Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says. , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 45 times

Topic started on 15-11-2011 @ 09:45 AM by CherubBaby

I am threading this frankly because I want those who are not aware or those who just don't know to have a chance to see this and make their own decision. The moon is not right. Many people here on ATS know this. Thousands of people worldwide also are aware. The internet has a mulltitude of eye witness acounts. It is my hope that this will put some light on the doubters and possibly keep the trollers / and derailers away long enough to allow some of you a chance to read so facts that are not opions of mine alone but of Educated people in this field.,,

Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University associate Lorenzo Lorio, Has Researched i'm sure because of public outcry & observations made by You, my Friends, Visitors & others on the Internet and Concluded that Indeed there Is Something Wrong With The Sun Moon & Earth

The link to the full story and video is below. I only ask that you who do not know or for those that are not sure, please read the story and watch the video. It won't be long before the Dis-info agents attack this thread. That's fine. They are more concerned with being self proclaimed authorities than the possible chance that we all need to sit up and take notice of whats going on HERE AND NOW..

unhypnotize.com...

15d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance written permission from TAN or their agents). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

edit on Thu Nov 17 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 09:52 AM by yeahright

Previous thread here just to keep from covering the same ground.

The original paper from Lorenzo Lorio seems to no longer be available on the arXiv.org site. At least, I can't find it.

[ETA]

My bad. Original paper is available here.

edit on 11/15/2011 by yeahright because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 09:55 AM by volafox

Very interesting. I have to ask, due to orbital vectors are there variations in other minor bodies (ie:moons) of other planets such as those around the gas giants? Unfortunately, I don't know of a computer program that will show the current location of the other planets and their satellites. I know there are some out there, any links would be appreciated. It would stand to reason that not only our moon would be affected by the gravitational waves from an object of such density like Nemesis or Tyche. Perhaps even the minor moons of Mars would show some sort of odd changes from their orbits since they are so small, and Mars is smaller than our Earth. Keep digging!

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 09:55 AM by CherubBaby

reply to post by yeahright

I searched for the this subject and didnt find it on ATS thats why I posted. My moon is upside down thread is being trashed and I thought this was deserving of a look by some of those who just don't know
..

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 09:56 AM by ajmusicmedia

Except the site you refer to pushes the idea of an other planet being the culprit. The Cornell University paper does state it as possible, except:

On the other hand, the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain the right order of magnitude for de/dt are completely unrealistic. Moreover, they are in neat disagreement with both the most recent theoretical scenarios envisaging the existence of a distant, planetary-sized body and with the model-independent constraints on them dynamically inferred from planetary motions. Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon's eccentricity remains open.

arxiv.org...

Not trying to debunk the idea that something is wrong with the moon's orbit as even the Cornell U paper states this, just saying that it's probably not due to another planet as is stated on your link.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 09:58 AM by yeahright

reply to post by CherubBaby

There's nothing wrong with posting it. Just wanted to reference the earlier thread for those looking for some background and the previous discussion.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:02 AM by clintdelicious

I get your point but why do all these threads say things like 'the moons not right or the moons wrong!' Instead of actually quoting from an article or explaining whats wrong other than just random claims. Thanks for at least posting the articles link though.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:03 AM by Essan

Originally posted by CherubBaby
The moon is not right. Many people here on ATS know this. Thousands of people worldwide also are aware.

And how many have described what is wrong as being a tiny change in the eccentricty of the Moon?

I assume you do know what eccentricity means?

This paper has no bearing on the all the Moon in the wrong place threads started over the years by numerous ATSers too lazy to check an astronomical book (or even website) and learn some basics of how the Moon's phases and where rises and sets changes over the course of the year

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:04 AM by CherubBaby

reply to post by ajmusicmedia

Frankly I don't care at this point what is causing it, the fact is something is not right with the moon. Thats all I need to know at this point. That explains why thousands of people have reported through observation something isn't right with the moon. Which explains a great deal to me and my inner voice that has told be for almost 8 years that something was different than ever before in my life.

Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon's eccentricity remains open

I hope that an expert admitting the behavior of the moon is Anomalous and eccentric is enough to give attention to this until we find out why. If we ever do that is..

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:09 AM by samlf3rd

I don't understand the video. I would ask for my money back, but.

I didn't understand any of it actually...Anyone?

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:10 AM by Phage

No.

This has been discussed previously.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can read the paper yourself. It is not from anyone at Cornell University. It was written by L. Iorio of Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (Italy).

The author is discussing a very tiny change in the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit. An increase of 0.000000018% per year.

A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr re-
vealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity e of the lunar orbit amounting to
e˙meas = (9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1.

arxiv.org...

What this means is that the Moon gets a tiny bit closer to Earth at perigee and a tiny bit further from Earth at apogee. Do you really think people standing on Earth can see something that slight?

edit on 11/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:14 AM by Toffeeapple

But it's still odd though, as it suggests the influence of some other 'body' in the galaxy that wasn't there previously.

At the risk of being flamed like a steak, I've felt the moon is different ever since the rocket was fired at it a couple of years back. I can't put my finger on what the difference is, but I get a jolt of discomfort now whenever I look at it.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:14 AM by Aletheia007

So something is up with the moon? Like what? rising in the west and setting in the east or what? .

As far I can tell the moon is where it should be. Btw the moon has a varible orbit. it does change over the years. and sometimes we get what is called a supermoon where the moon appears to be larger as its reached its closest pont to Earth.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:15 AM by Essan

Originally posted by CherubBaby[/i

I hope that an expert admitting the behavior of the moon is Anomalous and eccentric is enough to give attention to this until we find out why. If we ever do that is..

When applied to solar bodies, eccentricity doen't mean what I think you think it means See Phage's post above

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:17 AM by ngchunter

reply to post by Phage

Exactly! Ironically, what Cherb just posted is proof that the moon's right where it should be to within a margin far beyond what any eye or telescope can detect. The anomaly was only detectable by lunar laser ranging and is a matter of centimeters. Sorry OP, that's not something you can see by eye. Here's what that magnitude of a difference in the shape of the orbit looks like:
i319.photobucket.com...
It's imperceptible except by lunar laser ranging over a long period of time.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:22 AM by ngchunter

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But it's still odd though, as it suggests the influence of some other 'body' in the galaxy that wasn't there previously.

Actually the scientists who actually detected it (not the same as the ones who wrote the above paper) suggest it's due to the moon's internal dynamics which are not yet fully known to us to the degree needed to properly account for it.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:33 AM by jeichelberg

I read the paper...as Phage states...

1) NOT EVEN SUBMITTED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY AS OF THIS DATE!!!

2) Eccentricity of the anomaly noted is beyond that perceptible by HUMAN EYE!!!

Data mining again...

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:33 AM by Toffeeapple

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But it's still odd though, as it suggests the influence of some other 'body' in the galaxy that wasn't there previously.

Actually the scientists who actually detected it (not the same as the ones who wrote the above paper) suggest it's due to the moon's internal dynamics which are not yet fully known to us to the degree needed to properly account for it.

Thanks for this information.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:34 AM by ngchunter

reply to post by ngchunter

Just to add some more fuel to the fire that the moon's where it should be to within the limit of the eye and telescopes, I'll repeat what I previously posted about having measured the moon's position astrometrically. I took a frame of the moon from a video I recorded of it on October 2nd right as I disengaged the drive system at 10:29:00 PM eastern time (00:58:03 on this recording: 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), the stars should 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.

Automated astrometry confirmed these measurements:
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. That's orders of magnitude greater than the resolution of the human eye, so it's right where it should be to within a resolution far greater than what you can perceive.

reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 10:39 AM by CherubBaby

Nice to see so many experts show up as usual. You can't prove a thing you say. Nothing. The paper and it's title have not been questioned or refuted. Except by your experts that know nothing.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^