Origin of the Moon - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* References */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T17:03:20Z

‎References: clean up & uniformity

DanAP at 07:50, November 23, 2012

2012-11-23T07:50:58Z

Aschlafly: /* Giant-Impact Model */

2012-05-05T04:21:07Z

‎Giant-Impact Model

Aschlafly: Reverted edits by Imagine (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

2011-06-21T03:33:52Z

Reverted edits by Imagine (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

Imagine: There were references that didn't actually have references, i removed them

2011-06-21T00:34:37Z

There were references that didn't actually have references, i removed them

Aschlafly: better

2011-03-19T19:36:57Z

better

Aschlafly at 19:32, March 19, 2011

2011-03-19T19:32:46Z

TaKess: clarified "falsifiability" point

2009-04-03T18:28:49Z

clarified "falsifiability" point

Aschlafly: /* Criticism of the Giant-Impact Model */ revised per comments on talk page

2009-04-01T13:47:28Z

‎Criticism of the Giant-Impact Model: revised per comments on talk page

TaKess: grammar, but please see talk page

2009-04-01T02:18:23Z

grammar, but please see talk page

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.
-== Reference ==
+== References ==
 <references/>
 [[Category:Astronomy]]
 [[Category:Moon]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, November 23, 2012
Line 43:		Line 43:

	[[Category:Astronomy]]		[[Category:Astronomy]]
		+	[[Category:Moon]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 == Giant-Impact Model ==
-For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin.  In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].<ref>''Id.''</ref>  The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.<ref>''Id.''</ref>  Nearly two decades later,  ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref name="Giant Impact">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>
+For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin.  In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].<ref>''Id.''</ref>  The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.<ref>''Id.''</ref>  Nearly two decades later,  ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref name="Giant Impact">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 (emphasis added).</ref>
-:Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.
+:'''''Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.'''''
 :Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-[[Earth]]'s mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 == Giant-Impact Model ==
-For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin.  In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].  The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.  Nearly two decades later,  ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref name="Giant Impact">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>
+For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin.  In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].<ref>''Id.''</ref>  The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.<ref>''Id.''</ref>  Nearly two decades later,  ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref name="Giant Impact">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>
 :Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 == Giant-Impact Model ==
-For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin.  In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].<ref>''Id.''</ref>  The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.<ref>''Id.''</ref>  Nearly two decades later,  ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref name="Giant Impact">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>
+For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin.  In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].  The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.  Nearly two decades later,  ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref name="Giant Impact">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>
 :Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, March 19, 2011
Line 40:		Line 40:

	:Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.		:Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.
−	s

	== Reference ==		== Reference ==

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 == Criticisms of the Giant-Impact Model ==
-This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by [[Karl Popper]].
+This new theory has been criticized as lacking testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by [[Karl Popper]]. While it seems possible ''prima facie'' to test the theory, it is likely that atheistic scientists will merely amend the theory to skirt the failures of such tests, rendering the theory extremely difficult if not impossible to falsify.
 Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."<ref>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf</ref>

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :*A high-velocity collision might be sufficient to release enough energy to place a substantial mass of the [[Earth]]'s crust into orbit.
-== Criticism of the Giant-Impact Model ==
+== Criticisms of the Giant-Impact Model ==
 This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by [[Karl Popper]].
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."<ref>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf</ref>
-Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory.<ref>http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf</ref>
+Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby demonstrating the implausibility of the theory.<ref>http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf</ref>
 A third study found that "the bulk composition of the Moon differs significantly from that of the terrestrial mantle" and that "[t]he high
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.
 == Reference ==