Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, most major moons in our solar system are gravitationally locked to their parent planet... e.g. the Galilean moons of Jupiter have a 1:1 resonance just like our moon.
Also, Mercury is gravitationally locked to the sun in a 3:2 resonance.
As for your other assertions, I am DYING to see your sources for the age of the moon and the hollow moon theory.
Oh man, I certainly would not have opened that can of worms, I take it you did not get the memo sent by the third cousin twice removed from the uncle of Dean Duffys' mother.
All the planets are made of material "recycled" from other places in the galaxy. But the moon is not geologically active, so it's rocks haven't been worn down and reconstituted over and over again like on Earth. It's completely logical that we would get older readings from moon rocks than earth rocks for this reason.
that still doesn't explain how scientists claim the moon is older than the solar system
that still doesn't explain how scientists claim the moon is older than the solar system
They don't.
"...the oldest material from the surface of the Moon is almost as old as we believe the Solar System to be. This is more than a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks that have been found."
"...the oldest material from the surface of the Moon is almost as old as we believe the Solar System to be. This is more than a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks that have been found."
and that contradicts belief that the earth is older than the moon. With that being said, the question is how did the moon get in earth's orbit? Its couldn't have been a body traveling through space that got caught in the Earth's gravitational pull because an object the size of the moon would have collided with the earth. It seems we have to look for answers that are based on more supernatural or science fiction theories. But most scientist don't even want to go there. Thats why they ignore the scientific data. Now skeptics would answer by saying the earth was impacted by a large body that was older than the earth and that those rocks went in to earths orbit to form the moon over time. If the moon is hollow, that can't be possible. NASA has done test on the moon which proves the moon is hollow or that there is no solid core.
"Let us outline some of the extraordinary anomalies and mysteries surrounding this puzzle. Clearly not all data will be equally reliable but the abundance of interrelated information nevertheless gives an overall picture which can be determined with some certainty. The first academic enigma must surely be that the Moon is apparently in its wrong orbit for its size. However, this would presumably be based on its assumed density. Technical reports claim a density of 3.3 for the Moon compared with 5.5 for Earth. Astronomy data indicates that the internal regions of the Moon are less dense than the outer, giving rise to the inevitable but outrageous speculation that it could be hollow. The eminent scientist Carl Sagan, a typical sceptic, made the statement, 'A natural satellite cannot be a hollow ob-ject'. But meaning here that if it is hollow, it is not a natural satellite---and therefore artificial. Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow ob-ject' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell."
and that contradicts belief that the earth is older than the moon. With that being said, the question is how did the moon get in earth's orbit? Its couldn't have been a body traveling through space that got caught in the Earth's gravitational pull because an object the size of the moon would have collided with the earth. It seems we have to look for answers that are based on more supernatural or science fiction theories. But most scientist don't even want to go there. Thats why they ignore the scientific data.
No, it isn't a contradiction. Keep in mind that the Earth is geologically active. Stuff on the surface of the Earth slowly becomes recycled because of the tectonic plate movement. While some plates push together forming mountains, subduction plates overlap causing one plate to slide back into the Earth's interior. The atmosphere and oceans also cause surface material to wear down. Volcanic activity also contributes to surface change. The Earth's surface has been constantly renewing itself.
The Moon had been volcanic at one time, but presently for the most part, it's geologically dead, at least in the sense that it doesn't have any tectonic plates to change its surface. That means what we see on the Moon is material that's older than the material we see on the Earth. But that doesn't mean the Moon is older than the Earth.
It's possible the Moon came from somewhere else in the early formation of the solar system and was captured by the Earth's gravity. While you're saying that couldn't have happened, you'd be wrong again. It would not necessarily have to have collided with the Earth. It could have been near enough to the Earth to have been captured by the Earth's gravitational pull, but far enough that it wouldn't collide. The problem with such a theory is that it would suggest that the Moon will eventually collide withe the Earth. But that's not the case. The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth's pull.
But it's also likely the Moon is the result of a planetary-sized object, perhaps the size of Mars, (again in the early formation period of the solar system) that collided with the Earth causing a massive amount of material to be ejected. The orbiting material gradually pulled together forming the Moon. Yes, it's just a theory, but there are some valid reasons behind it. What happened to the object that collided with the Earth? It was absorbed by the Earth.
The point is that the Moon is part of the natural formation process of the solar system. There is no evidence that it was towed into place by ETs. There is evidence that the Moon originated from the Earth though. For example, we know that the Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If you reverse that drift, you find the Moon closer and closer to the Earth.
As to the ET idea, why would ETs have towed the Moon just to the Earth? Why not tow one or two to the planet Venus? (Venus and Mercury are moonless). Why didn't they tow an appropriate-sized moon to orbit around Mars?
You've added more. Your suggestion that the Moon must be hollow because it rings like a bell when a meteor collides with it is an incorrect conclusion. It would ring like a bell. Try hitting a solid anvil with a hammer. What happens? You hear it ring because of the vibrations caused from hitting it.
that still doesn't explain how scientists claim the moon is older than the solar system
The oldest rocks recovered on the moon are about 4.5 Billion years old. The oldest rocks recovered from Earth are about 4.28 Billion years old (as per our favorite source of questionable facts from Wikipedia) We don't have rock samples from the rest of the solar system except for meteorites, and they could have come from anywhere, so they don't prove the moon is older than anything at all.
So really, the earth and moon are about the same age When you are dating rocks in the billions of years, you are not gonna get an exact age, and the .23 age difference is irrelevant.
Rocks as a whole are going to read older on the Moon because there is no geologic activity there. On earth, most rocks are worn down into tiny particles, pressed into new rocks, melted and ejected from volcanoes and so forth in a never ending process that continually changes the surface of the planet over millions of years.
Logically, the earth and the moon come from the same base materials, and the only thing unusual is the orbit and effect the moon has on the Earth, not what it is made of.
No, it isn't a contradiction. Keep in mind that the Earth is geologically active. Stuff on the surface of the Earth slowly becomes recycled because of the tectonic plate movement. While some plates push together forming mountains, subduction plates overlap causing one plate to slide back into the Earth's interior. The atmosphere and oceans also cause surface material to wear down. Volcanic activity also contributes to surface change. The Earth's surface has been constantly renewing itself.
The Moon had been volcanic at one time, but presently for the most part, it's geologically dead, at least in the sense that it doesn't have any tectonic plates to change its surface. That means what we see on the Moon is material that's older than the material we see on the Earth. But that doesn't mean the Moon is older than the Earth.
It's possible the Moon came from somewhere else in the early formation of the solar system and was captured by the Earth's gravity. While you're saying that couldn't have happened, you'd be wrong again. It would not necessarily have to have collided with the Earth. It could have been near enough to the Earth to have been captured by the Earth's gravitational pull, but far enough that it wouldn't collide. The problem with such a theory is that it would suggest that the Moon will eventually collide withe the Earth. But that's not the case. The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth's pull.
But it's also likely the Moon is the result of a planetary-sized object, perhaps the size of Mars, (again in the early formation period of the solar system) that collided with the Earth causing a massive amount of material to be ejected. The orbiting material gradually pulled together forming the Moon. Yes, it's just a theory, but there are some valid reasons behind it. What happened to the object that collided with the Earth? It was absorbed by the Earth.
The point is that the Moon is part of the natural formation process of the solar system. There is no evidence that it was towed into place by ETs. There is evidence that the Moon originated from the Earth though. For example, we know that the Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If you reverse that drift, you find the Moon closer and closer to the Earth.
As to the ET idea, why would ETs have towed the Moon just to the Earth? Why not tow one or two to the planet Venus? (Venus and Mercury are moonless). Why didn't they tow an appropriate-sized moon to orbit around Mars?
You've added more. Your suggestion that the Moon must be hollow because it rings like a bell when a meteor collides with it is an incorrect conclusion. It would ring like a bell. Try hitting a solid anvil with a hammer. What happens? You hear it ring because of the vibrations caused from hitting it.
yes but scientists say the moon is older than the solar system as well and not just the earth. Scientists also did the numbers and stated because of the moon's mass, the moon would have collided with the earth so it couldnt have been a body traveling through space that got sucked into the gravitational pull of the earth.
As far as the formation theory, it doesn't hold water because the moon is too large in relationship with its orbit to have formed naturally over milions and millions of years.
there is other evidence of a possible hollow moon. Astronomy data indicates that the internal regions of the Moon are less dense than the outer, giving rise to the speculation that it could be hollow
also chango...I would not use Wikipedia as a valid source.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
