Moon May Be Geologically Active 72
dptalia writes, "For decades scientist have thought that the moon has been 'dead' for about 1 to 3 billion years. However, new research points to the idea that the moon may have been volcanically active as recently as 1 million years ago. In fact, NASA geophysicist Paul Lowman believes the moon's core is still molten."
Let's hope... (Score:5, Funny)
First I've heard... (Score:1)
active molton core? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know I'm missing something but I'm not sure what...
Re: (Score:2)
how about the sun heating things up - quite a bit?
Re: (Score:1)
What do we learn from this? (Score:2)
Molten Core = Magnetic Field (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Magnet ic_field_of_celestial_bodies [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
Good (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent! (Score:2, Funny)
Excellent! I'll still take these nacho chips but I won't need the microwave to make dip. I tell you, space flight gets simpler each year.
What is the best area to dig? Is there a spot where the core is not too deep? Perhaps we can just make a small hole with a shovel and eat out of that, sort of like ice-fishing in the Sea of Tranquility. Only we're not fishing, just eating chips with bubbling hot, delicious all-natural cheese.
Its obviously... (Score:1, Funny)
Re: active molton core (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'ambient temperature of space', because temperature is a property of matter, and space is kinda empty, so there's nothing to compare it to, unless you want to call it absolute zero, in which case the moon will be quite a bit hotter than that no matter what.
The next nearest approach I would think would be to figure roughly what temp. an otherwise 'dead' object of the moon's size would reach just through the ambient radiation in space, plus collisions (probably insignificant, but maybe not), etc. This has to be tougher than it seems at first glance, though, or I would expect they would have already figured it out.
Geologically active = not news (Score:2, Informative)
The ten-year-old astronomy book I read to my five-year old son last week noted that the moon has several weak "moonquakes" every year. What's the news; the volcanic part?
False alarm... (Score:5, Funny)
Cue Flamebait Tag....NOW (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
What a weird question, but here goes (Score:2, Insightful)
No. This has nothing to do with creationism. Not much of the real world has anything to do with creationism. And conversely, creationism doesn't have anything to do with the real world. Why? Because creationism doesn't tell us what the world should be like, and just not knowing how the world came to be what it is doesn't mean there's no natural way for it to happen. Probabilities? Now that's pure guesswork, not science.
Yet again, this doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Moon either =). The qu
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that if a moon is molten (which I know, hasn't been proven, it's just "more supported" with this finding) at the core, then it likely is not as old as previously thought, as it would have, as you said, likely radiated it's heat much quicker, than say, the earth, as it was a smaller body. So, for it to have a molten core, would tend to lend itself to a younger creation (by whom/whatever, I'm n
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that if a moon is molten (which I know, hasn't been proven, it's just "more supported" with this finding) at the core, then it likely is not as old as previously thought, as it would have, as you said, likely radiated it's heat much quicker, than say, the earth, as it was a smaller body. So, for it to have a molten core, would tend to lend itself to a younger creation (by whom/whatever, I'm not saying, please note that...) And would therefore lend itself t
Re: (Score:2)
still fact.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Moon vs. Oceans (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Geologically active = not news (Score:4, Informative)
Obligatory Star Wars reference: That's no moon! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Moon vs. Oceans (Score:1)
"We know more about our moon then the depths of our oceans"
Hrm (Score:1)
These would be referred to as "moonfarts".
Reply to DorkusMasterus (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking?
Well, if you were to disregard all other evidence that points to an old universe, and were just to take this one new bit of information (assuming its true) on its own without supporting context and information, then you could take it as evidence of creationism. However, due to the fact that we have a lot of evidence and information that supports an old universe, this tidbit, if true, is instead merely evidence that the moon has different properties than we initially thought, and that further investigation is required to understand the how's and why's of lunar geology and/or the origins of the moon. Regardless, if the moon is found to be younger than we initially thought, it does not necessarily follow that the whole universe is younger to match.
Re: Excellent! (Score:2, Redundant)
Excellent!
(Score:2)
by The-Bus (138060) Only we're not fishing, just eating chips with bubbling hot, delicious all-natural cheese.
----------------
Wensleydale?
Moo (Score:1)
What are the chances of the moon itself getting its own moon. Right now the moon orbits around the earth that orbits around the sun. How many levels can we go?
Everyone stop saying "Molten Core" (Score:2)
A reply to the creationist question (Score:3, Informative)
As I know it and as used in the "Inherit the Wind" play/Scopes trial: Going strictly by the bible and using terms in it as not exactly the terms we use today, there is no way to define the age of the universe. Since so much is open to interpretation that makes just about anything possible. There are certain figures who think that they can use the bible as a timeline to figure out the creation of the universe to a day. I don't know if any institutes support these claims or not.
Either way the age of the moon even by the larger creationist theory means little and certainly means nothing about the age of the universe in the accepted scientific "big bang" theory of things. In either theory the universe could be seen as billions of years old without invalidating either one. By all scientific measures our sun is at least a second or third (or more) generation star because of the existence of heavier elements in the local neighborhood. With that in mind the age of the moon means nothing as well.
This isn't even to mention that the earth is still geologically active and yet it's generally accepted to be older than the moon. And who's to say that a large impact wouldn't make the moon geologically active? I'm not qualified to make these assumption more than just mere musings so take it with a grain of salt or moon dust.
it's not the size of the field... (Score:5, Insightful)
by casualsax3 (875131) Alter Relationship on Thursday November 09, @12:30PM (#16787241): The moon's sidereal period is over 27 days, a strong magnetic field would not be expected. The major indicator that a molten core is not present is the lack of a dipolar field -- which a geodynamo (from the molten core) would cause.
Re: (Score:1)
Etymologically speaking... (Score:1)
Re: Looking at the moon's temperature (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, only on
Re: it's not the size of the field... (Score:2)
The major indicator that a molten core is not present is the lack of a dipolar field -- which a geodynamo (from the molten core) would cause.
I'm not sure you can equate "molten core" with "geodynamo." I mean, even assuming the moon had a molten core acting as a geodynamo and creating a field, and that that core cooled sufficiently, so that the spin was interrupted, wouldn't you end up with a smaller molten core that was not spinning in such a way as to generate a field and was just undergoing random flui
Magnetic Field (Score:2)
Neednt be.
Mars has a weak magnetic field. But its core is considered to be molten iron.
Not new... (Score:1)
non-spinning w/ molten core not likely (Score:2)
The moon revolves with a period of 27+ days (the sidereal period). Furthermore, any body in space with a molten core that moves with a regularly changing momentum (e.g., orbits anything) will revolve. This is due to the inertia of the molten core. So, a
Re: creationism (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Even absolute proof that the moon was about 6000 years old would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang theory. No one thinks that the solar system is anywhere near as old at the universe itself, and the age of the objects in the solar system is miniscule compared to the time since the Big Bang.
In any case, if your conjecture about "geologically active" = "created recently" was remotely plausible, why would you need to look at the moon at all? The Earth has plenty of active volcanos that you can go and look at, which by your logic would "prove" that the Earth isn't "old".
Re: (Score:2)
More bad WoW jokes... (Score:2)
Coming to the conclusion that their equipment did not have sufficient Fire Resistance to face 'He who was ancient since the world was young', our band of astronauts ran like hell back to earth.
NASA has been farming FR gear ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all Greek to me, though...
Re: non-spinning w/ molten core not likely (Score:2)
The moon revolves with a period of 27+ days (the sidereal period). Furthermore, any body in space with a molten core that moves with a regularly changing momentum (e.g., orbits anything) will revolve. This is due to the inertia of the molten core. So, a celestial body with a molten core that does not spin is theoretically possible, but it would require that the body is not in orbit, or that the orbit's diameter is so huge that the angular momentum is insignificant.
So you're arguing if the core is hot eno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It cools down during lunar night, but it always remains warmer than surrounding space.
So, no. Simply pointing a infra-red camera at it won't do the trick.
Doesn't magnetic field imply a conductive core? (Score:2)
So, the abscence of a magnetic field may only indicate the moon has a rocky (but possibly liquid) core.
Molten Core != Magnetic Field (Score:2, Informative)
As a Planetology student... (Score:2)
Re:"Geo"logically? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology [wikipedia.org] -> "the study of the Earth's structure"
Couldn't pass it up.
The first sentence from your source...
Geology (from Greek - (ge-, "the earth") and (logos, "word", "reason"))[1] is the science and study of the solid matter of a celestial body , its composition, structure, physical properties, history and the processes that shape it.
Molten should mean (Score:2)
I was trying to reply to someone above about this but 'reply' seems to be broken
Geologically active indeed (Score:2)
Moon doesn't revolve around earth (Score:1)
Molten Core Not Always Produces A Magnetic Field (Score:1)
Re:Molten Core = Magnetic Field (Score:1)
What happened to tree structure here? (Score:1)