Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
You know what its not my fault NASA didn't actually land on the moon...Hell you know what I have no idea what I am talking about...
You know what this whole thread is pointless...Why should I even be concerned about the Moon anyways, and if it has water or not? Obviously it is
different from where I stand...
So why are you starting threads you come back later and say are pointless?
I see you registered on ATS in 2009...but maybe you missed the threads since then about the "bomb" hitting the moon which wasn't really a bomb, it
was a kinetic impact into a polar crater to stir up some moon material so we could see what it was made of. The visual of the impact was
anticlimactic, but it showed there is frozen water in the polar craters of the moon that don't get sunlight, so I guess they stay cold enough where
the water doesn't sublimate or evaporate.
And is this pointless to worry about? If we never send another man back to the moon it might be, but if we ever establish a moon base of any sort,
water on the moon will not be pointless. Who knows if that will happen?
It's not your fault whether NASA landed men on the moon or not, but it IS your fault what you say about that. There are plenty of threads on ATS
about that to educate you, if you want to learn.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Someone on another thread suggested some kind of test before your allowed to post
If the test question was whether the earth orbits the sun
or vice versa, 20% or more of the population would fail depending on which country you ask in. And that seems pretty simple, so I shudder to think how
much worse the results are on more complex topics like the chemical reaction to convert sodium chloride to dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO
). But if
the test was on critical thinking, Velikovsky's theory would be a good test:
Worlds in Collision
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Salt deposited on the Moon would have to happen when Salt came down on Earth.
You would have to check with Velikovsky and one of his cosmic events.
The plausibility of the theory was summarily rejected by the physics community, as the cosmic chain of events proposed by Velikovsky was regarded
as simply contradicting the basic laws of physics.
So why would I want to check with Velikovsky? The only reason to read his work is the
entertainment value of seeing how someone can publish a story exposing an utter lack of understanding of basic physics, and have it hit the NY Times
bestseller list. That just confirms how many people are scientifically illiterate, and were also when that book went on sale. The publisher was so
embarrassed they dumped the book in 2 months and it was picked up by another publisher with no shame.
But Velikovsky aside, and perhaps by accident, TeslaandLyne in a roundabout way does have a point about some similarity in the composition of the
Earth's crust and the moon which was confirmed by analyzing the moon rocks that were brought back. The Earth has a higher density because of the
dense core, but aside from the core, the composition is similar which led to the current theories of moon formation. In any case since the moon
composition is similar to the Earth's crust, that similarity might also apply to the proportion of salt, though I've never read anything
specifically on a salt content comparison. The surface water of course wouldn't be similar because much of it evaporated from the moon but there's
still some left in the polar craters (confirmed) and perhaps underground (unconfirmed).