Huge Explosion On The Moon In 1946

[johnlear]

A photograph of the moon taken by the 36 inch telescope at the Lick Observatory on January 17, 1946 shows the plume of dust/smoke/debris of an apparent explosion 150 kms west north west of Endymion in the area between Schwabe and Thales. Debris of dust/smoke/rock appear to be thrown in a radial pattern of more than 100 kilometers. The well-defined plume appears to rise several thousand feet and then, holding its cylindrical shape, expands and drifts to the west north west for about 35 kilometers and then appears to rise to the top of the atmosphere while expanding somewhat.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1949/georgenoorylickobs3ar4.png

The top of the atmosphere cannot be determined with any great accuracy because the top of the plume has been ‘cut off’ at the visual horizon of the moon. The height of the plume at the ‘cut off’ however is estimated to be more than half the diameter of Endymion which was used to measure it. The diameter of Endymion is 125 kilometers so the top of the atmosphere would be in excess of 62 kilometers or about 38 miles (200,000 feet). At that point the plume is still intact. In a photo taken by Lick on May 3, 1947, about 16 months later the plume is still intact although does not appear to extend upward as far.

The fact that the plume from the explosion is still intact and relatively unchanged in 16 months indicates a very stable atmosphere free from very much disturbance. But it also poses the question, if there is substantial gravity on the moon, why is the dust/dirt/debris still apparently suspended after 16 months?

[JiveTurkey]

The fact that the plume from the explosion is still intact and relatively unchanged in 16 months indicates a very stable atmosphere free from very much disturbance. But it also poses the question, if there is substantial gravity on the moon, why is the dust/dirt/debris still apparently suspended after 16 months?


That was exactly what I was thinking while reading this.


The pieces do not fit.


Jasn

[MBF]

Back when I was in college physics, we calculated that the moon could not keep an atmosphere. It could be something like a gas pocket venting if it went on for 16 months.

[johnlear]

Back when I was in college physics, we calculated that the moon could not keep an atmosphere. It could be something like a gas pocket venting if it went on for 16 months.


Thats because you were figuring the moons gravity as one sixth that of earth. The real figure is 64% that of Earth or about 2/3.

The way that you can figure that out is to use the neutral point of 43,495 miles (from the moon) given to us by Wernher von Braun and several of the Apollo astronauts and plug that figure into the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square. (You were probably using NASA's figure of 24,000 miles (from the moon) which is false. They don't even publish that figure anymore.

A neutral point of 43395 miles will give you a relative gravity of 64% of Earth.

The great thing about using the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square is that you don't have to assume any mass because its a comparative value using Earth as a value of 1.

Its a thin atmosphere but breathable with proper decompression.

[MBF]

Thats because you were figuring the moons gravity as one sixth that of earth. The real figure is 64% that of Earth or about 2/3.



I don't remember the figures we used, but I remember that the calculations showed that during the daytime the air molecules would just gain enough speed to escape the gravity of the moon. I think we started the calculation using the published mass of the moon with a daytime temp of around 200F. Of course that has been about 25 years ago.

[johnlear]

Thats because you were figuring the moons gravity as one sixth that of earth. The real figure is 64% that of Earth or about 2/3.



I don't remember the figures we used, but I remember that the calculations showed that during the daytime the air molecules would just gain enough speed to escape the gravity of the moon. I think we started the calculation using the published mass of the moon with a daytime temp of around 200F. Of course that has been about 25 years ago.


The figures you used (density/mass) were the generally accepted but bogus 3.4gr/cm3.

These figures were arrived at assuming that the Earth density/mass was 5.5gr/cm3. They were both adjusted over the years to make the Moon's gravity come out to one sixth that of Earth.

The beauty of using the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square is that you don't have to hypothesize what the density/mass is of either body because the result of the equation is in relatives terms using Earth as 1.

In the Bullialdus Law of inverse square all you have to use is the size of the Earth and the Moon, the distance between them and the neutral point.



The Bullialdus/Newton inverse/square law states that any physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Here is the equation:

Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 200,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 43,495 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, the inverse-square law yields:

Ge (Re2/X2) = Gm(Rm2/Y2)

Gm/Ge = Re2Y2/Rm2X2

= (3,960)2 (43,495)2
(1,080)2 (200,000)2

= .64

Therefore, Gm = .64 Ge


So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making those pitiful 6 inch hops on the moon. It should also be obvious why they tired so quickly.

By the way, the Moons daytime temperature of 200 degree F is greatly exaggerated.

All of that bogus information is to make you believe that no one lives on the moon. :)

[Yo Mama]

All the math aside, it's my understanding that in order to retain an atmosphere of any real substance, a planetary (or moon) body has to have a magnetosphere, in order to protect it from cosmic radiation and solar flare activity. Without our magnetosphere, our atmosphere would have been blown off long ago -- the aurora borealis is a visual trace of cosmic radiation being deflected off our atmosphere.

Since the moon doesn't have a magnetosphere, how is it retaining the atmosphere? Especially on the "dark side," considering that it's often facing the sun with no intervening planet (Earth) and so would be more vulnerable to flares and radiation than our planet is?

[johnlear]

All the math aside, it's my understanding that in order to retain an atmosphere of any real substance, a planetary (or moon) body has to have a magnetosphere, in order to protect it from cosmic radiation and solar flare activity. Without our magnetosphere, our atmosphere would have been blown off long ago -- the aurora borealis is a visual trace of cosmic radiation being deflected off our atmosphere.

Since the moon doesn't have a magnetosphere, how is it retaining the atmosphere? Especially on the "dark side," considering that it's often facing the sun with no intervening planet (Earth) and so would be more vulnerable to flares and radiation than our planet is?


There is no dark side of the moon. Sorry.

Oh, and 'cosmic radiation'? A misnomer. Read up.



Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons. The term "ray" is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays

Thanks for the input. :)

[MBF]

All of that bogus information is to make you believe that no one lives on the moon. :)

I guess we have a tendency to just use the published information without question. I was told years ago that some things (like nuclear energy) didn't work the way we were taught.

[Bitchkoma]

Oh, and 'cosmic radiation'? A misnomer. Read up.


Okay, solar wind then. Same point as GN made. Thoughts?

[Yo Mama]

I used "cosmic radiation" as shorthand. I'd still love to hear how the moon retains atmosphere when it has no magnetosphere.


"Just how different a planetary body looks without a global magnetic field is shown by our two nearest neighbours, the Moon and Mars," says David Dunlop, at the University of Toronto, Canada, who wrote a commentary accompanying the research in the journal Nature.

"Both had magnetic fields 4 billion years ago, however, their fields died, probably because their cooling planetary cores no longer convected vigorously enough. Without shielding from the solar wind, they lost most of their atmospheres."

Source (http://space.newscientist.com/channel/space-tech/astrobiology/dn11545-earths-magnetic-field-grew-strong-at-a-young-age.html)

[johnlear]

I used "cosmic radiation" as shorthand. I'd still love to hear how the moon retains atmosphere when it has no magnetosphere.


"Just how different a planetary body looks without a global magnetic field is shown by our two nearest neighbours, the Moon and Mars," says David Dunlop, at the University of Toronto, Canada, who wrote a commentary accompanying the research in the journal Nature.

"Both had magnetic fields 4 billion years ago, however, their fields died, probably because their cooling planetary cores no longer convected vigorously enough. Without shielding from the solar wind, they lost most of their atmospheres."

Source (http://space.newscientist.com/channel/space-tech/astrobiology/dn11545-earths-magnetic-field-grew-strong-at-a-young-age.html)



GN, you are quoting mainstream scientific fabrication written specifically to limit the knowledge of the public. Everything you read in current mainstream scientific publications will point you toward no life on the moon, no life on Mars, no life on Venus and no life anywhere in this solar system. This is a lie.

A magnetosphere is not required for an atmosphere. All that is required for an atmosphere is gravity. There is a breathable atmosphere on the Moon, on Mars, on Venus and all the rest of the planets in our solar system.

If you want to buy into ignorance, help yourself.

If you like that warm and fuzzy feeling as you clutch the blanky of mainstream scientifc thought and wrap yourself in the warm swadling to shield yourself from the truth, hey, be my guest.

But let me respectfully request that you don't waste my time quoting disinformation from the "NewScientist" as your 'source'. It is pure, unadulterated hogwash..

Thanks for the post. :)