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.

 

Where is the Moon From?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


yes I sure can give you a reference to that Document, it is:

history.nasa.gov...

Page 11 under conclusions...... says that the MOON is Neither Terrestrial, nor Meteorite in composition.....

hmmmm




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
OHHHH
I have one for all those reading, why is it that the moons mare, is 90 percent on the side facing us, the earth.

interesting that we could, if you look at the Lunar surface in face call it the yin/yang moon because the far side looks nothing like the near side whatsoever!

So, anyone, why the difference in mare [sea] distribution, so unequally across the moon?


Here, you have got one that no-one has really managed to explain...

But as the moon is tidally locked, it means the concentration of elements near the surface on this side would be slightly different to that on the far side, and that may have somehow resulted in more 'upwelling' of magma on our side. Also, my additional theory is that any incomings that were heading moonwards from the 'earth side', would likely be dragged off course by our much stronger gravity and hit us instead of the moon, so less cratering after solidification..



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Interesting point, I like seeing different perspectives. now only if we could get that perspective of the far-side to turn and face us, here on earth I think that would be cool!

Back in reality land, have you ever looked at a map of the surface features as plotted by NASA the difference is so remarkable and rather makes me for a loss of words to describe how different the change is.... let me link you to a map here:


www.lpi.usra.edu...

take a look the surface features and differences are amazing!!!



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Maybe someone today will have a good explanation about the disposition and order of mare across the surface of the moon, and why most is upon the near side facing earth.

How about the moons magnetic fields, what kind of anomalies do we see with this, referencing the mascons, differential in gravity and mass of the Moon.

My researching continues.


Where is the moon from?

[edit on 3-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
It's a know fact for a long time that the moon is much older than the earth.
This is not a conspiracy - NASA says it themselves.

The theory of the impact with another object is from a time before we had the chance to examine materials from the moon itself - so it was just a theory.

But why is it still with us in all the school books and study books?

The answer to this is also quite simple and also no conspiracy ... sorry guys


It's money ...
The publishers would jump to get a chance to redo their school books every time we make a new discovery.
So all schools, all students would have to buy them.

Fact is ... the schools doesn't matter if private or run by the gov can't afford to buy new books every month (and that would just be about it).

So they just leave it the way it is ... and everything written in it becomes "public knowledge".

This is sad - but true. And this isn't just about the moon ... it's thousands of other things.

btt the moon and where it came from.

You can debate as long as you want to - the fact is: we don't know.

There are some interesting statements done by Alex Collier (can't remember if it was his comming out speech 94 or a later one).
They are for sure interesting and go back to the theory of the creation of humanity by other intelligent beings.
He says that to those beings terraforming is as simple than planting a tree would be to us.
We now for sure that life on earth would not exist without the moon.

A lot of what he says raises more questions than answers but it is still interesting.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
If as posed the Earth-Moon combo arose from the collision of two proto bodies,
Since the Moon was the smaller fragment it probably cooled sooner, therefore its [solidified/cooled] rocks would be older.

My question is:

Where the heck did the proto-Moon body fly in from?

If everything was circulating about the same speed round the Sun [all arising from the same dust whirlpool] how or where did something vastly faster than the proto-Earth or coming in at an odd angle to strike/collide come from?

To me that certainly raises some questions.

Side tangent thought:
Since Mars also had a pair collision to get its 'daily' rotation my guess is that virtually all daily rotating objects must as a result of a binary collision.

Would that also apply on the sub-atomic level?
That all particles with spin are the result of two proto-particles colliding?

The trouble with Venus ever being terraformed is that it has no significant spin, so even with a molten core it has only a very weak magnetic field.
And a magnetic field protects a planet both from immediate radiation as well as the solar wind blowing any atmosphere off into space as happened with Mars's. Mars has a spin, but it has no molten core so it too lacks a protective magnetic field.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by slank]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Wow I sure did nap there for a second, [actually 2 hours]


The reason I posted this thread is hopefully this morning a fresh crew will look at what has been stated so far, and hash at it again.

There are to many issues and inconsistancies about the origins of the moon!!!

Heck even Human history is just crazy, about broken pieces that don't seem to be close to becoming an actual picture of history, the whole piece.

to surmize my side of things, about the moon:


  • Why no comet debris evidence in surface material collected
  • How can it be that the moon is not of terrestrial origin and
  • The moon is stated to not be of meteorite materials either


Thats really fishy, really strange to say the least



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ocker
Hi fellow moonites

Most of the moon rocks collected are much older than rocks found on Earth. The oldest rocks on Earth are 3.7 billion years old, after testing samples the find for lunar rocks were calculated from 4.3 to 5.3 billion years old.




I think that is explained by the fact that the surface of Earth was a roiling semi liquid mass of lava which hadn`t formed a crust or stabilised... whilst the early Moon got a head start in the cooling process and it didn`t have any volcanic activity .Hence the older age of the rocks on the Moon , or so the accepted theory goes ,so i believe.

==============================================
Some interesting videos on the subject .
==============================================


If We Had No Moon 1 of 5



How the Moon was Formed



=============================================



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Hi UmbraSumus

interesting theory you provide

Thanks for the vids I will endeavor to watch them tomorrow


have a good weekend

Ocker



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


I do believe your explanation of earths surface is a valid point!, If the material keeps melting then of course the age of the rock would change.

hmmm...still perplexed though....



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Basing these questions on the preliminary science report of the Apollo 11 mission was probably not the best place to begin. There has been a LOT more good science done on this subject since then, which has taught us much, much more about the origin and composition of the moon than we learned from the first 100 kilos, or whatever, of rocks we took from there in one single location. Even a sampling from all five missions (one of which did have a geologist), while a better sampling, is hardly enough to tell us everything about a body whose surface area is greater than that of all the land on Earth. That would be like trying to determine the composition of Australia by sampling a rock in France.

Here's a couple of videos which depict the Giant Impact hypothesis. The first is more informative, the second is really beautifully animated:






posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


I understand were your coming from, but what not the best inquest into the origins of the moon than to have a GEOLOGIST on the surface of the moon!

And the AS17 preliminary science report states what all those reports before AS11-17 under the surface geology, it states that the conclusions are still non-terrestrial, non-meteorite formation, of complex origins.

There seems to be such a varying opinion to the degree of theory still that something is up...just cannot put my fingher on it.

Thanks for the videos!



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
... and breccias of complex origin.


Here is an earth version of complex Breccias rock.



On the surface this looks like supporting
evidence to the whole moon-is-pieces-of-earth theory.
This is usually portrayed with splashy graphics of a collision with earth.
It's popular because it also leads to a tentative solution to why the same side faces us.


My own research leads me
to disagree with all of the above.
No orbit in our entire solar system is
perfectly circular. They are all elliptical.
Further if the period of rotation equals the
period of orbit, which it does in the case of moon,
then it is impossible for the same face to _not_ drift
out of view. Unless the orbit is perfectly circular. It's not.
This is why we are fed such creative phrases as "Tidal lock" with earth.


David Grouchy



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I've read some possible related things on this.

I'm sorry I can't provide any links but maybe some of you know more.

The gap in between Mars and Jupiter ( The asteroid belt.) Is so big that there could just as well be another planet. The asteroid belt combined gravity is however not enough for even a small planet .

Mars is not much bigger then our moon. Could it be Mars was once a moon. or maybe could a missing planet be the source of the moon and Mars all together.

( Just some of my wondering thoughts. )

Great thread. S & F



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I believe the Moon is used as a base of some sort by other-worldly beings. Whether they put it there is hard to comprehend but ...they probably did.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


Do you know more about the tidal locking? I haven't research that aspect of the moon much at all. Do you think this is part of the evolution of the Earth Moon system, or an outside influence that effected in the manner we see through human history?

It would be interesting to know if other moons do the same.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Great thread!

I myself have done a lot of reading and research into the moon and its anomalies, and the only solid conclusions I have been able to draw are that there is something up with the moon, and its a lot different and holds greater secrets and stories than we believe it to.

The part that gets me the most is how perfect it's orbit is around the earth; how only one side is always facing us, it's orbit barely changes (I think maybe like 1 inch a year or something), and that it is the only moon in the entire solar system that gives us a perfect solar eclipse. All these "coincidences" seem a little too odd to me.

I also find it quite odd that after the Apollo missions, NASA basically lost total interest in the moon, and it is only now with the advent of the Asian space-agencies interest in the moon that NASA is going back...

The best part about this whole story is that we look up and see the moon every day, its always there.... always looming over us....



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Could aliens really have created us? I think that some aliens probably created the moon for the sole purpose of life on earth. I mean without the moon we'd be screwed. I mean if they are so advanced then they would want to be able to create more of their own species on different planets, even if they had to wait awhile. I also think they could just be hiding somewhere, but in suspended animation, just waiting until the planet is ready.

BUT I'm probably wrong!



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability It would be interesting to know if other moons do the same.


Preliminary math
===========================

Orbital period / Rotation Period =

Take Luna
Orbital period = 27.32166 earth days
Rotation Period = 27.32166

27.32166 / 27.32166 = 1
===========================


How many bodies in our solar system have a 1:1 ratio of Orbital Period to Rotation Period? Well here is the list.

(7 Orbiting Jupiter)
Metis = 1
Adrastea = 1
Thebe = 1
Io = 1
Europa = 1
Ganymede = 1
Callisto = 1

(12 Orbiting Saturn)
Pan = 1
Atlas = 1
Prometheus = 1
Pandora = 1
Epimetheus = 1
Janus = 1
Mimas = 1
Enceladus = 1
Tethys = 1
Dione = 1
Rhea = 1
titan = 1

(7 Orbiting Neptune)
Naiad = 1
Thalassa = 1
Despina = 1
Galatea = 1
Larissa = 1
Proteus = 1
Triton = -1 (retrograde rotation)

(16 Orbiting Neptune)
Cordelia = 1
Ophelia = 1
Bianca = 1
Cressida = 1
Desdemona = 1
Juliet = 1
Portia = 1
Rosalind = 1
Cupid = 1
Perdita = 1
Belinda = 1
Puck = 1
Mab = 1
Miranda = 1
Ariel = 1
Umbriel = 1

(1 Orbiting Earth)
Luna = 1

(1 Orbiting Mars)
Phobos = 1

(1 Orbiting Pluto)
Charon = 1

(1 Orbiting Kalliope)
Linus = 1

so 7 +12 +7 +16 +4 = 46

There are 46 "moons" that always show the same face to the body they orbit.
this is not a simple anomaly that can be explained away with one case of Tidal lock.
This is a major trend and fundamental property of our solar system. I wonder why NASA is quiet?


David Grouchy


[edit on 3-4-2010 by davidgrouchy]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


"CHRLZ" has pretty much answered the "where did the Moon come from" question, already.

To summarize:

The early formation theory is the best, and most-accepted. More in favor than the 'capture' hypothesis, or the parallel formation event, in the beginning of the accretion of the Solar System, from the original dust clouds.

The apparent age difference has also been addressed. Earth's surface is constantly undergoing transition, because it is an active planet (unlike the Moon, which is quite inert, by comparison)

From the Tranquility Base pdf link, Page 11, take another look at paragraphs (12) and (13). Read what they say....


The information about tidal locking is not hard to find, on the Web:


Rotational Period and Tidal Locking

The Moon has a rotational period of 27.3 days that (except for small fluctuations) exactly coincides with its (sidereal) period for revolution about the Earth. As we will see later, this is no coincidence; it is a consequence of tidal coupling between the Earth and Moon. Because of this tidal locking of the periods for revolution and rotation, the Moon always keeps essentially the same face turned toward the Earth (small fluctuation mean that over a period of time we can actually see about 55% of the Lunar surface from the Earth).


csep10.phys.utk.edu...


Other "locked satellites" in our Solar System. (And one that is extra-solar).

Another thing to consider, and to understand, is that the Moon's orbit was, initially after formation, much closer. AND, the earth was rotating much faster.

As the Moon orbits, it 'robs' (via conservation of angular momentum).

Partial explanation:


6. Earth and Moon. By tugging on the tides, the Moon is decreasing the w of the Earth. Conservation of angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system says that the Moon must gain angular momentum. It also gains energy. (Earth rotates in a day, and it takes almost a month for the Moon to go around the Earth, so the tidal bulge on the Moon side is always leading the Moon.) The gain of energy is potential; it is moving farther away and slowing down, so it loses a little kinetic energy, but the net change is an increase of energy of the Moon. This process will continue until the Earth's spin w is equal to the Moon's orbit w , or until the Sun becomes a red giant and vaporizes Earth and Moon, billions of years from now.


instruct.tri-c.edu...

Feel free to research more, online. Lots of information out there.

BTW, we owe a big debt of gratitude to our Moon. Without it, our planet would be more prone to precession. It has been learned that Mars has undergone some dramatic changes in axis orientation over hundreds of millions, billions of years.

These precessions do NOT occur overnight, however...very gradual, thought to be triggered by gravitational tugging forces from the outer gas giants.

Here's some really technical stuff: (Mentions Earth's Moon, too)...

iopscience.iop.org...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join