Talk:Hollow Moon

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: It's an incorrect theory.  That's what makes it a myth. Charles (Kznf) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Weren't there later measurements that corrected this? And where is the source for the inaccurate measurements? (And before I forget, I have Other reasons for not wanting this page deleted.) Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.  A theory is something which explains current observations and predicts future ones.  This does neither.   Delete this nonsense, or clearly label it for the conspiracy theory it is. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that we should delete this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with everything you said, and I further propose that the exact reasoning you have provided entitles us to edit the Scientology page to relflect its status as a myth and direct product of science fiction.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to 4/10/07 version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: debunked?

message: I find it extremely "unscientific" that the author did not write how this theory came into being in the first place. Had s/he done so, it would be much more difficult to be be dismissive about it - as anyone researching it on their own would soon find out.
But is it the role of an encyclopaedia to indirectly promote independent research by obfuscating the whole truth?
I think not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.110.174 (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unscientifically biased 

message: Claiming as representative of scientific thought claims made by conspiracy theory websites (http://www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html) is not acceptable.  I have removed the section in question. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Sourcing. 

message: http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/moon.html
Not the best source. But this idea has been around for a while. Why do physicists like it but astronomers hate it? No use in looking those sorts of opinions up... no one wants to go on record. At any rate, we have the "Con" side in this article, now someone needs to write the "Pro" side. Gingermint (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: False dichotomy, man - there is no "pro" side, not with any actual facts behind it. That's why "no one wants to go on record" - there's no record to go on. Just as they don't want to go on the record supporting the existence of fairies or a flat earth. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Support 

message: Maybe there should be a bright red highlighted bar that announces that this article and articles like this are only barely notable as public opinion and lack reputable citation; and are only separated from fiction storytelling by the presentation of being real.  though, maybe any article deserving of my suggested template should be the pathway to a speedy deletion template as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:773:900:957E:F097:BBD1:D21A (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  should there be a new template for things like this 

message: We currently have a Spaceship Moon Theory article that has 4 short paras introducing/describing it and then a Criticisms section that's effectively duplicated here (in greater detail).  Anyone think of a reason why the Spaceship Moon article shouldn't be merged?  I'm quite surprised it's not been discussed before. Bromley86 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple more days and then I'll merge, if no one objects.  Bromley86 (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'll likely add in this Jason Colavito source that was supplied over on WP:RSN.  Bromley86 (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Currently we have the statement: Hollow Moon adherents can be broadly grouped in two major camps, neither of which is considered by the scientific community to be supported by evidence: The Moon's formation process produced a hollow sphere through natural means. Details vary widely; the proposed mechanism is usually an undefined or pseudoscientific factor in accretion-disk dynamics.
Anyone got a published, if not-necessarily scientific, source for the accretion disk point?  Everything I've read on hollow moon has taken the tack that it's a spaceship/station, or that it's nice and solid.  Bromley86 (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accretion disk source? 

message: The issue that the article was published in was apparently the July 1970 one, but I've not founds a reliable source for that.  So the article just mentions 1970, but I'm mentioning it here in case it's useful down the line.  Bromley86 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This section also contains not accurate information. The article in Sputnik is a reprint of an earlier article published in Soviet newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" on the January, 10th, 1968. The authors are Mikhail Khvastunov (pen name Mikhail Vasiliev and Rem Shcherbakov. Neither of them has any affiliation with the USSR Academy of Sciences in any way whatsoever. They were both just science journalists of "Komsomolskaya Pravda". SilversmithUA (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sceptical author Jason Colavito points out that all of their evidence is circumstantial, and that, in the 1960s, the atheistic Soviet Union promoted the ancient astronaut concept in an attempt to undermine the West's faith in religion"Who is Jason Colavito and what kind of article is this and what is the connection between religions and the concepts of ancient astronauts, which was not supported in the USSR for the most part and was only the opinion of individual scientists and publicists Цйфыву (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasin-Shcherbakov 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollow Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221063318/http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/60_03_Wieczorek_etal.pdf to http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/60_03_Wieczorek_etal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The claims of the Russian scientists that the moon is hollow or partly hollow rely heavily on the fact that the moon's smaller craters and its larger craters ARE NEARLY EQUAL IN DEPTH, which defies the physics of a natural, solid planetary body. Larger meteors should create larger AND DEEPER impact craters, as can be seen on Mars and on the Earth as well.  There was never any claim that the larger meteors that created the larger craters were breaking through the crust and hitting something underneath; the claim was that the small and large craters being approximately equal in depth COULD BE EXPLAINED BY A LIMITED CRUST THICKNESS OF ABOUT 20 MILES, SURROUNDING A HOLLOW INNER CORE. The statement that "there is no scientific evidence" of a hollow moon is patently incorrect, since the NASA collected seismic readings are themselves evidence of the possibility of a partially hollow body.  The writer mentions that Apollo 12 directed the lunar lander to crash on the moon's surface in order to obtain the seismic response, but no mention is made of the fact that the following mission, Apollo 14, directed the even larger rocket booster to crash on the moon in order to obtain further readings, at the request of Werner Von Braun.  The seismic readings of that crash experiment resulted in even more extensive ringing, for a period of about 3 hours.  There is no good explanation for the moon's seismic readings, given the current understanding of a solid moon constructed mainly of basalt, which material readily absorbs impact and therefore does not easily transmit shock waves (that result in ringing).  The editor will notice that the current article is misleading in the ways that I've outlined here, misstates a number of facts, and implies there is no reason to question the nature of the Earth's moon, either for NASA or for the many astrophysicists who are doing just that.  The facts about the matter should at least be stated without prejudice. 12.33.29.132 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is an edit request rather than just opening of a discussion, please point to realible sources and word your request on the form "please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020 

message: in "in literature" in the david weber entry, please change Empire from the Ashes (2003) to Mutineers'_Moon (1991) because it was published first under this title; the later book is just a re-issue. the article for Mutineers' Moon is better too.
: Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 

message: * Need  sharper contrast between "Spaceship Moon" (fringe nonsense) and Giant-impact hypothesis.    
* Need sharper contract between Pre-modern hollow bodies speculation (once hard sci-fi) vs mid-20th century fringe.  
* Summarize Hollow Earth?   No
* Section on the pre-apollo non-fringe debates about moon composition?     
* Hollow Phobos hypothesis  add better link, but otherwise okay
* The Sentinel (1948) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in fiction section 
* debunk solar/lunar angular diameter coincidence if merited by RS 
* 1961 instance of Hollow Moon Conspiracy Theory    There's something here, but how to get at it?    Maybe discuss the earlier "Dark Side" conspiracy theories.  July 4, 1947 instance of Dark Side CT -- Flying Saucers come from Dark Side 
* 1965, theoretical calculation yields 'absurd' conclusion that moon might be hollow, rejected    Explicitly refuted    
* 1965, Asimov article "What Can We Expect of The Moon?", later cited by CTs   skippable
* 1965 Asimov Heavenly Zoo later quoted by CTs without caveats. Of Time And Space 4. The Heavenly Zoo, cited by Don Wilson in  1970s 
* 1968 -  "Hollow Moon Paradox" resolved -- theoretical error discovered throwing off lunar Moment of Inertial calculations since 1959.  
* 1968 - Mass concentrations discovered ??  maybe we skip this.   
* 1969 - Apollo 12 lander intentionally crashed yields longer duration quakes than predicted,  headlines debunk claims this suggests hollowness.   
* 1997 - Jim Marrs Alien Agenda -- Perfect Solar Eclipse 
* Lunar Prospector DGE 
* 1999 - RS on perfect solar?  
* anthropic & perfect solar - who?  
* Prometheus also has same ratio  
*  Clarke or Sagan or similar on perfect solar? IT was Asimov 
* Prose section on CT evolution
Feoffer (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Great list. I don't think we need to summarize hollow Earth, though - a quick mention of it is enough, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor suggestion: I think you can trim the Asimov quote - it takes up a ton of screen. I'd kill the third graf, at the very least. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: To do/Notes to Self

message: Internal structure
"Multiple lines of evidence disprove that the Moon is hollow.[38}"
The footnote cited does not support this statement. 
Please find better evidence, 
or remove this unsubstantiated opinion.
Thank you. 
footnote 38
"About the Ask an Astronomer Team". Ask an Astronomer. Cornell University. 14 November 2011. Archived from the original on 4 February 2015. 64.231.165.99 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Ref added. Feoffer (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 

message: Footnote 1 link is broken. 
Here is the correct link:
https://armaghplanet.com/is-the-moon-hollow.html
64.231.165.99 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Feoffer (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2) 

message: Is there any specific reason why there is no wikilink to the Hollow Earth article other than at the very bottom in the categories template? If there isn’t, should we add one? Maybe not to the first two mentions of “a hollow Earth,” which essentially means “an Earth that is hollow,” but at least to the third use of the phrase, specifically mentioning the Hollow Earth theory itself.
I think that I’ve read this entire talk page, and I only see a few mentions regarding the theory of Hollow Earth, such as the need to describe the theory in greater detail and the decision that no such summary is necessary,  yet I see no mention of needing a wikilink, nor any mention of why such a wl has been omitted. As per MOS:BTW I believe that this would help future readers who are not knowledgeable of this theory, and who might be interested in learning more about at least one of the similar fringe theories that, while seemingly ludicrous to most, are still believed to be true by a portion of society. 
I think it would seem likely that they would be interested in doing so, if for no other reason than the fact that they are here reading about a Hollow Moon in the first place. I know that I would have if I had not already read that article a while ago. 
Sykoskit (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a wikilink to the Hollow Earth article? 

message: There are no suggestions that there is a world-wide plot by thousands of scientists over decades to deliberately mislead the public. In accord with the dictionary definition and common use of the term conspiracy theory, the article should replace the phrase in all instances with something more accurate (e.g., disproven theory or disproven hypothesis). Calling the hollow moon theory a conspiracy undermines the veracity of the article (not every disproven theory or hypothesis is a conspiracy). Finally, the fact that some do not believe the evidence does not make them think the scientists are engaging in a conspiracy- they just continue to assert that the scientists are wrong despite the best evidence is to the contrary. 72.81.222.57 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't describe Hollow Moon as a CT, it's an obsolete scientific theories that has been incorporated into CTs of Marrs and Icke.  Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a “conspiracy” 

message: — Assignment last updated by Hapalex (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

message: In this paragraph under "Introduction" the word "a" should be removed.
Orignal:
Both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth are now considered to be a fringe theories or conspiracy theories.
Edited:
Both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth are now considered to be fringe theories or conspiracy theories.
AND
This last bullet point of the "Origin of The Moon" heading in the "Scientific Perspective" section should be reworded for clarity.
Original:
The Moon is depleted in volatile elements compared to Earth. Vaporizing at comparably lower temperatures, they could be lost in a high-energy event, with the Moon's smaller gravity unable to recapture them while Earth did.
Edit:
The Moon is depleted in volatile elements compared to Earth. Volatile elements vaporize at relatively low temperatures, and could be lost in a high-energy event. The Earth's gravitational pull would have been powerful enough to recapture these elements, but the Moon's smaller gravity would have been too weak to do so.
There is also no citation for the above, so I couldn't check to see if those terms are even right lol.
Thanks! TheWhitewasher (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestions!  Feoffer (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023