The origin of the Moon is one of the most complicated problems of cosmogony. So far there have been basically three hypotheses under discussion.
HYPOTHESIS I: The Moon was once a part of the Earth and broke away from it.
This has now been refuted by the evidence.
HYPOTHESIS II: The Moon was formed independently from the same cloud of dust and gas as the Earth, and immediately became the Earth’s natural satellite.
But then why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grams per cubic centimeter) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)? Furthermore, according to the latest information (analysis of samples brought back by the U.S. Apollo astronauts) lunar rock is not of the same composition as the Earth’s.
HYPOTHESIS III: The Moon came into being separately, and, moreover, far from the Earth (perhaps even outside the Solar system).
This would mean that the moon would not have to be fashioned from the same "clay" as our own planet. Sailing through the Universe, the Moon came into Earth’s proximity, and by a complex interplay of forces of gravity was brought within a geocentric orbit, very close to circular. But a catch of this kind is virtually impossible.
In fact, scientists studying the origin of the Universe today have no acceptable theory to explain how the Earth-Moon system came into being.
OUR HYPOTHESIS: The Moon is an artificial Earth satellite put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings unknown to ourselves.
Originally posted by winston_jones
Nice post but I have to correct you on this particular point. There is no mystery as to why the same side of the moon always faces the earth. It's because the moon's mass is not evenly distributed. Much of the moon is porous, or even hollow. There are however small areas of much denser mass concentrations (mascons) that are clustered on one side - 'our' side. They lie below the darker areas we call the maria or seas. Because the moon's centre of gravity is skewed towards these areas that side always faces the earth and always will, however much the moon's orbital path lengthens.
Originally posted by Phage
You've massively plagairised a Rense article but other than that:
That's quite a bit of speculation to say that there would be no intelligent life on Earth without the Moon. Life would indeed be different than it is but who knows what it would be like?
The Moon rotates once each revolution because it is tidally locked to Earth. All of the major moons in the Solar System are tidally locked to their planets and exhibit the same behavior.
The distance of the Earth from the Sun varies, depending on the time of year, from 152,097,701 km to 147,098,074km, with an average of 149,597,887.5 km. In the past the Moon was closer to Earth than it is now and in the future it will be farther away but right now the distance of the Moon from Earth varies, depending on the time of the month, from 364,397 km to 406,731 km, with an average of 384,748 km. So the ratio of the two orbits varies from 417 to 361, with an average of 388. So yes, sometimes the ratio is the same as the ratio in sizes but most of the time it is not.
Your claim about the solstices is incorrect. In Los Angeles, on June 21st, the Sun rose at at an azimuth of 61º. On December 21 the Moon will rise at 63º.
The Moon does have a solid core.
Originally posted by sp00n1
The Moon is not a naturally occurring body and was quite possibly engineered to sustain life on Earth.
Originally posted by Lord Jules
since Jupiter has 63 moons, does that mean Jupiter has super-intelligent life forms? or does the multiple moons somehow cancel each other's powers out?