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.

 

Was the Moon Once Powered by a Dynamo Core? MIT Research Says "Yes"

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by stirling
 


The moon is supposed to be older than earth by some margin is it not?

No.


The hollow moon experiment indicates that the moon is Hollow?(crashing itnto it and seismic measurements )

No.

edit on 1/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yes it is. Do I need to show articles about it?




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 



Yes it is. Do I need to show articles about it?


As a matter of fact, yes.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I don't know much about cosmology, but what is the current accepted theory on how the moon formed?


This is more of an astronomy matter; cosmology is more like "philosophy" of the universe.

When I took astronomy classes, we pretty much already knew that the moon is a "dead" object, meaning that it was once molten and experienced differentiation which lead to some magnetic field. The best theory was that some large celestial object collided with the early Earth and the ejected material formed into the moon.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


Oh my bad, I thought cosmology was the study of how the universe formed and astronomy was more of the physics behind the mechanics. Thanks for the correction.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



The moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets." —Robert Jastrow First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth’s moon, remains an enigma. Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them: 1. Moon’s Age: The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.


Here you go babe




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 

Your source please?
Here's mine.


The Oldest Moon Rocks

By examining data for all of the previously dated lunar anorthosites, we were able to show that plagioclase feldspar is more prone to shock damage than are the pyroxenes in these rocks, so we plotted only the pyroxene data for four different anorthosites on a samarium-neodymium isochron diagram. These data fall on a well-defined line indicating a crystallization age for the anorthosites of 4.46 billion years, consistent with very early, widespread melting of the Moon.

www.psrd.hawaii.edu...

edit on 1/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Robert Jastrow First Chairman. Its he's statement. Now, there are new chairmen and certainly they have slapped this guy ina face at least, for revealing such stuff. And the truth have been twisted since thats a long time this statement has been made.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 

I meant the source of your external quote.
Where did you get it. You are supposed to provide the source for external quotes.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
I believe it was called Weird moon facts or something. There is a good finnish page of many moon related "fishy" things, but I believe google translator won't do it justice. If I see something worthy, I may save some references here and there and usually I dont take authors for some reason. Maybe because it is for me and usually I have no need to explain to skeptics, because its one way street to try reasoning with them
Its enough that I know how things are. But sometimes its good to spread the real knowledge..people have the right to know and I share if they are interested.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 



Robert Jastrow First Chairman. Its he's statement. Now, there are new chairmen and certainly they have slapped this guy ina face at least, for revealing such stuff. And the truth have been twisted since thats a long time this statement has been made.


Robert Jastrow did, in fact, call the Moon "the Rosetta Stone." The rest of your quotation was not authored by him. It's the usual UFO blog echo chamber:

reocities.com...

indigosociety.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ufoseek.com...

www.care2.com...

www.killermovies.com...

Plagiarism is not research.
edit on 31-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 

Well that's the problem. You haven't used the original source; Jastrow. You've relied on some garbage "source" which took the title of a book chapter out of context and ran with it. Jastrow said no such thing.

BTW. Here's what he actually wrote in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs in the chapter titled "The Moon: Rosetta Stone of the Planets".

The highlight of the conference came during the opening session: All the rocks turned out to be billions of years old, and some were 4.5 billion years old-nearly as old as the solar system.

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

You need to find some other sources.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   


Robert Jastrow did, in fact, call the Moon "the Rosetta Stone." The rest of your quotation was not authored by him. It's the usual UFO blog echo chamber:
reply to post by DJW001
 
Sure it is

I hate to use one liner but its all I wanted to say to you now.
WeekendWarrior out, my job in this thread is done.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I think i'm getting the picture now..

So most of the Iron went into the Earth, but some of it re-coalesced to form the Moon but too quickly to form a core.

The mascons are parts of the old core that have remained close to the surface because their weight/mass isn't enough to form a new core.

Is that correct ?

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 



Sure it is


As Phage has shown: No, it's not.


I hate to use one liner but its all I wanted to say to you now.
WeekendWarrior out, my job in this thread is done.


Your "job?" (See you in fifteen minutes.)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Oh, and cant be adding.. use the serch engine. The answers you grave lies within this site! Expect you will say:- Those idiots have been debunked long ago.. exept they are not

But thats what you want the people to believe and you have done good job so far. But seriously, use the search and youll find everything in there!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 



But thats what you want the people to believe and you have done good job so far. But seriously, use the search and youll find everything in there!


Better yet, why don't you use the search engine and find a single reference that supports any of your statements that isn't plagiarized from the same dubious source?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by benrl
 


So what crashed into the earth that would cause a moon 1/4 (I think) the size of the planet? And if that was true why would the moon have at one point a Dynamo Core? Sorry for the ignorance, not too versed in cosmology but the subject does interest me.


I believe our Moon arrived here behind another large planetary body that came near Earth one time in the Ancient Past. The Sumerian Texts tell a compelling story of the Moon's arrival, they called it "Kingu. Many have spoken of a Time before the Moon.
The Earth Without the Moon
Hypothesis:
Before the Flood, There Was No Moon
The only planetary body in the known universe that has a near perfect synchronised orbit around it's orbital partner. I also think the Moon was set like that to help balance out a wobbly Earth, and it also helps with the seasons, by manipulating he tides. As for having an internal Dynamo, I would not doubt that for a second. I would also bet it is still active, but dormant.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Aside from how the moon was formed...what is slowly pulling it from earths grasp? And is there any orbital diagram showing where the moon will be in 100 or even 1,000 years from now? What will the moon come into contact with as it ventures out? Just some thought

Lightmeup04



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
I think i'm getting the picture now..

So most of the Iron went into the Earth, but some of it re-coalesced to form the Moon but too quickly to form a core.

The mascons are parts of the old core that have remained close to the surface because their weight/mass isn't enough to form a new core.

Is that correct ?

Cosmic..


Instead of looking into the past about our moon, could we discuss the benefits of returning

to our moon? I don't imagine there is any gold or platinum but is the value proposition

there to go get the Helium-3? Add some tourism and make it a worthwhile venture?


We already have 2 spaceports in America. I see it as inevitable.

Spaceport America - New Mexico & Mojave Air & Space Port, Mojave Desert - California



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


It (the Moon) is actually gaining a tiny bit of extra velocity every year...."robbing" it from the Earth. This gradually slows the Earth's rotation. It is extremely small amount, though.

3 to 4 centimeters per year is the distance the Moon's orbit is gradually increasing. So, even in 1,000 years will make no appreciable difference. (Around 40 meters, after 1,000 years).

This explains it



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Those theories are without merit. The Moon formed at the same time as the Earth, within a few hundred million years.


he only planetary body in the known universe that has a near perfect synchronised orbit around it's orbital partner.


Well, if that were actually a fact, it would be amazing. Unfortunately, it is not true.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join