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.

 

the moon is artifical

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeyy
 


Mikeyy....thanks for that thought.

oh....you've signed off....no matter.

We all should, once and for all, eliminate the phrase 'Dark Side of the Moon' in these discussions. The Moon rotates about its axis, and thus, if you were on a point at its equator, you would experience about 14 Earth-days of light, and 14 Earth-days of night. THAT would be your experience.

Also, you would experience tremendous variations of surface temperature, so I hope you are using materials that can cope.

The most logical place for a Lunar Base, whether Humans build one, or Aliens already have, would be closer to the poles....that way, you would generally build for extreme cold, and not have to deal with extreme heating and cooling thermal difficulties. Also, most likely to find water ice there, etc, etc....

AND, much as with Apollo, your mining operations could be conducted at "night", even into the early "morning", for a few days before it starts to get uncomfortably hot.

I used to live in the desert. When I wanted to go hike a mountain, I'd do it just around dawn. Much more comfortable.....




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well I am back, now that I have handled all of my academic duties today. (I am in school)

I wanted to point out a couple of things and correct a few false assumptions.

Phage made the point that both sides of the Moon have Maria or Seas. There are 23 "Seas" or Maria on the Moon, 19 on the near side and 4 on the far side. So, I think that it is very clear that the near side has had deeper impacts over a longer time than the far side.

Phage also implied that the Maria are the result of single impacts. That is true of some of the smaller ones, but the really big ones were formed as a result of a series of impacts, some of these were separated by hundreds of millions of years. So, there are some Maria that have in fact been resurfaced several times, as I pointed out. Also, many of the Maria merge and overlap on top of others.

Most of the near side is covered by these Maria features which are younger than the original crust of the Moon. That is something that I think both of us have established.

Why am I making a point of all of this?

It's because the collision theory requires that the impact took place 4.6 billion years ago at the earliest. Because the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a measured rate of 3.8 cm per year and that rate is increasing. (I would like to note that I over stated the movement in an earlier post but I have since checked the figure.) Running the timeline backwards, and compensating for the increase over time, gives us 4.6 billion years as the earliest possible date for the collision. The oldest Moon rocks are within a few hundred million years of this date. If a Moon rock is found that is 4.8 billion years old or older then the collision theory does not hold and we must look for something else.

Why is that a problem?

It is a problem because we don't have any other viable theory for the creation of the Moon.

We know that the Moon was not formed from the same material as the Earth. I pointed this out earlier, but the Moon has a different proportion of metals. It has for instance a lot less iron than the Earth and a lot more aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and rare earth elements. It also has isotopes of elements that do not occur naturally on Earth. The Earth has a lot more uranium than the Moon. So, the Earth and Moon are not made of the same stuff. Also, the Moon's orbit is inclined to our ecliptic plane and so, it did not form from the same debris cloud that the Earth did.

Then there is the capture theory. The capture theory was disproven a few decades ago, and replaced by the collision theory, because only a collision could account for the change in velocity necessary for a capture. Unless of course the Moon has some type of propulsion system. I am not saying that it does.

So, if we find Moon rocks even a few hundred million years older, then we have a big problem scientifically, because we have no idea how the Moon could have gotten there if the collision theory is proven false.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 


In the interest of completness, I should point out that one Maria, Oceanus Procellarum, on the near side is not associated with any impacts and seems to the result of natural volcanic activity. This is also the youngest of the Maria.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HiAliens
 


I'm game for other threads to discuss other aspects of the Moon, like literature, history, mythology, etc.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As usual Weedwhacker you totally misrepresented what I said.

I said that the Moon's distance from the Earth is increasing. That means a higher orbit and this part is without dispute.

A higher orbit requires and input of energy, so where is the energy coming from? That is what I said.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by insider15
 


So sometime during our solar systems creation, what would become our Earth and most likely another developing body on its own solar orbit collided and thereby created the Earth-Moon relationship that we see today. The possibility that an exterrestrial species more technologically advanced than our species using the moon as a base and spying on us since is intriguing and something I honestly hadn't considered. They may have been shaping our very lives to this moment and feel as if we're not ready as a species to make use of their advanced technology. After all human beings are a war like species. The LHC collider may well go down in history as the event to change human society forever. But will it be our destruction or out salvation?

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Copecetic]

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Copecetic]

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Copecetic]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 


lm....

I did not intend to misrepresent you....

What I was saying is, the Moon's orbit isn't necessarily stable....meaning, over the course of billions of years it can gradually spiral away.

The Solar System isn't a clock....it is dynamic and ever-changing. Of course, our puny lifespans aren't long enough to see these changes....that's why we use science, and instruments to measure.

I would use the rings of Saturn as an example. It's unlikely that they have always been there --- they are a lucky accident of collisions between several moons of Saturn that are now obliterated. They may last, what? Another few million years before dissipating??

Yet, there they are for us to ponder, and admire.

I'm afraid that too often people simply don't take into account the incredible complexity of natural forces at work....we all too quickly use our limited experience of just a few decades of life to attempt to intrepret.....



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I have a feeling....hmmm...a vision....that the moon has SOMETHING to do with the McRib.

[edit on 4/7/09 by StonyJ]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK, you said,

"What I was saying is, the Moon's orbit isn't necessarily stable....meaning, over the course of billions of years it can gradually spiral away."

I have read this many times and from several physicists who should know better. The conservation of momentum says that for an object to reach a higher orbit, more energy must be input. Nobody can answer how the Moon is rising in its orbit without an input of energy.

An unstable orbit is not unusual, that happens all the time, but the orbit should be decaying in that case and the Moon's orbit would shrink as the Moon dropped closer and closer to the Earth.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
We know that moon is slowly drifting away from us; it is not fixed at the point it is now--so a billion years ago when someone built the moon, it would have not been aligned. So even if it was built it would have been initially built out of sync. I agree that it seems like a coincidence--but I look at it more in terms of cosmic order and geometrical harmony. The moon is most likely to large to have been built, where would have all the material came from; it would not have collected that much of the course time, unless your stating that someone built it before earth was done forming while there still was a lot of gas, dust and rocky material being pulled toward earth. Otherwise, there was not a lot of space dust floating around in the last 3.5 billion years.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 


Lunar.....I think you answered your own query.

The possiblity is that the conservation of energy inherent in the Moon's mass, as it is orbiting, is just slightly great enough to allow for the widening orbit.

It is extremely gradual. The impetus was inputted billions of years ago.

A really bad analogy --- the centripetal force of gravity could be equated to an elastic band, connecting the two bodies. The potential velocity and momentum of the Moon COULD possibly, gradually, be just great enough to allow the body to slowly spiral away, in each orbit.

Remember, the Earth-Moon system could be considred as a 'dual-planet' system....both bodies actually rotate about a common center. It is estimated that the common 'center' of rotation lies somewhere beneath the Earth's crust.

Again, we're talking about a few centimeters, on average, every Earth year. The Moon, obviously, orbits about 12 times every Earth year.

Hey!! In another million or dozen years....perhaps the Moon's orbit will stabilize at some average distance, and settle down to a more stable ellipse.

Of course, people around then won't be writing threads on ATS about how 'convenient' it is that the Moon just 'perfectly' Eclipses the Sun, and the 'co-incidence' will no longer be so "obvious".....


EDIT....for lunarminer....I am not arguing with you. Just wish to be clear.

I re-read your post. There might be a confusion with how our machines are used in orbit, and to escape velocity, and so forth. YES, it is true....that once a stable orbit is achieved, then an increase in velocity is needed to alter that orbit....whether to increase, or lower it.

For our spacecraft.....we firstly launch into a stable LEO, before the burn is initiated on the trajectory desired.

When it comes to those....they are very small masses, in comparison to celestial bodies....so, if you wanna talk about conversation of momentum....well....although the Moon is not as massive as the Earth, it still has a tremendous amount of mass compared to what we build.....



[edit on 4/7/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 

You're correct. Energy is required to increase the radius of the Moon's orbit. The source of that energy is the rotation of the Earth. Because of tidal effects, the Earth's rotation is slowing. The energy of that rotation is being transferred to the Moon's orbit. The conservation of that energy is causing the Moon to move into a higher orbit. curious.astro.cornell.edu...

[edit on 4/7/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Heh, it might be a type of those Death planets that's talked about in the Terra papers (AR deathship). Placed there to keep us under the eye.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
this is an old favorite aint it? good discussion, but for the artificial skeptics, lets just put down a few facts for discussion:

there are a truck load of coincidences, here are some of the biggest:

1. if the moon wasn't there, in more or less its exact position, we wouldnt be here -- this is even more important than the odd coincidence about solar eclipses etc and how the rotation is set so that no one on earth can ever see the dark side

2. there is STILL no settled scientific explanation for how the moon was formed. there are at least 3 or 4 competing theories out there -- that somehow it was split off from the earth, that its a giant asteroid pulled in etc etc -- there are problems with all these theories

3. the gravitational anomalies etc are laid out in that book that almost no one can buy -- our mysterious moon by don king
-- the masscons are well documented. irregular mass and gravity fields in various craters etc etc

-- also see Hoagland on relative mass of moon to the earth and why astronauts should be jumping a lot higher than they were seen doing in those apollo images/movie reels if conventional maths are used to calculate mass and gravity pull etc

4. some of the biggest craters on the moon are NOT concave, as you would expect them to be from a meteor/asteroid imapact -- the bottom is even or even slightly concave, in keeping with curvature of moon

5. those Nasa experiments which resulted in tremors/minor earthquakes on the moon that triggered ringing sounds and tremors for a MUCH longer period of time than expected -- suggesting the inner of the moon is something VASTLY different to the earth at the very least...

6. and finally -- back to the dark side. the fact it permanently faces away from the earth makes it a perfect communication station with the rest of the solar system, as all the noise from the earth can be blocked out....



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
For 25 years, scientists have pondered a theory that the Moon was created when an object the size of Mars crashed into Earth less than 100 million years after the Sun was born, some 4.6 billion years ago. The general idea has been run through the paces and massaged into shape and is now the favored explanation.
so you believe it because they told you to believe it?


By writing "moon" rocks, I'll guess you don't believe they are from the moon?
I doubt it


I 'seriously' believe they are from the moon and that the moon was probably formed in the way described in my earlier post. I don't think the moon is artificial, hollow, mechanized or even a spaceship. I don't think it has a distinct atmosphere. I haven't seen any evidence that there are alien/human bases there. I think it's a natural satellite that came to exist through processes that conform to current knowledge.

So you'll believe whatever paradigm science clings to at any given moment?



What do you think it is?

I’m leaning towards “it’s there by design” over “it’s there by chance and necessity”.



[edit on 4/7/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Perhaps just as coincidental that the conditions on earth are so perfect to allow such growth of life. The magnetic field that protects it from harsh radiation, the perfect distance from the sun, the perfect amount of the correct elements to sustain life as we know it. Something is very fishy here....



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well I appreciate the discussion, most people have no idea about any of this and I gave up trying to discuss anything about space, space travel, etc. with my family a long time ago. They are simply not interested in it.

Phage makes a good point that I had not heard before, that the tidal forces of the Earth are essentially transfering energy to the Moon. I had not considered this to be possible. Everything that I have ever read about tidal forces indicates that they are basically force neutral. However, the Earth used to spin somewhat faster than it does now and the Moon was in a lower orbit at that time. So, it is something to ponder.

It's late here now, so I am going to bed. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
This post has to take the cake, things cannot get any stranger on this site. I am waiting for the post of hollow earth, and dinosaurs living inside our earth, and trees being some sort of listening device for those who are inside our earth. Next someone will tell us the sun is a a screen to cover up a space portal that aliens come thru, they heat the screen up and throw off heat to confuse us. Also that there is a big projector behind the sun that is projecting the stars into heaven. My god what is next?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by space.odyssey
 


space.odyssey....

you referenced Hoagland...

It's late, but I just want to address the 'jumping' issue of the Astronauts in the EVA suits.

Let's say you wish to view the current footage of Astronauts on STS missions to the ISS, during EVA.

You will see a common theme....the suits are fairly stiff in the joints. Current EVA suits are a far cry better than Apollo....they had very limited mobility, by comparison.

Why are they stiff??? Because they are basically inflated baloons.

Oh, but not inflated as you'd think....you see, a Human can live in pure oxygen at about 3 psi. Of course, just as you would expect, all Nitrogen would have to be expelled, lest you suffer the 'bends'....so, for Apollo, the entire time in flight was at the pure O2, 3.2PSI environment.

For the Shuttle, Astronauts who go EVA take time to acclimate, and let the dissolved Nitrogen exit the body. It is similar to Scuba Diving, but in reverse.

Anyway....on the Moon, even in lower gravity....the Apollo EVA suits were very restrictive. The knees could not bend well....how do YOU jump?

You use your thighs and knees....SO, the best they could (Apollo Astronauts) do was use the ankles and what limited flexibility afforded to them in the knees.

IF the Apollo Spacecraft had been built to withstand a full 14.7 PSID to re-create Earth's environment....well, then they would have been too heavy to complete the missions....and, of course, the EVA suits wouldn't work, as designed.

They HAD TO use a lower PSID....and pure Oxygen keeps people alive, as long as you have a way to 'scrub' the excess CO2....

I'd say, if you built a large structure on the surface of the Moon, and pressurized it to a shirt-sleeve environment.....and you had regualar Earth-strength....yeah! You could jump pretty high....taking into account inertia and momentum factors. Better be ready for the landing, or you might break a leg.....



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by insider15
i dont think the moon can be natural, it had to be built by someone as its just to much of a coincidence that it is just the right size and distance from the earth so that during an eclipse it appears exactly the same size as the sun!! if it was a few thousand miles closer or further away an eclipse wouldnt work. My theory is that its a giant space station that over the millons of years in our orbit due to its gravity has accumulated a layer of rock and dust on its surface. this would also explain why nasa hasnt gone back to the moon since the apollo program, the makers of the moon warned them off.

anyone got any comments??


It's a wonder you haven't suggested, it's also strange the Moon almost
a perfect sphere shape as well. And then there's the bit about the solar
system being perfectly flat as well.

Instead it's the same forces that make the solar system flat and the moon
a sphere and also sets the distances. Now that is amazing, and forces
involved are "Astronomical"



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join