Moon Anomalies: Bet you $1 none of these pictures will ever get enhanced

[uscitizen]

Hilarious.

The Moon is at least 1 billion years older than the Earth and there is no coherent theory that explains what its doing orbiting Earth in the first place.

How can that be? The earth is only 5000 years old.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Can't argue that point with you because it's true but in my humble opinion the space program is still a big wasted project.

glad your not in charge of our science programs.........just sayin...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Was Moon Born From Planet's Crash Into Earth? LOL

Yeah, there's a question mark at the end because even after years of observation and all we know about celestial mechanics, the theory that explains how something as large as the Moon came into a non-revolutionary orbit around a planet where it just so happens to be the exact same apparent size as the sun is still not convincing.

This sounds a lot like the theory of how dinosaurs turned into hydrocarbons that provides me hours of laughter daily.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have no trouble with the possibilities that Mars and the Moon were each inhabited and that the Moon may even be an artificial satellite.

 

[asaratis]

Hilarious.

The Moon is at least 1 billion years older than the Earth and there is no coherent theory that explains what its doing orbiting Earth in the first place.

Wrong on all counts, Frank.

Was Moon Born From Planet's Crash Into Earth?

The article is interesting. I believe the issue regarding rotational speed of the earth can be explained by the timing of the collision. The earth's iron had migrated to the center, leaving less dense materials near the surface. The glancing blow by the colliding body tore of matter that was lacking in iron. The actual densities and distribution of heavy elements were likely not sufficiently matched in the computer model. Lighter matter at the surface and a heavy core would cause less kinetic energy to be transferred to the stationary body by such a collision, hence less change in rotational speed.

In one model, the mass of the Earth was right, as was the composition of the moon. But the Earth's rotation rate after the collision was unrealistically fast. An improbable second impact would have been required to slow the Earth's spin.

A second scenario suggested that the impact occurred when Earth was only half formed. That idea better explained the Earth's modern rate of rotation and the moon's orbit, but it required Earth to continue accumulating matter after the impact. That material would have been rich in iron, which composes 30 percent of Earth's mass. But the moon, which contains almost no iron, would have simultaneously absorbed similarly iron-rich rock. The model offers no way to explain the moon's confounding dearth of iron.

LOL. Was Moon Born From Planet's Crash Into Earth? LOL

Yeah, there's a question mark at the end because even after years of observation and all we know about celestial mechanics, the theory that explains how something as large as the Moon came into a non-revolutionary orbit around a planet where it just so happens to be the exact same apparent size as the sun is still not convincing.

This sounds a lot like that dinosaurs turned into hydrocarbons theory that provides me hours of laughter daily.

The moon's facing us always is a result of some effect that I'll have to google to remember.

I have no trouble with the possibilities that Mars and the Moon were each inhabited and that the Moon may even be an artificial satellite.

Here's a NASA photo that was recently smuggled from the Vault of Secret Photos We Must Never Let the Public See by a disgruntled employee.

 

[AllieBaba]

Does anyone besides me think the star-shaped thing looks like the ninja/jujitsu/martial arts stars?

Is Bruce Lee on the moon?

 

[xsited1]

The facts speak for themselves:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0[/ame]

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I can't pick out a more useless idea then to keep shooting stuff into space with the idea of someday traveling there, setting up colonies, and all of the other stuff.

Expansion and survival, pure and simple. That's the reason to do this.

We've been lucky so far, but one day one of the many possible mass extinction events will take place on Earth. Maybe it will be an asteroid impact. Maybe it will be the Yellowstone caldera erupting. Maybe a large celestial boy will pass by on a near impact and gravity will wipe the surface of Earth clean. Maybe solar eruptions will extinguish life on Earth.....

You get the idea.

Eventually, something cataclysmic will happen, and the only way we survive is if we're ready to leave for places distant, or if we already live there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone besides me think the star-shaped thing looks like the ninja/jujitsu/martial arts stars?

Is Bruce Lee on the moon?

The star shaped thing is the only readily explainable thing on the photo: it's on the film and used to measure where items are on the picture.

The Shard and the blur on the horizon further back have no natural explanation

 

[rightwinger]

I can't pick out a more useless idea then to keep shooting stuff into space with the idea of someday traveling there, setting up colonies, and all of the other stuff.

Expansion and survival, pure and simple. That's the reason to do this.

We've been lucky so far, but one day one of the many possible mass extinction events will take place on Earth. Maybe it will be an asteroid impact. Maybe it will be the Yellowstone caldera erupting. Maybe a large celestial boy will pass by on a near impact and gravity will wipe the surface of Earth clean. Maybe solar eruptions will extinguish life on Earth.....

You get the idea.

Eventually, something cataclysmic will happen, and the only way we survive is if we're ready to leave for places distant, or if we already live there.

The fact remains that even if the moon were made out of solid gold it would not be worth the cost of sending people up there to mine it and bring it back

 

[Douger]

Hilarious.

The Moon is at least 1 billion years older than the Earth and there is no coherent theory that explains what its doing orbiting Earth in the first place.

Just how old do you think the Moon is, Frank? How about the Earth? You're making claims, put up the numbers and your sources. I need a good laugh.

According to Palin and Bush it's just under 6,010
They were told that by Johnny Asskroft who said it through the Lord, you know Him, with the big h, who gave them the message in Holy tongues. Capital h again.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The fact remains that even if the moon were made out of solid gold it would not be worth the cost of sending people up there to mine it and bring it back

You missed the point. It isn't about going and coming back. Its about going. Period.

The neat thing is that we should be able to build ships that could get to reasonable percentages of c, which triggers time distortions thanks to relativity. That makes a trip out to a habitable system realistic. Thanks to the fact that machines could handle the forces from acceleration better than people, you could even work up a realistic terraforming scenario to make a planet ready when you get there.

Of course, thanks to the universal speed limit, a round trip is kinda questionable, but I'd imagine that if you could find a decent place to live some folks would volunteer for the trip.

Once we can go, we can have an actual chance of surviving if something truly cataclysmic happens.

 

[midcan5]

Hilarious.

The Moon is at least 1 billion years older than the Earth and there is no coherent theory that explains what its doing orbiting Earth in the first place.

Interesting that you demonstrate the same lack of knowledge in science as you do in the political sphere. The fourth theory noted in link below is the best one and probably the reason we exist at all. The 'Universe' on the 'History Channel' has had some great shows on this topic.

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/earth_moon.html

I also found it interesting that some here, given their political beliefs, believe in the alien came and went myths. Given the distances involved aliens are too much of a stretch for me. See #51 in discussion below.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nspiracy-theorist-question-4.html#post1744238

 

[Harry Dresden]

I also found it interesting that some here, given their political beliefs, believe in the alien came and went myths. Given the distances involved aliens are too much of a stretch for me. See #51 in discussion below.

so some civilization much older than us, centuries more advanced,could not come up with a way to bend space and cover those distances in weeks if not months?.....so you can only go so far with intellect....and then thats it?......given your political beliefs,i think you have just proved you are not only a closed minded asshole....your also not a very bright one.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hilarious.

The Moon is at least 1 billion years older than the Earth and there is no coherent theory that explains what its doing orbiting Earth in the first place.

Interesting that you demonstrate the same lack of knowledge in science as you do in the political sphere. The fourth theory noted in link below is the best one and probably the reason we exist at all. The 'Universe' on the 'History Channel' has had some great shows on this topic.

Earth's Moon

I also found it interesting that some here, given their political beliefs, believe in the alien came and went myths. Given the distances involved aliens are too much of a stretch for me. See #51 in discussion below.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nspiracy-theorist-question-4.html#post1744238

Yeah, whatever.

You cling to your myths about "Fossil Fuels" and the Moon being a barren, natural satellite that was never inhabited.

I tried to tell you, that's all I can do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, the "Moon was formed when a Mars Size Planet crashing into Earth" Theory does not account for:

1. How Earth kept its oceans

2. Why the Moon is apparently hollow (it rings like a bell for hours whenever impacted. Weird, no? I mean for a solid, natural body.)

3. Why the Moon has heavier elements on its surface than in its core

4. and finally, "...scientists have recently found 4 billion-year-old minerals in Australia that suggest our planet was too cool to have sustained a cataclysmic moon-forming impact early in its history."

Oopsies.

Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History : Discovery News

 

[asaratis]

Oh, the "Moon was formed when a Mars Size Planet crashing into Earth" Theory does not account for:

1. How Earth kept its oceans

The oceans had not formed prior to the collision.

2. Why the Moon is apparently hollow (it rings like a bell for hours whenever impacted. Weird, no? I mean for a solid, natural body.)

The moon is not hollow.

3. Why the Moon has heavier elements on its surface than in its core

When it first formed, it was spinning rapidly. Centrifugal force drove the heavier elements to the surface...the moon cooled rapidly, causing solidification of the mass with the heavy elements near the surface.

4. and finally, "...scientists have recently found 4 billion-year-old minerals in Australia that suggest our planet was too cool to have sustained a cataclysmic moon-forming impact early in its history."

Oopsies.

Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History : Discovery News

Timing is crucial. Are you sure the collision happened less than 4 billion years ago?

 

[American Horse]

Oh, the "Moon was formed when a Mars Size Planet crashing into Earth" Theory does not account for:

Oh, the "Moon was formed when a Mars Size Planet crashing into Earth" Theory does not account for:

1. How Earth kept its oceans

2. Why the Moon is apparently hollow (it rings like a bell for hours whenever impacted. Weird, no? I mean for a solid, natural body.)

3. Why the Moon has heavier elements on its surface than in its core

4. and finally, "...scientists have recently found 4 billion-year-old minerals in Australia that suggest our planet was too cool to have sustained a cataclysmic moon-forming impact early in its history."

Oopsies.

1. The current theory is that at the time of the impact the Earth was 50-million years old. If it had had time to form oceans at that age, then it would have been able to form them again at an age 450-million years more advanced, or at 4-billion years ago (in item 4), rather than for tthe Earth to have "kept" them.

2. The moon, whether it “rings” or not is not hollow; we know this because the weight is calculable from its gravity which is one 6th of earths. While it is not as dense as Earth, there is no indication that it is hollow. The ringing mentioned, from what I’ve read is not to imply that the moon is hollow, but that the core of the moon is solid and not molten, which would attest to why it does not have a magnetic field.

Ringing rocks in Pennsylvania ring like a bell when struck

3. Clearly, there are strange moon facts, and we may not have the correct theory to completely explain its origins even now. Just as on Earth, all the geological artifacts indicate something about the moons past, if not it’s origins. On Earth, a person doesn’t have to drive more than 50 miles to find something that challenges science to explain. I can point out 3 within 50 miles of my own home base in Southern Indiana; one of which I put the question to a Geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey at IU, and he finally had to say that "we don't know enough about the conditions during the last ice age" that I pressed him about.

4. Four billion year old minerals (in Australia) would be samples from an Earth 500 (to 600) million years old, at which age the impact that had created the moon would’ve happened 450 million years earlier. If it was too cool at that advanced age to have cooled enough to reach those temperatures, then it would’ve been too hot 50-million years after Earth's birth to have developed oceans; and if it could’ve been expected to have cooled enough in 50-million years to have oceans, then it’s reasonable for it to have cooled off from an impact (when it was a 50-million year old Earth) by the time it was 500 million years old.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Another meaningless post from the science denying moron.

 

[asaratis]

Another meaningless post from the science denying moron.

To which post do you refer? The OP or subsequent displays of ignorance?