Earthquake safe shelf

I have a place on my wall where I would like to hang a shelf and put a bunch of wine bottles and a picture or two. But I want it to be safe as can be.  So I'm thinking it needs a lip or something so that  if i knock it or something the bottles won't fall. I've googled it and can't find anything. If anyone has any ideas of how I can go about this I would greatly appreciate it. 

Question by bofthe951 8 years ago  |  last reply 8 years ago


Seedbank = Arctic Bunker

Norway has built a pretty awesome1 seed storage facility over 400 feet under a frozen arctic mountain. Further chilled by air conditioners to reach -0.4F, the seeds should be safe for up to 1000 years. Hooray for biodiversity!From an AP article:The vault will serve as a backup for hundreds of other seed banks worldwide. It has the capacity to store 4.5 million seed samples from around the world and shield them from man-made and natural disasters.Dug into the permafrost of the mountain, it has been built to withstand an earthquake or a nuclear strike.The seeds are packed in silvery foil containers -- as many as 500 in each sample -- and placed on blue and orange metal shelves inside three 32-foot-by-88-foot storage chambers. Each vault can hold 1.5 million sample packages of all types of crop seeds, from carrots to wheat.1Did you see Alien vs. Predator? Remember the big Antarctic bunker/pyramid? The Norwegians clearly did too.

Topic by canida 11 years ago  |  last reply 11 years ago


The Moon - What do we really know and what is possible?

If we look up then seeing the moon is the most normal thing to us there is in the sky.But did you ever wonder how it actually got there? ;)Theories are out there by the lot, including those from real scientists.One of the most common is that it all started by catching the thing and that all was perfect at the time.Over time the orbit then stabilized.Other theories include that formed when our planet formed..What they all lack is what is common and true for all other moond out there: These rotate.According to science an object the size of our moon would need to rotate to maintain a stable orbit.No one told this to our moon, so it just stays in a stable orbit anyway.The only other accepted theory, that funny enough never mentioned OUR moon, is that the center of mass must be facing the orbiting planet.Now theories can run and wild if you let schientifically people loose on a subject.Official NASA data obtained by monitoring equippment on the moon supports the theory of the center of gravity.You see, sesmometers recorded "moon quakes" but also the impact of burnt rocket stages - the later were dropped on purpose.At first everyone agreed the equippment must be faulty but going through it again and again confirmed all works fine.So what got them so exited that was never officially made public?You see, every thing with suffient mass will create a sesmic shock on impact.On earth we can located the source of an earthquake or even explosion quite accurately.Same happened on the moon only with one difference to earth.Every impact caused a ringing effect.Like a bell, the soundwaves and shockwaves traveled through the moon for very long times.An early explanation was that the moon is made from really hard rock or that it might even have a metal core.This was rendered useless once the actual mass was calculated and it turned out the moon would rip us apart while spinning around us.The term "hollow moon" was born.Another interesting thing happens when you try to track down what equippment was left on the moon during which specific mission.Everything up there must have been installed at some stage.For some things though it seems there is no record when or where exactly something was left up there.Then there is the thing with the interviews...If you check the fuzz about the first moon landing then back then you couldn't help yourself but got exited as well.None of the three astronauts however appeared to be at least a little bit exited about going where no man has gone before.Somehow like visiting Iceland for the first time only to realise someone was there before you already.But it was the moon, not some easy to reach island...And while up there we did not see any exitement either, like fully staged and planned ahead.Like a not so 100% school rehersal.Claims that it was a fake and actually filmed in some studio have been verified to be false - they really were up there.After they came back two went silent and refused any interviews about the moon.All three though never spoke about anything we did not see on "live TV"...All the missing segments, the drop outs, the silence during communications...The money...Apart from the Pentagon making a disappearing act of 6Billion US, the already planned and staged moon missions were cancelled with no valid reason at all.One mission already ready to go to the launch pad, crew fully trained and briefed.Two more ready for final assembly.Official reason back then was "We have been there, it is time to explore new things."Almost the same statement was made by Obama a few weeks after he claimed "We will go up there again!".If you take away the costs for the abandoned missions then the money blown up to the moon has a huge difference to what can be tracked back.The lost sum equals out to about 8 more moon missions plus tons of state of the art equippment (back at the time it was state of the art).If you add what the Pentagon lost we are close to 15 more missions.The now...A few years back a lot of previously declared top secret documents have been released to the public.What was a good idea however turned out to be a bit too much.Quite a few documents were included that provide missing links to "incidents, missions, money spent"...Within these piles were documents indicating that space missions of the same extend as the much later moon missions were made.Same rockets, similar crafts, same requirements for water, food and oxygen, some though with just payloads of oxygen and water.Mind you though the documents speak from proposed options and not planned missions.And none of them had any exploration within it, just deliveries if you don't mind the comparison.Those documents about the ringing of the moon and how this would impact on the things we assumed to know about the moon were in there as well.What is really interesting though is what came back from the moon.None of it actually indicate that there is suffient ressources up there to justify mining.Funny enough exactly is planned on a military style.Seems fair enough considering the military can provide the best people for such a hard job.Some normal miner might have no problems getting under ground every day but knowing he is on the moon and might never make it back is another.With all the probing done that we know of you would assume the planned mining operations would be in an area rich in minerals, metals or at least something to generate fuel or oxygen.But no, it is planned to happen "on the dark side" and in an area that appearently was never explored in other ways then taking a few blurry pics while flying around the moon.However, both Russia and China claim to have been very close to this area long before details about the mining became public.And that brings us back to the past and what astromauts stated or to be precise refused to confirm or deny.In some videos we can see movements in the background.In several adio stream we hear the comments to what happens in the videos.If there is light moving around then it does not matter that is blue.You just wonder what it is and where it might have come from.Imagine the surprise if then in other videos you hear things like that the lights are back or that steam comes out of the moon like a gysir.There were official explanations for the first sightings made by the normal people when watching those videos on the NASA websites.Soon after the videos disappeared from the servers.Copies were made by the curious and quite a few videos were identified later to have contained "sightings" as well.Some even show what appears to flying machines with great manouverbilities.And if you take the high point of the happenings then it is also the same time when it was decided that we actually have no real interest in the moon.Astromauts later denied to have ever made any comments like that they are being followed or "escorted" by another craft.And the same Astromauts many years later still refuse to deny or confirm that what we could see and hear during their mission videos actually happened.Don't get me wrong but if the deny it then it just means we all saw some refections or such things.If the confirm it then we know something was out there with them.Doing neither usually means what we saw is ture enough to deny any knowledge about more details.Why then the sudden interest?Trump wants to get up there, military mining, private companies not to forget China.If there is nothing at all up there then why would they all spent money that could provide a much better living for those with low incomes?Even if it would be just for new schools and hospitals the money would be better spent if we trust the official claims about what is up there.The not so official claims....We already know NASA does not want to come with an official explanation why the moon sounds and reacts as if it would be hollow.Same for any video, audio or picture evidence indication there is sturctures on the moon or activities.Here is some of things that other people of great knowledge and with nice degrees under the belt say could, might or even is true about the moon.1. We have no evidence that the moon was always there, only what we have in record throughout history.Some claim the moon would be an artificially created structure.Indications of techonlogically highly advanced civilisations before us are there.And mining out a tiny planet and placing it in earths orbit is not far fetched if you consider higher technology levels than what we currently (officially) have.2. The satellite claim.Like the Death Star our moon could be an artifical satellite placed there for a purpose.What speaks for that theory is the impact craters on the moon.If it was never spinning or better rotating around all axis then a lot them would have been impossible.A crater always shows to some extend the direction of the impact.And on the moon they all apear to be direct and straight hits only.And even at some proper angle that against physics did not create a corresponding crater: Our plant would have been in the way.Officially it is claimed though that there would not be much of a directional crater because of the missing atmosphere and all debris settling evenly.Debris however does not explain the deformation from an impact at an angle.The satellite claim would also explain the missing depth in the craters.By the size of the bigger ones the crater should be much deeper and as said show some direction.If however the rocky surface landed there over time or is just the remaining natural hull then the craters could no go deeper.No advanced civilisation would design a stationary satellite that get a hole as soon as some big space rock hits it...3. Undocumented missions.If claims are true then we have been up there a lot more times than what our history lessons tell us.Tiny probes to analyse things, send data and so on are a thing not the the USA did.If you explain the reason for collecting seismic data by wanting to document an impact of an astroid then it is a joke.Sure it would be possible but what could we learn from the data?Nothing unless you consider that in some unoffial missions drilling was attempted on the moon.Sample collection to evaluate what is in the ground of use for future missions.Some documents now claim that all these attempts ended prematurely.Drills failed or broke, drill heads failed to go deeper and upon inspection were totally worn out.And all seemed to have happend at around the same depth.Although there is no atmosphere on the moon - if you stand on it you would be able to feel vibrations of the surface.Something astronauts would have felt during the drilling.And you can feel the difference between a vibration ending by stoping the drill and one that keeps going for a long time after...The dark side is visible in quite a few school books.Looks like the front with the brightness corrected just with different craters.Ever bothered to scan these pictures in and use some software to find matches to craters on the front of the moon ? ;)Anyways, those images show us the moon as near perfect sphere.What they don't show is how the images were actually made.They certainly did not use massive search lights from orbit to provide light for cameras.Means other sources were used, like IR, Radar, Microwaves and so on.Like we found the ruins of old civilisations by using satellites that can "see" through the forest and soil.And with that it would certainly be impossible to create such a nice and detailed image like we get from the front side.If some is edited, then why not all of it...And if all those missions we don't really know about also landed on the dark side it would explain a lot of things.All sightings seem to have disappeared to the dark side.And all leaked informations about previous missions before our first landing idicate the interest in the dark side was actually huge.They all ended though with one mission report claiming to have spotted lights on the dark side.Moving and stationary and when trying to get a better look by adjusting the orbit for the next round those lights were all gone.But audio recording indicate that from that moment on the astronauts were no longer alone and followed until turning back to earth.Several attempts seem to have been made to land near sightings on the dark side.Those where the astronauts returned home the never were the same again.Documents claim long treatment in mental facilites or suicide.The official missions appearntly started with the backstory of exploring.Some now claim it was attempt for a peaceful presence that still was not tolerated.4. Stories from involved companies.Even if NASA builds a craft themself they still need the corresponding supplies.And for a lot of things they are made outside by independent companies and contractors.Trying to track down early space mission again seems to confirm all claims about previous missions.The amount of materials provided would otherwise mean NASA actually crashed the majority of things right after take off without anyone noticing.5. Launches...So far all claims about previous moon missions or just secret ones were denied.I call this "plausible deniability".In all statements it is refered to the official launch sites.Things like being in public view and so on.What is not that commonly known is that there were a lot of capable launch sites available.After all big rockets have been tested in secrecy since we had the first.The claimed landing of the chinese started a big conundrum.At first the US claimed it never happened because there was no rocket that went up.Images prived by the chinese however clearly indicated the opposite.Not much later it was noticed that a few launches might have been misinterpreted as missle tests....What does that really mean?Quite simple: The surveillance is not perfect if the other side insists that it happened.The plausible deniablity is gone.If the US was "forced" to confrim they actually noticed the launches then it also means the chinese claims about the US doing the same could be true as well.And wasn't it a very important thing during the cold war to know when, where and why the other side launched anything?The silent agreement not to go up there again was broken many times...And although most if not all of these mission ended in orbit only it makes you wonder.What would be big deal even if all claims and conspiracies would be true?A hollow moon would defy what we know about how the universe works.With that it would also contradict some of solid laws of physics.So we need(ed) proof.Assuming we had that for a long time already then it leaves the big question of why it is hollow.Natural or artificial.Nothing natural would make sense so we investigate further.And if people still claim that they can use their little equippment to every now and then hear transmissions from the moon...Sure some things up there transmit data all the time but they do so on common frequencies and not in a range that is and never was used for long distance communications.The interest in the mon came back with our modern technology.We have watches with more computer power than what was used for the old moon missions.Materials and manufacturing methods that provide much safe crafts and space suits with a fraction of the weight of old designs.And we have new means of taking more or less limited energy up with us...We are prepared so to say.No matter what really is up there, no matter if it natural or artificial, just the fact that the moon is hollow changes our views on a lot of things....What do you think would be the best explanation for the data showing the moon rings like a bell?

Topic by Downunder35m 22 days ago  |  last reply 19 days ago