Slashdot Mirror
Moon May Be Geologically Active
dptalia writes, "For decades scientist have thought that the moon has been 'dead' for about 1 to 3 billion years. However, new research points to the idea that the moon may have been volcanically active as recently as 1 million years ago. In fact, NASA geophysicist Paul Lowman believes the moon's core is still molten."
... it doesn't get a GTD (Geologically Transmitted Disease)
Of the moon having a still-molten core. Interesting.
Wouldn't this be really easy to prove, I would have thought that if this was the case it would make the moon notably hotter than the ambient temperature of space, so could they not just stick an infra-red camera at it and look to see if there is a difference?
I know I'm missing something but I'm not sure what...
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
As some one who has no knowledge in this field, have we learned anything actualy interesting from this?
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Magnet ic_field_of_celestial_bodies
Moonfarts!
well I guess I'll cancel my plans to move to the moon then...unless someone comes out with volcano insurance for it. There hasn't been one for a while but don't you think it's overdue for some then?
Is it just me or is it not going to upgrade to Vista in here?
Yeah yeah folks, we get it; Molten Core/WoW High ping blizzard servers based on moon etc/etc.
If it really is only 200-300 kilometers down, maybe it can provide geothermic-based electricity, then we don't need to deal with solar power on the moon.
Demented But Determined.
Excellent! I'll still take these nacho chips but I won't need the microwave to make dip. I tell you, space flight gets simpler each year.
What is the best area to dig? Is there a spot where the core is not too deep? Perhaps we can just make a small hole with a shovel and eat out of that, sort of like ice-fishing in the Sea of Tranquility. Only we're not fishing, just eating chips with bubbling hot, delicious all-natural cheese.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
The remains of the lunar base of our long last ancestors who first colonized earth.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'ambient temperature of space', because temperature is a property of matter, and space is kinda empty, so there's nothing to compare it to, unless you want to call it absolute zero, in which case the moon will be quite a bit hotter than that no matter what.
The next nearest approach I would think would be to figure roughly what temp. an otherwise 'dead' object of the moon's size would reach just through the ambient radiation in space, plus collisions (probably insignificant, but maybe not), etc. This has to be tougher than it seems at first glance, though, or I would expect they would have already figured it out.
Unpleasantries.
Geologically active = not news
The ten-year-old astronomy book I read to my five-year old son last week noted that the moon has several weak "moonquakes" every year. What's the news; the volcanic part?
Turns out that the United States government has been building a secret bomb shelter on the dark side of the Moon. Considering the geological implications of Tuesday's election, the new lunar bomb shelter will become the last refuge for the Bush Administration if things get too unstable.
Okay, so I'm going to preface this: I'm asking a QUESTION, not stating anything as fact, or whatever. So don't tag this flamebait on a kneejerk reaction. I'm honestly asking a question here.
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
We still know more about our moon then our own oceans
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
After all, the Apollo astronauts will inevitably have introduced viruses onto the lunar landscape, and those which found their way under rocks could well still be alive (and maybe mutated) and ready to infect any new terrestrial organism that comes along.
Of course, this raises the question of whether viruses are alive in the first place, but I've side-stepped that pedantic question by saying "biologically active", which they are.
Just wait till it becomes fully operational.
"Evidently, the moon has recently been letting slip gases..."
These would be referred to as "moonfarts".
/* No Comment */
DorkusMasterus
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking?
Well, if you were to disregard all other evidence that points to an old universe, and were just to take this one new bit of information (assuming its true) on its own without supporting context and information, then you could take it as evidence of creationism. However, due to the fact that we have a lot of evidence and information that supports an old universe, this tidbit, if true, is instead merely evidence that the moon has different properties than we initially thought, and that further investigation is required to understand the how's and why's of lunar geology and/or the origins of the moon. Regardless, if the moon is found to be younger than we initially thought, it does not necessarily follow that the whole universe is younger to match.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Kewl. I mean hot.
What are the chances of the moon itself getting its own moon. Right now the moon orbits around the earth that orbits around the sun. How many levels can we go?
Have you read my journal today?
I am in World of Warcraft detox and do not want a relapse.
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
As I know it and as used in the "Inherit the Wind" play/Scopes trial: Going strictly by the bible and using terms in it as not exactly the terms we use today, there is no way to define the age of the universe. Since so much is open to interpretation that makes just about anything possible. There are certain figures who think that they can use the bible as a timeline to figure out the creation of the universe to a day. I don't know if any institutes support these claims or not.
Either way the age of the moon even by the larger creationist theory means little and certainly means nothing about the age of the universe in the accepted scientific "big bang" theory of things. In either theory the universe could be seen as billions of years old without invalidating either one. By all scientific measures our sun is at least a second or third (or more) generation star because of the existence of heavier elements in the local neighborhood. With that in mind the age of the moon means nothing as well.
This isn't even to mention that the earth is still geologically active and yet it's generally accepted to be older than the moon. And who's to say that a large impact wouldn't make the moon geologically active? I'm not qualified to make these assumption more than just mere musings so take it with a grain of salt or moon dust.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
by casualsax3 (875131) Alter Relationship on Thursday November 09, @12:30PM (#16787241): The moon's sidereal period is over 27 days, a strong magnetic field would not be expected. The major indicator that a molten core is not present is the lack of a dipolar field -- which a geodynamo (from the molten core) would cause.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
TASTE THE FLAMES OF SULFURON!
...shouldn't that read "lunalogically active"?
I'm just sayin'.
Wouldn't this be really easy to prove, I would have thought that if this was the case it would make the moon notably hotter than the ambient temperature of space, so could they not just stick an infra-red camera at it and look to see if there is a difference? I know I'm missing something but I'm not sure what... Well, first of all, the ambient temperature of space is in the microwave region of the spectrum, not IR. Second, the moon absorbs an awful lot of light from the sun (there is no true "dark side" of the moon, although we dont see it, it certainly has day and night periods like any other rotating celestial body), which is then radiated away through the lunar night until the next lunar sunrise.
TASTE THE FLAMES OF SULFURON!
Is this some retarded WoW crap or something?
To http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=205741 &cid=16787241
Neednt be.
Mars has a weak magnetic field. But its core is considered to be molten iron.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Nikolay Kozyrev observed seismic activity in 1958.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon?
No. Even absolute proof that the moon was about 6000 years old would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang theory. No one thinks that the solar system is anywhere near as old at the universe itself, and the age of the objects in the solar system is miniscule compared to the time since the Big Bang.
In any case, if your conjecture about "geologically active" = "created recently" was remotely plausible, why would you need to look at the moon at all? The Earth has plenty of active volcanos that you can go and look at, which by your logic would "prove" that the Earth isn't "old".
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
So this explains why we havn't sent people to the moon in a while. The last time someone was there, they heard a voice booming "Too soon! You have awakened me too soon!"
Coming to the conclusion that their equipment did not have sufficient Fire Resistance to face 'He who was ancient since the world was young', our band of astronauts ran like hell back to earth.
NASA has been farming FR gear ever since.
I thought the moon was made of earths crust (mostly rock composed of silicon and oxygen), which doesn't contain a large amount of iron. The earths core is largely made out of iron, which is electrically conductive and able to generate a magnetic field. I'd think it'd be difficult to generate a magnetic field without the ability to conduct electricity.
So, the abscence of a magnetic field may only indicate the moon has a rocky (but possibly liquid) core.
AccountKiller
The fact that the moon as a very weak magnetic field is almost proof in and of itself that it doesn't have a molten core: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Magnet ic_field_of_celestial_bodies [wikipedia.org]
A molten core is necessary, but insufficient condition for the generation of a magnetic field. The core must also be convecting, which implies its losing heat to the mantle above it. If the core is only cooling conductively, then the core fluid will just rotate along with the planet and that won't generate a magnetic field. The core of Mars is likely molten [Yoder et al. (2003), Science, 300, p.299-303], but it has no global magnetic field (although the strong remanent magnetism strongly implies it had one early on [see e.g. Arkani-Hamed (2003), J. Geophys. Res. 109, E03006]). The high rigidity in the lunar mantle and the small possible size of the lunar core makes core convection very difficult there. (Yes, IIAPS (I am a planetary scientist).)
"The fact that the moon as a very weak magnetic field is almost proof in and of itself that it doesn't have a molten core"
...
That argument is somewhere between "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" and "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". The fact that no music videos have been filmed on the moon similarly "almost proves" its lack of a magnetic field. Seriously: the lack of a magnetic field proves that _even_if_ the moon has a _core_capable_of_generating a magnetic field, such a core is not doing so; nor is anything else doing so. Logically, a molten core doesn't necessarily generate a magnetic field, and a magnetic field doesn't necessarily come from a molten core (operating as a dynamo).
"The moon's sidereal period is over 27 days, a strong magnetic field would not be expected. The major indicator that a molten core is not present is the lack of a dipolar field -- which a geodynamo (from the molten core) would cause."
A geodynamo, as with any dynamo, requires movement, but not necessarily a spinning movement(the proposition is still under investigation). It also requires a conductive, if not fully ferromagnetic core. Comments in thus far have taken for granted that the moon must have a highly metalic core. In fact, the moon is not suspected to have such a core! See below. Convection causes considerable motion in a geodynamo.
"Another person her pointed out Mars as an example. It spins more slowly, but has a molten core much larger than any the moon would have and the result is a very, very weak field. I'm unconvinced that a noticeable magnetic field would necessarily be produced by any molten core the moon might have.
We don't even know that the molten material that might be the center of the moon would be one that would generate a magnetic field."
Thank you (finally!) Currently, we think the moon has a small core (probably of iron) only about 680km in diameter. Tangentially, Mars' present day magnetic field is dominated by the preservation of its ancient magnetic field in its crust.
Yet another complicating factor: the moon is tidally locked with Earth. Earth's gravity exerts a torque on the moon because the moon is not symmetric around its axis of rotation. Is the (assumedly) molten portion of its (assumedly) conductive core similarly asymmetric? I don't mean to imply that the question of whether or not the moon has an internal dynamo, or a magnetic field, or an atmosphere, has any bearing on the question of whether or not the moon's core is still active.
Tell some (faux) bird experts about fish and you hear about birds. Sheesh. Not trying to be mean, but this thread is shambling along with too many assumptions being made. There are many, many factors involved and their interactions are just too complicated for "fast & loose" to be helpful.
I'm studying Planetology for fun at the Open University and as a good student I feel obliged to ask: Where's the Moon's magnetic field? Molten planetary cores and planetary magnetic fields are related. When you have one, you have the other. Fire and smoke. If the Moon's core is molten, then why its magnetic field is almost inexistent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology -> "the study of the Earth's structure"
Couldn't pass it up.
The first sentence from your source...
Geology (from Greek - (ge-, "the earth") and (logos, "word", "reason"))[1] is the science and study of the solid matter of a celestial body , its composition, structure, physical properties, history and the processes that shape it.
I was trying to reply to someone above about this but 'reply' seems to be broken
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
It keeps moving around the Earth. That makes it quite active around all geology.
The moon actually revolves around the sun, in lockstep with the earth. Compared to the diameter of its solar orbit, it just wobbles a little bit. If it was really revolving around the earth, then it would at some point during the month move retrogradedly - it doesn't do that - it is indeed always moving in one direction only and at a near constant speed of about 1000km/s.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
A planetary magnetic field requires one thing, and one thing only: moving electro-static charges. The moon could have a molten core and still produce no detectable magnetic field simply because the spin of the moon on it's axis is so low. For instance, Venus lacks a magnetic field because its spin is extremely slow. One day on Venus is equal to 243 Earth days. Venus has a molten core comparable to the Earth, yet exhibits no significant magnetic field. Want to create a tiny magnetic field yourself? Take your hair comb and wave it around in the air. If you moved the comb clockwise in front of you, you would produce a magnetic field that points directly away from your body. Don't forget the right-hand rule from physics!
No. This has nothing to do with creationism. Not much of the real world has anything to do with creationism. And conversely, creationism doesn't have anything to do with the real world. Why? Because creationism doesn't tell us what the world should be like, and just not knowing how the world came to be what it is doesn't mean there's no natural way for it to happen. Probabilities? Now that's pure guesswork, not science.
Yet again, this doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Moon either =). The question is *not* how old the Moon is (how long ago it was formed) but instead, how long did it stay alive since then. We know Earth's core is pretty hot, and we're assuming the cores of the moons and the planets too were hot when they formed. It's logical to assume that this heat is conducted to the surface and radiated to space with time. The question is, did Moon (being much smaller) already cool down all the way to the core or not? We've been assuming that it did, but that's not a fact.
Either way, I don't see how moons cooling down slower than we expected / starting out hotter than we expected would really support or not support anything. What exactly do you mean by supporting creationism? Do you think that every time something we thought was good science is proved wrong, creationism gets supported?
I think the next humans to go to the moon should seriously take some geologic equipment with them. Blow up some stuff and record all the vibrations that get echoed from underground layers. Liquid should be visible.
What the hell happened with the tree structure in here? Replies used to be placed logically under relevant articles some time back and I liked it that way =(.