Hypothesis of Eva Nessenius:
The Precambrian earth and the Paleozoic earth before Permian was a
"puffy planet". Its density increased during the evolution of our solar system.
In Precambrian time the moon originated inside the earth and left the earth in Permian. For this reason the continental plates started moving apart into opposite directions. An impact was unnecessary as the moon left the earth by fission and endogenic forces.
The giant impact hypothesis is a projection of militaristic thinking into nature. Science is getting abused politically to make people beleive in violence. Popular science is painting a false picture of a cosmos full of collisions without evidence using therms like "colliding dust grains" "colliding planetesimals" "collision with a mars-sized orb" "colliding stars" and "colliding galaxies".
If two galaxies cross each other's way, there is plenty of empty space between their stars to pass by quietly and elegantly without any collision. Collision causes destruction. All the experiments trying to prove the planetesimal-theory
failed, because planetesimals destroy each other when they collide.
The scenarios shown on paintings of earth formation are what J. M. Herndon calls: "magma-ocean-nonsense".
I am not denying that collisions are happening in space. But isn't it too comfortable, to assume a collision for everything we still have no explanation for? And then taking some hypothetical collision as premise and placing everything else around it, until it seems to mach? This questionable method reminds me of baking cakes in the sandbox.
Wikipedia: Giant impact hypothesis: "This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties ... for example, the giant impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is
no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed by a magma ocean. There are a number of compositional inconsistencies that need to be addressed. The rations of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the impact hypothesis. The presence of water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain, an impact would have entailed a catastrophic heating event. If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from an impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in those. The Moon's oxygen isotopic rations are essencially identical to those of Earth. If a separate
proto-planet Theia had existed, it would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material. The Moon's
titanium isotope ratio
(50Ti/47Ti) appears close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm)..." [28].
Although the hypothesis of planetesimal-accretion is wrong, scientists keep working on frustrating attempts to prove it because of the funding. The earth originated as a gas giant (Herndon). We'd rather compare the protoearth with a Low-Density-Superearth:
