It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I never claimed it was definitely hollow, this is a theoretical thread. Why do you skeptics have to get so testy when ever someone posts a theory like this? It just gets under your skin doesn't it? Take deep breaths my friend...
No, the Moon is not "hollow"....
Uhhhh.... of course I'm going to include a part about the Moon "ringing like a bell"... it's like the whole thing that got this theory started in the first place. It's not like I'm going to simply ignore that part of the story. Sheesh...
Originally posted by ProudBird
.....and although you expended an incredible amount of effort in creating this thread OP....well.....this spoiled it right i the beginning:
I actually did study engineering back at school for two years. Spherical shells are one of the strongest types of structures known to man. When pressure is applied equally to all sides (as it would be by gravity), it causes a balanced state of compression, and it takes an extreme amount of force to actually shatter the shell. It works much like the egg trick, where you press down on both ends to try and crack the egg. A perfectly spherical object with pressure applied to all sides equally will be even harder to break. And also, if it exists at all, I don't think the shell is thin, it's most likely extremely thick and the hollow part is probably a fairly small cavity compared to the total volume of the Moon.
But the idea that the moon is a big hollow shell is pretty crazy, for the simple reason that the shell would collapse under its own weight. If you were a civil engineer, you could run the numbers.
Did you even read the thread? I included information about "State-of-the-art seismological techniques applied to Apollo-era data", and how the results suggest the Moon has a solid iron core of almost 150 miles in radius.
All these "hollow" theories don't make any sense. There's an abundance of data recorded on the moon's crust, mantle, and core.
NASA also did not say "the moon rang like a bell." That's a misrepresentation.
"The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.
Moonquakes - NASA Science
Is that honestly a serious question? You think you're clever don't you?
Riddle me this. Why does every star in the sky appear to be similar size even though they're all scattered throughout the galaxy and are various sizes and distances from one another?
Ummmm, of course we have looked at the gravity of the Moon to work out it's mass, and then we used the mass and volume to work out the density. And the density is much lower than that of Earth. So how can you say the result of such a calculation leads to the conclusion that is can't possibly be hollow? Seems like the result would indicate the Moon could indeed be hollow, unless the 40% discrepancy in density can be explained by the iron core.
Originally posted by Illustronic
The Moon is not hollow. It is possible to tell this because when we have had things in orbit around the Moon, how they orbit in the Moon's gravity tells us about the mass of the Moon. We also know the size of the Moon so we can work out the density and see that it is not possible for the Moon to be hollow.
They had to be at exactly the right distance from Earth for that to work. Not to mention, that isn't really the topic of this thread, I just wanted to start of with a bit of Moon oddities to get people thinking out of the box.
As for the moon being the right distance from the sun for an eclipse how about this image taken from orbit around the Moon. Showing the earth doing the same!!!!
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Well after using the figures provided by the Moon Fact Sheet which has the volume of Earth and the Moon (reference 4), and the data about the Moons core provided by the new analysis (reference 7), plus info about the Earths core taken from here, it's easy to work out the ratio of the cores (the solid part) volume compared to the total volume of each body, and then see how those results - for both the Earth and Moon - compare to each other.
Earth Total Volume = 108.321 x10^10 km3
Moon Total Volume = 2.1958 x10^10 km3
Earth Core Volume = 0.77568 x10^10 km3
Moon Core Volume = 0.0014137 x10^10 km3
Earth Core Ratio = 0.77568/108.321 = 0.007160938
Moon Core Ratio = 0.0014137/2.1958 = 0.000643820
I'm not sure if I really did that correctly, but it appears that the Moon would have a much smaller core with respect to the volume of the whole Moon, when compared to Earth and its core. But I still don't really know if that can account for the 40% discrepancy in density between the Earth and Moon. Hopefully some one can work it out from here. Though it's probably going to get fairly complex past this point.
Well I was actually just doing calculations for the solid inner cores, which I though would be more reliable. But I'll do some calculations for the entire "cores" and see what the results are.
Fact is the earth's core represents 1/3 of the earth's mass, while the moon's core represents 2% of the moon's mass.
Well actually, if you look at the diagram presented by NASA, they claim that the Moon does indeed have fluid section surrounding the the inner core. Both Earth and the Moon seem to have a solid inner core surrounded by a fluid outer core, according to the latest research.
The earth core isn't as easily defined as the moon's core, the moon just doesn't have the liquid magma the earth does
Or you could say .72% divided by .26% is 2.76 meaning the percentage of the Earth's inner core is 276% as large, or 176% larger, which sounds like more than 0.45% larger. Both calculations are correct but the bigger numbers sound more impressive!
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
So according to these calculations, 0.26% of the Moons volume is contained in the solid iron core, while 0.72% of the Earths volume is contained in the solid iron core. This would seem to indicate that there is less than a 1% difference - 0.45% to be exact -
Surely the SUN is not "hollow"? Is it??
1. The Sun is hollow and a "veil" with no internal structure, with contiguous granules on its surface
2. The Sun has no internal fusion
3. The Sun cannot be seen in "free space" without interaction of gross matter (which enables conversion to visible light)
4. The Sun is an aetheric transformer/converter from another dimensionality, with heat and light being a "waste product"
5. The photosphere generates the light