I saw a program on the history or discovery channel (I can't remember which) that mentions how some say that the moon is actually hollow and may be an alien space ship.

I have also heard this from other sources who say that aliens or people from an ancient race are among us, but I never thought that I would see a documentary with that claim.

But there is one question I would like to find a scientific answer to.

Why do we only see one side of the moon? Why does that not change? How does the moon hold that position and not rotate?

The moon is on what is called "Synchronus rotation" which means that it takes as much time to rotate on its axis as it does to make one complete orbit around the earth. So it does rotate but its really slow, about one month! Its hard to detec because at the speed it rotates it always seems to keep one side facing away from the us. this the usual for all moons.

I really need to proof read before I post LOL

It is believed that the moon was once part of earth that blown off by a major meteor strike about 3 1/2-4 billion years ago, they think this because soil samples have the same composition as earth.

Tidal forces act to reduce the rotational speed of orbiting objects. Once the object orbiting the larger object (in this case the Moon) reaches the rotational velocity of one rotation per orbit, the tidal forces are minimized and the two become "locked". At that time the orbiting object will always show the same face to the orbited object.

If you want to know more just look up Orbital Tidal Locking.

Of course the moon is hollow, and made of cheese.

Its called Synchronus Rotation.

What causes them to face each other all the time is called tidal locking, i.e., synchronous rotation is caused by tidal locking.

Correct, that is what causes it. She asked
Why do we only see one side of the moon? Why does that not change? How does the moon hold that position and not rotate? and the reason is called synchronus roatation.

Synchronous rotation is a description of condition, not a cause. Tidal locking is the physical cause of the event.

Your spelling stinks!

There is also the mystery of the two moons of mars. (Some people claim they are missing and that no recent photographs have been taken of them.)

The last transmission from Phobus 2, an unmanned Russian space probe was a photograph of a giant space ship behind Phobus the mysterious little mars moonlet.

"Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into an orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination towards its ultimate goal: to transfer to an orbit that would make it fly almost in tandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecrafts name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface."

"All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, the Martian moonlet. Then, on 28th March, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported that "Phobos 2 had failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterday around the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact."

The last transmission from Phobos 2 was a photograph of a gigantic cylindrical spaceship - a huge, approx, 20km long, 1.5km diameter cigar-shaped 'mother ship', that was photographed on 25 March 1989 hanging or parked next to the Martian moon Phobos by the Soviet unmanned probe Phobos 2. After that last frame was radio-transmitted back to Earth, the probe mysteriously disappeared; according to the Russians it was destroyed - possibly knocked out with an energy pulse beam.

If you photograph one object in a three-dimensional space only once, then you can not determine its size.

If it is close to you, it will be smaller, than if it were farther from you.

To determine its distance from the photocamera, you need two vantage points and do a triangulation to determine the distance.

No triangulation is possible with one vantage point.

So the size is indeterminant, as is the distance from the photocamera.

I suggest that it could have been a speck of dust near the camera's lens, or the middle finger of God ten trillion billion light years away, warning us to behave, or it could have been anything in between.

Or it could have been a mothership.

There was also a shadow of the object taken on the Martian surface.



Other things suggest that the two moons of mars are not natural formations. Markings and unnatural "grooves" on the surface.

"An honest, unbiased appraisal of the Martian moon Phobos shows it to be the work of intelligent action. If Phobos did not circle Mars in its present orbit as proof that it is there, many astrophysicists would not even accept that possibility! Some have flatly said that it is impossible for it to have been a captured asteroid, that natural physics simply could not be contrived to the degree necessary for the capture to happen."

"Phobos was created in or near its current position from leftover debris from the formation of Mars, have a dilemma. While sidestepping the “capture” theory entirely, they cannot offer a viable argument why the two little satellites’ compositions and structures are far different than Mars. In fact, the two moons have the characteristics of D-class asteroids found on the outer edges of the asteroid belt, as far away as possible, out near Jupiter. The simple truth is that Phobos was brought in to be placed in it tight, near-perfect orbit as was its twin, Deimos. In sum, we have not just one incredible occurrence, but two."

Past and up to date details are at this site.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicmars.htm

This is flawed in meaning in two spots: "many" is not all, or else it is all. But your statement does not say which: all or just some, or even the majority.

"Many astrophysicists" could be many many astrophysicists, but at the same time only a little portion of all astrophysicists. So it could meant that 100 astrophysicist would not accept that possibility, while 10,000 would; or that 100,000 astrophysicists would not accept that possibility, while 0 (or not even one) would.

Your quote does not say which way is it true.

The second problem: there are two negatives in your sentence, so if you take out both, the sentence ought to mean the same thing. Let's try:

If Phobos circled Mars in its present orbit as proof that it is there, many astrophysicists would even accept that possibility!

Which is what it is.

But I did an incorrect move, the meaning was changed by taking out both negatives.

------

That said, many astrophysicists could come up with a theory that would explain moons circling a planet at improbably close distances due to natural causes, which you challenged. Such one theory is that an improbable near-Jupiter asteroid candidate moon collided with an other improbable near-Jupiter asteroid candidate moon, and the two have joined in an inelastic collision, producing a single moon, which is on an orbit as it is.

You can expand this explanation by saying it is not necessarily a single inelastic collision between two heavenly bodies, of which, independently from each other, neither would have become a moon of Mars, but more than two, in a series, and in a series over some time period. Perhaps it is still happening, as it is with meteorites.

Please remember that low probability events gain a much higher possible chance to occur, if there are many random events similar to what created it happen.

What I mean is that many-many asteroid-collisions happened around there, and some were swallowed up by Mars's gravity, and some drifted out into space again, away from Mars. Two remained. Not likely, not impossible, but the likelihood increased directly with the number of collisions.

This is an alternative and natural-cause explanation to how Mars's moons were formed, to the explanation that they are alien space ships.

I can't accept that the two objects are the same, and you won't either, after doing this little experiment.

Take a pen. It has the shape as the '' Mothership '' in you second photo. Now hold the pen in the sun, and look at its shadow on the wall. No matter how you hold the pen, it will never have a shape like the shadow.

The shadow is an ellypsis, and the pen is cylindrical; a cylinder will produce, as its projection, shadows of a cyrcle, a cylinder, or an oval, but never an ellypsis.

Therefore you can reject the theory that the shadow is that of the mothership.

I would be more inclinde to say that the shadow is that of a small black hole between the photographed surface and the sun, or else the shadow of a very small galaxy of black matter that is located between the sun and the photographed surface.

Or it could be the vaginal opening for Mars. You never know. We think of Mars as male, but it could be female like Earth (Erda or Gaia) or like Venus.

At least Mars has this photographic evidence that it has a vagina, while researchers are still looking for the same on the surface of Earth.

The some who say that ought to have taken a first-year physics or mechanical engineering course.

It is given whether the moon is hollow or not.

There are three facts to consider:

1. the specific gravity of the moon's material, of which we know nothing, but one evidence exists, that it is made from the same or similar stuff as earth.

2. the weigt (mass) of the moon, which is easily determined by looking at its distance from earth and its orbital speed, and also at looking at earth's mass and orbital speed around the centre of gravity of both moon and earth.

3. the volume (the space occupied) by moon.

Knowing these three facts can easily determine if the moon is of a hugely different specific gravity than it ought to be, which can only happen if the moon is hollow.

If the moon is not hollow, then the specific gravity will yield the expected resutls in the equation that the thee facts would predict.

-----------

I am not saying at all whether the moon is hollow or not. I am not taking sides. All I am saying is that there is this easy way to find out, for those who really want to know.

I am not smart enough to do the math, but any first-year physics student at any university will do it for you for ten bucks an hour. It will take the student five minutes to do this.

It is not quite that simple. The moon is not made of the same material as Earth. The Moon was formed when a Mars sized planet crashed into Earth with a glancing blow enough to remove much of the Earth's crust but leaving most of Earth's core intact. The crust is made of lighter materials like silicone and aluminum while the core is heavier material like iron (mostly) and nickle. This division left the moon composed of lighter materials with a density of 3.346 gm/cm and the Earth with a density of 5.52 g/cm; almost twice. The collision also "stirred up" the liquid mantle and liquid core of the Earth bringing heavy metals to the surface like gold and uranium.

The point here is that the Earth has a solid low density crust, a liquid low density mantle, a liquid high density iron core, and a solid high density iron core making Earth the densest planet in the solar system.

It is possible to measure the size and overall mass of the other objects (and therefore their overall density) in our solar system (and many outside of it) but without specific knowledge of the geology (which may consist of density variations like Earth) a lot of what's inside is just a guess.

It is easy to prove that a hollow interior can not form naturally because the gravity would exceed the allowable shear resistance of the material of which the moon or planet is comprised, but a fully cooled moon or planetoids could be mined into a hollow ball with a really thick shell if the properties of the crustal material were well known, uniform, and subjected to a high degree of mining technology.

Strange how when a Russian (or old soviet) space probe suffers a setback...

It is allways blamed on ET.

no it is made of green cheese

everybody knws that already

I'm not a scientist and I don't know about all that mumbo jumbo but I do suspect there are aliens and motherships out there.

The fact remains that the two moons of mars have gone missing. Very strange. Also, the spaceship phobus2 was there one minute and gone the next.

Face it, we are being watched.

That is right. A description of the condition is not a cause. It is my understanding that the moon is what causes the tides, not the other way around.

It just looks too contrived to be a natural thing.