Arguments In Favour Of Giant Impact Theory

What scientific theories should be supported from the formation of the moon? The giant impact theory should be supported due to scientific explanations. The giant impact theory was pushed forward from Dr. Williams K. Hartmann and Dr. Donald R. Davis. The giant impact theory is an object about the size of mars knocked into Earth, forcing a piece of earth to fall off, forming the moon.

There are four different theories accepted by scientists. The capture theory explains that the moon was formed somewhere else in the Solar system and passed by earth. When it passed by earth the earths gravity contained the moon, forcing it to orbit the earth. The sister or coaccretion theory is if the moon was formed the same time as the earth using the same
So it is possible for the mars sized object to knock off a chunk of earth. Scientists have also taken isotopes from the moons titanium and earths and it was a complete match, but first the Apollo missions samples of titanium looked different.The scientists had to alter the data to find out the samples were the same due to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are from high depths in space. The meteorite that struck earth known as
Theia, was accepted to be a carbonaceous chondrites, which is low in oxygen.
The mars sized object that hit earth had small amounts of differences. Supported by IFL
Science, "However, it could be that Theia and Earth were formed in close proximity, and would therefore be made out of the same material.". This statement means that if Theia and earth were created really close to each other it could be possible they were made out of the same material.
For better indication, scientists need to travel to the moon and find samples under the surface.
This is so the material it's affected by solar wind and impacts from other space objects.Since
This means that the earth was spinning faster than the object that hit it and the impact would have only really lasted 2-3 hours so this collision would prove that the debris would have flew off from the earth and Theia. Erik Asphaug states, "It’s not so much that they’ve come up with a model that works; it’s that they have taken away a constraint that we thought was sacrosanct for the last 20 years."Erik is trying to say that since we've build a model to replicate the formation of the moon that works, it's lost the restriction that's held the valuable information for 20 years.

There is one problem with the giant impact theory. States from the huffinton post, "It turned out that since many planets and their impactors form at similar distances from the sun, they had similar compositions."This states that the impact that hit earth could have been about the same distance from the sun as earth was, since they have similar compositions. Also mastrobuono-Battiski's studies show that it's average for objects to hit planets in the