Hollow Moon Theory facts

reply to post by carewemust


yes this is true the gravitational force that the moon has on the earth effects more then just the tides going in and out

1st :the hollow moon "theory" =with the Apollo experiment ,their was an resonating sound (like when ringing a bell)-my logic suggest that it MUSt be hollow for this to occur .

2nd:The moon being Towed to it's current orbit ?-NO! .propabilty
Their is the other explaination of the crossing of another star system through ours and the moon then being "held back " by the gravitational pull of our sun.

Originally posted by Nick Nightstalker
... 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), ...

Not true. There are ample historical records from people that talk about the sky before the moon was in it, we just choose to believe that it is "allegory" or "myth" or "legend", and not a true historical fact.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by sir_chancealot]

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]

I was just reading this link, and frankly, mucho intresting...
Earth's Moon and Human Evolution

Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow object' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours. So what's going on with the Moon?

What do one think of this kind of information? I find it mindblowing, just think IF IT IS ? .. More ...

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. Countless other pieces of evidence from astronomers and NASA scientists began to reveal that some 2-3 miles down there appear to be dense layers of metal -- which would explain why the craters were convex. But the most astonishing conclusion is that the only theory which can completely explain all the anomalies is that the Moon is hollow with a shell about 20 miles thick --mostly metal. Note that mascons (higher concentrations of mass) found in the marias cause fluctuations in gravity and have never been satisfactorily explained.

In my head, I imagine I shoot on an metal plate burried in the sand you know, the bullet not penetrating deep down..

And that : ''Furthermore, a study of rock samples reveal an age of 5.3 billion years, and that not only is the Moon older than the Earth, estimated to be about 4.6 billion years, but that it is older than the solar system (and by theoretical standards as old as the universe).''

reply to post by ChemBreather

The phrase "rang like a bell" does not mean the moon is hollow. The Earth does the same thing when an earthquake occurs.

The reverberations lasted longer than expected because nothing was known about the composition of moon and assumptions were made which turned out to not be accurate.

Unusually long reverberations were recorded from two lunar impacts by a seismic station installed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 astronauts. Seismic data from these impacts suggest that the lunar mare in the region of the Apollo 12 landing site consists of material with very low seismic velocities near the surface, with velocity increasing with depth to 5 to 6 kilometers per second (for compressional waves) at a depth of 20 kilometers.

www.sciencemag.org...

A lot was learned from various impacts and none of it indicates "dense layers of metal" 2-3 miles down. :

Direct shear-wave arrivals from seismtic events originating on the far side of the moon are not observed at some of the stations of the Apollo seismic network. These data suggest that the material in the lunar interior at a depth of 1000 to 1100 kilometers is more dissipative for seismic shear waves than the lithosphere above, and possibly exists in a partially molten state akin to the earth's asthenosphere.

www.sciencemag.org...

Lunar seismic data from artificial impacts recorded at three Apollo seismometers are interpreted to determine the structure of the moon's interior to a depth of about 100 kilomneters. In the Fra Mauro region of Oceanus Procellarum, the moon has a layered crust 65 kilometers thick. The seismic velocities in the upper 25 kilometers are consistent with those in lunar basalts. Between 25 and 65 kilometers, the nearly constant velocity (6.8 kilometers per second) corresponds to velocities in gabbroic and anorthositic rocks. The apparent velocity is high (about 9 kilometers per second) in the lunar mantle immediately below the crust.

www.sciencemag.org...

The oldest Moon rocks found are 4.46 billion years old. www.psrd.hawaii.edu...

In your image link it says 366/100=0.27322, well, It DOESNT

366/100=3.66

then you say that the circumfence of the earth times the moon divided by 100 equals the circumfrence of the sun?

Well, The circumfrence of the sun is4,366,813 km. Earth has a circumfrence of 40,075.16 and the moon 10,864 km

So 40,075.16x10,864/100=4353765.3824 km

It does NOT equal 4,366,813 km

Finally you have 39,988x10,920/100=4366689.6km

Well it actually equals 436668960 km NOT 4366689.6km

Your math is all wrong and therefre I can not and DO NOT take anything you have to say on this subject seriously.

Not to mention the fact that you called this thread "Hollow Moon THEORY FACTS." Nice oxymoron there.

If you are going to come up with some crazy theory you should atleast have your math right and make it a little harder for your ideas to be debunked.

The way it is now I and many others have been able to debunk you just because your math was way off. If your math is off then your idea is off too.

Perhaps change your math and change your idea to fit the correct math. Then and only then should your idea be taken seriously. If your own math can not actually back up your idea that is because your idea is flawed and needs to be changed.

But then again, I guess you were not counting on any one actually doing the math.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
In your image link it says 366/100=0.27322, well, It DOESNT

366/100=3.66
[edit on 14-3-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

The numbers appear to be flipped as previously pointed out in this thread, it should read as 100/366.

100/366 does in fact = 0.27322

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
then you say that the circumfence of the earth times the moon divided by 100 equals the circumfrence of the sun?

Well, The circumfrence of the sun is4,366,813 km. Earth has a circumfrence of 40,075.16 and the moon 10,864 km

So 40,075.16x10,864/100=4353765.3824 km

It does NOT equal 4,366,813 km

Finally you have 39,988x10,920/100=4366689.6km

Well it actually equals 436668960 km NOT 4366689.6km
[edit on 14-3-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

After checking a few resources, I'm finding that the exact circumferences of the Sun, Earth, and Moon tend to vary by small amounts, a hundred kilometers or so for Earth and the Moon, and up to a few hundred for the Sun, based on the resource referenced.

For the math used in the example given, the values are as follows:
Earth's Circumference = 39,988 KM
Moon's Circumference = 10,920 KM

So:
Earth x Moon / 100 = Sun
39,988 x 10x920 / 100 = Sun
436668960 / 100 = Sun
4366689.6 = Sun

It would appear that the image's math is at least correct as per the values used in it.

no one takes into the account that we may not be special, and it could be a fluke.

I think everyone forgets that we are not the center of the universe. I mean with the millions if not trillions of solar systems out there, each with their own equation (variables). One set of variables, mathematically, HAD to be the perfect conditions for life. Either this equation is common among solar systems, or we are 1 of few universal flukes.

An easier way to think about it is ....yes.... the movie the matrix. with the robots creating humans genetically, trillions of them maybe?, eventually, they made the perfect human aka neo (relative to the matrix). We could be the result of randomness.

In my opinion, we arent some special little creation no matter how many people want us to be. I think we are just a mathematical fluke, just like any other forms of life in the universe.

Just because the sun and the moon as the same size in the sky, that doesnt mean aliens did it. Maybe this solar systems set of variables IS the god equation.

and now im just rambling. but you know exactly what i mean, its not something tough to comprehend, i mean seriously. Anything EXACT obviously means god or aliens did it right....

HOLD ON PEOPLE, I THINK...OHHH MYYYYY GOD...MY RULER...THE ONE...THE ONE I USED TO DRAW LINES WITH...ITS...ITS PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN TO 90 DEGREES...ALIENS MADE IT...that HAS to be the answer.

There is really nothing to substantiate a hollow moon.

Originally posted by djusdjus
There is really nothing to substantiate a hollow moon.

Theres really nothing to substantiage a solid moon. I think hollow earth and moon theorys are more plausible then the earth or moon not being hollow.

An artificial structures that has been in orbit for billion of years? Thats about what the moon has been dated to be. These Aliens sure are patient.

Well, the dark areas on the moon (marina) are extensive flat areas that were formed from lava flows during the early years of the moon. Lava flow are mantle material. There are rille on the moon, which are ditches on the surface of the moon where molten lava flowed in the past, they are due to volcanism and not meteor impacts. This proves that the moon has a mantle,therefore a core. Also...actually, you know what, I don't mean to be rude but this "theory fact" is prett-y prett-y pretty bad. Why would alien/wtv put a hollow moon there anyways? why does it have to be hollow, they might as well put the whole thing with the core to make it more believable. Wouldn't the gravitation forces/tidal forces of the earth on the moon break it apart after a while? What is meant by hollow anyways, is it like a thin crust 1% crust 99% emptyness or is it 99% curst 1% hollow Did they practice by giving Jupiter 60+ moons before they perfected it?

It is probably hollow, and i also believe it has Alien bases on it.

food for thought

er.jsc.nasa.gov...

At 7:21 p.m. Tuesday, the spacecraft swung behind the Moon, lost contact with Earth and passed 164 miles above the lunar surface. Haise and Swigert, who had never been so close and might never get closer, snapped photos like a couple of tourists. At 7:49 the spacecraft emerged on the other side and was again picked up by tracking stations. This conversation took place: SC--Houston, Aquarius. CAPCOM--Aquarius, Houston. SC--The view out there is fantastic... You can see where we're zooming off. Apollo 13 was headed homeward. Moments later the 15-ton spent third stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle crashed into the Moon, as planned. It occurred at 8:09 p.m. EST, April 14. The S-IVB struck the Moon with a force equivalent to 11 1/2 tons of TNT. It hit 85 miles west northwest of the site where the Apollo 12 astronauts had set up their seismometer. Scientists on Earth said, "the Moon rang like a bell." Back in November 1969, the Apollo 12 astronauts had sent their Lunar Module crash- ing into the Moon following their return to the command craft after the lunar landing mission. That Lunar Module struck with a force of one ton of TNT. The shock waves built up to a peak in eight minutes and con- tinued for nearly an hour. The seismic signals produced by the impact of s-IVB were 20 to 30 times greater and four times longer than those resulting from the LM crash. Peak intensity occurred in 7 minutes. The information from these two artificial moonquakes led to reconsideration of theories proposed about the lunar interior. Among puzzling features are the rapid build- up to the peak and the prolonged reverbera- tions. Nothing comparable happens when objects strike Earth. One theory is that the signal is scattered and repropagated in very deep rubble. An- other holds that the velocities of seismic waves from these impacts are comparable to meas- urements of velocities in crystalline rock. So the crystalline material which the astronauts found so abundant on the Moon's surface may extend very deep into the Moon. Houston reported the lunar impact of the S-IVB to the spacecraft:

Rang like a bell ? Hmmmmmm

There is only one significant point presented in the three mathematical 'co-incidences' on that moon page; that is, that the moon and the sun appear to us to be about the same size in the sky. The third point says this explicitly, while the second point is equivalent mathematically; ie, it's like saying "1+1=2" and "2=1+1"; there's no extra information given by saying both.

The first point on that page is also not significant because of the mathematical equivalence of the two parts of the point. Because the moon orbits the earth once a day while the earth courses around the sun on a 366-day orbit, the angle subtended by the moon and the sun changes slightly every day, until the are back at the same relative positions, which is 27.322 days later because of the rate of the earth's spin compared with the length of its orbit. It has nothing to do with the moon especially; we could take any geo-stationary point (eg, a geo-stationary satellite or the top of a flag-pole) and if we were at the same spot every day observing the angle between it and the sun, we would see a cycle of 27.322 days.

Having said that, since I was young I have always marveled that the apparent sizes of the moon and the sun are the same.

the fact of the matter is no one knows

On my home page I've just posted a chapter on these themes from a 1982 book of mine, may be illuminating:

www.jamesoberg.com...

reply to post by JimOberg


Sorry Jim, I can't read that I am vertical not horizontal

If anybody is still here...i uh hacve a question about the moon thery?

I mean we know the other parameters dont we?
Just from the precise orbit measurements?
Any ways there then should be some way to figure the average density that the moon has....
the volume it has...vided by mass?
Any ways the same figures can be worked for earth too
comparison of the result would give us an idea if there is hollow spots or core....
Anyways im sure the math can work to tell if its likely that the moon is partly or wholly hollow
The three hour shockwave returns from appolo on the second drop and the hour long ones from the first drop of the moon lauch rocket assmbly...may be also figured like a oilmans siezmic charts to a degree....at least for density or whatever....
forgive the intrusion if this is drivel