interesting things about the moon

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

  1. 1nf1del Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    I'm curious to know your thoughts on the space between Earth and Mars, science says there should be a planet there, if there was a planet there and something the size of Mars hit Earth, does this support the rogue/Planet X talk? I remember back in the eighties they found Planet X and it seemed to drop out of the grapevine so to speak, like they are purposely trying to hide it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Ok, that would be another nail in the coffin for that theory then. I personally believe that the moon originated from the earth, probably due to collision, it would of course originate with the same orbit so it didn't have to be captured.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    I've heard about it, and there was some pecularities in the orbits. It would have to have a very excentric orbit in order to avoid our detection, could be a comet or something instead of a planet. I'm going to investigate more about it.

    My current interest is a peculiar correlation between the WMAP and the solar plane, I'm also interested in the Pioneer Anomaly.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. 1nf1del Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    I've lost all my data that I had on my computer, I lost my hard drive a month and a half ago and am rebuilding on a new computer, but somebody had a computer program that you could set a certain time period and it would show you what our solar system looked like, he went back like 15,000 years and there was a debris fiend in that ring between here and Mars. Here is an explanation of the Pioneer Anomaly. Wait, I need two more posts, I'll post the link in my next post.
     
  8. 1nf1del Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
  9. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Ok thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    sorry for the late reply (had forgotten about the thread).
     
  10. Engell79 Registered Member

    Messages:
    97
    Okey, im really baffeld by one particular point in all the text...
    THe moon is Hollow? how could that even be possible?
    wouldnt a hollow structure of that size cave in on it self by gravity alone or the slightest impact of astroids?`

    'Edit 2:
    what natural occurance could create a spire of that hight 5 miles`?
    anyone got any other sources for this 5 mile high spire cuz i can't find any other place that mention it, not even on nasa...(maybe my search ability is lacking.)

    'edit;
    Is this something that belongs in Psudosicence?
    im asking cuz i find these "facts" rather out there?

    Edit 3 (last one.)

    Spend some time investigating this article, its mostly fringe-conspirasy-sicence... using the word sicence might be wrong even. This article has little to do with fact, and many of its claims
    are directly wrong, wich anyone can find if they surf the wiki and nasa sites of the web =).

    THis post belongs in pseudo sicence in my opinion, has nothing to do with "real" sicence. The article referres to other sicentific studies how ever choose to quote them wrong...lol.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  11. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Curious how science says a planet should be between Earth and Mars. In the continuing discoveries of other solar systems, there's so far no set pattern, so why should we expect a gap to mean anything? Is there even a gap?

    River stated that the Moon being captured into a regular orbit is not possible. I think this is true. This conclusion also supports the current impact theory, as when the collision happened, most of the resulting ejecta didn't have the velocity to achieve escape velocity from the Earth, and so remains in orbit, still slowly moving outwards.

    Planet X was used by Nancy Lieder in her end of the world predictions, and connected it to the Niribu name as well, since it had a following. She was obviously wrong. There actually have been a lot of new planets found since then, Kuiper objects, but none threaten to drift inwards.

    It's funny how there's always a suggestion that NASA and the like are trying to hide something, and yet look how many new observations of things in the sky are actually made by amateur astronomers first, and then confirmed by the big observatories later. If there was something like the fabled Planet X, even before the internet the news would have been public long before it was even close.
     
  12. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Just want to say that this is a old thread, I don't know if river and Inf1del is aware that it has resurfaced.
     
  13. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
  14. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    Perhaps but at the same time, the findings are what they are
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Yes. Mainly wrong.
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I tried looking for some evidence of the first claim (that "moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old") and found no support for it.

    On the contrary, the oldest age for a moon rock I could find was 4.6 billion years in this Engineering and Science magazine article, but that claim isn't supported by the NASA report on the rock in question, which gives an age of 4.45 billion years.

    This article seems relevant The oldest moon rocks, it points to an age of 4.46 billion years for crystallization of the earliest moon rocks, a claim repeated (and referenced, but not checked by me) in the Wikipedia article on the Genesis Rock.

    The Wikipedia article Moon rock also references a claim moon rocks date "up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands", but I couldn't access the referenced journal paper.

    Finally, you can find detailed information on every sample brought back by the Apollo missions here:
    Lunar and Planetary Institute
     
  17. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    never really cared much about the moon rocks. I have always wondered if the moon has moon quakes though. Does it? has it ever?
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    The overwhelming consensus view among scientists today is that the moon formed following the impact of a Mars sized planet (Theia) on the proto-Earth during the early stages of the formation of the solar system. A huge volume of material was thrown into space, much of it at such speed it was able to escape the gravitational attraction of the Earth. However, some remained in orbit as a debris disc that rapidly (perhaps in less than one hundred years) condensed and accreted to form the moon.

    Any hypothesis for lunar formation had to account for several features of the moon:
    • A comparatively large size relative to its parent. (The moon is ~1% of the mass of the Earth.)
    • The large angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system
    • Low lunar density, implying a major depletion in iron
    • A lunar orbit once much closer to the Earth and inclined at 10° to the ecliptic

    Data from the Apollo samples added further complications: the lunar composition bore striking similarities to terrestrial mantle material, but also striking differences. For example, the oxygen isotope ratios of mantle and lunar rocks differed from chondrites, the posited source for each, by similar amounts; however the moon was clearly seriously depleted in volatiles.

    Three hypotheses were considered as plausible:
    • Capture of a body formed elsewhere in the system
    • Fission as a consequence of very high rotational speed of the proto-Earth
    • Co-formation alongside the Earth

    Each of these three hypotheses had serious problems. Consequently, two independent groups developed an alternative impact hypothesis; Hartmann and Davis in 1975 and Cameron and Ward in 1976. This idea languished until all four origin hypotheses were examined in detail in a 1984 conference in Hawaii, from which the impact hypothesis emerged as the clear winner.

    Subsequent advances in computer power, especially using smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH), have enabled detailed simulations that have refined the hypothesis and removed most of the contradictions, or remaining questions. In parallel with this, work on lunar geochemistry, especially isotope ratios, and the character and formation of the magma ocean, has complimented the dynamical findings. As a consequence, the impact origin of the moon is now generally accepted and work focuses on resolving any remaining inconsistencies.

    Selected Bibliography:
    Cameron, A.G.W. & Ward, W.R. The origin of the Moon. Lunar Sci.7: 120-122 (1976).
    Canup,R.M. & Asphaug,E. Origin of the Moon in a giant impact near the end of the Earth's formation Nature 412: 708-712 (2001)
    Canup R.M. Dynamics of Lunar Formation Annu.Rev.Astron.Astrophys.42: 441–75 (2004)
    Hartmann, W.K. & Davis, D.R. Satellite-sized planetesimals and lunar origin. Icarus24: 504-515 (1975)
    Hartmann,W.K.,Phillips R.J.,Taylor G.J.,eds. Origin of the Moon. Houston: LunarPlanet.Inst.781pp (1986)
    Warren The Magma Ocean Concept and Lunar Evolution Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. . 13: 201-40 (1985)
     
  19. Engell79 Registered Member

    Messages:
    97

    The moon dosnt have tectonic plate interaction, and as such have no reason to have earth quakes.

    Above is a wrong answer read right one below
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2013
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Quakes are not only caused by tectonic plate interactions.
    Quake - Wikipedia:
    According to NASA, there are at least four different kinds of moonquakes:
    • Deep moonquakes (~700 km below the surface, probably tidal in origin)
    • Meteorite impact vibrations
    • Thermal moonquakes (the frigid lunar crust expands when sunlight returns after the two week lunar night)
    • Shallow moonquakes (20 or 30 kilometers below the surface)
     
  21. Engell79 Registered Member

    Messages:
    97
    Thank u for correcting me Pete!

    i appologise to Orelander for posting a hasty answer with out checking my source.
    A dumb mistake, and in doing so ive done the very thing i dislike ppl doing... giving a misleading answer!....
    crapper...ill go burrow my head in a dung pile now......
     
  22. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    LRO and LCROSS are current satellite moon missions, precursors to human presence on the Moon.

    As far as earthquakes on the moon go, I wonder if expansion and contraction of lunar crust be harnessed for energy. High-frequency teleseismic (HFT) quakes go up to 5 Reicher scale.


    Moreover LCROSS uncovered presence on the moon of: pure water ice crystals, methane, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, sodium, mercury, silver.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    link: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/21oct_lcross2/

    Yes we get, the nice gentleman falls to his knees to the feet of a lady, whilst outlining his faults and idolizing the perfection of her image.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2013
  23. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    thanks for the moon quake info guys. (and the wonderfully written, but unnecessary, apology Engell)
     

Share This Page