Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Is our Moon hollow?

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

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.

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.

?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

Hollow? Ridiculous!

Everyone knows it's full of cheese!

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.

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

you never know when those hollow heads will come up with something. miricles do happen.

Yeah. Sure.

electricity?
antibiotics?
semiconductors?
anesthesia?
computers?
lasers?
seismic monitoring of faults and volcanos?

Surely you can name their numerous contributions to human-kind.

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.

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.

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.

Moon is indeed hollow :-)
There is nothing inside it except liquid preserved for centuries... now.

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?

This is ridiculous. Even a liquid filled moon would not have given the observable results. Stick with Science and Science related topics.

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

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?"

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.

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.

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

I was on topic. If you don't understand how gamma and x-ray information helps determine the composition of the moon then ask.

..if one looks close enough, the answer becomes clear~

1) how do you look up a book who's title and arthur are unknown.

2) not all books have been put on the net.

3) your ignorance is extremely showing. everyone that knows anything about it, knows that it was not universally accepted at first.

4) before you made such stupid insults, you should at least learn to spell. "verifyable" does not have a y. it has an i there.

5) why should i make up a fact that is well known. how can i.

dehammer asks:
"1) how do you look up a book who's title and arthur are unknown."

I don't know. How do you quote a book WHOSE title a and AUTHOR are unknown?

dehammer states:
"2) not all books have been put on the net."

By looking for posts that reference the book. Or, if there is any truth to the notion, other publications that confirm the validity of the known source.

dehammer writes:
"3) your ignorance is extremely showing. everyone that knows anything about it, knows that it was not universally accepted at first."

Sentence are supposed to have a subject. "It was not" ... what is the "IT" to which you refer? If you are refering to Einstein ... there is a light year's separation between "not accepted" and anyone calling Einstein an "air head." Unless you can figure out how to purge these threads people are more than capable to going back and reading what you wrote. Integrity might lead some to acknowledge they were running off at the keyboard: Not you of course.

dehammer asks:
"5) why should i make up a fact that is well known. how can i."

Your invented "fact" is not well known ... it is unknown. If it is well known then provide a reference to support it.

the term air head is the current version of idiot, and means the same thin. those at the time that said that, since he could not do simple math, he had to be an idiot.

perhaps the common claims that he was too intelligent to understand simple math (as i understand it, he tried to understand it in more complicated math) is just more folklore, such as Edison not being able to tie his shoes. not being there, all i know is that this is one of the stories i have heard since i was in elementary math. perhaps only in certain areas of the world do they teach school children that many of the great leaders of many endeavors had flaws. or perhaps you believe that they did not have any flaws. many ppl of the time saw these flaws as indications of low intelligence. this was the case with Einstein. he did preserver and many are not now willing to accept that he had any flaws.

so in one way you are correct. they did not use the term air head with him. it had not yet been invented. but the term does mean that idiot.

as to the subject of the sentence, if the subject of an argument is known, its normally assumed by normally intelligent ppl that the sentences in the argument are about that subject. since you do appear to have a problem with keeping track of the subject, ill try to reduce my standards enough to suit you.

dehammer wrote:
"the term air head is the current version of idiot"

Waffle, duck, bob, weave all you want. Use whatever definition you wish.

Find a single reference to the statement you made claiming Einstein was viewed by his contemporaries as an air head.

You wrote it.
I've challenged it.
Demonstrate some integrity.

What you've quoted is an urban myth. It is not different from the alligator in the New York city sewer system or George Washington cutting down his father's cherry tree.

It is pure unadultered nonsense and you should acknowledge that you just made it up. You won't, of course, but you should.

esin:

Very nice pics. I looked hard and did not see what you must have seen if what you saw relates to this topic.

The main dificulty that I have had on this Forum is that not all members deal specifically with the proposition at hand but want to change the point of the discussion to some thing they prefer to discuss or simply crush the thought expressed.
In my world a response would be ingnored totally if it did not follow the confines of the issue under discussion. To do otherwise provokes a lot of random "responses" that tend to make the original topic something it was never intended to be.One sure way to upset an expert witness (not all of them) is to ask about a minor point of his specialty that you have researched in earnest and already know that there is no known answer, The blow hard will jump in with an effort to "make it clear to everybody" that he knows all- then you have the opportunity to show he does not and if he is wrong there he may be wrong everywhere.

I do not give a whit whether the Moon is hollow. I never brought up the "hollow earth" conjecture.
To me, any one that reads this discussion sequence will have a good example of what I mean about the loose approach taken to topics and get some idea of the experts at work stuff.

jjw

which is it, something i made up or an urban myth. it cant be both.


I dont need to find a quote from them to show it to you. human nature has not changed that much since Einstein brought out his theory. just look at the things said here and youll know what ppl said about him and his theory. im sure there was a DA there that said the same things about him as you have said about other that disagreed with you. In other words, the da of that time called him the then current slang equivalant of airhead.

jjw:

My condolances for your loss, good Sir.. On topic, then, I would, also, consider this thread for its content, replete with, yet, another run on DA vs de waste of cyberspace, to be a not quite so humorous diversion... Please, therefore, take a moment to look 'closer' into the link for what was intended to be taken as is illustrated herein~

Enough of this bickering! No matter where the term "air head" was used to start with, it is very pointless and juvenile to waste the forum's time and space slanging insults back and forth.

We will not refer to others with term of disparagement. If you cannot respect your colleagues, don't post your opinions here. I will not see this forum used for the exchange of slander and libel. It's too precious a place to lose to a lawsuit for either. Mind your manners and cut the insults out or the forum you lose may be your own.

Amaranth
Moderator

Au contraire Rose.

We have a couple of trolls here who ignore science, do no research to confirm what they write, repeat urban myths as gospel, make up facts that are convenient, and most importantly refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have been caught dissembling.

If you want to have a serious science site as opposed to a playground for the mentally challenged then you should be encouraging two things.

1. The posting of supporting references.
2. The acknowledgement of dissembling when exposed.

since you refuse to accept that scientist have the same problems that is known to plague all human nature, i will follow Rose's instructions and cease to continue to try to instruct you on reality.

On June 13th you wrote and I quote exactly:

"how about Einstein. theory of relativity was considered to be the work of a brainless idiot at one point."

I challenged you on this and you are now, 8 days later, going to hide behind a woman's petticoats while claiming you have used 8 days trying to instruct me on reality.

ROFL!

Esin:

As I said, nice pics. I could also have said very nice link. I went back and it looks the same.

As to my fried, thank you.
jjw

im not hiding behind a womans petticoat, im folloing a moderators decision.

im sure you will always believe that scientist are saints and will recongize the truth of a new theory, despite it destroying a widely accepted, and well cherished personal theory, at first glance, even when it is released by a relatively unknown teacher. since you refuse to believe otherwise, ill leave you in your fantasy world.

the moderator has spoken and i shall listen to her instructions.

"1) how do you look up a book who's title and arthur are unknown."

ask a librarian. really. we are trained purveyors of information common and obscure. given you know the approximate time of publication, and subject matter, the librarian bag of tricks, not in any way associated with 'magic bags' mind you, has a couple of ways of finding the title and author you seek.

and for those giving you a hard time about provenance, they should have known to send you to the nearest reference desk.

Infoweasel wrote:
"ask a librarian."

Well what do you expect to accomplish by being reasonable and asking people to do real work?

The nerve of some people.

It might not be commonly known, however the moon in fact rotates once a month!! Good old relativity raises it's head again.

Actually it rotates once per sidereal period which is precisely 27 days 7 hours and 43.2 minutes. Shorter than any calendar month.

The synodic period is, the time it takes the moon to reappear at the same point in the sky is 29 days 12 hours and 44.0 minutes. Longer than any February and shorter than any other calendar month.

But you were reasonably close.

actually its quite well known that the moon rotates once every orbit.

dehammer wrote:
"its quite well known that the moon rotates once every orbit."

"Orbit" is ambiguous. Do you mean the sidereal period or the synodic period? They are two different definitions of the word orbit.

Hi Bagpi:

I too have been aware that astronomers recite that the moon rotates once in the course of its orbit of about 27.23 days.

I think you will get a better understanding of my comment on rotation of objects and magnetic results if you rotate a magnet in a wire coil about once a month and see what you generate.

One rotation to me is a 360 degree turn. If the moon, strangely enough did not rotate at least once per revolution it would not show us the same side all the time. When it traveled from one side of the earth to the other side it would show its own other side to us. However from the laymans point of view you could fasten a rope to one side of the moon and to one side of the earth and if they rotated in sync it would be like you swinging a ball around your head with the same side of the ball facing you at all times while the string remained taut.

Minimal rotation, if any, is not productive of electromechanical energy. Cheers.
jjw

not to get bogged down in word games, but the moon "appears" to rotate exactly once in the time it circles the earth. now since the earth has circled the sun a good bit, the moon must have moved a little bit more. These are facts that everyone knows, but hardly thinks of. not everyone knows what "sidereal period or the synodic period" are. the discussion was about what everyone knew or didnt know.

The moon is hollow. When Louis Armstrong took the first step onto it, he heard an echo from within.
He thought to himself, "what a wonderful world", and he thought to himself "what a wonderful world"