Lunar Orbiter Reveals: The Moon Is Shrinking
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- / sciencereason ... Moon Reveals New Secrets to LRO Spacecraft: Newly discovered cliffs in the lunar crust indicate the moon shrank globally in the geologically recent past and might still be shrinking today, according to a team analyzing new images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO spacecraft. The results provide important clues to the moon's recent geologic and tectonic evolution.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencetv
• / ffreethinker
• / rationalhumanism
---
NASA's LRO Reveals Incredible Shrinking Moon (08.19.2010)
Newly discovered cliffs in the lunar crust indicate the moon shrank globally in the geologically recent past and might still be shrinking today, according to a team analyzing new images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft. The results provide important clues to the moon's recent geologic and tectonic evolution.
The moon formed in a chaotic environment of intense bombardment by asteroids and meteors. These collisions, along with the decay of radioactive elements, made the moon hot. The moon cooled off as it aged, and scientists have long thought the moon shrank over time as it cooled, especially in its early history. The new research reveals relatively recent tectonic activity connected to the long-lived cooling and associated contraction of the lunar interior.
"We estimate these cliffs, called lobate scarps, formed less than a billion years ago, and they could be as young as a hundred million years," said Dr. Thomas Watters of the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. While ancient in human terms, it is less than 25 percent of the moon's current age of more than four billion years. "Based on the size of the scarps, we estimate the distance between the moon's center and its surface shrank by about 300 feet," said Watters, lead author of a paper on this research appearing in Science August 20.
"These exciting results highlight the importance of global observations for understanding global processes," said Dr. John Keller, Deputy Project Scientist for LRO at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "As the LRO mission continues in to a new phase, with emphasis on science measurements, our ability to create inventories of lunar geologic features will be a powerful tool for understanding the history of the moon and the solar system."
The scarps are relatively small; the largest is about 300 feet high and extends for several miles or so, but typical lengths are shorter and heights are more in the tens of yards (meters) range. The team believes they are among the freshest features on the moon, in part because they cut across small craters. Since the moon is constantly bombarded by meteors, features like small craters (those less than about 1,200 feet across) are likely to be young because they are quickly destroyed by other impacts and don't last long. So, if a small crater has been disrupted by a scarp, the scarp formed after the crater and is even younger. Even more compelling evidence is that large craters, which are likely to be old, don't appear on top any of the scarps, and the scarps look crisp and relatively undegraded.
Lobate scarps on the moon were discovered during the Apollo missions with analysis of pictures from the high-resolution Panoramic Camera installed on Apollo 15, 16, and 17. However, these missions orbited over regions near the lunar equator, and were only able to photograph some 20 percent of the lunar surface, so researchers couldn't be sure the scarps were not just the result of local activity around the equator. The team found 14 previously undetected scarps in the LRO images, seven of which are at high latitudes (more than 60 degrees). This confirms that the scarps are a global phenomenon, making a shrinking moon the most likely explanation for their wide distribution, according to the team.
As the moon contracted, the mantle and surface crust were forced to respond, forming thrust faults where a section of the crust cracks and juts out over another. Many of the resulting cliffs, or scarps, have a semi-circular or lobe-shaped appearance, giving rise to the term "lobate scarps". Scientists aren't sure why they look this way; perhaps it's the way the lunar soil (regolith) expresses thrust faults, according to Watters.
• www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO...
. 
Наука
this is some amazing stuff. love your vids
@JamesMorlan Thanks James, I appreciate the info.
@Spartan1844 Excellent question. Most telescopes don't have colour cameras, they use black and white detectors that are more accurate, sharper and sensitive than the ones we use everyday.
Most of the coloured space images we see have been artificially created using a combination of separate images taken by specialist telescopes or guess work.
This is what I love about Science: getting my mind blown by new data and having to then change my mind to accommodate said data. w00t
@fertilizerspike
i'd say that is a pretty good calculation even without the "needed citation"...
@Koujinkamu
Yes, they do.
@MrCalhoun I would say that is possible however not the cause for the geological features here. I think it may be that the lunar core is continuing to cool. As it cools the core shrinks, causing the crust to overlap like this. *I am guessing here as well and am outside of my area of expertise.
I wish in this video they would go into more details, like tell us how the shrinking of the moon would effect earth.
@braddudeguy Shrinking does not necessarily mean lost mass. The Shrinkage could be due to cooling and contracting of the core. It could be under ground air pockets collapsing. Since the crust is over laping, it indicates a reduction of volume under the surface, not loss of mass.
@beachcomber2008
Rocks definitely "vaporize" when they hit each other hard enough. They certainly don't "fuse", though. Vaporizing and fusing are two different things. Fused rock defies impact hypotheses, Electric discharge can readily fuse rock. Two rocks smashing together don't spontaneously fuse together, the shattered pieces of them don't fuse together, either. If you think so, feel free to cite experiments showing that effect.
Well thats interesting.
Interesante en verdad.
@fertilizerspike
A representative value for the thermal conductivity of granitic rocks is M = 3.0 W/mK. Hence, using the global average geothermal conducting gradient of 0.02 K/m we get that q = 0.06 W/m². This estimate, corroborated by thousands of observations of heat flow in boreholes all over the world, gives a global average of 6×10−2 W/m².
3 dislikes.....? wake up dude. This is science
@fertilizerspike
people like you remind me so much of the black knight in monty python's "holy grail"
@monkeyology1
Although I severely doubt your sincerity in wanting your questions answered I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason no debris from the proto earth is present on the moon is because after the hypothesized impact of "Theia" (The given name of the supposed planetary body to strike the proto earth), both planetary bodies were reduced to molten magma by the impact. Whatever remnants there were would have been consumed and incinerated. As for rockets, oxygen added...
@fertilizerspike
In deep boreholes, the temperature of the rock below the inflection point generally increases with depth at rates of the order of 20 K/km or more.[citation needed] Fourier's law of heat flow applied to the Earth gives q = Mg where q is the heat flux at a point on the Earth's surface, M the thermal conductivity of the rocks there, and g the measured geothermal gradient....
@Koujinkamu
I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to form a more coherent question if you expect me to answer it completely.
@fertilizerspike
You should be more clear, though I understand the character limitation makes it difficult,
There is evidence of "expansion" using linear measurements based on light travel and relative distances to Earth. We've been tracking movements for decades.
I think what you mean to assert is that the currently observed motion of space does not conclude continuous motion. Isn't it just as likely that the universe expands AND contracts?
@MusicStudyMan tide flow is a factored by mass, not volume... XB
@Koujinkamu You never will... I've been prodding him for sources for months. My best guess is that he relies mostly on a handful of books about the electric universe, and the websites organized by their authors.
Moon's still cooling internally. Matter contracts when cooled into more solid forms. Seems perfectly rational.
@Koujinkamu
It's not as if they're just my sources, all this information is in the public domain. Unless you're more specific, though, I can't simply list every source of information to which I have access, that's well beyond the scope of a RUclips comment and you know that. If you expect me to help you you're going to have to give me more detailed inquiries.
@mjh012363
We do not generate x-rays in the dentist's office by dumping matter into "black hole", we use electricity. Similarly, x-rays in space have ready explanation if we assume they are electrically driven. Assuming "black hole" is responsible is similar to blaming unicorns.
Comets exhibit x-rays, not from their surface, but from nearby, just as these stars you describe. Comets are electrically driven, like stars, so this is an expected consequence of the electric universe model.
Perhaps the moon cooled with large caverns underneath, and since there's no atmosphere, these small caverns are slowly caving in.
@empbac
It's unlikely the moon was formed from an impact event. What's more likely is that the moon was ejected electrically from the Earth during a close passage of another body like Mars. Mars has a massive electric arc scar on it (valles marineris) and so does the Earth (grand canyon).
@Joeofiowa
It's a common misconception that the Grand Canyon was formed by water erosion. It does not have a morphology consistent with water erosion. Its morphology is consistent with that of lichtenberg figures, a common effect of electric discharge machining a well-known industrial process. Other features are also consistent with electric erosion of the Grand Canyon. Problems with the water erosion model are too numerous to get into in a single comment.
@sevadaj The moon isn't losing any mass, so its shrinkage isn't going to affect the earth. And we're talking about a process that happens over millions of years, so any potential effect any changes the moon may have on the earth millions of years from now, likely won't be of any concern to us.
@Cat1981England Thanks for the answer :)
that 30 inch dell monitor makes me drool.....damn you 24inch monitor, and i thought that u were big......
It's amazing the information we're gathering on our moon. Soon we'll be colonizing the moon, then imagine all the information we'll be able to gather?
1:37 Did he really say "In geologic terms, the moon is active"????
I'm not sure I heard right, in any case it would be selenite terms
@empbac Not so
The collision energy between the two colliding planetoids of the proto-earth & protomoon was quite sufficient to render them molten, incandescent, & enveloped in steam
From a distance they would look like "venuses" - enveloped by their atmospheres
The stronger gravity of the proto-earth swallowed the heavy metallic core of the proto-moon, but portions of the surfaces of both bodies axquired sufficient orbital velocity to put the Moon in its initial orbit of 80,000 miles radius
@mjh012363
You don't have to assume anything here. I said exactly what I meant. Comets are electrically driven. Virtually every observable feature of comets has a ready explanation in terms of electricity. The cometary "tail" is, in fact, a birkeland current. Cometary x-rays can thus be expected as a consequence of this electric discharge. The surfaces of comets all bear striking morphology common only to electric discharge machining. Cometary comas are a glowing plasma sheath.
@JamesMorlan Lol, yup :P.
What are the implications?
@braddudeguy Just because its shrinking doesnt lose more mass, it could just mean that its becoming more dense
@brrtown
It's entirely possible that there are quakes on the moon. Earthquakes are driven by electric currents underground, a similar process could be taking place on the moon with resultant quakes.
@Acrimonator
Given that over 99% of the universe is plasma, it should rightly be called the fundamental state of matter.
Plasma has nothing to do with "hot", plasma is ionized matter, not simply "hot" matter.
@Acridfusion No I know, but Can they take like color pictures?
@mjh012363 Apologies. Spike has this effect...
@NHLfreak87 I love it how they declare their ignorance with pride.
@mjh012363
It's a common misconception that the sun is powered internally by fusion. The sun is powered externally by electric currents in space.
@beachcomber2008
The use of radioisotopes to generate electricity has nothing to do with supposed radioactive decay heating the Earth from inside.
That planets are spherical is not de facto proof that it is due to "gravity", especially when "z pinch" is readily demonstrated producing spherules in the lab.
The amount of radiactive decay supposed inside the Earth is derived from it's assumed age and temperature, not observed or quantified in any fashion.
It's alive!
@mjh012363
Feel free to actually cite some observations of the moon shrinking.
@Koujinkamu
Yes, electricity travels through the Earth. We know the interior of the Earth is conductive, we ground all our electric grids through it. We also have evidence of the electricity passing through the Earth. We have the Earth's magnetic field, a clear indication of electric current. We have the "radiation belts" around the Earth, spontaneous particle accelerators, another clear indication of electricity passing through the Earth. Also lightning is a manifestation of this current.
@mjh012363
Point to some observations of the moon shrinking.
If a celestial body has an active core with a fusion reaction, then it stands to reason that the total mass of the planet would contract as denser elements form, and radiation is emitted.
Generally speaking, the core fusion seems to be relative to gravitational force, and solar energy absorption, so why shouldn't the moon have similar functionality on a smaller scale?
Just simply producing such an intense magnetic field around the earth requires the expulsion of massive amounts of energy.
@flashoftruth
None of the copy/paste you put in the last few comments in any way reinforces the notion that radioactive decay is responsible for the heat inside the Earth.
Gru! He's behind this.
@megaverse
the nerve of that guy to come on to a channel called SCIENCE MAGAZINE and say that
if i didn't get him im sure somebody would have lol :D
@flashoftruth
You copy/pasted some stuff about the observed temperature gradient inside the Earth, not one single word about how it is in any way related to radioactive decay. That relationship has never been demonstrated.
@monkeyology1
The moon is not a result of a collision between Earth and another rock, it was most likely ejected electrically. That would explain virtually all of the observed properties of the moon.
@drdonut1 LOL, all good. Cheers.
it shrinking won"t change the affect on the earth at all. so don't even worry. the mass is still there.
Looks like I'm not the only one with shrinking problem ;P
@Koujinkamu
I'm not here to argue, just to correct errors. It isn't my "theory" that the sun is powered externally by electric currents in space, it's observable reality. Stellar fusion has been falsified many times over. Period. I hope that's enough detail for you.
@Koujinkamu
Again I'll just explain to you that the sun does not shine due to radiant heat generated internally. The sun shines much in the same way a fluorescent light tube shines. I'm sure you're familiar with those. In the case of fluorescent light tubes, very little heat is generated, and it is a consequence of the light, not the cause of the light. The sun is not incandescent, as you imagine it, it is more like a fluorescent lamp or arc lamp.
@freakyphysicsguy jajjajja. no doubt about it.
@didjabringadidjalong
As for "CMBR", it has ready explanation in the electric universe. COBE and WMAP did not observe "cosmic" microwave background radiation, they observed the very local microwave radiation coming from interstellar electric currents. The universe generates microwaves the same way your microwave oven does, the "easy way", by accelerating electrons in an electric field. There is no "big bang" lurking in your microwave oven.
@J801506 i think the moon going Shrink so much that you cant even see it
@Koujinkamu
I didn't ask you to validate anything, and these are not "my theories". I told you if you want me to help you learn this information you're going to have to be more specific about what you want to learn. I'm not a mind reader.
I still don't know what you mean by "EC theory".
@mjh012363
You make a common error. The sun is not powered internally by fusion. The sun is powered externally by electric discharge.
My guess:
Hydrogenium and other lighter matter contained in the crust evaporates
So this might explain why the moon is receeding from the earth.
Possibly the mass is being lost to solar winds, not sure how stong they are personally.
Interesting tho.
Maybe the Moon has been shrinking for a very very long time and because NASA didn't have the technology to detect it, that the fact is that NASA is actually growing!
@Spartan1844 I guess, that's because BW pictures have higher resolution.
In colour digital cameras there are either 3 matrices, which add up costs, or 1, but then resolution suffers, so in this sense BW are better.
@braddudeguy shrinking is descriptive of size not mass
@beachcomber2008
This idea that any significant amount of heat is generated by "radioactive decay" inside the Earth has little merit and no verification. To say it is highly speculative is putting it kindly.
You don't know what is at the core of the moon, or the core of the Earth. Mass numbers for these two bodies derived from "gravity" models are specious. Electromagnetic forces govern the motion of bodies in the solar system, not "gravity".
only 200 million years young! :D
@didjabringadidjalong
I'll be more than willing to discuss this with you once you've read it fully and comprehend it all, and after you've examined all the source material cited in the paper. If you keep going off half-cocked, you'll never get anywhere. Read all the material and once you're familiar with it, then we can discuss it further.
@JesterAzazel LOL
@beachcomber2008
It's your contention that "gravity forces material to collect into SPHERES", but there's little in the way of evidence to support that belief. The universe is dominated by electromagnetic forces, not "gravity", so pointing at objects in space and saying they're spherical is not a convincing case for "gravity", over 99% of the observable universe is plasma and thus negligibly affected by "gravity". Oh, and rock has silicon in it, silicon is a semiconductor.
@Koujinkamu
What I mean is that over 99% of the universe is plasma. Check with Los Alamos if you doubt that.
hey, I know this is a stupid question to most of you but, why are all the pictures in white and black? is it because their in space?
@didjabringadidjalong
Here's a good place for you to start:
Title: Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars
Authors: Alfven, H. & Carlqvist, P.
Journal: Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. Research supported by the Swedish Board for Space Activity and Statens Naturvetenskapliga Forskningsrad.
Bibliographic Code: 1978Ap&SS..55..487A
I guess Moon's core is colling, therefore it shrinks, so if it's not a dead world already, it's dying anyway.
@TimeIsAConcept Best sarcastic comment, ever.
@fertilizerspike
And just to hammer the point home that Gamow's wild guesses were just stabs in the dark, he kept on guessing, ever more wrongly, AFTER the "temperature" of the universe was derived from direct observations. He was either ignorant of these measurements or he was so convinced he was right and observable reality was wrong that he just kept guessing higher out of spite.
When are we going to take our collective eye off the starry sky and study the great dark salty depths of the ocean more?
@somejackball LOL.......I would like to hear his opinion.
@theend1245 Patience, young padawan.
@mjh012363
The moon is not "collapsing", it's not a balloon.
@beachcomber2008
My first two statements did not impose any claim on the Earth. Read more carefully. It was an "if, then" supposition of a general nature.
The question to answer was, "why shouldn't the moon"
You, however made a fallacious claim of certainty about the Earth's core.
And a "BAR MAGNET" becomes inert after x amount of time.
Explain why magnets "lose" their polarity without influence?
And most importantly: an electromagnetic field IS energy, right?
@didjabringadidjalong
If that paper and its sources are too much for you, you might find a simpler (in deference to you) explanation by doing a Google web search for "electric currents from space". Good luck.
@flashoftruth
I am not here to argue, I'm just correcting errors when I see them. People comment on me personally when they are incapable or unwilling (or both) to intelligently comment on the subject at hand. This is a common tactic of ignoramuses all over the world. You see this sort of thing on the internet routinely, somebody doesn't like information that's being given, so they try to attack the delivery of the message, be that personal comments about the author or allusions to "debunking".
@fertilizerspike
and one more thing...and i mean this with all due respect...but isn't a "fertilizerspike" more commonly referred to as a "shit stick"? i'm just asking...
@AtheisticSpoon They way I heard it, the earth is growing..... what I heard about the moon is that it is too big for its mass..... hmmm maybe it is "hollow".
@fertilizerspike
gads, i couldn't resist, i had to respond one more time just because it is so necessary to get people to start thinking but...where do you think i got that "copy/paste" from? those are the scientific calculations for how the temperature of the earth is 'predicted'. & that is the thing about 'gods' & holy books that theists seem to miss; IF there is a god that put everything in place, it would have to be a mathematician, & yet not ONE scientific/math calculation in these books?
@cjsinclair
I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting the moon was "made", presumably by some intelligent designer?
@Koujinkamu
I told you, it's not a theory, it's observable reality.
so a shrinking moon is very well a possibillity, but a growing planetary body is not? just search for growing earth, may be those two phenomena are somewhat related... since the moon is or at least was growing at some time...
may be some day the other planets and their bodies will shrink as well.. even though that would falsify my theory for how it is possible that planetary bodies grow in the first place... any evidence or link to the papers would be nice.. I'll continue my research on that..
Its alien waste bulldozed so one day humans can go their on rock climbing holidays
@didjabringadidjalong
Gamow is credited with the "big bang" prediction of the "temperature" of the universe. His first guess was 5K in 1948. He later revised it to 10K in the fifties, then slowly up to 50K in 1961, in total ignorance of actual observations by that time showing a "temperature" of 3K. This is what "big bang" astronogers call "success", when you guess wrongly by an order of magnitude, in utter defiance of what is already known and proven by direct observations. Talk about a hole...
@didjabringadidjalong
I've just given you a source, feel free to come back when you've read it thoroughly and also read all the material cited within. Judging by the coherence of your comments here I'd guess comprehending all the information I've just pointed you to should take you about six months. I'll wait.
Because there is gravity but the universe expands scientists had to invent "dark energy and matter".
Shrinking moon fits in my theory:
We all know the balloon example. U blow it up and all points depart from each other.
But then universe acceleration and gravity don`t somehow fit together.
But imagine 2 balloons already blown up in a defined distance to each other.
And now u let both balloons shrink (gravity/moon example) and what wonder:
the surfaces of the 2 balloons seem to depart!
Wow...
@crackerz99 And GRAY is a COLOUR, and it has variations. Don't hate moon - hate your life.
@beachcomber2008
Are you the physics teacher?
If so please tell us the name and latest copyright date of your primary instructional book. Then tell us where you have cited ANY peer reviewed studies of any kind to support any claims YOU have made. I would expect more from (one who did not say "college professor")
@me2goodfoyou face palm. I wouldn't hide it.