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 moon is artifical
page: 5share:
Originally posted by lunarminer
Something else that nobody seems to talk about is the fact that the rocks brought back from the Moon show that it is at least a billion years older than the Earth.
No.
The oldest moon rocks returned to Earth are about 4.46 billion years old. www.psrd.hawaii.edu...
The oldest rocks found on Earth are 4.28 billion years old.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
The Earth is geologically active, "recycling" crustal material, forming new rocks, making the oldest rocks very rare. The moon is inactive. It is expected that the Moon would have older rocks on its surface than the Earth does.
reply to post by Phage
OK, you fell into the trap.
The face of the moon that we have visited has been resurfaced many times. That is evident to us by the "Sea" areas and it is these areas that we have visited. So, we have brought back the youngest lunar rocks which are still about five hundred million years older than our earth rocks.
The Moon is relatively inactive today, that is true. It is not true to say that the Moon was geologically inactive 4 billion years ago. We know that there was a lot of volcanic activity on the Moon in the past. Most of the Moon's surface is basalt, a volcanic rock.
We have an additional handicap when it comes to our lunar rock collection and that is that we have a limited supply of them from only a few places.
We have an unlimited supply (or nearly so) of Earth rocks with which to compare. By the way Earth rocks older than 3.9 billion years old are extremely rare. Yet we found Lunar rocks that were older than that with just 6 trips to random locations with untrained collectors (with the noted exception of Dr. Harrison Schmidt).
IMO, the far side of the Moon should yield rocks that are older than the ones that we now have, since the farside shows no signs of having been resurfaced. We will have to wait until we return to the Moon and probably years or decades later when we venture into the unknown area of the farside.
OK, you fell into the trap.
The face of the moon that we have visited has been resurfaced many times. That is evident to us by the "Sea" areas and it is these areas that we have visited. So, we have brought back the youngest lunar rocks which are still about five hundred million years older than our earth rocks.
The Moon is relatively inactive today, that is true. It is not true to say that the Moon was geologically inactive 4 billion years ago. We know that there was a lot of volcanic activity on the Moon in the past. Most of the Moon's surface is basalt, a volcanic rock.
We have an additional handicap when it comes to our lunar rock collection and that is that we have a limited supply of them from only a few places.
We have an unlimited supply (or nearly so) of Earth rocks with which to compare. By the way Earth rocks older than 3.9 billion years old are extremely rare. Yet we found Lunar rocks that were older than that with just 6 trips to random locations with untrained collectors (with the noted exception of Dr. Harrison Schmidt).
IMO, the far side of the Moon should yield rocks that are older than the ones that we now have, since the farside shows no signs of having been resurfaced. We will have to wait until we return to the Moon and probably years or decades later when we venture into the unknown area of the farside.
reply to post by cranberrydork
When a large Mars sized object collides with another larger object at several thousand miles per hour, both surfaces become liquid and mix.
If this happened to the Earth - Moon system then the surfaces of both should show a similar composition since they would each be partly made up from the two objects.
It is theorized that the Earth received its Iron core from the collision, since Iron is a denser material than should be found in our orbit. So, if the Earth's composition was changed by the impact then the Moon would also be changed by the impact.
In fact you could try this in a very simple experiment. Take a bunch of iron filings and mix them up with aluminum filings and then separate them into two piles, this is what happened to the Earth and Moon according to the theory. The problem is that the composition of the two are so different that it shows that the collision did not take place.
When a large Mars sized object collides with another larger object at several thousand miles per hour, both surfaces become liquid and mix.
If this happened to the Earth - Moon system then the surfaces of both should show a similar composition since they would each be partly made up from the two objects.
It is theorized that the Earth received its Iron core from the collision, since Iron is a denser material than should be found in our orbit. So, if the Earth's composition was changed by the impact then the Moon would also be changed by the impact.
In fact you could try this in a very simple experiment. Take a bunch of iron filings and mix them up with aluminum filings and then separate them into two piles, this is what happened to the Earth and Moon according to the theory. The problem is that the composition of the two are so different that it shows that the collision did not take place.
Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by cranberrydork
When a large Mars sized object collides with another larger object at several thousand miles per hour, both surfaces become liquid and mix.
If this happened to the Earth - Moon system then the surfaces of both should show a similar composition since they would each be partly made up from the two objects.
It is theorized that the Earth received its Iron core from the collision, since Iron is a denser material than should be found in our orbit. So, if the Earth's composition was changed by the impact then the Moon would also be changed by the impact.
In fact you could try this in a very simple experiment. Take a bunch of iron filings and mix them up with aluminum filings and then separate them into two piles, this is what happened to the Earth and Moon according to the theory. The problem is that the composition of the two are so different that it shows that the collision did not take place.
That's like the guy who says like didn't evolve spontaneously because there's no new life in his peanut butter.
Why don't you give us the list of elements composing the Moon and the Earth and show us where they're different? Or have you never looked at that listing?
reply to post by lunarminer
Trap?
The maria are impact basins which became filled with molten lava early in the Moon's history. The Sea of Tranquility, for example, is composed of basalt which formed about 3.2 billion years ago. The basin which forms it is thought to have been created more than 4 billion years ago. It has not been "resurfaced many times". It formed and was filled. The Earth, on the other hand, has been resurface in large part, due to plate tectonics.
The oldest material found on the Moon (dated at 4.46 billion years) comes from rock #67215 which was returned by Apollo 16. The landing site of Apollo 16 was in the lunar highlands, not a mare. The site was specifically chosen in order to improve the chances of finding rocks differing from those already returned.
There is not a five hundred million year difference in the Moon rocks and Earth rocks. The difference is 180 million years.
Here is a very good article about the oldest Moon rocks, their origins, the methods used to date them, and their relationship to the age of the Moon and the Solar System.
www.psrd.hawaii.edu...
[edit on 4/6/2009 by Phage]
Trap?
The maria are impact basins which became filled with molten lava early in the Moon's history. The Sea of Tranquility, for example, is composed of basalt which formed about 3.2 billion years ago. The basin which forms it is thought to have been created more than 4 billion years ago. It has not been "resurfaced many times". It formed and was filled. The Earth, on the other hand, has been resurface in large part, due to plate tectonics.
The oldest material found on the Moon (dated at 4.46 billion years) comes from rock #67215 which was returned by Apollo 16. The landing site of Apollo 16 was in the lunar highlands, not a mare. The site was specifically chosen in order to improve the chances of finding rocks differing from those already returned.
The rocks in this region are breccias produced by impacts. Not "new" volcanic rocks, but conglomerations of pieces of very old rocks from inside the Moon's crust.
The Apollo 16 landing site was selected to obtain samples of two highland geologic units, the Descartes Formation and the Cayley Formation, which are widespread on the lunar nearside. Prior to the mission, it was thought that both were of volcanic origin, but the returned samples demonstrated that this is incorrect. www.lpi.usra.edu...
There is not a five hundred million year difference in the Moon rocks and Earth rocks. The difference is 180 million years.
Here is a very good article about the oldest Moon rocks, their origins, the methods used to date them, and their relationship to the age of the Moon and the Solar System.
www.psrd.hawaii.edu...
[edit on 4/6/2009 by Phage]
reply to post by Gawdzilla
Here ya go.
Earth's Crust composition
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/elabund.html
Moon's Crust compostition
www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec04/LunarCrust.html
The most interesting part though is when you compare the density of the two bodies.
The Earth has a density of about 347 lbs/cubic foot
The Moon has a density of about 208 lbs/cubic foot
The Earth is 50% more dense than the Moon. If they were made from the same materials, shouldn't their densities be about equal?
The Earth's core of iron makes up about 1/3 of its total mass.
The Moon has a much smaller iron core that is only about 2 percent of its mass. 2 percent vs 33 for the Earth. I would call that a significant difference.
If the Earth's iron core came from the collision with another planetary body, then shouldn't the Moon have an iron core of at least equal proportion? Especially since the iron would have originated with that minor body?
I kind of liked your peanut butter analogy. What I am saying is, if we both have a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, then how come mine has so much more peanut butter than yours? If they came from the same place, shouldn't they be similar?
Here ya go.
Earth's Crust composition
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/elabund.html
Moon's Crust compostition
www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec04/LunarCrust.html
The most interesting part though is when you compare the density of the two bodies.
The Earth has a density of about 347 lbs/cubic foot
The Moon has a density of about 208 lbs/cubic foot
The Earth is 50% more dense than the Moon. If they were made from the same materials, shouldn't their densities be about equal?
The Earth's core of iron makes up about 1/3 of its total mass.
The Moon has a much smaller iron core that is only about 2 percent of its mass. 2 percent vs 33 for the Earth. I would call that a significant difference.
If the Earth's iron core came from the collision with another planetary body, then shouldn't the Moon have an iron core of at least equal proportion? Especially since the iron would have originated with that minor body?
I kind of liked your peanut butter analogy. What I am saying is, if we both have a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, then how come mine has so much more peanut butter than yours? If they came from the same place, shouldn't they be similar?
reply to post by Phage
OK, so you are saying that we found the oldest possible rock on the Moon, by simply sending 6 teams of astronauts to the side nearest to us?
When it took geologists hundreds of years to find a rock of similar age on the Earth?
Is that what you are saying?
By your own admission the surface of the near side is younger than the far side by about a billion years.
So, I stand by my statement that we will find older rocks on the Moon once we venture to the farside.
OK, so you are saying that we found the oldest possible rock on the Moon, by simply sending 6 teams of astronauts to the side nearest to us?
When it took geologists hundreds of years to find a rock of similar age on the Earth?
Is that what you are saying?
By your own admission the surface of the near side is younger than the far side by about a billion years.
So, I stand by my statement that we will find older rocks on the Moon once we venture to the farside.
I believe John Lear's theory that the moon is a satelite of alien origin to monitor earth day in and day off. Although he does claim that we mine the
moon, for what reason i do not recall..
But i believe we havent went to the moon
But i believe we havent went to the moon
reply to post by lunarminer
"The Earth is 50% more dense than the Moon. If they were made from the same materials, shouldn't their densities be about equal? "
That's really easy. The heavy stayed close to the center.
"The Earth is 50% more dense than the Moon. If they were made from the same materials, shouldn't their densities be about equal? "
That's really easy. The heavy stayed close to the center.
reply to post by lunarminer
Yes.
I'm saying we found the oldest possible rocks (or very close to it) on the Moon. Unlike on Earth, these very old rocks are not rare on the surface of the Moon. They are not rare because asteroidal impacts have brought pieces of the crust to the surface after the Moon became geologically dead. Once on the surface, they just sit there. The surface of the Moon is very old. The surface of the Earth is not. On Earth, erosion, volcanism, and plate tectonics have seen to it that pieces of the original crust are very difficult to find.
I did not "admit" that the surface on the near side is younger than the far side. There are maria on both "sides". The "bedrock" of the maria is not composed of crustal material, it is composed of basalt which formed a billion years after the crust had solidified. The ages of the maria is irrelevant to the age of the Moon. The original crust of the entire Moon formed at the same time, something over 4 billion years ago. The "surface" is not the same as the original crust, either on the Moon or on the Earth.
There is little reason to expect much older rocks to be found on the far side of the Moon. No more reason than there is to expect much older rocks to be found on Earth.
[edit on 4/6/2009 by Phage]
Yes.
I'm saying we found the oldest possible rocks (or very close to it) on the Moon. Unlike on Earth, these very old rocks are not rare on the surface of the Moon. They are not rare because asteroidal impacts have brought pieces of the crust to the surface after the Moon became geologically dead. Once on the surface, they just sit there. The surface of the Moon is very old. The surface of the Earth is not. On Earth, erosion, volcanism, and plate tectonics have seen to it that pieces of the original crust are very difficult to find.
I did not "admit" that the surface on the near side is younger than the far side. There are maria on both "sides". The "bedrock" of the maria is not composed of crustal material, it is composed of basalt which formed a billion years after the crust had solidified. The ages of the maria is irrelevant to the age of the Moon. The original crust of the entire Moon formed at the same time, something over 4 billion years ago. The "surface" is not the same as the original crust, either on the Moon or on the Earth.
There is little reason to expect much older rocks to be found on the far side of the Moon. No more reason than there is to expect much older rocks to be found on Earth.
[edit on 4/6/2009 by Phage]
Originally posted by insider15
reply to post by spikey
I have a soul and when i die if i have any control over my actions i am gonna head straight for the moon just to what all the fuss is about so maybe its not a soul catcher but more of a soul magnet.
Let's hope so mate. I don't claim to know one way or the other, or even believe one way or the other, although i hope this isn't all there is man.
I too will have a gander at the moon and all the other planets too. Although i've a feeling that if we do go on (and that's a big if i recon), we'll pretty much know everything right away anyway.
spikey.
reply to post by OzWeatherman
Errm...did you miss the fact that there is actually millions of tonnes of water on the moon?
They even admit they've found water (albeit in the form of ice/frost).
That's not a conspiracy view, it's real published data.
spikey.
Errm...did you miss the fact that there is actually millions of tonnes of water on the moon?
They even admit they've found water (albeit in the form of ice/frost).
That's not a conspiracy view, it's real published data.
spikey.
Excellent discussion. It's threads like this that make ATS one of the best sites out there. A few thoughts and searchable terms, please excuse the
vagueness, it's late. These points are avenues for investigation not final theories.
1) Jan Lamprecht is a Hollow Earth researcher. Some great interviews with him on C2C on youtube. He says the evidence for a Hollow Moon is more compelling than Hollow Earth Theory. I'm not sure if the Earth is hollow but I think there's a LOT of stuff we don't know about down there.
2)There's a book called "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon" (I think) worth reading.
3) Two Russian Scientists put forward the theory that the moon was artificial and inhabited years ago.
4) John Lear recanted the Soul Catcher theory on one of the Sleeper threads. I know, I know.
5) A google search: Moon/Titanium/resonance/NASA/crust... may return interesting results. Apparently the moon has a LOT of titanium in its crust giving credence to the artificial theory.
6) The "ringing like a bell" theory came from *I think* NASA probes crashing, or NASA causing explosions.
7) A search into ancient cultures views of the moon, including the Vedic texts, may be well worthwhile.
8) The Apollo astronauts have acted very weird in interviews, Edgar Mitchell saying aliens exist, Armstrong nearly crying and persistently looking back at his handlers as he talks about "Truth's protective layers" NASA anomalies/cover-ups alone are very strange.
9) I think the either/or issue A)We went to the moon and found nothing OR B) We never went and they did it at Disney is a FALSE CHOICE. There could be a lot of shades of grey to the issue, such as a parallel secret program.
* * * Personal Thoughts * * *
8) It makes me laugh when people quote "official" sources such as Wikipedia and NASA docs, and say, "gee, that sure proves your theory wrong"
9) Next time you see someone aggressively attacking an issue **check the guys profile*** wink wink... The fierceness of debunkers works against them in the long run.
* * *
If some bright young things can follow up those leads and make some concret posts it could help this discussion...
End thought: This is a MASSIVE subject, and deserves thorough scrutiny. Think for yourself and don't get intimidated by a bloviator with a bad attitude and a couple of wikipedia statistics.
1) Jan Lamprecht is a Hollow Earth researcher. Some great interviews with him on C2C on youtube. He says the evidence for a Hollow Moon is more compelling than Hollow Earth Theory. I'm not sure if the Earth is hollow but I think there's a LOT of stuff we don't know about down there.
2)There's a book called "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon" (I think) worth reading.
3) Two Russian Scientists put forward the theory that the moon was artificial and inhabited years ago.
4) John Lear recanted the Soul Catcher theory on one of the Sleeper threads. I know, I know.
5) A google search: Moon/Titanium/resonance/NASA/crust... may return interesting results. Apparently the moon has a LOT of titanium in its crust giving credence to the artificial theory.
6) The "ringing like a bell" theory came from *I think* NASA probes crashing, or NASA causing explosions.
7) A search into ancient cultures views of the moon, including the Vedic texts, may be well worthwhile.
8) The Apollo astronauts have acted very weird in interviews, Edgar Mitchell saying aliens exist, Armstrong nearly crying and persistently looking back at his handlers as he talks about "Truth's protective layers" NASA anomalies/cover-ups alone are very strange.
9) I think the either/or issue A)We went to the moon and found nothing OR B) We never went and they did it at Disney is a FALSE CHOICE. There could be a lot of shades of grey to the issue, such as a parallel secret program.
* * * Personal Thoughts * * *
8) It makes me laugh when people quote "official" sources such as Wikipedia and NASA docs, and say, "gee, that sure proves your theory wrong"
9) Next time you see someone aggressively attacking an issue **check the guys profile*** wink wink... The fierceness of debunkers works against them in the long run.
* * *
If some bright young things can follow up those leads and make some concret posts it could help this discussion...
End thought: This is a MASSIVE subject, and deserves thorough scrutiny. Think for yourself and don't get intimidated by a bloviator with a bad attitude and a couple of wikipedia statistics.
reply to post by weedwhacker
OK, everyone and his dog cites moon rock samples returned to Earth as proof of something or other - wrong, it's proof of nothing.
Is it proof of humans going to the moon? No, robotic probes could have collected and returned them.
Also, the samples so often referred to, could have been picked up in Antarctica, since a lot of moon meteorites have been found there. So undeniable proof of the moon just being a natural satallite it is not.
Another interesting point about moon rock samples, and the artificiality or otherwise of the moon is this. If the moon is artificial, and i'm not saying it is or isn't, but if it is, then the chances are it's strange gravity anomoly (officially documented) would have sucked wuite a few wandering meteorites and micrometeorites and dust in over a few million years.
This would in time of course, develop into a rocky crust, that we see today. In other words, just because a robotic or human, retrieved rocks from the lunar surface, doesn't mean those rocks originated on the moon.
spikey.
OK, everyone and his dog cites moon rock samples returned to Earth as proof of something or other - wrong, it's proof of nothing.
Is it proof of humans going to the moon? No, robotic probes could have collected and returned them.
Also, the samples so often referred to, could have been picked up in Antarctica, since a lot of moon meteorites have been found there. So undeniable proof of the moon just being a natural satallite it is not.
Another interesting point about moon rock samples, and the artificiality or otherwise of the moon is this. If the moon is artificial, and i'm not saying it is or isn't, but if it is, then the chances are it's strange gravity anomoly (officially documented) would have sucked wuite a few wandering meteorites and micrometeorites and dust in over a few million years.
This would in time of course, develop into a rocky crust, that we see today. In other words, just because a robotic or human, retrieved rocks from the lunar surface, doesn't mean those rocks originated on the moon.
spikey.
If the moon is artifical it could explain a few things in my mind
1. IF we did go to the moon it would explain the whole being warned off as it would actually belong to its inhabitants and they got peeved when we turned up on the home turf and also why we havent gone back in almost 40 years, if you look at the state of technological devolpment in the past 40 years it should be easy as i read somewhere that a modern pocket calculater has more computing power than the apollo luner landers.
or 2
IF we didnt go to the moon and the moon landings were faked then why? because possibly we had been in contact with whoever lives up there and they said no way its ours and if u come up here dont expect a warm welcome.
just a thought.
1. IF we did go to the moon it would explain the whole being warned off as it would actually belong to its inhabitants and they got peeved when we turned up on the home turf and also why we havent gone back in almost 40 years, if you look at the state of technological devolpment in the past 40 years it should be easy as i read somewhere that a modern pocket calculater has more computing power than the apollo luner landers.
or 2
IF we didnt go to the moon and the moon landings were faked then why? because possibly we had been in contact with whoever lives up there and they said no way its ours and if u come up here dont expect a warm welcome.
just a thought.
Originally posted by insider15
If the moon is artifical it could explain a few things in my mind
1. IF we did go to the moon it would explain the whole being warned off as it would actually belong to its inhabitants and they got peeved when we turned up on the home turf and also why we havent gone back in almost 40 years, if you look at the state of technological devolpment in the past 40 years it should be easy as i read somewhere that a modern pocket calculater has more computing power than the apollo luner landers.
or 2
IF we didnt go to the moon and the moon landings were faked then why? because possibly we had been in contact with whoever lives up there and they said no way its ours and if u come up here dont expect a warm welcome.
just a thought.
Are those the only two possible scenarios?
reply to post by ChemBreather
Who knows mate, who knows.
There is a lot of really weird statistics about the moon and our solar system, that is so far out there, most people are not just unwilling to contemplate these kind of ideas, but are litterally unable to. It is just so far out of their normal paradigm, or perspective, it blows their minds, and they get angry and then fervently contrary, no matter what is shown to them. I suppose it's either denial, or something like it.
By that, i don't mean to say they should just believe anything that is out before them, but more allow for the possibility of something that goes against a lifetime of assumption, then check out the data with a fresh viewpoint. But they can't or won't.
spikey.
Who knows mate, who knows.
There is a lot of really weird statistics about the moon and our solar system, that is so far out there, most people are not just unwilling to contemplate these kind of ideas, but are litterally unable to. It is just so far out of their normal paradigm, or perspective, it blows their minds, and they get angry and then fervently contrary, no matter what is shown to them. I suppose it's either denial, or something like it.
By that, i don't mean to say they should just believe anything that is out before them, but more allow for the possibility of something that goes against a lifetime of assumption, then check out the data with a fresh viewpoint. But they can't or won't.
spikey.
reply to post by Gawdzilla
No sorry i wasnt trying to say they where the only two or that they were even close to an answer just 2 that popped into my head that make sence to me, i have really enjoyed all the replies i have got and it has given my a lot to mull over, and hey who knows maybe the moon is just a natural lump of rock and we did go there in 1969 and its totally devoid of life of any orgin and the only reason we havent gone back is due to the cost and lack of political will(a bit far out there but hey who knows)
"Over himself his own body and mind the individual is sovereign"
John Stuart Mill.
No sorry i wasnt trying to say they where the only two or that they were even close to an answer just 2 that popped into my head that make sence to me, i have really enjoyed all the replies i have got and it has given my a lot to mull over, and hey who knows maybe the moon is just a natural lump of rock and we did go there in 1969 and its totally devoid of life of any orgin and the only reason we havent gone back is due to the cost and lack of political will(a bit far out there but hey who knows)
"Over himself his own body and mind the individual is sovereign"
John Stuart Mill.
new topics
-
Psychotronic Operation Rwanda Who Wants To Be A Refugee?
ATS Skunk Works: 7 minutes ago -
AI phrenology
Science & Technology: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
CIA is alleged to be operat social media troll frms in Kyiv
ATS Skunk Works: 15 hours ago, 6 flags -
AI phrenology
Science & Technology: 7 hours ago, 3 flags -
Fun with extreme paints
Interesting Websites: 14 hours ago, 2 flags -
Rainbow : Stargazer
Music: 16 hours ago, 1 flags -
Psychotronic Operation Rwanda Who Wants To Be A Refugee?
ATS Skunk Works: 7 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Psychotronic Operation Rwanda Who Wants To Be A Refugee?
ATS Skunk Works • 1 • : TimBurr -
So this is what Hamas considers 'freedom fighting' ...
War On Terrorism • 278 • : FlyersFan -
Killings of Palestinian children are soaring in the West Bank.
World War Three • 162 • : FlyersFan -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 16 • : TimBurr -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 383 • : FlyersFan -
Why Files Our Alien Overlords | How We Secretly Serve The Tall Whites
Aliens and UFOs • 16 • : TheValeyard -
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth • 6 • : soulrevival -
Some hard numbers about the Vax and the effort to cover up said numbers
General Conspiracies • 84 • : annonentity -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order • 12 • : BeTheGoddess2 -
Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.
Above Politics • 122 • : Zanti Misfit