Moon Mysteries.

Status
Not open for further replies.
moshpit said:
No mystery here mate. The Earth's MEAN density of Earth is indeed circa 5 gm/cm3. That's because of it's relatively large iron/nickel core, surrounded a largely basaltic mantle. The moon possesses a much smaller iron core by comparison, it consists largely of basaltic type material hence the lower MEAN density. The absence of a large iron/nickel core in the moon is due to the impact of Rhea and the proto-Earth where the two cores amalgamated and settled into the large core present in the Earth today. Pretty straight forward really.

As for the Earthquakes, i'd guess it would be something to do with the fact that the p-waves generated by Earthquakes are refracted as they enter a liquid (and the Earth's core is surrounded by a substantial molten outer core.....which gives us our magnetic field effectively) whilst the s-waves cannot pass though a liquid at all. Because the moon has a tiny liquid outer core (if indeed there is anything molten at all) and it is tectonically dead (i.e there is no movement or turnover of mantle) there is no dampening effect that a liquid, molten material provides to a shock force - that is an earthquake.

I'd imagine it would be like hitting a bowling ball and then a water balloon with a hammer. Which one would make your hand vibrate like fuck.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 


IS THE MOON THE CREATION OF INTELLIGENCE?

by Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/moon_spaceship.htm

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a hypothesis that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The hypothesis was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?".

Vasin and Shcherbakov's thesis was that the Moon is a hollowed-out planetoid created by unknown beings with technology far superior to any on Earth. Huge machines would have been used to melt rock and form large cavities within the Moon, with the resulting molten lava spewing out onto the Moon's surface. The Moon would therefore consist of a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. For reasons unknown, the "Spaceship Moon" was then placed into orbit around the Earth.

Their hypothesis relies heavily on the suggestion that large lunar craters, generally assumed to be formed from meteor impact, are generally too shallow and have flat or even convex bottoms. Small craters have a depth proportional to their diameter but larger craters are not deeper. It is hypothesized that small meteors are making a cup-shaped depression in the rocky surface of the moon while the larger meteors are drilling through a five mile thick rocky layer and hitting a high-tensile "hull" underneath.

Additionally the authors note that the surface material of the moon is substantially composed of different elements (chromium, titanium and zirconium) from the surface of the Earth. They also note that some moon rocks are older than the oldest rocks on Earth.

They postulate that the moon comprises a rocky outer layer a few miles thick covering a strong hull perhaps 20 miles thick and beneath that there is a void, possibly containing an atmosphere.

These guys and many like them weren't like your typical conspiracy loons of today, they were high ranking government scientists back in the cold war.

Moon possibly older than the Earth?

Ballbag1985 said:
http://www.ancient-code.com/the-black-knight-a-13000-year-old-alien-satellite/

Probably shite but interesting nonetheless. Love owt like this me like.
Click to expand...

Good thread on here a while back. http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/the-black-knight-satellite.89433/7
 
Last edited:
moja said:
Threads like this bring out the coffee table philosophers and google copy and paste scientists. We know very little because we aren't capable of knowing everything. -_-

Threads like this bring out the coffee table philosophers and google copy and paste scientists. We know very little because we aren't capable of knowing everything. -_-

Threads like this bring out the coffee table philosophers and google copy and paste scientists. We know very little because we aren't capable of knowing everything. -_-
Click to expand...
and the repetitive posters

moshpit said:
No mystery here mate. The Earth's MEAN density of Earth is indeed circa 5 gm/cm3. That's because of it's relatively large iron/nickel core, surrounded a largely basaltic mantle. The moon possesses a much smaller iron core by comparison, it consists largely of basaltic type material hence the lower MEAN density. The absence of a large iron/nickel core in the moon is due to the impact of Rhea and the proto-Earth where the two cores amalgamated and settled into the large core present in the Earth today. Pretty straight forward really.

As for the Earthquakes, i'd guess it would be something to do with the fact that the p-waves generated by Earthquakes are refracted as they enter a liquid (and the Earth's core is surrounded by a substantial molten outer core.....which gives us our magnetic field effectively) whilst the s-waves cannot pass though a liquid at all. Because the moon has a tiny liquid outer core (if indeed there is anything molten at all) and it is tectonically dead (i.e there is no movement or turnover of mantle) there is no dampening effect that a liquid, molten material provides to a shock force - that is an earthquake.

I'd imagine it would be like hitting a bowling ball and then a water balloon with a hammer. Which one would make your hand vibrate like fuck.
Click to expand...
bowling ball. got the hair cut yet?
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
July 1970 article . They also note that some moon rocks are older than the oldest rocks on Earth.

Moon possibly older than the Earth?
Click to expand...

As the First Soviet samples of moon rocks were collected in September 1970, they're doing a good job of working that out mind you.

Nonetheless, other studies do show that the moon has older rocks than the Earth. The problem is, the age of rocks isn't a good way to date the Moon and the Earth. As far as I understand it, We still have active Volcanoes and natural forces which cause erosion, hence the cycle continues of renewing the crust of the earth. The Moon has no tectonic activity, wind or rain, and so the cycle has stopped - and so its perfectly normal the rocks will be older.

I stand open to be corrected by someone with a better background, but it makes perfect sense to me.
 
moshpit said:
You have an avatar of a cat, a f***ing pussy cat wearing a hat. God only knows what kind of craic you prefer.
Click to expand...
its only a bit joke man. bloody hell, you avatar has long hair, i was just having a little go and hoped for a witty retort

obviously that went well. sorry for being below your intelligence standards
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
I think this video explains visually what you're trying to say.

Your statement is correct, the isotopes of both the moon and Earth have shared origins. But this only increases the confusion, so either the moon came from Earth's imaginary surface mantle or it originated independently from the same material. So if it came from our mantle, I can agree with your Iron core and volatile elements suggestion, but what of lack of refractory elements and abundance of other heavy metals in the moons crust. These should have (using the giant impactor model) coalesced very differently to what we can see. It doesn't explain the angular momentum of the moon's orbit either.

Here's what wiki says about other deficiencies of the impactor model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties that have yet to be fully resolved. For example, the giant impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed by a magma ocean.[28]

Composition
There are a number of compositional inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
  • The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant impact hypothesis. If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, they must be due to some other cause.[28]
  • The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by an impact that would entail a catastrophic heating event.[29]
  • The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, which is intermediate between Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.[30]
  • If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in those.[31]
  • The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth.[6] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[32] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[33]
  • The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.[34][35]

Back to your post. Do we know where this late heavy bombardment LHB came from? The planet that should be in between Mars and Jupiter and where the Asteroid belt is now perhaps? We still can't explain why the orbit of these asteroids suddenly hit the moon-earth system head on. So early in the solar system formation, we had planets like Saturn, Jupiter moving around willy nilly causing havoc in the inner part solar system. I can understand that.

I take your point on the LHB and how it can explain away some of the anomalies but can it explain why the crater depth on the moon is a max of 1-2 miles? Regardless of diameter?



Nowt wrong with either, I do both. Not all of us can be full on hippies and work in CalTech or MIT like you marra.
Click to expand...
Oh im not suggesting there are still unknown facts surrounding the moon formation. There are many things we are yet to fully understand about planetary formation. However that does not mean the general hypothesis is incorrect - it almost certainly isn't given what we do know.

Some of those points on wiki are totally erroneous mind (and I love wiki by the way). Of course there wouldn't be evidence ona magma Ocean from that period. The earth has turned over it's crust countless times since then (aside from some of the Central regions of continental crust.) the process is ongoing today - oceans come and go......

Rhea's isotopic ratio may well have been a match with the proto-earth, we simply don't have enough Solar rock samples to know how much variance there is. They all lie parallel to the TFL anyway apart from calcium aluminium inclusions CAI's (another thread all together!) equally they could have homogenised after impact equalising all of the constituent isotopes if that makes sense.

From what I can remember from crater formation, the depths of any planearu crater scales as the force of gravity felt on that surface. This therefore sets strict limits on maximum crater depth .
 
moshpit said:
Oh im not suggesting there are still unknown facts surrounding the moon formation. There are many things we are yet to fully understand about planetary formation. However that does not mean the general hypothesis is incorrect - it almost certainly isn't given what we do know.

Some of those points on wiki are totally erroneous mind (and I love wiki by the way). Of course there wouldn't be evidence ona magma Ocean from that period. The earth has turned over it's crust countless times since then (aside from some of the Central regions of continental crust.) the process is ongoing today - oceans come and go......

Rhea's isotopic ratio may well have been a match with the proto-earth, we simply don't have enough Solar rock samples to know how much variance there is. They all lie parallel to the TFL anyway apart from calcium aluminium inclusions CAI's (another thread all together!) equally they could have homogenised after impact equalising all of the constituent isotopes if that makes sense.

From what I can remember from crater formation, the depths of any planearu crater scales as the force of gravity felt on that surface. This therefore sets strict limits on maximum crater depth .
Click to expand...
i acept your apology

accept of course.
 
moshpit said:
Did you know the domesticated cat shares 99.7% of its DNA with knob heads?
MEGALOLZ HAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...
what a tit you are mate. really, it comes over clear as day. i feel sorry for you, for posting this. i really do. no humour, no self awareness and basically someone who has a high regard for what he sees in a mirror

happy christmas
 
stephen cartwright said:
what a tit you are mate. really, it comes over clear as day. i feel sorry for you, for posting this. i really do. no humour, no self awareness and basically someone who has a high regard for what he sees in a mirror

happy christmas
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for your embarrassing punctuation, basic lack of capital letters and almost absurd use of the comma.

Merry f***ing Christmas Stephen Cartwright. I hope Santa has a massive shit down your chimney.
 
moshpit said:
I feel sorry for your embarrassing punctuation, basic lack of capital letters and almost absurd use of the comma.

Merry f***ing Christmas Stephen Cartwright. I hope Santa has a massive shit down your chimney.
Click to expand...
ooh :lol::lol: 1-0
 
Big Duke Six said:
Aliens Warned Us to Stay off the Moon!
A certain professor, who wished to remain anonymous, was engaged in a discussion with Neil Armstrong during a NASA symposium.

Professor: What REALLY happened out there with Apollo 11?

Armstrong: It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility, the fact is, we were warned off! (by the Aliens). There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city.

Professor: How do you mean "warned off"?

Armstrong: I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, were they big!... and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.

Professor: But NASA had other missions after Apollo 11?

Armstrong: Naturally-NASA was committed at that time, and couldn't risk panic on Earth. But it really was a quick scoop and back again.

Armstrong confirmed that the story was true but refused to go into further detail, beyond admitting that the CIA was behind the cover-up.

There's more ...
Click to expand...
:lol: space cadet :lol:
 
sylvian said:
This thread made a large turn then :D:lol::lol:
Click to expand...
careful mushpot is of superior intelligence.

never had such an over reaction over a throwaway line. i hope he gets back to the large scientific style of posts. must be great to know these things
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top