What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
79 Comments
- akkibaba, on 12/25/2007, -2/+30Later, eh? So.....5998 years ago?
- Smalldude76, on 12/25/2007, -3/+26Creationism, but close enough.
- inactive, on 12/25/2007, -4/+24What? I thought God created the Moon.
- jogleby, on 12/25/2007, -1/+18If the asteroid was the size of Mars, is it still an asteroid?
- wonderchemist, on 12/25/2007, -0/+14Well, current theory says this object probably formed at L4 or L5. Using the current definition of planet, which requires an object clear its local space, neither Earth or the impacter was a planet.
- FullMetalMonkey, on 12/25/2007, -1/+13No. It is classified as a Proto-Planet or Planetesimal. Calling it an Asteroid is wrong.
So Says the Son of a Planetarium Director. - agilbe10, on 12/25/2007, -1/+11I heard it was made of barbecue spare ribs
- DeviantDragon, on 12/25/2007, -0/+8An asteroid and an orbit around the sun are not mutually exclusive.
- jscnet, on 12/25/2007, -0/+7I just asked Jesus if that was true, he said "no" and went on further to say you're "stupid."
- steffyg22, on 12/25/2007, -2/+9haven't you heard the earth is the center of the universe AND its flat!
- kurtwinter, on 12/25/2007, -2/+8We all know that the sky wizard made the moon 6000 years ago. Kids and their wild theories.
- miles32, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5So say we all
- sgtbutterscotch, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5would you eat it?
- kevinmotel, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6With the current definition of a planet, yo momma is a planet.
- docbob84, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5Actually an asteroid MUST be orbiting the sun. An asteroid-like body orbiting a planet (such as Phobos and Deimos orbiting Mars) is a moon.
- iDiggIt42, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5I haven't seen this before so STFU.
- BurningApple, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5So much for my life long mission of proving it was made of cheese...
- inactive, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6QUOTE: "Scientists have long believed that the moon was formed by a collision between our planet and a Mars-size object. Computer models have shown that in this scenario 80 percent of the moon's material should have come from the asteroid, with only 20 percent from Earth. But the new study of moon rocks collected three decades ago by Apollo astronauts, however, found that Earth and the rocks were too similar for that to be the case."
The logic is irrational, the only way to find out is to take a deep core sample of the Moon and Earth. All that it will prove is that the universe is composed of the same elements and the primeval soup was well mixed.
There is no scientific evidence that the creationists and their reference book the Bible is correct; also there is no scientific evidence to confirm that the current scientific modelling about the origins of the universe is correct. It is all speculative theory about what happened. Eventually humans may discover and know the truth but not in my lifetime.
- iDiggIt42, on 12/25/2007, -0/+4Actually, seeing as Mercury and Venus aren't composed of the same material as the Earth's crust (in anywhere near the same proportions), where as the Moon is, it's actually pretty good evidence. Oh, and regarding that "primeval soup", the Universe is composed of primarily Hydrogen, some Helium, and bits and pieces of everything up to Uranium. As for the galaxy, it's more or less the same, but with the heavier elements (non-gaseous) located closer to the Sun, and the lighter elements (gases) located past the Asteroid Belt.
Then, there's the dwarf planets. Poor Pluto. - EminNew, on 12/25/2007, -0/+4"Thanks for sharing"
- arunforce, on 12/25/2007, -1/+5Chuck Norris is a bible thumper and needs to GTFO.
- Haecceity, on 12/25/2007, -0/+41. Carnations are flowers.
2. There is actually a lot of evidence to support this theory. Try Googling and I'm sure you'll find some. You may choose to disregard that evidence, but that doesn't stop it from being evidence. - inactive, on 12/25/2007, -8/+12chuck norris kicked god in the balls so hard one of them flew into space giving us the moon
- Nitro2985, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3There is evidence that such is the case. The lack of a iron core on the moon points is consistent with the impact hypothesis. The moon is also made up of material which was present in the same area section of the accretion disk that we formed from, so we can tell that we didn't capture an object which was flung off from another impact.
There is also a lack of many materials (water for one) which is only consistent with substantial heating by the moon, the kind you see when two very large object collide. The theory also makes predictions about what we can expect to find out about the moon, and so if what we find doesn't match what the predictions are, we know that we are wrong.
Of course, it isn't the only theory as to how the moon formed, that's sure, but it is the one which seems to have the most evidence supporting it now. - docbob84, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3So do asteroids. Depending on the definition, calling it either a proto-planet or a dwarf planet would be correct. Hitting at an oblique angle like the theory says suggests it was in an orbit with a high eccentricity (more oval than circular), which goes against the definition of planet used today.
- mass922, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3I know I would, I'd even go back for seconds, then top it off with a nice cool Budweiser!
- iDiggIt42, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2Actually, at that point, planetesimal would be correct.
- chsbrgr, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2tastiness != causation
- evi1, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2The only reason those tests say that is because we just dug up some old rocks when we faked the moon landing.
/completely kidding for all of you who buy into that sort of thing - Azselendor, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3That's because they revised it to 4000 years old. Apparently 6000 might have satanic implications or some other *****.
- inactive, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3 I always figured the moon was mostly from earth and that if it was made by an impact it happened long ago when earth was still molten. The blob that formed opposite of the impact just barely spun off and stayed in our orbit. I don't think it shot off forcefully during the hit, if that was the case it probably would have kept going. That's if any of this has any validity to begin with. I hate how scientists so often present their theories as if they know what happened.
- Devotia, on 12/25/2007, -2/+4Was this before or after he made the cosmic Jewish zombie?
- warragul, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2I have a hard time accepting a "scientific" article that doesn't know how to spell hafnium.
- ArkAngel06, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2It's weird that it is so spherical. You would think if it was just a chunk of the earth, or even just a random result of an asteroid impact, it would be a fairly random shape.
- tba2287, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2Theory in scientific terms, means something that has been tested and determined based on substantial and thorough testing. Examples of theories are gravity, relativity and evolution. The vernacular term for theory is called a HYPOTHESIS in scientific terms. The Mars-sized object impact is a hypothesis.
- iDiggIt42, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2Actually, we're almost certain the Moon came from the early Earth, although, as this article evidences, the time period when this happened is debated.
- duckyinc, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1well then we didn't have any now we do
- ArkAngel06, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Speaking of which, does anyone have a higher resolution for a wallpaper?
- ArkAngel06, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Or "tough ***** *****"
- inactive, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1There's this one, but it's still not very big:
http://www.novacelestia.com/images/earth_impact_mo ... - jscnet, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1actually there isn't.
- inactive, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2Where did you guys come up with this "6,000 years old" stuff? I know plenty of Christians and none of them think the earth only 6,000 years old.
- ArkAngel06, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Where do you think all the craters came from? They're missing bites.
- jscnet, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1those are assumptions, not truths.
- 0akley, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1yeah i was way wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid
- nitsuj, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1"The logic is irrational,"
No it isn't. You should stop pretending that you know anything about cosmology. - jscnet, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1i think you more or less just verified what i had said.
- teardropkisser, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1i prefer the fact that the event happened, dates/time is a relative matter
- yodaj007, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1"As for the galaxy, it's more or less the same, but with the heavier elements (non-gaseous) located closer to the Sun, and the lighter elements (gases) located past the Asteroid Belt."
Did you mean the solar system there instead of galaxy? - MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Wow, there's an actual picture.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is