Alrighty... I really wanted my own thread for all this, but it seems this will have to do. I know most people can confirm that numbers can be
rearranged or manipulated to mean just about anything, but Here's me playing with the numbers. All pretty interesting.
The Diameter of the sun is ~1 390 000 kilometers.
The Diameter of the moon is 3474.39 kiolmeters.
1 391 000 (Sun’s Diameter) divided by 3474.8 kilometers equals 400.023023. Therefore, the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, almost to a tee.
Let’s look at what a total solar eclipse is. It is when the diameter of the moon completely covers the diameter of the sun, only showing the sun’s
light rays. For this to be possible, the Moon must be exactly 400 time’s closer to Earth than the Sun (at that point in time.) This makes it appear,
from the perspective of the viewer from Earth that the Sun and moon are the exact same size. So the Moon's pretty much exactly 400 times smaller than
the Sun and 400 times closer to Earth (at full solar eclipse... the yearly average is ~390x).
The moon and sun have amazing synchronicities as well. When the sun is at its lowest and weakest point in mid-winter, the moon is at it’s highest
and brightest and the reverse occurs mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at opposite point at the solstices.
The Moon always shows the same side or ‘face’ to the Earth during the period when we can see it. We never see what is called the ‘dark’ or far
side of the Moon from the Earth. This is due to the synchronicity of the Moon’s rotation. It rotates on its axis in about the same time it takes to
orbit the Earth, and this means the same ‘face’ is turned towards Earth at all times. In the time it takes the Moon to complete one full rotation,
Earth will rotate more than 27 times.
The Moon rotates once in about 27.32 days (or 655.68 hours), and its radius is 1738 km, with a circumference of 10,921 km at the equatorial line –
the distance the Moon must travel in order to complete one full rotation. Moon’s circumference (10,921km) divided by the amount of hours it takes to
make a full rotation (655.68 hours) equals a speed of 16.66 km/hr.
Now let’s look at the Earths equatorial circumference, 40,075.16 kilometers. Earth only takes 24 hours to make a full rotation, so when you divide
the circumference by 24 hours; we get a speed of 1,669.8 km/hr. Therefore, the moon rotates almost exactly at 1/100th the speed of Earth.
It’s maybe also note-worthy, that when you divide the Moon’s circumference with the amount of time it takes for the Moon to make one full
rotation, you get a total of 399.85 kilometers.
Earth spins 366.259 times during one orbit around the Sun, and the Polar circumference of Earth (39,992.22 km) is 3.66195 times the size of the Moon
(10921 km).
The Polar circumference of the Moon is 27.31% the size of the Earth. The Moon makes 27.396 rotations in one year.
Let’s have a little more fun with the numbers. Multiply the circumference of the moon (10,921km) by the equatorial circumference of the Earth
(40,075km) and then divide by Earth's speed over the Moon' speed, in order to find X.
(10,921km x 40,075km) / (1669.98km/hr / 16.66km/hr) = X
(437,659,075km) / (100) = X
Therefore; X = 4,376,590.75
This gives us the Sun’s circumference, correct to 99.9%; just another one of those coincidences…
Also… [The Circumference of the Sun, divided by the circumference of the Moon], multiplied by 100 equals the circumference of the Earth.
Also… [The circumference of the Sun, divided by the circumference of the Earth], multiplied by 100 equals the circumference of the Moon.
Looking at the first picture, we can conclude that Ganymede is the largest moon mass, with a diameter of 5262km. Our moon is 66% the size of that
moon, at a diameter of ~3476km.
However, the diameter of Jupiter is 142,984km, and the Earth is ~12756 km. Let's again, look at the numbers
Ganymede diameter (5262km), divided by the diameter of jupiter (142,984km), equals 0.0368, or 3.7%. So we can conclude that Ganymede is only 3.7% the
size of the planet is it orbiting. This moon also has no numerical perfections. It's rather conclusive that it actually makes sense for this moon to
be orbiting that planet.
The Moon's diameter (~3476km), divided by the diameter of Earth (~12756km), equals 0.27249,
making the moon 27.25% the size of the planet (Earth)
that it is orbiting. No other Moon-size/planet-size ratio is that high that we know of, and it is definitely unique to our solar system.
Let's say that if Earth's orbiting satiellite was 3.7% the size of the Earth, we'd have a moon with a diameter of 469km. If Jupiters biggest moon was
27.25% the size of Jupiter, it would have a diameter of 38,963.14km. That would make this theoritical moon three times the size of Earth. Would it
make sense for a moon 3 times the size of the Earth to be orbiting Jupiter? Probably not
Does it make sense that the Moon is orbiting Earth? Debatable
Does the Moon show very excentric detailed statistical findings that
MAY show that it was PUT into Earth's orbit?
In my opinion, it's
possible.
Found this...
Between 1969 and 1972, five Apollo missions installed seismic stations at their landing sites on the nearside of the moon. Because the moon was
thought to be seismically dead, the instruments were left almost as an afterthought to detect meteor strikes. But from the time the stations were
switched on until they were decommissioned in 1977, they recorded hundreds of internally generated moonquakes, some as strong as magnitude 5.5
on the Richter scale.
For 40 years, scientists have scoured the Apollo seismic data for an explanation of these moonquakes. Because the moon lacks active plate
tectonics, moonquakes must be driven by different forces than most quakes on Earth. Extreme temperature changes may account for the less common
shallow moonquakes, but a good explanation for deep moonquakes remains elusive. Now, a new study crosses one long-standing theory about what
triggers deep moonquakes off the list. Instead, the study suggests, moonquakes might have more in common with earthquakes than previously thought.
“Very early on, scientists recognized a link between moonquakes and the tidal forces exerted on the moon by the gravitational pull of the Earth,”
says Bruce Bills, a geophysicist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and co-author of the new study published in the Journal of
Geophysical Research. “Moonquakes reoccur again and again in the same locations at the same time of the month, which seems to link them to
the monthly tidal cycles” he says, “but so far, nobody has been able to construct a physical model or clear pattern to explain the
relationship.”
The relationship between tides and had been explored before, Bills says, but “most of the moonquake studies were done back in the 1970s soon after
the data were collected, and we’ve learned a lot about geophysics and modeling since then.” By comparing data about where and when the moonquakes
occurred with the well-understood cycles of tidal forcing, Bills and colleagues thought they could flesh out a moonquake pattern. But, Bills says,
“it didn’t work out that way at all. Clearly there’s something else involved here besides the tides.”
One problem with the tidal forcing hypothesis, he says, is that while tides exert the same pressures from month to month on the entire moon,
moonquakes only occur in limited regions. “If the tides were the only force involved in generating moonquakes, we’d expect them to be more
widespread,” Bills says.
“The deep moonquake problem is similar in some ways to the deep earthquake problem,” says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of
Texas in Austin who was not involved in the new study. Deep earthquakes occur at extreme temperatures and pressures where brittle fracture, the cause
of most shallow earthquakes, is not possible. So other phenomena — like dehydration embrittlement, where water and other volatiles open cracks in
otherwise plastic rock, and transformational faulting, where minerals change to weaker or denser phases under extreme pressure, causing collapse —
are thought to play a role, he says.
Because water has yet to be discovered on the moon, Bills and colleagues suggest mineral phase changes may make certain areas of the moon weaker,
resulting in moonquakes triggered by tidal pressure. “This is one of the first broader viewpoints I’ve seen,” says Yosio Nakamura, also of the
University of Texas at Austin. “Other studies have failed to find a clear relationship between tides and moonquakes, but this is the first to
suggest an alternate mechanism.”
For now, Bills and colleagues plan to continue to study the Apollo data, but they say more data, collected by more instruments over a wider area of
the moon, are needed to test their transformational faulting hypothesis. Frohlich and Nakamura are also hoping NASA will return to the moon and
install a few dozen seismic stations. “Right now, we know virtually nothing about the moon’s interior,” Frohlich says. “So we have
to make a lot of assumptions about the moon’s internal composition, which means all our theories are pretty sketchy. Sometimes so much speculation
is fun, but more often, as in the case with deep moonquakes, it’s just frustrating.”
Perhaps this synchronized Moonquakes metabolize the Moon on it's orbit? Maybe they aren't Moonquakes?
The bottom line is, there isn't really an answer for how the Moon got there. We know why it's there... It creates a harmonious gravitational
equilibrium that creates seasons, and habitable zones on Earth. If it wasn't there, none of us would be either; the weather would be too erratic for
life to evolve over time. The proto-planetary collision theory doesnt add up for a few reasons:
There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis).
The recent water findings basically rule out the entire hypothesis. Not only that, the entire theory's based whether or not this so called
proto-planet hit Earth on an extremely perfect angle, immensly lowering the possibility of it being the correct answer
The Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru), when it is actually deficient in those.
Meanwhile, we find things like Uranium 236 (a long-lived radioactive nuclear waste and is found in spent nuclear fuel and reprocessed uranium) and
Neptunium 237 (a radioactive metallic element and a by-product of nuclear reactors and the production of plutonium).
There's some other things, but I think that is good for now. I'm not looking to get into a heated debate with anyone over this, but this is where I've
gotten with the concept.
LET THE DEBUNKING IMMENSE?
edit on 24-10-2010 by Aeriq because: plain old editing