New Moon Formation Model

msheppard writes "This ariticle at Scientific American describes a new computer model describing the formation of the moon. "It is also strikingly similar to the first proposed impact theory 25 years ago, before computer simulations were available.""

Oh troll, thou hath contradicted thyself

[Marvin_OScribbley]

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!)

(emphasis mine)

But then our friend goes on to claim:

There is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950.

Nice try, but you just referenced Joshua 10:12 in the Old Testament (written WAY before 1950, something that EVERYONE will agree on...):

12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."

Why this model is important

[meckardt]

While it isn't likely that present day Earth will encounter another impactor such as may have formed the moon, legitimization of the theory behind this model goes a long way to giving planetary astronomers a better understanding of how planetary systems are formed. If they can't explain how WE got here, then its really difficult to conclude one way or another that similar systems are or are not out there.

Re:Why this model is important

[mmol_6453]

Greek philosophers theorized. No set-out tests, observations or proofs.

I'm not against gathering evidence, but a conclusion is the worst possible thing that can happen in science.

If one concludes that something is true, then the subject looses interest. People loose interest in the subject. Lines of research loose funding. The theory isn't challenged. Potential for advancement is lost.

"Nothing can be proved, only disproved."