Is the Moon an Artificial Satellite? Look at This.

reply to post by spacekc929

I think we are hung up on the definition of "rotate".
Meaning,
is the moon spinning? In my kite analogy, the kite is not spinning.
If it is easier to imagine, think of a regular kite. You walk around the globe and you always see the bottom of the kite, right?
Now, the kite is not spinning, right? But, you say it is "rotating", right?
It is orbiting at a distance where it appears exactly the same size as the sun. Extraordinary. It can perfectly eclipse the sun. Extraordinary. It "rotates" at precisely the speed necessary to keep the same side facing the earth. Extraordinary. It has a near perfect circular orbit. Extraordinary.

That is all I am saying.

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
The moon...........

what would it take to make it spin? Why does it not rotate? Is the near side magnitized? and is that the reason it doesn't spin? It is not right, something fishy going on up there.

Oh but I'm sure someone will come along and explain how ignorant I am, and give me a perfectly good reason why our moon always keeps one side towards the earth.

I wonder if anyone knows if other moons on other planets rotates the same way as our moon?

Originally posted by zarp3333
I tried to imagine how incoming meteors could produce thousand kilometer long streaks along the surface of the moon as they impacted. It did not make sense.

Are you talking about the radial streaks that are visible around some craters? If so, that's Lunar material that was ejected out of the crater after impact and sent flying outwards in all directions.

Originally posted by Stewie
The orbit of the moon is unusual as well. We always see the same face, its rotation perfectly in sync with the earth. Coincidence?
Near perfect circular orbit, same side always facing earth.

It's not unusual at all. There are many Moons that are tidal locked to there parent planet. Here's a list tidally locked planets and Moons in our solar system.

A correct explanation would be a "perfect" explanation.

No wonder you can't imagine that the moon could be natural.. if something seems to be correct you dismiss it!

The current theory of the moons origins involves an impact early in the formation of our solar system. There is a physical process which we can observe called "accretion". The physics involved describe how matter clumps together due to gravitational forces.

Scientists currently believe that Moon may have been formed after the early Earth collided with another young planet as their paths crossed. Computer models have been able to use accretion mathematics and Newtonian and relativistic gravitation to reproduce the formation of the moon using this idea as the basis for the models.

The moon in this case would be formed from the ejecta emitted from the collision. Molten rock along with gases would, in part, be hurled away from the masses as they collide. The material not ejected with sufficient energy would collapse to form the new planet while that which was flung far enough would take up an orbit of the new planet. Earth once had rings!

Over time the orbiting ejecta would coalesce in to a small planetoid, due to gravitational forces that cause matter to clump in the region that has the greatest concentration of mass, thus the greatest gravitational pull.

We name this planetoid, Moon (amongst other names).

No we don't have youtube video of the process happening live, but the physics is sound and so more likely than suggesting that the moon was pulled here by someone or something unnatural.

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
reply to post by spacekc929

 

...even the explanation seems just a little toooo perfect ......

I thought the same thing. I also wondered why the explanation didn't factor in the Earth's rotation. That really makes it quite puzzling that we see exactly the same face of the moon. Would that imply they rotate in opposite directions? And always perfectly in sync to boot!

I had never really thought about the implications of always seeing "the face" on the moon!

reply to post by _Phoenix_


yes i think they do, in fact i remember hearing one moon rotating the opposite to the rotation of the planet but i forgot which planet.

The moon's rotation is the same as its revolution. This is called tidal locking and almost every natural satellite in our solar system does this. The aliens-on-the-moon crowd depend on these basic facts not being available to their audience and are generally pretty adept at making mundane questions like these into something mysterious.

The striations you see are simply enormous ejecta blankets spreading outward from the craters they originated from.

Again, this is all very basic astronomy. ET on the moon theorists are very dependent on you not knowing the fundamentals when it comes to space exploration.

This is how ignorance is *truly* denied.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by spacekc929

 

I think we are hung up on the definition of "rotate".
Meaning,
is the moon spinning? In my kite analogy, the kite is not spinning.
If it is easier to imagine, think of a regular kite. You walk around the globe and you always see the bottom of the kite, right?
Now, the kite is not spinning, right? But, you say it is "rotating", right?
It is orbiting at a distance where it appears exactly the same size as the sun. Extraordinary. It can perfectly eclipse the sun. Extraordinary. It "rotates" at precisely the speed necessary to keep the same side facing the earth. Extraordinary. It has a near perfect circular orbit. Extraordinary.

That is all I am saying.

You must say thanks because im very bored so i make a drawing in ms paint lol.

You will see, this is the drawing.



The kite is the line, the circle is the planet, the blue square is you and the little red dot in the kite is the axis.

In the first case, you start walking in the position in the right, the one in the middle, the kite is frozen, is not spinning, so you start walking but because the axis is not spinning, when you start walking around the earth you wont see the same side of the kite.

In the second case, you start from the same position, you always see the same side of the kite, but if you see the kite is spinning over his axis, is changing, rotating, is not frozen, so you will always see the same side because he spin with you.

Is very easy to understand.

I am not arguing that the moon could not have been formed by the collision of earth with another planet. What I am saying is the the trails from the striations do not follow a random pattern criss crossing the entire moon. Instead the appear to run in directions along a primary axis as if the moon were pulled primarily from one side.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that meteors came in from every direction and thus the ejecta trails would criss cross?

I had never really given Sitchin's or Marr's theories a second thought until I saw the moon clearly for myself. It was as if every photograph I had ever seen was slightly out of focus. I can't wait to get a Meade telescope.

reply to post by MonteroReal


BTW - thanks for the drawing MonsterReal

Correct me if I am wrong...
(and I am frequently wrong, so I can take it)
however, isn't it impossible for a natural satellite to be essentially hollow?

And, isn't the moon, for all intents and purposes, indeed very much that?

The interior actually echoes when it is hit, and "gongs" like a bell?

(Of course there is material inside, I am not saying that the interior is completely empty, but, you get my meaning)...
If I am mistaken, please forgive me, I must have read the wrong material.

There is some scientific speculation that the moon may be hollow.
The moon is older than planet earth is it not?
Also i believe that the moon is composed of different material than earth (BY %agers)
Phobos alao is styrated in a suspicious manner....it too has been accused of being hollow as well as having a satelite (phobos 2)mysteriously die nearby while attempting to match orbits....
The moon anomalies have mounted over the years since we have so many observatories...the bridge being discovered in early fifties retc...
many observations of light flashes and other oddities have been recorded on the near side of the moon.
Evidence of structures on the far side is claimed by many different people.And evidence of airbrushed NASA photos is plentiful.
It is extremely possible that ruins found on the moon (if any) belong to ancient civilisations of earth as aliens from elsewhere....
Though we are kept ignorant for the sake of control, i believe that things have progressed to a point where we will have to be brought up to speed before more rapid technical progress can be accomplished.
In order to play with the next generaation of toys, the illumes will have to let us know a bit more about whats going on.....

Your first link, it looks like someone took a pic of the moon, then took a picture of the earth and faded it ever so slightly onto the moon (scaled down of course to match). Look closely, you can see the outline of the continents?

This video explain it all. About how the moon rotate.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Fiberx


This is what I have suspected, that the moon is made up from Earth colliding with a planet.

That is why there are differences between the earth and moon in the metals and other elements that came from the other planet. The moon is made up of material from the other planet and Earth.

reply to post by Overtime


I suspected as such. It does seem to be a logical concept worth considering. We all have to remember that the places we gather our information are conceived by individuals who do the same thing. They make educated guesses.

The moon is younger than the Earth by about 30-50 million years. It is less dense than the Earth because it lacks Earth's iron core. The collision theory suggests that the lighter mantle material from Earth was ejected into space and stayed in orbit, while the denser material returned due to Earth's gravity. Over time, the lighter, now orbiting matter coalesced into a single body - our Moon. Perhaps gravitating toward the remains of the body that collided with Earth in the first place, assuming it lost enough inertia to get locked into our orbit. Since the theory suggests that the moon formed of many many smaller satellites, it's safe to assume they didn't fit together perfectly like a jigsaw. It is very likely that large areas beneath the moon's surface are empty voids, just as there are large areas beneath the Earth's surface that are 'hollow' - caverns, lava vents, etc. But the moon is not a balloon.

As for the optics of eclipses, there is nothing especially miraculous about it's perfectly covering the sun during eclipse. That's just how it is now. In the distant past, the moon was closer to Earth, and would have completely blocked the sun and more during eclipse. We just happen to be living at the time when the match is perfect - a nice coincidence for us all. In the distant future, as the moon continues to move away (as it does at a few cm each year) the moon will no longer cover the sun entirely during eclipse. We live in a dynamic solar system and things are in constant change.

For Eons, the moon had a molten core and active volcanos. The effects of Earth's gravity have been a constant, and pull the shape of the moon from spherical - moreso when the moon was hot. In fact, both the Earth and the moon's gravity warp the shape of each other even today, and tidal locking not only affects our seas, but it also moves our mountains as much as 30 cm during each lunar phase. So, when looking at the 'seas' on the moon, you have to envision them forming on a cellestial body that has been in a very very long flux and under outside influence. Don't expect the dynamics of the lava flows to match with the mental image of a pristine spherical moon unaffected by the Earth. Remember, this object is 4.5 billion years in the making; what it is now is not what it has always been, and neither is the Earth.

Although the moon was smooth during it's formation and cooling / baking process, it's taken a lot of hits from space debris over that time. Earth too, but in our case, a lot of the craters are covered by fauna and water and are diminished by erosion. Most of the hits both took, took place during the tail period of the Great Bombardment, and most of those craters visible to us are almost as old as the moon itself. There is some question as to why there are so many craters on the side of the moon facing Earth i.e. shouldn't the Earth have blocked those objects? What we may be seeing when we look at the lunar surface could in fact be remnants of matter ejected from the Earth as a result of later impacts with rogue objects - huge chunks of Earth tossed into space and hitting the moon on the facing side.

The face of the moon that we see is locked to Earth by gravity, and eventually, as the moon moves away and the Earth's rotation slows, the Earth will eventually lock to the moon, and our rotation will match to it's orbit, leading to Earth days that will, in a trillion years or so, last about 1000 hours.

reply to post by zarp3333


How big is this supposed artificial Satellite?

Is it round?

How far is this artificial Satellite from Earth?

Thanks in advance if answered.

Check out Clip 10 on this page: www.nealadams.com...
It is an interesting theory about the formation of the 'seas' on the moon and lack of craters therein.
This is in response to the OP discussion about the features of the moon.

Thanks fnulnu! Finally someone with true facts!
This thread actually made me laugh
Congrats for some peoples imagination, amazing how far you can go.
But...this is ATS so...keep going