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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by UnivoxSuperfuzz
 


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.


Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of atoms. That is a very obsolete concept.

The discussion here does not really involve the transfer of an object orbiting one planet to another, just that an object which is orbiting the Sun can be captured temporarily by the Earth before being caught again by the Sun. But that idea is not entirely without merit. There are gravitational "paths" between the planets which would make it possible for a natural object could orbit one planet for a while before moving on to another. After all, Pieces of Mars have made it to Earth. But, it does not require anything but boring old Newtonian gravitation to occur. After centuries Newton's realizations still apply.
en.wikipedia.org...

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




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Maybe these "asteroids" are more like *evil eyes* of sort, for the draconians to keep a close eye on their herd?

You know like those mysterious small floating cameras in the southwestern usa when you approach a highly restricted area...........

The universe is strange, esepecially if we can't even agree that most planets are hollow in nature, or how our moon is actually a giant hollowed-out spacecraft dragged millions of miles into perfect orbit that never reveals its dark side.

Has anyone seen aristarchus nuclear fussion powerplant and the soul collector tower?

The people need to communise our own triangle and get busy exploring because the government does not care about you or me. It cares about itself primarily!

Ok, now I need my medication again. Damm can't get a break from the matrix propaganda.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry, my working knowledge of science is a little bit old school. But that doesn't mean that those "old" ideas still don't have any credence, does it? I understand science as a progression just like art or music. But sometimes you have to refer to the old ideas to form the new ones.

And what do you think of the theory I posited about infinity? That perhaps even the atoms in our body are planets themselves, each molecule a solar system, and the universe, perhaps an organism. And then the same implications for us and our planetary body as well.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by UnivoxSuperfuzz
 

In the case of the structure of atoms, it does mean that old ideas don't have any credence. The idea that electrons orbit the nucleus just doesn't work, it doesn't fit current theory and it doesn't fit experimental evidence.

On the other hand, as I said, the centuries old work of Newton does work. While the work of Einstein has shown that some difference from Newton's predictions occur under extreme circumstances, the formula which Newton came up with works fine for figuring out where an asteroid was in the past and will be in the future.

The idea that solar systems are just atoms on a grand scale (and vice versa) paints a nice poetic picture but it just doesn't hold up. The forces involved are not the same. The motions are not the same. The principles are not the same. The behavior is not the same.

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



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Alright, but you have to recognize the rigidity in your thinking compromises scientific development. I'm simply trying to think outside the theoretical box of current scientific theory that's been built around me.

As Socrates said, the only thing I know is that I know nothing. Perhaps objective truth as a whole doesn't exist.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
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.


I've read many links on it, and they feel under a dusty outer atmosphere of some kind there is tons of water, more water on that planet than ours. I've read speculation on the idea of frozen as well.

Upgrade, put your thinking cap on, and contemplate Infinity and all that is, infinite energies, infintie inanimate and animate/intellects, and how you can't cap it, limit it, or its finite. If its finite, all would have vanished long ago.

Now, all energies upgrade by design. Whole systems upgrade. Carbon upgrades to crystal. The stars are cyrstal, I've read pdfs on star dust. Crystal mirrors. My photos at home of the sun show hexagrams just like our pineals have in the calcite crystals. Now I'm not going to spend too much research on this thread, but I will link an easy to find one:
www.physorg.com...
Candle flames contain millions of nano dust diamonds.

When we entered this neverland to finally learn love in, dream lab, we came in with at least a bungee cord and some limits. So long and then it goes up and we get straightened out in the end. That process is very hard for anyone who has seriously harmed anyone, because our spirit never wanted to hurt anyone or become monsters. And we have to go through perfect knowledge.

But, I suspect that planet already upgraded.

Which means there are many eutopia realms in the astral.

There is no time so earth already has as well gone through all its DVD run, these are all past clips in the rolls of film.

Ceres really attracts me. She's a beautiful jewel of a planet and feel something wonderful and special. I bet our dolphins and whales came from there I sense higher level eutopias there.
edit on 22-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by UnivoxSuperfuzz
 

You have to actually know what's in the box to think outside it (or to know if it may be worthwhile). Ignorance gets you nowhere.

That is a paraphrase of what Socrates actually said. Surely you don't think that Socrates thought man is incapable of learning anything? That one will always be in a state of ignorance? If that were the case his entire life would have been in vain.


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



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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



Let me recommend you some Holiday reading
Always a good idew to keep up with what's new


Gravitational Force of the Sun - Pari Spolter


The book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision. The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area. The book also presents equations for the sequential distances of the planets from the sun and of satellites from the centers of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, with correlation coefficients upwards of 0.99, concluding that gravitation is quantized. A simple and useful equation for eccentricity is presented as the ratio of the sum of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun. It is shown that Kepler's second law is not a general law; i.e., equal areas are swept in approximately equal intervals of time only near aphelion and perihelion. There is now confusion between the concepts of "force" and "energy." In the last chapter of the book, new units are introduced to clarify the two concepts. Any equation containing "mass" relates to the concept of "energy". Force is independent of mass.



edit on 22-12-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Why do people keep posting about this? It's an old story and has been posted a fair few times recently. This was been known since 2006.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by UnivoxSuperfuzz
 

You have to actually know what's in the box to think outside it (or to know if it may be worthwhile). Ignorance gets you nowhere.

That is a paraphrase of what Socrates actually said. Surely you don't think that Socrates thought man is incapable of learning anything? That one will always be in a state of ignorance? If that were the case his entire life would have been in vain.


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


Hahaha, touche, sir. I believe the statement was hyperbolic about the nature of subjectivity to poetically prove a point. I'm just having fun with the dance of our conversation.


You're not ceding a single point, though. A worthy debater indeed.
edit on 22-12-2011 by UnivoxSuperfuzz because: notha point, y'all



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well......instead of some woo-woo from a someone who just writes mishmash, here:

Pari Spolter's Dysfunctional Physics

^ ^ ^ A Play in Five Parts.




"• Correas vs. Spolter"
"• Spolter responds to Correas"
"• Correas respond to Spolter"
"• Spolter tries again"
"• Correas dispatch Spolter"



(A Teaser From Act I):

....."She rejects Newton's second law as an arbitrary definition or convention, and maintains that it is not force that is equal to mass times acceleration, but weight.


Wow....


" Her equation for 'linear force' is F = ad (acceleration times distance). Her equation for 'circular force' (including gravity) is F = aA, where a is acceleration and A is the area of a circle with a radius equal to the mean distance of the orbiting body from the central body. This equation implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square of the distance, but that the gravitational force of the Sun, Earth, etc. is constant for any body revolving around it. In newtonian theory, by contrast, it varies according to both the mass of the orbiting body and its distance from the central body.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Well......instead of some woo-woo from a someone who just writes mishmash, here:


Your not qualified to call anyone woo-woo, especially by using the words of some pseudo debunker as your witness.
New ideas are always hard to get accepted by main stream stuffed shirt pompous know it all peers. In the end THIS is the truth...

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident". - Arthur Schopenhauer

BTW Einstein is Wrong too

Even the New York Times says so



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


How many stages does nonsense make it through?
Just because something is ridiculed does not make it true. Ridicule is often deserved.
edit on 12/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Just one. Nonsense is believed to be true right off the bat.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Yeah, maybe a moon like this one, so that instead of martial law they can use this on it's citizens.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

NOSTRADAMUS QUATRAIN IS RIGHT! SECOND MOON IS HERE!!!

I think he was an insider, like mystery school and following a script and their knowledge, but who knows.


weeklyworldnews.com...
EARTH’S SECOND MOON APPEARS!


BUSBY - Residents of this small Australian town were shocked to see two full moons in sky!

Tonight, there’s a full moon in Busby, Australia. Many residents were admiring it when at 1:20 a.m., local time, a second moon rose in the night sky. Residents couldn’t believe what they were seeing!


www.voanews.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Didn't QI explain years ago that scientists exclaimed that our second moon is called Cruithne or was that redacted in a later series?

Love that show, so funny yet informative.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Is it now considered acceptable to bring an obvious hoax into a "Breaking News" thread on ATS?

One that is, ZOMG, sourced to of all things....the "Weekly World News"??





AND this link >>>:

www.voanews.com...


(Perhaps you should go back and re-read it a bit more carefully).

It has absolutely nothing at all to so with the "WWN" made-up story, the hoax in Australia, NOR the subject of this thread. Not in the slightest.

Although as a part of the working theories on the original formation of our Moon, it is interesting. But, it is LONG ago past history.



edit on Thu 22 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by curious7
 


Yes, actually:


Didn't QI explain years ago ...second..... moon is called Cruithne....


Yeah.

www.youtube.com...

Very funny, if still getting the facts straight....

Oh, and about Cruithne, found this interesting website:

Cruithne, Earth's "2nd Moon" (Gravity Simulator website)




edit on Thu 22 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Check the links out in the video.

www.foxnews.com...
Earth Once Had a Second Moon, Astronomers Say

www.space.com...
Earth Had Two Moons That Crashed to Form One, Study Suggests

www.dailymail.co.uk...

This one regarding the asteroids.

Don't know what you're callign a hoax. The Australian one? I don't consider things automatically hoaxes. If one thing is hoaxed, doesn't change the things being suggested, and even what could be right under our noses, and we don't know, or something destroyed in the past, thats now in rubble.

But as for some of the so called hoaxes, don't concur alot of it unless the person actually comes out and admits it.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join