Explains the coincidence of the composition of the lunar rocks with the Earth’s – the main counterargument against a giant impact. A similar theory was propos in 2007 by the Russian physicist Nikolai Gorkavy [ 9 ]. He call it “multi-impact”. According to the scientist, the earth’s satellite was form not by one giant collision, but by many smaller ones. at the beginning of the 20th century it [ 11 ]. For example, calculations show that the spe of the Earth at that time was not so high that a piece of this size could “fall off” from it. Also, if the theory were correct.
Although this theory was popular
The moon would most likely revolve around the Wuhan Mobile Phone Number List earth’s equator, but it doesn’t. 3. Simultaneous formation of the Moon and the Earth Another theory of the “Big Three” is the hypothesis of the simultaneous appearance of the Moon and the Earth. Perhaps this is one of the oldest scientific theories of the formation of the earth’s satellite: in 1785 it was put forward by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. He suggest that the Moon and the Earth were form from a gaseous material (dust nebula), they are “sister” planets that form at about the same time.
Similar to the rings of Saturn that exist
At various times this idea was support by other USA CFO astronomers and physicists, including the Soviet mathematician and astronomer Otto Yulievich Schmidt and his followers. According to the Soviet hypothesis of coaccretion (from the Latin accretio, attachment), a disc gradually form around the young Earth, today [ 13 ]. It arose due to accretion, that is, the adhesion of solid particles of meteorites, clouds of dust and gas. From such a disk, the earth satellite was form. One of the weaknesses of this theory is the inability to explain the different densities of the Moon and the Earth [ 14 ]. Planetologist William Hartmann, who put forward the theory of a giant collision.