111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 137:
Line 137: + + + + + + + + + + + +
swap article and discussion pages for superior treatment, more fun
I left in all the criticism that was in the original article. I merely put it into the context of the sources (read: I was actually being honest and not just mining for convenient quotes.) and moved things around so that they actually make some structured sense. There was quite a bit of nonsense in Aschlafly's version, such as the "completely disproven" bit (The fact that somebody RECENTLY revived one of the discarded theories KINDA speaks against that, doesn't it?). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I left in all the criticism that was in the original article. I merely put it into the context of the sources (read: I was actually being honest and not just mining for convenient quotes.) and moved things around so that they actually make some structured sense. There was quite a bit of nonsense in Aschlafly's version, such as the "completely disproven" bit (The fact that somebody RECENTLY revived one of the discarded theories KINDA speaks against that, doesn't it?). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== swap article and discussion pages for superior treatment, more fun ==
"Look at the moon, look at the moon...." (from HAIR)
Foget about how old the moon is. Article needs substantial changes, mainly for stylistic reasons. Currently (7 APRIL, 2007 AD)springs current scientific theory half way thru article, which is not a good pedagogical technique. (But then neither is employing "pedagogical" when "educational" would have sufficed.)Here below are the first 2 pars as I see them. If no one objects, I will put them when next I am around these parts.
-------------------------------------------
There is not a complete consensus amongst contemporary scientists as to how the Moon came into existence. Historically , three hypotheses were widely seen as plausible contenders for such an explanation: they were the “Fission Hypothesis”, which held that the Moon was ejected by the ancient, swiftly-spinning Earth; the “Capture Hypothesis”, in which the Earth’s gravity captured another planet; and the “Co-accretion Hypothesis” in which both the Earth and the Moon came into being side by side formed together from the same primordial loose aggregation of space dust.
All of these scenarios had serious defects as theories, and all were made before the Apollo Moon Program of the late 1960s and early 1970s brought back tons of Moon rock to provide scientists with unprecedented data about the Moon’s composition and history. That data, and the more sophisticated measurements of the Moon’s mass and orbit available to recent researchers, led to the earlier theories losing favor and the promotion of a new one: “The Big Impact Hypothesis”. This theory envisages a massive collision between an ancient Earth and a large asteroid, one in which the early Earth melted and the asteroid disintegrated, only to re-coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.
-----------------------------------------
[[user:mylesP|MylesP]]