It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientist Wants To Destroy The Moon To Stabilize Our Weather!!!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:04 AM
haha...I am afraid these guys are paid 10000 bucks a month to write crap like this for nothing ! do they sincerely hope it will be feasible to move Earth or destroy the moon ? Theymust be living in Happyland, cause ten years from now, Earth will be a post-nuclear desert. With a few Mad-Max guys riding solar energy bikes ! hahahaha

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:26 AM
Haha! Matt_Mulder is right

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:31 AM
That's hilarious.

'A more desirable orbit.' lol lol lol

Thinking outside the planetary alignments. lol

He was killed by werewolves.


posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:49 AM
This is a great idea! We are having a war raged upon us by the evil creatures that thrive on the Moon. They are corrupting our children and placing bombs in our cities. Their siege will not end until they have enslaved us all!

We MUST destroy the Moon before they are allowed to destroy us. They are the Mooninites, and their culture is advanced beyond all that we can possibly comprehend with 100% of our brains. They do whatever they want to whom ever they want, at all times. They must be stopped!

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Dae

Originally posted by johnsky at least until we can find something else to divert asteroids away from our orbital path.

I did a bit of a search and not one article mentioned that we would be smacked with more asteroids if we had no moon.

Agreed, I too couldn't find an article saying that it helps us avoid articles. However, the moon is 1/3 the size of the earth, and therefore the is the chance that they would hit it instead of us. At least we have some protection instead of none.

The Moon has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles)[1] – about one-third that of the Earth.

Originally posted by iori_komei 2. The moon is what keeps the Earth spinning, and without it, the planet would become tidally locked, with one side always facing the sun, and the other always in darkness.

The moon doesnt keep the earth spinning, in fact we spin slower because of it. If we had no moon we would spin faster, which would probably mean faster winds.

The moon does make the earth spin slower, however it also keeps us in axis which in turn creates the 4 seasons.

The Moon may dramatically affect the development of life by taming the weather. Paleontological evidence and computer simulations show that Earth's axial tilt is stabilized by tidal interactions with the Moon.

Also, if we had no moon we would go out of our 23.5 axis and get extremes in temperatures.

If Earth's axis of rotation were to approach the plane of the ecliptic, extremely severe weather could result from the resulting extreme seasonal differences. One pole would be pointed directly toward the Sun during summer and directly away during winter. Planetary scientists who have studied the effect claim that this might kill all large animal and higher plant life. However, this is a controversial subject, and further studies of Mars—which shares Earth's rotation period and axial tilt, but not its large moon or liquid core—may settle the matter.

Why would you want to take the chance to eliminate all life from earth?

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne All life has evolved due to the moon's orbit. Even women's menstrual cycles loosely follow the moon, and I doubt that's a coincidence.

Life has evolved despite the moons orbit.

Like I said before, we would have extreme temperatures and only simple ocean animals would form. No land animals.


The current "favorite" location for the formation of the earliest life is somewhere deep in the oceans, near a hydrothermal vent.

That may where life started, however now we live on land. I doubt any land animals can live next to a hydrothermal vent underneath hundred of pounds of ocean pressure.

Originally posted by biotic - catastrophic events that can and in fact will happen if the moon is moved?

Unfortunately at this time we dont know all the variables that make this planet tick the way it does for us. Is the moon an important part of that process? Its possible. My concern would be the lack of stablized wobble with the Earth, and seasons having nothing to do with time of year but of latitude on the Earth.

Exactly, that is why we should take that chance. Also, didn't you guys see what Byrd wrote? This guy died in 1999. This is probably a hoax, or a older theory than it claims to be.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:52 PM

Let's say our Moon was put in the orbit it is in now by others (aliens) and they are within the Moon do you think they would let anyone move or destroy it, I don't think so.

Yes, and listen to some HAM radio recordings of the Apollo misions were the government of earth covered up everything but forgot about ham operators who might be recording. Many of the ancient civilisations have stories of "before there was a moon in the sky" I believe the moon was put in orbit by aliens who placed it there because our planet was capable of life! I also believe that they are still watching us.

These beings monitor everything they won't let us destroy this planet either.

Once we were able to split the atom UFO sightings skyrocketed because they will intervine.. and I believe it will be 12/21/2012.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:13 PM
Greetings mikesing! Long time.

What many fail to mention here is such a deed would upset the balance of the rest of the solar system. All the porportions are highly tuned, and this would rearrange our heavenly neighbors for millions of years.

But you brought it here for us to realize an important point. What if we changed the orbit of an asteroid? What effect would that have?

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:15 PM
Years ago some scientist published a study that said the only way to stabalize weather and prevent severe storms in the US was to fill in the Gulf of Mexico. Another brilliant idea that went nowhere.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:14 PM

Originally posted by zerotime
Scientists scare me more and more on a daily basis. This type of stuff is constantly in the news and these are supposed to be the people we listen to? This is a good example why we need to closely examine the theories of our scientists. I am more afraid of scientists than global warming.

Bingo! And it's incredible that this scientist, Professor Alexander Abian, was a mathematician at the University of Iowa!!

I can't imagine what he taught at the univ! Don't they have a procedure for rejecting nuts like him? (God bless his soul!).

Anyway, if the Moon was dumped, this is what would happen...

1. No moonlit walks.

2. No "Moon River" and no Apollo Moon landings.

3. Many of our vocabulary words are "moon oriented." The words "honeymoon" "'lunatic" "moon madness" and "moonflower" would not exist. And try to imagine us without the showy social pastime of "mooning!"

4. The length of the day might have been much shorter. And so night life would have been longer! More time at the casinos, bars and strip joints!! Wow!

5. If the Moon explodes, fragments as small as one kilometer across would be enough to wipe out all life on Earth. Seeing as how the Moon is 3,474 km in diameter, that's quite a load of Moon rock to rain down on Earth. Our only salvation would be to run for cover to the Dulce underground facility!!

6. No surfing. Oh woe!

7. No more John Lear's Moon thread on ATS!! Darn, that'll be a disaster!

8. No anomaly-on-the-Moon threads any more! What's gonna happen to Zorgon, Undo, Armap, John, Borg, and the rest? Hell! That's unthinkable!

OK. Enough of Moonlighting for me. Better get back to work!!


[edit on 12-3-2007 by mikesingh]

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 04:27 AM

that is why im cautious about this "issue". I can't really except anyone with higher scientific education to propose such a thing with current technology until I hear it from there own mouth.

Of course the immediate force of the explosion, related projectiles and debris would turn most of us to poo imo.

Think of the suffocating debrish ash of Pompeii but with kilometre chunks of rock landing all over the place. (Actually the big big rocks would hit us first)

Then if we survive we can blow up the sun!

And put in a light bulb

How to kill humanity 101

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:48 AM
Well i allready have technology to move planets. It influence tornado effect (lorenz force) inside planets and can drive them. I posted most of info even basics to komplex to indigo forum.

it's simple and low cost.

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Matyas
What if we changed the orbit of an asteroid?

We already have! Twice in fact.

A NASA robot ship ended a deep space odyssey by touching down on an asteroid on Monday, despite having no landing gear.


Perhaps not a massive change in the orbit, but a change none the less.

But, even more dramatically, we have also altered the orbit of a comet:

It is now little more than a week since the spectacular hyper-velocity meeting of Comet Tempel 1 with a copper projectile sent from Earth. Preliminary results of the Deep Impact experiment are being reported from telescopes in space and around the world.


Originally posted by Matyas
What effect would that have?

Impossible to tell - a nudge into a new orbit could bring it within range of the gravitational forces of other objects, which it would not have encountered before. It could end up going anywhere, but eventually it will crash into something, given enough time, and chaotic interactions with other large objects.

It's really nothing to worry about though, since within the two main resevoiurs of icy/rocky bodies in our solar system (The Ourt Cloud and Asteroid Belt), these sort of interactions are happening all the time, and every so often an asteroid, or comet gets kicked out into a new orbit that takes it into the inner solar system. Most of these end up being swollowed up by the sun.

Much of the rest are swept up by the the larger planets in our solar system, Jupiter being the main contributer to this role. In fact, I think this was what johnsky was refering to earlier in this thread, but confused it with the Moon!


posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:57 PM
Where in those references is it said that we have actually altered the course of these objects? Just landing a craft of relatively insignificant mass will not move a massy object in any measurable manner.

And yes, I do fear the Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers.

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:21 PM

It does not say that, but Newton's laws of motion say that "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" (3rd Law) , and so it follows that in both cases there has been a change in orbit, though minute in the case of Eros/NEAR. It may not even be a measurable change in orbit with our current technology.

However, over time, as the force imparted on it continues to act upon Eros, the orbit will change to the point that the new orbit will be completely different from the old one (see the 1st Law).


This is much like one of the proposed methods for deflecting an object that is on collision course with Earth - a slight nudge, early enough on, and the object should miss us once the nudge has had time to act.

Originally posted by apc
And yes, I do fear the Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers.

No need to fear us, we're quite friendly really - besides, "above-grounders" don't taste as nice as other CHUDs.. too much melanin makes for a bitter taste


posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:44 PM
I'm not educated in the math involved, but I know that in order for an object of little mass to affect the trajectory of an object with great mass, a certain threshold of energy must be crossed. The lower mass object must impact at very great speed to overcome the inertia of the target. Although the comet impact had great speeds involved, energy wasn't released primarily through the kinetic energy of the impactor. The comet just kinda ran into it. To move the Moon would take either a metric buttload of energy all at once, by slamming say... Pluto into it, or by moving it very slowly over a very long period of time. Neither of which we have any experience with on this grand of scale.

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by apc
but I know that in order for an object of little mass to affect the trajectory of an object with great mass, a certain threshold of energy must be crossed.

That would depend on the situation - for instance, consider a brick resting on a table top here on terra firma. Because of gravity, the brick pushes down on the table top, andstatic friction holds it in place. To overcome the static friction a threshold must be reached and surpassed for the brick to start moving.

Now if you take the case of an object out in space, there is no "table top". There is only the vacuum of space, and so there is no friction, and therefore no threshold.

It does not really matter how much mass the impactor in question has - it could be a photon, or it could be a planetoid. In either case, some energy is imparted on the object that has been impacted, and the orbit will change.

Originally posted by apc
The lower mass object must impact at very great speed to overcome the inertia of the target.

If you still can't see how an object of almost insignificant mass (proportionally) can affect an object many orders of magnitude larger, then consider driving along in a car (or APC in your case) at speed, and hitting a bee. The car will slow down a fraction at the point of impact, but you would not notice it.

Now imagine that you round the next bend, and are confronted with a swarm of millions of bees, which you proceed to plough through at speed! Each impact that your APC suffers would be almost insignificant, but combined, the effect could be substantial, meaning you would have to put your foot down a tiny bit more to compensate, and retain a constant speed through the swarm.

Perhaps an even better example would be the "solar sail" propulsion technology which has been proposed by some scientists, which would use the "solar wind" to accelerate a ship to very high speeds (I think it was a significant portion of the speed of light - in theory) away from our sun.

The "solar wind" is basically a constant stream of charged particles which is being thrown off by the sun. Each particle is insignificant in mass compared to a "solar-sail ship", and an individual impact would have almost no effect, but a constant stream of them, each one giving its little nudge, can propel the ship to very high speed over time.

Originally posted by apc
Although the comet impact had great speeds involved, energy wasn't released primarily through the kinetic energy of the impactor. The comet just kinda ran into it.

I think you'll find (if you do a bit of digging), that considerable energy was released on impact - in the order of Kilotons of TNT I think. Which object was moving relative to the other makes little difference. The speeds involved were great, as you said, but that makes little difference too... all I'm trying to get across is that the orbit will have changed to a greater or lesser degree.

Originally posted by apc
To move the Moon would take either a metric buttload of energy all at once, by slamming say... Pluto into it, or by moving it very slowly over a very long period of time. Neither of which we have any experience with on this grand of scale.

Again, all I'm saying is, it all depends how far you want to move it - a picometre? a centimetre? a kilometre? Just how dramatic a change in orbit do you want ? Keep in mind, that a tiny change in orbit, over time will translate into a substantial deviation from what would have been the original orbit.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by C.H.U.D.]

[edit on 12-3-2007 by C.H.U.D.]

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:20 PM
What a crazy idea. It made me think about a cool cartoon called Thundar the barbarian where it starts with a comet that goes inbetween the moon and earth and breaks the moon up causing worldwide catastrophy.
I think if the moon was not there we would be in a heap of trouble because of the unbalance it would throw the earth into a different orbit and I remember somewhere that if our orbit around the sun changed the earth would freeze or become a ball of fire, doesnt sound like a good idea either way to me.
Mikesingh where do you find these crazy things you find? LOL


posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:20 PM
Hmmm yah maybe I need to go back to school! Been a while! I know there's something though that would prohibit a change of direction... gravity? If an object is in orbit a threshold of energy has to be crossed to alter its orbit? Otherwise it'd be near impossible to maintain an orbit.

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:31 AM
Don't worry about it apc... It's been a while for me too, and I keep having to google to make sure what I remember is correct!

To get back to the topic at hand, nothing that I can think of would prohibit a change in orbit, unless by some freak of nature an exactly opposing force were to counteract the force imparted by the impactor.

One example that may help to further clarify things, is that of satellites (both man-made and natural ie the moon)in orbit around our Earth.

What exactly keeps a satellite up? may ask.

The answer, surprisingly enough is gravity!

But hang on a minute... is it not gravity that makes them fall out of the sky?! may also ask.

Actually, no! Well not to begin with anyway... You see, a satellite stays more or less in its orbit due angular momentum, and because the Earth is round. In effect the satellite is constantly falling... too little angular momentum, and the satellite would re-enter and burn up. Too much, and it would shoot off into space, probably never to be seen again.

With just the right angular momentum however, gravity keeps the satellite in check, much like an athlete spinning around a "shot put" and not letting go.

The reason a satellite eventually falls back down to earth, is due to drag, which is caused by Earth's upper atmosphere, or rather, collisions with air molecules (much like the bee example I mentioned before), which effectively reduce the angular momentum until there is not enough to sustain even LEO (Low Earth Orbit), and the satellite falls out of the sky.

The above is also similar to the NEAR/Eros scenario. Instead of the air molecules, you have a copper impactor, and instead of the Earth, Eros orbits the sun. So, by placing an impactor in the path of Eros, you effectively slow it down, and so it's orbit around the sun will become a little tighter. If you were to place a whole series (many thousands perhaps?) of impactors in the path of Eros, then the orbit would continue to decay, and Eros would eventually spiral into the sun!

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:01 AM

Originally posted by C.H.U.D. What exactly keeps a satellite up? may ask.

The answer, surprisingly enough is gravity!

Not to get too far off topic here, but unless your target audience are middle school students, your post comes across (at least to me) as rather patronizing.

I have maintained over the years there is also an electrodynamic effect which keeps the Moon moving away from us at the rate of about an inch per year.

Something else I would like to know is why the libation point is not the same as the barycenter. Could centrifugal "force" (not!) be the reason?

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in