I think this latest study adds one example to a body of evidence suggesting that the gentle formation hypothesis may be true. The gentle planet formation hypothesis has actually been debated for about 15 years. This one example doesn’t establish a scientific consensus applying to all the planets, even though the study’s author seems to be making some sweeping claims about the new discovery.
That one is fairly dim…the forces are small because the objects are small. The forces will get bigger over time as mass increases. I can’t believe anyone would publish something so easily deconstructed.
nope, too much PC and virtue signaling in scientific community today.
I don’t think the evidence yet shows what happened with larger masses merging. They’re saying the process by which the various particles collided in this particular case was slower and more gradual than depicted under the hierarchical accretion theory - with the various bodies orbiting each other before slowly merging. They didn’t indicate what, if any, evidence there is to support your apparent assertion that the process was more violent and accelerated for larger masses.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00380-2
Good Stuff Elsewhere
- “Irreproducibility should not automatically be seen as a sign of failure. It can also be an indication that it’s time to rethink our assumptions (Irreproducibility is not a sign of failure, but an inspiration for fresh ideas)
One particular annoyance to hear is when the phrase "it hasn't be scientifically proven" is thrown around in a careless manner and in such a way as to denounce a very real experience that really can't be easily proved scientifically at the moment, but is still real nevertheless. It's like saying the universe doesn't exist because we can't prove it 100%. There is a saying that science and metaphysics eventually have to meet and crossover each other. This is becoming much more true today than in the past with all the advancements in quantum mechanics.
In what way is it “careless” to conclude that some cause and effect relationship, or the existence of some phenomenon, hasn’t been proven scientifically, when it can be tested scientifically? You can say anything you imagine is “real,” in the sense that you can really imagine it. And many people have hallucinations. That doesn’t mean: 1) that a scientific test is not appropriate; or 2) that it is careless to state the current scientific evidence, or lack of it, relating to that phenomenon.
In fact, it might be careless NOT to make clear that something hasn’t been scientifically proven. Example: the alleged connection between vaccines and autism. Another example: regular scares about the sources of illness that are passed from person to person and can cause panic and other anti-social responses. Another example: many products advertised as being effective in curing or preventing disease, without any scientific evidence substantiating the advertising claims.
The bottom line is that, if you wish to believe in things without scientific proof, you have that right. You also have a right to declare that you think your experience is very real to you, even without scientific proof. However, other people have a right to believe only in what is proven scientifically, and to declare that such proof doesn’t exist for one phenomenon or another.
^^ Agreed. What I like about this thread is that it has stayed civil and hasn't been closed. Somewhat of a first here at BLF considering the topic.
If you’re curious where science came from, and why you’re allowed, nay expected, to think for yourself, this is worth reading:
I never asserted anything, just said that it goes against the teachings that scientists have taught for over 60 years or so.
As to support for my apparent assertion, oh please, stating that the actions of two minor planets weighing in at many billions of tonnes would be the same as two objects that would weigh in the region of maybe 1,000 tonnes is laughable at best.
The general consensus of all scientists is that our own moon came into being because of a violent collision between a minor planet and our own planet, which could not happen with a ‘soft’ collision.
Agree to disagree 
As for scientific proof as to what happened in prehistory, how can any theory be proven. unless someone has invented a time machine.
Cheers
Is this thread still alive? Where are the trolls and the flames? 
When you embrace a thought pattern and accept it as a truth, i.e. when you program your subconscious mind for it, it will mold and shape your experience creating your reality. It is a powerful energy shaping act which involves a lot more than you may think.
So why should I be believing into someone else?
First and foremost you should believe wisely, learning to believe if required. You should believe for the highest and best. You should believe in The :-) Light. You should believe in your self-development. Essentially, you should believe in anything you wish to experience. I understand many of you may not be able to believe in many things yet, this is understandable and development level related.
If after reasonable manifesting time something you believe doesn't comes along, you either did it wrong or something is likely blocking it. You need mind reprogramming then.
Back to my lair. 
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Einstein
Only true when one has to try and prove something to someone else. That is the beauty of personal experience, no need to prove to others the existence of it or not. Quote: "One can learn all the secrets of the universe and effectively control it, yet still not know me".
^ I knew when someone such as yourself would be confronted with a quote that defies science, you would lower yourself to lowly personal insults. Now you may understand why many don't hold science to the highest standard. Nice time while it lasted though, thanks for the entertainment, bye.
The irony is I did not say anything about you, as the quote applies to everyone, but you seem to have something to say about me, even contradicting your previous quote.
Nevertheless, feel free to say hello.
[deleted]
As the saying goes, “there are lies, d@#^ lies, and statistics.” Oftentimes, the population is fed some statistic as proof of settled science, but it isn’t necessarily so. If we are told, for example, that 97% of scientists agree on something, we’d do well to examine who those scientists are, what are their qualifications, what question were they asked (what exactly did they agree to), and so on.
I like what some others have written about the low relative value that a ‘consensus’ often can have. Sometimes a consensus only proves that the vast majority can be (and often is) wrong.
And sometimes a ‘consensus’ can be faked with statistics.
By the way…. I am a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess. But I don’t have to. 
So I choose… to stay a man. (Heck, I already have the Y chromosome, so why not?) 
