Parts of moon interior contains as much water as Earth's upper mantle

May 26, 2011
Moon

Parts of the moon's interior contains as much water as the upper mantle of the Earth - 100 times more of the precious liquid than measured before – research from Case Western Reserve University, Carnegie Institution for Science, and Brown University shows.

The scientists discovered along with volatile elements in lunar magma trapped inside of crystals that are trapped inside of tiny volcanic glass beads returned to by Apollo 17.

The discovery, published in the May 26 Science Express, challenges assumptions of how the moon formed and the origin of frozen water at the lunar poles.

"These samples provide the best window we have to the amount of water in the interior of the Moon," said James Van Orman, professor of geological sciences at Case Western Reserve and an author of the paper. "The interior seems to be pretty similar to the interior of the Earth, from what we know about water abundance."

In fact, the researchers found the concentrations of water and volatile elements including fluorine, chlorine and sulfur in lunar magma are nearly identical to concentrations in solidified magma from primitive terrestrial mid-ocean ridges on Earth.

The discovery strengthens the theory that the moon and Earth have a common origin but forces scientists to reconsider the current theory of the process: that a huge impact in Earth's early history ejected material into orbit that became the moon.

Part of the origin theory says that water and other volatile elements and compounds were depleted due to the heat and violence of the impact.

This research indicates otherwise and provides new clues to the process of lunar formation.

Scientists at Brown University found super-tiny melt inclusions in lunar soil samples that opened the door for measurements that revealed the magnitude of water inside the moon. Credit: Saal lab, Brown University

"Water plays a critical role in determining the tectonic behavior of planetary surfaces, the melting point of planetary interiors, and the location and eruptive style of planetary volcanoes," said Erik Hauri, a geochemist with Carnegie's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism (DTM), and lead author. "We can conceive of no sample type that would be more important to return to Earth than these volcanic glass samples ejected by explosive volcanism, which have been mapped not only on the Moon but throughout the inner solar system."

The presence of this much water in lunar magma also forces scientists to consider volcanic activity as a possible source of ice found in the shadows of craters at the poles.

Thomas Weinreich, an undergraduate researcher working with Alberto Saal, a professor of geological sciences at Brown University, discovered the tiny magma pockets, called inclusions, inside olivine crystals, inside lunar glass beads.

The orange-colored beads, which are the size of a period on a page, came from deep inside the during volcanic eruptions.

Much of the volatile material from the magma escaped during eruption except what was protected inside crystals, Van Orman explained.

This microscope photo shows whole spheres and partial fragments of orange volcanic glass, of the type recovered from Apollo 17 sample 74220 from which the lunar melt inclusions were recovered. The largest sphere in the center is 0.2 millimeters across. Credit: NASA

In seven samples, researchers ground and polished their way to the surface of the inclusions then measured the volatile elements that existed prior to eruption. From these measurements, the team was able to estimate the amount of water in the moon's interior.

Three years ago the same team, in a study led by Saal, reported the first evidence for the presence of water in lunar volcanic glasses and applied magma degassing models to estimate how much water was originally in the magmas before eruption.

"The bottom line," said Saal, "is that in 2008, we said the primitive water content in the lunar magmas should be similar to lavas coming from the Earth's depleted . Now, we have proven that is indeed the case."

Explore further: Europe launches last resupply ship to space station

Related Stories

Moon whets appetite for water

Jun 14, 2010

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues, have discovered a much higher water content in the Moon's interior than previous studies. Their research suggests that the ...

Mimicking the moon's surface in the basement

Aug 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of scientists used an ion beam in a basement room at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate solar winds on the surface of the Moon. The table-top simulation helped confirm that ...

New high-res map suggests little water inside moon

Feb 12, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The most detailed map of the Moon ever created has revealed never-before-seen craters at the lunar poles. The map is also revealing secrets about the Moon's interior -- and ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LKD
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2011
"The presence of this much water in lunar magma also forces scientists to consider volcanic activity as a possible source of ice found in the shadows of craters at the poles."

What of the article that came a couple years ago that the craters at the poles had accumulated water by cold trapping a solar process on the regolith? For my own comprehension's sake.
Na_Reth
not rated yet May 26, 2011
There are numerous ways the moon could have accumulated water.
Like LKD mentioned a solar process, or what about asteroids?
Also the gravity of the moon could have trapped gasses until it cooled off.
nayTall
3.9 / 5 (14) May 26, 2011
spectator: god is only the 'obvious' answer to people who seek to never feel confusion. it's ok - being confused leads to discovery. try it out.
Rutzs
4 / 5 (16) May 26, 2011
"God Did It!!!"


Translation:

You have no idea how the earth was formed... So the obvious conclusion is that God did it? You must feel so smart... LOL ... Typical religious babble.
antialias
4.1 / 5 (18) May 26, 2011
QC:
The moon could not have been ejected from the earth, because the water content would have outgassed and depleted

I think you need to reread the article:
"The scientists discovered water along with volatile elements in lunar magma trapped inside of crystals that are trapped inside of tiny volcanic glass beads... "

Which part of the word 'trapped' do you not understand?

Nor does it mean they formed magically out of a cloud of dust.
...
and admit the obvious, simpler explaination:
"God Did It!!!"

And the latter is not a 'magical' explanation?

The former has least some circumstantial evidence (whih doesn't necessarily mean it's true. But certainly means it's a much stronger hypothesis than 'god did it').

If that doesn't make it clear: How does
'God did it'
differ from
'the flying spaghetti monster did it'

...and what is your evidence for believing the former and not the latter?

Glyndwr
3 / 5 (4) May 26, 2011
Is spectator a troll deliberately taking the mick out of christians by pretending to be one?
GDM
3.4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2011
Getting back on topic...the abundance of water should signal one thing: The Moon is the next stepping stone for humankind's expansion into space. Stay tuned for the additional findings from the LRO in NASA's Lunar Science 2011 event on July 19-21. There is abundant material on the Moon for establishing and maintaining an independent and populated, base of mining and manufacturing, and it will happen as soon as we realize there is nothing holding us back.
...oh yes, and please don't feed the trolls...
spectator
1.7 / 5 (10) May 26, 2011
antialias:

The word "trapped" is precisely the word which undermines the false planetesmal theory. However, I can understand your vocabulary and reading comprehension skills are minimal, so I shall point you to the key passage.

And I quote:

The discovery... ...forces scientists to reconsider the current theory of the process: that a huge impact in Earth's early history ejected material into orbit that became the moon.

Part of the origin theory says that water and other volatile elements and compounds were depleted due to the heat and violence of the impact.

This research indicates otherwise and provides new clues to the process of lunar formation.


Which is to say, the planetesmal collision theory is definitely not supported by these findings.

reconsider:

1. to consider (something) again, with a view to changing one's policy or course of action

Bog_Mire
2.8 / 5 (11) May 26, 2011
spectator of his his ass through a head insertion.
SemiNerd
4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2011
Is spectator a troll deliberately taking the mick out of christians by pretending to be one?

No he is not exactly a troll. He is violating the comments guildlines and needs to be reported for inappropriate religious based comments. Simply click the 'Report Abuse' link and he will go away soon enough.
Cynical1
2 / 5 (8) May 26, 2011
"Common sense - I may not have any, but I know it when I see it..."
Thanks, Semi, for succinctly suggesting an ending to the unfortunate, extraneous noise that invariably creeps into these discussions.
Pyle
2.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2011
Sorry guys. Besides the last three words in his first post, spectator is dead on with this article.
He had a bad bout a couple of days ago, but these posts are well measured and actually add some level of understanding, besides those three unfortunate words.

Regarding the formation of the Earth and Moon, our simulations and models that try to guess how planets form from an accretion disk aren't going to be 100% accurate. There are all kinds of things that might be going on that aren't being properly accounted for. My point being the moon's size relative to the Earth might be rare, but it isn't miraculous. Even if the collision-fragment theory is wrong.

GDM, I still don't like the gravity well. Let's step on asteroids first.
GDM
2.6 / 5 (5) May 26, 2011
Pyle: The logistics, communications, cost and mostly the human physiology favor the Moon first. I was strongly in favor of the asteroids first until water in really huge amounts was discovered on the Moon. But...I still agree with the notion that we should go for the asteroids, but from a Moon base rather than from the Earth's gravity well.
Thex1138
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011
With the observational evidence mounting that what we assume as 'normal' that planets orbit in the same direction as the sun's rotation or the presumptive notion that the accretion disc rotates as such aren't exactly the 'model'... For example the observation of two similar sized planets orbiting in opposite directions around a star in a matter of 30 odd hours... What we assume about our moon's creation remains a theory... aside from orbital/gravitational model extrapolation...
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (21) May 27, 2011
What has been overlooked in the discussion is the mention of volcanic activity on the moon. The way it's stated, it's not exactly clear that the activity was something that happened in the distant past. In fact they are implying that it's still current, as attested to be numerous reports of such activity being observed by astronomers - pros or amateurs alike.
What it means is that the moon cannot in any way be billions of years old - it's too small to have retained internal heat for that long. It's also not locked in a tidal orbit with earth, hence there's no mechanical energy being transferred in that way. Combine this with the now better understood cratering mechanism [ one large impact causes lots of secondary craters plus the presence of maria] and it leaves very little doubt the moon is young. Only those who WANT it to be old will look past the evidence and find other unreasonable explanations as witnessed in this discussion.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (21) May 27, 2011
On the topic of volcanic activity on the moon: Jupiter's moon IO also has the same situation, in fact even more drastically so. Secular, evolutionist scientists have calculated that the tidal dissipation and resonance orbit only account for about a tenth of the energy released by the volcanoes. The other 90% must come from internal sources. This means that given it's small size, IO could not have been around for billions or even millions of years either. It must be relatively young.
So we have at least TWO solar bodies serving as actually observed, hard physical evidence that contradicts the uniformitarian assumptions about the age of the solar system.
Will people accept it? No. They'll stick to the billions of years because molecules to man evolution requires it. They'll instead bring in other assumptions/conjectures to bring the evidence back in line with their ideology. Note that those assumptions will take the form of "scenarios" which will somehow turn into truth, without evidence
PS3
1.6 / 5 (10) May 27, 2011
I think there must be space bugs that make water.
hush1
1.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2011
Hint:
Once you have perfected your 'crater count' technique, compare the ratios of the 150+ 'moons' (and of course the future 'discovered 'moons' as well) of 'your' solar system.

just sayin...don't say nuthin wasn't ever said.

kevinrtr, go easy

God
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (13) May 27, 2011
Kevin

When was the Great Flood? Where is the evidence that the world is young? Where is the evidence that the grass was growing without a Sun?

Goodby Kevin.

Ethelred
antialias
4.8 / 5 (8) May 27, 2011
I still don't like the gravity well. Let's step on asteroids first.

The gravity well is your friend (within reason). Imagine how hard it would be for astronauts stepping on an asteroid to NOT go flying off into space with each step.

The logistics, communications, cost and mostly the human physiology favor the Moon first. I was strongly in favor of the asteroids first until water in really huge amounts was discovered on the Moon.

Human physiology will suffer on the moon almost as much as in deep space. But you are right: Every bit of gravity helps there. The amount of water isn't really an issue (beyond the obvious lower limit) but how easy we can get at it. If it's locked in the rocks then extraction might not be viable.

Saturn's moon Enceladus or the Jupiter moon Europa might be more promising candidates for a long term, self sufficient base (with enough water and power most other problems can be solved). The trip out is more tricky, though.
Bog_Mire
3.7 / 5 (17) May 27, 2011
Kev, your religion actually persecuted a guy called Galileo for suggesting planets such as Jupiter orbited the sun and not the earth. Eventually they changed their mind, despite their fantasy book's insistences. Couldn't you and they do the same about some other bleedingly obvious biblical bullshit such as creation theory and ages???????????????????????????

why not?
Egleton
1.9 / 5 (7) May 27, 2011
When Gerard O'Neill et al worked out how to colonize L3 and 4 they did not know of water on the moon.
http://en.wikiped..._O'Neill
How much more viable does this plan have to get before we do it?
There could be orders of magnitude more people in space than on Earth at the end of the century.
(Either because of a dieoff on Earth or because of rational controlled emigration. Probably both.)
Egleton
1.5 / 5 (11) May 27, 2011
Cold fusion is the cause of the anomalous heat in the smaller spheroids, such as the moon, Ceres etc.
Peteri
5 / 5 (9) May 27, 2011
I have a science degree and, as an amateur astronomer, have had a long term interest in the moon and its origins. There is no evidence of active volcanism currently on the moon or even in the recent past - any volcanic artefacts, such as lava domes, are extremely ancient. Maybe kevinrtrs is mistakenly thinking of transient lunar phenomena, which have been observed by astronomers, as evidence of volcanic activity. However, as suggested by their name, these are very infrequent events resembling faint mist patches above small areas of the surface. These may be simply caused by the release of small pockets of gas trapped beneath the surface, or the fine regolith being elevated by electrostatic fields or being kicked up by meteorite impacts.

All available evidence points towards the solar system being formed 4.456 billion years ago and the earth-moon system at ~4.53 billion years ago. This doesn't appear to fit in with some peoples uneducated fantasies and so they ignore the facts.
SteveL
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2011
Growing up in a generation that was strongly influenced by the space race, I've long felt cheated that wars and politics have prevented our progress towards the other planets. Here we are generations later and we still have all of our eggs in the same basket. I know it's too late for my generation, we've wasted our time with distractions, but I'd love to see the generations of my grandchildren and their children establishing permanent bases in space and on the moon with the full intent to continue on to the other moons and planets before our insanity prevents us. I'd like to finish my days with that hope for my species.
Pyle
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
SteveL: While we haven't been as efficient reaching out the stars, we have also been far from idle. In fact by not wasting our resources jumping off early we may have just enabled ourselves to get out there. Spin it positive man!

Going back to my asteroid rather than moon comments. Gravity has some benefits, but asteroids are easier. Tons less energy to get on and off. Simple as that. I think. Screw physiology, we'll adapt or our creations will go in our stead.

antialias: Step was, of course, used as a figure of speech continued from GDM's comment.
antialias
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2011
Tons less energy to get on and off.


Take a look at the moon landers. The fuel carrying capacity for landing/takeoff was very little. If you go to the asteroids the distances are FAR greater (meaning if you want to get there in any realistic timeframe then the amount of fuel you must carry for acceleration/deceleration as well as the additional supplies for the longer trip far outweighs the bit more fuel you need to overcome the 1/6g gravity well of the moon)
Pyle
2 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011
Um, aren't there asteroids all over the place?
http://en.wikiped...m-en.png

They are most abundant out in the Trojan belt, but there are plenty closer.
Just saying. I like the idea of a base on the moon, but until we get better at making energy I think near Earth asteroids are a better target to hone our skills.
yyz
4 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011
@Pyle,

"Um, aren't there asteroids all over the place?"

You might like this video of asteroid discoveries from 1980-2010 ('must see' in 1080p for best viewing): http://www.youtub...-gs0WoUw

They ARE all over the place AND growing in number!
NANOBRAIN
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2011
WE MAY JUST FIND LIFE IN THE MOON.
antialias
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2011
Asteroids which are anywhere near close nough to be comparabel to the distance moon-earth are of the high-speed fly-by type.

Meaning that you'd need to:
- time the flight carefully
- match speeds carefully to a fast object (fuel!)
- land
- depart soon or you get too far away
- kill all your momentum and return to earth (a LOT more fuel)

Still seems a lot more costly than going to the moon. And the asteroid wouldn't be much use after that as it has gone too far away. No use for a base or even thinking of exploration/exploitation based on returned samples.

Closest asteroids with a stable position relative to earth could be found at the Lagrange points of the earth-sun system (and there only at L4 and L5).
The distance to these points (about 1 AU) is far greater than to the moon (about 0.0026 AU).

Unfortunately there seems to be only dust at L4 and L5.
Peteri
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2011
Correction to the last paragraph of my earlier comment which had a typo:
"All available evidence points towards the solar system being formed 4.57 billion years ago..."
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (20) May 28, 2011
@Peteri
All available evidence points towards the solar system being formed 4.57 billion years ago

Seems like a certain amount of made-up mindset stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the physical evidence in front of it. You accuse creationists of not understanding things but you actually ignore and discredit the evidence right in front of you.
You do realise that because you believe in evolution, you need to have billions of years to support that theory and hence all evidence get interpreted in such a way as to align with evolutionary thought. Any evidence to the contrary is simply explained away by wishful scenarios or else is swept under the carpet and not mentioned in any polite company at all.
kevinrtrs
May 28, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (22) May 28, 2011
@Bog Mire:
your religion actually persecuted a guy called Galileo for suggesting planets such as Jupiter orbited the sun and not the earth


Strangely enough it was those church leaders who compromised with Aristotlian thought that refused to accept Galileo's theories.
Just as today, more and more church leaders are accepting the theory of evolution, becoming useful idiots in propagating the lie of atheists.
It's going to be absolutely tragic to see the consequences of this latest compromise with atheistic thought. Unfortunately only the future will reveal the scale of the tragedy.
The church and most scientists of the day had always understood and believed in a young earth creation. It's only when Darwin's theories became popular that the swing away from truth started. By the way Darwin was not the first evolutionist, those came from Athens, he was just the one to put a plausible mechanism in place.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) May 28, 2011
Hey Kevin

When was the Great Flood.

Ethelred
SteveL
3.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2011
@kevinrtrs - Your arguments would have a bit more influence over me if Catholic priests weren't getting away with screwing little boys, and Baptists weren't burning the sacred books of other religions and protesting at the funerals of our war dead. Not much, but a bit more. I judge a tree by its fruit, and your team's not doing so well from my perspective. When you start holding your own accountable for thier actions and I see you fighting the good fight, then you'll have at least a moral basis to stand on, if not a logical one. You won't change my mind, but I'd respect your team more.
SteveL
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2011
I think a electromagnetic rail would work wonders in assisting equipment with achieving the lunar escape velocity (2.4k/s or 5,369 mph). If we reduce the fuel required via an electromagnetic boost system I believe it would be far more beneficial and with lower risk to use a constant and known location on the lunar surface as a starting point. It's not like we have to worry too much about breaking the sound barrier.
thematrix606
2.3 / 5 (4) May 28, 2011
Nice find!

Have they found the buildings on the back side yet? xD
Na_Reth
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2011
As long as we do not waste this water into space i think living on the moon would be pretty cool.
Sinister1811
1.7 / 5 (11) May 29, 2011
If the moon was once part of the Earth (before a major collision) early in the Earth's history, could this mean that the Earth had always had an abundance in water?

At least now it'll improve the prospect of colonizing the moon in the future.
Bog_Mire
3.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2011
Kev, if I read you right you are suggesting that it is ok for your Religion to alter fundamental views based on scientific data becoming available - such as the notion of a Copernican Solar System as opposed to one where the entire UNIVERSE revolves around a stationary earth - yet it is not ok to alter other fundamentally flawed Biblical Bullshit that has been proven incorrect by equally valid and conclusive scientific data; such as creation theory, ages, flood, and so on. Seems you are picking and choosing which fundamental parts of the Bible you are willing to completely alter with out reason....
Bog_Mire
3.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2011
Oh, and Kev, I remember your lame attempt to answer Ethelred's flood query - you stated that you admit to having doubt on your Bible's dates for that event. So what are you thinking - out by a few hundred years, a few thousand years, or a few million years?

L O L
CSharpner
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2011
kevinrtrs,

It's also not locked in a tidal orbit with earth

?!?!?!? Then why do we see the same side facing Earth for all of human history? This is just ballisticly stupid. First of all, "orbits" are not "tidally locked", *ROTATIONS* are tidally locked and the moon's rotation IS tidally locked. Everyone knows that. Anyone who looks at the moon night after night and sees the same darned side realizes it.
Only those who WANT it to be old will look past the evidence and find other unreasonable explanationsas witnessed in this discussion

Well, at least you understand the concept that people who WANT to believe something will look for every fringe reason to support it, but you seriously need to look in on yourself because it is YOU who are "tidally locked" into that type of thought process. You WANT to believe the universe is only 6000 years old so you'll cling onto any shred of evidence, no matter how made up or ludicrous,
[continued...]
CSharpner
5 / 5 (9) May 29, 2011
[contined...]
as witnessed in almost every anti-fact post you write here.

They'll stick to the billions of years because molecules to man evolution requires it [...] You do realise that because you believe in evolution, you need to have billions of years to support that theory

Wrong, and I've explained this to you before. The age of the Earth wasn't changed to fit evolution. The age of the Earth comes from data collected all over the world from many different disciplines as well as astronomical observations, the majority of which have nothing to do with evolution AT ALL. Evolution and the other sciences all come to the same conclusions regarding the age of the Earth, and NO! they don't use each other to base their age data. They DON'T use circular logic (yes, I'm quite familiar with the creationists lies regarding that). There are independently tested methods of determining the age of the Earth and guess what, they all agree... INDEPENDENTLY!
CSharpner
4.6 / 5 (8) May 29, 2011
Seems like a certain amount of made-up mindset stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the physical evidence in front of it.

EXACTLY!!! This is what we've been telling you for years now. YOU are that "certain amount". Now that you fully comprehend that this is a practice of some people, please, please, please, turn a critical eye towards yourself. If the universe is only 6000 years old, why is it that we see objects BILLIONS of light years away?

I --==>>**CHALLENGE**<==-- you to think about that and to --==>>**ANSWER**<==-- it. I've proposed that question to you so many times I've lost count, and not once have you even given it a shot.

Look at that question, even if you refuse to think about it, at the very least, you should see how people who DO look at it can't accept that the universe is only 6000 years old.
CSharpner
4.3 / 5 (7) May 29, 2011
[Of course if you believe in evolution, you shouldn't mind having such behaviour around since evolution has no absolute basis for moral and just actions.
This is just patently false. I believe 100% in evolution and I also believe in absolutes in morality. For example, it's absolutely immoral to kill an innocent, conscious human for pleasure. That is absolutely wrong. AND I'm a firm believer in evolution. Now that you know that there are people who believe in evolution AND absolutes in morality, you will be committing a sin by repeating that falsehood in the future. If you post it again, I'll refer you and the readers back to this comment to prove them that you are willfully lieing.

[continued...]
CSharpner
4.4 / 5 (8) May 29, 2011
becoming useful idiots in propagating the lie of atheists.

As you well know, for something to be a "lie", it requires 2 things:

1. It must be false.
2. The person (or people) saying it must believe it's false.

Worst case scenario for atheists, is they're just mistaken, but they are NOT lieing. They believe what they say. From this point forward, if you say that THEY are lieing, it is YOU that is the liar for falsely accusing THEM of lieing. If I catch you stating that again in the future, I will refer you and the readers back to this post so everyon knows, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you're lieing. And, as you full well know, "Thou shalt not commit false witness against thy neighbor"! Not only will you be lieing, but you'll be committing a sin by violating what you believe to be one of God's 10 commandments. He is COMMANDING you to NOT do this. If you accuse atheists of lieing when they speak what they believe, YOU are a SINNER by every definition that YOU accept!
CSharpner
4.3 / 5 (7) May 29, 2011
Further more, it's not just atheists that believe in evolution. Many (if not most... probably MOST) Christians do and virtually all agnostics do.

Also, back to your quote:

Only those who WANT it to be old will look past the evidence and find other unreasonable explanationsas witnessed in this discussion

That's not true. People who don't give a flip one way or the other will see that it's old. People who WANT there to be a God and a Heaven (ME!) will see that it's much older than 6000 years old. I'm an agnostic... I don't know if there's a God, and if there is one, which religion, if any, is right, but one thing I do know, is that when physical evidence strongly suggests the universe, the moon, and the Earth are billions of years old, I pay attention.

The ONLY people who DON'T see it as old are those that are so freaking closed minded, they just absolutely refuse to accept the overwhelming physical evidence that's all around them... YOU!
CSharpner
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2011
SteveL,
@kevinrtrs - Your arguments would have a bit more influence over me if Catholic priests weren't getting away with screwing little boys,

Now now, let's not stoop down to Kev's level of logic. if some of the men claiming to believe in an idea commit crimes, it says nothing about the idea itself (even if the idea may be wrong, it's not wrong because some who believe in it do stupid things). I'm sure there are plenty of pedophiles that AREN'T Catholic, that doesn't prove that non-Catholicism is wrong, it just proves the ones committing the pedophilia are wrong.

and Baptists weren't burning the sacred books of other religions and protesting at the funerals of our war dead

Other examples of poor behavior by individuals. BTW, those wackos from the so-called "westboro baptist church" are nothing more than one, truly wacked out family. They're not a church and every Christian I know (Baptist or not) soundly rejects those sorry excuses for humans and are sickened by them.
thewhitebear
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
as for the why do we see objects that are billions of light years away if earth is only 6000 years old. what if the speed of light hasn't always been constant? any particular reason/evidence why we assume that it has? just curious.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 30, 2011
what if the speed of light hasn't always been constant?
There is no evidence to support the idea. We can see way out in space. When things go bang the light takes the same time to reach objects light years from the explosion as is theory tells us it should. See Supernova 1987a for a well documented evidence. Nebula in the neighborhood of the explosion lit up on time, neither early nor late.

Now if you want to go the god did it because the Bible says so route then you unavoidably are calling Jehovah a liar. Either the book or the Universe must be an intentional lie since they clearly do not match no matter how many lies Creationists tell about the evidence. I go with the book simply being wrong as men wrote it and men claim a god was responsible for it. Why should I believe them over the entire Universe.

Ethelred
Egleton
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
@all creationists.
God is creating this moment, now. There is no past, no future. There is only Now. And It could change Its mind at any moment.

@ All those who love humanity. The details were worked out by Gerard O'Neill back in 1975 about how to escape from this gravity well in style.
http://en.wikiped...%27Neill
http://en.wikiped...in_Space
Bog_Mire
2.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2011
@Egleton, John Lennon (RIP) said it wayyyyyyyyyy better. And he had a funky two faced androgynous alien band to back him up. With horn section.
CSharpner
4.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2011
what if the speed of light hasn't always been constant?
There is no evidence to support the idea. We can see way out in space. When things go bang the light takes the same time to reach objects light years from the explosion as is theory tells us it should. See Supernova 1987a for a well documented evidence. Nebula in the neighborhood of the explosion lit up on time, neither early nor late.

Now if you want to go the god did it because the Bible says so route then you unavoidably are calling Jehovah a liar. Either the book or the Universe must be an intentional lie since they clearly do not match no matter how many lies Creationists tell about the evidence. I go with the book simply being wrong as men wrote it and men claim a god was responsible for it. Why should I believe them over the entire Universe.

Ethelred

You beat me to it. Excellent fact based response.

@thewhitebear, does this satisfy your curiosity? It was a good question, btw (and a great response).
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2011
I have yet to see any study supporting or refuting the constanty of the speed of light after the discovery of the increasing expansion rate of the universe. Obviously I'm no physicist so I could be missing something simple here. But as speed is relative to an environment, the recent discovery that that environment (the universe) is expanding at an increasing rate implies to me that there are fundemantal relativistic considerations here that were unknown when the speed of light was first determined.

Is there anyone here who can explain to me how the universe which has been determined to be expanding at an increasing rate does or does not have any effect on the constancy of the speed of light? And a follow-up: Is it likely that non-baryonic matter is expanding along with baryonic matter?
SteveL
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2011
SteveL,
@kevinrtrs - Your arguments would have a bit more influence over me if Catholic priests weren't getting away with screwing little boys,

Now now, let's not stoop down to Kev's level of logic. if some of the men claiming to believe in an idea commit crimes, it says nothing about the idea itself (even if the idea may be wrong, it's not wrong because some who believe in it do stupid things).

The point is that these guys are the gatekeepers of their faith. They have put themselves in the position of power and authority and when caught breaking their sacred vows against or abusing the trusting innocents they give themselves a pass. They are worse than crooked cops, judges and politicians. They are not being held accountable and infact are being protected by those same groups who should be crucifying them for their actions. Until they clean up their houses they have little right to bother the rest of us to tell us what is right or wrong.
antialias
5 / 5 (3) May 31, 2011
But as speed is relative to an environment,

The speed of light isn't. No matter if you are in a a fast mocing spaceship or on a planet: To you the speed of light will always be the same. That's where such fun things as time dilation come into play.

does or does not have any effect on the constancy of the speed of light?

The speed of light SEEMS to be unaffected. Frequencies are red-shifted. There are still some experiments ongoing to see whether there are time gaps between infrared and gamma photons. Problem is that you need to observe an event that produces both at EXACTLY the same time and then measure incidence of 'first light' (i.e. be luck enough to have a detector for both pointing in the right direction)

Expansion can have the effect that something very far away passes beyond the visibility horizon (space between it and us expands at a rate greater than the speed of light can negate)