Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 334

Thread: The Hollow Moon

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    383
    Okay, I recently heard the moon was hollow, but every site I go to that agrees with this also says the moon is a spaceship used by aliens to watch all of us...

    Errr,... is there any real reason to think the moon is hollow and if not, where did this idea even come from?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    555
    The idea of a hollow Moon and Earth dates back to the 17th or 18th century, I believe. But I don't know where it came from.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,364
    On 2003-03-07 13:57, AKONI wrote:
    Errr,... is there any real reason to think the moon is hollow and if not, where did this idea even come from?
    Hollow moon? In a word, no.

    I suspect that this is an offshoot of 'Hollow Earth' theories that were popular in the early part of this century. This site has a brief history of Hollow Earth theories:

    http://www.t0.or.at/subrise/hollow.htm

    Also, looking at it logically, how could the moon possibly have formed hollow? Wouldn't it have collapsed in on itself while forming? How could it have the mass we have calculated it to have? Wouldn't tidal forces from Earth rip it apart? Hollow moon theorists need extremely implausible explanations to justify the hollowness, such as it being a space-ship. I'm sure Government cover-up conspiracies play a big role in their thinking as well.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    On 2003-03-07 13:57, AKONI wrote:
    Okay, I recently heard the moon was hollow, but every site I go to that agrees with this also says the moon is a spaceship used by aliens to watch all of us...

    Errr,... is there any real reason to think the moon is hollow and if not, where did this idea even come from?
    Well, Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a story about it.

    One of the Apollo missions left a seismometer on the moon and then directed their LM to crash into the moon. The echos produced were curious; the best match they found was to a hollow aluminum ball.

    The moon's density is quite a bit lower than the earth's.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    I believe that it's structurally impossible for a body as massive as the Moon to be hollow. Even if the hollow Moon-sphere were made of titanium-steel alloy it would deform and collapse into a solid sphere under its own gravity. There's a pretty well-understood mass limit above which rocky bodies like large asteroids, moons, and planets will form solid spheres but I forget what it is. Obviously the moons Phobos and Deimos are lighter than the limit, and Ceres heavier.

    It's interesting to think about things we normally visualize as rigid and strong--my uncle had a 2-foot section of steel railroad track he had formed into an anvil, and it seemed completely rigid to me. But just look at railroad tracks in the mountains--they bend! Nothing is perfectly rigid.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    383
    One of the Apollo missions left a seismometer on the moon and then directed their LM to crash into the moon. The echos produced were curious; the best match they found was to a hollow aluminum ball.
    This was the exact situation a friend of mine was trying to use to convince me the moon was hollow.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    On 2003-03-09 23:24, AKONI wrote:
    One of the Apollo missions left a seismometer on the moon and then directed their LM to crash into the moon. The echos produced were curious; the best match they found was to a hollow aluminum ball.
    This was the exact situation a friend of mine was trying to use to convince me the moon was hollow.
    So if A is kind of like B then A must be B? It's an interesting line of reasoning. So if thumping his head makes the same sound as thumping an underripe melon, then his head must be an underirpe melon?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,215
    An explanation for why the Moon is 3/5 the density of Earth, without needing to use "it's hollow" for the explanation.

    LINK

    Just after the Earth was fully formed, about 4.5 billion years ago, an asteroid as large as the planet Mars, struck our new planet. Metallic materials from the asteroid were heavy and stayed with the metals of the Earth's core. The rocky material was lighter and flew into space, encircling our planet in a thin ring. The debris came together violently, pebbles smashed to become rocks, rocks crashed into boulders and finally the Moon was born. Initially it was so hot that it was entirely molten. As it cooled it separated into layers including a crust, a mantle, and possibly a small metal core. In the crust, minerals light in color and density rose to the top of the lava ocean to form the lunar highlands, while the darker denser minerals sank, later serving as the source of the mare basalts.

    The new computer model uses calculations with higher numerical resolution than was previously possible, solving some of the problems scientists had with prior attempts to model the Moon's formation using the impactor theory. This theory is the best explanation for the Moon's formation for several reasons. It accounts for why the Moon's density is relatively low: because after the impact the metals were left in the Earth.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Jigsaw
    An explanation for why the Moon is 3/5 the density of Earth, without needing to use "it's hollow" for the explanation.
    [/quote]

    Could you paraphrase it for me? The explanation that is.

    Not that I am lazy it is just that I am not a specialist in that field.

    But how do you explain the age of the moon rocks, which were
    reported to be billions of years older than the earth, and the lunar
    soil, a billion years older than the rocks? Then there is the fact that
    the earth facing side, has more impact craters, and then there is
    the presence of pure metals, and then there is Aitken basin
    which is 2,200 km across, and only about 10km deep.

    How is that possible? Wouldn't a crater 2,200 km across be much
    deeper?

    And why doesn't it spin on its axis or have a magnetosphere?

    Then there are the Ica stones from Peru, which show the impact
    at the south pole, and the interior of the moon, and the two leaders of
    the interior moon colony, dating back to the 1500's including the
    one leader wearing glasses. Did they have glasses in the 1500's?
    http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm scroll to middle of page.

    And then of course there is Tycho crater and if you download the
    huge tif file from Naval Space Command, and look at the left of the
    three images, and in the center of the crater, you can see the titanium
    hull exposed, and what looks like two unexploded projectiles embedded
    in the hull of the moon.
    http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...res/tyctri.tif

    Then of course there is the fact that Nasa in 1969 said it was a hollow
    metal sphere under the dirt layer with a thickness of 30 or 40 meters.
    As was alluded to above. But I think it must be much thicker to
    be able to withstand such an impact as that of Aitken basin, don't you
    agree?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    589
    To briefly sum up the above explanation, when the impact that created the moon occurred, the more of the heavier stuff stayed with the earth and the lighter stuff got blown off and formed the moon.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    393
    But how do you explain the age of the moon rocks, which were
    reported to be billions of years older than the earth, and the lunar
    soil, a billion years older than the rocks?
    Warning: I am not an expert so the following responses may not be entirely correct.

    The rocks on Earth tend to be young because earth is much more geologically active. Volcanic activity, erosion, sedimentation, and plate tectonics all act to replace older rock with younger rock. Most of these actions either no longer occur on the moon or never occurred there. So you would expect moon rocks to be older than those found on earth. The earth itself, however, is older than the oldest earth rocks.

    I had not heard that Moon soil was older than the rocks, but if this is true, I would suspect it could be largely due to different sources. Moon rocks were probably produced mainly by volcanism on the moon before it cooled to the point where volcanism no longer occurred (this happened early in the Moonís history due to itís much smaller mass being much less able to retain heat). The lunar soil probably consists in a larger degree of space dust that collected over time and meteorite impact material. This material formed at about the time the solar system formed (if not earlier), so it would be older.

    Then there is the fact that
    the earth facing side, has more impact craters, and then there is
    the presence of pure metals, and then there is Aitken basin
    which is 2,200 km across, and only about 10km deep.

    How is that possible? Wouldn't a crater 2,200 km across be much
    deeper?
    The initial impact crater was probably deeper (and less wide) but the sides would have quickly collapsed inward resulting in a shallower (and wider) final crater.

    The earth facing side doesnít have more craters as far as I know. It does have the mares which were probably a result of an enormous impact early in the moonís history, but it probably wasnít tidally locked then (I.e. it was still spinning).

    I donít know about any pure metals. You have a link for that? I could note that since there is no atmosphere, metals tend not to corrode the way the would on earth (i.e. no rust).

    And why doesn't it spin on its axis or have a magnetosphere?
    It doesnít have a magnetosphere because it doesnít spin and the core is probably no longer molten (due to it having cooled off). The reason it doesnít spin is due to tidal locking. Essentially, tidal drag from the earth acted as a damper to the moonís spin until it ceased to spin entirely. The gravity of the moon is also slowing the spin of the earth, but since the earth a lot bigger than the moon it has a lot more inertia and will take a lot longer to tidal lock with the moon.

    Then there are the Ica stones from Peru, which show the impact
    at the south pole, and the interior of the moon, and the two leaders of
    the interior moon colony, dating back to the 1500's including the
    one leader wearing glasses. Did they have glasses in the 1500's?
    http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm scroll to middle of page.
    The Inca stones are fraudulent. They were carved by modern day Peruvians to sell to gullible tourists and gullible pseudo-archeologists like Eric Von Dankin.

    Read "Flim-flam" by Jame Randi.

    And then of course there is Tycho crater and if you download the
    huge tif file from Naval Space Command, and look at the left of the
    three images, and in the center of the crater, you can see the titanium
    hull exposed, and what looks like two unexploded projectiles embedded
    in the hull of the moon.
    http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...res/tyctri.tif
    I couldnít get that to load, so I wonít comment on it.

    Then of course there is the fact that Nasa in 1969 said it was a hollow
    metal sphere under the dirt layer with a thickness of 30 or 40 meters.
    As was alluded to above. But I think it must be much thicker to
    be able to withstand such an impact as that of Aitken basin, don't you
    agree?
    That isnít actually what NASA said. They just said the echo resembled what you would expect from a hollow metal sphere. That doesnít mean they really thought that was the explanation. And yes, such a structure wouldnít have survived the impact that created the Aitken basin.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Madcat
    To briefly sum up the above explanation, when the impact that created the moon occurred, the more of the heavier stuff stayed with the earth and the lighter stuff got blown off and formed the moon.
    Thanks Mad Cat,

    But how does that corelate with the age of the lunar samples being
    billions of years older than the earth?

    I haven't looked it up on the Nasa web site yet but this site
    does go into some detail regarding the gravitational
    anomalies and the numerous early attempts to land on the lunar
    surafce which either crashed or missed completely.

    For instance one of the early Russian attempts ploughed into the
    moon at full speed, and I got get quite a kick out of one of the early
    Ranger attempts, which apparently missed the moon by 450 miles.
    #-o

    http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    393
    One more point. The mares of the moon are essentially vast lava beds. It is believed that the impact that caused them broke the crust of the moon causing lava to well up from the interior. The existence of these lave beds pretty much rules out a hollow moon.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    Hi Espritch,

    I see, the volcanoes, on earth, made young rocks, and the volcanoes
    on the moon made old rocks? Wait a minute, the lunar soil is older than
    the lunar rocks because the lunar rocks, came from volcanoes on the
    moon, but those rocks are still over a billion years older than the oldest
    earth rocks. Frankly I think that whole volcano young rock theory
    is a bit of a stretch.

    Maybe the rocks are asteroid debris? But then wouldn't that be obvious?

    Rick:
    How is that possible? Wouldn't a crater 2,200 km across be much
    deeper?

    Espritch:
    The initial impact crater was probably deeper (and less wide) but the sides would have quickly collapsed inward resulting in a shallower (and wider) final crater.

    Rick:
    But the crater is like I don't know larger than the radius of the moon,
    wouldn't it have blasted it to pieces? Maybe it was a glancing blow?
    Could it have been some kind of explosion?

    Espritch:
    The earth facing side doesn’t have more craters as far as I know. It does have the mares which were probably a result of an enormous impact early in the moon’s history, but it probably wasn’t tidally locked then (I.e. it was still spinning).

    Rick:
    Hmmm.... this tidal locking, that sounds well, a bit unusual to me.
    Aren't the mass cons on the far side of the moon? Wouldn't that spin
    the moon around so that the far side was facing earth if it was tidal
    locking? (If such a thing existed that is

    Espritch:
    I don’t know about any pure metals. You have a link for that?

    Rick:
    In my previous post there is a link to lunar anomalies and
    I believe on that page it speaks of it, and also mentions two
    books which apparently have a wealth of information on the subject.

    Rick:
    And why doesn't it spin on its axis or have a magnetosphere?

    Espritch:
    It doesn’t have a magnetosphere because it doesn’t spin and the core is probably no longer molten (due to it having cooled off). The reason it doesn’t spin is due to tidal locking. Essentially, tidal drag from the earth acted as a damper to the moon’s spin until it ceased to spin entirely. The gravity of the moon is also slowing the spin of the earth, but since the earth a lot bigger than the moon it has a lot more inertia and will take a lot longer to tidal lock with the moon.

    Rick:
    Again what about the far side mass cons? Surely in any real scenario,
    the moon should spin right around and the mass cons would be nearer
    the earth, would they not?

    Rick:Naval space command tif

    Espritch:
    I couldn’t get that to load, so I won’t comment on it.

    Rick:
    Here, I will clip it for you.
    http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/Th...s/image040.jpg

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Espritch
    One more point. The mares of the moon are essentially vast lava beds. It is believed that the impact that caused them broke the crust of the moon causing lava to well up from the interior. The existence of these lave beds pretty much rules out a hollow moon.
    I see except they aren't lava beds are they? I read they were glass.

    In fact a large portion is aparently glassed over.

    At least that is what I have read from accounts of the Apollo missions.
    And they couldn't seem to drill into the surface because it was so solid,
    so lava is out. And no actual volcanoes to speak of either, like
    Oh I don't know Mount Kilamanjaro which actually goes up to
    form a mountain like most volcanoes do.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Sobie
    Quote Originally Posted by Madcat
    To briefly sum up the above explanation, when the impact that created the moon occurred, the more of the heavier stuff stayed with the earth and the lighter stuff got blown off and formed the moon.
    Thanks Mad Cat,

    But how does that corelate with the age of the lunar samples being
    billions of years older than the earth?

    I haven't looked it up on the Nasa web site yet but this site
    does go into some detail regarding the gravitational
    anomalies and the numerous early attempts to land on the lunar
    surafce which either crashed or missed completely.

    For instance one of the early Russian attempts ploughed into the
    moon at full speed, and I got get quite a kick out of one of the early
    Ranger attempts, which apparently missed the moon by 450 miles.
    #-o

    http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm
    The lunar samples are not 'billions of years older' than the Earth. IIRC, the lunar samples date the moon to ~ 4 billion years old, whereas the Earth itself is around 4.6 billion years old. As was pointed out above, the moon rocks are dated earlier than terrestrial rocks, because the surface of the Earth is constantly recycled through tectonics. This did/does not occur on the moon. However, the moon is not older than the Earth.

    Also, the moon does spin on it's axis. It completes one rotation approximately each 28 days.

    The Mascons are relatively small regions of slightly greater gravitational influence due to increased crust density, produced probably by meteoritic compaction. They have some minimal implications for the orbit of spacecraft in lunar orbit. Their implication on the Earth/Moon gravitational interaction is insignificant.

    The mare are not glass. They are primarily basalt. There is glass spherules in the lunar regolith ('soil') which were formed during the intense heat of meteor impact. The difficulties encountered by the Apollo astronauts whilst drilling core samples, planting the flag etc, is due to the compaction of the regolith below a few centimetres - the very cohesiveness that allowed the astronauts to leave footprints also meant that the subsurface regolith compacted to a very solid material indeed.

    I have not studied the Aitken Basin in any detail, but two explanations immediately offer themselves as to why it might be shallow in comparison to it's radius. Perhaps the impact was sufficient to create a rift allowing mantle material to well up & fill the impact crater. Or perhaps the impact angle was acute, causing only a 'glancing' blow.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    I just wanted to make a correction to my post regarding the mass cons...

    I just read on a Nasa website that there are more mass cons on the
    near side than on the far side, and that the center of gravity
    is about a kilometer closer to earth.

    So basically, what I see, is conflicting reports.

    The Nasa site aslo says that the youngest moon rocks are as old as the
    oldest earth rocks.
    That sounds a bit evasive. Why not just say the moon is a billion
    years older than the earth?

    I am finding it very difficult to get a chart of moon rock ages.
    If anyone has a link I would appreciate it.

    Is there no point form data of any kind?

    At any rate, how on earth can a person make any sense out of such
    nonsense? With all these conflicting reports?
    Just do a search on google and you will see what I mean.

    At Nasa, on one hand they say that the moon rocks vary from the earth
    rocks in so many ways that there is no way they could be from anywhere
    else than the moon.

    Then somewhere else some one makes claim that the moon formed
    from the earth by an asteroid impact.

    And then the moon does not spin on its axis, yet it became round
    how? It was hit on all sides by asteroids or what?

    And where are these lava flows and how does lava flow for 2,000 km
    without cooling or piling up?

    You know what I think?

    I think that it all a bunch of nonsense. That is what it looks like to me.

    I mean if the moon, was placed on earth, in an ocean, it would float.

    That is how light it is compared to earth.

    And this, does not look like any sort of natural geological formation
    I could even imagine.

    http://www.rc-astro.com/solar_system...istarchus.html

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Sobie
    I just wanted to make a correction to my post regarding the mass cons...

    I just read on a Nasa website that there are more mass cons on the
    near side than on the far side, and that the center of gravity
    is about a kilometer closer to earth.

    So basically, what I see, is conflicting reports.
    What conflicting information? The conflict appears to be in your interpretation.

    The Nasa site aslo says that the youngest moon rocks are as old as the
    oldest earth rocks.
    That sounds a bit evasive. Why not just say the moon is a billion
    years older than the earth?
    Because the two statements are not equivalent. The youngest moon rocks are older than the oldest Earth rocks, because the Earth has considerable geological activity that has obliterated the record of earlier rocks. The statement does not mean that the moon is older than the Earth.

    I am finding it very difficult to get a chart of moon rock ages.
    If anyone has a link I would appreciate it.
    I have some references at home (I am at work just now). I will find them when I get home.

    Is there no point form data of any kind?
    Describing what?

    At any rate, how on earth can a person make any sense out of such
    nonsense? With all these conflicting reports?
    Just do a search on google and you will see what I mean.
    Again, what conflict?

    At Nasa, on one hand they say that the moon rocks vary from the earth
    rocks in so many ways that there is no way they could be from anywhere
    else than the moon.

    Then somewhere else some one makes claim that the moon formed
    from the earth by an asteroid impact.
    Although there is no geological activity on the moon, there is no atmosphere either. This means that rocks on the moon are subject to micrometeoritic impacts and exposure to solar radiation & wind. It also appears that the moon formed from the debris from a large impact on the Earth some 4 billion years ago. They formed in an anhydrous, low-g environment. As such, even though they were made from terrestrial crustal material, they formed and evolved in a manner unlike any Earth rocks. This evolution allows geologists to identify the unique features of lunar rocks that distinguish them from Earth rocks.

    And then the moon does not spin on its axis, yet it became round
    how? It was hit on all sides by asteroids or what?
    It does spin on it's axis, roughly once per month. After formation, it span much faster, but became tidally locked due to the Earth's large tidal influence.

    And where are these lava flows and how does lava flow for 2,000 km
    without cooling or piling up?
    When your only form of cooling mechanism is rather inefficient radiation, I would imagine lava flows could extend a very long distance indeed. Particularly when there is obvious evidence of many lava tubes on the lunar surface.

    You know what I think?

    I think that it all a bunch of nonsense. That is what it looks like to me.
    Then I suggest you need to read up on it a little more.

    I mean if the moon, was placed on earth, in an ocean, it would float.
    Really? :-s Perhaps you might like to check the density of the moon and get back to us on that one.

    That is how light it is compared to earth.
    Be careful when quoting average densities on bodies that have undergone differentiation....

    And this, does not look like any sort of natural geological formation
    I could even imagine.
    With respect, but you are evidently not a geologist. I can show you numerous examples of landforms that look distinctly artificial. They are not. Nature is a wonderful sculptor.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    The lunar samples are not 'billions of years older' than the Earth. IIRC, the lunar samples date the moon to ~ 4 billion years old, whereas the Earth itself is around 4.6 billion years old. As was pointed out above, the moon rocks are dated earlier than terrestrial rocks, because the surface of the Earth is constantly recycled through tectonics. This did/does not occur on the moon. However, the moon is not older than the Earth.

    Well that is not what Nasa says. It says the youngest moon rocks, are
    as old, as the oldest earth rocks.
    http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lunar10.htm
    "3.The youngest Moon rocks are virtually as old as the oldest Earth
    rocks. "
    Now that is one obfuscating statement.

    quote:
    Also, the moon does spin on it's axis. It completes one rotation approximately each 28 days.

    You mean axis of rotation or planetary axis?

    Take a bolt through the moon to the center of the earth and rotate said
    bolt around the earth. Moon faces earth. I am always confused as the
    explanation as per that which you have given. Could you explain it
    simply for me, keeping in mind that I am not a specialist.

    quote:
    astronauts whilst drilling core samples, planting the flag etc, is due to the compaction of the regolith below a few centimetres - the very cohesiveness that allowed the astronauts to leave footprints also meant that the subsurface regolith compacted to a very solid material indeed.

    I see. The regolith. What is that? Is that like rock? Didn't they intend to
    drill into rock when they went there?

    quote:
    I have not studied the Aitken Basin in any detail, but two explanations immediately offer themselves as to why it might be shallow in comparison to it's radius. Perhaps the impact was sufficient to create a rift allowing mantle material to well up & fill the impact crater. Or perhaps the impact angle was acute, causing only a 'glancing' blow.

    Thankyou. It sure seems strange to me, that it didn't blow apart.
    The largest crater in the solar system. That must be one huge crater.

    Do you know of any good images of the north pole of the moon,
    which isn't in darkness? I mean with it well lit or taken with
    infrared or similar?


    Another example of these conflicting reports, is the link I provided
    where I said I haven't seen any geological square craters before,
    and in that link, they stated that the ground is reddish, unlike the
    surrounding terrain due to iron, and yet I go to a Nasa site,
    and they say there is no iron.

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980421c.html

    Is there iron on the moon?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
    I have some references at home (I am at work just now). I will find them when I get home.
    Thanks.

    Is there no point form data of any kind?
    quote:
    Describing what?

    Well describing the ages and composition of the moon rocks,
    for instance.

    I mean a central database that is in chart form or point form
    or similar?

    And then the moon does not spin on its axis, yet it became round
    how? It was hit on all sides by asteroids or what?
    quote:
    It does spin on it's axis, roughly once per month. After formation, it span much faster, but became tidally locked due to the Earth's large tidal influence.

    Well this one as I say, totally confuses me. In my bolt through the moon
    gedanken, I just don't see it spinning on its planetary axis.
    Could you explain it to me, or are you referring to a rotational
    axis around the earth? And if so, is that not very misleading?
    The fact that it rotates around the earth is well known for instance.

    And where are these lava flows and how does lava flow for 2,000 km
    without cooling or piling up?
    quote:
    When your only form of cooling mechanism is rather inefficient radiation, I would imagine lava flows could extend a very long distance indeed. Particularly when there is obvious evidence of many lava tubes on the lunar surface.

    I thought it was very cold in space? Don't things cool down fast in space?
    What is the temperature of the moon's surface when it is in shadow?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Sobie
    I just wanted to make a correction to my post regarding the mass cons...
    G'day Rick, welcome to the BABB!

    I just read on a Nasa website that there are more mass cons on the near side than on the far side, and that the center of gravity
    is about a kilometer closer to earth.

    So basically, what I see, is conflicting reports.
    Okay, as AGN Fuel said, the mascons are insignificant when it comes to determining the Moon's centre of gravity. They only affect spacecraft orbiting the Moon. The Moon's CoG is determined by the distribution and density of the various elements throughout its structure.

    The Nasa site aslo says that the youngest moon rocks are as old as the oldest earth rocks. That sounds a bit evasive. Why not just say the moon is a billion years older than the earth?
    Because that's not the case.

    The oldest rocks ever found on Earth are about 3.8 billion years old. The oldest things of any sort found on Earth are crystals embedded in other rocks. The crystals have been dated to about 4.2 billion years.

    The rocks found on the Moon are pretty much all more than 3 billion years old (I think). The oldest may be slightly older than the oldest rocks found on Earth, but there's no surprise with that.

    The reason is that the Moon's geology stopped about 3 billion years ago. By comparison, rocks are constantly being reborn on the Earth. Only in very old, stable continents (like Greeland and Australia) can you find very old rocks.

    The consensus among geologists is that both the Earth and Moon are about 4.6 billion years old. I'm sure you'll find articles to that effect at any university geology site you visit.

    I am finding it very difficult to get a chart of moon rock ages.
    If anyone has a link I would appreciate it.

    Is there no point form data of any kind?
    Sorry, I can't help you here.

    At any rate, how on earth can a person make any sense out of such nonsense? With all these conflicting reports?
    Just do a search on google and you will see what I mean.

    At Nasa, on one hand they say that the moon rocks vary from the earth
    rocks in so many ways that there is no way they could be from anywhere
    else than the moon.

    Then somewhere else some one makes claim that the moon formed
    from the earth by an asteroid impact.
    That's the difference between the origin of the Moon, and the origin of rocks on the Moon. The latest theory (almost universally accepted by the scientific community) is that the Moon formed from a giant impact well over 4 billion years ago. The material the Moon is made from comes mostly from the mantle of proto-Earth. However, the rocks of the Moon were formed in the Moon's environment (low gravity, no atmosphere, no water), which is distinctly different from the Earth's environment (higher gravity, an atmosphere and lots of water).

    And then the moon does not spin on its axis, yet it became round
    how? It was hit on all sides by asteroids or what?
    These are two different issues.

    The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of friction caused in the Earth by tides raised in it by the Moon. I can never explain it well, but I think there's info on this site which explains it (or provides links).

    The Moon is round because it's too large to be any other shape. Once an object is larger than a couple of hundred kilometres across, it deforms into a sphere under the influence of its own gravity.

    And where are these lava flows and how does lava flow for 2,000 km without cooling or piling up?
    A massive crater is caused by an impact which gouges out a hole so deep that it reaches liquid magma. The magma rises to fill the hole, like water filling a hole dug in wet ground.

    You know what I think? I think that it all a bunch of nonsense. That is what it looks like to me.
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but may I suggest that you read "The Big Splat" by Dana Mackenzie. It's all about the various theories for the Moon's origin, and explains which ones work, which don't, and why.

    I mean if the moon, was placed on earth, in an ocean, it would float. That is how light it is compared to earth.
    Er, no, it wouldn't. The density of the Moon is about 3 times that of water. The Earth's is about 5.5 times that of water. So the Moon is less dense than the Earth, but not less dense than water.

    And this, does not look like any sort of natural geological formation
    I could even imagine.

    http://www.rc-astro.com/solar_system...istarchus.html
    Do you mean the bright crater? It's probably very new (well, compared to the geology around it). A lunar geologist might care to comment.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,134
    "3.The youngest Moon rocks are virtually as old as the oldest Earth
    rocks. "
    Now that is one obfuscating statement.
    No, it's a statement you are misunderstanding. Nowhere does it say that the oldest Moon rocks are older than the oldest Earth rocks, see?

    You mean axis of rotation or planetary axis?
    Because it's tidally locked, it will rotate once on its axis in the time it takes to orbit Earth once.

    To understand this, take a basketball and an orange (two tennis balls would work two). Put a mark on one of them (smaller one if poss.). Now move the marked ball in a circle around the other, keeping the mark always facing the other ball. Notice how it has to rotate to maintain its face? That's what the moon does.

    I see. The regolith. What is that? Is that like rock? Didn't they intend to
    drill into rock when they went there?
    Lunar soil. Several inches of an extremely fine powder, caused by the effects of countless impacts (minute or larger) over many millenia in the absence of an atmosphere.

    I thought it was very cold in space? Don't things cool down fast in space?
    What is the temperature of the moon's surface when it is in shadow?
    That's a complicated question. Because we are in a vacuum, only two mechanisms of heat transfer apply (radiation, conduction - there is no air, which = no convection). So some things will heat up and cool down very slowly - some things are difficult to heat at all, and things perpetually in shadow can become extremely cold. Other posters can explain this one better.

    Is there iron on the moon?
    I know there was some excitement when Apollo astronauts found reddish soil on Luna, but I believe it was later discovered the soil contained no ferrous material. So no iron on the Moon.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Sobie
    quote:
    It does spin on it's axis, roughly once per month. After formation, it span much faster, but became tidally locked due to the Earth's large tidal influence.

    Well this one as I say, totally confuses me. In my bolt through the moon
    gedanken, I just don't see it spinning on its planetary axis.
    Could you explain it to me, or are you referring to a rotational
    axis around the earth? And if so, is that not very misleading?
    The fact that it rotates around the earth is well known for instance.


    The Moon completes one rotation on its axis in the same amount of time that it completes one orbit of the Earth. That's why it always has the same side facing the Earth. Try the same thing with a tennis ball around a globe of the Earth.

    I thought it was very cold in space? Don't things cool down fast in space? What is the temperature of the moon's surface when it is in shadow?
    A vacuum is a very good insulator (which is why vacuum flasks keep your coffee hot!). The only way the magma could cool would be by radiating the heat into space. Lava on Earth cools much faster because the atmosphere conducts the heat away as well.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,134
    I mean if the moon, was placed on earth, in an ocean, it would float. That is how light it is compared to earth.
    Er, no, it wouldn't. The density of the Moon is about 3 times that of water. The Earth's is about 5.5 times that of water. So the Moon is less dense than the Earth, but not less dense than water.
    I think Saturn is the object you're thinking of - it'd float in your pool (if the pool were large enough)...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Aw crikey, the three Aussies combine! Beauty, ripper, bonzer!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,134
    Strewth - you're right!

    Stone the crows, it must be that time of the day, eh cobber?!?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    And this, does not look like any sort of natural geological formation
    I could even imagine.

    http://www.rc-astro.com/solar_system...istarchus.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter B
    Do you mean the bright crater? It's probably very new (well, compared to the geology around it). A lunar geologist might care to comment.
    No I mean it is rectangular is it not? The brown area. How on earth does
    a rectangular section get there? I know what people will say, and that is
    that it is a lava flow.

    But it is rectangular. And not even the same color as the surrounding area.
    Yet the mare surrounding it is a lava flow and it is dark or so the story
    goes.

    On the site they say it is reddish due to iron, and yet Nasa says there
    is no iron, except perhaps the smallest tiny core.

    Does it not look odd to you? Is it just me? I mean I am not turning
    into a minion of Hoagland am I?

    I mean if I start putting up websites like this...
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm
    I just don't know what I'll do.

    These masscons, are they stabilizers? I mean do they act to stabilize
    the rotating non spinning on its axis moon and if so, then are they
    so evenly distributed to offset the thicker crust on the far side
    of the moon and how thick is the crust on the far side compared to
    the near side and wouldn't that cause some instability and at least
    cause it to spin a bit, seeing as how it is going around at what? 86,000
    mph or some very fast speed?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by freddo
    To understand this, take a basketball and an orange (two tennis balls would work two). Put a mark on one of them (smaller one if poss.). Now move the marked ball in a circle around the other, keeping the mark always facing the other ball. Notice how it has to rotate to maintain its face? That's what the moon does.
    I see what you are saying. Now try my gedanken and put a bolt
    through the moon to the center of the earth, and make the bolt
    go round the earth. Where is this spin on the moon's axis when
    it has a bolt through it preventing it from spinning?

    I just came across a beautiful picture of the moon, on the same site
    as that square crater.
    http://www.rc-astro.com/solar_system...moon_full.html

    Below the moon image is a larger image
    http://www.rc-astro.com/solar_system..._3000x3000.jpg

    and it truly is a wonderful picture of the moon. But as I was looking at it,
    something caught my eye.

    And now I am suspicious again.

    I clipped it, and it is here if anyone is interested in why Hoagland
    carries on as he does. I think it looks odd thats all.

    http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/triangle.jpg

    But this one, this one makes me think that there must be something
    strange about the moon beyond what we are told.
    Call me somewhat conspiritorial in nature and perhaps I am ,
    but this sure looks like emmergency foam that might be
    deployed to seal a breach in the hull of a moonship.

    And from Naval Space Command no less.

    http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...img/hires.html

    Anyways, I might as well be honest with you. I am writing a kook book.

    You know, "DON"T GO WITH THEM! ITS A KOOK BOOK!!!"

    http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/default.htm

    I welcome any comments.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Sobie
    No I mean it is rectangular is it not? The brown area. How on earth does a rectangular section get there? I know what people will say, and that is that it is a lava flow.

    But it is rectangular. And not even the same color as the surrounding area.
    Yet the mare surrounding it is a lava flow and it is dark or so the story
    goes.

    On the site they say it is reddish due to iron, and yet Nasa says there
    is no iron, except perhaps the smallest tiny core.

    Does it not look odd to you? Is it just me? I mean I am not turning
    into a minion of Hoagland am I?
    Yeah, I agree, it looks odd. But I'm not a lunar geologist, so I'm not going to speculate.

    I mean if I start putting up websites like this...
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm
    I just don't know what I'll do.


    These masscons, are they stabilizers? I mean do they act to stabilize the rotating non spinning on its axis moon and if so, then are they
    so evenly distributed to offset the thicker crust on the far side
    of the moon and how thick is the crust on the far side compared to
    the near side and wouldn't that cause some instability and at least
    cause it to spin a bit, seeing as how it is going around at what? 86,000
    mph or some very fast speed?
    Rick, as AGN Fuel has already pointed out, the effect of the mascons on the Moon itself is insignificant. They only affect objects orbiting the Moon (like Apollo spacecraft).

    The speed the Moon travels around the Earth is under 2,000 km/h. It's orbital radius is about 380,000 kilometres, so the orbital circumference is about 1.2 million kilometres. It covers this distance in about 28.5 days, which makes for an orbital velocity of about 1800 km/h. (Can anyone confirm my maths, please?)

    In any case, they wouldn't cause the Moon to spontaneously spin. The tidal locking is caused by more massive forces - the tidal drag of the Moon on the Earth's oceans over billions of years.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Sobie
    Quote Originally Posted by freddo
    To understand this, take a basketball and an orange (two tennis balls would work two). Put a mark on one of them (smaller one if poss.). Now move the marked ball in a circle around the other, keeping the mark always facing the other ball. Notice how it has to rotate to maintain its face? That's what the moon does.
    I see what you are saying. Now try my gedanken and put a bolt
    through the moon to the center of the earth, and make the bolt
    go round the earth. Where is this spin on the moon's axis when
    it has a bolt through it preventing it from spinning?
    It doesn't work like that, Rick.

    The Earth completes one rotation on its axis in 1 day. The Moon completes an orbit of the Earth in 28.5 days.

    In the example you're describing, you're making the Moon complete an orbit of the Earth in the same time that it takes the Earth to complete one rotation on its axis (that is, one day). That doesn't happen.

Similar Threads

  1. Hollow Moon
    By Tandem in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-16, 01:49 AM
  2. Moon is hollow (I met a woo-woo)
    By breeze in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-29, 12:25 AM
  3. Is the moon hollow?
    By cheekychap in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2005-Jun-09, 11:11 PM
  4. hollow moon...
    By bunny in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-05, 04:19 PM
  5. Hollow Moon, eh?
    By BigJim in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-07, 06:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •