Moon formed when earth struck a mini-planet.

I thought it would be clear that when I say sphere, i mean sort of but not quite?

It would be, but you specifically said perfect sphere.

Also for the record, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

The universe is technically a closed system. Practically? Definitely not.

Overall, entropy decreases. And a sphere in the middle of empty space is as close to a closed system as we are going to get.

The point is, it couldn't just happen. There are enough irregularities that we can reasonably call into question the hypothesis. However, we are not so sure either, so the other side can do the exact same thing.

Go figure.

Why not?

Ever watched a hockey puck on flat ice?

A Baseball lying in the outfield?

A cell phone lying on your table?

Let's say you sat there and watched it for a few billion years. Or even a hundred thousand. Would the ball, puck, or cell phone eventually move without interaction?

Of course they would! The puck would fall into the pond, the baseball would sink into the earth, and the cell phone would fall through the table. But is that what we are really asking? Is that the result we expected?

Not at all.

The same applies to the universe. In the beginning, the very beginning, it was standing still.
What made it move? Why did it move?
Did it move at all?

Even assuming that, in all impossibility, the universe suddenly moved, and became movement, and etc. etc. here we are today, how are we sure that it came to be in the way we have predicted? What if all our evidence, which has been crafted to fit our theories (this is taught in basic physical science in high school), is pointing to something else entirely??

It's a hard question to answer. A lot of it boils down to the fact that many scientific minds today are arrogant about their work. Every idea could be a stroke of genius. Every experiment, record breaking, world saving. It's a culture, unfortunately. It promotes some amazing and fantastic ideas (Tidal engines, CERN) but also lifts up those that just destroy our modern society (Global Warming, Socialism).

But that isn't the core reason - that's just a symptom of the real problem.

I've always been amused when an astrophysicist tries to explain the heat death of the universe. They explain all this entropy stuff and how black holes will eat us all and slowly the universe will blacken and.....etc. They fail to explain that their own theories say the universe literally formed this way - in reverse.

*BUT GRAVITY* you say.

Well. This could go on for a while.

I'll just....end it for now.

All we know is that "in the beginning", there was a very sudden and rapid expansion of space with incredible amounts of energy. We don't know why, until we figure out quantum gravity we're not going to know why. I have no idea what you mean by "fail to explain".

As in, they are never asked that question and thus fail to explain the striking similarities.

I would guess it's two asteroids separately aggregated into spheres that then collided the heat of which allowed them to fuse a little.

Also planets are not solids. The gravitational pull makes it very pressuric in the center raising the temperature. And infact they started quite liquid only the surface of them having been able to solidify as of yet. Impacts also heat them up speeding up the reformation.

Was it? How do you know?

To my knowledge there is no reverse - the thermodynamic arrow stays unflipped. Very distant blackholes could be in multiple configurations - a little further or closer so it's stilla progression from a single narrowed down state to more broad arrangements of states.