Luna - teorii privind originea sa, diverse "aparitii" de pe suprafata ei

NASTYPRIMUL a scris:

De cind se cerceta Luna, au fost lasate 1-2 obiecte sa cada de pe orbita, Si la sol era cel putin un seismograf pus de expeditii. Si seismografele au aratat, la inregistrari, ca si cum ar fi goala Luna. Sau cu gauri f mari. Dar seismografele arata f clar chiar forma gaurilor.

Eu sint resursa. Nu ma crezi, nu am ce sa-ti fac. Sint o enciclopedie ambulanta...cit mai sint. Ca pierd scame pe drum.

Ok, un link, un articol despre aceste experimente cu seismografele, si mai ales cu rezultatele lor si motivatia pentru care s-a ajuns la concluzia ca e "goala". ;)

Linkul e pe pagina anterioara, cel cu Hollow Moon.

Se pare ca cineva e total anti-discutie constructiva...

Ha sa zicem ca poate unora le e lene sa caute singuri ce zice nasty. Si poate linkul ala nu prezenta suficienta incredere. Poate nasa.gov e insa mai credibil: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15mar_moonquakes.htm

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.

What causes the shallow moonquakes? And where do they occur? "We're not sure," he says. "The Apollo seismometers were all in one relatively small region on the front side of the moon, so we can't pinpoint [the exact locations of these quakes]." He and his colleagues do have some good ideas, among them being the rims of large and relatively young craters that may occasionally slump.

And that's just the beginning, he says. Other planets may be shaking, too: "The moon is a technology test bed for establishing such networks on Mars and beyond."

Asa, si unde scrie ca luna e goala pe dinauntru? ;)

Uite, scrie cu litere mari aici: LUNA ESTE GOALA PE DINAUNTRU

Happy now ? ;)

Honestly? No.

Ai dat aici cu mare pompa link si citat de pe siteul NASA.... in contextul in care vorbeam de luna goala pe dinauntru. Textul pe care l-ai dat nu spune asa ceva, nu are nici o treaba cu luna goala pe dinautru. Puteai la fel de bine sa dai link la Capra cu trei iezi.

Nope, vorbeam de rezonanta care zicea Nasty ca vine in sprijinul teoriei respective.

Iar seismografele "oficiale" au inregistrat intr-adevar o rezonanta interesanta semnalata in articolul de la nasa.

Pai linkul tau de pe siteul NASA explica deja de ce exista acea rezonanta. Si luna goala nu apare nici macar ca sugestie. ;)

Of, of, mai baieti, greu cu voi. Cate exemple din astea am avut si lumea tot nu se invata minte...

Cat misto s-a facut doar in ultimul secol de Alfred Wegener si teoriile sale privind scoarta terestra si continentele "plimbatoare" ca a durat jumatate de secol pana la recunoasterea oficiala a acestui fapt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Reaction

From 1912, Wegener publicly advocated the theory of "continental drift", arguing that all the continents were once joined together in a single landmass and have drifted apart.

The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. Also its opponents could, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, argue that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents to "simply plow through". In 1943 George Gaylord Simpson wrote a vehement attack on the theory (as well as the rival theory of sunken land bridges) and put forward his own permanentist views.

By early 1953 samples taken from India showed that the country had previously been in the Southern hemisphere as predicted by Wegener. By 1959, the theory had enough supporting data that minds were starting to change, particularly in the United Kingdom where, in 1964, the Royal Society held a symposium on the subject.

Abia in anii 60 s-a acceptat o idee pe care un om cu bun simt o prezentase inca din 1912. Si se presupune ca in secolul 20 stiinta era la mare pret... ;)

Dar ce te faci cu ceilalti jde mi de autointitulati savanti si teoriile lor pseudostiintifice? Ti-o fi placand tie sa compari teoria asta cu cea a lui Wegener, dar adevarul e ca e mai potrivita sa stea in rand cu 2012, Nibiru, geologia potopului si creationismul stiintific.

Stiu..stiu.. n-ar trebui sa stea in rand cu teoriile acelea care ziceau ca pamantul e rotund si nu plat sau ca obiectele mai grele ca aerul pot zbura... ;)

Eh, noi sa fim sanatosi.. ca peste inca 50 de ani cine stie cate din teoriile "oficiale" din ziua de azi or mai sta in picioare la cum evolueaza lucrurile...