Moon's Bulge Finally Explained

or not...

Isn't it interesting when the "people's" source of science news doesn't operate in a scientific way?

The head line reads "Moon's Strange Bulge Finally Explained"

Let's define Explained.

Here's the language in the first paragraph.

"The Moon's peculiar shape can be explained if the satellite moved in an eccentric oval-shaped orbit 100 million years after its violent formation, when the satellite hadn't yet solidified, the researchers say."

So what they are saying is this - We've explained it! We know why the bulge is there. It's there IF this THEORY we are working with is true.

Do you see the error in the language and thinking here? You can not define truth (explained) using something that isn't truth.

OK lets go on. At the bottom of the article I clicked on the Top 10 Cool Moon Facts.

Definition of fact.

Here's the first one.

"The Moon was created when a rock the size of Mars slammed into Earth, shortly after the solar system began forming about 4.5 billion years ago, according to the leading theory. "

So the first cool fact is how it was theoretically formed 4.5 billion years ago....

Are you seeing a patern here?

Forgive me if I can't take this sort of "science" seriously, and less so the "scientists" who make such foolish conclusions.