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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


Ceres, formally 1 Ceres, is the largest asteroid and the only dwarf planet in the inner Solar System.[19][20][21] It was the first asteroid to be discovered, by Giuseppe Piazzi on 1 January 1801.[22][23] It is named after Cerēs, the Roman goddess of growing plants, the harvest, and motherly love.

Ceres is some 950 kilometres (600 mi) in diameter and comprises about a third of the mass of the asteroid belt.[24][25] The Cererian surface is probably a mixture of water ice and various hydrated minerals such as carbonates and clays.[14] Ceres appears to be differentiated into a rocky core and icy mantle,[8] and may harbour an ocean of liquid water under its surface.[26][27]


I was named after Ceres daughter so to speak and feel a strong sense of peace and prosperity and goodness when I look at that wonderful little planet.

Our SS secret space program might think of having dark side bases on it. But even if that was tolerated, it would only be one compartment, layer, out of all the other real channels where the good people live. But I doubt they would have any chance to go far with that.

As for channels, the more in depth post is above this short form one, but this is a good description of the real universe.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Consequently we don't see whats in our solar system, we're in our own degraded and programmed compartment.

We'd in a highly managed hacked layered, sub compartment here, and only see whats possible within the programs.

Earth could have several others moons, all loaded with life, and phased to offset the gravity pull, far above our ant hill science, and yet, we would't know.

Also advanced ETs could take any asteroid or even combine them, and terraform it like that too. Depends whether they needed the space. And we would see a frozen planet of blue and water.

I don't know alot of people who have even seen that NASA pic of Ceres, its really beautiful.

Here again,



Note its not a fraud, its NASA
solarsystem.nasa.gov...
edit on 23-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
By the way, many of us are waking up to Legion, and Darth Vader type governance here, and how they are enslaving and lying to the human race. But for some very odd reason, some of these same people go to these dark siders for truth.


Our science the stuff that works, is still like a program on a computer, and there are many infinite ones, compartments. When we push a key on the pad, it does certain things, not necessarily sharing the same keys on the other programs, they all have separate coding. All the compartments, or space-time and frequency realms are different, and have their own programming. Not only different programming but different programming languages are used, such as C+ versus pearl, or Windows versus Linux. And there are levels like Jacobs ladder, or the game, snakes and ladders, higher levels and ant hill tech. The universe is many layers, levels and compartments/constructs.

We, on this nearly hellzone lower frequency planet of starvation and wars, and slavery see a very small portion of what is there.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Just to clarify here.....when you replied, I was pointing out the lack of comparison of electrons (that you made) to orbiting bodies in physical macro space.

Correct?


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


I recall, as a youngster in science classes, seeing the (then) model of the atom, with the electrons depicted as tiny "orbiting" particles. This is NOT the current model of the atom, nor of the nature of the particles that comprise it.

I have (tried) to stay abreast of each new model and discovery of the nature of the very small, and the greater understanding of particle physics that have resulted, including the introduction (since my childhood) of "quantum" physics as a further concept to explore. This is associated with "string" theory, and while I leave it to those who devote their lives to the study of such things, I still enjoy reading about their findings.

I don't immediately jump to some "bizzarro"-world "alternative" crackpot idea each time these respected scientists continue to investigate the science they are studying, and learn new things in the process that may conflict with earlier models they had formed....which is what those who advocate for the "Electric" Universe (I won't even consider it a qualified theory, in the true sense of that definition)....call it an "idea" to consider....


^ ^ ^ means that, as atoms have been investigated more and more, the notion of little particles of electrons "orbiting" the nucleus is quaintly old-fashioned. Thus, any analogy of electrons to asteroids is irrelevant and inapt.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 





I was named after Ceres daughter so to speak and feel a strong sense of peace and prosperity and goodness when I look at that wonderful little planet.


Personal opinion is not fact. Furthermore, I repeat. You base this off of 5000 pixels and a few spectral analysis. I'm sure a bloated blue dead body found in the ocean looks like Ceres if you pixelate it enough.




Our SS secret space program might think of having dark side bases on it. But even if that was tolerated, it would only be one compartment, layer, out of all the other real channels where the good people live. But I doubt they would have any chance to go far with that.


You're mumbling. This doesn't make any sense to the relevance of the topic..




As for channels, the more in depth post is above this short form one, but this is a good description of the real universe.


Cool, lack of evidence. I love that.




Consequently we don't see whats in our solar system, we're in our own degraded and programmed compartment.


Mythological nonsense.




Earth could have several others moons, all loaded with life, and phased to offset the gravity pull, far above our ant hill science, and yet, we would't know.


False.




Also advanced ETs could take any asteroid or even combine them, and terraform it like that too. Depends whether they needed the space. And we would see a frozen planet of blue and water.


Mythological nonsense.



Hey and while we're at the point of judging something based off a pixelated photo:









This looks quite pretty, wouldn't you say?




OPPS. GUESS NOT.



AND HEY. He's 70% water and mixed carbon too, right? RIGHT?

Do us all a favor. Don't judge a book by its cover.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you really think of MIT scientists as your minions?


You have yet to provide anything you have claimed is backed by MIT. As for Lagrange points, that is your problem, you are the one making claims that you can't back up.

This is also what the article says.

www.universetoday.com...


But one object captured by Jupiter in the mid 1900′s was later able to escape from the planet’s clutches. Researchers have found comet 147P/Kushida-Muramatsu was captured as a temporary moon of Jupiter, and remained trapped in an irregular orbit for about twelve years. “Our results demonstrate some of the routes taken by cometary bodies through interplanetary space that can allow them either to enter or to escape situations where they are in orbit around the planet Jupiter,” said team member Dr. David Archer.
With this discovery, five such objects have now been discovered where the phenomenon of temporary satellite capture (TSC) has occurred, but this new research suggests it might happen more frequently than was expected. Kushida-Muramatsu orbited Jupiter between 1949 and 1961, the third longest capture period of the five objects.


Doesn't say that these objects were calculated to have been captured temporarily by Jupiter, but discovered. That should mean it was observed, probably looking through photos. Then the article talks about modelling possible trajectories, hundreds of possible trajectories. It is not an exact method, these calculations are essentially educated guesses. Math is a great tool, but it is only an abstract interpretation of the real world.

Do you really believe that Tesla's inventions didn't allow technology to move ahead and change the world, and allow the massive influence modern technology has created, including enhanced observation of space.



edit on 23-12-2011 by poet1b because: Thought of a better opening quip.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I have considered the tiny particle orbiting the nucleus to be a long outdated model since before they ever came up with string theory.

I am not comparing this rock to an electron, just making the observation that such a capture and release is similar to modern theory about electron flow.

My theory is that electrons are thin hair like particles with a curve that creates what we know as the small force.
These tiny hair like particles tangle together to create very long threads that essentially create the fabric of space and all matter, and the force we know as gravity.

There is no well, the Earth is a part of this structure, and the way this satellite moves actually fits in with my theory. If there was a well, we should have a large number of asteroids regularly orbiting the Earth, but this doesn't seem to be happening. Instead they orbit the sun with the Earth. This suggests a structured order, like most of the solar system.

Oh well, out of time.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Doesn't say that these objects were calculated to have been captured temporarily by Jupiter, but discovered. That should mean it was observed, probably looking through photos.



Kushida-Muramatsu orbited Jupiter between 1949 and 1961, the third longest capture period of the five objects.

www.universetoday.com...
The comet Kushida-Muramatsu was not discovered until 1993.
Photos? From between 1949 and 1961? using what? Oh, right. I forgot about Telsa's wonderful advances in astronomy.

How can you ignore this?

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. In all scenarios, Kushida-Muramatsu completed two full revolutions of Jupiter.

www.universetoday.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
It doesn't seem that outlandish that a tiny object comes in at the proper trajectory, with the proper mass and goes into orbit for a bit. As space is full of objects, just like some hit the Earth, some burn up, and some skip off.

I'd be more concerned of all the man-made moons we have up there. Our space garbage/litter/debris.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Having looked into it further, then yes, what they are calling research and discovery is nothing more than mathematical modelling. What a joke that they can call this research and discovery. It is sad that science has become so orthodox as to actually make such claims.

They are hiding more than they are revealing. There is nothing in Newtonian physics that explains these spiraling projections. Anyone who has a decent grasp of calculus can see that.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

There is nothing in Newtonian physics that explains these spiraling projections. Anyone who has a decent grasp of calculus can see that.


It may interest you to know that I have a decent grasp of Tensor Calculus, the math required to model General Relativity. If you don't mind, I'd like to see the Calculus of Newtonian physics that fails to explain these "spiralling projections."
edit on 24-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Having looked into it further, then yes, what they are calling research and discovery is nothing more than mathematical modelling.


Yes, the same sort of modelling which allows satellites to be placed into Lagrange halo orbits and probes sent to the outer planets. Nothing more.







edit on 12/24/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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.


Weight is based on gravitional acceleration times mass. What do you think G-Force is, like when we say 4Gs or 9Gs? That is why weight differs from mass depending on which planet you reside on. On the moon you will weigh much less than on earth, yet the mass is equal.

Mass is universal, while weight depends on gravitional acceleration. I think spolter is correct here but it took me time to think this over.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Acceleration and forces



The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of acceleration, not force. While acceleration is a vector quantity, g-forces are often expressed as a scalar, with positive g-forces pointing upward (indicating upward acceleration), and negative g-forces pointing downward. Thus, a g-force is a vector acceleration.

G-forces, when multiplied by a mass upon which they act, are associated with a certain type of mechanical force in the correct sense of the term force, and this force produces compressive stress and tensile stress. Such forces result in the operational sensation of weight, but the equation carries a sign change due to the definition of positive weight in the direction doward, so the direction of weight-force is opposite to the direction of g-force acceleration:

Weight = -mass x (g-force acceleration)


Therefore if we substitute g-force, which is technically incorrect according to wikipedia, with acceleration we get exactly weight=mass x acceleration and pari spolter is correct!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Will someone please explain why earth can't capture any of these asteroids in the same manner Mars captured Phobos and Deimos?




Moons of Mars



The origin of the Martian moons is still controversial. Phobos and Deimos both have much in common with carbonaceous C-type asteroids, with spectra, albedo, and density very similar to those of C- or D-type asteroids. Based on their similarity, one hypothesis is that both moons may be captured main-belt asteroids. Both moons have very circular orbits which lie almost exactly in Mars's equatorial plane, and hence a capture origin requires a mechanism for circularizing the initially highly eccentric orbit, and adjusting its inclination into the equatorial plane, most probably by a combination of atmospheric drag and tidal forces, although it is not clear that sufficient time is available for this to occur for Deimos. Capture also requires dissipation of energy. The current Mars atmosphere is too thin to capture a Phobos-sized object by atmospheric braking. Geoffrey Landis has pointed out that the capture could have occurred if the original body was a binary asteroid that separated under tidal forces.
en.wikipedia.org...

Practically all the outer planets have asteroids in orbit around them, but for some reason Mercury, Venus and Earth can’t seem to catch a ball so to speak. I guess the ones that do make it to the inner planets end up burning up in the atmosphere or crashing into the planet.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


"g-force" is a colloquial term for how many times the acceleration due to gravity is being experienced. As Wikipedia says, "g-force" is wrong because it's not a force, it's an acceleration. For instance, if something is accelerating at about 20 m/s^2, then it's experiencing 2g, or "2 gees".

However, this increase in acceleration leads to an increase in weight, because w = mg.
This is exactly the same as F = ma, because g = a (both are acceleration).

Weight is a force. Specifically, weight is the force experienced by a mass undergoing acceleration.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


That states that one theory is that Mars' moons are captured main belt asteroids. How many main belt asteroids does Earth get close enough to to capture?
Also, you pointed out a second potential reason, apparently without noticing. Mercury, Venus, and Earth are closer to the Sun. The Earth captures these asteroids temporarily before they continue in their orbit around the Sun. Obviously, Mars would be far enough away from the Sun to be able to capture a couple asteroids without having them be re-captured by the Sun. Though, if they are, in fact, captured main belt asteroids, then this isn't nearly as significant as it would be if Mars had captured a couple long-period asteroids.
edit on 24-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


“In the sky a second light will rise
Bring back the great King of Angolmois
And with Toulouse, ten years after the shining
Across the earth shall come the great flame”

Is this prophetic utterance saying the current moon’s name is Toulouse and the coming moon is named Angolmois? If that is true then it means Angolmois has been here before.

Nostradamus' prophecies are too vague. Anything could apply.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I'd like to see any calculation that explains what is actually making these objects move the way that they are currently being observed to move. Newton never attempted to explain what is the actual source of gravity.

All these calculations are estimates of the past and future orbital paths of these comets/asteroids, based on minimum and maximum possibilities, that is all. Do you claim they are more than that?

We have been presented with a few pieces of the puzzle, lots of claims about what is happening, and very little explanation why.

I don't doubt the math behind the curve projections that were modeled, but I also recognize that those projections both future and past could wind up being very wrong. I would like to see less modeling, and more analysis of what we are seeing.

Nothing here looks like something is getting caught in a gravity well. What we are seeing is mathematical projections showing spiraling orbits, and Lagrange points do not explain this. The only influence we should see from LaGrange points is some straightening of path due to neutralization of gravitational influences as asteroids pass through such zones.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


But it makes sense that some asteroids would get caught in Earth's orbit, and slowly get pulled into Earth's atmosphere after so many orbits. Yet, no such objects have been found.

Instead, we have these crazy orbital paths of near-Earth Asteroids.

www.astro.uwo.ca...


The near-Earth asteroid 3753 Cruithne is now known to be a companion, and an unusual one, of the Earth. This asteroid shares the Earth's orbit, its motion "choreographed" in such a way as to remain stable and avoid colliding with our planet. This relationship was revealed in a paper by Paul Wiegert, Kim Innanen and Seppo Mikkola, and published in the British-based science journal Nature on June 12, 1997. A brief non-technical description of the motion of Cruithne is presented below. However, Cruithne's path is much more complicated than simple satellite motion; pondering the diagrams carefully should help clarify matters. Note: small images have been used to ensure fast downloading; click on any figure for a larger, clearer image.


Personally, I look at this information, and it appears to me that there are other forces at work here that we do not seem to be recognizing, and I can only wonder why.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


But it makes sense that some asteroids would get caught in Earth's orbit, and slowly get pulled into Earth's atmosphere after so many orbits.

No it doesn't make sense. The Moon is in an Earth orbit. It's slowly moving further away.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join