Our moon: Natural or Artificial?
8 Dec 2005 23:52:27 UTC
Topic 190331
(moderation:
Heard some very interesting information on our moon not being a result of a natural disaster like the new theory called the "big whack," but rather is an artifical satelite created by an intelligent being or beings.
What I have heard with regard to this theory is that the moons size, distance from the earth and sun, rotation and orbit around the earth cannot be coincidence.
I am new to this theory so I dont have a lot of information on it. I wanted to lay it out here to see what you all have heard.
Your comments.
Our moon: Natural or Artificial?
)
What kind of coincidence are the proponents suggesting. My initial opion is that this is a putup. But it is not 4/1 so I will take it seriously for at least the moment.
Hhhhmmm, link to this
)
Hhhhmmm, link to this 'theory' please...
RE: Hhhhmmm, link to this
)
here is where i read the theory, been looking into it a bit more since I made the initial post and have found some more information that seems fitting here.
first, the link is here
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/artifical_moon.htm
secondly here are some more interesting facts about the moon:
1. The moon has about 200,000 identifiable craters while the earth has only 200
2. When the Apollo 12 astronauts landed on the moon they reported that the impact caused the moons surface to vibrate for 55 minutes
And my question is this: What are the odds that the new moon ALWAYS rises at sunrise, the 1st quarter moon ALWAYS at noon, the full moon ALWAYS at sunset, and the last quarter moon is ALWAYS at midnight? Is that not an astounding natural wonder?
Your thougts
RE: And my question is
)
To do any other is physically impossible, given the Rotation of the Earth and the relative orbital planes of the Earth and it's moon.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
1. The moons distance from
)
1. The moons distance from the earth makes for a perfect solar eclipse of the moon.
2. You always get to see the same half of the moon because it is rotating at exactly the same rate it is moving around the earth: 29.5 earth days
3. Moon rocks are older than earth rocks, kinda strange
RE: the link is
)
ECR,
Please don't take offense here, because absolutely none is intended. Your questions and observations are welcome :-)
My physics classes are more than 30 years gone by, but I do retain something of them. The author of the paper to which you linked has approximately the scientific background of a popsickle stick. Someone correct me here, but the center of masses of a homogenous sphere and a hollow spheroid of homogenous makeup and regular section are equal. The moments (such as the moment of inertia) can greatly vary, but not the CoM.
As to his argument about the concentrations of mass dispersed around the circumference of craters, that is what would be expected from fragments of ferrous material (or other material relatively more massive than surface) impacting.
Chances miniscule for the moon being captured by Earth's gravititional field? Yes, it doesn't happen every day, BUT, there are several other planetoids orbiting around other planets, so the odds favor the earth capturing one at some time, just as the others have.
Regards,
Michael
(edit) The earth would have many more craters if it were not protected by a dense atmosphere and by a cushioning cover of water over most of it's surface.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
I havent checked the link out
)
I havent checked the link out but some simple and extremely plausible explanations for a few of the questions I saw posted.
Moon rocks are older than earth rocks. The moon is not evolving as rapidly as the earth is. Its pretty much stagnant. Since my last check the earths crust was only about 14 miles thick. Comparable to an eggshell. Platetechtonics is constantly taking old crust and reusing it to make new crust. Earth did not look the same 5 million years ago as it does now. Since the moons surface is not as dynamic as the earth its rocks are "older".
Quantity of moon crater vs earths craters. Again back to the everchanging earth. But also earths atmosphere destroys/dimishes meteors as they approach land. Also to note 2/3 of our surface is water. Water doesnt hold impact crater features very well. There is no water on the moon to hide these craters and the surface of the moon isnt reconstituting them back into the core.
Perfect eclipse - I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the moon is pulling away at about an 4cm a year. So if it was a perfect eclipse last year its not quite perfect this year.
Here is a link that has lots of easy to read info. Its just common sense.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/moon.php#questions
WARNING! DiHydrogen MonOxide kills!
With phrases like "cannot be
)
With phrases like "cannot be co-incidence" and "what are the odds", no ensembles have yet to be defined here. That is, what is the denominator of your probability calculation? Until you do that it doesn't matter much what you entertain about the numerator.
It is of course not impossible that the moon "....is an artifical satelite created by an intelligent being or beings." But when compared to theories that don't invoke said beings, you have now added a greater burden of proof.
My legs are just long enough to reach the ground. Wow, what's the chances of that? It's an effect proven to be correct to within 0.1 Angstroms! :-)
An obviously ridiculous example, right? I'm not intending to poke fun at anyone. The trouble is that there are many propositions that are in fact ridiculous, but unfortunately not obviously so. Thinking in these sorts of areas is still good however. If nothing else it challenges one's definitions of sufficiency of evidence. I would dare to say that contributions to this thread have come from different origins there! Moral - check your assumptions.
Remember that guy who said that clocks slow down when you go faster?
At least no one gets burnt at the stake for this stuff anymore.....
(edit) ECR, I love your profile.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: 2. You always get to
)
This is actually not a coincidence at all, but rather a stable equilibrium resulting from the tidal forces exerted by Earth on the Moon. If the Moon's revolution period were to be faster than its rotation period, the change in the Earth's gravitational field over the diameter of the Moon would eventually cause the Moon's rotation to slow. The Moon is pulled harder on one side than on the other, and deforms. If it rotates to fast, however, this deformation changes as a different side faces the Earth. During this change, the Moon loses energy to friction, and its rotation rate slow. If the Moons rotation rate is too slow, it will be speed up for the same reason of a gravitational imbalance, although by a slightly different mechanism. This happens for any sufficiently massive central bodies. Both Jupiter and Saturn have many tidally locked moons. Mercury is nearly close enough to the Sun to be tidally locked itself. Pluto is actually the strangest case. Both Pluto and Charon are tidally locked with each other. Thus, if you were to live on Pluto, Charon would always have the same side facing you, as well as remain in the exact same position in the sky for all time. The same goes for an observer on Charon looking at Pluto.
RE: My legs are just long
)
LOL! I love this! I'll have to remember it for the future when I teach probablity and statistics (if I ever go back to University teaching).
Kathryn
Kathryn :o)
Einstein@Home Moderator