Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Discovery of Water In Moon May Alter Origin Theory

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the cheese-content-up-for-negotiation dept.

Moon 170

MarkWhittington writes "Scientists, working on a NASA grant, have made another startling discovery concerning water on the Moon. It seems that the interior of the Moon has far more water in it than previously thought — as much as the Earth does, apparently. Researchers made this discovery by examining samples of volcanic glass brought back to Earth by the Apollo 17 astronauts. These tiny beads of glass have about 750 parts per million of water in them: about the same amount as similar volcanic glass on Earth. It is postulated that more water than previously imagined exists deep below the lunar surface and was brought up and trapped in these crystalline beads by volcanic action billions of years ago." Phil Plait's original post adds more detail.

cancel ×

170 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Lunar Trout! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36275950)

I am a FISH.

Re:First Lunar Trout! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276092)

Kilgore would be proud!

Re:First Lunar Trout! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276962)

Kilgore? That's plainly a Red Dwarf reference. Smegger.

Re:First Lunar Trout! (1)

luke923 (778953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276670)

You're a ghoti?

Off topic but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36275992)

Source is a yahoo news story?

Re:Off topic but... (1, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276152)

At least it's not an entry on the Fox News website.

Who's to say.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276012)

Since the accepted theory about the origin of the moon is that it is the result of a large body impacting Earth (I watch the Universe, no scientific background here at all), is it not possible that the samples that they're finding on the moon are part of the Earth transferred in the impact?

Re:Who's to say.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276122)

eat shit you sorry microsoft loving motherfucker eat your mothers asshole, shot face dookey eating fagbag nigger loving sand nigger honky

-Steve
sent from my Zune

Re:Who's to say.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276188)

Since the accepted theory about the origin of the moon is that it is the result of a large body impacting Earth (I watch the Universe, no scientific background here at all)

The FA posits the same thing. One thing I didn't understand though, was this sentence:

[THE THEORETICAL IMPACT] was also thought to take care of why the Moon is so dry compared to Earth: all the water boiled away in the impact.

Huh? Water "boiled away" would still be water, still have mass, and would still have to go somewhere, right?

Re:Who's to say.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276316)

Boiled away into space, because the moon's gravity isn't able to sustain an atmosphere.

Re:Who's to say.... (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276330)

If it turned into gas it would likely have stayed in the Earth atmosphere instead of being carried by the ejected material to form the moon.

Re:Who's to say.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276266)

Do you know the conditions at which the moon was formed? Most likely it was at the state when earth was still molten (not completely formed) where a peice of it split off and eventually formed the moon (otherwise if the moon split off from the earth after it stabilized, the moon wouldn't exactly be round nor would the earth due to the giant hole). This means it mostly likely before water was formed from the elements.

Earth provided the conditions to create water, can the same be said about the moon with most of the water being locked inside frozen? This is why they said the original theory needs to be altered (note: altered, not disproven).

Re:Who's to say.... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276778)

Do you know the conditions at which the moon was formed? Most likely it was at the state when earth was still molten (not completely formed)

Umm, no. Most likely the Earth was sitting there minding its own business when it got twatted by something roughly the size of Mars. Some of the debris formed the Moon and the rest is the Earth as we know it, Jim.

The Bible said it first (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276022)

The Bible indicates that water was first and land formed from it. Its only natural to assume then that water would be a significant portion of any planet or moon.

Genesis 1:9
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

Re:The Bible said it first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276034)

gtfo

Re:The Bible said it first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276042)

And of course the Rapture was suppose to happen last week because the "Bible Guarantees it!"

It's a shame that planets like Jupiter or Mercury don't host water and a moon like Titan has liquid methane. I guess "water" can be interpreted as many things as usual.

Nonsense! (0)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276376)

Rapture happened in 1981. [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Bible said it first (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276274)

And by a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, that's probably not far from the truth. You would expect that given billions of billions of subatomic particles combining in a great cosmic soup, the first things that would form are light elements, and some of the first compounds would be compounds of light elements—water, for example—long before the sorts of heavy elements and compounds that make up rocks would form.

Re:The Bible said it first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276926)

Really? You are getting your scientific knowledge from the Bible? Fucking nob.

Whalers on the moon (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276024)

Now we know why all the whalers went to the moon.

Re:Whalers on the moon (1, Troll)

Ravon Rodriguez (1074038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276196)

We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a harpoon,
For they ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing our whaling toon

Re:Whalers on the moon (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276332)

Well, there might be one [wikipedia.org] .

Moon diaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276054)

I say we sent a giant moon diaper up there to collect the water.

Liberal scientists hard at work, as usual (4, Funny)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276078)

Just nuke the damn moon and let's get done with it.

Re:Liberal scientists hard at work, as usual (1)

luke923 (778953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276714)

Didn't that happen in Cowboy Bebop?

Re:Liberal scientists hard at work, as usual (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276980)

No, they rear-ended it at a ludicrous speed.

Re:Liberal scientists hard at work, as usual (1)

jon.siebert1 (2146474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277284)

No, they rear-ended it at a ludicrous speed.

oh, when they went to plaid?

Re:Liberal scientists hard at work, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276906)

> Just nuke the damn moon and let's get done with it.

It's too early for that kind of joke.

And no, it's not about Fukushima, it's about the other shima.

Re:Liberal scientists hard at work, as usual (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277100)

Just nuke the damn moon and let's get done with it.

Like this [youtube.com] ?

A few too many zeros (-1, Redundant)

DrZib (773591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276096)

Billions of year ago? How can that be? The earth is only 6000 years old, everyone knows that. DUH!

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276148)

Original and clever, here on Slashdot.

What you're referencing is generally concluded to be "allegory".

Apparently, per the article, the question of allegory-or-literal of "divided the waters from the waters" is now open, though.

Re:A few too many zeros (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276172)

What you're referencing is generally concluded to be "allegory".

Not if you believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God.

The "allegory" defense is what happened when science started figuring things out and proved the Bible wrong. Nobody said it was allegory until then.

Plus, if the Bible was meant as "allegory" wouldn't it provide some clue within? And I don't mean "clue" as in "proven to be completely mythological".

Re:A few too many zeros (1, Informative)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276204)

Well, simply factually wrong history on your part. This has been held by many since the earliest years of Christianity.

We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

--Origen of Alexandria

You take Dawkins' errors of history on far too much thoughtless faith, I think.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276538)

By your logic, we should be viewing and judging Islamic history based on the beliefs of the Bahai, or something. You're quoting the writings of a Christian philosopher who was working before the Nicene Creed even existed. Many of his beliefs were declared anathema even before the Great Schism.

So you are cherry picking something which proves no more than a few people in the early church believed some of the Bible to be allegorical (people who were unsurprisingly less religious and more philosophical, even materialistic, as one of the anathemas of Origen was having denied the real and lasting resurrection of the body). The historical fact that you are trying to obscure is that this in no way reflected the views of orthodox Christianity as practiced by the majority of Christians in that time or the centuries that followed. This is ignorance at best and disingenuity at its highest at the worst.

Re:A few too many zeros (2, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276674)

You're following a fallacious premise in-line with your predispostion to address Christianity exclusively by forming a Straw Man Fallacy regarding it.

It makes not the slightest difference to the correctness of a position how many people can be named historically to have held an erroneous opinion about some aspect of it. Literally no field of study could pass this criteria--and shouldn't, because it's merely an intentionally-impossible criterion to meet, to attempt to insure for oneself that they won't need to address a particular topic on the proponderance of good argument for it.

This is what is "disingenuous" here, specifically your approach to the subject as is in-line with the majority of atheistic "argument". What matters to any intellectually-honest person is whether a particular position is -viable at it's best-, not how many instances there were that some student or follower of the overarching topic held an erroneous view. This is the very definition of a Straw Man Fallacy.

Anyway, provide your counterexamples. I've demonstrated the views of one of those considered a "church Father", which, is essentially the -very definition- of early Christianity. You've provided nothing. As of today, the preponderance of support for the YEC/six-day-creation is originating specifically from the Evangelical movement, whereas what could be the "orthodox" you reference, the Catholic Church, currently acknowledged evolution, and Origen is fully considered foundational by the actual Orthodox Church.

So, gain a margin of backing of your position by posting some actual evidence of your stance, or using terminology meaningfully. Feel free to start on either one.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276790)

I'm not the OP, but I gotta say, putting atheist "arguments" in scare quotes pretty much sums up how much of a thoughtful discussion you are able to have.

Re:A few too many zeros (1, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276846)

I don't mind you directly obviously lying about the quality of discussion in this case or others, because you have no worthwhile response, but I do worry about my grammar being criticized. :p

It's in quotes because a fallacious argument likely should not be considered an actual "argument", much "not-X", where "X" is anything, is nothing specific at all.

Like "a-theism". See the "Reification Fallacy".

Okay, admitted. I like my double-quotes.

Re:A few too many zeros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276568)

While i'm more an atheist then religious, i always find it funny people fighting over the 6 day creation thing. A day (for earth) is when it rotates one full rotation, in the bible, they never stated what "day" means (since the earth was in the middle of creation, was it still earth day, some other planet day?). You fools fought over the wrong thing! It should have been over what "day" means!

Mwhahahahahha, third party swoops in for the win!

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276716)

Frankly, I don't get it either. When encountering this stance from a literal-interpretation YEC, I want to ask if they think anyone, at any point in history from the moment it was written by the author himself, thought that a -literal- seven-headed, ten-horned dragon was going to chase around a pregnant woman during "the end" as described in Revelation--rather than it clearly being a moral/political allegory.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276760)

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian (not a young-Earther)

In the original Hebrew, the word used is yom which can be translated to mean anything from a day to a year or an undetermined length of time (Sorry, source is evidently biased. I'd heard it before and this was the best Google could turn up [answersincreation.org] ). As it is, the whole argument over young earth/generally accepted age is stupid. If your a Christian and the age of the Earth is that important to you, then you're doing it wrong.

Re:A few too many zeros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276326)

when science started figuring things out and proved the Bible wrong

Am I wrong to be depressed that people so quickly accept that some math and after-the-fact observations can "prove" something but will utterly deny the possibility that a written record of an account handed down by the first man created by God could possibly true?

I'm not saying I can dig Adam up and ask him if God really told him what happened. I'm just saying I can't help but be sad that people expect so little from one "proof" but so much from another just because it's easier to agree with.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

lytithwyn (1357791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276346)

The direct parent I'm replying to was my comment. Didn't notice I was AC.

Re:A few too many zeros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276394)

Yeah, you can't, because Adam is a character from a fantasy book.

Re:A few too many zeros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276404)

but will utterly deny the possibility that a written record of an account handed down by the first man created by God could possibly true?

Because that is utterly ridiculous.

Do you acknowledge the possibility that Greek mythology is historically accurate? I don't.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277324)

but will utterly deny the possibility that a written record of an account handed down by the first man created by God could possibly true?

Because that is utterly ridiculous.

Do you acknowledge the possibility that Greek mythology is historically accurate? I don't.

There is very little in Greek mythology that describes historical events - all I can think of off-hand is the Iliad, which certainly described a historical even (the Trojan War), but in fanciful detail. As it turns out, many of the "non-magical" descriptions, once thought to be total fiction, have turned out to be closer to the truth when studied by archeologists.

But what's valuable about the Greek myths, especially stories of the gods, was not historical significance but rather their very insightful commentary on various aspects of human nature. We still use their names to describe these traits - Narcissus, Oedipus, Aphrodite and other Greek gods are still in our vocabulary because they described through story things that we see in society today.

This is not dissimilar than the vast collection of human wisdom contained in the Bible. Most of the stories are not literal descriptions of events - those that are have probably been embellished beyond recognition from centuries of verbal tradition before being recorded. So there is a lot of stuff in there, but none of it should be taken literally without understanding the origins of the stories, but neither should the entire thing be dismissed as pure fantasy, either.

Re:A few too many zeros (2)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277040)

This strange world view is held by lots of people, and I've never quite understood why.

First of all, the 'written record' has been translated at least twice before you've heard it, and not even between contemporary languages, but across a vast gulf of time which has resulted in many subtle changes of meaning that are lost of modern translators. Second, the old testament also suffers from the ambiguity of written Hebrew, which omits the vowels from words.

This is all after things have been written down, but it was much worse when only an oral tradition existed.

Have you ever played Chinese whispers [wikipedia.org] ? The error rate with even a trivial sentence is enormous, even if the experiment is performed in seconds, so that everyone's memory of the phrase is fresh. Now try to imagine how this would go across 1000 generations of people, each one waiting 3-20 years to pass on some knowledge to their descendants. Factor in the slowly changing nature of language, errors in memory, embellishments to make stories sound more interesting, individuals adding their own personal opinion, deliberate dissent from the status quo, or whatever...

Even if somehow, magically, some facts were correctly passed down for thousands of years, across many generations, languages, places, and peoples... you'd have no way of knowing that the process was successful! You couldn't tell which fact was still true, and what had become distorted, or embellished, or plain false. There is absolutely no way to differentiate between lies and truth based on age or authority alone.

For comparison, the science and facts you denigrate has dragged us out of the dark ages, and made it possible to bring people back from the dead [wikipedia.org] , grant sight to the blind [wikipedia.org] , and cure leprosy [wikipedia.org] .

Re:A few too many zeros (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276432)

Not if you believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God.

To be exact: If you believe that the bible is the literal word of god, and that god told the humans the exact truth about everything, instead of stories which keep them happy.

Just imagine the situation:

Moses: OK, so how did it all start?
God: Well, in the beginning I created space, time and matter in a big bang ...
Moses: In a what?
God: In a big bang. All of space and all the matter was concentrated in a point ...
Moses: Where was this point?
God: Everywhere.
Moses: But that doesn't make sense.
God: It makes perfect sense. You just don't understand it.
Moses: Nor will the other people. I need something I can tell them and which they will understand!
God: But it's exactly what I did!
Moses: But the people don't care if that is so. They want something they can understand, even if it is wrong!
God: sigh Well, then, what about that: In the beginning I created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void ...

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276772)

I wish I had mod points. Thanks for the chuckle

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276820)

Moses: OK. Hope you had a nice day off after all that. But I want to be 100% sure about this. I have to cut my what off?

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276824)

To add a point to this, we should note that people at the time -could not possibly have comprehended- a non-allegorical presentation. To do so would have required a "Foreword" consisting of an encyclopedia worth of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.

Of which no reader of the time could have gleaned meaning, even if it were relevant to the intended purpose, as the precursor understanding would be too great for someone of that time period. Genesis was written to convey that God created everything, and we have a certain relationship to Him. That's it.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276904)

Except God is an infinite being of infinite powers and with a wave of his magic deity wand could make Moses understand anything.

The Genesis cosmography is a myth, largely ripped off from the Sumerians via the Akkadians, and qualitatively no better than the Greek cosmography or the Zoroastrian cosmography, or any other. They weren't simplified allegorical retellings for pre-scientific peoples, they were the inventions of pre-scientific peoples.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276930)

...and if He did, he would make Moses irrelevant to his own existence, in terms of personally contributing to learning any of his own understanding. This would be a greater loss than a gain, therefore not a positive. I understand you'd insist on looking at it from a secular perspective though, so in that case, it would be a greater loss than a gain, therefore not a positive action.

Just saving time by indicating the more-common forms of double-standards your positions have between "religion" and "absolutely any other topic I discuss".

As for your further point, feel free to start the discussion with quoting your primary source documents that you feel demonstrate some kind of plagiarism, beyond the vague correlations like "people thought there were gods" that would demonstrate, well, nothing whatsoever.

Both of these are -always- a necessity for claims like yours, like simple citation, but go ahead and catch up on the requirements of baseline honesty in argument. Without those, your argument is just hot air.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277012)

The cosmography invokes the crystal dome (the firmament) which was straight out Sumerian cosmological myth (the sun, moon and planets embedded in the dome), as is the notion of a worldwide primordial ocean. Let's not even get into the second creation myth in Genesis, which is clearly polytheistic in origin.

I'm sorry you're touchy that your religion's creation myth was cribbed from other sources, but you shouldn't be surprised, considering that the Semitic peoples of eastern Mediterranean were in constant contact with their cousins in Mesopotomia, and the Sumero-Akkadian mythos held a similar position in the pre-Hellenic world as Hellenic civilization did a thousand years later.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277070)

Primary. Source. Documents.

Without those, you are giving neither me nor the general reader any opportunity to evaluate for themselves what they'd consider "coincidental" versus "correlation but not causation" versus real "plagiarism".

Since you haven't, I have to assume that's exactly what you intend to do.

People used to have ideas related to Physics in the distant past. Does this mean there is no accurate Physics? Ah, no.

This is really a very common argument, and I've seen it stretched to absurdity--one such web page ended up saying Jesus was exactly like Thor--which is simply absurd on its face for anyone knowing anything about Judeo-Christianity or Asatru.

That's why your intimation that elements were copied (before we even get to the fact that, like Physics, it would matter not in the least anyway) needs to be backed. They only way to back your argument is through...

Primary. Source. Documents.

That's how we differentiate plausible historical claims of this type from people making stuff up and putting it on their MySpace page.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277162)

http://www.ping.de/sites/systemcoder/necro/info/sumerfaq.htm [www.ping.de]

With references. Eat your heart out. Your religion absorbed akkado-Sumerian elements. Get over it. You didn't actually seriously think that Genesis was the first religious document ever written, ddid you?

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277168)

And the Wikipedia article on Sumerian religion also has citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_religion [wikipedia.org]

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277178)

And this:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ninhursag [newworldencyclopedia.org]

Even the Eve myth was taken from the Sumerian.

Re:A few too many zeros (0)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277270)

So, overestimating to the advantage of your position, about 1% similar concepts, 99% totally different.

You can't be serious that a mention of a rib, somewhere in all the writings describing these hundreds of utterly different aspects to all these "gods", with that rib -not even related to humans-, means Genesis was "stolen" from this, can you?

In that case, Moby Dick was clearly plagiarized. There are millions of earlier writings that use the word "whale" somewhere.

Re:A few too many zeros (0)

Empiric (675968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277208)

Nice handwaving. I thought maybe -you- were going to make a real argument, showing a strong direct plagiarism, along with the actual documents that -prove- that writing from the other mythos preceded historically. I'm not going to do your work for you by hunting through a link. Yeah, I know, Post Hoc Propter Hoc, but I'm trying to give your argument at least a hearing before crushing it by calling out all your logical fallacies. That Genesis wasn't the first account of human origins matters not even in the slightest, most vague way to the question of its validity. Einstein's Theory of Relativity wasn't the first writing in physics, either. Yay. That can't be all you've got here.

Re:A few too many zeros (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277252)

Where did I use the word "plagiarism". Does that even make sense in comparitive mythology (that's right my overly religious severely ignorant friend, there's a whole field of study tracing the similarities between mythologies). The Sumerians, via the Akkadians, laid the ground work for a considerable amount of later Middle Eastern and Western culture; writing, mythical and religious motifs (including the cosmography, the Hero and the Flood and so forth), codified laws, heck, even timekeeping and unit measures.

Why are you so shocked by this? Did you think somehow the Semitic peoples of Canaan wouldn't be heavily influenced by the Sumero-Akkadian religion just as they were in many respects by the Egyptian civilization? The ol' Promised Land sat on top of one of the most important trading routes even in prehistoric times, and it was heavily influenced by not just goods but ideas. A thousand years later the descendants of those ancient Canaanite tribes would again be influenced by Hellenistic thought, and from that was born modern Judaism, Christianity, and eventually Islam.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276852)

If the Christian god existed and wanted us to have knowledge about something, he wouldn't need anyone to write it down. We could just become aware of the facts through an act of a god. Yet, it seems he insists on only informing us about the fact of his existence in ways which are consistent with there being no God at all. I guess all the gods that people believe in are trickster gods. The only conclusion I can see is that if the Christian god exists, he does not want rational people to believe in him. So either way I've got it right.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277236)

Amazing. I'm halfway down the page (reading at -1) and this is the first comment rated higher than a 3. It really has nothing to do with the article, is only barely on-topic because the GPP decided it was an opportunity to bash religion, and it doesn't make any point other than validate a bunch of people's biases.

Bible hate is popular here!

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277266)

So consider the big story of Genesis. Two conflicting stories with details such as talking serpents, fruit trees that grant knowledge when eaten, and a woman made from a rib taken from a man, aren't meant to be allegorical? I wager all of the above are very blatant clues that parts of the Bible were meant to be allegorical.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276800)

Hey guys, we found another one.

Re:A few too many zeros (1, Offtopic)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276596)

6001. You said it was 6000 years old last year.

Re:A few too many zeros (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276994)

Billions of year ago? How can that be? The earth is only 6000 years old, everyone knows that. DUH!

You do realize that the noisy people that annoy you by being noisy become more noisy when you make noise like this, right?

OOH!! Same Water amount!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276108)

Just proves we never went to the moon!!! Samples back from Nevada or even Kilimanjaro could have been 'obtained'.

Sometimes Beads are just Beads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276128)

Sometimes reading less books increases knowledge.

Next time I am lost in a desert I will suck on my glass bead. What a thirst quencher. AH.

Genuine moon water for sale: $1.7 million dollars (2, Funny)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276154)

Or best offer. No undercover agents, pls.

Drink time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276194)

"But when such technology is developed, lunar water could become the most valuable resource in the solar system, making the Moon the most desired real estate beyond the Earth."

Lunafina anyone?

It Seems To Suggest Something Else... (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276216)

This seems to be more evidence that water exists all over this part of the Solar System instead of Moon and Earth formed differently. In fact it would be kind of weird and probably be more supported of "separate formation" if we couldn't find water on the Moon.

Re:It Seems To Suggest Something Else... (2)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277088)

The prevailing theory for some time now (guessing a decade, maybe two?) is that the very early Earth was hit by by a sizeable object, at an angle and speed that didn't outright shatter the Earth but blew enough of the combined masses away from each other to form the Earth and Moon as we more or less know them today.

Also, water on Earth is theorized to have come from comets bombarding the infant planet. In the amounts necessary to fill the oceans today, it only makes sense that a lot of water-rich comets hit the moon instead of Earth.

Comets? (4, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276236)

Couldn't it be possible that the comet impacts created the water containing glass? A sufficiently large impact should melt some rock that may look lite it was brought up from inside the moon. The current theory is that water is deposited by comets; why not the glass too?

Re:Comets? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276474)

Some water is deposited on space rocks by comets, but water is everywhere, it's one of the most common molecules in the universe. Comets can certainly create large quantities of glass beads on impact, but I assume they used isotopic analysis to determine the origin of the beads.

Re:Comets? (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277028)

Apollo 17, 1972? Those Nasa people must be really desperate for funding if they are now re-examing dusty cobweb ridden artifacts from the 70's. I guess it's also time to make massive generalisation such as, this one sample is representative of the whole moon.

Re:Comets? (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277312)

Apollo 17, 1972? Those Nasa people must be really desperate for funding if they are now re-examing dusty cobweb ridden artifacts from the 70's.

That's part of the power of sample return missions. Once you have the sample, you can throw not only all of human science at the sample to deduce things about the place of its original, but you can throw a bunch of future scientific progress at the sample as well.

Just like Mantrapushpam says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276292)

Chandramaava apaam pushpam... ...
Chandramaava apaam aayatam... ..
Aapovai Chandramasa aayatam.

Moon is the flower of water... ...
Water comes from the Moon.. ...
And Moon comes from water... ...

I am a man of science but this one shloka blows my mind.

Space breaks. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276356)

From TFA:

Lunar water can be mined then refined into liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. After that, it can be shot into space by a lunar-based rail gun to a fuel depot at one of the Lagrange points, where the gravity of the Moon and the Earth cancel one another out. A spacecraft headed, say, for Mars would not have to carry all the fuel it needs to get to Mars from the Earth, but rather stop at one of these fuel depots, top off its tanks, and proceed on.

Well, first we have to build a moon base from which to do the mining...

Aside from that, let's say you've escaped Earth's gravity well -- wouldn't it be better to not burn lots of fuel firing retro-rockets to stop and fill back up, and re-accelerate? What if the space base on the Moon used it's rail gun to launch the fuel on an intercept course -- you know, like when someone asks for some gas money for their car, and you toss them a Molotov cocktail and say "catch".

I'm sorry, what I mean to say is -- If we have Oxygen and Water refineries on the Moon Base, why not just launch the rocket from there (with their rail-gun) then fire thrusters and not have to stop at all?

Seriously though, at this far out point in our make-believe space future we're just one hypothetical step from having a clone farm manning the Moon base [imdb.com] (cheaper than droids), but if the we don't get Kevin Spacey's voice samples for the robotic assistants, it just won't work.

I'm sorry, what I mean to say is -- Let's just start with getting people back to the Moon, or to Mars, an asteroid, hell anywhere other than our own orbit -- that's so routine that a space launch is about 20 seconds of local news. If you want space funding, you need to excite the general public about space.

Re:Space breaks. (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276598)

If you want space funding, you need to excite the general public about space.

So that means what? an astronaut MMA league? or maybe some spaceshuttle demolition derby? Unfortunately it seems like things that excite the general public typically don't directly involve science or space.

Re:Space breaks. (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277156)

Let's just start with getting people back to the Moon, or to Mars, an asteroid, hell anywhere other than our own orbit -- that's so routine that a space launch is about 20 seconds of local news. If you want space funding, you need to excite the general public about space.

While I agree with you, there is a problem with that theory.

From NASA's point-of-view, the way you excite people about space is by doing new and exciting things. So if these launches are so routine that nobody cares, they won't be excited about them. For evidence, take a look at the Shuttle and Apollo missions. Hell, the Shuttles flew hundreds of missions. So many that nobody cared anymore. Apollo suffered similarly--after Apollo 11, nobody cared. We got to the Moon. What was the line from the Apollo 13 movie? "You guys make going to the Moon about as exciting as a tax audit."

Additional evidence for collision event? (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276374)

Couldn't this be interpreted as additional evidence for the theory that the moon formed in a collision between earth and another object, in the sense that the moon once where part of earth and some water where transfered during the collision?

Re:Additional evidence for collision event? (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276580)

That's what I was thinking. Those rocks already had water in them back when they were on earth before they got sent into space to form the moon. I can't see a significant amount of water outside of rocks getting transferred from earth to the moon. What would happen to water when shot out into space like that and put into a field of open debris? Wouldn't any water outside of rocks get swept away in the solar winds?

Re:Additional evidence for collision event? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276870)

Most water wasn't shot out into space. We're talking here about water in the Moon's mantle, just as there is water in Earth's mantle. The impact didn't splash pebble-sized rocks, it splashed mantle material on a planetary scale. The surface of the large blobs of molten rock were exposed to space -- well, a greatly distorted vacuum, full of gases and rock vapor also. Some of the splash formed into the Moon, while some of it returned to what would become Earth. So some of the mantle material in the Earth was at one time affected by similar processes. It's hardly surprising that there are similarities.

Where is some research on how the materials in the big splash were affected by the splash and what happened afterward?

Re:Additional evidence for collision event? (1)

Spykk (823586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277064)

Water contained in molten ejecta would sublimate almost instantly in the vacuum of space.

Any chance... (1)

GWRedDragon (1340961) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276450)

Any chance of terrestrial contamination? Seems possible that over the last 4 years in storage, at some point the moon rocks in question could have been exposed to moisture from the Earth.

Re:Any chance... (1)

GWRedDragon (1340961) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276464)

40 years, that was.

The moon used to be a part of Earth... (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276552)

so why does that mean there is that much water is on the moon now?

Another reasonable explination (1)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276554)

Is that the source of these volcanic beads was near a particularly large( for the moon) source of water. I am not an expert but this seems like a more reasonable guess than there is as much water on the moon as on earth. At least to a laymen

new origin theory? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276702)

It's turtles _most_ of the way down.

Wow After almost 40 years I finally get my water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36276730)

Apollo 17 took place in 1972. Now please tell how come it took almost years to discover water? I mean, really, the thing was dripping close to 40 years and some Scientist (no doubt having many important degrees) claims that wet stuff is water. I believe if you ask the janitors who had to mop the wet floors could have told you that almost 40 years ago.

They all of a sudden? (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276786)

Ok, this was a shock too me when I first read this because there was huge amounts and still is of Lunar research going on and I can see the moon having some water tucked away in an impact crater...here and there in the shadows.

But the moon has the same amount of water content as the earth?

That is a _huge_ amount of water to miss for the pass 50 plus years of research.

It is a gigantic amount of water. They have done TONS of seismic studies of the moon and how is it possible that this has been missed?

WTF?

-Hack

Re:They all of a sudden? (2)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277116)

It's only in the last couple of years that they confirmed there was any water at all on the moon, and that's at its polar regions which gets scant amounts of sunlight.

It's possible what water remained on the lunar surface was vapourized by the sun and blown away by solar winds billions of years ago, so only sub-surface water remains for most of the moon.

water (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276880)

is it enough and easy enough to get to to make colonisation somewhat practical?

I thought it was made of cheese... (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36276976)

I guess the Saturday morning cartoons were not correct.

Time to go back to the moon (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277110)

Seems to me, we should maybe go back to the moon.

I know Mars seem so much more interesting, but it's obvious we have a shit load more of learn from the moon, not to mention, if it has water inside, and it's easy to get at, would make colonies on the moon (for blasting off to mars and other locations) a lot more promising.

Re:Time to go back to the moon (1)

William-Ely (875237) | more than 3 years ago | (#36277250)

What we really need to find on the moon is oil. We'd be founding the New Texas oil rig colony in less than a year if that ever happens.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?