Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: artificial moon

  1. #1 artificial moon 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    Flicking thru 'Who Built the Moon' by Christopher Knight I assume the ideas proposed in the book are nonsense and he is yet another charlatan. The moon is believed to be hollow and artificial. Now for the numbers game:
    Earth rotates 400 times faster than moon.
    Moon is 400 times smaller than sun.
    Moon is 400 times closer to earth than sun.
    This allows for total solar eclipses, which I must admit is strange.
    Most of the other data given in the book is very speculative, but is there any evidence that this is more than just coincidence, or is this data inaccurate?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    The Moon was closer for most of the Earth's history, i.e., it would totally occult the Sun and will eventually move farther away so that there will be no total eclipses.
    "the ideas proposed in the book are nonsense and he is yet another charlatan."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: artificial moon 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Flicking thru 'Who Built the Moon' by Christopher Knight I assume the ideas proposed in the book are nonsense and he is yet another charlatan. The moon
    is believed to be hollow and artificial. Now for the numbers game:

    Earth rotates 400 times faster than moon.
    Not even close. The earth rotates in 1 day, the Moon in 27.32 days
    Moon is 400 times smaller than sun.
    Okay, close enough to it
    Moon is 400 times closer to earth than sun.
    More like 390 times. on average
    This allows for total solar eclipses, which I must admit is strange.
    Most of the other data given in the book is very speculative, but is there any evidence that this is more than just coincidence, or is this data inaccurate?
    Note how I said on average for the Sun-moon distance ratio. This is becuase both the Earth and Moon are in eliptical orbits. The Earth-Sun distance varies by about 3.5% and the Earth-Moon distance by 10%.

    What this means is that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon varies by these amounts as seen from the Earth. If on average, the moon's apparent size is 2.5% smaller than the Sun, then the Moon can vary from being 8% smaller than the Sun to about 4% larger.

    When we get an eclipse during that time when the Moon's apparent size is smaller than the Sun, we get what is called an "annular" eclipse, where even at the height of the eclipse, part of the Sun is seen as a ring surrounding the Moon.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: artificial moon 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Earth rotates 400 times faster than moon.
    Not even close. The earth rotates in 1 day, the Moon in 27.32 days
    However, the rotational speed of the Earth at the equator is almost exactly 100 times the rotational speed of the moon.

    Moon's equatorial speed = 16.65 km/hr
    Earth's equatorial speed = 1669.8 km/hr
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    It might even be said that the Moon does not rotate in that it is gravitationally locked with the Earth so allowing for a little side movement, always keeps one side facing the Earth. Depending on where it is in it's orbit around Earth, different parts of it are lit by the Sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    Rechecking the data in the book it states that:
    400 = number of times the earth rotates faster than the moon.
    I make this 100, as suggested, as the earth rotates at about 1000 miles per hour at the equator (1669 km per hour) and the moon about 10 mph at its equator (16.7 km per hour).

    It also states that:
    366 = no. of rotations in earth year.
    366 = no. of megalithic yards (author's own terminology) in 1 Mg second of arc of earth.
    366% = percentage size moon to earth.
    Now that's what I really call the numbers' game, as who can possibly understand all this?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    It might even be said that the Moon does not rotate in that it is gravitationally locked with the Earth so allowing for a little side movement, always keeps one side facing the Earth.
    Not unless you're also willing to say that the Moon does not orbit the Earth. By any reference where the Moon orbits the Earth, it also rotates on its axis.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    that book sounds like a complete load cobbled together to make a shoddy conspiricy, I would not be suprised if it blamed either pagans (cuz we are of course, the definition of evil) or george bush for it... whatever 'it' is



    that said the moon is strikingly...odd
    for example as you noted it moves strangely slower round the earth that it should, however several other moons move at odd speeds, Phobos (I think) moves insanely fast in comparison to how it 'should' move while another moon spins like a massive hand has recently spun it like a table top

    our moon is the ONLY moon we know of to cause an eclipse of the sun (it's also small enough to cause lunar eclipses, dunno if that's odd though

    I read somewhere that the moon actually has a metal shell too, apparently a discharged lunar module crashed into the moon, causing it to ring for an hour!, unsuprisingly NASA hit it again and produced a ring for 90 minutes
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [quote="Cyberia"]It might even be said that the Moon does not rotate in that it is gravitationally locked with the Earth so allowing for a little side movement, always keeps one side facing the Earth./quote]If didn't rotate one side would not always face the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Rechecking the data in the book it states that:
    400 = number of times the earth rotates faster than the moon.
    I make this 100, as suggested, as the earth rotates at about 1000 miles per hour at the equator (1669 km per hour) and the moon about 10 mph at its equator (16.7 km per hour).

    It also states that:
    366 = no. of rotations in earth year.
    366 = no. of megalithic yards (author's own terminology) in 1 Mg second of arc of earth.
    the whole megalithic system is based on the Earth's motion. First you round out 366.25 (the number of sidreal days in an equinox year), then measure the motion of fixed stars against a circle divided into 366 parts to get the megalithic yard. It is no surprise that you get a value that is related to the Earth's motion by 366; the whole system is designed to do so.
    366% = percentage size moon to earth.
    367% is more like it (I get 366.97). [/quote]
    Now that's what I really call the numbers' game, as who can possibly understand all this?![/quote]
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    It might even be said that the Moon does not rotate in that it is gravitationally locked with the Earth so allowing for a little side movement, always keeps one side facing the Earth. Depending on where it is in it's orbit around Earth, different parts of it are lit by the Sun.
    It could be said that way, but standard scientific terminology doesn't allow for it, and people would get really confused. It's better that we all be on the same page about this, and measure rotations relative to the absolute, or the Sun, or something like that.


    Which raises an interesting point: The Earth's 24 hour day isn't quite accurate, is it? We go from facing the sun, to facing the sun again in 24 hours, but factoring in the Earths' orbit around the Sun, that means that it's actually completing slightly more than one full rotation in 24 hours. ...... I'd never considered that before....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax


    Which raises an interesting point: The Earth's 24 hour day isn't quite accurate, is it? We go from facing the sun, to facing the sun again in 24 hours, but factoring in the Earths' orbit around the Sun, that means that it's actually completing slightly more than one full rotation in 24 hours. ...... I'd never considered that before....
    Yes, the Sidereal day is 23 hrs 56 min 4.09 sec long. But that's not the worst of it. Our 24 hr Solar day is based on the Mean solar day. Because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, the apparent Solar day (the actual period between successive Noons) can be shorter or longer than 24 hrs at different times of the year.

    On top of that, the 24 day was based on the Mean Solar day in 1820. Since then, the Earth's rotation has slowed slightly and the mean Solar day is now 24 hrs 0 min 0.002 sec long. As a result, every so often we have to add a "leap second" to keep our clocks from drifting out of sync with the Sun.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    On top of that, the 24 day was based on the Mean Solar day in 1820. Since then, the Earth's rotation has slowed slightly and the mean Solar day is now 24 hrs 0 min 0.002 sec long. As a result, every so often we have to add a "leap second" to keep our clocks from drifting out of sync with the Sun.
    That is more of a slow down than I expected. So that is almost 4 minutes in 90 years. So 9000 years ago a day was less than 23 hours long? What am I missing?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    On top of that, the 24 day was based on the Mean Solar day in 1820. Since then, the Earth's rotation has slowed slightly and the mean Solar day is now 24 hrs 0 min 0.002 sec long. As a result, every so often we have to add a "leap second" to keep our clocks from drifting out of sync with the Sun.
    That is more of a slow down than I expected. So that is almost 4 minutes in 90 years. So 9000 years ago a day was less than 23 hours long? What am I missing?
    No, it is 0.002 sec in 189 years. That works out to less than 1/10 of a sec difference over 9000 yrs.

    I'm not sure where you are getting your 4 min in 90 yr figure from. Even if you take a 0.002 sec per day difference times 365.25 days per year times 90 years you only get a drift of 65.745 seconds, or just over a minute. And that is just how much the Sun and clock will be out of sync with each other, not the difference between the solar day length and our 24 hr clock period.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    No, it is 0.002 sec in 189 years.
    Ok, the 189 years vs 90 years part is obvious; I subtracted like an idiot. The second part though: that is because of the difference between Mean Solar day and Sidereal day I guess? I misread completely. So has the Sidereal day also lengthened by 0.002 sec in 189 years, or is that slightly different due to an effect the changing earth orbit has on the mean solar day (if any)?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    No, it is 0.002 sec in 189 years.
    Ok, the 189 years vs 90 years part is obvious; I subtracted like an idiot. The second part though: that is because of the difference between Mean Solar day and Sidereal day I guess? I misread completely. So has the Sidereal day also lengthened by 0.002 sec in 189 years, or is that slightly different due to an effect the changing earth orbit has on the mean solar day (if any)?
    The mean solar day has increased in length by 0.002 sec. The sidereal day has increased just slightly less, the reason being that an increase in the sidereal day causes a slightly larger change in the Solar day.

    You can get the solar day from the period of Earth's orbit and the sidereal day from:



    So let's say that there are 366 sidereal days in a year, and use standard sidereal days for our units.

    you get



    so one solar day is 1.0027 sidereal days.

    Now double the length of the sidereal day:



    Thus doubling the sidereal day increases the Solar day by a factor of 2.006.

    The effect is even more noticeable if you compare the sidereal month of 27.32 days to the synodic month(full moon to full moon) of 29.32 days. Here we see a difference of 8%, vs the 0.27% difference between sidereal day and solar day.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    The latest theory as to the origin of the moon is that it was formed by a nuclear explosion in the earth's mantle. www.physorg.com/news183884450.html.
    (Could the oceans have been formed in the same explosion by the outgassing of the mantle?).
    However this is obviously inconsistent with the theory that the moon is older than the earth as moon rocks have been dated at 5.3 billion years, which also makes it older than the sun.
    Could the moon really be hollow as its mean density (3.34 gms/cm^3) is much lower than that of the earth (5.5 gms/cm^3)?
    How can you account for moonquakes, unless the moon really can reverberate like a bell, as observed by Apollo missions?
    The great impact theory which suggests that an object collided with the earth and formed the moon is inconsistent with the size of the moon, as it is simply too big to have been captured by the earth's gravity.
    The spaceship moon theory, as a crazy alternative, suggests that it is some sort of stabilising craft brought along by an intelligence in order to trigger life on earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    I also looked through the book and found it quite intriguing. Apart from eclipses and so on does he give any other evidence for the belief that the moon is artificial? Any other reasons to believe in the theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    The moon covers the sun precisely in a solar eclipse, and this alone suggests something remarkable. No other moon in the solar system has this attribute. Without the moon's stabilising effect the earth would wobble and life would not have evolved to its present form. The tidal effects of the moon allow for an ever changing planet.
    There are at least 139 moons in the solar system, and the one nearest the sun is ours, as Venus and Mercury have no moons.
    As for the book 'Who Built the Moon' by Christopher Knight, obviously you have to make up your own mind, but bear in mind that just about anything can be 'proved' with statistics. I think what the author is trying to say is that the moon is artificial, it was built by an alien intelligence, and when we eventually acknowledge this there will be chance of contact. On the other hand maybe there is a symmetry to the universe beyond our present understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The moon covers the sun precisely in a solar eclipse, and this alone suggests something remarkable. No other moon in the solar system has this attribute. Without the moon's stabilising effect the earth would wobble and life would not have evolved to its present form. The tidal effects of the moon allow for an ever changing planet.
    There are at least 139 moons in the solar system, and the one nearest the sun is ours, as Venus and Mercury have no moons.
    As for the book 'Who Built the Moon' by Christopher Knight, obviously you have to make up your own mind, but bear in mind that just about anything can be 'proved' with statistics. I think what the author is trying to say is that the moon is artificial, it was built by an alien intelligence, and when we eventually acknowledge this there will be chance of contact. On the other hand maybe there is a symmetry to the universe beyond our present understanding.
    The distance of the moon is constantly changing. So, any conclusion drawn from current results is meaningless. The moon once was much closer and is receding from Earth. So, at some time in the future, we won't see total solar eclipses any more.

    Any further speculation about the moon being artificial will be regarded as pseudoscience.
    Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    However this is obviously inconsistent with the theory that the moon is older than the earth as moon rocks have been dated at 5.3 billion years, which also makes it older than the sun.
    Really.
    Citation please. The oldest dated moon rocks I am aware of are 4.5 mya, from the Highlands. That matches nicely estimates for the age of the solar system based upon meteorites. So where di you come up with this bizarre figure from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Possibly the first reference to an artificial moon was in a short story "The Brick Moon" in which a hollow satellite was constructed of bricks and accidentally launched before the planned date by means of flywheels and a waterfall. It went up with people on it (construction workers and their families) and they lived happily ever after. The moon dragged an atmosphere with it and grew grass and trees while orbiting the Earth. At 200 ft diameter it apparently produced enough gravity that people didn't fly off. The first space station. Construction was interrupted by the American Civil War but completed shortly afterwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    However this is obviously inconsistent with the theory that the moon is older than the earth as moon rocks have been dated at 5.3 billion years, which also makes it older than the sun.
    Really.
    Citation please. The oldest dated moon rocks I am aware of are 4.5 mya, from the Highlands. That matches nicely estimates for the age of the solar system based upon meteorites. So where di you come up with this bizarre figure from?
    One of several references is: 'Over 99 percent of the moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be older than 90 percent of the rocks that can be found on the earth. The first rock that Neil Armstrong picked up after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned out to be 3.6 billion years old. Other rocks turned out to be even older, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and one alleged to be even 5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth are only 3.7 billion years old, and the area that the moon rocks came from was thought by scientists to be one of the youngest areas on the moon!' ( www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The moon covers the sun precisely in a solar eclipse, and this alone suggests something remarkable.
    Not precisely. Due to the changing distance between the Earth and Moon during a month and the Changing Earth-Sun distance during the year, the Moon's apparent size goes from being larger than that of the Sun's to smaller. When it is smaller and a solar eclipse occurs, the Moon does not completely cover the Sun even when they are centered. A ring or annulus of the Sun is always visible, This is called an annular eclipse.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    One of several references is: 'Over 99 percent of the moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be older than 90 percent of the rocks that can be found on the earth. The first rock that Neil Armstrong picked up after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned out to be 3.6 billion years old. Other rocks turned out to be even older, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and one alleged to be even 5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth are only 3.7 billion years old, and the area that the moon rocks came from was thought by scientists to be one of the youngest areas on the moon!' ( www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm )
    As a reference this is a joke. Please provide a reference from a peer reviewed article in a recognised journal. Even the ridiculous site you have linked to sees the author exercise the caution of describing the age as alleged. So where is this evidence.

    Please note I do not exclude the possibility of finding a sample of rock on the moon that is 5.3 billion years old. If we ever found such a thing we should be delighted, for we could say with certainty that it did not originate on the moon and it did not originate in the solar system and it did not originate in the GMC that spawned all of those. What a fascinating find it would be. Now please deliver the proper citations to support your claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    One of several references is: 'Over 99 percent of the moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be older than 90 percent of the rocks that can be found on the earth. The first rock that Neil Armstrong picked up after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned out to be 3.6 billion years old. Other rocks turned out to be even older, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and one alleged to be even 5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth are only 3.7 billion years old, and the area that the moon rocks came from was thought by scientists to be one of the youngest areas on the moon!' ( www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm )
    I've searched many various sources and the oldest moon rock mentioned is in the 4.5 Gy range.

    The oldest Earth rock found is 4.28 Gy.

    So what does this tells us about the relative ages of the Earth and Moon? Not as much as you seem to think. Through erosion and geological activity, the Earth recycles its rocks. Finding the age of the Earth by dating it oldest rock is like finding the age of a forest by dating it oldest tree. All you have done is place a lower limit on that age. You know that the forest(or the Earth) is at least that old.

    The Moon. on the other hand, is not geologically active, and thus you are more likely to find older rocks left over from its formation, even if it was the same age or slightly younger than the Earth.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    One of several references is: 'Over 99 percent of the moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be older than 90 percent of the rocks that can be found on the earth. The first rock that Neil Armstrong picked up after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned out to be 3.6 billion years old. Other rocks turned out to be even older, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and one alleged to be even 5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth are only 3.7 billion years old, and the area that the moon rocks came from was thought by scientists to be one of the youngest areas on the moon!' ( www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm )
    As a reference this is a joke. Please provide a reference from a peer reviewed article in a recognised journal. Even the ridiculous site you have linked to sees the author exercise the caution of describing the age as alleged. So where is this evidence.
    This appears to be a reliable reference:
    'Harvard's respected astronomy journal Sky and Telescope reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973, it was revealed that one moon rock was dated at 5.3 billion years old which would make it almost a billion years older than our planet.'
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_25.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    This appears to be a reliable reference:
    'Harvard's respected astronomy journal Sky and Telescope reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973, it was revealed that one moon rock was dated at 5.3 billion years old which would make it almost a billion years older than our planet.'
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_25.htm
    A reference to a 37 year old article? Since all references from this decade given a maximum age of 4.5 Gy, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 1973 figure was due to an error that has since been corrected.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •