Real Science Friday: Neil Armstrong Gone, Moon Hoax Going

[TeeJay]

=Jefferson;3199682]RSF: Neil Armstrong Gone, Moon Hoax Going

This is the show from Friday, August 31st, 2012.

Summary:



* Dr. Carl Werner Pressures Museums to Show the Birds: Real Science Friday co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss:
- the passing of Neil Armstrong
- the communion that Buzz Aldrin partook of on the moon
- the truth that NASA feared too much dust on the moon
- the need for creationists to begin using again the moon-dust argument
- the definitive rebuttals to the various moon landing hoax allegations, and
- the right cross (punch in the face, in Christian love of course) that Aldrin delivered right on target to a conspiracy theory filmmaker.

* On the Moon Dust: For more about NASA's serious concern that a four billion year-old moon might have had a hundred feet or more of accumulated dust on it's surface, check out RealScienceFriday.com//NASA-feared-deep-moon-dust. For the argument that the missing dust should be used by biblical creationists, see Dr. Walt Brown's brief summary and then his careful analysis of how much dust should be on an old moon (a lot). Real Science Friday believes that because the other young-earth creation ministries continue to say that the moon-dust argument should be avoided, that they then owe it to the public to show where Dr. Brown's assembled evidence or mathematical calculations are in error. Better yet though, other creation ministries should themselves adopt this powerful argument for a young moon.

For today's show RSF recommends
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!





Today’s Resources: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy and Vol. II, Our Created Stars and Galaxies! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine!

Hello,

Some simple observations and questions:

I remember clearly (back when we "lifted off") that there was concern that we would sink in dust never to be seen or heard from again. Thus, the huge feet on the landing module.

Was this a concern of creationists who believed the Bible--that the earth was about 6 to 10,000 years old? Or was it a concern of atheist/evolutionist and confused Christians (old earthers)?

TeeJay

 

[Stripe]

Two of the articles state that the estimates were found to be wrong. In 1984 actual data was used to prove that [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]H. Patterson's [/FONT]were wrong. In fact, H Patterson stated is his article that his estimates were highly speculative. I would say that the links do in fact address the math involved by showing the assumptions upon which the math was based were wrong. Care to try again? [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

OP never mentioned Patterson. Care to try again?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

OP never mentioned Patterson. Care to try again?

Oh, hey! I want to join in the "care to try again" thread.


Care to try again?

 

[Paulos]

Hello,

Some simple observations and questions:

I remember clearly (back when we "lifted off") that there was concern that we would sink in dust never to be seen or heard from again. Thus, the huge feet on the landing module.

Was this a concern of creationists who believed the Bible--that the earth was about 6 to 10,000 years old? Or was it a concern of atheist/evolutionist and confused Christians (old earthers)?

TeeJay

Hi TeeJay,

Here is a link for you: http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/moon_dust.HTM

This is the bottom line:

The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers). The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.​

 

[Stripe]

Oh, hey! I want to join in the "care to try again" thread. Care to try again?

No artificial highlighting! Didn't you read the rules? :sozo2:

Care to try again?

 

[Paulos]

I remember clearly (back when we "lifted off") that there was concern that we would sink in dust never to be seen or heard from again. Thus, the huge feet on the landing module.

Was this a concern of creationists who believed the Bible--that the earth was about 6 to 10,000 years old? Or was it a concern of atheist/evolutionist and confused Christians (old earthers)?

Here's more. This is from the Institute of Creation Research:

The Apollo investigations revealed a regolith at least several meters thick beneath the loose dust on the lunar surface. This regolith consists of lunar rock debris produced by impacting meteorites mixed with dust, some of which is of meteoritic origin. Apart from impacting meteorites and micrometeorites it is likely that there are no other lunar surface processes capable of both producing more dust and transporting it. It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.​

 

[Paulos]

Along with moon dust, the large amount of lunar craters is also strong evidence for an old moon:

There are an estimated 30,000 lunar craters visible to the unaided eye from earth. Some of these are very large, such as the crater Aitken, which is roughly 2,500 kilometres (1,600 mi) in diameter and 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) deep. Approximately 300,000 craters are visible with ground based telescopes, and there are millions more that are too small to be observed from earth.

Advocates of a young moon would be hard-pressed to explain how such a massive number of craters, both large and small, could have appeared in just a few thousand years.

Reference: Astronomy in Questions and Answers

 

[CabinetMaker]

OP never mentioned Patterson. Care to try again?

You were not addressing the OP, you were specifically addressing the links posted by Paulos. Here is your post regarding those links.

Nothing in your links even remotely addresses the math given.

Care to try again?

Now, would you like to try again to explain how those links don't address the math that was used to calculate the depth of moon dust?

 

[Stripe]

You were not addressing the OP, you were specifically addressing the links posted by Paulos. Here is your post regarding those links.Now, would you like to try again to explain how those links don't address the math that was used to calculate the depth of moon dust?

The "math given" was in the OP. Care to try again?

 

[CabinetMaker]

The "math given" was in the OP. Care to try again?

Why don't his equations account for the mass that would have been ejected at escape velocity from the moon and not fallen back to the surface? Why don't his calculations take into account the rate at which metros strike the moon? Actually, the author does admit to two faulty assumptions but then does not attempt to correct his calculations accordingly. He merely asserts that removing them increases the thickness.

The article linked t in the OP does not present a rigorous analysis of the question.

 

[Stripe]

Why don't his equations account for the mass that would have been ejected at escape velocity from the moon and not fallen back to the surface?

I've no idea what you're talking about any more. :idunno:

There's a link in the OP describing how much moondust there should be. Billions of years don't fit.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I've no idea what you're talking about any more. :idunno:

There's a link in the OP describing how much moondust there should be. Billions of years don't fit.

I suggest you go back and actually read the article. It does not address mass that would have been ejected from the surface of the moon for a large meteor strike. It is known that large impacts can eject material with velocities greater than escape velocity. Given the mass of the moon, the escape velocity is much lower so more mass can attain escape velocity. His calculations for the dust contributed from a large meteor would all settle back to the surface of the moon. This is contrary to what is actually known.

 

[Stripe]

I suggest you go back and actually read the article. It does not address mass that would have been ejected from the surface of the moon for a large meteor strike. It is known that large impacts can eject material with velocities greater than escape velocity. Given the mass of the moon, the escape velocity is much lower so more mass can attain escape velocity. His calculations for the dust contributed from a large meteor would all settle back to the surface of the moon. This is contrary to what is actually known.

What is this known percentage and how does it change Dr. Brown's calculation?

 

[Paulos]

According to Dave Matson of TalkOrigins.org:

In 1989, Walter Brown came out with the 5th edition of his booklet In the Beginning. He was no longer quoting Pettersson as was the case in older editions. Nevertheless, he calculated that in 4.6 billion years 2,000 feet of dust should have accumulated on the moon.

Brown says his figure is based on data from two sources, Stuart R. Taylor's Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975, p.92) and David W. Hughes's "The Changing Micrometeoroid Flux" (Nature 251(379-380), 4 October 1974). Hughes gives no basis for any calculation (Schadewald, 1990, p.16).​

As for Taylor's paper, Schadewald identifies the appropriate distribution equation, makes use of the calculus and shows that even if we extend the range of particles way beyond what was actually detected we would get a layer of dust only 1 inch deep! Schadewald was left wondering where Brown got his 2000 feet of dust! Perhaps, he mused, Brown had moon dust in his eyes when he made that calculation.

I shouldn't tease Dr. Brown since I blew the initial calculations before correcting myself! The equation which Schadewald uses (from Taylor) is:

log(N) = -1.62 - 1.16 log(m)​

N is the number of bodies with masses greater than m, which impact a square kilometer of moon per year. The density of the dust is given as 3 grams/cubic centimeter. It does make a difference which units one uses for mass. The context of Schadewald's article suggests that the proper mass units are grams (not kilograms), and a little playing around with the equation makes that reasonably clear. If one erroneously uses kilograms and integrates N(m) over a range of 10^-16 kilograms to 10²⁰ kilograms, a figure of 2259 feet of dust may be obtained for a period of 4.6 billion years. Possibly something like that happened in Dr. Brown's calculation. (By the way, if you are not familiar with mathematics, just hop over these little diversions. I dive into the mathematics, at times, to give the more able reader the finer points. You don't need them to get the general drift.)

If I understand the equation properly, a straightforward integration of N(m) is not the most precise method, but it does yield a good approximation to the answers I got. For a mass range of 100Kg to 1000Kg I calculate that 4.6 billion years would deposit a layer of dust 0.107mm (4 thousandths of an inch) thick. For a mass range of 100gms to 1000Kg I get 0.79mm. However, in extending the calculation to extremes, from 10^-13 grams to 10²³ grams, I came up with 26.4cm (10.4 inches) instead of 2.5cm which Schadewald got. The point is that you wouldn't even get 10.4 inches of dust in 4.6 billion years, being that the formula is not accurate for these extreme ranges. Attempts to inflate this value further, by going to even greater ranges, is simply an abuse of the formula and proves nothing.

Neither the above formula, when properly used, nor actual measurements made in space offer anything close to the huge amounts of cosmic dust needed in this young-earth argument. Of course, a little thing like that would never stop those creationists from circulating it!​

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The last 4 of stripe's posts can be summed up thusly:

Stripe: "Nah Uh!"

 

[CabinetMaker]

What is this known percentage and how does it change Dr. Brown's calculation?

I do not think that it is a fixed percentage. It would have to be a function of at least gravitational constant of the body struck, size/mass of meteor, angle of impact and velocity to determine what is ejected as escape velocity.

Another error in the formulas is that he is assuming uniform distribution. Without an atmosphere there would be nothing to distribute the dust around the moon so we would reasonable expect to see greater concentrations nearer to creators.

 

[Stripe]

I do not think that it is a fixed percentage. It would have to be a function of at least gravitational constant of the body struck, size/mass of meteor, angle of impact and velocity to determine what is ejected as escape velocity. Another error in the formulas is that he is assuming uniform distribution. Without an atmosphere there would be nothing to distribute the dust around the moon so we would reasonable expect to see greater concentrations nearer to creators.

How do these things change the calculates provided?

 

[Paulos]

What is this known percentage and how does it change Dr. Brown's calculation?

Brown says his figure is based on data from two sources: 1) Stuart R. Taylor's Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975, p.92) and 2) David W. Hughes's "The Changing Micrometeoroid Flux" (Nature 251 [379-380], 4 October 1974).

1) Hughes gives no basis for any calculation (Schadewald, 1990, p.16).

2) As for Taylor's paper, Schadewald identifies the appropriate distribution equation, makes use of the calculus and shows that even if we extend the range of particles way beyond what was actually detected we would get a layer of dust only 1 inch deep! Schadewald was left wondering where Brown got his 2000 feet of dust! Perhaps, he mused, Brown had moon dust in his eyes when he made that calculation.​

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

This debate visualized:

:bang:

 

[Frayed Knot]

The last 4 of stripe's posts can be summed up thusly:

Stripe: "Nah Uh!"

The last four?!?

Stripe posts nothing else. Anytime there starts to be an actual discussion, Stripe comes along and drives everyone away with inanity.