The Big Splat: Origin of Our Moon

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

The discussion centers on the formation of the Moon as described in 'The Big Splat, or How Our Moon Came to Be' by Dana Mackenzie, which posits that a Mars-sized planetoid collided with Earth shortly after its formation. This theory gained traction following a 1984 conference where its viability was established, yet it has not permeated public consciousness as rapidly as other scientific ideas, such as the meteor impact theory for dinosaur extinction. Key figures like William Hartmann, Donald Davis, and A. G. W. Cameron contributed to the development of this collision theory, but it remains less popularized compared to other scientific narratives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of planetary formation theories
  • Familiarity with the Apollo program and lunar geology
  • Knowledge of significant scientific figures in astronomy
  • Awareness of the history of popular science communication
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Apollo program's findings on lunar rocks
  • Explore the collision theory as presented by William Hartmann and Donald Davis
  • Investigate the role of popular science communicators in shaping public understanding
  • Examine the impact of scientific consensus on public perception of astronomical theories
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, science communicators, educators, and anyone interested in the historical context of lunar formation theories and their reception in popular culture.

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