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!

cancel ×

56 comments

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

I'm curious (2)

jimmetry (1801872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358435)

How did they narrow down the timescale of the events to be so specific without any samples?

Re:I'm curious (3, Funny)

HeavyDDuty (2506392) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358539)

At NASA we don't take chances , we double up on everything... including guesswork.

Re:I'm curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358789)

There are many samples. We just don't know where they are.

Re:I'm curious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359337)

I imagine a lot of them are on the Moon.

Re:I'm curious (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360983)

Most of the times had at least a billion years range. Is that narrow for you?

Craters are usually dated by looking at how many craters are superimposed on them and making estimates based on expected bombardment rates.

Countdown to first uranus joke... (-1, Offtopic)

Meshach (578918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358451)

Three, two, one...

This contradicts with what my pastor says. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358455)

This does not correspond at all to how my pastor says the earth, the moon, the sun, and everything else was created. Why should I believe what NASA has to say?

- Jim from Arkansas

Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358627)

Obvious troll as the real Jim from Arkansas would not say "how my pastor says" but "how the Bible says" or "how God says". Attributing the pastor indicates some level of critical thinking that could make this question somewhat legitimate: "Why should I believe NASA? What evidence do they have beyond the circumstantial?"

Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. (2)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361005)

No, it doesn't, you're not careful, my son. Not only does the video show the Moon after it was initially shaped by the hand of God, it also showed God's hand during its changing through the aeons. Consider the sounds of all those explosions from the stones God threw at the moon. The mad scientists would have you believe you can't hear them in space, but by God's will you heard them loud and clear.

Sincerely, your father Porphirios.

Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362937)

I'm not sure what's more depressing - that this 6000 year joke is made EVERY time such a story appears on slashdot, or that it's modded +5 Funny EVERY time.

If your wish is to marginalise the religious then the best course of action is to just ignore them.

Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. (1)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393601)

If your wish is to marginalise the religious then the best course of action is to just ignore them.

but, one cant register their superiority that way!!

Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. (1)

chinton (151403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364145)

Sorry, Jim. Your pastor is an idiot. Not even the Vatican believes in the 6000-year-old universe.

Why not post link to NASA website? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358457)

Re:Why not post link to NASA website? (1)

Eevee (535658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358679)

Because nobody is being paid to post links to NASA.

Not according to David Icke (4, Funny)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358483)

Who says it's hollow, and was towed here by aliens [youtube.com] .

Re:Not according to David Icke (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360869)

Nice, haven't had a laugh listening to bollocks like that for a while. I would hate to stand between him and an episode of Ancient Aliens though, I reckon he would hit pretty hard and hustle like a pro.

Re:Not according to David Icke (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362693)

Are the Aliens Amazon Babes? I was promised an invasion by alien amazon babes!

Re:Not according to David Icke (and H.G. Wells) (1)

IwantToKeepAnon (411424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39368271)

H.G. Wells concurs [gutenberg.org] . The First Men in the Moon

Earth impact? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358515)

Didn't the moon impact the earth at one point? Isn't that why it's fairly lopsided?

Re:Earth impact? (5, Informative)

Rollgunner (630808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358745)

The Large-Impact Hypothesis is the current consensus. One smaller protoplanet grazed a larger one, leaving a large chunk of itself behind. The larger became the Earth, the smaller, the moon.

As to why the Lunar crust is (believed to be) about 1/3 thicker of the far side than the near side, no one is quite sure.

Re:Earth impact? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359171)

I guess it's the other way around and the mascons and tidal licking... locking and... magnets!

I think there are better explanations (3, Interesting)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359527)

Based on recent articles in the Physics Today, the moon is almost entirely made of Earth Mantle. Therefore, the viewpoint of a georeactor megavolcano probably is more likely.

Based on recent articles in Science News, it seems that in the formation of Kimberlite rock, there is a reaction which can send the magma into orbit, basically with carbon dioxide being the rocket fuel.

Referencing back to a Slashdot article not too long ago, the main structure of the moon is from two smaller moons colliding in a fairly slow collision.

Based on the new kimberlites found in a huge ring of 950-mi radius all around the Hudson, and the age of the Hudson rock [ the margin of error in rock dating, plus the fact that georeactors will throw off the Uranium isotope counts but perhaps not the Pb/Pb counts, allow for the probability], I'd say that the Hudson is one likely origin of the moon.

*But* that doesn't mean I don't think a much smaller asteroid triggered it. Based on the probability that georeactors will create enough vapor pressure to keep themselves from getting dense enough to go critical, it would take a large, sudden, horizontal force on a uranium-laden calcium berg in the mantle, to force it critical. Once it went critical, shock waves in the mantle could trigger another georeactor on the opposite side of the earth.

My guess, based on all that? 2.1 billion years ago, a relatively small asteroid [that is, not mars-sized] impacted near the south pole at a shallow angle, plowing the submantle south of Tierra Del Fuego, and throwing shocked glass all around South Africa, Antarctica, and Australia. You can see the plowed area in Google Maps, from Del Fuego to the South Sandwich Islands. It triggered a georeactor that exists under the South Sandwich Islands, and at the time was under the Vredefort Crater. The georeactor blew, making the volcanic crater. On the other side of the globe, near where Iceland is today, was another georeactor, with what is now the Hudson Bay above it. That georeactor also blew, creating the bay, shattering the crust all around it, and causing Kimberlate / Lamproite blasts through the shattered crust.

At that point, you had a huge amount of matter orbiting the earth at relatively slow speeds. Some of it fell back, but a lot of it formed into two moons, which at some point later, merged in a relatively slow collision.

I can't throw a probability on the scenario, but I tend to think [based on the articles I have read] that that scenario is more probable than any other that has been proposed.

Re:I think there are better explanations (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360125)

2.1 billion years ago pre-dates our current continent configuration, it pre-dates Pangea, it pre-dates Rodinia, that's around (or even before) Columbia/Nuna. Three super continents have come and gone since then, so Google maps isn't the proof you're looking for.

Re:I think there are better explanations (1)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362187)

It doesn't predate the Canadian Archon, or Vaalbara, or even possibly Vredefort, or the Hudson Bay structure. Arguably it doesn't predate all the oceanic trenches, nor the alignment of the continental shelf shapes. So there is a lot that has lasted.

Re:I think there are better explanations (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361027)

Actually, I think the guy further up who thinks the moon is hollow and aliens towed it here is going to give you a run for your money on the whole "most probable theory" thing. You guys probably read similar articles though.

No Sound in Space (0)

ad454 (325846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358527)

Strange that they would animate the meteoroid impacts with sound.

Last I check, there wasn't any sound in the near perfect vacuum of space on and around the moon.

Re:No Sound in Space (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358579)

If you where standing on the moon(presumable in a space suit) then yes, you would here the impact.

Otherwise, stop being a jack ass, it's for illustration purposes, so they had sound..cause space is freaking boring.

Re:No Sound in Space (1)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358655)

maybe space could sound like david bowie then.

Re:No Sound in Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358793)

Ah, but the camera's not being held by a spaceman on the moon.

Come to think of it, how did they get that footage anyway??? Did they have a satellite trained on the moon, videotaping it just in case of an impact? How did they know when to expect the impacts? I'm sorry, but I smell a conspiracy here.

Re:No Sound in Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360411)

You hEAR with your EAR

I know you meant to be snarky... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358795)

When the meteroids impacted, they would have caused a broad spectrum of light. That includes light at very low frequencies.

A few years back, we watched an intense meteor shower. As the meteors became visibly 'fuzzy' and then 'snapped' out of view, we HEARD corresponding sounds. This seemed impossible, but turned out to be real (they weren't delayed by speed of sound). The cause was low frequency light, which was transduced by fine elements around us -- like our hair, and dry grasses.

So an observer with a full head of hair would have 'heard' sounds of the meteor impacts, if he was in a quiet environment.

Re:I know you meant to be snarky... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360769)

Yes, that's why we all hear radio with our hair.

Re:No Sound in Space (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358847)

If it bothers you that much, mute your speakers before watching any space-related video.

what is the fate of the moon? (1)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358603)

I've read lots about what happens to the earth when the move leaves orbit. but what happens to the moon? does it fly into the sun? towards jupiter? or become a planet of its own?

Time frame written incorrectly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358643)

On the formation of the moon video, the time frame starts at "-4.5 billion years ago".
"4.5 billion years ago" or "-4.5 billion years" makes sense (the former making more sense, but the latter is still acceptable), but what exactly is "-4.5 billion years ago"?

Re:Time frame written incorrectly? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358727)

I think it's a tilde ~ not a minus -. I assume it means approx. 4.5 billion years ago.

Re:Time frame written incorrectly? (1)

EdBear69 (823550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358741)

I'm pretty sure that's a tilde (~) and not a hyphen (-). If reading out loud, replace the tilde with the word 'approximately'.

Moon's 'evolution'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358767)

Oh, what, you gonna tell me the moon evolved from apes?

bad title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358791)

that doesn't show how the moon was formed. isn't it supposed to be the result of 2 separate impacts?

God's Throne (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358805)

Everyone knows the moon was God's throne he sat on while he created the Earth.

When he was finished he left it behind.

:)

This is cool but (4, Insightful)

Verloc (119412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358901)

It is not "How the moon was formed", it is "Why the moon looks like it does". Still a very cool video.

Sound (4, Insightful)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359039)

I can't help but wonder... why am I watching a NASA video where the crater's falling on the moon makes sound in a vacuum?

I know it's artistic license and all, but aren't videos like this reserved for nerds, who actually care about things like accuracy?

Re:Sound (2)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360151)

No, they're PR.

NASA needs to make stuff look and sound as cool as possible at the moment.

Re:Sound (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361583)

You might as well ask why there's music, too.

Re:Sound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362371)

And yet, you don't call out the fact that there are stars!

Re:Sound (1)

Chozabu (974192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362555)

I can't help but wonder... why am I watching a NASA video where the crater's falling on the moon makes sound in a vacuum?

I know it's artistic license and all, but aren't videos like this reserved for nerds, who actually care about things like accuracy?

Just press the Mute button if it bothers you =P

Re:Sound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372565)

You are right. Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum. However, there were sound waves generated by the impacts. They traveled through the moon itself and the debris and gasses that ejected from the impacts.

Cheese!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359271)

I thought it was common knowledge the moon was formed in Wisconson.

This is why NASA is no longer relavent. (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359763)

This much more informative video by the Smashing Pumpkins [youtube.com] clearly shows that the moon looks like either cheese or some type of cookie. Furthermore it is populated with ugly jumping guys covered with craters that are easily defeated with a parasol or umbrella.

That's no... (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360665)

moon? It never does get old, does it?

In Soviet Russia (1)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361029)

Moon watch YOU being formed!

Direct link to the crater tour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362473)

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=135569041

That's a must see - really well done.

Stable for a billion years? (1)

Rhipf (525263) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364669)

So the moon hasn't change significantly in a billion years? Interesting.

Letterbox format? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366445)

2.40:1 aspect ratio showing a spherical object, cutting out the top and the bottom? The framing is ugly.

____world sites suk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39368461)

If you could please stop linking to itworld and pcworld, etc... until they remove the *&^% full page ads, that would be super keen. Thank you.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>