Hollow Moon Theory

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Good find......there were many, many to choose from....and I found one that was incomplete.

I hope people (by now) know how to follow a YouTube link, and see all associated videos, and thus continue to learn, by watching them.....

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Not the moon is same size as sun and rings like a bell BS once again

If a blacksmith strikes his anvil a solid lump of metal it rings like a bell, it was a statement made to try and convey the vibrations lasted longer than they thought they would nothing more nothing less!

As for the moon being the right distance from the sun for an eclipse how about this image taken from orbit around the Moon. Showing the earth doing the same!!!!



link for picture above

www.thespacebuff.com...

Quick panic the earth is hollow and is flown by aliens!!

Could have sworn I read somewhere about the impact theory, that it was actually 2 impacts. The first one at the angle, energy release turning both the Earth and the impactor molten, with material streamed off the earth, and from the impacting planet, then gravity swung the large chunk of the impacting planet (the core remains I believe it was), and it impacted the Earth again, only more squarely on. The result was the Earth ended up absorbing the majority of the impacting planet's core (thus increasing the size of our own original core) and that the moon ended up being formed from the orbiting ejecta from both the earth and the impacting planet's remains.
This was saying that the moon ended up forming with less dense materials because the majority of them were absorbed by the earth in that 2nd impact (I think I remember chuckling about that because the line used was "It was a bad weekend for the Earth").

That impact knocked the earth's axis over, and sped up our spin to something like 4 or 6 hour days. The moon formed very close to the earth, but gravitational friction from the moon helped slow the earth's spin down, over a very long period of time, to where we have our current 23.9somthing hours in a day.
The moon is also spinning slowly outwards from the earth, something like 3 inches per year I believe, and has been doing that since day 1. We happen to live in a time where the moon is at just the right distance to make it's apparent size the same as our sun.
If you were to go back 120 million years ago, the moon would have been over 6000 miles closer to us and would look larger in our sky.

reply to post by ProudBird

No, the Moon is not "hollow"....

I never claimed it was definitely hollow, this is a theoretical thread. Why do you skeptics have to get so testy when ever someone posts a theory like this? It just gets under your skin doesn't it? Take deep breaths my friend...

Originally posted by ProudBird
.....and although you expended an incredible amount of effort in creating this thread OP....well.....this spoiled it right i the beginning:

Uhhhh.... of course I'm going to include a part about the Moon "ringing like a bell"... it's like the whole thing that got this theory started in the first place. It's not like I'm going to simply ignore that part of the story. Sheesh...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But the idea that the moon is a big hollow shell is pretty crazy, for the simple reason that the shell would collapse under its own weight. If you were a civil engineer, you could run the numbers.

I actually did study engineering back at school for two years. Spherical shells are one of the strongest types of structures known to man. When pressure is applied equally to all sides (as it would be by gravity), it causes a balanced state of compression, and it takes an extreme amount of force to actually shatter the shell. It works much like the egg trick, where you press down on both ends to try and crack the egg. A perfectly spherical object with pressure applied to all sides equally will be even harder to break. And also, if it exists at all, I don't think the shell is thin, it's most likely extremely thick and the hollow part is probably a fairly small cavity compared to the total volume of the Moon.

reply to post by blackmirage0311

All these "hollow" theories don't make any sense. There's an abundance of data recorded on the moon's crust, mantle, and core.

Did you even read the thread? I included information about "State-of-the-art seismological techniques applied to Apollo-era data", and how the results suggest the Moon has a solid iron core of almost 150 miles in radius.

NASA also did not say "the moon rang like a bell." That's a misrepresentation.

"The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

Moonquakes - NASA Science

Riddle me this. Why does every star in the sky appear to be similar size even though they're all scattered throughout the galaxy and are various sizes and distances from one another?

Is that honestly a serious question? You think you're clever don't you?

reply to post by Illustronic

Originally posted by Illustronic
The Moon is not hollow. It is possible to tell this because when we have had things in orbit around the Moon, how they orbit in the Moon's gravity tells us about the mass of the Moon. We also know the size of the Moon so we can work out the density and see that it is not possible for the Moon to be hollow.

Ummmm, of course we have looked at the gravity of the Moon to work out it's mass, and then we used the mass and volume to work out the density. And the density is much lower than that of Earth. So how can you say the result of such a calculation leads to the conclusion that is can't possibly be hollow? Seems like the result would indicate the Moon could indeed be hollow, unless the 40% discrepancy in density can be explained by the iron core.

reply to post by wmd_2008

As for the moon being the right distance from the sun for an eclipse how about this image taken from orbit around the Moon. Showing the earth doing the same!!!!

They had to be at exactly the right distance from Earth for that to work. Not to mention, that isn't really the topic of this thread, I just wanted to start of with a bit of Moon oddities to get people thinking out of the box.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Well after using the figures provided by the Moon Fact Sheet which has the volume of Earth and the Moon (reference 4), and the data about the Moons core provided by the new analysis (reference 7), plus info about the Earths core taken from here, it's easy to work out the ratio of the cores (the solid part) volume compared to the total volume of each body, and then see how those results - for both the Earth and Moon - compare to each other.

Earth Total Volume = 108.321 x10^10 km3
Moon Total Volume = 2.1958 x10^10 km3

Earth Core Volume = 0.77568 x10^10 km3
Moon Core Volume = 0.0014137 x10^10 km3

Earth Core Ratio = 0.77568/108.321 = 0.007160938
Moon Core Ratio = 0.0014137/2.1958 = 0.000643820

I'm not sure if I really did that correctly, but it appears that the Moon would have a much smaller core with respect to the volume of the whole Moon, when compared to Earth and its core. But I still don't really know if that can account for the 40% discrepancy in density between the Earth and Moon. Hopefully some one can work it out from here. Though it's probably going to get fairly complex past this point.

Okay, I just realized that the value given for the radius of the Moons core was actually in miles, and that the actual radius is 240 km (150 miles), as shown in the diagram of the Moon on the NASA website (reference 7). So lets just redo these calculations and get the correct core ratio for the Moon. Keep in mind I'm just using 4/3*π*r^3 to calculate the volume of the cores.

Earth Total Volume = 108.321 x10^10 km3
Moon Total Volume = 2.1958 x10^10 km3

Earth Core Volume = 0.77568 x10^10 km3
Moon Core Volume = 0.005791 x10^10 km3

Earth Core Ratio = 0.77568/108.321 = 0.007161
Moon Core Ratio = 0.005791/2.1958 = 0.002637

So according to these calculations, 0.26% of the Moons volume is contained in the solid iron core, while 0.72% of the Earths volume is contained in the solid iron core. This would seem to indicate that there is less than a 1% difference - 0.45% to be exact - and I don't think such a small difference could account for the 40% discrepancy between the density of Earth and the Moon. The difference just seems too large to be caused by such a small difference in core ratios.

Your stats aren't reading properly. Anyone can skew stats to their idealism. Stats spelled backwards is stats.

Fact is the earth's core represents 1/3 of the earth's mass, while the moon's core represents 2% of the moon's mass. The earth core isn't as easily defined as the moon's core, the moon just doesn't have the liquid magma the earth does, it's relatively a lifeless rock solidified into a relatively even mass distribution (and rings like a bell), where the earth's magma becomes solid isn't a defined area.

The geology of the moon isn't strong enough to support a hollow core, it's just that simple.

reply to post by Illustronic

Fact is the earth's core represents 1/3 of the earth's mass, while the moon's core represents 2% of the moon's mass.

Well I was actually just doing calculations for the solid inner cores, which I though would be more reliable. But I'll do some calculations for the entire "cores" and see what the results are.

The earth core isn't as easily defined as the moon's core, the moon just doesn't have the liquid magma the earth does

Well actually, if you look at the diagram presented by NASA, they claim that the Moon does indeed have fluid section surrounding the the inner core. Both Earth and the Moon seem to have a solid inner core surrounded by a fluid outer core, according to the latest research.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
So according to these calculations, 0.26% of the Moons volume is contained in the solid iron core, while 0.72% of the Earths volume is contained in the solid iron core. This would seem to indicate that there is less than a 1% difference - 0.45% to be exact -

Or you could say .72% divided by .26% is 2.76 meaning the percentage of the Earth's inner core is 276% as large, or 176% larger, which sounds like more than 0.45% larger. Both calculations are correct but the bigger numbers sound more impressive!

Moreover, the outer cores are also very significant, so it would probably make sense to include comparisons of both inner and outer cores combined. The dramatic drop in density near the middle of this graph at the outside of the outer core should show why.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, after doing the calculations for the entire cores the results are showing a much larger difference.

Earth Total Volume = 108.321 x10^10 km3
Moon Total Volume = 2.1958 x10^10 km3

Earth Core Volume = 17.74479 x10^10 km3
Moon Core Volume = 0.0463247 x10^10 km3

Earth Core Ratio = 17.74479/108.321 = 0.163816711 = 16.38%
Moon Core Ratio = 0.0463247/2.1958 = 0.021096958 = 2.11%

So now we can see that the Earths entire core (the solid and fluid part) represents roughly 16.38% of the Earths volume (don't know where Illustronic got 33% from), while the Moons core only represents roughly 2.11% of the Moons volume (Illustronic was right about that). That is a difference that seems more likely to be responsible for the difference in densities, but I can't be 100% sure without doing some really advanced calculations concerning the properties of the cores... which I can't be bothered doing. I'll just accept this as proof that the Moon probably isn't hollow, for now.

The moon's moment of inertia shows that it's not hollow:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I only just discovered the Hollow Moon Theory, and this thread helped me to get a good view from both sides.
Personally, I am still not sure if the moon is hollow or not, but in accordance with my other personal beliefs, I am inclined to accept the theory as extremely plausible.
Thanks all who posted (:

Related Articles :

Is the Moon Hollow? Evidence Supporting Hollow Moon Theory
cryptid.hubpages.com...

Spaceship Moon Theory
en.wikipedia.org...

Who Parked Our Moon?
disinfo.com...

reply to post by ProudBird

Surely the SUN is not "hollow"? Is it??

Sir William Herschel believed the Sun was hollow, and cool, and that there may be people living inside.

www.fourwinds10.net...

Eric Dollard also believes the Sun is not what we think it is.

1. The Sun is hollow and a "veil" with no internal structure, with contiguous granules on its surface
2. The Sun has no internal fusion
3. The Sun cannot be seen in "free space" without interaction of gross matter (which enables conversion to visible light)
4. The Sun is an aetheric transformer/converter from another dimensionality, with heat and light being a "waste product"
5. The photosphere generates the light

www.youtube.com...

Personally I think the Sun is a 4 way phase conjugate mixer, it's an information to energy to matter converter. Weird eh?

Ever heard a blacksmiths anvil 'ringing like a bell' when struck? its solid, Iron, steel, Bronze, when solid 'ring like a bell'. Bells are cast out of Bronze, for those few who don't know.

If the Moon were hollow, wouldn't its own mass crush the void inside it? The Moon's gravity is strong enough to form itself into a ball.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Hey, I just had to share......

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


That is interest your OP shows a mathematical relationship between the no of cycle rotations of the earth around sun and the number of days it takes moon to circle earth.

If this is not coincidence and some intelligent design force is the reason behind this then it should be possible to find a mathematical relationship say for example between the diameter of the earth and the mass of the moon, and other variables such as gravity which reflect Geometric rather than Newtonian laws.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Not sure that the Moon is completly hollow, but for sure there are large Voids in its depht.

Any Space Agency has tried to detect and mapping its interior.

Same tecnique of the field oil drills....

S&F.

I can believe this. Not so much Hollow Earth.