Hollow Moon Theory facts

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I've read every reply in the 7-page thread within this forum from approximately a year ago, and thought that I'd spark the conversation again with the following web link:

www.geocities.com...

Read through those if possible as it'll be the basis for this topic, and provide your opinion. Personally, I'm not sure if I believe in the Hollow Moon theory, or if it's just that I want to believe in it. I think that's a problem that many of us encounter when it comes to conspiracy theories.




posted on May, 19 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   



Here is an image i made up which shows the AMAZING number relationships which give reason to believe the moon is infact an artificial structure.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gilgamesh




Here is an image i made up which shows the AMAZING number relationships which give reason to believe the moon is infact an artificial structure.


how does 366 divided by 100 equal 0.27332


in relation to the first link in the first post, if the moon was never volcanically active then how does one explain the volcanic mounds surrounded by seas of solidified lava

the moon is the second densest moon in the solar system so how does its density relate to its being hollow

the moon has a crust, mantle and core like the earth so is not hollow

there is no evidence from rocks that show the moon could not have originated on earth, the source is lying. the massive impact theory is still the most widely accepted hypothesis on how the moon came about, this would not be so if evidence from rocks suggested otherwise

[edit on 19-5-2007 by owzitgarn]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by owzitgarn
how does 366 divided by 100 equal 0.27332

[edit on 19-5-2007 by owzitgarn]


Yeah they left out the inverse function part of the equation,

it should be: 1/(366/100)=.27322



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I believe this is worth discussion. I went to the NASA site and other than surface features and composition. There is very little known about the Moons subsurface geology. There is only an unproven theory about its formation and there is theory that there maybe ice in craters at the poles!


See link below.

Lunar Geology

There is to little fact and evidence, but I find some of the math and other related items very interesting. At one time some people thought the earth was flat!


Alfred Wegener proposed in his 1915 book "The Origin of Continents and Oceans" was roundly criticized and ridiculed by his fellow colleagues. It wasn't until the early 1960's that his theory was proved by seafloor spreading in the mid-Atlantic.


I don't believe anybody has the facts or proof to disprove the Hallow Moon Theory IMHO!



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
It is quite an interesting theory, and the moon is an.. unusual body to say the least. though the relations to the sun are approximate (meaning that if you look at the actual values and do the math, as I once did, the ratios are a bit off from what most claim, but not by much), they're still a bit too much of a coincidence, for me.

It also seems odd that it's our ONLY natural satellite, and how enormous it is for our size: Comparison ,with only saturn and jupiter (the twin giants of the solar system) having larger moons. take into account that the planet closest to us, Mars, has two tiny tiny moons (compared to ours), and the planet nearest our size, Venus, has nothing in it's orbit (and look how it turned out-- more or less a deadly volcanic wasteland).

All in all, I'd say the overly-convenient presence of our moon raises some questions, hollow or not.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Well ONE theory by some is that the moon was TOWED or transported into Earths orbit millions or billions of years ago by some unknown species. The theory goes that the moon is a necessary object not only for the obvious tides and other forces, but to provide our early planet with enough energy to be able to foster complex lifeforms.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Lol, this whole theory about the moon being hollow, reminds me of a titanic, that the titanic was actually sunken by a Nazi u-boat... disguised as an iceberg.

The only problem with this theory is physics... if the moon was hollow, then the moon would be considerably lighter, and there would be the possibility of the moon crashing into the earth.

Is there any physicists out there, who could help?



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Hollow Moon Theory facts


Firstly, I'd like to point out that the very title of this thread is somewhat an oxymoron.

I myself don't believe that the moon is hollow in the sense that there are vast open area beneath the surface. There is very likely pockets of air perhaps, though - just like there is here on earth.


2 cents



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
The only problem with this theory is physics... if the moon was hollow, then the moon would be considerably lighter, and there would be the possibility of the moon crashing into the earth.


Well, not necessarily. The moon could still be hollow, and yet be dense enough in the material that makes up its shell to convey enough mass to make it appear to be a solid object, like Earth.

Take a tennis ball for instance. It looks like a solid object, like a cricket ball, but only by close inspection and punching a hole through both can you tell the cricket ball is solid, while the tennis ball is full of air.

Basically, if the moon had an extremely dense outer shell, it is perfectly feasible for it to be entirely or partially hollow, and still make certain calculations make it seem solid throughout, and obey the laws of physics. Only by close inspection of the moon can it be proven to be solid, hollow, or a mixture of both.

I personally find the theory put forth that the moon was "punched" out of planet earth to be as unbelievable as the one saying the earth was flat.

Big Splash theory



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
ok... so if the moon is hollow... so what? that doesnt make it "made"



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gilgamesh




Here is an image i made up which shows the AMAZING number relationships which give reason to believe the moon is infact an artificial structure.


Why does this diagram say that without the Moon there would be NO
Seasons and probably NO Life on Earth? Is this dual statement true?
Seems too far fetched to me, but I'm not a scientist of any kind.
.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Hollow moon?

Man, that's one giant #in artificial structure if so.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
the moon cant be hollow, because it would have much less mass and therefore much less gravity. if this were so there wouldn't be any tides. besides, if it were hollow it would have been destroyed by meteorites by now.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by funny_pom]



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by funny_pom
the moon cant be hollow, because it would have much less mass and therefore much less gravity. if this were so there wouldn't be any tides. besides, if it were hollow it would have been destroyed by meteorites by now.


As it was already said earlier in the thread, the gravity thing could be accounted for if the structure of the moon was extremely dense and heavy compared to an ordinary planet. same thing with the 'destroyed by meteorites' claim. if the outer shell of the moon were extremely thick, dense and durable, then it would take a very large meteorite to destroy it.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust

Why does this diagram say that without the Moon there would be NO
Seasons and probably NO Life on Earth? Is this dual statement true?
Seems too far fetched to me, but I'm not a scientist of any kind.
.


That's not an easy question to answer with 100% accuracy, since we have no way of knowing exactly what earth would look like without the moon (it's always been there as long as recorded history is concerned, after all), but without the gravitational effects of the moon, the earth would be very different...



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by funny_pom
the moon cant be hollow, because it would have much less mass and therefore much less gravity. if this were so there wouldn't be any tides. besides, if it were hollow it would have been destroyed by meteorites by now.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by funny_pom]


Just because it is hollow doesnt mean that its going to have a thin crust, it maybe hollow to some extent but not as hollow as some people are making it out to be.

-fm



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
the moon causes the earth to spin on its axis aprox 23.5° from vertical, this gives us the seasonal changes.

without these changes the lands arount the equator would be too hot for humans too exist and the rest of the planet too cold.

human beings require a very specific range of temperatures to be able to exist.

also the moon is FAR less dense than the earth.

everything is in perfect balance thanks to the moon, and without it we would not be here.

if i was to speculate i would say that in many thousands or millions of years from now, humankind will gain control of conciousness/time travel through technology. it is at this point it will realise its destiny to go back in time and create the moon in order to seed their own beginings.

the fact the moon is EXACTLY the same size as the sun in the sky, right down to the rest of the AMAZING number relationships :



this is a message to us, that it is there by design - which we have still to come to terms with in this day n age, even with our science we cant see what is staring us in the face. everyone just takes the moon for granted.

stanley kubrik was hinting towards this sort of thing IMO, with the monolith.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
the idea that celestial bodes were placed in their respective orbits, 'a long while ago by omnipotent aliens' relies on a more or less static view of the universe in general and this star system in particular.

which is just plain wrong, of course, seeing as the asteriod belt obviously consists of (former) planetary matter... without going into details such as comets and asteriods, i think it's safe to say that orbits would require constant maintainance, unless they are stable on their own.

think of the 'Titius-Bode' rule, it almost seems like certain orbits had qualities of their own - the rest is probably unstable (whether this implies a gradual shift to a stable orbit or outright ejection from the planetary system or both remains to be seen). iow, if aliens placed it there, they knew it would stay there for a long time, on its own.


investigating the underlying mechanisms has to be potentially rewarding, attributing everything to aliens does not work unless they have a habit of spending 99% of their time bumping the orbits of countless planets and moons throughout the galaxy


PS: references:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
What are the changes of being it as accurate as shown in the picture above, to happen by nature? Or did is miss something completely?


Edit: How many power/force would be needed to move the moon from one place to another? Talking about the 'towed here' theory

Edit2: And if it is hollow, would it be possible to have something inside the moon, that can create a anti-gravity field as big as the moon?



[edit on 20/5/2007 by Cygnific]





 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join