring", and never paid once.
I was one of those who lost something like $350 on it [the normal used price for that particular Quark Xpress]. I proved fraud 5 different ways: two of them were that the seller claimed to be selling a licensed copy of Quark Xpress, and actually delivered a Windows 95 user manual; and the seller claimed to be from the Antilles [not a Russian mafia hotbed] and shipped from Tbilisi Georgia, which would have caused me not to buy, right there.
Anyhow, Paypal said that since he shipped *something*, they considered that a 'quality dispute', which they didn't cover.
I never got my money back, and Paypal has never paid on the claim, and as far as I am concerned, *Paypal's fraud* worked hand in hand with the sellers' fraud.
No, it is NOT TRUE that Paypal doesn't abuse customers in general. There is a class actual lawsuit that demonstrated that. I just never signed on to it, because plaintiffs in class action lawsuits typically never collect. But if Paypal ever wants me to consider doing business with them in any way, shape, or form, they'll first pay me back the money I lost, plus interest.
And yes, I am aware that Paypal is in the middle of a media blitz right now, which means that they probably are paying for "online reputation protection" as advertised on National Public Radio, and therefore I am probably going to be modded with a combination of "Troll" and "overrated" to make my post vanish. I've noticed that that has been the pattern these days.
So be it. I'm still going to post the truth.
Saying "they don't abuse customers" is false. I'll assume you said it in ignorance.
It doesn't predate the Canadian Archon, or Vaalbara, or even possibly Vredefort, or the Hudson Bay structure. Arguably it doesn't predate all the oceanic trenches, nor the alignment of the continental shelf shapes. So there is a lot that has lasted.
Based on recent articles in the Physics Today, the moon is almost entirely made of Earth Mantle. Therefore, the viewpoint of a georeactor megavolcano probably is more likely.
Based on recent articles in Science News, it seems that in the formation of Kimberlite rock, there is a reaction which can send the magma into orbit, basically with carbon dioxide being the rocket fuel.
Referencing back to a Slashdot article not too long ago, the main structure of the moon is from two smaller moons colliding in a fairly slow collision.
Based on the new kimberlites found in a huge ring of 950-mi radius all around the Hudson, and the age of the Hudson rock [ the margin of error in rock dating, plus the fact that georeactors will throw off the Uranium isotope counts but perhaps not the Pb/Pb counts, allow for the probability], I'd say that the Hudson is one likely origin of the moon.
*But* that doesn't mean I don't think a much smaller asteroid triggered it. Based on the probability that georeactors will create enough vapor pressure to keep themselves from getting dense enough to go critical, it would take a large, sudden, horizontal force on a uranium-laden calcium berg in the mantle, to force it critical. Once it went critical, shock waves in the mantle could trigger another georeactor on the opposite side of the earth.
My guess, based on all that? 2.1 billion years ago, a relatively small asteroid [that is, not mars-sized] impacted near the south pole at a shallow angle, plowing the submantle south of Tierra Del Fuego, and throwing shocked glass all around South Africa, Antarctica, and Australia. You can see the plowed area in Google Maps, from Del Fuego to the South Sandwich Islands. It triggered a georeactor that exists under the South Sandwich Islands, and at the time was under the Vredefort Crater. The georeactor blew, making the volcanic crater. On the other side of the globe, near where Iceland is today, was another georeactor, with what is now the Hudson Bay above it. That georeactor also blew, creating the bay, shattering the crust all around it, and causing Kimberlate / Lamproite blasts through the shattered crust.
At that point, you had a huge amount of matter orbiting the earth at relatively slow speeds. Some of it fell back, but a lot of it formed into two moons, which at some point later, merged in a relatively slow collision.
I can't throw a probability on the scenario, but I tend to think [based on the articles I have read] that that scenario is more probable than any other that has been proposed.
When I had a brand new PS2/30 with two floppy drives and (gasp!) MCGA, I wanted to write a game, and settled on a new arcade game I had seen: tetris. To get the game fleshed out, I first did it all in text, and then wrote a graphics front end.
As the OP indicated, there was no money in it, but it was educational. But basically my advice is to ignore the graphics until everything else is done.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let's just suppose that the plate tectonics theory that currently exists is exactly on target: magma heat transfer drives convection, which drivesthe plate motions, which moves the continents.
If a large bolide cracked the Earth's crust (say, along the Atlantic ridge), would that encourage the crack to direct the magma heat release, and then the convective flow?
I'd think it would. So I'd guess, yes, that bolide impacts could affect plate tectonics. But it's a guess, that's all.
Much more profitable just to threaten to destroy the Earth unless everybody pays them. And they can do it again -- and again.
After all, it's not just the price of platinum that may plummet... it could be the platinum itself.
Hmmm... just for brief science fiction, suppose that... ...back in the Pliocene, when dinosaurs roamed the planet, just suppose there was one species that was, say, superintelligent. And suppose that species mined asteroids, and then one megalomaniac crashed an asteroid at a shallow angle, into Africa, right about where the South Sandwich islands are today (but crust-wise, at the location of the Vredefort.)
And, that location, perhaps, was just where there was a uranium-calcium georeactor in the mantle. And it blew.
And, just for argument's sake, suppose the crust completely shattered, and blew out about 1/3 of the moon's mass, and the exposure of the kimberlites in the crust created all those nice diamond mines in a big circle that includes Australia, Northern India, central Africa, and Brazil.
Much more recently than people imagine... but those U-U dates were thrown off by all the Uranium from the explosion.
And, just for entertainment's sake, suppose that the shock waves set off another explosion in a georeactor directly under the Hudson Bay, shattering that crust like a bullet shot through a pumpkin, and sending *that* mass into orbit as well, and creating all those kimiberlites that circle the Hudson in a 950-mile radius.
And, just for imagination's sake suppose there was yet *another* explosion, say, underneath a continent located, say, about where Polynesia was today, and that one threw out most of the moon's mass, and created a large enough hole that the continents slid far more quickly than anyone today realizes.
Just supposing... maybe playing with asteroids is a _bad_idea_.
Well, thank goodness that's all sci-fi, and there *aren't* kimberlites all around the Hudson, or in a giant arc that aligns well in Pangea.
Right?
Just suppose...
n/t
Hmmm... just for brief science fiction, suppose that... ...back in the Pliocene, when dinosaurs roamed the planet, just suppose there was one species that was, say, superintelligent. And suppose that species mined asteroids, and then one megalomaniac crashed an asteroid at a shallow angle, into Africa, right about where the South Sandwich islands are today (but crust-wise, at the location of the Vredefort.)
And, that location, perhaps, was just where there was a uranium-calcium georeactor in the mantle. And it blew.
And, just for argument's sake, suppose the crust completely shattered, and blew out about 1/3 of the moon's mass, and the exposure of the kimberlites in the crust created all those nice diamond mines in a big circle that includes Australia, Northern Italy, central Africa, and Brazil.
Much more recently than people imagine... but those U-U dates were thrown off by all the Uranium from the explosion.
And, just for entertainment's sake, suppose that the shock waves set off another explosion in a georeactor directly under the Hudson Bay, shattering that crust like a bullet shot through a pumpkin, and sending *that* mass into orbit as well, and creating all those kimiberlites that circle the Hudson in a 950-mile radius.
And, just for imagination's sake suppose there was yet *another* explosion, say, underneath a continent located, say, about where Polynesia was today, and that one threw out most of the moon's mass, and created a large enough hole that the continents slid far more quickly than anyone today realizes.
Just supposing... maybe playing with asteroids is a _bad_idea_.
Well, thank goodness that's all sci-fi, and there *aren't* kimberlites all around the Hudson, or in a giant arc that aligns well in Pangea.
Right?
Just suppose...
Does anyone know, is there a caldera there? When I google it, I see that there was one formed 12k years ago, but if there was one today, then you'd want to watch for a supersonic outgassing, because if that happens, the city needs to evacuate ASAP.
With the outgassing, my understanding is that the pressure reduces to one that is insufficient to hold up the ceiling of the caldera, so you then get a collapse, and a mega-explosion, a la Santarini, Krakatoa, and other such megavolcanos.
Umm, how do you record a letter and play it back later?
Okay, so the fact that there was an intelligent designer and the fact that the Earth was intelligently designed are only correlations, not causation. But Occam's razor makes it reasonable for me to believe the causation, unless you can find a simpler explanatioon.
Ah, for the good old days of trial by battle. Then you KNEW your lawyer would give you his best. Just, not everyone could afford a lawyer. Maybe we ought to have court-assigned lawyers AND trial by battle. (Just kidding)
Then I turn the key and crank the engine. Since the transmission is already in reverse, I simply apply gas, and suddenly release the clutch. That said, I try to avoid back ups as much as possible, because the hard drive seems to cause crashes more often than not. (Mod me+1 Flamebait)
Funny. In my Apple 2+ days, I just typed the hex code, and skipped the assembler. In my PC days,though, I cheated and used Dos debug plus recursive C code and .bat programs to make a mini assembler.
For logs, it is easier and faster to [1] convert the number to binary (2^x) (1.yyyy). Save the power x for later. For the other number 1.yyyy, break the number down to [binary] (1+0.a)(1+0.0b)(1+0.00c)... Where a, b, and c are binary digits. There is an algorithm like a single binar divide that will generate a,b,c all at once . Then for every nonzero a, b, and c... you look up the log-base 2 and sum those together. That will give you the binary digits to the right of the decimal. The number to the left is the power of 2 from the first conversion.
Because as our government progresses in insanity, what was nonsense yesterday results in the gulags tomorrow. That's why the concern.
I think that you are describing a trait of written law governments as opposed to common law. As a matter of course, the theory of common law is that the government does not have the right to create law, but only the right to declare and order natural law. The US used to be, and nominally still is, a common law government. But in fact, ever since the beginning, we have been increasingly of a written law nature, so that now we are indistinguishable from a written law system.
I dunno.... for myself, I prefer the wines made from scuppernog grapes. That has to do with the taste of the grape, as well. Yes, it's a cheap wine. But I could eat the grapes all day long. Oh, and I like the taste of red wines much better than white. I would absolutely hate it if I ordered a red, and they handed me a white, telling me it was red.
They're not equal. They do fail differently.
But they both can be bad. Or they can be good. Good is rarer than bad.
I suspect that the most definite answer you'll get to this question, depends on whether the person you're asking is male or female, and whether they want to be boss.
Which leads us back to the original problem...
How about, maybe the surface is in a periodically slightly liquid glass state, and is, well, boiling?
Also, Mercury nominally keeps the same side of the planet to the sun. How true is that? Does it change by so many degrees within 1000 years? Or is it absolutely constant [which I would doubt, without some process holding it there, like the core being magnetically fixed and solid... which I understand it isn't].
And since the government holds that it cannot be sued, then that means that the seventh amendment no longer applies to anything. Yes, I am trolling when I say that it looks to me like it jives with the rest of the United States Constitution.
Just as a disclaimer: I *do* believe that God created the universe. I also believe that not only does He intervene, but He also holds the universe in existence, and is He intimately aware of everything that goes on.
I've seen enough evidence, for myself, that I couldn't believe otherwise. I've seen evidence that He actually loves his creation, and is Himself the definition of goodness. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes, though I won't go into it here.
But I also believe that our science is basically valid while at the same time being nowhere close to holding the complete truth. There's an eternity of digging yet to be done, and we still won't hold all truth. [That, by the way, is the Catholic definition of a Mystery. But I am saying that just as there is a terribly important Mystery of the Incarnation, there is also a much less important Mystery of God's Creation. Our search into that mystery is called Science, or sometimes Math. To be worthwhile, the search into the mystery of Creation has to be guided by insight, but limited by the rules of logic and reason: A goal, A Given, and {Statement/Reason]x N ]
Ummm... this isn't a troll, or biting a troll, but *why* wouldn't you prefer the scientists' views on science, and the theologians' views on theology, and the political advisors' views on politics?
Or, even better, why wouldn't you maintain an interest in everything, and try to fit it together, yourself, into a world view that makes sense?
Actually, I kindof would expect you to.
For myself, though I allow for all things to happen, I nonetheless hate seeing religious belief in science or scientists. I hate hearing 10000 parrots all saying at once, "I think for myself", because that's the popular thing to say, as if other people who have different conclusions *don't*. I hate seeing people use scientific assumptions to try to deduce theology [where they don't apply] or vice versa, and in the process demonstrate that they don't have a grip on reason.
Give you an example: evolution. Religious faith in science says "Evolution is proven. Anyone who believes otherwise is batty." A more scientific viewpoint of it would look at the progression of evolution theory, and see that evolution is simply a pretty good theory that definitely has needed refinement, and almost as definitely will still need refinement. A person with that second viewpoint will look at creationists' arguments against it -- and they do have some good ones -- not as being batty, but actually as pushing the theory to account for holes that still exist.
Look at the creationists' arguments against evolution, based on the need for a massive ordovician disaster, or their arguments against the continents somehow just sitting still for a billion or so years, and then jumping into action. Or look at their arguments against the various isotope dating methods. Those are actually very good arguments. Rather than saying "oh, they're just batty", scientists should be looking at that as an opportunity to discover *why* the Pb/Pb isotopic dating disagrees with the U isotopic dating in [for example] the age of the moon rocks or the rock around the Hudson.
Let me assure you: it isn't that the creationists are wacko. It is that they've really found a flaw in the theory. That flaw means that there is a refinement out there in our understanding that *needs* to be addressed. When a valid answer is found, then the flaw will not be a flaw any more, it will be a new, key, important theory, that will then push our science forward.
Nonsense. Don't you remember the fiasco about them claiming to insure against fraud? Then it turned out that they were "self insuring", and never paid once.
I was one of those who lost something like $350 on it [the normal used price for that particular Quark Xpress]. I proved fraud 5 different ways: two of them were that the seller claimed to be selling a licensed copy of Quark Xpress, and actually delivered a Windows 95 user manual; and the seller claimed to be from the Antilles [not a Russian mafia hotbed] and shipped from Tbilisi Georgia, which would have caused me not to buy, right there.
Anyhow, Paypal said that since he shipped *something*, they considered that a 'quality dispute', which they didn't cover.
I never got my money back, and Paypal has never paid on the claim, and as far as I am concerned, *Paypal's fraud* worked hand in hand with the sellers' fraud.
No, it is NOT TRUE that Paypal doesn't abuse customers in general. There is a class actual lawsuit that demonstrated that. I just never signed on to it, because plaintiffs in class action lawsuits typically never collect. But if Paypal ever wants me to consider doing business with them in any way, shape, or form, they'll first pay me back the money I lost, plus interest.
And yes, I am aware that Paypal is in the middle of a media blitz right now, which means that they probably are paying for "online reputation protection" as advertised on National Public Radio, and therefore I am probably going to be modded with a combination of "Troll" and "overrated" to make my post vanish. I've noticed that that has been the pattern these days.
So be it. I'm still going to post the truth.
Saying "they don't abuse customers" is false. I'll assume you said it in ignorance.
It doesn't predate the Canadian Archon, or Vaalbara, or even possibly Vredefort, or the Hudson Bay structure. Arguably it doesn't predate all the oceanic trenches, nor the alignment of the continental shelf shapes. So there is a lot that has lasted.
Pi? Yes, I want a piece, blueberry is superb (Spare the Apple pastries).
Based on recent articles in the Physics Today, the moon is almost entirely made of Earth Mantle. Therefore, the viewpoint of a georeactor megavolcano probably is more likely.
Based on recent articles in Science News, it seems that in the formation of Kimberlite rock, there is a reaction which can send the magma into orbit, basically with carbon dioxide being the rocket fuel.
Referencing back to a Slashdot article not too long ago, the main structure of the moon is from two smaller moons colliding in a fairly slow collision.
Based on the new kimberlites found in a huge ring of 950-mi radius all around the Hudson, and the age of the Hudson rock [ the margin of error in rock dating, plus the fact that georeactors will throw off the Uranium isotope counts but perhaps not the Pb/Pb counts, allow for the probability], I'd say that the Hudson is one likely origin of the moon.
*But* that doesn't mean I don't think a much smaller asteroid triggered it. Based on the probability that georeactors will create enough vapor pressure to keep themselves from getting dense enough to go critical, it would take a large, sudden, horizontal force on a uranium-laden calcium berg in the mantle, to force it critical. Once it went critical, shock waves in the mantle could trigger another georeactor on the opposite side of the earth.
My guess, based on all that? 2.1 billion years ago, a relatively small asteroid [that is, not mars-sized] impacted near the south pole at a shallow angle, plowing the submantle south of Tierra Del Fuego, and throwing shocked glass all around South Africa, Antarctica, and Australia. You can see the plowed area in Google Maps, from Del Fuego to the South Sandwich Islands. It triggered a georeactor that exists under the South Sandwich Islands, and at the time was under the Vredefort Crater. The georeactor blew, making the volcanic crater. On the other side of the globe, near where Iceland is today, was another georeactor, with what is now the Hudson Bay above it. That georeactor also blew, creating the bay, shattering the crust all around it, and causing Kimberlate / Lamproite blasts through the shattered crust.
At that point, you had a huge amount of matter orbiting the earth at relatively slow speeds. Some of it fell back, but a lot of it formed into two moons, which at some point later, merged in a relatively slow collision.
I can't throw a probability on the scenario, but I tend to think [based on the articles I have read] that that scenario is more probable than any other that has been proposed.
When I had a brand new PS2/30 with two floppy drives and (gasp!) MCGA, I wanted to write a game, and settled on a new arcade game I had seen: tetris. To get the game fleshed out, I first did it all in text, and then wrote a graphics front end. As the OP indicated, there was no money in it, but it was educational. But basically my advice is to ignore the graphics until everything else is done.