Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
Hahah, good vid.

I love David Icke, he's a mad man! I saw him live back in 08 at the Million Dollar Theater in Hollywood. :)

Dude has some pretty intense ideas.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 12:49:07 AM
No need to destroy his ideas. He correctly relates that there are still plenty of unknowns regarding the moon's formation, and then tacks on his own wild speculations about it. It's infinitely more interesting to read about real science being done to find out about it's origin than to pay attention to 'alien-of-the-gaps' arguments.

Indeed, there was a breakthrough regarding the moon that came out a couple of days ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1146
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 8:49:18 AM
Ging:

Why are you so opposed to the idea of extraterrestrial life having visited the earth? Have you ever heard of the "Drake equation":

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Given the age of the universe, and our galaxy spacifically, it is a good be that some of these civilization will even be much older than us.


He correctly relates that there are still plenty of unknowns regarding the moon's formation, and then tacks on his own wild speculations about it.


No he didn't. In fact, in that video, he never uttered a single word of his own speculation. The only thing he did was continually cite well respected scientists and astrophysicist. That is one of the great things about David Icke, he is always very well sourced. I haven't read his new book about the moon yet, but I am sure it is quite good.

Also your refutation isn't a refutation to the points David Icke brings up at all.


The oxygen isotope values measured in these lunar rocks differ significantly from the terrestrial material, supporting the giant-impact hypothesis.


This is simply evidence that the moon or moon rocks are not of terrestrial origin. That does absolutely nothing to confirm that a hypothetical planet (spacifically "Theia") collided with the earth and that the formation of the moon is the end result of that collision. It could just as easily be that the reason that these rock are not of terrestrial origin is because the moon was constructed by extraterrestrial and placed in orbit around the earth.

Hell, according the these references of yours...:


Because of the isotope heterogeneity among solar system bodies, the isotopic composition of Earth and the Moon should thus be distinct. So far, however, all attempts to identify the isotopic component of Theia in lunar rocks have failed. Our triple oxygen isotope data reveal a 12 ± 3 parts per million difference in ?17O between Earth and the Moon


...the moon might not even be from this solar system. Looks to me like your references are back firing on you here.

Also this is not a gaps argument in any way. We can investigate the moon very easily and find out whether or not this is true. Drilling should do quite fine.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 9:37:40 AM

Ickey must be the most fact based conspiracy theorist out there


Indeed. He is with out a doubt a brilliant investigator.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 7
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 10:09:12 AM
Occam's razor is a principle that the simplest hypotheses having the least assumptions should be selected.

So the moon being the result of either a collusion between two very large objects or being split off from earth is most likely.

But you can't disprove any other more esoteric theories

BTW, the volume of the moon is 2% that of earth, but the mass is 1.2%.

I recall one science fiction book that the universe isn't real, that everything outside of the orbit of Pluto is a projection and we are really inside of a giant ball and what we think we are seeing is really a projection sent to us. I don't think there is any way of disproving this.


Also this is not a gaps argument in any way. We can investigate the moon very easily and find out whether or not this is true. Drilling should do quite fine.


This isn’t true. It would cost maybe $150 – 300 billion dollars to drill deeper hole into the moon. And what would we get from this effort? Technically it could be done, but money wise no one would want to pay for it. We don't want to spent this sort of money for what looks like just curiosity. A lot of things can be done if we don't consider the costs to do them.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 10:16:27 AM

I have now entertained the thought that maybe the Moon if alien built would be the thing that wipes us out...


I consider this to be highly unlikely. There are a few senarios I can think up here:

1. The moon is a is a very large observatory/laboratory, used either in the seeding of life on this planet (this is the most likely, seeing as how life as we know it could not exist without the moon) or that life was already thriving at a rudimentary level on earth when they parked the moon in orbit and decided to start tinkering with life on earth. Hell, it entirely possible that there may have even been another smaller/natural satellite in at the time they brought the moon here: they didn't need this second satellite so the knocked it out of orbit.

2. The moon was a colony boat for extraterrestrial colonists (actually us). We parked the moon in orbit and lived on it for as long as possible, we engeneered the extinction of the dinosaurs by crashing the existing small satellite that was in orbit around the earth at the time we arrived (because they were a threat to our necessary excursion down to the planet for supplies). We then continued to live on the moon for a VERY long time, until something either went wrong of the ship became unlivable. We used the time on the moon to cross breed ourselves with indigenous, such as early cave man, in order to adapt ourselves to be able to survive on this planet.

Admittedly, the second senario is a little far fetched, but we could take out the dinosaur part and just say that there was a small satellite in orbit around the planet until we arrived and started messing with the cave men, and we ejected that satellite instead of crashing it. You would still have to account for the technological disparity between early man and an extraterrestrial group of settlers, but it seems to be within the realm of possibility that something wheat terribly wrong on the moon and these beings were forced to dich all of there tech when they came down to the planet.

The first one seems entirely plausible to be.

These are just ideas though, they are fun to contemplate. The real science lies in figuring out why the moon is hollow (if it is indeed hollow) by investigating its interior. speculation here is really nothing more mental masturbation.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 10:27:21 AM

This isn’t true. It would cost maybe $150 – 300 billion dollars to drill deeper hole into the moon. And what would we get from this effort? Technically it could be done, but money wise no one would want to pay for it. We don't want to spent this sort of money for what looks like just curiosity. A lot of things can be done if we don't consider the costs to do them.


Which is entirely irrelevant. One day we will colonize the moon. It is a huge source of helium three, which can be used for compact clean fusion reactors that one could fit into a car's front end. We will go up there to mine H3 an some scientific effort will be made to study the moon, or well find other elements or compounds worth minning out of the crust of the moon, and someone will start digging and drilling, at which point scientist will want to be involved so that they can learn more about the composition of the moon. There are a million ways that I can think of for this thing to go down.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 12:07:04 PM
Sounds to be within the realm of possibility, but like I said, speculation is fun, but it is best to stick to the science. :)
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 12:15:52 PM
The Moon...isn't that where Sam Harris is watching us from?

I keep trying to 'moon' his ass. Heh...moon his ass, the guy in the moon. How clever I am with the words. Not.

No wait...real or fake...I remember now...

...no, never mind. I forgot again.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 13
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 12:16:59 PM

Which is entirely irrelevant. One day we will colonize the moon. It is a huge source of helium three, which can be used for compact clean fusion reactors that one could fit into a car's front end. We will go up there to mine H3 an some scientific effort will be made to study the moon, or well find other elements or compounds worth minning out of the crust of the moon, and someone will start digging and drilling, at which point scientist will want to be involved so that they can learn more about the composition of the moon.


The cost is the most relevant reason we don't continue to explore the moon.

Your speculation is based on a positive ROI (return on investment), so you are agreeing that it's all about money.

The earliest possible date for a manned moon landing is by the Chinese maybe in 2029, you will be 51. I doubt any moon colonies will be in your lifetime, if ever.

The population growth in the earth has been slowing now for the last 30 years, if we stabilize or there is a population decline their will be less reasons to consume natural resources.

I read a book written in the year 1965 about the year 2000. The guesses were grossly wrong. Flying cars have been predicted for the last 50 years. My guess is 95% of predictions about what will happen in the more distant future are wildly wrong.

I doubt there is a million ways for a moon colony, but there even more reasons it won't happen anytime soon if ever. For instance, global climate change might take over as a greater challenge than going back to the moon. Design of new life via DNA manipulation might make future life incomprehensible to us as our life is to someone a 100 years ago.

Interesting to speculate, impossible to predict.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 12:18:58 PM
msg: 9

Was just thinking about other plausible scenarios:

It seems to me that the best way to colonize the moon would be subterranean structures, so there is that posibility as well. I could envision a vast network of subterranean structures running throughout the entire inside of the moon. The moon, I am sure one day, will be needed to launch deep space mission.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 12:39:48 PM
dragonbits:

The reason manned space exploration is so cost prohibitive right now is because our tech is expensive (third stage to orbit is very expensive). Once first stage to orbit tech becomes available the costs should drop dramatically. This is when you will begin to see private entities start to enter the space race. Indeed there is a lot of scientific work going on behind trying to make first stage to orbit a reality, and a good deal of that work is coming from private entities.

H3 is incredibly rear here on earth, so the moon is a vast gold mine just waiting for an entrepreneurial spirit to take advantage of. Aside from this, there is the asteroid belts which are literally a gold mine. As well, NASA is talking about the need to construct a divice in relative close proximity to the sun, that will generate the power necessary to create miniature blackholes, they plan to use these black holes to power deep space spacecraft. Then there's the interest from the scientific community in Mars, Titan, Io, and the list of stuff goes on and on. I am quite certain that we will be headed out into space quite soon.

How is it relevant that I will be alive or dead?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 1:50:11 PM
DragonBits:


Design of new life via DNA manipulation might make future life incomprehensible to us as our life is to someone a 100 years ago.


I don't think that it will be that difficult to envision.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519):

helicopter, airplane, submarine, parachute.

Jules Verne (1828-1905):

Electric Submarines, Newscasts, Solar Sails, Lunar Modules, Skywriting, Videoconferencing, Taser, Splashdown Spaceship.

Arthur C. Clark (1917- 2008):

Global satellite network... Blah blah blah blah. You get the picture right.


I read a book written in the year 1965 about the year 2000.


Propaganda, in the mid last century was a very big thing. I wouldn't read much into that. Besides, at that point in time we were just barely coming into the technological era, and we are now much more equipped to read the future of technology with such things as Moore's law, for instance. I mean really, how long has it been since you heard a flying car mentioned?

The evolution of the human species through genetic manipulation does present some what of a problem for prediction though. But I am betting that we will have to work out a lot of morality issues before we really start to get into truly evolving ourselves. I'm betting a century plus before we start to tinker with our brains. I could be wrong though. Only time will tell I guess.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 2:37:35 PM
msg: 15

Said "Io" meant "Europa". I always get them two confused for some reason.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 6:15:50 PM
Cress:

Why are you so opposed to the idea of extraterrestrial life having visited the earth?

I never said I was. However, I am indeed sceptical becuase I haven't yet come across the scientific articles presenting evidence in support of it.

Here is an interactive Drake equation where you can make aliens as common as you like... http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120821-how-many-alien-worlds-exist

in that video, he never uttered a single word of his own speculation. The only thing he did was continually cite well respected scientists and astrophysicist.

I take it back, it was other people's speculation he tacked on. The part from 5:40 onwards attributed to 'two russian scientists in an article' is about as wild as they come. It is dishonest to mix up scientific facts supported by solid evidence with wild speculations like that without being very clear about where is the line between them. It is too easy for people to be tricked into thinking the speculations are on a more solid footing than they are.

This is simply evidence that the moon or moon rocks are not of terrestrial origin. That does absolutely nothing to confirm that a hypothetical planet (spacifically "Theia") collided with the earth and that the formation of the moon is the end result of that collision. It could just as easily be that the reason that these rock are not of terrestrial origin is because the moon was constructed by extraterrestrial and placed in orbit around the earth.

It is a milestone in moon research that we finally have evidence of slightly different isotopic ratios betwen earth and moon samples. The reported claim of the author that it 'confirms' the giant impact hypothesis is obviously a bit of an exaggeration, as the bbc article points out. We need more samples from deeper in the moon to rule out contamination from meteorite impacts, for a start.

However, it couldn't 'just as easily' be explained by divine extraterrestrial intervention. We have evidence from elsewhere in the solar system of satellite formation from accretion discs, orbital decay, collisions. We have no evidence for extraterrestrial spaceships, just as we have no evidence for spontaneous nuclear blasts as proposed by Rob de Meijer.

Until we find a teapot orbiting beyond mars, there is no reason to think that there is one out there. The speculation that there could be one is not particularly interesting or helpful.

...the moon might not even be from this solar system. Looks to me like your references are back firing on you here.

I never said it couldn't have been, however I would say that we have no reason to think it was. I would also say that the great similarity of the earth and moon's isotopic ratios is suggestive of a proximate origin. We need to test samples from other planets in our solar system and see how they compare. The Matrian/asteroid meteorites we get are markedly different.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 19
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/8/2014 7:46:38 PM

How is it relevant that I will be alive or dead?


Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519):

helicopter, airplane, submarine, parachute


It's not really relevant, except to say that it might be 400 years into the future when we colonize the moon.

It's just not the human specie or our brains, but all the new and novel life forms that could be created. Or tinkering with the brains of animals.

And if we extend our lifespans to 1000 years, how will that affect our future?

The potential changes and affects to me seem as great or greater than the industrial revolution was.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/9/2014 9:40:33 AM
Ging:

Lets approach This from another perspective, cause I feel like I'm loosing you here: accretion in no way accounts for the possibility that such a massive body as the moon would be hollow. The moon should be tightly compact, especially at its core, due to the crushing force of gravity. Yet, when struck by a probe the moon "rang like a bell for three and a half hours, and wobbled as though it had shock stabilizers under the surface" leading the astrophysics who made these statements to conclude that the moon is hollow.

There is no mechanisms in accretion that allows for this, at least none that I can think of. If the moon is hollow (which is preposterous in and of itself by current scientific understanding) then what conclusion can we draw other than that it has been hollowed out. In order to have been hollowed out would require a group of living thinking entities to have done so. It doesn't even matter if the moon was formed in accretion or brought here - if it is hollow it wasn't made that way by us or accretion.

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ~ Sherlock Holmes

The best way to conclude this matter would be to examine the interior. If we find smooth machined structures inside then we know that these structures are extraterrestrial in nature whether or not the moon is. If we find natural formations then we know that it is a natural formation.

It is really as simple as that.
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/9/2014 3:01:01 PM
Due to the state of the technology, and it's economics, colonizing the moon is a pointless notion.

When we have any technology for doing such things to any reasonably practical extent, colonizing the moon would be very impractical and obsolete. In fact, any serious colonization of any existent body will be very impractical and obsolete. I'm always surprised how little thought seems to be put into such notions and how it'd really work if we could even do it. By the time we're able, technologically, to do things like colonize any other body in our system, we'll then realize the finer details that have to be addressed for such projects, yet also realize that bothering to address those details is rendered moot by the ability to skip colonizing other bodies altogether.

There will be installations, and a presence, on other bodies, but only to serve specific and limited functions, and secondary to our primary colonizing approaches. For example...the one thing that our moon is absolutely perfect for in so many ways, is also one thing that we'll very much need in the beginning of any real space-faring endeavors - the far side will grow into a major telescope complex. The moon is geologically inactive - totally motionless. The moon will always block the bulk of signal noise from Earth. It has no atmosphere. It provides a certain ease of operation versus totally free-floating telescopes in orbit, yet has low gravity for operation and maintenance. It is close to the Earth. It will therefore become a navigation-information hub for space-capable ships. Among many other things. And, many elements of a genuine city will grow up around this, for inevitable logistical reasons on many levels, which will do it's part to grow and drive major economic sustainability. However, much of this telescope complex will be semi-automated and remote-operated. At any given time, there will be many humans present on the moon, but it will be more like people serving shifts or terms-of-duty, or making maintenance calls. Otherwise, most other elements of any kind of "city" or colony will not actually be on the surface of the moon...because it will in fact just plain be easier. When we have the capability to do such a thing in the first place, and address the little kinks and difficulties in doing that, we'll not have to bother with it at all. It'll be more efficient and effective to just grow and build free-floating colony/ship/industrial complex type of structures while we're at it, and not have to even deal with or struggle with the then unnecessary details of building sizable practical colonies on the surfaces of other bodies.

The same model will probably take place with Mars. The orbit of Mars puts that planet always in touch with some stretch of the asteroid belt, yet Mars is one of the closest to us in terms of orbit - periodically coming close to us more often than anything further out. While the Moon will be a observational and navigational gold-mine, Mars will be the equivalent of a major mining operation...processing NEO's and asteroids. But part of it will be done in orbit, and much of any relevant Mars "colony" will either also be in orbit or simply always in the general vicinity, using the planet itself as an effective, though not literal, "foundation" and "hub" in certain ways for these activities.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 22
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/9/2014 4:44:09 PM

The moon is geologically inactive - totally motionless. The moon will always block the bulk of signal noise from Earth. It has no atmosphere.


The moon is seismically active, it does have moonquakes. And the moon gets hit by about a metric ton of meteoroids daily. Because of the lack of atmosphere, none of these meteors burn up before hitting the surface. Seismometers placed on the Moon by the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 missions recorded nearly 3000 moonquakes.

Not quite totally motionless.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:00:42 AM
Drink:

I don't know Drink. It seems to me that the moon could serve all kinds of useful purposes, for instance:

Space ship construction: any kind of large space ship, it seems to me, would be much more easily manufactured on the moon in a subterranean construction yard, than it would be on earth, due to the difficulty of launching large objects from earth to orbit. Where as on the moon, launching large objects into orbit, for final construction, should be quite simple. I am sure that most of the material required to construct ships, could be obtained from the moon, the moon contains large quantities of titanium right, so there is at least that, which is probably the largest part anyway, at least the heaviest part. Anything else we need can be delivered in relatively small/light launches from earth.

I think that the moon would also be a valuable testing facility for prolonged exposure to low gravity, both for humans and plant life, given the fact that wherever we go, we will most definitely have to take plant life with us in order to survive for prolonged periods of time - no better way to get oxygen and food. Perhaps even some livestock testing will be done. It would definitely be invaluable for testing long term surviavability of small groups of people cut off from the earth: can they succeed in keeping their food stores up with what they have on hand, can they maintain proper oxygenation of their environment with the plant life they have, can we over come the effects of a low G environment through proper exercise, the testing of wast reprocessing equipment on larger scales, and the list goes on and on and on.

I liked the idea for a telescope on the dark side, fantastic idea! Would most likely have to be subterrainan though, due to micrometer bombardment as Dragon mentioned.

In my opinion the moon would be great to serve as our terminal for any kind of deep space endeavors:

Private company minning the asteroid belt? Set up a stoage and launch facility on the moon. Deep space minning barges most certainly won't be traveling down to earth but they could possibly land on the moon unload and take off again. Or if landing a minning barge with a full load is not possible, they could just drop their loads to the surface for pickup and repacking into a launch vehicle that can survive reentering the earths atmosphere (just easy precision launching really, by a specialized launch control facility). It would probably actually be even better to process these ores a great deal on the moon before launching them to earth - less weight.

Ya, there's all kinds of useful struggle we could use the moon for.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:21:23 AM
^^^ "Ya, there's all kinds of useful stuff we could use the moon for." Damn you auto correct!
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/10/2014 4:19:19 PM

The moon is seismically active, it does have moonquakes. And the moon gets hit by about a metric ton of meteoroids daily. Because of the lack of atmosphere, none of these meteors burn up before hitting the surface. Seismometers placed on the Moon by the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 missions recorded nearly 3000 moonquakes.

I was speaking relatively.

Btw...do we know if the moon quakes are of a caliber that would significantly decrease the effectiveness of radio, microwave, infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma telescopes...as well as optical?

cress:
Again, I don't know why we don't stop to think about certain things...as in...

Space ship construction: any kind of large space ship, it seems to me, would be much more easily manufactured on the moon in a subterranean construction yard, than it would be on earth, due to the difficulty of launching large objects from earth to orbit. Where as on the moon, launching large objects into orbit, for final construction, should be quite simple

There is no way that we are ever going to go to all the trouble of constructing large space ships, and so the infrastructure for doing so, unless/until we have some means to move the darn things around with any kind of practicality (propulsion technology). And so...think about it...if we had any means of propulsion that even begins to make this more than a fantasy, worrying about gravity while constructing them or launching them will be so moot that someone will spit all over theirselves laughing at the notion.

I am sure that most of the material required to construct ships, could be obtained from the moon, the moon contains large quantities of titanium right, so there is at least that, which is probably the largest part anyway, at least the heaviest part. Anything else we need can be delivered in relatively small/light launches from earth.

We have a lot more to worry about that we'll address once we can do any of this stuff - Something is going to hit this planet and kill us all forever if we don't do something. To be efficient and kill two or more birds with one stone, once we can do anything like this in the first place, we're probably going to use NEO's for raw material as soon as we can, after we have some initial ships to do anything with. Therefore diminishing the NEO hazards at the same time as obtaining raw materials.

I think that the moon would also be a valuable testing facility for prolonged exposure to low gravity, both for humans and plant life, given the fact that wherever we go, we will most definitely have to take plant life with us in order to survive for prolonged periods of time - no better way to get oxygen and food

There is no longer any testing necessary. We know all that we need to know about such things. Trying to understand how to do things with low-gravity is only from the mindset of doing things with our very limited propulsion etc technology of today. But those technologies will remain insufficient, no matter what we do, and all that fussing about is a waste of money and time otherwise. What it is that we know is this - we need gravity. Period. Not half earth gee, not zero gee. But real gravity. If we are to do anything real. Physiologically, the human body needs gravity. Low gee can only be for short periods of time, and cannot be the norm in any sense. This cannot be avoided. So, again, by the time we have any means for doing anything in any way that makes it more than play-time in space, testing low-gee concerns will be low on the list.

We already know how to do almost all of the things that you mentioned. Those technologies are as developed as they need to be for now. We're not going to go to so much trouble for such testing. The only reason why any of it is an issue otherwise, is the lack of any real space propulsion technology or on-board gravity force technology...both of which are absolutely required to do anything at all in the first place, and any testing of the sorts that you're talking about would be pointless if we can't move big ships around in space at high speeds in the first place - we're not going to do such testing if we don't have the aforementioned technologies, and once we do, we won't need to anymore.

Private company minning the asteroid belt? Set up a stoage and launch facility on the moon. Deep space minning barges most certainly won't be traveling down to earth but they could possibly land on the moon unload and take off again. Or if landing a minning barge with a full load is not possible, they could just drop their loads to the surface for pickup and repacking into a launch vehicle that can survive reentering the earths atmosphere (just easy precision launching really, by a specialized launch control facility). It would probably actually be even better to process these ores a great deal on the moon before launching them to earth - less weight.

Again, stop and think about how it would really take place if we could do any of this in the first place.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:50:06 PM
Had to delet and reedit, my first post was terrible. :(

Drink:

What kind of propulsion are you are you talking about drink? And were exactly are you planning on going? You're talking about warp tech (if its even possible to use in a meaningful way as propulsion) and gravity manipulation, am I right? We are probably centuries upon centuries away from being able to utilize these techs in any really meaningful ways. And the tech will require power, and I mean REAL power, not something we can acomplish with tech here on earth. No, the kind of power we would need would probably come from the artificial production of black holes, or some other tech that we're not going to be able to acomplish here on earth.

I don't at all see it playing out the way that you insist that it will. Once again, were exactly do you think that we will be going? The nearest star to us is 4 light years away! Without some kind of warp tech, or something else, that will alow use to travel several multiples of C, the idea I interstellar travel is ridiculous. No, it will play out just like I said. We will go up to the moon to mine H3 (there is enough H3 on the moon to power the entire earth's energy needs for more than a thousand years - clean energy and compact reactors). This will begin just as soon as we acomplish first stage to orbit tech, and it will be undertaken mostly by privat entities probably. While we are up there all of the things that I described in my last post will most likely be undertaken:

1. Ship construction yards for constructing minning barges to mine the asteroid belt: the is nothing wrong with the propulsion tech that we have now, certainly nothing that would prohibit us from put-putting around the inner solar system. We have ion drives, solid and liquid fuels and slingshoting, these will work just fine for minning the asteroid belt. And it will be done because there is a lot of money to be made from it. We will set up minning ops on Mars more than likely since it is closest to the belt, and it has decent gravity - processing will probably happen there, rather than on the moon as I said priviously. This will happen drink because progess is not going to wait around for a thousand years for us to get these techs that you are referring to.

2. Your assertion that we do not need further testing on how to sustain a low G environment is absurd, especially where plant cultivation is involved (we have absolutely no experience with this) and we need to learn by trial and error before we ever put the lives of men and women at risk by making them reliant on unproven/untested tech - These things need to be thoroughly thought out and REPEATEDLY tested for years on end in an, at least simi-safe, environment were rescue is at least a posibility, before they are ever allowed to be used in deep space. It will never happen the way you are talking about drink, cause if it did people would almost certainly die. And the moon is the perfect place to carry out such testing.

This will happen if for no other reason than that people are greedy. If there is money to be made people are going to do it. And once we have these techs that you are talking about, then we will also have the proper infrastructure/knowledge/experience to actually be a reasonably successful space faring group.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:05:24 PM

There is no way that we are ever going to go to all the trouble of constructing large space ships


What kind of large ships are you talking about. The problem here is with earth gravity (it is so immense). There is nothing wrong with our propulsion tech, when we are not trying to escape earth gravity. In space our propulsion tech is plenty powerful enough for large craft - probably hundreds of meters, as opposed to the space shuttle orbiter, which was only 122 ft. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that our propulsion tech is so underpowered. It is not in any way under powered for travel around the inner solar system.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.
Posted: 6/11/2014 7:55:47 AM
The OP -
But has this guy got his facts about the Moon right here? I cant see it but what he says should be able to be destroyed in minutes by you clever lot that frequent these forums.
Does The Moon have these strange unexplainable things mentioned in his vid...link posted below

http://youtu.be/v0JQuIhUW4U

Please feel free to destroy his ideas...and put us poor uneducated too lazy to research peoples minds at rest...have any tests ever suggested the Moon maybe is hollow ? or at least is not as dense as it should be?...and of course all else mentioned.



David Icke is a fruitloop. He doesn't say anything worth destroying. He just makes claims.
No data, no attributions, no references.

His wild stories can be dismissed for the same reason Carl Sagans claim about having an invisible blue dragon in his garage can be dismissed. Which would be because there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports what he is saying.


The Moon is not hollow by the way and it's exactly as 'dense' as it should be.

http://www.universetoday.com/20489/moon-compared-to-earth/

Moon Fact Sheet
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Mass, Density, and Volume - How it works
http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-1/Mass-Density-and-Volume-How-it-works.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_mass

What is the Moon Made Of?
http://www.universetoday.com/20583/what-is-the-moon-made-of/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/7819/20140601/earth-gravity-makes-moon-bulge-jiggle.htm



Hollow Moon

The Hollow Moon hypothesis proposes that Earth's Moon is either wholly hollow or otherwise contains a substantial interior space. No scientific evidence exists to support the idea; seismic observations and other data collected since spacecraft began to orbit or land on the Moon indicate that the planet has a thin crust, extensive mantle and small, dense core, although overall it is much less dense than Earth.

Scientific perspective

Mainstream scientific opinion on the internal structure of the Moon supports a solid internal structure with a thin crust, an extensive mantle and a small denser core.[1][2] This is based on:

Seismic observations. Besides Earth, the Moon is the only planetary body with a seismic observation network in place. Analysis of lunar seismic data have helped constrain the thickness of the crust (~45 km)[3] and mantle, as well as the core radius (~350 km).[4][5]

Moment of inertia parameters. For the Moon, moment of inertia parameters have demonstrated that the core is ~1.4% of the total mass.[6] One such parameter, the normalized polar moment of inertia, is 0.393 ± 0.001.[6][7] This is very close to the value for a solid object with radially constant density, which would be 0.4 (for comparison, Earth's value is 0.33). The normalized polar moment of inertia for a hollow Moon would have a higher value, closer to 0.67. In other words, the moment of inertia parameters indicate that the core of the Moon is both dense and small, with the rest of the Moon consisting of material with nearly-constant density.

Fine-scale variation (e.g., variation along the orbit of the Lunar Prospector orbiter) of the lunar gravitational field, which is consistent with geologic processes involving a crust, mantle, and core.[6]


The large-scale gravitational field of the Moon, however, is unaffected by the internal distribution of mass if the internal density is assumed to vary only radially. For example, had the Moon been replaced with a point object of identical mass, the current gravitational field would continue to exist at distances greater than the ~1700 km[8] lunar radius. This can be derived directly for a spherically symmetric Moon by applying the integral form of Gauss's law. Therefore, the large-scale gravitational field of the Moon does not convey any information about the internal radial distribution of mass.

Hollow Moon proponents would, however, have to account for the incredible density of the Moon's crust if it were in fact hollow. As gravitational pull is determined by mass, a hollow moon would require an inordinately dense crust to achieve observed gravitational values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Moon

[1] http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/measure(9)/
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/lunar_core.html
[3] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002JGRE..107.5036K
[4] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GeoJI.168..243K
[5] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Sci...181...49N
[6] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Sci...281.1476K
[7] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
[8] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...313..652G



.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Fake Moon...or do we know it is real.