- The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth
in its rotation - the same side always faces the Earth.
- The near side the Moon is relatively low and flat.
- The far side of the Moon is high and mountainous, with a thicker crust and far more impact craters.
- Therefore, there must have been another, smaller moon at some time which crashed into the Moon we know and love, causing the differences in the two faces.
This is the line of "reasoning" behind a recent hypothesis presented in Nature magazine. It seems apparent that Nature has lost much of its former luster, moving from testable hypotheses to SyFy scenarios in its pages. Clearly there's been no thought given to the idea that the side facing out might be hit more by meteors and asteroids. Bodies passing between the Earth and the Moon stand a good chance of being attracted to the much larger of the two - the Earth - and bypassing the smaller.
Have none of today's hypothesticians (I find it hard to call them theorists) ever heard of Occam's Razor
? There is no reason to add a new moon to the system, when all data has already been explained in a simpler way. Once again, it seems we have supposed scientists creating scenarios in order to garner attention and - they would hope - funding for further research.
? There is no reason to add a new moon to the system, when all data has already been explained in a simpler way. Once again, it seems we have supposed scientists creating scenarios in order to garner attention and - they would hope - funding for further research.Posted by Procrustes 17
