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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
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.


Since weight is a force, then why can't we substitute force for weight in newton's second law of motion?

This is exactly what pari spolter and zorgon are claiming!




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


No one says you can't.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


No one says you can't.


Good answer. Would you say weight is a specific form of force, whereas force being generic, is the reason science uses f=ma instead of w=ma?

I am no sceintist so it is hard for me to differentiate fact from fiction.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

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.


Not "we"..."you". There are other forces at work here that you do not seem to be recognizing. In the case of the Moon, which Phage mentioned, it is getting further away because of the conservation of angular momentum. The Moon causes tides, which slows the Earth's rotation, which increases the Moon's angular momentum, which causes the Moon to move further away.

In the case of asteroids, it's due to the fact that the Sun and the Earth are in a tug-of-war for gravitational "control" of the asteroids. When the asteroids get close enough to the Earth, the Earth is gravitationally stronger than the Sun. But we can't just ignore the original orbit of the asteroids, and the momentum that entails. The asteroids may be under the gravitational influence of the Earth, but both they and the Earth are still moving, and, as they do so, the asteroids get to a point where they pass a Lagrangian point and the gravitational attraction of the Sun once again dominates, causing them to leave Earth orbit.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


That's exactly right.
Weight is one kind of force. Specifically, as I said, weight is the force experienced by a mass undergoing acceleration. Usually, this is gravitational acceleration, but not always (weight increases in an accelerating car, for example).

Humans don't actually feel their weight. What we feel is the normal force of the ground (or any other solid surface) pushing back against our weight.

ETA: to be more specific, weight is actually a little more than just one kind of force. Weight is force, period...we just tend to differentiate weight from generic forces because we can feel weight when we stand on the ground and can't feel forces that don't involve acceleration into solid surfaces. In reality, they describe exactly the same thing.
edit on 24-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Then how did the Moon ever get locked in its orbit?

We should see other asteroids in semi-locked orbits around the Earth, but we do not, whether they are spirally in or out. Numerous efforts have been made to find such objects, because it seems likely.

What we have are these strange near-Earth orbiting bodies, and nothing either of you claim, comes close to explaining the behavior of these objects.

Its like you refuse to think outside of the box.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

The predominant theory is that the Moon formed in orbit. A stable orbit which is increasing in radius due to tidal effects.

The objects being talked about are generally tiny and very difficult to find. Only one has been seen at this point but some day a larger one may show up that would be visible to the naked eye. That would be cool but unlikely since such objects would have to be close to co-orbital with Earth and would most likely have been already discovered.

Newtonian (and Einstienian if you want to go to the trouble) physics account for the behavior. It is Newtonian models which are used to predict temporary captures.

You don't seem to know enough about what's in the box to be able to think outside of it.

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



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The Moon is most likely not a captured object. It probably formed as a result of a collision between the Earth and another large body, ejecting a bunch of material into orbit around the Earth which then coalesced to form the Moon. Or it could have been a verneshot-like event. Either way, the Moon formed in orbit. It can't be compared to these small temporary "moons" (asteroids).



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Thanks for clarifying. I was always confused with the terms weight and time. At least we got one out of the way!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by poet1b
 

The predominant theory is that the Moon formed in orbit. A stable orbit which is increasing in radius due to tidal effects.

The objects being talked about are generally tiny and very difficult to find. Only one has been seen at this point but some day a larger one may show up that would be visible to the naked eye. That would be cool but unlikely since such objects would have to be close to co-orbital with Earth and would most likely have been already discovered.

Newtonian (and Einstienian if you want to go to the trouble) physics account for the behavior. It is Newtonian models which are used to predict temporary captures.

You don't seem to know enough about what's in the box to be able to think outside of it.

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


Those objects are too tiny to be moons. I mean it is laughable!!

As for our one true moon, I think the possibilities of it being artificial in nature, such as a planetoid, are more than the conventional explanations given to us by mainstream science. "It rings like a bell" and most of its mass is away from its center meaning it should be hollow inside.

Plus the fact it is side-locked(not revolving) as it orbits the earth is strange/peculiar!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

A moon can be described as any object orbiting a planet. Satellites can be called artificial moons just as the Moon can be called a natural satellite.

Tidal locking is the inevitable effect of gravitational forces. All of the major moons in the solar system show only one face to their planets.

Hang a solid (not hollow) piece of steel on a string and hit it with a hammer. What does it ring like, a sponge?

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



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Plus the fact it is side-locked(not revolving) as it orbits the earth is strange/peculiar!


Not at all. Moons become tidally locked if they're close enough to the planet they orbit. Only one moon in the solar system within this distance is not tidally locked - that being Hyperion, a moon of Saturn, which is unable to have a tidally locked orbit because of Titan's influence.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

A moon can be described as any object orbiting a planet. Satellites can be called artificial moons just as the Moon can be called a natural satellite.

Tidal locking is the inevitable effect of gravitational forces. All of the major moons in the solar system show only one face to their planets.

Hang a solid (not hollow) piece of steel on a string and hit it with a hammer. What does it ring like, a sponge?

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


According to richard hoageland and john lear, the moon has many anamolous features. And how do you know that all of our solar system moons have a non-revolving orbit around their respective planets? I don't know, it just does not make sense to me.

As for striking a hollow object to a solid object, generally speaking, you will get a different sound. For example a bell vibrates for much longer than a solid piece of metal and makes a different sound. It is based on density and mass equilibrium.

I don't recall which astronaut made the comment "it rang like a bell for many hours" but someone did state so. They also talked about lots of lights on the far side of the moon and ufos escorting them in space. The official transcripts from what they claim off-the-record does not match that well. I think "santa claus" was the codeword for alien craft.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

According to Lear the Moon is a soul catcher. According to Hoagland comet Elenin was a spaceship. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it is not true.

What "sound" did the Moon make?

No astronaut made the comment, a geologist did.

Or "Santa Claus" could have had something to do with the fact that they were orbiting the Moon on Christmas.

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



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

According to richard hoageland and john lear


Off to a good start. See Phage's comments above.



the moon has many anamolous features. And how do you know that all of our solar system moons have a non-revolving orbit around their respective planets? I don't know, it just does not make sense to me.


Reality doesn't have to make sense to anyone.

That said, tidal locking makes perfect sense. And, it doesn't involve "non-revolving" (non-rotating?) orbits. The gravitational attraction of the planet just makes the moon rotate with the same period as the moon's orbit. If the moon weren't rotating at all, different sides would still face the planet at different times throughout its orbit.

Seeing as how we know these other moons exist, I think it's safe to say that we know these moons are tidally locked because we can see them.



As for striking a hollow object to a solid object, generally speaking, you will get a different sound. For example a bell vibrates for much longer than a solid piece of metal and makes a different sound. It is based on density and mass equilibrium.


Do you know the difference between what a ringing hollow Moon would sound like versus a solid Moon? If not, then you have no control to base any conclusion on.
edit on 24-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
See strange moon facts.

Or google "moon is a spaceship".

No reason for me to rehash everything here and make the thread go off-topic.

Anyway I love ufology and cryptozoology!!

edit on 12/24/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Most of those "facts" are not facts.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



The Moon is most likely not a captured object.


Which is what makes Phage's comments on the Moon moving away from the Earth completely irrelevant.

Congratulations, you have a grade school knowledge of current theories on how Earth's moon was formed, which is even more off the point.

All the same, we should be seeing wondering asteroids getting caught in Earth's gravity field, becoming Earth satellites/moons, whatever you want to call them, yet we aren't seeing this.

Once again, instead, we have these crazy orbital paths of near-Earth Asteroids.

www.astro.uwo.ca...



This near-Earth orbit is probably where they came up with the projected orbit of the rock from the opening post.



Cruithne is on an spiraling horseshoe orbit, similar to the one sketched above, but its behaviour is even stranger. First, it is an even more tightly-wound spiral, with kidney-bean shaped loops. Secondly, one part of the horseshoe actually overlaps the position of the Earth when viewed from above. A series of four frames (to be read left to right) showing a time lapse of Cruithne's horseshoe is shown below. Note again that Cruithne's horseshoe is composed of tightly wound kidney-bean shaped spirals which are almost impossible to distinguish individually in the picture. Remember, there are two types of motion going on: 1) every year, the asteroid traces out a kidney bean, 2) over time, this kidney bean drifts along the Earth's orbit, tracing out a spiral which, when complete (after 385 yrs) fills in an overlapping horseshoe".


If you know so much about it, then why don't you explain to the scientific community how Newton's laws of motion explain this.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 



The Moon is most likely not a captured object.


Which is what makes Phage's comments on the Moon moving away from the Earth completely irrelevant.


His comments on the Moon were quite relevant. You seem to believe that, 100% of the time, every object significantly influenced by Earth's gravity should fall inward. This is obviously not the case. The Moon is one such example.



All the same, we should be seeing wondering asteroids getting caught in Earth's gravity field, becoming Earth satellites/moons, whatever you want to call them, yet we aren't seeing this.


Asteroids never get close enough to the Earth at a slow enough speed to enter into a stable orbit.



Once again, instead, we have these crazy orbital paths of near-Earth Asteroids.


That's right...because they don't get close enough to the Earth at a slow enough speed to enter into stable orbits. And, if they got any closer, I believe that would be called an "impact."



If you know so much about it, then why don't you explain to the scientific community how Newton's laws of motion explain this.


I want you to explain to me exactly what part of this


the Sun and the Earth are in a tug-of-war for gravitational "control" of the asteroids. When the asteroids get close enough to the Earth, the Earth is gravitationally stronger than the Sun. But we can't just ignore the original orbit of the asteroids, and the momentum that entails. The asteroids may be under the gravitational influence of the Earth, but both they and the Earth are still moving, and, as they do so, the asteroids get to a point where they pass a Lagrangian point and the gravitational attraction of the Sun once again dominates, causing them to leave Earth orbit.


isn't good enough for you.
edit on 25-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



You seem to believe that, 100% of the time, every object significantly influenced by Earth's gravity should fall inward.


I never said anything like that. This is phony straw man argument of your own creation. Just as I never claimed that

My claim is that there should be some asteroids moving slow enough to get caught by Earth's gravity well, yet fast enough to stay in orbit for more than a few revolutions, possibly a semi-permanent orbit, and plenty of scientists have looked for just such a second moon.

There are a great number of asteroids that get pulled into Earths atmosphere on a continuous basis.

www.springer.com...


Every year Earth is bombarded with about 40,000 tons of extraterrestrial material. This includes microscopic cosmic dust particles shed by comets and asteroids in outer space, meteorites, as well as large comets and asteroids that have led to catastrophic events in the geologic past.


While the vast majority either escape Earths gravity, or get pulled into our atmosphere, it only makes sense that sometimes, these small bodies would get caught in an orbit around the planet, considering how many of them there are.

None of this explains near-Earth orbits as per my example, and neither you or Phage have yet to provide anything close to a reason why these objects would act the way they do, as per the link and the drawing up above. All you have done is claim it is so, and deflect with straw man arguments.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join