Re: planets

pbrown@polaris.umuc.edu writes:
>It wasn't considered a really viable theory when I studied astronomy
>(less than 10 years ago) for several reasons: there's no geological
>evidence for a large chunk being ripped out of the Earth (such would
>be a pretty damned big hole, and plate techtonics now accounts for the
>Pacific (the usual stomping waters for such theories)); Earth isn't
>big enough to absorb the shock of a planet sized collision in one
>piece; our orbit is too nice and circular to have been the aftermath
>of such a collision.

Again, they tested that theory. And the planet that struck struck off
center, almost as it it were striking the edge, not head on. They ran a
simulation through one of the computers the military simulates impacts
with and it showed the cores of the planets actually melting and
combining.  The hit was kind of as if you hit two billiard balls together,
but they stick, spin around and combine. If it had been a head on
collision, we would have rings instead of a moon, according to the show.

Also, we didnt surivive in one pice. We got a moon out of the process :).



________________________________________________
Barry Garcia.
- My homepage:
 http://student.monterey.edu/dh/garciabarryjames/world/dahon.html
- The Saalangal Language:
http://student.monterey.edu/dh/garciabarryjames/world/contents.html