Christmas Lottery
Pretty fucking far fetched.

I wonder if this has to do with the face of mars idea, which was "disproven" by a sharper quality image?



Or maybe it actually used to be a face, and a building from a dead civilisation and it has been ero-

Yeah never mind

The idea of colonies on mars is obviously not a fresh idea.

In other news, if I can steer this baby off topic. Who thinks we should be analysing the polar ice caps for basic life? We should totoz melt the ice caps on mars and plant some trees and shit brah. SO MANY PLACES TO LOOK FOR LIFE BRAH
Last edited by m0o; Jan 7, 2011 at 10:39 AM.
Hmm I find the chances of the moon being a hollow spaceship extremely unlikely.
Hollow perhaps, spaceship no. But then again we have the whole impact theory that says lumps of broken-off earth gathered together to make the moon, so assuming that's true then the earth chunks would have to gather in a very specific way to allow the centre to be hollow.

Bleh, what am talking about? Vacuum would've caused a natural hollow moon to collapse in on itself, no?
And if it is a spaceship, maybe that's what collided into the earth in the first place to make the earth chunks come off and then those chunks formed around its remains? (assuming it was still in one piece somewhat afterwards)
It seems like all we'd have to do, is test whether or not the gravity it exerts on our planet (or anything else) is proportional to the mass we've measured. This would be incredibly easy. Unless of course the moon was composed of something incredibly light towards the core, which we haven't discovered. I think it would be safe to assume that our Moon is strictly composed of what we've gathered. If any other deductions could be made, they probably would have amidst all of the math involved in sending our probes up.

And 4zb41, it is completely implausible for matter in space to gather in the way that would yield a hollow core. Things like that occur due to planetary actions after the fact. If the moon were to be hollow, and if anything were to "collapse" it, it would be gravity, not a vacuum. And also, I don't think whatever spaceship that would have crashed into Earth exerted enough of a pull to yield a planetoid. If so, earth wouldn'tt be here.
Thanks.
Ah yes, I tend to ramble :P
To continue rambling, what if a hypothetical hollow planetoid was filled with air, not vacuum (i.e. the outer shell is held there by the air inside)? Then it would implode due to vacuum if it got a leak,yes? Or should I give up and stop hurling epileptic trees?
Moon is not hollowed out, if it was, the mass would be different, therefore the gravity, therefore it wouldn't be orbiting where it is orbiting.
Thanks for the Avatar, MrAakash
Originally Posted by Meamme0 View Post
Moon is not hollowed out, if it was, the mass would be different, therefore the gravity, therefore it wouldn't be orbiting where it is orbiting.

You missed the point where the mass would be the same that we have always observed it to be. The article isn't suggesting that the moon was hollowed out any time in the recent past, so there would be no noticeable change in the moon's mass.

What it's saying is that the inside is hollow and not dense at all, and that the shell is very very dense.

Personally, I think that the theory is pretty silly and nothing short of science fiction. Unfortunately, it's also not disproven, yet.
Oh my God, it's the Death Star!


In all seriousness, even if the moon was hollow it could definitely be a natural event. We've seen such cases on our planet. Perhaps the moon is a huge geode. And if the moon was actually some kind of piece of a planet, or even Earth, that might explain the metals on the dark side of the moon. Or it could be a sign that the moon used to have some kind of atmosphere or water on it at one time.


Of course I'm a little behind on some of these matters
Omnia Mori
sed Evici Amor
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
You missed the point where the mass would be the same that we have always observed it to be. The article isn't suggesting that the moon was hollowed out any time in the recent past, so there would be no noticeable change in the moon's mass.

What it's saying is that the inside is hollow and not dense at all, and that the shell is very very dense.

Personally, I think that the theory is pretty silly and nothing short of science fiction. Unfortunately, it's also not disproven, yet.

There wouldn't be a change in the moons mass, it would just move entirely different. People would have tried to calculate the mass of the moon, they would have found out it was way to light to be true and started making all kinds of crazy theories, like this one.

It is pretty decently known of what stuff the shell of the moon is made. Also to make up for the amount of mass missing, the shell would have to have an insanely high density.
Thanks for the Avatar, MrAakash
^
Exactly. And on what basis was this idea born anyways?
I've heard about Phobos being a space station, but not our moon.
Thanks.
I believe the theory was pulled from the "What if?" idea.
Also as mentioned above, is it at all possible that the moon is a gigantic geode? For all we know the insides are formed of interlinked amethyst. (Hypothetical, since I don't know if its possible to have extra-terrestrial amethyst)