Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
A, what does this mean if its true.

B, did you hear about Werner von Braun's moon woes concerning distance from earth?

Ciao for now.




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The title of this thread should be changed to something more like "moon orbit slightly different than we think it should be" and the Cornell part should be removed. The paper isn't even from the US, as others have stated. The way the thread is titled now it makes it sound like there is some huge change going on, and that is not what the paper says AT ALL.

Anyone who thinks the paper says that the moon's orbit is dramatically changing either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it enough to comment.

Sorry, but this paper does NOT support the moon being "upside down".


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 




You can't prove a thing you say. Nothing


The "proof" is in the paper itself.
The numbers are there. In 39 years the "anomaly" has resulted in a change of the Moon's orbit of 14 cm. That's 5.5 inches.
edit on 11/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


The paper can be COMPLETELY CORRECT and it still DOES NOT "prove" what you THINK it is proving. It is NOT SAYING the moon is upside down or in the wrong place!!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


So you can perceive that eccentricity with your naked eyes? I don't think so. Also who's to say this eccentricity is abnormal, has anyone hard data on the moon's orbital eccentricity from 2 billion years ago?? I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


The paper and its title have not been questioned or refuted because, as evidenced on the very first page...it has YET TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW!!! Really, take some time to look at the FACTS!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Getting angry and throwing a fit, when in fact everything I said was backed up with facts and evidence proving what I said, is not the best way to handle your frustration nor does it deny ignorance. In fact, it promotes ignorance.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Millions of years of the suns ENERGY hitting Earth was turned to MATTER and stored in the Earth as Crude Oil/Natural Gas.

Somebody want to calculate the weight of the Trillion Trillion gallons of oil we've turned from MATTER...back into ENERGY and released from the Earth as heat?

That loss of Earth's mass will effect the moon. There's no way to get it back.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I have to agree .
There is something weird about the moon .

2pence



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Im not mad . I just think it would be nice to let some other people have a chance to participate.

There was a story on this and worth checking out, for those of you who haven't read it. The Link is below,

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 15-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: link


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


No one is being prevented from participating. What you're seeking is to have your beliefs validated without being contradicted. I'm sorry, but that's not how to deny ignorance.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Alot of people have noticed something off with the moon. Looking back through all the ATS threads on this (and there are a lot) mostly the same people jump in to say the same things - and mostly they say everything is normal. It's all fine. While other people mention observations of things not right - setting in the wrong place. Rising in the wrong place. Doesn't look right. An unstable orbit means a chaotic orbit means an orbit that can't be predicted. It's like spontaneous combustion. It only looks like magic until you know what's causing it. According to the paper, the cause is still unknown.

The moon isn't something that can be hidden. It's on the boulevard. Anyone can look. And does. And will.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


One group of people is always saying the moon is out-of-place based on their limited, memory-based observation. Another group of people is always saying the moon is exactly where it should be based on precise laser-ranging and scientific observation. Who should be listened to?

As for the paper: I commented enough in Trublbrwing's thread...to see what I have to say about it, read that.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


And this is great...We have no problem with these observations...but if it was as reported, then there would be strong evidence to back up these observations...

If I was so convinced there was something wrong with the Moon (i.e., rising in the wrong place, lit on the wrong side, etc) then you can be sure I would take photographic evidence of my observation...now, the thing is this...I would need to make sure I have all my points of reference in place and documented...As of this writing, NONE of this has been done...Why not? Probably because it is not there for the taking...



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I thought it was known that not only the earth's rotational speed, and the moon's orbit around earth, and also the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit has never been a constant since the earth and moon orbited each other around the sun.

In fact the orbital speed of the earth has been slowing the last 4.5 billion years and the moon's orbit has as well as well as it's distance from the earth. This is called tidal friction due to a transfer of Earth's rotational momentum to the Moon's orbital momentum, as well as galactic space dust, solar wind, space weather, geomagnetic storms, etc., like any flywheel, it will slow down.

The real interesting thing that we may not exist long enough for it to occur is that theoretically the earth's rotation will halt once equilibrium of the moon's orbit come in sync. That means in several billions of years an earth day will equal an earth month.

It is expected that in 15 billion years, the orbit will stabilize at 1.6 times its present size, and the Earth day will be 55 days long equal to the time it will take the Moon to orbit the Earth. Of course, in less than 7 billion years, the Sun will have evolved into a red giant star and engulfed the Earth-Moon system, thereby incineration will have occurred.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


No one is being prevented from participating. What you're seeking is to have your beliefs validated without being contradicted. I'm sorry, but that's not how to deny ignorance.


Bingo. This is it in a nutshell.

Any and all evidence, reasoning, data, etc. presented that contradicts the OP's position or belief on the topic is summarily denied as being merely an opinion of a disinfo agent and not proof of anything. It doesn't matter what it is, it cannot and will not be accepted as proof.

Someone earlier said the OP was mad. I agree, but in a completely different sense.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


You again are wrong and guesswork is your middle name? You have no clue what your talking about. If you did you would know that what you presume of others and what they are doing is WRONG. Should I go into the conversations with the local news ? I won't because I don't need to. Don't quit your day job. Your not very good at mind reading or guess work for that matter. You are however good at ranting ... Don't they have a thread for that?



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


It generally would take about 50 years for the moon to be in an exact same position according to your exact same position in the sky, there are a lot of orbital variables, even supermoons don't occur every so any decades, of which I believe the next one wont occur in my lifetime. I hope you had a chance to view such a rare event this past March.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
While other people mention observations of things not right - setting in the wrong place. Rising in the wrong place. Doesn't look right.

And every single time, those assessments are being made based on subjective expectations of people who are not experienced in astronomy and have no idea how to properly measure the position of the moon in the sky, whether with a sextant, astrometry, or any similar methodology. Those of us who do know how to make such measurements find it to be right where it should be.


It only looks like magic until you know what's causing it. According to the paper, the cause is still unknown.

According to the paper, the moon's position does not "look" wrong at all; it's within centimeters of where it should be according to its established orbit. The difference in eccentricity is orders of magnitude too small for it to "look like magic" or "look wrong" at all to you or anyone else who is observing it by eye or even telescope. You apparently do not even understand what the paper is actually telling you, but the real problem is that you are not even open to hearing that you made a mistake.


The moon isn't something that can be hidden. It's on the boulevard. Anyone can look. And does. And will.

Indeed...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Alot of people have noticed something off with the moon.


Maybe. But none of them have noticed a minute difference in eccentricity compared with what we would expect based on current models.

It's like discovering that the oldest mineral found on Earth is 4.3 billion years old instead of 4.35 billion years old and using that to justify Biblical claims that the Earth was created in 4004BC.





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join