3 ms·
I think we should remember the vast differences between reporting about scientific papers and the peer-reviewed papers themselves; I have a good feeling, based
by nsns 15y ago
I think we should remember the vast differences between reporting about scientific papers and the peer-reviewed papers themselves; I have a good feeling, based on previous experience, that most of the caveats raised here will be tackled by the paper, whose tone will probably be less decisive.
- schiffern 15y agoIndeed. The actual title of the paper is "The proto-Earth as a significant source of lunar material."
- wcoenen 15y agoIndeed, according to the abstract (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1429.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1429.html) the paper only presents (additional) evidence against the hypothesis that 40% of the moon material comes from Theia. But it doesn't reject the hypothesis that the moon was formed by an impact: The isotopic homogeneity of this highly refractory element suggests that lunar material was derived from the proto-Earth mantle, an origin that could be explained by efficient impact ejection, by an exchange of material between the Earth’s magma ocean and the protolunar disk, or by fission from a rapidly rotating post-impact Earth.