How did the Earth capture the Moon ?

Mars sized, not Venus sized. Venus is of comparable mass to the Earth, while Mars has 1/10 the mass.

Why do you keep making declarative statements on things you have no understanding of? You don't have the vaguest notion of how to figure out the dynamics involved in such a collision, or its end results in terms of how much material would be left in Earth orbit. The Earth has enough mass/ gravity to hold on to the Moon is its present orbit of ~384,000 km away. Any debris thrown off moving at speed not much under escape velocity would establish itself in orbit around the Earth.

Your claim that the Earth didn't have the mass enough to hold on to debris is based on ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Highlighted

Your not making any sense .

So the Earths orbit coalesced the material left over from this collision to form the moon?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said nothing about "Earth's orbit", I was clearly talking about material in orbit around the Earth. Learn to read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why ?

 

Why are your reading comprehension skills so abhorrent? I don't know. You'll have to answer that question for yourself.

 

↑

No I said the Earth doesn't have the mass to capture the mass of the moon .

From my post#40

The Earth can't .

​

 

You might find this ted talk interesting and/or informative?
https://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_t_stewart_where_did_the_moon_come_from_a_new_theory

but, then we have

from:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200310164742.htm
"Our findings suggest that the deep lunar mantle may have experienced the least mixing and is most representative of the impactor Theia,"
................................................
ok
I ain't completely confused yet
but I am working on it

 

Terrific stuff

 

amen to that

 

sculptor extend what Sarah is saying to the Sun and , within the Sun is our planets formation .

Sooner or later Sarah or others will do exactly that .

 

The article is not invalidating the giant Impact theory, and the Oxygen anomaly can be explained.
It's worth noting sculptor that the giant Impact theory has only come about since the Apollo era and the study and data from some Moon rocks, and that data is substantial in supporting the current best theory.

Before that there were a couple of other propositions. One was the "Capture theory" which held that the Moon was another body similar to an Asteroid, that formed elsewhere in the solar system and was captured by Earth's gravity, as it passed nearby.
The other was simply an extension of the formation of the solar system as a whole, with the now overwhelmingly evidenced and observed, "accretion disk theory" and that the Moon was created along with Earth at its formation.
The third model had the Earth spinning so fast, that some if the Earth broke away, coalesced and began to orbit the planet. [The Earth was certainly spinning faster then it does today.
So all had something going for it.

And finally, despite being ignored by another "interested" party, the Asimov article was well before the Apollo era [mentioned previously by Janus] and as such, the Impact theory did not have much evidence at that time.
Obviously, the Earth does have enough mass to capture the Moon and I'm sure the maths supports that, so of course anyone who doubts that fact, needs to show the maths that discredits it.

 

Anyway , from my post#50

sculptor extend what Sarah is saying to the Sun and , within the Sun is our planets formation .
Sooner or later Sarah or others will do exactly that .

 

Nice TED video sculptor. But in reality, all she is proposing is a variation on the "Giant Impact Theory" That is science...that's how science and scientific theories evolve...added to, modified and even on occasions scrapped as new evidence comes to light.

I don't believe so, and I don't believe you have a clue as to what you are talking about, and to prove that here are some ignorant "statements of fact"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

from you....

Why don't you admit river, that you simply do not have a clue. Starting to read some reputable science books would be a start.

 

Well pad is certainly confused .

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Confused about what river? Your ignorance? That's why you are banned from the sciences.
The TED video? Not at all. I watched it all the way through and understood it completely. It is a variation on the giant Impact theory.
The Earth and other planets evolving from the Sun? Again not at all. We have seen stellar accretion disk formations in other systems and what we see is the proto star at the core, with planetary formation at various distances from that core.

 

The Ted talk has nothing to do with any impact theory .

 

As usual your comprehension, understanding, and general trolling sees you as wrong....
from the transcript....
" Then came the day when I realized my mistake.My student and I were looking at the data from these fast-spinning giant impacts.On that day, we weren't actually thinking about the Moon,we were looking at the planet.The planet gets super-hot and partially vaporized from the energy of the impact.But the data didn't look like a planet.It looked really strange.The planet was weirdly connected to the disk.I got that super-excited feeling when something really wrong might be something really interesting.

04:51
In all of my calculations,I had assumed there was a planet with a separate disk around it.Calculating what was in the disk as how we tested whether an impact could make the Moon.But it didn't look that simple anymore.We were making the mistake of thinking that a planet was always going to look like a planet.On that day, I knew that a giant impact was making something completely new.


Now river you understand it is just a variation of the Impact theory? [probably not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
And of course the exact methodology as put in the TED talk, still needs refining, research, and review, like all scientific data and models...unlike of course your own usually incorrect "facts"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Inotherwords the moon was ejected from the Earth .

 

The "Impact" created a more molten Earth with a associated disk..." The planet was weirdly connected to the disk."
It didn't appear to be a separate disk as per the more common Impact theory, thus..."in all of my calculations,I had assumed there was a planet with a separate disk around it"
Now river we all know you will try and misinterpret anything to suit your own preferred "facts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

" but like I said, a variation on the Impact theory, with the Moon coalescing from that disk being a part of the molten Earth...very very similar to general Impact theory, except the disk was separate and the Moon coalesced within it.

Please please please river, as I said, an interesting proposition yet to be researched and reviewed further, like all scientific theories..eg: The BB, SR/GR etc etc

Now river I'll be absent for a while, relos visiting [within our relaxed isolation rules] and I must help with preparation. I'll attend to your further education at a later time, OK?