Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

page: 18
45
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage
 


So yeah...mundane explanations would be the old physics and that would include Planet X.

A "Planet X" explanation is inconsistent with the data:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are mundane explanations that do not involve planet X nor are the issues necessarily related. For instance, the moon's eccentricity anomaly has been suggested to be caused by insufficiently understood and modeled internal dymanics of the moon itself.


I think I've covered this - see 'new physics.' Or are you referring to the hollow moon thing? I'm not a fan myself but don't want to take anything away from your beliefs. To be all-encompassing it could also mean a liquid core or a molten core. The moon used to be a dead planet so I'm guessing that would come under the 'new physics' as well.




posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It isn't really "new physics". It is merely that we, as a species, haven't yet had the capability (until recently) to obtain very, very, very precise measurements. On the many other planets and moons that we don't live on.

Since we LIVE here, on Earth, many, many, many ever more precision observations can be obtained, from a multitude of inputs.

The Moon, on the other hand.....we do NOT "live" there, and the few instruments we have that were placed help to obtain some information, but it needs constant refinement, and MORE data all the time, to further refine.

AS TO the Moon, and the 10-15 cm variation that can now be measured, in its orbit (NOW because of the Apollo retro-reflectors placed there over 40 years ago)......The point of this is the possibility, still as yet to be determined, as to the actual make-up and structure of the Moon's interior.

And, NO! The Moon is not "hollow"....though, it can have voids and caverns in its crust....possibly even huge voids that go very deeply. Furthermore, many Lunar satellite observations have determined the presence of what are called "mascons" up near the Lunar surface. A "mascon" is an As-Yet-Undefined localized concentration of MASS ....hence, "mascon" = mass/concentration.

Here, the Wiki article: Mass concentration (astronomy)


These irregular distributions of mass at the surface of the Moon's crust....combined with "who knows?" whether there is any liquid molten material as well, deep in the interior, can all contribute to minor perturbations in the Moon's trajectory, as it orbits.....and, again...only a FEW CENTIMETERS!!!!

Certainly not anything that a person could "eye-ball" from viewing the Moon, when standing here on Earth.

Think about how a rotating object is affected by either an irregular mass distribution, or by having a liquid within it. This video demonstrates an a much smaller scale:



Keep in mind, those examples of liquid-filled objects do not take into account the huge mass of a planet, or moon....but, these are all examples of physics. The Moon rotates on its axis, of course. It can be influenced, as it rotates, based on the interactions of the "mascons" that are nearer, or farther, from the Earth....as it orbits our planet. In addition, the Earth is not uniform in mass, either. Minor variances exist with the different elevations of our crustal land masses.....

These ARE physics, and they ALL must be taken into consideration when understanding these tiny, tiny variances in the Moon's orbit.






edit on Wed 23 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Since this is about Lorenzo Iorio and the submission of his papers to Cornell, I pulled up his website and copied his abstracts for the work. The last paragraph abstract deals with the the eccentricity of the lunar orbit.

The Perihelion Precession of Saturn, Planet X/Nemesis and MOND

INFN-Sezione di Pisa, Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari (BA), Italy
Abstract: We show that the anomalous retrograde perihelion precession of Saturn 􀀁􀀂& , recently estimated by different teams of astronomers by processing ranging data from the Cassini spacecraft and amounting to some milliarcseconds per century, can be explained in terms of a localized, distant body X, not yet directly discovered in the remote periphery of the solar system. From the determination of its tidal parameter as a function of its ecliptic longitude X 􀀁 and latitude X 􀀁 , we calculate the distance at which X may exist for different values of its mass, ranging from the size of Mars to that of the Sun. The minimum distance would occur for X located perpendicularly to the ecliptic, while the maximum distance is for X lying in the ecliptic. We find for rock-ice planets of the size of Mars and the Earth that they would be at about 80-150 au, respectively, while a Jupiter-sized gaseous giant would be at approximately 1 kau. A typical brown dwarf would be located at about 4 kau, while an object with the mass of the Sun would be at approximately 10 kau, so that it could not be Nemesis for which a solar mass and a heliocentric distance of about 88 kau are predicted. If X was directed
towards a specific direction, i.e. that of the Galactic Center, it would mimick the action of a recently proposed form of the External Field Effect (EFE) in the framework of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).
source: www.benthamscience.com...

ABSTRACT: Lunar ranging

A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr revealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity e of the lunar orbit amounting to inline image yr−1. The present-day models of the dissipative phenomena occurring in the interiors of both the Earth and the Moon are not able to explain it. In this paper, we examine several dynamical effects, not modelled in the data analysis, in the framework of long-range modified models of gravity and of the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm. It turns out that none of them can accommodate inline image. Many of them do not even induce long-term changes in e; other models do, instead, yield such an effect, but the resulting magnitudes are in disagreement with inline image. In particular, the general relativistic gravitomagnetic acceleration of the Moon due to the Earth’s angular momentum has the right order of magnitude, but the resulting Lense-Thirring secular effect for the eccentricity vanishes. A potentially viable Newtonian candidate would be a trans-Plutonian massive object (Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche) since it, actually, would affect e with a non-vanishing long-term variation. On the other hand, the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain at least the right order of magnitude for inline image are completely unrealistic: suffices it to say that an Earth-sized planet would be at 30 au, while a jovian mass would be at 200 au. Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behaviour of the Moon’s eccentricity remains open.
source: onlinelibrary.wiley.com...;jsessionid=EF462C370F516858CD7D70FB2A44CC93.d03t03

and finally:

Abstract of lunar orbit

The subject of this paper is the empirically determined anomalous secular increases of the astronomical unit, of the order of some cm yr–1, and of the eccentricity of the lunar orbit, of the order of 10–12 yr–1. The aim is to find an empirical explanation of both anomalies as far as their orders of magnitude are concerned. The methods employed are working out perturbatively with the Gauss equations the secular effects on the semi-major axis a and the eccentricity e of a test particle orbiting a central body acted upon by a small anomalous radial acceleration A proportional to the radial velocity vr of the particle-body relative motion. The results show that non-vanishing secular variations $\left\langle \dot{a}\right\rangle$ and langdot erang occur. If the magnitude of the coefficient of proportionality of the extra-acceleration is of the same order of magnitude as the Hubble parameter H 0 = 7.47 × 10–11 yr–1 at the present epoch, they are able to explain both astrometric anomalies without contradicting other existing observational determinations for the Moon and the other planets of the solar system. Finally, it is concluded that the extra-acceleration might be of cosmological origin,provided that the relative radial particle-body motion is accounted in addition to that due to the cosmological expansion only. Further data analyses should confirm or disprove the existence of both astrometric anomalies as genuine physical phenomena.

source: iopscience.iop.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dcmb1409
 


So what does all that mean ?


I mean I thought I was hard to understand.


Is there maybe a translater available


I am sure I am the only one that is in need..


Thanks for the, What was that again?
edit on 23-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage
 


So yeah...mundane explanations would be the old physics and that would include Planet X.

A "Planet X" explanation is inconsistent with the data:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are mundane explanations that do not involve planet X nor are the issues necessarily related. For instance, the moon's eccentricity anomaly has been suggested to be caused by insufficiently understood and modeled internal dymanics of the moon itself.


I think I've covered this - see 'new physics.' Or are you referring to the hollow moon thing?

Neither. Internal dynamics, not hollow. The moon still has some residual internal activity and its exact internal structure is not yet fully mapped out. Without understanding that we cannot fully model how it responds to the tidal forces exerted on it by the earth, thus it may be the cause of this apparent anomaly. 10^-12 is very small, and at this level even minor effects become important.


I'm not a fan myself but don't want to take anything away from your beliefs.

You either don't even understand what I said, or you're deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.


The moon used to be a dead planet so I'm guessing that would come under the 'new physics' as well.

It mostly is, no one's suggesting it's not, but it's also known that there is a low level of residual activity. It's about as dead as you can get, but it's still more than absolutely nothing. That is not what is meant by "new physics" though.
edit on 23-11-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
Finally, it is concluded that the extra-acceleration might be of cosmological origin,provided that the relative radial particle-body motion is accounted in addition to that due to the cosmological expansion only.

That's a really fascinating hypothesis. Expansion of the universe itself becomes important at this magnitude? That just shows how incredibly fine grained the resolution of our measurements are, if so.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by dcmb1409
 


So what does all that mean ?


I mean I thought I was hard to understand.


Is there maybe a translater available


I am sure I am the only one that is in need..


Thanks for the, What was that again?
edit on 23-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: (no reason given)

It made sense to me. If you're that lost perhaps you should consider studying astronomy before jumping to conclusions about the moon.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You are just rehashing everything and putting things into words that sound less startling than mine. It isn't 'new physics' if you're talking about incorrect data. It isn't 'new physics' if you're talking about the moon suddenly developing a liquid, molten or hollow core. I'd say that as far as truding on without hesitation: that would end at the point where the question of how did this happen was asked. How did the moon suddenly develop a liquid core? I think it's a can of worms. Just like I think altering the speed of light is a can of worms. This is my opinion. (The last 2 sentences.)

There is no point to your point re how small the measurement of the variance in the moon's orbit is because it is so small that an extra planet within the solar system would account for it. That doesn't sound like a small thing to me. Or a black hole 1 light year away could account for it. That doesn't sound particularly small to me either. Why is it necessary to trivialize?

www.fortunecity.com...


Laskar's work showed that the Earth's orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.


Coupled with the other anomalies previously discussed there are a lot of things to explain. Historically, Planet X has never been a scary proposition. When Uranus was discovered because it was looked for (the Planet X of that day) it wasn't frightening. Neptune's discovery didn't give anyone nightmares. Pluto was also looked for and discovered and no one hid under the bed. Now it's like this time honored tradition - looking for Planet X to explain orbital anomalies - has become a terrifying solution. It's nuts. Better to alter the speed of light then to look for Planet X - nuts!!

So that's what the topic is - the topic is this paper where all this modeling is being done to explain this anomaly. It's going to be what it already is. It's been known (the existence of this anomaly) since 2001. In 2009 it was presented in a grocery list of a total of 4 anomalies one having to do with the sun and distance. What exactly are you arguing about?





edit on 23-11-2011 by luxordelphi because: correct spelling of honored



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
It isn't 'new physics' if you're talking about the moon suddenly developing a liquid, molten or hollow core. I'd say that as far as truding on without hesitation: that would end at the point where the question of how did this happen was asked. How did the moon suddenly develop a liquid core?


It's not "new physics", it's a new discovery. People have long suspected that the Moon has a molten core, and now it has been reasonably demonstrated with some accuracy.

news.sciencemag.org...


Apollo astronauts may be garnering another prize from their exploits of more than 3 decades ago. They left seismometers across the face of the moon to probe its interior, but no one had been able to paint a clear picture from the data the sensors collected. Now, two independent groups have reanalyzed the Apollo data using modern but very different techniques, and both teams say they have detected lunar seismologists' prime target: a core of iron that is still molten 4.5 billion years after the moon's formation



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



You are just rehashing everything and putting things into words that sound less startling than mine. It isn't 'new physics' if you're talking about incorrect data. It isn't 'new physics' if you're talking about the moon suddenly developing a liquid, molten or hollow core.


It s nothing else but a lack of understanding of physics, and orbital mechanics.

The has been the case for the extent of the thread.

Not a single thing has changed.

It is all about the science...and the ability to comprehend the science.

Period.

Full stop.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Didn't see this posted in the thread before, apologies if I just missed it. 5 minutes onward is particularly relevant:
edit on 23-11-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Coupled with the other anomalies previously discussed there are a lot of things to explain. Historically, Planet X has never been a scary proposition. When Uranus was discovered because it was looked for (the Planet X of that day) it wasn't frightening. Neptune's discovery didn't give anyone nightmares. Pluto was also looked for and discovered and no one hid under the bed. Now it's like this time honored tradition - looking for Planet X to explain orbital anomalies - has become a terrifying solution. It's nuts. Better to alter the speed of light then to look for Planet X - nuts!!


It has to be scary because why else would they be chemtrailing to hide it?


Last one, I swear.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Coupled with the other anomalies previously discussed there are a lot of things to explain. Historically, Planet X has never been a scary proposition. When Uranus was discovered because it was looked for (the Planet X of that day) it wasn't frightening. Neptune's discovery didn't give anyone nightmares. Pluto was also looked for and discovered and no one hid under the bed. Now it's like this time honored tradition - looking for Planet X to explain orbital anomalies - has become a terrifying solution. It's nuts. Better to alter the speed of light then to look for Planet X - nuts!!


It has to be scary because why else would they be chemtrailing to hide it?


Last one, I swear.


I know!!! What's up with that??!! But seriously, chemtrails could be for a lot of other uses and I don't think you have at this point sufficiently proven that they're being used to hide Planet X...still a very interesting idea. Thanks for your contribution.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Not my theory, cupcake. I don't think CherubBaby would appreciate that condescending tone.


Originally posted by CherubBaby
So the answer is to keep dumping jet trails into the air and block our view to the sky so we can't witness any anomalies or changes in the obserevable sky.which leaves us to once again have to believe what they tell us as far as what is taking or not taking place in the heavens above...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
We can talk all day and night about tone and who said what and what proves who etc. Today at this time and at this point in history the fact that matters to me is no one has explained why the anomaly with the moon exists. Until it is explained absoloutely and positively and can be PROVEN, my opinions and beliefs are just as credible as anyone elses and vice versa. At this point, at best it is a DRAW. Anyone who says differently has an agenda that they need to push.

PS SINCE WHEN ARE WE ALLOWED TO POST QUOTES FROM OFF TOPIC THREADS FROM ANOTHER MEMBER? i WAS HIT WITH A T&C VIOLATION FOR CROSS THREADING. WILL YOU BE?
edit on 25-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: Edit text



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
We can talk all day and night about tone and who said what and what proves who etc. Today at this time and at this point in history the fact that matters to me is no one has explained why the anomaly with the moon exists. Until it is explained absoloutely and positively and can be PROVEN, my opinions and beliefs are just as credible as anyone elses and vice versa. At this point, at best it is a DRAW. Anyone who says differently has an agenda that they need to push.


The lack of a definitive explanation for a phenomena does not make all possible explanations for that phenomena equally plausible.

If I suggested the moon's increasing eccentricity was due to the chinese mining helium-3 on the dark site and shipping it back to earth - should that also have equal weight?

What if I suggested the interior of the moon was a dragon hatchery, and the eggs are slowly hatching? Is that equally plausible?

No, theories still need to fit the known facts. If people are critiquing your theories, then it's because your theories do not fit.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Well, actually your position offered zero math like the undetectable anomaly in eccentricity of the moon's orbit that for all we know has always existed it is just the science today afforded us with the instruments to detect it, its nothing you can see and just an academic infinitesimally small figure.

Its not coming to get you.

edit on 25-11-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Did I say it was coming to get me? The only thing coming to get me are those that can't solve the mystery



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


What difference would it make to offer you the scientific particulars of such a small determination?

That is the real question.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


The real question is what makes you think you know what I think or what I would do? Are you now a mind reader or speculating again on something you can't prove.?





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join