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.
Originally posted by trekwebmaster
What struck me as odd, is that the moon never truly orbits the Earth, and why we only see one side at all times. It never revolves around the Earth, hence only one side is able to be seen. almost like a EKG with one beat per month, but instead of the beat moving in a linear line, perspective shifts and moves as the beat.
Is this non sequitor?
Originally posted by Balboa
Originally posted by trekwebmaster
What struck me as odd, is that the moon never truly orbits the Earth, and why we only see one side at all times. It never revolves around the Earth, hence only one side is able to be seen. almost like a EKG with one beat per month, but instead of the beat moving in a linear line, perspective shifts and moves as the beat.
Is this non sequitor?
The reason why we only see one side of the moon is has been well understood for a long time. Because the moon is much smaller than Earth, it's core has cooled from a liquid to a solid long ago, while the Earth still has a molten interior. Gravity from Earth 'gravitationally locked' the moon's orbit to its rotation. Due to gravity, the center of mass of the moon is not centered, but is more towards the side of the moon we are familiar with. This causes the moon to have the same rotational and orbital period. Sorry if this is confusing, but I promise there's no confusion among modern science.
-Balboa
Originally posted by BobAthome
To all good math people : ---------------------------------------------->>> I pose the following:
Current Solar Flare confirmed trajectory Earth
Object Comet Temple 1 current trajectory known
Variable : Solar Flare Direct Hit on Trajectory Impact if Any.edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: dumb in math
I'm sorry u misunderstood me it is a math question, if Train leaves station at A etc,,, math.
Originally posted by Balboa
Originally posted by BobAthome
To all good math people : ---------------------------------------------->>> I pose the following:
Current Solar Flare confirmed trajectory Earth
Object Comet Temple 1 current trajectory known
Variable : Solar Flare Direct Hit on Trajectory Impact if Any.edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: dumb in math
I'm not sure what math has to do with this, but I wouldn't worry about such things... As far as I know, there's no good way to predict space weather, we just observe the light, which arrives about 8 minutes before the solar wind, which is just enough time to shut off the grid in case of intense flux, except I don't believe we have any protocol in place to stop damage to the grid... So if you are worried about widespread power outages after an intense solar storm, it could happen, and there's no good way to prepare except for the usual ways for preparing for blackouts...
-Balboa
Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
A brilliant, scientific thread, and someone has to complain about the number of threads posted. By the way, do be careful, this one really likes to report even the slightest infractions.
Thinking about your question, is mass not a function of time? Does logic suggest that when we talk about the local spacetime, which is a function of mass, does not gravity manifest itself proportionally with increase in mass?
Now we're back to mass being a function of time as any observation is an "average" of a constantly fluctuating exchange of positive and negative particles, and so then is time not also a function of gravity? (Just like time is a function of energy?)
Originally posted by BobAthome
I'm sorry u misunderstood me it is a math question, if Train leaves station at A etc,,, math.edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: why would i not worry about math?????
Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by chr0naut
Would you not notice a doppler shift? I don't think that video is accurate because it assumes that light is not affected traveling at a constant speed. What satellite can there be if we don't know the furthest one?
Say Uranus. It takes light a certain amount of time to reach it right? If a singularity ripped the sun from the solar system there would some sort of doppler shifting. But assuming if the Black Hole is at light speed and occupies the entire known universe then time would stop, so the amount of time it would take to reach a far satellite would be exponentially infinite? right?
Originally posted by goatfish
I think this is a really good question and something I have pondered a bit recently so I'll throw my thoughts out there. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the math so I can only conjecture about what what I've been told is true from sources I consider credible and my own theories.
I've heard that when scientist do calculations to determine the path of travel for bodies in space, gravity is treated as acting instantaneously and that if it is limited to the speed of light the calculations do not come out correctly. Also I've wondered since a black hole can pull in photons and not let them escape then it seems the force of gravity must be travelling faster than the photons.edit on 14-2-2011 by goatfish because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FarArcher
When you create a standing wave, using highly conductive masses, that standing wave has a half-life of weeks and alters the local spacetime, which degrades with the half-life of the standing wave.
Inside that altered spacetime, matter is altered, and time slows drastically, but only within the local spacetime.
Left alone, over time, the local spacetime correspondingly with the standing wave will slowly degrade, and altered matter will more or less return to its original characteristics.
And that's with low power.
When you use high power with ultra high voltages, things change. Some elements within that standing wave/altered local spacetime are changed and appear to act as a dielectric to gravity - or they appear to "block" gravity from the greater mass.
Yet within the altered spacetime, things appear normal while all physical characteristics appear altered from without.
The "speed" of gravity thus may be considered dependent on whether one is within or without the altered spacetime, and in one instance, may be considered infinite.
Electrons are not the particles we see represented in physics books. Electrons are nothing more than vortices, and that will help one understand many of the "dual properties" attributed to the same.
So far, no one has succeeded at proving definitively that action-at-a-distance, i.e. entanglement, exists.