Talk:Hollow moon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Moon WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Moon-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale. | |
|
Comments:
|
||
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
Contents |
[edit] POV
I find this article to be very biased and needing a major overhaul. - Century0 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hollow Moon actually ISN'T a debunked theory, and this article is full of bias. Refer to the following link to show that more observations via NASA and other astronomers show that it's more likely that the Moon *is* indeed Hollow:
http://www.geocities.com/area51/hollow/8827/moonfacts.html
129.21.144.217 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll stick to the sources already in the articles from Cornell U. and Science Magazine, rather than a list of "facts" (and I emphasize the quotation marks) from geocities. Charles (Kznf) 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I think that we should delete this article
I am going to wait a few weeks to see if someone cleans up this article, but if this doesn't happen, I'm going to put it up for deletion. If the seismic data is the only evidence that was used to support this theory, then it is just a piece of bad science that was never published. If there is literature of crackpots that subscribe to this theory, then that would be interesting. Lunokhod 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I second the idea of Deletion. AfD? --Scorpios 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Turns out there IS a published book about this so called "theory" (Link) (amazon link).Zainker 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- When searching for an authoritative debunking of this theory, I came across many, many sites that supported this. More so than were debunking it... I do believe it should be renamed to Hollow Moon myth Charles (Kznf) 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I disagree on deleting the article. While I think the theory is silly, I think it's definately notable enough to deserve an article. I think sources pro and con are probably fairly easy to find. I'll make an effort to do so, though help would be appreciated. I've already done some reworking of tghe article to make it more encyclopaedic. --Lendorien 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its a theory, not a myth. 202.12.95.12 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's an incorrect theory. That's what makes it a myth. Charles (Kznf) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Correct or not, it is still a theory. If I remember it correctly, early inaccurate measurements suggested that the Moon is hollow.SuperElephant 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's an incorrect theory. That's what makes it a myth. Charles (Kznf) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert to 4/10/07 version
I just did a massive revert to this version. WP:UNDUE was clearly being violated by implying that there is legitimate, substantive debate on the issue among the scientific community. There is not. The fact that the moon is not hollow is not a matter of debate. This is an article about the myth of the Hollow moon. The origins of the myth, the myth in sci-fi, etc. I appreciate Lendorien's attempt to clean up the havoc caused by 203.54.28.161 but I believe that the article as it existed before his changes did a far better job of not violating WP:UNDUE. Charles (Kznf) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] debunked?
who ever said the hollow moon theory was debunked? the theory was NOT proved or disproved.
- This is why this article is cited. See the references from Science Magazine and Cornell University. Charles (Kznf) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Those references are quite poor. The first one says that the Moon is too heavy to be hollow. That is wrong. We can say that the Moon is not hollow by measuring its Moment of inertia. The second one is completely useless, because the fact that seismic waves can't get through the Moon's interior is the main reason why all those unexplainedmysteriesdotcom sites write about the hollow Moon.SuperElephant 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you know more about the history and science than I do. I'd love to see better sources. Charles (Kznf) 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Those references are quite poor. The first one says that the Moon is too heavy to be hollow. That is wrong. We can say that the Moon is not hollow by measuring its Moment of inertia. The second one is completely useless, because the fact that seismic waves can't get through the Moon's interior is the main reason why all those unexplainedmysteriesdotcom sites write about the hollow Moon.SuperElephant 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
