4
   

Is the moon really hollow

 
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2014 08:19 pm
1. Moon’s Age: The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. 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.


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.


3. Heavier Elements on Surface: Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. According to Wilson,


"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. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned."

4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles.


5. Magnetic Rocks: Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. This could not have originated from a "close call" with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.


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.


7. Moon Mascons: Mascons, which are large, dense, circular masses lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centers of the moon’s maria,


"are broad, disk-shaped objects that could be possibly some kind of artificial construction. For huge circular disks are not likely to be beneath each huge maria, centered like bull’s-eyes in the middle of each, by coincidence or accident."

8. Seismic Activity: Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region. These observations have proved to be precisely identical and periodical, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to the Earth. These are probably not natural phenomena.


9. 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,


"If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."

Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity."



MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote,


"the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field... indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow."

In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."


10. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour.



This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.


11. Unusual Metals: The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed. Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria? Surprise! The maria is composed primarily illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird". Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.


12. Moon’s Origin: Before the astronauts’ moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where?). Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover "space dust" remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also.



Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov, stated,


"It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible."

13. Weird Orbit: Our moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon’s center of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the moon’s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. "Something" had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.


14. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds,


"There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."

15. Spaceship Moon: As outrageous as the Moon-Is-a-Spaceship Theory is, all of the above items are resolved if one assumes that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings. This is the only theory that is supported by all of the data, and there are no data that contradict this theory.
 
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2014 10:22 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
no
next
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2014 12:54 am
@farmerman,
The bullhit about "mysterious titanium" is really what wed expect. Titanium (primarily rutile and ilmenite) form a solid solution of minerals that contain Fe,Ti and Mn/Mg. They form a SOLID SOLUTION between 4 end members
MAGNETITE_ILMENITE_GIEKIELITE andPYROPHANITE. These minerals form in planetary masses an where the oxygen is at a low level, the end member preferred is Ilmenite or the crystalline form RUTILE.

Its no biggy to the geochemistry of the moon, the core exuded an iron Titanium magma in a low oxygen environment and Fe/Ti O3 is the mineral. We see this on earth in 'lag sand" deposits from deep sea magmas . The "mystery" is kinda specious and the concept of a hollow moon is just plain ridiculous because the old Lunar data has been analyzed by newer seismic modeling and the moon has a partial liquid and solid CORE and a mantle
Its density od about the same as MArs (I believe they are in the same ballpark)

Did Quahog send you this or was it those guys who have these "ALIENS GAVE US EVERYTHING" tv shows on cable TV.?
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2014 03:18 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Proof the moon is, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVpOe0Qnp4A
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2014 03:20 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Check this out, I Googled hollow moon, and this link came up...... http://able2know.org/topic/263187-1

It's like a Star Trek time warp episode, round and round u go.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 10:59 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
all your crap is fouling up the septic tank of knowledge. You've still not explained your "Warm little pond" hysteria. You just post ignorant BS and hvent even explained its significance . You've said that you've read Darwin and I challenged you and you just keep ignoring any sharing of your vast knowledge
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 11:42 am
@farmerman,
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/editors-blog/2012/02/15/darwins-warm-little-pond/

Sheesh, do you live in a cave?
After reading about an experiment that showed some moulds could survive boiling, Darwin speculated in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker that life on earth might have started in a “warm little pond”:




It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 Feb [1871]

Next
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 12:02 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,

AS I thought, you are trying to shift your positions so we dont notice.

we ALL know that passage but wheres your claim wrt Darwins "Origin"?

Or have you once again conflated a letter with a chapter??

It was actually Darwin's son who publicized the 1871 letter to Hooker, and where did your reading comprehension fail you to not see the metaphor and Darwins own limitation?

You Creationists like to read so much into what isn't there

next
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 12:07 pm
@farmerman,
As far as the moon, you know that there is actual evidence that refutes the above BS.

Are you Qahog's son? you both seem easily disposed to believe anything that's evidenced In favor of myth and von daniken style story telling.
Even von Daniken would put a question mark t the end of his silly propositions
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 05:21 pm
@farmerman,
It was a private letter, between CHARLES DARWIN and Joseph Hooker, thus it came to light, after CHARLES DARWINS death, and was publicized by CHARLES DARWINS son.

Dude, you are more fun than checkers.

The origin of life on Earth is one of the most debated issues in science. Despite ideas put forth by early philosophers, it was Charles Darwin who first posed an explanation for life's origin that complemented his evolutionary theory of life on Earth. In a letter written in 1871 to botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin envisioned:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

Darwin’s “warm little pond” idea was supported experimentally by two University of Chicago researchers in the early 1950s, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, who showed amino acids, the building blocks for protein, could be formed when electric shocks were introduced to a flask of water containing the gases methane, hydrogen and ammonia. Although efforts to understand the origin of life have been hampered by lack of direct evidence, these early experiments led many to believe that life on Earth had a “hot start.

Next
Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 05:38 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Everyone knows the moon is made out of cheese...give it up.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 05:59 pm
The moon is like a big wasabi pea.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 07:41 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:


It was a private letter, between CHARLES DARWIN and Joseph Hooker, thus it came to light, after CHARLES DARWINS death, and was publicized by CHARLES DARWINS son.
So now you are agreeing with me. Why hd you been making the big deal about this line in "The Origin"? Did you finally look it up in the Darwin Project Archives that I posted ?

Good for you

Quote:

Darwin’s “warm little pond” idea was supported experimentally by two University of Chicago researchers in the early 1950s, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
Do you suffer from short term memory problems? Wed been going over the Urey experiment in another of your threads. Perhaps you should make notes.



farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 07:42 pm
@chai2,
mmmmm. Lub dem . They oughta make them with layer of bacon nd then wasabi dip.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 08:18 pm
@farmerman,
Dude, the entire warm pond idea, of abiogenesis, began as a letter that Darwin wrote, that he didn't want to get published, because it was nonsense, and he knew it. You on the other hand believe it.

sheeshes
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 10:09 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
YOU are the one who has deftly changed his position. I always was questioning you "WHERE in the ORIGIN" did Darwin say this?
You have, since day 1 been trying to misrepresent what others have said and your habit of being a mendacious person has been duly noticed

ya dumass, trying to lie your way through another day?

Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 10:16 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

mmmmm. Lub dem . They oughta make them with layer of bacon nd then wasabi dip.
now ...I'm getting hungry.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 10:44 am
@farmerman,
Dude, the entire warm pond idea, of abiogenesis, began as a letter that Darwin wrote, that he didn't want to get published, because it was nonsense, and he knew it. You on the other hand believe it.

Give up, even Darwin knew that his warm pond was dumb, which is why he hid it, from public scrutiny.

Yawning
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 10:45 am
@Germlat,
You like warm pond scum on your bread?

Frogs do.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 10:49 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Besides the fact that you've totally changed your initial BS, I will attend to this new one

Quote:
1. that he didn't want to get published, because it was nonsense, and he knew it
His communication was in 1871 , roughly 12 years after he first published the "Origin..." it You should read Morris Peckham's "Variorum Text" of all 6 editions to gain some insight that doesn't naturally arise from your ass.

 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the moon really hollow
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 07:21:51