Why did the "moon ring like a bell" when anything landed on it? Not only American aircraft but Rus

a reply to: wildespace

I will point out science is often wrong and constantly being rewritten or edited. For a thousand plus years... The Earth was flat. The Earth was the center of the solar system. Gravity did not exist. The ceolocanth was extinct. The Liver was what circulated blood. Science saw no reason germs would be a threat in surgery till roughly 1860. DNA was not so important but rather proteins were the "Building blocks of life". The atom was the smallest particle in existence. Science thought the Earth was 6000 years old. Science thought Phlogiston was what made fires burn and was the main component in any combustible material. Science thought heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. Alchemy was considered a real pursuit with legitimate scientific backing. Science thought there was a planet Vulcan between Mercury and the Sun. Science believed in Spontaneous Generation. Until the late 20 century many scientists believed the Earth was continuously expanding. There was canals on Mars discovered by astronomers in. 1877. Science believed in Aether which was thought to be the way light was transmitted throughout the Universe. Scientists thought for a very long time the "Blank Slate" theory was gospel. Phrenology was not proven wrong until the 1900's. Einstein's Static Universe theory was proven wrong. Recently cold fusion was believed to be a reality.

I could go on and on.. I honestly am not discounting Science. I think it can and has been drastically wrong over the course of thousands of years. I suggest what we think we know about the moon may not actually stand up to the test of time.

a reply to: GArnold

Have you noticed though, that the trend of science is to zero in on what's right and what's not?

What might be and what can't (or is very unlikely) to be.

No science said the world was flat or that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

originally posted by: GArnold
a reply to: wildespace

I will point out science is often wrong and constantly being rewritten or edited.

But that is exactly the purpose of science. It doesn't proclaim the absolute and immutable truth like religion does. However, when hundreds or thousands of observations, measurements, and experiments show the same thing, the theory based on this become pretty solid. The modern world wouldn't be able to function if science was nothing but blind guess and pure luck. Cars, planes, computers, modern medicine, spaceflight, modern agriculture, and many other aspects of life that we take for granted, are the result of science constructing theories and sucessfully testing them.

You can hand-wave and generalise as much as you want, but _everything_ we have learned about physics tells us that the Moon can't be a hollow shell. If we are to consider that it's possible that the Moon is hollow, we can also consider that there are pink fluffy teddy bears roaming the Pluto's surface and cultivating sentient pumpkins. (and the latter is probably more physically possible than the former)

a reply to: bbracken677

Well if we want more data regarding our Moon the only way we are going to get it is to actually go back perform the relevant experiments. I personally do not subscribe to a hollow Moon theory and more than I do hollow Earth theory. That being said best to keep an open mind.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bbracken677

Well if we want more data regarding our Moon the only way we are going to get it is to actually go back perform the relevant experiments. I personally do not subscribe to a hollow Moon theory and more than I do hollow Earth theory. That being said best to keep an open mind.

Lots of experiments and observations have been done on the moon since men last went there in 1972 - from the Soviet Luna probes right through to the recent Chinese landing.

As for the interior structure, GRAIL recently mapped the gravitational field of the moon extremely accurately, yielding a lot more information than sending a few men up there with drills.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Rob48

There are rather a few more reasons to go back to our Moon than "sending a few men up there with drills" to determine its composition.

Many scientists and engineers are interested to see what condition the Apollo landers are in, thus better understand the effects the lunar environment has on long term exposure.

The geology of our Moon is also of interest considering our Earth surface changes through natural means such as plate tectonics and erosion. The Moon is rather different.

The far side of our Moon would provide us the perfect platform for astronomy considering its shielded from interference from the Earth and lies outside of our magnetosphere, which can deflect cosmic ray particles.

The Moon could also provide power through use of its surface material solar energy could be produced and potentially beamed back to Earth. Also there is evidence that Helium-3 may be available in usable quantities for nuclear fusion. The Helium-3 could be processed on the Moon and sent back to Earth or used to fuel future space missions.

Our Moon can and would provide many benefits for us as a race if only we were willing to overcome the risks and challenges associated with a lunar colonisation.

Hollow, solid or made of cheese, she's definitely worth Humanity's time and effort regarding both study and colonisation.

a reply to: GArnold

Wouldn't that mean when they recently crashed a probe into it, it should have "rung" too?
I don't remember hearing about anything like that.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: GArnold

Wouldn't that mean when they recently crashed a probe into it, it should have "rung" too?
I don't remember hearing about anything like that.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any currently functioning seismometers on the moon, so the "ringing" wouldn't be detected. The last of the Apollo seismometers stopped working in 1977.

a reply to: Rob48

Ah, ok.
Interesting.

a reply to: GArnold


Traces of another World found on Moon.


From Today's BBC Science website.

New information published in the new issue of Science. So... As far as the settled science people on this thread. Please explain.

Researchers have found evidence of the world that crashed into the Earth billions of years ago to form the Moon. Analysis of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts shows traces of the "planet" called Theia. The researchers claim that their discovery confirms the theory that the Moon was created by just such a cataclysmic collision. The study has been published in the journal Science. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote It was getting to the stage where some people were suggesting that the collision had not taken place” Dr Daniel Herwartz University of Cologne The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5bn years ago. Theia was named after a goddess in Greek mythology who was said to be the mother Selene the goddess of the Moon. It is thought to have disintegrated on impact with the resulting debris mingling with that from the Earth and coalescing into the Moon. It is the simplest explanation, and fits in well with computer simulations. The main drawback with the theory is that no one had found any evidence of Theia in lunar rock samples. Earlier analyses had shown Moon rock to have originated entirely from the Earth whereas computer simulations had shown that the Moon ought to have been mostly derived from Theia

www.bbc.com...



Interesting tidbit for the Science is settled people

One possibility is that Theia was formed very close the Earth and so had a similar composition. If that was the case it raises the possibility that the assumption that each planet in the current Solar System has a markedly different fingerprint that needs to be revisited, according to Prof Halliday. "It raises the question of how well the meteorites from Mars and the asteroid belt in the outer Solar System is representative of the inner Solar System? We do not have samples from Mercury or Venus. "They may well be similar to the Earth. If that is the case then all the arguments over the similarities of the Earth and the Moon fall away," he told BBC News.

By the way... That does say 4.5 billion years ago. I know a lot of people responding disputed the ages the rocks could have possibly been. Apparently not so fast.


As a amateur scientist at best... I guess my main question would be. If something as big as a planet did collide with Earth with enough force to form a moon. Would there not be some place on Earth you could point to and think " Ok here is where we were impacted by something enormous at some point in our past?"


From a article on CNN today explaining why the Big Bang theory could be wrong. pay attention to last sentences..

Last week, three theorists -- Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and Alexei Starobinsky -- were awarded the prestigious Kavli Prize for astrophysics for their work developing the theory of cosmic inflation. (This prize and the AAS lecture were sponsored by the same foundation but were otherwise completely independent.) Their award may well have been prompted by the BICEP2 discovery, which generated a lot of excitement about early universe cosmology. But at the American Astronomical Society conference, Spergel argued that the BICEP2 results reported in March could instead be explained by a more pedestrian effect, namely, light scattering off dust between the stars in our Milky Way galaxy. If he is correct, the widely heralded BICEP2 announcement was premature at best and wrong at worst. This kind of controversy is completely normal in science. It's the way science progresses. You put an idea out there and your colleagues -- many of them good friends and scientific collaborators -- try to shoot it down. A scientist's first reaction to a new idea is often: "That's wrong because...." To which the proponent replies, "No, you are wrong because..." And so the debate begins. No matter how much a scientist might hope to be right, nature holds the answer. One theory may be more beautiful than another, or more complicated, or more elegant, but nature doesn't know or care. The job of a scientist is to find out what the real answer is, not to advocate for any one point of view.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: GArnold
a reply to: GArnold


Traces of another World found on Moon.


From Today's BBC Science website.

New information published in the new issue of Science. So... As far as the settled science people on this thread. Please explain.

Yes, those new findings confirm the Giant Impact Hypothesis, which is that the Moon formed out of debris from the impact of a large planetoid with the proto-Earth.

There's no trace of that impact visible on Earth today because the impact would have turned the Earth molten, which would erase the crater. Besides, we have active plate tectonics, which tends to erase such impact traces.

P.S. science is never settled. But with more and more evidence confirming a theory, that theory stands as valid. The inflation theory doesn't nullify the Big Bang, it only provides more insight as to how and why the Big Bang happened. en.wikipedia.org...

P.P.S. the two articles you quoted show science at work, doing what it's supposed to do - learning, testing, adjusting theories, then testing more. Much better than saying "oh, they said the Moon rang like a bell, therefore it's hollow, therefore aliens!"

a reply to: wildespace

Part 2. I never said the moon was hollow or it was aliens. Lol.

There are a number of I am better than you science replies on this thread where the person implies he is so much smarter than person b because he can quote science. Usually ends up with person saying something to belittle other person such as "why do you not go read about it in the countless papers posted to xyz site".

My point is what we do know and don't know about the universe is just conjecture at this point. The article I just posted says everything we know about our solar system may in fact be totally wrong.

originally posted by: GArnold
My point is what we do know and don't know about the universe is just conjecture at this point. The article I just posted says everything we know about our solar system may in fact be totally wrong.

That's not the way I read it. It merely points out that we don't have samples of Mercury or Venus so we can't be as sure that their isotopic composition is different from earth's, as we know Mars's isotopic composition is.

The moon formation via a collision with Theia is often still referred to as a hypothesis, meaning it needs more evidence to become a theory.

In no way does this translate to everything we know about our solar system being wrong. It translates to we have some facts and some hypotheses based on these facts. The facts are still right, but we need more facts/evidence to prove or disprove the hypotheses, like maybe samples of Venus:

Study of Venus May Reveal How the Moon Formed

“We do not know the isotopic composition of Venus, the planet most similar to Earth in both mass and distance from the Sun,” Canup says, quoted by Space.

“If Venus' composition proves similar to that of Earth and the moon, Mars would then seem to be an outlier, and an impactor composition akin to Earth's would be more probable, removing many objections to the canonical impact,” he concludes.

Note we still consider the possibility that the isotopes on Venus may be the same, or different from the Earth, so neither finding would prove us wrong. If the isotopes on Venus are different from Earth, then this doesn't support the impact hypothesis of the moon's formation, but this isn't the only hypothesis. I made a thread about a different moon formation hypothesis here, which also lacks evidence, but the researchers point out that digging a little below the surface of the moon to analyze the composition may prove or disprove this alternate hypothesis:

Did the Moon Form from a Nuclear Explosion?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

He specifically says. " each planet in our solar system may have a different fingerprint and that needs to be revisited". I am not sure how you missed that as you seem like a smart person.

Look we laugh when we think back 100 years and what they thought they knew scientifically and about the universe, the same will be true 100 years from now. We will be considered limited in technology idiots. I am not sure how anyone can say the science of today is correct in anything but limited ways.

originally posted by: GArnold
a reply to: Arbitrageur

He specifically says. " each planet in our solar system may have a different fingerprint and that needs to be revisited". I am not sure how you missed that as you seem like a smart person.

I didn't miss it, in fact the example I cited specifically explained what that means using Venus as an example. Venus may have a different fingerprint, or it may not have, that was my point. How did you miss that and then accuse me of missing exactly the point I made using the Venus example? We could say the same for Mercury.

But "each planet in our solar system may have a different fingerprint and that needs to be revisited" applies mainly to Venus and Mercury for the purposes of evaluating the impact hypothesis for the moon's formation, though it's not really true for Mars where we already know the isotopic composition is different.

I'm not sure the gas giants are as relevant as the rocky planets in this regard.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well I appreciate your replies. I think your missing he is saying the whole solar system needs to be revisited if this is true about the moon.

You didn't answer about how we laugh at what they thought scientifically and about the universe 100 years ago. In 100 years what we think now will be ridiculed and thought to be primitive at best. Yet your defending the science as gospel. I do not get it.... Very small percentage of science survives 100 years.. Smaller still 500 years... Almost non existent 1000 years. Yet your claiming what we know is the truth.

originally posted by: GArnold
You didn't answer about how we laugh at what they thought scientifically and about the universe 100 years ago.

Ok you want an answer to that? We don't.

109 years ago Einstein published his special theory of relativity, and 98 years ago he published his general theory of relativity. One of the things he had to explain was how, if his newfangled theory was true, did we end up believing in Newtonian physics for centuries before that if it's wrong.

Einstein was able to show that Newtonian physics was a simplified version of his theory. Newton published his theory exactly 327 years ago today, on June 5th, 1687, and we are still using it more than we use relativity, because it is still true today unless special conditions like we have in GPS satellites or particle accelerators preclude its use.

Similarly we have more accurate quantum theory like quantum electrodynamics to replace older theories like Maxwell's equations, but aside from tweaking Maxwell's equations to work with relativity, the basic ideas still hold essentially true over 100 years later.

Even the "myth of the Flat Earth" is a misconception, as scholars didn't really think the Earth was flat in the middle ages.

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent

As far as what we can see with telescopes, we didn't have any idea what was "out there" beyond our galaxy 100 years ago. When in 1919 Edwin Hubble started using the Mt Wilson telescope he discovered other galaxies. He found something new with better technology, but we don't laugh at what we couldn't see without the more advanced telescopes. How were we to know what was out there if we couldn't see it?

The things we can really laugh at I think mostly happened longer than 100 year ago, like Phlogiston theory which was shown to be false over 230 years ago, and the geocentric theory even further back. The field of medicine seems to stumble more than physics for some reason though. Even today there are some powerful interests in medicine, which aren't always pure truth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Einsteins theory of the static universe is wrong. It is what relatively theory is somewhat based on. He is not a good example. Most of his ideas are being proven false as time goes by

a reply to: GArnold
He added the cosmological constant to account for the static universe, then when Hubble showed the universe was expanding, Einstein felt the cosmological constant wasn't needed, but the presence or absence of the cosmological constant doesn't invalidate the rest of the theory. Based on the dark energy discovery in 1998, the cosmological constant that Einstein discarded is once again being discussed, so it's not true that Einstein is being proven wrong, the cosmological constant may exist after all though it would explain the accelerating expansion rather than a static universe.

Everything we know about physics can't be wrong (the emphasis on the word "everything"). We've been sucessfully using Kepler's laws of celestial motion (which are over a hundred years old) to predict where planets and other bodies will be in the future, and send robotic spacecraft to them. You make it sound like a planet could just decide to stop in its tracks, and change its course. But we know that this can't happen, based on everything we have learned up to this point. If we observe a planet do that, then we can suspect that something is horribly wrong with our current understanding of physics and laws of motion.

Your problem is using sweeping generalisations and hand-waving, ignoring all the solid research and technology progress we have achieved in the last century or so. True, people hundreds of years ago didn't know what we know now, but niether were they launching spacecraft or building giant particle colliders.