Earth’s Moon Shows A Younger Feature

Much attention has been paid to Mars, and Saturn but the moon reveals a nice amount interesting features as well! Some of which should be explored in more dept over time. A Japanese lunar satellite KAGUYA found volcanic rock which evolutionists have estimated is about 2.5 million years old.


According to the evolutionary model, the moon was suppose to cease it’s lunar volcanism a few billion years ago. The hypothesis says, the moon would have cooled down enough over a span of 1.5 billion years to supposedly freeze out any lunar volcanic activity. Evolutionists are now scratching their heads with this new discovery of the moon which may in fact cause some modifications in their model.

The implications are enormous as so-called evolutionary theories need massive amount of time. It’s the only framework they follow religiously. To observe younger features on the moon which are much younger than the so-called theory allows, destroys the requirement of a very long naturalistic process.

It’s true, if the moon was active for a period of time, the coldness of space would eventually freeze the heat energy solid. There is no dispute there, it’s basic physics. It’s like when you have a cup of coffee in the morning and then let it sit in a room for a while. Eventually the heat from the coffee dissipates reducing itself to room temperature.

Same concept with the moon, it’s hard to believe that for more than 4 billion years the moon has been sitting in the cold while erupting with lava until 2.5 million years ago. I believe, moon exploration is so badly needed. Not only could it be a great source for potential alternative fuels such as helium 3 depending upon what is actually found and innovation, but we would also have important data from the moon to evaluate and glean from especially in the area of creation science!

While it’s true that the moon is not as glamorized as looking for little green men on Mars is. Oops, I mean little blobs of possible microscopic alien life forms. Now I’m not saying exploring Mars is a waste of taxpayer’s money, because there is certainly some value in learning about the planet. But I believe the moon being closer with more potential to help mankind, and just the exploration of man being there in person is way better!

5 thoughts on “Earth’s Moon Shows A Younger Feature

  1. The moon does not cool like a cup of coffee. Where did you learn basic physics ?

    What I am trying to say here is that the moon can only cool though radiative cooling, as your ‘cold space’ is (almost) vacuum. So there is no heat transfer, as there is very very little stuff to transfer the heat to. So no heat transfer like heat flow from the coffee to the cup. Thirdly, the moon is also not evaporating, like your coffee. So there is only one out of three cooling mechanisms available to the moon as compared to the cup of coffee.

    And then, that nasty sun keeps shining on the poor moon (+100 degrees Celsius on the sunny side), and the Earth keeps on tidally distorting it, producing tidal heating. And tides produce volcanic activity, of course, but you’ve read about that recently, so no need to repeat that.

    A pretty old moon, indeed. And not left alone in the cold … it has two friends to supply some warmth.

  2. Ah, I forgot.
    astrostu206265 had already explained you all about the “coldness” of space. It is actually quite hot, as he explained. Nice big star in the middle of our solar system, and all that.

    I’ve had too much coffee today, which shows …

  3. Space is actually cold, take the moon for example, if you were standing in the shade on the moon, you would get frostbite. If you were standing in direct sunlight, it would very warm. Pioneer 10 which is 8 billion miles away has heaters in it. A spacecraft without heaters gets down to 3 Kelvins. The vastness of space cannot receive heat through radiative absorption like a spacecraft could or a planet like Earth or the moon. Spacecrafts like the one heading towards Pluto as we speak needs a heater to maintain operating temperature because the sunlight is dim. Contrary to all that coffee your drinking, space is 3 degrees above absolute zero or -270 degrees.

  4. We were talking about the moon. Space near the moon is not cold, as astrostu206265 has already explained.

    If we talk about ‘outer space’, the interplanetary space within the solar system: this is sparsely filled with cosmic rays, which include ionized atomic nuclei and various subatomic particles. Interplanetary space is defined by the solar wind, a continuous stream of charged particles emanating from the Sun that creates a very tenuous atmosphere (the heliosphere) for billions of miles into space. This solar wind is actually quite hot, and as the moon has no atmosphere, it takes the full brunt of it. The solar wind has a temperature of about a million degrees Celsius. Not cold.

    As the moon has no atmosphere, you can also not get frostbite on the nightside of the moon.

    The temperature of deep space you quote is for CMB photons, not for matter! Matter between galaxies (‘deep space’) is actually quite hot as well, as you only find a couple of atoms per cubic meter there, which is actually very easy to heat up. The intra-cluster medium, the gas between galaxies in a galaxy cluster, is very hot indeed.
    Read up on “intergalactic medium” (IGM) and “intra-cluster medium” (ICM) please.

    So it really depends on what you are a talking about. CMB photons have a present-day temperature of around 3K, but intergalactic matter is pretty hot, depending on local radiation sources (galaxies, quasars, supernovae, whatever).

    So you cannot say ‘space is cold’. You need to specifiy what you are talking about (photons, matter) and which of these are relevant for your system under study.

    And again, you keep on denying the existence of tidal heating. This is getting to be very annoying.

  5. Interestingly, radiative cooling is pretty efficient. If you would end up in space near the moon, you would freeze to death (through radiative cooling, not through heat transfer like on earth !) very rapidly. The million degree solar wind is so thin that it won’t warm you up. Same for the ICM: very hot, but very thin gas, so you’d still radiate a lot of your heat away.

    The CMB temperature is pretty irrelevant, as the energy density in CMB photons is a thousand times less that of matter at the mean density of the Universe (~1 atom per cubic meter). It is matter that matters.
    The kinetic temperature of the gas in space (what we usually mean by “temperature” on earth) is what you are presumably thinking about.

    Radiative cooling on the surface of the moon is fairly quick: that’s why you can have these large differences in surface temperature between night and day on the moon. On earth the atmosphere keeps much of the heat near the surface.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s