Moondust

Heissonear · Jan 18, 2014

Black Akuma said:
Concerns? We'd sent things to the Moon before. We knew what it was like.

Comment per missing geologic reason moondust lacks diagenesis of interstellar dust collection over time.

That's all. And you blatantly brush this to the side like others? Humm.

.

TLK Valentine · Jan 18, 2014

Heissonear said:
Comment per missing geologic reason moondust lacks diagenesis of interstellar dust collection over time.

That's all. And you blatantly brush this to the side like others? Humm.

.

Brush what aside? A PRATT?

Black Akuma · Jan 18, 2014

Heissonear said:
Comment per missing geologic reason moondust lacks diagenesis of interstellar dust collection over time.

That's all. And you blatantly brush this to the side like others? Humm.

.

[serious] · Jan 21, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Looks like NASA got a reality check when the depth of the moondust failed to return a deeptime scenario.

Evidently they had to readjust the amount of average yearly dustfall to accommodate this new discovery.

50 x 4 = 200, but if the product is found to be only 100, then it looks like one of the factors is going to have to be halved: either the 50 to 25, or the 4 to 2.

If NASA actually expected that much dust, why would they have planned a moon walk?

Also,

In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)

In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

Justatruthseeker · Jan 21, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Looks like NASA got a reality check when the depth of the moondust failed to return a deeptime scenario.

Evidently they had to readjust the amount of average yearly dustfall to accommodate this new discovery.

50 x 4 = 200, but if the product is found to be only 100, then it looks like one of the factors is going to have to be halved: either the 50 to 25, or the 4 to 2.

A lot of it is because there theory does not take into account the electrical interaction between the sun and moon, and most likely between earth and moon as Jupiter an Io and Saturn and enceledus, just too weak to measure.

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

NASA - Leaping Lunar Dust

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

2001 News Releases - Jupiter's Io Generates Power and Noise, But No Magnetic Field

But of course modern astronomers ignore electrical activity in space, and so the data never fits the observation, and they must revise and revise and revise.

Loudmouth · Jan 21, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
A lot of it is because there theory does not take into account the electrical interaction between the sun and moon, and most likely between earth and moon as Jupiter an Io and Saturn and enceledus, just too weak to measure.

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

NASA - Leaping Lunar Dust

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

2001 News Releases - Jupiter's Io Generates Power and Noise, But No Magnetic Field

But of course modern astronomers ignore electrical activity in space, and so the data never fits the observation, and they must revise and revise and revise.

They ignore it because it is not depositing dust on the Moon.

PsychoSarah · Jan 21, 2014

Really? This old argument? Why hasn't this died and been buried yet?

TLK Valentine · Jan 21, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Really? This old argument? Why hasn't this died and been buried yet?

Because there are plenty of creationists who don't consider its falsehood to be a dealbreaker.

PsychoSarah · Jan 21, 2014

TLK Valentine said:
Because there are plenty of creationists who don't consider its falsehood to be a dealbreaker.

It is bad enough to use an imperfect or incomplete argument, but why would anyone use one that has been completely refuted, even in the eyes of the church?

TLK Valentine · Jan 21, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
It is bad enough to use an imperfect or incomplete argument, but why would anyone use one that has been completely refuted, even in the eyes of the church?

Because refuting something only shows it to be false -- and the kind of people who use these arguments aren't interested in truth or falsehood.

For starters, they're interested in security; the old myths, and their unwavering faith in them, make them feel better, and nothing, least of all facts, are going to shake that.

Another thing they're interested in is status; by championing a cause -- even a hopeless one -- they can get other insecure creationists to look up to them. As a bonus, by being told time and again how wrong their arguments are, and having their character unflatteringly (but accurately) assessed by their insistence on using them, they get to pass themselves off as martyrs to their fellow creationists.

They're not, of course -- but as I said, truth doesn't interest them.

PsychoSarah · Jan 21, 2014

Black Akuma said:

hahahahahaha, how did I miss that earlier?

AV1611VET · Nov 5, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
They're not, of course -- but as I said, truth doesn't interest them.

Truth makes us free.

lesliedellow · Nov 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Truth makes us free.

Pray why did you decide to bring this one back from the grave? Michael needs little enough encouragement to do likewise.

AV1611VET · Nov 5, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Pray why did you decide to bring this one back from the grave? Michael needs little enough encouragement to do likewise.

Michael?

lesliedellow · Nov 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Michael?

Michael has been known to resurrect some of his tirades against orthodox science.

[serious] · Nov 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Truth makes us free.

Halloween is over. Let stop with the zombies

HitchSlap · Nov 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Good for them.

I will use it, however.

Naturally. We wouldn't expect anything less.

Heissonear · Nov 5, 2015

Our moon showed a few inches of solar system dust had collected.

Armstrong walks in the few inches and readily accesses igneous rock samples from said moon surface.

How can this stellar accumulation rate issue "go away"? What should have accumulated over billions of years and its thickness?

HitchSlap · Nov 5, 2015

Heissonear said:
Our moon showed a few inches of solar system dust had collected.

Armstrong walks in the few inches and readily accesses igneous rock samples from said moon surface.

How can this stellar accumulation rate issue "go away"? What should have accumulated over billions of years and its thickness?

I don't know. What?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 5, 2015

Loudmouth said:
They ignore it because it is not depositing dust on the Moon.

because it's electrostatically charged.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

""Moondust was a real nuisance for Apollo astronauts," adds Abbas. "It stuck to everything – spacesuits, equipment, instruments." The sharp-edged grains scratched faceplates, clogged joints, blackened surfaces and made dials all but unreadable. "The troublesome clinginess had a lot to do with moondust's electrostatic charge.""

Quit ignoring the science and you won't be so confused.

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level.""

Of course plasma physicists have been trying to explain that to you for the last 200+ years to no avail. So stop treating those individual charges at the single particle level like "Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of" particles since those theories "don't apply to" particles "at the single particle level."

So stop applying those forces that apply to large clumps of matter to single particles.

As experiments show - they falsify your existing theories every time.

Moondust

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

I've already read the books you want burned.

Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die...

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Newbie

Contributor

Chaotic Neutral

I've already read the books you want burned.

Chaotic Neutral

I've already read the books you want burned.

Chaotic Neutral

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency