interesting things about the moon

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by river, Jul 11, 2012.

  1. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Would the Earth have made it on to having life if there were no moon. Some say that without the moon the Earth would have wobbled, perhaps in and out of hot and freezing zones very quickly.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    perhaps

    but the point is the moon has very interesting behaviours and characteristics , which are very unusual

    lets focus on these
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Yes, and hardly anyone even thought about it. Maybe bring a few forward at a time.
     
  8. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162



    I was hoping that this would happen from people on there own just from looking upon the site I have provided

    am I wrong , or has this site given many people interesting surprises , as you say ," hardly anyone has even thought about "
     
  9. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    12. Moon’s Origin:

    …*
    Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov, stated,

    "It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible."


    The following is what I read from Aismov, with my drama and a few things added:


    NEW 9TH PLANET FOUND!

    Poor Pluto’s been banished to the underworld,
    Charon rowing him to the land of the forgotten.
    Schoolchildren petitioned for his return,
    But he was voted off of the solar island.

    Memory’s crutch for the order of the planets,
    Is now just “MVEMJSUN”—
    Old Pluto tried so darn hard, its position
    Now even closer to the sun than Neptune’s.

    Well, many have searched for quite a while for
    The next planet without any success—
    There have been hoaxes, theories, and some ghosts;
    Yet, I have firm proof of another planet.

    But, first, a review of some poor attempts:
    ‘Vulcan’ was spotted very close to the sun,
    And ‘existed’ for about five days,
    But now is relegated to the Star Trek World.

    Another ‘Vulcan’, impossible to see,
    Being 180 degrees away from Earth,
    Behind the sun, was seen in the movie
    “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”.

    Could an asteroid like Eris be a planet?
    Nope, ‘tis not allowed, although all of the
    Debris between Mars and Jupiter
    Could have come from an unstable planet.

    Nice try, but it’s not out there anymore,
    And any planets of other solar systems
    Don’t count, nor does Planet Hollywood
    Or Daily Planet or any other restaurants.

    Perhaps there’s another planet way out,
    Beyond; that may be so, but, no matter,
    Though it may become the 10th planet, since
    I have found the newest 9th, with no doubt.

    The 9th planet does follow an orbit
    Close to Earth’s, ever falling toward the sun—
    It is right under our nose: It’s the moon!
    But, wait, you say, it is Earth’s satellite.

    Our moon is unique in the solar system—
    It’s not captured by the Earth, but by the sun,
    It’s orbit being everywhere concave to Sol.
    (Thanks to Isaac Asimov for proving this.)

    Never does our moon fall away from the sun,
    For it’s attracted to it about twice as much
    As it is to the Earth, although the moon and
    The Earth do form a double planet system
    That revolves about a common point that
    Happens to be inside of the Earth.​
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    thanks SCIWRITER for the above post

    a couple more things to add

    10. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour.



    This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.


    11. Unusual Metals: The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed. Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria? Surprise! The maria is composed primarily illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird". Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.
     
  11. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Rocks from the moon are 3 to 4 billion years old (same as the earth), not 5 billion years old as that site has it. Couldn't find any age of moon dust, do you know any source to confirm the claim that it would be a billion years older than the moon rocks? Needless to say I don't trust that site one bit.

    When looking at the pictures of the Mascons they aren't completely circular as the site has it. Don't know why they are overlooking the obvious fact that it could have been material from the meteorite or from denser lava flow to close the cavity the meteorite caused.

    That it has unusual materials isn't surprising as meteorites has fallen to it nonstop since the beginning and it has no atmosphere to vaporise them.

    I see so many things deliberately skewed with that site...it would be so interesting if the facts were correct, but seeing that it is simply misinformation just makes me want to read a good book instead. I'm disappointed because I like strange facts, like that star that lost the dust cloud and that sort of thing, keeps my imagination going. Would have been really nice to fantasize about alien origin and knowing that the facts support it, but now I'm left with fantasy and when it comes to pure fantasy then I have higher standards.


    Oh, and the formation of the moon... why was the theory that a large object hit the earth left out? It could account for the formation of the moon. Instad the site has it that a chunk of the earth broke off in some unexplained way...
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  12. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162

    yet this is still very interesting


    10. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour.



    This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.
     
  13. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    NASA states that the reverbation is because the moon is very rigid so much of the energy doesn't get absorbed but "bounces" back and forth (it is pretty much the opposite of the conclusion that the site gave).

    Moonquakes

    So what the site thought was a like ringing bell, is more like a tuning fork, it doesn't need to be hallow in order to have reverbations. On earth much of the seismic activity is absorbed since the earth isn't that rigid and dry as the moon is. But the earth do reverb as well, just on a much smaller scale.

    The moon is interesting though, and I like reading about it, I just don't like when a site makes facts up, or only shows one interpretation as if it was the only true one.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  14. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    did they say how much of the energy is lost ?

    a little or alot
     
  15. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Compared to the earth I would guess that very little is lost as the moon is much more rigid and dry, that's why the moonquakes could go on for a very long time as compared to earth.
     
  16. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,920
    Yea wonderful provide us a link uh huh
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    sure

    the thing is though if the sound is bouncing around then you would get interferrence patterns , and then they would cancel each other out , hence no ringing affect , just a garbled noise
     
  18. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Simply my own guesswork based on the NASA link I gave, the aborbtions would have to be small for a moonquake to go on for so long, at least when compared to earth.

    Here's two Wiki pages of the Hollow Moon theory, and the Spaceship Moon Theory:
    Hollow Moon Theory
    Spaceship Moon Theory

    Both of which are ruled unsupported by science.

    The only way it would completely cancel out was if the moon was completely symmetrical, which it isn't, and also the quake would have to originate in the perfect center, which it doesn't. A tuning fork doesn't produce noise either, or why not a solid sphere of metal, do the waves cancel out there to make noise? No, and neither should they do that in the moon.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    as I mentioned , the bouncing around would produce interferrence waves , hence a cancellation or garbled sound , not a wave that is clear and definite




    I stay clear of this idea , since if it were true I certainly don't expect NASA to say so
     
  20. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    I would hardly call moonquakes clear and definite. They are quakes that bounce around after all, not soundwaves. Perhaps you shouldn't take that "ringing bell" analogy too literally.

    That said, much the same principles are at work if you have a solid sphere of metal, it would still ring a clear sound even though there are interference waves in that too. That the waves interfer with eachother doesn't necessarily garble the sound. Soundwise a quake is pretty much garbled the way it is though, the material that quakes propagate through aren't exactly musical materials.






    Would there be any reason for them to hide it if it were true? Either way, I think you do the right thing by staying clear of those ideas, they are based on skewing the facts, and any such ideas should be taken with a big chunk of salt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    well lets get back then the moon being captured by the Earth , as you could have read that the Issac mentioned the Earth could not capture the moon
     
  22. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Here's a link to the Wiki page of Moon formation:

    Wiki - Moon formation


    It says that the prevailing theory is that earth collided with a mars size object which blasted material into orbit around it. Computer simulations seems to agree, and major collisions were commonplace at that time of earths history (pretty early on).

    The moon and earth also has near-identical isotopic compositions which suggests that they were made from the same material. They have found titanium isotopes though that is seemingly in conflict with the impact theory (for some reason I don't yet understand).

    That said; no theory is without problems. That the moon should be a spaceship or of alien origin has more problems than all scientifically sound theories though.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  23. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    well I expect computer sims to suggest that the Earth collided with another planetary object , and NEAR-identical isotopic compositions

    but my point is that , the Earth could not capture the moon , it doesn't have the gravity to do so
     

Share This Page