History of Earth and the Solar System
-
A Former User last edited by
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 last edited byUnfortunately, "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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 -
-
blackbird71 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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?
-
blackbird71 last edited by
The collision theory implies a celestial body smacked into the earth and tore out great chunks of crust that somehow were trapped in orbit and coalesced into the moon. The heat generated from such an impact would have been tremendous and according to the collision theory, the impacting object was vaporised in the event. Yet analysis of lunar material shows it has never been subjected to heat over 1200K, which is far too low to have been associated with the vaporization of an impacting object. The moon also is lacking in water-bearing mineral compounds, which implies its material did not come from the mineralogical material from a water-rich earth. Finally, a collision throwing off such a large mass of material from the earth would have so greatly affected the earth's momentum that to attain a post-impact (and current) 24 hour rotational day, the earth would have had to have a pre-collision rotational day of 2.5-hours (conservation of momentum being one of those unpleasant 'laws' that inconveniently intrudes into such a pat little theory as the collision origin). Beyond that are multiple thermal heat transfer issues and contradictions within the time-frame incorporated in the theory, as well as geological issues such as the Apollo Radon gas observations that are incompatible with the collision theory. And it goes on...
Frankly, I don't know of any current 'airtight' theory regarding the origin of the moon. All of them have problems of one sort or another, but if I had to put my money down on one, it would probably be the binary theory at this point of the science. I have no problem answering the question: 'what is the origin of the moon?' with a response of: 'we don't really know, but there are a couple of ideas being suggested.' My problem lies with a science and observers that imply or in some cases state that "this is how it happened." Truth be told, we don't really know how it happened, and no human was there to observe or record it.
