PDA

View Full Version : Moon Ringing


etvisitor7
05-May-2004, 02:13 AM
:) Through scientific equipment and tests, NASA & the world have learnt a great deal about the Moon's interior. Scientific stations were set up on the Moon's surface, including sensitive seismometers that radioed a world of data back to Earth. The first were set up by Apollo 11 astronauts in the Sea of Tranquility, and another by Apollo 12 astronauts in the Sea of Storms. They were extremely sensitive----in fact, a hundred times more sensitive than any used on Earth, and able to record tremors almost one million times smaller than vibrations which human beings make. The sensitive seismometers even recorded the foot-falls of our astronauts.
The first man-made crash directed at the Moon to divine its interior occurred after Apollo 12 astronauts had returned safely to their command ship and the lunar module ascent stage was sent smashing into the Moon's surface, thus producing in effect an artificial moonquake. The shock waves of this hit staggered NASA scientists----THE MOON VIBRATED FOR OVER 55 MINUTES! Furthermore, the kinds of signals recorded by the seismometers were utterly different from any ever received before, starting with small waves, gaining in size to a peak, and then lasting for incredibly long periods of time. A wave took 7 to 8 minutes to reach the peak of impact energy and then gradually decreased in amplitude over a period that lasted almost an hour. It was claimed that even after an hour the minutest reverberations still had not completely stopped.
Amazingly, the lunar module hit the Moon's surface about 40 miles from the landing site. The results were astonishing. All 3 seismometers in the package recorded the impact, which set up a sequence of reverberations lasting more than an hour. Nothing like this had ever been measured on Earth.
The impact occurred at 4-15 p.m. CST, November 20th, 1969. A news conference had been scheduled to begin at 4-30 p.m. And when it did, strangely enough, the Moon was still "ringing" as the scientists----all of them seismic experimenters----arrived at the news center right out of their laboratory.
Maurice Ewing, co-head of the seismic experiment, told the afternoon news crowd of the stunning event, informing them that the Moon was still ringing. He confessed he was at a loss to explain why the Moon behaved so strangely.
"As for the meaning of it," Ewing explained, "I'd rather not make an interpretation right now. But it is as though one had struck a bell, say, in the belfry of a church a single blow and found that the reverberation from it continued 30 minutes."
Actually, unbeknown then to Ewing, the reverberations were to last for about twice that long.
This strange lunar behaviour makes sense only if we consider the possibility that the Moon is hollow, having a metallic-type hull in its interior. The crash of a lunar module should make this metallic lunar ball vibrate like a huge bell. AND IT DID!
Leading scientists agree that a natural satellite cannot be a hollow object. Since the hollow nature of the Moon can be proven by an abundance of evidence (such as discussed above), it could only have been ARTIFICIALLY hollowed out! But by whom?
Questions:- (1) How does the Moon's strange density indicate that it may be hollow?
(2) Why does a leading British lunar expert, former head of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association, conclude: "Everything points to the Moon being hollow 20-30 miles underneath its crust"?
(3) Why does a pre-Apollo NASA study done by leading NASA scientists conclude that the Moon's motions indicate that our satellite may be a hollow orb?
(4) How does the gravitational-field study indicate the possibility that the Moon might be hollow?
(5) Why does the density of Moon rocks brought back by our astronauts indicate that the Moon is hollow?
(6) Why do studies of the Moon's rotational motion indicate that the Moon may be hollow?

GOURDHEAD
05-May-2004, 03:47 PM
It seems more probable that the essentially solid moon (large sublunar acquifers notwithstanding) may have formed a "glass-like crust" of a global nature capable of supporting the ringing phenomenon. It's not too surprising that we have never seen this reaction anywhere else; we don't have any non-tectonic plate structured object so instrumented. Any solid silicate crust might ring in a similar manner. A lab experiment may be able to prove this assertion. It's quite a leap to assume a hollow moon. Let's not offend Occam lest he spin out of his grave...or urn as the case may be.

(2) Why does a leading British lunar expert, former head of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association, conclude: "Everything points to the Moon being hollow 20-30 miles underneath its crust"?
(3) Why does a pre-Apollo NASA study done by leading NASA scientists conclude that the Moon's motions indicate that our satellite may be a hollow orb?
(4) How does the gravitational-field study indicate the possibility that the Moon might be hollow?
(5) Why does the density of Moon rocks brought back by our astronauts indicate that the Moon is hollow?
(6) Why do studies of the Moon's rotational motion indicate that the Moon may be hollow?

I suggest the phrase "does not preclude" for (2) points to, (3) conclude, (4) through (6) indicate. Since it's unlikely that a hollow moon formed without the help of artisans and there is no other evidence of such artisans, Occam's advice pertains.

DippyHippy
09-May-2004, 11:14 PM
I've got a question too...

Why do so many crackpot theories continually come up with ridiculous ideas without actually being able to properly justify them or disprove the currently accepted model?

antoniseb
09-May-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by DippyHippy@May 9 2004, 10:14 PM
Why do so many crackpot theories continually come up with ridiculous ideas without actually being able to properly justify them or disprove the currently accepted model?
Hi DH,
I assume your question was rhetoric. It is useful to supply alternative models that DO explain observed phenomena without needing to show a failure in the currently accepted model, especially if there is some observation that hasn't been made yet, but is possible to make that would distinguish between the two.

However, we have seen a few useless ideas expressed here that clearly weren't made using a full knowledge of the sciences [etvisitor's hollow moon for example]. I expect part of that is a confluence of (1) people's natural tendency to think that some things are not as they seem, and (2) people's vain hope of making a wild speculation become an important theory with their name on it as an easy [or lucky] way to fame and glory.

DippyHippy
09-May-2004, 11:56 PM
Good points anton - I also think a fair portion of those who advocate these ideas are conspiracy theorists. It's just the way the theories are presented... like they're accusing the scientists of being incompetent, stuck in their ways, lying or just plain blind to the apparently obvious.