My apologies if the below already has been related to, if not, well, enjoy.
From the two articles linked to at the end of this post, the following quotes and more can be extrapolated (I'll skip the acoustic echo
'bell'-thread since you've already touched upon this...):
1: The first academic enigma must surely be that the Moon is apparently in its wrong orbit for its size. However, this would presumably be based on
its assumed density. Technical reports claim a density of 3.3 for the Moon compared with 5.5 for Earth. Astronomy data indicates that the internal
regions of the Moon are less dense than the outer, giving rise to the inevitable but outrageous speculation that it could be hollow. The eminent
scientist Carl Sagan, a typical sceptic, made the statement, 'A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object'. But meaning here that if it is hollow,
it is not a natural satellite---and therefore artificial.
2: It has been found that asteroids and meteors not only create shallow craters on the Moon's surface but produce a convex floor to the crater
instead of concave as expected, supporting the idea of a rigid shell.
3: 'Spaceship Moon' is the brainchild of the two Soviet researchers but many others agree with the theory, including NASA scientists at JPL and
an Oxford University physicist. The capture theory is now back in favour but with a significant adjustment that the Moon was steered into
orbit.
4: (concurring with #1 above...) Evidence for the moon being hollow comes from a variety of experts and in some cases predates the lunar landings.
In 1962, Dr. Gordon MacDonald, one of NASAs own scientists reviewed data relating to the density of the Earth, which calculated that the moon’s mean
density was 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water), in comparison the Earth’s density is 5.5 gm/cm3. This led him to observe, "If the
astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data requires that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous
sphere."
5. The Nobel award winning chemist Dr. Harold Urey, has also suggested that the moon contains a ‘cavity’ and MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon is on
record as saying, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening
possibility that the moon might be hollow."
And if nothing else, my personal favourite proving our friendly neighbours possible hollow inside;
6. Texts from as far a field as Europe and South America speak of ancient people who lived on Earth before the Earth had a moon. In Greece they
were called Proselene, meaning ‘before the moon’. Apparently, in South America, symbols found on the wall of the Courtyard of Kalasasaya, near the
city of Tiahuanaco (in Bolivia), record that the moon first appeared around 12,000 years ago. The appearance of the moon was said to have caused great
disruption to the Earth in the form of earthquakes, massive flooding and climate changes. Interestingly, this remote site has been suggested by some
scholars as being the actual location of Plato’s legendary Atlantis and this great planetary upheaval as being the cataclysmic event that destroyed
Atlantis.
7. Isaac Asimov once commented that: “There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of
coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” This "coincidence" means that the moon is just the right size
and distance, to completely block the sun during an eclipse. Eclipses are infrequent events but are often linked to quite serious earthquakes. Was the
moon placed in a very specific orbit by a higher intelligence from another world who wanted to either monitor us as a species or exert an element of
control over our planet?
(Taken from: www.thothweb.com... and www.users.globalnet.co.uk... .)
|
Ringing would just be a question of harmonics--and the moon was a new study for NASA. Simple logic shows that the moon has a calculable mass and can
be dated. The mass is evident in our tides and can be calculated closely, hence the moon isn't hollow. A hollow moon would have been a monster to
create and would have such bizarre seismic instabilities as to be undoable.
And who would have technology to "make" a hollow moon? Any beings with such a capacity would have no need for a hollow moon. They could hide
wherever they want by bending light around themselves. Even the grays can do that, and they can't do a hollow moon. So, there's no reason, no logic,
and no need for a hollow moon. Creation of such would be a monstrous energy drain. If any aliens wanted a moon here, they would simply have dragged
one here using "electrogravity" focused upon and pulling through a larger body.
So the hollow moon story isn't a theory. Theories have good, demonstrable evidence to support them. Hollow moon is just wild speculation based on a
new kind of seismic resonance, nothing more.
|
Originally posted by gl2
So the hollow moon story isn't a theory. Theories have good, demonstrable evidence to support them. Hollow moon is just wild speculation based on a
new kind of seismic resonance, nothing more.
´
the evidence is apparently not disputed, so all that varies is interpretation... so let's just say
if the loss of sound enerhy is small you're probably dealing with something very rigid and homogenous, spanning the entire object...
|
