It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did the "moon ring like a bell" when anything landed on it? Not only American aircraft but Rus

page: 9
46
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
Everything we know about physics can't be wrong (the emphasis on the word "everything"). We've been sucessfully using Kepler's laws of celestial motion (which are over a hundred years old)


More like 400 years old! But your point is totally valid. There seems to be some kind of misconception that old science is totally invalid and has been thrown out by modern discoveries. In most cases it hasn't. Theories get refined and updated, but when it comes to planetary motion (which is a heck of a lot simpler than trying to model motion of the atmospheres or oceans here on Earth!) we have pretty much had it nailed for hundreds of years.

Edmund Halley was able to predict the appearance of a solar eclipse to within four minutes right back in 1715.




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I find it both saddening and madenning that people who distrust and/or don't understand science refuse to even try to get some understanding about what it is they don't get/like.

These same people will invariably insist that others 'wake up' and 'join the dots', preferably by watching 3 hour youtube videos with spooky music and complaints about 'Them'.

Here we have an entire thread born out of a misconstrued metaphor, and the response to people explaining actual measured and verifiable facts seems mostly to be "you're just using big words to confuse me and trying to make me learn stuff'.

Knowledge and learning is not a secret. The only person shutting the door to it is you.
edit on 6-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
looks left...

looks right...

because "ringing like a kazoo" doesn't make any sense at all?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

But yet you have 0 idea what they will know 100 years in the future. Or what technology will bring to the world and what discoveries will be made because of it. Look the rate of technological innovation is moving so fast it totally mind bending. I personally said many times. I do not discount Science at all. It has simply been wrong about a vast amount of things over time. What we think we know about the Universe and Moon will be totally laughed at 100 years from now that is basically fact.


Einsteins theories have been being picked apart now for the last 15 years or so. The idea light has a constant speed is very much under dispute. Many people think light can travel faster than 186,000 mp second. Or can manipulated so as to do so.

I remember reading a renowned physicist who said. " there are maybe 7 or 8 people in the world who actually understand the theory of relativity. Everyone else is just talking out their a$$."
edit on 6-6-2014 by GArnold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Please do not get me twisted. I love Science. I respect it and admire the discoveries made. "Knowledge is power". "Those who do not understand History are doomed to repeat it". My point is just the facts that there seem to be a lot of know it all Science tards on this thread who take great pleasure in trying to belittle and make others feel stupid. The reality is Science has been wrong countless times about countless things. Yes we may think we understand the Moon and its origin and Mars and the Sun. The fact is 100 years from now we will understand magnitudes more about these things. What we think we know could in fact be totally wrong. As far as I know Math is not really Science. Physics is not Science. You take it as a math subject. Much of what we know about Math is not in dispute by people. The origin of say Mars or the Moon is in fact in great dispute. My Mom is a Scientist. My Dad is a mathematician who wrote his Ph.D on light theory. I totally respect Science. I just think we need to be realistic about the limitations.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: GArnold

All of which is a fair point. But I am pretty certain that in 100 years science will not be saying that the moon is hollow, or is an artificial alien base, or some of the more outlandish theories on this thread! That is what the scientists are scoffing at - obviously false theories. Nobody is trying to claim that we know everything there is to know about the moon and its history. But we do know that it's natural, and solid!



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Again.. I never said either of those things. I knew people would. I just was throwing out some questions I had that I wanted others opinions on.

I do not pretend to know or have the answers.

One question I have is if this planet Theia did in fact impact the Earth with enough force to disintegrate why is there not a place on Earth you can point to and say "Ok yea something massive hit the Earth". There does not seem to be a impact site. Yet this theory is being discussed in the Journal Science.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: GArnold

The impact would have melted a large part of Earth's crust (if not all of it), so the molten rock would have erased any crater. It's like throwing a rock into a deep pool of thick mud - it leaves a crater for a few moments, but then it is smoothed over by the mud. Perhaps there is some trace deep on the ocean floor, and we've explored the deep ocean less that we have explored the Moon.

As for science having been wrong in the past, yes it was. So what of it? Many tenets stand through time. If you walk of a cliff, you know you're gonna fall, due to gravity. It's not gonna suddenly disappear one day, letting you hover over nothing or shoot up into space. If you run into a concrete wall, it's gonna stop you in your tracks, with some very painful results. It's not gonna suddenly let you through one day (unless the future scientists develop technology to do so).

Some of what we think now will be proven totally wrong in the future, but many other things stand the test of time. I brought up many examples in the thread, yet you seem to ignore them. The modern world wouldn't be able to function if scientists were wrong all the time.

Einstein's theories are being refined, not disproven. We are still finding more and more evidence supporting Relativity. Even Newton's laws, hundreds of years old, are still valid in every-day life.

Serious, dude, do you watch the Cosmos series? It is an excellent presentation of the history of science and of how, although being wrong in the past about many things, the scientific progress leads us closer and closer to understanding the universe and how it works.

Sorry, but the "scientists are always wrong" tagline seems lazy and ignorant, especially when it's used as an excuse to subscribe to various conspiracy/alternative/pseudo-scientific theories. (just a general observation, not levelled at you personally)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

again I never said Science is always wrong. I said it has been wrong about a vast number of things. Physics is math. Math is not really in dispute. Science is constantly evolving has has been drastically wrong in the past. Apparently you did not read I am not discounting Science. I personally love Science. I think we need to be realistic about how accurate it has been and the potential we can be vastly wrong now. That is all I am suggesting. I could be dead wrong. The History of Science and innovation makes me think I am not. I am not saying your wrong or anyone is. I think potentially you could be. You didn't do the experiments. You don't really know the equipment involved. And you certainly do not know what the future of technology or innovation has in store. Please stop twisting what I say. I am not misquoting you am I?00



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: GArnold
a reply to: Rob48

Again.. I never said either of those things. I knew people would. I just was throwing out some questions I had that I wanted others opinions on.

I do not pretend to know or have the answers.

One question I have is if this planet Theia did in fact impact the Earth with enough force to disintegrate why is there not a place on Earth you can point to and say "Ok yea something massive hit the Earth". There does not seem to be a impact site. Yet this theory is being discussed in the Journal Science.


Meteor Crater in Arizona:



Crater is 0.737 miles (about 1.18 km) wide.
It was made with an object that was only 160 feet (about 50 meters) wide.

Chicxulub Crater:



Crater is around 110 miles (180 km) wide.
Was made by an object that was about 6.2 miles (10 km) wide.

Vredefort Dome:



Largest confirmed impact crater on Earth.
It's original size was 190 miles (300 km) wide.

There are even bigger ones that are unconfirmed. All made by object only getting to be a few miles big or so.

Theia thought to have impacted the Earth and created the moon. It's size is theorized to have been the same as Mars.

Earth Mars size comparison:



The crater would have been bigger than the Earth itself. The energy release was enough to turn Earth's crust molten.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Erik --

I agree with your contention that the impact would have turned Earth's crust molten, erasing any sign of the actual impact.

But, it should also be pointed out that even beyond that, the Earth is so geologically active that NO crater from 4+ billion years ago would be around today. A crater the sized of half of the U.S. would probably no longer have any signs of ever existing (at least no signs that our current techniques/technology can find).

Most of the craters we can still see signs of today are relatively recent. Even the oldest known impact crater (South Africa's Vredefort crater that you mentioned above) is only 2 billion years old. As you pointed out, there would be no "crater" from the hypothesized Theia impact, because it would have basically liquified the whole crust, but even a relatively smaller (albeit still very large) impact crater from 4.5 billion years ago would probably have had all signs of it erased by time, erosion, and geology.

The impact that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs happened only 65 million years ago, which is a very, very short time ago, in geological sense, compared to 4.5 billion years.



edit on 6/6/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
The 2004 Sumatra earthquake also caused Earth to 'ring like a bell' for weeks afterwards:



12/26. With a force equivalent to that of 1,000 atomic bombs, a massive "GREAT" quake of 9.2 hit off the west coast of Sumatra on 12/26, triggering deadly tsunamis throughout southeast Asian countries. The force was enough to move the entire island of Sumatra about 100 feet to the southwest.

Kate Hutton of Cal Tech has reported that the shaking was severe enough to actually affect the earth's rotation. Other U.S. scientists have also commented on this phenomenon: "The deadly Asian earthquake may have permanently accelerated the Earth's rotation -- shortening days by a fraction of a second -- and caused the planet to wobble on its axis".
www.cnn.com...

At a presentation at Cal Tech on 1/12/05 the audience was told the quake had caused the earth to "ring like a bell" and that it is "still ringing". One of the speakers also noted that it even caused a (minor) change in the position of the earth's poles, (on the order of 2 cm).


Source: earthquake solutions.com

I also read somewhere that the Moon was found to be unusually less dense than expected, leading researchers to think it may have hollow spots inside, or caverns.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   
The moon is the result of a collision with earth. Omaha beach is still littered with microscopic hollow steel spheres from the explosions:

www.businessinsider.com...

When an explosion melts steel and sends it flying, the tiny bits form into spheres made hollow I'd imagine by the centripetal force of spinning while molten.

The moon is maybe a similar hollow sphere created by a massive explosion/impact. Also the rocks on the moon would be older because the moon flew out into cold space where it's crust solidified much sooner than earth.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny
Your source doesn't say they are hollow. What makes you think they are hollow? It's not impossible for them to be hollow, but I doubt they are.

The moon on the other hand would collapse if it was substantially hollow. It probably has some old lava tubes that are still hollow, but even some of those have collapsed.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
The moon is the result of a collision with earth. Omaha beach is still littered with microscopic hollow steel spheres from the explosions:

www.businessinsider.com...

When an explosion melts steel and sends it flying, the tiny bits form into spheres made hollow I'd imagine by the centripetal force of spinning while molten.


That is not what that article says at all. They are solid fragments of metal that have been worn down into spheres by erosion over decades on a sandy beach.


In the photo to the right, see the smooth sphere? It's got a diameter of around one-tenth of a millimeter judging by the legend. That's sixty-year-old shrapnel, sanded down to a smooth, microscopic ball.


The moon is (a) not made of metal and (b) not hollow.


Edit: bad reporting. The original article does indeed mention hollow beads

www.sepm.org...

But you cannot remotely compare metal beads 0.1 - 0.3mm in diameter with the moon. What is the gravitational force on a bead less than half a mm in diameter? Totally negligible.
edit on 7-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: 8675309jenny
Your source doesn't say they are hollow. What makes you think they are hollow? It's not impossible for them to be hollow, but I doubt they are.

The moon on the other hand would collapse if it was substantially hollow. It probably has some old lava tubes that are still hollow, but even some of those have collapsed.


www.gizmag.com/normandy-omaha-beach-sand-magnetic/24205/


It is known that bomb explosions often produce hollow metal beads. In the inverse of the process for forming ball bearings, molten iron is thrown up into the air, thereafter raining down as tiny spheres.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48


Edit: bad reporting. The original article does indeed mention hollow beads

www.sepm.org...

But you cannot remotely compare metal beads 0.1 - 0.3mm in diameter with the moon. What is the gravitational force on a bead less than half a mm in diameter? Totally negligible.



You're entirely ignoring cohesion. And what do you mean negligible?? The gravity is proportional to the mass, that's all that matters; whether a .3mm molten steel ball, or a 3,476km molten rock ball the physical effects will be quite similar.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

You're suggesting that a hollow metal sphere 0.3mm across could be scaled up to the size of the moon and not collapse under its own weight?

Gravity is proportional to mass. Compressive strength is not. A hollow moon would not be possible.
edit on 7-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: GArnold
a reply to: TommyD1966

Thanks.. Interesting. Still most of what I posted has not been explained. The iron was brought back to Earth and still never oxidized. The eclipses are virtually perfect. The ringing has never been explained. the rocks being older there are theories about but not of them are universally accepted as being true. No one knows how the moon was formed or when. There is question if you read the second thing I posted that there may have been two moons at one point that collided making up the incredibly odd composition of the two sides of the moon.


You need to read more widely than just internet conspiracy forums, these are widely documented and well understood. Please consider that maybe the fact you haven't come across an answer is no evidence that such an answer doesn't exist. And half of your questions assume facts not in evidence, even counterfactual assumptions.

For example, moon rocks rust just fine once exposed to Earth's atmosphere, the proof is in the moon-origin meteorites that you can even purchase commercially. NASA's moon samples are preserved from this exposure, in all-nitrogen atmospheres. What, did you think they were left out on somebody's desk?

I'm glad you wonder about these kinds of questions. I'm dismayed you showed so little interest in looking for the real answers, or knowledge of how to go about it. We spent a lot of money, sweat, and blood getting these answers. Show some respect for that cost.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: denybedoomed
First time I heard of the moon "ringing like a bell" was when I read Alien Agenda by Jim Marrs. Completely baffling.


"That's no moon . . . it's a space station."



It's Marrs' profession to baffle and bamboozle you. It should be your avocation to develop the intellectual tools to see through the tricks.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join