It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth must have another Moon, say Astronomers

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Cause this does not fit current gravity theory. See other link in my Op.

Can you point out exactly where in that link it explains how a temporary capture does not fit "current gravity theory"?




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



The angle of entry of an object, as well as it's mass, will determine what happens. If the angle is shallow enough, it might come into an orbit pattern following the earths rotation until it spins back out.


I addressed this consideration in my OP as well.

Here is a point from the article that I posted as breaking news. By the way, this article also references the article of the other thread. This is a different thing, but you guys don't seem able to grasp it.

news.discovery.com...


Given that these tiny captured orbitals are only a meter or two in diameter, it may seem a stretch to officially call them "moons" -- but the scientific implications of the discovery are vast.


I agree with MIT tech review on this one guys.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

You may agree with MIT but I don't think you are agreeing about the same thing.

But improved monitoring might help spot them when they get here, which might allow a launch to be planned in advance. Granvik and co conclude: "The scientific potential of being able to first remotely characterize a meteoroid and then visit and bring it back to Earth would be unprecedented."

www.technologyreview.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The vast "scientific implications":


Outside of assisting private spaceflight and exploring deep space, the other major thing on NASA's list of things to do is send astronauts to an asteroid.

"The scientific potential of being able to first remotely characterize a meteoroid and then visit and bring it back to Earth would be unprecedented," the research team concluded.


You seem to think these asteroids are in a stable orbit. They're not. And, you say this is different from the earlier example, but, again, it's not:


Since then, the researchers have been studying how this "Earth-Moon" gravitational system captures bodies into its orbit while also modelling their frequency and duration. The asteroid RH120 for instance was captured in September 2006 and orbited the planet until June 2007.

But how often do these "temporary moons" actually occur? Quite often, the astronomers found.


What they're describing are asteroids in the same sort of orbit RH120 was in. These orbits are unstable and temporary as both the Earth and the asteroids continue to orbit the Sun.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Not at all:


Stick to airplanes which you MIGHT know something about


NASA agrees with the OP


Fellow traveler: WISE satellite spots asteroid following Earth


NORTH LOGAN - A satellite built by Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory has discovered an asteroid that has been following Earth for thousands of years, proving that the moon is not the planet's only travel companion.

NASA officials announced Thursday that astronomers studying observations taken by the agency's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) satellite have found the first known "Trojan" asteroid orbiting the sun along with Earth.


news.hjnews.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


None of these articles go into offering theories.

This article

arxiv.org...

Calculates TCOs based on the single known natural TCO.

I guess speculation and curiosity are not popular these days.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

NASA agrees with the OP?



From what I know of science current theory on gravity, this situation with these tiny satellites does not fit the model.


Really?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


In a dance that has been going on far longer that civilization has existed as we know it.

Funny that modern science seems content with crunching numbers, while ignoring the big picture.

Capturing a satellite would be great, but there is more at work here.

The gravity well concept should mean that we have several of these slowly spiraling into Earth's gravity well, but that isn't what they are observing.

Oh, well, out of time for today.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I don't think you read my post properly, Herr zorgon.

The existence of the asteroids? NOT in question.

That asteroids (and gravity) are somehow part some wild claims of an "Electric Universe"? Big problems.

More research in how to use gravity, ZPE, et cetera are still (possibly) to be made, in the area of say --- exotic spacecraft propulsion, and the like.

But, merely using what may (MAY) be unimagined technologies and energy sources that are present in Nature does not lend credence to "EU" conjectures. Especially not as presented by the OP, and the misunderstanding of how small (meter-sized) chunks of rock can and will and do become influenced in many ways, because of the various and extremely complex gravitational perturbations that influence them in this Solar System.
edit on Thu 22 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Phage
 


None of these articles go into offering theories.


So I guess when you said this it had no relationship to the topic at all. Since there is nothing in your linked article which says temporary captures conflict with "current gravity theory".


Cause this does not fit current gravity theory. See other link in my Op.

edit on 12/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That is my own observation, which I made clear in my OP.

After all this is a conspiracy site where people post their conspiracy ideas.

My goal is to find others who want to kick around ideas reflecting on this observation.

I speculate that there might be some planetary balancing act that is going on here. Maybe our giant plasma sphere has something to do with this.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


That's the point. There is a "planetary balancing act". The gravitational forces of the Sun, Moon, Earth, and to a lesser degree other planets are all at work.

As an example of how that works look at this (from the other thread). This is the orbit of 2006 RH10 in its temporary capture. Notice how the orbit was never stable. This has to do with its orbital vectors before capture as well as the influences of the Moon and Sun. Notice how, when it escaped capture it took a hook around the Lagrange point, a region of "balanced" gravitational forces. "Current gravitational theory" makes the calculations which show these orbits. Observations confirm those orbits. "Current gravitational theory" works just fine. Maybe you'd like to show how magnetism would account for something like this.



edit on 12/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tachyeon
Or large cloaked objects sitting at Lagrange points. there mas would have that type of affect. Old saying just because you can't see it does not mean its not there:-) Especially in the visible light spectrum.


This is something that came to mind. In fact Lou Baldin/Sleeper said there are at least 40 planets in our solar system, some close to us, that we don't see. Out of our spectrum and some may be phased. Now I don't fully understand phasing, but some of it has to do with space-time channels and some frequency maybe, but this means, we wouldn't see whats not on our channel of orbit/clock and frequency. But also, by phasing, this may not even affect gravity in the system as it might be akin to hyperspace.
edit on 22-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Ah my,
No one can conclusively say that 'this is what is happening',
Which i find funny because no one is wrong or right,
Because we don't know if its wrong or right, right is just a theory that works until another ones comes along.

It will be cool to see science in 50 or 100 years. If we survive that long that is.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by poet1b
 

There are gravitational influences other than from the Earth.
The Sun, the Moon, the other planets. All affect objects in space. Not all orbits are stable.


Kind of like people!

this is a second line.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Um....

I don't follow you.


There is a barely detectable gravity distortion caused by a small meteorite that comes in and out of Earth's field of gravity.


How does that make the electric universe stuff true?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Here is just an example of how they misname things. This smallish beautiful possibly crystal, so called dwarf planet, Ceres, that I feel really drawn to, just past mars, lots of so called frozen water, well not if its crystal or upgraded already. Anyway, they like to call this an asteroid.



Something like this in our own solar system.

Wonder if there was a moon crumpled near us, and if that was on a cycle that could be going to affect us again.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I completely understand what you're getting at, poet. And I'm sorry that the other people in this thread won't even so much as entertain a theory that doesn't fit their present understanding.

It seems to suggest that satellite bodies act just as shared valence electrons do when orbiting atoms. And the implications of THAT are beyond conceivable thought. This may even suggest the concept of infiniti and that we, as large pieces of collective matter, may just be part of matter that's on an inconceivably larger scale. As in our planetary bodies are no more than atoms, essentially. And our moons, no more than electrons.

Thanks for bringing this forth, OP. Mind blowing stuff, really.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


uh...


Do you know the gravity on this? Because it's too low for water to remain present.

What do you mean by upgrade? Planets don't get upgraded.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I think what he was referring to was an upgrade from what it's currently considered, an asteroid, to a planet.

Or he was referring to an upgrade in matter from liquid to hardened crystal, but I find that less likely.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join