Moon formed when earth struck a mini-planet.

This is a game where we're playing on minuscule planets and moving them with giant engines. If not a lava planetoid then at least playable asteroids should be thrown off, particularly in a large collision. Mutual annihilation would be awesome I agree, but just below that could be 90% of the surface turned to lava.

This is nothing new. Trust me when I say I know about theses things. I have a subscription to New Scientist, if there was anything new, there'd be an article there for sure. But there isn't.

In other science news, Eye of Sauron found in space:

Oh yah absolutely. Not in New Scientist? Not news.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1146

Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine, is the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and is one of the world's top scientific journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)

That's nice. Still isn't anything worth yelling off the rooftops about. Stop trying to lecture me.

"According to previous readings of moon-rock oxygen, the difference between a key oxygen isotope measurement..."

In other words, only the paper is new.
Which is typical for scientific bureaucracy. Evidence can sit in a drawer for decades, but it's not until some professor writes a paper about it in a scientific journal that it has any meaning.

Now I can't read minds but I'm pretty sure he was getting at the idea of "Lets put this feature in the game" not "I wonder if this theory is correct"

so what? we don't need even need evidence for this theory.

It's been the most popular one since there have been theories about the formation of the moon.

It's basically factual. nothing comes close to being as credible as it.

now THAT'S one for the books!

Hell yes! most definitely want!

Gives a possibility to crash again.

Only happens when the crash happens at a 60-30° angle

say that the moon produced is 1/3 the size of the incoming KEW each time. so at a certain point it produces nothing.

this would allow to KEW again in the case where their was only a single smashable body in the system.

great gameplay-enriching idea!

no he was just saying: "look big new!" as he himself posted here:https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...struck-a-mini-planet.60567/page-2#post-941140


this guy on the other hand; did exactly what you suggest.

I'm going to go ahead and confirm your doubts about potential mind-reading powers

Why is it that moons and planets are round? when they stuck stuff and such, at some point the moon must have been a square or some other odd shape ?.

Stuff doesnt just collide and become perfectly round ?

That type of thinking stands in the way of progress, tatsu. Why are we so arrogant to believe that our ideas must be the only credible ones as to how the universe works? What happens when or if we meet an alien race? Our entire scientific community would be flipped on its head! We have to remain SKEPTICAL of existing THEORIES, especially ones speculating on the formation of our modern universe. I mean, look at microevolution. That theory was conceived in a time before it could be conceivably proved or disproved, but it was taken in as scientific FACT. Our technological advances have proven that to be completely wrong. People were demonized publicly for their belief in God by the scientific community for years, all because they had found a theory that MIGHT prove that a Creator was not necessary for the Creation. That's what we have to stop. That ridiculous arrogance.

I like to compare all this new *conclusive evidence* to the theories on Gravity.
Would evidence of this magnitude prove Einstein's theories? Newton's?

In this case specifically, it's like saying they measured the tectonic plate movement over the past 50 years, and discovered that something is causing them to compress over time. It could be the weight of the air! How do we really know??

Not gonna play astrophysicist but it is just how the force of gravity works, the shape in which the force is exerted happens to be shpere-like and it takes a looong time for this roundness to take place.

Ok the problem is that it is skeptics and guys who thought outside the box who came up with that theory in the first place.

I mean common :
"I think it formed when our planet did in the same way"

"I think it was formed elsewhere and was travelling at great speeds through space when it encountered our earth's gravitational pull and has stayed there ever since"

"OK so there was like this BIIIIG planet and it was like WOOOOOSH and then there was earth right there and like KABLAAAAAAAAAAAM! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO! and THAT's how the moon was MADE! EXTREEEEEEME!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

Gravity pulls in all directions equally, so anything that accumulates mass will naturally end up roughly spherical.

But gravity is also really weak, which is why smaller objects are lumpy space potatoes:



One of the requirements for an object to be classified as a planet is hydrostatic equilibrium. This is when the planet has enough mass to crush itself into a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Momentum of the body and projectile , Velocities of the Body and projectile and angle of approach relative to earth.... If any of these values were off, particularly angle of approach.. the Earth and us along with it would no longer exist...

I personally agree with the Thea hypothesis.

What is the likely hood of a moving body being captured by earth with such a perfect velocity and capture radius that synchronous rotation occurred.. slim... What is the likely hood that the same random body has near identical composition of that of the earth?

Gravity being the predominate force on the cosmic scale (yes magnetism and Coulomb forces are stronger) the likely hood of our proto-earth attracting another body during the formation of our solar system is very possible.

The odds of the Thea actually being absorbed into Earth aren't as high, but is likely. (more likely then the capture hypothesis in my opinion)

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/moon-formed-when-earth-struck-a-mini-planet.60567/#post-940786
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...struck-a-mini-planet.60567/page-2#post-941542
you probably got your quotes mixed up, mered's the one against Thea theory I'm the one for it.

you just summed up my thinking. being a skeptic and thinking outside of the box are both positive things.

No but the point was, it was in orbit around the sun as well, we both struck each other, both bodies were moving, if Earth were sitting still- it'd be different, people are just very "me", we assumed we were the center of the universe for example.

While technically, you are correct, it is still a little ridiculous that a bunch of fragments all got swept up into the giant lunar sphere in a perfect....well, sphere.

I mean, there is an asteroid out there (maybe its a moon of Jupiter, idk) called Hector (I think) that is literally two spheres melted together. Why haven't they become one sphere? What about all the other asteroids that are shaped like weird potatoes?

I do not personally think the response of *oh, they had a couple extra billion years* is really a plausible one. It's the same reasoning that failed microevolution: Time doesn't solve things. It makes them worse. Entropy doesn't like spheres because spheres are perfect. Entropy is about being still, and using as little energy as possible. A body becoming a spherical ellipse is a very unnatural process.

Heck, is the theory plausible? Yes, absolutely, if you believe in an old Earth. Should we brush aside the opposite theory because it is LESS plausible or there is just a little less proof? Absolutely not. If we keep an open mind, the less shocking new and exciting discoveries will be, and the quicker we can integrate them into our lives.

In order to become a spherical object, the gravity of the object must be sufficiently strong for it to overcome the mechanical strength of the object and pull it as close to the gravitational center as it can.

The gravity of 625 Hektor simply isn't strong enough for this to happen. AFAIK neither object was spherical before the merging either.

Except it's not a perfect sphere. A body becoming a sphere is literally the most natural process. This is why circles and sphere are found in nature.

Pour something on the floor, what happens? The liquid spreads in all directions equally. The only way to get a different shape is to apply some sort of restriction and interfere.

There's not a good enough view of 624 Hektor to say that it's two spheres melted together. It's elongated, and might be two irregular shapes melted together, but there's also a good chance it's mostly made of ices rather than pure rock, so it wouldn't take serious geological action to melt its contributors together.

Of a funny but not entirely related note, the moon does not exert gravity in a perfect sphere. Its gravitational field is actually slightly lumpy (as is Earth's), which is a result of varying density. Even something that appears round is not always a perfectly symmetrical sphere.