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.

 

Hundred million year old moon boulder rolls

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Also possible...but some make really strange moves?




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I would like to know where all the objects are that created those thousands of craters of so many different sizes. Some of those craters are huge, what created them? Where's the the smoking gun?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


Well thats easy smashed to dust...when they crashed into the moon with high velocity...



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
To call their movement "rolling" is a bit iffy. It that were so, we could expect a fairly smooth track. What seems evident is a tumbling motion, even skipping some ground in the movement. That could only result from a bit of initial velocity. Plus, the rocks don't seem rounded enough to roll or even tumble for long, so they must be low-velocity, low-angle meteorites or ejecta from larger meteorite impacts. Either way,, they should show some scars at their original point of impact.

edit on 15-2-2012 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
It sounds sometimes some people never grew up near cliffs or quarries. Set a rock in motion down a hill it will rarely 'roll', depending on the slope it will bounce, change directions, blast over and through trees, sometimes split, etc...



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Considering that the moon smaller in comparison to earth creates the tides, and that the earth with greater gravity affects the moon with greater force. It may be possible for some smaller rocks, especially those on a slope to start rolling.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Just wait until Richard C gets on coast to coast , he will tell us all what the real meaning is


But for the love of God people , please don't tell me that this rock is at the 19.5 lad. That will only encourage him


But very cool find none the less !

However some perspective on the rock would be helpful ( it's probily stated in the full story will check now ) . If we can see this as close as we can in this picture , can we not get a better shot of the Apollo landing site , flag and all
edit on 15-2-2012 by Max_TO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DAZ21
 





It may be possible for some smaller rocks, especially those on a slope to start rolling.


But rocks six feet in diameter to..?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


I'd say yes, given the right circumstances. How many other explanations can there be that are actually plausible?

If it was meteors they would have to be travelling extremely slow to create what we see in those pictures.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
just my take, but could it be a piece of the moon that was blasted from a crater impact and landed and rolled till its momentum ceased to cause it to rotate.....????



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Well if you look at the path all these rocks are coming from then we need the strip that lays next to the one I placed here to look if theres large crater that has the potential and origin of these rolling boulders,

But NASA thinks rolling resumes , don't know where they get that idea from?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

I think someone there lowered treble and turned up the base.....think I know who that was..



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I'm definitely sticking to my theory after looking at the picture again. Notice how they are all almost parallel and traveling in the same direction?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by 0bserver1
reply to post by Timely
 


Yeah and hit that boulder, that eventually started to roll , cause: speed equals mass = roll...


No the boulder itself came from space at a low angle to the surface of the moon.

Hit, bounced & rolled to a stop, probably millions of years ago.

No atmosphere means the "tracks" will sit there for at least several millions of years, undisturbed.


I don't see how that can be with no proper idea of velocity, (probably fast) from an incoming rock and how shallow etc only makes it more likely to scoot off or parts thereof, back into space. It's pretty obvious that the gravity on the Moon is strong enough to retain low speed objects, but not high speed objects, they should be deflected if at a shallow angle. I have no idea of the parameters involved, but a hit and bounce and then roll for a single object is one sequence too many.There is plenty of other dynamic stuff on the Moon to make something roll.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
My opinion is that a small rock has landed on the moon at such an angle, that it literally skimmed the surface. A bit far-fetched I know, but if that trail is a few miles long, then why not?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
There are lots of ways the rocks could have been set in motion, the relative size of the rocks have little to do with anything, (see later).

Ejecta from larger impacts, what you may be seeing is the last leg of the landings, where a trail of the first landing after impact could be miles ways, in a different LRO swath. Same for smaller low angle impacts, a trail could be 50 miles or more and we are viewing the last leg.

Its apparent these rocks are on an impact slope, in a crater. Has anyone been to the Arizona impact crater? You get near the rim its a vertical drop, you feel you almost can fall in, (I get vertigo until acclimated with drops), then it slopes to the base. A lot of larger lunar impact show a lot of fill-in, where the base is higher than the Arizona crater, meaning the slopes could be steep all the way down to the base.

Size is deceptive viewing the moon from space, those holes can be deeper than the Grand Canyon, sometimes 3,000 feet deep.

With little erosion on the moon some of those trails can be hundreds of millions of years old.

Lastly, the size of the rocks in lunar gravity reinforces the inertial momentum needed for long trails. Again these rocks on this thread didn't stop at the base of the crater they are in, I suspect the slopes are quite steep.
edit on 15-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
then strong winds blew the rock down a slope. just like the flag



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


Earthquake on the moon is the only thing i can think of. There's no air out there to blow it into moving so a logical idea is some sort of earth/lunarquake.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Underestimating the expansion and contraction of even rock is going on here. Ask yourself, why aren't bridges level? Its not only for tensile strength, its also to allow for space of expansion and contraction due to seasonal weather changes, that pail in comparison to the lunar nearly 500ºF difference from night to day. That's going to cause a lot of movement even in a dead rock (the moon in whole). Do I have to remind yinz of the creaking in your house again?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Why would they "think it means it has high gravity" if they have been there before.




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join