I have done some of the maths again and at 40,000 km - the distance to the barycenter of 4641 km the period would have been 2.22E+01 hours (22.2 hours)

There definitely was an error here - 3137.5 m/sec is the new result and when extrapolated to the current distance it gave the right figure of 1022 m/sec.
So it was going 3 times as fast but on a much small circumference. so period of 22.2 hours rather than 27 days.

What would be a corrected statement "If Theia comes in at 20 km/sec how does the scatter have an average velocity of 3,137.5 m/sec even after climbing to 40,000 km against the Earth's gravity?
I going to have to check the maths, will it add up?

Is there a problem Houston

OK some corrections were necessary.

from http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=EIrwxgp...20earth&f=false

That seems even more ridiculous?
Doesn't seem to be easily found.

Also look in here please http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~planets/sstewart/Moon.html
"A New Model for the Origin of the Moon"

Can anyone confirm they read that the newly formed Moon immediately after the Giant Impact was orbiting the Earth once every 22 hours or thereabouts?

So what speed would the material initially have in order to able to have an average speed enabling an orbit at 40,000 km?
Just the speed relative to the Earth will do. OK so would any material after impact and blasted backward be included in the Moon?
Well if it was it would be lowering the net orbital momentum/energy.
Mass goes from zero to "V" at a height of 40,000 km.
Putting in the figures the velocity at that height, on first calculation, came out to an incredible 1.82E+06 m/sec or 6/1,000th the speed of light. Can that really be true??? 1,821 kms/sec???
Must have made a mistake somewhere! Either that or the GI theory has flaws.

If Theia comes in at 20 km/sec how does the scatter have an average velocity of 1,821 km/sec even after climbing to 40,000 km against the Earth's gravity?
I going to have to check the math but it doesn't add up.

OK let's work that backward if it hits the Earth at 20 km/sec and the ejected material is able to maintain that velocity, how high up will it be able to go into orbit around the Earth?
Strangely enough it comes out to 40,000,000 meters or 40,000 km, but it has to climb to that height under the Earth gravitational attraction so the speed will decline and it won't reach that height! (look at the ballistic equations) There's a problem Houston!

The Maths of the Giant impact theory seems a bit suspect to me.
Something starting off at 25,000 m/sec how high will it go under the Earth's gravitational field?
And then you would have to factor in air resistance as well.
And wasn't it supposed to be hitting a relatively slowly spinning Earth, imparting momentum to the Earth in the process? That must cut back the speed as well.
And the fact that all the particles will be going in different directions their net velocity is cut back even further.

I'll look at the calculations later - maybe.

WOULDN'T THIS BE ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE GIANT IMPACT THEORY?

The Hiten Mission (Japanese Space Agency) which flew through the Earth–Moon L4 and L5 Lagrangian points in 1992; found no increase in dust levels.

If the there was a massive impact these points would have collected dust wouldn't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_po..._point_missions

In the yo-yo Moon Capture theory these points would have been swept clean every 16,000 years.

I think there are problems with the Giant Impact theory. What do you think?

What with a Moon at 40,000 km above the Earth! The tidally induced friction in the Earth's crust would continue to knock life back. How does it go, the Earth was completely molten after the collision. So when did it start to cool, when was it cool enough for water and where did the organic precursors come from once the Sun was intense enough to blow all the protoplanetary dust away?

OK the Yo-yo Moon capture theory brings the Moon close in too, how close I haven't calculated yet, but in my scenario there is vast oceans of water to evaporate before the Earth ever became a molten cauldron.
You calculate the stresses on the Earth's crust of a Moon at 40,000 km with the Earth whipping around at 4-5 revolutions per day. To remain at that minimal distance the Moon would be orbiting at a phenomenal rate too.
My first attempt at calculating that gave a result of 22 hours, can you live with that?
Period of the Lunar month 22 hours and the day length 5 hours? How long before you get things cool enough for life?

T = 2 * PI * SQRT ( A^3 / ( G * ( M1 + M2 ) T in seconds. = 7.91E+04
7.91E+04 / 3600 = 2.20E+01 hours.

From the diagram, looking from the lower left hand corner, follow the arc up to the right and see how the Moon takes quarter revolutions around the Earth. So that is the way the Earth "throws the Moon up and over itself" but it is not just the Moon orbiting the Earth but the Moon is coming and going from the Sun as well and this will affect its kinetic energy to potential energy balance. So I guess it is really difficult to take the eccentricity out of the Moon-Earth system, even though with the Yo-yo Moon Capture theory when they were tidally locked, I'd like to know whether all this eccentricity was present then or not? If my reasoning is correct the eccentricity is inherent, but with the larger orbit, as the Moon is making now compared to then, I would hazard a guess that the eccentricity is getting worse because the radius is getting larger (the Earth is adding energy all the time), but on the other hand it could be lessening because the orbital period is getting longer. So which effect dominates?
Any comments on what the answer maybe please?

The study below has picked up an increase in the eccentricity of the Moon. So maybe the action of throwing the Moon into a higher orbit, which implies the Moon gets both closer to the Sun and further away depending on which side of the Earth it is on, has an intensifying effect on the Moon's eccentricity. Well that is my rough and ready guess.

The following study could be read:
"On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.0212.pdf

I thought it a bit odd they didn't have an explanation for the increase in eccentricity yet I had proposed a reason even before I had known about this scientific study!

How does a Theia collision alter the history of life on Earth? It wold be another 800 million years before the appearance of life on Earth, still ample time for development.

I want to clear up one thing, for there seems to be a contradiction in what I have said in the last several posts:
1. "3. At each pass of the planets Earth and Luna, the relative motion between the planet Luna (Moon) is slowed by speeding the Moon up (lower Lunar -Sun orbit)
(This must mean the period between conjunctions increase with time, as the orbital periods become synchronized. This bit is a logical consequence of #3.)"

And prior to that:
2. "The Moon gains speed on one leg, the Moon and the Earth move toward each other relatively (as well as orbiting the Sun, so I'm not suggesting anything goes backwards). The Moon would then slow on the going-away half of the orbit. I think that means the two halves are dynamically balanced."

So I will agree that these two statements are partially true but also a little contradictory too, for I would say that if there was angular momentum transferred the two halves of the orbit will not be fully dynamically balanced as a consequence. The transfer of the momentum dampens the balance.
This transfer of momentum would tend to make the Earth and Lunar spin anticlockwise looking down on the system. [I will try to use the term Luna for the planet Luna prior to its capture as the Moon.]