The Big Splat: Origin of Our Moon

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chronon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the origin of the Moon, specifically the "Big Splat" theory which posits that the Moon formed from a collision between a Mars-sized planetoid and the early Earth. Participants explore the theory's acceptance within the scientific community and its penetration into public awareness compared to other scientific ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the "Big Splat" theory gained consensus at a 1984 meeting but questions why it hasn't entered public consciousness as quickly as other scientific ideas.
  • Another participant mentions an upcoming talk by Dana Mackenzie, who is associated with the theory, highlighting its credibility gained from lunar rock studies during the Apollo missions.
  • A participant suggests that the lack of popularization by well-known science communicators like Asimov and Sagan may contribute to the theory's lower visibility in public discourse.
  • Another participant provides historical context, stating that the collision theory was initially presented in 1974 and had been discussed for nearly a decade before the 1984 conference solidified its viability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reasons for the theory's limited public awareness, with no consensus reached on whether it is less interesting than other scientific ideas or simply overlooked by popularizers.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions about public interest in scientific theories and the influence of popular science communicators on public perception.

chronon
Messages
500
Reaction score
0
I've been reading 'The Big Splat, or How Our Moon came to Be' by Dana Mackenzie. This describes how at a meeting in 1984, the consensus was quickly reached that the moon formed when a Mars-size planetoid collided with the Earth soon after its origin.

What I found a bit surprising is that if this new idea suddenly became accepted, then why doesn't it seem to have entered the public consciousness very quickly? I have to admit that before reading the book I hadn't really taken in this idea, although I'd probably read about it in passing a few times. Contrast this with ideas such as a meteor impact causing the extinction of the dinosaurs, or of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. These ideas seemed to spread quickly, being discussed in many popular science books and TV problems.

So have I just missed the spread of this idea until now? Have other people come across this idea, heard it discussed etc., and if so, when did it seem to enter the popular mindset? If not then why not? Is the origin of the moon less interesting than the ideas above? I would have thought it would be something everyone could relate to, especially the generation brought up with the moon landings (the data from which lead to this idea).
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If you happen to be in the vicinity of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md on April 5, you can hear Dana Mckenzie, founder of the big splat theory, tell the story. http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/announce.mackenzie.html
The theory gained credence after study of moon rocks retrieved during the Apollo program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The lack of dead dinosaurs doesn't help. Also, it hasn't been taken up by any of the great popularizers of science. Asimov, Sagan, Hawkings, Dawkins and Feynman all pretty much overlooked it, for example. Sagan would have been the only real logical one of that list to make the case, but he focused on other points.
 
According to this web page:

http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

the collision theory was presented in 1974 by William Hartmann and Donald Davis. Harvard researcher A. G. W. Cameron and William Ward were working on a similar model, and published their findings in 1976. The 1984 conference in Hawaii established the viability of the theory, but it had already been around for 10 years.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K