The formation of the Moon Summarize the main points in the lecture

The reading and the lecture are both about theories that explain the origin of the moon. While the former states that there are three likely theories to explain the formation of this stellar body, the latter cast doubt each one of them providing compelling arguments for it. First of all, the passage explains that the Moon's fission theory. It indicates that the Moon was once part of the Earth, and when this planet was spinning, the Moon separated from it by breaking off from the current Pacific Ocean basin. The lecturer, however, refutes this theory by pointing out two problems of it. He states that the supposed break would have destroyed the entire planet. Additionally, he mentions that the Apollo Mission found that lunar rocks were much hotter than the Earth, which invalidates this first theory. The second theory is the co-accretion theory or condensation theory. According to it, the Earth's only satellite was originated at the same time that the planet from the original nebula of interstellar materials product of the aggregation of small particles. Nevertheless, the professor states that this could not have been possible due to the fact that gravitational forces would have fused all the particles together. Moreover, this theory cannot explain the reason why the Moon has a little core compared with the big one of the Earth composed of 50% of iron. Finally, the reading claims that the Earth could have impacted another planet as big as Mars creating the Moon, which constitutes the giant impact theory. On the other hand, the academic affirms that this process would have lead to a series of chemical processes that in fact never happened, such as evaporation. He believes that there should be more research to create more convincing theories.