Fanghur Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Before I go any farther, I just want to make it clear that I am NOT a creationist, I NEVER have been a creationist, and I NEVER will be a creationist. I despise creationism. I know and believe that the Earth is ~4.2 billion years old. Okay, to my point. I was watching an episode of the Atheist Experience the other day, and some moronic creationist caller started saying that he believes that the fact that the moon has so little dust on its surface 'proves' that the Earth is less than 10 000 years old. Obviously this is complete nonsense, but I confess that I was slightly taken aback, because it seems like a fairly valid argument when taken at face value. Can someone explain why there ISN'T considerably more dust on the lunar surface than there is? I mean, it should have been accumulating for billions of years, after all. Even if it were at a rate of less than a nanometre/decade, there should have still been at least a few feet of it, not the 3/4 inches that there actually is. Again, I have absolutely no doubt of the age of the Earth. This is simply something that I found interesting.
StringJunky Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) I can't find any definitive answer but one reason might be it doesn't have a turbulent or precipitating atmosphere (rain) coupled with low gravity, so the opportunities for surface erosion are much less than say on Earth Edited July 10, 2012 by StringJunky
alpha2cen Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 No air is a reason. Air makes viscosity, Brownian Movement and atmosphere phenomena(like wind).
CaptainPanic Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Disclaimer: I'm no expert - just interested in the topic and the discussion. On earth, dust (from rock) forms by erosion, and obviously there isn't any on the moon. So, for that reason we shouldn't compare the Moon to any planet with a liquid or an atmosphere. Btw, dust in your house is mostly from fabric and dead skin - which is obviously absent on the moon. Instead, I think I read that the only source of lunar dust is the constant impacts of smaller and larger meteorites. But such an impact will melt rock. If it would only smash up the rocks, then it would become dust... but liquid rock sticks.
Fanghur Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 No, I'm talking about dust accumulating on the surface of the moon that comes from space. Space isn't a perfect vacuum, and as was said before, the moon lack any sort of atmosphere, therefore any interstellar dust that drifts to the surface of the moon from space should theoretically stay there. Why isn't this the case?
Janus Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 No, I'm talking about dust accumulating on the surface of the moon that comes from space. Space isn't a perfect vacuum, and as was said before, the moon lack any sort of atmosphere, therefore any interstellar dust that drifts to the surface of the moon from space should theoretically stay there. Why isn't this the case? It's very simple. the rate at which the Moon collects dust isn't as high as you think it might be. Using Satellite penetration date we can estimate how much dust there is out there and how fast it should collect on the Moon. The measured values are in complete agreement with the dust thickness we find on the Moon. The argument made by the creationists is based on a single measurement made by catching dust in a net from a mountain top. By assuming that nickel would only be found in meteor dust, it was estimated how much of the dust was extraterrestrial in nature. The assumption however was mistaken, which led to a an estimate of meteor dust that was magnitudes too large. 3
CaptainPanic Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 No, I'm talking about dust accumulating on the surface of the moon that comes from space. Space isn't a perfect vacuum, and as was said before, the moon lack any sort of atmosphere, therefore any interstellar dust that drifts to the surface of the moon from space should theoretically stay there. Why isn't this the case? Without any atmosphere, the really tiny particles slam into the moon's surface at the same speed as the really big ones. And they should (I think - not sure) decellerate just as fast, or even faster, thereby heating up just as much, and thus melting like every meteorite. As far as I'm concerned, this reply that I just wrote is pure speculation. I cannot back it up with any data or articles. 1
JohnStu Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 Before I go any farther, I just want to make it clear that I am NOT a creationist, I NEVER have been a creationist, and I NEVER will be a creationist. I despise creationism. I know and believe that the Earth is ~4.2 billion years old. Okay, to my point. I was watching an episode of the Atheist Experience the other day, and some moronic creationist caller started saying that he believes that the fact that the moon has so little dust on its surface 'proves' that the Earth is less than 10 000 years old. Obviously this is complete nonsense, but I confess that I was slightly taken aback, because it seems like a fairly valid argument when taken at face value. Can someone explain why there ISN'T considerably more dust on the lunar surface than there is? I mean, it should have been accumulating for billions of years, after all. Even if it were at a rate of less than a nanometre/decade, there should have still been at least a few feet of it, not the 3/4 inches that there actually is. Again, I have absolutely no doubt of the age of the Earth. This is simply something that I found interesting. Sand dust particles? Sands are created from stones washed by water if you didn't know. Since moon did not have much water for long durations the sands did not form.
swansont Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 Sand dust particles? Sands are created from stones washed by water if you didn't know. Since moon did not have much water for long durations the sands did not form. Nobody said sand, except you.
Ronald Hyde Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 This is a really good question, and it's got some really good answers. I go with the no air no water explanation. I sure wouldn't want to put a resturant there, no atmosphere, and no water to serve the patrons.
Airbrush Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Without any atmosphere, the really tiny particles slam into the moon's surface at the same speed as the really big ones. And they should (I think - not sure) decellerate just as fast, or even faster, thereby heating up just as much, and thus melting like every meteorite. As far as I'm concerned, this reply that I just wrote is pure speculation. I cannot back it up with any data or articles. This above sounds like a very good answer. On Earth with a thick atmosphere, it seems like space dust will get caught in the atmosphere and not slam into the surface. It will gently fall to Earth, without melting. Sand-sized particles and larger, however, will burn up in the atmosphere.
ACG52 Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I would guess that another reason might be vacuum welding.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now