I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Hits: 8721 | Rating: (2.1) | Category: Funny | Added by: MacGuffin
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:48:23 PM
That's why we always see the same side of the moon. Because they formed and cooled together, the side of the moon that always faces us is actually more dense. More dense = greater gravitional pull.


I don't think so. Tidal locking looks like a better explanation to me. That can happen with any object orbiting another, even if one forms completely seperately and is later captured.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:40:23 PM
I think the most recent theory on moon formation is that if formed at the same time as the Earth. As I understand it, as the Earth was forming(before it cooled), there was a cataclysmic event that caused a large chunk of the still cooling Earth to be ejected into space.


It's generally thought to be a collision with another protoplanet, probably with a mass roughly the same as that of Mars today. A reasonable approximation can be made for the amount of kinetic energy of the object and some parameters can be set for probable speed and mass. The very early solar system would have been a very violent place, with lots of collisions - there's no reason why each planet would form neatly by itself with nothing else forming anywhere nearby or on an intersecting orbit.

simpletools
Male, 40-49, Canada
 50 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 10:59:25 AM
I think the most recent theory on moon formation is that if formed at the same time as the Earth. As I understand it, as the Earth was forming(before it cooled), there was a cataclysmic event that caused a large chunk of the still cooling Earth to be ejected into space. That mass formed into the moon. That's why we always see the same side of the moon. Because they formed and cooled together, the side of the moon that always faces us is actually more dense. More dense = greater gravitional pull. There's a bit of a wobble effect because the balance isn't perfect but we pretty much see the same 48% of the moon all the time.

Crabes
Male, 30-39, Canada
 1049 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 8:45:20 AM
someone is snorting to much dust here

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:48:01 AM
Angillion: The rocks collected from the moon are Basalts billions of years old. Basalts are created from vulcanism.

Dust compaction would form sandstone like rocks. I've felt a few samples of moon rocks and can assure you that they were not sandstones.



Are you even aware that you're now arguing that the entire moon is made up of a layer of dust about an inch thick *and nothing else*?

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is arguing or has ever argued that the moon is made up of recently compacted dust. Your claim that it's the consensus amongst scientists has no connection to reality.

You are talking crap to such an extent that the only two possibilities are that you are delusional and hallucinating (if you believe you have seen scientists saying what you claim to have seen them saying) or a liar (if you don't).

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:32:53 AM
Seriously, CrakrJak...even the other devout creationists who have no idea what reality is have been forced to drop the babble about lunar dust. Why are you still peddling that lie? Do you think some people might accept your word on pure faith and not check anything, ever? Do you believe it yourself? I am slightly curious. Although it's a moot point as I can't trust your answer.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:28:42 AM
landing a probe is one thing, and none of them sent back data indicating dust depth.


Apart from the fact that they did. At least, they did in the real world. I've no idea what happened in CrakrLand.

You're trying to engage in revisionist history if you claim that the scientific estimates were not 8 inches (or more) of dust.


It's wildly amusing that you're talking about revisionist history when almost everything you write is fictional.

You've taken on faith an entirely fictitious fantasy world in which you get to create what other people have said.

It's not reality. It won't become reality regardless of how often you repeat it.

I don't know whether you're genuinely delusional or if you're lying for propaganda purposes and frankly I don't care which it is. You're wrong. You will remain wrong no matter what you pretend other people have said.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:28:00 PM
Dust compaction would form sandstone like rocks. I've felt a few samples of moon rocks and can assure you that they were not sandstones.
Wow, you've handled rocks.

I'll say this slowly Crakrjak, so you can process it. And this coming from a PhD Geologist who has earned his stripes:

You think you know what you're talking about. But I assure you. You don't.

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 598 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:08:28 PM
CrakrJak: "The problem is this, the low dust level doesn't agree with 1.6 billion year old solidified basalt rock on the moon."

The problem is, that most of the basalts on the moon are actually 3.16 to 4.2 billion years old, with only the youngest basalt formed by impacts in craters being 1.2 billion years old or older.

Wikipedia: Lunar mare
Fleming Group: Radiometric Ages of Some Mare Basalts Dated by Two or More Methods (all lunar samples show between 3.09 and 3.92 billion years old)

Seriously, stop cribbing your data from creationists sites. Their work is notoriously shoddy.

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 598 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:57:34 PM
@CrakrJak: I didn't say that the *surface* of the moon was 4.5 billion years old, I said that the *moon* is around 4.5 billion years old.

As the surface of the moon is constantly collecting dust, it is not one single age.

The "low dust level" there is perfectly in agreement with current estimates of lunar dust accumulation, not your creationist manufactured and pre-1970s estimates. Seriously, what exactly do you think the current dust accumulation rates are?

Oh, and *no*, dust accumulation rates are *not* constant. Events can occur that increase or decrease the local amount of cosmic dust. Not to mention the fact that it varies throughout the universe.

Here's another article you won't read that proves you wrong.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17155 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:05:58 PM
HiEv: Dust accumulation is a mere pittance compared to the amount of materials during early solar system formation.


Cosmic dust accumulation is a constant number. Sure rock and gas accumulates to become planets, moons, rings, etc. but that has no bearing on the constant cosmic dust level of the universe.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17155 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:56:23 PM
HiEv: The surface of the moon is not 4.5 billion years old, the surface it relatively young. The surface, of the moon, was molten for most of it's existence and became basalt. After the surface cooled is when the dust started to collect and there is no evidence for compaction of that dust layer afterwards.

The problem is this, the low dust level doesn't agree with 1.6 billion year old solidified basalt rock on the moon.

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 598 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:39:32 PM
Ugh... and NO, "high dust accumulation" is not needed for planet formation. Planet formation happens when gravity pulls large amounts of cosmic debris, primarily from earlier supernovas in the modern area, and that debris is spun into a disc where the sun(s), planet(s), moon(s), and other objects can potentially form. Dust accumulation is a mere pittance compared to the amount of materials during early solar system formation.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17155 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:36:27 PM
Angillion: The rocks collected from the moon are Basalts billions of years old. Basalts are created from vulcanism.

Dust compaction would form sandstone like rocks. I've felt a few samples of moon rocks and can assure you that they were not sandstones.

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 598 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:34:31 PM
CrakrJak: "But as it turned out science got it wrong, they found out the moon isn't as old as they thought it was, the dust on the moon is less than an inch deep."

Oh fer... Read a modern science book!

Yes, they originally overestimated the depth of the dust on the moon, but no, the reason wasn't the age of the moon being wrong.

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 598 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:34:19 PM
The age of the moon is quite firmly set in the 4.5 billion year range, and there is no puzzling over the thickness of the dust layer on the moon in scientific circles. You'll only hear that argument from creationist whackaloons that will use long-solved problems and treat them as though they're still relevant.

The idea that there would be tons of dust on the moon's surface is based on poor early estimations of lunar dust accumulations prior to 1966. After Surveyor I landed on the moon in May of 1966 the correct levels were confirmed, and the lunar landers were given SHORT legs.

See here.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17155 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:29:56 PM
Angillion: The fact still remains that high dust accumulation numbers needed for planet formation does not coincide with the low dust accumulation on the moon. Scientists then postulated that the dust somehow compacted, on it's own, into a solid regolith. The rocks brought back by the astronauts show no evidence supporting that claim. It takes much higher pressure than the low lunar gravity to compact dust into rock.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17155 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:08:34 PM
Angillion: The USA had landed probes on the moon years before the manned missions - they knew the depth of the dust long before the manned missions.


landing a probe is one thing, and none of them sent back data indicating dust depth.

You're trying to engage in revisionist history if you claim that the scientific estimates were not 8 inches (or more) of dust.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:57:13 PM
I will just say that one of the things I admire most about science is its ability to admit mistakes.


Likewise. Idiots mistake it for a weakness, when in fact it's the greatest strength of science because it is placing the truth above all else.

Take the Standard Model's explanation for mass, for example. Half a dozen brilliant scientists developed the theory to account for mass within the Standard Model. It's been part of the Standard Model for over 40 years. Predictions based on it have been shown to be correct. Some other science has been built on it. It's an important part of the explanation of how matter, i.e. everything physical in the universe, works. And scientists are fully prepared to bin it if the LHC doesn't find the Higgs boson, because that would be evidence proving the theory wrong. Truth > everything else. It's what makes science honest and dependable.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:47:31 PM
Whatever scientists may have theorised about what the moon would be like, they actually sent someone there and found out if what they believed was true or not.


True, but even before then, even before the Surveyor probes, no scientists thought that the dust on the moon would be as thick as reality-denying creationists falsely claimed (and in a few cases, still claim) "science" "believed" it to be.

Even the scientist who made the initial measurements *of parts of some types of dust on Earth* thought he was wrong and said so in his paper. He was more wrong than he thought because he had made several incorrect assumptions. The actual figure (as measured directly, much later) for infall to the moon is much less than 1% of the figure quoted by some creationists (and even their figure doesn't support their conclusions).

Creationists are desperately grasping at straws that aren't even there.

junkaddy
Female, 30-39, Western US
 261 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:15:35 PM
Anyone else look at those guys and think "oompa loompas?"

piperfawn
Male, 30-39, Europe
 3887 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:02:50 PM
CrakrJak and what about atmosphere and solar wind?

MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
 2597 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 4:32:21 PM
If anyone who isn't devoted to ignorance for religious reasons thinks that CrakrJak isn't talking total crap, I'll write an explanation for them. Just let me know.


No need for an explanation. Thankfully, even most religious people I know don't exhibit the pathological denial of science that Crakr does. As a 'recovering Catholic' myself, though (i.e., I was a practising one for 30 years, but made a conscious decision some years ago after careful consideration, and am an atheist now), I will just say that one of the things I admire most about science is its ability to admit mistakes. Whatever scientists may have theorised about what the moon would be like, they actually sent someone there and found out if what they believed was true or not. I wish more religions were as open and honest about the possibility of being wrong.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 3:56:44 PM
Oh, and drawman61? If you're implying America didn't land on the Moon, you're a drooling idiot.


That's a bit harsh.

He might not be drooling.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11501 Posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012 3:54:15 PM
Science believed that the moon was very very old and judging by the amount of space dust burned up in the earths atmosphere every year they mathematically figured the dust would necessarily be 8 inches deep. Even American scientists believed this, which is why the legs on the lunar landers were so tall.


Science doesn't believe anything. Science is a method. It has no mind. It's also pretty much the opposite of belief, since a major point of it is that evidence trumps everything else.

Scientists did not all believe that there would be a very thick layer of dust on the moon. Some considered it a possibility.

The legs on the lunar lander being long because of the dust that CrakrJak's fantasy science mathematically calculated was there is a particularly idiotic idea. The USA had landed probes on the moon years before the manned missions - they knew the depth of the dust long before the manned missions.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.