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.

 

Here Is Proof of Moon Shift!!!! View PDF before it "Disapears".

page: 12
152
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Maybe we shouldn't have shot missiles at it and blew a hole in the side of it last year....I figured that was a bad idea...Duh...




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
If the OP can explain what this means:

e˙meas = (9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1.

I will read the rest of this thread and artical.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 


No the OP cannot because the OP doesn't even understand elementary Math. Here is what I explained AGAIN:

Before anybody sells their house and car divorces their wife and moves to Alaska I have read the paper and I am familiar with the math but not all the models. The amount of perturbation they are speaking of in the eccentricity is on the scale of pico meters over decades, the only reason physicist even need to re-evaluate their models now is because of the great leaps and advances in technology and measuring equipment. This is how science works, that's why we evolved from Newtonian mechanics, to Relativity and now something even more accurate. The "anomaly" has always existed will always exist and is pointed out as being periodic within the models, which means relax and take your meds. I suggest before you freak out on a technical paper you at least be versed in the subject.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by carlitomoore
 


yes i understand they have used Planet X however why include Nemesis and Tyche? Surely you cant say those are accepted terms for Planet X within Academia? Or am i wrong?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I know it says that....

My issue was even including that possibility in the paper, if Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche was just a myth....

what I am saying is that Academia seems to accept that Tyche etc is accepted as a possibility

Which I think says a lot....



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


well said



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberterius
 


My point entirely. Very well said sir, I tip my hat to your eloquence.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kid_cudi
 


I can explain for HereHowItGoes..

Read here:
www.universetoday.com...

A full day on the moon is 29.5 earth-days.
The moon always face the same side to the Earth though.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



So what do we have here?

104 flags and CLPrime, Chadwickus, DJW001, Blaine91555 AND Weedwhacker all taking turns "explaining" to each other that the ONLY thing this means is that the moon's orbit is more eccentric!

What is this, a company picnic?


I assume you've cast yourself in the role of the ants? The paper the OP cites rules out the possibility of a hypothetical planet with any name. The hypothetical planet with three names doesn't exist anywhere but in your death cult propaganda. There are three different hypothetical planets with three different names in the literature that have never been confirmed. You are intelligent enough to understand this, yet you persist in propagating this error. I don't envy your karma.

This post will be deleted, but someone had to say this.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I can't say i completely understand this article, but doesn't this imply that a "planet X" has nothing to do with it?
(I haven't read through the entire thread as of yet, so if this was already mentioned...)

"We must conclude that not even the hypothesis of Planet X is a viable one to explain
the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity of eq." (bottom of page 14)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Hi,
The pdf :



Our analysis should have effectively
restricted the field of possible explanations, indirectly pointing towards either nongravitational,
mundane effects or some artifacts in the data processing


Seems they are not even sure about their calculations.
If they are correct then these very small changes are an interesting scientific puzzle.
As for rockets and landings on the moon, that would give less effect as shooting at a tank with a bb gun.
Anyway, thanks for posting that pdf.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


Yes, the moon is getting 3.8 cm farther away from Earth, each year.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...


The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by Le Colonel
I read the first couple pages, not really understanding any of it. I can read some technical stuff, but it seemed more like gibberish, also Planet x, Nibiru is mentioned in the first or second paragraph. I cant believe this is legit.

Dont get me wrong, im all for a good conspiracy, but ...


I am on the exact same page when it comes to planetx/ nibru etc. in fact I usually don't even read posts containing that in the title. My obsession has been Moon tilt and I found this document amid the biggest trash dump on the internet, you-tube. The author did not post it, it was part of a screen shot from a moon tilt video. Long story short the author is a PHD, this document can be found on NASA, Harvard, Cornell, Stanford and numerous other sites if you dig really hard (or if needed I can post direct links).
The guy is absolutely legit and the document confirms moon tilt.


Long ago I read a Harvard paper and they called a possible extra planet they were searching "planet X'
I believe this was what academia called it in theory of a large as of yet unfound planet being out there all along.

I wonder if an approaching dwarf or collapsed sun would explain it.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I have only read the first 6/7 pages so far but it all seems to be getting blown out of perspective.

We know that the moon is moving away from the earth, and that it was originally part of another astral body before the forementioned astral body hit us.

As for the planet x part, all astral body that we discover or more importantly think that are there, are known as planet x until given it's reconised name.

Now this is interesting but it needs to be keep in perspective.

On a side note, single star systems are extremely rare in the universe, binary and trinary alot more common. So is it all just one big fluke for ( intelligent ! ) life in a single star system or is that the formula for creation. Of course we might not be a single star system, remember reading somewhere that jupiter just never started fusion.

Sorry got carried away there.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cambion
I have only read the first 6/7 pages so far but it all seems to be getting blown out of perspective.

We know that the moon is moving away from the earth, and that it was originally part of another astral body before the forementioned astral body hit us.

As for the planet x part, all astral body that we discover or more importantly think that are there, are known as planet x until given it's reconised name.

Now this is interesting but it needs to be keep in perspective.

On a side note, single star systems are extremely rare in the universe, binary and trinary alot more common. So is it all just one big fluke for ( intelligent ! ) life in a single star system or is that the formula for creation. Of course we might not be a single star system, remember reading somewhere that jupiter just never started fusion.

Sorry got carried away there.


You should re-read it, or get someone else's interpretation. It's not that the moon is moving further away, it's that the orbit is becoming elliptical. Meaning that every once in a while it gets very close to us. A "super moon" effect, like there will be on the 19th. The last time it was this close, the Indonesian tsunami and Katrina happened.

This was posted 2 days before the earthquake in Japan =/ Scary.
uk.news.yahoo.com...

2nd, he mentioned Planet X as a hypothetical huge unknown heavenly body, as he also mentioned Tyche, which is still not technically discovered. That means that it IS Planet X, for now. (Well unless it turns out to be a brown dwarf or something). BUT, he also says that it pretty much impossible for it to be the cause.

I apologize if I misunderstood your post, but it seems like you're focusing on all of the wrong details.
edit on 16-3-2011 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


I appreciate your comments. Only just started reading the pdf, I was commenting on the first few pages on this thread. The moon's orbit has been changing from the moment that it got caught in the earth's gravitational pull all those millions of years ago.

The earthquake and tsunami's of the past few years have indeed been getting worse but if you look at the high magnitude earthquakes of the last century they seem to peak every 20+ or so years.

As for the planet x thing, I was just trying to point out the nature our planetary discovery



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Just found this little article from 2005

The moon's orbit is inclined in relation to the Earth, causing the moon's position in the sky to nod north and south on an 18.6-year cycle.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


Shouldn't you first look at the finger to see which direction it is pointing? Who is the imbecile?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Bejezus, you people really, are actually, that ignorant, I've read the paper and explained it to you. But you simpleton monkeys who don't read the history of post, and I find this truly pathetic, are STILL arguing about the OP who is obviously someone who needs to take their meds, and STFU when it comes to subjects they don't understand the first thing about. But, bejesus, you idiots are showing your true colors, and babling in your own dribbling ignorance, and asking questions aboout a subject that on your best day you couldn't even begin to approach.....HAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA, my God you are PATHETIC.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


Shouldn't you first look at the finger to see which direction it is pointing? Who is the imbecile?

You, like most who posted here, are missing the "point".
That simply means "focus on the object", not the person who shows it to you,




top topics



 
152
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join