The moon doesn't have an iron/nickel core because of how it formed from the ejecta of a large impact on the earth rather than accretion of material from around the sun.
That's the theory alright, except it's not a theory that holds much water.
Logically it shouldn't be there according to our theories. If it broke off from the earth it would spin faster than it does because angular momentum is conserved. Yet the moon rotates once every 27.3 Earth days. You know what's funny too, that the sun rotates at the same rate as the moon, if you track sun spots, then the sun rotates once every 27.3 days. If the Moon was captured, it's orbit would be much more elliptical, so that's not it. Also the moon doesn't orbit Earth along the equator it's actually ~5 degrees off relative to the equator.
The current most-supported hypothesis is that the moon was formed during the early days of the solar system when a small (Mars-sized, approximately) planet collided with the earth. Much of the debris that was created didn't escape Earth's gravitational pull and eventually coalesced to form the moon.
You're right that angular momentum is conserved, so at the time the moon - and the earth - would have been rotating much faster due to the collision. However, due to tidal forces the Moon's angular momentum was sapped by the Earth over time, resulting in its current state of being tidally-locked to the Earth.
That being said, that particular hypothesis isn't foolproof either, it's just the one with the most supporting evidence right now.
Right, exactly my point, there's a lot of peculiarities about the moon that our current cosmological model has trouble explaining. If the moon was really a spin off from the Earth, there would be similar elements in the Moon as found on Earth, only they're isn't. There isn't much iron or other heavy elements, obviously there aren't many oxides as there's no oxygen rich atmosphere like here on Earth.
If the moon was really a spin off from the Earth, there would be similar elements in the Moon as found on Earth, only they're isn't.
Actually, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the collision hypothesis is that the composition of the moon and Earth are similar. It also explains why the Earth has so much iron and nickel near the surface. According to our current best models of planet formation, heavier elements would sink toward the core over long periods of time, which doesn't explain why Earth has such a high concentration of them near the surface. If Earth collided with another planet with a nickel-iron core, it would end up being scattered across the Earth's crust. It also explains why the moon's density is so low - the lighter elements would be most likely to remain in orbit to coalesce after the collision.
The moon is 1/4 of the size of the earth but only has 1/8th the gravity, and 1/3 the density, if the Moon is solid how do you explain that discrepancy?
*ahhh you can't, thanks for showing me who I'm dealing with. Also this thread is days old and buried, it makes your comments suspect.
And the equation follows: g = G(m/r2)*. The moon's mass, m, is 7.347x1022 kg; the moon's radius, r, is 1.737x106 m; and the gravitational constant is 6.674x10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 . Therefore, the gravity of the moon is 6.674x10-11 (7.347x1022 / (1.737x106 )2 ) = 1.62 m/s-2 . You can do the same for Earth if you want.
In addition to that, you obviously don't think we've landed on the moon. What do you say about this? How does a hollow moon not collapse in on itself? How did this moon come to be?
Who said we never landed there. You're making assumptions buddy. Not a good look. Earth 8.7m/s that doesn't invalidate that if the Moon is solid and it's composition is similar to earth, it's density would be similar and it's not, not by a long shot.
Earth 8.7m/s that doesn't invalidate that if the Moon is solid and it's composition is similar to earth, it's density would be similar and it's not, not by a long shot.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. First of all, earth's gravity is 9.81 ms-2 , not 8.7 ms-1 (also acceleration =/= velocity. Believing crackpot theories about the moon and not even knowing what gravity is. Not a good look).
Second of all, the moon was created by a Mars-sized planet crashing into Earth. This impact stripped the outer layers of the earth, but left its (very dense) iron core untouched. The moon does not have this iron core, so its density is far less than that of Earth. It's still a solid sphere.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, also from your article
This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties that have yet to be resolved. For example, the giant-impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed by a magma ocean.[32]
Y u mad tho? Lol
Of course I know gravity implies acceleration. Sorry I didn't bother regurgitating Wikipedia info, but thankfully you're enough loser for the both of us.
Oh for fuck's asked you know for a fact what I meant when I said destroyed. It was ripped apart from the sheer force of smacking into the earth. Did you watch the video?
The theory's still a ton more substantiated than a hollow moon nonsense.
Why would anyone even lie about that? What's to gain?
Y u mad tho? You know how much impact having a solid or hollow moon makes in my life, or yours? Why would it make a difference what people believe? In the end we'really arguing over a theory that neither you nor I can verify. Unless you're planning to go to the moon.
So who cares, I'll belive my BS theories, you can believe whatever the fuck BS you want. Life goes on.
I also just want to understand - why would you believe in this? What's to gain from lying to people about that? Why choose to believe something like that when it's really implausible?
And I like now that you have no response, you just go "lol u mad bro? why do you even care lol its the Internet."
I never said I believed anything. More assumptions on your part. The OP asked if the Moon is hollow, I said with it's low density relative to its size and lack of magnetic field(which would require a heavy magnetic metal core) we can't really be sure. It also doesn't help that we haven't been back since the 70's to carry out more experiments with newer more advanced instruments.
It also doesn't help that we haven't been back since the 70's to carry out more experiments with newer more advanced instruments.
You might want to revise that statement. While we haven't been back as often since the Apollo missions as we were before they occured, there have been a number of missions to the moon in the last couple of decades.
A lot of disinformation here. According to the insiders now coming out, our planet is a "honeycomb" like structure with miles upon miles of pockets and empty spaces that were formed during the cooling process. The moon however seems to be a heavily manipulated structure and has essentially been "hallowed out" and "rings like a bell"
Simple fact is that if your intentions are peaceful and you're not going to damage the land, you can explore a lot more than you and your other flatheads like to claim.
Because it takes a lot of effort and fuel to get into a polar orbit. Due to the spin of the earth, all rockets (and hence all satellites) are moving west to east, rather than north to south. To change the orbital inclination enough to get into a polar orbit means changing your momentum to a completely different direction - which requires a lot of fuel. Therefore, if a near-polar orbit is sufficient for a satellite's needs, there is no reason to change it so that it directly passes over the south pole.
Yes you can, you really can. One of my astronomy professors a couple years ago spent 10 months in the Antarctic. Sorry, love. Your delusion that Earth is somehow a flat stationary disk is absurd, even for a delusion.
Why aren't the planets tidal locked to the sun then? A day on Mercury lasts ~60 days and it orbits the sun in 80, Venus rotates backwards from other planets and moons. And takes 254 days to rotate on its axis but 225 days to orbit the sun.
And why is Venus and Jupiter tidally locked to the Earth, when they have different orbits? In fact I have a Telescope and I've only ever seen the one side of Mars.
Mercury IS tidally locked to the Sun. Secondly, Venus and Jupiter can't be tidally locked to the Earth. An object can only be tidally locked to the object it's orbiting.
You should observe Mars more often then, or with a better telescope!
Mercury is not tidally locked, it's 3:2 ratio, same as Venus except Venus orbits and rotates backwards, and is the only planet to do so, and Venus is tidally locked to the Earth despite the different orbits we only see one face of it.
I have a decent one, you want to spend $6,000 to buy me a better one?
It was thought for some time that Mercury was in synchronous rotation with the Sun. This was because whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, the same side faced inward. Radar observations in 1965 demonstrated instead that Mercury has a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun, which results in the same positioning at those observation points. Modeling has demonstrated that Mercury was captured into the 3:2 spin–orbit state very early in its history, within 20 (and more likely even 10) million years after its formation.[9]
Venus's 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to Earth is equal to 5.001444 Venusian solar days, making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown.[10]
And yet, by definition, it's still not possible. Just fucking read.
Even if Venus were tidally locked with the SUN it still couldn't be tidally locked to Earth.
Except I'm not, I've spent the last two days schooling the shit out of somebody who's trying to prove how smart he is. Sorry kid I have bigger fish to fry. Also, it's funny that you think I'm ignorant while you're the one making all the ignorant comments. What's you point anyway? Do you have a monopoly on the truth? If so what is it, omniscient one?
You're using reductio ad absurdum, making me seem ridiculous. That won't work however, because I don't need to use logical fallacies to explain scientific principles.
You are ridiculous, you haven't explained shit. Where is this supposed science you have a mastery of? Where are your experiments, your data, your findings? We're arguing theories not fact, I don't care any more because I'm talking to a child, I was done being a child 14 years ago.
At which point is enough enough? We're arguing theories not facts. Ones which you have clearly not been educated on, you're reaching for ways to disprove or undermine my statements, and failing miserably. And for what purpose? No one will read this thread, this is between you and me right now, so what's the point? Are you trying to have a discussion in order to broaden our perspectives on the matter, or are you just trying your hardest to prove me wrong, and offer no alternative point of view? Because if it's the latter you are a half assed intellectual. You're even worse if you accept a theory as fact, and feel antagonized by someone proposing a different theory.
Fuck, you're dense. Tidal locking is not up for debate. It has a very clear and concise definition. You're saying Venus could be tidally locked to Earth BUT BY DEFINITION OF WHAT TIDAL LOCKING IS, that's not possible. Sorry, "kid."
I don't need evidence to explain a definition. Tidal locking is what tidal locking is. If I pointed to a chair and called it a television, you'd think I was fucking crazy. That's essentially what you're doing.
Venus's 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to Earth is equal to 5.001444 Venusian solar days, making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown.
I know perfectly well what the definition is. But you're not considering the facts, you are imposing artificial constraints on a definition to suit your needs. You are not explaining anything, you are not furthering this discussion, and I refuse to be drawn into a pissing match.
Like I said I stopped doing child shit a long time ago.
Also why are you responding to a old ass post that I don't even care about any more. I don't even think there's such a thing as flat Earth, we don't live on a fucking pancake. The whole point of this thread was some guy asking if the Moon is hollow, well, maybe it is, who the fuck knows. It has no magnetic field, no heavy iron core, it's density is 1/3rd that of Earth's hence why it only has 1/8th the gravity, despite only being 1/4th the size. Maybe it is hollow, and has an outer shell and tunnels similar to an ant colony.
Even Mercury has a strong magnetic field because it's almost as dense as Earth and has a solid metalic core, no such luck on the moon, why?
We have no clue how the moon got there, we have theories, but all the accepted theories have glaring holes in them. So no kiddy, we know fuck all about it, we send some rovers to take pictures, and get some dirt samples, but we haven't explored.
If we really knew the moon intimately there's be more than a few pictures and the vast majority of them wouldn't be artist's renditions.
I never said I believed anything. More assumptions on your part. The OP asked if the Moon is hollow, I said with it's low density relative to its size and lack of magnetic field(which would require a heavy magnetic metal core) we can't really be sure. It also doesn't help that we haven't been back since the 70's to carry out more experiments with newer more advanced instruments.
76 comments
5 EnglishIndividual 2016-10-17
.
5 herpidyderping 2016-10-17
Depends on what kind of cheese it's made of. If it's Swiss cheese I'd say there's a very good possibility.
1 IsayLittleBuddy 2016-10-17
I was hoping for provolone :/
3 herpidyderping 2016-10-17
Don't be ridiculous... Provolone wasn't a thing until at least 350 million years ago.
4 Agent_Duds 2016-10-17
The Hollow Earth theory proposes that all planets and stars are hollow.
3 HookersAndBlow4ME 2016-10-17
No
3 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Why not? It has no magnetic field of it it's own, and it's 1/3rd the density of Earth. So how can you be so sure?
6 CrackAndBallSacks 2016-10-17
The moon doesn't have an iron/nickel core because of how it formed from the ejecta of a large impact on the earth rather than accretion of material from around the sun.
-2 godlameroso 2016-10-17
That's the theory alright, except it's not a theory that holds much water.
Logically it shouldn't be there according to our theories. If it broke off from the earth it would spin faster than it does because angular momentum is conserved. Yet the moon rotates once every 27.3 Earth days. You know what's funny too, that the sun rotates at the same rate as the moon, if you track sun spots, then the sun rotates once every 27.3 days. If the Moon was captured, it's orbit would be much more elliptical, so that's not it. Also the moon doesn't orbit Earth along the equator it's actually ~5 degrees off relative to the equator.
4 ThePsion5 2016-10-17
The current most-supported hypothesis is that the moon was formed during the early days of the solar system when a small (Mars-sized, approximately) planet collided with the earth. Much of the debris that was created didn't escape Earth's gravitational pull and eventually coalesced to form the moon.
You're right that angular momentum is conserved, so at the time the moon - and the earth - would have been rotating much faster due to the collision. However, due to tidal forces the Moon's angular momentum was sapped by the Earth over time, resulting in its current state of being tidally-locked to the Earth.
That being said, that particular hypothesis isn't foolproof either, it's just the one with the most supporting evidence right now.
-1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Right, exactly my point, there's a lot of peculiarities about the moon that our current cosmological model has trouble explaining. If the moon was really a spin off from the Earth, there would be similar elements in the Moon as found on Earth, only they're isn't. There isn't much iron or other heavy elements, obviously there aren't many oxides as there's no oxygen rich atmosphere like here on Earth.
4 ThePsion5 2016-10-17
Actually, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the collision hypothesis is that the composition of the moon and Earth are similar. It also explains why the Earth has so much iron and nickel near the surface. According to our current best models of planet formation, heavier elements would sink toward the core over long periods of time, which doesn't explain why Earth has such a high concentration of them near the surface. If Earth collided with another planet with a nickel-iron core, it would end up being scattered across the Earth's crust. It also explains why the moon's density is so low - the lighter elements would be most likely to remain in orbit to coalesce after the collision.
EDIT: An example simulation video of the impact
2 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
But there are a lot fewer holes in the prevailing theory than in the hollow theory...
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Well if it's hollow then it's full of holes unless I missed the pun. :)
0 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
That's great, but it doesn't explain why you reject the actual sane theory for this unsubstantiated nonsense.
0 godlameroso 2016-10-17
The moon is 1/4 of the size of the earth but only has 1/8th the gravity, and 1/3 the density, if the Moon is solid how do you explain that discrepancy?
*ahhh you can't, thanks for showing me who I'm dealing with. Also this thread is days old and buried, it makes your comments suspect.
0 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
I didn't downvote you.
And the equation follows: g = G(m/r2)*. The moon's mass, m, is 7.347x1022 kg; the moon's radius, r, is 1.737x106 m; and the gravitational constant is 6.674x10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 . Therefore, the gravity of the moon is 6.674x10-11 (7.347x1022 / (1.737x106 )2 ) = 1.62 m/s-2 . You can do the same for Earth if you want.
In addition to that, you obviously don't think we've landed on the moon. What do you say about this? How does a hollow moon not collapse in on itself? How did this moon come to be?
*using this equation because m2 is negligible.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Who said we never landed there. You're making assumptions buddy. Not a good look. Earth 8.7m/s that doesn't invalidate that if the Moon is solid and it's composition is similar to earth, it's density would be similar and it's not, not by a long shot.
0 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. First of all, earth's gravity is 9.81 ms-2 , not 8.7 ms-1 (also acceleration =/= velocity. Believing crackpot theories about the moon and not even knowing what gravity is. Not a good look).
Second of all, the moon was created by a Mars-sized planet crashing into Earth. This impact stripped the outer layers of the earth, but left its (very dense) iron core untouched. The moon does not have this iron core, so its density is far less than that of Earth. It's still a solid sphere.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
No one knows what gravity is, we can only observe it's effects.
So where is this theoretical Mars sized planet? Where are the magma seas on earth like on the surface of the moon?
Sounds like a tall tale to me.
1 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
That doesn't change that you don't know that gravity is acceleration, not velocity.
Here's a simulation of the planet crashing into Earth. Notice how the planet is completely destroyed. This collision happened ~4.5 billion years ago. The rings coalesced into the moon, and the lakes of magma cooled. Do some research before you believe in nonsense contrarianism.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, also from your article
Y u mad tho? Lol
Of course I know gravity implies acceleration. Sorry I didn't bother regurgitating Wikipedia info, but thankfully you're enough loser for the both of us.
0 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
Oh for fuck's asked you know for a fact what I meant when I said destroyed. It was ripped apart from the sheer force of smacking into the earth. Did you watch the video?
The theory's still a ton more substantiated than a hollow moon nonsense.
Why would anyone even lie about that? What's to gain?
0 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Y u mad tho? You know how much impact having a solid or hollow moon makes in my life, or yours? Why would it make a difference what people believe? In the end we'really arguing over a theory that neither you nor I can verify. Unless you're planning to go to the moon.
So who cares, I'll belive my BS theories, you can believe whatever the fuck BS you want. Life goes on.
0 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
Me irl
I also just want to understand - why would you believe in this? What's to gain from lying to people about that? Why choose to believe something like that when it's really implausible?
And I like now that you have no response, you just go "lol u mad bro? why do you even care lol its the Internet."
0 godlameroso 2016-10-17
I never said I believed anything. More assumptions on your part. The OP asked if the Moon is hollow, I said with it's low density relative to its size and lack of magnetic field(which would require a heavy magnetic metal core) we can't really be sure. It also doesn't help that we haven't been back since the 70's to carry out more experiments with newer more advanced instruments.
0 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
You might want to revise that statement. While we haven't been back as often since the Apollo missions as we were before they occured, there have been a number of missions to the moon in the last couple of decades.
2 CrackAndBallSacks 2016-10-17
Interesting!
1 BadgerGecko 2016-10-17
No....but don't let me stop you from using google for your own research though or you could even use reddit search function
6 joserthecomposer 2016-10-17
i researched on it, GOOGLE says no. But is google correct all the time? I just wanted others opinions.
5 fatman907 2016-10-17
Try Bing?
0 joserthecomposer 2016-10-17
lol im gonna have too!
0 BadgerGecko 2016-10-17
Try reddits search tool as well, bound to come up with some threads
1 joserthecomposer 2016-10-17
HAHAHA thanks peeps!
0 nisaaru 2016-10-17
I thought it was flat or did I miss the latest disinfo memo?
-2 DocturDread 2016-10-17
A lot of disinformation here. According to the insiders now coming out, our planet is a "honeycomb" like structure with miles upon miles of pockets and empty spaces that were formed during the cooling process. The moon however seems to be a heavily manipulated structure and has essentially been "hallowed out" and "rings like a bell"
-6 andredawson 2016-10-17
We've never been to space. Space doesn't exist. The moon is a disk.
2 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
So what do you propose is outside of earth?
-3 andredawson 2016-10-17
Other ponds? Who knows. They won't let you explore Antarctica.
4 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
You can go to Antarctica with hotel points now...
-4 andredawson 2016-10-17
Yeah. How nice of then to let you sniff the very outermost points of antarctica.
4 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
Or you can fly over, if you want.
Simple fact is that if your intentions are peaceful and you're not going to damage the land, you can explore a lot more than you and your other flatheads like to claim.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Why don't satellites fly over it?
1 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
Who says satellites don't?
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~djohnson/satellite/polar.html#south_pole
These people say none of those satellites fly directly over the South Pole...
Or North Pole for that matter.
Your move.
1 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
If the instruments on the satellites suffices to see the south pole with the orbits that they have, why does it make a difference?
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
It makes a difference because they don't do direct fly bys. Why?
1 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
Why would they have to, if their instruments can get the data they need without a direct fly over?
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
But why don't they? I don't care about a justification of why they don't need to, I care about why they don't.
1 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
Because it takes a lot of effort and fuel to get into a polar orbit. Due to the spin of the earth, all rockets (and hence all satellites) are moving west to east, rather than north to south. To change the orbital inclination enough to get into a polar orbit means changing your momentum to a completely different direction - which requires a lot of fuel. Therefore, if a near-polar orbit is sufficient for a satellite's needs, there is no reason to change it so that it directly passes over the south pole.
-5 andredawson 2016-10-17
No you can't. You really can't.
3 DirectorSmith 2016-10-17
[citation needed]
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
Yes you can, you really can. One of my astronomy professors a couple years ago spent 10 months in the Antarctic. Sorry, love. Your delusion that Earth is somehow a flat stationary disk is absurd, even for a delusion.
0 andredawson 2016-10-17
You can't fly over the south pole. The south pole does not exist.
-6 Trendamony 2016-10-17
It seems that the moon is a disk and does not rotate.
-6 andredawson 2016-10-17
But they brainwashed us not to believe our own eyes. Sun and moon are equally sized disks. Neither are very far away.
-9 factsnotfeelings 2016-10-17
According to concave earth theory, the moon is a hemisphere.
It makes sense, after all, what are the chances of the moon's spin aligning exactly with the spin of the earth?
6 Cptcutter81 2016-10-17
It's called tidal locking. It happens literally all the time. Several of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are, and Mars's soon will be too.
1 Meshakhad 2016-10-17
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked to each other.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Why aren't the planets tidal locked to the sun then? A day on Mercury lasts ~60 days and it orbits the sun in 80, Venus rotates backwards from other planets and moons. And takes 254 days to rotate on its axis but 225 days to orbit the sun.
And why is Venus and Jupiter tidally locked to the Earth, when they have different orbits? In fact I have a Telescope and I've only ever seen the one side of Mars.
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
Mercury IS tidally locked to the Sun. Secondly, Venus and Jupiter can't be tidally locked to the Earth. An object can only be tidally locked to the object it's orbiting.
You should observe Mars more often then, or with a better telescope!
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Mercury is not tidally locked, it's 3:2 ratio, same as Venus except Venus orbits and rotates backwards, and is the only planet to do so, and Venus is tidally locked to the Earth despite the different orbits we only see one face of it.
I have a decent one, you want to spend $6,000 to buy me a better one?
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
Mercury IS tidally locked, in a 3:2 ratio. Venus can't be tidally locked to Earth, it's just not possible, as that's not how tidal locking works.
You say it's $6,000 yet you can't even see Mars accurately 😂 you got ripped off clearly.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
No it isn't, tidally locked means you never see the far side.
I know the current generation doesn't like reading so here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GkZe3nRQ0
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
That's not what tidal locking is. Look up the definition.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Why are you still yapping?
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
By the very definition of Tidal Locking, Venus cannot be tidally locked with Earth.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
And yet it appears as if it were which is almost crazy. Obviously it's an optical illusion but it is what it is.
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
And yet, by definition, it's still not possible. Just fucking read. Even if Venus were tidally locked with the SUN it still couldn't be tidally locked to Earth.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
I read, I also don't care any more.
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
Those who choose to remain ignorant are truly the stupidest among us.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Except I'm not, I've spent the last two days schooling the shit out of somebody who's trying to prove how smart he is. Sorry kid I have bigger fish to fry. Also, it's funny that you think I'm ignorant while you're the one making all the ignorant comments. What's you point anyway? Do you have a monopoly on the truth? If so what is it, omniscient one?
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
You're using reductio ad absurdum, making me seem ridiculous. That won't work however, because I don't need to use logical fallacies to explain scientific principles.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
You are ridiculous, you haven't explained shit. Where is this supposed science you have a mastery of? Where are your experiments, your data, your findings? We're arguing theories not fact, I don't care any more because I'm talking to a child, I was done being a child 14 years ago.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
At which point is enough enough? We're arguing theories not facts. Ones which you have clearly not been educated on, you're reaching for ways to disprove or undermine my statements, and failing miserably. And for what purpose? No one will read this thread, this is between you and me right now, so what's the point? Are you trying to have a discussion in order to broaden our perspectives on the matter, or are you just trying your hardest to prove me wrong, and offer no alternative point of view? Because if it's the latter you are a half assed intellectual. You're even worse if you accept a theory as fact, and feel antagonized by someone proposing a different theory.
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
Fuck, you're dense. Tidal locking is not up for debate. It has a very clear and concise definition. You're saying Venus could be tidally locked to Earth BUT BY DEFINITION OF WHAT TIDAL LOCKING IS, that's not possible. Sorry, "kid."
I don't need evidence to explain a definition. Tidal locking is what tidal locking is. If I pointed to a chair and called it a television, you'd think I was fucking crazy. That's essentially what you're doing.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
I know perfectly well what the definition is. But you're not considering the facts, you are imposing artificial constraints on a definition to suit your needs. You are not explaining anything, you are not furthering this discussion, and I refuse to be drawn into a pissing match.
Like I said I stopped doing child shit a long time ago.
1 darkninjad 2016-10-17
The fact that you're still responding shows your last statement is false. You quoted Wikipedia, but did you even read the sources cited?
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
Also why are you responding to a old ass post that I don't even care about any more. I don't even think there's such a thing as flat Earth, we don't live on a fucking pancake. The whole point of this thread was some guy asking if the Moon is hollow, well, maybe it is, who the fuck knows. It has no magnetic field, no heavy iron core, it's density is 1/3rd that of Earth's hence why it only has 1/8th the gravity, despite only being 1/4th the size. Maybe it is hollow, and has an outer shell and tunnels similar to an ant colony.
Even Mercury has a strong magnetic field because it's almost as dense as Earth and has a solid metalic core, no such luck on the moon, why?
We have no clue how the moon got there, we have theories, but all the accepted theories have glaring holes in them. So no kiddy, we know fuck all about it, we send some rovers to take pictures, and get some dirt samples, but we haven't explored.
If we really knew the moon intimately there's be more than a few pictures and the vast majority of them wouldn't be artist's renditions.
0 DovahzulsABadConlang 2016-10-17
That's great, but it doesn't explain why you reject the actual sane theory for this unsubstantiated nonsense.
1 godlameroso 2016-10-17
It makes a difference because they don't do direct fly bys. Why?
0 godlameroso 2016-10-17
I never said I believed anything. More assumptions on your part. The OP asked if the Moon is hollow, I said with it's low density relative to its size and lack of magnetic field(which would require a heavy magnetic metal core) we can't really be sure. It also doesn't help that we haven't been back since the 70's to carry out more experiments with newer more advanced instruments.