Brilliant!

Does it? I thought it was stationary in that regard.

No, the moon rotates. Imagine standing in a room, you're stationary. Another person is walking in a circle around you. His left size is constantly facing you as he walks. In order to make that happen, he has to rotate around his own spine, with a period equal to the rate at which he is revolving around you.

Earth's gravity captures objects all the time.   Not sure what kind of space weed you're smoking to come up with this crap.

As far as science being capable of unveiling any and all mysteries, lets exhibit a modicum of humility. Case in point being that only very recently have we been able to determine the construction technology which formed the basis of enabling the Great Pyramids. That modern science can explain the formation of the moon and it's associated anomalies is a leap of faith.

There is no scientific explanation as to how it came to be the moon appears from earth to be essentially the same diameter as the sun yielding solar eclipses beyond the non explanation of "a coincidence". This is but one example of the multitude of Earth-Moon anomalies yielding an apparently unique life enabling ecosystem.

Interesting questions arise as to whether earth's gravity is indeed a constant. There is no scientific explanation how a 500 pound creature could fly with earth's gravitational constraint of the present. Plate tectonics theory is just that, a theory attempting to explain hitherto unobserved phenomenon. Let us acknowledge too that asteroid impact theory as a cause of extinction level events was fought tooth and nail by mainstream science largely because it relegated Darwin's theory of gradual evolution to the dustbin of history.  

In short there exists today no coherent theory regarding earth's moon. As for so called "moon rocks", please...

It got put there by a glancing blow from a planetoid object, whose debris coalesced into the Moon.

I think there is more evidence that it was a body that impacted Earth, but it’s interesting for sure.  That is the prevailing theory on how Uranus’ moon Miranda was formed, that is a neat body.

Spinning is a big deal in space, and a major potential hazard if you are an astronaut.

The only real thing that can slow you down if you start spinning is tidal forces (which, unless you are next to a black hole work on geological time) or breaking apart.

On dead satellites, a small off-gassing can eventually build up into the object spinning 100s of RPM and breaking apart.

There is a reason they put astronauts into so many spinning tests.



IIRC, they actually had to slow down the real amount of spinning in this scene to make it more believable.

lol

The moon probably reached a molten state from impacts a few times during the solar system's "bombardment stage", thus allowing the composition of moon rocks to be altered.

As to your question...

...Our moon is tidally locked, meaning the far side is exposed to the direction most impact objects would come from. The near side has a large object (Earth) protecting it when facing the outer solar system. This means objects that hit the moon on the side that faces us have to come from the inner system and/or must have a steeper approach angle greatly reducing the number of possible hits. It's not rocket science.

It does rotate, once a month.

If it didn't it couldn't keep the same side always toward the earth.

I get that conceptually. Rather, I thought it's orientation remains static relative to how it's seen from the Earth, hence "dark side of the moon".

Yes, that's a phenomenon called "tidally locked." The Earth's gravity is enough greater than the moon's such that we are able to spin independently, but the Moon's day is identical to the month. Relative to Earth that is, not getting into sidereal reference frames.

There is no "dark side of the moon."

The sun rises and sets once a month when viewed from the moon.

sure there is, otherwise Pink Floyd wouldn't have devoted an entire album to it.

if this isn't copy pasta drivel, it needs to be. just lol

Holy shit. This thread has turned into comedy gold.

Yes, I voted troll.

There are many thousands, if not millions, who will believe really ridiculous shit because they don't know any better.

Witness the discussion of the mechanics of the earth/moon system which take place here, never mind discussion of the origin of the moon.

Thank you for your contribution.

No copy pasta.  It was stream of consciousness.  It's genesis can be found in a moment of inspiration as a result of seeing the topic of this absolutely wonderful and potentially life-changing  thread.

God put the celestial bodies in the firmament.  The sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night.  Our world lives so precariously on the edge of not being what it is, I find it hard not to recognize intelligent design.  We really observe nothing like us out there.

Attached File

Without incontrovertible proof or the ability to recreate the event, it remains well within the realm of "hypothesis".  That does not mean however that it doesn't make sense and that it can't be studied.  The more advanced our scientific study becomes, the better chance we have to add credibility to the hypothesis, or to discredit it.




According to the most sterile analysis, the moon used to be much closer to the earth, but is receding away slowly as it gains orbital energy from the rotation of the earth.  Many millions of years from now there will never be another total solar eclipse, as all of them will be annular eclipses, which even today are more common that totals.  Now, from a time when total eclipses happened every month and were extremely large to a time when they can't ever happen again, there will be a relatively brief period where they are just around the 100% mark.  Right now, total eclipses are only possible when the moon is near perigee.  This happens the minority of the time.  Still it's a remarkable phenomenon, and one that is short lived in terms of the prevailing theory of formation.  It could certainly be "more perfect", so I am not sure that it's perfection is evidence of anything when taken in a vacuum.



I don't understand.  Are you saying that science has proved, or hypothesized that a 500# creature can't fly?  I've never heard that one.  I HAVE heard people say in some form that science proves that bumblebees can't fly, yet we see them do so all the time.  It's frankly nonsense.  Today, we don't have any legitimate flying 500# creatures, however we do have a lot of large and heavy creatures that can glide.  Manta rays, for one.



So the current theory is incoherent?  I don't see why.  As for the rocks comment, I don't even know what you mean.  Is the moon actually made of cheese or something?

It was brought here by aliens as a pretext to catch teens not partying.

What can you tell us about Uranus?

Double-ply is SOP!

+1. Excellent read