Do We Really Need the Moon?

Do We Really Need the Moon?The Moon is such a familiar presence in the sky that most of us take it for granted.

But what if it wasn't where it is now? How would that affect life on Earth? Space scientist and lunar fanatic Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock explores our intimate relationship with the Moon.

Besides orchestrating the tides, the moon dictates the length of a day, the rhythm of the seasons and the very stability of our planet.

Yet the Moon is always on the move. In the past it was closer to Earth and in the future it'll be farther away. That it is now perfectly placed to sustain life is pure luck, a cosmic coincidence.

Using computer graphics to summon up great tides and set the Earth spinning on its side, Maggie Aderin-Pocock implores us to look at the Moon afresh: to see it not as an inert rock, but as a key player in the story of our planet, past, present and future.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 58 minutes)

324
7.73
12345678910
Ratings: 7.73/10 from 22 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • kamanchililyeagle

    I like how the title is phrased like someones actually considering take it down..

  • ivan

    +1 for new layout

  • laurence

    Interesting doc that I feel just scratches the surface... neither the mainstream global warming advocates nor the (mainly pro-solar-cycle) sceptics are figuring in... that this huge body of rock that literally moves our oceans and determines the length of our day may be having some effect on our climate...

  • chris

    just wanted to say great site i visit everyday more than any other site and feel iv learnt alot on here
    thnx for yr hard work

  • biplab

    If the moon disappears how will we do the dishes?

  • Achems Razor

    Good basic doc.

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Four and a half billion years ago the Earth had no moon? She knows this, how, please?

    The moon was a chunk broken of the Earth? She knows this also, how, please?

    These are unproven theories only. I'm so tired of unproven theories, based on nothing, being promoted as facts! Grrrr!

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Two members of the Soviet Academy of Sciences have recently come up with the theory that the moon is a huge, hollowed-out planetoid that was sent into orbit around our world billions of years ago. They believe that the moon was hollowed out artificially, which means that it was done by some intelligence.

    Another Russian scientist, who has studied the moons of Mars, thinks that they, too, are hollow, and that they might be space stations. It seems that the Soviets came to this startling conclusion because the dark part of the moons, which we can't see from earth, is filled with oceans of metallic rock. This hard metal is corrosion-resistant titanium, and we use it in the manufacture of supersonic jets and spacecraft here on earth.

    Several American studies tend to agree with the Russian theory that the moon is hollow and that it became so by active interference on the part of some unknown aliens. Unusual activity has been noted on the moon for at least 100 years. NASA admitted recently that a mysterious force on the moon had caused a remote-controlled scientific station set up by astronauts to behave in an unexpected manner.

    When NASA crashed the lunar landing craft after the astronauts had returned to their modules, the moon rang like a gong for hours. The speed of the tremors changed after passing through the outer layers of rock, and began to accelerate until it reached six miles per second -- which is the speed of sound traveling through metal.

    Seems to me the "Hollow" theory is just as valid as the documentary's theory.

    Keeping an open mind here, 'til I know for sure.

  • Achems Razor

    Hollow Moon?? what next! unbelievable! everybody knows that the Moon is made of green cheese! Com'on, get with the program.

    Rings like a bell refers to seismic activities, the Earth rings like a bell also, but not as much as the Moon, the moon has no water, more solid, but wait! I forgot, the Earth is supposed to be hollow also! The only thing that is hollow is the peoples heads! no brains!

  • HHV

    OK, I've looked up the website that intbel clipped this from, and the basis for these statements is in no way factual.

    Just so someone can say they did the homework of looking at it.

  • k

    good doc, however the woman narration really grates on me. think it is her emphasis on words and pausing, all seem slightly over done. but that is me just nit picking, however didnt really learn anything new and alot of information is fairly basic.

  • blackstuff

    green cheese ???

  • Alison

    The narrator over enunciates and talks with her hands too much. It's annoying.

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    @ HHV - The evidence you claim doesn't exist for a hollow moon is as valid as the evidence which doesn't exist for the claims made in the documentary.

    Like I said, I keep an open mind until I know for sure.

    How can you not do likewise as nothing is proven either way?

    Indeed, there may even be other options not yet considered.

  • laurence

    If it isn't merely uproven speculation that the moon affects water and climate here on earth then our governments and climate scientists should be figuring it into their 'climate change' equations. Whether its hollow or came from the earth or not, its big, and its heavy, and (apparently) its moving away...

  • Henry A.

    All planets and moons are not perfectly round. That's a fact of nature; EXCEPT our moon which is perfectly round. That can only mean it was artificially made. Think about it!

  • John D

    Most doc with a female narrator I dont really dig.. but I liked listening to this chick.. good doc, like the gravity animation for the earth/Moon. Makes gravity look scary as hell XD

  • Richie

    @Intbel classic stuff, mate. first you say: "I’m so tired of unproven theories, based on nothing, being promoted as facts! Grrrr!"

    then you go on to talk about some clap trap involving aliens towing a hollow planetoid into our orbit...

    For F*cks sake... pass that sh*t to the left hand side, it seems like good stuff! :D

  • Eric T

    I'm with HHV on this one. Hollow moon is in no way "as valid." There is mounting evidence that "The Big Splat" fits the data the best. Yes, it could be wrong since there is no direct evidence... The oldest known rocks on earth were formed half a billion years later. But, considering our large iron core; the moon's small iron core; the size of the moon and earth; the makeup of the moon and the earth; and the notable absence of asteroids in our Lagrange points it does make it seem the most likely. The theory certainly is up for debate, and there are problems, but Hollow moon is not up for debate. There is no scientific evidence for a hollow moon. This isn't about "keeping an open mind" this is about not succumbing to pseudo-scientific thinking.

  • Achems Razor

    @Henry A:

    Our Moon is far from being perfectly round! (gravity) As a matter of fact there is nothing in nature that is perfectly round.

    In the whole universe-at least in this one" there is no such thing as a perfect round circle even, drawn or otherwise.

  • C

    Haha, the ego of man! I just read the title, very funny

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    @Richie.
    Well, it's true I'm tired of documentaries talking of theories as if they are facts.

    And yes it's true I posted a theory about hollow moon, aliens etcetera.

    The documentary's theories and the Hollow Moon theories are the theories of others and I support neither.

    All I'm saying is, that as we dunno the truth of these matters, best keep an open mind - one theory being equally valid or invalid as the other.

    So-called "Official" versions are not to be trusted because "officials" just want us to believe what we are told and not ask questions.

    On the other hand, there are imaginative minds who can dream up the most irrational scenarios and support them with quasi-logic. But then, so do our governments.

    Rule of thumb: Question everything, never consider believing anything until it is officially denied, keep an open mind and think for one's self.

    Personally, I prefer the hollow moon theory just 'cos it's more of a fun theory than others.

    Support or believe it though? Nah ... I dunno how the moon got there any more than anyone else because like everyone else, all I have is theories. I even have a theory of my own ...

  • Arnold Vinette

    Hollow Moon Theory: I don't think that everyone should jump on Intbel and the hollow moon theory. A very easy way to prove this is by the mass of the moon and its effects on the Earth. The effects of the moon's gravity that Earth's tides and at the same time are causing the moon to slowly move away from the Earth.

    With regards to was the moon once a part of the Earth? The answer to this from scientific sources is yes. This information has been obtained from rock samples brought back from the moon and large impact theories to explain the location of the moon in its current orbit.

    Under normal planet forming circumstances all of this material would have become the Earth. But it did not. Several collision scenarios were tested until planetary scientists finally found a glancing solution of a planetoid the size of mars that hit the Earth 4 billion years ago or something like that. Some of the resultant debris from the impact formed outside of the area that would have caused it to fall back into the Earth. Instead this debris coalesced into the moon we know today, although much closer to the Earth.

    The moon itself is too large to be captured by gravity in close pass by situation based on mathematics.

    Back to the Hollow Moon Theory. Why would aliens go through all the trouble?

    That said I have just come back from the movie theater and it seems like Apollo 11 had discovered life on the moon. Transformers! You may not believe me, but its true. I have seen them with my own eyes!

    So if the Transformers have a base on the moon, in all practicality they could have easily hollowed it out at the same time. So Intbel has a point. The moon could be hollow based on the Russian article and it could be a Transformer's secret base to spy on humanity.

    We are just going to have to wait for the new Transformers movie to find out what is really going on, up on the moon. What did the film crew really discovered while they were up on the moon filming? Is the moon really hollow? Is there a secret base? All of these questions will be answered very soon to everyone’s satisfaction.

    With regards to this program on the moon I thought it was really good! Thank heavens for BBC and Top documentary Films. This is by far my most favorite web site!

    Arnold Vinette
    Ottawa, Canada

  • Arnold Vinette

    And to support Intbel even farther in the Hollow Moon theory.

    Ever since the beginning of time scientists have been ridiculed for new ideas that go against common convention wisdom.

    Examples:

    Plate tectonic theory was ridiculed for years. Entire continents that move? You have got to be kidding me!

    Evolution. That man descended from apes was heresy!

    The bad lands in Washington caused by glacier lakes breaking sending torrents of water free and forming land formations in minutes instead of millions of years. This was theory was laughed at for years.

    That the Earth was not made by God in seven days. Officially for the longest time the Earth was calculated to be around 6,000 years old. Then slowly the clock backed up to 4.5 to 4.8 billion years old.

    The sun's energy was the result of burning coal. That is all the people knew. Today we think the sun's energy is nuclear based but even this is not certain. Plasma energy is now thought to be the source of the sun's energy and that there is a connection between space energy and sun energy.

    Galaxies spin at a uniform rate from center to outer rim. Impossible based on our knowledge of physics and mass. Yet these are the observations.

    The standard model of the universe has said it is held together by gravity. This is now being proved wrong. The electro-magnetic universe is now becoming more accepted as the norm.

    The universe is expanding because of the observed red shift. The red shift theory is wrong. In nearby galaxies different red shifts are being observed that do not make sense. So there seems to be a problem with the expanding universe.

    The big bang and black holes are also running into problems. What was once thought of as being concrete is now not certain after all.

    And it goes on and on back to the beginning of humanity.

    Nothing is ever for sure until proven mathematically and by observed evidence.

    And now these days the Hologram Universe is being discussed.

    So why not a Hollow Moon until it is proven not to be the case. Simple mathematical calculations should be able to prove or disprove this theory. But always keep an open mind. Because this is the only way science can move forward.

    More often than not, what experts thought to be impossible is actually very real.

    Arnold Vinette
    Ottawa, Canada

  • Razlo5000

    Interesting doc, even with the blatant PC feminist influence rearing its head. They have obviously sought out every woman to represent these scientific fields. Its no cosmic coincidence.

  • Scott

    @Intbel

    Should we just believe in nothing then?

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Scott asked: "Should we just believe in nothing then?"

    Not for me to say what folks should or shouldn't do, can only speak for my good self.

    I avoid believing anything as far as possible.
    I either know something or I don't.
    I'm comfortable (though not satisfied)in my ignorance. I don't need beliefs for comfort.

    It's okay not to know and in accepting that, who needs beliefs?

    When science (or one's life) is based upon beliefs rather than knowledge, then what of science? (Or one's life?)

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Hey, Arnold - I'm not necessarily supporting the hollow moon theory, just pointing out that it as valid as the documentary's theory.

    Also, as you suggested, the theory of Earth being hit a glancing blow by a Mars-sized object was arrived at by seeking a theory to fit a preconceived idea.

    I have a third theory: Who benefits from having the moon there? Follow the money!

    Those who benefit are poets and the writers of romantic love songs and the producers of tear-jerker films which always have a moonlit sky. Obviously, then, God, which is Love put it there >evil grin<

  • Rick

    Although proven otherwise, I still think that a full moon has a distinct effect on people. When working in a customer service environment, I could always tell when it was a full moon. Good documentary on an unusual subject.

  • Eric

    @Henry A.
    Nothing is perfect in this universe.

    Good doc, but nothing new.

  • FredsThirdLeg

    Thanks for watching the doc everyone, I apologise that I have to split the video but hopefully Youtube will one day lift the upload time limit from my account. (If I get enough views and such, and if I’m very lucky.) It’s worth the time and effort getting this documentary up there when I know people enjoy the content.

  • Waldo

    The moon being hollow is not a valid theory at all. We know the mass of the moon = 7.36 × 1022 kilograms, this was calculated from the gravitational pull it exerts on the Earth. For the moon to be hollow yet still have this mass would mean the shell would have to be made of something much more dense than the naturally occurring materials that make up Earth. Yet we know the moon is made of the same material we have here on Earth. In fact the material on the moon was found to have the exact same mineral ratio that Earth materials have. We know the moon has basalt rocks that appear to have come from fairly deep in the moon's mantle, judging from the pressures and heat it would take to form such a rock. Of course there is no organic material on the moon, but other than that it has the same minerals in the same ratios as Earth.

    We also know that if you run the physics of the theorized collision we find the moon should be the size it currently is, it should rotate just as it currently does, and so should Earth. There is much more evidence to support the theories put forth in this documentary than there is to say the moon was hollowed out by aliens.

    Science is not about beliefe or cold hard facts, science makes it a point to say all things are left open to question. That said we have to use mathematical reasoning, scientific method, and common sense to make good theories. If a theory is made of these things and stands up to peer review for a long amount of time, we accept it and use that model to help come up with and prove the next theory, it is a progressive study. Meaning at some point we have to accept what we have as the truth of the matter for now, or we would never get any further. You can't do algebra if you are still questioning the validity of addition and subtraction.

    People are free to believe what they will, or disbelieve what they will, and I respect that right. But the philosophy and methods of science deserve more respect. We live in the most progressive and technologically advanced world ever for a longer amount of time per person than ever before. The proof that science works is all around us. People seem to equate science with the government or the establishment, this is not an accurate perception at all. There are all kinds of scientists in the world, from every political, ethinic, religious, or national section of the population. They get used by politicians or companies sometimes, but so does every profession out there. You can't blame science for that, science is a method not the guy practicing the method. Science is about the journey of discovery not the discovery itself nor the person making the discovery. Science may change its mind about an outcome or theory, but never does it change the way it gets there, the scientific method.

  • Cabaret

    @Waldo - very well-written and eloquently put! I'd say something myself, but I would just sound like an idiot coming after that post! That some good, solid, passionate writing, man!

    And you're right - science-deniers tend to equate science to government/corporations in some kind of silly Illuminati conspiracy that involves everybody but them, i.e. the chosen few science-deniers with their "insider" knowledge of how the world REALLY works. I never got that. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I've got a great amount of respect for science's rigorous process and... IT WORKS.

    @everybody else posting on the thread - Ha ha ha! I can't believe a theory about a "hollow moon" used as an alien base is actually being discussed. That's not science, first of all. Not all theories are equal - they're not both "equally" valid. That's just silliness. And whoever brought up Occam's Razor is entirely correct. It amazes me that a good chunk of the world's population would rather live blissfully ignorant in the Neolithic Age with chariots pulling suns and a flat earth (but have no problems "believing" that their microwaves work) than in a world where science has come to be the most coherent means we have of explaining how the universe works.

  • Eupackardia

    @ Intbel
    Several mechanisms have been proposed for the Moon's formation 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago,[nb 5] some 30–50 million years after the origin of the Solar System.[11] These include the fission of the Moon from the Earth's crust through centrifugal forces,[12] which would require too great an initial spin of the Earth,[13] the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon,[14] which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of the Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon,[13] and the co-formation of the Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk, which does not explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon.[13] These hypotheses also cannot account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.[15]

    The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hit the nearly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around the proto-Earth, which accreted to form the Moon.[16] Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth.[17] However, meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions,[18] although this is debated.[19]

    The large amount of energy released in the giant impact event and the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[20][21] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean; estimates for its depth range from about 500 km to the entire radius of the Moon.[20]

    Wikipedia.

    Look on your own through the internet to find out yourself :P

    Isn't it Great internet exists haha

  • Eupackardia

    @ Cabaret

    I second everything you said haha.

    They should put a : like / dislike system on the comments.

  • http://2dmovies.posterous.com Rip Current

    I love how everyone always gets all link/lecture happy.

    All Im saying is of course we need the moon! No moon = no waves to surf!

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Folks are missing something ...

    "Everyone knows" the moon governs our tides?
    Everyone knows this, how, please? Just 'cos everyone has been told this is so?

    It could be the moon has little, if any, effect on our tides.
    The sun, f'rinstance, is far, far bigger than the moon and maybe is responsible?

    Maybe, removing the moon would make no difference whatsoever.

  • Achems Razor

    @Intbel:

    "The Sun is bigger"? does not matter, every school kid should know, "as the distance increases-the gravitational force decreases" The force is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance between the bodies.

  • Doug

    The video was very good. The moon is very important for life on our planet. Some say it is required for life which is what this video basically says.

    I find it humorous when astronomers claim they have found a planet that might contain life. Considering all of the requirements to have life such as a moon, magnetic field, stable solar system, no passing exploding stars that would sterilize the planet, must be a single star instead of binary system, etc. IMO the odds are that there is less than 10 other planets with life in our entire universe and that we will probably never encounter another sentient life.

    I do take issue with one thing said in this documentary. The experiment at the beach did not produce RNA. If it did, that scientist would have gotten a Nobel Prize and it would have made world wide news. That experiment that he performed created amino acids and simple protiens, but not RNA.

  • Waldo

    @ Intbel

    Are you for real, thats about the most pathetically uneducated babble I have ever heard on this site. We know the moon effects the tides because we know how to calculate the effects of its gravity on the ocean, and can see a direct correlation with its position and the coresponding high tides on earth. Science took into account all of the varaibles, and came out with the conclusion that is the most supported by mathematics, physical observation, and repeatable experimentation.

    This is the beauty of science, if you doubt the outcome you can learn the math and make your own observations -do your own experiments- and come up with the right answer. Science tells us over and over NOT to accept something just because we are told so, and invites us enthusiastically to find out for ourselves. When you take a science class they don't sit and spew out answers or conclusions for you to memorize, they explain the scientific method and all the different measuring devices available and how they work so you can come up with your own conclusions.

    Every scientist's dream is to prove some widely accepted theory wrong, and by so doing revolutionize some field of study. This desire to be the one that got it right is what fuels our beliefe in the accepted theories. We know they are under constant scrutiny, and are being tested by way of repeatable experiments every day. We also know that the experiments that yeilded the theory to be correct are published so they can be reapeated by anyone that questions the outcomes. So if they stand the test of time they are most likely the right answer.

    This process is crucial to moving forward with any kind of overall picture or grand united theory of everything. Science is like math, everything you learn is firmly rooted in what you already knew. So if we never accept the validity of any theory, we can not move forward. So we installed this system of peer revue so as to make sure we are building on the most solid knwoledge possible. If you have a better more efficient system more likely to lead us to truth, please share it with us all.

  • http://www.intbel.com Intbel

    Waldo, correlation does not = cause.

    That anyone would use the argument that it does is not being at all reasonable.

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Oh, and peer review?

    It is peer review which has retarded the advance of knowledge and understanding.

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    Hmmm ... wordpress is being too PC.

    It is peer review which has slowed the advance of knowledge and understanding.

  • Nathan

    Arnold Vinette,

    I agree but you seem to be answering your own questions. The math does prove it. And the mass of the moon has been calculated and a hollow moon would not physically be possible on many counts. But then again defending that the moon is NOT hallow in the 21 century is kinda like defending the earth is flat. Whoever stated it was hallow was obviously trolling.

    Define hollow... huge empty core? Wouldn't account for the mass. Objects follow very strict laws regarding mass and gravity. Pockets in the moon? That's a different concept all together. it's a stupid assumption. Most basic research and calculations would prove a hollow moon is just plain dumb.

  • Nathan

    @kamanchililyeagle

    The title it pretty basic journalistic technique... It's not implying they wish to remove it... rather it is a debate on whether or not the moon plays any significance (as to not state one position over the other; since this whole show is basically based on theory's).

  • Waldo

    . @ Intbel

    Nice try, but I never said correlation did equal cause. I said that all of the experiments, mathematical data, computer models, plus correlation is how they came up with the theory. Now you are just trying to play gottcha, grow up man. Until you have some valid data or other evidence to suggest the accepted theory is wrong, your hypothesis is based on faith- and nothing more. Does that sound familiar? How someone can sit and talk with me over the Internet and then turn around and say science doesn't work or has it all wrong, is beyond me. Wake up man; look around you- science works. The theories and conclusions that make your cell phone, microwave, computer, GPS systems, thousands of satellites, the techniques used to save lives and give people mobility and freedom through prosthetics, the very Internet that makes this conversation possible- was all made possible through the creative application of hundreds of different scientific fields of study. They used the same techniques and standards as the guys that came up with the theory you are currently belittling. Its fine to disagree with the theory, that’s what science is all about, but you shouldn't criticize or ridicule science in general.

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    @ Waldo ...

    Again, I'm not supporting ANY theory.
    In truth, we don't know.
    Until we do know, any theory with a grain of logic is up for debate.

    My only objection is folks dismissing any theory out of hand without examination.

    Sure there's a lotta sound science.
    There is also invalid science.

    Al Gore's global warming nonsense, for example, is not sound science yet we are supposed to believe it. Not only that, we are expected to pay tax on the back of it.

    Ditto the official story re 9/11. On the back of that one, many thousands killed and maimed.

    I'll not criticise science in general. I do criticise the peer review system which rejects new ideas either on the basis of them being outside current scientific understanding or accepts them because of political pressure.

    While many advances are still being made, it is mainstream science, heavily influenced by political and corporate interests which is inhibiting progress in some areas and this is why I'll not blindly accept what the scientific community tells me.

  • Waldo

    @ Intbel

    Thats not how peer review works, for the most part. Sure their are some bad apples that work for certain publications- but for the vast majority of the time only ideas that lack enough evidence through experiment and observation are rejected. As far as global warming not being ture, you need to wake up man. I am not interested in debationg Al Gores program, I agree that he takes advantage of the problem for self glorification and to make money. But that doesn't mean there is no proof of global warming, there is tons of hard evidence that says it is true. The evidence that places it in question is taken out of context by deniers, and made to look as if it seriously challenges the prevailing theory that global warming is real, and man made.

    I have even heard deniers say, "Well it has been unusually cold lately so global warming is an obviouse lie." Thats the most simple minded ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The climate is a very complicated thing, the phrase global warming doesn't mean it will get noticeably hotter every where. It means the climate will start to do unusuall things, caused by variables set in motion by the raise of global average temps- like the ice caps melting and shutting down the oceanic currents that bring heat up the atlantic sea board from the equator. It means the ocean levels will rise due to melting ice caps, hurricanes will get stronger and more frequent.

    Surely you do not deny that the ice caps are melting, and that adding that much fresh water to the ocean will raise sea levels. Surely you are not denying that the temperature of the atlantic ocean is higher than we have ever seen it, causing phyto plankton to die off at an astronomical rate and hurricanes to be more severe. The data that proves all of this is not kept in some vault nor is it something beyond the reach of the common everyday person. Saying it is real but not man made changes nothing. We cant sit back and watch the world fall to pieces saying, "I didn't do it so I am not cleaning it up!" We know the earth is warming, we know what the result will be, we know that the gases we produce contribute to the problem even if they are not the soul cause (which they are in my opinion)- so we must find better ways to fuel our energy needs- period.

    Ahh, forget it. wasting time with someone like you is just that- wasting time. Luckily a huge poulation of the world has the ability to think past the end of there own nose or the limit of their tax tolerance. Besides you were not rejecting contraversial nor abstract theories. You were denying the most simple standard knowledge, and asserting in its place a bunch of made up b.s. that has not one shred of data or one observation to back it up. And if you criticize peer review you criticize science in general, as it is the most integral part of the field. Otherwise we would have global warming deniers and ancient alien hypothesis getting the same respect and validation as Einstiens relativity. I give up, this is why I say scientific illiteracy and practicle effective education is what we need more than anything in this country. People like you should not be allowed to vote!!

  • http://www.intbel.net Intbel

    @ Waldo ...

    I do not understand how my being allowed to vote or not has anything to do with this?

    Still, as you raise the issue, I don't vote, much preferring peaceful anarchy to violent government. All governments have ever done is lead folks into debt, poverty and war so why anyone would vote for a government is beyond my understanding.

  • tomregit

    I'm betting that Intbel is just "taking the piss" out of everyone. He's too imaginative and well spoken to be that stupid! So.....Intbel for being the first to recognise it do I win a prize?

  • http://www.intbel.com Intbel

    @ Tomregit ...

    Heh heh. You have to ask me nicely.

  • tomregit

    @Waldo
    I've read many of your well thought out and intelligent posts on this site, to the point that I feel that I am getting to know you in some small way. I share your love of science and the scientific method and feel that it is the only way forward for humanity. Reading between the lines I am assuming you are an American. This fact makes me feel more empathic toward you as scientific literacy declines in your country where it once led the world. Keep fighting the good fight; education is the key. I am from Canada. To paraphrase a former prime minister, being so close to you is like being in bed with an elephant. Every small twitch and movement sends shock waves through us. Thankfully our society is not yet as polarized as yours with religious zealots and their pride in ignorance rippling through society. My fear is that we're right behind you!

    A decline in science leads to a crippling of its offspring, technology, followed by a smaller presence on the world stage. Although it's been hard to swallow the American swaggering through the Bush Doctrine years and the seeming powerlessness of the new regime to really change anything, there are other much darker societies ready to take center stage. Achems razor, this is directed to you too.

    @Vlatco I visit and enjoy daily, thank you! If my post is too far off topic here, like so many threads seem to go, I'll understand if it's deleted. I wanted to communicate with people I feel are kindred spirits. (An odd turn of phrase coming from an atheist.)

  • tomregit

    @Intbel OK, OK fess up! I'm beggin you man! I'm on my knees. (No smart assed comments like "Oh, while you're down there)

  • Waldo

    @ tomregit

    Thanks man, I wish more people were I lived felt the way you do. I live in the Southestern US, which has always been the least scientifically literate area of the US, but now its really getting bad. The average person down here thinks Obama is a secret muslim and that global warming is an issue made up by the left. They defend there position on global warming by saying that god controls the earth and man can never have any significant effect on it, can you imagine that? I mean look around, man has effected the earth in uncountable negative ways. The truth is that the republican far right has denied global warming because cutting carbon emissions cuts into their profits, threatens to put in place more regulation, and spurrs the desire to get off of fossil fuels- which is something they can not abide as they are in bed with the big oil producers and so forth. They want complete freedom to make as much money as they can no matter what it does to the environment or how many people they kill or make sick. They have jammed up the current administration through filibuster after filibuster to block any useful or positive legistlation.

    Even if they had not of blocked everything, we are in a tight spot here. The US currency and economy depends on oil trading and production, as well as the use of fossil fuels and petroleum by products to keep almost every industry we have going. We produce carbon emmisions to grow our food, for manufaturing, to make electricity, for almost every meaningful thing we do. The trade of oil in US dollars has made our currency what it is today, it holds together the delicate house of cards that is the global power structure. I am not blind to these factors, and I do not expect us to just stop using fossil fuels over night. All I ask is that we start taking this issue seriousely by being aggressive in our efforts to exclude fossil fuels.

    This would have such a positive effect on the US's safety and stability that I can not imagine why everyone would not desire it to take place, even if they don't see the 2000 pound gorrilla in the living room called global warming. Right now the if the US wants to remain a global power we should be positioning ourself to lead the globe in alternative renewable green energy and replacements for petroleum derivitives. Instead we are positioning ourselves to capture all remaining oil and natural gas around the globe, even if we have to kill innocent people to do so. The powers that be are using religion to set the American people against these oil and natural gas producing nations by demonizing Islam and saying they have a plan for global dominance.

    So how do we stop this, through scientific literacy and education. If more people here in the US understood the science behind these issues they would also realize the danger in continued use of fossil fuels. If more people here were educated to understand economics and political procedure then more people would see the lies and deciet taking place. More people would undersatand that the current system, fractional reserve banking and control by the privately owned fed, makes us all slaves to debt and traps us into a system were our legal entity is owned by the government. And above all, not only would education open peoples eyes to these things it would impower them to make positive changes.

  • jack1952

    @ Intbel

    Your posts have shown me a new way of understanding the scientific process. I picture a group of men in lab coats standing around a table scratching their heads and staring at their latest creation. One of them speaks out in awe "I wonder what it is?". To which another replies "Well, lets plug it in and see". After watching the thing in operation for a while one of the men exclaims "I believe its a toaster! Someone get some bread!" After successfully making a slice of toast they congratulate each other on their brilliance and dream of how they will now spend the millions that this invention will bring them. Its the American dream.

  • http://www.intbel.com Intbel

    @ Tomregit ...

    Prizes, rewards? Nah. I am able to offer you a small gift if you are willing to receive it.

    Not something of little value, either. Not something which will end up in the dumpster in a few weeks or years.

    Y'see ... many folks spend lotsa cash on training courses and seminars and DVDs, and CDs and tapes all to no avail.

    They are all wanting to live a life which is happy, of peace and of love.

    I offer an answer as a free gift. No religion or anything like that, no 'spiritual' doctrines of any kind,just plain common sense born of experience.

    Free. No catches. No follow ups. No obligations. Accept or reject - I don't mind either way.

    Of course, respecting your privacy, I'll not ask for your e-mail or anything like that, so I'll just post it here, if you accept.

    Of course, everyone else will also read it and that's okay. What I get for free I'mm happy to share for free.

    Oh ... btw, begging is not asking nicely ;-)

  • http://www.intbel.com Intbel

    jack1952 - I'm pleased to have been of some usefulness.

    However, it never happened quite like that:

    The scenario yiu describe was in China and one of the scientists said "I do believe it is a Jack in the box" and they manufactured billions of 'em and exported 'em worldwide to unsuspecting children thus realising the American Dream of the manufacturing companies which were American anyway, they having moved to China to take advantage of low labour costs in order to maximise profits.

    When the mrket was saturated and they could sell no more of these toys, the US government suddenly announced these things were harmful to children and banned their import.

    The manufacturing company, with a minimum of re-tooling (for packaging and labeling) later sold them as er ... toasters.

    So what you have to day is, a product made by US companies based in China, being used to make toast out of bread made with genetically mutated wheat which harms the children.

    So the end result is the same anyways.

  • Other Ryan

    I don't if it's a planet and a planet, or a planet and a moon, but we're in a specific relativity to two bodies that inspired Grecian/Roman mythology as guardians, which it is now discovered that they are actually guardians, by force of gravity directing much of the cosmic debris away from Earth.

  • jack1952

    @ Intbel

    Ha ha ha! If it pops out put some jam on it and call it toast.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Kukowski/100001515201862 Matt Kukowski

    BRILLIANT! (no I am not English... just wanted to say that) :))) :P :-)

  • Guest

    Pink Floyd said it best: I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

  • Matias Monteagudo

    Cool docu, but I don't agree about the transmission of energy via microwaves, the earth will surely suffer if you bombard it with constant energy.

  • ylprajan

    At first change your title. Do you really have any control on and over its existence and always remember that science tells the cause but you do not know the cause of cause.every existence has its role to play and better to know the limits. got it.

  • lenox4821

    The Moon Matrix Base that watches over waterland earth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003733853983 Ian Webster

    We should go back to the moon and build structures on the surface. We can learn more about the solar system by pushing further out into space.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4AIVBQFKP4H72TCJJDCMFSO7QA JustinE

    i'm not gonna say i can believe one way or the other, as i haven't looked into it that thoroughly yet, but you've oversimplified that theory and made it seem unduly crude.

    if the moon allows for movement of tides, and was necessary in ANY way in the development of life on this planet, then it can be easily deduced that a civilization could have built many moons and put them into orbit around many planets so that if they were to need a new planet that sustains life in their future, they've made sure there's some regional options. it's also a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that (if the moon was actually hollow) we are on an experimental planet, just as we could learn a LOT about evolution and the development of complex organisms on other planets.

    the weight is not carried by the simple thesis of a theory, it's carried by the data. so if you were going to usefully apply occam's razor, you'd have to actually present some.

  • funkybrain

    they never went 2 da moon my freinds... and thats why until today no one has try it (no country no us no china no japan no one has plans 2 do so...big fake like 9/11 wake up sheeples

  • gnice3d

    If you cannot grasp 5th grade language, how do you expect people to respect your views on astrophysics?

  • gnice3d

    What could we learn from the surface of the moon that we could not learn from modern telescopes placed just outside our atmosphere or satellites send to orbits of other planets? Pluto will tell us more about the formation of planets in our solar system than the moon ever could.

    There's just so much risk involved when trying to land something on the surface of another planet.