Talk:Giant-impact hypothesis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Giant-impact hypothesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Giant-impact hypothesis is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Academic Language[edit]

Could we rewrite "...currently the favored hypothesis for lunar formation among the astronomy crowd." into a less informal style? Andypreston (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for a magma ocean on earth[edit]

While true that we don’t have this, it’s immaterial. The earth is a dynamic planet. Nothing but a few specks of zircon remain from any Hadean crust. Earth likely could’ve had a magma ocean, but ongoing tectonics and convection homogenized it. Plus you aren’t going to get things like a global plagioclase flotation crust on earth because it isn’t less dense than hydrous magma.

So I don’t think the lack of evidence for one is relevant, at all, to the validity of the theory. We have no reason to expect direct evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewValeriInMixedStates (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Velikovsky[edit]

While Immanuel Velikovsky is hardly the flavour of the month, his 1950 book Worlds in Collision was one of the earlier giant-impact theories, and is still in print. Carl Sagan and many others have seen fit to evaluate it.

So, shouldn't it get a mention in this article, even if regarded as discredited? Andrewa (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mars-sized dwarf planet?[edit]

The article mentions the hypothesized "...collision between the early Earth and a Mars-sized dwarf planet". The quick summary for dwarf planet defines a dwarf planet as "...small planetary-mass object that is in direct orbit of the Sun, smaller than any of the eight classical planets but still a world in its own right."

How would a Mars-sized planet be classified as a dwarf planet, when dwarf planets need to be smaller than any of the eight classical planets, which include Mars, and Mercury, which is even smaller than Mars? Should this segment be edited to "...Mars-sized planet"? 97.125.148.239 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed chronology in statetment[edit]

In the HISTORY section, this sentence contradicts itself with reversed chronology, placing 1969 after 1974 due to sentence structure or date error:

"Little attention was paid to Professor Daly's challenge until a conference on satellites in 1974, during which the idea was reintroduced and later published and discussed in Icarus in 1969 by William K. Hartmann and Donald R. Davis." Isa.Alsup (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]