Strange Facts You (Probably) Never Knew About the Moon

Originally posted by FanarFanar
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.

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

 

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

edit on Sun Apr 3 2011 by Jbird because: (no reason given)

We have more then 9 planets in our solar system now. An update would be good.

sorry didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if this was brought up. But if, and since, the moon is hollow, assuming on the nasa expirments in landing on the moon, it doesn't seem like you'd have to dig that far down to get to nothingness. So if you fell through a bottomless hole, where would you land? I'm guessing the other side (no gravity) but that'd be one hell of a fall. I'd put money on there being something going on benith the surface of the moon. Maybe little moon men who talk with moon accents.

Originally posted by ommadawn
This thread should be moved away from Space Exploration.
The sources are not credible, and the subject matter wildly speculative.

Good entertaining stuff if you like this sort of thing, but it should be put in a more approriate forum.

I propose to also gather everyone that made positive remarks about the Original Post and shoot them. Then proceed in arresting and hanging the OP up the tallest tree. That will serve as a good warning towards whomever will continue QUESTIONING the ample scientific conjecture about everything and anything that scientists like to call hard proven facts.
FACT is the Moon is really strange.
FACT is we are not going up there any time soon and nobody seems to really understand why.

While contemplating on all that, watch the following:

Lyndon LaRouch Earthquake Defense Warning Programs Cut - 2011

www.youtube.com...

It's not like the naysayers could be having an agenda..

reply to post by GhostLancer


Does look a bit like Darth Vader's "death star" from Star Wars.

reply to post by kevpa


It's obviously apparent our moon cannot be hollow, it is dead (non-tectonically active) large body that IS large enough to surpass the inner limits of bodies in our solar system to form spherically, (over 500 kilometers in diameter), but it has long since cooled since accretion formed the larger masses orbiting the sun or larger planets harboring them. The main elemental makup of the moon's mineral components are thus different from our own earth's crust for obvious tectonic reasons, and it is lighter than the earth, and Mercury, and Venus,and also Mars.
I posted a nice Purdue University white paper on this subject so let me find that post to give you a brief reading on this topic. (it's short).

Just give me a minute to open a new window for a search, it is enlightening, and no large celestial and terrestrial body can possibly be 'hollow'. It violates ever laws of observable and demonstrated physics we know today!


Ah, here;

web.ics.purdue.edu...

My excerpt;
Geologic study of moon rocks returned to earth by the Apollo missions.

Demonstrated relative densities of the 4 terrestrial planets and the moon.
Mercury’s average density of 5440 kg/m3) is much higher than the Moon's 3340 kg/m3) and is more similar to that of Earth at 5520 kg/m3).

However, adjusting these average densities for the pressures due to overburden pressure, we get even more contrast.

Planet

Mercury
Measured Density 5440
“Uncompressed” Density (kg/m3) 5300

Venus
M 5300
U 4400

Earth
M 5520
U 4500

Moon
M 3340
U 3300

Mars
M 3940
U 3800

reply to post by Illustronic


I have a large sphere made out of rock.
I drill some parts inside it to make it hollow.
WHAT LAWS OF NATURE DOES THIS VIOLATE?

Nobody in this thread is arguing about how planetary formation supposed to be working, according to what scientists believe. in other terms, them not knowing as a hard proven100% solid fact, but believing, Believing means they have some amount of evidence not pointing to the contrary, which means absence of substantial amount of evidence pointing to the opposite direction, thus they BELIEVE in lack of any better options. It's not a religious dogma. It can change any minute. It's not 100% solid. Although mainstream scientists like to worship their conjectures as being solid as a dogma or a religion but that's their problem.

Originally posted by spacebot
reply to post by Illustronic

 

I have a large sphere made out of rock.
I drill some parts inside it to make it hollow.
WHAT LAWS OF NATURE DOES THIS VIOLATE?

Nobody in this thread is arguing about how planetary formation supposed to be working, according to what scientists believe. in other terms, them not knowing as a hard proven100% solid fact, but believing, Believing means they have some amount of evidence not pointing to the contrary, which means absence of substantial amount of evidence pointing to the opposite direction, thus they BELIEVE in lack of any better options. It's not a religious dogma. It can change any minute. It's not 100% solid. Although mainstream scientists like to worship their conjectures as being solid as a dogma or a religion but that's their problem.

Are not the people of this one and other similar threads arguing about the ANOMALOUS data we have received from the Moon? There is no denying there are plenty of them. NO DENYING. Though we keep seeing people trying to dispute claims by pointing to "scientific facts" which have NOTHING to do with the original subject matter of the thread being put to discussion.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by DontProbeMeBro

 

Wow. Over 111 stars and you can't even read the original post. At the risk of straying into copyright waters, I will address the points raised at this website.

The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

The oldest rocks found on the surface of the Earth are estimated to be about 4 billion years old. As Weed pointed out, this is due to the fact that the Earth is geologically active. Rock is recycled. These processes do not seem to be occurring on the Moon, so older rock is preserved.

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

Much of the dust simply settled onto the Moon from space. It has no atmosphere to shield it from micrometeoroids.

"The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way."

I can only find this statement on webpages that plagiarize the article that the OP plagiarized.

On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon.

True, It may have been water associated with the lunar mission itself. The Apollo lunar surface water event revisited.

Moon rocks were magnetized

They contain iron. The solar wind emits a constant stream of electrons. Moving electrons create magnetism.

No Volcanoes

Yes, volcanoes. The Moon does not have plate tectonics like the Earth, but there is ample evidence that historically, hot material from below has erupted onto the surface.

Moon Mascons

Caused by material of greater density. They need not be artificial.

Seismic Activity: Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes.

Why not?

In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus.

"Transient Lunar Phenomena" like this have been observed, quite literally, forever. They are one reason why scientists think that lunar volcanism may still be occurring.

Hollow Moon: The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated...

1962? The person who wrote this is grasping at anything. The Moon is less dense because it does not have a nickel-iron core like the Earth; it is solid "rock."

I could go on, but the list is lengthy... and misinformed.

Am I the only one that noticed a flaw here.. And it may be one of many. But if the moon rang like a bell when part of the space shuttle crashed into it. Wouldnt that mean the moons core is NOT solid rock?

I mean come on...

reply to post by spacebot


There are however volcanic tunnels under the surface of the moon dating back to its hot years of accretion and up to about 4 billion years ago, it couldn't keep its heat so to speak by lacking a large liquid magma with a solid iron based core and absolutely no atmosphere and little gravity to keep things from evaporating into space and to protect it from harmful radiation from the sun. Much like Mars, a dead light solid rock in space large enough to have formed spherically when it was hot.

Mercury on the other hand is denser than the terrestrial planets due to its proximity to the sun's heat and gravitational orbital tidal lock, (near tidal lock, one year on Mercury is exactly 1 and a half Mercury days) It's in a 3-2 tidal lock with the sun, and backed totally dry and hard and dense.

reply to post by Illustronic


If say hypothetically, we wanted to hollow out some parts of the Moon.
With the current technology we have, how far in to the future we would be able to do this?
Taking in to account, the modern advances of chemistry, nuclear fusion and fission, etc etc etc advances in the space programs etc etc.

50
100
200 years?

reply to post by spacebot


I don't believe 'mainstream physicists' believe their 'theories' are selfishly indisputable, (OK we have the British disabled guy arguing among other mathematicians about the theory of everything) but you see they are just 'theoretical physicists' and not applied scientists. So they can go on about their chalk-board notions about the theory of everything and it wont change the course of applied science whatsoever, yet.

Mainstream physicists admit they don't know what 95.3% of the Universe actually is! Where do you find they are religious in their assertions? The assertions that helped to create "the Bomb" and it works!

Thats No Moon....Thats A Space Station. hehe felt the need to sorry s & f for the effort i've enjoyed reading this post althought facts is probably a bad term due to the questionable source however it did set me off on a mission to look into bits and pieces i'm i've read and seen some interesting things but a video i watched has caught my eye so i thought i'd share it. this is my first time trying to post a embed a vid so i'm providing the link also as i normally just lurk


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Illustronic


Well your general manner in replying reveals that you don't believe it is a good idea we have to work on the Moon any further.
Answering my own question I would say that the ability of hollowing out parts of the moon to create some kind of permanent residence is not 200, 100, or 50 years ahead but only 20 years ahead tops.
We are already doing this in a smaller scale with nuclear explosives and I believe that somehow we already have tried to test how that idea would work on the Moon by practicing it here on earth.
Since we might be only 20 years away IMO of being able to hollow out another stellar body in this solar system and make a permanent residence out of it, I wonder why a hollow moon theory sounds so impossible for some?
As far as scientists holding out their ideas with a religious zeal or not I would only point out to the electric universe theories and how many heated debates that theory is causing.

Very nice thread, and good discussions going on.

The problem here is that most of the people here have only sources on English available - you can find much stuff, but its mainly couple of POV's switching around.

I just wanted to state that US did land on Moon, and it is not staged, and I watched couple of documentaries of Russian high rank generals/astronomers that were active at that time, giving US a credit for successfully doing it (they failed due to mostly bad luck and mistakes they made rushing to be first to land on Moon's surface.. it's very low possiblility that it was sabotaged). And those are not bunch of self educated internet surfers, they got some credibility and are men of honor. I didnt want to sound rude, I surf internet searching for answers too, but I am not as professional and sometimes I want stuff to fit into my theories etc.

Just wanted to state that and make sure people dont mention US landing on moon as thing staged in a hangar somewhere in desert, as one of possibilities.. For those who want some links and know russian language, you should google up "sekretnie istorii" and download videos mentioning UFO's and Moon etc. Its some very informative series, and they are made by professionals who were actually involved into those operations, and not some random people observing events from 30 years ago.

There are also many sources on Iranian and Indian but cant rly provide links.. perhaps someone else who is more into those languages could provide something.

Our (US and EU) sources are mostly crap and desinformations, everybody should be as sceptic as possible; I dont say other sources are better, but some of them actually have some creditworthiness and are not known for lying over every strange crap going on around.

Cheers

I haven't had time to read all through this thread, but in case it hasn't yet been mentioned, there is an interesting book by a guy called Don Wilson.
It's called 'Our mysterious spaceship Moon', and there's another by the same author called, 'Secrets of our spaceship Moon'.

A quick search on the net may direct folks to a downloadable PDF version of one, or both.

I have hard copies of them, and though I try to keep an open mind on this kind of stuff, it does send my imagination reeling.

For now, however, here is a site with some quotes......

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by spacebot


I'm sorry I didn't respond directly to this intriguing question before. We went to the Moon in the late 60's no-hold-bared. We would not spare any expense to beat the Russians their, so America contributed unprecedented fiscal backing to make this so, It is now apparent that that sort of financial commitment is not economically viable in contributing to return of expense. The expense/return ratio is now evaporated since the original mission was not about return of investment, it was National Pride.

We don't go to the moon anymore because it's return of investment is negative, but putting satellites in LEO and beyond IS a favorable return of investment. That's why we launch unmanned probes now way out there today.

Our ISS is the only platform we can use today to concur the many dangers of manned travel in real space, we are taking calculated baby steps today so to speak to be cautious of human life in future, further, endeavors.

Did I even hint at anything you were curious about? I tend to ramble when it comes to real live space exploration, and sometimes forget the issue I'm speaking of, sorry.

Not being an astrophysicist myself, and with an abundance of knowledgeable posters on these matters I ask, is it possible for some sun, gas giant, large planetary volcanic eruption, etc., whatever, to belch out a planetoid-sized geode? I'm not suggesting our moon is such but have a hunch such geode-like moons/planetoids could exist and would be natural occurrences, not artificial.

The "ringing" sound heard could possibly come from a huge cavern below the surface in the area the sound was heard. Some caverns on Earth are similar to geodes inside with huge crystaline structures. Is there absolute certainty that the moon does not have huge geode-like caverns or other such hollow voids?

Spaceship Moon Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a pseudoscientific theory that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The theory was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?".[1]

Vasin and Shcherbakov's thesis was that the Moon is a hollowed-out planetoid created by unknown beings with technology far superior to any on Earth. Huge machines would have been used to melt rock and form large cavities within the Moon, with the resulting molten lava spewing out onto the Moon's surface. The Moon would therefore consist of a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. For reasons unknown, the "Spaceship Moon" was then placed into orbit around the Earth.[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org...

Alexander Shcherbakov
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Aleksandr Sergueyevich Shcherbakov (Russian: Алекса́ндр Серге́евич Щербако́в; 1901[1] – 10 May 1945), was a founding member of the Soviet Writers' Union, along with Maxim Gorky. Following the latter's death in 1936, Shcherbakov was transferred from his role as First Secretary to the lower role of Secretary of the Leningrad Regional Committee where he reported to Andrei Zhdanov. He was also a notable critic of Ivan Gronsky.

During the German-Soviet War, Shcherbakov served as the head of the political department of the Red Army in Moscow. According to Antony Beevor's book, Stalingrad, The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, "One of the richest sources in the Russian Ministry of Defence central archive at Podolsk consists of the very detailed reports sent daily from the Stalingrad Front to Aleksandr Shcherbakov."

After suffering from years of alcoholism, Shcherbakov died of heart failure on 10 May 1945, right after Victory Day, and the following year the town of Rybinsk was renamed Shcherbakov in his honour (its original name was restored in 1957).

en.wikipedia.org...

FROM THE EMINENT SOVIET JOURNAL: 'SPUTNIK'

IS THE MOON THE CREATION OF INTELLIGENCE?

by Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, scientists


Although people long ago began to wonder whether the "canals" on Mars were the creation of cosmic engineers, for some odd reason it has not occurred to look with the same eyes upon the peculiarities of the lunar landscape much closer at hand. And all the arguments about the possibilities of intelligent life existing on other celestial bodies have been confined to the idea that other civilisations must necessarily live on the surface of a planet, and that the interior as a habitat is out of the question.

Abandoning the traditional paths of "common sense", we have plunged into what may at first sight seem to be unbridled and irresponsible fantasy. But the more minutely we go into all the information gathered by man about the Moon, the more we are convinced that there is not a single fact to rule out our supposition. Not only that, but many things so far considered to be lunar enigmas are explainable in the light of this new hypothesis.

AN ARTIFICIAL SPUTNIK OF THE EARTH?

The origin of the Moon is one of the most complicated problems of cosmogony. So far there have been basically three hypotheses under discussion.

HYPOTHESIS I. The Moon was once a part of the Earth and broke away from it.

This has now been refuted by the evidence.

HYPOTHESIS II. The Moon was formed independently from the same cloud of dust and gas as the Earth, and immediately became the Earth's natural satellite.

But then why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimetre) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)? Furthermore, according to the latest information (analysis of samples brought back by the U.S. Apollo astronauts) lunar rock is not of the same composition as the Earth's.

HYPOTHESIS III. The Moon came into being separately, and, moreover, far from the Earth (perhaps even outside the Solar system).

This would mean that the moon would not have to be fashioned from the same "clay" as our own planet. Sailing through the Universe, the Moon came into Earth's proximity, and by a complex interplay of forces of gravity was brought within a geocentric orbit, very close to circular. But a catch of this kind is virtually impossible.

In fact, scientists studying the origin of the Universe today have no acceptable theory to explain how the Earth-Moon system came into being.

OUR HYPOTHESIS: The Moon is an artificial Earth satellite put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings unknown to ourselves.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Straight from the horses mouth...

Now here is a very good question regarding the huge asteroids that had impacted the Moon in the past on how they left such shallow craters:

According to Professor Stanykovich, a "missile" of a sizable character (say 6 miles in diameter) must, on collision with the Moon, penetrate to a depth equal to 4 or 5 times its own diameter (24-30 miles).

The surprising thing is that however big the meteorites may have been which have fallen on the Moon (some have been more than 60 miles in diameter), and however fast they must have been travelling (in some cases the combined speed was as much as 38 miles per second), the craters they have left behind are for some odd reason all about the same depth, 1.2-2 miles, although they vary tremendously in diameter.

Take that 148-mile diameter crater. In area it outdoes Hiroshima hundreds of times over. What a powerful explosion it must have been to send millions of tons of lunar rock fountaining over tens of miles! On the face of it, one would expect to find a very deep crater here, but nothing of the sort: there is three miles at the most between top and bottom levels, and one third of that is accounted for by the wall of rock thrown up around the crater like a toothed crown.

For such a big hole, it is too shallow. Furthermore, the bottom of the crater is convex, following the curve of the lunar surface. If you were to stand in the middle of the crater you would not even be able to see the soaring edge-- it would be beyond the horizon. A hollow that is more like a hill is a rather strange affair, perhaps.

Not really, if one assumes that when the meteorite strikes the outer covering of the moon, this plays the role of a buffer and the foreign body finds itself up against an impenetrable spherical barrier. Only slightly denting the 20-mile layer of armour plating, the explosion flings bits of its "coating" far and wide.

Bearing in mind that the Moon's defence coating is, according to our calculations, 2.5 miles thick, one sees that this is approximately the maximum depth of the craters.

So according to the hypothesis of these two Soviet scientists in the 1970's the moon rings like a bell because it has an artifically constructed mantle in a way to be able to absorb (and maybe deflect the kinetic forces of the impacts?) asteroid bodies uppon colision.

If say I was living 500 years in to the future and I would have to be theorizing about the construction of a surface on a stellar body for it to be able to function as a kinetic force deflector and make a sufficient armor coating on its surface from large bolides the mangitude of several tenhs of miles, I suspect that any seismic readings I would have later taken would be revealing that the entire Moon is actually ringing like a bell, since it's designed to do so to be able to deflect impacts.
That the Moon is already doing this it can be gleaned by the shallow craters the huge meteorites that had impacted its surface have left. We can always study a plethora of other stellar bodies their surface composition resembles the moon and check the impact marks of meteorites on the surface and maybe realize that the Moon has the most shallow craters by percentage of all similar bodies in the solar system.

And yes these two that introduced the hypothesis were really scientists. Russians tend to have different ways in expressing their thoughts than most of their Western colleagues. They are tradittionally more "out of the box".

Case solved?

reply to post by spacebot

After suffering from years of alcoholism

You sure know how to build your case.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Hello inquisitive poster Erongaricuaro.
I also am not an astrophysicist, but maybe some of what I know can help to clear up the question you posed.

A large impact resulting in a half sized fragment of a celestial body would create a lot of energy, slash heat. Sort of like when the collisions happened during the accretion of the solar system we live in. The molten bodies or gaseous clouds forming from such a collision would result in the larger masses attracting the smaller masses in space, they would gravitationally attach.

One of the many dangers extravehicular 'space walks' astronauts endure, is the fact that metal, acts as like magnets in space or microgravity and want to bind, actually collide with clutching force. It is why we use ceramic or plastic tools for the astronauts instead of metal tools to fix anything extravehicularly in LEO. There are lots of speeding micro-satellites orbiting earth from our debris, and natural space dust, that can easily slice the life preserving suit the astronaut has as his only safe haven from the very real ravages of LEO. Not everything is orbiting earth in the same direction.

Excuse me making up words to express myself.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a certain finite mass of a (lets say) asteroid that will not form a spherical body with its gravity even when its hot, and a low mass body will lose it's accretion or collision heat very fast in solar lifespan terms. So a very large chunk of a concave form of a large body (asteroid or moon) is highly unlikely due to mass and gravity attraction.

Like I said I'm no physicist, but I hope I make some logical sense of what we know to be demonstrated by observations, and of course if what I said has anything to do with what you were curious about. I'm just another dude.

Its believed a large chuck of matter in space that coagulated into a single body needs to be about 300 kilometers in diameter to form a spherical body. A large chunk of a huge body larger than that should become relatively spherical, and by no means stay concave in shape. Maybe you were referring to parts of a large body that is concave like on the moon of Saturn, Mimas, with that large creator that looks like the Star Wars thingy, it is a very small moon, just 396 kilometers in diameter, it somehow overcame a planetary destructive collision, but has survived with a large concave area, which hasn't been filled by tectonic activity, its a cold and dead little thing. (probably no sound emitting from it either).

The Martian moons may have been captured astroids, and we know that the large moon Triton of Neptune is a captured body. Martian moons are goofy small and not spherical at all, have next to zero tectonic influence on the cold dead Mars anyway. (we have the large moon to help us stay warm).