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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


yea, no. 'fraid your papers be wrong. The total diameter of water on Earth is





www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...


Meanwhile, the total diameter of Ceres



planety.astro.cz...


Nothing is pure in space. If it's large enough to be seen, it is made of multiple things. Like every other planet in here, it's made of iron, water, carbon, and silicon compounds.




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.



Mystic bullplop. Planets get blown up all the time. Nothing is infinite. If it was, we would not be an expanding universe, for there would be infinite, and therefore at equilibrium.




Now, all energies upgrade by design.


False. All energy dies by design.




Whole systems upgrade.


Whole systems collapse. We see it in the explosions in the sky.




Carbon upgrades to crystal.


It takes more energy to do this than it has inertly. Crystal shatters to carbon, carbon decays into its next lower form, until only hydrogen remains. All matter collapses into light.





The stars are cyrstal, I've read pdfs on star dust.


The stars are hydrogen and helium. Star dust is made primarily of hydrogen and helium. At pressure points, these merge into larger elements, only to decay in time. Gold is formed in supernova. All gold comes from a supernova. Super nova are a finite thing. And all gold decays into something else. Eventually, all gold will cease to exist, and all supernova will.




My photos at home of the sun show hexagrams just like our pineals have in the calcite crystals.


Light forms geometry on a lens based off the depth of field




Candle flames contain millions of nano dust diamonds.


Why do churches have no diamond remains bellow?




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.


Mythological nonsense.




But, I suspect that planet already upgraded. Which means there are many eutopia realms in the astral.


Mythological nonsense. Ceres is a chunk of silicon, bound to die like any other planet will.




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.


Sounds like....mythological nonsense.




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.


All we know about Ceres comes from 5000 pixels and a few spectral analysis. If you judge something on that, then God. You're worse than some men I know.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



Don't know what you're callign a hoax.

I don't consider things automatically hoaxes.


The "Weekly World News" so-called *story*, obviously.

I mean, it claims people saw TWO Moons!! It is absurd........as absurd as that photo of "Bat Boy", or the alien shaking hands with George W. Bush....(also staple and well-known stories from that rag, the "WWN").


Now, the other stories, about the possible theory of the Moon's initial conditions at formation??

That is tangent to the prevailing "Impact" theory, which is the prevailing one. This latest is just a refinement of that basic concept, with the proposal that the giant "Impact", after the debris was continuing to orbit and was accreting, might have formed two bodies, that eventually came together to merge as the one Moon.

But this was all about ~4 Billion years ago....so while interesting to ponder (and the answers may be long in coming)....there will have to be a lot of more exploration of the surface (and even interior) geology (or, 'selenology') of the Moon, and just a lot more close-up study to be done.




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



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Interesting, i only ever see one moon. This other moon must be so shy it left the solar system or decided to join another planet. Its always nice when scientists say this stuff like its fact but the so called second moon is on a vacation God alone knows where.

Ah, i know where the other moon went. Marshall Applewhite and the heavens gate cult hitched a ride on it to Jesus Christ's space ship. (insert sarcasm here).



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
It sounds similar to how an atom takes in and lets go of electrons in its orbit.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks for the book recommendation Zorgon. I will have to look it up.

It makes a lot of sense, when one considers that all mass is locked up potential energy.

I'll explain later when I finish reading posts, and respond to Phage.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by chadderson
 


Exactly, thanks for getting it.

Here is a nice series of videos about mainstream sciences predictions. This is pretty interesting stuff.

wn.com...

All I can wonder is, if the asteroid spirals the way it does, what does it spiral around. Lagrangian points do not explain this. This is not even predicted to move in a plain, which is what we should see for Lagrangian points, with the much smaller influence of Earths gravity restricting the area of this influence.

What they have is an object that sort of meets long expected predictions, which in fact does not confirm Einsteins theories about gravity.

The problem is that they have not observed this object nearly long enough to make such conclusions.

It is a shame that mainstream science is so narrowly focused they seem to ignore any evidence that goes beyond their current theories. It seems that science has once again been taken over by priest, and those with imagination have been pushed out by orthodoxy.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah, I don't think anyone disagrees with the balancing act, the whole ocean tide phenom pretty much ties that up.

Too tired for a better response, sorry.

What we are seeing is a classic capture, but for yet to be unexplained reason, it escapes Earth's gravity field, and then spirals out. The Lagrange point doesn't explain the loop. Then we have this article claiming we have these satellites coming and going all the time. Admittedly, I am not seeing a credible link proving the claim that is the main point of the article that prompted me to start the thread. Is this a legitimate claim that we always have such satellites coming and going? There are a lot of missing pieces to this puzzle.

If they had predicted what this thing was going to do before they did it, then I would be impressed, but from all research, that has yet to happen. I see no evidence that backs your claims that current gravitational theory are able to predict or explain what was observed. Maybe you can post some links that back your claim.

I don't find Newtons theories old or boring. Was going to post something on his first law, probably have heard that yarn before, but going to tie it to Gorgon's link concept.

Time to pound some grape and stare into at the boob tube.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


All I can wonder is, if the asteroid spirals the way it does, what does it spiral around. Lagrangian points do not explain this. This is not even predicted to move in a plain, which is what we should see for Lagrangian points, with the much smaller influence of Earths gravity restricting the area of this influence.


What do you mean "not even predicted to move in a plain [sic]"?
Can you explain what we "should" see?
Can you explain what you mean by the "smaller influence of Earth's gravity"?

Are you aware that there are currently three satellites utilizing Earth-Sun Lagrange point orbits?
map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.srl.caltech.edu...
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Are you aware that there are two satellites utiliting Earth-Moon Lagrange point orbits?
www.sciencedaily.com...

Is this what you think we "should" see?
www.youtube.com...

What do you think these satellites are orbiting around? "Orthodoxy"? If so those "priests" are pretty good with their incantations. Or maybe they're just lucky. Or maybe they really can predict those orbits using calculations of gravitational forces.
edit on 12/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




What we are seeing is a classic capture, but for yet to be unexplained reason, it escapes Earth's gravity field, and then spirals out. The Lagrange point doesn't explain the loop.


The reason is explained. The orbit is unstable.
The Lagrange point does explain the loop. Objects are captured and released through Lagrange points.
www.universetoday.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Not the way this rock moves.

The easy stuff doesn't always explain the more complicated stuff..

Merry Christmas

Next week we will have more time.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Can you explain what we "should" see?


No, and neither can modern science, the difference seems to be that I recognize this, and you don't.


Objects are captured and released through Lagrange points.


No, they are not. Lagrange points act more like that area where you get past the point where the waves start to crash on the beach. They do not have any gravitational pull, they do not capture things.

Nice link, but it doesn't prove your point, it only adds to the mystery, and causes people like you to make these sort of unrealistic claims.

So new technology allows us to observe these satellites that get captured into orbit, and then somehow escape, and scientists have brilliantly deducted, that if Jupiter is doing it, Earth must be doing it as well. No where is the is scientific community making the claims that you are making, that this easily explained by Newtonian physics, and certainly not by Einstein's gravity well concept.

In classical concepts of gravity, each planet should have large numbers of these miniature moons, but what we are seeing is capture and release, much like electrons.

By your own sources, this is fact. These miniature bodies get temporarily caught in orbit around a planet, and then get released, and electrons behave in a similar manner.

It is as if, there is some sort of balance requirement going on between a planet and its satellites.



edit on 23-12-2011 by poet1b because: clear up a phrase

edit on 23-12-2011 by poet1b because: missing 'is'



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


This is an incorrect analogy, in many ways:


These miniature bodies get temporarily caught in orbit around a planet, and then get released, and electrons behave in a similar manner.


Equating a single electron to a massive (by comparison) assemblage of matter just doesn't work the same way.

You seem to be discounting, also (in the inability to grasp these principles of motion) the momentum of the asteroids, in this case. Still Newtonian, and perfectly understandable to see how "equilibrium" can be a delicate thing, simply based on the Newtonian Laws of motion.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


No, and neither can modern science, the difference seems to be that I recognize this, and you don't.
So, you don't know what should happen but that ain't it. But the problem is, modern science and the science of Newton do say what should happen and what is says is that there must be temporary captures. Rather than saying modern science can't explain it, don't you mean you can't explain it? Or is your grasp of orbital mechanics so great that you know as much as the scientists who produce the models which were used to reach the conclusion?


No, they are not. Lagrange points act more like that area where you get past the point where the waves start to crash on the beach. They do not have any gravitational pull, they do not capture things.
Um...what?
On what do you base your claim that Lagrange points do not capture objects (never mind the waves thing)? You just have a feeling that it's wrong?


Nice link, but it doesn't prove your point, it only adds to the mystery, and causes people like you to make these sort of unrealistic claims.
Unrealistic claims. The satellites aren't there? They aren't being tracked? The scientists just sent them out there without knowing what would happen and (oh my, look at that!) the satellites just started orbiting nothing?


So new technology allows us to observe these satellites that get captured into orbit, and then somehow escape, and scientists have brilliantly deducted, that if Jupiter is doing it, Earth must be doing it as well. No where is the is scientific community making the claims that you are making, that this easily explained by Newtonian physics, and certainly not by Einstein's gravity well concept.
Actually, not many have been observed. Only one I think. If the scientific community is not using Newtonian or Einsteinian physics to predict the existence of temporary captures (and Lagrange orbits), what are they using?


In classical concepts of gravity, each planet should have large numbers of these miniature moons, but what we are seeing is capture and release, much like electrons.
The classical concepts of gravity are what is being used to deduce the existence of these objects but the force of gravity is nothing like atomic forces and the behavior of objects in space is nothing like the behavior of electrons. You also seemed to have missed a point made by the MIT scientists. It isn't a matter of capturing and releasing one object at a time.

The answer is straightforward to state. "At any given time, there should be at least one natural Earth satellite of 1-meter diameter orbiting the Earth," say Granvik and co.

www.technologyreview.com...
For all we know, there could be "large numbers" of them at times. Here, and gone.

edit on 12/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Didn't equate anything, just pointed out the fact of similarity.

Momentum was considered, and in fact, that is what seems to be behaving uncharacteristically here.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



there must be temporary captures.


You and your minions are the only people I have read making this claim.

You have to prove your claim that Lagrange points capture asteroids, cause I have not read that anywhere else. You make these claims, and have no evidence to back them up.

Why those satellites are positioned where they are positioned has nothing to do with your claims.

Did you even bother to read your own link? I doubt it. Scientists have observed several capture and releases involving Jupiter. Mainly they are doing this as a result of technology mainly developed by Tesla. They know what they see, but they don't know how it is happening. We still don't have a clue of how gravity actually works, we can only see it effects.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:43 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.


Or objects that are in a different dimension, affecting this one through a chain of reactions reaching our dimension, Or by direct action. What if it is a pool, of dark matter, made up of inter-dimensional consciousness made of light, that is dense enought to produce it's own gravity field



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
By the way since when can a moon have a 1 meter diameter? Did I read it wrong? That's just a space rock, and how is that going to have any influence on Earth. We have sattelites orbiting right now that are twice the size...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

My minions? You mean the MIT scientists?


Why those satellites are positioned where they are positioned has nothing to do with your claims.

They are positioned at Lagrange points. This seems present a problem for your claim:

Lagrange points act more like that area where you get past the point where the waves start to crash on the beach. They do not have any gravitational pull, they do not capture things.




Did you even bother to read your own link? I doubt it. Scientists have observed several capture and releases involving Jupiter. Mainly they are doing this as a result of technology mainly developed by Tesla.

yes, I did read it. Did you? None of the objects have been observed while captured.

An international team led by Dr. Katsuhito Ohtsuka modeled the trajectories of 18 “quasi-Hilda comets,” objects with the potential to go through a temporary satellite capture by Jupiter that results in them either leaving or joining the “Hilda” group of objects in the asteroid belt. Most of the cases of temporary capture were flybys, where the comets did not complete a full orbit. However, the research team used recent observations tracking Kushida-Muramatsu over nine years to calculate hundreds of possible orbital paths for the comet over the previous century.

www.universetoday.com...
What do you suppose they used to calculate those orbits?

Tesla? Seriously?


edit on 12/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
there are so many Near Earth Objects that this is bound to be the case, i dont think that the earth would need this 'secondary moon' for any particular reason.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You have ever so much faith in the controllers dont you? And no they're not.

That photo of ceres is taken through their equipment. And its small, scientists now consider it a dwarf planet, but it can house the entire population of earth, its bigger than australia. Perhaps a tad cold and lacking in human atmosphere, but all they do is LIE.

www.space.com...


The largest known asteroid could contain more fresh water than Earth and looks like our planet in other ways, according to a new study that further blurs the line between planets and large space rocks. Astronomers took 267 images of asteroid Ceres using the Hubble Space Telescope


Bold for emphasis.

solarsystem.nasa.gov...


Scientists describe Ceres as an "embryonic planet." Gravitational perturbations from Jupiter billions of years ago prevented it from becoming a full-fledged planet. Ceres ended up among the leftover debris of planetary formation in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.


Supposition. This is vague pronouncing without factoids. Ie. Like how all those comets are dirty ice balls, but oops, they still continue that myth though have studied 4 up close and found Electric Universe predicted outcomes and very clean asteroid like surfaces, carrying a CHARGE.

So, supposition, but it continues:


But Ceres has more in common with Earth and Mars than its rocky neighbors. There are signs it may contain large amounts of pure water ice beneath its surface. Observations by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope show that Ceres shares characteristics of the rocky, terrestrial planets of our inner solar system. Computer models show that nearly round objects such as Ceres have a differentiated interior, with denser material at the core and lighter minerals near the surface. All the terrestrial planets - including Earth - have differentiated interiors. This sets Ceres apart from its asteroid neighbors.


NO DOUBT.

In fact that is a planet, and it has water and if there is an illusion of ice for our earthtime 3d Compartment, oh well. We're in a very small universal compartment after all.

And its all smoke and screens and illusions for us.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join