<p>The smoking guns:</p>

<ol>
<li>The ratio of oxygen isotopes of lunar rocks are almost identical to those of Earth.</li>
<li>Lunar recession due to the tides which causes the Earth's rotation to slow down, means that just after the Earth formed, the Moon was very close to the Earth and the Earth was rotating very fast. This situation can be reached due to an oblique impact that transfers a lot of angular momentum to the Earth.</li>
<li>The formation of the planets is known to have proceeded via small objects growing larger by colliding with each other, this means that the last stages of planet formation would have involved collisions between large objects. It is to be expected that around the time the Earth was taking shape, there could also be a proto-planet at the Lagrange point 60 degrees away from Earth in the same orbit. On the long term this is an unstable situation which ends with a collision that according to simulations is of the sort that typically leads to the formation of the Moon.</li>
<li>The asymmetry in the geology between the far side and the near side of the Moon. (there are many more maria on the near side compared to the far side). If the Moon had indeed been very close to the Earth after it formed, then the near side would have stayed very hot due to the Earth's surface still being molten and the radiant heat affecting the near side of the Moon. An impact on the near side of the Moon would far more easily be able to penetrate the solid crust and cause magma to flow to the surface compared to the far side of the Moon.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-25T22:33:43.677Z
@HDE226868 I agree that point #2 is potentially the most compelling bit of evidence, but I also think associated figures and references shouldn't be omitted for this point.
David H
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-25T22:36:33.520Z
@DavidH Ah, shoot. I didn't mean that no references were needed - they certainly are. I didn't stop to think that there weren't any.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-27T13:59:47.583Z
#4: Surely the moon wasn't tidally locked while the Earth was cooling, was it?  At what point in Earth's history do we believe it became tidally locked?
Scottie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-25T20:09:13.983Z
2014-10-25T20:09:13.983Z
Count Iblis
<p>The giant impact hypothesis is a theory to explain how the moon was formed. What evidence is there that supports the theory and led us to find the current theory?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T12:53:21.127Z
I don't think the answer which answered that question would sufficiently answer this question, as there is no explanation as to why the things mentioned are evidence for the theory.
Mitch Goshorn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T21:58:55.020Z
I'm seconding Mitch here. The only answer there is entirely based on theory (which isn't a bad thing, but that means that it doesn't cover this question). By the way, why was a) the question answered by the asker and b) asked and answered on the community wiki?
HDE 226868
<the-moon><formation>
Evidence behind Giant Impact hypthesis
Nirvik Baruah
# Evidence behind Giant Impact hypthesis

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-23)

The giant impact hypothesis is a theory to explain how the moon was formed. What evidence is there that supports the theory and led us to find the current theory?

**Tags:** the-moon, formation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't think the answer which answered that question would sufficiently answer this question, as there is no explanation as to why the things mentioned are evidence for the theory.  
> **username_2**: I'm seconding username_1 here. The only answer there is entirely based on theory (which isn't a bad thing, but that means that it doesn't cover this question). By the way, why was a) the question answered by the asker and b) asked and answered on the community wiki?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-25. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

The smoking guns:

1. The ratio of oxygen isotopes of lunar rocks are almost identical to those of Earth.
2. Lunar recession due to the tides which causes the Earth's rotation to slow down, means that just after the Earth formed, the Moon was very close to the Earth and the Earth was rotating very fast. This situation can be reached due to an oblique impact that transfers a lot of angular momentum to the Earth.
3. The formation of the planets is known to have proceeded via small objects growing larger by colliding with each other, this means that the last stages of planet formation would have involved collisions between large objects. It is to be expected that around the time the Earth was taking shape, there could also be a proto-planet at the Lagrange point 60 degrees away from Earth in the same orbit. On the long term this is an unstable situation which ends with a collision that according to simulations is of the sort that typically leads to the formation of the Moon.
4. The asymmetry in the geology between the far side and the near side of the Moon. (there are many more maria on the near side compared to the far side). If the Moon had indeed been very close to the Earth after it formed, then the near side would have stayed very hot due to the Earth's surface still being molten and the radiant heat affecting the near side of the Moon. An impact on the near side of the Moon would far more easily be able to penetrate the solid crust and cause magma to flow to the surface compared to the far side of the Moon.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: @username_2 I agree that point #2 is potentially the most compelling bit of evidence, but I also think associated figures and references shouldn't be omitted for this point.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 Ah, shoot. I didn't mean that no references were needed - they certainly are. I didn't stop to think that there weren't any.  
> **username_5**: #4: Surely the moon wasn't tidally locked while the Earth was cooling, was it?  At what point in Earth's history do we believe it became tidally locked?  

---

