Gravity on the Moon...

reply to post by Esoterica


Thanks for going more in depth. I didn't read the post that Armap was referring to about "negative and positive gravity", but it obviously needed correction and clarification. I wonder if the poster was referring to gravity and anti gravity, or gravity "A" waves and "B" waves.

reply to post by spikey


The last post of page 5, I supplied a source describing the higher gravity on the far side of the moon dated 1975. This means that the gravity anomaly has been known for over 30 years.

This means that John Lear only needed to read about the phenomena. Since he did not necessarily gain this information form anything more esoteric that a back issue of a magazine, his other stories are not any more "believable" because of it.

The feeling in the thread that John Lear was the originator of the lunar gravity anomaly is erroneous. This means that using it to support any of his other stories is also erroneous. If the man had said the sky is blue, that doesn't make any of his other claims more believable.

If people dismissed John's claim that the far side of the moon had a higher gravity as crazy, it is their fault for not researching the matter. But don't use their inaction as justification for believing ideas without any sort of proof.



[edit on 5-30-2009 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by phagg
What qualify as anomalies?

Earth also has variances in its gravity field (see here )

I'd say to qualify as an anomaly, it would have to be something that is a departure from the norm or expected. Since the people in the various space programmes know about gravity fluctutions and the like on Earth and elsewhere, a variance of 0.5% or so overall would have been considered normal. So this unplanned for, unexpected gravitaional quirk is out of the norm or not understood, or put another way, is anomalous.

Originally posted by DGFenrir

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..

No, not at all...besides, if you'll forgive me, you were being a little lazy actually, not ignorant.

studenofhistory has mentioned several earlier in this post, four or five even. Others that have posted replies have also touched upon several.

Tell you what...i'll make you a deal. You go back, and fully read this entire thread again, and if you genuinely can't see any really strange mathermatical coincidences, or facts that give you that 'eh?! That's really weird' feeling, i'll make a list up for you.

There's a warehouse load of information on it here at ATS, and on the web in general, so finding you a dozen or so won't take too long.

reply to post by DarkSecret

You asked why multiply 27.322 by 4. The point is that in order to get 109.2 which is the number that pops up more than once in other relationships, you multiply by a nice integer of exactly 4. Not 4.1 or 3.762 but exact 4.00000. THAT'S what's so fascinating about many of these relationship numbers. So many of them are not only integers but multiples of 10 (400, 40000, 10,000) Look at any other planet and moon in our solar system and you don't get nice exact integers or recurring numbers.

reply to post by jkrog08


OK, thanks for the update.

I'll get my coat...

Originally posted by eniac
Someone point out where I'm wrong with this....

I'm pretty sure that the moon doesn't have a molten core, and is more along the lines of a damn big rock.

So it's more likely that large 'chunks' of more dense material (say Iron, for argument's sake) exist beneath the moon's surface in certain places, while the core is relatively less dense in other places. Wouldn't this account for persisting gravitational fluctuations from place to place on the surface? (and also affect the moon's center of gravity)

We would find fewer gravitational anomalies on Earth, because of the mantle/molten state of most of the interior of the planet, and convection spreading denser material around to achieve a more balanced overall level of gravity.

Tell me where I'm wrong...

You're not wrong.

The gravity anomaly is the difference between the observed gravitational field and what the equivalent amount of mass would produce if it were spherically symmetric, which is the same as that produced by a point mass as the origin (Newton's great discovery).

The gravity anomaly is due to varying asymmetric density of the body.

It is likely very small (parts in a million), because if it were too big, a large self gravitating body like the moon or earth would rearrange itself until it were close to spherically symmetric, which (in the absence of rotation) is the minimum energy state.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by DarkSecret

 

You asked why multiply 27.322 by 4. The point is that in order to get 109.2 which is the number that pops up more than once in other relationships, you multiply by a nice integer of exactly 4. Not 4.1 or 3.762 but exact 4.00000. THAT'S what's so fascinating about many of these relationship numbers. So many of them are not only integers but multiples of 10 (400, 40000, 10,000) Look at any other planet and moon in our solar system and you don't get nice exact integers or recurring numbers.

actually the point is that even the numbers you quoted are rounded conveniently to suit your "coincidence" so they're not really "a nice integer". the human mind looks for patterns and you're quoting some that were "miraculously" found by people who wanted to sell books or magazine subscriptions. why do you fall for that? if you look hard enough you will find ratios and odd patterns anywhere. i would rather accept some of the numbers that were pulled out of thin air regarding Egypt's pyramids than this moon hogwash because the pyramids are built by someone as opposed to the moon which is a natural satellite born out of a fiery collision.

here's another strange coincidence... 4 8 15 16 23 42 = 108 minutes now go push the button!

reply to post by jkrog08


jkrog....???

"negative" gravity????

OK, I can imagine a lot of things. I can even suppose that, in some way, technolgy can be used to counter-act G-forces. I mean, if we wish to understand FTL travel we have to comprehend some sort of 'artificial gravity' and other sorts of technological devices so that the protoplasm on board the space ships isn't splattered against the interior sides looking like strawberry jam!!!!

I mean, in order for Science Fiction like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" to be viable, the unexplained, and usually tacit understanding of what we take for granted has to be true, in the sense, that it is just such a "given" that no one questions it.....

Just as, for instance.....when one puts their butt on an airplane, one takes it for 'granted' that the people they are entrusting their lives with are fully trained....one doesn't have to know HOW to fly, just to be comfortable in the fact that people they trust DO KNOW what they are doing.

Of course....if more people took the time to learn about flying, we'd have less ignorance.....but, that's best left to another thread.....

reply to post by spikey


This is also in response to Zorgon's post on the subject of one of the moon rocks apparently being carbon dated and deemed older than the planet earth.

Most scientists currently belive the earth is around 3.8 billion years old.. Mainly, we get this date from radiometric dating of rocks (sometimes called radiocactive dating). All based on the never-changing decay rates of radioactive isotopes.

It now appears that MOST of the moon rocks retrieved during the apollo missions are, indeed, around 4.5 billion years old. Wikipedia sais some of basaltic type samples retrived from the lunar Maria have been dated to around 3.16 billion years.
en.wikipedia.org...

But this doesn't necessarily mean our current theory on how the moon was created is wrong. (For a few very plausible and logical reasons). I do agree that it isn't an exactly perfect theory since there are alot of unknown variables. But it would explain some of what we see. Here is why..

1- All the computer models suggest the moon really was created by an immense collision between earth and another body estimated to be around the size of planet mars.

2- Apollo Moon samples suggest the surface of the moon was once molten.
en.wikipedia.org...

The highly anorthositic composition of the lunar crust, as well as the existence of KREEP-rich samples, gave rise to the idea that a large portion of the Moon was once molten

3- The moon's small iron core.

4- Moon samples have high oxygen isotope compositions almost identical to rocks found on earth.

But here's where I agree with you..
This doesn't mean that the moon wasn't initially part of an earth "twin". One of the unresolved issues of this theory deals with the fact that there isn't alot of evidence suggesting the earth ever had a "magma ocean" which it undoubtedly would have had after such a violent collision. Everything points to a collision of some magnitude creating the moon as the geology all suggests the moon was once completely molten. But that doesn't necessarily mean it had to be with earth. Scientists have dubbed this mars-sized impactor "Theia" and I think only reason they think it was "mars-sized" is because all the calculations and computer models best suggest a body of this size would have been needed to expel enough material to accrete and form a moon of this size.

But if rogue planets were just flying around hitting other planets, how many planets were really out there prior to all these collisions? How many collisions really took place? It's quite feasible that "Theia" actually collided with an earth-sized planet with an orbit close to 1 AU (but not exactly). The compositions of earth and its twin would have been extremely similar due to both planets forming in the same area of the proto-planetary disk of the early solar system. The collision takes place, the moon is created, but it, inevitably, gets slung out with an oblique orbital pattern until it becomes captured by earth's gravitaty field. This would explain ALOT

It would explain the moon's high angular momentum.
It would explain why the moon shows evidence of a magma ocean but not the earth.
It would explain why the composition of the moon is very close to that of earth with slight differences.
It would explain why most of the moon rock samples are almost a billion years older than earth.
(radioactive dating doesn't really lie).

-ChriS

I have a question!

If the Moon is affected by earth magnetic gravity. Would the Moon come closer to earth at some point and then move away at some point on its orbit around earth?

This is the Moons orbit.


In this image the Moon is closer to the earths north pole. Is the moon attracted to earth more at this stage in its orbit or is it more attracted when it is closer to the south pole?

Or is the Moon just moving away gradually regardless of earth magnetic gravity?

If so why is it doing this?

reply to post by spy66


Yes, and it already does to a degree.
This is because the moon's orbit around earth is not perfectly circular. It is, actually, slightly eliptical.Therefore, when the moon is slightly closer to earth, moon's gravitational effect on earth is greater and tides are higher.. The earth's gravitational effect on the moon is also greater. Thus, the "tidal locking" effect (caused by gravitational interaction) is also greater when the 2 are slightly closer together. Tidal locking just refers to a slight "bulge" on the surfaces of both bodies that always faces each other even though the 2 are constantly orbiting and rotating on their own axes'.

But this gravitational interaction is only caused by the gravity fields of the 2 bodies becoming closer together. The moon is also drifting away from earth an inch or two per year. I think the angular momentum of the moon, as it orbits, is so high already that it is preventing earth's gravity from really affecting this outward "drift". Therefore, at the current rate the moon will eventually drift away altogether.

But due to the moon's eliptical orbit, the distance between the two already varies. It is a complex system of gravitational interaction with alot of different factors to consider. Not just gravity.

As for the statement about the moon's location with relation to earth's North and south poles, It depends. The earth's gravity might affect the moon more on one pole or the other just because the earth's gravity field is non-uniform. Therefore, it is possible one pole might have more gravitational influence than the other.

here are some illustrations of earth's gravity field. The illustrated geometry is exaggerated so we can get a better visual idea of how the gravity varies from place to place. These were all mapped with the "GRACE" satellite.

This one mapped with the European Space Agency's "GOCE" satellite:


This one mapped with NASA's "GRACE" satellite:


This one mapped using a combination of GRACE and LOGEOS satellite data:


And a really interesting NASA site on the topic can be found HERE which shows a couple different illustrations of earth gravity.

But earth's gravity doesn't seem to really be slowing down this "moon drift" affect in any way. There are just too many other factors in the system. Angular momentum of the moon around the earth, orbital velocity, etc.. All of which are inevitably playing a roll in the moon's slow drift away from earth. I'm not sure if the slight outward drift varies depending on the moon's distance from the earth at any one time. I would guess that it would just slightly but it would be pretty small (I would guess it to be smaller than one inch or two inches, which is the annual rate of drift).


-ChriS


[edit on 31-5-2009 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR



Thanks But i am still a bit lost concerning magnetic gravity.

If i understand this right the Moon has its greatest affect on earth when it is close to the equator: Right?

Meaning: That is the only time that the moon is closest to earth! And this probably accrues???

But if the moon is to have any affect on earths magnetic gravity it must be magnetic. Meaning it should be closer to earth at one of the poles right? And not by the equator?

That is if a magnetic force is in charge of the Moons orbit. What i am getting at is: Is the magnetic force the cause of the moons orbit?

Now i am going to high light this in a different way.

Space is pretty close to a "vacuum". Meaning there is hardly any matter in space. Mostly dark matter and dark energy (space).

This means that the space in between the moon and the earth is nothing but close to a vacuum. Meaning there is no matter in between the two objects.

We know that there is no life on the Moon. So there is no gasses to create a gravity like the different gasses create gravity on earth. Where the matter with greatest mass exists closest to the surface of the earth. And the matter with less mass exists further from the earth surface.
On the surface of the moon there is nothing but space( dark matter and dark energy).

>Now scientists have measured that the Moon has hardly or close to no iron at all.

What causes the orbit of the moon?

What causes the water to rises once a day?

How can the magnetic connections be the force if the moon has no iron to create a magnetic force?


Edit:

You op dated your post. Great pictures. I need to study them to get this right thanks again.

Edit :

The pictures that show earth is not gravity but what shape earth gets by its speed of rotation compared to its magnetic gravity force.

Question: Is the Moon shaped like earth because of its rotation?









[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Question: >Where is the moon at this stage when this picture was taken?




I Guess its on the left side. But how can it do this if it has no magnetic force?


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by BlasteR


I like your thinking, very logical and well-thought out.

I believe the concept of an early collision with a large body is most plausible. I'm with you, regarding zorgon's post....the "age" of the Moon isn't up for debate. Yes, we see 'maria' on the Moon, and not on the Earth -- there is a significant reason why: Earth has atmosphere, and thus erosion. Moon does not, obviously.

One can wonder....during the chaotic formation of the early Solar System, how did everything stabilize to what we observe today??? Answer: Lots and lots of time!!! Some would theorize that the Gas Giants, especially Jupiter, assisted in providing siome stability. Her (his??) gravity has an influence....and, no.....not, as some other poster suggested....gravity is NOT magnetic!!!!

To that notion, consider the four Electro-magnetic forces (I know, I know....it has "magnetic" in the name....hence, the confusion).

It's just what we call that part of the spectrum, which includes, by the way, light. AND, I doubt anyone would consider light to be 'magnetic'...unless you're in show business and are attracted to the spotlight!

The four forces: We have the strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism, and gravity. Of the four, gravity is by FAR the weakest....magnets, for instance, will work in a gravitational field, correct?? In fact, everyone with a toy magnet can prove it for themselves....magnetism is STRONGER than gravity. This confounds theorists, as they search for the elusive TOE (Theory of Everything).

BUT, EM radiation is different from gravity, or at least that's the best as we currently understand. Massive objects distort space, and that is what we call 'gravity'. It is still called a "theory" because, even though it's obvious, and a fact....the exact nature of gravity, in all it's glory, is yet to be fully understood. (Compare to evolution....a fact, but still technically a "theory" because it is not fully explained....probably never will be. But, I digress...)

Good, scientific minds are great to see here, at ATS!!

Love your discussion, and your viewpoints!!

reply to post by spy66

What causes the orbit of the moon?

Perhaps I can help...just as satellites, and the Space Shuttle can orbit, so the Moon can orbit. The Earth/Moon system is, actually, a sort of dual-planet system, because of the relative sizes. This relates to the formation theory of the Moon..some large planetoid impacted the Earth billions of years ago....during the formation of the Solar System. Eventually, the two bodies coalesced, and cooled. Moon, being smaller, could not hold on to an atmosphere of an substance. Earth, obviously, has atmosphere. Funny, it wasn't always Oxygen/Nitrogen, though....That is a fairly recent development, in Geologic terms.

Back to the Earth/Moon system....as a 'dual-planet' the two bodies actually orbit about a common 'center of mass'....which, because of the size and mass differences, is located some kilometers beneath the Earth's crust.

We actually owe a lot of our stability to the Moon's influence. After the original collision, the two bodies as they orbited, were much closer together. The Earth's rotation used to be much faster...eons of time have elapsed, the Moon, through Newton's Laws of conservation of momentum, have interacted...we see the Moon slowly receding, and as it orbits, each time, energy is extracted from the Earth's rotational momentum, and the Moon is slowly spiraling away.

What causes the water to rises once a day?

See my post above. The gravity of the Moon has an effect on the tides....again, part of the reason the Earth's rotation has slowed, over the eons of time....LONG before humans existed.

How can the magnetic connections be the force if the moon has no iron to create a magnetic force?

Again....it is the simple fact of the MASS of the Moon that causes gravity, not any iron or magnetic forces.....

The pictures that show earth is not gravity but what shape earth gets by its speed of rotation compared to its magnetic gravity force.

Question: Is the Moon shaped like earth because of its rotation?

Again, these questions need some clarification. A mass, in space, will form a sphere. Simple. A molten mass is a form of liquid....hence, a sphere is shaped....and becomes a planet. Our Sun is a sphere....it is a ball of gas, but the equations are the same....just bigger numbers.

Hope this helps to answer your questions!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"negative" gravity????

OK, I can imagine a lot of things. I can even suppose that, in some way, technolgy can be used to counter-act G-forces. I mean, if we wish to understand FTL travel we have to comprehend some sort of 'artificial gravity' and other sorts of technological devices so that the protoplasm on board the space ships isn't splattered against the interior sides looking like strawberry jam!!!!

Gee I took you off ignore to see if you have grown up at all, but I see your still the same old pilot without papers that thinks he is a space expert...

Oh well each to his own eh?

NEGATIVE GRAVITY

Photo Gives Weight to Einstein's Thesis of Negative Gravity
www.nytimes.com...

Origin of negative gravity anomaly landward of trench junctionadsabs.harvard.edu...

Existence of Negative Gravity Material Identification of Dark Energy
LANL Archives
LANL Archives

So while you are being so smug about your 'knowledge' of negative gravity, seems main stream science has a lot of papers explaining it.

Try Google once in a while... its your friend... helps to make you look less foolish



Bu bye again... lemme know when your ready for REAL science

[edit on 31-5-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Esoterica
If people dismissed John's claim that the far side of the moon had a higher gravity as crazy, it is their fault for not researching the matter.

But then... that is the point isn't it? Too many people on ATS are willing to dismiss anything and everything simply based on a personal opinion of a person, whether it be John, me or anyone else with something 'way out there'

A simple little bit of followup is all that is needed to show a lot of what John says can be backed up... but heck, that would not be any fun would it?

reply to post by zorgon


As I read the article....one thing jumped out at me....

The phrase "any sort of 'negative' gravity would be miniscule"

I am not citing, exactly....just repeating what I saw. So, sorry, zorgon.

The mere fact that the Solar System has been stable for, ermmmm the past several BILLION years seems to show that, as far as we know....gravity is pretty well understood, and observed.


I'd LOVE to see some evidence to the contrary....in fact, when you find it, sign me up, because I want to win a fortune, and share the Nobel Prize with you!!!!

OK....that was bad....bad, bad me!! I was being sarcastic.

Back to the point of this thread. There is little doubt, in my pea-sized brain, that we do not yet know everything. SO, matters that stimulate imaginations...well, let's corral them and discuss.

BUT.....there has to be some logic invoked, as well. See....we ALL know the Earth is flat, right??? I mean....how ELSE do you account for the fact that we are stuck to its surface???


Of course, I was, again, being sarcastic. The fact of the Earth being round is obvious.....but, I hope I have made a point. THE MASS of our planet, our good Earth, is known to provide the gravity that keeps us safely on her surface....even as we attempt to defy it. (Mountain climbing, and such....)

Galileo described it firstly.....it, gravity is now recorded to quite exacting standards. For the Americans in the audience, the acceleration due to oneG is defined as 32 feet/per second/per second. (In metric, is is 9.8 metres per second per second)

This is not debatable....it has been demonstrated to be true. Again, we need to understand the acceleration....and to realize that other forces, such as atmospheric drag, will interfere. This is why parqachutes work, for instance....in Earth's, atmospheres, and other planets with atmospheres.

Mars, for instance....thin atmosphere, but able to sustain, up to a point, a deceleration via a chute, prior to drop on the surface.

The Moon, as a counter example, will require a differnent method of retrograde, in order to achieve a safe landing...and we've seen that already.

John Lear is like a small child he likes to join dots to make pictures then colour them in, he has a great imagination this is backed up when you look at some of the dross on the livingmoon site I really at his so called structures on the moon.
Not one of them is convincing well unless your a Lear fanboy (a few on hear).
Why dont you guys who side with John POST what you think is his best picture of a structure on the moon we all need a good