Strange Facts You (Probably) Never Knew About the Moon

i just love these facts which seem to get swept under somewhere! keep em coming, makes such a great read!
fascinating..

reply to post by FanarFanar


Well no I don't. Doubt anyone could for that matter, since you're asking for a probability model based on a very limited data set, since we can only accurately observe objects within our own solar system. But given that there are 170 moons and 9 planets in our solar system and 2 of those objects are tidally locked to another, I guess that it's a pretty common occurence given the vastness of the universe.



Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

Thanks DontProbeMeBros for a great post,

I watched the tv documentary a few weeks ago called 'The Story of Earth' which starts by telling us 5 billion years ago there was only the sun and dust everywhere but at 4.54 billion years ago. earth formed then was hit during this turbulant time and after 1,000 years gravity pulled the consequent dust into a ball which formed our moon, just 22 kilometers away which has slowly pulled away from us to where it is today. This seemed acceptable history to me however it appears some peoples, had a different view.

I also have read in the past that more than one group of people on earth have memmories of a life without the moon.
The practicalities of this raises my curiosity. Had a moon only recently appeared when man was around, it must have taken some huge operation to place it at exactly the right distance away and might surely have effected our atmosphere. There are a lot of other factors involved here just on this one point alone. We don't know very much verifiable information about who could have carried out such a huge feat of engineering. I'm not denying many people's contact with aliens its just that I haven't read anyone saying their contact claimed to be involved in life on the moon. The moon could provide an obvious base considering the distances involved in space travel, especially as its a binary system with earth so we only see one side of it.

I have never heard of the Shard, tower and obelisks and would like to know more about these and why there appears to have been virtually nothing said in the main media about their existence. I know from findings on earth about our past we are going to have to re-write history which will ruffle a lot of feathers but sooner, rather than later, for the truth to come out would be fairer and more honest to us all.

It has always bothered me that in the 1960's we arrived on the moon, then simply stopped visiting it. Why I am 'bothered' is a fact about some individual's human nature. Greed/exploitation. We got there in the 60's obviously learned of the valuable material there just waiting for those grabbing great paws, yet we did not invest to improve and cheapen our means of going back for 50 years, during which time technology has pole vaulted ahead, from where it was in the 60's. I don't buy an economics reason considering the huge wastage of money and resources going on over that period of time. I could concede a scared to rock the boat argument over what was found there, although again greed verses rewriting history Ohhhhh I don't know.

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by Illustronic
Wrong on number 2, the moon cannot be possibly older than the sun that created it.

After I read that I didn't read or hit links after that, this whole post is not based on fact.

As far as us not knowing what we want to from 6 moon landings goes, we don't have knowledge of half of our own earth's life forms, so you see, what you may expect is vast.

This is not a thought provoking post, just much of the same stuff that people around here get stars and flags for.

If you don't like what the world's astrophysics scientists tell you, do your own research yourself, or find another source that you think isn't taking NASA dollars out of your pocket, which is really the thrust of your post. You think NASA lies to you, but you aren't educated enough in the subjects you rant about to know the difference.

This sort of thing grinds my gears.

and the correct facts would be ???? please share,as you clearly think your confident on what are real facts..when NASA don't even know the real facts ??

and the thing that grinds my gears to a halt is ..people like you who dis-credit a thread with,its all rubbish..and then you say you didn't even read the whole thread or check out the links,as its all rubbish..but yet you go on to tell people to do their own research,and that we are not smart enough to understand the difference..kinda of ironic consindering you never read the thread or checked out the source yourself as you admitted...

OK, lets go through these one at a time.

1) Moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old.
Sources;
nformantnews.com (Don Ecker, Long Saga of Lunar Anomalies, UFO magazine)
bibliotecapleyades.net
rense.com
aliensonthemoon.com
lightworkers.org/blog
conspiracycafe.net
spiritualdeepdish.wordpress.com
usahitman.com (USA Hit Man Conspiracy News–Self Titled)

AHHG! Enough already, none of these sites are fact based, they are purposely conspiracy sites spewing out hypotheses for hits!

The Canyon Diablo meteorite is a very large representative of a particularly rare type of meteorite that contains sulfide minerals (particularly troilite, FeS), metallic nickel-iron alloys, plus silicate minerals.

This is important because the presence of the three mineral phases allows investigation of isotopic dates using samples that provide a great separation in concentrations between parent and daughter nuclides. This is particularly true of uranium and lead. Lead is strongly chalcophilic and is found in the sulfide at a much greater concentration than in the silicate, versus uranium. Because of this segregation in the parent and daughter nuclides during the formation of the meteorite, this allowed a much more precise date of the formation of the solar disk and hence the planets than ever before.

The Canyon Diablo date has been backed up by hundreds of other dates, from both terrestrial samples and other meteorites.

(Terada, K.; Sano, Y. (May 20–24, 2001). "In-situ ion microprobe U-Pb dating of phosphates in H-chondrites". Proceedings, Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference. Hot Springs, Virginia: Lunar and Planetary Institute. Bibcode 2001eag..conf.3306T. Retrieved 2008-12-22.)

The meteorite samples, however, show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago. This is interpreted as the duration of formation of the solar nebula and its collapse into the solar disk to form the Sun and the planets. This 50 million year time span allows for accretion of the planets from the original solar dust and meteorites.

The moon, as another extraterrestrial body that has not undergone plate tectonics and that has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated at a maximum of around 4.4 and 4.5 billion years old. Martian meteorites that have landed upon Earth have also been dated to around 4.5 billion years old by lead-lead dating.
(en.wikipedia.org...)

Lunar samples, since they have not been disturbed by weathering, plate tectonics or material moved by organisms, can also provide dating by direct electron microscope examination of cosmic ray tracks.
(en.wikipedia.org...)

Altogether, the concordance of age dates of both the earliest terrestrial lead reservoirs and all other reservoirs within the solar system found to date are used to support the hypothesis that Earth and the rest of the solar system formed at around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.

Helioseismic verification
The radiometric date of meteorites can be verified with studies of the Sun. The Sun can be dated using helioseismic methods that strongly agree with the radiometric dates found for the oldest meteorites.

(en.wikipedia.org...)

While Earth can claim to be distinctive because it is the largest and most massive of the terrestrial planets, it is the presence of a large satellite, the moon, which clearly distinguishes it from the other planets in this class. Any discussion of Earth must include comments about the moon, and it is important to recognize that reasonably large samples of moon rock have been returned to Earth for study. These rocks proved to contain surprisingly few volatile materials, in particular water. They were bone-dry and different from typical rocks found on the surface of Earth. This suggests, but does not prove, that the moonwas not created under cool conditions, but rather that it was formed as the result of a calamitous collision between a young Earth and a Mars-sized "planet." The incoming object was ripped apart and its remnants were splashed into space as a cloud of hot gases and solid fragments that surrounded the injured Earth. Water from this cloud was lost to outer space and the remaining material condensed to form the moon. The composition of the moon would thus resemble that of the incoming object rather than matching the outer layers of the Earth.
The newly formed moon probably was molten in its earliest stage, but it soon started to cool with the formation of a thin crust of light rock. By 4,000 million years ago the moon had largely solidified without a high density, liquid metal core, but there remained localized hot spots from which lava welled up to fill large
impact basins. This gave rise to the dark plains that are so clearly delineated on the surface. Since then the moon has been struck occasionally by meteoroids, but for all practical purposes it has been devoid of further activity.
(genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov...)

Hi all,

Good Post. Load sof interestign things in that list i hadn't ehard/though of before. I think the two which could casue the biggest upet if it was investigated has got to be:

- The moon beng (possibly) older than the earth or even the sun
- That the Moon may be hollow.

The hollow moon theory has come up time and time again and i still think is one of the most interesting possibilities on offer. Just think, if it's hollow, it has to be artificial. If it's artificial, we're not alone. I hope that we see some investigation/research in to this soon.

Thundersmurf
Peace™

If you're still interested I will continue with point #2.

"The rocks had to have come from somewhere else." Explanation.

reply to post by Illustronic
Look at the full statement: "2. Rock’s Origin: The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else."

Where is he getting these "accepted theories"? The accepted theory is that micrometeoroids have been pummeling the moon for billions of years and of course they may have a different composition from the moon rocks which are believed to have their origin from the Earth.

This guy is mixing up shreds of truth with lies, though some of them are outright lies, like #6:

reply to post by steve704
These aren't all facts, some are outright lies, like this one:

"6. No Volcanoes: Some of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions."
That's blatantly false! How can anyone think that's a fact unless they have never done any research at all on the moon?

Earth's Moon

The Earth's Moon has no large volcanoes and no current volcanic activity, although recent evidence suggests it may still possess a partially molten core.[22] However, the Moon does have many volcanic features such as maria (the darker patches seen on the moon), rilles and domes.

The maria, rilles, etc are clear evidence of volcanic activity on the moon a long time ago proving the so-called "fact" is false.
Explosive Volcanic Eruptions on the Moon

That so called "fact" about no volcanic eruptions belongs in the hoax bin.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You're helping to make my work easier, thanks buddy!

reply to post by DontProbeMeBro


would like to know more but the mod removed everything..

Originally posted by scorand
reply to post by DontProbeMeBro

 

would like to know more but the mod removed everything..

Try clicking on the link in the original post. Everything that was removed is on the page it links to.

reply to post by FanarFanar


ok thanks
i didnt see the link..lol

Originally posted by FanarFanar

Well no I don't. Doubt anyone could for that matter, since you're asking for a probability model based on a very limited data set, since we can only accurately observe objects within our own solar system. But given that there are 170 moons and 9 planets in our solar system and 2 of those objects are tidally locked to another, I guess that it's a pretty common occurence given the vastness of the universe.

edit on 3-4-2011 by FanarFanar because: (no reason given)

But wait, there's more:
en.wikipedia.org...
List of known tidally locked bodies

Originally posted by Illustronic
You're helping to make my work easier, thanks buddy!

You're welcome and thanks to you too!

It's refreshing to see at least some people who realize these "facts" aren't really facts, I was glad to see the post by you and a few others so I knew that not everyone's brain had fallen out!

Originally posted by Pauligirl
But wait, there's more:
en.wikipedia.org...
List of known tidally locked bodies

Excellent point Pauligirl.

Gee, there's a lot more than two, aren't there?

reply to post by Pauligirl


interesting read.

So that's now 42 out of 170 just in our solar system. The odds just got way better. I make it about 4 to 1.

reply to post by Cuervo


Your argument argues the semantics of definition of what is a planet or not. I deem that very weird considering i never stated anything about the matter

Anything to do with the moon always fascinates me,some amazing facts there,although like some have said not all actual facts.
to hide something in plain view there isn't anything more prominant than the moon,it's right in front of most of the time..did aliens drag the moon here ?? if you really think about that question the more you think no it can't be done but who knows.
the u.s went to the moon then gave up,surely some kind of moon base should have been built after all the efforts & sacrifices of many many people..a strange one just to give up.

great thread,makes me want to research the moon all over again

reply to post by mr10k


His Posts were erased which deems it even more toward our favour that your agrument of his supposed 'FACTS' were not facts at all they were just copy/paste material he got from somewhere on the internet.

Think with an open mind before you praise something as factual

Originally posted by backinblack
Anyone ever calculate the odds of the moon having a perfect axis and rotation speed to always have the same side facing earth??

I'd say I'd have more chance of winning lotto many times over...

en.wikipedia.org...

In astronomy, synchronous rotation is a planetological term describing a body orbiting another, where the orbiting body takes as long to rotate on its axis as it does to make one orbit; and therefore always keeps the same hemisphere pointed at the body it is orbiting. Another way of describing it is that from the surface of the satellite, the main planet appears to be locked in place in the sky as it slowly rotates.

The Moon is in synchronous rotation about the Earth. In fact, most major moons in the solar system have synchronous rotation due to tidal locking.

I would say your odds are more like those for receiving a notification in the mail say you "may" have won the big multi-million dollar sweepstakes.

Originally posted by backinblack
Anyone ever calculate the odds of the moon having a perfect axis and rotation speed to always have the same side facing earth??

I'd say I'd have more chance of winning lotto many times over...

Ever heard of tidal locking most moons in the solar system are tidally locked to their primaries this is not a rare anomaly it is a common occurence

^^ did not see above post before posted this sorry