0 members (),
619
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
OP
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
There are some that ponder whether our Moon is hollow or solid. A little bit of data is thought to make the prospect reasonable. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/articlehollowmoon.shtml Not very scientific possibly but if you search around you will find that there is a lot of discussion on this topic. jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901 |
Hi Jim,
The South pole-Aitken Basin on the far side of the moon, made by an asteroid impact, is 1300 miles across. An impact like that would surely have punched a hole in a hollow moon?
Blacknad.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Calculating the mass of the moon is trivial. Given the mass and the diameter calculating the density is similarly trivial. Samples taken from the surface and spectroscopic measurements provide us with the chemical composition.
A hollow is just plain impossible based on physics and chemistry.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
OP
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
?Is our Moon hollow?? I returned to this topic in the interest of keeping open an area of discussion that may seem ridiculous at first blush. There are some that have given some background on why this topic is still discussed. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/8827/moonfacts.html Not a noteworthy scientific source but he covers the subject with a sampling of the data that keeps the speculation alive. Is there some overwhelming scientific conclusion that absolutely eliminates the prospect that the Moon could be hollow? I know that density and Mass will be considered but that leaves open the question of whether the Mass is the product of the method and not the reality. Any way, I am simply trying to entice thoughts. Also note that magnetic field comparisons may not be helpful because the Moon is not rotating and we find here on Earth the easiest way to create a magnetic field is by rotating stuff. Pick it apart. jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334 |
Hollow? Ridiculous!
Everyone knows it's full of cheese!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
then again there is the hollow earth theory. according to it. the mantle is alot more dense than we know, and it throws all the calculations off, as does the sun at the center of the earth. please dont ask me the scientific explination. my high school teacher believed that we should read not only the standard stuff, but the theories that were considered crack pots. who knew when we would run across the next albert einstein whose theory of relativity was considered to be crackpot at best.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Hollow moon. Hollow earth. Hollow heads. And yet somehow the boundary between solid and gas is invisible to seismic monitoring. Refraction and reflection cease to exist when the armchair geniuses get involved? This seems to be the same crowd that in an earlier time did this: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
you never know when those hollow heads will come up with something. miricles do happen.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Yeah. Sure.
electricity? antibiotics? semiconductors? anesthesia? computers? lasers? seismic monitoring of faults and volcanos?
Surely you can name their numerous contributions to human-kind.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
how about Einstein. theory of relativity was considered to be the work of a brainless idiot at one point.
how about the theory that the earth is not the center of the universe. that was considered heresy, and worse. don't hear it considered that now.
how about electric lights. Edison was considered to be a crackpot with nothing upstairs.
how about telephones. people laughed at Alexander Bell when he said he would be able to make peoples voice travel long distance.
the world is full of things that were considered to be the work of air heads, hollow headed, blank brained, scientist who were a few bricks short.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Name one person, in physics, that considered Einstein's work that of a brainless idiot.
Provide reference and quote that support your contention.
Do you believe George Washington chopped down his father's cherry tree too.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
in current physics, few that are not considered air heads beleive that. but when einstein first attempt it accepted it was not. unfortuantely the were all in a book i read in the mid 70's. i dont even know if it is on the net any more. why dont you show me proof that he was accepted from the work go.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Moon is indeed hollow :-) There is nothing inside it except liquid preserved for centuries... now.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
dehammer wrote: "in current physics, few that are not considered air heads beleive that."
Lets try again. Name one person who at the time Einstein's SR and GR papers were published considered him an air head.
There were some that considered him to be incorrect. That's not the point. Name one person that considered him to be a light-weight air head. Provide quote and reference.
Do you believe George Washington cut down his father's cherry tree too?
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Originally posted by dkv: Moon is indeed hollow :-) There is nothing inside it except liquid preserved for centuries... now. This is ridiculous. Even a liquid filled moon would not have given the observable results. Stick with Science and Science related topics.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
OP
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
So hollow heads can think solid thoughts.
The measure of Mass is exactly what is says. The method does not predict to inform at to where the source of the Mass is. The measure of density is nothing more than dividing the Mass by the volumn (the spherical outward size) and does not tell you where the result will be found in the object your nare calculating.
The point is that our Newton style measure of Mass coupled with our basic math of volumn has not one clue as to the prospect that an object may be hollow.
DA says it is a tivial measuer, possibly like hollow heads, and I am inclind to agree as long as it is not the basis of anargument to which it has little relevance. jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
jjw004 wrote: "So hollow heads can think solid thoughts."
We've seen scant evidence of that here at SAGG.
Once again you fail to grasp the point of science and the scientific method. This isn't about density. Density, in and of itself, is one metric among many.
Take in total all of the information we have about the moon and synthesize it into a consistent statement of fact.
1. We have visual 2. We have spectroscopic 3. We have gravimetric from orbiting spacecraft 4. We have seismic from on-surface instruments 5. We have thermal from IR observations 6. We have gamma and x-ray from satellites
Heads may be hollow: The moon is not! Which leads us back to Rose's request. Let the thread and its nonsense die. It contains as much value as asking the question: "Who would I be if I wasn't who I am?"
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
Originally posted by DA Morgan: Do you believe George Washington cut down his father's cherry tree too? i beleive it is commonly accepted as part of american folklore. not being present at that time, i could say. how am i suppose to quote a book, i read 35 years ago, that was not a well known, even then. as to name, i dont recall that the book actually mentioned any persons names, but it did mention several places that he had tried to get it published, that the editors called him an idiot. please tell me what is the difference between an air head and a idiot. i dont believe the term air head was used at that time.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
dehammer wrote: "how am i suppose to quote a book, i read 35 years ago, that was not a well known, even then...."
Anything that is real is verifyable in a library or with a search engine.
In short ... you just made up "facts" off the top of your head.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
OP
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
I am very will to let the topic die.
DA, look at what you wrote:
"1. We have visual 2. We have spectroscopic 3. We have gravimetric from orbiting spacecraft 4. We have seismic from on-surface instruments 5. We have thermal from IR observations 6. We have gamma and x-ray from satellites"
I suppose that if anyone can look at something and by doing so decide if it is hollow then you must be that person. 6 items that do not determine what is hollow or not hollow. Please try to be on point. It WAS the seismic from the on-surface instruments that caused some to speculate that the Moon was hollow. lip service is not fact. Cheers. jjw
|
|
|
|
|