ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: AstroBrant on March 04, 2015, 05:21:11 PM
-
A YouTuber has asked me to comment on WunderBlunder's claims in his moon rocks video series. I really don't know that much about it. He was asking about oxides, etc. Any comments would be helpful.
-
A YouTuber has asked me to comment on WunderBlunder's claims in his moon rocks video series. I really don't know that much about it. He was asking about oxides, etc. Any comments would be helpful.
Where to start? He does not understand oxidation. The first his major blunders is where he argues that 'proponents of the moon landings claim that the moon rocks are unoxidised.' Jarrah creates a strawman: this means that the rocks didn't react with oxygen but this can easily faked by taking a meteorite and chipping away the oxidised outer layers that were created by earth entry. Jarrah does not understand oxidation in the correct context, it means an atom or ion loses electrons. So, in the moon rocks there are only trace quantities of Fe3+ - that's another story. Most of the iron is in it elemental state and exists as nano particles or is in the ferrous state Fe2+. The high proportion of elemental iron and ferrous iron is rare in Earth rocks as oxygen and water would simply not allow them to exist in the same proportions. In simple terms, moon rocks would rust. Scientists who have studied the moon rocks report Fe3+, but also report that it is likely to be from terrestrial contamination. Look how easily a nail forms a veneer of rust when exposed to atmosphere. It's the same with his water claims, where he insists that propagandists say that there is no water in the moon rocks, but water has been found on the moon in situ. He neglects that water found on the moon is in polar regions and the shadows of craters, and scientists aer still debating whether they are observing hydroxyl or adsorbed water (the last time I looked, at least). It has always been reported that water was found in moon samples, but scientists thought it was Earth contamination. Jarrah neglects this too.
Water has also been found in lunar glass beads recently. Jarrah says that this is the smoking gun that NASA have been hiding and the cat has been let of the bag by careless scientists. What Jarrah fails to mention is that SIMS was used to sample the water in the beads which is a much more sensitive technique than used previously (I think it was an infra red technique - need to look it up). A step change in analysis and sampling techniques is revealing new information, that's called progress, right?
In geological terms, rocks that are formed in the presence of water tend to contain large proportions of secondary minerals. There are not large proportions of secondary minerals in moon rocks. If I recall, he found a paper that showed trace amounts of mica in a moon rock, and the created another strawman to attack. He claimed that [we] were telling lies when we said no secondary minerals could be found in moon rocks.
He claims that zap pits from micrometeorite collisions could be created using a gun, and that the He3 present in the moon rocks could have been coated on them using a He3 source.
He claims that because the ratio of oxygen isotopes in earth rocks and moon rocks is similar the moon rocks are Earth rocks mixed in with meteorites. He neglects that the ratio of isotopes for heavier elements is different.
He neglects the absence of lighter elements in the moon rocks. Take the Genesis rock, it's practically at the calcium end of the anorthosites. Why? There's not a great deal of sodium on the moon.
He neglects that glass beads found on the moon show evidence of being created in a low g vacuum, and hold treasures of iron particles that can only be explained by space weathering.
I can go on more and more and more, and there are many here with more expertise than me on this subject.
-
...He claims that zap pits from micrometeorite collisions could be created using a gun...
Given the size of zap pits, obviously this is a gun firing little bitty bullets.
-
A YouTuber has asked me to comment on WunderBlunder's claims in his moon rocks video series. I really don't know that much about it. He was asking about oxides, etc. Any comments would be helpful.
Snip
He claims that because the ratio of oxygen isotopes in earth rocks and moon rocks is similar the moon rocks are Earth rocks mixed in with meteorites.
What does this even mean?
He neglects the absence of lighter elements in the moon rocks. Take the Genesis rock, it's practically at the calcium end of the anorthosites. Why? There's not a great deal of sodium on the moon.
This is not only a good point but is something that was not predicted beforehand. It could only have been discovered by going there
He neglects that glass beads found on the moon show evidence of being created in a low g vacuum...
Once again, this time with feeling, the low G environment does not, AFAIK, leave an imprint in the rock. This myth is as persistent as some of the hoaxer ones. ::)
I can go on more and more and more, and there are many here with more expertise than me on this subject.
You did very well as it is.
I would add the presence of solar wind gases in the regolith samples with unique compositions and isotope ratios, the spattering of impact glass on most surfaces, the presence of agglutinates, the prevalence of breccias and other signs of shock metamorphism such as maskelynite.
-
...He claims that zap pits from micrometeorite collisions could be created using a gun...
Given the size of zap pits, obviously this is a gun firing little bitty bullets.
Precisely, and this was pointed out to him by Phil Webb. He declined to comment. Jarrah takes the line that he proves each of Ralph and Bill's claims, and he can prove this particular Kaysing claim because he found a gun that used compressed gas to fire aluminium pellets at high speed. Phil Webb explained to him the principle of rifling and how the little bitty bullets needed to simulate micrometeorites cannot be fired by a compressed gas gun if the little bitty bullets are much smaller than the diameter of the barrel's gun he found (I think all that makes sense).
-
What does this even mean?
I know, it is utter rubbish.
Once again, this time with feeling, the low G environment does not, AFAIK, leave an imprint in the rock. This myth is as persistent as some of the hoaxer ones. ::)
Have I got something incorrect? I understand that the glass beads that Saal et. al. investigated show that they cooled and outgassed very quickly because they formed in a vacuum, and that their roundness was evidence of doing so in low-g. Have I got the latter part wrong, in which case I stand corrected? The fact that the glass beads exist in such abundance at all is evidence that they came from a place where there is little erosion. I might be getting confused here, but I'm beginning to recall that their roundness is attributed to there being no erosion, not low-g?
You did very well as it is.
Thanks.
I would add the presence of solar wind gases in the regolith samples with unique compositions and isotope ratios, the spattering of impact glass on most surfaces, the presence of agglutinates, the prevalence of breccias and other signs of shock metamorphism such as maskelynite.
I've learned a couple of new things here. Thanks.
-
There is an excellent source here:
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
While it talks mainly about meteorites it goes into a lot of detail on the mineralogy of lunar rocks.
-
There is an excellent source here:
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
While it talks mainly about meteorites it goes into a lot of detail on the mineralogy of lunar rocks.
Yes, that is a good overview. Jarrah attacked information from a website that was clearly written by an enthusiast to make his case. He likes to pick his sources to suit does Jarrah. Whenever he cites from a professional source they never agree with his position. He used the Saal et. al. paper that was published in Nature, yet there nothing in that paper to suggest that the rocks were not of lunar origin. In fact, the title even used the term 'Lunar' to describe the samples they examined. This is worth a look.
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/index.cfm
-
Have I got something incorrect? I understand that the glass beads that Saal et. al. investigated show that they cooled and outgassed very quickly because they formed in a vacuum, and that their roundness was evidence of doing so in low-g.
You're not wrong.
The spherules formed as the result of finely dispersed molten regolith ejected in meteor impacts. In ballistic trajectories in low gravity, the molten droplets remain effectively in free-fall for quite a while, forming into spheres. This is how we used to make lead musket balls. When the land back on the surface, they're glass beads for all intents and purposes.
I read something by Dr. John Keller many years ago about convection patterns in lunar rocks that formed on the surface, in lunar gravity. I would have to go find my notes to say for sure, but my long-ago memory of the take-away was that yes indeed, you can in some cases tell whether rock solidified in lesser gravity. Dalhousie, that's not meant to contradict you. But I think it bears greater scrutiny.
-
Whenever he cites from a professional source they never agree with his position.
He's not the only one to use this technique. We need a name for it, like "Borrowed Ladder Fallacy" or something. A lot of fringe rhetoric is based on cherry-picking or invoking a statement from a bona fide expert and then trying to apply it inexpertly to a fringe claim. Bennett and Percy cite an expert on radioisotopes to argue that the "half-life" of the Van Allen belts after Project Dominic amplified them briefly would have been some number of years. The method they take from the physicist is correct for radioisotopes, but Bennett and Percy are the ones who wrongly apply it to an agglomeration of charged particles, which has nothing to do with radioisotopic decay. The Van Allen belts are not composed of radioisotopes.
To me it's a no-brainer: if you quote an expert and then reason from that expert's statement that some proposition must be true, then you should confirm with the expert that it's a defensible extrapolation from his statement. Otherwise you're just applying your own judgment (the subsequent reasoning) and attributing it falsely to someone else. I remember Jarrah tried to cite some solar weather expert at NOAA to support his radiation claims. I contacted the expert to ask him if he knew what Jarrah had done and whether he believed the Apollo missions were real. The guy wasn't too pleased, as I recall.
-
I have bought several volumes from Lunar Science Conferences that reported on samples and data analyses at the time of the missions - they don't seem to be available online as a whole but individual conference papers might be: all 3 from the 1st one 2/3 from the 2nd one, and 2/3 from the 4th one. They are magnificent things - full of tons of stuff I don't understand. The glass beads get mentioned right from the start!
The idea that secrets have been kept about the Apollo samples is nonsense - it's all out there in lovely paper form and not hard to find.
If anyone wants me to look for anything specific (or even scan a paper) I'd be happy to oblige.
ETA: just bought the missing one from the 4th conference :D
-
Thanks all for the feedback. The person who asked me about this goes by the YT username MrBattlestar10. I vouch for him. He is not a hoax nut. I will give link him here in case he wishes to ask questions or just thank people.
-
Nice article on lunar water;
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/who-discovered-water-on-the-moon-110774900/?no-ist
-
The spherules formed as the result of finely dispersed molten regolith ejected in meteor impacts.
Spherules, that was the word I was looking for. Thanks.
This is how we used to make lead musket balls. When the land back on the surface, they're glass beads for all intents and purposes.
I remember being taught the process for making lead shot during an A-level physics lesson many years ago, and reading about this process in the first year of my doctoral studies when examining the surface tension of melts.
I read something by Dr. John Keller many years ago about convection patterns in lunar rocks that formed on the surface, in lunar gravity. I would have to go find my notes to say for sure, but my long-ago memory of the take-away was that yes indeed, you can in some cases tell whether rock solidified in lesser gravity. Dalhousie, that's not meant to contradict you. But I think it bears greater scrutiny.
I recall something similar in response to Kaysing's claims that lunar rocks were made in a ceramics laboratory. The point was raised that if this was the case geologists would tell immediately by examining convection currents. If I recall the argument was that a small sample made in a ceramics lab would not demonstrate the same convection currents as rocks formed by the slow cooling of a larger body.
-
The method they take from the physicist is correct for radioisotopes, but Bennett and Percy are the ones who wrongly apply it to an agglomeration of charged particles, which has nothing to do with radioisotopic decay. The Van Allen belts are not composed of radioisotopes.
Then they indeed are truly idiots of the 1st class, much like Jarrah and his video series 'Radioactive Anomaly.' It really grates me that he claims to be an expert but decides to title his thundering evidence with an incorrect term, and then when this is pointed out he dismisses the criticism as nit picking. Any 'astro-fizzysist' worth their salt would not make that mistake, yet he openly calls me the 'alledged physicist' and you the 'alledged aerospace engineer.'
To me it's a no-brainer: if you quote an expert and then reason from that expert's statement that some proposition must be true, then you should confirm with the expert that it's a defensible extrapolation from his statement. Otherwise you're just applying your own judgment (the subsequent reasoning) and attributing it falsely to someone else.
Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel, another prime example of citing an expert but not invoking his entire judgement. It's a common tactic. The CTs fall silent when asked if they have checked whether their source also thinks Apollo was hoaxed.
I remember Jarrah tried to cite some solar weather expert at NOAA to support his radiation claims. I contacted the expert to ask him if he knew what Jarrah had done and whether he believed the Apollo missions were real. The guy wasn't too pleased, as I recall.
You mentioned this annoyance at another thread. Real experts have better things to do than be bothered with addressing the claims of cranks. If I recall you thought he was annoyed at being cited by Blunderwonder, and annoyed that you bothered him.
-
Bennett and Percy cite an expert on radioisotopes to argue that the "half-life" of the Van Allen belts after Project Dominic amplified them briefly would have been some number of years. The method they take from the physicist is correct for radioisotopes, but Bennett and Percy are the ones who wrongly apply it to an agglomeration of charged particles, which has nothing to do with radioisotopic decay. The Van Allen belts are not composed of radioisotopes.
My understanding is that the temporarily enhanced belts consisted mainly of electrons formed by the beta decay of bomb fission products.
But not only do the products have a very wide range of half lives, other mechanisms exist to clear both the electrons and the undecayed fission products. Even though most of those mechanisms were probably exponential, I'm sure their combination was pretty complex.
-
Nice article on lunar water;
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/who-discovered-water-on-the-moon-110774900/?no-ist
Now that is interesting as Blunderwonder cites the 'rusty rock' as burning proof of the whole world telling fibs when it was pointed out to him the the lunar rocks are predominately Ferrous iron and elemental iron. He pulled out the 'rusty rock' source as proof that Fe3+ is found in lunar rocks, and therefore they must be Earth rocks. Why does he forget to mention the Ferrous/elemental iron predominance over this one example where space weathering might very well be the cause of rusting? Why does he omit that the rust might be explained by space weathering, and its presence is consistent with other space weathering effects?
-
My understanding is that the temporarily enhanced belts consisted mainly of electrons formed by the beta decay of bomb fission products.
That is mine too.
But not only do the products have a very wide range of half lives, other mechanisms exist to clear both the electrons and the undecayed fission products. Even though most of those mechanisms were probably exponential, I'm sure their combination was pretty complex.
It would appear that the effects of Starfish prime were complex and the effects lasted for several years after, although this is still debated.
-
Now that is interesting as Blunderwonder cites the 'rusty rock' as burning proof of the whole world telling fibs when it was pointed out to him the the lunar rocks are predominately Ferrous iron and elemental iron. He pulled out the 'rusty rock' source as proof that Fe3+ is found in lunar rocks, and therefore they must be Earth rocks.
I'm not a geologist, but I have read that the Great Oxygenation Event over 2 billion years ago oxidized all the free iron on the earth's surface and dissolved in the oceans. This formed the banded iron formations that we now mine as iron ore. The existence of elemental iron on the moon would therefore be proof of formation and existence in an oxygen-free environment. Aren't the only finds of natural metallic iron on the earth nickel-iron meteorites?
-
I'm not a geologist, but I have read that the Great Oxygenation Event over 2 billion years ago oxidized all the free iron on the earth's surface and dissolved in the oceans. This formed the banded iron formations that we now mine as iron ore.
Everyday is a school day :)
The existence of elemental iron on the moon would therefore be proof of formation and existence in an oxygen-free environment. Aren't the only finds of natural metallic iron on the earth nickel-iron meteorites?
Not sure about the nickel-iron meterorite question, but I am sure that you are correct. :)
Here are some interesting discussions about the formation of elemental iron.
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4371.pdf
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2010/EPSC2010-63.pdf
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/chondrites2004/pdf/9011.pdf
-
Then they indeed are truly idiots of the 1st class,...
They're either idiots or very crafty authors who know how to create the semblance of rigor and impress a lay audience just long enough to collect their money and run.
much like Jarrah and his video series 'Radioactive Anomaly.' It really grates me that he claims to be an expert but decides to title his thundering evidence with an incorrect term, and then when this is pointed out he dismisses the criticism as nit picking.
Correct terminology is what separates experts from novices, not out of some nit-picky preference but because the subtle linguistic differences in those words convey important differences.
Any 'astro-fizzysist' worth their salt would not make that mistake, yet he openly calls me the 'alledged physicist' and you the 'alledged aerospace engineer.'
That's just him living out his fantasy life, which is one of a couple of reasons I largely ignore him.
Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel, another prime example of citing an expert but not invoking his entire judgement. It's a common tactic. The CTs fall silent when asked if they have checked whether their source also thinks Apollo was hoaxed.
Anyone who reads Mauldin's book and comes away believing in any way that Mauldin though Apollo might have been a fake clearly missed the whole point of the book. The overall theme of the book is, "This is what worked for Apollo, but for interstellar missions we have to do something else."
Real experts have better things to do than be bothered with addressing the claims of cranks.
Especially when approached under false pretenses. Most of these people are what you'd expect: hardworking, underpaid public servants who have subject-matter interest and subject-matter expertise. The kind of polemics conspiracy theorists thrive on simply don't interest them. Being dragged involuntarily into absurd debates can sometimes have real professional consequences. Conspiracy theorists often have an inflated sense of their own relevance, hence they think it's the experts' duty to weigh on their beliefs -- either with or without their knowledge.
-
Have I got something incorrect? I understand that the glass beads that Saal et. al. investigated show that they cooled and outgassed very quickly because they formed in a vacuum, and that their roundness was evidence of doing so in low-g. Have I got the latter part wrong, in which case I stand corrected? The fact that the glass beads exist in such abundance at all is evidence that they came from a place where there is little erosion. I might be getting confused here, but I'm beginning to recall that their roundness is attributed to there being no erosion, not low-g?
the orange glass beads (not always spherical) are attributed to fire fountains. These are well known on Earth, there was a spectacular one in Chile a few days ago. The beads they produce can be so common that in Hawaii they have been called "Pele's tears".
Green glass beads are impact. On earth we call them microtekites or impact spherules. They are quite rare because impacts are rare.
I've learned a couple of new things here. Thanks.
You are welcome :)
-
Have I got something incorrect? I understand that the glass beads that Saal et. al. investigated show that they cooled and outgassed very quickly because they formed in a vacuum, and that their roundness was evidence of doing so in low-g.
You're not wrong.
The spherules formed as the result of finely dispersed molten regolith ejected in meteor impacts. In ballistic trajectories in low gravity, the molten droplets remain effectively in free-fall for quite a while, forming into spheres. This is how we used to make lead musket balls. When the land back on the surface, they're glass beads for all intents and purposes.
I read something by Dr. John Keller many years ago about convection patterns in lunar rocks that formed on the surface, in lunar gravity. I would have to go find my notes to say for sure, but my long-ago memory of the take-away was that yes indeed, you can in some cases tell whether rock solidified in lesser gravity. Dalhousie, that's not meant to contradict you. But I think it bears greater scrutiny.
There are glass beads and glass beads. Some are impact spatter (green glass), some are from fire fountains (orange glass).
But glass cools quite quickly so time of flight is not an issue, AFAIK. We get glass beads on Earth, not only in fire fountains, but in things like smelter chimneys. And of course in impact events, forming microtektites.
What is significant about the meteorite glass beds (and the impact spatter and agglutinates) is the fact they are common, indicating a surface actively being gardened by impact. On Earth they are rare.
-
I read something by Dr. John Keller many years ago about convection patterns in lunar rocks that formed on the surface, in lunar gravity. I would have to go find my notes to say for sure, but my long-ago memory of the take-away was that yes indeed, you can in some cases tell whether rock solidified in lesser gravity. Dalhousie, that's not meant to contradict you. But I think it bears greater scrutiny.
It would nice to find that source. I ran this past the doyen of lunar petrology, Ross Taylor, when his office was two doors from mine and he said low gravity did not leave an imprint. He could be wrong.
Even very low gravity is enough to allow convention currents, magmatic differentiation, etc, as we see them in the achondritic meteorites.
-
How about the lack of an atmosphere? Even in free fall, an atmosphere could shape a molten droplet into a teardrop. I'd expect a freezing sphere in flight above the moon to come out completely round.
-
It would nice to find that source. I ran this past the doyen of lunar petrology, Ross Taylor, when his office was two doors from mine and he said low gravity did not leave an imprint. He could be wrong.
Or the two could be talking/thinking about different phenomena. I'll endeavor to recover the other information.
-
This is another aspect of the glass beads that I don't think has been mentioned. It concerns the effect gravity has on the alignment of actual sizes of the beads within a particular sample:
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-brazil-nut-effect-gravity.html
-
How about the lack of an atmosphere? Even in free fall, an atmosphere could shape a molten droplet into a teardrop. I'd expect a freezing sphere in flight above the moon to come out completely round.
That's part of the evidence that I read, the spherules that were brought back from the lunar surface are 'very round' suggesting that they were formed in vacuum. I understand that these spherules were formed by fire fountains. However, I cannot find the source material. The other aspect of the spherules is that the are not eroded. They are space weathered though.
I wonder if CTs understand that roundness is an important measurement, and is used in many sciences. I understand that the standard kg is currently being replaced with a 'perfectly' round silicon sphere.
https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/scientists-look-to-define-kilogram-with-a-super-round-silicon-sphere
or that the electron may be perfectly round.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_26-5-2011-8-58-6
They seem to dismiss these snippets of evidence that really establish the veracity of the evidence: the samples are from the moon and cannot be formed on Earth.
-
Or the two could be talking/thinking about different phenomena. I'll endeavor to recover the other information.
That would be good as I knew I had read about convection currents and lunar geology, did a Google seach and found that I had read it on Clavius. :)
-
That would be good as I knew I had read about convection currents and lunar geology, did a Google seach and found that I had read it on Clavius. :)
At least I got the attribution right out of my foggy memory.
Maybe this link helps. It's not exactly where I got the original information, but it is Keller talking about Taylor.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?40353-How-do-you-fake-moon-rocks/page4
-
How about the lack of an atmosphere? Even in free fall, an atmosphere could shape a molten droplet into a teardrop. I'd expect a freezing sphere in flight above the moon to come out completely round.
Apparently that's the one shape droplets don't form in an atmosphere (http://weather.about.com/od/cloudsandprecipitation/a/rainburgers.htm)
-
There is quite an interesting article on shot towers at Wikipedia and the references therein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_tower
-
Hey, learn something every day!
-
Hey, learn something every day!
Same here. I would never have thought to look myself. I guess common experience is that we see raindrops run down a window and they have a tear drop shape.
It's a bit like growing up and hearing the phrases 'heat rises' and 'don't let the cold in.' Common language and experience can shape what we think. That's why the CTs fail, the apply their Earth bound experiences to the moon and cannot understand (or in some cases accept) how the evidence is consistent with being in a vacuum at low-g, and subject to billions of years of solar and galatic cosmic radiation.
-
The teadrop shape of some volcanic glass spherules is a combination of high viscosity compared to water and rapid cooling
-
That would be good as I knew I had read about convection currents and lunar geology, did a Google seach and found that I had read it on Clavius. :)
At least I got the attribution right out of my foggy memory.
Maybe this link helps. It's not exactly where I got the original information, but it is Keller talking about Taylor.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?40353-How-do-you-fake-moon-rocks/page4
Keller did provide any evidence that lower gravity leaves any impression on the rocks. As Ross Taylor pointed out to me then and I repeat now, rock crystallisation textures are dominated by the crystallisation forces and crystal dimensions, forces much stronger than gravity.
Magma differentiation is driven by gravity, early crystallising minerals (such as olivine) are denser than the melt settle to thre bottom of the magma chamber. A few minerals, such as plagioclase, sometimes float, leading to accumulation at the top of the chamber. So generally large differentiated igneous bodies are more mafic (richer in dark minerals rich in iron and magnesium) at the bottom and more felsic (rich in light-coloured minerals containing silicon, aluminium, calcium etc) at the top. Even asteroids that undergo melting differentiate (which is why we get iron meteorites and the HED family), despite tiny gravitation accelerations.
-
Fascinating.
I had read about rain drops not being tear drop shaped some time ago. My question is do other molten materials have surface tension effects similar to water, and if they do, wouldn't the shape of the spherules be indicative of whether they form falling in Earth's atmosphere (more likely to be a more squashed shape) as opposed to the lunar vacuum? Or are spherules simply too small where the atmospheric flattening would be evident?
-
Keller did [not?] provide any evidence that lower gravity leaves any impression on the rocks. As Ross Taylor pointed out to me then and I repeat now, rock crystallisation textures are dominated by the crystallisation forces and crystal dimensions, forces much stronger than gravity.
And that makes sense to me too. It would be informative to hear these two hash out their respective views.
-
Keller did [not?] provide any evidence that lower gravity leaves any impression on the rocks. As Ross Taylor pointed out to me then and I repeat now, rock crystallisation textures are dominated by the crystallisation forces and crystal dimensions, forces much stronger than gravity.
And that makes sense to me too. It would be informative to hear these two hash out their respective views.
No going to happen, unless Keller provides a peer reviewed paper to support his view. Even then, Taylor is now in his 80s. Although still occasionally gives lectures and works on lunar problems. Even Ross's expertise I would pick his views every time. People do know who Ross Taylor is I assume.
-
Fascinating.
I had read about rain drops not being tear drop shaped some time ago. My question is do other molten materials have surface tension effects similar to water, and if they do, wouldn't the shape of the spherules be indicative of whether they form falling in Earth's atmosphere (more likely to be a more squashed shape) as opposed to the lunar vacuum? Or are spherules simply too small where the atmospheric flattening would be evident?
It's a very complex problem, factors such as lava viscosity and surface tension (both reflections of composition) would come into play. There is also magma temperature, cooling rate, fall time, dynamics of the fire fountain, presence or absence of an atmosphere., and probably others.
-
No going to happen, unless Keller provides a peer reviewed paper to support his view. Even then, Taylor is now in his 80s. Although still occasionally gives lectures and works on lunar problems. Even Ross's expertise I would pick his views every time. People do know who Ross Taylor is I assume.
Keller has peer-reviewed research on similar topics, but I can't find anything suitably specific. I certainly know who Ross Taylor is, and I think I would lean on his side, given his long, detailed study of lunar minerals. Keller certainly knows who Taylor is, which makes me wonder why he would disagree without having some basis. You've convinced me I need to revisit the Clavius page and at least demote Keller's view to a minority.
-
People do know who Ross Taylor is I assume.
Yes, I know who Ross Taylor is. It have read somewhere else that scientists would detect convection currents in fake rocks formed from melts, but (a) I cannot find the source (b) I now defer to your explanations about crystal growth mechanisms and crystal dimensions being dominant. It makes more sense to me. Thanks for your input. It has been most useful in advancing the debate and my understanding. What we can all agree upon is that moon rocks cannot be faked for the other reasons that have been discussed extensively.
-
One other characteristic of lunar samples not mentioned is that the anorthosites show a positive europium anomaly. This is due to the enrichment of that element in plagioclase, consistent with plagioclase crystallisation and flotation from a global magma ocean.
Terrestrial anorthosites do not show such an anomaly. This could not be predicted without going to the Moon.
Other lunar mantle-derived rocks have a negative europium anomaly, consistent with derivation from the same magma source as the anorthosites, but depleted in plagioclase. This planetary-scale would be very hard to fake .
-
One other characteristic of lunar samples not mentioned is that the anorthosites show a positive europium anomaly. This is due to the enrichment of that element in plagioclase, consistent with plagioclase crystallisation and flotation from a global magma ocean.
Terrestrial anorthosites do not show such an anomaly. This could not be predicted without going to the Moon.
Other lunar mantle-derived rocks have a negative europium anomaly, consistent with derivation from the same magma source as the anorthosites, but depleted in plagioclase. This planetary-scale would be very hard to fake .
Most useful, thank you.
I've pointed Jarrah in the direction of neutron capture cross sections and asked if he can correlate this with different isotope ratios. No answer yet as he likes to focus on the oxygen isotope similarity that exists between Earth and Moon rocks. Maybe if he understood neutron capture it would explain to him the difference and similarities of the isotope ratios between Moon and Earth rocks. There again, he likes to focus on the similarities, yet has not addressed the differences that would confirm the rocks to be of lunar origin. I guess in short I'm saying he's being deceptive to the point of lying.
-
If the Earth and Moon formed in the same part of the solar nebula they would be expected to have the same oxygen isotopes. All three pre-Apollo lunar formation models would have predicted it - the sibling and daughter hypotheses would predict the same ratios, the spouse model may have led to a Moon with different oxygen isotopes, although the most likely orbits for capture would be ones that would again have resulted in similar ratios.
What are you trying to say regarding the neutron capture cross sections? That is way over my head!
-
If the Earth and Moon formed in the same part of the solar nebula they would be expected to have the same oxygen isotopes. All three pre-Apollo lunar formation models would have predicted it - the sibling and daughter hypotheses would predict the same ratios, the spouse model may have led to a Moon with different oxygen isotopes, although the most likely orbits for capture would be ones that would again have resulted in similar ratios.
What are you trying to say regarding the neutron capture cross sections? That is way over my head!
My understanding is that oxygen isotope ratios are similar in Earth and lunar samples. Jarrah seizes upon this as proof that the lunar rocks are just Earth rocks. However, what he fails to mention is that the isotope ratios for heavier elements are different for Moon rocks.
Again, my understanding is that the isotope ratio difference for heavier elements is due to neutron capture from cosmic ray irradiation of the lunar surface and secondary neutron production. Elements such as Gadolinium and Samarium appear in the literature as the main fingerprint for isotope differences, and this is not surprising given that their neutron capture cross sections are much larger than oxygen.
http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/NeutronCrossSection.html
ETA: I know you lurk here Blunder, don't cite me as saying that the Moon is a radioactive sea of neutrons as I clearly did not say this anywhere in the above. In fact, you might find this article quite interesting about your Yahoo claims that the moon is a radioactive wasteland.
http://www.universetoday.com/47712/lro-finds-some-surprises-on-the-moon/
-
I remember the three leading pre-Apollo hypotheses of the moon's formation: co-formation, capture and fission. As with many things in science, the evidence ultimately ruled them all out.
Yet in a sense they were all correct. Theia co-formed in the same orbit as the earth. It impacted the earth, which is a rather dramatic way of being captured by it. And the impact debris fissioned from the earth to form the moon.
Speaking of the giant impact hypothesis, are there any really good animations of a computer simulation? I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the magnitude and violence of such an event.
-
You guys seem to have a pretty good grasp of geological chemistry, how planets differentiate and how different kinds of rocks form in different environments. I have a pretty good grasp of basic physics and inorganic chemistry but my geology is really weak. Can you suggest a good introduction?
-
Speaking of the giant impact hypothesis, are there any really good animations of a computer simulation? I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the magnitude and violence of such an event.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+formation
-
Thanks, I'm looking at them now. I don't know if any are based on actual simulations of the laws of physics.
These "artist's conceptions" are very pretty, but they tend to be unrealistic; e.g., impacts between small objects are often depicted with unrealistically low velocities. And the collision between the Earth and Theia is so far outside human experience that our intuition about how it looked is probably very wrong.
-
This is a video of a proper simulation.
-
You guys seem to have a pretty good grasp of geological chemistry, how planets differentiate and how different kinds of rocks form in different environments. I have a pretty good grasp of basic physics and inorganic chemistry but my geology is really weak. Can you suggest a good introduction?
there are lots of good introductory books on geology, I suggest you look at the recommended text books of local universities teaching in this area.
-
Speaking of the giant impact hypothesis, are there any really good animations of a computer simulation? I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the magnitude and violence of such an event.
The impact theory explains a little more than the geology, it is also a good candidate to explain the relatively high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system.
-
This is a video of a proper simulation.
Thanks for that. For some reason this made my Facebook feed recently, but it appears to be quite old news. Such simulations have shown that the Earth may have had two moons and it could explain the difference between the far and near side of our Moon.
http://www.space.com/12529-earth-2-moons-collision-moon-formation.html
-
Speaking of the giant impact hypothesis, are there any really good animations of a computer simulation? I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the magnitude and violence of such an event.
I know, these sort of events are really difficult to imagine. I have problems with the ideas of a supernova and meteor extinction events, such as the one that we believe was responsible for finishing off most of the dinosaurs. I had the same trouble imagining the destructive power of a tsunami until I saw those awful films of the Boxing day tsunami. Such events are akin to trying to put into perspective the size of the universe. I try not to think too much about it and just accept that I will never truly understand the scale.
Another event that has been modelled is the Andromeda (not our Andromeda) and Milky Way collision. Some cosmologists make the prediction that given the distances between stars, the event will not actually be that spectacular in terms of destructive power, instead the galaxies will merge and stabilise into a bigger galaxy. Hard to believe really.
-
It's kind of like the ridiculous consonant laden names scifi authors like to give their aliens - you have no hope of reading them, you just have to accept that the shapes are there. Likewise the scale of the universe and the things involved in shaping it - best not to try wrap your head around some of the concepts involved!
When I taught undergraduate geology sat on a mountain side in north Wales I liked to say that our understanding of events is constrained by our longevity and our morphology. The forces that produce u-shaped valleys or pyramidal peaks of folds and faults are no different to things we can experience ourselves, they just go on for longer and are much bigger in scale!
-
It's kind of like the ridiculous consonant laden names scifi authors like to give their aliens - you have no hope of reading them, you just have to accept that the shapes are there. Likewise the scale of the universe and the things involved in shaping it - best not to try wrap your head around some of the concepts involved!
Yup. String theory (or M-theory) is another thing that I can't quite get my head round, at least the 11 dimensionality part. I can picture the concept of strings in the topological structure of space at the quantum level (at least in the sense of popular science writing for the layman in string theory) and how they are explain the unravelling of the four forces of nature, accounting for gravity being so weak. The idea of 11 dimensions is hard to understand visually. However, I can picture 4-space in relativity, it is rather intuitive in the sense of relating time dilation and the simultaneity of events in the Euclidian space I experience.
-
Another event that has been modelled is the Andromeda (not our Andromeda) and Milky Way collision. Some cosmologists make the prediction that given the distances between stars, the event will not actually be that spectacular in terms of destructive power, instead the galaxies will merge and stabilise into a bigger galaxy. Hard to believe really.
There is a lot of empty space out there. I always somewhat irritated when I see the way Hollywood depicts an asteroid belt. They have asteroids bouncing of each other and spacecraft dodging them, while in real life asteroids are hundreds of kilometers apart. Similarly, in a galaxy merger the stars just move through the vast distances in between without too much excitement.
-
Another event that has been modelled is the Andromeda (not our Andromeda) and Milky Way collision. Some cosmologists make the prediction that given the distances between stars, the event will not actually be that spectacular in terms of destructive power, instead the galaxies will merge and stabilise into a bigger galaxy. Hard to believe really.
There is a lot of empty space out there. I always somewhat irritated when I see the way Hollywood depicts an asteroid belt. They have asteroids bouncing of each other and spacecraft dodging them, while in real life asteroids are hundreds of kilometers apart. Similarly, in a galaxy merger the stars just move through the vast distances in between without too much excitement.
The interstellar dust and gas clouds tend to get excited though....
-
There is a lot of empty space out there. I always somewhat irritated when I see the way Hollywood depicts an asteroid belt. They have asteroids bouncing of each other and spacecraft dodging them, while in real life asteroids are hundreds of kilometers apart. Similarly, in a galaxy merger the stars just move through the vast distances in between without too much excitement.
The interstellar dust and gas clouds tend to get excited though....
Excited yes, but I understand no longer dense enough to produce significant star birth events. It may be that the coalescing of the two galaxies is a bit of a whimper. Happy to be corrected as usual.
-
I['m?] always somewhat irritated when I see the way Hollywood depicts an asteroid belt. They have asteroids bouncing of each other and spacecraft dodging them, while in real life asteroids are hundreds of kilometers apart.
Yeah, but when you're a kid it leads to classic scenes:
I have to agree though, I wonder how many such misconceptions are created by Hollywood and the actual harm it does to education. It's sometimes very difficult to shift ideas in kids. Maybe films should come with scientific warnings, much in the same way that tobacco packets have warnings about impending death. Should films have warnings stating that 'if you believe the content without question you will be stupid.'
-
The impact theory explains a little more than the geology, it is also a good candidate to explain the relatively high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system.
Do we have any idea of the length of the earth's day before the impact?
Given the similar size and mass of Earth and Venus, and the latter's extremely long (and backward) day and lack of a moon, I wonder if they were even more alike before the impact.
-
Do we have any idea of the length of the earth's day before the impact?
I don't know what it was before the impact, but I read somewhere that the rotation period immediately after the Moon's formation was about 6 hours.
-
Yes, that I can believe. Since its formation the moon itself has lost angular momentum as it tidally locked with the earth and then lengthened its day (and our month) as it moved away. But it gained considerably more angular momentum in its orbit, decreasing the earth's own angular momentum and significantly lengthening our day.
But can we even tell how long was an earth day before the Theia impact? Maybe it was even as long as Venus?
Here's how we might estimate the pre-impact day length. We know Theia was about the size of Mars, so we know its mass. We know it co-formed in the earth's orbit, most likely at L4 or L5 until it got too massive to be stable. From that we can determine the probable impact velocity.
Somebody has probably determined the angle at which it must have struck the earth to produce the moon we now have, so from that we could determine how Theia's angular momentum was divided into escaped debris, the earth-moon system's orbit around the sun, the moon's orbit around the earth, and the rotation of the earth and moon around their own axes. And from all that we could work backward to what the earth's angular momentum would have been prior to the impact.
-
I wonder how many such misconceptions are created by Hollywood
Nebulae is another thing that they routinely misrepresent.
-
Nebulae is another thing that they routinely misrepresent.
This really grates you doesn't it? You're making me laugh. You and I are the original grumpy old men. I really dilsike laser weapons and their representation. In the Empire Strikes Back, I estimate that Darth Vader had about 30 nanoseconds to fend off Han Solo's blaster. That's some reaction time, even for a Sith Lord.
ETA: Correction to seconds conversion. I can't convert to nanoseconds anymore, what is wrong with me? :(
-
Do we have any idea of the length of the earth's day before the impact?
I've seen similar figures to Bob, around 6 days.
-
Do we have any idea of the length of the earth's day before the impact?
I've seen similar figures to Bob, around 6 days.
I would be sceptical of such figures, they are model-based and therefore assumption controlled. Unlike modelling of giant impacts, they don't lead to testable predictions.
-
I would be sceptical of such figures, they are model-based and therefore assumption controlled. Unlike modelling of giant impacts, they don't lead to testable predictions.
Agreed, I would not take that number to be definitive. Having previously worked in model based analysis for 15 years and written various Monte Carlo simulations myself, I understand the confidence with such models. I think we all understand that they are models, but they do make for interesting scientific discussion? After all, someone must have confidence with their credence to write them in the first place and then publish the results so they become part of the annals of science.
Someone must have done the sums to explain how the impact event explains the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. It has to be derived from some point.
-
Nebulae is another thing that they routinely misrepresent.
This really grates you doesn't it? You're making me laugh. You and I are the original grumpy old men. I really dilsike laser weapons and their representation. In the Empire Strikes Back, I estimate that Darth Vader had about 30 nanoseconds to fend off Han Solo's blaster. That's some reaction time, even for a Sith Lord.
ETA: Correction to seconds conversion. I can't convert to nanoseconds anymore, what is wrong with me? :(
Star Wars blasters are not lasers. They are supposed to be a particle beam weapon, though I couldn't find any info on the speed of the blaster "bolt".
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster
-
Star Wars blasters are not lasers. They are supposed to be a particle beam weapon, though I couldn't find any info on the speed of the blaster "bolt".
I never knew that. I feel much more content now, and shall correct others that lobby the same criticism at the incorrect portrayal of blaster weapons. :)
-
Someone must have done the sums to explain how the impact event explains the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. It has to be derived from some point.
When they talk about the "high angular momentum of the earth-moon system", I think they're excluding the angular momentum in the earth-moon system's orbital revolution around the sun. They're considering only the rotation of the earth, the rotation of the moon, and the revolution of the moon around the earth.
What actually had to be conserved through the Earth/Theia collision was the total angular momentum of Earth and Theia, including their orbital angular momenta around the sun (which would have greatly exceeded the angular momenta of their own rotations).
This "pool" of angular momentum was redistributed by the collision. Whatever angular momentum didn't go into the moon's orbit (which probably dominates the local angular momentum of the earth-moon system) would have gone into the angular momentum of the earth-moon system around the sun and to any escaped debris.
If the collision was a glancing one, I would expect more of this momentum to go into the rotation of the earth and the moon's orbit (the part considered "high" by those studying lunar origins). If the collision were more direct, then I'd expect it to go mostly into the earth-moon system's angular momentum around the sun. It would all have to be conserved, so any change in the "local" angular momentum of the earth-moon system would have to be compensated for by a change in the length of our year.
So that's where it was "derived from".
-
If the collision was a glancing one, I would expect more of this momentum to go into the rotation of the earth and the moon's orbit (the part considered "high" by those studying lunar origins). If the collision were more direct, then I'd expect it to go mostly into the earth-moon system's angular momentum around the sun. It would all have to be conserved, so any change in the "local" angular momentum of the earth-moon system would have to be compensated for by a change in the length of our year.
That's my understanding. In fact any more than a glancing blow, and the Earth may not have survived to have a year, so I was referring to the angular momentum of the Earth and Moon (does my inclusion of system imply the Sun too, as I need to remove the ambiguity in that case?)
I'm sure that this was discussed at length in the BBC's 'The Planets.'
-
That's my understanding. In fact any more than a glancing blow, and the Earth may not have survived to have a year, so I was referring to the angular momentum of the Earth and Moon (does my inclusion of system imply the Sun too, as I need to remove the ambiguity in that case?)
Obviously the angular momentum of the solar system as a whole has to be conserved, but I'm assuming tidal effects from the sun are negligible. It only rotates once every 28 days so it's almost a perfect sphere, and we're also a considerable distance from it. So it's probably a good approximation to say that the total momenta of Earth and Theia were conserved through the collision and evolution of the moon.
-
Star Wars blasters are not lasers. They are supposed to be a particle beam weapon, though I couldn't find any info on the speed of the blaster "bolt".
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster
In addition to which, Vader was reacting as much to Solo's drawing, aiming and firing of the weapon as he was to the speed of the bolt, and he had the advantage that he probably expected Solo to pull a gun on him the moment the door opened.
Furthermore, I know the prequel trilogy is seen as blasphemous to many, but remember that Qui-gon Jinn described the Jedi's (and by extension the Sith's) reflexes as partly being so rapid because they can sense things before they happen, which would give Vader even more of an advantage even if the gun had been firing a laser bolt: provided his hand is up and in place before the bolt leaves the gun it will be blocked.
-
In addition to which, Vader was reacting as much to Solo's drawing, aiming and firing of the weapon as he was to the speed of the bolt, and he had the advantage that he probably expected Solo to pull a gun on him the moment the door opened.
Furthermore, I know the prequel trilogy is seen as blasphemous to many, but remember that Qui-gon Jinn described the Jedi's (and by extension the Sith's) reflexes as partly being so rapid because they can sense things before they happen, which would give Vader even more of an advantage even if the gun had been firing a laser bolt: provided his hand is up and in place before the bolt leaves the gun it will be blocked.
In fairness, you've got me on every count :)
-
Obviously the angular momentum of the solar system as a whole has to be conserved, but I'm assuming tidal effects from the sun are negligible. It only rotates once every 28 days so it's almost a perfect sphere, and we're also a considerable distance from it. So it's probably a good approximation to say that the total momenta of Earth and Theia were conserved through the collision and evolution of the moon.
I'll try and trace the excerpt from the BBC's planets, and attribute a little more of this to the scientists involved. I can dig a little deep behind a BBC documentary. However, was always led to believe that the problem was confined to the angular momentum of the Earth and Theia.
ETA: William Hartmann and Joe Melosh would appear to be the names connected to the theory. I remember Jarrah using their testimony to support his argument.
-
I would be sceptical of such figures, they are model-based and therefore assumption controlled. Unlike modelling of giant impacts, they don't lead to testable predictions.
Do the the models of the accretion phase lead to testable predictions also?
-
I would be sceptical of such figures, they are model-based and therefore assumption controlled. Unlike modelling of giant impacts, they don't lead to testable predictions.
Do the the models of the accretion phase lead to testable predictions also?
As I understand it they do, WRT angular momentum, composition, velocity and volume of ejected material, etc. I would have to dig down into the literature for details.
-
Speaking of Luna's formation, I'm hearing that a giant impact is now the leading explanation for the formation of Pluto's moon Charon. I wonder if there's something specific in the early results from New Horizons that makes them say this, or if it's been the idea for some time.
-
I would be sceptical of such figures, they are model-based and therefore assumption controlled. Unlike modelling of giant impacts, they don't lead to testable predictions.
Do the the models of the accretion phase lead to testable predictions also?
As I understand it they do, WRT angular momentum, composition, velocity and volume of ejected material, etc. I would have to dig down into the literature for details.
Ok, it always seemed odd to me having Saturn closer to the sun than Jupiter, but got kicked further out.
-
Jarrah did a video a few weeks ago gushing about the New Horizons pictures of Pluto. Some pretty amusing comments from his flock who are not happy with him. lol
-
Jarrah did a video a few weeks ago gushing about the New Horizons pictures of Pluto. Some pretty amusing comments from his flock who are not happy with him. lol
Amusing, I quit watching any of his videos after watching the series on Apollo 1 fire. If he were my defense lawyer I'd fire him. Simply by linking/showing pieces of literature DOES NOT prove his point. Only circumstantially does it influence his proposal. After taking/making a statement he often then introduces conflicting/contradictory links that disprove an earlier proposal. The worse(?) part about it he doesn't understand that he does this, or he won't do it again.