Talk:Synestia

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephdav000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning/Tumbling Synestia Twin Moon Hypothesis[edit]

I propose that the 50mya giant impact event is also relevant...it uplifted the Himalayas, our youngest mountain chain.. I propose this North Polar Basin impact event ultimately increased tide raising forces so that vertical mixing of nutrients created a rich new plankton based food chain that crossed the entire globe... the transition of the dinosaur age to the mammalian age... I propose that a tumbling synestia would create two moons, each in orbit about the other.. analagous to Pluto and Charon.... I propose that our sister moon was captured by the Earth around 50mya and led to the low speed Arctic Impact Event shortly afterwards..86.174.244.113 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)AL[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for presenting original research. Nor for presenting original hypotheses, for that matter. —Undomelin (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to recent studies? when, who, where[edit]

The paragraph that starts "According to recent studies..." has the citation to the study, but also should show by who or where, and when. It also should mention that the cited paper states that the giant impact hypothesis remains the leading theory for lunar origin, see below from the abstract:

"Abstract The giant impact hypothesis remains the leading theory for lunar origin. However, current models struggle to explain the Moon's composition and isotopic similarity with Earth. Here we present a new lunar origin model. "

I will leave it to someone else to add the details, I am not an expert on this, I came to this page after watching the TED video of Sarah T Stewart "Where did the Moon come from: a new theory" and wanted to know more about a synestia. I see she has a Wikipedia page - Sarah T. Stewart-Mukhopadhyay - but not sure if the new theory should be attributed to her alone or also the other author cited in the paper, and when, or if it was funded, etc. Ray3055 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]