Is the Moon an Artificial Satellite? Look at This.

reply to post by Stewie


I was thinking this same thing just 2 nights ago. I am 37 yrs old and have always loved looking at the moon, but you would think that after that long the moon would have rotated on any one of its axises a least a little. But you are right, it is always the same view.... very odd to me.

reply to post by zarp3333


The images remind me of the pictures of Phobos, showing lines and other areas that resemble the moon photos. Interestingly enough it just kind of dawned n me that their is a theory that the moon is hollow based on impacts on the surface, and the subsequent "ringing". Phobos is also suspected of being hollow.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Khaaaaaan!!

 

gravity.

Bye

Ha, How many of us even truly know what gravity is.

It can be observed, measured, maybe one day even controled............if we understood it. Your answer is a cop out.

I know two different but similar stories from two different primative peoples. Both of these stories tell the tale about the time when there was no moon.
then, a sort of fog, or dark cloud covered the earth, blocking out the sun. When, after a long period, the dark cloud lifted, and when it did, the moon appeared.
The two legends, by two peoples on different continents, are remarkably similar.

I am absolutely no expert on this topic at all, so AwakeAndAware please don't schedule me for a beheading in the town square tomorrow at noon - but one thing that's always made me go "hmmm" is the fact that the moon is the exact correct size to cause an eclipse- not a little too small, not a little too big- coincidence? or planned?
Just my 2 cents......

reply to post by fnulnu


Very well written! As clear and cogent a post as I have ever read in this or any other forum. In fact, it was so well done that I was just about to write it off as a "cut-n-paste" without attribution and move along until I tripped across this little tidbit:

...a lot of the craters are covered by fauna and water...

I trust that you meant "flora". A completely understandable typo in an otherwise remarkable post.

Or perhaps you were envisioning the craters being filled with dead dinosaurs which would later become hydrocarbon deposits.....oops! Thats a different thread! LOL

Short answer: no

The moon is not made of cheese either.. Its a giant rock that is floating in our orbit and its make-up is of no debate. If anything, it looks like there's a lot more going on than just a rock floating in space..

reply to post by dockab


I am with you. I have almost 43 years under my belt and have never seen any other view. I still like asking "why" questions.

Again...Your first link, it looks like someone took a pic of the moon, then took a picture of the earth and faded it ever so slightly onto the moon (scaled down of course to match). Look closely, you can see the outline of the continents?

reply to post by hautemomma

I love science as much as the next person. But, too often, conclusions are drawn based on faulty science, imo. For example, a conclusion should be just that, conclusive. But, how often do we have the scientific community revising them. Half or more of what I learned in high school and college is wrong, period. B.S.
Our moon is extraordinary. Call it "tidal locked", but like a gear that turns precisely in tune with another gear, its speed of "rotation" is simply TOO perfect. Its size in relation to the sun is TOO perfect.
Coincidence? Maybe.

reply to post by Stewie

Coincidence? Maybe.

NO, not 'coincidence'. Physics. As already pointed out earlier (but apparently missed) it is quite common, all around our Solar System. Google "tidal locking" to see many hits.

...its speed of "rotation" is simply TOO perfect.

See above. The REAL 'coincidence' is US, and the era when WE are sentient, and can observe this phenomenon. When you study the data (the increasing of the Moon's orbit, as it is "stealing" rotational momentum from the Earth, and that extra energy is gradually increasing its orbital velocity) this has been occurring ever since it was formed, and the Earth/Moon system stabilized, as each glob of matter congealed into the final shapes.

IF we had evolved and been around a LONG time ago...say, a billion years, everything about the Earth and Moon relationship would be totally different. Our days would be shorter, for instance....and the Moon much closer. And, not sure (must check) but that long ago, the Moon's speed of rotation would likely have been faster than now, so both hemispheres would have been visible, from Earth's surface.

Even today, it is not exactly matched, in terms of its tidal locking. We see a bit more than 50% (you can Google that, too).

Its size in relation to the sun is TOO perfect.

See above....

Well, don't know if anyone has already mentioned it but some people
around the world claim themselves to be "proselenian".
before selena (moon in greek).

I did a quick search in google and this page came up.
Don't know how reliable the info here is but at least you will get the idea.

Worth thinking about when questioning both the age as well
as the origin of the moon.

I've red also somewhere that the moon was dragged here to keep humanity
locked in and it worked like a seal of some kind, that's why we can only reach the moon.
But that is a theory a bit farther "out there" if you know what I mean.

- C.

reply to post by v3_exceed


Pretty sure my post was clear about collision theory being just that - theory. It is a best guess as to how the moon formed, and at no point did I say it was the absolute case. That said, the lion's share of my post drew from proven facts, not opinion.

That the moon was once molten and had active volcanos is irrefutable - you can see the evidence by looking up. Both the age of the moon and the Earth have been calculated by uranium-lead dating of rocks from the surface of each. The dating provides strong cut-off points for rocks from both surfaces, which allows us to know when each formed an outer crust. Same goes for the dating of the moon's impact craters through samples, and most of them are dated to about the same period of heavy bombardment. Evidence supported by dating of strikes on Earth and Mercury as well. These are facts, not opinion.

That the moon is moving away from Earth is also fact. Astonomers use lasers reflected from mirrors on the lunar surface to measure the distance, and the moon is moving away at a measurable rate. Common sense dictates that in the past it was closer and in the future it will be farther away. Fact, not opinion.

The dynamics of the Earth/moon interaction are also supported by physics, or a trip to the beach. Also fact, not opinion. This is a measurable and observable interaction.

As for sources, I'd recommend Google - type 'moon'. There's enough factual info available, in support of everything I posted, to keep you occupied for a year.

Originally posted by scott,aussie
reply to post by oozyism

 

im no expert but between earth an moon = 380,000 km ,238,700 m. an the circumference of the moon is 10,964 km,6,790 m

i just googld it both sites had diferent numbers so its around that

edit on 24-10-2010 by scott,aussie because: (no reason given)

A satellite that big? and a satellite that round? How did they make it?

What is used to produce this satellite?

Is the OP suggesting that this Satellite has something in it? Like a machine sort of? Can't we find out by blowing it?

Originally posted by Skippy1138
I am absolutely no expert on this topic at all, so AwakeAndAware please don't schedule me for a beheading in the town square tomorrow at noon

- but one thing that's always made me go "hmmm" is the fact that the moon is the exact correct size to cause an eclipse- not a little too small, not a little too big- coincidence? or planned?
Just my 2 cents......

Neither coincidence or planned because it's not the "exact correct size". If it were, there would be no such thing as an annular eclipse.

Yes the moon is pretty, and seeing as its the only rock in orbit, many people come up with crazy far out concepts. Such as "the moon is an alien base" or "its an alien base" or the most common one out there "its an alien base" lol

But no matter what you think the moon is (magical or otherwise) it is a rock, a old dead rock with nothing special other then some junk our species left there a few decades back. You want to know the real "exciting" truth?

The moon is just a rock that came from the "orginal earth" a few billion years back, it was a collision between to large molten stellar rocks, the imprits you see are the result of those and other rocks (metors and astroids) the moon has saved us time and time again from close call danger.

There is nothing special about the moon, it doesnt give you magical powers, its not the night god, no aliens are living there, it's just a rock floating in space with a bunch of other rocks, seriously. NOTHING makes it special.

There isnt even minerals worth mining on there. Just a dead rock nothing special, not a satellite or anything.

Just a rock when will you people on ats get that through your heads?

EDIT: and yes it does turn, you are just not intellgent enough to notice it, so you just looks the same to you, because most likely you didnt memorize the differnt rock formations, it moves around, its not like its stuck there.

Annular, yes.
Still a pretty close match... I think the timing is interesting.

And the moon!

I once saw a slow motion video of a drop of water falling into a still body of water.
The backsplash was headed by a hollow sphere of water.
I think that is what they call the planetoidal collision theory...

What if the colliding planetoid were made mostly of dense metals?
Perhaps that would account for the "hollow bell" sound, reported by the astronauts?
I mean, if some of the metals were swept back up in that huge fiery ball?

reply to post by weedwhacker

Weedwhacker, or is it Newton? Or Galileo?

Physics is not infallible, but apparently YOU are?

Actually, physics LAW is, but humans are quite the other story. I "googled" (your pastime?) the infallible physics, and I came up with this.
en.wikipedia.org...

And this conversation

www.wbabin.net...

which reminds me of some of the conversations here on ATS.

Alrighty... I really wanted my own thread for all this, but it seems this will have to do. I know most people can confirm that numbers can be rearranged or manipulated to mean just about anything, but Here's me playing with the numbers. All pretty interesting.

The Diameter of the sun is ~1 390 000 kilometers.

The Diameter of the moon is 3474.39 kiolmeters.

1 391 000 (Sun’s Diameter) divided by 3474.8 kilometers equals 400.023023. Therefore, the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, almost to a tee.

Let’s look at what a total solar eclipse is. It is when the diameter of the moon completely covers the diameter of the sun, only showing the sun’s light rays. For this to be possible, the Moon must be exactly 400 time’s closer to Earth than the Sun (at that point in time.) This makes it appear, from the perspective of the viewer from Earth that the Sun and moon are the exact same size. So the Moon's pretty much exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun and 400 times closer to Earth (at full solar eclipse... the yearly average is ~390x).

The moon and sun have amazing synchronicities as well. When the sun is at its lowest and weakest point in mid-winter, the moon is at it’s highest and brightest and the reverse occurs mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at opposite point at the solstices.

The Moon always shows the same side or ‘face’ to the Earth during the period when we can see it. We never see what is called the ‘dark’ or far side of the Moon from the Earth. This is due to the synchronicity of the Moon’s rotation. It rotates on its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth, and this means the same ‘face’ is turned towards Earth at all times. In the time it takes the Moon to complete one full rotation, Earth will rotate more than 27 times.

The Moon rotates once in about 27.32 days (or 655.68 hours), and its radius is 1738 km, with a circumference of 10,921 km at the equatorial line – the distance the Moon must travel in order to complete one full rotation. Moon’s circumference (10,921km) divided by the amount of hours it takes to make a full rotation (655.68 hours) equals a speed of 16.66 km/hr.

Now let’s look at the Earths equatorial circumference, 40,075.16 kilometers. Earth only takes 24 hours to make a full rotation, so when you divide the circumference by 24 hours; we get a speed of 1,669.8 km/hr. Therefore, the moon rotates almost exactly at 1/100th the speed of Earth.

It’s maybe also note-worthy, that when you divide the Moon’s circumference with the amount of time it takes for the Moon to make one full rotation, you get a total of 399.85 kilometers.

Earth spins 366.259 times during one orbit around the Sun, and the Polar circumference of Earth (39,992.22 km) is 3.66195 times the size of the Moon (10921 km).

The Polar circumference of the Moon is 27.31% the size of the Earth. The Moon makes 27.396 rotations in one year.

Let’s have a little more fun with the numbers. Multiply the circumference of the moon (10,921km) by the equatorial circumference of the Earth (40,075km) and then divide by Earth's speed over the Moon' speed, in order to find X.

(10,921km x 40,075km) / (1669.98km/hr / 16.66km/hr) = X

(437,659,075km) / (100) = X

Therefore; X = 4,376,590.75
This gives us the Sun’s circumference, correct to 99.9%; just another one of those coincidences…

Also… [The Circumference of the Sun, divided by the circumference of the Moon], multiplied by 100 equals the circumference of the Earth.

Also… [The circumference of the Sun, divided by the circumference of the Earth], multiplied by 100 equals the circumference of the Moon.





Looking at the first picture, we can conclude that Ganymede is the largest moon mass, with a diameter of 5262km. Our moon is 66% the size of that moon, at a diameter of ~3476km.

However, the diameter of Jupiter is 142,984km, and the Earth is ~12756 km. Let's again, look at the numbers

Ganymede diameter (5262km), divided by the diameter of jupiter (142,984km), equals 0.0368, or 3.7%. So we can conclude that Ganymede is only 3.7% the size of the planet is it orbiting. This moon also has no numerical perfections. It's rather conclusive that it actually makes sense for this moon to be orbiting that planet.

The Moon's diameter (~3476km), divided by the diameter of Earth (~12756km), equals 0.27249, making the moon 27.25% the size of the planet (Earth) that it is orbiting. No other Moon-size/planet-size ratio is that high that we know of, and it is definitely unique to our solar system.

Let's say that if Earth's orbiting satiellite was 3.7% the size of the Earth, we'd have a moon with a diameter of 469km. If Jupiters biggest moon was 27.25% the size of Jupiter, it would have a diameter of 38,963.14km. That would make this theoritical moon three times the size of Earth. Would it make sense for a moon 3 times the size of the Earth to be orbiting Jupiter? Probably not

Does it make sense that the Moon is orbiting Earth? Debatable

Does the Moon show very excentric detailed statistical findings that MAY show that it was PUT into Earth's orbit? In my opinion, it's possible.

Found this...

Between 1969 and 1972, five Apollo missions installed seismic stations at their landing sites on the nearside of the moon. Because the moon was thought to be seismically dead, the instruments were left almost as an afterthought to detect meteor strikes. But from the time the stations were switched on until they were decommissioned in 1977, they recorded hundreds of internally generated moonquakes, some as strong as magnitude 5.5 on the Richter scale.

For 40 years, scientists have scoured the Apollo seismic data for an explanation of these moonquakes. Because the moon lacks active plate tectonics, moonquakes must be driven by different forces than most quakes on Earth. Extreme temperature changes may account for the less common shallow moonquakes, but a good explanation for deep moonquakes remains elusive. Now, a new study crosses one long-standing theory about what triggers deep moonquakes off the list. Instead, the study suggests, moonquakes might have more in common with earthquakes than previously thought.

“Very early on, scientists recognized a link between moonquakes and the tidal forces exerted on the moon by the gravitational pull of the Earth,” says Bruce Bills, a geophysicist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and co-author of the new study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. “Moonquakes reoccur again and again in the same locations at the same time of the month, which seems to link them to the monthly tidal cycles” he says, “but so far, nobody has been able to construct a physical model or clear pattern to explain the relationship.”

The relationship between tides and had been explored before, Bills says, but “most of the moonquake studies were done back in the 1970s soon after the data were collected, and we’ve learned a lot about geophysics and modeling since then.” By comparing data about where and when the moonquakes occurred with the well-understood cycles of tidal forcing, Bills and colleagues thought they could flesh out a moonquake pattern. But, Bills says, “it didn’t work out that way at all. Clearly there’s something else involved here besides the tides.”

One problem with the tidal forcing hypothesis, he says, is that while tides exert the same pressures from month to month on the entire moon, moonquakes only occur in limited regions. “If the tides were the only force involved in generating moonquakes, we’d expect them to be more widespread,” Bills says.

“The deep moonquake problem is similar in some ways to the deep earthquake problem,” says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of Texas in Austin who was not involved in the new study. Deep earthquakes occur at extreme temperatures and pressures where brittle fracture, the cause of most shallow earthquakes, is not possible. So other phenomena — like dehydration embrittlement, where water and other volatiles open cracks in otherwise plastic rock, and transformational faulting, where minerals change to weaker or denser phases under extreme pressure, causing collapse — are thought to play a role, he says.

Because water has yet to be discovered on the moon, Bills and colleagues suggest mineral phase changes may make certain areas of the moon weaker, resulting in moonquakes triggered by tidal pressure. “This is one of the first broader viewpoints I’ve seen,” says Yosio Nakamura, also of the University of Texas at Austin. “Other studies have failed to find a clear relationship between tides and moonquakes, but this is the first to suggest an alternate mechanism.”

For now, Bills and colleagues plan to continue to study the Apollo data, but they say more data, collected by more instruments over a wider area of the moon, are needed to test their transformational faulting hypothesis. Frohlich and Nakamura are also hoping NASA will return to the moon and install a few dozen seismic stations. “Right now, we know virtually nothing about the moon’s interior,” Frohlich says. “So we have to make a lot of assumptions about the moon’s internal composition, which means all our theories are pretty sketchy. Sometimes so much speculation is fun, but more often, as in the case with deep moonquakes, it’s just frustrating.”

Perhaps this synchronized Moonquakes metabolize the Moon on it's orbit? Maybe they aren't Moonquakes?

The bottom line is, there isn't really an answer for how the Moon got there. We know why it's there... It creates a harmonious gravitational equilibrium that creates seasons, and habitable zones on Earth. If it wasn't there, none of us would be either; the weather would be too erratic for life to evolve over time. The proto-planetary collision theory doesnt add up for a few reasons:

There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis).

The recent water findings basically rule out the entire hypothesis. Not only that, the entire theory's based whether or not this so called proto-planet hit Earth on an extremely perfect angle, immensly lowering the possibility of it being the correct answer

The Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru), when it is actually deficient in those. Meanwhile, we find things like Uranium 236 (a long-lived radioactive nuclear waste and is found in spent nuclear fuel and reprocessed uranium) and Neptunium 237 (a radioactive metallic element and a by-product of nuclear reactors and the production of plutonium).

There's some other things, but I think that is good for now. I'm not looking to get into a heated debate with anyone over this, but this is where I've gotten with the concept.

LET THE DEBUNKING IMMENSE?

reply to post by Khaaaaaan!!
The moon...........

what would it take to make it spin? Why does it not rotate? Is the near side magnitized? and is that the reason it doesn't spin? It is not right, something fishy going on up there.

Oh but I'm sure someone will come along and explain how ignorant I am, and give me a perfectly good reason why our moon always keeps one side towards the earth.



It is very unusual for the moon or any stella objects to not spin. Either it is a miracle or artificial. I mean by this some kind of intelligence is behind it.