Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 26, 2008 19:36:45 GMT -4
If you subscribe to the Earth/moon impact theory... If you subscribe to the giant impactor theory, you pretty much have to agree that moon landings were real. For without the moon landings there wouldn't be any evidence for the giant impactor theory.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 27, 2008 4:49:19 GMT -4
If you subscribe to the Earth/moon impact theory, it would be safe to assume that deep inside the earth is a part of the moon. A cavern with all the moon rocks you would ever want. Don't you read a thing in this thread apart from what you write? Your theory already failed because: a) The hole would have to be about 300 times deeper than any previously dug. b) The cavern would be so deep that you'd have to deal with molten rock. c) The cavern wouldn't be a vacuum. d) The cavern would be HOT. Now, to this silliness you add the idea that the rocks would show characteristics of: e) no exposure to air; f) no exposure to water; and g) exposure to solar radiation. Even though these are impossible at the bottom of a cavern 4000 kilometres inside the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Jun 27, 2008 7:57:56 GMT -4
So, in summary:
Constructing an enormous cavern in the Earth's Outer Core, simulated to look like the Moon's surface, despite the fact that the outer core is composed of molten iron, and faking a Moon landing there, is somehow easier than just going to the Moon for real.
Right.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 27, 2008 8:28:30 GMT -4
Apparently so. I guess even inconceivable could not get his/her head around the more logical and practical 200m2 zeppelin in 1/6g free-fall idea. Would have also made line-of-site tv microwave alot easier, but hey.
|
|