Is the Moon Hollow?

[Spendulus]

There's no need for you to post ramblings such as that.

Consider that ancients found out, by trial and error, the max size arches that could be built. End of that subject, isn't it?

Planets and moons are ROUND AND SOLID. There is a reason for that.

You are welcome to go read Timinshenko, Strength of Materials and see why you are wrong.

http://www.engineering108.com/Data/Engineering/Mechanical/SM/Strength_Of_Materials_parts_IandII-Timoshenko.pdf

Then Newton and Kepler, maybe.

[1714160819]

1714160819

[1714160819]

1714160819

[1714160819]

1714160819

[1714160819]

1714160819

[BADecker]

There's no need for you to post ramblings such as that.

Consider that ancients found out, by trial and error, the max size arches that could be built. End of that subject, isn't it?

Planets and moons are ROUND AND SOLID. There is a reason for that.

You are welcome to go read Timinshenko, Strength of Materials and see why you are wrong.

http://www.engineering108.com/Data/Engineering/Mechanical/SM/Strength_Of_Materials_parts_IandII-Timoshenko.pdf

Then Newton and Kepler, maybe.

You are unusually simple today. Or are you simply trying to keep people from thinking?

Ancients didn't build arches on the moon. Ancients didn't build arches from scratch without any planet... like in space, as might have happened. Has anyone taken into account the balance of gravitational pull from opposite sides, to show much lighter weights for mass ratios, and how such would affect various materials in arches?

Remember, graphene wasn't supposed to exist with all of its properties. But someone made it, and graphene is just the start in that direction. Other materials can for graphene-like structures, and there are other structures similar to graphene that carbon can be formed into. Even so, planet and moon structures might be different that the standard ideas, because oh non-standard ideas that weren't used in the calculations.

Planets and moons MIGHT be solid. We don't know enough of physics to know for certain that they are solid. And many objects in space are not round.

Your link does tests in certain ways. Great! But what about other ways. Like my diagrams, above, for example?

[Spendulus]

There's no need for you to post ramblings such as that.

Consider that ancients found out, by trial and error, the max size arches that could be built. End of that subject, isn't it?

Planets and moons are ROUND AND SOLID. There is a reason for that.

You are welcome to go read Timinshenko, Strength of Materials and see why you are wrong.

http://www.engineering108.com/Data/Engineering/Mechanical/SM/Strength_Of_Materials_parts_IandII-Timoshenko.pdf

Then Newton and Kepler, maybe.

You are unusually simple today. Or are you simply trying to keep people from thinking?

Ancients didn't build arches on the moon. Ancients didn't build arches from scratch without any planet... like in space, as might have happened. Has anyone taken into account the balance of gravitational pull from opposite sides, to show much lighter weights for mass ratios, and how such would affect various materials in arches?....

actually, all such things have been really, REALLY studied. Work that has been done is easily extendible to conjectures such as hollow spheres vs sizing, and a "square planet". One that I personally like is a concept of creating a hollow sphere from a metallic asteroid, then slowing it down so it drops into earth's atmosphere. Would that create an object that would float forever? Maybe, but the shape of the object to do it, as it turns out, would not be a sphere.

[SaltySpitoon]

Just going to throw a wrench into both sides and leave. The moon's local gravity is really uneven. It absolutely doesn't have a uniform gravitational pull or a uniform mass distribution. An idea of why that is can be read about here, but feel free to make your own hollow related theory.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530


Heres a PDF of one of my favorite beginners astrophysics books if you are looking for interesting whatnot. Its the least math intensive book on the subject that I've ever seen and an overall enjoyable read. Its from the 1980s though so there are a few consequences of not yet knowing the results from dark matter and dark energy, but overall still relevant.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lk4wa9nnad4qn54/%28A_Series_of_books_in_astronomy%29_Frank_H._Shu_-_The_physical_universe__an_introduction_to_astronomy-University_Science_Books_%281982%29.pdf

[BADecker]

There's no need for you to post ramblings such as that.

Consider that ancients found out, by trial and error, the max size arches that could be built. End of that subject, isn't it?

Planets and moons are ROUND AND SOLID. There is a reason for that.

You are welcome to go read Timinshenko, Strength of Materials and see why you are wrong.

http://www.engineering108.com/Data/Engineering/Mechanical/SM/Strength_Of_Materials_parts_IandII-Timoshenko.pdf

Then Newton and Kepler, maybe.

You are unusually simple today. Or are you simply trying to keep people from thinking?

Ancients didn't build arches on the moon. Ancients didn't build arches from scratch without any planet... like in space, as might have happened. Has anyone taken into account the balance of gravitational pull from opposite sides, to show much lighter weights for mass ratios, and how such would affect various materials in arches?....

actually, all such things have been really, REALLY studied. Work that has been done is easily extendible to conjectures such as hollow spheres vs sizing, and a "square planet". One that I personally like is a concept of creating a hollow sphere from a metallic asteroid, then slowing it down so it drops into earth's atmosphere. Would that create an object that would float forever? Maybe, but the shape of the object to do it, as it turns out, would not be a sphere.

The hollowness of the moon is basically on one side. That's why gravitational variations exist in different places on the moon.

The side of the moon that has the most material is the side that remains facing the earth. Just like the weight in the base of a child's bobbing toy keeps the toy standing on its base, so the weighted side of the moon keeps the same side of the moon facing the earth. Strong evidence that the moon not only is hollow, but is greatly off center regarding where this hollowness is located... near the far side of the moon.

[BADecker]

Just going to throw a wrench into both sides and leave. The moon's local gravity is really uneven. It absolutely doesn't have a uniform gravitational pull or a uniform mass distribution. An idea of why that is can be read about here, but feel free to make your own hollow related theory.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530


Heres a PDF of one of my favorite beginners astrophysics books if you are looking for interesting whatnot. Its the least math intensive book on the subject that I've ever seen and an overall enjoyable read. Its from the 1980s though so there are a few consequences of not yet knowing the results from dark matter and dark energy, but overall still relevant.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lk4wa9nnad4qn54/%28A_Series_of_books_in_astronomy%29_Frank_H._Shu_-_The_physical_universe__an_introduction_to_astronomy-University_Science_Books_%281982%29.pdf

Electric Universe/Cosmos shows how electric plasma rather than nuclear physics proves that dark matter and dark energy don't exist. Rather, they are figments of nuclear universe theories.

[Spendulus]

Just going to throw a wrench into both sides and leave. The moon's local gravity is really uneven. It absolutely doesn't have a uniform gravitational pull or a uniform mass distribution. An idea of why that is can be read about here, but feel free to make your own hollow related theory.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530


Heres a PDF of one of my favorite beginners astrophysics books if you are looking for interesting whatnot. Its the least math intensive book on the subject that I've ever seen and an overall enjoyable read. Its from the 1980s though so there are a few consequences of not yet knowing the results from dark matter and dark energy, but overall still relevant.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lk4wa9nnad4qn54/%28A_Series_of_books_in_astronomy%29_Frank_H._Shu_-_The_physical_universe__an_introduction_to_astronomy-University_Science_Books_%281982%29.pdf

Gravitational variations on the lunar surface extend to 1/2%, which is huge. Interestingly, there have been found three or four "frozen orbits," which are stable orbits and sort of thread the needle through these areas with variations.

That is a darn good reference. Unusual approach and thinking on the part of the instructor. I may wind up reading the entire thing.