Re: planets

edheil@postmark.net writes:
>(Moving even more off topic...)
>
>When I was a kid and into astronomy more than I am now, it was never
>a widely held theory that the moon was the result of a collision with
>another planet ripping a chunk out of the earth.  Is that widely
>believed now or was it just a pet theory of the makers of this show
>because it's, like, really dramatic?

Well, the show went through three of the main theories, and the only one
that made sense for earth was the planet strike theory. It nicely explains
why earth has a moon 1/4 of it's size and the others do not. They
explained three of the most popular theories (I only remember two):

- If it formed from dust, it should have a larger iron core, and not be as
devoid of water (crystals or otherwise) as it is. (the moon has a very
small core and is practically bone dry)

- if it was a planetoid caught in earths gravity, that wouldnt have worked
because the moon is large enough to make it past the earth

  It's not a very shocking theory, since in the early days of the
formation of the universe there would be lots of planets and planetoids in
the universe (Just look as some of the impact craters on the moon).
>
>(ObConlang: Does your conlang have a verb which specifically
>describes massive asteroid impacts that rip a chunk off a planet and
>make it into a moon?  Why or why not?)
Well not in Tilon Nevo yet.....but i could probably whip one up. In
saalangal, no, because they dont believe that's how the moon was formed..

________________________________________________

The damage is done, and you'll see that you were wrong....