Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Dark Side of The Moon

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
it didn't go into space. Space isn't a vacuum. It really isn't empty.


It's not a true vacuum, but the amount of matter floating around in open space is so little, that for all intents and purposes, it is empty.

Take a look at this:

hypertextbook.com...

It shows potential densities of space ranging between 0.1 atoms of hydrogen (the most common particle in space) per cubic centimeter to 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic centimeter.

Yes, space is not a true vacuum, however, it is nowhere near dense enough to carry sound waves, as sound waves require moving particles to carry the wave, of a density of at least 1 atom per cubic centimeter.


The sound propagation should cease when the mean free path for air molecules becomes longer than a few centimeters. At room temperature and 760 torr of pressure (1 atmosphere), the mean free path is about 2 x 10-5 cm and is inversely proportional to pressure. Thus the pressure should ideally be reduced to about 10 millitorr to reduce the sound to the lowest possible level.


Source: sprott.physics.wisc.edu...

Therefore space is not dense enough to carry sound.

That said, care to tell me again how we heard the sound of the booster impacting the surface?




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion about the Pink Floyd record.
I do apologise....
(Brilliant record BTW, I bought it for my Dad years ago)



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
It didn't go into details as to how they heard it but it certainly was heard. Your a bit late if you still don't know that their is sound in space. We have technology that regularly listen to the sounds in space. Gas exist in space as it does on Earth but is far more dense. There sound certainly exist in space.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Asia Minor]


Sound does not exist in space as we know it on Earth (see my last post regarding the physics of sound regarding the density of space). The "sounds" that we hear from space are audible conversions of other types of waves that can travel through a vacuum, such as electromagnetic and X-ray. Both of these are waves, and as such, can be fed into a sound producing program, and reproduced as audible sound.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   


that's the far side. Looks pretty normal to me



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion about the Pink Floyd record.
I do apologise....
(Brilliant record BTW, I bought it for my Dad years ago)


Great record, btw. I've owned it for many years.

And to put at least one of my posts in this thread semi-on topic,

The possibility of there being an "alien" base on or under the surface of the moon is quite interesting, though, with the exception of the one photograph of the "base" on the Navy's website, there is no compelling evidence to really support or disprove this theory. That one photograph isn't even enough to truly prove it without a doubt to me. I don't know about the potential for anomaly in the cameras or transmission systems used to record that photograph, so I can't completely believe it, though it certainly looks real.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Sound in space can be heard. They maybe another way to convert rays into sound, yet sound as we know it exist in space. The human ear isn't sensitive enough to pick it up of course. However, with sensitive microphones these sounds in space certainly can get picked up. You made another mistake as well. In space atoms CAN be at a distance of one atom percentimeter or it can be more packed than on Earth. It's where you are in space. Black holes have sent detectible sounds to prove this. Then again, it's all in the violence of what's producing the sound. A tree falling will cause more molecular vibration than a cup hitting the ground. I am quite sure when the moon vibrated for a while it caused quite a distubance in space. This actually happened twice. In giving you this information I came across a case that Apollo 14 had the same startling vibration giving indication that the moon may likely a hollow ship as the great ancients have said regularly in the past. Here is something proving that sound does exist in space quite detectably, as I stated before, as we know it. Consider this as a free lesson. I am no scholar at space studies but, I try to stay up on these things.
www.livejournal.com...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Asia Minor]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Sound in space can be heard. They may convert rays into sound, yet sound as we know it exist in space. The human ear isn't sensitive enough to pick it up. However. with sensitive microphones these sounds in space certainly can get picked up. You made another mistake as well. In space atoms CAN be at a distance of one atom percentimeter or it can be more packed than on Earth. It's where you are in space. Black holes have sent detectible sounds to prove this. Then again, it's all in the violence of what's producing the sound.


Did you read either of the links that I posted? As we have done more research on space, the theorized density of space has decreased, the latest theory posted on that page being from 1995, stating that space has a density of 0.1 atoms per cubic cemtimeter. That would mean, on average, 1 atom every 10 centimeters. Sound is carried by atoms bouncing off of each other in the pulse of the waves. If there are not enough atoms, the sound wave dies off almost immediately. 1 atom every 10 centimeters is not enough to carry a sound wave.

In another thread that was posted in this forum, there was a recording of "sounds" from a solar storm. If you looked at the article referenced in this, it was stated that the sound was an audio impression of the electromagnetic signature of the storm. Within the storm, there would be enough particles to carry sound. Outside of the storm, however (such as the distance from which the "recording" was made), there is nowhere near enough particles to carry sound. Theoretically, given that the density of space is an average, there could be pockets of open space where there are enough atoms to carry sound briefly, but given the density of space, these pockets, if they do exist, wouldn't be able to carry it for much more than a centimeter or two.

The physics of sound is how I make a living, being a live and studio sound engineer. These are things that I need to know for my job. The one thing I needed to check on for this thread was the density of space.

Short version: open space is not dense enough to carry sound. Period.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Don't take this to heart, but your off topic and misleading. This is about the moon's far side. Another thing to the other's. Because the moon orbit the Earth it may be colder and hotter than the Earth at times. Not cold all the time. In a total eclipse it may likely be HOT. Is their life on the dark side Well, you guys are looking at these svcientist like they are your neighbors. They don't play in swings and have cookouts. If they are monitoring earth from the moon. They may be inside the ship for to navigate and abserve .



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Don't take this to heart, but your off topic and misleading. This is about the moon's far side. Another thing to the other's. Because the moon orbit the Earth it may be colder and hotter than the Earth at times. Not cold all the time. In a total eclipse it may likely be HOT. Is their life on the dark side Well, you guys are looking at these svcientist like they are your neighbors. They don't play in swings and have cookouts. If they are monitoring earth from the moon. They may be inside the ship for to navigate and abserve .


Actually, if you look at the progression of the thread, it is on topic. We're discussing the plausibility of sound in space after you claimed that a rocket booster hitting the surface of the moon made a sound like a bell. I've disproven that this is even possible through the discussion of sound. I'm not discrediting your entire theory, just that part of it.

I find this whole topic rather interesting, since I would very much like to believe that there is someone else out there watching us, interacting with us, or helping us. Using the far side of the moon as a staging point is quite an interesting theory, and I feel that with the collection of minds on this board, we could come to at least a resonable explanation of this, even if we can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's discussions such as this one on sound in space that help to figure out if portions of theories given as evidence are indeed valid, and worth researching farther.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
What can I say? I really kinda like you as you give a pretty hard and respectable debate. But I like to let the facts do the talking for me. The moon reverbating? You wouldn't beleive it, but the sound resonated throughout the moon for over 2 hours? That's astounding to me. A bell doesn't even vibrate that long! This has happened a few times. Also, the moon is much older than the Earth. By 1 billion years and the moon is of a different compund than the Earth rock. Read up on the facts. If you care to learn, you WILL find it as I have presented this information. I never stated that the moon made a sound either. I simply said it vibrated, resonated or reverbated. You jumped the gun and misinterpreted it as sound. Am I correct?
www.geocities.com...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Asia Minor]
(edit to reduce length of text in link as it was stretching the page)

[edit on 13-2-2005 by pantha]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
What can I say? I really kinda like you as you give a pretty hard and respectable debate. But I like to let the facts do the talking for me. The moon reverbating? You wouldn't beleive it, but the sound resonated throughout the moon for over 2 hours? That's astounding to me.
[edit on 11-2-2005 by Asia Minor]


No I don't believe that the moon resonated for 2 hours, and you have presented no evidence. That website is so nasty that it gave me a migrane, and it also presents no evidence.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
What can I say? I really kinda like you as you give a pretty hard and respectable debate. But I like to let the facts do the talking for me. The moon reverbating? You wouldn't beleive it, but the sound resonated throughout the moon for over 2 hours? That's astounding to me. A bell doesn't even vibrate that long! This has happened a few times. Also, the moon is much older than the Earth. By 1 billion years and the moon is of a different compund than the Earth rock. Read up on the facts. If you care to learn, you WILL find it as I have presented this information. I never stated that the moon made a sound either. I simply said it vibrated, resonated or reverbated. You jumped the gun and misinterpreted it as sound. Am I correct?
www.geocities.com...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Asia Minor]


Regarding the age of the Earth versus the Moon, the U.S. Geological Survey has studied this, and I'll post a portion of my findings as I posted earlier in this thread:


From pubs.usgs.gov...


An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation.

...

The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.


This states, in essence that it is easier to get a solid date on the formation of the moon due to its lack of plate movements, weather, etc. It's pretty solid fact that the moon is aged roughly 4.4 and 4.5 billion years.

The Earth, on the other hand, with its constantly changing surface is far more difficult to date. The above article states that the oldest known mineral formations found on Earth are the zircon crystals found in Western Austrailia, dating back 4.3 billion years. However, crystals such as these do not form out of the blue. Formation of crystals such as these take thousands (or perhaps millions) of years. Knowing this, one can surmise that the Earth is far older than these crystals. The minimum age for the Earth is 4.3 billion years, but the evidence inherent in these cystals suggests that it is far older than that.

At the most, the age discrepancy between the Earth and the Moon is only a million years or so, and that's still open for debate.

The physical makeup of the Moon is significantly different from the Earth. That is known fact. There are still theories outstanding as to how it was formed and how it came into Earth orbit. These theories include being "caught" in Earth's gravitational field, forming from debris left over from the "big bang", though a seperate debris field from the one our own planet was formed from, etc. I feel the most viable explanation for the formation of the moon, which would also sort of support your "hollow moon" theory, is that it was formed, over time, as various particles and debris (likely from the asteroid belt) collected together. It seems far more likely that the Earth's gravitational field caught a smaller asteroid, which then started an orbit around the earth. Other asteroids may have followed from the same disturbance that followed the first one out, and eventually started to amass around the first asteroid in our orbit. Over time, enough would have collected to form the moon as we know it. As a result of this type of formation, the moon would also remain very porus, with many caves running throughout it. Not necessarily with a large open space in the middle, but more along the lines of a sponge. The acoustic properties of an object such as this would actually allow for a prolonged reverberation of a severe impact. There's also far less believable theories for the moon's formation. One being the "moon is a spaceship here to watch us" theory. Another being the "Planet X / Nibiru" theory (the moon was caused by a collision between Earth and Nibiru, formed from the resulting planetary debris from both planets. Earth settled back into a sphere, the water fiilling the low points, and Panagea was the resulting land mass. Over time, Panagea split, and moved to the positions we're familliar with for the continents now.

However, with all of these theories, there really is no factual information nor compelling evidence to support any of them wholly. Consequentially, all of these theories are simply speculation, and none should be trusted fully. Given that all we know currently is that the Earth and Moon are roughly the same age, and that the Moon orbits our planet as it does, we do have a far side of the Moon which is never visible from Earth. There have been a few anomalies detected on the moon, but none that can either be fully proven or disproven. We can all speculate on our own theories, or existing ones, and perhaps we can find the one that makes the most logical sense. However, whatever theories are brought up, we'll have to expect that they will be looked at and individual parts of theories (and sometimes whole theories themselves) are going to be either proven possible, or proven impossible. Given the results of this discussion, we can most likely finally form an opinion of possibility.

Of course, the hard fact is, we'll never know unless someday we're able to travel back in time to the creation of the Earth and Moon, and finally witness for ourselves what actually happened.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

No I don't believe that the moon resonated for 2 hours, and you have presented no evidence. That website is so nasty that it gave me a migrane, and it also presents no evidence.


Depending on the core makeup of the moon, it may be possible that it reverberated. If it has a lot of open space in the middle (such as a series of large caverns - possible, given the lack of seismic activity on the moon), that can carry the reverberations for quite some time, much like a tuning fork.

I do agree, however, on the website. I did my own search on the topic, and was not able to find anything regarding it on a trustable website, and the ones that I did see information on this never provided any evidence or links to evidence. NASA says nothing about it (and I even read the entire mission logs for both the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 missions {14 was the next to actually make it to the surface}). In the logs posted on the NASA website, there is also no evidence of tampering or data exclusion (the logs are both 100+ pages in PDF format, both scans of the original paper logs)



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I'm surprised this hasn't been pointed out but that album by Floyd answers all your questions about the dark side of the moon. At the end of the last song, turn the volume up real loud and you will hear your answers. "there is no dark side of the moon. afterall, it's all dark"

I had to answer the age old question which side of the moon is dark for a fraternity pledging thing and it took me forever to figure out where to find it.



Just a question? Do you not read the other stuff in a forum before posting? Not six replies up, I say the exact same thing you did. So don't be so surprised that it hadn't already been pointed out. It had.

[edit on 2/12/2005 by keymaster]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I think that is where the milk carton kids are taken



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
an interseting presentation on seismic data from the moon.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
You other guys are diluting the value of the thread, messing up the debate, talking about albums and babbling issues of no construction. And Father guy, generally, you counter someone's claim with something with ssome ubstance other than your own mere doubt. Back to the issue with mo ammo. Yeah. I am no stranger to the theories of the Earth's and Moon's origin. Actually, the idea that the moon was some old rock that was hurling through space and got tangled up in Earth's gravitational pull is old and rejected by most. Mainstream science is borrowing from Black Islam's theory that the Moon was blown, split apart from the Earth by a great explosion/collision. The idea that the Moon was split apart and over time mysteriously molded into shape. Also, some believe it was blown from earth yet, was in pieces. It collected mysteriously by it's own gravity and formed the moon. Well, Those theories are are not cold enough to be accepted as to how the moon formed. For one, the moon lacks fluid which would be necessary in the it's "molding" into shape. Even if so, rocks in nature break down by the jagged edges of other rocks. Also if the earth was what the moon formed from , the surface should be mostly Iron and ore which is what the Earth's mantle consist a great bit of. That is how sand forms and break other rocks down yet and still it doesn't explain the perfect shape and orbit of the moon. Also the moon is much older than the Earth and we agree on the different compunds of which both consist yet differ. If the moon was split from the Earth actually it would consist of the heavy metals that it does. The Earth's mantle would hold the primary elements of the Moon which is Iron and ore. yet, the moon is much older than the Earth at being I billion years older my friend, not millions or thousands but Billions. www.geocities.com...
[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
You other guys are diluting the value of the thread, messing up the debate, talking about albums and babbling issues of no construction. And Father guy, generally, you counter someone's claim with something with ssome ubstance other than your own mere doubt. Back to the issue with mo ammo. Yeah. I am no stranger to the theories of the Earth's and Moon's origin. Actually, the idea that the moon was some old rock that was hurling through space and got tangled up in Earth's gravitational pull is old and rejected by most. Asteroids have passed closer by the Earth and have not stayed in an orbit. Mainstream science is borrowing from Black Islam's theory that the Moon was blown, split apart from the Earth by a great explosion/collision. The idea that the Moon was split apart and over time mysteriously molded into shape. Also, some believe it was blown from earth yet, was in pieces. It collected mysteriously by it's own gravity and formed the moon. Well, Those theories are are not cold enough to be accepted as to how the moon formed. For one, the moon lacks fluid which would be necessary in the it's "molding" into shape. The moon possibly cold have been molten liquid at first. After all, it's surface predominately consist of metals. If you have cleaned an oven before you would notice that the baked grease in a broiler or even on a gas stove looks like the moon. Especially when the grease pops and looks like miniature craters. But hold up. If that theory was true then the moon probably would look like a metal rock rather than a dirt rock. Not only that but the size of the object striking Earth would have to be quite massive. Where did it go? Also if the earth was what the moon formed from , the surface should be mostly Iron and ore which is what the Earth's mantle consist a great bit of. Also, the moon is much older than the Earth and we agree on the different compunds of which both consist yet differ. Also, the moon is much older than the Earth at being 1 billion years older my friend, not millions or thousands but Billions. Older astronomers believe that the Moon could be a satellite due to the quite constant activity they reportedly have seen. Some have reported that they have seen the massive structure moving across the Moon that Neil Armstrong was reported to have seen. mentioning Neil armstrong he claimed their was quite some threatening movements on the moon. Who knows?

www.geocities.com...
[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
[(...) the theorized density of space has decreased, the latest theory posted on that page being from 1995, stating that space has a density of 0.1 atoms per cubic cemtimeter. That would mean, on average, 1 atom every 10 centimeters. (...)


One cannot talk about “the density of space”, period, without saying what kind of space. It can be interplanetary space, or interstellar space, or intergalactic space, each of these being vastly more dense than the next one on the list. Furthermore, density varies greatly within any of these three types of space.

For example, most of the “empty” space inside a galaxy (interstellar space) contains around 0.1 to 1 particles per cubic cm., whereas the typical density within a giant molecular cloud (the kind of “cloud” that contracts and forms a protostar, then a star) located in that same space is hundreds of particles per cubic cm. ( Compare that with the 100,000 in a good vacuum tube !) When density exceeds 100,000 p.p.c.c. (due to shockwaves from a nearby supernova explosion) the cloud starts to collapse into a protostar.

Within our interplanetary space, density is extremely high along the asteroid ring, as compared to other regions between our planets.

("Every 10 cm." should be "every 10 c.c.".)


Originally posted by obsidian468

The "sounds" that we hear from space are audible conversions of other types of waves that can travel through a vacuum, such as electromagnetic and X-ray. Both of these are waves(...).


If X-rays are not electromagnetic radiation, what are they then?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Macrento

One cannot talk about “the density of space”, period, without saying what kind of space. It can be interplanetary space, or interstellar space, or intergalactic space, each of these being vastly more dense than the next one on the list. Furthermore, density varies greatly within any of these three types of space.

For example, most of the “empty” space inside a galaxy (interstellar space) contains around 0.1 to 1 particles per cubic cm., whereas the typical density within a giant molecular cloud (the kind of “cloud” that contracts and forms a protostar, then a star) located in that same space is hundreds of particles per cubic cm. ( Compare that with the 100,000 in a good vacuum tube !) When density exceeds 100,000 p.p.c.c. (due to shockwaves from a nearby supernova explosion) the cloud starts to collapse into a protostar.

Within our interplanetary space, density is extremely high along the asteroid ring, as compared to other regions between our planets.

("Every 10 cm." should be "every 10 c.c.".)


I specified several times, open space, as in space not inhibited by planetary, cloud, nova, or other types of "dense" space. If in perhaps that one example I did not specify, then it was my mistake, thinking that others would be able to tell, by the number of other times I specified, what I was talking about.




If X-rays are not electromagnetic radiation, what are they then?


I know that X-rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps this would have been better phrased as "...such as X-rays and other types of electromagnetic waves."

Generally, however, in my experience, the term "electromagnetic" generates ideas of electromagnets to people, so I specified X-rays as a type of wave so they were more able to follow what I was saying (I'm in an industry that I often have to "dumb down" things, so that the general public {or even trainees} will understand them, and that often carries over to my non-work conversation).

[edit on 13-2-2005 by obsidian468]






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join