Moon has many abnomalies

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by river, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    not enough mass , obviously
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    not really
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    It has enough mass to produce 1/6th earth's gravity. So how hollow is it? Approximately what percentage of it's interior is hollow?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    I see. And you know this how?
    Wild speculation?
    Gross ignorance?
    Refusal to check?
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    quote from the book ( Alien Agenda )

    " The moon has at least three distinct layers of rock . Contrary to the idea that heavier objects sink , the heavier rocks are found on the surface. Stated by Don Wilson , " The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface ares is so pronounced that several geo-chemist proposed that refactory compounds were brought to the moon's surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don't know how , but that it was done cannot be questioned. These rich materials that are usually concentrated in the interiour of a world are noe on the outside . " Ubell , a former science editor for CBS tv , aknowledged this mystery, saying " The first , layer , 20 miles deep , consists of a lavalike material similar to lava flows on Earth. The second extending down to 50 miles , is made up of somewhat denser rock. The third , continuing to a depth of at least 80 miles and probably below, appears to be of a heavy material similar to Earth's mantle...."

    Ubell asked , If the Earth and the Moon were created at the same time , near each other , why has one body got all the iron and the other ( the Moon ) not much ? The differences suggest that Earth and Moon came into being far from each other, an idea that stumbles over the inability of astro-physicists to explain how exactly the Moon became a satellite of the Earth"
     
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    My spelling has become worse since the invention of spell checkers.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Woohoo!
    Quotes from a crank book by a noted crank.
    How does this address the question I asked?

    And your quote is false: try looking here and here.
    Or this diagram.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    of course that is how it should be related to mainstream thinking and Earth's core

    but that is not how it is on the Moon

    the heavier objects are closer to the surface
     
  12. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Of course you'd rather believe a retired history professor...than say...actual scientists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oops...wrong author. Try a journalist who's also a 9/11 truther.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Really?
    How do you know this?
    From reading books by cranks?
    Why do you believe them and not science?
     
  14. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    because the people from these so called " cranks " books , have people of science to base their ideas
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Really?
    For example...?
    Tell me, what science credentials does Jim Marrs have?
    How do you know he reported what he was told exactly the way it was told to him? (Bearing in mind that he has a specific agenda of his own).
    How do you know those "scientists" he quoted are reporting science's view on the results, rather than their own unsupported take on the information?
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Dywyddyr, so where do we go from here

    there is lots of science from both our perspectives
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Well, ideally, you go off to get an education. And stop reading/ believing crank authors and sites.

    Not exactly. But that's because you apparently don't know what science is.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    well then , ideally , you go off to get yourself an education , and stop being such a mainstream puppet
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Oops, assumption.
    Please don't, you only end up looking more ridiculous.
     
  21. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Bahahahahahahahahah

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , you're the sheep here, do you even bother to check the findings of the crank sites you read? Fill youself with knowledge (actual sciency stuff not BS crank crap) then come back here and re-read your old posts and laugh with us

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    and you do , no evidence so far
     
  23. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    See how his counter says 13,000+ posts, try reading some of them.
     

Share This Page