Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chai_An
This is a very interesting post. I love how people on this site know everything while closing their minds to new thoughts and knowledge. Scientists admit they know very little about this planet, the moon, solar system, and universe. To speak absolutely about any of those things is premature. Science is not as exact as people would like to believe so anything's possible, including what people love to call silly, stupid and yes impossible.


I'd give you a slew of stars if I could. Your post shows more wisdom than any in the entire thread. People have been extremely rude and condescending. It IS premature to to speak in absolutes on this issue, and... well, the same goes for almost any topic.

Two thumbs up, Chai_An!




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by new_here
 


It is not premature to discuss what is EXACTLY stated in the paper of the OP, which is what this thread is about.
edit on 11/15/2011 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Whats a right moon orbit may I ask.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
His paper is claiming that the observed orbit of the moon doesn't match the calculated orbit of current models. The moon isn't going crazy... It isn't disappearing, going backwards or being seen in the NW when it should be in the SE..

The models just don't predict it correctly and thus, something is missing from algorithms being used.

He goes on to explain that the idea of an unknown planet sized body was explored but that the mass required to account for the variation of Moons orbit is too large and thus "planet x" is ruled out.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I'm sorry you have a problem with david wilcock. If you read closely I repeated that he cited these discoveries, just like any respectable rational process. In fact, it was published in discovery news, in an article by ian o'neill called is the sun emitting a mystery particle. Care to provide references of equal prestige regarding why wilcock's work is not credible? Have you published a new york times best seller that I should know about? As for the vertebrae, you seem to ignore the fact that you emphasized nothing contrary to what I did, besides that the first few vertebrae are fused, as evolutionary adaptation happens.

Edit for disinfo agent discovery:
you've been a member for only forty days yet you have 1,000+ posts? Are you kidding me? Stats say you've made 13 threads but youre profile only shows two, which were about luxury cars and house maids? who do you think you are discrediting david wilcock?
edit on 11/15/11 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/15/11 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Amazing that you posted this! I was going to look something similar to this up. And then ask on here. But I'm kinda new and feel a bit uneducated on how to post threads that pack punches like some do.

Last night when I was driving home, the moon was in a more northern position. I drive directly east to get home and the moon was very far to my left. I was going to take a picture, but it could easily be debunked as there are no landmarks to compare to. It freaked me out though. I've never seen it so north before.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted 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)


Oh, look! It's the voice of reason! (thank god)

Oh, look! No one is paying any attention! What a surprise!

/sarcasm



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod
 


Debunked? I will read your thread on the issue. Oh thats right, you don't have any do you?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Surprised. No I am sure your in a basement with your friends, flipping through pages of data the boys from washington have given you.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I see you didn't read anything but your gonna give a guess. That is typical.. Thanks for your contribution..



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Oh. So your not only a pilot but an astronomer!! Thats typical..



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It should also be noted ( In my opinion ) that you know everything about nothing and nothing about everything. You verses are based on prejudicial specualtive guesswork that is at best a poor showing..



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopyuk
 


If you took time to read the link you would see I didnt name the title . Brit



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I agree with Cornell University the moon has been acting strangely.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
S+F

Very interesting information presented, I hope it has credibility to it.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 




There are some Nibiru Truthers here that are keeping that fact hidden until they can prove all of this other stuff going wrong.

And here comes the i dont believe in Nibiru, look already more planets in our solar system has been already found what makes you think it doesnt exist?
edit on 16-11-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:24 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.


Cherub, I noticed you were online, thought I'd ask a few questions because the the premise of this thread interested me.

Is there anyway you could explain what changes are going on with the moon, in a "dumbed down" way? I read the information from your link and I watched the video, and I'll admit, the phrases and math being used, as well as the photos being shown, did not make sense to me. I am somewhat lost because the paper is introduced as coming from a University, and as being from a purely scientific background which would be Astronomy, but some of the verbage is that of a popular Astrology theory back in the 70's.

"A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr revealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity of the lunar orbit amounting to de/dt_meas = (9 +/- 3) 10^-12 yr^-1."

I do not understand the above verbage or equation. I looked through the thread and didn't find anyone else explaining it either, so I hope I'm not remiss in asking for a laymans terms description of what it means?.

Though I am familiar with Schrodingers equation, I am also lost here by the rest of the statement,
""Frictional and dissipative terms of the Schrödinger equation are studied. A proof is given showing that the frictional term of the Schrödinger-Langevin equation causes the quantum system to lose energy. General expressions are derived for the frictional term of the Schrödinger equation."

If you wouldn't mind deciphering these two small snippets and math equations (above) I would be very appreciative.


Also with regards to the video, I didn't quite understand the comment at the intro about viable newtonian and "trans plutonian massive objects" ....however, what I do know is that "trans plutonian" theories are based in Astrology, not Astronomy, and are more the realm of Zecharia Sitchin, Nibiru, and interpreting the Zodiac. The trans plutonian theory was introduced back in the 70's and astrologers felt they would be able to photograph the planet in 1980....



All help is appreciated!



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You are so opinionated it sick.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Anthropormorphic
 


Sure. I am not an astronomer. I do have eyes that see and I take notice, I started paying close attention in the early 2000's when there was supposed to be an eclipse that never happened and the story was then removed from the article the following day. There is plenty of data on this site and the net that supports the fact that the moon is not supposed to be a Boat/ smiley face anywhere this far north of the equator. The paper I threaded on is not a means to an end in itself. It simply states that the moon is not orbiting correctly. If you look at peoples personal observation accounts and data like this as well as my experiences with stories about eclipses being removed from the yahoo pages . Its enough to take notice of. Its a question of what you are willing to believe. Books or your eyes and experiences as well as the testimony of eye witness accounts. I dont come here to change people . I come here to share what I am seeing first, and reading later.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post 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.


I don't think they are refuting the paper. I think they are pointing out what it says in the paper: Which is that the shift which has occured is so fractional that the normal human eye, or even a telescope cannot spot the difference. In fact it can only be spotted by laser. Although I am definetely not versed in this subject matter. I am simply repeating what those who are have said.





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join