Scientific solution to the Moon problem

[dad]

Many problems exist with the theorized model of how the Moon got here. Science claims an impact was responsible.

One problem was this..

"Many theorists believe a Mars-sized object slammed into the early Earth, and material dislodged from that collision formed the basis of the moon. When this idea was tested in computer simulations, it turned out that the moon would be made primarily from the impacting object. Yet the opposite is true; we know from analyzing rocks brought back from Apollo missions that the moon consists mainly of material from Earth."

Magma is the key to the moon's makeup


So how does science arrive at solutions to such problems that are basically total faith based models? Easy as pie.


(fro same link) " Karato and his collaborators set out to test a new model, based on the collision of a proto-Earth covered with an ocean of magma and a solid impacting object."


So all you need to do is completely cover earth with magma as needed, and get results closer to the creation reality that actually exists today.

Science in action kids.

This thread is for supported arguments only, complete with links to sources.

 

[Brightmoon]

I still don’t get why you have a problem with the Big Splat ? The material from earth formed the moon . All that means is that the computer simulations missed something

 

[usexpat97]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing here, or if I even care. Even if the earth was covered in magma--which I don't believe even Venus is--that only gives *A* possible origin. Not THE origin that actually happened. It's like saying a meteor hit the USS Arizona. Well, yeah...that would certainly explain the loud noises witnesses heard and why it is at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. The equation fits. But with the Arizona we at least know what really happened, and that's not it. If this is somehow an argument and I'm supposed to give a source, then I guess I'll just use the same source as the OP. This is coming from their own source's claim.

 

[Lost4words]

I thought the moon was made of cheese?

 

[usexpat97]

I thought the moon was made of cheese?

Source: John Heywood, noted 16th-century scientist.

I've got some cheese available for resale from the latest SpaceX flight to the moon. But I must warn you: due to the what I had to pay the astronauts to get it, I have to sell it to you for a high price.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the Earth formed there would have been a lot of energy released from gravitational energy. Not just the energy of the material falling into the Earth, but also from the kinetic energy that the material already had. I would hate to try to figure it out, but there is a reason that that part of Earth's history was called the "Hadean""

Hadean - Wikipedia

And I forgot one other factor, there were far more radioactive materials then than now. Short lived radioactive materials from the Nova that gave birth to our solar system still existed and of course all of the long lived radioactive materials were also at a higher concentration:

""Hadean" (from Hades, the Greek god of the underworld, and the underworld itself) describes the hellish conditions then prevailing on Earth: the planet had just formed and was still very hot owing to its recent accretion, the abundance of short-lived radioactive elements, and frequent collisions with other Solar System bodies."

From that article the absolute oldest mineral found to date is 4.35 billion years old, meaning that the Early Earth could very well have had a magma surface.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So how does science arrive at solutions to such problems that are basically total faith based models? Easy as pie.


(fro same link) " Karato and his collaborators set out to test a new model

If the previous moon model was based on faith, why didn't scientists burn this heretic, rather than letting him conduct his experiment and see if it produced results that better accorded with reality?

The self-correcting nature of science is one of the things that distinguishes it from faith.

 

[dad]

If the previous moon model was based on faith, why didn't scientists burn this heretic, rather than letting him conduct his experiment and see if it produced results that better accorded with reality?

The self-correcting nature of science is one of the things that distinguishes it from faith.

Well, the thing is, they used to model as if the earth were solid apparently, based on all they 'knew'. Now someone comes along also by faith and simply waves a wand to make 80% of the earth actually molten rock! ow they get a seemingly better fit. I wonder how the models would work if they assumed it was made of 80% cheese!!? Ha.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now someone comes along also by faith and simply waves a wand ...

Faith? Wand-waving?

No, it's called generating a hypothesis. Then you make predictions based on the hypothesis. Then you test them.

If you want to talk about science stuff, you should learn the lingo. And how it all works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the thing is, they used to model as if the earth were solid apparently, based on all they 'knew'. Now someone comes along also by faith and simply waves a wand to make 80% of the earth actually molten rock! ow they get a seemingly better fit. I wonder how the models would work if they assumed it was made of 80% cheese!!? Ha.

What makes you think it was by faith?

 

[dad]

Faith? Wand-waving?

No, it's called generating a hypothesis. Then you make predictions based on the hypothesis. Then you test them.

It is called drawing possible scenarios from a small bag of godless goodies to the absolute ignoring of any and all other scenarios, especially the Almighty's.

 

[dad]

What makes you think it was by faith?

If one year it is accepted that the earth at the time of the imaginary impact was solid, and the next year it is assumed it is made of liquid magma (or blue cheese) one must conclude they are pulling whatever suits their wishes out of the dark abyss of their religious rear sectors.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is called drawing possible scenarios from a small bag of godless goodies to the absolute ignoring of any and all other scenarios, especially the Almighty's.

Let's take the hypothesis of 'the Almighty's scenario'. What predictions does that hypothesis make? How would you test them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one year it is accepted that the earth at the time of the imaginary impact was solid, and the next year it is assumed it is made of liquid magma (or blue cheese) one must conclude they are pulling whatever suits their wishes out of the dark abyss of their religious rear sectors.

You are projecting again.