a) Article of the notice of the astrophysical Marcelo Gleiser: It says in the fantastic one that the moon appeared for the breaking above of colliding asteroid with the land. b) Disagreement of the designer and the scientist self-taught Tarcísio Brito: All the physical theory is always provisory in the direction of being only a hypothesis: But the moon and the land, well the all the bodies that with them if interactive in the these mechanics of the universe; it always existed and always it will exist - for all the lives of the cycle of our alternating history the lives of the cycle of daily pag-History. It donates who to finds it, consequently is fact, to the exception of the unconscious ones, or demagogues that they ignore this truth.
2006-10-17 06:35:26 · 3 answers · asked by britotarcisio 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Gleiser is incorrect. The colliding asteroid did not influence the moon.
Brito, on the other hand, is not disagreeing. He is merely making a statement about science in general.
2006-10-17 07:34:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hi. The more interesting point is not HOW the Moon came into existence, because that is still being debated, but how RARE an event it must be for large moon to orbit a habitable planet. Without the tides to force adaptation to land, Earth would be a much more stagnant place as far as life is concerned.
2006-10-17 07:49:10 · answer #2 · answered by Cirric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a) Sig. Gleiser may be right, we can't say for sure.
b) Sig. Brito is without a doubt completely wrong.
auguri -Mike
2006-10-17 06:56:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋