How long has the moon been in orbit

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scrubdog


I don't know where you get your information from but you didn't get a single fact correct. By the way thats hard to do even by luck you should have got something right.

OK first its no where near a perfect circle its orbit distance varies from 7% less than average (at perigee, when the Moon is closest to the Earth) to 6% more than the average (at apogee, when the Moon is farthest from the Earth).

The position of Moonrise and Moonset, like that of Sunrise and Sunset varies as the Earth goes around the Sun, but also with the phases of the Moon. Only on the equinoxes (Sept/Mar 21st) does the Sunrise/set at due East/West. At the solstices (Dec/June 21st) the position is its furthest South/North of East/West. So wean get total eclipses because it varies not because its fixed.

OK moon rocks the oldest found was 4.44 billion years old for rocks thanks to Apollo. The earth is estimated to be approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years so its not older and formed very early in connection with earth.

Now finally if the moon was hollow we could easily tell by its gravitational effect on earth. The math shows us its not hollow he moon's mass is 7.35 x 1022 kg, about 1.2 percent of Earth's mass.

As far as the secret space program its not all that secret. Space command has been at Wright Patterson since world war 2. They launch military payloads in to space and here is there budget have a look.

www.gao.gov...

I had a worse source than you, evidently, because I read all that just last night and found it exceedingly odd.

I didn't say it was hollow, what I believe I said (can't see mine as I wrote) is that it is less dense in the middle than the outer-crust, which Carl Sagan said should be impossible in anything natural, which I find odd.

The other thing I find odd - and you can tell me if I have it wrong, I trust you and would listen intently - is that the depth of craters are inverse to their size, smaller craters go deepest, biggest ones are shallow, almost as if there's a harder crust that exists 25 miles down, and then gets less dense as it gets deeper, for whatever reason.

I still fully believe that we Americans have personnel on the moon, but I have no trouble with saying I read through some bad sourced stuff last night. I certainly didn't just make it up.

Thx.

ill chime in The moon is much richer in light elements then earth and also has quite a lot of H3 which earth has almost none of .
Now ovesly the moon and earth will be close in age BUT that does not meen the moon was created from earths mass from a impact . And we also know some ware around 50 - 70 k years agaio earths rotation had a sudden deceleration we know that because the coral shows massive changes in grouth along with other things .
So one very reasonable theory is the moon was captured by earth the capture its self slowing the earths rotation and causing coral to change the way it grows .

So wile the moon is close in age to earth so is mars lol so is the moon and most of the rest as most was formed at the same time .
Now I dont state this as fact i do say its the one and ONLY idea that could have merit .
earths day has been getting loner and will keep doing so untill it becomes tidal locked to the sun .But teh rate of slowing has not been a steady decline but in fits and jerks as when big comets hit or other large body passed by they stole some of earths spin in a transfer of energy causing it to slow quickly in a short time .

This theory has all the correct hall marks of what would happen if earth captured a large body such as the moon . As of now I have seen nothing to rule this out as what the MOON is made of DOES NOT match the earth and to me this makes it much more likly that this theory may be closer to waht really is going on .

originally posted by: midnightstar
ill chime in The moon is much richer in light elements then earth and also has quite a lot of H3 which earth has almost none of .
Now ovesly the moon and earth will be close in age BUT that does not meen the moon was created from earths mass from a impact . And we also know some ware around 50 - 70 k years agaio earths rotation had a sudden deceleration we know that because the coral shows massive changes in grouth along with other things .
So one very reasonable theory is the moon was captured by earth the capture its self slowing the earths rotation and causing coral to change the way it grows .

So wile the moon is close in age to earth so is mars lol so is the moon and most of the rest as most was formed at the same time .
Now I dont state this as fact i do say its the one and ONLY idea that could have merit .
earths day has been getting loner and will keep doing so untill it becomes tidal locked to the sun .But teh rate of slowing has not been a steady decline but in fits and jerks as when big comets hit or other large body passed by they stole some of earths spin in a transfer of energy causing it to slow quickly in a short time .

This theory has all the correct hall marks of what would happen if earth captured a large body such as the moon . As of now I have seen nothing to rule this out as what the MOON is made of DOES NOT match the earth and to me this makes it much more likly that this theory may be closer to waht really is going on .

Very interesting.

I had read about the abundance of H3. Interesting that the very element would be highly valuable as fuel. But, that's just a fun factoid, kind of like noting that titanium would cause it to refract light more brightly.

I had read that Earth's gravity wasn't strong enough to capture a body the size of the moon? The scientists that propose the impact theory know it's nearly impossible, but still they put it out there, which to me would mean it's even more impossible to capture a body cruising by.

Here's one thing that bothers me. Why are we all badass about colonizing Mars, when we won't even colonize the thing that's right next door? There's water on the moon, we now know. So, the one thing that one would figure would be needed to be there, is "there." So, why aren't we talking about colonization of the moon? Why only Mars?

I think it's because the moon is already colonized by our military and perhaps others. I suspect there is far more advanced technology and equipment than is ever known about.

But, I've got a lot of CT predisposition.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
I've been trying for years last 50 or so to get a square answer regarding the moon,pretty sure it is a man made sattelite,and I'm thinking it hasn't been in place as long as they say it has, was it put in place by whomever rules the planet?the more I delve into it,the more it seems we are less in control of ourselves then we think,the real truth will never be known as long as the ones in control ,tell us history but the facts lead to everything we know about the planet is false,even the way it looks,we have telescopes can see rocks on Mars,but can't see jack **** on the moon,I'm thinking they are the rulers,and we have been told one wild story IMO

Its been there about as long as it took a chunk dirt about the size of Mars slamming into earth to rip it out of the planet during the early stages of the solar system.

Japan has radar mapped the whole moon, pretty interesting...

a reply to: Oldtimer2

Very nice, i enjoyed reading your post.

There is the inept possibility that by chance, it was indeed placed there by a presence unknown to us.

a reply to: Sapphire

I really think so,and whom ever placed it has been the ones who were responsible for many of the ancient pyramids,and other large structures on earth,they are the true rulers I'm thinking,when you filter out the BS,it says it is a sattelite hollow and inhabited

The simplest answer (rumoured to always be the correct one) is that the earth coalesced out a disc of matter and the moon coalesced out of the outer fringe of the earth's disc of matter so they'll be made of very similar material and also be very close in age. Same goes for all the planets and their moons.

Over the aeons since formation, the planet and the moon have been 'sweeping' their orbits of foreign matter ranging from dust up to 'planet killer' size rocks resulting in the current mostly clear space we enjoy these days. The difference between the moon's regolith dust and rock composition may simply be that much of the surface dust is interstellar in origin. The earth would attract that same dust but it ends up in the oceans or mixed into the soil on the continents by weathering activity which the moon lacks.

Fun topic

a reply to: Oldtimer2

By the last cataclysm, which one exactly?

Are you talking about the last extinction level event?

So someone says earths gravity is not strong enough to capture a body the size of the moon well now thing about that little theory is assuming the hitting earth creates the moon you still would have the same problem .
For a mass the size of the moon to brake free we are talking turning earth insides out lol the energy would also be imparted into the ejected mass now in ether case if earths gravity would not enough to hold it would still be lost or alest according to that .

But I will add this earth being able to capture a body Relies on MORE then just earths gravity or the mass of the body .
It relies MORE on the speed and direction the body is coming from .
take two cars both going in the same direction with the one behind going just a little faster when it hits the car in front it does very little damage .
now switch that have them come head on lol .
So if the moon was going through space and its orbit intersected earths orbit from behind then it would easily be captured by earth as it would not take much energy transfer to do the job

Saying it is not possible is stupid . Of coarse it is possible that does not meen its a fact but the evidence we have so far IMPLYS the earth captured the moon .
1 FACT moon is NOT made of the same stuff as earth in the same amounts .
2 FACT moon has stuff the earth DOES NOT H3 .
3 FACT any good geologist can easily tell you were a rock came from on earth even when picked up from your drive way each type cooled and formed differently and you can see this and match it to rocks from the original ares .
This is not possible with MOON rocks as they match NO place on earth NORE have the same amounts of stuff as earth .

But again without more evidence this is just a sound theory just as the moon being from earths mass is a sound theory which one is right well we are just guessing .But so far the circumstantial evidence says earth captured the moon alest from every thing I ever read .

a reply to: dragonridr

So no response just no. I intentionally obscured my post enough to see what no comments I would get without inquiry for further elucidation. Thanks for biting.

the moons density does not at all match with its size.
the moons craters do not match with the size of the impacts vs depth of the crater...very shallow.
the size of the debri field cast from the impacts is also very minimal.
this would lead us to believe that the asteroids encountered a solid crust or shell.
these are just a few of the people that contend the moon is hollow and artificial.
mike bara, david icke,michael salla, gordon mcdonald, david wilcock, h.p. wilkins
sean c. solomon, graham hancock, david childress, william tompkins, immanuel velikovsky.

Would daylight savings matter any ?

I can't speculate on how long the moon has been in orbit. But I have also wondered why the lunar impact craters do not follow the normal depth-diameter dependence rule.

There are several morphologies of impact craters, determined by the size and final disposition of debris - most notably Simple and Complex. Simple craters are usually fairly small and are radially symmetrical around the impact area. Complex craters are radially symmetrical around the impact area but also have a ridge of displaced debris, concentric to the impact area, from the impact zone and often a small peak in the center of the crater resulting from gravity collapse of the transient cavity. Fluid Acoustic modelling can predict this formation if the pre-impact datum are known.

Knowledge of the fluid potential of pre-impact material and mass, velocity, and angle of incident of impactor can be used to accurately calculate the maximum and transient cavity depth, and gravity collapse (final cavity depth) as well as the diameter of the cavity, and the height of the ridge (if any).

In other words, there have been a lot of studies on impact craters and they remain fairly consistent. Until you get to the moon. It only takes a quick glance to notice that the depth of the craters are all fairly equal while the diameters vary dramatically. The gravity collapse peaks at the center of large craters are absent or negligible at best. Even using a very general rule of thumb, final depth is approximately 1/3 of the diameter, you can see the moon is more off-rule than on.

Why does there appear to be a maximum depth of lunar craters completely independent of crater diameter?

The moon is obviously a hollow abnormally shaped vessel with a layer of space dust on the outside, and a dense liquid inside. Thats the only way Earths Gravity could lock the same side of the moon to its gravity anchor (earth), the liquid remains in the side facing us, and an air bubble on the other side.

Earth is a molten cube of liquid covered in a thick layer of space dust, dare say my moon theory is weird.

a reply to: autopat51

the moons density does not at all match with its size.

According to what examination of its density, performed by what apparatus, and under whose control? I only ask, because to make a suggestion like this, you have to have some data to support it. You cannot just blurt it out without any context or explanation what so ever.

the moons craters do not match with the size of the impacts vs depth of the crater...very shallow.

Again, according to whom, compared to what? Have you taken into account that many of the most serious impacts occurred when the moon was still partially molten inside, which meant that molten material will have filled some of the deeper, older craters, making them appear shallower than expected? If not, why not? Its commonly available information, the smallest effort in research can uncover these details.

the size of the debri field cast from the impacts is also very minimal.

This is inaccurate in the extreme. There is at least one impact crater, near the southern polar region, the debris splash field from which stretches over a MASSIVE area, which you can actually see from Earth if you have great binoculars, or a good telescope.

this would lead us to believe that the asteroids encountered a solid crust or shell.

It would, if any damned thing you had just said, was actually accurate or properly researched.

these are just a few of the people that contend the moon is hollow and artificial.
mike barra, david icke,michael salla, gordon mcdonald, david wilcock, h.p. wilkins
sean c. solomon, graham hancock, david childress, william tompkins, immanuel velikovsky.

Well, would you look at that. A group of people who either have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever, or misrepresented or misread their own results. Wonderful. Try getting some actual data together, and coming to the same conclusions, and heres a secret... when people who are serious about things say data, they mean raw data from satellites, gravity surveys, that sort of thing, not a quote from retired footballers with delusions of grandeur.

originally posted by: Scrubdog
If one wants to go around accepted science (and I don't find that to be wrong in many ways), it is more likely a hollowed out natural body "set" here from somewhere else.

Carl Sagan noted it would be far easier to holo-out gigantic spaceships than build them from the ground. It's not so wildly crazy to me.

The Moon has a much lower density than the Earth: about 60% of the Earth's density. If they were formed together, you'd expect them to have similar compositions, and similar densities. The Moon being hollowed out could explain this drastic difference.

There must be rules about what scope is pointed when/where by someone, bc I am positive there are Americans on the moon at this very moment. Our secret space program has moved beyond deniability. There are plenty of pictures of right angles and geometry that one can find so long as prepared to look and not scoff. There are too many just "weird" things about the Apollo missions to name, not the least of which is Buzz Aldrin flat stating that they were followed.

The far side of the Moon always faces away from Earth (another oddity). That would be the logical place to hide secret bases or entrances to the interior.

The Giant impact hypothesis is probably the leading theory of moon and Earth formation link

Where two Mars-ish size planets collided in the Early solar system about 4.3 billion years ago and the Earth and moon were formed from the debris.

Computer simulations show this gives the correct densities of both the Earth and the moon and explains why the Earth is exceptionally heavy (due to more iron) and the moon light (due to less iron).

a reply to: Oldtimer2

What "facts" lead you to believe everything we know about the planet is false? Can you list them for us?

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Oldtimer2

I just spent quite awhile looking for an incredible video that explains the mathematics and synchronicities between the Sun and the Moon, their actual sizes, their distance from earth, alignments, etc. and it absolutely blows your mind when you see this math.

It really makes you question why nobody seems to ask these questions, and the huge question of "how in the heck is that possible?" or "how in the heck is that natural?"

I had a great book back in the day called "Who Built the Moon", you might want to look into it!

Thanks for posting this...

Yeah, it's called coincidence. Nothing mind blowing at all there. The earth got into a collision with another planet 4.3 billion years ago and the moon formed. Numerology coincidences aren't proof of anything except that we can measure stuff.

I seriously feel dumber for having read this thread.

originally posted by: AdKiller
The moon is obviously a hollow abnormally shaped vessel with a layer of space dust on the outside, and a dense liquid inside. Thats the only way Earths Gravity could lock the same side of the moon to its gravity anchor (earth), the liquid remains in the side facing us, and an air bubble on the other side.

Earth is a molten cube of liquid covered in a thick layer of space dust, dare say my moon theory is weird.

......
Do you have even the faintest iota of evidence for your... fascinating theory?