Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "How could anyone believe the moon is hollow?" video.

  1. No, that term is used by people who follow the evidence, to categorize people who fall for nonsense, believing in ideas for which there is no evidence.
    4
  2. Nope. 1. No, the moon is not in a perfectly circular orbit, the Earth-Moon distance changes by ~10%. 2. The Moon was created in a collision, which aligned the Moon's orbit with Earth's spin axis. 3. Nope, because both Earth and the Moon are in elliptical orbits the apparent sizes change, which is why some solar eclipses are annular (moon does not cover the sun completely). 4. Tidal locking happens for any moon, given enough time. Earth's oceans sped this up. 5. Crater depth/size ratio is no different from what we see on Earth. Soil mechanics during and after an impact explain why large craters are shallow.
    4
  3. No, they didn't. NASA found that lunar impacts reverberate for longer than similar impacts on Earth. This is caused by differences in geology. Earth's crust is a thin layer on a molten mantle. The mantle absorbs energy, damping the seismic waves. Earth's crust contains liquids: water, oil. These also absorb energy, damping the seismic waves. The Moon has a very thick, dry crust, which means less attenuation of seismic waves.
    3
  4. Craters on Earth are just as shallow. We know why this happens: after an impact, tons of material falls back in the crater.
    3
  5. No, it didn't ring 'for a month'. The Apollo missions did seismic experiments on the moon, which included crashing spent S-IVB stages and ascent modules into the moon. Those experiments showed that the impacts had a long reverb time (a few hours), described by one of the scientists involved as "almost like a bell". Geologists looked at the data and realized what it really meant: the moon has no molten core, it's all solid rock. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are damped by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock.
    2
  6. We have tons of evidence that says the landings are real, and no evidence that says they're faked. Nothing crazy about following the evidence.
    2
  7.  @iluminumfalcon8619  No, Earth has gravity because it has mass. Every object that has mass has gravity.
    2
  8. It's not a theory at all. Science starts with observations. Scientists try to find an explanation for those observations, this becomes a model. The model is tested using more observations or experiments. When the model holds up and makes accurate predictions, it becomes a theory. The word 'theory' has a specific meaning here: it's not the colloquial opposite of 'practice'; a scientific theory is a model that has been shown to be accurate in a wide range of circumstances, and the best way we currently have to explain how things work. There are no observations or experiments that confirm the moon is hollow. That means 'the moon is hollow' is no more than a hypothesis, with no supporting evidence.
    2
  9. Scientists are not allowed to use metaphors when explaining things to laymen? That's not an improvement.
    2
  10. False. The moon rang like a bell because that's what dry rock does. The moon has no molten core, it's all solid rock. There's also no water to speak of. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are dampened by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock.
    2
  11. No, it's not hollow. There is ONE event that was misinterpreted by laymen as 'this must mean the moon is hollow': after an impact, seismic waves reverberate for a long time. This happens because the entire moon is solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
    2
  12. Because moon missions are hugely expensive.
    2
  13. That's incorrect. That term is used by people who follow the evidence to categorize people who fall for nonsense, believing in ideas for which there is no evidence.
    2
  14. No, it doesn't. Solid, dry rock does that.
    2
  15.  @Cheka__  Non-hollow objects can ring too. The seismologist who said this, meant this: the impact of the Saturn stage on the lunar surface caused vibrations that lasted longer than in a similar impact on Earth. This is caused by 2 things: 1. Earth's crust is a thin layer on a thick, molten mantle. This mantle absorbs vibration energy. 2. Earth's crust contains a lot of liquids, like water and oil. Again, this absorbs vibration energy. The moon doesn't have these things. That's what the seismograms from the Saturn impacts indicate.
    2
  16. You're wrong. 6 manned missions, and dozens of unmanned missions have allowed us to gather a great deal of information on the moon.
    2
  17. We have factual evidence, we don't need to dig to the core for that. Seismic sensors allow us to investigate the inside of the moon. All of the data indicates that the moon consists of solid rock. If the moon were hollow, it'd have been obvious from those seismic experiments.
    2
  18. You need a spellchecker.
    2
  19.  @aaronbarlow4376  Actual geologists tell me that solid, dry rock reverberates for a long time.
    2
  20.  @aaronbarlow4376  You assume you know better than the actual geologists who studied the Apollo seismic data?
    2
  21.  @aaronbarlow4376  He said that in 1962, before we had any seismographic data from the moon. From the NASA website, today: "At the Moon’s center is a dense, metallic core. This core is largely composed of iron and some nickel. The Moon’s core is relatively small (about 20% of its diameter) compared to other terrestrial worlds (like Earth) with cores measuring closer to 50% of their diameters. Above the core are the mantle and crust. The lunar mantle, with a thickness of roughly 1350 km, is far deeper than the crust, which has an average thickness of about 50 km. "
    2
  22. Texts much older than the 1600s mention the moon, so we can discount your claim as a fable.
    2
  23. The moon does spin. It makes one revolution every 28 days. This is why we always see the same side of the moon. Even though we can only see that one side of the moon from Earth, it's obvious that the moon is a sphere. Craters near the center are circles, while craters near the limb are distorted as if we're seeing them side-on. That means the side we can see is a hemisphere. The only sane option is that the other side is also a hemisphere.
    2
  24. No, they didn't translate to audio. The 'rings like a bell' reference is just a description of the fact that the seismic waves took a long time to die out. This happens because the moon is solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
    2
  25. Your source data is off. Lunar craters don't all have the same depth.
    2
  26. No, the radiation level in the VA belts is far too low to do that. We measured the levels in the belts, and found that humans can traverse the belts safely. The evidence says the Apollo landings are real.
    2
  27. The previous data we have is from 50 years ago. Now, instead of having a human with a simple film dosimeter, we have the opportunity to send a heavily-instrumented dummy, using measurement techniques 50 years more advanced. Nothing suspicious about wanting more detailed data.
    2
  28. We have a pretty good idea of how the Moon was formed (collision with a protoplanet), and we have a bunch of data that makes it unlikely the moon is hollow.
    2
  29.  @Gospodin_Kurac  Without a time machine, there's no way to prove anything, so we use what we have, which is not an assumption, but a model that makes accurate predictions.
    2
  30. Nice fairy tale you got there. In reality, we know exactly how NASA got to the moon. We have every single drawing used to create the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. All 6 million of them, archived at the Smithsonian. We have complete Saturn V rockets sitting in museums. We have thousands of technical reports on every aspect of the program, publicly accessible (even via the internet). We still have every single science result from every experiment done by Apollo. We still have all of the lunar rock samples.
    2
  31. The "petrified wood" story is just that, a story. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits, claiming to be a moon rock, ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. NASA keeps extensive records on its lunar samples. Two samples were supplied to the Netherlands, the petrified wood sample is not one of them. Every year, hundreds of samples are sent to geologists all over the world (i.e. outside US government funded labs).
    2
  32. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters.
    2
  33.  @moonatnoon953  Your 'story' about fake moon rocks is again, just that, a story full of holes. There is no evidence of that petrified wood item existing before 2006.
    2
  34.  @moonatnoon953  The photos taken by the astronauts are anything but "grainy, blurry, washed out". They used the best camera available (Hasselblad EL500). This resulted in photos that have more resolution than the best digital cameras can produce today. All of these photos (around 8000) have been scanned at full resolution and are available to anyone via the March to the Moon archive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgYSdOi4u5A
    2
  35. False. The lunar surface is no brighter than an asphalt road on a sunny day.
    2
  36. Nothing odd about their behavior.
    1
  37. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are damped by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock. The moon doesn't have these, so seismic shocks are not damped as much.
    1
  38. yep.
    1
  39.  @corning1  Nope. We get annular eclipses, where the sun remains visible as a ring all around the moon. That's not "perfect". The Earth-Moon distance is changing by a few cm per year. That means that in a few million years, we will no longer have full solar eclipses.
    1
  40. No, that's not something the Apollo astronauts could hear. Earthquakes are not audible. The 'rang like a bell' was a description of the seismogram, which showed that the moonquake continued a lot longer than it would have on Earth.
    1
  41.  @patrick2t724  The 'ringing' visible in the seismograms is caused by the fact that the moon is dry rock: no liquid mantle, and no liquids like water or oil embedded in the rock. On Earth, these dampen vibrations.
    1
  42. The moon is not in a circular orbit, the Earth-moon distance varies by 10%. Craters are "the same depth" because these large impacts melted enough tock to fill the crater with lava. The soil below the surface is not younger. The apparent size of the moon is only approximately the same size as the sun. Because the moon's orbit is not circular and neither is Earth's orbit around the sun, there is enough variation in the apparent sizes that you get annular eclipses, where the sun is visible as a ring around the moon. The moon's orbit is slowly getting larger, so in a few million years, all eclipses will be annular.
    1
  43. It's a conspiracy because it's an idea for which there is no evidence, i.e. an empty hypothesis.
    1
  44.  @thom1218  Nope. The data says 'impacts cause seismic shocks that reverberate longer than they would on Earth's surface'. We can replicate that on Earth, in dry rock. Earth's surface is not dry rock.  There is no data that makes the Moon being solid improbable. There is no data that suggests the moon is hollow.
    1
  45.  @thom1218  Extraordinary claims (like claiming that the Moon is not a natural object) require evidence, not empty speculation. You have no evidence to support your position.
    1
  46.  @BrumKid  You're making two false claims here. 1. In order to see what someone's reading from space you need a telescope mirror with a diameter of several hundred meters. The largest spy satellites use mirrors with a diameter of about 3 meters, which translates to a resolution of 30 cm/pixel. 2. We did go to the moon. The only reason we haven't been back yet is money.
    1
  47. The moon has no molten core, it's all solid rock. There's also no water to speak of. On Earth, the shock waves from seismic events are damped by the transition from solid to molten rock, and by water inside the rock. Without this damping, seismic shocks reverberate longer on the moon.
    1
  48. That is incorrect. There's a cone of shadow extending outwards from Earth. This cone covers a tiny part of the sky. Most of the time, the moon is not inside that cone. When it enters that cone, you get a lunar eclipse.
    1
  49. 1. No, all impacts don't go to the same depth. Craters tend to have flat floors because that's what happens after an impact. We see the same on Earth. 2. The only drilling done on the moon was by the Apollo crews, with handheld tools, and perhaps one of the Luna missions, again with small tools, reaching a depth of no more than a few meters. Impact craters are much deeper than that.
    1
  50. the Why files is full of nonsense. He didn't do his research.
    1
  51. Nope. The orbit of the moon is getting bigger every year, so there's only a brief period in its history where the moon's apparent size more or less matches the sun's. Tidal locking is common for moons.
    1
  52. Nope. Theories are supported by evidence.
    1
  53. NASA crashed several Saturn-IVB stages into the moon, and recorded the impact with seismographs (left by the Apollo missions). This showed that the crash caused vibrations that died out over a longer period than they would on Earth. On Earth, the water in the crust, and the liquid mantle dampen these vibrations. Lunar rock is dry, and there's no liquid mantle, so less dampening.
    1
  54. The "petrified wood" story is just that, a story. In 2006, a Dutch museum hosted an art exhibit that showcased forgeries. One of the exhibits, claiming to be a moon rock, ended up in the museum's collection afterwards; its paperwork was lost. In 2009, this was examined and found to be wood. NASA keeps extensive records on its lunar samples. Two samples were supplied to the Netherlands, the petrified wood sample is not one of them. So we have 382 kg of actual moon rock, samples of which have been examined and authenticated by mineralogists all over the world. We've landed on the moon 29 times, with spacecraft from several different countries. More spacecraft have orbited it. We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analyzing its light via spectroscopy. That tells us the moon consists of rock.
    1
  55.  @robertzendejas8349  Incorrect. The story as presented by the deniers is full of holes. It claims, for instance, that Apollo 11 astronauts presented a sample weighing over 80 grams, not encased in perspex, to the former prime minister in 1969. 1. the samples presented by NASA to various nations are below 1 gram each. 2. the samples presented by NASA are all encased in perspex. 3. the samples presented by NASA were presented to current government leaders, not retired private citizens. Holes large enough to drive a truck through.
    1
  56.  @robertzendejas8349  All you have is second- and third-hand reports, cherrypicked by deniers with an agenda. I read the originals.
    1
  57.  @robertzendejas8349  Satellite photos of Earth certainly don't use a Mercator. projection. They merely photograph a sphere segment. The only projection that emulates this is the near-sided perspective projection, which is rarely used for maps. This is especially obvious in photos taken by geostationary satellites, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoMRwyNhqJ4 The areas near the edge are viewed from a very low angle so these areas are very distorted, while the area in the center is viewed from directly above.
    1
  58. Nope. Impacts produce circular craters even at low angles of incidence. The side facing Earth still has about 99% of its sky not blocked by Earth. The depth to width ratio is no different from impact craters on Earth, and we know the soil mechanics after an impact causes this.
    1
  59. All mission flight records are on the NASA Technical Report Server, which is a public archive. We do remember how to get people to the moon. We just don't want to reuse a 50 year-old design so we're spending a few years designing a modern rocket and lander.
    1
  60. Nope. The experts say there's no indication that Earth is hollow. The people who claim it is are "experts" in name only, making false claims not supported by evidence.
    1
  61.  @robpowell7307  That is incorrect. Actual geologists have concluded that solid, dry rock (i.e. no molten mantle, no water embedded in the rock) has this seismic signature.
    1
  62. All of the seismic data we have tells us that the moon consists of solid rock. Why would anyone build an artificial object out of solid rock?
    1
  63. Nope. The moon rings like a bell because it consists of dry, solid rock. Earth's liquid mantle and the liquids in the crust dampen vibrations.
    1
  64. Actual geologists HAVE explained every single "anomaly", including crater depths. There's nothing suspicious about that.
    1
  65. No. This happens when the entire moon is solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
    1
  66. The lunar surface is at the same pressure as the space above it, so no airflow to move the dust.
    1
  67. That's incorrect. It wasn't a legitimate hypothesis, it was a publication in the USSR version of Reader's Digest. This was no more credible than von Daniken and his 'ancient astronaut' unsupported claims.
    1
  68. That's correct only in the sense that surrounding the moon's core is a partially liquid mantle.
    1
  69. 10,000 operational satellites in orbit prove you wrong.
    1
  70.  @neuroncrux5937  At 100 km altitude, the atmosphere is so thin that you can't use aerodynamic lift to fly at this altitude at any speed lower than orbital speed. This is defined as the edge of space. At 400 km, atmospheric drag is so low it takes more than a decade for a spacecraft's orbit to decay. At 1000 km, atmospheric drag is so low a spacecraft will orbit indefinitely. I.e. all satellites operate at altitudes where the atmosphere cannot contribute to the satellite staying in orbit. Spacecraft engines work at any altitude, including lunar orbit, halfway to Mars, and out past Pluto.
    1
  71. nah, that refers to Mimas.
    1
  72. There's tons of evidence that the moon landings are real, and no evidence that they're faked. Sane people follow the evidence.
    1
  73.  @kalliste23  Evidence is not koolaid. You believe in fairytales.
    1
  74.  @kalliste23  Nope. There are a lot of claims of fakery in the moon shots, but none of those claims stand up to scrutiny.
    1
  75. The moon is a bit lighter than Earth on average, but well within the range you expect for a solid object.
    1
  76. No. The long reverberation of moonquakes happens because the moon consists of solid rock, with no liquid mantle and no liquids embedded in the rock to dampen the vibrations.
    1
  77.  @offgridamy717  This is what actual geologists working with the NASA data concluded. At no point has NASA claimed the moon is hollow.
    1
  78. All of the evidence says the Apollo landings are real. People who believe the landings are faked do so based on no evidence at all.
    1
  79. You're arguing from ignorance. We didn't lose the technology, we do remember how to get people to the moon. We just stopped producing Apollo hardware in the 1970s so we don't have a rocket ready to go. Now that we want to go back, we don't want to reuse a 50 year-old design so we're spending a few years designing a modern rocket and lander.
    1
  80.  @BaronUnderbite  No, that's not what happened. By 1970, the US Government was cutting NASA funding, from its height at 5% of the Federal budget to below 1%. The goal of the Space Race (beating the Russians to the moon) was achieved, and the US was unwilling to keep spending money at that rate. So NASA could not afford to keep up a manned lunar program. It pivoted its manned space program to something more affordable: learning how to live in space for long periods, using the ISS and Space Shuttle. Even the Space Shuttle was underfunded, and this meant that the promise of a cheap reusable rocket was not realized, because essential parts of that system were cancelled in favor of cheaper-to-develop, but more expensive to use hardware. Despite the occasional Presidential speech of wanting to go back to the moon, NASA funding remained flat at a level that could not sustain the Shuttle, the ISS plus a manned lunar program at the same time. When the Shuttle program ended in 2010, funds became available for the first time to return to the moon. Then there was some political wrangling about which rocket to use for that. Once that was sorted out. Artemis was started, and we've just seen its first flight.
    1
  81. The density of lunar rock varies between 2300 and 2900 kg/m3. Mascons cause satellite orbit perturbations over a period of months to years
    1
  82. No, that was a journalist misreporting things. The ringing was seen in seismograms, not heard by astronauts.
    1
  83.  @moonatnoon953  False. What supports the manned lunar landings is an absolute mountain of evidence. This includes 8000 photos of exquisite quality, reels of 16 mm film, and hours of live TV. The "no records of how we got men to the moon" is pure nonsense. As I've already told you, those records do exist. Denying their existence is like claiming New York is not real because you've never been there.
    1
  84. Because that's what dry rock does.
    1
  85.  @hudsonumi  Basic physics.
    1
  86.  @hudsonumi  They weren't 'shocked'. At that point, we had one planet on which we'd done geology. The moon was the first chance to do geology on a different body, and the seismology looked different to what they were used to. We were able to determine why that was in short order.
    1
  87.  @hudsonumi  There are several ways a planet can gain moons, which lead to moons of different sizes. A protoplanet collision created our moon.
    1
  88. ​ @hudsonumi  The sample size is tiny (a few dozen), and even in that sample we have planets whose moons are a larger fraction of their host than Earth's moon: Charon is half the diameter of Pluto.
    1
  89. A theory is supported by evidence. A conspiracy theory isn't.
    1
  90. A scientific theory is an idea that has been tested extensively and has been shown to correctly predict the behavior of whatever the theory describes. I.e. an idea doesn't become a theory until it has been proven to work. A conspiracy theory is an accurate name for an idea not based on facts or evidence.
    1