Wrong on both counts? What does that mean? Where did I say the change in orbit was enormous, or small. I got Stewie for strawman, I dont need someone else making stuff up. The Earth's orbit would have changed even had it not been struck, but it was struck. Does your current theory provide a range?
It's not
my theory, it's the dominant scientific opinion. The change in orbit was insufficient to bring it to some new area in space (so on the order of a few million miles or less). We're talking a point then in between Mars and Venus roughly where Earth today (correcting for the fact that planetary orbits increase in radius over billions of years due decreasing solar mass).
Has current theory found the location of the collision?.
Yes
Is there a pattern to planet formation? Like, if the Earth was not here do the planets line up at some mathematical ratio?
There's no complete theory but certainly there are clearly evident patterns. The current thinking about Giant Impact (Earth's orginal orbit being roughly where it is now, and the impactor being formed at one of the Earth's Lagrange points) certainly does fit in with planetary formation theory.
Where would the Earth have to be to fit that pattern? I suggest they build their theory on the actual evidence and not speculations about how hard the Earth got hit.
It is based on the actual evidence, (Earth/lunar weight and density, planetary formation patterns, angular momentum etc. etc.) just because you don't know it and I'm not going to fully flesh out every bit of theory doesn't mean it doesn't have signficant evidence.
If this collision occurred, a trail of debris would be evident.
Why? Isn't it obvious that after 4.some billion years the debris could get scattered by gravitational interaction with planets?
Their theory includes the origin of the moon so they need a low velocity impactor, but the moon shows evidence of being present during the collision. The Moon got hit by a massive wave of debris around 4 bya followed by a period of declining activity.
You're thinking about LHB, which has nothing to do with Giant Impact Hypothesis.
Yeah, the Earth got hit hard enough to strip away any evidence of the proto-Earth's crust/surface (aside from the abundance of water)
I don't think there is any direct geologic evidence of anything before the giant impact including water presence.
but the orbit didn't change much at all?
Yep! It's not my fault if that doesn't make intuitive sense to you, you should work on overcoming that, because your intuition of orbital mechanics seems to suck.
Oh, and I'd suggest the impactor was following an inclined retrograde orbit. That would explain the long term comets following such an orbit, no need for the Oort Cloud.
How the hell would it do that?
This seems to be a case of infantile knowitallism, you're not an expert on orbital mechanics, why do you believe that you know more then the experts on it?
