Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by new_here

 

I think the debate is more about if it is a hot topic or not. The skeptics say that a 2 inch per year drift isn't a big deal when the moon is 238,000 miles way, on average. But the theorists think it means something significant, and might account for why people think the moon is scatting all over the sky.

Nobody disagrees that moon is drifting, and the orbit is becoming ever so slightly more elliptical. It's just baffling as to why some people think it means this will affect us in any way.

For me, it is just the great unknown. It all remains to be seen. No one can say whether it means anything or not, because we're all on the road not yet traveled. All we can do is surmise. Some of us will be right, some wrong, and here's hoping the ones with the 'happy ending thoughts' are right!

Originally posted by kdog1982
Then you have to throw something like this in.

edit on 16-11-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

You know, thanks for this!!!
I just really needed this right now in my life, whether or not the Moon or the A.U. is out of whack.
Your good deed for the day has been noted.

There have been several people that wanted something easier to understand, than the original article in this thread. I am supplying a link to a story that was written for this very article. The link is below.

reinep.wordpress.com...

Thank you..

reply to post by CherubBaby


That's a ridiculous article and fallaciously misrepresenting what it sites to deceptively support its conspirator purpose.

The moon is coming towards Earth and faster than we can understand.

It clearly is not.

According to this document, in some sence yes.

Ah, tactics used on the Ancient Aliens TV series, "postulate an unsupported alternative, follow with, if so"...

The moon’s orbit is gradually getting more and more elliptical and it could be affected by PlanetX, yes you heard me! “they know” and in the PDF below is the proof.

Actually the PDF lists all scenarios that could cause an increased eccentric orbit and clearly states a Planet X scenario is the least likely of all mentioned, clearly.

The most amazing with this document is that it seems like the most fitting explanation they can offer, is a planetary body that is either very big and very far away or rather big and rather close so this could cause the orbit change.

Again, running with the least likely clearly stated like an Ancient Alien episode.

Connected question to this would also be why NASA is Building an Asteroid Landscape on Ocean Floor right now? Are they expecting something they don`t talk about..

The biggest FAIL here is they provide a NASA link, I suppose people that eat these kinds of articles don't chew the whole meal.

And that is that the moon is apparently in free fall, it`s always falling towards us, but its speed of orbit keeps it from crashing into us .

This is the last bit that I'm going to address, all orbits use that description to help explain in layman terms what an orbit is, the author is distorting this to sound like the moon will crash to earth, when in fact the earth is slowly losing the moon to tidal friction.

reply to post by Illustronic


I think your pretty well informecd but I dont totally agree or disagree with you at this point. The problem isn't the 2=2 so to speak, I just think there maybe more to this than what meets the eye. If I am right, it will be obvious soon enough for me.. Thanks for your opinions..

reply to post by CLPrime


There are quite a few claims that turn the natural laws upside down. I just find it hard to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints. If Occam's Razor had to apply and mass delusion is possible... Well, how can you so easily claim it without feeling like you are contradicting your own beliefs? Someone could just as well say the same thing about the Resurrection.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by CLPrime

 

There are quite a few claims that turn the natural laws upside down.

As if God can't overrule the laws he created?

I just find it hard to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints. If Occam's Razor had to apply and mass delusion is possible... Well, how can you so easily claim it without feeling like you are contradicting your own beliefs? Someone could just as well say the same thing about the Resurrection.

Death is not a physical law, it's a consequence of actions.
Could God be altering the Moon's position and orientation for some and not for others? Of course he could. Do I believe he is? No. To think that God is randomly messing around with the Moon for a select few is far from reasonable. Parting the sea - a necessity. Manna from heaven - a necessity. Water from the rock - an especially symbolic necessity. Raising his son from the dead - the ultimate necessity. Playing visual games with the Moon - just plain silly.

Also, the sort of delusion used to explain lunar anomalies (in fact, not properly delusions at all, just people who think they see something "off" without evidence or any plausible explanation) is nowhere near the sort of delusion required to explain away the witnesses of the resurrection of God's son.

Here's another link from another physicist talking about the same anomaly:
meetings.aps.org...

If the Moon were gaining angular momentum at this rate, it would have coincided with Earth less than 2 Gyr ago.

If c were changing in the amount predicted, lunar orbital distance would appear to increase by an additional 0.935 cm/yr.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Louise Riofrio is not a physicist but she comes up with some pretty fun stuff. She thinks the speed of light is slowing down. Here she's trying to apply the increase in eccentricity to her idea but even if she's right it doesn't change the fact that the Moon is where it is and that is where it is supposed to be.

www.blogger.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Louise Riofrio is not a physicist but she comes up with some pretty fun stuff. She thinks the speed of light is slowing down. Here she's trying to apply the increase in eccentricity to her idea but even if she's right it doesn't change the fact that the Moon is where it is and that is where it is supposed to be.

www.blogger.com...

What's up with this, Phage? She's an actress?? Working for NASA? A permanent undergraduate? Altering the speed of light on the fly between propaganda films? Tell me more if you know.

archived.thespaceshow.com...

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by karen61057

 

You fail to mention the fact that I explained in that post and I will say it again . On page 7 I explained my reason for the thread.

I didnt ask for your reason. I asked what specifically in that article addresses the issues you and others have raised regarding the moon being wrong. You have not told me or anyone what in that article you feel substantiates your claims. What in there supports your views?

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. All I've seen so far is blatant deflection at the question. I'd really like to know the answer though. We have here an article that indicates the moon's position is within a few centimeters of its predicted position over a 38 year time period, an accuracy far greater than anything that can be seen with the eye or telescope. I'd really like to know why Cherub thinks that supports the claims of the moon being visibly out of place or oriented wrong.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Illustronic

 

I think your pretty well informecd but I dont totally agree or disagree with you at this point. The problem isn't the 2=2 so to speak, I just think there maybe more to this than what meets the eye. If I am right, it will be obvious soon enough for me.. Thanks for your opinions..

Was I right about this being about Planet X/Nibiru? Is that your belief or theory that is causing this?

I asked way back when in your initial "Moon is upside down" thread, and it seemed like you were going to post your theory, but I never saw it.

reply to post by Uncinus


Uncinus: thanks for your link that explained that the last ephemeris was in 1998? So that basically predates all the new discoveries about the moon. Also, am I wrong in assuming that Don Yeomans is in charge then of the ephemerides for the moon and that there would be the point of input? Not sure if you really know but because the original article by Lorenzo Lorio mentioned that the variance (deviation, difference, error) was based on an official 'Horizon' I think it was called ephemeris as a starting correct point. So was this a 1998 point? If you know, if not...I'll find out eventually.

I was curious from the comments and did some some research on Louise Riofrio and I'm not sure because of all of the formulas involved but it seems that Louise Riofrio's theories have been debunked or at least questioned from others in the field.

The comments were interesting especially the very last comment on the page.

Source: mrigmaiden.blogspot.com...

reply to post by ColAngus


No you are wrong .This has nothing to do with anything related to planet X

reply to post by CherubBaby


The information on that page doesn't really make too much more sense than the other article. I think my main issue with the articles is the attempt to pass it off as being from Cornell University. There's really no reason for that if you're confident in your own data.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Uncinus: thanks for your link that explained that the last ephemeris was in 1998? So that basically predates all the new discoveries about the moon. Also, am I wrong in assuming that Don Yeomans is in charge then of the ephemerides for the moon and that there would be the point of input? Not sure if you really know but because the original article by Lorenzo Lorio mentioned that the variance (deviation, difference, error) was based on an official 'Horizon' I think it was called ephemeris as a starting correct point. So was this a 1998 point? If you know, if not...I'll find out eventually.

From a visual point of view you can use any moon ephemeris from the last 100 years, and the moon would look exactly the same. The changes to the ephemeri are simply slight refinements, like, really small refinements. A matter of feet.

Ive notice odd things of late.

Same time of night, same week and month: the moon was high in the East...the next night, high in the West.

One night it was small, the next it was huge and setting low in the opposite horizon.

One night in the East, the shadow was on the upper left, the next it was on the lower right and in the West, and roughly 15-20 times bigger than the night before.

And the star to its left, the next night was to its right.

Ive started paying close attention, but what the hell? High and West, low and East, low and large in West and high and small in the East, shadow down, shadow up.

All in the same week?

reply to post by Uncinus


Hello Uncinus. Let me ask you an honest simple question. Its not a trick question. It a question of honesty i.e. requires the same fairness given to the possibilities of the subject matter, regardless of a persons conclusions

I hope you give the fairness to my question. For example you say a person can check an ephemeris and it will give the EXACT location for the past 100 years. Personally I can't disagree with that. I dont even want to disagree with that. In fact I think at leaste I hope that those are correct calculations I believe they are but, would I stake my life on the bet that the sun or moon will always be where the calculations say it will be 100 years from now? No I wouldnt , would you? Lets not argue about the few inches or several feet that is updated annually for the the next years point of reference. Im talking about unforseen and possibly unknown, undetected possibilities that will make the calculatiions conclusions become errant. ( Incorrect and way off ) Would you agree that this is a possibility? Period..You dont have to defend or explain your answer I just need a yes or a no. thx

reply to post by ngchunter


Then for the 30th time read my post on page 7 at the bottom.. It explains the reasons for the thread.