It’s Official: Scientists Confirmed What’s Inside The Moon
Well, the verdict is in. The Moon is not made of green cheese after all.
A thorough investigation published in May 2023 found that the inner core of the Moon is, in fact, a solid ball with a density similar to that of iron.
This, researchers hope, will help settle a long debate about whether the Moon’s inner heart is solid or molten, and lead to a more accurate understanding of the Moon’s history – and, by extension, that of the Solar System.
“Our results,” wrote a team led by astronomer Arthur Briaud of the French National Centre for Scientific Research in France, “question the evolution of the Moon magnetic field thanks to its demonstration of the existence of the inner core and support a global mantle overturn scenario that brings substantial insights on the timeline of the lunar bombardment in the first billion years of the Solar System.”
Probing the interior composition of objects in the Solar System is most effectively accomplished through seismic data. The way acoustic waves generated by quakes move through and reflect from material inside a planet or moon can help scientists create a detailed map of the object’s interior.
We happen to have lunar seismic data collected by the Apollo mission, but its resolution is too low to accurately determine the inner core’s state.
We know there is a fluid outer core, but what it encompasses remains under debate. Models of a solid inner core and an entirely fluid core work equally well with the Apollo data.
To figure it out once and for all, Briaud and his colleagues collected data from space missions and lunar laser-ranging experiments to compile a profile of various lunar characteristics. These include the degree of its deformation by its gravitational interaction with Earth, the variation in its distance from Earth, and its density.
Next, they conducted modeling with various core types to find which matched most closely with the observational data.
They made several interesting findings. Firstly, the models that most closely resembled what we know about the Moon describe active overturn deep inside the lunar mantle.
This means that denser material inside the Moon falls towards the center, and less dense material rises upwards. This activity has long been proposed as a way of explaining the presence of certain elements in volcanic regions of the Moon. The team’s research adds another point in the “for” tally of evidence.
And they found that the lunar core is very similar to that of Earth – with an outer fluid layer and a solid inner core. According to their modeling, the outer core has a radius of about 362 kilometers (225 miles), and the inner core has a radius of about 258 kilometers (160 miles). That’s about 15 percent of the entire radius of the Moon.
The inner core, the team found, also has a density of about 7,822 kilograms per cubic meter. That’s very close to the density of iron.
Curiously, in 2011 a team led by NASA Marshall planetary scientist Renee Weber found a similar result using what were then state-of-the-art seismological techniques on Apollo data to study the lunar core. They found evidence of a solid inner core with a radius of about 240 kilometers, and a density of about 8,000 kilograms per cubic meter.
Their results, Briaud and his team say, are confirmation of those earlier findings, and constitute a pretty strong case for an Earth-like lunar core. And this has some interesting implications for the Moon’s evolution.
We know that not long after it formed, the Moon had a powerful magnetic field, which started to decline about 3.2 billion years ago. Such a magnetic field is generated by motion and convection in the core, so what the lunar core is made of is deeply relevant to how and why the magnetic field disappeared.
Given humanity’s hope to return to the Moon in relatively short order, perhaps we won’t have long to wait for seismic verification of these findings.
The research has been published in Nature.
See more here Science Alert
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
“Next, they conducted modeling with various core types to find which matched most closely with the observational data.”
Modelling and best match? Sounds like extrapolation rather than the final say…
Reply
Joe
| #
The moon is hollow. Time to wake up to the lies that have been told to us by the Khazarian Mafia. The Zionists. The people comitting genocide!!!!!!
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Come on Joe, you need to supply the evidence to support your bizarre claim.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Sunset you probably weren’t alive when NASA jettisoned the moon lander. And when it crash landed the bell ringing sound resonated in NASA’ s headphones for hours.
Subsequently they repeated the experiment with the same results.
Still think it was bizarre? Do your research.
Reply
aaron
| #
History Channel could you get any more mainstream?
trusting in their narrative?
why?
they are serial liars
Reply
Howdy
| #
If you take notice, the people being interviewed never state the moon is hollow, it is the history channel narrator that states that is the possibility.
Indeed, the PH.D chap says the surprise at the result is because of the way the earth vibrates, and that’s what we’re used to.
As I’ve stated several times, don’t assume Earth’s rules are representative of the whole universe – It ‘s called thinking in a closed box.
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
To young Aaron who thinks he knows all.
I actually witnessed the NASA transmission in real time. That was back in the good old days when things were not censured–only after the fact.
Although I recognized that the History Channel alters the facts, this is not one of those times.
aaron
| #
I call bs
The moon is plasma as are the so called planets
The sun is close and local
NASA is a sham
gravity is only density re-named
I do however feel sorry for all those unfortunate souls that live at the bottom of a ball earth with curved water, spinning and flying thru space who are destined to be upside down for life
There, see how silly that sounds
Reply
Howdy
| #
Aaron, If gravity is density, then does that mean footwear made with a low density polyethylene sole will have less ‘pull’ than footwear with a sole made of high density polyethylene? Obviously there is a difference due to the differing density.
Reply
aaron
| #
So what you are saying is that gravity is strong enough to hold the oceans in place but gravity can not hold down a butterfly?
How does that work?
Reply
aaron
| #
Hi Howdy
Maybe these will help explain
Dielectric Acceleration is Magnetic Attraction.Density, Buoyancy, Electricity, Magnetic. Not gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf70XQx86cU
Reply
Howdy
| #
“How does that work”
The butterfly provides enough lift to overcome the forces pulling it down, obviously. If it stops providing lift, it falls. Simple.
How does one breathe while lay on their back? Because the diaphragm can overcome gravity to allow expansion of the lungs, even while it makes much more force to raise the person themself.
A balloon explains the lack of gravity? Magnetic levitation?
Buoyancy – show a ship is levitated on water, it doesn’t actually float because it displaces the fluid it sits in? Really?
Polyethylene is a dielectric, so how does it affect the pull if it’s density is different?
Herb Rose
| #
Strange that they are using sound waves traveling through rock to determine the composition of the moon and yet believe that its density is only .6 that of the Earth’s density, even though it is the Earth that has a large amount of water.
Reply
JFK
| #
If scientists can’t figure out what a woman is, or if mRNA jabs are safe, or if glyphosate should be banned or not, or what causes the cancer epidemic, or how to cure cancer, or how to prevent pollution, or how to prevent the mass-extinction of species, or if “evolution” could create all living things, what are the chances they can figure out what is in the core of a planet at this great distance with such minimal data?
Also, to be frank, who cares?
We still don’t know what exists at the core of our own planet.
And all things point to the fact that our ecosystem runs out of time.
And it is definitely not because of some “global warming”…
Reply
aaron
| #
Exactly JFK, their narratives usually defy logic, esp regarding his story
Reply
aaron
| #
Hey carbon bigfoot
What do you have against questioning what the education system, media and gov. say?
oh and could ya be a bit more condescending in your replies?
Thanks
Reply