Start A Petition
This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.
 July 07, 2011 3:52 PM

Thank you for so many enlightments .

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
anonymous  June 24, 2011 7:10 AM

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 January 19, 2009 5:21 PM


Compiled by Ronald Regehr 
 The moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets." —Robert Jastrow,
First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee

After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth’s moon, remains an enigma.  Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered.  Among them:
1.  Moon’s Age:  The moon is far older than previously expected.  Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun.  The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.
2.  Rock’s Origin:  The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves.  The rocks had to have come from somewhere else.
3.  Heavier Elements on Surface:  Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon.  According to Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way.  They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned." (Emphasis added).
4.  Water Vapor:  On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon.  The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles.
5.  Magnetic Rocks:  Moon rocks were magnetized.  This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself.  This could not have originated from a "close call" with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.
6.  No Volcanoes:  Some of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.
7.  Moon Mascons:   Mascons, which are large, dense, circular masses lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centers of the moon’s maria, "are broad, disk-shaped objects that could be possibly some kind of artificial construction.  For huge circular disks are not likely to be beneath each huge maria, centered like bull’s-eyes in the middle of each, by coincidence or accident." (Emphasis added).
8.  Seismic Activity:  Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes.  In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean  Astrophysical Observatory  photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus.  He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour.  In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region.  These observations have proved to be precisely identical and periodical, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to the Earth.  These are probably not natural phenomena.
9.  Hollow Moon:  The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5.  What does this mean?  In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."   Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity."  MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow."   In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."
10.  Moon Echoes:  On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon.  The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour.  This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results.  Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.
11.  Unusual Metals:  The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed.  Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria?  Surprise!  The maria is composed primarily illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird".  Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.
12.  Moon’s Origin:  Before the astronauts’ moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where?).  Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover "space dust" remaining after the Earth was created.  Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also.  Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth’s gr

 [ send green star]
 January 07, 2009 11:27 AM

Weird Comet Needs a Class of Its Own - Scientists are not sure yet where it comes from.

A peculiar comet by the name of Machholz 1 was found more than two decades ago, in 1986, by Donald Machholz from Loma Prieta, California. So far, experts determined that, judging by its abnormal chemical composition, which requires assigning it to an entirely new category, it must have arrived here from somewhere well outside our solar system. The last of the several appearances of the comet took place last year.

"A large fraction of comets in our own solar system have escaped into interstellar space, so we expect that many comets formed around other stars would also have escaped," explained David Schleicher, a planetary astronomer from the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, cited by Space. "Some of these will have crossed paths with the sun, and Machholz 1 could be an interstellar interloper." This type of object is thought to be made of the oldest material in our system, holding clues related to the nebula that spawned it.

During the light sight, Schleicher determined the quantity of some carbon and other compounds existing in the tail of Machholz 1 and compared them to similar data from 150 different comets, which led him to conclude that this is indeed a strange build. The comet has 72 times less cyanogen molecules than average comets, and also far less C2 and C3 molecules, which requires integrating it into a new class, perhaps together with another odd one, named Yanaka.


"I'm not real thrilled with any of the three [scenarios]" that were proposed for the comet's place of origin, shared Schleicher. The first of these implies that Machholz 1 came from another star system whose proto-planetary disk contained much less carbon than ours. Another suggests that it formed in our system but in an extreme environment far from the Sun, comparing to other comets. The third possibility envisions the young Machholz 1 as a carbon-chain depleted comet with a chemistry modified by intense Sun heat. Perhaps the next sighting of the comet - in 2012 - will shed more light on the topic.

This post was modified from its original form on 07 Jan, 11:29  [ send green star]
Diamonds in the sky January 05, 2009 8:42 PM

When a star the mass of our Sun uses up its nuclear fuel, it expels most of its outer layers to leave just a very hot core called a white dwarf. Scientists had speculated that at the bottom of a white dwarf’s 31 mile (50 kilometer)-thick crust was crystallized carbon and oxygen, similar to a diamond. And in 2004, they found that a white dwarf near the constellation Centaurus, BPM 37093, was made of crystallized carbon weighing 5 million trillion trillion pounds. In diamond-speak, that’s 10 billion trillion trillion carats!  [ send green star]
The Sun,Moon,Planets,Stars and other universal objects December 27, 2008 5:59 PM

Carl Frederick Krafft

According to the accredited science of today, the sun and stars are gaseous bodies with temperatures of millions of degrees inside. The scientific profession is so sure of this that anybody who thinks otherwise is simply not given a chance to be heard, although a simple calculation under the gas laws will show that any celestial body similar to the sun, and with a density approximately equal to that of ocean water, would explode immediately if heated to a temperature of millions of degrees centigrade.

Our sun is just an average star, and a mere glance at it should be sufficient to convince anybody that it cannot be gaseous inside. A ball of gas would not have a sharp circular outline like the periphery of the sun. Gaseous clouds do exist elsewhere in the universe, but they do not appear as suns or stars. The periphery of the sun does, however, bear a remarkable resemblance to a horizon of ocean water. This conclusion is further corroborated by the density of the sun which is just slightly greater than that of ocean water--exactly what would be expected if the sun consists mainly of water, but with a solid core at the center.

If the heat from the sun really came from a hot interior, then as the late Dr. Hermann Fricke of Germany has pointed out, sunspots should be incandescent and not dark. Numerous photographs have been taken of sunspots from all angles, and these photographs show beyond any possibility of a doubt that sunspots are nothing else than splashes in the luminous layer. The luminous material is thrown to the sides, leaving a wide open hole at the center through which the dark interior of the sun can be viewed--perhaps not absolutely dark, but much darker that the luminous surface with its temperature of 6000 degrees. According to all authentic science of today, we are supposed to believe that within this dark interior there is raging a temperature of 50,000,000 degrees! It is just too much for the writer to swallow.

The heat of the sun is probably generated by bombardment of its outer atmosphere by cosmic rays consisting of subatomic particles drawn in by the gravitational force of the sun. We have a similar heated layer in the upper atmosphere of our earth where cosmic ray intensity is much greater and the temperature is hundreds of degrees higher than at the surface of the earth. Since the gravitational force at the surface of the sun is thirty times that at the surface of the earth, it is not difficult on this basis to account for the 6000 degree temperature at the surface of the sun, without making any fantastic assumptions of interior temperatures of millions of degrees.

A hot outer atmosphere would not necessarily heat up the interior of the sun, as has often been argued. Heat can travel only by radiation, conduction, or convection. Radiation is stopped immediately by even the thinnest layers of opaque material, and conduction through thousands of miles of poorly conducting material is a very slow process. There remains then only convection, and in a gravitational field the effect of convection is always to produce stratification--the hotter masses rising to the top and the cooler masses sinking to the bottom. If now we make the reasonable assumption that the effect of convection is greater than the combined effect of radiation and conduction, then any large celestial body with sufficient water on it should act like an automatic refrigerator--its interior remaining cool indefinitely notwithstanding the generation of heat on its surface. Some of the water on the surface of the sun will undoubtedly be evaporated by the intense heat, and may even become dissociated into oxygen and hydrogen, but the reverse of these processes will also occur, until a condition of equilibrium has been established. The ultimate result will be a gigantic turbulence on the surface of the sun, such as can be observed any time, but which will leave the interior of the sun unaffected.

The cosmic rays which are drawn in by gravitational force consist mainly of subatomic particles such as protons, electrons and neutrons. If these are clusters of vortex rings which were produced in the interstellar ether by the turbulence of light and heat waves, then we have here a cyclic process which could go on indefinitely. The energy which leaves the sun and stars in the form of light and heat radiation is again returned to them in the form of cosmic ray particles, and any matter which is annihilated during this process is similarly returned from interstellar space.

Annandale, Virginia February, 1961.

NOTE: Sunspots are not caused by explosions from inside the sun because they would then be covered by huge clouds similar to the mushroom cloud of an atomic explosion.

 [ send green star]
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct


This group:
Xtraordinary Things
176 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences

New to Care2? Start Here.