Quote in 2005 from Centauri Dreams
While the collision theory for both the Moon and the Pluto/Charon pair is not new, Canup is the first scientist to model the scenario successfully.
This is the computer model created to demonstrate how Pluto/Charon collided then pulled apart.
The creator of this model, Robin Canup of SWRI was asked in 2005 by Alan Stern to make it because she was the one that successfully created the Earth/Moon collision model that demonstrated Theia crashing into Earth creating our Moon.
Other modelers weren't able to get Pluto and Charon to collide and form two bodies so the expert was brought in to force the scenario onto Pluto/Charon. This was in 2005 ten years before we arrived at Pluto.
We decided what would be found ten years before we got to Pluto and created a model based on our unique Earth and Moon scenario to prove it.
This quote from SETI Inst
"Matija Ćuk and Sarah Stewart propose a new model to explain the remarkably similar chemistry of the Earth and Moon. A giant impact onto a fast-spinning Earth ejects material from Earth into orbit, which forms a Moon that is depleted in iron and has a composition similar to Earth's mantle.
4 Billion Years?
Today is March 23 2016, two days ago several NASA scientist lectured on their interpretations of the latest data retrieved from New Horizons.
Dr. Kelsi Singer presented this image as supporting evidence from Nix and Hydra that the moons are 4 billion years old.
Update April 2oth 2016
I've read the paper which describes the crater aging model. Sorry but, I'm not buying it. The southern hemisphere of Charon is smooth the north is raised and rigid, These two surfaces are obviously from different time frames yet Charon is 4 billion years old based on impact counts derived from both the southern and northern hemisphere
On page 67 I show how Kelsi Singer et al., manipulate and falsify the data used to support the concept that 19 impacts on these moons "prove" they are 4 byr old. They scale their data for regolith (shifting the time frame deeper into the past) yet place the words "Scaled by 2.6" for water ice. They use regolith scaling even though it is proven the surfaces of the small satellites are bright water ice then Singer removes more than half the data points.
Updated April 21st 2016
I have read papers and watched videos of the conference and I now have a better understanding of how this impact model is supposed to work. In the conference Kelsey Singer states Nix impact count was as high as 50 but was reduced to 29 to account for potential overlaps while this NASA released paper says (of which Kelsey was a part) there are 11 impacts that's why there are only 11 yellow dots in the image.
My issue with this dating method is, for one it disagrees with the albedo or brightness results. The albedo implies these ice rocks can't be 4 billion years old as the UV radiation from the Sun would have baked them enough to darken them. They are too bright to be 4 Gyr old.
Impact quantities can vary for many reason. For a moment, consider this possibility, Charon was hit on the North Pole which dislodged fragments from the southern hemisphere. This sent multitudes of shards off in all directions, many of which settled into the same low pressure gravity troughs occupied by Nix and Hydra.
This means there would have been a disproportionately large amount of objects for Nix and Hydra to collide into. Nix is closer to Pluto/Charon so more bits of debris would reside there and Nix has more impacts than Hydra. Hydra being further out would have had fewer bits collecting in its low pressure gravity zone.
Update: May 24th 2016
The Pluto image to the left with the large blue circle is the model created explaining Pluto's atmospheric escape rate prior to arrival. The Pluto image on the right with the blue circle is what was actually found by New Horizons.
The estimate or predictive model was off by a thousand times.
This is how we viewed the universe when we believed the earth was at its center. This is called the geocentric model (Earth Centered).
Because of the retrograde (back and fourth) motion of planets like mars or Jupiter, Ptolemy in 150 AD created mathematical models that matched what we thought we knew, the Earth is stationary and the universe rotates around it, seemed reasonable.
Only problem was our view of the events were incorrect, our assumptions limited our ability to understand the odd behavior of planets.
Rather than attempt to understand the reason behind the behavior we opted for insanely complex formulas.
This Earth centered (geocentric) view of the universe lasted for over fourteen hundred years. It appeared to make sense yet we didn't have the right perspective.
Once incorrect conclusions were agreed upon, creating a model to represent those conclusion is just a matter of mathematical effort.
Math can be made to validate most theories, which in and of itself does not mean the theory is unquestionably correct.
Fortunately Copernicus came along and simplified the math while expanding our view by placing the Sun at the center of our solar system and in the process changed how we calculated and viewed the universe forever.
Even after this, our view was limited and we thought the universe was stable and unchanging since, as Einstein put it, god doesn't roll the dice with the universe.
Albert Einstein was one of the most flexible thinking humans in history.
With his theory of Special Relativity he helped us make another quantum leap forward in our understanding of the cosmos.
Einstein revolutionized science by rejecting conventional wisdom.
One problem he faced was, in order for his equations to work while maintaining a static universe he had to employ a cosmological constant (a value that made the universe constant and unchanging) otherwise his math indicated gravity would pull the universe together and collapse or force it to expand.
He believed the universe was static or unchanging so he had to force his mathematical model to change in order to have a stable unchanging universe.
Dogma trumped math and in turn changed the math to fit the dogma.
What's my model
This is the surface of Charon with many examples of angular fragments that fell back onto Charon after its southern hemisphere was catastrophically disrupted.
The largest and most energetically ejected pieces of broken mantel escaped the gravitational control of Pluto/Charon. Pluto took a heavy hit from these larger objects in turn creating Sputnik Planitia.
Some of the ejected smaller bits pushed outward with a lighter force and fell back onto Charon while others fell into low pressure troughs that emanate out in waves from Pluto/Charon's barycenter.
The debris would have collected in the gravitational low pressure troughs of these waves causing multiple impacts onto the largest object within that low pressure zone.
Some chunks from Pluto were also knocked off creating the V Pits one of them was an iceberg we call the moon Nix which is similar to what we see at Norgay Montes.
It was ejected with a force that placed it into one of these gravity troughs. There are many multiple small impacts on Nix as the result of it clearing out this low pressure zone of smaller debris.
I'm not knowledgable enough to act like I can date these objects but the variety of spins likely says something about their age's. Pluto and Charon's spins are totally different than Nix and Hydra.
That's the best I can do for now, I'll give it more thought and research.
The wave image above has serious limitations, the complexities of these orbiting bodies and the gravitational wave patterns they create probably look more like this.
The barycenter which Pluto/Charon orbit around would create a series of low and high gravity pressure waves that would be disrupted by the rotating and varied masses of Pluto/Charon. All three of these low or high pressure zones with spinning masses will produce an extremely complex rotating gravitational wave pattern. Add to that the irregular shape of the four ice rocks (moons) and this scene gets really complicated. This dynamic gravitational field is likely responsible for Nix and Hydra's peculiar tumble, spin and wobble.
The point of this page is to ask one question.
What's in YOUR model/theory?