Moon Exploration Has Finally Arrived

The moon remains intriguing, it’s specialized designed role on maintaining life on earth is quite remarkable.  It has the correct size and exact distance required.  Scientists lack a lot of data on how much uniqueness there is in regards with the  moon’s relationship with the earth compared to the rest of the universe.

Scientists also discovered the earth’s moon is being hit with “a massive cloud of plasma strikes”  which removes material from the moon’s surface.  These plasma strikes comes from solar flares that are ejected from the sun. Now Space.com reported that research created a model to learn the effect it had on the moon’s surface.

“The model predicts 100 to 200 tons of lunar material — the equivalent of 10 dump truck loads — could be stripped off the lunar surface during the typical two-day passage of a CME.”

 What this study like about the moon is the consequences of this phenomena happening over the faulty assumed age of the moon which is 4.5 billion years. One would think that with all that sandblasting going on over that time that the surface would have undergone a considerable amount of rework.

It would be a great way to demonstrate the real age of the moon, wouldn’t you say?  One could do this by calculating the mass loss and change of appearance expected of the lunar surface experiencing CMEs, and see whether the calculation matches what was observed by the Apollo astronauts while taking into account the average frequency of CMEs striking the moon in 4.5 billion year time frame.

So what moon exploration has finally arrived? China’s probe that mapped the lunar surface last October? No, but that probe continues to study the sun and Earth’s magnetic field. What has arrived are two NASA probes with a mission to map the lunar surface like never before.  In order to accomplish such a specialized and history making task, the two probes must position themselves in an optimal orbit in order to “measure the pushes and pulls of the moon’s gravity, data that scientists can use to model what is inside the moon.”

But what they mean by “model” is to speculate rather than observe what is inside the moon. One article suggested the mission was to understand the moon’s mysterious evolution. However this is not the case, we will learn from the exploration of the moon which is great science, but learning nothing about interpreting it into how it supposedly evolved, only more questions with more invented speculation within that man-made story telling framework.

Creationists should be excited about explorations in space like the moon, there is much to learn out there, no mystery about who or what created it.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Moon Exploration Has Finally Arrived

  1. Michael: “The moon remains intriguing, it’s specialized designed role on maintaining life on earth is quite remarkable. It has the correct size and exact distance required.”

    First off, it is not “designed”. And your last sentence needs a lot of explanation: how did you make this up ?

    Michael: “Scientists lack a lot of data on how much uniqueness there is in regards with the moon’s relationship with the earth compared to the rest of the universe.”

    Are the Earth and the Moon a happily married couple, these days ???

  2. It would be a great way to demonstrate the real age of the moon, wouldn’t you say? One could do this by calculating the mass loss and change of appearance expected of the lunar surface experiencing CMEs, and see whether the calculation matches what was observed by the Apollo astronauts while taking into account the average frequency of CMEs striking the moon in 4.5 billion year time frame

    The inabilit6y of creationists to conceive of large numbers is legendary. So let’s go ahead and do the calculation. As a back-of-the-envlope, order-of-magnitude number, In 4 billion years, if the CMEs had occurred at the\ir present rate and intensity[1] they would have eroded less than ONE BILLIONTH of the moon’s total mass

    Therefore. Michael would estimate the age of the moon, not at 4 billion years, but at more like 400 billion years.

    As the the effects of this sandblasting on the topography, Michael has apparent6ly never been in a sandstorm on earth, and certainly has no appreciation for solar densities,. On earth, a sandstorm can drive you to tears wwithlout even leaving a mark on your skin. Reason? High velocity, but low density. Particle speeds in a CME exceed 1000 km/sec—but they are less dense than a fairly good vacuum on earth. In short, a CME could not knock over a lunar crater at full force head-on. Like an earthly sandstorm, it carries away only tiny grains.

    Like all creationist claims, this one disappears when exposed to reality for a few seconds. It does, however, illustrate Michael’s typical disregard for facts.

    Wait until the laughter dies down, then go try to make up another story.

    ((Sorry, Eelco, I’m stepping in your area of expertise again.)).

    ================

    [1] Which is undoubtedly an overestimate, since the sun was 30% less bright then.

  3. @Olorin:
    no worries, the solar system is not my expertise …

    @Michael:
    the age of the moon is not assumed, it is *measured*.

  4. [W]e will learn from the exploration of the moon which is great science, but learning nothing about interpreting it into how it supposedly evolved, only more questions with more invented speculation within that man-made story telling framework.

    If exploring the Moon involves only piling up facts, if no one interprets those facts and assembles them into a model, then what is the point of exploring the Moon in the first place?? That would be like spending a billion dollars to dig a hole for no other reason than to create the biggest pile of dirt in the world.

    Michael keeps trying to define science as nothing more than the accumulation of isolated facts. Sorry, Michael. Doesn’t matter how many times you say it; it’s still wrong.

    .

    PS: You might wish to work on your grammar. And please do not help your children with their English homework. .

  5. Eelco,

    It is assumed, now “calculating the mass loss and change of appearance expected of the lunar surface experiencing CMEs, and see whether the calculation matches what was observed by the Apollo astronauts while taking into account the average frequency of CMEs striking the moon in 4.5 billion year time frame.”would be a measurement based on observational data, wouldn’t you say? How come that hasn’t been done yet?

  6. Olorin,

    Science has a wealth of information that is factual, it is quite amazing actually. However, science is not about making up stories that have to be revised numerous times when the actual data is collected. I’m old school, you go out there and explore the unknown and make inferences from there.

  7. Michael, the age of the moon is measured, by many, many different methods, and therefore NOT an assumption.
    If you like to use your method to have another go, feel free. It will probably give the same answer as all the other methods.

    If you know what you’re doing, that is. Which I doubt highly.

  8. However, science is not about making up stories that have to be revised numerous times when the actual data is collected. I’m old school, you go out there and explore the unknown and make inferences from there.

    Au contraire. Science is precisely about making up stories and then revising them when actual data is collected.[1] The stories are called hypotheses and theories, and they are tested, revised, and sometimes overturned when new data is discovered. Data gathering without such stories is no more than butterfly collecting, and tells us nothing of interest.

    Medieval alchemists knew about many chemical elements and their properties. Mendeleev made up a “story” about how to organize them into a table according to their properties. For hundreds of years before that, chemical knowledge accumulated piecemeal, and nothing related to anything else. Then, within a couple of years of the periodic table, new elements were hypothesized and discovered. New chemical compounds by the thousands were discovered on the basis of making substitutions of related elements. All of this was—and remains—knowledge that otherwise could have been found only by lucky accident. Because it was the “story” that showed researchers where to look.

    .

    Michael does say Hatty we should make “inferences from the facts.” But, being totally ignorant of science, he does not realize that these inferences are none other than the “stories” that he condemns. So he contradicts himself yet again.

    =====================
    [1] Michael here confuses science with creationism, which is never revised when new facts appear. In fact, the new facts are revised to fit creationism.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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