Hollow Moon Theory facts

these relationships may appear mysterious to us, but, for the reasons outlined above, they pretty much have to be a feature of celestial mechanics (or what you like to call it) we just don't understand it.

Originally posted by Nick Nightstalker
It also seems odd that it's our ONLY natural satellite,

technically the earth has at least 5 natural satellites due to at least 4 asteroids having an oribtal resonance with the earth, and of course the better known moon, lunar

i don't see how the earth being hollow could bring about the conclusion it isn't natural, and i havn't seen any evidence thus far that actually states it is hollow

Seeing how the moon is said to have a mantle and core like the earth i'm guessing there is actual evidence to prove the moon is solid, or else why would the core and mantle theory even be entertained without proof

Originally posted by owzitgarn
technically the earth has at least 5 natural satellites due to at least 4 asteroids having an oribtal resonance with the earth, and of course the better known moon, lunar

i don't see how the earth being hollow could bring about the conclusion it isn't natural, and i havn't seen any evidence thus far that actually states it is hollow

Seeing how the moon is said to have a mantle and core like the earth i'm guessing there is actual evidence to prove the moon is solid, or else why would the core and mantle theory even be entertained without proof

my apologies; I'm not huge into astronomy, so I wasn't aware about the asteroids, but they must orbit pretty far out to never get mentioned. and an asteroid with an 'orbital resonance' isn't the same thing as a moon. I was just commenting on the fact that our natural satellite situation is kind of odd compared to our planetary neighbors.

also, I assume you meant you don't see how the moon being hollow could bring about that conclusion, and saying earth was just a typo... and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's unnatural. It just seems very likely because (our science tells us) that the natural state of a planet or planet-like structure is a solid sphere with a mantle and a core, not a tennis ball. and you haven't seen the evidence because there isn't any direct evidence for it, but there isn't any direct evidence for a LOT of things on ATS, so let's keep an open mind... there's also no indisputable evidence that the moon's solid, since we haven't drilled through to it's core.

the reason the moon is said to have a mantle and a core is because that's our assumption of most planetary bodies. it's our standard model for a rounded celestial object the size of the moon, so we assume it to be true for luna as well, but it isn't, necessarily, as far as I know, proven in a case-closed, inarguable manner. as far as I know, it relies completely on viewing circumstantial evidence from a distance, and mass-density calculations based on it's gravitational pull (which could be accounted for many other ways, including but not limited to artificially created gravity from some kind of device, or an extremely dense outer shell that may still be very thick).

If I'm wrong and there is direct, indisputable evidence in this matter, then someone please present it and I'll retract my above statement, but at the moment, I'm not aware of anything that would represent a smoking gun for the moon to be solid.

Not that I necessarily believe fully that the moon is hollow-- I'm simply entertaining ideas, keeping an open mind, and as always, denying ignorance.

Someone stated:

"(it's always been there as long as recorded history is concerned, after all)"

If you look at those moon facts, it references the Proselyans, Greeks who's claim to land was the fact that they were there "before the moon was in the sky." If you look up the prior Hollow Moon thread in this forum, you'll also find contributors that have pointed out ancient Tibetan and Aztec texts that also clearly indicate the lack of a moon in those times.

As for the thread title being an oxymoron--how do you figure? That "dirtsheet" link that I provided truly is a compilation of facts. I didn't title the thread "Facts that prove the moon is Hollow," moreso just indicated that they are facts relating to the Hollow Moon theory.

There's a fair amount of historical evidence pointing to the Earth being hollow as well, ranging from Admiral Richard E. Byrd's accounts to "The Smoky God" to various arctic explorers that have claimed that the closer to the poles they got, the warmer that it would get (with sighting of animals and vegetation that you wouldn't expect in the area).

As someone has already mentioned, it was once a fact that our Earth was flat. Our understanding of science and physics is equivalent to the first words on the tip of a baby's tongue, so when people try to tote various scientific figures that "prove" something, excuse my reluctance due to the fact that science is always contradicting itself in this day and age as we learn more and more.

Originally posted by nidhogge
Someone stated:

"(it's always been there as long as recorded history is concerned, after all)"

If you look at those moon facts, it references the Proselyans, Greeks who's claim to land was the fact that they were there "before the moon was in the sky." If you look up the prior Hollow Moon thread in this forum, you'll also find contributors that have pointed out ancient Tibetan and Aztec texts that also clearly indicate the lack of a moon in those times.

That was me, and I'm aware of the quotes from these ancient civilizations. perhaps I misspoke, I meant in terms of recorded history that we know (relatively speaking) to be accurate and somewhat scientific. the writings above are so ancient that we can't be sure of their meaning, necessarily. It's very possible that they were speaking in a metaphoric hyperbole, to indicate that their civilization is ancient, their roots are deep, and they were there 'first'. Sort of like saying "X is the best thing since sliced bread!" or "when I used to go to school, we rode dinosaurs uphill in the snow, both ways!". it's possible they're just using an unreasonably historic claim in order to emphasize that their civilization was the first and more important. for all we know, 'before the moon was in the sky' is their way of saying "a long long time ago, in a land far far away" or something similar.

I'm not saying that there's concrete evidence that those writings aren't factually correct, only that it's highly probable that they aren't, and that they were just intended as a hyperbolic metaphor for 'back in the day'.

[edit on 20/5/2007 by Nick Nightstalker]

Oh ya, I definitely see your point. I'm interested in actually reading the direct translations of each of these, but unfortunately, have no idea how to access them.

The problem is, even with 'direct' translations of something that old, you're very likely losing the entire point in the process of translating the text. the nuances of language change VERY fast;just listen to olde Englishe from a couple hundred years ago; it's practically impossible to understand, and that's our OWN language. So if you go back several thousand years, in a completely DIFFERENT language, and try to translate it, then it doesn't matter so much whether it's a 'direct' translation or not, you're still very likely losing the point of the message to the nuances of language.

for instance; if you compliment someone today by saying "you're cool.", and say that message (somehow) travels back in time to ancient greece, and they try to translate it (for the sake of argument, let's say that's possible), they'd probably come up with something that would translate back into english as "thou art cold.", which, while it means basically the same thing to us (or at least we can recognize what it should be), would mean something totally different in a period of history so far removed from ours.

it's still interesting that they wrote it, though.

everyone here seems to be talking about appearances and coincidences, and even math was thrown in, but i was surprised to see that nobody brought up the universal gravity equation. it would seem to be pretty important in determining the mass of the moon, since it works with pretty much everything.
F = GMm/r2
since you can use this equation multiple ways, you should be able to determine radius, distance, mass, and the gravitational force depending on what you are given considering G is always going to be 6.67*10-11 N-m2/kg2.
im pretty sure that formula is correct. Its basic highschool physics. as to whether or not that would help prove the moon solid or hollow idk. Just a little math to help give some extra tools.

Interesting topic!! I did a little "googling" and found out that apparently some Russian Scientist believe the moon is hollow!

Two members of the Soviet Academy of Sciences have recently come up with the theory that the moon is a huge, hollowed-out planetoid that was sent into orbit around our world billions of years ago. They believe that the moon was hollowed out artificially, which means that it was done by some intelligence.

hollow moon

Originally posted by adjay
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.

The earth is mostly solid

]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.

The cricket ball weighs more than the tennis ball.

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.

But mass causes gravity... If I weighed 20 trillion tons... I would attract other planets

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.

I can agree and disagree on that theory... but I stick to my moto when it comes to these hypothesis'... I wasn't there when it happened (no-one actually), so I don't care. When it is scientifically proven that it happened, then I'll believe it.

Big Splash theory

another theory/hypothesis... I'm getting tired of theories (nothing against you)... there is more theories in the world, than proof.

Originally posted by owzitgarn

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

[edit on 19-5-2007 by owzitgarn]

they switched the numbers by mistake because 100 divided by 366 does actually equal 0.27322

If it wasn't frowned upon to post a single sentence, or even a single word, I'd post the following:

MALARKY

But I'll say more. So either the moon is what scientists say it is - a mostly solid (with varying density, possibly some molten stuff) naturally-formed moon - OR it's a magical spaceship built by aliens with a shell made of exactly the density material that would be needed to simulate a solid moon (while being actually hollow) in gravity effects and rigidity. It would appear to most normal observers to be a natural moon like any other and only highly tuned conspiracy buffs would see the truth.

You people see conspiracies in jet contrails, so this shouldn't surprise me. And if you have such a negative opinion of scientific opinion, then go become a scientist yourselves and make a difference instead of sitting around with your tinfoil hats trying to out-kook each other. And no, theorizing at your keyboard is not being a scientist. Go to school. Study physics and astronomy.

Originally posted by Sophismata
You people see conspiracies in jet contrails, so this shouldn't surprise me. And if you have such a negative opinion of scientific opinion, then go become a scientist yourselves and make a difference instead of sitting around with your tinfoil hats trying to out-kook each other. And no, theorizing at your keyboard is not being a scientist. Go to school. Study physics and astronomy.

Wow can you say "IGNORANT GENERALIZATION"?

As a matter of fact I did "go to school" as you naively put it, university actually and hold two degrees. Study physics and astonomy? Umm yea as an aerospace engineer it's required rudimentary knowledge.

Do realize that when you make such uneducated posts and talk down to the general membership that you're speaking to everyone here at ats. No just because theories are proposed we don't wear tin foil hats. Speaking of HATS, perhaps you wear the "DUNCE" type?

Originally posted by The_unraveller
The earth is mostly solid

That's exactly what I said!

Originally posted by The_unraveller
The cricket ball weighs more than the tennis ball.

Irrelevant for the example I was making!

Originally posted by The_unraveller
But mass causes gravity... If I weighed 20 trillion tons... I would attract other planets

Correct, but you could also be a hollow person weighing 30 trillion tons if the material you were made of, was dense enough. Mass is no indication of solidity. The example I gave was to prove that. You could hollow out the cricket ball, then fill the tennis ball with lead and everything changes.

Originally posted by The_unraveller
I can agree and disagree on that theory... but I stick to my moto when it comes to these hypothesis'... I wasn't there when it happened (no-one actually), so I don't care. When it is scientifically proven that it happened, then I'll believe it.

Big Splash theory

another theory/hypothesis... I'm getting tired of theories (nothing against you)... there is more theories in the world, than proof.

Well, if you'd clicked the link, you'd see that isn't another theory/hypothesis, but the exact same theory/hypothesis, and likewise, I don't care, and not because I wasn't there. I find it scientifically unsound. The reason I brought it up is it is the dominantly accepted theory of how our moon came to be, and like someone posted earlier, science contradicts itself a little too rapidly to be taken as fact.

To say you don't care, cos you weren't there, well, I guess you probably don't care about much, then?

Originally posted by adjay
To say you don't care, cos you weren't there, well, I guess you probably don't care about much, then?

uuuummmmmmmmmmm, is this a trick question? j/k (I hope you understand what I meant, by saying that.)

I understand your point now... But something hollow with the same amount of mass when solid is still a little hard to process/understand.

What kind of gas or material would be in the hollow object... or (leaning to the CT) what spooky alien technology can cause such a force (I had to... the voices in my head said I should, maybe I better put my tinfoil hat back on to keep them away , it wouldn't be ATS if there weren't any conspiracy theories thrown around).

Originally posted by Sophismata

But I'll say more. So either the moon is what scientists say it is - a mostly solid (with varying density, possibly some molten stuff) naturally-formed moon - OR it's a magical spaceship built by aliens with a shell made of exactly the density material that would be needed to simulate a solid moon (while being actually hollow) in gravity effects and rigidity.

Or option 3: There is a god? I dont know, the problem with the scientist option is that only a few really know what the moon is about and have to believe what Nasa inc. tells everybody.

Originally posted by The_unraveller
uuuummmmmmmmmmm, is this a trick question?

j/k (I hope you understand what I meant, by saying that.)

I understand your point now... But something hollow with the same amount of mass when solid is still a little hard to process/understand.

What kind of gas or material would be in the hollow object... or (leaning to the CT) what spooky alien technology can cause such a force (I had to... the voices in my head said I should, maybe I better put my tinfoil hat back on to keep them away

, it wouldn't be ATS if there weren't any conspiracy theories thrown around).

Hehe, yes it was, I suppose

It is a little hard to process, or understand, but for all we know about "natural objects", a hollow planet/moon may just be one. It might not even be that hollow, it could just have a very low density core, pocketed with air/gas/space. It could be as dense as the most densest of materials, with an inner emptiness.. Like you say, we can't prove any of this, and may likely never know in our lifetimes.

I think when all of us have only lived on Earth, there is so much more we couldn't begin to comprehend, after all, the only planet any of us (save the lucky Apollo astronauts, of course) have direct experience/contact with is this one.

FWIW, I neither think it is hollow or solid, but I consider it could be either, or somewhere in between. If it is partially or entirely hollow at some depth, it still doesn't really prove it is artificial, or extraterrestrial in origin either. The possibilities are, as they say, endless, and I am quite amazed we've never been back to it since 1972.

Originally posted by Sophismata
But I'll say more. So either the moon is what scientists say it is - a mostly solid (with varying density, possibly some molten stuff) naturally-formed moon - OR it's a magical spaceship built by aliens with a shell made of exactly the density material that would be needed to simulate a solid moon (while being actually hollow) in gravity effects and rigidity. It would appear to most normal observers to be a natural moon like any other and only highly tuned conspiracy buffs would see the truth.

I'd love you to demonstrate how one simulates a "solid moon". Or any moon for that matter. When people use the term "hollow moon", it doesn't, surprisingly enough, mean "hollow" like a basketball, with almost the entire inside being empty and "hollow" with a shell so dense it purports itself as solid (although it is a possibility that cannot be disproven until further studies are made). Neither does there need to be any exactness in matching the density of the material to a simulated "solid moon", as such a thing simply does not exist.

If there is a book on de facto moon simulation somewhere I may have missed, please excuse me and enlighten me!

I also find it funny how you can only consider two extremes - I mean, if it is found to be hollow, why would aliens be responsible for this? Do you have concrete proof of every moon in the universe, being entirely solid throughout (albeit in varying density). Or just this one orbiting Earth?

Originally posted by adjay

I also find it funny how you can only consider two extremes - I mean, if it is found to be hollow, why would aliens be responsible for this?

I was poking fun at how people start with skepticism toward science and immediately jump to what they think is the only obvious alternative: aliens did it. And it's the skepticism toward science (and downright paranoid theories) that really bother me. The complaint is often that science changes its mind all the time.

Well, how dare it adjust and change. How much better to believe something that stubbornly never adjusts to evidence, such as religions and conspiracy theories. They're always true, and comfortingly so. They confirm what we already think, make us part of the "believer" group, and clearly delineate who the enemies are. No messy contradicting evidence and changing science.

Originally posted by Sophismata
I was poking fun at how people start with skepticism toward science and immediately jump to what they think is the only obvious alternative: aliens did it. And it's the skepticism toward science (and downright paranoid theories) that really bother me. The complaint is often that science changes its mind all the time.

Well, how dare it adjust and change. How much better to believe something that stubbornly never adjusts to evidence, such as religions and conspiracy theories. They're always true, and comfortingly so. They confirm what we already think, make us part of the "believer" group, and clearly delineate who the enemies are. No messy contradicting evidence and changing science.

I see your point, now. I agree to a certain extent - but I think you also highlight why this is often the case. Science does indeed, unlike stubborn stab in the dark theories/conspiracies, adjust and change, and it's a good indication of the fact we are all (scientists alike) willing to learn, and change things accordingly. It's sometimes too easy to hit things with the "aliens did it" bat, but is it truly any wilder a hypothesis compared to some commonly accepted scientific theories? (without naming any!)

I think some danger also lies with riding this wave - to admit science changes is also an admission that it's rarely concrete, and sometimes the wild theories turn out to be much closer to the truth than what we first believed.