Yes, the Moon is Hollow, like the most of the other celestial bodies - if they were not hollow, that would be unscientific.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
The greatest threat to scientific progress is the reluctance of scientists to ask questions. Every civilization that has had any scientific achievements in the past has died out just as it stopped asking questions and began to believe that it understood the world around it almost completely. I am sure that now most of you will tear me to pieces for what I am going to write, even though it will make perfect sense from a scientific point of view, simply because it will be an easier action than straining your brain asking 'awkward' scientific questions that are out of sync with the general scientific opinion.

Statement: Almost all globular celestial bodies are simply HOLLOW SKELETONS, therefore, the density of these bodies are greatly underestimated.

Imagine a liquid mass of elements in outer space. What form will it take? I think most of you will immediately answer "spherical" without even thinking, and this will be based on generally known physical laws for the behavior of fluid systems in the absence of external forces. However, the second question will arises What does the rotation itself change in relation to this liquid cosmic body? And here things get a little more complex. Most scientists will answer that the shape of this body will change from spherical to the oblate spheroid (ellipsoid) and they will stop here. Why would they stop here?! Because if they continue on, they will probably have to step outside the box of what is accepted and come into conflict with the others. And as we know, modern scientists are not like the old ones - they don't like to come into conflict with others, they are conformists. Their salary and livelihood depend on being a nice person that everyone likes in order to rise in the scientific hierarchy.

Let's go back to the title of this post "The moon is hollow!" ... Even before pictures of the far side of the moon were obtained, any sufficiently intelligent physicist could have guessed what the surface of this lunar side would look like and that it would differ from the near side of the moon, by asking a few simple questions. "As the Moon takes ALMOST the same amount of time to rotate on its axis as it takes to go around the Earth, what will be the consequences for the shape of the moon itself and the liquid magma it contains, if any?" After not much thought, one must come to the conclusion that this will be the oblate, tear-drop like, spheroid (ellipsoid). But if the moon had such a shape, it would mean that it would be asymmetrical and experience unbalanced centrifugal forces. This means that liquid magma from the interior of the moon will tend to flow to the surface of the moon from the bulge on the near side of the moon. I.e. it will periodically pour onto the Moon's near side, flatten large areas of the surface, then solidify on that surface, increasing its bulge even more. That there will not be many lava flows on the far side of the Moon and that it will have more visible craters, compare to near side of the Moon, is a conclusion based on such scientific reasoning. Therefore, a smart enough physicist would guess what the far side of the moon looked like before seeing actual pictures of it.

You probably already understand in which direction I am leading your thought. To the most important question, for our post. What is left at the place in the interior of the Moon where this surfacing and solidifying lava comes from after it has moved from there? The answer is obvious, isn't it?! A CAVITY REMAINS INSIDE. Therefore, the moon is hollow inside.


moon-farside-nearside-e1558481988414.png



You don't like these conclusions, do you? Much to your delight, they will continue on in the same way. Almost all, if not all, spheroidal bodies in outer space are shaped in the same way if they pass through the liquid-solid phase. A hard shell forms on the surface, after which a liquid phase begins to pour over this surface and solidify on it, due to centrifugal, gravitational forces from outside and internal energy, releasing a cavity inside the body. Therefore, almost all such bodies are HOLLOW INSIDE, like sponges.

Now that you know this, you can also answer the question: How did the Main Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter probably get formed? These planetary shells increase in size over time and therefore decrease in strength. There comes a time when this hollow structure can no longer resist the continuous contact with external bodies, absorbing their energy. This means that at some point, they are broken like a crystal glass by an asteroid and scattered into numerous small pieces. The Main Asteroid Belt and a planetary rings have the same origin - just some planetary shell has run out of time.

And, yes, the Earth is also hollow. The Earth models you are currently viewing are incorrect. Which means that the calculated mass and density of the planets and much of the celestial bodies is also wrong.

P.s. Look at the top left picture of the moon. What do you notice in this picture? Do you notice that the most recent large lava eruptions on the Moon have swept away from the central part that is visible from Earth? This is the reason I to write "ALMOST" above. So if you reason correctly and logically, you should conclude the following: If there is a reason that the moon and many other celestial bodies synchronize their axial rotation speed with that of their orbit around their main system body, and lava eruption occurs mainly around the central equatorial regions of the near side of this celestial body, therefore moving these areas relative to the midline will only mean one thing: That the celestial body is moving away from or closer to the main body.


So, can you guess then in which direction the moon is moving relative to the earth, whether it is moving away or approaching?
Contrary to NASA's claims, the Moon is approaching the Earth, not the other way around. If the Moon were moving away from the Earth, these abundant LAVA AREAS should have moved to the right, not to the left of the center-line. Because it takes time to compensate for its rotational speed around the axis, if the moon is moving away, therefore its orbital rotational speed around the earth is slowing down, but rotational speed around the moon axis is the same as before for some time, the lava areas will move on the right for an observer from the Earth. We see that they are moving to the left, therefore the moon is moving closer to the earth. "Elementary, my dear Watson" ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by the way, studies refuting this hypothesis or those that confirm it must be done almost necessarily.
In the above post, I did not address the subject of, after this magma is pushed to the surface, what it is replaced with in the interior cavity of a given celestial body?

Simply put, we need to know how deep this cavity is and what gases it contains. It is very likely that the periodic extinctions of organisms are directly related to the release of these gases from the interior of the Earth's cavity. We may even dare to attempt to drill to that depth, which could mean that on such a day, such a probe could directly lead to our and many other living organisms' death within a few hours. This is the reason why we need to know the answer to this questions: Is the Earth Hollow or Not? Is the Moon Hollow or Not? Or to put it another way, a drilling error like that could turn us into Venus faster than anyone can read this post. Why do you think this planet has such a dense atmosphere and where do these gases come from that keep it so dense?! These issues are issues of survival, so I think they need to be addressed urgently.

venushellishclouds.jpg


P.p.s. Of course, I'm exaggerating a bit with the drilling gamble above. The hole will probably close itself very quickly, killing everyone in a certain radius - because the pressure will be extremely high and the drill passage will not withstand the pressure of the passing gases before it starts to self-destruct - but it is still a risky gamble and should be taken into account when drilling at great depths. :)
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2023
5
0
10
Visit site
The greatest threat to scientific progress is the reluctance of scientists to ask questions. Every civilization that has had any scientific achievements in the past has died out just as it stopped asking questions and began to believe that it understood the world around it almost completely. I am sure that now most of you will tear me to pieces for what I am going to write, even though it will make perfect sense from a scientific point of view, simply because it will be an easier action than straining your brain asking 'awkward' scientific questions that are out of sync with the general scientific opinion.

Statement: Almost all globular celestial bodies are simply HOLLOW SKELETONS, therefore, the density and mass of these bodies are greatly overestimated.

Imagine a liquid mass of elements in outer space. What form will it take? I think most of you will immediately answer "spherical" without even thinking, and this will be based on generally known physical laws for the behavior of fluid systems in the absence of external forces. However, the second question will arises What does the rotation itself change in relation to this liquid cosmic body? And here things get a little more complex. Most scientists will answer that the shape of this body will change from spherical to the oblate spheroid (ellipsoid) and they will stop here. Why would they stop here?! Because if they continue on, they will probably have to step outside the box of what is accepted and come into conflict with the others. And as we know, modern scientists are not like the old ones - they don't like to come into conflict with others, they are conformists. Their salary and livelihood depend on being a nice person that everyone likes in order to rise in the scientific hierarchy.

Let's go back to the title of this post "The moon is hollow!" ... Even before pictures of the far side of the moon were obtained, any sufficiently intelligent physicist could have guessed what the surface of this lunar side would look like and that it would differ from the near side of the moon, by asking a few simple questions. "As the Moon takes ALMOST the same amount of time to rotate on its axis as it takes to go around the Earth, what will be the consequences for the shape of the moon itself and the liquid magma it contains, if any?" After not much thought, one must come to the conclusion that this will be the oblate, tear-drop like, spheroid (ellipsoid). But if the moon had such a shape, it would mean that it would be asymmetrical and experience unbalanced centrifugal forces. This means that liquid magma from the interior of the moon will tend to flow to the surface of the moon from the bulge on the near side of the moon. I.e. it will periodically pour onto the Moon's near side, flatten large areas of the surface, then solidify on that surface, increasing its bulge even more. That there will not be many lava flows on the far side of the Moon and that it will have more visible craters, compare to near side of the Moon, is a conclusion based on such scientific reasoning. Therefore, a smart enough physicist would guess what the far side of the moon looked like before seeing actual pictures of it.

You probably already understand in which direction I am leading your thought. To the most important question, for our post. What is left at the place in the interior of the Moon where this surfacing and solidifying lava comes from after it has moved from there? The answer is obvious, isn't it?! A CAVITY REMAINS INSIDE. Therefore, the moon is hollow inside.


moon-farside-nearside-e1558481988414.png



You don't like these conclusions, do you? Much to your delight, they will continue on in the same way. Almost all, if not all, spheroidal bodies in outer space are shaped in the same way if they pass through the liquid-solid phase. A hard shell forms on the surface, after which a liquid phase begins to pour over this surface and solidify on it, due to centrifugal and gravitational forces from outside, releasing a cavity inside the body. Therefore, almost all such bodies are HOLLOW INSIDE, like sponges.

Now that you know this, you can also answer the question: How it probably formed Main Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter? These planetary shells increase in size over time and therefore decrease in strength. There comes a time when this hollow structure can no longer resist the continuous contact with external bodies, absorbing their energy. This means that at some point, they are broken like a crystal glass by an asteroid and scattered into numerous small pieces. The Main Asteroid Belt and a planetary rings have the same origin - just some planetary shell has run out of time.

And, yes, the Earth is also hollow. The Earth models you are currently viewing are incorrect. Which means that the calculated mass and density of the planets and much of the celestial bodies is also wrong.

P.s. Look at the top left picture of the moon. What do you notice in this picture? Do you notice that the most recent large lava eruptions on the Moon have swept away from the central part that is visible from Earth? This is the reason I to write "ALMOST" above. So if you reason correctly and logically, you should conclude the following: If there is a reason that the moon and many other celestial bodies synchronize their axial rotation speed with that of their orbit around their main system body, and lava eruption occurs mainly around the central equatorial regions of the near side of this celestial body, therefore moving these areas relative to the midline will only mean one thing: That the celestial body is moving away from or closer to the main body.


So, can you guess then in which direction the moon is moving relative to the earth, whether it is moving away or approaching?
Contrary to NASA's claims, the Moon is approaching the Earth, not the other way around. If the Moon were moving away from the Earth, these abundant LAVA AREAS should have moved to the right, not to the left of the center-line. Because it takes time to compensate for its rotational speed around the axis, if the moon is moving away, therefore its orbital rotational speed around the earth is slowing down, but rotational speed around the moon axis is the same as before for some time, the lava areas will move on the right for an observer from the Earth. We see that they are moving to the left, therefore the moon is moving closer to the earth. "Elementary, my dear Watson" ;)
If the moon is hollow the moon may not have the enough pressure or not able to create a pressure which maintains the hydrostatic equilibrium .A hydrostatic equilibrium which make a plant to be in sphere .so if moon is hollow it may not be in sphere. There is other reason moonquakes. Moonquakes may led to Brock the moon because it is in hollow as per you thread
 
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
If the moon is hollow the moon may not have the enough pressure or not able to create a pressure which maintains the hydrostatic equilibrium .A hydrostatic equilibrium which make a plant to be in sphere .so if moon is hollow it may not be in sphere. There is other reason moonquakes. Moonquakes may led to Brock the moon because it is in hollow as per you thread
That's exactly what I'm saying. Many of the celestial bodies that have a similar hollow skeletal structure in them often reaching a point where their own gravitational forces destroy them. Some of them don't even need a blow from an external body for this to happen.
 
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
So, do you have any verifiable means to support your claims? Or just the "logic" described here?

If so, please share.
I am simply describing to you a scientific hypothesis that will soon become a theory when serious work begins to disprove or prove it. Unfortunately, NASA is a ossified bureaucratic organization that has little interest in moving science forward if there are no financial incentives associated with that movement. Much less work on scientific hypotheses that will disprove their own lies.

P.s. Your response sounds a bit like one from a Wikipedia moderator to me
any verifiable means to support your claims

You have a head on your shoulders.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
I am simply describing to you a scientific hypothesis that will soon become a theory when serious work begins to disprove or prove it. Unfortunately, NASA is a ossified bureaucratic organization that has little interest in moving science forward if there are no financial incentives associated with that movement. Much less work on scientific hypotheses that will disprove their own lies.
Since NASA is just one of the world's space agencies and there are generations of global capabilities and researchers, why is NASA the problem? If your idea had merit, wouldn't you think a university would have an interest here?
 
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
Since NASA is just one of the world's space agencies and there are generations of global capabilities and researchers, why is NASA the problem? If your idea had merit, wouldn't you think a university would have an interest here?
I once worked at the Academy of Sciences in Bulgaria. Believe me, in such places there is mainly only one thing to talk about: MONEY. These are places where many social parasites congregate, feeding on society's taxes. Universities are no different.

P.s. By the way, it can easily be proven that there is a large cavity in the Earth, if you know what questions to ask and what experiments to run. De facto, in the next nuclear test that will take place and the analysis of data from some sensors I will prove that the earth is hollow. It's an easy job, if you know how to conduct this analysis.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
I once worked at the Academy of Sciences in Bulgaria. Believe me, in such places there is mainly only one thing to talk about: MONEY. These are places where many social parasites congregate, feeding on society's taxes. Universities are no different.

P.s. By the way, it can easily be proven that there is a large cavity in the Earth, if you know what questions to ask and what experiments to run. De facto, in the next nuclear test that will take place and the analysis of data from some sensors I will prove that the earth is hollow. It's an easy job, if you know how to conduct this analysis.
I look forward to seeing those peer-reviewed results.

I understand the nature of money and research. NASA is certainly not the only player in this arena. If your ideas had merit, seems convincing someone to fund real research would be achievable. Anecdotal "logic" does not establish merit.

Seriously though, good luck.
 
"What is left at the place in the interior of the Moon where this surfacing and solidifying lava comes from after it has moved from there? " Emil Enchev

Lava erupts because it is hot, thus less dense. Subsiding land around the eruption powers it. There is need for a hollow chamber theory.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
"What is left at the place in the interior of the Moon where this surfacing and solidifying lava comes from after it has moved from there? " Emil Enchev

Lava erupts because it is hot, thus less dense. Subsiding land around the eruption powers it. There is need for a hollow chamber theory.
Chambers and hollow earth/moon are not the same thing. There are no doubt cavities below the surface of Earth and the Moon, but that does not make either hollow. True?
 
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
Chambers and hollow earth/moon are not the same thing. There are no doubt cavities below the surface of Earth and the Moon, but that does not make either hollow. True?
I'm not talking about little cavities here. I'm talking about a large number of them, which makes the interior of cosmic bodies almost hollow. I don't say anything about how the internal structure of these cavities is built exactly, although I can. In fact, this is the way to prove that the Earth is hollow by analyzing data from sensors after a nuclear explosion. This spongelike hollow structure inside the Earth will lead to specific movement of waves through it. These cavities are at a great depth, they are not superficial. Subsiding land compensation it has almost no effect on their backfill. When it comes to "subsiding land compensation" to play any role in them, it will only mean that in a few minutes you will have a planetary ring around the Earth instead of a solid Moon.
 
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
Please stop editing the original post. Just add comments below. As a new member, every edit requires an approval before posting. There have been MANY now.

Thank you.
I'm just adding, not deleting or changing the original post, except for a few mistakes I found (my English is not native though) but ok.
 
The Earth and the Moon are not hollow. We know this because we can "see" inside these bodies with sound waves. We know the mass, size and density of both by direct measurement. Any celestial body capable of forming itself into a sphere cannot possibly be hollow. There is no need for a "hollow body thesis" and such is ruled out by direct observation on many fronts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COLGeek
Dec 3, 2023
8
0
10
Visit site
Nov 14, 2023
5
0
10
Visit site
if a hollow in found in moon means. It may contain ice and if moon as hallow it mass will decrease so it may leave the earth as gravity is directly proportional to the mass
 
"You have no idea how elementary the sound analysis that is done in such studies is." - Emil Enchev

And you have no way of knowing what I am thinking. Your claim is unsupported. All of your claims are unsupported. None of your claims make any sense. I support your effort to cease the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts