Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the Moon an Artificial Satellite? Look at This.

page: 8
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Okay.....

Can't say the argument was effectively countered, but, okay.....




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 



Sorry if ou can't see that he is speaking gibberish.....and his "Diagram 2" and "Diagram 3" so-called explanations?? He shoots himself in the foot, and actually "argues" the exact opposite of what he is trying to "prove".

I would almost think this was an attempt at humor. Satire. Parody.

Like, the "Flat Earth Society". Phil Plaitt blogged about it, two years ago:


When I see their claims I have to wonder if it’s an elaborate hoax, their attempt to poke a hornet’s nest just to see how reality-based people react.


blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Wouldn't be surprised if this website you linked is having everyone on, for a lark. Some people are REALLY into such practical jokes.

Or, argumentum absurdium. There was a "Hollow Earth" thread on ATS, that was in that same vein. I know the OP was laughing his butt off, the whole time, because of all the sincere, and serious posts by "hollow earth" believers!!



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rajaten
 


Weird...

Thanks for the link...


I wold like to see your thoughts about this video if you could. Thanks Raj.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-10-2010 by RUSSO because: fix link



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Still puzzling to me is this fact...

We are now again talking about water on our moon...

Which is much closer than Mars.

Yet we send Rovers to Mars.

And yet to send one, even one! to the Moon.

Or have any dealings at all, really, with our Moon in decades.

Why in the heck haven't we sent one to the Moon?????

Wouldn't it have been much, much easier to do that?

And certainly, it would have gleaned much information for us, since we obviously are woefully behind in

knowledge on our own Moon for cryingoutloud...

Why such a veil of ignorant indifference??



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegoodearth
Yet we send Rovers to Mars.
And yet to send one, even one! to the Moon.
Why in the heck haven't we sent one to the Moon?????
Wouldn't it have been much, much easier to do that?

We haven't sent one to the Moon of late because of them aliens. Get the heck outta here, they warned!! Didn't you know?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 



Yet we send Rovers to Mars.
And yet to send one, even one! to the Moon.


There is no need to send a "Rover" to the Moon!! Would be a terrible waste of money, and effort. The POINT of Rovers on Mars is, it is far cheaper that way, to assess the surface, and the geology (well, "areology"..) of the planet, to the limited extent available.

By far, from a scientific standpoint....MANNED missions to Mars, with sample returns back to Earth, would be ideal. Any mission of that sort is a long way off, due to not only the expense, but a whole host of unknowns, still, regarding very long-term (as long as 18 months) Human survival for the voyage, and for the stay on the surface.

Next-best, but still technologically difficult, and expensive, is a Mars robotic mission, with sample return for study. Certainly not impossible to achieve, BUT the amount of money needed for that just never gets into the budgets. They have to compromise, with the funding they are offered.....which led to the Mars Spirit and Opportunity designs....and Voyager that preceded. AND, the new Rover in the works....dubbed Curiosity.


Or have any dealings at all, really, with our Moon in decades.


Grossly incorrect.

Clementine. LCROSS/LRO Japan, and the Kayuga. China. India.....research, please.


Why in the heck haven't we sent one to the Moon?????


LCROSS/LRO. Impact, and spectrometry study of the debris cloud.

THAT was far more instructive than an expensive (and potentially mechanically vulnerable, due to the abrasive nature of the Lunar regolith) "rover"....which would only be able to examine the surface....and we ALREADY HAVE such samples, right here on Earth, to study!
edit on 27 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Spell



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
There is another thread on this, so I am going to copy and paste what I have just wrote there here, as I don't know which one people are following:

All the galaxy's in the universe, all the stars, all the planets, all the moons and yet people believe it is impossible for one of the moons to have ended up like ours has?? If the moon's rotation being locked to the earth, its distance etc and all the rest helped life form, then that explains why there is life on this planet.

The moon is natural, the moon is beautiful, it wasn't created by beings, it was created by nature a long time ago, and the circumstances were just right for it to play its game the way it does.





This otherwise bizarre phenomenon can be explained in terms of a subtle effect generated by gravitation and friction — tidal locking. Through their mutual gravitational attraction, the Earth and the moon create tidal bulges on each other. One bulge faces in the direction of the other body, and one faces away. These bulges generate heat through the friction of rock rubbing against itself. Over time, they siphon energy away from the rotational momentum of both bodies, producing a braking effect.


Why does the same side of the moon always face the earth?
edit on 27/10/10 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
If you look at this girl:



So this need a bit imagination. If she is the earth and the ball (hammer) is the moon. The chain is the gravity between the earth and moon. The ball isn't rotating as known because his axis is fixed to the girl. But yes, because she is rotating the balls is also rotating synchronized with here rotations because of the forces between them.

If you do something similar your self with a bucket of water, you can feel that the middle point of the axis is between you and the bucket, but not centered to your body.


They really ignore the answers....



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


OP, interesting subject. I from time to time study the moon and have considered this as well. My main question would be how come there is no energy emmisions from some type engine or something. If it infact is a base of the annuz. S&F



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 



Yet we send Rovers to Mars.

And yet to send one, even one! to the Moon.


The Russians sent a rover to the Moon ages ago:



For 1970, this baby was pretty stylish and high tech, Soviet style. For more recent developments in lunar roving, you might want to check out this thread: Private venture to revisit Apollo landing site.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 

It is not an answer.
The moon is rotating if the core of the moon is the driving force, compelling the crust to rotate, not an external force called tidal locking from the Earth, that, in affect, "ratchet" the moon into an alignment.
For instance, if you hold a top vertical with a finger, and "rotate" the top with another finger along its axis, IT (the top) is not rotating. If you let the top go, and it spins freely, IT (the top) is rotating.
That is how I see it. I don't much care that others don't.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


The Moon is rotating because the entire mass is spinning. The spinning has become synchronized with the Earth for the same reasons the Earth's tides are synchronized with the Moon's orbit: gravity. Most of the other moons in the solar system are also tidally locked in this way, or have rotations that are in a harmonic, 2:1 and so forth. Mercury is close enough to the Sun that it has such a harmonic period.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


I don't think that cushycrux implied that the Moon's rotation is due to interacting with the Earth, and her gravity. I KNOW that is not the case!!!!


The moon is rotating if the core of the moon is the driving force, compelling the crust to rotate....


No, not exactly. Well....it's all connected, and all rotating.....and IF there are variable rates of rotation, between any core, and its crust, I'm not sure if that's been able to be measured yet. More study is needed, since no one is there to make accurate measurements, as we can here on Earth.

The point is (you're going to have to go research on this for yourself. Learning is fun!!! And, if you do it yourself, you learn better, because it sticks in your head, better)....point is, the INITIAL momentum of rotation came billions of years ago...as the matter that would become the Moon (and separately, the Earth) coalesced. IT was rotating initially...and just like a spinning ice skater who speeds up when she pulls her arms in close to her body, the mass came together, and conservation of angular momentum came into play. (Look that up on Google).





edit on 27 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hmmmpf.




posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

You don't seem to enjoy learning, Weed.

You're arrogant and condescending, actually closing the door on free thought and potentially revolutionary ideas. You discount others out of hand, like an old professor that thinks he has learned all there is to learn. Those are your good points.

Later, Weed. MUCH later.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 



Hmmmpf.
...indeed.

That is the exct same video I have already posted once, upthread.
Stewie appeared to be under the (hopefully false) impression that you thought the Moon's rotation was caused by gravitational attraction to Earth.

When, in fact, BOTH bodies have been rotating ever since they formed. The initial states of matter, as they gravitated into spheres, and their diameters decreased (but over-all mass stayed about the same) sped up their rotational speeds, over those millions of years. Eventually, settling into an orbital relationship with each other that is VERY DIFFERENT than we see today.

So, the conservation of angular momentum was at work in the formation of the spheres, but has ALSO been at work ever since. The Moon's orbit is not perfect, and has been "spiralling" outward, ever "higher" for billions of years. Four billion years ago, the Earth/Moon distance was much smaller, and BOTH of them rotated much faster.

The Moon's gravitational pull has "tugged" at the Earth for all that time, and this has SLOWED the Earth's speed of rotation to what it is today. {edit=Same reason the Moon's rotation slowed, too. Earth is the 800-pound gorilla, more massive. So, Earth won that battle.}

Same time, that ENERGY is "robbed" by the Moon, and is imparted into increasing its orbital velocity. Thus, as orbital velocity increased, the orbit HAD to change, and get farther out. That's how the physics of orbital mechanics work.

That is slightly over-simplified, for clarity. Because it is a complex interaction, and not stable over time....variable. But, there are math calculations (from "rocket scientists") who can decipher the current orbital relationship, noting the Moon's exact rate at which it is getting farther away, and then "work the problem backwards" to infer conditions in the distant past. It's math, and physics. Some "unknown" possible variables could be perturbations from very large asteroid or meteor impacts, or even (unlikely, but still...) a possible ancient near-miss with some large celestial body of some sort....not enough to seriously disrupt the orbits of most Solar System objects, but minor changes? Hard to know, without a baseline to compare to.

No astronomers to make measurements four billion years ago, and keep records for the entire time period since!


edit on 27 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Note



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"When, in fact, BOTH bodies have been rotating ever since they formed. The initial states of matter, as they gravitated into spheres, and their diameters decreased (but over-all mass stayed about the same) sped up their rotational speeds, over those millions of years. Eventually, settling into an orbital relationship with each other that is VERY DIFFERENT than we see today."

That is a lot of if's, from these scientists, do they presume to know what happened billions of years ago, based on what? It's a theory in the end, especially since they say gravity keep's it there, but when asked what gravity is they dont know. I mean dont get me wrong angular momentum and all that, but it still does not say much. And based on that and impact thing, if something collided with the earth that was powerful enough to blast a chunk that big off it, it was probably powerful enough to send it flying of into space or the sun. Or if the moon was/is a piece of what hit the earth, that just leaves more questions.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 
.

Yeah....that one was a scenario to describe a SIMULTANEOUS Earth and Moon accretion hypothesis.

The "Impact" theory is probably better....I was visualizing the Earth being grossly deformed, form impact, and re-forming into a sphere. IN any case, better minds than you or I have already done the calculations, and since the composition of the Moon is better known, (and as computers get more powerful) they can continue to refine the computer models. And, no...not all material would be "flung off into space" from any impact, never to return again. Some, yes....but the Earth still has a deep gravitational well.

This video shows how a ring of debris would likely be left over, from the impact, and then accrue to form the Moon, while other material reconfigures to remain as part of the Earth. This happened very early in the life of the Solar System...in fact, just read recently that astronomers are observing material accreting into future planets, in star systems that are VERY young...so the time involved in the planet-forming process is being thought to be rather quick, just a few millions of years perhaps. Earth/Moon have been interacting for at least four Billion, or more.



And, one that is more for a "general" audience:



Certainly, there are plenty of others to view, just search......



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


An intresting theory, and the video is weird. But whatever that theory is as good as another, I guess one day when they build bigger and better telescopes, then with some scanning the cosmos we will see what its like when two planet sized astral bodies around the scope of earth collide.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Do you seriously believe in that so called 'Impact Theory'? That vid was pretty much lame!

First, where's that 'Mars sized' object that hit Earth? It would have been captured by the gravitational pull of the Sun. So is it Mercury? Venus? Neither. So where did it disappear?

Second, this theory of ejected material coalescing to form the Moon doesn't fit the equations of orbital mechanics. Such material would either have coalesced to form a number of small moons orbiting the Earth or remained as a ring system like the one we see around Saturn. In the same vein, why hasn't the material around Saturn coalesced to form a huge moon orbiting Saturn? A ring system around the Earth would have been pretty romantic, though!


In all probability, the Moon was formed out of the same material that formed Earth at about the same time in its evolution, 3.4 billion years ago.

Or probably the aliens put it there!





new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join