There was a big hoopla caused by Petersson, who did a atmospheric dust test, and predicted how much dust would actually be found on the moon if it were young. And how much would be found if it were old. Several feet for old, just a few inches if it were young. So when we finally went to the moon, they only found a few inches. This started a campaign to save face for NASA's support for old earth and moon. This campaign included several tests to disprove someone so precisely predicting the amount of dust for a young earth.
Scientist(s) (year)
Technique
Influx Estimate (tons/year)
Pettersson (1960)
Ni in atmospheric dust
14,300,000
Barker and Anders (1968)
Ir and Os in deep-sea sediments
100,000 (50,000-150,000)
Ganapathy (1983)
Ir in Antarctic ice
400,000
Kyte and Wasson (1982)
Ir in deep-sea sediments
330,000-340,000
Millman (1975)
Satellite, radar, visual
10,950
Dohnanyi (1972)
Satellite, radar, visual
20,900
Singer and Bandermann (1967)
Al26 in deep-sea sediments
456,500 (91,300-913,000)
Hughes (1975-1978)
Satellite, radar, visual
16,200 (8,000-30,000)
Wetherill (1976)
Fragmentation of Apollo asteroids
76,000
Grün et al. (1985)
Satellite data particularly
14,600
Olsson-Steel (1988)
Radar data primarily
16,000
Maurette et al. (1987)
Dust from melting Greenland ice
4,500
Tuncel and Zoller (1987)
Ir in Antarctic atmospheric particulates
6,000-11,000
Maurette et al. (1991)
Dust from melting Antarctic ice
20,000
14 tests in all. None of these tests back up the findings of the other. And there are several variables that science does not mention because they want this evidence for young earth debunked, and to stay debunked. I wonder how many millions of dollars were spent on trying to debunk this evidence?
The earth itself attracts dust like a magnet. The moon orbits through this path of dust pulled in by our planet. And because the moon is also a magnet for dust, it acts like a window wiper on a car, picking all the dust within it's path. So because of our planet attracting dust, and the moon having to travel through the dust attracted by our planet. The moon actually is able to obtain more dust then if it were by itself. So how does a moon get just a few inches of dust in 4 billion years, when it has help gathering this dust?
Let's ponder something else:
The sun is constantly bombarding our solar system with particles. These particles, plus the particles from collisions, keep our solar system full of dust. Just to show you how much needs to be produced to achieve this, as science would claim. Let's ponder a simple example:
Let's say we have only a sun in our solar system, and it's gravity can reach 1 billion miles into space. Let's say that for 1 billion miles, our solar system has dust. Let's also apply that dust can average one mile per hour speed in space while gravity pulls upon it. So we have 1 billion miles of dust, moving one mile per hour to a center point of gravity (the sun). How long would it take for all the dust to meet at this center point, which would leave no more dust in out solar system? There is 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year, so divide this into 1 billion miles, and you have how many years it would take to remove all the dust from our solar system.
Now add nine planets, and all their moons to pull dust upon the themselves, and their orbiting moons. And have them travel through the solar system, and like a dust magnet, sweep up dust as they orbit around the sun. So now ponder how much would have to be produced by the sun, and collisions, to keep our solar system full of dust for billions of years. In fact, the sun would have to throw out so much particles into space to keep it full of dust to where we are at now, and maintain it. That we would not be able to see the light of the sun due to all the particles blocking it's light.
But for a solar system much younger, this would be no problem. Because not enough time has passed to completely clean the solar system of dust.
Now we go back to the moon dust subject. Since science would claim that dust is more or less a constant in our solar system. This proves, even more that there is more than enough dust, that any planet, or moon with no atmosphere should have several feet, if not a mile of dust after several billion years. Dust that does not deplete, continues to collect on every moon and planet with no atmosphere. And this, just like so many claims from science, is just science trying to get evidence to support old earth, when there was never really any truth to what was claimed.
Here we have a picture of Jupiter and one of it's moons. I'm using this as an example. Jupiter has a lot of gravitational pull to it. So as dust is drawn to it, Jupiter's moons travel through this as they orbit the planet. Every moon with no atmosphere, collects this dust on it's surface. After billions of years, how much dust would you expect to find on each moon? Just a few inches, or several hundreds of feet, or even possibly a mile?
Here is a picture of the shuttle window after traveling through space. It is severely scratched from all of the dust in space. How does it become scratched by dust? The shuttle travels at over a thousand miles per hour. At that speed, dust can do this to glass. This is to also illustrate just how much dust is out in space.
Another debunked Young Earth evidence? I don't hink so. But AIG does.
