Is the Moon an Artificial Satellite? Look at This.

page: 9
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 





First, where's that 'Mars sized' object that hit Earth? It would have been captured by the gravitational pull of the Sun. So is it Mercury? Venus? Neither. So where did it disappear?


That Mars sized object was destroyed by the collision, and its material is now part of the Earth and Moon.




Second, this theory of ejected material coalescing to form the Moon doesn't fit the equations of orbital mechanics. Such material would either have coalesced to form a number of small moons orbiting the Earth or remained as a ring system like the one we see around Saturn. In the same vein, why hasn't the material around Saturn coalesced to form a huge moon orbiting Saturn?


It does fit. Rings form when the material is closer to the main body than the Roche limit . This is not the case for Moon.




posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 



First, where's that 'Mars sized' object that hit Earth?


You're standing on part of it. Some of it is up in the sky, roughly 250,000 miles away. We call this the "Moon".

Anything that was leftover?? Depends on the various trajectories, if they escaped Earth's gravity well, some would have simply hung around in Solar orbit, eventually to impact either/both the Earth/Moon as meteors. Some bits may have very eccentric orbits, especially long ellipses, and impacted Mars, Venus, Mercury...or fallen into Jupiter's gravitational influence.

There are a vast number of possible combinations, and a vast number of various-sized objects back when the early Solar System was still forming, and stabilizing. This took a BILLION years, probably...give or take a few hundred million...for most of the various debris to eventually be "swept up". (Of course, there are still plenty of left-overs still....in the Inner Solar System. Not to mention, the Oort Cloud, etc...we live in a very "dirty" neighborhood).

To call that video crap seems to indicate a certain lack of intellectual fortitude and understanding of the concepts presented. With the 40+ years of study, and especially after Apollo and the physical samples to examine, the age of the Moon is well-established...and its composition, and density, indicate (to those expert scientists who make it their business to understand such things) that the materials "up there" are not too dissimilar from "down here".

Working it backwards, then: Since the ages are pretty close to the same, the formation is assumed to have occurred concurrently with Earth's. BUT.....all that matter would normally have just accrued into ONE glob, and formed a sphere (Earth). The presence of this separate mass, that has been imparted with a certain amount of energy of motion, to cause its orbit, implies a GREAT force of some kind acting from without.

Think about it like this: The Earth/Moon system is very nearly...well, COULD be considered a "double planet". Because of the relative sizes. How many others like that do you see, in our Solar System? The other three rocky planets didn't form "doubles" as part of their normal evolution, as the debris accumulated.

Therefore, it's logical to surmise that something HAPPENED, here. Different that Mercury, Venus or Mars. In other words, the original glob or "cloud" of debris that pulled together to make the Earth did NOT also, off in the distance of a few hundred thousand miles, form a separate globe, to later become the Moon. It just defies the laws of motion and gravitation. So, we are left with TWO possibilities: The "capture" hypothesis, or the "impact" hypothesis.

"Capture" is generally ruled out, again because of mass, physics and motion...because of the orbit of the Moon is not a very eccentric ellipse. It is massive enough that IF it had simply "passed by" and been attracted to the Earth's gravity well, on its way in, as it accelerated, it would not have resolved into the orbit we see today. It would likely have a very wide difference between apogee and perigee. (A comet's orbit is an extreme example).

So, the "impact" hypothesis is the best fit, form what's observed. It's a bit like detective work, and ALL the facts are not yet fully known....but circumstantially, there is a strong case.

To sum up: Before any "hit", the "proto-Earth" was less massive than it is now. The other celestial body (another "proto-planet") is estimated to be "Mars sized"...but that comes only from working the math backwards to calculate the energies required to result in what we observe today. Maybe "Mars mass" is more apt...doesn't mean it was the exact same diameter or anything. So, the combined mass of Earth/Moon, today, equals the original masses of the "proto-Earth" and the "proto-planet" --- -minus any debris that was flung violently out far enough to not join the mix.

Good question, though, is WHERE did the "proto-planet" form? And what sort of Solar orbit was it following? Who knows, if the two objects had not hit, they may have still met up later, since there was proximity obviously....and ended up as a "double" planet, orbiting each other eccentrically, but in a very different configuration than we have now.

We may very well see some examples of this, someday, when we can visit other star systems....



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Yep! Thanks. I've read all this before. The problems with this "BEST explanation" are:

* Right size: the object cannot be too small nor too large; it has to be a tiny bit smaller than the earth itself - size of Mars; and a "Mars size object" flying around the Universe is very rare! A free floater?


* Impact probability: the chance that the RIGHT SIZE object hitting Earth is EVEN RARER. How often do you see or hear two planets collide?


* Impact ANGLE: computer simulation has shown that the RIGHT SIZE object must hit Earth at a VERY VERY PRECISE angle to create a moon... If the angle is too steep, the object is absorbed into the earth and forms a bigger planet or both destroy themselves depending on the impact velocity; and if the angle is not steep enough, the object bounces back into deep space... talk about a lucky shot in the dark!

In other words, the probability of a Mars-size object hitting earth and creating our moon is virtually ZERO...

Let's face it. We do NOT have a clue how our moon was formed (Only theory/hypotheses).

But boy, are we lucky or what ????



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Actually, I think they just made a computer simulation of ONE set of circumstances, to cover the:


* Right size:


...and....


*Impact ANGLE:


One thing that I didn't like (second video) is when she said the impact began to spin the "proto-Earth"...I would imagine it was already rotating, so not sure what she menat by that. (Might have just been one of her "initial conditions"). It is really about some assumptions, in setting up initial conditions. There are many, many other possiblities, of size and angles, that could result in what we observe today. It's a matter of computing power, to run alternate simulations.

The point is, this many billions of years on, we will probably never know exactly the masses, angles and velocities....no one was there to observe and measure.


I think I suggested that it IS a puzzle, but not completely out of hte realm of possiblity, and answered this part (perhaps my post was toolong, and it went unnoticed??):


...and a "Mars size object" flying around the Universe is very rare! A free floater?


NOW, we get to:


* Impact probability:


Look up at the Moon tonight. See those craters?? Know what caused them?? And, Google "Meteor Crater Arizona".

"probability", given such huge spans of time, is irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 





* Right size: the object cannot be too small nor too large; it has to be a tiny bit smaller than the earth itself - size of Mars; and a "Mars size object" flying around the Universe is very rare! A free floater?
* Impact probability: the chance that the RIGHT SIZE object hitting Earth is EVEN RARER. How often do you see or hear two planets collide?


The object probably formed in similar orbit and in similar way as proto-Earth, but this arangement of two big objects in similar orbit is unstable, and led to their colision. Two planets coliding is rare now, but during formation of solar system such colision is not so improbable.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As it has been previously stated time and again, the Earth and the Moon are comprised of different materials. Of the similar materials they are in different magnitudes, (we don't see a layer of titanium prevalent all over the earth, yes titanium exists on Earth, but not the way it is on the moon). How it is that the moon has some materials not found naturally on earth? (I read Neptunium was found by one of the missions)

As I have also read, the fact the moon has water on it also rules out being formed by an impact with the earth as the temperatures would have vaporized any water at the time. The reality is we really don't know how or why the moon is where it is and none of the conventional theory's really fit or answer all of the questions. Perhaps is NASA were to stop lying to us, we would have enough information to actually answer some of these questions. Or does anyone really think India was the first to discover water on the moon?

..Ex



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


The Earth and the Moon are composed of the same materials. The Moon is less dense than the Earth as a whole, which suggests it lacks the dense iron nickel core that the Earth has. This would be consistent with it having been created from upper layers of the Earth itself, as in the collision theory. Because the Moon has no atmosphere and is geologically inactive, the surface has not weathered or been subducted (swallowed) and reprocessed the way the Earth's crust has. This explains why the mineral distribution on the surfaces are different.
edit on 28-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


The Earth and the Moon are composed of the same materials. The Moon is less dense than the Earth as a whole, which suggests it lacks the dense iron nickel core that the Earth has. This would be consistent with it having been created from upper layers of the Earth itself, as in the collision theory. Because the Moon has no atmosphere and is geologically inactive, the surface has not weathered or been subducted (swallowed) and reprocessed the way the Earth's crust has. This explains why the mineral distribution on the surfaces are different.
edit on 28-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.


Actually a thin atmosphere has been found on the moon as well as a strong layer of titanium. As I understand they tried to drill into the surface and didn't get very far. Once they found water on the moon the collision theory lost considerable ground. I wasn't aware that anyone had found neptunium and other rare elements naturally occurring on the Earth. Earlier in the thread another poster quite authoritatively stated that the moon was rife with geological activity and had several computer generated simulations to reinforce that idea.

I'm sticking with ..."We don't know", until we have had a chance to really find out whats going on. EG: NASA stops lying, or India actually lands on it. (and I really didn't expect to be counting on India to be the source of untainted information.Talk about an embarrassment to NASA.)

..Ex



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 



I wasn't aware that anyone had found neptunium and other rare elements naturally occurring on the Earth.


Got me researching "neptunium"....

Trace amounts were noted to exist in some Apollo 12 Lunar samples. SO, what's this about NASA "lying"? Who allowed this information to be made public as far back as 1972?

From "New Scientist" magazine, Feb 10, 1972 -- (Vol. 53, Num. 782):

"Neptunium-237 has a half-life of two million years. It was found in an Apollo 12 sample."

books.google.com... i=zqrJTMiUCIH58Aa6ofjkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=neptunium%20on%20moon&f=false

(Not sure if that "Google Search" url link will work...you can re-trace my steps on Google, simply by typing "neptunium on moon", as I did......)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


NO, it doesn't:


....the fact the moon has water on it also rules out being formed by an impact with the earth as the temperatures would have vaporized any water at the time.


Nope. Unless you can show some scientific study to support that idea, it is just an uninformed opinion.

The Earth formed from accumulated debris...dust and gasses to begin at first....and got VERY HOT during the process, was almostly certainly entirely molten at some stages, even before the "Moon creation impact" event.

Think about what water is, at its base. Those two elements, how do they combine to form the H2O molecule?? How attracted to each other are they, under the correct conditions for the bonds to form? It's basic chemistry.

Think about it.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


In another post you also mentioned titanium. With the apparent (and very incorrect) idea that the entire Moon is covered in it?? Talking about it being difficult to "dig" on the Apollo EVAs simply describes the tightly compacted Lunar regolith, NOT a "layer of titanium"!


...(we don't see a layer of titanium prevalent all over the earth, yes titanium exists on Earth, but not the way it is on the moon...


Here's a map compiled from observations and readings from Clementine:

www.lunarrepublic.com...

Looks pretty localized, to me. As the article says, concentrated in the mare regions.

It's fun to learn new things, but I like to have the facts, and not rely on wild speculations.

That "urban legend" (titanium shell for the Moon) must be viral on the Webs, or something:

answers.yahoo.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Edit)
Oh, and found more of the nasty, evil "NASA LIES"


( Funny how there is SO MUCH information out there, yet we're told that NASA doesn't let any of it out???
)


Thorium and titanium abundances were also highest over mare regions, but these two elements varied considerably in abundance in different parts of the maria. More details about these measurements and their relationship to lunar rock compositions are presented in the following documents.


www.lpi.usra.edu...
edit on 28 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: More goodies



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 



As I understand they tried to drill into the surface and didn't get very far. Once they found water on the moon the collision theory lost considerable ground.


This is because the Moon is essentially made out of glass: silicon, oxygen and some trace metals were melted down and cooled. The dust that forms the lunar soil, or regolith, was created by the glassy surface being heated and cooled repeatedly over billions of years, while suffering from a constant drizzle of micro-meteoroids. Neptunium is a naturally occurring byproduct of transmutation reactions in uranium ore. Wikipedia



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by v3_exceed
 



I wasn't aware that anyone had found neptunium and other rare elements naturally occurring on the Earth.


Got me researching "neptunium"....

Trace amounts were noted to exist in some Apollo 12 Lunar samples. SO, what's this about NASA "lying"? Who allowed this information to be made public as far back as 1972?

From "New Scientist" magazine, Feb 10, 1972 -- (Vol. 53, Num. 782):

"Neptunium-237 has a half-life of two million years. It was found in an Apollo 12 sample."

books.google.com... i=zqrJTMiUCIH58Aa6ofjkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=neptunium%20on%20moon&f=false

(Not sure if that "Google Search" url link will work...you can re-trace my steps on Google, simply by typing "neptunium on moon", as I did......)


Gawd...
No the information that neptunium was found was reported by NASA. the fact that the moon has water, well...that was not reported by NASA throughout the many missions to the moon previously. So either the flyby's, the photos and millions upon millions of dollars or research was wasted on completely inept people, or they were holding back that information. I think it's very likely they were holding back that information as they are holding back other information about the moon. Until they provide us that information, or until a 3rd party goes to the moon and honestly returns results we will again..simply not know. So, how is it that an element Neptunium-237 that we have not been able to find naturally on Earth show up in "trace" quantities on a moon, created from that very same earth? That wasn't the only non earth element they found either...

..Ex


I'm not even going to respond to people citing Wikipedia as a source. It is NOT a source nor should it be.
You may as well be citing TV guide.... I am aware of where neptunium comes from, and the makeup of the moon materials in it's ratios doesn't exist on the planet. Please read the whole thread as most of this has been covered in great length by other posters.
..ex
edit on 10/28/2010 by v3_exceed because: edit to add...



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 



I'm not even going to respond to people citing Wikipedia as a source. It is NOT a source nor should it be.
You may as well be citing TV guide....


Quite right. Here's what the CRC Handbook has to say:


Trace quantities of the element are actually found in nature due to transmutation reactions in uranium ores produced by the neutrons which are present...


Sorry if this was one of the topics you covered previously.
edit on 28-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


You are trying to argue for the "artificiality" of the Moon, apparently....but using incorrect assumptions masquerading as "facts". And, as a sudden sign of desperation, take the incredible leap of illogic to bash Wikipedia??


Firstly, there is NOTHING WRONG with Wiki, as a quick and easy source, for a good summary of information. My gawd!! It is probably the most famous, and prevalent site...AND, if anyone sees anything that is misrepresented, or just plain wrong, it is available to be edited, and updated continually, with new and valid information.

Now, Neptunium-237....apparently you labor under the misconception that it is ONLY a by-product of nuclear fission, and thus subject to technological intervention, in order to exist?


Once considered to be completely artificial, extremely small amounts of neptunium are produced naturally in uranium ores through the interaction of atoms of uranium in the ore with neutrons produced by the decay of other atoms of uranium in the ore.


NOT a "Wiki" source, but subject to those annoying pop-up ads, UNLIKE Wiki...



Though traces of neptunium have subsequently been found in nature, where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores, Edwin M. McMillan and Philip H. Abelson first found neptunium in 1940 after uranium had been bombarded by neutrons from the cyclotron at Berkeley, Calif. Neptunium has been produced in weighable amounts in breeder reactors...


Encyclopedia Britannica Online

(Is the Britannica also not a "reliable" source??)

Point is, one can hunt all over the Webs to see that the isotope of Neptunium does occur naturally. IN fact, it seems likely that the Moon, lacking a magnetic field, and in therefore getting doses of radiation from many sources, might contribute to the transmutation of any uranium atoms that are present, to a greater degree than occurs on Earth naturally. AND, a two-million year half-life means that a lot of it will tend to linger, even as more is made...and this could have been accumulating for billions of years.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


You are trying to argue for the "artificiality" of the Moon, apparently....but using incorrect assumptions masquerading as "facts". And, as a sudden sign of desperation, take the incredible leap of illogic to bash Wikipedia??


Firstly, there is NOTHING WRONG with Wiki, as a quick and easy source, for a good summary of information. My gawd!! It is probably the most famous, and prevalent site...AND, if anyone sees anything that is misrepresented, or just plain wrong, it is available to be edited, and updated continually, with new and valid information.


To be completely off topic, NO university level courses will EVER allow Wikipedia to be used as a source. Sorry, wont happen and I really don't care if you like Wikipedia or it's "fame", like fame has any bearing on credibility. The wiki mods will edit at their leisure and change facts based on popular opinion. Because of this is cannot be reliably used as a source for anything except entertainment.
The rest of what you posted is YOUR OPINION. And as such can be completely ignored.

Back on topic..
My statement on the moon is, and still stands that we as a species HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT GOT HERE. No amount of banter back and forth can explain all of the anomalies found on the moon...period. Unless you were there, and you weren't the whole debate is just that a debate. Your incorrect assumptions are no more valid than anyone else' incorrect assumptions.

Many people have posted good information here, many scientists have opinions about how the moon was formed, was placed or was transported here. The OP suggested that his observance of the space capsules heat scoring provided similarities to the moons surface further suggesting the moon may have been dragged across space and placed here. Personally I think the OP is right. That is the benefit of sites like ATS, we can all express our opinions. Until someone can empirically prove the moon was formed by a collision with the earth yet managed to somehow maintain large bodies of water, it will remain one of many possibilities, but it will not be considered fact.

..Ex



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Current thinking suggests that most of the water present on planets in the inner solar system was deposited by icy comet impacts. This would be true of the Moon as well; what is surprising is that so much was retained rather than sublimating into space. You are absolutely correct that no-one knows for sure how the Earth-Moon system was formed. Assuming that it is natural may be a more fruitful assumption than speculating that it is a giant space ship.

If it is artificial, we do not know where the ignition switch is or how to operate it. We can only wait for its builders to reveal themselves at a time of their own choosing, or evolve as a species to the point where we can comprehend its construction and operation.

On the other hand, if we are genuinely interested in contacting extra-terrestrial species similar to our own, as opposed to semi-divine planet movers, then speculating on the Moon's impact on our evolution makes perfect sense. Would our earliest ancestors have left the oceans if there were no tides? Possibly not. There may be intelligent jellyfish floating in the seas of Jupiter, but it is doubtful we could communicate with them. Would we have evolved if the Earth was tidally locked with the sun? Possibly, but there would have been less habitable area. Would human agriculture have been as successful without lunar calendars? Would mathematics have developed without calendars? Would our species have developed it's time factoring abilities if there were no Moon? In other words, if we wish to narrow down the list of exo-planets to focus our search on, it would probably be best to concentrate on those that our instruments suggest have a large, stabilizing partner, like the Moon.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I actually agree to a point with you on this. The water should have sublimated off, but a small atmosphere may have kept it in place. If the moon were a vehicle of sorts it could answer a ton of questions about us, as humans and where we really come from, our place in the universe. Assuming of course that we didn't really evolve here on this planet (this is a whole other thread). There was a time not long ago that we weren't aware of what we are now calling the Hutchison Effect. With this and many other discoveries we are being asked to reevaluate what we "know". So when the suggestion is made that the moon might be artificial, I try to keep an open mind on what I already "know".

.Ex



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Water in ice form, buried deep enough could be protected from sublimating away.

Other forms of the stuff are locked up IN the rocks, seems I've read.

News in 2008: dsc.discovery.com...

2010: news.nationalgeographic.com...

And, DJW's comet water story: www.space.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit:

On the "Hutchison Effect"....have been ATS threads on that, and when I looked into it, wasn't impressed. I wouldn't put much hope into it, I think it smells like a fraud.
edit on 28 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 





The water should have sublimated off, but a small atmosphere may have kept it in place.


The atmosphere of the Moon is atmosphere only technicaly, but in fact it is vacuum with a few atoms here and there. Definately not enough to keep water from sublimating. Water on the Moon may have survived underground, or in permanently shadowed craters (as LCROSS impact has showed).





new topics
top topics
 
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join