Explorer12 Posted March 26, 2012 #1 Share Posted March 26, 2012 In his book OUR MYSTERIOUS SPACESHIP MOON (1975), Don Wilson writes: "The Moon has only 60 percent of the density of Earth. The improbable fact that an equal amount of earth material seemed to weigh almost twice as much as moon matter mystified everyone. Why the difference? The actual answer, some scientists felt, pointed to the possibility that part or all of the Moon's interior was hollow! In 1962, Dr. Gordon McDonald, a leading scientist at NASA, published a report in the July issue of ASTRONAUTICS. In it he states that, according to an analysis of the Moon's motion, it appears that the Moon is hollow: "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data requires that the interior of the Moon be less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 26, 2012 #2 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Before I start, may I ask what subsequent and up-to-date research you have done on this..? Initially, I would draw your attention to the second sentence here at the font of all wisdom, Wikipedia, which states: No scientific evidence exists to support the idea. If you are competent in the field of mass determination and have some information from Mr Wilson's book that you find particularly compelling, would you care to elaborate? Was/is he an expert in the field? And a quick question for you.. In regard to the 60% figure, what factors affect the density of a planetary body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 27, 2012 #3 Share Posted March 27, 2012 The moon is not hollow. Well, unless it's Swiss cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 28, 2012 #4 Share Posted March 28, 2012 While waiting for Explorer12 to return.. If anyone else is interested in this topic, rather than just throw links at you I'd like to ask you a few questions, and then I suggest you go off and see if you can find the answers. After you have those answers, see if you think that there is a 'mystery'. Hint - you won't. There are some interesting mysteries about the Moon, but this isn't one of them. Anyways, here are my questions - I think they are pretty obvious ones to ask, n'est ce pas? Q.1 Which planet, out of all nine er eight of them, is the MOST dense? Q.2 What (according to generally accepted theories) is the Moon mostly made up of? (ie where did the material come from, and what is it, mostly?) Q.3 What are the densities of other similar moons in the solar system? (By similar, I mean moons that are anywhere near the size of the Moon.) You may be surprised by the answers you find, but space scientists, gelogists, etc are not... Yes, there were a lot of strange books written in the seventies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightInTheStatisticals Posted March 28, 2012 #5 Share Posted March 28, 2012 You may be surprised by the answers you find, but space scientists, gelogists, etc are not... Phsssh .. like you can believe a word of any of those people. Yes, there were a lot of strange books written in the seventies.. Why stop at the 70's? You can find any number newly published pseudo-scientific books on Amazon. I'd even go so far as to say you can find even more books like that now. As long as there's a market, Amazon will gladly take your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
space11498 Posted April 6, 2012 #6 Share Posted April 6, 2012 But I thought the moon was formed by a asteroid named thee which hit the earth and bounced back and formed an proyo-planetary disc around the earth and formed the moon.So the moon shold be dense. This is a revelation to me that the moon is hollow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryso Posted April 6, 2012 #7 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow ob-ject' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours. So what's going on with the Moon? Taken from Red Ice Creations site It goes into a lot more detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted April 6, 2012 #8 Share Posted April 6, 2012 But I thought the moon was formed by a asteroid named thee which hit the earth and bounced back and formed an proyo-planetary disc around the earth and formed the moon.So the moon shold be dense. This is a revelation to me that the moon is hollow. Theia. Just saying. Taken from Red Ice Creations site It goes into a lot more detail No no no. If the moon is hollow, then all the physics we know today are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted April 6, 2012 #9 Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) Taken from Red Ice Creations site It goes into a lot more detail But solid things ring too. Edit: That guy believes too much crazy stuff to be credible at all. Edited April 6, 2012 by Timonthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted April 6, 2012 #10 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Taken from Red Ice Creations site It goes into a lot more detail No - Good Grief. What a rubbish site that is. Kryso, next time you are referencing something, look for telltales like flowery language, no maths, no direct quotes, no step by step logical analysis, no citations or bibliography - that site checks ALL those boxes. Oh, perhaps I should elaborate - if it checks all (or even a few) of those boxes, it is BAD. Unless you just like fiction or tinfoil hats.. Did you not read the thread, and my earlier post? The wiki on the topic is actually quite good and comprehensive - have a look, and if you dispute any of what is there, do let us know and I'll be happy to back it up with proper cites... The second sentence there is: No scientific evidence exists to support the idea. And that is absolutely correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryso Posted April 7, 2012 #11 Share Posted April 7, 2012 No - Good Grief. What a rubbish site that is. Kryso, next time you are referencing something, look for telltales like flowery language, no maths, no direct quotes, no step by step logical analysis, no citations or bibliography - that site checks ALL those boxes. Oh, perhaps I should elaborate - if it checks all (or even a few) of those boxes, it is BAD. Unless you just like fiction or tinfoil hats.. Did you not read the thread, and my earlier post? The wiki on the topic is actually quite good and comprehensive - have a look, and if you dispute any of what is there, do let us know and I'll be happy to back it up with proper cites... The second sentence there is: And that is absolutely correct. To be honest I didn't research much. I had heard about the colliding and ringing, and this was the first site I found. I will pay more attention next time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now