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)
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.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Magnet ic_field_of_celestial_bodies
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.
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.
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...
If I remember correctly, moon quakes are the result of tidal forces between the earth and the moon... not geologic activity.
Just wait till it becomes fully operational.
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.
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
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.
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).)
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.
I've been in the ocean, but I've never been on the moon.