Source of Moon's Magnetism Found

Yahoo.com ^ | 01-15-2009 | SPACE.com Staff

[Gordon Greene]

Moon rocks delivered to Earth by Apollo astronauts held a mystery that has plagued scientists since the 1970s: Why were the lunar rocks magnetic?

Earth's rotating, iron core produces the planet's magnetic field. But the moon does not have such a setup.

Now, scientists at MIT think they have a solution. Some 4.2 billion years ago, the moon had a liquid core with a dynamo (like Earth's core today) that produced a strong magnetic field. The moon's magnetic field would have been about 1-50th as strong as Earth's is today, the researchers say.

The MIT team found evidence for the molten-core theory by analyzing the oldest of all the moon rocks that have not been subjected to major shocks from later impacts — something that tends to erase all evidence of earlier magnetic fields. In fact, it's older than any known rocks from Mars or even from the Earth itself.

The rock was collected during the last lunar landing mission, Apollo 17, by Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, the only geologist ever to walk on the moon.

"Many people think that it's the most interesting lunar rock," said MIT's Ben Weiss, who is senior author of a paper on the new finding being published in the Jan. 16 issue of the journal Science.

[Gordon Greene]

Could someone please read this and tell me how smart these scientists are with a straight face?

We don't even know for sure what the Earth's core is like, yet these guys are telling us they know what the moon's core was like "4.2 Billion" years ago!!!

This is getting more and more comical by the day.

[GeronL]

They make a lot of assumptions, based on what they know about today

[Nathan Zachary]

"Earth's rotating, iron core produces the planet's magnetic field. But the moon does not have such a setup. "

Clearly, they are pretty dumb. kinda supports the writing of the word "scientists" in quotations.

Even if the earth did have an iron core, much less a rotating one, it is impossible that it would have a magnetic field so powerful that it would extend hundreds of miles from the earths core to the surface to create our magnetic field.

Rather, the earth contains iron and other metals throughout it's layers, and the magnetic field is most likely created in much the same way permanent magnets are made, except its created naturaly by simple gravity.

[Fintan]

We don't even know for sure what the Earth's core is like... Sure we do...it's a creamy nougat center with crunchy nuts.

[Nathan Zachary]

Perhaps someone can pass this link on to those MIT "scientists"

mysteries of the inner earth

It wasn't too long ago that these MIT "Scientits" were having a hard time understanding that they did not achieve "over unity" when they were playing with electricity and water trying to make hydrogen.

[Gordon Greene]

Kind of like... coffee is bad for you; coffee is good for you. Chocolate is bad for you; Chocolate is good for you.

Assumptions should always come with disclaimers, especially if “Scientist” or “Doctor” is in your name somewhere.

“Doctor, my stomach hurts!” “Well, sir,” said the doctor. “I assume you could have swallowed an anvil. Here, let me slice you open and see.”

I’d like a little more testing first, please.

[Gordon Greene]

I must thank you for lightening the mood. But I think most of the “nuts” are above ground.

[Liberty1970]

Rather, the earth contains iron and other metals throughout it's layers, and the magnetic field is most likely created in much the same way permanent magnets are made, except its created naturaly by simple gravity.

No, permanent magnets lose their magnetism above the Curie temperature for the material in question. The earth's core is well above that temperature, so we can be quite certain the earth does not have a permanent magnet creating our field.

Also, the earth's field is rapidly declining (about 8% since 1835 AD), which would be inconsistent with a permanent magnet.

It will be interesting to see if this claim for the moon has any traction, but I doubt it. There is already a good working model that has successfully predicted the magnetic fields of many bodies in the solar system before they were measured, but it has been ignored and vilified due to its implications.

Info on the free decay model for terrestrial magnetic fields.

[Nathan Zachary]

And if the moon was 4.1 billion years old, the lunar lander would have vanished under the miles of dust covering the moon, especially considering evolutionists theory that the solar system was much more 'dusty' 4 billion years ago when star dust was forming planets.

Now apparently , MIT "scientists think the moon was a hot ball of rock and nickle (samples show moon rock contains a lot of nickle, much like the earth) which must of arrived here at the same time as the earth I guess.

I wonder, don't they have to cross out other "discoveries" from the journal of science before adding another one that contradicts or disproves the previous one?

[Captain Beyond]

bump for later read

[Fintan]

I must thank you for lightening the mood. But I think most of the “nuts” are above ground.

Hey, that's why I'm here ;).

[Gordon Greene]

“I wonder, don’t they have to cross out other “discoveries” from the journal of science before adding another one that contradicts or disproves the previous one?”

Nope... with scientists, discoveries pile up like moon dust and they don’t ever look back.

Kinda like the difference in “Global Warming” and “Global Climate Change”. They just change the verbiage with the addition of new evidence and keep on walking.

[Coyoteman]

There is already a good working model that has successfully predicted the magnetic fields of many bodies in the solar system before they were measured, but it has been ignored and vilified due to its implications.

Info on the free decay model for terrestrial magnetic fields.

A young earth? That is religion, not science.

Science falsified that idea decades ago, and the evidence since then has continued to pile up.

The RATE boys tried an experiment with over a million dollars of creationists money, and failed to put a dent in established science. Of course, they refused to believe their own results!

Here are a couple of links:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?

Sorry, even creationist research fails to support a young earth.

[secret garden]

I thought this was going to explain the attraction of Reverend Moon.

[Coyoteman]

And if the moon was 4.1 billion years old, the lunar lander would have vanished under the miles of dust covering the moon, especially considering evolutionists theory that the solar system was much more 'dusty' 4 billion years ago when star dust was forming planets.

You are aware that even AnswersinGenesis advises against using that discredited argument, right?

[NinoFan]

Interesting article

[NinoFan]

Read up on dynamo theory

[dforest]

oops! I thought the article was going to attribute this to Obama.

[microgood]

Rather, the earth contains iron and other metals throughout it's layers, and the magnetic field is most likely created in much the same way permanent magnets are made, except its created naturaly by simple gravity.

I was reading the other day that now they think that it is caused by electrical currents running through the outer core as it rotates around the inner core (which is not spinning).

The said that the iron is too hot to have the permanent magnetism scenario. But who knows?

[Oztrich Boy]

Source of Moon's Magnetism Found

Question insufficiently defined

No mystery

Big mystery