How credible is the artificial Moon hypothesis?
The Moon artificiality theory has been around for quite some time, would you believe, and it’s been proposed not by some whacked-out enthusiasts, but by some scientists. As you can imagine, these theories didn’t do much good to their reputations! In fact, today, if you even voice the remotest possibility that the Moon “might” have anything to do with artificiality, you’ll be branded a heretic and excluded from educated company.
So why even consider such an outlandish theory? Isn’t the matter settled? The cosmic dust coagulating into gaseous blobs, solidifying into planets, smaller blobs coagulating into natural satellites, and so on. Doesn’t the conventional model sufficiently explain the Moon?
Interestingly, it doesn’t QUITE explain it! (Ooh, I know that any scientist reading this will spit at this point and close his browser). Still, there are at least three major theories about the origin of the Moon, and each one has serious problems. Weirdly – the one theory which explains the most questions about it is also the most unacceptable and “controversial”, i.e. the “artificial Moon theory”.
In a nutshell, here is a brief summary of what these theories are. (1) The Moon was “blasted out of the Earth” by a giant asteroid or comet. (2) The Moon was an external body (from another, possibly exploded, solar system) and launched towards the Earth where it was captured by our grativational pull. (3) The Moon was engineered and placed here by some highly advanced interstellar civilization aeons ago…!
So why have all these theories and why are they supposedly unsatisfactory?
- The first theory has four MAJOR problems. (A) The ratio of the Moon’s size in proportion to the Earth is the largest in our Solar system. So large in fact, so as to be considered anomalous and inexplicable. (B) The Moon’s orbit around the Earth is nearly perfectly circular (which is totally inconsistent with an object “captured” by gravity where the orbit is always elliptical), while the Moon’s size and rotation are, additionally, so mathematically perfectly synchronized with the Earth, that this being a chance occurrence has astronomical odds against it. (C) The age of the lunar rocks has been established to be greater than the currently-accepted age of the Earth (4.7-5.0 Bn years for the Moon, vs 4.5Bn for the Earth). Finally, (D), anomalous magnetic properties, apparent hollowness of the Moon, characteristics of its motion and the mathematically near-perfect correlations between the two bodies also undermine this theory.
- The second theory has many of the same problems as the first. It explains why the Moon is older than the Earth, but the major problem here is that it can’t possibly explain its near-perfectly circular orbit. Not without some outlandish math wizardry anyway
- The third theory (also known as the Vasin-Scherbakov theory after the two Soviet scientists who proposed it) explains it ALL – except that it doesn’t fit into our current scientific paradigm and is thus simply considered “too far out” to merit serious study. It is therefore universally dismissed as pseudo-science and even as deliberate disinformation.
I’ll tell you up-front that I personally DO NOT subscribe to the artificial Moon hypothesis, but I can also tell you that the jury IS still out, no matter what you may have heard about it! The current “updated” theories on Lunar origins (all essentially variants on the first two theories cited above), are, in my view, incomplete to the point of really stretching the maths and physics involved. While I believe that they’re probably right, nevertheless their proofs so far don’t convince me sufficiently. So my answer is: YES, it COULD be artificial, but NO, I don’t believe it is!
- Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon, by Dan Wilson
- Out Occulted History, by Jim Marrs