Yes. As I said, there are competing hypotheses. All of them have problems, which is why they're competing, and none have been widely accepted. That hypothesis provides some evidence of a head-on impact, but fails to explain the observed axial tilt. Which also fails to explain why the Moon's orbit is also aligned with Earth's axial tilt (as it would be in according to the GIH). The alternative hypothesis is mentioned in the same wiki article I referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis#Modified_hypothesis
Where did this happen? The article you linked to mentions Theia. I'm not sure there's any theory of the early formation of the Earth-Moon system that does not predict the presence of Theia.
What are you talking about? We've discussed two hypotheses, both of which incorporate Theia. Where was there any theory mentioned that does not include Theia? You can't simply say something is debunked without actually debunking it.
As Dave has said, it is one among a few examples as to how our Moon came to be. Irrespective though it does not detract from the well supported observationally evidenced accretion disk theory of planetary formation. If you don't buy it, I suggest you formulate another evidenced supported theory.
Yes, as per most other bodies in the solar system. Remember it was a violent place not long after formation. Knocks and collisions were probably occurring everywhere...Venus, Uranus are two exxtremes.
So you are just raging against mainstream science as usual? To help maintain this deep thinking mysterious spooky persona you like to present? which aint fooling anyone except yourself river.
My reply full of substance and supported by other reputable nmembers was back in post 3. But hey river, again you are not fooling anyone.
Well put! And he obviously won't accept that either...more spooky, more mystery, more supernatural. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On part of your description of the Earth's angular momentum, part of this is known as the Chandler Wobble.
Obviously being as ignorant as you are of scientific theories and the scientific methodology, there is really not any 100% proof in science theory. All present incumbent theories were at one time hypotheticals...hypotheticals that became accepted theories as predictions were born out, and further observations and experiments supported the model. Again despite your obtuseness and trolling, most of the planets are tilted to some degree, and the best theory is the violent nature of the early universe. You ignoring that on a public forum just reflects on yourself, particularly when everyone here knows of your anti science persona, and delusions of deeeeeep thinking and mystique/ That is the reality you need to face up to.