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.

 

Moon Up-Side-Down ????

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The planets, the Moon and the Sun and the stars can not change their courses...

BUT

there is something that can make them look like they have changed course, possibly in a split second and then flip back.
This object would also explain the Greenland 'two day early spring' event.

There is a black hole our Sun/Sol goes around.
Think of a tap turned full on and a statically charged comb that you put near it. The comb seems to bend the falling water. This is what is happening with the light and energy from the Sun.

Don't worry the Moon has not flipped, it just looks like it.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AriesJedi
The planets, the Moon and the Sun and the stars can not change their courses...

BUT

there is something that can make them look like they have changed course, possibly in a split second and then flip back.
This object would also explain the Greenland 'two day early spring' event.

There is a black hole our Sun/Sol goes around.
Think of a tap turned full on and a statically charged comb that you put near it. The comb seems to bend the falling water. This is what is happening with the light and energy from the Sun.

Don't worry the Moon has not flipped, it just looks like it.

If our sun were orbiting a black hole we'd see massive perturbations in the orbits of the planets. It wouldn't just be an "optical illusion," which is all the Greenland sunrise was; an instance of Novaya Zemlya. And as I already explained, the moon has not flipped. Its orientation is normal, people just don't understand how field rotation works.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 3-10-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


he already knows about moon phases + its different postions/different seasons.. keep in mind he's not ur average 10yo when it comes to the topic of space..

btw.. he's on his computer at present reading through this thread..



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Vamp333
 


Well I just observed and measured the moon's position and orientation last night. It's exactly as it should be. Hopefully you've seen my video showing the effect field rotation has over time and how it's caused by observing the moon from a non-polar aligned perspective. Indeed, any celestial object or constellation you watch in the sky will show this effect from an altitude-azimuth perspective.

www.youtube.com...

I also performed astrometric measurement of the moon's position last night. Here's the astrometric solution showing that the moon was right where it was supposed to be.

First I took a frame of the moon from the video right as I disengaged the drive system at 10:29:00 PM eastern time (00:58:03 on this recording from last night: www.ustream.tv... ). I then determined where the center of the moon should was based on the curvature of the moon's limb. In this particular image (having expanded the canvas size to 1100x960) the center was at 528x500:
i319.photobucket.com...
I then took the frame immediately after re-engaging the drive system at 10:38:45 eastern time and put it in the same position. Since 585 seconds had passed between drive disengagement and drive re-engagement (meaning the telescope was not moving at all during this time), we would expect the stars to progress through the field of view by 586.6 arcseconds (a sidereal day is shorter than a solar day, making a solar day about 1.0027 times longer). Given that the moon's coordinates at drive disengagement should have been 17h 41m 53.91s, -23d 05' 33.1", the previously determined center point of the moon should now correspond to the following coordinates:
17h 51m 40.51s -23d 05' 33.1"
Overlaying the Palomar Sky Survey image corresponding to those coordinates centered on the 528x500 point corresponding to the previous position of the moon's center point finds a match with the stars from the video at the moment the drives were re-engaged 585 seconds after disengagement:
i319.photobucket.com...
In other words, the stars that were present at that point reveal that the moon was right where it should have been relative to the stars. In summary, the moon was right where it should have been in the sky to within the resolution of the telescope (in this configuration, 2.24 arcseconds per pixel).



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Automated astrometry confirmed the measurements I performed last night by hand:
flickr.com...
The coordinates for where the moon's center point had been in the image were 17h 51m 40s, -23d 05' 33" right where it should be:
i319.photobucket.com...
The moon is exactly where it should be in the sky, to within the resolution of my scope, which was 2.21 arcseconds/pixel in the configuration used to acquire these images.
edit on 4-10-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
thanx hunter..

+ thankyou for ur input into this thread




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I am no expert by any means, but I live in Jacksonville, FL and I see what your son meant by the moon looking like a "u" shape last night....It usually does not look like like that but at the same time, it didn't seem weird or different or anything to be concerned about.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join