Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Mysterious lunar swirls finally explained

13 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
Mystify

I Find their reasoning interesting. Lava on the moon? this would certainly throw a wrench into the Hollow Moon theory

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Mystify said:

I Find their reasoning interesting. Lava on the moon? this would certainly throw a wrench into the Hollow Moon theory

Well, it was molten when first created then cooled from the outside in, so there was lava. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, Mystify said:

I Find their reasoning interesting. Lava on the moon? this would certainly throw a wrench into the Hollow Moon theory

A "theory" that already contradicts evidence is totally going to account for new evidence against it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
22 hours ago, Mystify said:

I Find their reasoning interesting. Lava on the moon? this would certainly throw a wrench into the Hollow Moon theory

What hollow Moon "theory"?

 

This just confirms the Moon was formed because of an impact on the earth 4 billion years ago. Lava tubes are home for future inhabitants.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, seanjo said:

This just confirms the Moon was formed because of an impact on the earth 4 billion years ago.

Or the Earth and Moon started as a big molten "donut". 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
14 minutes ago, seanjo said:

What hollow Moon "theory"?

 

This just confirms the Moon was formed because of an impact on the earth 4 billion years ago. Lava tubes are home for future inhabitants.

I suspect he's talking about this rubbish.

"The Hollow Moon hypothesis, or Spaceship Moon hypothesis, proposes that Earth's Moon is either wholly hollow or otherwise contains a substantial interior space. No scientific evidence exists to support the idea; seismic observations and other data collected since spacecraft began to orbit or land on the Moon indicate that it has a thin crust, extensive mantle and small, dense core, although overall it is much less dense than Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Moon

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I suspect he's talking about this rubbish.

"The Hollow Moon hypothesis, or Spaceship Moon hypothesis, proposes that Earth's Moon is either wholly hollow or otherwise contains a substantial interior space. No scientific evidence exists to support the idea; seismic observations and other data collected since spacecraft began to orbit or land on the Moon indicate that it has a thin crust, extensive mantle and small, dense core, although overall it is much less dense than Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Moon

So 'they' totally ignore the measured mass of the Moon. A measure easily achieved by competent mathematicians using the distance and pull of the Moon on the seas and Newtonian physics! (tides)???

Edited by seanjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
13 hours ago, seanjo said:

So 'they' totally ignore the measured mass of the Moon. A measure easily achieved by competent mathematicians using the distance and pull of the Moon on the seas and Newtonian physics! (tides)???

Hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystify
On ‎2018‎-‎09‎-‎08 at 11:06 AM, Rlyeh said:

I suspect he's talking about this rubbish.

"The Hollow Moon hypothesis, or Spaceship Moon hypothesis, proposes that Earth's Moon is either wholly hollow or otherwise contains a substantial interior space. No scientific evidence exists to support the idea; seismic observations and other data collected since spacecraft began to orbit or land on the Moon indicate that it has a thin crust, extensive mantle and small, dense core, although overall it is much less dense than Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Moon

Rubbish?...

Strange because there is tons of scientific research on it. In fact they tested the theory by dropping part of the craft onto the surface of the moon on purpose to see if it would resonate like a bell does. Why? because that's what happened when something was dropped on it's surface the first time. It's interesting because, if it was a solid piece/rock, it wouldn't do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
16 minutes ago, Mystify said:

Rubbish?...

Totally and utterly.

 

17 minutes ago, Mystify said:

Strange because there is tons of scientific research on it.

Care to cite some?

 

17 minutes ago, Mystify said:

 In fact they tested the theory by dropping part of the craft onto the surface of the moon on purpose to see if it would resonate like a bell does.

No they didn't. Again would you care to provide references from a reputable source?

In the Apollo era the spent Saturn V upper stages were impacted on the moon to collect data from the  seismometers the astronauts left there. In more recent times upper stages and probes at the end of their working life have been deliberately impacted into the lunar polar regions to test the hypothesis (now proven) that there is water ice there. None of these impacts have been to test whether the moon is hollow.

 

23 minutes ago, Mystify said:

Why? because that's what happened when something was dropped on it's surface the first time.

No it didn't. The entire idiotic hollow-moon drivel is a based on a one line description of the moon, "ringing like a bell" after moonquakes. Nothing more. No evidence, no reputable scientists to support the hypothesis, nothing, just one throw away line.

 

31 minutes ago, Mystify said:

It's interesting because, if it was a solid piece/rock, it wouldn't do that. 

Yes it would... and indeed does.

 

Here is what a real, reputable, scientist and expert on the subject (rather than a pedlar of pseudo-scientific clap-trap) has to say:

Quote

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge--it deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes.

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says.

Source: NASA

So not only does a solid object ring like a bell it is precisely because the moon is so solid that it does so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystify
On ‎2018‎-‎09‎-‎10 at 3:50 PM, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Totally and utterly.

 

Care to cite some?

 

No they didn't. Again would you care to provide references from a reputable source?

In the Apollo era the spent Saturn V upper stages were impacted on the moon to collect data from the  seismometers the astronauts left there. In more recent times upper stages and probes at the end of their working life have been deliberately impacted into the lunar polar regions to test the hypothesis (now proven) that there is water ice there. None of these impacts have been to test whether the moon is hollow.

 

No it didn't. The entire idiotic hollow-moon drivel is a based on a one line description of the moon, "ringing like a bell" after moonquakes. Nothing more. No evidence, no reputable scientists to support the hypothesis, nothing, just one throw away line.

 

Yes it would... and indeed does.

 

Here is what a real, reputable, scientist and expert on the subject (rather than a pedlar of pseudo-scientific clap-trap) has to say:

Source: NASA

So not only does a solid object ring like a bell it is precisely because the moon is so solid that it does so.

Yep, great idea! Let's believe everything Nasa says. 

Even Neal's article specifically states that they don't have all the answers. There's no way to know because we're not there. Or are we? Again, you're going on the fact that NASA is the be all of end all and never lies. Right. 

I suppose you also think that we're along in the universe because well.. Nasa says so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystify
On ‎2018‎-‎09‎-‎10 at 3:50 PM, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Totally and utterly.

 

Care to cite some?

 

No they didn't. Again would you care to provide references from a reputable source?

In the Apollo era the spent Saturn V upper stages were impacted on the moon to collect data from the  seismometers the astronauts left there. In more recent times upper stages and probes at the end of their working life have been deliberately impacted into the lunar polar regions to test the hypothesis (now proven) that there is water ice there. None of these impacts have been to test whether the moon is hollow.

 

No it didn't. The entire idiotic hollow-moon drivel is a based on a one line description of the moon, "ringing like a bell" after moonquakes. Nothing more. No evidence, no reputable scientists to support the hypothesis, nothing, just one throw away line.

 

Yes it would... and indeed does.

 

Here is what a real, reputable, scientist and expert on the subject (rather than a pedlar of pseudo-scientific clap-trap) has to say:

Source: NASA

So not only does a solid object ring like a bell it is precisely because the moon is so solid that it does so.

So nice to see Nasa's disclaimer on accurate information. Always covering their butts...

Nasabuttcover.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.