Hollow Moon Theory facts

I believe that the Moon was formed after a large planetary body collided with Earth. I do not believe that it is hollow. If convincing evidence is brought forward to add weight to the latter, then I will consider it. At the moment, I do not believe that such evidence exists.

Originally posted by Mogget
I believe that the Moon was formed after a large planetary body collided with Earth. I do not believe that it is hollow. If convincing evidence is brought forward to add weight to the latter, then I will consider it. At the moment, I do not believe that such evidence exists.

Good old Wikipedia -

The Hollow moon theory is a debunked theory that suggests that the moon is a large hollow sphere. Little published evidence of the theory's validity exists, and calculations regarding the Moon's size and the effect of its gravity mean that it is impossible for it to be hollow.

Debunked apparently. As Joe Public I'll obviously buy that...

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure whether it's hollow or not, I don't believe there are aliens in it. I'm highly sceptical of any unnatural origins.....

However the leading theorist in the field says the theory is flawed, and many highly respected experts say they don't know squat, it seems silly to talk in absolutes.

I get the impression that people think that the hollow moon theories are like the hollow earth theories, or leprechauns, or jesus. There is actually a lot of credible evidence in it's support tho.

Originally posted by Mogget
If convincing evidence is brought forward to add weight to the latter, then I will consider it.

Well I've already proven you were wrong about single impact. I've spoken of geophysics professors who believes it's hollow. Shown you that the leading moon theorists aren't sure what they say. Mentioned NASA experiments which lead us to believe it's hollow.

What exactly do you want, I'm not saying the moon is made of cheese. There is ample highly credible evidence to suggest that the moon is hollow. How that happened is anyone's guess but you can't deny the facts.

The moon could easily be hollow due to many different reasons, it doesn't mean it was created by little green men. There is a hollow moon of one of our neighbouring planets according to the data we read, maybe it's a common occurence.

Hollow moon theory is something which cannot be denied, It is definitely a theory but an equal theory to any other out there.

Originally posted by Mogget
I believe that the Moon was formed after a large planetary body collided with Earth. I do not believe that it is hollow. If convincing evidence is brought forward to add weight to the latter, then I will consider it. At the moment, I do not believe that such evidence exists.

What about the fact that the rocks found on the moon are a couple million years older than our oldest rocks here on Earth, I always ondered about that

Mogget you almost got it right but not quite:

The Moon is not "definitely lighter than it should be". Yes, it's density is appreciably less than that of Earth, but the leading theory for its formation explains this perfectly. An object roughly the size of Mars smashed into Earth over four billion years ago. This colossal impact resulted in Earth absorbing a large fraction of the impacting planet's metallic core. The rest of the planet (together with large chunks of Earth's mantle) were blasted into orbit around our planet. Most of this material was molten rock. Over a short period of time, these chunks of rock coalesced under the effects of gravity....and the Moon was born.

You almost got it, but the collision was not with the Earth...

In 1977, I performed a lot of research into the then newly discovered information from Apollo landings. I formulated my own theory which explains all the anomalies first posted at the start of this thread. I hope if you guys quote this in the future you'll remember to quote my name too ?

My theory was this:

Where tha asteroid belt now exists there was a planet similar to earth with a molten core and magnetic field. It's core was dense nickel iron and it's surface was stoney like our earth.

At about 4.6-4.7 billion years ago a large wandering gaseous planetoid drifting through interstellar space fell through our solar system attracted by the pull of our sun. Had it not struck anything it would have sling-shotted past the sun back out into interstellar space, but that was not to be.

It hit the planet where the asteroid belt is from the opposite direction of that planet's orbital direction. The impact had four powerful effects:

(1) It shattered the earth like planet smashing off it's mantle and crust. The shattered pieces became asteroids, some huge some small. some decelerated into lower orbits. Some flung out as far as Jupiter.

(2) The molten core however expanded as if released from the pressure of it's containing mantle. The sudden cooling caused a huge reduction of the mass at it's centre like a spring which had been released. Some shards of it's mantle fell back into the hot remains of it's core to form "Mascons." because this core was no longer contained by it's mantle, it cooled very quickly and the loss of heat meant that it could no longer generate a magnetic field. Basalt near the surface crystalised freezing the magnetic influences before the field died entirely.

(3) The core of that earth like planet stayed in one piece, but decelerated and fell towards the Sun. As it's fall slowed, it was captured by the earth and today is our moon with a whole bunch of elements found on it which you would not normally expect to find on the surface of an earth like planet but rather from it's core. After it's collision with the wandering gas giant of course there was a dense cloud of dust from the former planet which remained close due to gravitational influence. This dust settled back onto the molten core to give us the crazy paradox of moon dust so different from moon rocks. The so called genesis rock of 5.3 billion years old was a shattered remnant of the original planet which fell back to the original core.

(4) And what became of the gaseous giant which collided with that earth like planet ? Look at the comets which still rain down from the Kupier belt, what do you think formed the great snowballs of dirty ice which we call comets ?
Why is the orbit of Pluto so erratic ? Why is Pluto more like a giant iceberg than a regular planet ?

Why are the oldest rocks on Earth no older than 4.7 billion years old ?

Because that was a period of massive bombardment by space debris and the entire surface of the earth was melting in spasms. Our solar system is older than the oldest rocks on Earth. Just that none of the rocks on earth survived that period, whilst shattered remnants in the cold of space retain the older ages of our solar system.

This is the Gunson theory. It fits all the facts. It's the only theory which does.

Originally posted by greatlakes
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.

Try teleported or some sort of black hole thing that sucked all of the asteroids/space stuff into one big ball, thus creating the moon.

I think it depends on your definition of hollow.
I am not sure science has all the answers yet!!

Regarding the "coincidences" of the solar / earth / moon ratios.
Yes amazingly the moon is in the right place to produce the effects that are beneficial to life on earth...man particularly. But does that mean an alien race put it there? Or that future man did? In my opinion no.

The fact that the moon, sun, earth and everything else is where they are is why we are here. Life has evolved based on the local stellar and interplanetary conditions over billions of years.. If any of the constituent parts of the life zone equation were different then, either there would be no life here on earth or its matrix would differ greatly.

It is possible that the conditions presented here on this rock, are unique and may not be repeated elsewhere who knows? We may be all alone. Maybe we should be looking for intelligent life on earth and preserving it for the good of the universe...instead of hoping ET is about.

My belief is that we will not prove ET in my lifetime if at all. I come on this forum to look, now and again but I see no evidence. ..like most ATS forums really. Dodgy vids and pictures with no real provenance or independent verifiable proof wont do it for me sorry.

Maybe if I get a hot loving session with a Nordic, or anally probed by a Gray I may change my opinion. But even then there is the possibility, that it would be the result of an overactive imagination.....or wish fulfillment

SY Gunson, I thought the moon had provable earth bits on it. I don't know what I'm basing that on tho. So I'm very possibly wrong.

It's an interesting theory but why would the moon be getting further and further away if it was drawn to earth like that, does that fit your model?

I think I've found the answer!!
Irwin Shapiro of the Harvard-Smithsonian centre for Astrophysics has got an interesting thought.

"The best explanation for the moon is observational error - the moon does not exist"

Well there we go.

CASE CLOSED

then what have i been looking at through my telescope? It must be Jesus

but really There is no god is right. it is the positioning of these bodies which allowed the evolution of life to occur in the way it did. if it were different, then who knows what might have happened?

Question:

The same side of the moon always faces Earth. Is this because the
Moon does NOT turn on its axis, or is it because of the way the Moon
orbits Earth? I've always wondered this and this seems as good a
thread as any to finally ask the question. Thanks in advance to
whomever replies.
-CWM

It rotates with earth, that's why it always has one side facing it. It still rotates though.

To my knowledge most moons does this, its not something unique.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by merka]

I really enjoyed reading through this thread.

Not entirely on topic, but related to the artificial argument, is the Hoagland 4-part piece on Iapetus. Even if you're not a fan of his, this is a great read with cool photos. Besides the massive equatorial wall, especially interesting is the fact that it should be (due to its mass)--but isn't--a spheroid. And you can plainly see from the NASA photos that it isn't. This is one of those questions that NASA explains by simply not saying anything at all. www.enterprisemission.com...

Thanks Yeufo, I'll go and have a read of that.

Krahzeef_Ukhar I seem to recall reading a book back in 1977 by a guy called Andrew Thomas called "On the shores of Distant Worlds" which got me thinking on this.

The author in that book suggested there was historical evidence from ancient civilisations that the Moon's orbit of earth has been slowing, but other than this I am not familiar with the claim or the evidence.

If true then it would not be inconsistent with my theory. After all my theory is about the orbital capture of "Phaeton's" previously molten core after it had lost orbital energy from collision.

In the process of a capture you might expect the Moon is slowing because it has been losing energy. If it had higher energy at capture it would have orbited more quickly. I understand the tidal pull on the earth has an interactive effect on the Moon.

My question however is what is the evidence that the Moon is slowing ?

[edit on 29-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

Long Lance messaged me with some interesting stuff about the composition of comets based on fragments captured by flypast probes.

Apparently they are not composed of ice at all, but emit plasma streams. The physical fragments captured by probes are crystalised Magnesium Iron silicate. On Earth we call it Olivine or Fosterite.

Wow, now that is amazing. So subject to this new information I have to consider that the Kupier belt and my theorised interplanetary wanderer ("Nibiru") was not a gaseous planet at all but rather a solid earthlike planet which struck Phaeton.

It does not invalidate the theory. It does add an interesting new aspect however.

Originally posted by merka
It rotates with earth, that's why it always has one side facing it. It still rotates though.

To my knowledge most moons does this, its not something unique.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by merka]

Merka,
Thanks for the reply. I'll see if there is a website which illustrates
the Earth-Moon orbit relationship. Still having a hard time grasping
why one side of the moon is NEVER visible here. Need to see it in
an animation. Cheers! -cwm

Originally posted by sy.gunson

(4) And what became of the gaseous giant which collided with that earth like planet ? Look at the comets which still rain down from the Kupier belt, what do you think formed the great snowballs of dirty ice which we call comets ?
Why is the orbit of Pluto so erratic ? Why is Pluto more like a giant iceberg than a regular planet ?
..

let me propose another question: what happened to planets and moons in the 'vicinity' ? how does f-ex. Mars fit in?

let's see:

• highly asymmetric shape
  
• highly elliptical orbit (compared to most other planets)
  
• disrupted magnetic patterns
  
• varying surface features, depending on hemisphere
  

Sources:

www.the-planet-mars.com...

science.nasa.gov...

i know many of these features were inevitably attributed to impacts, but wouldn't have many of these patterns developed if Mars had been the moon of another planet? think about ours (ie. Luna), the near side is largely covered by maria while the far side isn't nearly as smooth. sounds familiar?

i'll go of on a tangent now and look for planets with a) more elliptical orbits and b) asymmetric shape... what about mercury? not really close by any stretch of the imagination, but it does have the same 'smooth plains' on one side, jagged terrain on the other, and the 'Caloris Basin' might as well be a copy of Mars' 'Hellas Basin'.

Source: www.nineplanets.org...

the last and weirdest candidate is of course Iapetus, which is also two-faced, but in a much more extreme manner. more than half its of its surface is pitch-black while the rest is easily visible. in contrast to my previous examples, its orbit is highly circular and rotation is synchronous with Saturn. clearly defined contures of the dark area indicate a late (well after formation) and sudden event. the Exploding Planet Hypothesis and all its varieties would fit the bill, obviously. (hint, there are the wildest speculations about Iapetus, on of which can be found here)

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

So, the question is whether the similarities i listed have any significance or if they're just coincidence. if they do, what should a working model look like?

There is a mathematical formula based somehow on the square of the distance from the sun of the first planet, much like in chemistry how electrons form Valance shells at predictable distances from the nucleus of an atom.

Mars is perfectly positioned in relation to this natural order.

Of course the moons of Mars are irregular in shape and very low in mass.

I doubt that moons are a natural feature of the inner planets. Mercury has none. Venus has none. Our moon has vastly different geochemistry from Earth. the moons of Mars are more like captured asteroids.

The surface of Mars seems to have suffered from massive bombardment and consequent loss of seas and atmosphere, not to mention incredible vulcanism.

If the Moon (our moon) is the former molten core of Paheton, then in it's fall towards the sun after deceleration, across the orbit of Mars need not have caused a secondary collision as mars at the time may have been on the other side of the sun in relation to this disastrous collision.

Does that answer all the points ?

As an afterthought:

Apart from suggesting the "Nibiru" or colliding planet shattered and it's fragments reached the Kupier belt to become what are now called comets, I have not even attempted to explain the moons of Jupiter and Saturn etc with my model because they may be unrelated to the collision and have another origin entirely.




[edit on 30-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
There is a mathematical formula based somehow on the square of the distance from the sun of the first planet, much like in chemistry how electrons form Valance shells at predictable distances from the nucleus of an atom.

Mars is perfectly positioned in relation to this natural order.

Of course the moons of Mars are irregular in shape and very low in mass.

I doubt that moons are a natural feature of the inner planets. Mercury has none. Venus has none. Our moon has vastly different geochemistry from Earth. the moons of Mars are more like captured asteroids.

yes, i know, en.wikipedia.org...

Deimos and Phobos are asteroids, judging by size and appearance, calling them moons is a bit of an overstatement, probably. i was talking about Mars itself and how it shared several traits with Mercury and, to a lesser extent, our moon.

iow, are Mercury and Mars former moons ?

PS: are moons a natural feature of innter planets? hard to say, actually, but from looking at the moons of gaseous planets, i'd say natural inner moons would have to be quite small - unless a configuration of 'binary planets' theoretically exists.

SY Gunson, Did I say it was slowing? I was saying it is getting further and further away from the earth. If it was attracted towards the earth wouldn't it be getting closer and closer. Or maintaining the same distance with gravity from the sun etc.

Interesting theory tho, and sounds like you know far more than I do about the topic. Good to see people do see flaws in the widely accepted model for the creation of the moon tho.