It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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)
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.
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".
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).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Rob48
Edit: bad reporting. The original article does indeed mention hollow beads
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.
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.
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."