<p>The gap between your question and physical reality is probably too broad to bridge. You need to provide us with a peer-reviewed (meaning published in a peer reviewed journal) theory. Unless you can, we can't really take this any further. Some of the problems with your question are: I don't know what you mean by "hollow"; your use of "evidence", "proven" and "true" shows you misunderstand the scientific method, and you invoke myths (ancient astronauts) as if such nonsense should be addressed scientifically!
 The mass of the Moon is known (to within a reasonable degree of accuracy). There have been a number of sets of seismometers placed on the Moon, and any model you (or your "experts") provide must be consistent with the data from those. The Moon is a large enough body so that over geological time frames, it has assumed an approximately spherical shape; any model which included a vacuum or gas filled interior would need to describe the materials of the shell which would <em>not</em> flow under the force of gravity and which were strong enough to resist the collapse of such a structure. In addition to gravity, centripetal forces, thermal forces, and impacts from asteroids/comets would also have to be resisted. The currently accepted model which best fits the evidence is that the Moon's core is an iron-rich solid surrounded by liquid/molten material. In Science, it is not the responsibility of the "status quo" to disprove any (hare-brained nonsense or otherwise) idea, it is the responsibility of the author of the proposal to show how it either explains some facts better or explains more facts than what is now "accepted". In general, we don't find it productive to hypothesize that the data is the result of some unnatural process. This can be a problem, especially when the data has been faked or manipulated; but that has been the rare exception. And since the physical world is self-consistent, erroneous data is, if important enough, usually identified as such. In other words, as LaPlace wrote:"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." or as Carl Sagan paraphrased: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What is it you are claiming and what evidence are you using to support it?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-12T17:50:58.150Z
2016-09-12T19:59:15.927Z
2016-09-12T19:59:15.927Z
Li Zhi
<p>I've heard on various programs (yes TV) with "supposed" experts in various fields that there is evidence which would suggest that the moon could be hollow. The experts ranged from scientists, sound/audio analysts experts, to most importantly the . . . <em>ancient astronaut theorists</em>! </p>

<p><strong>Question</strong></p>

<p>My question is to know if this has already been proven to no way be true, or how easily this could be debunked (or proven) and optionally a brief theory of what this could mean scientifically either way to prove or disprove, etc. for what this actually is . . . . . a story or could it be true.  </p>

<p><strong>The story</strong> seemed to also suggest Earth, the size of its moon, and the
   position of the moon to the Sun from Earth is extraordinary rare and
   some unknown technology could have done this so precisely. </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/SsKv8.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/SsKv8.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-12T15:56:37.197Z
1) Referring to which programs you heard this on and what the exact claims were would make this more useful. 2) The rarity of the Earth-Moon system is really a different question, and something that we're barely able to gather data on. We simply don't know how common it is.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-12T17:31:48.413Z
Your "question" is way too broad, what specifically do you want to know?
El Bromista
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-12T20:01:50.917Z
NASA's [GRAIL mission](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/main/index.html) has mapped the Moon's gravitational field with very high precision and accuracy. It might be theoretically possible to map the GRAIL data with a "hollow Moon" model, but I wouldn't want to try it. In any case, it would require materials with very high density, since both the mass and the size of the Moon are well known and tightly constrained.
Keith Thompson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-13T16:04:00.017Z
See our sister-site Skeptics: [Is the moon hollow?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/31333/8755)
RedGrittyBrick
<earth><the-moon>
The Hollow Moon Story
GambleNerd
# The Hollow Moon Story

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-12)

I've heard on various programs (yes TV) with "supposed" experts in various fields that there is evidence which would suggest that the moon could be hollow. The experts ranged from scientists, sound/audio analysts experts, to most importantly the . . . *ancient astronaut theorists*!

**Question**

My question is to know if this has already been proven to no way be true, or how easily this could be debunked (or proven) and optionally a brief theory of what this could mean scientifically either way to prove or disprove, etc. for what this actually is . . . . . a story or could it be true.

**The story** seemed to also suggest Earth, the size of its moon, and the
position of the moon to the Sun from Earth is extraordinary rare and
some unknown technology could have done this so precisely.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/SsKv8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/SsKv8.png)

**Tags:** earth, the-moon
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 1) Referring to which programs you heard this on and what the exact claims were would make this more useful. 2) The rarity of the Earth-Moon system is really a different question, and something that we're barely able to gather data on. We simply don't know how common it is.  
> **username_2**: Your "question" is way too broad, what specifically do you want to know?  
> **username_3**: NASA's [GRAIL mission](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/main/index.html) has mapped the Moon's gravitational field with very high precision and accuracy. It might be theoretically possible to map the GRAIL data with a "hollow Moon" model, but I wouldn't want to try it. In any case, it would require materials with very high density, since both the mass and the size of the Moon are well known and tightly constrained.  
> **username_4**: See our sister-site Skeptics: [Is the moon hollow?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/31333/8755)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-09-12. Score: 4

The gap between your question and physical reality is probably too broad to bridge. You need to provide us with a peer-reviewed (meaning published in a peer reviewed journal) theory. Unless you can, we can't really take this any further. Some of the problems with your question are: I don't know what you mean by "hollow"; your use of "evidence", "proven" and "true" shows you misunderstand the scientific method, and you invoke myths (ancient astronauts) as if such nonsense should be addressed scientifically!
The mass of the Moon is known (to within a reasonable degree of accuracy). There have been a number of sets of seismometers placed on the Moon, and any model you (or your "experts") provide must be consistent with the data from those. The Moon is a large enough body so that over geological time frames, it has assumed an approximately spherical shape; any model which included a vacuum or gas filled interior would need to describe the materials of the shell which would *not* flow under the force of gravity and which were strong enough to resist the collapse of such a structure. In addition to gravity, centripetal forces, thermal forces, and impacts from asteroids/comets would also have to be resisted. The currently accepted model which best fits the evidence is that the Moon's core is an iron-rich solid surrounded by liquid/molten material. In Science, it is not the responsibility of the "status quo" to disprove any (hare-brained nonsense or otherwise) idea, it is the responsibility of the author of the proposal to show how it either explains some facts better or explains more facts than what is now "accepted". In general, we don't find it productive to hypothesize that the data is the result of some unnatural process. This can be a problem, especially when the data has been faked or manipulated; but that has been the rare exception. And since the physical world is self-consistent, erroneous data is, if important enough, usually identified as such. In other words, as LaPlace wrote:"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." or as Carl Sagan paraphrased: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What is it you are claiming and what evidence are you using to support it?


---

