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

[Harry Dresden]

Another meaningless post from the science denying moron.

so where is your MEANINGFUL scientific post?.....or are you going to run to another thread like you usually do?.....or will you throw something in that has nothing to do with the post at hand and then vanish,another thing you do quite well....but other than that.....show us how stupid you appear to be about this stuff....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, the posters flaming me have no idea that the Moon rings for hours whenever it's impacted. That would make sense, because if you knew that the Moon resonates for hours after an impact you would not make the blanket statement "the Moon is not hollow"

 

[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

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?

It was spinning rapidly, pushing the heavier elements to the surface...then what happened, did the batteries run out? Take a look, it's not spinning at all! Pretty weird considering its violent birth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another meaningless post from the science denying moron.

Hey, Stymie, it's the science itself that makes the current theories of the Moon idiotic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The best explanation for the Moon is observational error - the Moon does not exist." -- Irwin Shapiro of MIT and The Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

 

[American Horse]

It was spinning rapidly, pushing the heavier elements to the surface...then what happened, did the batteries run out? Take a look, it's not spinning at all! Pretty weird considering its violent birth.

Frank, try this:
In the earliest solar accretion event the heaviest elements accreted first out of the gas/dust cloud creating heavy cores in the planets

In the secondary event – the Earth/lesser body collision - the heavy central core of the lesser body sank and became a part of Earth's core, the lighter material mixed with the surface of the Earth and flew on into Earth orbit as a cloud of lighter material accreting in orbit around the Earth.

As I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only problem we have is that it is believed that the heaviest elements are at the surface rather than in the core of the moon. The collision event is very early in the Earth/Moon formation process. There was plenty of time for heavy elements to have collided and accumulated on and becoming a part of Luna's outer surface, and stabilized there.

Therefore, the debris blown out of both Earth and the impactor came from their iron-depleted, rocky mantles. The iron core of the impactor melted on impact and merged with the iron core of Earth (From the models which develop from mathematical formulae – the same formulae that give us all other explanations for time and space)

I find developing possible scientific explanations far more fascinating and satisfying than taking short-cuts involving processes we have never seen before.

Some things we know:
FACT - Earth has a mean density of 5.5 grams/cubic centimeter, but the moon has a density of only 3.3 g/cc. The reason is the same, that the moon lacks iron.

FACT - The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions. This shows that the moon formed form material formed in Earth's neighborhood.

FACT – The moon year and day are the same – it is tidally locked – This situation prevails with all Jupiter’s and Saturn’s nearer satellites. In the Earth/Luna collision theory the moon accreted in orbit about 14,000 miles from Earth, and has been moving away ever since. At that distance it would’ve become tidally locked quickly.

BTW Frank, I am not flaming you; I hope I am engaging you

 

[midcan5]

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.....

Sure thing, and each year the Easter Bunny and Santa arrive to fill the heads of children with mystery and magic and gifts too. Oh but that Great Pumpkin, not sure if Linus is ever going to see him. Have you?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8P5ujNwEwM[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Approaching the speed of light is not so simple. Right now, you are talking atomic particles potentially meeting that speed. Once you get to metals and mechanical and electrical systems all hell will break loose as you reach those speeds.

A biological system travelling at that speed would be destroyed

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sure thing, and each year the Easter Bunny and Santa arrive to fill the heads of children with mystery and magic and gifts too. Oh but that Great Pumpkin, not sure if Linus is ever going to see him. Have you?

prove me wrong hotshot....show me some facts that say there is no life anywhere else but here......when you do that then you can say what your saying about me....until that time i can still say you are just another closed minded used dildo......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Approaching the speed of light is not so simple. Right now, you are talking atomic particles potentially meeting that speed. Once you get to metals and mechanical and electrical systems all hell will break loose as you reach those speeds.

A biological system travelling at that speed would be destroyed

you do realize RW that a hell of alot of physicists think that it is theoretically possible to travel faster than light... or are you another close minded individual like that other dipshit (Midcant) who just proves with every post how ******* close minded he is with his 15th century way of thinking.....of course his relatives no doubt laughed at Galileo...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was spinning rapidly, pushing the heavier elements to the surface...then what happened, did the batteries run out? Take a look, it's not spinning at all! Pretty weird considering its violent birth.

Frank, try this:
In the earliest solar accretion event the heaviest elements accreted first out of the gas/dust cloud creating heavy cores in the planets

In the secondary event – the Earth/lesser body collision - the heavy central core of the lesser body sank and became a part of Earth's core, the lighter material mixed with the surface of the Earth and flew on into Earth orbit as a cloud of lighter material accreting in orbit around the Earth.

As I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only problem we have is that it is believed that the heaviest elements are at the surface rather than in the core of the moon. The collision event is very early in the Earth/Moon formation process. There was plenty of time for heavy elements to have collided and accumulated on and becoming a part of Luna's outer surface, and stabilized there.

Therefore, the debris blown out of both Earth and the impactor came from their iron-depleted, rocky mantles. The iron core of the impactor melted on impact and merged with the iron core of Earth (From the models which develop from mathematical formulae – the same formulae that give us all other explanations for time and space)

I find developing possible scientific explanations far more fascinating and satisfying than taking short-cuts involving processes we have never seen before.

Some things we know:
FACT - Earth has a mean density of 5.5 grams/cubic centimeter, but the moon has a density of only 3.3 g/cc. The reason is the same, that the moon lacks iron.

FACT - The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions. This shows that the moon formed form material formed in Earth's neighborhood.

FACT – The moon year and day are the same – it is tidally locked – This situation prevails with all Jupiter’s and Saturn’s nearer satellites. In the Earth/Luna collision theory the moon accreted in orbit about 14,000 miles from Earth, and has been moving away ever since. At that distance it would’ve become tidally locked quickly.

BTW Frank, I am not flaming you; I hope I am engaging you

I don't feel flamed at well. Very well thought out response.

The Moon's density of 3.3/g is due to the fact that its an artificial satellite mostly hollow on the inside which also accounts for its resonance when impacted.

I have nothing to counter the Impact Argument except that ever cell in my body scream out how wrong it is.

The Oxygen isotopes do indicate that Moon was formed in the same vicinity as Earth but the hollowness, the fact that it was built to be the same apparent size as our Sun, that the 16 mile long triangle in the circle at Ukert Crater almost dead center of the Moonside that faces us, and extra gravitational force of the mesons tend to indicate that it was built in situ by a technology that is only science fiction to us.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

That is correct. But what it will supply is far, far more valuable than gold, or any material at all. What it will supply will be information, and a platform for further exploration. Which will supply us with even more information, data, and knowledge.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, the posters flaming me have no idea that the Moon rings for hours whenever it's impacted. That would make sense, because if you knew that the Moon resonates for hours after an impact you would not make the blanket statement "the Moon is not hollow"

Frank, the Earth is not hollow, yet the seismic waves from the Great Alaska Quake of 1994 rang around the earth for many, many days.

The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964

Seismic Waves
In addition to damage in the epicentral region immediately following the quake, long period seismic waves traveled around the earth for several weeks. Basically the whole earth vibrated (rang) like a church bell during this time. States as far away as Texas and Florida were affected with vertical motions of up to 5 to 10 cm.

 

[Old Rocks]

Approaching the speed of light is not so simple. Right now, you are talking atomic particles potentially meeting that speed. Once you get to metals and mechanical and electrical systems all hell will break loose as you reach those speeds.

A biological system travelling at that speed would be destroyed

you do realize RW that a hell of alot of physicists think that it is theoretically possible to travel faster than light... or are you another close minded individual like that other dipshit (Midcant) who just proves with every post how ******* close minded he is with his 15th century way of thinking.....of course his relatives no doubt laughed at Galileo...

Yes, Tachyons are possible in some theoretical constructs. However, none that I have heard of have any way of crossing over from here to there.

Right now, by all the physics that we can actualy perform observations or experiment on, the speed of light is unobtainable. However, that is not to say that another Einstein will not point out what we are not seeing tomorrow.

But, by todays science, the speed limit is well below light speed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Right now, by all the physics that we can actualy perform observations or experiment on, the speed of light is unobtainable. However, that is not to say that another Einstein will not point out what we are not seeing tomorrow.

and thats all im trying to point out here Rocks is that as man ventures further and explores further and discovers new things, traveling from here to there might be VERY possible.....its just trying to get people with minds like the people who opposed the great thinkers of the Renaissance to open up a little....and there have been a few in this thread....but even though we very seldom agree in the political threads,in the science threads Rocks, i find that you are a very reasonable guy with an open enough mind to at least admit,that a hell of a lot of things are possible.....and exploration of space is one way to unlock those secrets....we clash politically....but in the science threads you bring alot to the table,and i can appreciate that....

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>
The Moon's density of 3.3/g is due to the fact that its an artificial satellite mostly hollow on the inside which also accounts for its resonance when impacted.

I have nothing to counter the Impact Argument except that ever cell in my body scream out how wrong it is.

The Oxygen isotopes do indicate that Moon was formed in the same vicinity as Earth but the hollowness, the fact that it was built to be the same apparent size as our Sun, that the 16 mile long triangle in the circle at Ukert Crater almost dead center of the Moonside that faces us, and extra gravitational force of the mesons tend to indicate that it was built in situ by a technology that is only science fiction to us.

The &#8220;hollowness&#8221; of the moon has not been determined as fact, only theorized. Few serious scientists would posit such a claim, seeing the facts as much as they are known as evidence for the need of further research.

The apparent size of the moon and the sun is the happy result of the coincidence of the sun being both 400 (a convenient approximation) times as large and 400 times more distant than the moon is from the Earth, a case of simple geometry. That has not always been the case and it won't always be. In 5.7 million years &#8211; but a moment in geological and astronomical time &#8211; the moon will only be half the apparent size of the sun, and just 5.7 x 2 million years in the past it was twice the apparent size of sun in the sky.

The 16 mile long triangle in Ukert Crater, aside from the uniqueness of it being a triangle, is also a coincidence. There is a hexagonal shaped object on Saturn&#8217;s North pole, also a coincidence. These are mysteries, but we&#8217;ll have to leave their disposition to planetologists, physicists and cosmologists. You and I can be sure they are working on these and others, maybe not as directly as we&#8217;d like to get at the answers, but through them we will.

What you call &#8220;the extra gravitational force of the mesons" and what they tend to indicate is not clear to me, but if you are referring to the fact that the moon&#8217;s center of mass is offset from its geometric center to the Earth side, I would suspect that, like the Earth, at one time the core of the moon moved around inside it and settled to the side that ultimately faced the Earth because of gravitational attraction. When, soon after its creation, the moon was much closer to the Earth, only about 14,000. miles (at which time the moon would have had 15 times the apparent size of the sun or about 8-degrees of arc) - there was a massive amount of gravitational tiding to distort the moon and its core, probably accounting for a lot of early volcanic activity. There are signs of some sort of activity still today.

BTW &#8211; somewhere it was said that the moon has a circular orbit around the Earth. This is not so. As old as it is, its orbit is still very eccentric with a distance from Earth at perigee of just over 221,000 and at apogee of just over 251,000. It might be pointed out here that at perigee the moon&#8217;s apparent size is larger, and at apogee the moon&#8217;s apparent size is smaller than the sun, with equal apparent size only at the mid point of about 232,000 miles. To the naked eye the moon appears about the same size at all times except when close to the horizon, but in a scope the difference between what you see at apogee and perigee is profound.

You and I can agree on one thing - There are complexities and mysteries through-out our planetary system, and even on Earth. As of now, there are things we have only the vaguest ideas about. We also have brilliant people all over the world working on them, hoping to be the one whose name goes down in history as a Gamow, a Herschel or a Hubble.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sure thing, and each year the Easter Bunny and Santa arrive to fill the heads of children with mystery and magic and gifts too. Oh but that Great Pumpkin, not sure if Linus is ever going to see him. Have you?

prove me wrong hotshot....show me some facts that say there is no life anywhere else but here......when you do that then you can say what your saying about me....until that time i can still say you are just another closed minded used dildo......

hey MidCANT.....what happened?.....you cant come up with anything?.....no quotes from your heroes?....no more condescending talk to us inferiors?.....one thing you and Charlie Brown have in common.....your both losers....

 

[Avatar4321]

Looked through the pictures... not sure what supposedly looks odd but then im not an expert in those areas.

I think it would be amusing if there was life on the moon. Especially since science has been telling us for years it hasnt.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, science has not been saying that the moon does not have life on it. What they have been saying is that conditions there preclude life as we know it.

Now there is the chance that material from the Earth and other planets could have biological life, single celled life, in stasis. And that material could be laying on the moon. Well protected at the bottom of a crater.

But for life native to the moon, not by any process that we know of at present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right now, by all the physics that we can actualy perform observations or experiment on, the speed of light is unobtainable. However, that is not to say that another Einstein will not point out what we are not seeing tomorrow.

and thats all im trying to point out here Rocks is that as man ventures further and explores further and discovers new things, traveling from here to there might be VERY possible.....its just trying to get people with minds like the people who opposed the great thinkers of the Renaissance to open up a little....and there have been a few in this thread....but even though we very seldom agree in the political threads,in the science threads Rocks, i find that you are a very reasonable guy with an open enough mind to at least admit,that a hell of a lot of things are possible.....and exploration of space is one way to unlock those secrets....we clash politically....but in the science threads you bring alot to the table,and i can appreciate that....

I literaly grew up on the Astounding/Analog, Galaxy, Science Fiction and Fantasy magazines. The ideas of hyperspace, warp drive, ect. are hardly alien to me. However, at present, I see no evidence that we have ever been visited. Unless we find an artifact such as in Larry Niven's storys, I don't see any evidence of alien visitation.