Supposing angular momentum presents problems if the Earth and Moon formed alongside each other, what are those issues, and how does the impact hypothesis provide a more coherent answer to these?
I'm trying to get away from the assumptions to seek the science behind.I am speculating, because at the time I was just a little baby, but I would assume 4.6 billion years ago there was insufficient angular momentum in any one knot of dust in the protoplanetary disc to create an Earth/Moon system. The disc itself has lots of angular momentum but each knot has little of its own.
In the impact scenario, an off center hit gives all that is needed.
I am also speculating. Suppose the Earth started to form in its own vortex of cooling constituents and the Moon started to form 100m years or so later, in its own vortex of slightly different cooling constituents, ie not from the same knot of dust as you term it. Would that satisfy the angular momentum problem?I am speculating, because at the time I was just a little baby, but I would assume 4.6 billion years ago there was insufficient angular momentum in any one knot of dust in the protoplanetary disc to create an Earth/Moon system. The disc itself has lots of angular momentum but each knot has little of its own.
In the impact scenario, an off center hit gives all that is needed.
In order for the Moon to have originated somewhere else in the Solar Nebula and then have it go into orbit around the Earth requires the Moon to interact with a third body to redirect it to Earth and then it requires another interaction with a fourth body to settle it into orbit. "Too chancy". The impact hypothesis avoids all those problems.