It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Gravity on the Moon...

page: 5
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by T0by
 
Lear left when he sold the site. And everybody, do not forget that our understanding of gravity is still only theoretical. There is a new theory out about gravity actually being all matter/bodies to be expanding so fast as to create a gravity appearance, but it is actually, say, the earth expanding below us that makes it appear we are being held down, but it is pushing up on us. If any of that is true, it would mean that we really don't have any knowledgeable base to make any kind of assumptions of what will happen on the moon. Only our previous observations of fact. I don't recall the name of this theory, I read a book on it a couple years ago, right before the San Diego Firestorm burned my house down. Have not really thought about it much. Did I explain this coherently?





posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Ok - I'll start with a nice picture



The map is asymmetrical, the near side is on the right, far side on the left.

I made several posts earlier this year regarding the unnatural nature of the moon, and the possibility its age is far greater than the earth and possibly the solar system.

The moon has no internal magneto-dynamo. The magnetic field is heterogeneous, not polar. The lack of a polar magnetic field shouldn't effect gravity .. should it? My personal view is that a magneto-dynamo in fact indicates the presence of a singularity - what happens to gravity without the magnetic field - I'm not sure.

The mascons (gravity anomalies, purported to be created by lava flows and crust uplift) on the surface make orbiting the moon a challenge, because they have a large influence on the gravity 'field'.

It seems that the current theories relating to gravity are far away from a total understanding.

The physics I believe must be based on;
- relationship between gravity and electromagnetic force
- the geometry and oscillation of the vacuum
- the electron, positron structure of the vacuum
- resolving the field equations with a view to including torque

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
John Lear used to say that the gravity on the moon was greater than we have been told, and that the gravity was different on farside than it was on nearside...

.......................
So it would appear John was right about the gravity being different on farside



Gravity anomaly: The lunar gravity field is not homogenous.



Dichotomy of the Moon: Between the near side and the far side, clear asymmetry is called the "Dichotomy of the Moon" as in the thickness of the lunar crust and the distribution of the lunar Maria.


www.jaxa.jp...




Interesting view and info. If the far side of the Moon has more gravity, could that be the reason for the fact that it always has the same side facing the Earth?
I am no scientist, but is that logical, or is more gravity not related to having more mass??



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The theory that the moon was created by material ejected from a collision between the Earth and another body has a serious flaw in the fact that the ejected material would have a high rate of spin and a highly elliptical orbit which the moon doesn't have. In order for that theory to be correct, ANOTHER collision between the moon and another body of just the right size, hitting at just the right speed from just the right direction would have been necessary to counteract the spin and make the orbit more circular. The odds of that happening are literally astronomical. A really good book on the moon is:
Who Built the Moon?
by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler

In it, they talk about a lot of strange things about the moon. Carl Sagan was disturbed about the data from Apollo seismic equipment that suggested the moon was hollow because hollow planetary bodies don't form naturally. The moon has a whole series of unique mathematical relationships to the Earth and the sun that are not duplicated anywhere else in our solar system. It rotates at exactly 100 meters per second in order keep the same side facing us. It's exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and the sun is exactly 400 times further away. And there's a lot more that I can't recall exactly off the top of my head. I found it interesting that the repaired Hubble telescope is going to be used to look at the moon. You would think that the near side of the moon had been photographed so extensively by now that further observation would be pointless but apparently not.

I highly recommend the book. It's well worth the price.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
This topic was discussed extensively several years ago on ATS here's that thread;
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Thanks for the good info Zorgon. I'm especially glad to hear that John Lear was spot on. It seems as though I've gravitated towards Lunar anomalies of late and this info is like gold to me. Thanks again and it's good to see a post by you again as it seems it's been awhile. Cheerio!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
As a sceptic, I propose a serious question to zorgon, and John Lear:

The entire premise of this thread is to suppose that for some reason the Moon is not homogenous, in its mass.

Am I correct, so far???

Alright....keeping that in mind, we have seen that, for a fact, the Moon presents only one hemisphere to the Earth, during her (Luna's) roughly 28-day orbital period. (Actually, it's not exact, because Luna's rotation about her axis allows for about 59% of her hemisphere, facing Earth, to be observed).

OK....now, understanding orbital mechanics as we esteemed ATS members no doubt do, wouldn't the "lop-sidedness" of the Moon, if it had more mass on the 'farside', mean that it would eventually be 'spun' towards the larger mass that it is currently near??? Or, at the very least, the rotation of the Moon on its axis wild be altered significantly, as mass is attracted to mass...

I am sorry --- the premise of some sort of magical 'increased gravity' on one hemisphere of the Moon just doesn't hold water.....it defies all understanding of planet formation, and physics.

Of course, the alternate view could be that the Moon is artificial, and is subject to technologies that we can only dream of....that some alien, so me ET forces sufficiently advanced, have "created" the Moon, for whatever purpose.

Still....ermmmmm.....IF an ET species wanted some sort of 'base' in order to observe Earth, wouldn't they be able to just do it from a smaller site??? I mean, really!!! Wouldn't 'they' have some sort of cloaking technology??? I mean, if you wish to assume they built something as big as the Moon, couldn't it have been done on a less grand scale????

Am I being too logical, here?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Good points. I think there is four main possibilities here:

1) The Moon has multiple artificial constructs on it for some unknown purpose.

2) Our understanding of gravity is obviously lack so this could explain these "anomalies", just like "dark matter" is in large part due to our non understanding of gravity.

3) We do not yet fully understand the small differences between planet bodies and planetoids. This being the case we lack understanding of formation, internal structure, and various orbital mechanics associated with them.

4) Luna is artificial, least likely IMO, but still possible.


[edit on 5/29/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I personally have read enough things in the past, to suspect the fourth option is the correct one.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by ressiv


If it did not rotate we would see all side of the moon. As we see only one side it must rotate once for every orbit around Earth



Yes...curious how that works really isn't it?

There's another anomaly right there. The moons rotation, and distance from the earth, together with the earths own rotationary speed, equals the fact that we can never see the farside of the moon from the surface of the earth. (Not getting much in the way of photographs of the farside either).

Their rotations are in synch. Coincidence? On it's own..yeah, of course.

Taken together with all the other weird facts about the moon, (too much to list here) and now this about the gravity...highly suspect, in my opinion.

As far as the moon goes, we're not in Kansas anymore Toto..and haven't been in a long time.

Most of you know somethings up...most of the secret keepers know most of us know...it's a question of when the beans are to be spilt.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


No, spikey....sorry, please re-think your post.

Our planet, the Earth, rotates on its axis once about every 24 hours, yes??

The Moon, as it orbits the Earth, takes about 28 days to complete one orbit. Yes??

(not being exact, just making a point....)

The Moon, as it rotates about its axis, does so in about 28 days....which coincides with its orbit about the EARTH.

It is that simple.

The Earth/Moon system is actually a dual-planet system. Just observe the Phases of the Moon, as she orbits the Earth....remember that the big ole' thing that lights everything is the SUN!!!

OK??? Should begin to make sense, now......



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Taken together with all the other weird facts about the moon


Sorry, I've been a little ignorant, please name a few..



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I read "MoonGate" by William Brian and a few other books concerning the topic and I am very interested in it, but I was curious if anyone knew a good book to recomend as a guide that explains in as simple terms as possible what the conventional theory behind gravity is compared to the theory of "gravity radiation". I think I'm beginning to to get the picture buy I'd like a little more dissertation on the subject.

thanks!!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Well lets see how we can approach this lunar topic.

To begin with our species and its evolution and understanding of physics,mathematics and dimension is similar to ant trying to achieve anti gravity weapons. We have barely crawled out of the caves as a species and we tend to look at fictional hypothesis as a non conceivable achievement. It always hits me like a freight train how our modern society only several hundred years ago was burning people for studying planets and the physics behind them. If and when the majority of people come to terms with the fact that we are not alone and there are millions of species throughout what we call space will we ever understand as to the fine line between our species becoming extinct or evolving.

As a previous person posted regarding cloaking devices. You must realize that it too requires energy to manufacture it, so given our 65,000 years of existence, i would be inclined to ask you as to why would i use cloaking energy on a species which can barely leave its own gravity. It obviously poses no threat and its obvious that within an instance you can do with that species as you wish.

Those who are occupying the moon have been restricted to that lunar port and by no means from us. Occasionally our species spots a u.f.o. and at best manages to obtain parts of it. Given that we have some basic form of intelligence we too have been able to replicate and understand the functions of those items.

Perhaps one should also contemplate that as the human species develops and evolves the same principle apply's to all species either foreign or domestic on a planetary scale.Why would you even consider that aliens do not develop or have or are engaged in a planetary war. I do feel you have been mislead to think that all non human originating species are friendly.

Think about this, if we are on the top of the food chain on this planet, what would our status be when we had come into contact with another species who had a jump start of an estimated 50,000 years. We to them are as interesting to study, as interesting to dissect, as interesting to test endurance, as interesting to find its weakness, as interesting to find its tolerance, as interested to see its defense mechanisms.

I make it clear that, we have been visited , we are being monitored and yes, only a handful of people know that our existence is purely the result of their willingness to allow us to evolve. So instead of hypothesizing if the moon is hollow or if there are moon bases from extraterrestrial species then you and a few billion are in for a ride of your life, that is, if what has been agreed is ever broken as an agreement.

P.S. You may have heard of micro organisms found on other planets, as this is 100% true then there is your answer on the jump start another species has had on the earth species. If and when you hear your elector'ed government acknowledge the existence of an intelligent species from a non earth origin then you will know that something is very wrong. We have been lucky so far, but our luck is running out as we venture out into space.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Double the altitude gives 4 times less force.
I was hoping for 32 ft per sec per sec for its gravity.

1/4th the force means 1/4th the acceleration so now
you have 8 ft per sec per sec in the new orbit.

Gravity might be the same for all similar conducting bodies in space.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
In it, they talk about a lot of strange things about the moon. Carl Sagan was disturbed about the data from Apollo seismic equipment that suggested the moon was hollow because hollow planetary bodies don't form naturally. The moon has a whole series of unique mathematical relationships to the Earth and the sun that are not duplicated anywhere else in our solar system. It rotates at exactly 100 meters per second in order keep the same side facing us. It's exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and the sun is exactly 400 times further away. And there's a lot more that I can't recall exactly off the top of my head. I found it interesting that the repaired Hubble telescope is going to be used to look at the moon. You would think that the near side of the moon had been photographed so extensively by now that further observation would be pointless but apparently not.


the moon used to be much closer to earth and it is still moving away about an inch a year if i remember correctly. i think some calculations showed that in another 40000 years the moon will escape the gravity of earth and get lost in space. these numbers you quote are purely coincidental. humans look for patterns and when we find them we're oh so happy...

sure there is a chance of moon bases and aliens on the dark side of the moon. there's also a chance that someone will genetically create flying pigs



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


The moon is currently moving away from Earth. This is not to say that it has always been so.

You want a really scary thought? Consider if you are correct, and we have large bodies like our moon roaming errant in our solar system.

I don't follow a homogenous timeline, honestly. Who knows what was happening in our near vicinity before man started making recordings.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Gravity changes according to elevation: it is stronger over higher elevations and weaker over lower elevations. But topography isn't the only variable that affects gravity; its strength also depends on the subsurface structure: stronger gravity is observed over an area with heavier than average materials, such as iron oxide, and weaker gravity is observed over an area with lighter rocks. Using onboard sensors and relay satellites to map local gravity all over the Moon, KAGUYA has revealed the different gravity anomalies (the differences between the observed gravity and the average gravity) on the lunar nearside and farside. By comparing the Moon's gravity distribution and topographic data, we have identified a relationship between impact basins and gravity anomalies. (On the Moon, a large crater with a diameter of more than 200 kilometers is called a basin. A plain, created when a depression (crater) has been filled by lava erupting from the interior, is called a lunar mare (plural: maria)). Although scientists had previously known about lunar gravity anomalies, KAGUYA's observation data has provided a much more detailed profile.
KAGUYA has also collected gravity anomaly data on lunar maria. On the nearside they are made up of heavy materials, and contain mascons (mass concentrations) that are positive gravity anomalies - i.e., the local gravity is stronger than average. Hypothetically, when a celestial body hit the Moon's surface, the temperature and pressure of the lunar interior increased, and the softened and easily distorted interior material pushed up the mantle, causing the eruption of high-density lava and producing a mascon. On the farside, on the other hand, there are few lunar maria. The farside has no mascons - positive gravity anomalies - but rather a number of negative gravity anomalies in craters and basins, which are all topographically round-shaped. Scientists believe that on the farside, the interior of the Moon was at lower temperatures and thus more firm. As a result, when large celestial objects impacted the Moon and impact basins were formed, there was less crustal uplift and lava eruption, and thus no density anomalies.
KAGUYA's gravity measurements suggest that approximately 4 billion years ago, when most of the Moon's impact topography (craters, basins and maria) was formed, its interior was hot on the nearside but cold on the farside, resulting in the variation in the firmness of the crust on the near and far sides.
The lunar crust is thought to have formed from cooled and solidified magma oceans, and the different firmness of the crust on the near and far sides probably derives from their different cooling speeds: the crust on the nearside kept warm for a few hundred million years after the birth of the Moon, while that on the farside cooled down quickly.


More:
www.jaxa.jp...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I actually questioned an engineer analyzing orbital data
when I was taking sessions on Gravity and heard that
gravity is less over mountains.

I wish there were some truth somewhere in science information,
I just hate to go to YAHOO ANSWERS.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

So it would appear John was right about the gravity being different on farside



The lunar gravity anomaly has been known for a long time. John Lear saying that gravity was different on the far side of the moon only proved that he could read.

This is from 1975


The farside gravity map, in contrast to the near side, is characterized by broad positive gravity regions in the highland with interspersed, localized, strong negative anomalies.


I found the above with 2 minutes of googling, why are you posting as if this is something only John Lear knew about?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join