Jump to content


Photo

Oops, There Is Water On The Moon

results ignored

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

#21 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 12 June 2012 - 09:18 AM

1. The moon is assumed to have been at least partially molten at some point as were pretty much all the rocky planets (earth for example is still partially liquid).

If we say rocks accreted, then the question is "Where did the rocks come from?", and we find we are no closer to any answers.
If we say, gas condensed, then we find that all gas molecules has kineticenergy or it's not a gas, and so no condensing can occur.
If we reason that what would be a gas, such as hydrogen atoms in close association, which atoms have no heat energy, then they are but dust particles of hydrogen, unrelated to gas, still moving about in a cold vaccuum without pressure.

The gravitational force of a hydrogen atom is exceedingly small.
And its gravitation field decreases by the sqaure of the distance from it.
So, no hydrogen atoms will clump naturally because, the only thing that will allow it is exceedingly close proximity between the atoms.
But, there is no mechanism by which to close the distance.
And, as with all non-scientific arguments the only thing left is "Maybe there is a chance that two atoms will come close enough to one another as to gravitate toward one another and stick?"
But, that chance is beyond belief is it not?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#22 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:22 AM

2. Don't get caught up on the name, it is not required that all planets were once liquid, merely that they deform under their own gravity. The amount of force a rock can withstand to hold it's shape is basically a constant for a given shape. Gravity is a force that isn't a constant, it can increase via accumulation of mass and eventually exceed the strength of any given rock. When that happens the rock deforms until its new shape can withstand the pressure and there is a state of equilibrium. The type of deformation can be elastic, plastic or fracture depending on the exact circumstances. For elastic or plastic deformation the rock will bend* or squash into a new shape. If fracture occurs the rock will be breaking down into smaller components which will form a more rounded shape. Either way, it's perfectly fine to use a concept from fluid mechanics for a solid that can't maintain it's shape.

You aren't accurate here. If a rock is not elastic or plastic, then applying gravity will not change that. It is heat energy that will cause the rock molecules to loosen and allow deformation to the measure of the heat content for a particular crystalline shape. So, your notion that a solid planet can get so large that its own gravity will deform can't occur unless the pressure translates to heat. The point being that the only way a clump of matter became spherical is due to heat causing enough melting to allow a material to, like water, seek its own level. Then, because there is a center of gravity and sphere results. The problem with a simplistic notion of, "hey, lets throw some rock together, let them melt and form a sphere is that the materials of the melt will not only seek a equal level, but, also the diverse materials will seperate into distinct levels. Which raises a problem in that the earth doesn't show any such proper layering as would correspond to having been so hot as to allow layering. We are faced with many problems which are being ignored because the fake consensus science forbids truth in favor of retaining an anti-biblical-God recognition of natural reality. The reason a common sense man believes there is a creator God is not because, he has seen him, wants him, or understands him, but, because by strict rigorous logic there simply is no other possibility. This is why all the bogus science theories end up sharing the trait of resorting to "probability and chance" to kick start, and maintain some vague sense of making sense. Relying on chance to any degree is actually a admission of ignorance to nth degree and thus, is the hallmark of non sciences like, magic. The modern mythical theories of origins require all men to ignore straightforward proofs of the stupidity of many of the notions. That is why consensus is required to bar the door, and that, along with presentations of supposedly charismatic, cultic personalities.

*I know some creationists like to claim that rock can't bend in order to say that uncracked folded rock layers were created by a flood. Rock will deform under pressure and/or heat just like any other solid. Look up plastic deformation if you need further details.

Are you actually not aware that rocks don't bend because of rigidity? That for a rock to bend it is its rigidity that must be changed or otherwise the rigid rock will snap before it bends. Of course, I'm not talking about an imperceptible bending, since, all solid things are measurably somewhat rigid, malleable, ductile etc. If I take a cigarette, I can tie that cigarette into a knot. But, to do so it's boundaries must be constrained, and so I wrap the cigarette in it's package cellophane, tightly and then I can bend it. When we see many layers, or one layer, of solid rock bent into sinusoidal waveforms, we know that gravity didn't cause it because gravity gravitates all length of the layers equally towards the center. Thus, we see that horizontal force of compression will fold multi or single layer strats into sinusoidal forms. But, only if the layers are heated, wet, or both. Otherwise materials science proves that rigid materials when compressed will snap, and shatter. On the earth we see both forms of results of compression. We see sharp mountain peaks and we see soft rolling layers. Some mountain peaks rose straight upward most probably due to horizontal pressure converted to vertical uplift due to a triangular wedge beneath the mountain driving the mountain upwards as the horizontal compression wave forces lateral masses against the wedge. In other places we see that formerly flat sheet remained rigid under great horizontal compression and snapped upwards and forced over other layers into the sky at various angles. I brought up a point about the moon that is being, not ignored, but avoided. First, a hard surface moon struck by random meteors should exhibit random angles of attack, but, curiously and notably the moon exhibits its craters as though struck perfectly head on towards the center. And, the glancing blows are not seen, the horizontal gouging etc. If the moon were molten and meteors landed then, the moon would absorb those rocky projectiles and no mark on the surface of the moon would reveal what had occurred. If the moon were soft but, not molten, or a liquid, but elastic, then a meteor could strike it and cause some of the craters we see if the meteor struck at the right moment of plasticity of the surface. This is seen is cooling clay or muds. That is, in boiling muds when bubbles of mud collapse, and in time lapsed photos of liquid events where a object fell into the liquid we see the shape of craters formed. And the rebound structure notable in the center of craters is understandable because of the springiness due to the tension response of a semi-solid material rebounding back upwards after a downward strike. These shapes explain the forms of the moon's craters, but, the problem is, that the moon must be hot, and plastic, and it must be cooling so very rapidly as to no allow the time necessary to return fully to surface level. But, the visual evidence presents that as the situation for many of the crater forms on the moon and other moons and planets. That a very hot planet was snap frozen soon after bombardment. But, if we suppose the moon was that hot, then we can't suppose water on the moon since water would have boiled away into space long before sufficient cooling allowed it fall back as ice. It is logical to suppose that any water found on the moon came from the earth which has so much. And this also points to how if one invented a story where water arrives from the great beyond in buckets of some kind (meteors) then the moon should exhibit a tremendous amount of water as well, which it doesn't. So, if we reject the notion that water came to the moon from the earth, then we are forced to suppose the moon arrived, long after the water of the earths seas arrived. Again, whenever men resort to, answers like, "water came here from somewhere else" "rocks came here from somewhere else" "elements came here from somewhere else" "life came here from somewhere else" ...long ago...then the scientific thinker is forced to admit that such men have no clue where anything came from, nor how, and are simply shoving such problems of origin off into the unknown. That is, they are free to believe themselves right, but, they are lying if they pretense such answers are scientific. Me, I think when God said "Let there be light" that all matter in our cosmos was lit. That means energy liberation. And that means heat and warmth, and an opprotunity to clump matter into large sources of heat, and to shape planets shperically, with each planet having given a unique material composition. Which although the modern fake science folk will scoff about as though they have proof that God didn't do as he said in Genesis. But, what I like to point out, is that the uniqueness of each planet is strange, and proves that none of them came from the same place. The diversity of the planets is by design of God who knows what wise men must end up reasoning about them. That, diversity arises from a creative creator with power. Diversity cannot arise naturally because there is no law of diversity. And there is no law of seperation of diverse things accomplished in cold dead darkness. If I find a seam of gold the question is how does gold get pooled into one place? If a gold meteor delivered the gold and it hit a hard surface the gold would vaporize and disperse finely everywhere. If the gold struck a soft surface it would strike deep to where it is hot and could melt and dissipate away in strands to become seams. But, if the molten rock it entered is that hot then when cooling occurred later the gold should have fell to the center of the earth with the uranium and other heavy elements. The point is this, no one can tell an straightforward scientic story of how life, nor inorganic structures formed themselves without a creative creator with design in mind. It's not an intelligent way to spend the few days of one's life on earth trying to imagine how no body did nothing and yet all things turned out so nicely as to allow me a wasted life time. The water on the moon probably got there during the catastrophy of the Deluge told of in the book of Genesis. One thing to keep in mind when confronting a biased,consensus science, systematic, political machine, is that when the mythmakers want to go to Mars to try and prove they can escape the earth where God put man for a short time, they will lie about there being water out in space, on the moon, on Mars or somewhere on the way, because they haven't completely lost their minds, and know that the math says, mankind is not going anywhere without water and its to heavy to ship from the surface of the earth, so lets tell the common folk that its already out there waiting on us. It's a sad, sad situation modern man is in, globally as men face the end of the world predicted by God in his holy Book the Bible.
  • gilbo12345, Salsa and JayShel like this

#23 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:29 PM

5. Nice try.. Pointing where you err doesn't make me confused. You're exact words were

"Gravity is cumulative"

There was no mention of additions of mass, just that gravity is cumulative..... Is gravity culmative when there is no additions of mass? If I only had your claim to go by then the answer would be yes...... Either you were confused, or perhaps you need to define what you claim a bit clearer rather than go for a 3 word one liner.

I said I didn't think it would be productive to continue and your suggestion that a proper experiment would be to travel to other solar systems or watch millenia long processes isn't changing that thought. I just wanted to point out the above debate tactic as very creative. I've never seen anyone chop the first 3 words from someone elses sentence and then complain that only 3 words were used. Full marks for novelty, although the effectiveness of this tactic is limited by the ability to go back and read the full sentence I wrote.
For reference, you were stating that a individual particle had a miniscule gravitational pull which wasn't strong enough to pull other particles to it and my exact words were : "Gravity is cumulative, if there's a mass of dust M that covers a region of a certain volume, anything outside that volume will experience a gravitational pull proportional to the total mass M. It doesn't matter what size the individual particles in that region are."

I took the liberty of enlarging the comma to emphasize that I provided a full sentence longer than 3 words. You'll also note that in the same sentence I pointed out that gravity is proportional to total mass, which is the same thing as saying gravity increases or decreases as mass increases or decreases. Your complaint that I didn't reference changes in mass is therefore incorrect.

I suspect you are mixing the word cumulative (i.e. sum of constituent parts) with the word accumulating (i.e. increasing). The answer to your question is yes, gravity is always cumulative, even if there's no change in mass. This is because the gravity of a particular mass M is always the result of the sum of forces (i.e. total force or cumulative force) for each element in that mass. Or to relate it back to the dictionary definition.

formed by or resulting from accumulation or the addition of successive parts or element

The gravitational pull of a mass M is the result of adding up the gravitational pull of each element of that mass.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:29 PM

I said I didn't think it would be productive to continue and your suggestion that a proper experiment would be to travel to other solar systems or watch millenia long processes isn't changing that thought. I just wanted to point out the above debate tactic as very creative. I've never seen anyone chop the first 3 words from someone elses sentence and then complain that only 3 words were used. Full marks for novelty, although the effectiveness of this tactic is limited by the ability to go back and read the full sentence I wrote.
For reference, you were stating that a individual particle had a miniscule gravitational pull which wasn't strong enough to pull other particles to it and my exact words were : "Gravity is cumulative, if there's a mass of dust M that covers a region of a certain volume, anything outside that volume will experience a gravitational pull proportional to the total mass M. It doesn't matter what size the individual particles in that region are."

I took the liberty of enlarging the comma to emphasize that I provided a full sentence longer than 3 words. You'll also note that in the same sentence I pointed out that gravity is proportional to total mass, which is the same thing as saying gravity increases or decreases as mass increases or decreases. Your complaint that I didn't reference changes in mass is therefore incorrect.

I suspect you are mixing the word cumulative (i.e. sum of constituent parts) with the word accumulating (i.e. increasing). The answer to your question is yes, gravity is always cumulative, even if there's no change in mass. This is because the gravity of a particular mass M is always the result of the sum of forces (i.e. total force or cumulative force) for each element in that mass. Or to relate it back to the dictionary definition.

formed by or resulting from accumulation or the addition of successive parts or element

The gravitational pull of a mass M is the result of adding up the gravitational pull of each element of that mass.



As you said that only applies to things that are not within the cloud, therefore it doesn't explain what I was saying about the gravity between particles of dust themselves

#25 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:34 AM

Any object above a certain size (the exact limit varies depending on composition) will be a sphere due to it's own gravity.

The principle is called hydrostatic equilibrium or you may find it helpful to google "why are planets round".
http://en.wikipedia....tic_equilibrium

According to the definition of planet adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 2006, planets and dwarf planets are objects that have sufficient gravity to overcome their own rigidity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium
....
The smallest object known to be in hydrostatic equilibrium is the icy moon Mimas at 397 km, while the largest object known not to be is the rocky asteroid Pallas at 532 km.

For comparison, the moon has a diameter of about 3400 km.

So isn't this 'fact' self contradictory? If the largest non spherical asteroid is substantially larger than the smallest moon, then there is no physical confirmation of hydrostatic equilibrium being the cause of planets. It is at best untestable.

I understand the principle of a radiating gravitational field maintaining a sphere, but maintenance and origination are two different things! There is an established principle in life that the maintaining principles of present devices/objects are not the same principles that caused them. Look at a simple sedimentary rock. The maintaining principles of crystallization, and aggregation, which bond the rock now--are they the same dynamic principles which caused the rock? Do not confuse the answer, because the static (on a macro scale) principles of crystallized minerals, and aggregated materials, are not the same dynamic processes that caused the rock. The same could be said of a toaster, a cave, a car, or a person.

Take the sphere of Earth. The question is to what 'center' of gravity did the original asteroids gravitate? Because if you observe the aseroid belt, you find some asteroids orbiting each other, http://solarsystem.n...ay=OverviewLong but falling into each other, or 'sticking' to each other you do not find. The whole concept is without any observable substantiation, and therefore highly implausible.
  • gilbo12345, Stripe and joman like this

#26 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 June 2012 - 11:51 PM

I don't know if this is a good question to ask or not - I know little about moon and planet formation theories, but...

If the moon was molten at one time, the magma would have undergone a daily tide cycle due to the gravitational pull of the earth. The tidal shifts would have been massive, especially presuming that the moon was closer to the earth at that time. As the moon hardened, wouldn't the surface have been textured by the rising and falling tidal magma as it slowly cooled? You would get a wave like swirled pattern similar to what you would get if you let a bucket of plaster harden while you were tipping the bucket back and forth. Wouldn't that pattern still be very visible since the moon hasn't really changed much since it's formation/creation?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#27 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:28 AM

The gravitational force of a hydrogen atom is exceedingly small.

Right. But the force necessary to accelerate a hydrogen atom is exceedingly small too; in fact the two things are exactly as small as each other and cancel each other out perfectly, so that all objects regardless of their mass accelerate by the same amount under a gravitational field. It's what Galileo demonstrated dropping balls from the tower of Pisa and all (except that's apparently apocryphal, but the principle is there).
In other words, under the same gravitational field and no friction, both a car and a hydrogen atom will have the same acceleration. (under Newtonian gravity at least, but Einsteinian gravity doesn't change things much I don't think)

As you said that only applies to things that are not within the cloud, therefore it doesn't explain what I was saying about the gravity between particles of dust themselves

Actually that applies to things on the very edge of the cloud too, so the particles of dust there would be under the same gravitational pull as those further away.
And the same principle also applies to particles inside the cloud, except you need to add up the gravitational force they feel from the particles closer to the center than they are (i.e. a force proportional to R=the distance from them to the center of the sphere, because it's proportional to the added mass of all the particles closer to the sphere than they are (m4/3PiR^3), and the square of the distance from them to the center of the sphere (Gmm'/R^2), which when multiplied out gives a number proportional to R), and the particles further from the center than they are, which IIRC is equal to exactly zero, because the gravity inside a symmetrical hollow shell is null everwhere inside the shell (in layman's terms, the gravity from the many faraway points on the shell is exactly compensated for by the gravity of the few close points on said shell, for every point inside the shell). And Newtonian gravity is additive (i.e. the gravity from M1+M2 is equal to the gravity from M1 + the gravity from M2).

Which means every dust particle inside that cloud feels an attraction towards the center of the cloud, except for the particles that are already at the center.

So isn't this 'fact' self contradictory? If the largest non spherical asteroid is substantially larger than the smallest moon, then there is no physical confirmation of hydrostatic equilibrium being the cause of planets. It is at best untestable.

Except that the moon in question is made of ice while the asteroid is made of rock. When we're talking about the balance between the gravitational force and a body's rigidity, what said body is made of is pretty relevant.

I understand the principle of a radiating gravitational field maintaining a sphere, but maintenance and origination are two different things!

Sure, but do you have any evidence here that the forces in question couldn't originate the form as well as maintaining it ? After all to maintain a sphere they have to bring things back to sphere-form when they deviate, which means bringing things to sphere-form when they're not quite spherical... so in your view, how does the force know whether the non-sphericality is original (i.e. it would be causing sphericality by bringing it to sphere-form) or not (i.e. it would be maintaining sphericality).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users