Co-Formation Theory Vs Giant Impact Theory

The moon has been a natural phenomena for as long as humans have been on this Earth. Even though humans have been studying this natural satellite for many, many years, and even stepping on its surface, its origins remain a mystery. Many theories have been proposed over the years, Some considered reasonable, and some not so much. There are possibilities such as the co-formation, Capture, Fission and Giant impact theories. The most accepted and reasonable being the Giant impact theory. The Co-Formation theory states that the moon and earth were formed around the same time. Evidence has been provided for this theory such as that the moon is composed the same as earth, and its age is close to that of Earth. But there is also heavy proof that can prove this theory wrong. One of the biggest flaws this theory has is that most scientists believe that if the moon was created where it is today, from the same solar nebula the earth came from, the two masses would be incredibly similar. For instance, the earth and moon would relatively have the same density, the moon would relatively have the same amount of iron as Earth, and the moon would have the possibility of being connected to earth. This theory only …show more content…
This is one of the most accepted theories so far. This theory states that an object roughly the size of mars, crashed into Earth at an angle, and the debris from the crash collected together and formed the moon. All this debris left from the impact is said to have joined together and created the moon. But some don't believe it for reasons being the fact that the debris launched into space would most likely fall back down to the Earths surface. It is said that an object 3-4 times the size of the one said to hit earth would have had the right amount of force to launch debris far enough to where it doesn't fall back on Earth. Even though more and more become in favor of this theory, some remain skeptical, and still seek