Real Science Friday: Neil Armstrong Gone, Moon Hoax Going

[Jefferson]

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!

 

[Memento Mori]

From AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n4/moon-dust-argument

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

AiG says you shouldn't use it. But hey, whatever sinks your boat. :idunno:

 

[Paulos]

* 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.

The moon dust argument is addressed in full detail here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

 

[Paulos]

Also found this:

The Apollo 17 crew took seismic tests of the lunar soil and determined that the lunar regolith (accumulated pulverized impact material) is about 20-40 feet deep on the lunar plains, and up to 120 feet deep in the lunar highlands. Due to the Moon’s low gravity, and the fact that these sand grains remain free from weathering, the surface remained firm enough to support the lunar module. Also, many creationists claim that 14 million tons of meteoric dust fall on the Earth and Moon, annually, but recent space probes proved the influx to Earth is 400 times less than that. Due to the Moon’s low gravity, its influx is even smaller, only 500 tons per year. Most creationists know of the modern measurements, but continue to report the incorrect figure because it suits their purpose. Such is their integrity and scholarship.​

Source: www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldauto=48

Also this: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html#.UEO1j0R5EzY

 

[Paulos]

From Wikipedia:

The regolith is generally from 4 to 5 metres thick in mare areas and from 10 to 15 metres in the older highland regions...During the early phases of the Apollo Moon landing program, Thomas Gold of Cornell University and part of President's Science Advisory Committee raised a concern that the thick dust layer at the top of the regolith would not support the weight of the lunar module and that the module might sink beneath the surface. However, Joseph Veverka (also of Cornell) pointed out that Gold had miscalculated the depth of the overlying dust, which was only a couple of centimeters thick. Indeed, the regolith was found to be quite firm by the robotic Surveyor spacecraft that preceded Apollo, and during the Apollo landings the astronauts often found it necessary to use a hammer to drive a core sampling tool into it.​

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

 

[Paulos]

"Every day, more than a metric ton of meteoroids hits the Moon," says Bill Cooke of the Marshall Space Flight Center's Meteoroid Environment Office...The truth is, "we really don't know how many meteoroids hit the Moon every day," he says. "Our best estimates come from the 'Standard Meteoroid Model,' which NASA uses to evaluate hazards to the space station and the space shuttle." ...For lunar purposes, "we need more data," says Cooke. Fortunately, there are more data. It comes from Apollo:

Clues to how often and how hard the Moon is hit lie in data from four seismometers placed on the Moon by the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 missions during 1969-72. They operated until NASA turned them off in 1977. For years, the seismometers recorded all manner of tremors and jolts, including almost 3000 moonquakes, 1700 meteoroid strikes, and 9 spacecraft deliberately crashed into the Moon. All these data were transmitted to Earth for analysis.

According to the Standard Model, such meteoroids hit the Moon approximately 400 times a year—more than once a day.​

Source: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/28apr_skyisfalling/

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

So REAL SCIENCE FRIDAY is a misnomer?

 

[Paulos]

According to the TalkOrigins website, an average of 2.3 tons per day of cosmic dust settling upon the surface of the moon over the course of 4.5 billion years would lead to a layer of dust with an average thickness of only 1.5 inches:

Dohnanyi's figure for the moon (2 x 10^-9 grams/square centimeter per year) yields 2.3 tons/day. In 4.5 billion years a layer of about one and a half inches of cosmic dust would accumulate on the moon.

Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html (scroll down to the section entitled Young-earth "proof" #2)

 

[Alate_One]

So REAL SCIENCE FRIDAY is a misnomer?

You just now figured this out? :chuckle:

I call it Wrong Science Friday.

 

[Quincy]

Mythbusters is a great show that really dispelled all these stupid moon hoax theories. Plus people should be ashamed of themselves to call themselves Americans and think it was hoaxed.

 

[chatmaggot]

From AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n4/moon-dust-argument

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

AiG says you shouldn't use it. But hey, whatever sinks your boat. :idunno:

I am pretty sure they are aware of AiG stance...hence stating the following:

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.

 

[Memento Mori]

I am pretty sure they are aware of AiG stance...hence stating the following:

So, even Creationists are big fans of one another? lain:

 

[Stripe]

According to the TalkOrigins website, an average of 2.3 tons per day of cosmic dust settling upon the surface of the moon over the course of 4.5 billion years would lead to a layer of dust with an average thickness of only 1.5 inches:Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html (scroll down to the section entitled Young-earth "proof" #2)

Or 300m.

 

[Paulos]

Or 300m.

Using data from dust penetration of satellites, Dohnanyi gave the following direct measurements of cosmic dust influx rates: To the earth 4 x 10^-9 grams/per square centimeter (22.6 thousand tons) per year, and to the moon 2 x 10^-9 grams per square centimeter (11.3 thousand tons) per year. Assuming a constant influx rate (even though it certainly wasn't) the earth would collect a layer of dust only 60 millimeters (2.4 inches) thick in 4.5 billion years and the moon half that.​

Source: http://ncse.com/cej/4/3/space-dust-moons-surface-age-cosmos

 

[Paulos]

How can craters be used to determine the age of a planet or moon?

Scientists record the size and number of impact craters — and how eroded they are — to determine the ages and histories of different planetary surfaces. Early in the formation of our solar system (before 3.9 billion years ago) there was lots of large debris striking the surfaces of the young planets and moons; these older impact basins are larger than the more recent craters. As a rule of thumb, older surfaces have been exposed to impacting bodies (meteoroids, asteroids, and comets) for a longer period of time than younger surfaces. Therefore, older surfaces have more impact craters. Mercury and the Moon are covered with impact craters; their surfaces are very old. Venus has fewer craters; its surface has been covered recently (in the last 500 million years!) by lava flows that obscured the older craters. Much of Earth's surface is recycled through plate tectonic activity (and erosion), so Earth also has few craters.

Why does the Moon have so many craters while Earth has so few?

On Earth, impact craters are harder to recognize because of weathering and erosion of its surface. The Moon lacks water, an atmosphere, and tectonic activity, three forces that erode Earth's surface and erase all but the most recent impacts. Approximately 80% of Earth's surface is less than 200 million years old, while over 99% of the Moon's surface is more than 3 billion years old. Essentially, the Moon's surface has not been modified since early in its history, so most of its craters are still visible.​

Source: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/shaping_the_planets/impact_cratering.shtml

 

[Paulos]

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.

This claim is also addressed on these websites:

1) "Surface Properties of the Moon"

2) "Moon dust, age of Moon, and creationism" (from the DOE Office of Science; Take the link and scroll down to the second answer.)

3) "Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos" (from the National Center for Science Education)

These are very good references. Anyone who is interested in this topic would do well to give them a good read.

 

[Granite]

Aside from the references I've posted earlier, this claim is also addressed on these websites:

1) "Surface Properties of the Moon"

2) "Moon dust, age of Moon, and creationism" (from the DOE Office of Science; Take the link and scroll down to the second answer.)

3) "Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos" (from the National Center for Science Education)

These are very good references. Anyone who is interested in this topic would do well to give them a good read.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Don't confuse these "Real Science" guys with the facts.

 

[Stripe]

Aside from the references I've posted earlier, this claim is also addressed on these websites:1) "Surface Properties of the Moon" 2) "Moon dust, age of Moon, and creationism" (from the DOE Office of Science; Take the link and scroll down to the second answer.)3) "Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos" (from the National Center for Science Education)These are very good references. Anyone who is interested in this topic would do well to give them a good read.

Nothing in your links even remotely addresses the math given.

Care to try again?

 

[Paulos]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Don't confuse these "Real Science" guys with the facts.

I see what you mean:

Nothing in your links even remotely addresses the math given.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nothing in your links even remotely addresses the math given.

Care to try again?

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]