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: 9
152
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jaellma
 


The moon is constanting 'falling' away from the earth, thou it does come closer like these times, the final fate of the moon will be shooting off to space.




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Thanks for doing the math. Your posts were as helpful as many of the others were unhelpful.

One thing I'm wondering is if the increase in accuracy of the measuring instruments over the years is relevant? Surely over that period of time the accuracy of measurements has improved?
edit on 3/13/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


Thanks for the link. I'm not big on the sensationalism and exaggeration though. I almost did not look due to the title.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


If you have those links it would be great....Looking on his own personal page there is no mention of this ever having been published....even though the list seems up to date.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PGRacer
By how much is it becoming eliptical? Are we talking a few cm per day or a few miles?
Are there fears that the moon could break its orbit or is it just becoming an eliptical orbit?


Equation (1): eccentricity is increasing at about 9 +/- 3 parts per trillion per year.

This is interesting to theoretical physicists, but not to you.

The principal part of the paper is showing that many other published proposals for alterations to gravity (to account for other anomalies) do not explain the observation.

To me this means that we have not yet discovered any suitable and consistent alteration to gravity or theoretical understanding to account for the various (very very small) observed anomalies.

The most likely scenarios are (a) all the anomalies are mundane, result of ordinary physics and observational issues not yet undersood, or (b) there is some new physics whose form has not yet been discovered.

The author did not consider electromagnetic or solar wind effects. I don't know if they have been ruled out for other reasons.


edit on 13-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Bears repeating:


Surely over that period of time the accuracy of measurements has improved?


Yes, I mentioned that some pages back. In fact, the introduction/abstract of the paper featured in the OP says that it is based on the last ~37 years (or so) of measurements. 'Co-incidentally', the same amount of time that has elapsed since the Apollo missions placed the laser retro-reflectors on the Lunar surface.


IF we were still only limited to visual observations and measurements, I doubt these VERY minor orbital perturbations would even have been noticed.

This is an arcane and "nerdy" discovery, and so minor in the over-all scheme of things....BUT, to those who 'demand' precision, and 'answers' to even the slightest of variances....a potential Nobel Prize (or some other accolade) that will only be understood, and appreciated, by peers in their respective fields of expertise.

Sad that the lay public mis-interpret it, so readily, and to such an extent.....



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Oh man I ain't reading all that. I just skipped to the end, all it is saying is what everybody knew all along. That # changes, and there conclusion for why # changes. They dont know, and further data analyses should be done. The rest is just calculations on the observations they kept track of. The conclusion at the bottom says it all. So really there just giving numbers for something you can see with your own eyes, if you look that is. In time it will be kind of hard to miss these cosmic changes.




Thus, in conclusion, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation of the observed orbital anomaly of the Moon still remains open. 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. Further data analyses, hopefully performed by independent teams, should help in shedding further light on such an astrometric anomaly.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks, I did not notice that sorry. It's obvious this is just an interesting side note.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I find it interesting that they mentioned Planet X and Nemesis...or was it Nibiru? Whatever, to see that such things are seriously considered by top scientists says volumes!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Bears repeating:


Surely over that period of time the accuracy of measurements has improved?


Yes, I mentioned that some pages back. In fact, the introduction/abstract of the paper featured in the OP says that it is based on the last ~37 years (or so) of measurements. 'Co-incidentally', the same amount of time that has elapsed since the Apollo missions placed the laser retro-reflectors on the Lunar surface.


IF we were still only limited to visual observations and measurements, I doubt these VERY minor orbital perturbations would even have been noticed.

This is an arcane and "nerdy" discovery, and so minor in the over-all scheme of things....BUT, to those who 'demand' precision, and 'answers' to even the slightest of variances....a potential Nobel Prize (or some other accolade) that will only be understood, and appreciated, by peers in their respective fields of expertise.

Sad that the lay public mis-interpret it, so readily, and to such an extent.....




No, what it really says is science was wrong, the known math was wrong, and yet again we get confirmed that science is nothing more then correcting previously wrong assumptions and feeding them to the public as fact.

It might be minor, but still, they were wrong.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
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?


Maybe they can explain how a mythical, hypothetical planet with 3 names is a "promising candidate:"


3.6. A distant massive object: Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche

A promising candidate for explaining the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity may be, at least in principle, a trans-Plutonian massive body of planetary size located in the remote peripheries of the solar system: Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche (Lykawka & Mukai 2008; Melott & Bambach 2010; Fern ́andez 2011; Matese & Whitmire 2011).

Indeed, as we will see, the perturbation induced by it would actually cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of e. Moreover, since it depends on the spatial position of X in the sky and on its tidal parameter KX
.
= GmX
d3
X ,

where mX and dX are the mass and the distance of X, respectively, it may happen that a suitable combination of them is able to reproduce the empirical result of eq. (1)...

pdf link: arxiv.org...

Now how did "promising" mathematical equations get mixed up with a "hypothetical" fairy tale planet?


edit on 3/13/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


Where is the pdf./link? Really want to read/see what your saying.
ty.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Not wanting to sound stupid here but couldn't earthquake-induced tilts of the Earth's axis (as small as they are) cause the Moon's orbit to change slightly?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by woghd
I find it interesting that they mentioned Planet X and Nemesis...or was it Nibiru? Whatever, to see that such things are seriously considered by top scientists says volumes!

It was only included as a scientific hypothesis, and then dismissed.



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.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Ok I emailed the author of the pdf to possibly come into this thread.
Maybe he could be contacted for a interveiw on ATS live?


edit on 13-3-2011 by proob4 because: deleted contac info



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The darkside of the moon holds all the answers.
Its where i believe the E.T;s spacecraft hang out so to speak.
Could there be cloaked motherships there which weigh billions of tons?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 



There is NO SUCH THING as the "dark side of the Moon" (except as atitle for a very nice Pink Floyd album from many decades ago....

THAT is it!!!

(ALL sides of the Moon receive equal amountsof Sunshine....just like the Earth does. Sheesh!!)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
if youre worried about it disappearing just download it

i know if u use the opera browser, select page and then save as pdf and there ya go



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 



Two questions...

1. Why do you think this pdf might disappear?

2. Why do you imagine this is linked to animal deaths on earth?

Cheers bud



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I didn't understand anything that they said except that they don't what is going. They r supposed to be smart and they have no idea. I bet u the JAPAN quake is linked to the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
152
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join