History of Earth and the Solar System

A Former User

Have some docs?

Anyway, scientist can't all conspire against truth. It's too unlikely.

sgunhouse

sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer

Mind you, some of the volcanism could be due to tidal effects. I'm no expert to be able to say how much, but there should be some caused by the effects of the sun's gravity. (Yes, of course the moon is tidally locked to Earth hence tides caused by Earth would be moot.)

A Former User

Tidal heating does exist.

Read on certain satellites of our gigant planets - Neptune, Saturn, Jupiter.
Those moons in question are small enough, way too far from the Sun and not at all young to retain any initial radioactive heating, let alone that derived from the initial gravitational condensing (short-lived energy, I reckon). But due to immense gravitational disruption from their parent planets, they have it all: their core (or rather mantle) is constantly mashed by tidal effects, thus producing enough heat to warm up the crust, have volcanism, whatnot. Because of that, scientists seek possible life there: Europe, Io, Titan, some others...

Considering our Moon, tidal forces applied to it must be not very sufficient to heat its interior, however...
As to some elements that might be "seen evaporating" or like that, first our Moon wasn't too active to begin with to have its stuff have already got sufficiently/ultimately convected, so same elements that got there during its formation might still be there - going through time to time (due to same tidal effects, eg); second, the Moon never had any stable atmosphere and was/has been heavily bombarded by STUFF - especially that during The Late Heavy Bombardment.

blackbird71

blackbird71

The problem with our moon and possible tidal effects causing lunar volcanism is that the moon always keeps the same face oriented toward the earth as it orbits, so there is no differential pushing and pulling on varying internal lunar masses to trigger internal tidal effects (and subsequent heating) on the moon. At a surface spot on the moon, the earth always appears to remain in the same place in the sky. The moon experiences a largely constant pull of the earth, but it's always mostly the same magnitude and in the same vector direction relative to the moon's surface and internal structure. Any back-and-forth tidal actions to generate heat would have to originate entirely from the variances of solar attraction as the moon orbits both the earth and, elliptically, the sun - but these forces alone have never been deemed by science as sufficient to cause volcanic heat levels on objects as small as the moon. So the apparent volcanism remains, as does the inadequacy of the current collision theory as an explanation.

A Former User

Never heard of any significant volcanic activity on the Moon.
There are tidal forces:

the Moon's orbit is not circular;
there is the Sun, and __Earth'__s (the Earth-Moon system's) orbit around the Sun is not circular either;
there are other planets, and occasional meteorites - that can bring ~~shit~~stuff onto the Moon (mind p.1).

blackbird71

blackbird71

ref 2.1): What you refer to is described in a paper by Dr.Harada of the Planetary Science Institute of China. He posits that lunar tidal heating to the point of liquifaction occurs in the deepest part of the moon, between 1350 and 1600 km down (within 350-500 km of the lunar center) : < http://www.nao.ac.jp/en/news/science/2014/20140807-rise.html > . Unfortunately, that still leaves unanswered what forces could cause such vulcanism to make the liquid or plastic core rise over 1300 km through the overlying rock (uniformly coalesced over time via the collision theory) to express itself in the transient surface observations. The 1% variation in lunar-terrestrial attraction force due to the 11% variation in lunar-terrestrial orbital distance would normally be greatly inadequate to displace or fracture that thick of a rock overburden. Put another way, the hypothesized tidal vulcanism itself and the externally-applied tidal pressures are insufficient to fracture the overburden and to propel the theorized magma or its residues to the surface.

A Former User

Black, you tend to think in a way as if you're gonna die in a week.

See, nuclear energy produced in the Sun's fusion area (not the core - which is a waste shop) results in electromagnetic radiation which rushes unto us from the Sun's surface within a brief 8+ minutes.
Right?
Simple?

Right.
Just most of you do not usually remember the fact that before that 8 minutes, not even light - energy - spends one hundred and seventy thousand years after it was produced in the fusion area to reach the photosphere.
Thus we do not get the energy produced 8 minutes ago - but produced 170 thousand years ago. Get the idea? :rolleyes:

blackbird71

blackbird71

Unfortunately, "deep time" is not a satisfying answer to every problem in physics - though it is frequently offered by many as being such. All too often, when questions of "how could that happen" are raised, the response is that "given enough time, anything is possible". The simple reality is that with nobody there to witness and accurately record what occurred, the theories about how it all happened (and when) are simply that: theories. And theories that leave observed phenomena unexplained (other than by appealing again to the magic of "deep time") are less tenable because of it.

A Former User

The simple reality is that with nobody there to witness and accurately record what occurred...

You're not exactly precise here: there is a permanent observer there - the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. I guess it can collect such data perfectly well: it usually maintains quite low an orbit and is equipped with advanced enough instruments.
You'll say - not enough precision?
See, here it's the question of registering anomalies of all sorts data-collectible; I haven't inquired if the Orbiter has enough spectral kits or something, but I guess it might - it should, actually, in light of your allegations*:)*

However, my main point is that if something such factual existed, by now I'd have known about that - with authors and references to the time of the observation, instruments used, etc., etc.

See, I couldn't seem to have noticed such information on, say, Wikipedia: if there was SOMETHING - it'd be there. Because you know what?
Individuums can conspire. Governments can conspire.
Institutions can conspire. Let us assume some scientific community can conspire - which one I definitely doubt very much.
But if there is something, it's unlikely that the entire global science enthusiasts community would be ABLE to.
Like see - there is you. A traitor. Right?
Well, you can't deliver any supportive evidence because you weren't able to steal any from the Entire Global Science Enthusiasts Conspiration Committee's HeadQuarters. Right?

A Former User

Well, you can't deliver any supportive evidence because you weren't able to steal any from the Entire Global Science Enthusiasts Conspiration Committee's HeadQuarters. Right?

{Why can't I quote your link?}

O'k, I've visited there.
And I couldn't seem to find anything unexplained/controversial. Normal science*:)*

From there, by the way: <blockquote>These findings suggest that the interior of the Moon has not yet cooled and hardened, and also that it is still being warmed by the effect of the Earth on the Moon.</blockquote>, which is PERFECTLY normal in such "not-dead-yet" dynamical systems like ours.

A Former User

This is estimate value of the Moon’s interior viscosity structure replicate well the observational results in this research. The viscosity is one of the indicator of tenderness/hardness.

A Former User

Been reading on the Triassic period today.

They named the periods after something in present - like places.
In this case, they explained that the "tri-" part means three and the name came after a place in Germany or something.
But they did not explain the "ass" part*:)*

@sgunhouse
@mjmsprt40

sgunhouse

sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer

As far as observers, I'd think something on the surface would be required. But we do have mirrors left there by the Apollo program, and I'm sure other countries have put stuff there since.

blackbird71

blackbird71

The simple reality is that with nobody there to witness and accurately record what occurred...

You're not exactly precise here: there is a permanent observer there - the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. I guess it can collect such data perfectly well: it usually maintains quite low an orbit and is equipped with advanced enough instruments.ctral kits or something, but I guess it might - it should, actually, in light of your allegations
...
However, my main point is that if something such factual existed, by now I'd have known about that - with authors and references to the time of the observation, instruments used, etc., etc.
See, I couldn't seem to have noticed such information on, say, Wikipedia: if there was SOMETHING - it'd be there. ...
But if there is something, it's unlikely that the entire global science enthusiasts community would be ABLE to.
...

IMO, I was very precise. I stated that 'the simple reality is that with nobody there to witness and accurately record what occurred, the theories about how it all happened .. are simply that: theories.' That was said with reference to the origin of the moon portion of the topic. The 'permanent observer now there' (the LRO) is only able to record currently occurring data in limited swaths as it orbits, and extrapolation of its temporally-limited data backwards into "deep time" is purely theoretical conjecture (at least at this point in the science), with any conclusions from that data largely predicated on the governing paradigm one favors.

Regarding my "allegations" or whether the LTE observations are factual, many of them are simply observations from NASA's own data (Technical Report R-277 and the Apollo 15 mission data records). If you allege conspiracy theories involving the observed data, you're placing NASA in the position of conspiring against itself.

The simple fact is that data which doesn't "fit" current scientific paradigms - especially certain 'deep time' paradigms - all too often is simply ignored, in part because the current paradigms have powerful, credentialed adherents with deeply-vested interests and opinions who refuse to accept any risks of upsetting their tightly-held and interlocked beliefs (and research grants). If one believes strongly enough in a popular theory, it is a simple matter to relegate data that doesn't fit (or even contradicts) that theory to 'the shelf' with the argument that science will eventually figure out some explanation that will fit the currently favored theory. But over time, the shelf accumulates so much disregarded data in conflict with the prevailing theory that the theory collapses and is abandoned, replaced, or radically altered. The history of 'science' is replete with examples of this going back literally hundreds of years.

A Former User

The simple fact is that data which doesn't "fit" current scientific paradigms - especially certain 'deep time' paradigms - all too often is simply ignored, in part because the current paradigms have powerful, credentialed adherents with deeply-vested interests and opinions who refuse to accept any risks of upsetting their tightly-held and interlocked beliefs (and research grants). If one believes strongly enough in a popular theory, it is a simple matter to relegate data that doesn't fit (or even contradicts) that theory to 'the shelf' with the argument that science will eventually figure out some explanation that will fit the currently favored theory. But over time, the shelf accumulates so much disregarded data in conflict with the prevailing theory that the theory collapses and is abandoned, replaced, or radically altered. The history of 'science' is replete with examples of this going back literally hundreds of years.

The mechanism in which science operates is objectively described in a better way.
A theory is proposed, then gets proven or not.
Then it stands either until a better theory gets substantiated or until it's brought down by some unequivocal new evidence - like contradicting proper calculations based on some new factual measurements/observations.

In light of that, your stance seems void: I couldn't possibly see any contradictions in what you mentioned and/or referred to, so...

blackbird71

blackbird71

The mechanism in which science operates is objectively described in a better way.
A theory is proposed, then gets proven or not.
Then it stands either until a better theory gets substantiated or until it's brought down by some unequivocal new evidence - like contradicting proper calculations based on some new factual measurements/observations. ...

Agreed, except perhaps in the meaning of 'proven'. But a theory remains just what it is: a theory - and a theory is not a scientific 'law'. The progression is normally: hypothesis, then theory, then law. A theory is where an explanatory idea or hypothesis seems to best fit most of the observations and predicts other observations that can be verified; a law is when the explanatory theory has been logically/mathematically demonstrated to fit ALL the observed facts and observations, both current and into the future. The problem is that the pursuit and practice of science all too often attributes to a 'theory' the attributes and authority of a 'law'. This is most evident in the 'deep time' theories about celestial events, evolution, geology, and others, but extends into microbiology, life-origins, human behavior, etc. Perhaps the primary reason for that lies in the normal human desire to have a ruling explanation for things, even in areas where the 'test-ability' of a theory is least possible. For that reason, pure inorganic chemistry and mathematics have probably the least number of 'theories' compared with the numbers of their laws - the theories can be more easily and readily tested in a lab and become laws. But when it comes to heavily time-dependent realms, significant lab testing becomes extremely difficult or impossible; and 'theories' in those areas tend to assume the weight of 'laws' in the culture.

The point is that theories remain 'theories,' containing a healthy admixture of pure conjecture accompanying them. And the impact theory of the moon's origin is just that. It seems to fit a large number of observed facts. But it does not fit all of them, hence it is not deemed a law. In the same way the origins of the solar system or the explanation of quasar mechanisms remain theoretical, in large part because there are facts that do not seem to fit into the theories propounded thus far. Because a 'theory' may not fit all the observed facts, it is subject to question. As such, it should never be viewed as having the authority of a law. Unfortunately, in the popular culture at any given point, many theories are held as closely as laws. As a result, the progress of good science is frequently retarded in those areas simply because the pressure of the culture resists or ridicules those who question a particular prevailing theory. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that no theory exists in a vacuum - many theories interlock and are scientifically and popularly accepted based upon still other underlying theories (not necessarily 'laws') upon which they have been erected. It can all become a house-of-cards with each theory depending upon other theories for general acceptance, and the toppling of any member threatening the tidy interlocked whole. Significant bias in the scientific and popular realm in terms of an accepted 'theory' being accorded the uncontested authority of 'law' is neither conjecture nor conspiracy paranoia - it is reality, as anyone can readily attest who has experienced the virtual ostracism that can occur when trying to publish alternative or challenging assertions of various kinds in scientific journals.

A Former User

Not that.
You assumed that a theory evolves into a law as a general rule.
But it's not right - not universal. Theories that can constitute a law might evolve into ones. Here we have another sort of science body: a theory of something that is complex and is unable to constitute a universal law; moreover, this one is of the sort of "unique happenings" - it might be put it the same row as the star evolution, but it is still a much rarer event and unique in that sense, so it can't adjust to any strict law (the concept of the law is to be universal, omnipotent).

blackbird71

blackbird71

Not that.
You assumed that a theory evolves into a law as a general rule.
But it's not right - not universal. Theories that can constitute a law might evolve into ones. Here we have another sort of science body: a theory of something that is complex and is unable to constitute a universal law; moreover, this one is of the sort of "unique happenings" - it might be put it the same row as the star evolution, but it is still a much rarer event and unique in that sense, so it can't adjust to any strict law (the concept of the law is to be universal, omnipotent).

No, I did not assume that. Indeed, not all theories 'evolve' into laws. Just as not all hypotheses 'evolve' into theories. But to treat any theory as if it possesses the authority of a law IS the issue here. There are genuine questions about the current collision lunar origin theory involving data that doesn't fit, particularly geological, chemical, and thermal issues. But those questions and data are typically relegated by supporters of the collision theory to the 'trivial', as if that will make such data go away.

In the last 75 years, there have been at least 4 major theories about the origin of the moon, each one largely dominating the approval of science and the public during its own era, until being supplanted by a 'better' theory: the binary, capture, fission, and collision theory (though the binary theory still stands as viable). At the time each theory was dominant, it was accepted as THE 'acceptable' theory of lunar origin, and the contradicting data tended to be ignored until - well, until it became too compelling to remain ignored. In those days, most scientists attempting to point out the contradicting data against the dominant theory were ridiculed and, in some cases, suppressed from publishing in journals.

All of this should serve to make observers realize that ANY theory, particularly those not open to direct experimentation, should be regarded as highly tentative, rather than to assume that they authentically describe what actually occurred. This is acutely true in areas involving claims of 'deep time' since there were no witnesses present to observe or interpret what occurred and leave records concerning it, and since the consequences at such temporal distances lend themselves to multiple and imaginative interpretations. I find it troubling whenever I encounter observers writing as if any given deep-time-related theory is actually the way things happened, even though there exists conflicting data challenging major assumptions or consequences of that theory.

A Former User

No, I did not assume that. Indeed, not all theories 'evolve' into laws. Just as not all hypotheses 'evolve' into theories.

I meant mere evolvability - you should've got that.
Don't you get that things are different - one may have hypotheses AND theories but not ever constitute any law, while others can have hypotheses, theories AND constitute laws.
What LAW could you possibly mean with the evolution of the Moon? It is history - sequences of complex interactions, blah-blah!..

A Former User

There are genuine questions about the current collision lunar origin theory involving data that doesn't fit, particularly geological, chemical, and thermal issues. But those questions and data are typically relegated by supporters of the collision theory to the 'trivial', as if that will make such data go away.

What data?
Propose an alternative?