It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Mogget
If convincing evidence is brought forward to add weight to the latter, then I will consider it.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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 ?
..
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.