Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Doesn't the Moon Have Life?
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 97 (421777)
09-14-2007 12:47 PM


There are a number of issues I am surprised not to see brought up in this topic.
a) The Moon is mostly composed of silicates and very little iron/nickel. (being mostly crust material from early earth)
b) The Moon lacks a significant magnetosphere. (and the Earth is greatly indebted to the moon for having one.) So the Moon is bombarded with solar winds.
c) The distance of Venus and Mars from the Sun are not the cause of their current conditions. Mars fluctuates from -160 C to 30 C. Venus is hot due to greenhouse conditions(460 C), not proximity to the sun, in fact its hotter that the sun side surface of Mercury(430 C).
d) The Moon is the reason we don't have as extreme axial tilts
e) more to follow, too little sleep, not enough caffeine to focus on this right now.

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashman, posted 09-28-2007 11:33 PM EighteenDelta has replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 97 (425221)
10-01-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashman
09-28-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Our Moon,, The Moon.. No chance
That's part of the long explanation that I was planning to explore with "a)". Saved me the time, thank you.
-x

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashman, posted 09-28-2007 11:33 PM crashman has not replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 97 (425225)
10-01-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Scoopy
10-01-2007 12:01 PM


The Earth-Sun distance changes quite a bit throughout the year, since our revolutions around the sun are elliptical and not circular. The Earths Distance from the Sun is defined as 1 AU +/- 0.04 AU, and an AU is about 150 million km, that means 6 million km difference from closest to furthest.
Astronomical unit - Wikipedia
The earths tilt is in fact off, about 23 1/2 degrees (not a coincidence this matches the tropic of Cancer and tropic of Capricorn) This is the reason for the seasons...
Edited by EighteenDelta, : added content

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Scoopy, posted 10-01-2007 12:01 PM Scoopy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Scoopy, posted 10-01-2007 12:42 PM EighteenDelta has replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 97 (425237)
10-01-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Scoopy
10-01-2007 12:42 PM


I think you are confusing reality with Sci-Fi Telivision programming.
Meltdown
Sci-Fi = Bad science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Scoopy, posted 10-01-2007 12:42 PM Scoopy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Scoopy, posted 10-01-2007 1:41 PM EighteenDelta has replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 97 (425329)
10-01-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Scoopy
10-01-2007 1:41 PM


Here Learn more about precession, and how our axial tilt changes over time without bringing about the apocalypse. I find it hard to believe that there is a science text book that advocates the viewpoint you are espousing, but please share with us if you can cite it for real.
Or even more information on axial wobble Chandler Wobble
Edited by EighteenDelta, : No reason given.

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Scoopy, posted 10-01-2007 1:41 PM Scoopy has not replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 97 (425464)
10-02-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Scoopy
10-02-2007 11:41 AM


Re: Precession and Axial Tilt
In your previous messages, you keep saying that if the Minimum or Maximum were to change then life couldn't exist. The word 'some' isn't very useful in this context. Does 'some' = 50 million km, or does 'some' = 50,000 km or 50 km? Give us something real we can prove or refute? 'Some' only gives you the opportunity to play "change the goal posts".
You might be very correct in your first statement, depending on the value you assign to 'some'.
In any case this is getting off the topic of why there is no (known) life on the moon. How can we further the original topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Scoopy, posted 10-02-2007 11:41 AM Scoopy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Scoopy, posted 10-02-2007 12:39 PM EighteenDelta has replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 97 (425486)
10-02-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Scoopy
10-02-2007 12:39 PM


Re: Precession and Axial Tilt
Scoopy writes:
I'm thinking maybe like 1,000 miles?
Then I would have to say you were very much wrong, as per the arguments already presented and documented previously. You do realize that's about 1/8 of the earths diameter? That's .0000107% closer than we are now, on average...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Scoopy, posted 10-02-2007 12:39 PM Scoopy has not replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 97 (425643)
10-03-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
10-03-2007 8:07 AM


Overall I agree that there are far more factors than just this one of distance from the sun. As was mentioned previously, Venus is .7 AU from the sun yet is hotter than Mercury which is .38, almost half the distance from the sun. Other factors than distance are certainly to be kept in mind.
I have to disagree with the idea of Venus supporting life if it had less gravity. Venus has a number of issues preventing it from providing a nurturing environment, for example, it has almost no discernible magnetic field to protect it from cosmic radiation or solar radiation. Venus already has lower gravity than the earth at .904 g. The composition of Venus seems more of a hindrance than gravity. The axial tilt of 177.36 degrees also is strongly against it. A sizable moon such as ours, would have remedied that in all probability.
A big problem far Venus has, for a while, been posited that the lack of plate tectonics prevent the planet from being able to cool down internally. Instead of a general steady tectonic movement as on earth, Venus has periods of massive upheaval. Venus also has the slowest rotational period of any of the major planets. That would mean about 117 earth days of sunlight followed by 117 earth days of night. The temperature fluctuations would be extreme to say the least.
I do agree with the argument that mars would be better suited with more gravity, since that would enable it to maintain an atmosphere. That gives us a potential survival band of .7 AU (about 107,000,000 km) to 1.5 AU (about 227,000,000 km)
-x
Edited by EighteenDelta, : added paragraph

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2007 8:07 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2007 3:46 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024