# How come moon's difference in thickness between sides does not create an unbalance on its mass?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I've just found out that moon's dark side is 30 miles thicker then the closer side to the Earth. So I'm wondering about moon's mass. How come it's still balanced? Supposing the far side is indeed heavier, considering More Mass More Gravity, wouldn't it have to be closer to Earth?

Sorry if I'm making stupid assumptions, I'm just a curious fela.

As is the case on Earth, the Moon's crust is less dense than the material that comprises the Moon's mantle or core. On the Earth, this means that areas with thick crust rise above sea level. (These are our continents.) On the Moon, this means that the Moon's center of figure (it's center based on surface topography) is offset by a couple of kilometers from Moon's center of mass, with the center of mass closer to the Earth than the center of figure.

This center of mass to center of figure offset does not mean much with regard to the Moon's stability. What matters much more is the distribution of mass top to bottom vs side to side vs front to back. To be stable in a tidally locked orientation, a moon's principal axes deduced from the moment of inertia tensor should be very close to the set of axes as seen from the planet.

Moreover, a very specific ordering of the moments about the principal axes as deduced from the inertia tensor needs to exist. For the moon to be in a stable tidally locked configuration, the axis of rotation needs to be more or less orthogonal to the moon's orbital plane, the moment of inertia about the rotation axis needs to be the largest, and the moment of inertia about the line from the center of the planet to the center of the moon needs to be the smallest, leaving the moment of inertia about the side-to-side as the intermediate axis.

This most definitely is the case with the Earth's Moon. The angular difference between the Moon's geometric axes as seen from the Earth and the Moon's principal axes deduced from its inertia tensor (in technical terms, the angular difference between the Moon-Mean Earth frame and the Moon's principal axis frame) is a few hundredths of a degree.

That the Moon's far side has a much thicker crust than does the near side is a third order effect. The Moon would be nearly as stable as it is now if it was the Moon's far side with its much thicker crust that faced the Earth rather than facing empty space.

## Second Moon May Have Orbited Earth Billions of Years Ago

It’s a view science fiction fans could only hope for: twin moons in the night sky above Earth. But it might have been reality about 4 billion years ago. A new model suggests the lunar farside highlands could have been created from a collision with a smaller companion moon in what scientists from the University of California, Santa Cruz are calling “the big splat.”

Why the near and far sides of the Moon are so different has long puzzled planetary scientists. The near side is relatively low and flat, while the topography of the far side is high and mountainous, with a much thicker crust.

We actually have a somewhat lopsided Moon.

The new study, published in the August 4 issue of Nature, builds on the “giant impact” model for the origin of the moon, in which a Mars-sized object collided with Earth early in the history of the solar system and ejected debris that coalesced to form the moon.

According to the new computer model, the second moon around Earth would have been about 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) wide and could have formed from the same collision. Later, the smaller moon fell back onto the bigger Moon and coated one side with an extra layer of solid crust tens of kilometers thick.

“Our model works well with models of the Moon-forming giant impact, which predict there should be massive debris left in orbit about the Earth, besides the Moon itself,” said Erik Asphaug, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz. “It agrees with what is known about the dynamical stability of such a system, the timing of the cooling of the moon, and the ages of lunar rocks.”

Other computer models have suggested a companion moon, said Asphaug, who coauthored the paper with UCSC postdoctoral researcher Martin Jutzi.

A previous collision with a smaller companion could explain why the Moon's two sides look so different. Credit: Martin Jutzi and Erik Asphaug

Asphaug and Jutzi used computer simulations to study the dynamics of the collision between the Moon and a smaller companion, which was about one-thirtieth the mass of the “main” moon. They tracked the evolution and distribution of lunar material in its aftermath.

The impact between the two bodies would have been relatively slow, at about 8,000 kph (5,000 mph) which is slow enough for rocks not to melt and no impact crater to form. Instead, the rocks and crust from the smaller moon would have spread over and around the bigger moon.

“Of course, impact modelers try to explain everything with collisions. In this case, it requires an odd collision: being slow, it does not form a crater, but splats material onto one side,” Asphaug said. “It is something new to think about.”

He and Jutzi hypothesize that the companion moon was initially trapped at one of the gravitationally stable “Trojan points” sharing the Moon’s orbit, and became destabilized after the moon’s orbit had expanded far from Earth. “The collision could have happened anywhere on the Moon,” Jutzi said. “The final body is lopsided and would reorient so that one side faces Earth.”

The model may also explain variations in the composition of the moon’s crust, which is dominated on the near side by terrain comparatively rich in potassium, rare-earth elements, and phosphorus (KREEP). These elements, as well as uranium and thorium, are believed to have been concentrated in the magma ocean that remained as molten rock solidified under the moon’s thickening crust. In the simulations, the collision squishes this KREEP-rich layer onto the opposite hemisphere, setting the stage for the geology now seen on the near side of the moon.

While the model explains many things, the jury is still out among planetary scientists as to the full history of the Moon and what really happened. Scientists say the best way to figure out the Moon’s history is to get more data from lunar orbiting spacecraft and – even better – sample return missions or human missions to study the Moon.

## NASA's Mighty Saturn V Moon Rocket Explained (Infographic)

Designed to fly three Apollo astronauts to the moon and back, the Saturn V made its first unmanned test flight in 1967. A total of 13 Saturn V rockets were launched from 1967 until 1973, carrying Apollo missions as well as the Skylab space station. Every part of the giant rocket is used and then discarded during a mission. Only the tiny command module survives to return to Earth.

The Saturn V rocket’s first stage carries 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen needed for combustion. At liftoff, the stage’s five F-1 rocket engines ignite and produce 7.5 million pounds of thrust.

At an altitude of 42 miles (67 kilometers), the F-1 engines shut down. Explosive bolts fire, and the severed first stage falls into the Atlantic Ocean. [Saturn V Rocket Engines Explained (Infographic)]

The second stage carries 260,000 gallons (984,000 liters) of liquid hydrogen fuel and 80,000 gallons (303,000 liters) of liquid oxygen.

A few seconds after the second stage’s five rocket engines are ignited, an interstage skirt at the bottom end of the second stage is jettisoned. Shortly after that, the emergency escape rocket on top of the vehicle, only usable below 19 miles altitude, is fired off and discarded.

At 9 minutes and 9 seconds after launch, the second stage is discarded and the third stage’s rocket engine is fired. The third stage carries 66,700 gallons (252,750 liters) of liquid hydrogen fuel and 19,359 gallons (73,280 liters) of liquid oxygen. [The World's Tallest Rockets Compared]

The third stage’s single rocket engine is fired until 11 minutes and 39 seconds after launch, when the vehicle has attained sufficient speed to reach Earth orbit. About two and a half hours later, the third stage engine is restarted to send the Apollo spacecraft out of Earth orbit and toward the moon.

After the astronauts in Apollo dock with the lunar landing module and pull away from the now-useless third stage, this last remaining part of the Saturn V coasts away into deep space or is commanded to fly to a crash landing on the moon.

## Keyboard shortcuts: Enter math expressions

You can use keyboard shortcuts to enter the following formats, Greek letters, symbols, and special functions for mathematical expressions, whether answering on a computer, tablet, or smartphone. Keyboard shortcuts for engineering

Tablet and smartphone users: Tap the answer box for the toolbar to appear beneath it.

Numeric keyboard to enter _

*To enter an expression with multiplication in the numerator: Select  from the Templates menu for the correct format. (You cannot use /.)

For this letter Enter this from your keyboard
OR
on a tablet or smartphone, open the Letters keyboard and enter
a alpha
b eta
g gamma
D, d Delta, delta
e epsilon
h eta
q heta
k kappa
l lambda
m mu
n u
p pi
r ho
S, s Sigma, sigma
t au
F, f phi
c chi
Y, y Psi, psi
W, w Omega, omega
EMF
hbar

For this special function Enter this from your keyboard
OR
on a tablet or smartphone, open the Letters or Numeric keyboard, as needed
arccosine arccos(x), acos(x), or cos^-1(x)
arccotangent arccot(x), acot(x), or cot^-1(x)
arccosecant arcscs(x), ascs(x), or csc^-1(x)
arcsecant arcsec(x), asec(x), or sec^-1(x)
arcsine arcsin(x), asin(x), or sin^-1(x)
arctangent arctan(x), atan(x), or tan^-1(x)
cosine cos(x)
cotangent cot(x)
cosecant csc(x)
natural exponential function (e = 2.71828. ) e^x or exp(x)
natural logarithm (base e) ln(x)
common logarithm (base 10) log(x)
secant sec(x)
sine sin(x)
tangent tan(x)

You can enter the constants e (Euler's number, 2.71828. ), g (local acceleration due to gravity, 9.8 (based on units of m/s^2)), and pi (for p, 3.14159. ) for these numeric equivalents in your answers.

To move the cursor within your answer: On a computer, use your keyboard arrow keys (, , , ). On a mobile device, use your finger or other input device. For finer cursor control on a phone: Enlarge your view of the answer box before moving the cursor.

Select  Keyboard shortcuts from the answer box toolbar.

Select  Print at the top right of these Help instructions online.
The topic will print as it appears online. To print the complete topic, choose  Expand all before printing.

## How Does the Moon Affect the Earth?

The main way the moon affects the Earth is the tides. The moon plays an important role in protecting the Earth from space rocks, such as meteorites. More subtle effects of the moon include minor effects on climate, the heat of the crust and the speed of the Earth's rotation.

The tidal effect of the moon only significantly affects the largest bodies of water, such as the major oceans. The gravity of the moon pulls the water in the oceans toward it. As the Earth rotates, the bulge shifts through the different regions of the globe. Tides appear on both sides of the Earth because of the pull of the sun.

The moon is an important buffer between the Earth and extraterrestrial bodies, which was more important during the initial formation when the Earth and moon were closer together. However, the moon is gradually shifting away from the Earth, so its protection is much less than in the past.

Minor effects are not very noticeable except when they are on a very large scale. For example, the length of a day on Earth is slightly longer now than it was in the time of the dinosaurs. The tidal forces also affect the crust, which contributes to the heat of the magma underneath. Tidal forces also keep ocean currents moving, which has a small affect on climate due to cool and warm water moving through the oceans.

## How the Moon Works

Every night, the moon shows a different face in the night sky. On some nights we can see its entire face, sometimes it's partial, and on others it isn't visible at all. These phases of the moon aren't random -- they change throughout the month in a regular and predictable way.

As the moon travels in its 29-day orbit, its position changes daily. Sometimes it's between the Earth and the sun and sometimes it's behind us. So a different section of the moon's face is lit up by the sun, causing it to show different phases.

Over the billions of years of the moon's existence, it has moved farther away from the E­arth, and its rate of rotation has also slowed. The moon is tidally locked with the Earth, which means that the Earth's gravity "drags" the moon to rotate on its axis. This is why the moon rotates only once per month and why the same side of the moon always faces the Earth.

### Tides

Every day, the Earth experiences tides, or changes in the level of its oceans. They're caused by the pull of the moon's gravity. There are two high tides and two low tides every day, each lasting about six hours.

The moon's gravitational force pulls on water in the oceans and stretches the water out to form tidal bulges in the ocean on the sides of the planet that are in line with the moon. The moon pulls water on the side nearest it, which causes a bulge toward the moon. The moon pulls on the Earth slightly, which drags the Earth away from the water on the opposite side, making another tidal bulge there. So, the areas of the Earth under the bulge experience high tide, while the areas on the thin sides have low tide. As the Earth rotates underneath the elongated bulges, this creates high and low tides about 12 hours apart.

The moon also stabilizes the Earth's rotation. As the Earth spins on its axis, it wobbles. The moon's gravitational effect limits the wobble to a small degree. If we had no moon, the Earth might move almost 90 degrees off its axis, with the same motion that a spinning top has as it slows down.

## Scientists provide new explanation for the far side of the Moon's strange asymmetry

The Earth-Moon system's history remains mysterious. Scientists believe the two formed when a Mars-sized body collided with the proto-Earth. Earth ended up being the larger daughter of this collision and retained enough heat to become tectonically active. The Moon, being smaller, likely cooled down faster and geologically 'froze'. The apparent early dynamism of the Moon challenges this idea.

New data suggest this is because radioactive elements were distributed uniquely after the catastrophic Moon-forming collision. Earth's Moon, together with the Sun, is a dominant object in our sky and offers many observable features which keep scientists busy trying to explain how our planet and the Solar System formed. Most planets in our solar system have satellites. For example, Mars has two moons, Jupiter has 79 and Neptune has 14. Some moons are icy, some are rocky, some are still geologically active and some relatively inactive. How planets got their satellites and why they have the properties they do are questions which could shed light on many aspects of the evolution of the early Solar System.

The Moon is a relatively cold rocky body, with a limited amount of water and little tectonic processing. Scientists presently believe the Earth-Moon system formed when a Mars-sized body dubbed Theia -- who in Greek mythology was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon -- catastrophically collided with the proto-Earth, causing the components of both bodies to mix.

The debris of this collision are thought to have fairly rapidly, perhaps over a few million years, separated to form the Earth and Moon. The Earth ended up being larger and evolved in a sweet spot in terms of its size being just right for it to become a dynamic planet with an atmosphere and oceans. Earth's Moon ended up being smaller and did not have sufficient mass to host these characteristics. Thus retaining volatile substances like water or the gases that form our atmosphere, or retaining sufficient internal heat to maintain long-term planetary volcanism and tectonics, are idiosyncratic to how the Earth-Moon forming collision occurred. Decades of observations have demonstrated that lunar history was much more dynamic than expected with volcanic and magnetic activity occurring as recently as 1 billion years ago, much later than expected.

A clue as to why the near and far side of the Moon are so different comes from strong asymmetry observable in its surface features. On the Moon's perpetually Earth-facing near side, on any given night, or day, one can observe dark and light patches with the naked eye. Early astronomers named these dark regions 'maria', Latin for 'seas', thinking they were bodies of water by analogy with the Earth. Using telescopes, scientists were able to figure out over a century ago that these were not in fact seas, but more likely craters or volcanic features.

Back then, most scientists assumed the far side of the Moon, which they would never have been able to see, was more or less like the near side.

However, because the Moon is relatively close to the Earth, only about 380,000 km away, the Moon was the first Solar System body humans were able to explore, first using non-crewed spacecraft and then 'in person'. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, non-crewed space probes launched by the USSR returned the first images of the far side of the Moon, and scientists were surprised to find that the two sides were very different. The far side had almost no maria. Only 1% of the far side was covered with maria compared with

31% for the near side. Scientists were puzzled, but they suspected this asymmetry was offering clues as to how the Moon formed.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, NASA's Apollo missions landed six spacecraft on the Moon, and astronauts brought back 382 kg of Moon rocks to try to understand the origin of the Moon using chemical analysis. Having samples in hand, scientists quickly figured out the relative darkness of these patches was due to their geological composition and they were, in fact, attributable to volcanism. They also identified a new type of rock signature they named KREEP -- short for rock enriched in potassium (chemical symbol K), rare-earth elements (REE, which include cerium, dysprosium, erbium, europium, and other elements which are rare on Earth) and phosphorus (chemical symbol P) -- which was associated with the maria. But why volcanism and this KREEP signature should be distributed so unevenly between the near and far sides of the Moon again presented a puzzle.

Now, using a combination of observation, laboratory experiments and computer modelling, scientists from the Earth-Life Science Institute at Tokyo Institute of Technology, the University of Florida, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Towson University, NASA Johnson Space Center and the University of New Mexico have brought some new clues as to how the Moon gained its near- and far-side asymmetry. These clues are linked to an important property of KREEP.

Potassium (K), thorium (Th) and uranium (U) are, importantly for this story, radioactively unstable elements. This means that they occur in a variety of atomic configurations that have variable numbers of neutrons. These variable composition atoms are known as 'isotopes', some of which are unstable and fall apart to yield other elements, producing heat.

The heat from the radioactive decay of these elements can help melt the rocks they are contained in, which may partly explain their co-localisation.

This study shows that, in addition to enhanced heating, the inclusion of a KREEP component to rocks also lowers their melting temperature, compounding the expected volcanic activity from simply radiogenic decay models. Because most of these lava flows were emplaced early in lunar history, this study also adds constraints about the timing of the Moon's evolution and the order in which various processes occurred on the Moon.

This work required collaboration among scientists working on theory and experiment. After conducting high temperature melting experiments of rocks with various KREEP components, the team analysed the implications this would have on the timing and volume of volcanic activity at the lunar surface, providing important insight about the early stages of evolution of the Earth-Moon system.

ELSI coauthor Matthieu Laneuville comments, 'Because of the relative lack of erosion processes, the Moon's surface records geological events from the Solar System's early history. In particular, regions on the Moon's near side have concentrations of radioactive elements like U and Th unlike anywhere else on the Moon. Understanding the origin of these local U and Th enrichments can help explain the early stages of the Moon's formation and, as a consequence, conditions on the early Earth.'

The results from this study suggest that the Moon's KREEP-enriched maria have influenced lunar evolution since the Moon formed. Laneuville thinks evidence for these kinds of non-symmetric, self-amplifying processes might be found in other moons in our Solar System, and may be ubiquitous on rocky bodies throughout the Universe.

## How Do Tides Work?

They roll in and roll out. They're one of the Earth's steadiest forces, moving water from the ocean onto the land and then taking it back. Ocean tides are one of the oldest fields of scientific inquiry, dating back to approximately 330 B.C., when Greek astronomer and explorer Pytheas traveling via boat from his home in Massalia, modern day France, to the British Isles.

Tides weren't noticeable in Massalia, but Pytheas detected them on his voyage. Pytheas published a book titled On the Ocean, which discussed, among other things, the moon&rsquos clear influence on the tides. Ever since, tides have fascinated scientific minds throughout history, including Isaac Newton.

#### What Are Tides ?

Tides are the rise and fall of sea levels. At some parts of the day there will be more water in one location and at other parts of the day there will be less. The tidal effect, as its known, doesn't just affect water. There's an Earth tide as well, where the solid Earth changes its shape directly due to the pressures of the Sun and the Moon. But that's not as noticeable as what happens in the ocean.

#### How Does The Tidal Effect Work?

Anything in the universe that has mass also has its own gravitational field. Sometimes, in the case of humans, that gravitational field is so tiny that they're irrelevant to our everyday lives. But when the mass starts increasing, changes start to take place. The Earth, for example, has enough of a gravitational field to keep things on the ground, and to keep the Moon rotating around the planet.

The Moon, in turn has its own gravitational field. This field is strong enough to create a tug on the Earth's oceans, and because the Moon is in rotation around the Earth, the strength of this tug varies by location and time of day. The Moon is mostly responsible for high tide, when there's more water in areas, and low tide, when there's less.

#### What Causes Tides Beside the Moon?

The Moon is the biggest player in creating tides, but it's not the only planetary body involved. There's also the body with the biggest gravitational pull in the solar system, the Sun. Even though its closeness to Earth means the Moon has the bigger impact, the Sun's affect on tides is noticeable.

During new, or full, moons, the Earth, Moon, and Sun are all in alignment. That alignment allows all of those gravitational forces to join together, creating stronger tides known as spring tides. They're not associated with the Spring season at all as they occur every month.

But no alliance can last forever. The three bodies soon fall out of alignment with each other, and seven days after a spring tide the Moon and the Sun are at 90 degree angles from each other. The alignment turns into a tug of war, and tides become unusually weak. That's known as neap tides.

#### What Happens With Tides Daily?

Let's say the Moon is above the Pacific Ocean. The Moon's mass, only 1/100th the mass of Earth, is strong enough to make the Pacific's water bulge outwards. As the Earth rotates during the day, the bulge changes. Most coastlines experience two bulges, or high tides, and two low tides a day.

It's important to note that this all happens unevenly. The Earth isn't one giant ocean. Rocky land and beaches get in the way of all these tidal tugs, altering them in size and stature. So some places have large bulges while others are small.

#### Where Does The Second Bulge Come From?

The first bulge comes from the Moon being above an ocean. But on the other side of the world, the ocean is also bulging. Tidal force is differential force so it comes from differences in gravity over the Earth's surface.

#### How Tides Affect Life Beyond The Beach

Tides also play a huge role in shipping. All commercial vessels carry guides of high and low tides so they can navigate easier. Especially when in a shallow river or docking at a port, knowing when high and low tide are going to hit are mandatory.

Tides can play crucial roles in unexpected places. Before America's invasion of Nazi-occupied France on D-Day, Allied planners had to take tides into account. The Americans, after all, were storming the beaches&mdashand beaches mean tides.

## The explanation for hexagonal craters on the Moon & elsewhere

I've loved researching the ways of the ancients, the builders who created sites such as Puma Punku & Tihuanaca, Macchu Picchu, etc. When researching the local solar system I came across fascinating alternative modes of thought which posited all sorts of wonderful ideas, with lots of nice photographic evidence too (though much of it was sanitised, probably eight years ago or thereabouts, certain databases just dropped off the web, or were converted into low-resolution files..)

One thing which often got brought up was the odd hexagonal craters which seemed to pop up on many of the Moons & Planets. Why were they there? How does a hexagon form in nature? Well, the answer is simple, and it's one of those that you either know, or you don't have a clue. Now unfortunately my ATS upload is having a problem, it doesn't seem to want me to upload anything at the moment, so I can't show you a photo. But I can point you in the right direction, and perhaps one or two of you helpful chaps & chapesses can post a couple of images for the wellbeing of the thread?

Basically, it comes down to heat convection patterns - if you look for an image on Google search which is along the lines of:

'Hexagonal convection patterns in hot oil'.

You will see the amazing shapes formed by the immense heat which is circulating in a pan of oil when it is heated to a very high temperature. Consider therefore that when the surfaces of the planets & moons were very young, they were exceedingly hot, and would have demonstrated fixed convection patterns in hexagonal form. Thus, when the surfaces cooled down, some of the hecagonal shapes were frozen in place as shallow, hexagonal craters - the craters which seem too shallow to be craters? They are convection patterns in the surface liquid, in a region where heavy elements made the molten surface more dense, causing the pattern to be held in place while the material cooled down.

Sorted? Right then, that's my good deed for the day.

Off the top of my head would think it has to do with the mass of the asteroid, the velocity of its impact as well as the impact angle

This is all relative to vibration/frequency no? Similar experiments are performed to iron filings and magnets and sand and sound.

It definitely lends credence to the more esoteric doctrines.

There's a couple of ideas, one based around impacts causing the surface to shatter along existing lines of weakness, another looks at hte behaviour of basalt material when hit by very big objects and the way it subsequently cools down.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
There's a couple of ideas, one based around impacts causing the surface to shatter along existing lines of weakness, another looks at hte behaviour of basalt material when hit by very big objects and the way it subsequently cools down.

That's what I have seen too, here are a couple of citations, the first one talks about the tectonic network, so it sounds like the existing lines of weakness type hypothesis:

It's interesting they reference linear sides for Meteor crater, but squarish rather than hexagonal.

This abstract talks about the effects of shrinkage, didn't Seinfeld have an episode on that?

Could be of interest to cranks who like crank nonsense.

EU is completely at odds, however, with everything modern science has determined about the universe.

"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."

"From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
There's a couple of ideas, one based around impacts causing the surface to shatter along existing lines of weakness, another looks at hte behaviour of basalt material when hit by very big objects and the way it subsequently cools down.

That's what I have seen too, here are a couple of citations, the first one talks about the tectonic network, so it sounds like the existing lines of weakness type hypothesis:

It's interesting they reference linear sides for Meteor crater, but squarish rather than hexagonal.

This abstract talks about the effects of shrinkage, didn't Seinfeld have an episode on that?

Could be of interest to cranks who like crank nonsense.

EU is completely at odds, however, with everything modern science has determined about the universe.

"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."

"From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."

But your own source says it’s explained by plasma?

Am I missing something or has plasma changed it’s characteristics?
Pretty vague of him with the most EU claims are on the cranky end of the scale.
I would like to see an explanation for the craters on the edge of craters we see everywhere out there. Got one handy?
And how’s the dirty snowball theory that astrophysics likes going for y’all?
The closed mind of physics turns its back on reality and faces the chalk board of mathematics lol
How complicated can you make things? String theory anyone? Please tell me you understand it and can concisely communicate the simplicity.
I’ll be over here with my van de graaf generator.
And my nervous system, and the van allen belt looking at the Aurora’s.
Don’t need a long neck to be a goose. Right mate?
Crank indeed.

Gravity makes atoms and sunlight.
Clap clap handicap

Scientists don't deny there's plasma in the universe, heck the sun is made of plasma. That doesn't confirm electric universe theory which claims that the sun is powered by electricity and not nuclear fusion among a multitude of other cranky claims.

If you believe electric universe claims, you're missing a great deal, it's called science. Electric universe avoids science.

Got an example? I could say what about two impacts maybe from different mass objects, and you could have something else in mind.

One problem that we are starting to get away from is the tendency to try to compartmentalize our classifications of space objects a bit too discretely, but scientists are starting to realize not every object fits into a neat little classification box and that there is a continuum of things like water content. So it doesn't have to be either a rocky object with a little ice (though it could be) or an icy object with a little rock (though it could be), but it can also be anywhere in-between.

My signature is a criticism of string theory, but it's not any kind of fundamental part of cosmology and it's highly criticized by many mainstream scientists as unverified so it's kind of a red herring for thunderbolts topics.

As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone promoting electric universe is a crank. The followers are sometimes just innocent victims who don't know any better and fall for the scam. Maybe they don't understand how science works, and don't realize that thunderbolts doesn't use science.

For those reasons, in this video, Professor Dave is a little sympathetic to the people who may not be very scientifically literate who fall for the electric universe hoax, but scientifically literate people generally won't fall for it:

Debunking the Electric Universe

The Dunning Kruger effect can be represented in different ways, but here's one way of looking at it, where the electric universe supporters seem to be at the peak of self-presumed knowledge about the topic, seen on the left side of this graph:

I think that's what Professor Dave means when he says electric universe "tends to attract exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect who think they understand physics better than Einstein. Literally."

Gravity makes atoms and sunlight.

Nope. It doesn't make atoms. But it does make large numbers of atoms come together into things called stars. It compresses those atoms so much that atomic fusion begins. Then you get sunlight.

The general model is holding up quite well, and being refined thanks to more data. Speaking of data, how come the Hayabusa lander didn't get hit with a giant electrical spark when it landed on Ryugu? They were lucky in picking the only non-electric comet?

So atoms get compressed and gravity makes starlight, A visible frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum? But electricity or magnetism isn’t involved? gravity waves?

Dunno, may be the region of space the contact occurred in. May be due to the comets origin or approach, may have discharged by visibly displaying two or more tails? Could be any number of things.
Perhaps Hayabusa picked up charge somewhere?

There are no islands in space.

I would direct you to thunderbolts however they charge a fee to access content. How much pressure does it take to squeeze the electromagnetism out of a hydrogen atom? Got the sums? Anyone, anywhere done a practical experiment to prove the theory?
How much fuel does the sun burn for this to work and ffs don’t tell me it takes thousands of years for the energy to get to the surface and into space.
Why is the inside of sunspots cooler then the surface of the sun? Does that happen regularly with nuclear fusions?

Scientists don't deny there's plasma in the universe, heck the sun is made of plasma. That doesn't confirm electric universe theory which claims that the sun is powered by electricity and not nuclear fusion among a multitude of other cranky claims.

What is a plasma? What is required to have magnetism? Try and answer the questions in my reply to phage.

If you believe electric universe claims, you're missing a great deal, it's called science. Electric universe avoids science.

Got an example? I could say what about two impacts maybe from different mass objects, and you could have something else in mind.

One problem that we are starting to get away from is the tendency to try to compartmentalize our classifications of space objects a bit too discretely, but scientists are starting to realize not every object fits into a neat little classification box and that there is a continuum of things like water content. So it doesn't have to be either a rocky object with a little ice (though it could be) or an icy object with a little rock (though it could be), but it can also be anywhere in-between.

My signature is a criticism of string theory, but it's not any kind of fundamental part of cosmology and it's highly criticized by many mainstream scientists as unverified so it's kind of a red herring for thunderbolts topics.

As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone promoting electric universe is a crank. The followers are sometimes just innocent victims who don't know any better and fall for the scam. Maybe they don't understand how science works, and don't realize that thunderbolts doesn't use science.

For those reasons, in this video, Professor Dave is a little sympathetic to the people who may not be very scientifically literate who fall for the electric universe hoax, but scientifically literate people generally won't fall for it:

Debunking the Electric Universe

The Dunning Kruger effect can be represented in different ways, but here's one way of looking at it, where the electric universe supporters seem to be at the peak of self-presumed knowledge about the topic, seen on the left side of this graph:

I think that's what Professor Dave means when he says electric universe "tends to attract exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect who think they understand physics better than Einstein. Literally."

I’m not interested in a dunning effect. Try defending with your scientific knowledge.
Tends to and mostly. Words of an evasive fraud.

Check out a couple of movies on YouTube. Old now but still valid. Just have a squiz.

I can’t believe there are people who think gravity is the prime driving force in the universe lol
It can’t even keep an astronauts feet on the floor in a near earth orbit. Let alone hold a star together.

edit on 30-3-2021 by Dalamax because: The sheer lunacy of the gravity effect.[/

]edit on 30-3-2021 by Dalamax because: (no reason given)

Again apologies for not embedding. I think this video is a little bit more relevant.
It definitely presents the information more concisely then I possibly could.
And it’s free.

It’s kind of off topic. I’ sure there’s another thread that it’s relevant to.

Just because I can’t edit because of the 4 hour limit
And we were talking gravity .

There are hundreds of years of research and experiments documented on the internet, so our scientific knowledge is collective, it's not just my knowledge.

Check out a couple of movies on YouTube. Old now but still valid. Just have a squiz. So you want to demonstrate your scientific knowle

I can’t believe there are people who think gravity is the prime driving force in the universe lol
It can’t even keep an astronauts feet on the floor in a near earth orbit. Let alone hold a star together.

If someone has a better idea than the current science, the way to improve the science is basically this:
1. Demonstrate that you understand why scientists think what they do.
2. Propose a better method of explaining observations than the current scientific beliefs.
3. Provide evidence to support the proposed improved explanations.

Your gravity point seems to fail on step 1.

Impact Craters vs. Electrical Discharge Craters | Space News

I changed your unlabeled link to an embed of the video. Thank goodness that wasn't Wal Thornhill, he spouts so much demonstrably wrong nonsense it hurts my head to try to listen to his videos. That video is mostly dialog by Barry Setterfield. It may be one of the least cranky EU videos I've seen and almost on topic, since one of his highlights has a hexagonal crater, so I made a screencap of that.

I'll try to paraphrase a few of his points for those who haven't watched the video (which is something you really should be doing yourself if you're going to post videos here on ATS, it's one of the ATS rules).
-He talks about how craters can be formed by volcanism, impacts, or EDM (Electrical Discharge Machining)
-He talks about some of the features one might look at of a crater to try to determine its origin
-He talks about how some EDM craters have been formed in experiments in labs to show what features they can create
-He talks about some craters on the moon and which are formed by the various processes.

So, unlike many electric universe sources, Setterfield seems to understand why scientists think what they do, so that's a good starting point (and something you've failed to demonstrate with your comment about gravity not being strong enough to pull astronauts down).

Now let's look at some specific claims because that's always where "the rubber meets the road".

At time index 9:56, Setterfield says:
"Some small crater chains can be formed by impact but the extensive systems on the moon and Mars rules out any impact origin" and this is the image shown when he says that:

So when Setterfield says that, I'm expecting him to explain how he has established the upper limit of the "small crater chains can be formed by impact", and exactly what theory or process he has used to determine "the extensive systems on the moon and Mars rules out any impact origin", but he provides no justification for that comment.

This exemplifies the problems with these pseudoscientific videos, as opposed to peer reviewed papers. If someone wrote that in a paper, and didn't explain how they came to that conclusion, the peer reviewers should tell the author that they need to explain or justify that assertion somehow. Just saying something like that without any backup doesn't give it any validity. If small crater chains can be formed by impact, why not larger ones? I see no reason to exclude impacts so without further clarification, his claim seems completely unjustified and without reason, and the craters look like they can be impact craters to me. So he's really failed miserably on steps 2 and 3 above, but at least he accomplished step 1 which most EU videos I've seen fail to do, so it's not quite as bad as the rest I've seen.

Now let's look at another claim which actually brings this on-topic for this thread. He shows a formation of multiple craters that he infers can't be from impact and must be from EDM, note the hexagonal shape, so this is somewhat on-topic!

Again there are many problems with Setterfield's claim. In all the examples of electrically formed craters he showed, I didn't see any that looked like this. Maybe he thinks a single impact can't form a crater like that, to which I would say, maybe it wasn't a single impact and maybe it's just coincidence that the larger crater formed first and the smaller crater formed inside that in a subsequent impact. So I don't see anything that rules out an impact explanation, and I don't really see evidence that it was formed by electrical discharge.

Then there's perhaps the biggest problem with the entire video. I would be open to the possibility of some craters possibly being formed by electrical discharge as he suggests if someone can demonstrate a mechanism for that to happen (I posted an example of such a real crater below). So I understand how such craters are formed experimentally in a lab, we can create electrical discharges in the lab. But in the video, Barry Setterfield never discusses any hypothesis, theory, or evidence for how such electrical discharges might create such huge craters on the moon, which is an even bigger problem than his earlier unsupported claims about chain length limits etc.

We see rocks flying around in space and see some of them hit the Earth and obviously even Setterfield admits rock impacts formed many craters on the moon and planets, so there is no reason to doubt the rock impact explanations. But there is lots of reason to doubt the electrical discharge explanations for the large craters, because there is simply no theory or evidence to show mechanisms that can create such large electrical discharges on the moon. Failure to address that point at all in the video makes the entire video a complete failure.

Earth's atmosphere can create electrical discharges and make craters, but they are small compared to some of the large craters on the moon Setterfield is talking about. This crater on Earth made by lightning appears to be about the size of a car:

It's going to take something a lot more powerful than that to make those large craters on the moon, and impacts would do it. I don't see any proposed mechanism for the proposed electrical discharges large enough to create the huge craters on the moon that Setterfield talks about.

## The origin of the Moon and its composition

This is a composite image of the lunar nearside taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in June 2009, note the presence of dark areas of maria on this side of the moon. Credit: NASA

The Moon is thought to have formed from the debris of a small planet that collided with the Earth. Since the composition of other planets in the solar system differs from that of the Earth, it was expected that the Moon's composition would also differ from that of the Earth. Surprisingly, the composition of the Earth and the Moon are very similar (no, the Moon is not made out of cheese), raising a major challenge to the "giant impact" origin of the Moon. A new study by researchers from the Technion and Nice University explains the origin of such compositional similarity and helps solve this conundrum

The Moon has fascinated human kind since the earliest days of history. It has played a central role in the making of annual calendars in Muslim, Jewish and other cultures and was considered one of the gods in many pagan traditions. Questions regarding the origin of the Moon, its shape and composition gave rise to myths and legends that have accompanied humanity for thousands of years, and even today many children ask themselves—and their parents—whether the Moon is made of cheese.

In the modern era such millennium-old puzzles have been replaced by scientific exploration that raised no-less challenging questions, which continue to perplex us—even 40 years after man first landed on the Moon. Now, research done by Technion researchers sheds new light on the origin of the Moon and its composition. The research, published in Nature, was led by post-doctoral researcher Dr. Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti and her adviser Assistant Prof. Hagai Perets from the Technion, in collaboration with Dr. Sean Raymond from Nice University.

"Many models for the Moon origin were suggested by scientists, but since the 1980s the scientific community has been focusing on the most promising model—the so called 'giant impact' paradigm," explains Perets. "According to this model, the Moon was formed following a collision between a small Mars-like planet (usually called Theia) and the ancient Earth. Some of the debris from the collision fell back to Earth, some was scattered far into space and the rest went into orbit around the Earth. This orbiting debris later coagulated to form a single object: the Moon."

Based on complex simulations of such collisions, researchers have found out that most of the material that eventually forms the Moon comes from the impactor, Theia, and only a smaller fraction originates from the impacted body (in this case, the Earth). Measurements of the composition of other bodies in the solar system such as asteroids and Mars have shown that they have a very different composition from that of the Earth. Given that most of the Moon material came from another body in the solar system, it was expected that the composition of the Moon should be similarly very different from that of the Earth, according to the "giant impact" model. However, analysis of samples brought from the Moon by the Apollo missions showed otherwise—in terms of composition, the Earth and Moon are almost twins, their compositions are almost the same, differing by at most few parts in a million.

This contradiction has cast a long shadow on the 'giant impact' model, and for some 30 years this contradiction was a major challenge to physicists grappling with the formation of the Moon. Now, Mastrobuono-Battisti, Perets and Raymond have suggested a new solution to this mystery.

Simulations of the formation of planets in the solar system, showed that different planets indeed have distinct compositions, as found from the analysis of material from different planets in the solar system. Such studies have traditionally focused on studying only the compositions of the final planets. In the new research, Perets and collaborators have considered not only the planets, but also the composition of the impactors on these planets. Consequently they have discovered that in many cases, the planets and the bodies that collide with them share a very similar composition, even though they formed independently. Thus, conclude the researchers, the similarity between the Moon and Earth stems from the similarity between Theia—from which the Moon was formed—and Earth.

"It turns out that an impactor is not similar to any other random body in the solar system. The Earth and Theia appear to have shared much more similar environments during their growth than just any two unrelated bodies," explains Mastrobuono-Battisti. "In other words, Theia and Earth were formed in the same region, and have therefore collected similar material. These similar living environments also led them eventually to collide and the material ejected mostly from Theia, ultimately formed the Moon. Our results reconcile what has been perceived as a contradiction between the process whereby Moons are formed (from matter from the impacting body) and the similarity between Earth and the Moon."

"The Earth and the Moon might not be twins born of the same body," summarizes Perets, "but they did grow up together in the same neighborhood."