OotM 3.v: panel discussion!
Oct. 23rd, 2013 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaberettPANEL DISCUSSION: Yo Dave, Robin, Bobby, Sarah Stewart - exists because a male speaker couldn't come BUT THEY TOOK CARE TO MAKE IT ACTUALLY BALANCED HOLY CRAP. ImPRESS.
"How bad is the state of play really?"
- hopefully as we constrain more dynamical processes we can improve our models (well, yes)
Robin: we probably need at least 2 types of approach at this point. We obviously have a number of scenarios, and they make very different predictions in some respects. So: (1) try to attack these various model, to see where we can find weaknesses and further complications; can we rule any out or at least get a better sense of probability between these scenarios? "Without that magic sample from Venus we probably are at a point where we have to examine ideas other than a single impact." Simplicity is not just an aesthetic argument - it's a probability argument. After Tim's very open admission, I feel I should say that theoreticians can get any answer. Is it more likely the Moon was a one-in-one-thousand event, or that I don't know what I'm talking about?
Sarah: What's the actual isotopical constraint? We don't need identical-Earth impactor, just closer to Earth than Mars. Black box: making the move from disc to actual satellite. [Stuff about modelling high-angular-momentum disc; hot, pressure-supported atmosphere; what's the accretion efficiency like?] Philosophical question of contriving theories: provided each step in the sequence seems reasonable/natural, she's not too worried about where the path makes her.
Robin: what can we rule out? Have we got a refractory element that would take a hundred or so years to equilibrate, so as to actually rule out equilibration as an option?
"How bad is the state of play really?"
- hopefully as we constrain more dynamical processes we can improve our models (well, yes)
Robin: we probably need at least 2 types of approach at this point. We obviously have a number of scenarios, and they make very different predictions in some respects. So: (1) try to attack these various model, to see where we can find weaknesses and further complications; can we rule any out or at least get a better sense of probability between these scenarios? "Without that magic sample from Venus we probably are at a point where we have to examine ideas other than a single impact." Simplicity is not just an aesthetic argument - it's a probability argument. After Tim's very open admission, I feel I should say that theoreticians can get any answer. Is it more likely the Moon was a one-in-one-thousand event, or that I don't know what I'm talking about?
Sarah: What's the actual isotopical constraint? We don't need identical-Earth impactor, just closer to Earth than Mars. Black box: making the move from disc to actual satellite. [Stuff about modelling high-angular-momentum disc; hot, pressure-supported atmosphere; what's the accretion efficiency like?] Philosophical question of contriving theories: provided each step in the sequence seems reasonable/natural, she's not too worried about where the path makes her.
Robin: what can we rule out? Have we got a refractory element that would take a hundred or so years to equilibrate, so as to actually rule out equilibration as an option?