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.

 

(Apollo-gee) The Moon See the Earth through the Sun

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
More renderings...













[edit on 2-8-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Armap, don't you think it would be a little presumptuous to state you know what and what can't happen.
Yes but I don't understand why you say that. Is it because I said that rocks don't turn to ashes?

Sorry, I don't understand a word of the rest of your post, could you please explain it better? Thanks in advance.


So you're saying the "rocks" they brought back are ashes? If you support the moon landings then you'd say they brought back rocks. Are not the rocks covered in the "fine grain powder".



All I can do is go off the evidence. I hope this clears it up for you. I believe the ash filled in much of the features enough to change the albedo and make it unrecognizable. That doesn't mean I think the rock turned to ash. They supposedly brought back rock, so I can not assume it turned to ash.

Peace



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
More renderings...




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
If this was true then it would bring a new meaning to as above, so below


This is however really far fetched and overlaying 2d projections of different sized 3d spheres is kinda...well, i don't know what to say.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Note the coordinates on the bottom. These are ruffly the same coordinates.
Anyway, Hadley on earth.

And Hadley on the moon.

Peace

[edit on 3-8-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by above
If this was true then it would bring a new meaning to as above, so below


This is however really far fetched and overlaying 2d projections of different sized 3d spheres is kinda...well, i don't know what to say.


No the meaning isn't new, now you just see it correctly.

What's the surface of a sphere measure out to?

Peace

[edit on 3-8-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
So you're saying the "rocks" they brought back are ashes?
No, what gave you that idea?


If you support the moon landings then you'd say they brought back rocks. Are not the rocks covered in the "fine grain powder".
It's not a question of supporting, it's more a question of not seeing any reason for it not to have happened, but yes, I do believe that they (both the USSR and the US) brought back rocks, but "fine grain powder" is not ash.


I believe the ash filled in much of the features enough to change the albedo and make it unrecognizable. That doesn't mean I think the rock turned to ash. They supposedly brought back rock, so I can not assume it turned to ash.
Then where did all that ash came from?

That's what I was trying to point, that it would be needed a huge amount of material to fill all the great depths of the oceans with ash.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
So you're saying the "rocks" they brought back are ashes?
No, what gave you that idea?


If you support the moon landings then you'd say they brought back rocks. Are not the rocks covered in the "fine grain powder".
It's not a question of supporting, it's more a question of not seeing any reason for it not to have happened, but yes, I do believe that they (both the USSR and the US) brought back rocks, but "fine grain powder" is not ash.


I believe the ash filled in much of the features enough to change the albedo and make it unrecognizable. That doesn't mean I think the rock turned to ash. They supposedly brought back rock, so I can not assume it turned to ash.
Then where did all that ash came from?

That's what I was trying to point, that it would be needed a huge amount of material to fill all the great depths of the oceans with ash.


I thought I made that clear in the video, but I'm sorry, I will explain.

How much ash would every volcano exploding at once make? How do you think the moon becomes molten lava? Volcano's correct?

If the earth's core began to heat it would expand correct? If it expanded where would it go? Up.

How big would the earth be if you took away 70% of it, that is the water? 1/3rd the size. Water refracts the light into colors, with out the water you see the moon.

The oceans don't get filled in, that is to say, they get burnt off at least the pacific does instantly and cratered by the falling debre of its end. The spewing ash having little atmosphere to resist as I assume the atmosphere is erased almost immediately, falls back and fills in the rifts, the Mediterranean, and the low lying areas. Everything on the pacific side is almost erased, save Tchaikovsky...the lowest point in Australia.

I'm not saying this happens, but I'm not saying it doesn't either. If Apophis strikes the moon, the earth is in trouble. Everyone worrying about the earth getting struck, but we can't live without the moon and that could be a real threat. And of course it just has to be at the cross of 2012/2013. I'm not a doomsday guy, but this is a real problem.



I think your wise enough to figure these things out. It just takes seeing the same info from "all" sides...Like I said. You don't throw away what you know, you apply it with a new outlook. Remember why you started asking questions and loved learning? Remember your first solved mystery?...It's supposed to be fun...don't forget that. It's ok to not know everything, but its not ok to not know what you know....share at your discretion....Peace

Thanks again for the questions Armap...



[edit on 3-8-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


There's something strange with those images.

First of all, I don't see such dark colours on Google Earth, but that's irrelevant.

As your images are not seen from above it's a little difficult to get an exact reproduction of the image, but this is what I got.

On Earth (click for full size)

The distance between the red and the green marker is 1.6km.

On the Moon (click for full size)

The distance between the red and the green marker is 56km.

You can see the cluster of markers that show the Earth locations just above the red marker.

So, althought the coordinates are more or less the same, the markers on the Moon are 35 times more distant from each other than the Earth markers, which, considering that the Moon's perimeter is a fourth of that of the Earth, is at least a little inconsistent with the idea of corresponding places, the Moon markers should be at a distance of 400 metres.

PS: I only noticed now that my images do not show the compass, sorry for that.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
How much ash would every volcano exploding at once make? How do you think the moon becomes molten lava? Volcano's correct?
OK, volcanic ash. I always thought of ash as normal ash, not volcanic ash.

Volcanic ash in large quantities is limited to a relatively small area around each volcano, I don't think it would be that much.


If the earth's core began to heat it would expand correct?
Not much, it's already very hot. But I don't understand why it would get hotter.


How big would the earth be if you took away 70% of it, that is the water? 1/3rd the size. Water refracts the light into colors, with out the water you see the moon.
Water covers 70% of the Earth's surface, the volume is just around 1/800 of the whole Earth's volume (if I didn't made any mistake in my calculations
).

And without water we would see the bottom of the oceans, but we will still see the areas above water level as they look now, so I don't understand what you mean by that.


The oceans don't get filled in, that is to say, they get burnt off at least the pacific does instantly and cratered by the falling debre of its end.
The debris do not fall in the area from where they were ejected, as you can see just by letting something fall on a bowl of flour, for example, they are spread around the impact area.


The spewing ash having little atmosphere to resist as I assume the atmosphere is erased almost immediately, falls back and fills in the rifts, the Mediterranean, and the low lying areas.
I don't know if the atmosphere would be destroyed, I don't remember anything about that, I will have to look for information about it, but without atmosphere the ash (I suppose you mean volcanic ash) would travel much farther away, making a more uniform but thinner layer than with atmosphere. But you still need a volume of ashes that's 1/16th of that of Moon to replace all of the ocean's water.


Everything on the pacific side is almost erased, save Tchaikovsky...the lowest point in Australia.
I suppose you mean Tsiolkovskiy, that would be in the northern part pf Australia. But what about Mare Moscoviense, for example, that would be in the Pacific?


If Apophis strikes the moon, the earth is in trouble. Everyone worrying about the earth getting struck, but we can't live without the moon and that could be a real threat. And of course it just has to be at the cross of 2012/2013. I'm not a doomsday guy, but this is a real problem.
No, Apophis is too small to make a big influence on the Moon. They are worried if it hits the Earth because a 5km crater on a densely populated area could mean millions of deaths.


I think your wise enough to figure these things out. It just takes seeing the same info from "all" sides...
That's the problem, I think you are not seeing it from the scientific side. But that's just my opinion, obviously.



Remember why you started asking questions and loved learning? Remember your first solved mystery?...
No, it was too long ago.



It's supposed to be fun...don't forget that. It's ok to not know everything, but its not ok to not know what you know....share at your discretion....Peace
I'm having fun, so no problems from that.

I just think you are letting your imagination go unchecked by reality for too long. But I know that I am an unimaginative person.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   





[edit on 3-8-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Has anyone tried to take the map of the Earth from the time when dinosaurs existed and match this one with the Moon map? I think that one would match more...



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cybernet
 

If you can find such a map I guess anyone can do it.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
How much ash would every volcano exploding at once make? How do you think the moon becomes molten lava? Volcano's correct?
OK, volcanic ash. I always thought of ash as normal ash, not volcanic ash.

Volcanic ash in large quantities is limited to a relatively small area around each volcano, I don't think it would be that much.


If the earth's core began to heat it would expand correct?
Not much, it's already very hot. But I don't understand why it would get hotter.


How big would the earth be if you took away 70% of it, that is the water? 1/3rd the size. Water refracts the light into colors, with out the water you see the moon.
Water covers 70% of the Earth's surface, the volume is just around 1/800 of the whole Earth's volume (if I didn't made any mistake in my calculations
).

And without water we would see the bottom of the oceans, but we will still see the areas above water level as they look now, so I don't understand what you mean by that.


The oceans don't get filled in, that is to say, they get burnt off at least the pacific does instantly and cratered by the falling debre of its end.
The debris do not fall in the area from where they were ejected, as you can see just by letting something fall on a bowl of flour, for example, they are spread around the impact area.


The spewing ash having little atmosphere to resist as I assume the atmosphere is erased almost immediately, falls back and fills in the rifts, the Mediterranean, and the low lying areas.
I don't know if the atmosphere would be destroyed, I don't remember anything about that, I will have to look for information about it, but without atmosphere the ash (I suppose you mean volcanic ash) would travel much farther away, making a more uniform but thinner layer than with atmosphere. But you still need a volume of ashes that's 1/16th of that of Moon to replace all of the ocean's water.


Everything on the pacific side is almost erased, save Tchaikovsky...the lowest point in Australia.
I suppose you mean Tsiolkovskiy, that would be in the northern part pf Australia. But what about Mare Moscoviense, for example, that would be in the Pacific?


If Apophis strikes the moon, the earth is in trouble. Everyone worrying about the earth getting struck, but we can't live without the moon and that could be a real threat. And of course it just has to be at the cross of 2012/2013. I'm not a doomsday guy, but this is a real problem.
No, Apophis is too small to make a big influence on the Moon. They are worried if it hits the Earth because a 5km crater on a densely populated area could mean millions of deaths.


I think your wise enough to figure these things out. It just takes seeing the same info from "all" sides...
That's the problem, I think you are not seeing it from the scientific side. But that's just my opinion, obviously.



Remember why you started asking questions and loved learning? Remember your first solved mystery?...
No, it was too long ago.



It's supposed to be fun...don't forget that. It's ok to not know everything, but its not ok to not know what you know....share at your discretion....Peace
I'm having fun, so no problems from that.

I just think you are letting your imagination go unchecked by reality for too long. But I know that I am an unimaginative person.


How am I not seeing the scientific side? In what way? What scientific law says you can not scale a spherical shape? Or have you never read "objects in the mirror are closer then they appear"?

Winlock on the moon



Winslow on the earth



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Heck for good measure I'll throw in Nier Crater on mars, which is winlock crater on the moon and Winslow crater on the earth.




I remember another member on here had what he called the "unitary planet theory"....I believe he is correct. One planet scaled up and down...amazing. All credit to Cloise Orand for the connections.

Peace



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
How am I not seeing the scientific side? In what way? What scientific law says you can not scale a spherical shape?

None that I know, but the problem is that you are ignoring the differences as if they don't exist.

For example, those images from "Hadley on Earth" and "Hadley on the Moon", for which you say the coordinates are "roughly the same". They are not, the location you marked on Earth is much smaller than the one on the Moon when it should be the other way.



Or have you never read "objects in the mirror are closer then they appear"?

That's funny, because that's an optical illusion, the word "appear" shows that it's a question of interpretation, not of reality.

And, as far as I know, that happens mostly because of convex rear-view mirrors, not normal mirrors, for which the difference is much smaller.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
How am I not seeing the scientific side? In what way? What scientific law says you can not scale a spherical shape?

None that I know, but the problem is that you are ignoring the differences as if they don't exist.

For example, those images from "Hadley on Earth" and "Hadley on the Moon", for which you say the coordinates are "roughly the same". They are not, the location you marked on Earth is much smaller than the one on the Moon when it should be the other way.



Or have you never read "objects in the mirror are closer then they appear"?

That's funny, because that's an optical illusion, the word "appear" shows that it's a question of interpretation, not of reality.

And, as far as I know, that happens mostly because of convex rear-view mirrors, not normal mirrors, for which the difference is much smaller.


No, it is not the other way around. The earth has a bigger surface area, so of course the Hadley Rhile feature is bigger on the moon. What about the fact that every feature is the same.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
No, it is not the other way around. The earth has a bigger surface area, so of course the Hadley Rhile feature is bigger on the moon.

Does that mean that although on the Moon, the features have the same size they have on Earth?

Aren't scaled down as whole planet?



What about the fact that every feature is the same.

I haven't seen any reference to a feature that is the same in both bodies, maybe I missed something or maybe you're considering the same things that are not.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join