If you wanted to prove the moon was hollow, how would you do it?
109888
>>>>If you wanted to prove the moon was hollow,\n>>>> how would you do it?\n\nYou could do it in two obvious ways. \n\nThe first would be to go up there with some seismic equipment and measure the shockwaves of asteroid impacts  tell you the density of the core.\n\nThe second and simpler way would be to assume uniform density  and see whether the predicted gravitational pull was equal to the observed effects. If the moon were hollow the tidal effects on Erath and the orbital velocity of spacecraft would be much smaller thanpredicted. \n\n>>>>By the way, a NASA scientist has proven it to me\n\nProven what? That the moon is hollow? If so then he is either making fun of you or he is lying to you about being a NASA scientist. The experiements I described above have both been done. They prove the moon is NOT hollow.\n\nFollow the link below for more information.\n\n\n>>>>And while you are at it, the moon rotates on\n>>>>> its axis, doesn't it?\n\nYes, and if you search Yahoo answers you will see that this question come sup regularly and is answered correctly every time.. eventually.\n\n>>>>>> Were you taught that at school? \n\nYes. As was everyone I know. Many failed to understand it or remember it of course, but that isn't the same thing.
543648
Oh no, you've figured out my hoax!!! You busted me, you're right, its not round. Sorry, I get silly sometimes. If you are at a position when the moon passes directly perpendicular to you relative to the sun's position then you will see a perfect half lit moon. you can simulate this with a big right triangle by taking a golf ball or some other ball and placing it at the  90 degree corner and placing a flashlight at one of the other corners pointing directly at the ball. Now line up your sight from the third corner and you should see a perfect half lit ball. :)
1147866
It's not a fair question. Say I was to tell you that I have a 'purple horned snorkstack' in my backyard.\nWould you believe me? No, of course not, only the terminally stupid would believe such an outlandish thing without proof.\nSame thing here.\nWe do not and will not believe in a magic sky-pixie until we have proof. Or at least some sort of credible evidence.\nIt is up to YOU to provide the proof. Not the other way around.\nThat is elementary logic.
273995
thats a deep question today.\n\nTicker tape to the moon is a clue ;) to a  wide part of it
1029928
Several people have written books trying to disprove our landing on the moon.  I have not actually researched this, but for one thing, supposedly there is no dust on the moon like the ton of dust our astraunats walked through that day.  The photos have been disputed as made up and I believe our corupt government is capable of pulling this off.....)(
581773
land parcels on the moon
608588
Yes, the moon landings were real. Some people still maintain that the Earth is flat - no one takes them seriously; no one should take the 'moon landing is a hoax' seriously either.\n\nFirst, we have material evidence: rocks from the moon, photographs taken from there, the word of thousands and thousands of people who worked on the project, etc. Even more damning, the astronauts left a prism mirror on the moon that anyone with a medium laser can target to see the laser reflected! And do you really think the Russians wouldn't have raised a stink if any of their, oh, dozen thousands physicists had found something dodgy? Or do you think they all failed to know about something like 'heat and air on the moon'?\n\nThen we have so much stuff in space now, like thousands of satellites, probes on Mars, and even outside the solar system, what is so unlikely about landing on the moon, which is incredibly close to us, astronomically speaking? It's only 3 days away!\n\nAll the arguments from conspiracy theorists have been easily rebuked; the three sites at the end give a good rundown. The most commons were:\n\n- There is a flag waving! there is no air on the moon! Hoax!\nHum. The flag is not moving, notice? It *looks* like it's in the middle of a wave, because it was built like that! The NASA, incredibly enough, figured out that there was no wind on the moon, and that a limp flag would be a tad disappointing, so simply attached the flag to perpendicular poles in that position. Try it in your garden, it will take 5 minutes.\n\n- The photos are too good! That's not possible!\nNo, they took hundreds of pictures, and you only see the good ones, just like any amateur photographer will tell you. \n\n- The footprint doesn't look at all like the one you leave in sand!\nThat's because the moon is not covered in sand... Sand is created by erosive forces grinding up rock, like the sea or plate tectonics. The moon has no erosive force, since it's dry and not volcanic. The dust there is rocks vaporised by meteoric impacts, which looks a lot like flour. Put a heap of flour on the ground and watch your footprint: very similar, no?\n\nSo, no, the government is not involved in *this* coverup :-)
982830
Its very simple,\nFirst take a torch for representing the sun and place it on a stand(or just hold it) horizontally.Then bring a globe and adjust the torch such that the light of it falls on the globe.Next, take a small ball(a tennis or smaller than that) for moon, a white one and suspend it in air by a thread(which you can either hold or attach it to something).Place the ball(moon) between the torch and the globe to display solar eclipse or place it behind the globe to display lunar eclipse and EUREKA! its done\n\ntips-\nthis experiment works best in darkness
801400
i guess...but the moon has to be off good size..and the "miimoons" has to be really small...smaller than the moon...
360378
Well... Let's see...\n\nWe know nothing is there, and we brought back 842 pounds of Moon rocks. Ain't that enough?\n\nBesides, why should we do it, if no other country is doing it?
1175686
This can be solved in several different ways.  One of course is by calculus, by developing a formula for the surface area of a "slice" of the remainder of the sphere and integrating it about a rotated axis, or something similar.  Another is by digging for the rather obscure formula for the "volume of the endcaps of a sphere" and subtracting two of those and the volume of a cylinder from the volume of the original sphere (and discovering that many of the terms will cancel out nicely).\n\nThe easiest method, however, is via the use of simple logic.  Unfortunately, this method also requires one more "given" in order for it to be valid, though this given is not an unreasonable one:  There must be a single, real answer (or more specifically, a unique answer on the real number line).  Such an assumption would be folly in a practical (real-world) context, since without some form of proof, one should never immediately assume that this is the case.  Perhaps there are multiple answers, or there is no answer at all?  But as luck would have it, there actually is one answer, and it may be derived logically due to its unique existence.  (*thumbs nose at any philosophers who may be reading*)\n\nSolution:\n\nLet R be the radius of the cylinder drilled into the sphere.  If and only if there is a single, real answer, then that answer would still be the same no matter the value of R... even if R=0.  Thus, the answer is the volume of a sphere of radius 3 (diameter 6), or 36*pi cubic units.\n\n(Yes, the volume is always the same, whether the original sphere were the size of a basketball, or the size of a planet.)\n\nIt's a surprising answer, along the lines of the more familiar puzzle: "If the Earth were a perfect sphere and a band were placed snugly about its equator, and then one more meter were added to the length of the band and it were stretched so that all points along it were equidistant from the surface of the Earth, how far above the Earth would the band rise?"  Many are surprised to find that the size of the Earth plays absolutely no part in the equation, and that the "rise" is exactly the same if the sphere were basketball-sized or, umm... Earth-sized (with a circumference greater than 40,000,000 meters).  It rises exactly the radius of a circle with a 1-meter circumference: 1 / (2*pi) meters.
643921
Sean is right but it was manufactured that way as a perfect observation post from the aliens inside it observing us.\n\nthe moon is an artificial satellite and is hollow.
870034
lmao...yea it's true..but if for some strange reason you do..just wait till the next full moon..you get a chicken foot, a frogs tongue and some witch hazel, put on a burlap bag,stand under the full moon naked by an old oak tree and spin around 3 times. I also have some land i could sell you, call me! lol
1139401
Due to atmospheric interference, it would not be possible to see any mad made object left on the moon from a telescope on the surface of Earth.\nHowever, there is a very powerful, Earth orbiting, telescope which is free from atmospheric distortions…the Hubble space telescope.  However, even this telescope, as powerful as it is, could not possibly see the flag left on the moon.\n\nUsing a little math and common sense, it would not nearly be possible to see the flag on the moon with the Hubble space telescope.\n\nFirst, let’s get some basic facts straight.\nThe Diameter of the Hubble telescope is 2.4 meters and the distance from the Earth to the moon (on average) is about 3.84 E8 meters.\n\nPretty much the only thing limiting what Hubble can and cannot resolve is diffraction through a circular aperture (i.e. how light waves interact with each other when they get to Hubble's mirror.\nThe minimum angle which a circular aperture can resolve is given by the formula,\nTheta_min = 1.22 Lambda / D\nwhere Theta min is the minimum angle, Lambda is the wavelength of light we are using, and D is the diameter of the opening.\n\nIf we assume we are using light at 500 nm (roughly the middle of the visible spectrum) and we know that Hubble's diameter is 2.4 meters, we can find the minimum angle to be,\nTheta_min = 2.54 E-7 radians.\nThis is quite a small angle by Earthly standards, but will it compare to the angle to the flag on the moon?...we'll see.\n\nHere is where I have to make an assumption, but it is a very reasonable assumption and one that will assure us that out answer is correct. Watching the moon landing videos, one can see that the astronauts placed a moderately sized flag on a pole on the moon. Although I don’t know the exact dimensions of the flag, I can assure you, it was definitely no bigger than 10 ft. But for the sake of argument and to make the numbers easier, let’s assume it was 10 feet (~3 meters).\nIf the distance between the flag and Hubble is the same (about) as the distance from the Earth to the moon, then we can calculate the angle between the top of the flag and the bottom of the flag pole as seen by Hubble orbiting Earth. The angle comes out to be about, 7.81 E-9 radians, about 30 times SMALLER than the absolute minimum angle Hubble can resolve...and this is if we assume that the flag is 10 ft, which it obviously is smaller than that in reality.\n\nPlus, Hubble was specifically designed to look at VERY distant object. Although the moon is far away, it might as well be right next to us compared to the stars/galaxies/.. Hubble is supposed to be looking at. Therefore, I don’t know exactly how it will respond looking at such a close and bright object.\n\nOne this is sure through, you could not see the flag, even with one of the best telescopes ever built operating perfectly under ideal conditions using visible light.
1040803
Explain how a 600 yard wide rock could cause the 2,160 mile wide Moon to wobble, without touching it? It'd be like throwing a golf ball at a bus and expecting it to tip it over....\n\nIt doesn't matter what the moon does as far as wobbling and spinning, it's gravity isnt affected (unless it breaks up) and therefore the end result means zip to us. We may just get to see the far side!
1105641
Your question has been answered.  In fact, even the largest telescopes do not have the resolving capacity to see a flag on the moon.  \n\nWhy would you think it was faked?
104019
Oh good grief,  no, of course not. \n\nOf all the crazy consipracy theories out there this one is the silliest. The so-called "evidence" is incredibly, transparently wrong.\n\nAnd no one ever can answer the question that, if the landings were fake, why didn't the Soviets call up out? They have the radar capable of detecting space craft in and leaving Earth orbit, and the equipment to detect the laser ranging devices left on the moon. \n\nSo, why would they cooperate in a hoax that made them look bad. Makes no sense.