reply to post by DontProbeMeBro
Most of these aren't proven facts they are assumptions. For the matter that you stated they were "FACTS" is extremely wrong because i would love to
see a lot more evidence for these supposed "FACTS". Most of your points provide no evidence for these supposed "FACTS"
The mainstream theory is that the moon was created when a mars size or smaller object/planetoid impacted with the Earth thats the most well accepted
theory so far.
Its funny you left that out of how the moon could have possibly formed. Which shows you tried to skew the observation on the matter. It makes sense as
well to why the moon has a perfect circular orbit because the material orbiting around the earth after the impact would have slowly coalesced into a
Maybe the moon does have hollow areas in it but i doubt the moon is completely hollow that doesn't make any sense especially considering you said the
moon is 3.4 or something the density of water and the earth is 5.5
That would mean yes the moon maybe has less dense material which would make it lighter. Or it could have material just as dense as Earth but that
wouldn't make it 'hollow' it would still have a lot of material inside of it scattered about unevenly 'maybe' if it wasn't as dense but it wouldn't be
a huge hollow interior that doesn't work out if you say its 3.4 the density of water compared to Earths 5.5. If it was partially hollow it wouldn't be
a large amount of the interior that would be hollow.
The fact that you think the moon is a spaceship strikes me as odd because you said the material on the moon was said to be 5.5 billion years old how
does that work with your little 13,000 year old "FACT" you stated.
Too many conflicting "FACTS" for many of them to be valid.
edit on 2-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason
edit on 2-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)