From: Subject: When Was the Lunar Surface Last Molten? Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:25:48 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/pensee/ivr01/19molten.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 When Was the Lunar Surface Last Molten?

When Was the Lunar Surface Last Molten?

Immanuel Velikovsky

I appreciate the challenge concerning the last time the lunar surface = was=20 heated and became also partly molten. I intend to show that of the three = possibilities in Professor Derek York's discourse, the evidence is for = (c)--=20 "there is something wrong with the radioactive clocks or our reading of=20 them."

First, I will cite the impression the physical appearance of the = lunar rocks=20 made on qualified observers.

The Lunar Sample Preliminary Examination Team ("Preliminary = Examination of=20 Lunar Samples from Apollo 11") recorded "the extremely fresh appearance = of the=20 interior of all crystalline rocks, in spite of their microfractures and = high=20 potassium-argon age."

As to the exterior of the lunar material, T. Gold, writing in = Science,=20 discussed "Apollo 11 Observations of a Remarkable Glazing = Phenomenon on the=20 Lunar Surface." Gold, looking for a cause of the glazing assumed "a = giant solar=20 outburst in geologically recent times" that sprayed the surface of all = lunar=20 rocks with metallic glaze. How recent? "The glazing occurred less than = 30,000=20 years ago: otherwise the glaze would have been eroded and dusted over by = slow=20 bombardment of the moon by cosmic dust. On the other hand, the event = must have=20 taken place some thousands of years ago, not only because it was not = observed=20 historically, but also to allow enough time for the metal-plating = process to=20 coat the glass."

The event was observed historically; however, it was not due to the = sun=20 becoming a nova for a second or so, but to the repeated disturbance in = the=20 moon's motion and the near-encounters in the celestial sphere described = in=20 Worlds in Collision, part II, "Mars."

With the knowledge attained in attempting to reconstruct the cosmic = events of=20 the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh before the present = era (in=20 which the earth, but mainly the moon and the planet Mars, were involved = at=20 15-year intervals), I made the following claims concerning the moon:

a. The lunar surface rocks must show the effects of their melting and = bubbling. Actually the rocks were found of igneous nature, containing = pyrogenic=20 mineral assemblages and cavities, created by bubbles of gas.

b. There must exist a steep thermal gradient under the surface: = "Since the=20 moon was heated and its surface became molten only a few thousand years = ago, the=20 temperature gradient under the surface crust will show, to some depth, a = mounting curve." (My communiqué to Prof. H.H. Hess, Guyot Hall, = Princeton=20 University, dated July 2, 1969). Such a gradient was detected over two = years=20 later by the Apollo 15 team and startled the theorists--the outflow of = heat was=20 almost three times more than expected by those who hold to the hot = origin of the=20 moon; those who hold to the cold origin of the moon are baffled even = more.

c. The hydrocarbons that have been deposited on the moon in an = earlier cosmic=20 event (Worlds in Collision, part I, "Venus") must have "in a = subsequent=20 melting of the ground" converted "into carbides or carbonates."

Small quantities of hydrocarbons and organic carbon were found in = lunar=20 material (and surprised the researchers); and substantial quantities of = carbides=20 have been found too, and created a problem.

d. Radioactivity of the lunar material and especially localized areas = of=20 excessive radioactivity (where interplanetary bolts, have fallen or = emerged)=20 would be found. Radioactive elements were first found in the rocks and = fines=20 brought by the Apollo 11 team. Localized thermal spots of high = radioactivity=20 were detected by the circling Apollo 15 craft, and large areas of highly = radioactive KREEP were discovered in samples brought by the = astronauts.

e. Excessive quantities of argon and neon would be found captured in = the=20 lunar rocks, having originated in an external source (Martian = atmosphere);=20 further, the abundance in which these noble gases would be found would = lead to=20 wrong, even bizarre, conclusions about the age of the lunar rocks.

Actually rich inclusions of both argon and neon were found in lunar = material.=20 Ages of seven billion and even 20 billion years were deduced, estimates = that=20 exceed the accepted age of the universe. Then it was claimed that much = of the=20 argon-40 arrived in the solar wind, though previously only atoms of = hydrogen and=20 helium were thought to be present in the wind (plasma). It was retorted = that the=20 solar wind cannot possibly contain argon-40; and it was found = that the=20 smaller the lunar grains are, the larger is the proportion of argon (and = neon)=20 to the grain's mass--it means that much of the argon must have come from = the=20 outside--therefore its presence is proportional to the surface, not to = the=20 volume of a rock or a fine.

Since argon-40 could not have arrived from the sun and most of it = could not=20 have been formed in situ by the decay of potassium-40 (because = such an=20 origin would have required a moon several times older than the accepted = age of=20 the universe), a rather far-fetched theory was offered and, in the = absence of=20 anything better, also accepted: namely, argon-40 was formed at the usual = rate=20 from the decay of potassium-40, and accumulated in the deeper strata of = the=20 moon; then, because of heating from some unidentified origin, the argon=20 succeeded to come to the outside and form a lunar atmosphere but then it = was=20 pushed back into the surface rocks and grains by the solar wind = acting=20 purely mechanically. This, furthermore, requires that the rocks and = grains=20 opened themselves to permit an inclusion of argon and neon.

Is this not a most artificial explanation, especially in view of my = advance=20 claim of rich invasions of argon and neon of extra-lunar = origin?

The conclusion is inescapable that the potassium-argon method of = measuring=20 the age of the lunar rocks needs to be discounted. And Professor York = concedes=20 this in the present short paper (and also conceded this to me following = my=20 lectures at the University of Toronto in October, 1971).

Before we proceed, I wish to make it clear that the question is not = when=20 the rocks have been formed or for the first time=20 crystallized, but when they were heated and partly molten for the last = time. The=20 age of the rocks is not in dispute, only the time of = the=20 "carving" of the lunar surface. The rocks could be billions of years = old. And=20 let me repeat Professor York's words: the transformation rate of = radioactive=20 elements cannot be altered by "heating" or "hitting" or "exposure in = vacuum."=20 Since heating by itself cannot influence the radioactive' decay, a = melting in=20 the past cannot be detected by the resulting ratio between the = quantities of the=20 radioactive element found and the element product of the decay. However, = one of=20 the two may escape because of volatility in the process of heating. This = is the=20 case with lead--the end product of radioactive uranium or thorium.

It was found (and it caused one of the surprises of which the lunar=20 exploration was rich) that the lunar rocks are greatly depleted of all = volatile=20 elements: lead, bismuth, cadmium, thallium, indium and others.

Actually, the lunar rocks contain only 10 percent, and down to as = little as=20 one percent, as much of these elements as corresponding terrestrial = rocks. Thus,=20 the uranium-lead and thorium-lead methods for estimating the age of = lunar rocks=20 are as inapplicable as the potassium-argon method. One method is = undermined by=20 the bountiful addition of the final product and the other method by the=20 depletion of the final product.

Then how good is the third method for measuring the age of lunar = rocks, by=20 rubidium decaying to strontium (with a half of the rubidium-87 = converting into=20 strontium-87 in 50 billion years)?

I have asked Robert C. Wright, Senior Development Engineer with = Princeton=20 Applied Research Corporation, to tackle this method for its validity in=20 measuring the time since the lunar rocks were last molten. His remarks = follow my=20 discourse.

At the Third Lunar Conference held at Houston in January, 1972, Leon = T.=20 Silver of the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California=20 Institute of Technology, challenged the age estimates of the lunar = rocks. Lead=20 and rubidium can become heated sufficiently to move freely over the moon = as=20 gases. Silver gave no estimate of how much the lunar "boil off" might = have=20 affected the estimates of the moon's age and by how much the "ages" need = to be=20 revised.

Already at the First Lunar Conference (1970) Silver drew attention to = the=20 volatile transfer of lead "as a major lunar geological process" and = referred to=20 "an early high temperature episode in lunar history" which "produced an = apparent=20 depletion in volatile elements, including lead, as indicated by the=20 extraordinarily high uranium-238 to lead-204 ratios of lunar material = from=20 Tranquillity Base, compared to terrestrial and chondritic materials." = This and=20 other observations made him conclude his paper with these words: = "Continuous=20 examination of basic assumptions provides some of the greatest harvests = in=20 Science."

Upon observation and detection of more "parentless lead" in = subsequently=20 obtained lunar material, Silver, reporting to the 1972 Lunar Conference, = gave=20 the figures arrived at in laboratory experiments. He concluded that at = some time=20 in the past the lunar surface became heated to volatilize the lead; at = 475 to=20 600 C a major release of lead would take place; and at 1000 C from 70 to = 80=20 percent of the total lead would be volatilized. The heating of the = surface is=20 reflected in vitrification: some "drastic" lunar event converted at = least half=20 of the lunar soil (sample 14163) to various glasses. "One can reasonably = expect=20 some moon-wide volatile transfer effects from very large surface thermal = events=20 on the moon." This has "major implications and remarkable potential for=20 understanding and explaining lunar surface history."

Thermal events must have enveloped the lunar surface to affect the = transfer=20 of lead. In such events the rock needed to be heated to something like = 800 C,=20 but did not need to be molten and recrystallized.

Rubidium evaporates at much lower temperatures than lead. As Wright = shows in=20 his paper, the heat of one long lunar day is amply sufficient for the = transfer=20 of rubidium. Thus the third method is most unreliable for dating even at = normal=20 conditions prevailing on the moon. Now we can ask how it is that it is = claimed=20 that concordant results have been obtained by the three methods unless a = preconceived idea of the age of lunar rocks guides the researchers. In = the=20 meantime, we learned once more that the lunar surface was subjected to = heating=20 or several hearings after it was already cooled off.

In my article in the New York Times, written at the = invitation of=20 the editors for the "Man Walks on Moon" issue, I suggested that the=20 thermoluminescence level of the rocks and glasses is the proper = criterion for=20 establishing the time when the last melting of the surface took place. = This=20 method is applied on inorganic material like pottery, glass, lava, = rocks; the=20 longer the time that has passed since the last heating to above ca. 150 = C, the=20 more luminescence must be stored for another heating or firing which is = then=20 done in a laboratory. To exclude the effect of the solar heat during the = two=20 week long lunar day, I suggested the extraction of a core from a three = foot=20 depth.

The thermoluminescence study by R. Walker and his collaborators at = Washington=20 University, St. Louis, was made on Apollo 12 cores. They reported = tersely: "The=20 TL (thermoluminescence) emitted above 225 C by samples between 4 and 13 = cm show=20 anomalies resulting from disturbances 10,000 years ago." = The=20 "disturbances" referred to were of a thermal nature.

Upon more consideration, I think that the increased radioactivity in = lunar=20 material must increase the thermoluminescence effect and thus let it = appear that=20 the last heating occurred earlier than historically true. Therefore it = is=20 necessary to extract material from sites which are the least = radioactive.

The "extremely fresh" appearance of the interior of all crystalline = lunar=20 rocks; the vitrification of a large proportion of the lunar soil; the=20 volatilization and transfer of lead; the glazing of the rocks that must = be of=20 recent date; the thermoluminescence studies indicating thermal = disturbances in=20 historical times; and the steep thermal gradient that bewilders the = researchers;=20 all point to the fact that the thermal history of the moon is not what = it was=20 thought to be only a few years ago.

Concluding, I wish to raise a fundamental question. When we measure = the age=20 of the universe, why do we assume that at creation the heavy elements = like=20 uranium predominated and not the simplest ones, hydrogen and helium?

It is philosophically simpler to assume that all started--if there = ever was a=20 start--with the most elementary elements. A catastrophic event or many = such=20 events were necessary to build uranium from hydrogen. Although the = radioactive=20 clock cannot be disturbed by heating or hitting, it can be disturbed by=20 discharges of interplanetary potentials. This is what made me also claim = localized areas of high radioactivity on the moon and Mars alike.

PENSEE Journal I

\cdrom\pubs\journals\pensee\ivr01\19molten.htm=20