The interior of the moon is still warm after billions of years

13 תגובות

1. flint
   If there is truth in your statement that you have an education in the philosophy of science, then why do you believe a man like Gurdjieff, a man who is not a scientific researcher?
   Why do you claim that you have no way to test his cosmological theory? Maybe apply Popper's 3 rules? That's how a philosopher of science works, isn't it?

2. Hello Tzur,

   I will answer the points you raised in the order you raised them.

   1. If you want to learn about the "thinking patterns of people from the world of science", doesn't it make more sense for you to talk to scientists than to write wrong posts on a site where almost only science enthusiasts who do not engage in it professionally?

   2. I will quote Popper, with your permission (in fact, I may be confused and it was another philosopher who said this, but we already agreed that it is not really important who said the things but what was said), who when asked how he expected the world of science to proceed after the publication of his works on the subject, answered "even A scientist never needed a philosopher to explain to him how to do his work." That is, philosophy of science helps us understand why we do what we do, what science means and how it can be understood, but scientists did science hundreds of years before philosophers began to analyze it, and did it well. In the end, it was Einstein who taught Popper about science and not the other way around. In other words, your claim to be an external criticism mechanism for science is arrogance and nothing more.

   3. You might think you have news for me, but you'd be wrong. You see, I am a scientist who spends his day doing science from morning to night and works closely with many scientists from around the world. So your attempt to educate me and teach me how scientists think or how they reach their conclusions and what they rely on is between ridiculous and sad. I will not pretend to say that no scientist has ever "bought" a theory because of the name of its inventor or did not distinguish correctly between the known and the assumed, but these are rare events and are not representative of the world of science, and your attempt to present them as trends only indicates that you are talking about a subject you have no idea about.

   4. If you admit and confess that you do not have sufficient understanding in the field, why are you writing about it on the website? Isn't there a voice in your head that says, "Wait, this is an area I don't understand. Maybe it's better that I learn it before I show my ignorance in public"?

   5. Obviously, the fact that we have a lot of data does not necessarily mean that we draw correct conclusions from them. But that's not what you said a moment ago - you claimed that we don't have enough data. So decide what your review is and stand behind it, and don't change your editor when you are shown that you are talking nonsense. If you want to know whether the conclusions drawn from the data are correct or not, you are welcome to study the subject instead of writing a review online.

   6. The moon, and satellites in general, are ultimately pieces of rock and gas like any other rock or gas. They obey the same laws of thermodynamics that have been carefully tested in laboratories for centuries. As a person who claims to specialize in the philosophy of science, I expected you to know that science is based on the understanding that indirect evidence and generalizations can be used, and that it is not necessary to go through all the objects on earth and drop them from a tower to see if they obey gravity. I don't know if anyone stuck a thermometer in the moon because that's not my field, but if you understood science you would know that your claim is ridiculous.

3. elbentzo,
   I really appreciate your long and serious reply.
   You are indeed right that without sufficient knowledge of astrophysics I will not be able to influence the scientific community,
   Indeed, this is not my area of ​​expertise.
   My field of specialization is in psychology and the philosophy of the principles of science.
   I did not have much hope of influencing the scientific community by this response, because from my field of expertise, I know that it is not possible without creating certain conditions, some of which you mentioned.
   I study people's reactions to posts like the one I wrote, in order to better understand the thought patterns of people from the world of science to learn the failures we have in applying a pure scientific approach.

   Unfortunately I have news for you regarding answer 2 and 4 of the first post. The application of a scientific approach by scientists does exist, as you mentioned, but up to a certain limit.
   A limit that allows science to achieve accurate results and bring to the world achievements such as the computer, the Internet, etc., but does not allow science to progress and make more discoveries.
   From a certain point many scientists (not all, it's individual) lose the pure scientific approach and act from non-scientific motives.
   I will not expand on it here, because a satisfactory study of this subject requires a lot of time. Just as it is not possible to compress the material of an academic degree into a short article.

   By the way, regarding answer 3 in your first post, I am aware of the approach you are presenting, and indeed I do not know enough of the accumulated data and the attempts made to connect them to establish a well-founded opinion on them.
   Still, just in my estimation, just because we have an infinite amount of data doesn't mean we manage to arrange it in the right order, or that we have enough data to arrange it in the right order.
   Take for example the subject of the cooling of the moon.
   As far as I know we don't have enough observations of different satellites to try to deduce a theory about the evolution or decay of satellites. We barely have observations of planets. We mainly have observations of stars and other objects that emit enough radiation.
   I would appreciate new information on the subject, but to the best of my knowledge the idea that the moon is cooling is a theory based on "logic" only, that is, on the attempt to make a prediction based on the physical laws we know today.

   Thanks for answer 4 in your second post.
   She contributed a lot to me.

4. 1. The idea that a planet becomes a star is refuted by observations of nature: these objects are composed of completely different materials. In order for one to become the other, a process is needed that takes all the material of a planet (carbon, silicon, mostly heavy elements) and breaks them down in a nuclear process into hydrogen and helium. Despite the enormous amount of information we gather every day, we have never witnessed such a process in the sky. In addition, from a theoretical point of view, there is no explanation for this phenomenon and there is no catalyst for it (it is a theory of nuclear processes and not the birth and death of stars. The nuclear theory is verified in laboratories to phenomenal accuracy, and although it probably does not describe nature with 100 percent accuracy, it is terrifyingly accurate). And this is without mentioning the naive problem of energy conservation - the typical energy of a star is infinitely greater than that of a planet, even a huge planet. Where does the energy come from?

   2. Regarding the search for planets, it is only a question of cost-effectiveness. Around the dwarf there is a relatively small area where you can find the planets you were looking for, and therefore overall it is not so worth looking there, simply because the probability of finding something whose location distribution is random is proportional to the volume you scan. That doesn't mean planets can't exist there.

   3. Maybe you have scientific training (by the way, the words "scientific training" in itself are meaningless. You can be a professor of biology as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't buy you a single credit point in astrophysics), but you don't have enough knowledge of astrophysics. The processes through which a star collapses into a black hole via a supernova are known, documented and theoretically well explained. Maybe if you study the field more in depth, you won't have to accept criticism in the comment section.

   4. To stand aside and say "You are doing it wrong, you don't differentiate between theory and reality, maybe this way or maybe that way" is very easy if you don't try to back it up with a real analysis of the problems or pointing to an alternative solution. I mean, can you take an article, read it and point out an error (it doesn't have to be an actual error in the calculation, an unfounded assumption or a misunderstanding of a certain process is also possible)? All the points you made were nothing more than baseless defiance in the style of children. If you want to influence the scientific community or even just to be taken a little more seriously - grow up and instead of saying "you are wrong", see where and why we went wrong and how to do it right.

5. flint,

   I apologize in advance for the long response.

   1. I have a neighbor who is a genius soccer player, really pelted all the grass. Meaning, he may know a thing or two about surgical extraction of wisdom teeth. Oh, wait. Actually, no.

   2. The only one relying on people's names here is you - no one in the world of science accepts theories based on a name that suggests them. We accept them because they are based on a proven method of drawing logical conclusions and verifying them against reality. A method that has proven itself above and beyond (despite your claim that our theories are worth the paper they are written on, these theories produced your computer, the internet you are connected to, GPS and hydrogen fusion, and some ten million other things).

   3. Your approach to astronomy is completely wrong. First, astronomy is the oldest science in the world, and there are peoples who collected astronomical data already two thousand years ago. Second, I have no problem gathering information about a process that lasts millions of years because, unlike evolutionary processes, for example, astronomy has access to all parts of the process at the same time. There is no need to look at one star and wait a million years, from the beginning of the process to the end: you can look at a star at the beginning of the process, at the star next to it that is in a slightly more advanced stage, at a third star that is even a little more advanced and so on. If we continue the analogy with evolution, this is equivalent to receiving in our hands the entire chain of fossils that connects two points in the development of a certain species. Contrary to your claim, the amount of astronomical information in our hands is enormous.

   4. You "point" to something that does not happen in reality. Scientists are very good at separating information from observations from experiments or possible explanations derived from theory. You simply claim not because it is convenient for you and allows you to think that maybe you have understood something that all scientists miss because they are captive to the concept.

   A few concrete comments about your arguments in the next response.

6. flint
   I have not found any description of Gurdjieff's formal education - could you please direct me to, for example, his PhD thesis in physics?

   In the meantime, all I found is that he painted sparrows yellow and sold them as canaries…… Doesn't that mean he's a professional charlatan - that is, someone who makes a living from charlatanism?

7. To all who respond to what I wrote,
   First, have any of you even read the book I mentioned? Have any of you researched his method?
   Is it a scientific approach to establish a conclusion about something without investigating it in depth? (How did you decide that Gurdjieff was a charlatan?)
   I happen to have scientific training. (even though someone was quick to conclude that I don't have)
   I did not claim that this Gurdjieff is credible in my opinion or that all scientists are idiots.
   I did not claim that his teachings are correct and the prevailing theories are wrong.

   In fact the whole attitude of believing someone because they have one degree or another is unscientific. (even if that person is called a great scientist according to everyone). This is a "religious" approach.

   Ever since I was a kid I didn't believe any of my physics or math teachers when they gave me a formula. I always insisted on accepting the development of the formula so that I could believe it to be true. When they didn't give me an explanation, I looked for it in the books and when it wasn't found in the books, I would develop it myself. Even Einstein's special theory of relativity, which everyone says is great, I didn't take for granted. I studied its development step by step.

   "Believing" someone, whether they have a physics degree or a Nobel Prize, is not a scientific approach. The only thing that does not contradict the scientific approach is to "give trust", meaning to say: "Many people say that Einstein was wise, so it is worth my time to verify his Torah". Countless discoveries in the field of psychology today, including the discoveries of Pavlov, Gazniga, and many other notables were extensively described decades earlier in Gurdjieff's writings. It is very easy to show that he was a genius in everything related to the understanding of how the human soul works (and if anyone wants, I would be happy to explain it to them). Therefore, I trust him that he might also know a thing or two about the cosmos. I don't believe him, but I feel it is worth checking his words seriously.

   In order for science to be real, it must be self-aware, that is, know how to separate the data from the interpretation of the data (i.e. theory).

   In astronomy, perhaps more than in any other field of science, we have to be very honest with ourselves and admit that we have very little observational data.
   Indeed, what kind of observation can a five-hundred-year-old science provide about processes that take billions of years?
   This is why this field is full of different theories and new discoveries that contradict the theories.

   The important thing I am pointing out is that the main problem of science today is that we do not know how to separate the data from the theory,
   And so we start from unfounded assumptions.

   And now, I repeat again:
   Do we have certain information that the moon is cooling? Do we have data to show this? that show that for the last several hundred million years the moon is in a constant process of cooling? (I would be very happy if any of you could provide this information)

   Until then, let's accept our theories with a limited guarantee, and not dismiss anything before we have tested it in depth...

8. flint
   Are you a standup artist by any chance? It takes real talent to write jokes like yours. Really, well done!

9. http://צור So many mistakes and contradictions in one response

10. It's just sad

11. flint
    Your reaction is surprising - how much can a person embarrass himself? An unusual charlatan is credible in your eyes, but tens of thousands of expert scientists in the field are complete idiots.
    I will read your comment to my friends before going to the pub - that way we will start the evening in a good mood 🙂 🙂

12. This is how it is when there is no training and knowledge
    Every charlatan is seen as projecting authority
    Go learn in practice and then you won't have to "believe"

13. I just enjoy reading more and more about the new discoveries of astronomy. These figures always show us that our theories, to put it mildly, are still worth the paper they are written on, and yet we still hold onto them.
    For example, the discovery described in this article is accompanied by the question: "Why does only this layer remain soft, and how does gravitational energy change the cooling rate of the moon and its relative motion to the Earth". This question arises from the assumption that the moon is cooling. An assumption that is based on our theories about the formation of celestial bodies and not on data (correct me if I'm wrong). And what if the moon doesn't cool down? What if it actually warms up?

    Many years ago I read in the book "Searching for the Wonderful" by P. D. Ospanaksi about the structure of the universe according to the teachings of G. A. Gurdjieff. Although I have no way of verifying his "cosmological" theory, but due to his being a genius in other fields (as I could verify), especially in the field of psychology, there remains a warm corner in my heart that does not outright dismiss his perception of the formation of the universe. Different from the scientific view that prevailed in his time (and in our day) Gurdjieff claimed that the universe is "alive" and in the process of growth. That the sun was once a planet, that the planets were once satellites and that this growth process takes place thanks to the nourishment of the "parents" towards the "offspring", meaning the sun nourishes the earth, the earth and the sun nourish the moon, and so on. (This is an explanation on one leg - I recommend going deeper and reading the source).

    The current theory which claims that the cosmic bodies were formed from a primordial struggle and are cooling down is not based on observation. It is based on the attempt to create a "logical" theory with the scraps of information we have. And the chance of such a theory being correct, in my opinion, tends to be very small.

    As I read more and more about discoveries that "surprised" the prevailing scientific perception, such as the one in this article, I get the impression that Gurdjieff's perception is worth considering and investigating.

    Below are a number of discoveries from recent years that were contrary to the previous views and support Gurdjieff's view:

    "The Spitzer Space Telescope discovered for the first time the building blocks used to create planets, around a brown dwarf, thus raising the possibility that failed stars may continue the process of building planets." – Science 2005
    A point to think about: are brown dwarfs really failed stars? And what if it is a star in the process of growth. A sort of intermediate stage between Jupiter-sized planets and stars like the Sun.

    "The habitable zone near red dwarfs is very small, it is better to look for Earth-like planets elsewhere" - The Scientist 2008
    "A planet almost twin to Earth orbiting a red dwarf in an orbit that allows life" - The Scientist 2014
    A point for thought: "On what basis was the conclusion drawn from 2008?"

    The existence of a black hole at the center of our galaxy and the existence of holes of black holes at the center of almost every galaxy is a relatively new discovery that contradicted an earlier concept (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
    A point to think about: what if a black hole is the next stage in the evolution of a star? And what if a super nova is not the "end" of his life that destroys the entire system around him, but the beginning of a more advanced phase?

    The discovery that black holes emit radiation is a new discovery that disproved the theory that nothing escapes from a black hole.
    A point for thought: is a black hole also the body that "feeds" and builds the galaxy around it?

    "Extrasolar planets have been the subject of scientific investigation since the mid-19th century. Astronomers generally estimated that some existed, but did not know how common they were... The current estimate is that at least 10% of Sun-like stars have planetary systems” – from Wikipedia
    I remember that not many years ago the existence of extrasolar pressure planets was doubted among the scientific community, to the same extent that the existence of life in general and intelligent life in particular on other planets is doubted among the scientific community today.
    A point for thought: what do we base our hypotheses on? Is their foundation stable? Do we know enough to adhere to the current theory?
    Gurdjieff claimed that planets develop naturally in solar systems and that organic life is a stage that appears naturally on a planet as a mechanism that enables the growth of the planet (in my understanding, like plants are needed to convert the light coming from the sun and CO2 into organic matter, although we still do not know how the matter was formed the organic from which the plants themselves were created).

    Sounds far-fetched, I agree, but meanwhile our findings repeatedly contradict the predictions of the prevailing theory about the formation of the bodies in the universe and at the same time support the predictions arising from Gurdjieff's conception of the universe.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.