Who Built the Moon (alternative ideas)

If you've seen any of my previous ATS posts you'll know I'm a skeptic to most things, I demand facts and proof otherwise I'll remain a skeptic.
Now I'm still a skeptic to this subject but I thought it fair to share what I've seen in the newspaper article, its from the Daily Mail – August 9th - Page13 so its not from a strange internet source (however I've not got a link only the paper in front of me)

The article basically talks about this new book that's out by Alan Butler and Christopher Knight, the book is called Who Built the Moon? (I'm not advertising just using it as my source).

The article talks about the alternative ideas and evidence from the books which I'll turn into a simple bullet form.

Evidence of Alternative Origins and Creation
- The Moon was apparently created through an object hitting the earth yet no new unfamiliar materials are on the moon to our knowledge.
- The Moon is too perfect:
- The Moons stabilises the angle of the Earth (the Earth is at a tilt), causing us to have seasons and a lack of extreme temperature variations (such as frozen seas and inhabitable heat regions).
- The Moon was closer 4 billion years ago, causing much stronger tides which resulted in fluctuation in the salt content of sea water which is believed to have played a important part in forming 'double strandard' DNA molecules.
- The Moons gravity has slowed the spin of the earth, (stopping potential 8 hour days), which the book claims has helped life form as it spreads out the constant interruptions of night and day, providing animals with longer amounts of time in which evolve and advance without natural interferance from heat, light etc. Thus providing the chance for complex life forms to evolve.
- The above is only possible through the moon being its exact size and being in its position (current position).
- During an eclipse the moon appears the exact same size as the sun even though the objects are completely different sizes.
- The Moon is 1/400th the diameter of the sun and the moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun is.

Hollow Moon
- The Moon is only 60% as dense as the Earth (that's 3.3 times as dense as water).
- During Apollo 13 when the disposable rocket was jettisoned it landed on the Moon near a (past mission) seismometer which recorded a effect similar to that of a Earthquake. I'll quote this bit:

NASA Documents Quoted by Alan Butler and Christopher Knight
''The Moon rang like a bell after being struck and the reverberations lasted for three hours''

This strange occurrence has never been followed up due to scientists simply stating that an apparently natural orbiting orbit can't be hollow.

Alternative Source of the Moon
- Aliens seeking to create life on Earth (various purposes and intentions)
- God (although it is stated that this is the easy way out to explain the theory)
- Humanity from the future (a time paradox here me thinks)

Well I hope you've enjoyed my little write up of the article and I hope its been a source of interest, I personally believe the Moon is just a ball of rock and not some secret Death Star sent by Aliens to create life on Earth but I'll let you make up your own opinions.

Nice little piece Wizard, I too think the moon is just a big rock ejected from earth during a hit and run, but some of the points you have brought up are interesting.Another little tid-bit is when the moon was much closer, 4 billion years ago, aside from altering the salinity of the oceans the moon also reflected more sunlight at night, giving night about 1/3 daylight.This allowed algea to keep producing oxygen at night , speeding up the oxygenation of the biosphere.

Pretty neat stuff eh ?

Pretty neat stuff eh ?

Actually, that really is kind of cool.

And just to muddy the waters even further, there are a number of myths and legends which describe a time in humanity's distant past in which there was no moon in the sky. This site details some and I have heard a few others that have been passed down through oral tradition.

Personally, though, I'm going to stick with the whole rock-smash-moon theory put forward by modern science.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
fair to share

These (especially "hollow scheisse") have already had their "fair" share used multiple times.

And I can guarantee solid pieces of iron ring so it doesn't proof anything about hollowness of something.

Originally posted by Merkeva
Another little tid-bit is when the moon was much closer...
also reflected more sunlight at night, giving night about 1/3 daylight.

There's no way moon could "reflect" so much light to Earth.
So I would recommend using source of that for something useful like lighting a fireplace.

There's no way moon could "reflect" so much light to Earth.

I beg to differ.

Link

Note this part in particular

Imagine a moonrise 4 billion years ago when the Moon was more than 40 times larger than it is today! Think of what that would have done to the tides, the birth rate during full Moons, and the romance of the night!

A moon 40x time larger in the sky would
Here's an artists representation..

Edit : for image

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Merkeva]

Originally posted by Merkeva
I beg to differ.

For Earth's dark side to get 1/3 of that light received by light side is impossible.

Let's imagine that ~12000 km diameter circle represents amount of light what Earth's light side receives.
So for dark side to receive one third light level it would need amount of light which would hit circle whose area is one third of that.
And as you might remember moon's diameter is ~3500 km which leads to much much smaller area than one third... and that 1/3 area already requires that its albedo is 1 while moon doesn't even reflect one fifth of what it receives.


And looks like that site is maintained by some US school/education book publisher so try to remember that US school books doesn't suffer from shortage of more or less grave errors.

Here's more recommendable site:
curious.astro.cornell.edu...

And as you might remember moon's diameter is ~3500 km which leads to much much smaller area than one third

The moon scatters light , it does not reflect a 3500km spot light on earth. And yes I have to admit 1/3 is a hasty estimate. There would have been a big difference in luminosity between now and then , the moon at present reflects 11% of light but distance is a key role in this, atmospheric condition plays a part too.So while I stand corrected on specific values, I still maintain my point on the luminosity of the moon speeding up the oxygenation of earth.
I remeber seeing something on this in the first episode of BBC's "Journey of Life" with Steve Leonard, if your interested.



[edit on 18-8-2005 by Merkeva]

Everyone know's it's made of cheeze....

How about this whacky theory...

The moon is hollow. We (humans) built it. It is a science platform aka construction office headquarters that was setup when we first arrived to the Sol system and started accelerating the terraforming of Earth into the masterpiece that it is today. Our mothership is Saturn's moon Iapetus. To find out all about the crazy history of Iapetus, look here: www.enterprisemission.com... .

Originally posted by UK Wizard- The Moon is too perfect:
- The Moons stabilises the angle of the Earth (the Earth is at a tilt), causing us to have seasons and a lack of extreme temperature variations (such as frozen seas and inhabitable heat regions).

I have to disagree with the authors here, this is a product of evolution to make it seem perfect. While we do have frozen seas and inhabitable heat regions, nothing with wide variations in temperature.

A follow up on alien theory:
One theory I have heard thrown around is that human life was exported from another similar world and needed a moon to allow for tides, temperture variations, and an object to collect the impact of asteroids which is why the dinosaurs aren't around, they had no such protection. But the mooon is huge and designing and creating such an object would take tens of thousands of years if not more.

yeah right!

Originally posted by IronDogg
How about this whacky theory...

The moon is hollow. We (humans) built it. It is a science platform aka construction office headquarters that was setup when we first arrived to the Sol system and started accelerating the terraforming of Earth into the masterpiece that it is today. Our mothership is Saturn's moon Iapetus. To find out all about the crazy history of Iapetus, look here: www.enterprisemission.com... .

I could have automaticaly figure out that that claim is false because your post contained either www.enterprisemission.com... or Richard Hoagland. That's the crazy history, but is it the true history?

It sounds really interesting, but it just doesn't seem right. Considering the gravitational pull probably changes slightly, that could explain why it's gone out farther, but then where exactly is the evidence for that?

However, it is strange that it is covered in impact craters and there don't seem to be many on Earth (unless there in the sea or we've built upon them).

There are plenty of impact craters on Earth. Most of them have eroded away. The moon dosen't have wind, rain, snow and so on. So markings on the moon will stay there for a very long time.

If the moon was built, it would have been one heck of a good job. The formation of lunar seas are caused by a massive asteriod impact. Around 3,600 million years ago. The impact formed the Imbrium Basin. This impact was enormous and caused the lava from the young moon to pour out and fill it. How can a man-made object survive such an impact? This proves that the moon isn't hollow, where did the lava come from if it is? The moon is natrual, so is Iapetus.

I believe the moon formed around 4,500 million years ago as material in the planetary nebula that was orbiting Earth clumped together and eventualy the gravity forced into a sphere. Iapetus may be a captured comet.

[edit on 8/19/2005 by GoldEagle]

reply to post by UK Wizard


I recall very clearly the statement by the NASA geologist:
''The Moon rang like a bell after being struck and the reverberations lasted for three hours''

I recall very clearly what he went on to say, which was that as the Moon has little or no liquid core and mantle, ie is solid, it rang like a bell when a spacecraft crashed in to it. He was comparing the moon's makeup to that of Earth's, that's all. The experiment was conducted to determine if the moon had any liquid, ie molten rock, in its core.

To take the statement and try to make the moon appear to be a solid metallic object, constructed by some intelligence, is a gross misinterpretation of the report.

If Velikovski had a theory on the Moon origin I would believe it.

I don't recall any but he does go back to the time of the Flood.

Listen to David Icke's lecture on the moon matrix theory:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by UK Wizard

- The Moon was apparently created through an object hitting the earth yet no new unfamiliar materials are on the moon to our knowledge.

The Moon more than likely formed in an orbit right next to the Earth in our solar system. So, that would explain why both celestrial bodies are made out of the same materials. Also, the planet that is now the Moon would have hit the Earth with such force that everything would have turned into molten rock. Some of it was ejected out into space to create the Moon the rest was pulled back to the larger body by gravity to create the new Earth.

- During an eclipse the moon appears the exact same size as the sun even though the objects are completely different sizes.

This has always perplexed me too. It is quite eerie that the two biggest objects in our sky are relatively the same size. The Earth is the perfect distance from the Sun for life to form, and the Moon is big enough and is the perfect distance from our planet to encourage life to form.


The Moon is 1/4th the Earth’s diameter, but is only 1/80th the Earth’s mass, which is quite odd. These facts make a valid enough argument to suggest the Moon is hollow. However, I theorize (I'm sure I'm not the 1st) that when the Moon crashed into the Earth 4 billionish years ago most or all of its heavy elements were sucked into the center of the Earth via gravity, and the lighter elements were flung far enough out into space to create the Moon. This also explains why the Earth has such a giant core which makes it the densest planet in our solar system.

I don’t think we can ever be certain of any of this, but the pieces do seem fit making it the most probable theory.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by tooo many pills]

Originally posted by UK Wizard
- The Moon was apparently created through an object hitting the earth yet no new unfamiliar materials are on the moon to our knowledge.

And why should the moon contain unfamiliar materials?

If the theory was that the moon was captured in Earth's gravitational orbit we might expect to find different materials.

But the impactor left remnants of itself on the Earth and on the moon, and part of the moon came from the impactor and part from Earth. So both the Earth and the moon are a mixture of materials from the two bodies.

The reason the moon is less dense is is the Earth's more dense core remained relatively intact during the collision, so it was the less dense material near the surface that was ejected to form the moon.

Here's an interesting animation of:

How the Moon was born!

Hopefully after watching that, you can see why the moon and the Earth would both have a blend of the impactors materials after the impact.

Dont get me wrong, Im fascinated with the Moon and its mysteries and I am also looking for the truth in the ways I can.

Its just something that doesnt completely convince me about this "perfect Moon" theories is that we forget that Life can also have a chance to show up in the planet, without a Moon in the skies. Maybe in this conditions, Life would appear in a entire different way than what we know it, leading to organism complete different of anything we have in mind.

I think the Moon (among other millions and millions of different factors) just helped to shape life on the Planet resulting in what we see nowadays around us, but I honestly dont think that was the decisive factor for the planet to have life.

Maybe if we were living in a Moonless planet, the intelligent beings on it (if there was any) would be debating about how mysteriously perfect was the fact that, because their planet doesnt have Moon, Life could spread on its surface...