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.

 

The Dark Side of The Moon

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 05:26 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. 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.

This is known as the "big splat" theory. A mars sized planetoid collided with the proto-Earth. a huge mass of material was ecjected into orbit by this collision. the portion of that material that was outside the Roche limit accreted into the moon.

There is nothing mysterious about the accretion process. It is how all of the planets formed also. as the pieces of debris collide and tumble about, the bigger pieces start to pick up all of the smaller pieces until there is just one big piece left.




Well, Those theories are are not cold enough to be accepted as to how the moon formed.

accepted by whom? You? Granted, it is a theory, and as such it is still undergoing examination.
www.xtec.es... But that doesn't imply thatthere is a better theory out there, because there isn't.




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.


What fluids are you talking about, water? Don't be silly.

The heat released from the energy of the impact would have bee enormous. (read the link above)



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.


Uh, no. in fact the lunar rocks match the Earths crust quite closely, as a matter of fact, with important differences that match the theory.



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.



The moon is about 1.5 billion years younger than the Earth.



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...


Read the following:


Giant impact hypothesis.
The Moon formed from debris thrown into Earth orbit during an oblique collision of the proto-Earth with a smaller, but still planetary-sized body (perhaps the size of Mars).

  • Explains the proximity of the Earth and Moon.
  • Explains why the Moon has little or no iron core. Computer models indicate that the debris thrown into orbit came mostly from the rocky mantles of the proto-Earth and the impacting body.
  • Explains why the moon has a low volatile content. The very hot debris (silicate vapor and liquid) thrown into orbit by the giant impact would quickly form a disk, or ring, about the Earth. Gaseous volatile materials, like H2O, CO2, sodium, and some other elements, would evaporate into space and be lost. When the ring gradually accreted to form the Moon, the material would have lost most of these volatile materials.
  • Explains the formation of the early magma ocean. The material thrown into orbit would have been very hot, probably mostly liquid, and may have gotten hotter as it fell into the gradually accreting Moon. The result would have been a moon with a thick layer of liquid, the magma ocean from which the lunar anorthosite crust and early upper mantle formed.
  • Explains the very high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. The extra angular momentum came from the oblique impact, which converted part of the orbital momentum of the impacting body about the sun to orbital momentum of the ring about the Earth (which became the Moon), and part to make the Earth spin faster.

www.union.edu...




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
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...


You still seem to miss what I posted about the age of the moon. You quote a site hosted on geocities, a web host that allows anyone who signs up to host a site, and offers no credibility, and I quote the US Geological Survey, an organization that actually has the means to research this firsthand, and holds much greater credibility.

I repost again, for the third time 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.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Debating sources? A new low instead of adhereing to the facts. Mines is far more commonly beleived. The moon is way older than a few millions.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Debating sources? A new low instead of adhereing to the facts. Mines is far more commonly beleived. The moon is way older than a few millions.


A new low? I may be mistaken, but I thought that posting information from a reliable source was the way that misinformation was rooted out and discarded. Honestly, I don't know of anyone besides yourself that believes that the moon is a billion or two years older than the Earth. Even if there were, there was also a time when the world was "known" to be flat, yet that was also disproven, was it not? I, and many others on here, would far prefer to trust a reliable source of information that provides scientific data as evidence, over a brief posting on a website with no evidence to back it up. Also, please don't cry conspiracy on me. What good would it give to the government to misinform us about the age of the moon. They have aliens and an NWO to cover up. The geological age of the moon and earth are probably pretty low on the "misinformation list."



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Opinions, reliable, false "proof" and words that simply express opinions are unnacceptable in debates. Who are the people that beleive your source? Not saying that there is none, but who? I gave theories and you simply made statements.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Opinions, reliable, false "proof" and words that simply express opinions are unnacceptable in debates. Who are the people that beleive your source? Not saying that there is none, but who? I gave theories and you simply made statements.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Opinions, reliable, false "proof" and words that simply express opinions are unnacceptable in debates. Who are the people that beleive your source? Not saying that there is none, but who? I gave theories and you simply made statements.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Opinions, reliable, false "proof" and words that simply express opinions are unnacceptable in debates. Who are the people that beleive your source? Not saying that there is none, but who? I gave theories and you simply made statements.


If you haven't noticed, I'm quoting the United States Geological Survey. This is a government department that is responsible for researching things such as the age, compositional makup, seismic activity, geology, and other such things relevant to the Earth and other known bodies in our known space. This is a federally funded, well known part of our government. I would suspect that most people would believe this source.

You did give theories. I made return statements that prove your theories false. This is how we weed out good information from bad information. It's not always this cut and dried, but in this case, it is.

In order to successfully debate, one must be open to the possibility that they are wrong. I'm quite open to this possibility. However, until you can provide some substantiated evidence that actually will disprove anything I've stated here, I stand by my arguments. As yet, you've only provided theory, and no evidence to back up your claims.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Plain and simple, Neil Armstrong( how much closer can you get than NASA) bought back a rock from the moon that was 5.6 billion years old. That's just a rock. Imagine the more ancient rocks and stones he didn't retrieve. I'm not trying to shot you down but your sources are based on THEORY. I don't care if it's scientific, amateur or granny's olde thery. It's THEORY. Carbon dating has shown what I'm talking about. The site was by a man who didn't do the research, but COMPILED the information and it isn't the only site.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Plain and simple, Neil Armstrong( how much closer can you get than NASA) bought back a rock from the moon that was 5.6 billion years old.


The data I posted is from carbon dating on those very rocks. Either your sources are wrong, or millions of dollars worth of testing and re-testing came up with a totally wrong result.

I will present to you a challenge. Show me reliable information proving that your statement is true.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Is that a mutual challenge? I, myself, believe you have a case to prove. What compels you to beleive what you beleive?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Why don't you just provide backup for your assertion that moon rocks were dated at 5.6 billion years old.


www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Set resolution to 1 pixel=1 kilometer.

Set latitude to -2, longitude to 311

i think its the entrance inside i'm doing alot of research to make sure though What i really need is ground penetrating sonar readings that would oh so nice hehehe



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
oh ya tw this is the Navy's site so dont say its a fake photo cause its not its the real thing



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Is that a mutual challenge? I, myself, believe you have a case to prove. What compels you to beleive what you beleive?


Substantiated and proven fact compels me to believe what I believe. You, as yet, have provided absolutely no hard evidence to support your claims. You are asking me to believe on blind faith. I don't do that.

I'm also noticing that you are being caught in an attempt to put me on the defensive. I have given you hard evidence supporting the facts I have posted here. My case has been proven. You appear to be either unable or unwilling to prove your case. Until then, all you have is blind theory. Prove your case. Mine has been proven.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamagraa
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Set resolution to 1 pixel=1 kilometer.

Set latitude to -2, longitude to 311

i think its the entrance inside i'm doing alot of research to make sure though What i really need is ground penetrating sonar readings that would oh so nice hehehe


I've seen this image several times. It's certainly quite compelling evidence. I would be interested in seeing further investigation into this, to find out what it is. It certainly doesn't appear to be natural.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
yes there are other things on the moon that are "interesting" not 1 but 2 over 1 mile high "formations" one is called the tower and the other is called the shard there is also a bridge but i cannot find a good picture of the bridge it has eluded me for a week now but the search will continue



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Oh, please. That is an imaging artifact.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamagraa
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Set resolution to 1 pixel=1 kilometer.

Set latitude to -2, longitude to 311

i think its the entrance inside i'm doing alot of research to make sure though What i really need is ground penetrating sonar readings that would oh so nice hehehe


I don't understand what is the significance of that moon picture. To me it's just a moon. Obsidian, you don't like accepting facts rather, facts carry the definition of "simply what makes you secure." 5.6 billion year old rocks were found and taken from the moon. In the words of Elijah you can "take it or let it alone." So far you have given me nothing other than doubt. My case is closed.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by Asia Minor]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
[edit on 17-2-2005 by intrepid]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join