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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Damian-007
 


"CHRLZ" answered a lot....but I think he/she forgot this one...(or, perhaps was mentioned, but for clarity allow me to address it):


Originally posted by Damian-007
Ok, for all you geniuses out there.

If the Moon did, in fact, Come from our Earth as part of a Collision, Where is the Huge Piece missing from our Earth?



Let's recall, please ecactly how LONG AGO this happened. That is, the major collision, between the just-forming what-would-eventually-be 'earth', and the other largish body that impacted.

This all happened over 4.5 BILLION years ago. It was all part of the incredibly complex, early deveopement of our Solar System.

It was CHAOS, then. Many, many collisions, between planetary (or more correctly, 'proto-planetary') bodies within the inner Solar System.

ALL of this accumulation eventually began to subside, and some "peace' has reigned for at least the last three BILLION years, give or take a few hundred million.

WHEN the proto-planet eventually-to-become-Earth was impacted, it was STILL mostly hot, and molten.

IN FACT, whatever mass actually hit has likely been incorporated into the totality of the combined masses of the Earth/Moon system.

Please look up, on the Web, more about our relationship with the Moon (and, no, not the crackpot stuff, like "hollow moon" or "artificially brought here by aliens", or any of that stuff. NONE of that has any real basis in observation. AND, observable, repeatable scientific calculations are what MAKES science!!! Not wild-ass assumptions, based on pure fantasy, and speculation....)

Look at how we, the Earth/Moon, are more of a 'double planet' system....even though the Moon is merely about 1/6th the mass of Earth, it still has a profound affect.

Something called the 'barycenter' of mass is the defined location of the center of mass, of the two bodies. That location actually lies BENEATH the Earth's crust, by several kilometers.

This is but one reason the Moon has such influence on Earth --- not only th tides, but in its ability to stabilize and moderate the Earth's rotational axis.

I say again, have said it before....i wish this was taught more, in school curriculae nowadays. Seems it's not, and that is a crying shame....




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mookite
All of the questions in this forum have been addressed by the two books by Don Wilson--Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon and Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon.
If you google "before there was a Moon" you will find that ancient civilizations talked about a time before there was a Moon in the sky.
And last but not least, Director Irwin Shapiro of Harvard SAO had said that the Moon is theoretically impossible ! He cannot explain how it got there.

Just park your brains by the door, before reading Wilson. I'd look a little wider, but whatever floats your boat.

As for that Shapiro 'quote', your interpretation is rather interesting. It comes from way back in 1970, and he had a reputation for hyperbole and humorous quotes. It's hard to track down a definitive source for his comment, but it seems clear it was in the context of a vibrant discussion about some of the difficulties and unknowns at that time in formulating an exact theory to perfectly explain lunar formation.
He supposedly said: "The best explanation for the Moon is observational error - the Moon does not exist" ... and I'm sure it got a laugh.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Where did the Moon really come from?


For an exotic explanation, read The Terra Papers. As the lore was passed down through a few generations of native American Indians from a most peculiar visitor...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   


Do you believe the moon is hollow, I am asking, cause in some ways, its seems with the density, non-linear gravity for planetismal body size 0.168 earth gravity compared to the 0.25 that it should be. These findings make me ask repeatitively, how can it be lacking 67 percent of the mass of a body that size, compared to the gravity felt.


That calculation is based on Newton/Einstein's law of gravity, which apparently is incorrect; you have gravity only when there is rotation (see Stan Deyo's explantion on Google Video). Lunar gravity force is proportional to its speed, not to its mass.
Stan Deyo's revelation (part of Black Physics, because it originates inside black projects) explains why we can't figure out why dark matter or dark energy cannot be seen, simply because they don't exists. Our knowledge of gravity is wrong.
Stan's explantion also explains why the Moon's orbit is getting larger with Earth slowing down, or why the planets' positions follow a mathematical order.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by projectfun
 


Does this theory of yours also explains the the rotational spin from stars at the edge of galaxies are not slowing down the further you get from the galaxy center ?
I don't want to derail the thread I'd appreciate a u2u just as much.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 



Your statement about very little cave drawings is an excellent addition to this topic!

I never had thought about before in my life, what did the early natives think of the moon?

Great idea to ponder





posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Sinster you comment about the Stars at edges of galaxies and there spin rate; I'd find that number might be larger and faster than humans tend to believe.

I am interested what you think. u2u me if you like..



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by projectfun
 


What I was referring to, is that the mass to diameter size of the moon, we see only some 64 percent of the gravity of the moon that we should.

Does that make sense? Density to mass, mass to gravity. (I'm note quoting the whole formula I know)

If the moon is one quarter the size of Earth, we should expect g=0.25

Now we see a g=0.168



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


The Moon does not have the same structure as Earth. Earth has a large dense solid inner core, a dense liquid outer core, the mantle which increases in density with depth, and a "fluffy" crust. The Moon has a small dense solid core, a mantle and a crust.

The average density of the Moon is about 3.3 g/cm^3. This matches the density of the Earth's upper mantle and crust. Without our dense cores, the overall density of the Earth would be about the same as that of the Moon.

This is further evidence for the giant collision theory. The overall density of the Moon is similar to the density of the Earth's crust and mantle indicating that is it composed mainly of the same materials.

[edit on 4/4/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


I believe you're forgetting about you basic geometry lessons, especially as relates to the volume of a three-dimensional object.

True, the diameter of the Moon, compared to the Earth, is approximately 27%.

That does not mean, however, that its volume and mass necessarily follow the "27%" figure.


How about volume? The volume of the Moon is 21.9 billion cubic km. Again, that sounds like a huge number, but the volume of the Earth is more like 1 trillion cubic kilometers. So the volume of the Moon is only 2% compared to the volume of the Earth.

Finally, let's take a look at mass. The mass of the Moon is 7.347 x 1022 kg. But the Earth is much more massive. The mass of the Earth is 5.97x 1024 kg. This means that the mass of the Moon is only 1.2% of the mass of the Earth. You would need 81 objects with the mass of the Moon to match the mass of the Earth.


www.universetoday.com...

Now, I know this is confusing when taking into account surface gravity, because it's not a direct linear correlation...mass to gravitational force.

As you will see in the following link, surface gravity is determined by not only the mass of the planet, or planetoid, but also the radius:

www.ajdesigner.com...

It's a lot to digest, I know. That's why we have rocket scieintists to do it for us! (well, now they use computers, of course...)



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



That does not mean, however, that its volume and mass necessarily follow the "27%" figure.


ahhh I did go look at that, and the your correct.

thanks for the info on that, I had been confused about the missing gravity for a few.






posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I seen the density and the relationship to the moon crust, earth crust and it makes sense.

I also noted in the PSR reports that the moon lacks large quantities of iron, which might also account for the composition issues with the moon? maybe?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
OK, I'm new to ATS so forgive me if I'm a little clueless, but what about Tsarions' view that the moon is a result of a disintegrated planet from our solar system and that the pieces created the asteroid belt and a large chunk of that was either towed or snatched by gravity into earth's orbit.

Personally I like the theory that it is a hollow spacecraft in disguise as it lends itself to the theory that UFO's aren't traveling light years to get here and those that created Earth as an experiment can keep a close eye on our development.

I don't particularly require proof as I believe most of orthodox history is a scam, I mean no one has ever been able to adequately explain the Piri Reis map to me.

So enlighten me, I have a desire to be illuminated (no pun intended)



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by somethgblue
 


The Piri reis map, is a whole topic unto itself! Long/Lat and the Antartic with no Ice, I have little faith that modern man has the truth left to answer that question.

Back to the Moon, I like to wonder about advanced Civilizations being able to do such things, the universe has to many possibilities not to include things just because Human's say no way.

As for what is believed and what is truth, maybe a handful of Humans' have those answers about our civilization.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by somethgblue
 


I am afraid the "giant hollow spaceship" hypothesis just makes no scientific sense.

It's whimsical, but hardly supported at all be observations.

What's more, the mass distribution of the Moon is inconsistent with it being "hollow". This entire notion seems to stem from one unfortunate comment made, decades ago, when the first seismology experiments were being conducted, in order to determine its inner sturcture, compared to what we know of Earth.

The phrase "ring like a bell" connotes, in some minds, what we commonly see as bells --- that is, blunt conical shapes, hollow inside.

In reality, solid rocks (of the right composition) can also sound like they "ring" when struck. So, it is purely a misconception, that just keeps being repeated, with every new generation that comes along....

Here, some real data:


Geologic history
The geological history of the Moon has been defined into six major epochs, called the lunar geologic timescale. Starting about 4.5 billion years ago,[3] the newly formed Moon was in a molten state and was orbiting much closer to the Earth. The resulting tidal forces deformed the molten body into an ellipsoid, with the major axis pointed towards Earth.

The first important event in the geologic evolution of the Moon was the crystallization of the near global magma ocean. It is not known with certainty what its depth was, but several studies imply a depth of about 500 km or greater. The first minerals to form in this ocean were the iron and magnesium silicates olivine and pyroxene. Because these minerals were denser than the molten material around them, they sank. After crystallization was about 75% complete, less dense anorthositic plagioclase feldspar crystallized and floated, forming an anorthositic crust about 50 km in thickness. The majority of the magma ocean crystallized quickly (within about 100 million years or less), though the final remaining KREEP-rich magmas, which are highly enriched in incompatible and heat producing elements, could have remained partially molten for several hundred million (or perhaps 1 billion) years.


Link.

See, it is not disputed that the Moon was once molten --- we see it in the 'maria'. Also, as it cooled, and the internal maelstorm diminished, it was briefly volcanically active. Unlike Earth, though, there is no mechanism for continued internal heating, so the Moon is long since dormant.

Molten magma, and "giant spaceships", would seem to be mutually exclusive.

(OT, but the "Piri Reis" map is also well-explained, online sources abound...)



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


in reading you last post, it can to my mind, that maybe the explanation of mascons could be surmized:

By the violent "birth" of our moon and the specific effects of the chunck as it spun off.

Another note: I have been reading about the still classified chapel bell, any thoughts about that?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
i don't know about the rest of you, but the moon does seem to have an effect on light hitting the surface of itself, if you look at some of the pictures from the old Apollo moon landings, you can clearly see that the shadows are going in different directions, this cannot happen naturally, this could explain why we can never see the dark side of the moon. there could be light manipulation involved.

or it could be an entirely closed solar system like that one episode of TNG



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Stedlinn
 



...if you look at some of the pictures from the old Apollo moon landings, you can clearly see that the shadows are going in different directions, this cannot happen naturally...


Oh, but shadows most certainly can, and do. Youcan see examples right here, on Earth, just about everywhere you look.

The Moon is not perfectly flat.

Any variations in terrain will cause shadows to appear to go "in different directions".


Most extreme, and obvious example I can suggest right now, is look at a sidewalk curb (or 'kerb', if you're in the Old County).

Look for shadows that fall across it, such as light poles, flag poles etc.

Alternatively, find a glen or field somewhere, with tall trees surrounding. Look at those shadows, too.

I am sure there are also images available online....

Found an example. Note the fence, and its regularity, then look at its shadow on the snow:



Look here, how long and distorted a shadow can appear, when cast by the Sun low on the horizon (as was the case during Apollo landings):



Here, you can see the obviously perfectl straight handrails, and the shadows they cast against the angles of the steps:



Principles are roughly the same, on the Moon.


[edit on 4 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


thanks for the info, the links to the pictures did not work, but i see what you are talking about



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Stedlinn
 



...the links to the pictures did not work...


Should be all better, now....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join