Electric Moon

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: New craters on the Moon?

Unread postby mharratsc » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:31 pm

Perhaps I should've said 'confirmed'?

It has been established that current dating techniques using radioactive decay of isotopes can no longer be considered accurate due to their now-confirmed variance in the solar environment,so thus I had mentioned that there isn't really a way to confirm the age of the Moon.

However- to really answer the question of the suspected age of the Moon (according to EU theory), I have heard discussions as to the age of the current arrangement of the inner solar system, but I haven't heard anyone mention any reference as to when the moon might've showed up.
I am not the EU 'Oracle of Delphi' however, so maybe I should've kept my mouth shut and let someone who actually knows that answer... answer!

Sorry about that, Nereid. :oops:
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: New craters on the Moon?

Unread postby JohnMT » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:49 am

Hi all,

I don't know whether the subject of the Moon's origin has been discussed on this site before, but there is an interesting theory, based on the electrical nature of the Solar System and backed-up by mythology etc, called:

'Solaria Binaria' by Alfred De Grazia and Earl Milton

Chapter 13 deals with the Ejection of the Moon

ie 'Nova of Super Uranus and Ejection of the Moon'

ref : http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... ria_13.htm

also, in line with the theory, but in more detail,

'Chaos and Creation' by Alfred De Grazia

Chapter Seven - 'Earth Parturition and Moon Birth' - a very good read in my opinion, especially the 34 points mentioned on page 172.

ref: http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... s/cc_4.pdf

I first studied the theory of Solaria Binaria some ten years ago and found the overall content quite feasible.
Good to know the Quantavolution series are now 'on-line'.
(My source is on a CD)

I should add as far as I am aware, that the theory of Solaria Binaria is not representative of the current EU theory, but is nevertheless based upon similar lines of thought.

Comments welcome,

John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: New craters on the Moon?

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:21 pm

John,

There have been quite a number of Moon threads here in the past, especially if the the lost threads from Thunderbolts 01 are counted.
You probably have already seen the next most recent:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3802

It's been quite a while since reading any DeGrazia (his work wasn't always so accessible online),
but there are more than a few resonant points in that list of 34.

s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: New craters on the Moon?

Unread postby JohnMT » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:40 am

Hi seasmith and all,

Yes, I did follow that thread but had nothing much to contribute at the time.

You see, I was out of the circuit for some time (about a year), so no doubt I missed some important threads on the subject of the Moon's origin etc.
This site was a little bewildering on my return, as the format had changed, my posts were no longer extant and I had to rejoin.

I am aware that officially speaking at least, which is to say, along the lines of the accepted EU-way-of-thinking, Wal and others regard the Moon as being captured (and Velikovsky thought the same too)

As you know, the Arcadians spoke of a "time before the moon", themselves being called 'proselenian', 'before the moon' - ref 'Giordano Bruno's View On The Earth Without A Moon' by A.M. Paterson'
Also, the worship of the Moon predates planetary Gods and for a while was the supreme deity ref - 'Earth Without A Moon' by Velikovsky (1973).

I think DeGrazia et al have done a good and thorough job in their Quantavolution series and the fairly recent work 'Iron Age of Mars' is a good read too.

If the Moon was captured however, in line with current EU thinking, then I would like to see a paper on the subject, if such a paper does exist.

John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Luna like Earth

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:26 pm

New seismic studies in the Classic View


Image
Lunar innards revealed. Sorting through 40-year-old records of moonquakes (red dots) has apparently revealed a liquid-iron core (yellow) and a solid-iron inner core (orange)

Apollo astronauts may be garnering another prize from their exploits of more than 3 decades ago. They left seismometers across the face of the moon to probe its interior, but no one had been able to paint a clear picture from the data the sensors collected. Now, two independent groups have reanalyzed the Apollo data using modern but very different techniques, and both teams say they have detected lunar seismologists' prime target: a core of iron that is still molten...

In back-to-back talks at last month's meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, California, the groups reported that, like Earth, the moon has a molten core. Garcia and colleagues found a liquid core with a radius of 365 kilometers. Weber and her colleagues reported a core radius of 330 kilometers, which they also report online today in Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early ... ce.1199375

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... .html?etoc
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

See the Moon up Close

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:19 am

See http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/wac_nearside.
Looks like it only views the near side of the Moon. Does anyone know of where to view the far side?

I see Google has a site: http://www.google.com/moon. But it also seems to be only of the near side.

This shows the far side: http://www.jgiesen.de/levania/voyages/index.html. But it doesn't magnify much.

This site shows lunar relief: http://www.omega-level.net/2010/12/20/far-side-of-the-moon-pictures-are-psychedelic-space-porn.
This one's better I guess: http://www.techmagdaily.com/formation-of-bulge-on-far-side-of-moon-explained.html.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: See the Moon up Close

Unread postby Shelgeyr » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:49 pm

Thanks Lloyd! Especially for that first link. Their half-gigabyte lunar composit picture is... well, BIG!

So naturally I downloaded it.

Thanks again!
Shelgeyr
Sometimes I feel like a tiger’s got my leg...
User avatar
Shelgeyr
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Our Electric Moon

Unread postby nick c » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:29 am

This title "Our Electric Moon", will be a compilation of the following threads:


NASA-LCROSS

Charged Moon Soil Verified

The Colours of the Moon

Indian moon shot economics

Lunar glass beads evidence of lunar water?

Lunar Meteorite Micrographs

Tunnels on the Moon

Holes in a lunar lava tube

See the Moon up Close

Luna like Earth

New craters on the Moon?

Magnetic Anomalies Shield The Moon

Is our Moon getting SMALLER?
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

"Moon's interior water casts doubt on formation theory"

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Thu May 26, 2011 11:46 am

An analysis of sediments brought back by the Apollo 17 mission has shown that the Moon's interior holds far more water than previously thought.

The analysis, reported in Science, has looked at pockets of volcanic material locked within tiny glass beads.

It found 100 times more water in the beads than has been measured before, and suggests that the Moon once held a Caribbean Sea-sized volume of water.

The find also casts doubt on aspects of theories of how the Moon first formed.

A series of studies in recent years has only served to increase the amount of water thought to be on the Moon.

The predominant theory holds that much of the water seen on the lunar surface arrived via impacts by icy comets or watery meteorites.

But this recent find is shedding light on how much water is contained in the Moon's interior, which in turn gives hints as to how - and from what - it formed.

In 2008, a team of researchers from the Carnegie Institution and Brown and Case Western Reserve universities analysed the water content found in samples of lunar magma returned by Apollo missions.

They wrote in a Nature paper that the samples contained about 10 times more water than they expected.

However, the magma they studied had formed in "fire fountain" volcanic events, much like those seen in locations on Earth such as Hawaii, which would have boiled off much of the water that they contained.

Now the same team has found a number of geological "time capsules" among the beads.

"What we've done now is find samples of magma that are present as 'inclusions' that are trapped inside solid crystals called olivine," explained Erik Hauri, a geochemist from the Carnegie Institution and lead author of the new research.

"Because this magma is trapped inside a crystal, during an eruption it can't lose its water, so these melt inclusions preserve the original water content of the magma," he told BBC News.

The team found that those lockets of lunar magma contained some 100 times as much water as the previous samples - meaning that the lunar interior once held as much water as the layer of the Earth lying just below the crust.

'Not consistent'

As with the 2008 study, the find adds even more confusion to theories of how the Moon formed.
Continue reading the main story

Erik Hauri Carnegie Institution

It is widely thought that a Mars-sized object slammed into the Earth just as it was forming, throwing out a disc of fragmented, molten material that eventually coalesced into the Moon.

But in that scenario, the extreme temperatures generated by the impact would have simply boiled off the water, and the moon should have started out relatively dry.

While there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory, both in terms of computer models of planetary formation and of the comparable amounts of various elements found both here and on the Moon, Dr Hauri said something just doesn't add up.

"These things are not consistent with the amount of water that we find," he said.

"I think in its very basic form, the [impact theory] idea is probably still correct, but there's something fundamental about the physics of the process that we don't understand."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545848


This makes me wonder.....is the moon older than the Earth?
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: "Moon's interior water casts doubt on formation theory"

Unread postby Eaol » Fri May 27, 2011 10:59 am

Lunar Water

^TPotD.

I think Smith's conclusion is that Luna is a captured body, captured rather recently, and not born from Saturn (though he may not have said that one).
User avatar
Eaol
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:23 pm

The Big Splat?

Unread postby +EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:46 pm

Ooops there goes another cliche! "I'll believe that when there's 2 moons in the sky"

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110803/ ... 1.456.html

So now Joe & Martha Q Public is being told the look of Luna was due to a low-speed collision between 2 moons...and it took something like 2 hours for it to happen.
Really?

Nature...
Knowing in advance their attitude towards EUT, that does kinda explain why there wasn't any thought that it could be the same actions as what is suggested here for the look of Mars.

I've already been called crazy more times than I can count,
but when it came to the look of our Moon, I figured there must have been some kinda heavy plasma petting session going on between Luna and the Feathered Goddess as it passed by...
(LOL! It's nice to know if I were to mention something of the elements of IV's "World's In Collision" here, I'm not gonna get strung up before I hit post...)

I think electrical action makes a LOT better explanation - especially when you include a possible electrical initiated Cold Fusion like reaction might account for the KREEP redistribution.
+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm

Re: The Big Splat?

Unread postby +EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:53 am

128 - 0.... really?

Hmmmmmm
*checks breath* - yeah mouthwash still in action...
(sniff sniff) & pitstop still working too....)




Oh well, at least the crickets were talented...
+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm

Re: The Big Splat?

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:23 am

This post seemed more opinion than question, but you brought up Velikovsky which got me thinking about how it's ok for them to postulate 'Moons in Collision' but it was never ok for Velikovsky to put forth 'Worlds in Collision'... :P

Everything is electric, including our moon. ;)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: The Big Splat?

Unread postby jjohnson » Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:25 am

If you watched the NASA animation, you see the conjectural two moons revolving around the Earth, sweeping up dust and small bodies and clearing a lane for them to revolve in. You may notice that this is a lot like a race track, where the leader is slowly but inexorably being overtaken by the slightly faster moon in second place.

This is simply a fantasy on the part of the animators. Orbital mechanics do not work that way. Two different orbits are required for a collision to occur. At a given radius, the orbital velocity is precisely the same for a feather or an iron ball in that orbit. For a collision to take place, the eccentricity of the two orbits must be different, or they must be in different planes, or the bodies must be going round the track in opposite directions, the least likely scenario possible if you think about it. What could have been at least possible in a coplanar pair of orbits is if the inner moonlet were less than its radius closer to the Earth than the second one. Being on the inner track, it would have a higher orbital velocity than the outer one, and being coplanar, it could eventually catch up and hit a glancing blow at a small value of delta-v. In that case, the mechanics of a collision would work, especially if a close but non-collisional gravitational interaction didn't first cause some chaotic interaction and eject the smaller body from its orbital trajectory.

Well, it's always fun to see what the NASA animators will think up next for the tiny screen! ;)

One wonders how they calculated the value for delta-v between the two bodies "in the same orbit" and how they figured it took two hours for the collision from start to stop. One also wonders why the two moons' surfaces didn't simply fracture, possibly melt some, and stick them together like a 2-body snowman revolving slowly . How many joules were released in a slow collision and at what rate? A slow collision and resultant rate of energy release during deformation processes might not necessarily result in a cosmic fireworks show.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: The Big Splat?

Unread postby +EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:03 am

FINALLY!
Sorry Mike, I realize the post seem a little more commentary than question...
LOL! but since when has that ever stopped interesting conversations here??? ;)

I was hoping others would have noticed some of the oddities in that theory.

I wish I could find a working link to that animation, because I can't find any to it anymore. All I keep getting are "the resources are unavailable".

Honestly, I don't get the entire idea. If the collision happened by moons in nearly identical orbits:

1) How did the smaller, lighter moon gain the extra velocity to overtake it's sibling?
One page of the dozens of pages that I read that was parrotting the article explained it as "Their gravitational interactions allowed the moons to drift further away from earth and get out of sync with each other."
HUH?? It took me a few mins wiping tears of humour to recover sufficiently to go on to the next link.

2) How is the impact's sub-surface shockwave supposed to account for the KREEP & OOS redistribution?
That's like saying during a rearend collision, everything gets tossed towards the front...except all the dimes, nickels & pennies which take a sharp left towards the driver's door.


and what's with saying it would have been so BORING no one would've watched????
LOL! Humans here will rubberneck for hour at a car wreck, let alone anything on that scale.
+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests