798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 141:
Line 141: − Foget about how old the moon is. Article needs substantial changes, mainly for stylistic reasons. Currently (7 APRIL, 2007 AD)springs current scientific theory half way thru article, which is not a good pedagogical technique. (But then neither is employing "pedagogical" when "educational" would have sufficed.)Here below are the first 2 pars as I see them. If no one objects, I will put them when next I am around these parts.+ + − + − − All of these scenarios had serious defects as theories, and all were made before the Apollo Moon Program of the late 1960s and early 1970s brought back tons of Moon rock to provide scientists with unprecedented data about the Moon’s composition and history. That data, and the more sophisticated measurements of the Moon’s mass and orbit available to recent researchers, led to the earlier theories losing favor and the promotion of a new one: “The Big Impact Hypothesis”. This theory envisages a massive collision between an ancient Earth and a large asteroid, one in which the early Earth melted and the asteroid disintegrated, only to re-coalesce as the Moon over a period of time. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
"Look at the moon, look at the moon...." (from HAIR)
"Look at the moon, look at the moon...." (from HAIR)
Forget about how old the moon is. Article needs substantial changes, mainly for stylistic reasons. Currently (7 APRIL, 2007 AD)article springs current scientific theory half way thru, which is not a good pedagogical technique.(But then neither is employing "pedagogical" when "educational" would have sufficed.)Here below are the first 2 pars as I see them. If no one objects, I will put them when next I am around these parts.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
There is not a complete consensus amongst contemporary scientists as to how the Moon came into existence. Historically , three hypotheses were widely seen as plausible contenders for such an explanation: they were the “Fission Hypothesis”, which held that the Moon was ejected by the ancient, swiftly-spinning Earth; the “Capture Hypothesis”, in which the Earth’s gravity captured another planet; and the “Co-accretion Hypothesis” in which both the Earth and the Moon came into being side by side formed together from the same primordial loose aggregation of space dust.
There is not (blah blah)coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
[[user:mylesP|MylesP]]
[[user:mylesP|MylesP]]
:I didn't do a deep-down analysis of your changes so far, but they look nice! From what I see, you add a more professional tone to it. I'm not quite sure what you want to do with the above paragraphs. Do you want to insert them into the intro (above the ToC)? If so, I'm all for it - they're a nice summary of the article that comes after it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks Sid, I have rewritten intro, and first 2 pars are changed to incorporate initial ref to new theory "Big Whack" at very start. Normal stylistic changes made to body of article. No change in content. Would suggest writers use brackets sparingly - they are not commas. Also, frowned on appearance of terms FeO and “siderophilic” without definition. Turns out former is Ferrous Oxide, and latter means “iron loving”. Have incorporated that as well. All this could be made a little clearer. From what I rem from my own casual reading, reason Moon is poor in iron is because in collision and subsequent heat, most of the heavy stuff sank to Earth’s core. Moon ended up with very little. Basically, Moon is a lot of sterilised accreted dust, fairly boring, and that’s why we stopped going there after we found out what it was made of. Question of angular momentum is dealt with in VERY shallow way. Once again, I’m no expert, but I think there are some big misconceptions here. Will leave note in another section here. [[user:mylesP|MylesP]]
::You're my personal hero for your walk-through there! Excellent points regarding style and usage of words, too. I'll try to keep them in mind.
::The whole issue with the lack of iron of the moon is not really trivial from what I gathered. Depending on the "when", much/most of the iron had sunk to the core already, thus leaving lots of non-iron-y material in the mantle to form the Moon. But then there are the issues of how much material and force you'd need to form the moon in the first place.
::I'm definitely no expert in this field, and I agree that a few things could/should be covered in more detail. Angular momentum being one of them. I just went with the sources I found during an afternoon, and they didn't really go into detail there. It's a start, but it of course needs more work. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
== Young Earth Creation Hypothesis ==
Let me explain what is the problem with this section.
(i) The reference is NOT to a paper written by "Astronomer Dr Don DeYoung (Professor of Physics, Grace College, Indiana), ... presented at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1990", but to the website ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp
which is basically a blog, or at best a re-interpretation of someone else's material.
About half way down the article, we find:
"Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. '''The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.'''
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years." (my emboldenment)
The emboldened claim is actually crucial for the argument that the moon is only 10,000 years old at most. Now, I have no idea whether or not DeYoung has any evidence for the the emboldened claim, and nowhere in the blog is it explained why the rate of increase should have been greater in the past rather than less, the same or even variable over time. More to the point, I do not think the author of the blog has such evidence, or even considered the possibility. What is clear, is that this whole section is based on a claim taken from something which is little more than a blog, and which, in itself, has no academic credibility. If you wish this section to be credible, search out DeYoung's actual paper and use his argument and his evidence; not someone's assertions based on his or her potentially flawed interpretations of them.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
... oh and by the way; try to find someone who refutes his arguments, and clarify why, and if you can find a response where deYoung refutes the refutations, even better!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:In my experience, AiG has (so far) been pretty much a dead end in terms of sources. However, I would applaud the finding of the original paper and maybe a few better-researched claims (or just better research and reasoning for that one claim at least). What I find odd is that AiG (didn't check if it's that source link or another one) basically echoes most things that are being said in this article and then adds the distance calculation. Sorta makes me wonder why they even bother with the other things when the distance argument supposedly is the ultimate proof. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
== Expansion of revert summary ==
The revert summary didn't let me write my point fully. From what I gather, all of the "Big Three" have been proven "wrong" (in the sense of needing better explanations that take the new evidence into account - if that is possible). The arguments against it come later on, but the first part seems to be meant to show what had been assumed back then, and I think the source says just that (and also gives the countering explanation). Tectonics isn't exactly my special field, so I won't touch it much, but I invite you to include the argument in the "problems with the big three" section, it appears to me critical for full understanding of the problems with that theory. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 19:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
== Atheism & scientists ==
Does the term "atheistic scientists" mean that the theories they made were atheistic or the scientists themselves? The latter should have no place in a non-religious/science article. The former makes more sense. Personal attacks on respected scientists are unwarranted.
Keep in mind that "atheism" simply refers to a disbelief in gods, not Abrahamic religions solely. Many theistic religions have beliefs about the origin of the moon. "God is not a deciever." [[User:LyraBelaqua|LyraBelaqua]] 00:36, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
: It would mean the scientists themselves, and is relevant because their views affect their hypotheses. Specifically, a scientist who is an atheist is not even going to ''consider'' the possibility that God created the moon. I agree that God is not a deceiver, and therefore, when God said that he created the moon on the fourth day of creation, he wasn't being deceptive, but actually meant just that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
== Is it falsifiable or not? ==
It has now been two years (!) since some of the above exchanges regarding the falsifiability of the giant impact hypothesis. For some reason, the article still claims that "This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability" and then, two lines later, states that the article has been falsified! '''Both of these cannot be true.''' The theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and falsified. Unless there are any complaints, I will amend the article to reflect this. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 22:22, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
: There is no contradiction. People (perhaps yourself?) cling to the new theory despite the failure of the tests. The new theory is impossible to falsify, but ever test to prove it true has failed. It's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
:: There is no contradiction? Here's the relevant quote from the article:
:::"This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper.
:::Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."
:::Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory."
:: How can something be falsified if it lacks falsifiability? By ''definition'', both of these cannot be true. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:24, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::: You raise a valid semantic point. I've improved the wording accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:49, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:::: The wording is now better. But with respect, the problem is not an issue of mere wording. The article claims that the theory is not testable or falsifiable; it then ''lists things which contradict the theory''. If the theory is not falsifiable, then no observation could possibly be taken as "contradictory" to the theory; no potential piece of evidence could make it appear implausible. That's part of what lacking falsifiability implies. The article also claims that the theory lacks testability, but you have just stated here that there have been tests performed to check it! Clearly both of those cannot be true, either. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::::: No, you're getting tangled up in semantics. Your objections could be easily satisfied by minor modifications to the wording, which you could easily do yourself. I suggest you focus on opening your mind to the substance first.
:::::: Thanks for taking it this far, Andy. I'm sure [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] will be able to come up with a revision that satisfies all of us. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:18, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::: I added a sentence. It seems that the real problem with the theory is not that it's unfalsifiable as it stands, but that it will merely be amended in the event that evidence appears to contradict it, as has been done in the past. I disagree that this makes the theory unfalsifiable but have left that implication in the article, respecting the intent of the author. "has been criticized" may seem weasel-wordy so feel free to revert that if you think so. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 14:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::: Your edit is heavy-handed, perhaps even a parody of your view of others. If you think the theory is falsifiable, then how would you propose falsifying it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::: I think the issue of siderophilic elements is a legitimate one, and possibly a falsifier. I'm not up-to-date on the literature but I am guessing planetary scientists are working on ways to amend the giant impact hypothesis which incorporate the lack of such elements. Evidence that the earth has never had a magma ocean would also be a falsifier, but maybe scientists will find a way around that one, too. On a more obvious level, direct evidence that the earth-moon system isn't billions of years old (for example) would also completely be a falsifier. I don't think that a theory being subject to amendment in the light of new discoveries renders it unfalsifiable, but it's your encyclopedia and not mine (and that is an interesting debate in the philosophy of science). [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::: Your points cast doubt on the theory, but I doubt many would see them as falsifying it entirely.
:::::::::: By the way, black holes and the theory of extraterrestrial life are also not falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
(unindent) I think your opinion on black holes is based on a misunderstanding of the common statement: "'Black holes do not exist' is not falsifiable". Some would argue that this is true (I disagree), but this statement is an argument that falsifiability is not a good demarcation of science from non-science, not that black holes are somehow unscientific. There are serious problems with falsifiability alone. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:08, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:edit: I meant to say "'Black holes exist' is not falsifiable." Sorry! [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:39, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:: How would you falsify the claim that black holes exist???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::: That's the point. "Black holes exist" may not be falsifiable ''per se'', but that clearly doesn't mean it suddenly isn't scientific to state that, because obviously that is a scientific statement. This is one of the serious problems with falsifiability as a criterion.
::: Anyway, I'd say that if we do plenty of looking, especially where black holes are expected to be, and find none, that is close enough to being a falsifier. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Surely this is all the wrong way round. The null hypothesis would naturally be that 'no black holes exist'. This is of course falsifiable if black holes are detected. From our understanding of the laws of physics and observations made, the only reasonable conclusion as it stands is that black holes do exist. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
: Exactly. In this sense, "black holes exist" needn't be falsifiable (in the absence of evidence, there's no reason to think it is true instead of the null hypothesis) in order to be scientific. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
==Could we just say scientists?==
I keep seeing references to "atheistic scientists", would it be more accurate to simply say "scientist"? Maybe even "secular scientist", although the former is preferred. There is no information on the scientists' belief systems who proposed various Moon Origin hypotheses, it would be misleading to call them all atheists. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:33, 18 June 2009 [EDT]