It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I was unaware there were any bridges or pyramids on the moon. Or any other anomoly for that matter.
Seeing how the moons surface is easily viewd through a telescop, I wonder why others have not seen these anomalies too.
Originally posted by Zzub
From cornell.edu website...
Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!
Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.
Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.
More details for the mathematically inclined: How did I calculate this stuff? Well, here's the procedure. Let's take the case of Hubble and find out what the smallest thing it can see on the surface of the Moon is.
1. Resolution (in radians) = (wavelength)/(telescope diameter) or R= w/D. This is a formula from optics.
2. So for Hubble we know that the telescope diameter is 2.4 meters (it's not very big - it had to fit into the Shuttle.) Also, we know that visible wavelength light is in the range 400-700 nanometers. I'll use 600 nm, because it's somewhere in the middle and I've used it before for this calculation.
3. If you use all units of meters and do R= (600e-9)/(2.4) = 2.5e-7. Well, that gives us the resolution of Hubble in radians which isn't too intuitive, but we can convert to meters on the surface of the Moon.
4. To find the spatial extent that 2.5e-7 radians is at the distance of the moon, set up a triangle between Earth and the Moon, where R is the angle in radians that we calculated, x is the side opposite angle R which corresponds to the object on the moon, and the adjacent side is the Earth-Moon distance. Then you have Tangent(R)=x/(distance Moon). The distance to the moon is 384,400 km. So converting to meters again and plugging in R and d_moon will give you a size in meters of the smallest size thing HST can see.
5. When you do this you get 96.1 meters (315 feet). The astronauts didn't leave anything this big! If you look at this HST image of the Moon you can see that they say "Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across." I think they used 500 nm as their wavelength instead of 600 nm, but it's the same order of magnitude as what we got here. So there's no way HST can see anything humans left behind. HST can do a good job of studying large-scale geology, like craters, which is what the images were of. People and their stuff are just really small on a planetary scale!
Originally posted by blackSt33L
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.
Originally posted by Notme
Originally posted by blackSt33L
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.
But are not these the same people who wrote in their "text" that the Earth was flat, and you would fall off if you sailed to far, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth?
Originally posted by blackSt33L
Originally posted by Notme
Originally posted by blackSt33L
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.
But are not these the same people who wrote in their "text" that the Earth was flat, and you would fall off if you sailed to far, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth?
You are both right and wrong.Both the Greek and roman texts on hollow Earth were made over a millenium(before 200B.C) prior the when they began to rule much of Europe and The middle east,N. Africa.Many things can change over afew centuries/milleniums,especially ideas.
Both Greeks and Romans(Especially the Romans)had constantly changed their views on the world.The texts on hollow Earth were among the first thought to be one of their views of the Earth.At that time they didnt know that below them was more crust,outer core,core etc.So when they assumed that the Earth was flats,naturally they assumed there was life there.
But then your probably wondering how they knew the world was round.Well these texts were found to be older than when people thought the world was flat(before both the Roman and Greek empires),so it is still a mystery.Although I think that due to influence,the Romans and greeks changed their views on the Earth.The Spanish were the ones who originally came up with the world being flat.Much of Europe began to adopt this theory because after all,the spanish at that time were one of the first nations to travel outside of Europe by sea(along with Britain,France and portugal).So because of this,the idea was excepted into European society for acouple of more cenuries.The Romans then thought of much of their earlier findings to be no more than myths.
Originally posted by Disciple
1) The Moons center of mass is offset from it's geological center, yet it still holds a near perfect orbit around the Earth. I'm assuming I shouldn't have to elaborate any further...
2) I've never heard otherwise that the Moon was dated at anything younger than 5-6 Billions years old, much older than this solar system, so if someone would be so kind...
3) The Earths gravitational field is by no means strong enough to capture an object of that size, period, much less rip it into it's own orbit and it remain. I'm not a mathematician, but I do not dout the words of Asimov himself.
4) There are mentions in ancient text, once again I don't have any links so if someone would be so kind, of a time where "There was no Moon in the Heavens."
5) There were numerous accounts as well as matching transcripts from many HAM radio operators of listening to NASA's trasmissions during the original Moon landing. Supposedly there was a greeting party, and not of the friendly kind. This seems to be one the explanations for us never returning once completing the Apollo missions.
6) There are several accounts of the Moon ringing like a "gong" for hours after impact of mereorites, and even Terrestial landing craft. As an extra tidbit, the moon's surface consist of materials either not foundin nature, some thinking by products of e.t. machinery, or materials normally thought to be found within the core of a planet.
quote from wikipedia, re:moon
The lunar crust is composed of a variety of primary elements, including uranium, thorium, potassium, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, titanium, calcium, aluminum and hydrogen...
The dark and relatively featureless lunar plains are called maria, Latin for seas, since they were believed by ancient astronomers to be water-filled seas. They are actually vast ancient basaltic lava flows that filled the basins of large impact craters.
There is one minor detail about the theory though, returning to Asimov brand mathematics/physics. NO NATURAL SATELITE COULD BE HOLLOW! It would be ripped apart by the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe the Moon was 'hollowed" and reinforced for whatever purpose by whomever, but that's abaout all I've got.
7) One other question that has always puzzled me...why is the American flag flapping in the wind in the original landing footage?
If anyone has anything to add, or can elaborate on anything I mentioned, I'm all ears.
[edit on 3-1-2005 by Disciple]