[[Template core/front/global/favico is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]] Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lucinda Bulloch

How long have we had a moon?

Recommended Posts


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

He was already corrected and admitted the mistake. Read before posting, Jeanne.


Funny, Pserendipity Daniels use to tell people that all the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:



>>Carbon dating shows moon rocks to be even slightly older than earth rocks..<<

Uh ... C14 has a halflife of only 5730 yrs .. it cant be used for dating stuff much older thana bout 60K yrs .. Moon rocks are ~4 bys old .. Stick to posting what you knowa bout Sy
;)

Jeanne

 

He was already corrected and admitted the mistake. Read before posting, Jeanne.

Sorry .. Madelaine & Sy

@ Pudgy .. What happened to em ??

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:



>>Carbon dating shows moon rocks to be even slightly older than earth rocks..<<

Uh ... C14 has a halflife of only 5730 yrs .. it cant be used for dating stuff much older thana bout 60K yrs .. Moon rocks are ~4 bys old .. Stick to posting what you knowa bout Sy
;)

Jeanne

 

He was already corrected and admitted the mistake. Read before posting, Jeanne.

Sorry .. Madelaine & Sy

@ Pudgy .. What happened to em ??

Jeanne

I can't say for sure, but I think they go into the I don't like your post and attitude file aptly named /dev/null

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucinda, I hope you will give us one of these every Friday. I love the way you just toss out a whole bunch of usually unrelated and entirely unsubstantiated theories and then ignore or misinterpret the corrections. I almost always learn things or have my memory refreshed on things I knew but haven't thought about for some time. Today YOU even provided one of those: the IRAS link. I'd forgotten the hoop-de-doo almost thirty years ago when they'd thought they'd seen a Jupiter size body possibly so close as to be in our Solar system. That must have been the source for your wandering Brown Dwarf postulation from the last thread.

I'm guessing you won't get the boot for this thread; you've been much more polite to your detractors than you were in the last one I remember. Plus this one has way funnier stuff.

By the way you're right about the seafloor spreading. It appears to be doing exactly that according to the best current understanding. But it's not making the Earth puff up. That's just crust. It spreads from the middle but slides under other pieces of crust at the edges. It's what geologists would expect to observe if Plate Tectonics works the way they think it does. That doesn't mean Plate Tectonics is a FACT: it just means it offers the best explanation of the observed phenomena. That the earth isn't really expanding IS a fact. That can be measured with great precision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if its worth making a comment .. It'll prolly just end up censored .. but here goes ..

Radiogenic heat is what drives convection plumes in the mantle .. These plumes in turn drive plate tectonics .. Material near the core gets hot, expands & rises 2wards the crust .. to drive seafloor spreading .. Concurrently older basaltic seafloor crust is subducted as lighter continental crust overrides it .. It then sinks 2wards the core & the cycle repeats

As isotopes decay down their series radiogenic heat declines .. in fact, its already only about 1/6 what it was in the Archaean .. So the planet is very gradually cooling .. & concomittantly contracting .. Plate tectonics & volcanism have pretty much ceased on Mars due to the decline of radiogenic heat .. If the Ocean Planet was the size of Mars tectonic activity woulduv become negligable by now here too

Luna was never big enuf to have sufficient radiogenic heat to drive tectonic activity .. Ancient volcanism resulted from residual heat from the enormous compaction & friction of the impact that tore Her loose from Gaia .. Moon has no core either .. cuz the impact didnt take material from the Ocean Planets core .. which is why the Moon has ltl Fe .. Mean density of the Moon is the same as that of the OPs mantle & crust .. cuz thats where it came from

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


JeanneAnne wrote:

Not sure if its worth making a comment .. It'll prolly just end up censored .. but here goes ..

Radiogenic heat is what drives convection plumes in the mantle .. These plumes in turn drive plate tectonics .. Material near the core gets hot, expands & rises 2wards the crust .. to drive seafloor spreading

Jeanne

You are stating a theory (and by no means the only one) on what causes the plates to move as if it were a fact.  Plate tectonics itself is only a theory.

As I said in my post, it is the one most people agree best fits the observed facts.  Wegener, who first discussed his theory of Continental Drift (the result of Plate Tectonics) in 1912 was roundly derided by the scientific community. It's only in the years since WWII that Plate Tectonics has become generally accepted, primarily because improved underwater instrumentation and measurement developed during the war showed things (as in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and evidence of sea-floor spreading) that were previously unknown.

You seem to know a lot about science, but for my money you have a rather unscientific way of thinking. Almost everything we 'know' is a theory. Pieces of the Earth do move, we can measure that. Plate Tectonics is by far the best explanation and the only one that is currently accepted by most scientists.

Theories that are the result of earnest exploration, examination, and thought by the most earnest and honest of scientists and are agreed upon by all have been getting stood on their ears for as long as people have existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

You seem to know a lot about science, but for my money you have a rather unscientific way of thinking.

You object to the socio-economic ideology i espouse. That doesn't make my way of thinking unscientific. It's a mere difference in opinion.

My degree is in applied math . My main interest is in critters ~specially fishes & turtles~ so i know quite a bituv biology tho only on an amateur or hobbyst level. I dont know much geology but am interested in fossils & hence in sedimentology & historical geology. I also took 4 yrs of chemistry & 1uv physics

Semantics of words like 'theory' & 'fact' dont interest me .. You seem to assume that measured values are factual whereas processes deduced from multiple lines of independant investigation have only theoretical status .. Yet how do you know the measurements were precise & accurate? How do you know the sampling that gave rise to those "facts" wasnt biased? Did you make the measurements yourself? How do you know your instrumentation wasnt faulty? How do you know your own subconscious bias didnt skew your results? How do you know anything for sure? Rates of radioactive decay can be measured & relative abundances of isotopes extrapolated to the entire volume of the planet. Amounts of heat produced can be calculated & viscosities of mantle rock measured. These values can be compared w/ seismic recordings to get a good picture of convection processes in the mantle. What I describe above & you dismiss as merely the currently best theoretical just-so story invented to explain continental drift I contend is about as factual as anything ever gets. That you actually exist & arent just a brain fart in the mind of the Goddess is just a theory.

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose this subject because it can't be proved one way or the other, I just wanted to expose the bullies in this forum that would just insult me no matter the subject, I feel that when ever I have posted here I have had the same gang just bully me driving me out, the lindens do nothing to get rid of these sick people which makes me think that the lindens are nothing but brain dead inbreds as well, seems that most here that have a red icon and claim to be helpers are nothing more than sick bullies that have nothing better to do than insult people to make themselves feel good and the lindens support them, as for the subject I would not tell you what I really thought, this whole thread was a trap for the sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ty for telling me who speaks to you, I said only that to one person, I have muted them and will ban them from the product they have press me to give them, I some how knew they were fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

I chose this subject because it can't be proved one way or the other, I just wanted to expose the bullies in this forum that would just insult me no matter the subject, I feel that when ever I have posted here I have had the same gang just bully me driving me out, the lindens do nothing to get rid of these sick people which makes me think that the lindens are nothing but brain dead inbreds as well, seems that most here that have a red icon and claim to be helpers are nothing more than sick bullies that have nothing better to do than insult people to make themselves feel good and the lindens support them, as for the subject I would not tell you what I really thought, this whole thread was a trap for the sick.

/methinks the reality check bounced.  Not because of what you wrote in this particular post, but because of your entire body of posts.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

I chose this subject because it can't be proved one way or the other, I just wanted to expose the bullies in this forum that would just insult me no matter the subject, I feel that when ever I have posted here I have had the same gang just bully me driving me out, the lindens do nothing to get rid of these sick people which makes me think that the lindens are nothing but brain dead inbreds as well, seems that most here that have a red icon and claim to be helpers are nothing more than sick bullies that have nothing better to do than insult people to make themselves feel good and the lindens support them, as for the subject I would not tell you what I really thought, this whole thread was a trap for the sick.

I seem to be the only one that has a red icon and has posted in this thread.  Are you really that insulted and bullied that I called you 'spoilsport' after you corrected the IRAS hyperlink?  When you have been insulted in other posts I do not recall people use terms like "sick bullies" and "brain dead inbreds".

Now I know you've said before you are "a blogger for a national newspaper".  Yes, your "traps for the sick" no doubt usually harvest a crop of outlandish or insulting statements you can then publish out of context to laugh at us all.  That you post this sort of thread and, usually earlier, start insulting everyone around you is exactly the reason you have been banned so often.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed this thread as I was busy but even though late to the party I'll add my tuppence.

A Very Short Potted History: Time Zero for the solar system was when the Sun was formed around 4.5 billion years ago and solid material was condensing into a ring of rock and ice fragments. Some 50 million years later, the Earth had grown to about 90% of its present size. At that stage, it is believed that a smaller planet, referred to as Theia, crashed into the Earth. The collision basically turned Theia inside out with its iron core falling onto Earth along with other debris. Earth was grossly distorted by the impact and its lopsided gravitational field tugged the spiral arm of debris into orbit. After a week or so, while some debris continued to rain down on the Earth, much of the debris in orbit clumped together and formed what it now our Moon.

50 million years after the impact, the magma oceans on Earth and the Moon have solidified but here the geology diverges. Water, convection in the mantle and movement of the tectonic plates destroy all record of the Earth’s original crust but on the Moon, it’s the opposite. The crust is a solid shell and there are no plate tectonics but constant bombardment by meteorites pockmark the surface.

You’re absolutely right that something happened to cause the Moon to be peppered badly but it happened to both the Earth and the Moon. Around 4 billion years ago to 3.8 billion years ago, the Earth and Moon suffered a heavy bombardment of large meteorites. On the Earth, the constant erosion by water, volcanism, plate tectonics etc leaves little evidence but the Moon’s solid shell left ample evidence for all to see. The Mares or seas were created by lava erupting to the surface and pooling in impact basins. However, while volcanism is still going on Earth due to enough heat from radioactive decay, this ran out on the Moon sometime after 3.2 billion years ago. There have been some major impacts since such as the very visible Tycho impact crater dating to 109 million years ago. Such impacts do result in small moon rocks eventually reaching Earth orbit and falling to ground. If there is any volcanic activity on the Moon now, it’s deep and not detectable.

So why is the giant impact theory now the most prominent one on how the Moon formed? Well, the three main theories up till then were:

  1. Fission theory, a very weak theory as there was no evidence that the Earth was ever in a completely molten state and spinning fast enough to spin off material to form the Moon. Long discounted.
  2. Capture theory: Certainly seemed a good theory but completely demolished by Apollo discoveries that the Moon had a magma ocean and also the fact that moon rocks and earth rocks have similar oxygen isotope ratios. The latter was the killer blow to this theory.
  3. Coacretion theory (Earth & Moon accreting same time) This theory depended on the Moon coalescing at an extremely fast rate, which was highly unlikely. The iron-poor Moon and since Apollo, volatile-poor and siderophile-poor Moon just does not fit in with this theory.

This left the giant impact theory which was first proposed in 1946 by Reginald Daly but disappeared out of sight until decades later and is now the only theory which fits all known facts.

I'm rather surprised to see you advocate the Moon was not there for billions of years after the Earth was formed as it was principally the Russians that supported the coacretion theory until the time of the Apollo missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

I'm rather surprised to see you advocate the Moon was not there for billions of years after the Earth was formed as it was principally the Russians that supported the coacretion theory until the time of the Apollo missions.


 

Particularly by one certain Russian astrophysicist named Viktor Safronov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


ROB34466IIIa wrote:


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

I'm rather surprised to see you advocate the Moon was not there for billions of years after the Earth was formed as it was principally the Russians that supported the coacretion theory until the time of the Apollo missions.


 

Particularly by one certain Russian astrophysicist named
.

An astrophysicist may have questioned the antiquity of the moon but no biologist woulduv .. So many biological phenomona are predicated on the moon & tides that its apparent the moon has been there at least as long as eukaryotes & sexual reproduction have existed

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


ROB34466IIIa wrote:


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

I'm rather surprised to see you advocate the Moon was not there for billions of years after the Earth was formed as it was principally the Russians that supported the coacretion theory until the time of the Apollo missions.


 

Particularly by one certain Russian astrophysicist named
.

An astrophysicist may have questioned the antiquity of the moon but no biologist woulduv .. So many biological phenomona are predicated on the moon & tides that its apparent the moon has been there at least as long as eukaryotes & sexual reproduction have existed

Jeanne

Interesting you say that, because until the Mariner missions, there was no physical evidence elsewhere to be seen in the solar system for the accretion suspected, but the impact craters on the moon. It was still only a theory like many as described by Nyll.

The American scientists discovering impact craters on Mars in the early 1960ies ( there were no images close enough of Mars surface at that time ) were all too happy to see Safronov' s expectation confirmed.

" Look at all these craters . They look just like a 52-drop in 'Nam."

It took until the Apollo 11 mission to also understand not only how the planets were forming, but since when by means of moonrock samples.

( Of course these discoveries are shocking stuff to those who come to understand how their celestial gods came to be... ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:

Nice post Nyll !!

Thanks for taking the time to compose it .. :heart:

Jeanne

Thanks Jeanne:)

I hope it gave some idea on how the Big Whack theory works.

I enjoyed your post on the Sibernian and Deccan traps and as you say, the Siberian traps were much earlier at the end of the Permian period compared to 65 million years for the Deccan traps. Could be the meteorite that caused the Chicxulub crater triggered the Deccan traps, although many believe the vulcanism had already commenced so perhaps a mixture of gradualist and catastrophist. However, there is evidence to suggest a cluster of meteorite impacts some ten to fifteen million years earlier than Chicxulub.

So far, the smoking gun for the Siberian traps has not been found if it was a meteorite (and may never be as you said). The collision of the Siberian and European tectonic plates is another possible cause or perhaps a mixture of causes as above. Some people do say the Permian/Triassic extinction was quite abrupt.  Maybe some day we will know all the answers.
:)
I love reading books on this subject, must have read Perilous Planet Earth by Trevor Palmer at least six times by now! It's a wonderful read.

All the best
:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


ROB34466IIIa wrote:


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

I'm rather surprised to see you advocate the Moon was not there for billions of years after the Earth was formed as it was principally the Russians that supported the coacretion theory until the time of the Apollo missions.


 

Particularly by one certain Russian astrophysicist named
.

Yes indeed. The Cold War also prevented interchange of ideas between Russia and America so much of the Russian work on the coaccretion theory, the dominant theory in Russia, remained unknown to the West until the time of the Apollo missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

...
I'm guessing you won't get the boot for this thread; you've been much more polite to your detractors than you were in the last one I remember. Plus this one has way funnier stuff....

 

It's a pity if she has got herself yet another ban, she was doing well there for a while.  On the other hand if she really is just trolling for some tabloid's blog it's not suprising the moderators have got her on such a tight leash.  The thread's as mad as a hatful of frogs, of course, but at least she wasn't just insulting everyone from the start as in so many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:


ROB34466IIIa wrote:


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

I'm rather surprised to see you advocate the Moon was not there for billions of years after the Earth was formed as it was principally the Russians that supported the coacretion theory until the time of the Apollo missions.


 

Particularly by one certain Russian astrophysicist named
.

Yes indeed. The Cold War also prevented interchange of ideas between Russia and America so much of the Russian work on the coaccretion theory, the dominant theory in Russia, remained unknown to the West until the time of the Apollo missions.

One of the saddest examples of this very thing is that Vladimir Vernadsky remained unknown to Western ecologists until relatively recently. He was the 1st to scale up landscape ecological thinking to the level of the entire biosphere. His values were almost entirely off by orders of magnitude but his approach gave rise to modern biogeochemical cycling theory & his 1926 "The Biosphere" is a classic. He deserves to be ranked in the same category as Darwin & Mendel.

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:

One of the saddest examples of this very thing is that Vladimir Vernadsky remained unknown to Western ecologists until relatively recently. He was the 1st to scale up landscape ecological thinking to the level of the entire biosphere. His values were almost entirely off by orders of magnitude but his approach gave rise to modern biogeochemical cycling theory & his 1926 "The Biosphere" is a classic. He deserves to be ranked in the same category as Darwin & Mendel.


I hadn't heard of him Jeanne, but looked him up, a very interesting gentleman. I see that Amazon still sell his book. I came across this lovely comment from an article he wrote in 1943.

"Fairy tale dreams appear possible in the future; man is striving to emerge beyond the boundaries of his planet into cosmic space. And he probably will do so."

http://larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/vernadsky/3207bios_and_noos.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PeterCanessa Oh wrote:


Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

I chose this subject because it can't be proved one way or the other,
I just wanted to expose the bullies in this forum that would just insult me no matter the subject
, I feel that when ever I have posted here I have had the same gang just bully me driving me out, the lindens do nothing to get rid of these sick people which makes me think that the lindens are nothing but brain dead inbreds as well, seems that most here that have a red icon and claim to be helpers are nothing more than sick bullies that have nothing better to do than insult people to make themselves feel good and the lindens support them, as for the subject I would not tell you what I really thought, this whole thread was a trap for the sick.

I seem to be the only one that has a red icon and has posted in this thread.
 Are you really that insulted and bullied that I called you 'spoilsport' after you corrected the IRAS hyperlink?  When you have been insulted in other posts I do not recall people use terms like "sick bullies" and "brain dead inbreds".

Now I know you've said before you are "a blogger for a national newspaper".  Yes, your "traps for the sick" no doubt usually harvest a crop of outlandish or insulting statements you can then publish out of context to laugh at us all.  That you post this sort of thread and, usually earlier, start insulting everyone around you is exactly the reason you have been banned so often.

 

@Peter, And, now there are three. 

@Lucinda, I have not read many of your posts but just reading through this thread I see alot of humor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...