# Thread: Is the moon artificial?

1. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?
A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.
The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?

2. ## The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

Bill Ryan (13th October 2020), Kryztian (14th October 2020), Miha (16th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020)

3. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Satori (here)
Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?
A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.
The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?
If the moon was compressed into a dot (by human terms) it would have the exact same effect as it does right now due to mass

If it was hollow, then we would have the math wrong, because by all measures it is not. And it would be very odd that it behaves in this way while not having the proper mass

But there's one thing, possibly. The moon could be hollow, but there's something inside that empty ball that is causing it to behave around the earth as if it wasn't hollow at all

4. ## The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

Bill Ryan (13th October 2020), justntime2learn (13th October 2020), Miha (16th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020)

5. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Surely Ron's question stated if the mass were different, all the answers seem to indicate the mass being the same? Or am I missing something, it wouldn't be the first time.

6. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020)

7. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

If the moon was dragged into position it would have to have happened before humans arrived on Earth.
We are dependent on the movement of the oceans --tides-- for survival.
Im glad it is there, hollow or not.
Chris

8. ## The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

Harmony (14th October 2020), Mashika (19th October 2020), Miha (16th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020), toppy (29th November 2020)

9. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?
A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.
We may have to ask Ron Mauer if I answered his question. (Maybe not, if I somehow misunderstood it!)

10. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

Mashika (19th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020), Yoda (15th October 2020)

11. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?

12. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ron Mauer Sr For This Post:

Bill Ryan (15th October 2020), Mashika (19th October 2020)

13. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?
If they have the same mass, then yes. Mass, distance and angular velocity are the three variables that determine any orbit.

Neither size or density ("hollowness" or not) make any difference at all.

14. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

Mashika (19th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020), Yoda (15th October 2020)

15. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

The orbital velocity is independent of the mass of the orbiting body. For a circular orbit v=sqrt(GM/r) G=gravitational constant M= mass of the body orbited (earth in this case) r =radius of orbit from center of mass of the orbited body. The moon and a cue ball have the same orbital velocity at the moon's orbit radius. Hopefully that helps.

16. ## The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Retief For This Post:

Bill Ryan (15th October 2020), Ewan (16th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020), toppy (29th November 2020)

17. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?
If they have the same mass, then yes. Mass, distance and angular velocity are the three variables that determine any orbit.

Neither size or density ("hollowness" or not) make any difference at all.
Isn't there a correlation at least between density and mass? A definition I found on the "internets" of density is: " Physics: degree of consistency measured by the quantity of mass per unit volume." But, perhaps to your point, a definition of mass I found is: "Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of force." Which, if I'm not mistaken, sounds similar to a definition of angular momentum, or is at least an aspect of it.

18. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

Bill Ryan (15th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (15th October 2020), toppy (29th November 2020)

19. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Satori (here)
Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?
If they have the same mass, then yes. Mass, distance and angular velocity are the three variables that determine any orbit.

Neither size or density ("hollowness" or not) make any difference at all.
Isn't there a correlation at least between density and mass? A definition I found on the "internets" of density is: " Physics: degree of consistency measured by the quantity of mass per unit volume." But, perhaps to your point, a definition of mass I found is: "Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of force." Which, if I'm not mistaken, sounds similar to a definition of angular momentum, or is at least an aspect of it.
There are three things you can measure on a ping pong ball, a bowling ball, or the moon.
1. size (diameter),
2. mass, and
3. density.
You'll see that if you know any two of those, the third can be figured out.

In the case of the gravitational equation (which determines orbits), the size and density don't matter or feature at all.

Of the above three factors, only the mass makes a difference.

(Angular velocity is independent of ALL those three, and is another factor in the equation. Angular momentum is the product — i.e. a multiplication — of the mass and angular velocity.)

What this means is that a hollow ping pong ball (with very low density), that was large enough, would have the same orbit as the moon — if it had the same mass. But because it's far less dense, it'd have to be really pretty huge.

20. ## The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

Mashika (19th October 2020), Satori (15th October 2020), Tintin (15th October 2020), toppy (29th November 2020), Yoda (15th October 2020)

21. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

In the case of the gravitational equation (which determines orbits), the size and density don't matter or feature at all.
This is a PS: (or maybe a footnote! )

I referred just now to the gravitational equation. That's very closely related to the orbital equation, and that needs an image to show all this clearly in a post:

~~~

~~~

All you need to know here is what the symbols stand for — but they're kinda shown in the little diagram at the upper left.
• m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects (like the Earth and Moon).
• r is the distance between them.
• vt is the velocity of the orbiting object.
• F12 is the gravitational force between the two objects.
• G is the gravitational constant, which as far as we know is fixed in the whole universe.
So what you can see is that only the mass(es), distance and velocity are factors here. Nothing to do with size, which (seen another way) is the same kind of variable as density.

That's because if you know the mass and size, you can figure out the density, and if you know the mass and density, you can figure out the size. So that's why (in these calculations) for a given mass, size and density influence in the same way — which in the case of this equation and this situation, is not at all.

22. ## The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

Agape (26th October 2020), aoibhghaire (26th October 2020), justntime2learn (26th October 2020), Ron Mauer Sr (16th October 2020), Satori (15th October 2020), toppy (29th November 2020), Yoda (15th October 2020)

23. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

The NASA is to announce new exciting discoveries about the Moon from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy today at 12 PM EDT ( 9 AM PST, 5.30 GMT ) in live teleconference here:

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

Let’s hope it will further elucidate the topic

🌟🌟🌟

24. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Agape For This Post:

aoibhghaire (26th October 2020), Bullseye (26th October 2020), Le Chat (26th October 2020)

25. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Agape (here)
NASA is to announce new exciting discoveries about the Moon
I think they've found water there. I wonder if they used a PCR test for that too?

26. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Mashika (here)
Posted by Satori (here)
Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?
A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.
The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?
If the moon was compressed into a dot (by human terms) it would have the exact same effect as it does right now due to mass

If it was hollow, then we would have the math wrong, because by all measures it is not. And it would be very odd that it behaves in this way while not having the proper mass

But there's one thing, possibly. The moon could be hollow, but there's something inside that empty ball that is causing it to behave around the earth as if it wasn't hollow at all
Actually the mass of the moon is "strangely low" and this was a strong science based foundation for the "hollow moon theory".

Also there were tests done in which we crashed objects into the moon and it "rang like a bell", this was in an attempt to recreate the phenomenon measured by seismology equipment on the moon (Moon quakes, they are called)

Anyway, more than enough there to warrant further exploration of the topic.

27. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

justntime2learn (26th October 2020), Mashika (27th October 2020)

28. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by TargeT (here)
Posted by Mashika (here)
Posted by Satori (here)
Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Posted by Ron Mauer Sr (here)
If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?
A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.
The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?
If the moon was compressed into a dot (by human terms) it would have the exact same effect as it does right now due to mass

If it was hollow, then we would have the math wrong, because by all measures it is not. And it would be very odd that it behaves in this way while not having the proper mass

But there's one thing, possibly. The moon could be hollow, but there's something inside that empty ball that is causing it to behave around the earth as if it wasn't hollow at all
Actually the mass of the moon is "strangely low" and this was a strong science based foundation for the "hollow moon theory".

Also there were tests done in which we crashed objects into the moon and it "rang like a bell", this was in an attempt to recreate the phenomenon measured by seismology equipment on the moon (Moon quakes, they are called)

Anyway, more than enough there to warrant further exploration of the topic.

I remember reading about "the moon rings like a bell" but it was a misinterpretation of quakes, shallow quakes caused the seismometers to record signals that looked similar to a bell ringing, but that doesn't meant he moon is hollow, it just means that there could be a lot of caves and stuff like that at the upper level, and the seismometers recorded it like that

At the time this "rings like a bell" thing came up, no object crashed into the moon, those were recorded moon quakes, so of course the moon was ringing/vibrating

I do remember some misinfo about that time that NASA sent a satellite or rocket to crash on the moon, and then a lot of people started with the "it rang like a bell" and associated the two separate events into a single one, to allow for this theory to come up again. It just didn't happen like that, and those were two separate things, by decades

ETA: I thought this was like last year or so, but now i only see posts saying it was on 2009, anyways those were two completely separate events

https://www.space.com/lcross-moon-wa...niversary.html

29. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

TargeT (27th October 2020)

30. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

In my early days, I was involved in ground observational research to carry out long term high resolution photography survey of the Moon.

In detailed analysis of the photos I found a shadow missing from one of the mountain tops when using an original reference photo taken previously. I speculated it may be due to a Moon quake.

To my pleasant surprise after informing NASA I got confirmation from NASA that one of there seismometers had recorded a Moon quake only a few days previously and therefore around that time frame. The quake must have been intense with the epicentre nearby the mountain.

31. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aoibhghaire For This Post:

silvanelf (27th October 2020), TargeT (27th October 2020)

32. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by Mashika (here)

I do remember some misinfo about that time that NASA sent a satellite or rocket to crash on the moon,
We actually did it several times to study seismic reactions due to the excessive "vibrating" (aka ringing) of the moon that was observed naturally.

But none of that means it's hollow, just interesting.

33. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Like the difference between limestone and basalt, some solid and not affected by water, some easily dissolved causing hollows in the environmental sub-structure. However, whatever is up there, please apply a similar principle.
Or the equivalent of burrowing entities?

34. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

Posted by TargeT (here)
Posted by Mashika (here)

I do remember some misinfo about that time that NASA sent a satellite or rocket to crash on the moon,
We actually did it several times to study seismic reactions due to the excessive "vibrating" (aka ringing) of the moon that was observed naturally.

But none of that means it's hollow, just interesting.
Dah, i'm mean i just wanted to say that the phrase "it rings like a bell" and the actual experiments, did not at all happen at the same time. So if a natural event caused the instruments to record it like that, and then artificial events were meant to reproduce, those are two different things

I'm just not wanting to merge two different things. Assumptions and all that always lead to bad stuff

35. ## Re: Is the moon artificial?

There are always two sides to any coin. When you create a concavity, you also create a convexity on the other side. When you dig a hole, you also build a mound. Given that the mound has the topsoil on the bottom and the clay on top, it can be seen as an upside-down hole. Since a hollow planet cannot be natural, it has to have been hollowed out by someone. Any artificial explanation would be bolstered if evidence were to be found not only of the hollowness but also of the pile of debris. It would be further bolstered if an explanation were to be found finding a use for both. This is what we find in Don Wilson’s 1975 book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon, describing the ‘Soviet Artificial Moon Theory’ answering the question ‘Is the Moon a hollowed-out spaceship sent to orbit our Earth in the remote prehistoric past? Was it once inhabited by alien space travellers?’ A spaceship naturally has to be hollow on the inside, but it also needs to be hard and resistant on the outside. We have an endoskeleton (internal bone structure), as opposed to a crab’s exoskeleton (carapace). Turning a planetoid into a spaceship would then involve replacing an endoskeleton with an exoskeleton.

So though we know little, scientists have learned enough about our neighbor tom come to this conclusion: “The moon’s composition is not at all what it should be had the moon been formed in the present orbit around the earth.” The elements that make up its composition are simply too different.
In general, scientists are puzzled not only by the different elemental makeup, but also over why the moon is son strangely chemically zoned; its surface enriched in the refractory elements and its interior seemingly devoid of iron, yet the iron content seemingly plentiful in the maria, and in one layer beneath the surface.
The amount of refractory elements in the surface rocks is so pronounced that several geochemists proposed these materials were brought to the Moon’s surface in great quantity in some way. In such a theory, the highly volatile materials would be concentrated toward the interior. In fact, the Moon is so strange in this respect that Dr. D.L. Anderson, professor of geophysics and director of the seismological laboratory at Caltech, proposes that “the moon was made inside out.”
We suggest: If the Soviet theory of a hollowed-out world were correct, with the internal Moon materials brought to the surface during the process, the Moon, to our scientists, would seem to be made inside out. Also, the fact that the Moon is deficient in iron except in a layer under its surface, and rich in iron and titanium and similar elements in the maria, fits the Soviet theory that aliens used these materials in the formation of their “spaceship’s” inner hull, and the outer maria patchwork.
Wilson goes into some detail about the moon ringing like a ‘huge gong’, and notably
the question of the mystifying speed with which vibrations travel through the Moon’s hard interior layer. As Wernher von Braun tells us: “The velocity (of seismic waves) seems to gradually increase down to a depth of about 15 miles – then there is a sharp increase. This increase can only be accounted for by a change to a denser material… At a depth of 40 miles, the velocity is estimated to be about six miles a second… No rocks examined thus far would under the actual pressures expected at a lunar depth of 40 miles transmit seismic impulses at speeds as high as six miles a second. (p.100-1)
On the other hand, the intermixture of metals as described above averages out at precisely that speed… Basically then, if you have a hollow structure with a metal casing, you would actually expect it to ring like a bell, because that is literally what it is.