PDA

View Full Version : The Cult of the Antarcticans is beginning - if only I wouldn't convert myself.



Seeuzin
8th September 2015, 02:58 PM
So I was talking with a very close group of friends last night, and one of them said that the moon is hollow, and pointed out that only one side of the moon ever faces the Earth. Pseudoscience detectors sounding like alarm bells, I followed his logic as an experiment, then dug into phenomena as varied as tidal locking, lunar density, and the "lunar wobble" in a truly epic response.

And this is why you shouldn't engage in scientific discussion after 11 o'clock at night. Every single one of these scientific facts is verifiable by cracking open an astronomy textbook, (or Google.)

The moon is hollow?, and I live in Antarctica. Enjoy.

http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/attachment.php?attachmentid=833&stc=1

- - - - - - - -

"Hi [redacted], what's really cool is that tidal locking actually explains why the moon couldn't be hollow without maintenance.
So if the moon IS engineered - there is still a presence there, and it is being regularly maintained. The presence required would be massive, actually. Which is intriguing, and I wouldn't put it past the "Powers That Be."

The best way to explain it is by referring to the effect of the moon's gravity on Earth's oceans. It "pulls" the ocean up along a line extending from a point directly below it on Earth's surface. However, because the Earth is constantly rotating, the "bulge" moves out from under that point. The moon's gravity is continually "dragging" the bulge along as the Earth turns, and so the bulge lumbers around the circumference of the planet once with every rotation, and continually remains slightly behind the line of pull.

This is where it gets interesting. The moon "pulls" on the bulge, which isn't directly beneath it, but lags slightly to the one side, with the Earth's rotation threatening to make it recede from the lunar surface's viewability, but for the constant force of the moon's pull dragging it back to center.

That drag actually slows the rotation of the Earth.

Ever so slowly, ever so imperceptibly, the dance slows; the pull on the bulge of water is in opposition to the direction of Earth's movement around its central axis. That has an effect over millions, or even billions, of years, as even a massive world's rotation will stabilize to accommodate the bulge's "desire" to stay centered beneath the pull's external source.

Okay...um...so to take a break, you're probably wondering how that happens on places where there is no water.

It is extremely slight. A rocky body will only tremble imperceptibly in the presence of the pull, forming a slight bulge and "egg-shape" unmeasurable for its minute curvature. The pull on this bulge is even less perceptible, and but for the moon's small size, we would never see an effective "tidal lock."

Now here's where it gets interesting. The moon has a diameter about 1/4 the size of Earth.

But it weighs 81 times less than Earth.

This is why the moon has "locked" and the Earth hasn't, despite the Earth being much more amenable to forming a bulge due to its surface water. Less mass = less inertia. Less inertia = easier to slow down the rotational movement using smaller force.

Having 81 times less mass while being only 4 times smaller also suggests that something very unusual is going on, but to keep at it with this line of thought -

The tidal bulge isn't completely stationary. The moon experiences a phenomenon called "libration" (not liberation) - where the globe of the moon slowly "wobbles" back and forth relative to center, like a slowly rotating hanging ornament. This means that if the moon is hollow - it would have to deal with enormous structural strain as the bulge shifted position. It has been proposed that the tidal bulge is about 20 inches above the usual level of the moon's surface. When you're dealing with a body that's over 2,000 miles across, the strains of shifting a bulge spanning the entire Earth-facing side of the object would be just atrocious.

So to recap - if it's tidally locked, it probably "weighs" very little.

And if it weighs very little, it's probably hollow.

And if it is hollow, due to libration, it is massively, continuously maintained.

Oh my god it's almost 11. Hehe. Goodnight!

- - - - - - - -

This is why you shouldn't engage in scientific discussion after 11 o'clock at night. Every single one of these scientific facts is verifiable by cracking open an astronomy textbook, (or Google.)

I'm almost embarrassed, and impressed, and hysterical, with myself. Epic responses don't always have to be taking shots at anyone to be effective. And you just might convince yourself of something surprising.

- either the moon is hollow, or I should start my own religion. Who wants to be treasurer and collect money from all the new recrui - ... I mean, the moon is hollow.

Definitely hollow.

Greets from Antarctica.

CFTraveler
8th September 2015, 03:29 PM
I'm not sure of the conversation, but they do know that the moon is full of holes, not necessarily hollow, but that there is a lot of 'air' (or gases) trapped inside, forming vent holes probably throughout. The thing is that the 'hollow' theory isn't a theory at all, while the 'boiled up' theory is, because it is almost obvious when you look at the moon. Doesn't have to be engineered to be full of holes.

Seeuzin
8th September 2015, 04:39 PM
Hmm...well, it was primarily meant as a joke, but if there are gases inside, it wouldn't be observable. If fully trapped beneath the surface, we wouldn't see it. If there were small "exit holes" for the gases to get outside - then there's no gas. On earth, trapped gases escape with explosive force, due to a differential in air pressure between the atmosphere and the trapped underground methane. On the moon, that differential reaches practical infinity.

substantial atmosphere on earth : underground gas pressure

0 pressure on the moon to the same.



Here's another way to look at it. If you've ever made a tiny hole in a balloon to let the air out, it happens with an explosive force. Same principle...only with zero outside air pressure to ameliorate the outrush. The stream would go off like a bomb.

This is Jupiter's moon Io with an extremely cold sulphur dioxide plume.

io-sulfur dioxide-ejecta-plume.jpg
http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/attachment.php?attachmentid=834&stc=1

I've never seen a picture like this of the moon. If the moon ever did this, it would make a plume the size of the naked eye, and you'd bet there would be pictures. :lol2:

There is a phenomenon called "outgassing," but it doesn't come from trapped gas reservoirs.

The gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another, reaching about 100 molecules per cubic centimeter.

It is said that if you were to collect all of the molecules into a mass and weigh them, they would weigh about the same as a loaded dump truck.

One of the primary sources of outgassing is radioactive decay occurring in the moon's interior. Another source is the solar wind, which causes individual molecules of gas to fly off into space by bombarding the moon's rocks and knocking off clusters of atoms, altering their composition slowly and on a miniature scale.

Dammit, you got me talking in a serious way now. :lol2::P :)

CFTraveler
9th September 2015, 02:12 PM
I didn't mean there are gases now (maybe trapped inside from the ones that didn't escape already), but that when things were hotter it's how the vents formed.