| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
| | '''Canup and Asphaug argue that the fault lies not in the stars but in our simulations.''' The calculations rely on a technique known as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics, which subdivides the bodies and applies the laws of physics to each piece. Early runs tracked 3,000 pieces--leaving the iron core of the moon to be represented by just a single piece. Even the slightest computational imprecision could vastly overstate the iron content, in which case the computer compensated by reducing the impact angle. The result was a bias toward heavy impactors and light proto-Earths. '''Because Canup and Asphaug use 30,000 particles, they get by with a much smaller impactor. Everything--mass, iron, momentum--clicks into place.'''}} | | '''Canup and Asphaug argue that the fault lies not in the stars but in our simulations.''' The calculations rely on a technique known as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics, which subdivides the bodies and applies the laws of physics to each piece. Early runs tracked 3,000 pieces--leaving the iron core of the moon to be represented by just a single piece. Even the slightest computational imprecision could vastly overstate the iron content, in which case the computer compensated by reducing the impact angle. The result was a bias toward heavy impactors and light proto-Earths. '''Because Canup and Asphaug use 30,000 particles, they get by with a much smaller impactor. Everything--mass, iron, momentum--clicks into place.'''}} |
| | ::I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with the theory (and criticism should be mentioned in the article, of course), but you try to make things look as if scientists only cling to a completely silly theory that has been effectively disproven already. | | ::I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with the theory (and criticism should be mentioned in the article, of course), but you try to make things look as if scientists only cling to a completely silly theory that has been effectively disproven already. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: No, I say it is impossible to disprove this theory, and therefore the theory is not even science. The theory is no different from saying that a UFO placed the Moon by hand there 4 billion years ago. That cannot be disproven, no matter how silly it is. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: I'm quite clear that the tests that people have done are "not supportive of the theory," just as I say (and even quote the scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | ::The only thing I credit you for is the omission of any overly "Of course, the only truth is that God created the Moon during Creation Week, and Answers in Genesis shows undeniable proof." bias... yet. | | ::The only thing I credit you for is the omission of any overly "Of course, the only truth is that God created the Moon during Creation Week, and Answers in Genesis shows undeniable proof." bias... yet. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: That's a silly comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | ::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?). | | ::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?). |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: There is nothing factual that supports the theory. It's pure speculation by a few scientists whose prior theories have been completely disproven. I don't even see evidence that most scientists even support this new theory. They didn't for ten years after it was proposed, and the scientists who wrote those articles that I cite plainly don't support it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | ::Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to create an ultra-super-"Why that theory has been proven without doubt!" article. I just want a bit of fairness and a bit of style correction to make the article look halfway presentable. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | | ::Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to create an ultra-super-"Why that theory has been proven without doubt!" article. I just want a bit of fairness and a bit of style correction to make the article look halfway presentable. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: Everything in the article is factual, and no significant facts have been left out of the article. Really, you have be specific about what you propose adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | :::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | | :::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::: OK, fine. But you really shouldn't be complaining then. The facts are not always what we expect or want, and clearly your preconceived views have been challenged. I urge you to reconsider you views rather than oppose the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | | The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : Once I realized that the Giant-Impact theory isn't science, the other articles don't matter to me. But obviously some people insist on clinging to the Giant-Impact theory even though it isn't science. To them, these other facts might matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |