Strange Facts You (Probably) Never Knew About the Moon

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by mr10k

 

Did you just say Hollow Earth? Can you expound on that supposed Theory you spout with such glee.

Rationality seems to be scarce these days

I bet your one of those suckers who bought the book telling you the moon was a space ship!

edit on 2-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

I'd like to ask how do you know one thing or another about the moon? Have you been there? How do you dismiss what someone else supposes as rubbish, when you have no idea?

What you have is your belief which was instilled in you because you found the general explanation taught to us acceptable. How many general explanations scientists have given us are being recanted every year?

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
My question is, how can ANYONE be educated enough to discount and debunk anything that is stated about the moon? Not one of us have been there...

I know and the few that have come back talking about crazy stuff like aliens and things, geez.

Enjoying this thread!
Maybe this will add to the fuel.
I apologize if this was posted before.

www.redicecreations.com...

Dere are dem alienz on the darks sidez of the moonz.

Who knows, mr.Icke may be right.

Originally posted by Illustronic

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!

Why so? Please dont get mad and no CANNED responses either. Try to THINK for YOURSELF!

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

I am not an astrophycist but rellying on SURFACE rocks to determine planet density has SEVERE limitations. If the crust is really hard it can fool people into thinking the mantle and core are also hard when in reality only the crust is.

Where is the neutral point of gravatitional lock between the earth and moon?

Why did astronauts say "the moon rang like a bell"?

Why did nasa drop nuclear projectile on the surface recently if they already know the answer. I mean "we" have already been there quite a few times already, so what more is there to see and explore, right........

And why does china and india want to go back? Do they NOT believe nasa? Are they part of the nwo?.

Originally posted by spacebot
Although mainstream scientists like to worship their conjectures as being solid as a dogma or a religion but that's their problem.

I find it ironic that science belittles religion as superstitious dogma, when science is just as dogmatic, if not more so, than religion. In reality both science and religion serve "the establishment" perfectly by creating false dichotomies.

Will you take the blue pill or the red pill?

Originally posted by constantwonder

Uhm what? Many of the moons in our solar system only show one face to their host planet. Its called Tidal locking and is a well established fact of physics.

Tidal locking (or captured rotation) occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one side of an astronomical body always face another; for example, one side of the Earth's Moon always faces the Earth. A tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. This synchronous rotation causes one hemisphere constantly to face the partner body. Usually, at any given time only the satellite is tidally locked around the larger body, but if the difference in mass between the two bodies and their physical separation is small, each may be tidally locked to the other, as is the case between Pluto and Charon. This effect is employed to stabilize some artificial satellites.

If you believe that then why don't ALL THE SATELLITES tidal lock around their partners? Why do SOME and not all???

Clearly its pseudo-science bs. Someone has better odds winning the national lottery and becoming a millionare than the moon "tidally locking" in a natural fashion its rotation to earth.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I am not an astrophycist but rellying on SURFACE rocks to determine planet density has SEVERE limitations. If the crust is really hard it can fool people into thinking the mantle and core are also hard when in reality only the crust is.

The weight of the upper layers tends to compress the lower layers, making them denser. If the Moon's density were similar to Earth's it would suggest that it, too, has a Nickel-Iron core, which in turn would generate a magnetic field. Although there are localized magnetic fields on the Moon, corresponding, no doubt, to Nickel-Iron meteorite below the surface, it lacks a planetary magnetosphere. All this is internally consistent.

Where is the neutral point of gravatitional lock between the earth and moon?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is below the surface of the Earth.

Why did astronauts say "the moon rang like a bell"?

They didn't. A lunar seismologist described to lengthy propagation of seismic energy caused by the impact of the lunar module to the "ringing of a bell." The sharply differentiated zones of the Earth's crust and mantel tend to diffract the seismic energy. He was surprised at how undifferentiated the seismic energy was on the Moon. They also theorized that it may be due to the lack of water, as water dampens seismic energy"

The first man-made crash directed at the Moon that could be detected by a seismometer occurred after the Apollo 12 astronauts had returned to the CSM and the LM ascent stage was sent smashing into the Moon's surface. The shock waves of this impact surprised the scientists - the Moon vibrated for over 55 minutes!! Also, the kinds of signals recorded by the seismometers were utterly different from any ever received before, starting with small waves, gaining in size to a peak, and then lasting for incredibly long periods of time. A seismic wave took 7 to 8 minutes to reach the peak of impact energy and then gradually decreased in amplitude over a period that lasted almost an hour. It was claimed that even after an hour the minutest reverberations had still not stopped.

When the Apollo 12 LM hit the lunar surface at 6,048 kilometers per hour, 72 kilometers from the landing site, digging an estimated 9 meter wide crater, the results were astonishing. All 3 seismometers in the package recorded the impact, which set up a sequence of reverberations lasting nearly an hour. Nothing like this had ever been measured on Earth.
The LM impact occurred at 1617 USCST November 20 1969. A news conference had been scheduled to begin at 1630, and when it did start, the Moon was still "ringing" as the scientists - all of them seismic experts - arrived at the news center from their laboratories.
Maurice Ewing, co-head of the seismic experiment, told the afternoon crowd of the unexpected event, informing them that the Moon was still ringing. He confessed he was at a loss to explain why the Moon behaved so strangely. "As for the meaning of it," Ewing announced, "I'd rather not make an interpretation right now. But it is as though one had struck a bell, say, in the belfry of a church a single blow and found that the reverberation from it continued for 30 minutes." As he spoke the reverberations continued on for another 25 minutes.

Dr Ross Taylor, a lunar scientist who had been on the team to examine the Apollo 11 samples in Houston, explains why the Moon rang for so long, "This was one of those extraordinary things. When you had the impact of these things on the Moon, unlike a terrestrial earthquake, which dies away quickly, the shock waves continued to reverberate around the Moon for a period of an hour or more, and this is attributed to the extremely dry nature of the lunar rock. As far as we know there is no moisture on the Moon, nothing to damp out these vibrations. The Moon’s surface is covered with rubble and this just transmits these waves without them being damped out in any way as they are on Earth. Basically, it’s a consequence of the Moon being extremely dry."

NASA

Why did nasa drop nuclear projectile on the surface recently if they already know the answer. I mean "we" have already been there quite a few times already, so what more is there to see and explore, right........

They didn't. You must be thinking of this:

Moving at a speed of more than 1.5 miles per second, the Centaur upper stage hit the lunar surface shortly after 4:31 a.m. PDT on October 9, 2009, creating an impact that instruments aboard LCROSS observed for approximately four minutes. LCROSS then impacted the surface at approximately 4:36 a.m. PDT.

NASA

It was not nuclear, it was kinetic.

And why does china and india want to go back? Do they NOT believe nasa? Are they part of the nwo?

There is still a lot of research to be done, and the country that does it gains "bragging rights." In case you haven't been following the news, China and India are the "new world order!"

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

If you believe that then why don't ALL THE SATELLITES tidal lock around their partners? Why do SOME and not all???

Some were captured more recently; they will lock in time. The Earth and Moon are a very old partner act.

Originally posted by DJW001
The weight of the upper layers tends to compress the lower layers, making them denser. If the Moon's density were similar to Earth's it would suggest that it, too, has a Nickel-Iron core, which in turn would generate a magnetic field. Although there are localized magnetic fields on the Moon, corresponding, no doubt, to Nickel-Iron meteorite below the surface, it lacks a planetary magnetosphere. All this is internally consistent.

Well thats the mainstream version. I am of the opinion that almost all of the moons mass is located on the surface, meaning there is no mantle or core to it. That would also explain why the moon has no magnetosphere, although I also believe in a hollow earth and many hollow planets.

The magnetosphere on earth is caused by the internal "sun" not nickle and iron. Maybe that is why they call it a molten core? I "love" all these double meaning words, lol...

Where is the neutral point of gravatitional lock between the earth and moon?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is below the surface of the Earth.

In laymens terms, how far towards the moon from the earth, does an astronaut need to go to experience neutral attraction? The point where neither the moon nor the earth will attract them within the earth-moon system.

Why did astronauts say "the moon rang like a bell"?

They didn't. A lunar seismologist described to lengthy propagation of seismic energy caused by the impact of the lunar module to the "ringing of a bell." The sharply differentiated zones of the Earth's crust and mantel tend to diffract the seismic energy. He was surprised at how undifferentiated the seismic energy was on the Moon. They also theorized that it may be due to the lack of water, as water dampens seismic energy"

It stands to reason a hollow object will vibrate more than a dense object, especially if it vibrates for hours.

And why does china and india want to go back? Do they NOT believe nasa? Are they part of the nwo?

There is still a lot of research to be done, and the country that does it gains "bragging rights." In case you haven't been following the news, China and India are the "new world order!"

According to nasa the moon is a dry and desolute place not worth going back.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

If you believe that then why don't ALL THE SATELLITES tidal lock around their partners? Why do SOME and not all???

Some were captured more recently; they will lock in time. The Earth and Moon are a very old partner act.

Actually, not all satellites will necessarily lock. It depends on the distribution of mass within the satellite. If the mass is distributed perfectly evenly radially outward from it's center of rotation AND gravity it will not tidally lock. For instance, in the case of the moon the center of gravity on the moon and the center of rotation do NOT coincide. One "side" of the moon is "heavier" than the other. Eventually the "heavy" sides increased gravitational attraction to the earth overcame its rotational inertia and the moon turned its "heavy" face to us.

reply to post by csgt428


Let's discuss this a million years from now.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by csgt428

 

Let's discuss this a million years from now.

"How long it takes a planet or moon to become tidally locked depends
in large part on the magnitude of the uneveness of the body's mass
distribution. The more lopsided it is, the more quickly it will become
tidally locked. A body with a perfectly spherical mass distribution will
never become tidally locked."

From an Astronomy site...

The Japanese equipped a craft with High Definition video cameras and flew it low and slow over the moon about 2 years ago. ATS was all abuzz over this, but after the craft arrived, none of the vids or photos were ever made public. Is my memory about this correct?
-cwm

All planets are hollow... prove me wrong!

We don't even know for sure that the earth is solid... although it is accepted as fact?

reply to post by DJW001

Some were captured more recently; they will lock in time. The Earth and Moon are a very old partner act.

If it was due to gravity then wouldn't planets lock onto their stars??
Will the earth one day stop rotating like the moon?

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
All planets are hollow... prove me wrong!

We don't even know for sure that the earth is solid... although it is accepted as fact?

So true..So much that we accept as fact is really just speculation and theory..

reply to post by backinblack

If it was due to gravity then wouldn't planets lock onto their stars??
Will the earth one day stop rotating like the moon?

Planets shed their angular momentum slowly, but if they are close enough to their sun, they will experience tidal effects; Mercury's "day" is in a 2:3 relationship to its year. It is likely that most of the exo-planets discovered so far are tidally locked, as most of them have "years" shorter than Mercury's! (This is assuming that the KEPLER data is being interpreted correctly, which it might not be.) Presumably the Earth will eventually slow down and the Earth-Moon system will configure itself in relation to the Sun... I doubt anyone will be around then.