Is the Moon a Mothership ?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
So, to point out if the Moon does have a atmosphere, to see the stars you need a atmosphere.

Erm, actually you don't. To see stars that twinkle you need an atmosphere. And the moon does not have an atmosphere.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

If our planet is breathable, what says that others are not?

Who told us that other planets are not breathable?

Erm, physics and biology says so. Good luck breathing on Mars (you'd suffocate) or Venus (your lungs would boil just a nano-second before they were compressed into the bottom of your chest and you then became a puddle of coloured goo).

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Let's do a head count:

How many are scientist? (You got your degree from a esteemed college and have be taught the ways your suppose to do thing)

How many are explorers? (Screw the rules, I rather get out and do something than sit at home and read a book)

NO lets use some COMMON SENSE science is about fact and about proof people like you ( and there are many others on here ) seem to think that anything from an official source is wrong/made up or an effort to control people.

The scientific method is

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

Not "screw that" because you don't think its right.

Many principles and theories in science/engineering are intertwined ie if one theory is wrong others will fall down because of it.

Here is a link from the HyperPhysics website

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Its regarding Electricity and Magnetism you can see the links from one law to another.

On here we have many people claiming science is wrong about this or that and many refer back to events of the past a prime example on here used many times by people , scientists used to think the earth was flat and the center of the universe NO religious leaders claimed that until proof was shown they were wrong.

Science evolves new ideas and theories come above but they have to provide PROOF to be accepted, if science was so wrong as you claim guess what YOU and the others like you would not be able to do what your doing to push your ideas because the computer you are using, the internet etc wouldn't work.

If science was so wrong NASA would not have been able to send Cassini to Saturn 1.2 billion km away and fly it through a gap in the rings. Its one hour and 20 mins away at the speed of light so all calculations have to be done in advance, if science was so wrong it couldn't have be done.

There has to be PROOF in science not an ATTITUDE

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

But there is more to the story than there seems.

If our planet is breathable, what says that others are not?

Who told us that other planets are not breathable?

If you mean the planets in our own solar system, then I would say that our analysis of those atmospheres (through direct sampling or through spectroscopic analysis) have told us they are not breathable by humans. However, there may certainly be some sort of organism that can breathe (say, for example) Titan's thick Nitrogen and Methane atmosphere.

If you are talking about exoplanets (planets around other stars), then I would say scence feels it is possible a planet out there exists on which that humans can breathe -- and it is very probable that there is a planet out there right now with an atmosphere that an alien organism can breathe.

So to answer your question: "Who told us that other planets are not breathable?",
I would say: "Nobody says planets are not breathable -- at least not many scientists"

There are astrobiologists at NASA whose job it is to study the way other possible ET life may live (and breathe).

Who said that we are to stay on Earth?

Again, I don't think there are too many people who would claim that humans will always only live on Earth. They would say we are probably bound to live elsewhere someday, and I agree

When you ask: "Who said that we are to stay on Earth?", it sounds like you feel there are people saying we ARE to always stay on Earth. That can be considered a "strawman argument". Explain to me who YOU feel are saying these things, and maybe I can answer your question.

How old is the human race?

Do you mean our particular species (Homo Sapiens)? If so, then probably about 200,000 years.

If you mean how long there have been human-like creatures (our species ancestors, prior to evolving into Homo Sapiens), then the answer is probably about 4 million years (the species Homo Habilis).

Before that, our ancestors were probably more ape-like, but even then there was a difference between the lineage that would eventually become humans and the lineage that would eventually become the great apes (gorillas, etc). That split occurred maybe about 7 million years ago.

It should be noted that 4 million years when the first human-like species evolved is a very, very, very short time when considering the total amount of time that there has been life on Earth. The dinosaurs were already long dead for 60 million years before Homo Habilis came into being. That first human-like creature evolved only in the past 0.1% of the history of life on Earth. The first "true Human" (Homo Sapiens) have even a much shorter history of existence -- our species have only existed for the last 0.005% of the history of life on Earth.

Humans are just a tiny, tiny part of the history of Earth, almost to the point of being insignificant.

If the whole history of the Earth was compressed into one 24-hour day, then the time of Humans (Homo Sapiens) would be less than a 1/2 second of that day.

So many questions, and it sorrows me why they haven't been answered with honesty.

I'm not sure why you feel my answers (or the answers of others) are dishonest.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

He, along with Aldrin didn't see the stars when they were in outer space, when they got to the moon, they saw them.

.

Then why was this in the Apollo 11 craft.

Michael Collins is looking at a star called Menkent through the sextant, which incorporates a telescope and measures the angle between distant objects, such as a star and the horizon: “Okay, again, looking through the telescope. Okay, proceed to Menkent. There she goes. Menkent. Menkent. God, what a star.”

More info here

Apollo 11 Navigation

Apollo 16 had this

There are two separate optical instruments in the Guidance and Navigation System, and these are used by the crew to take navigational sightings of the stars or landmarks on the Earth and Moon

Why don't you go and do a little more research and you won't shot yourself in the foot so often

Sorry...Double post
I meant to edit something in my post above, and I hit "quote" instead.

Fascinating Thread OP, and great discussion ATS.
I have been impressed by the number of people not being called idiots,
novices and charletans in this thread. It is actually an intelligent talk.

That being said, I would like to chime in on this issue.
Hah, see what I did there?


Half of the debate seems to be about moon's rotation and the dark side.

Dark side was ONLY a term coined by earlier scientists and laymen,
for what must be the other side of the moon, that they know they never see.
This has almost never been alluded to the fact that it never gets any sun,
so lets put this debate to bed as it is just a colloquialism.

Now, the issue of rotation. Some people are saying that the moon does not rotate,
while others correctly explain that it DOES rotate. So, the moon does rotate in
perspective to the Sun, and the rest of the solar system, but it does NOT rotate
in perspective to the Earth. So, both sides are correct.

This does not put the debate to rest. It actually further intrigues me.
What is the chance that a celestial body maintains such a perfect orbit and rotation,
as to where we NEVER see the back-side of it? This perfect rotation is even more
disturbing once you factor in that both us, the moon, and the solar system are hurtling
through the universe at unfathomable speeds. Through all this, this hunk of rock
is keeping perfect time and orbit with us. With the fluctuation in the moon's orbit over
the years, wouldn't this have affected the rotation by the change in gravitational pull?

As for Human-Alien's surmise that the moon is responsible for all of Earth's gravity,
this seems to be a mis-understanding of what he must have been told one time.
I have never heard anything close to this. Surely, the Earth has its own gravity, or
we would be pulled (however slightly), out to orbit during the night, and into the ground
during the day. Also, we would have weight differences based on where the moon was
located if this was the case.

The fact of the tides confuses me. Yes we have two high tides and two load tides daily.
This seems to contradict the theory that the moon is solely responsible for tides.
I am saying this because it is the idea that the moon's gravity is pulling the water to
one side of our planet, and this is creating the tides. Perhaps the answer lies in the
movement of the water, and tidal flow back and forth creating a tide, sort of like a perpetual
motion machine, but I can't wrap my head around how that works right now.

So, do I think that the moon is a mothership? No.
But, odder things have happened.

Do I think that moon could be used as a base for other-wordly entities? YES
I also think that our Earth could be used. Look at how much we have not explored
on our own planet.


What is even more bizarre about this whole situation is the fact that NASA has compeletely
given up space travel, and handed it over to the Russians. This is very odd as someone
else pointed out. Why would they do this? What do they know that we don't.

Surely, this was not just a budgeting concern, as our government does not care to put
us further into debt, especially with the fiscal cliff coming.

As for structures on the moon, there was a few threads here of some unique pictures of the
moon's surface that seemed to contain large structures. I don't remember the OP's name, but
I do remember that his avatar was an astronaut's suit with what I remember to be a skeleton inside.


As for many other people's reutations to these moon "theories", the only facts that they are
basing their opinions on, are what we are being told by popular science.

They say there is no atmosphere.
What if that is just a coverup?

All we know is what we have been told, and we KNOW that much of what we have been told
in the past has been lies. So, why do some people follow 100% what we are told?
We KNOW that the government has some sort of agenda, but we are unsure of what this is.

I truly hope that something around 2012 scare gives us a fresh perspective into what
is going on with our celestial sister.

Personally, I'm curious as to where the belief that an atmosphere is necessary to see stars comes from. I have seen more than one poster on ATS make that assertion, so there must be an ignorance factory out there on the web propagating the belief. Would anyone care to provide a link?

reply to post by DJW001


Doesn't Hubble blow this theory out of the water?

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

...This does not put the debate to rest. It actually further intrigues me.
What is the chance that a celestial body maintains such a perfect orbit and rotation,
as to where we NEVER see the back-side of it? ...

It is a well-understood mechanism called "tidal locking" that causes our Moon to keep only one face toward us. It isn't that way just by "chance" or coincidence. It is that way because of orbital and tidal mechanics.

Our Moon is not at all unique in this -- it is actually quite common. In fact, there are over 30 other moons in our solar system that also share this characteristic:

- The four main Moons of Jupiter -- Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, plus four other moons of Jupiter.
- Some of the major moons of Saturn -- Titan, Enceladus, Mimas, Rhea, Iapetus, and several others.
- Both moons of Mars.
- Five moons of Uranus.
- Two moons of Neptune.
- Pluto's largest Moon, Charon
- Plus other moons in the solar system.

There are also other planets orbiting other stars that we think are tidally locked to their star, so the time it takes them to revolve around their star is the same amount of time it takes to rotate once, causing that planet to always have the same part of it facing its star.


So the Moon is not this way "by chance". It's that way because that is how nature works.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Thank you for your break down of other moons that always face their sister planet.
I did not know that this list would be so long.

Why is it called tidal locking? What causes it to be synchronous?
If it is the gravitational pull between earth and the moon, would this not fluctuate
when the moon gets closer or further from the Earth?

reply to post by ThreeDeuce


You can always research tidal locking yourself, it's not difficult to find.

In short, because the force of gravity depends on distance, the Moon (and any other body) is deformed in a gravitational field. If that body is rotating in its "orbiting" frame of reference, that results in stretching and compression of its material. This process is not friction-free, i.e. some of the energy is dissipated as heat (if you keep compressing and letting go of a piece of rubber or a spring, you may be able to notice it). So eventually it's forced into a condition where it's always facing the same way.

reply to post by ThreeDeuce

The fact of the tides confuses me.

It's easy to be confused. It's a little complicated but to really simplify it let's try this. The Moon pulls on the ocean on the side of the earth nearest to it with a certain amount of force. The Moon is also pulling on the center of the Earth, but with a bit less force because it's farther away. The Moon is also pulling on the ocean on the side of the Earth farthest from it with still less force.

So what we have is the ocean facing the Moon gets pulled most, the Earth itself less, and the ocean on the other side even less. This is called the gravity gradient. The result is that the ocean facing the Moon is pulled away from the Earth and the Earth is pulled away from the ocean on the opposite side. This is why there are two high tides each day.

the moon is solely responsible for tides

The Sun contributes to the entire effect.

www.tapir.caltech.edu...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by ThreeDeuce

 

You can always research tidal locking yourself, it's not difficult to find.

In short, because the force of gravity depends on distance, the Moon (and any other body) is deformed in a gravitational field. If that body is rotating in its "orbiting" frame of reference, that results in stretching and compression of its material. This process is not friction-free, i.e. some of the energy is dissipated as heat (if you keep compressing and letting go of a piece of rubber or a spring, you may be able to notice it). So eventually it's forced into a condition where it's always facing the same way.

I asked the question to see people's response, as they are posing to be experts on the situation.

My question to pose against tidal locking being the only reason that the moon stays facing the earth
the same, is that the moon is spiraling away from the Earth.

"The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) per year, as detected by the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment"

If the moon is being held in that unique "perfect" rotation, would not this outward spiraling disturb the
gravitational change considering the distance from the earth to the moon is already almost 239 thousand miles.
Wouldn't this perfect scenario of "tidal locking" receive some fluctuation from the movement of the moon?


Everything that we know about tidal locking, how much is scientifically PROVEN? or is it just theory?

There is a big difference between the two.
If you can show people that it is proven that the moon is locked because of X and Y, please provide this information. Otherwise, you are just reciting what has been told to us. How much of what we are told could be wrong, or intentionally misleading?



My lay-mind believes that if the moon is moving slowly away from us, shouldn't that make it slowly rotate?
Because that would be less and less gravitational "tidal-locks" to hold it in place.


Also, if I may add.... Tidal Locking is not a completely natural occurance.
"This effect is employed to stabilize some artificial satellites."

So, this idea of tidal locking does not prove that the perfect rotation is natural.
It PROVES that we use this exact procedure to lock in satelittes.
If we use this to lock our satellites, then it is a plausible theory that the
moon could have been artificially "locked" in also.

Tidal Locking is just a name for the occurance, not a reason for WHY it happened.

reply to post by ThreeDeuce

If the moon is being held in that unique "perfect" rotation, would not this outward spiraling disturb the
gravitational change considering the distance from the earth to the moon is already almost 239 thousand miles.
Wouldn't this perfect scenario of "tidal locking" receive some fluctuation from the movement of the moon?

The locking process is continuing. The Moon is moving away because the Earth is becoming locked to it. The Moon is "stealing" Earth's rotational momentum and using it to increase the radius of its orbit. In a very long time the Earth and the Moon will only be showing one face to each other. One side of Earth will never see the Moon.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
I asked the question to see people's response, as they are posing to be experts on the situation.

Who's posing?

"The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) per year, as detected by the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment"

a) see Phage's response, and also try to gauge 3.8 cm against the total distance. It's a real small number.
b) as Phage said, the "sync" process is still occurring, but the rate is slow (again, 3.8 cm)
c) it appears that you are looking for some absolute 100%. It does not exist. Consider librations. The Moon is rocking back and forth anyhow.

If the moon is being held in that unique "perfect" rotation

See above, nothing's perfect.

If you can show people that it is proven that the moon is locked because of X and Y, please provide this information.

I don't like people who insist that somebody would transcribe a couple of textbooks and popular science sources right here on ATS because they are so effing lazy to use Google, Wikipedia and their local library.

Otherwise, you are just reciting what has been told to us. How much of what we are told could be wrong, or intentionally misleading?

Oh, not again... Intentional lies from scientists regarding the Moon. Duh.
And all of physics is counterfeit.


No further comment.

Buddha, your above all attitude is not appreciated.
All I ask is that you attempt to prove where your conclusions come from,
as this is what everyone asks of everyone here at ATS.

Your ideas of tidal locking are just because that is what someone has told you,
or that you have read somewhere.

Do we have information saying that this is totally natural, and that
moons normally rotate perfectly like this.

Also, you say that 1.5 inches is not much.... but how long has the moon been in
orbit like this? Surely, any number of inches over thousands of years is a large number.

I am not asking you to write a report, just back up what you are saying with FACT, and not theory.
There is a difference. Remember, it was science theory that the world was flat.

Scientists can be wrong, and have been many times over.

reply to post by ThreeDeuce

Do we have information saying that this is totally natural, and that
moons normally rotate perfectly like this.

All of the large moons in the Solar System (which means the majority of all of the moons display the same behavior with their own planets.

Also, you say that 1.5 inches is not much.... but how long has the moon been in
orbit like this?

It's been in orbit for about 4.5 billion years.

Surely, any number of inches over thousands of years is a large number.

Not really. Easy calculation. For example in 2 million years that 1.5 inches gives you about 47 miles, which in comparision to the radius of the orbit is completely insignificant.

Remember, it was science theory that the world was flat.

Never. It was known the world was round before science existed.

Remember, it was science theory that the world was flat.

Never. It was known the world was round before science existed.


Too true Phage, but it is my opinion that certain nefarious people have used "science" to further their own agenda.


Also, you are right about 47 miles not being much considering the size of the moon.
I guess where I have trouble with the idea of tidal locking, is that I view this as something that
must be a perfect system to maintain that perfect rotation. And, I viewed this movement away
from the earth as something that would wreak havoc on this perfection.

The answer might ultimately be simpler than we can imagine,
perhaps there is a large metallic core in the moon, which might be skewed more on the "light" side,
which keeps that side closer to the earth by magnetism.



Food for thought/discussion. Just because there are many moons in tidal lock,
does not mean that these are also artificially placed.

I do not think that us only having one moon is bizarre, but is it true that our planet is the
only one with "only one" as someone else surmised?



I would like to add to this conversation saying....
that I do NOT believe that the moon is a mothership, or
that it is an artificial satellite.

But, I do look at all possibilities with unbiased eyes, and interpret
all of the data for myself.
If we can rule out all conflicting opinions and possiblities, then we
are only left with the truth. This is a process, and it is not about
all physics lieing to us. I doubt what real information that physics
has about the moon.

We KNOW that the government has covered up LARGE parts about
the moon race, and things that the astronauts have seen.
Are we naive enough to believe that there is nothing else that they covered up,
or have forgotten to tell us? I am not.

reply to post by ThreeDeuce

Just because there are many moons in tidal lock, does not mean that these are also artificially placed.

Then why bother asking about it?

We KNOW that the government has covered up LARGE parts about the moon race, and things that the astronauts have seen.

Like what?