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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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


In this post, you said:


...these tiny satellites are slipping in an out of Earth's orbit, and my understanding of mainstream theory on gravity is as you state, it should stay there forever.




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...that's exactly what this article is talking about. Semi-permanent orbits.
All of these objects, including the Earth, are orbiting the Sun. The Earth is travelling at about 30 km/s. Asteroids entering (or existing within) the inner solar system have a typical speed of about 20-25 km/s. So, relative to the Earth, asteroid speeds can be anywhere from 0 to more than 50 km/s. Meanwhile, the Earth's escape velocity at, for example, the distance of the Moon, is about 1.44 km/s, and decreasing of course with distance. This leaves a negligible supply of asteroids suitable for being significantly captured by the Earth's gravity.



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


Many of these don't get pulled into the Earth's atmosphere - rather, the Earth passes through the paths of these (often tiny) objects. I'm not sure how this is supposed to help your case, anyway, because...



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.


For any two sizeable masses, the distance, speed, and trajectory required for a stable orbit are very specific. Any further out and/or faster, and the object will escape (which is what happens to the objects which are the topic of this thread); any closer in and/or slower, and the object will impact.
You said above that a lot of objects get pulled into the Earth's atmosphere. This is because the relative velocity required to establish a stable orbit is such a fine line that the stable orbit case is bound to be rare (unless, of course, the object is intelligently controlled, in which case it's easy to put things in orbit - because we have such an impressive understanding of how gravity works).

In the same way many objects get pulled into unstable orbits leading to their inward decay (impact), many objects also get pulled into unstable orbits leading to their escape. This should happen less frequently, as predicted by this research team, but it should certainly happen.

Also, this:


... considering how many of them there are.


You should define what "them" you're talking about before you make this claim. If "them" means asteroids the size of those that regularly burn up in the atmosphere, then, yes, there are plenty, but how do you propose we detect these in their stable orbits? If, on the other hand, the "them" you're talking about is asteroids the size of those described in the article, then not so much (meteors 1 meter and large only occur about once every 10 days).
Smaller objects are more plentiful but nearly impossible to detect, while larger objects are easier to detect but not nearly as common.
edit on 26-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Huge difference between those two statements, one is about a satellite captured in orbit, and then leaving orbit, not stating that all of these objects will be captured in Earth's orbits as you claim I stated.

Semi permanent orbit, as in more than a few times around the planet. Most likely, caught in orbit, and the orbit slowly decaying until the object falls into Earth's atmosphere, as I have stated. Scientist are not seeing this, and with the large numbers of these bodies, one would think the odds are that one would get captured every few hundred years, or more often, and stay in this orbit for decades, perhaps centuries. This is not being observed.

Yeah, the Earth's movement also comes into play, this would be expected.

There are large numbers of asteroids 1 meter and larger. I don't know where you get your number, you should provide a link.

My research shows about 9,000 near Earth Objects larger than 140 meters.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Huge difference between those two statements, one is about a satellite captured in orbit, and then leaving orbit, not stating that all of these objects will be captured in Earth's orbits as you claim I stated.


What you said was that, according to the mainstream theory of gravity, an object should stay in Earth's orbit forever. That's what I said you stated (understanding that "stay there forever" could mean either falling inward at a rate sufficient to establish a stable orbit, or falling inward to impact... both as opposed to escaping orbit).



Semi permanent orbit, as in more than a few times around the planet.


So, you find, what? 10 or 20 orbits more satisfying than 3 or 4?
More than half a dozen orbits would probably indicate that the orbit is relatively stable.



Most likely, caught in orbit, and the orbit slowly decaying until the object falls into Earth's atmosphere, as I have stated. Scientist are not seeing this, and with the large numbers of these bodies, one would think the odds are that one would get captured every few hundred years, or more often, and stay in this orbit for decades, perhaps centuries. This is not being observed.


Perhaps it's not being observed because the rate of such an occurrence is less than your arbitrary (and, I might add, biased) prediction. Add that to the fact that most of the meteoroids that come close enough to the Earth to be pulled into such a slow spiral are too small to detect before they become meteors (at which point it becomes impossible to know what sort of orbit, if any, they held before impacting).



Yeah, the Earth's movement also comes into play, this would be expected.


Yet you don't seem to be accounting for it.



There are large numbers of asteroids 1 meter and larger. I don't know where you get your number, you should provide a link.


My pleasure: link.



My research shows about 9,000 near Earth Objects larger than 140 meters.


Near Earth Objects - objects that come within 0.3 AU of the Earth at least once in their orbit (source).
9000 of these at those distances is not nearly enough to ensure that at least one enters a slow spiralling orbit within the amount of time you suggest. How often do each of these 9000 objects actually come close to Earth (remember, they don't come close to the Earth with every single orbit)? How often do they come close enough to be at all gravitationally influenced by Earth? How often do they come close enough to significantly influenced?
As I said, the only objects that come close enough to be pulled into an impact trajectory with any notable frequency are too small to detect.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


What I stated is still way different than what you claimed I said. I admit, I overstated with the forever comment, you got me on that one, but it still doesn't change that your claim about what I stated was wrong.

This is a stubborn attempt to distort what I am saying by grabbing one things I have posted that is wrong, and making it seem that everything I posted on the subject is wrong.

Your link is wiki, and it does not provide a link that backs up that claim, which means it is unsubstantiated. You have provided no more evidence that your claims are more accurate than mine, or any less biased.

You seemed mostly interested in dragging the discussion off track, trying to play gotcha. The odds of Earth capturing a body in a semi-permanent link is not the subject.

What you avoid discussing it that Newtonian physics does not explain this.

www.astro.uwo.ca...



This type of near-Earth orbit should open a great many possibilities as to how gravity actually works.


edit on 26-12-2011 by poet1b because: typo and add link



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
what if there are multiple moons just behind our moon that a perfectly sized to fit behind our moon and none of us could see. and that's why our planet isn't as affected by outer space celestial bodies hitting us.

thought.


and what if there is no gravity and just momentum force holding us down to the earth, because of the wobble the momentum is throwing everything down to the center, there's no artificial gravity because there's nothing to artificially create, and anti gravity was really the ceasing of an objects momentum while allowing it to stay within the momentum of the "bubble" its in.

again, thought.
edit on 26-12-2011 by MConnalley because: thuoght

edit on 26-12-2011 by MConnalley because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 


What I stated is still way different than what you claimed I said.


How do you figure? You said objects should stay in orbit. I said that you said that an object in Earth's gravity should always fall inward (the definition of an orbit). Before you start throwing around hyperbole, what is "way different" about that?



This is a stubborn attempt to distort what I am saying by grabbing one things I have posted that is wrong, and making it seem that everything I posted on the subject is wrong.


I haven't done that. If you can't stand by your words, then that establishes just what basis you have for the belief by which those words were spoken (or typed, as it were).



Your link is wiki, and it does not provide a link that backs up that claim, which means it is unsubstantiated. You have provided no more evidence that your claims are more accurate than mine, or any less biased.


The source link it provides is to a membership-/fee-based article. Would you like to pay to read it? I'll actually bet you the value of the fee that the equation given in the Wiki article is fully backed by the Nature article.
However, if you want to throw out my source, then I welcome you to find one of your own, whether it agrees or disagrees with me. If you can't find one, then you have no more of a basis to say how frequent these events occur than I do.



The odds of Earth capturing a body in a semi-permanent link is not the subject.


That's what the article, which is the subject of this thread, was about.



What you avoid discussing it that Newtonian physics does not explain this.

www.astro.uwo.ca...
...

This type of near-Earth orbit should open a great many possibilities as to how gravity actually works.


Based on previous posts in this thread, you would much rather have observation than theoretical models, would you not?
Allow me to quote from the description of that image:


Though no examples have been known in nature before now, theoretical studies had shown that spiraling horseshoes, like that in the cartoon shown below, are also possible.


This sort of orbit was initially predicted theoretically. Now, what theory do you think it was predicted using? The Electric Universe theory? I guarantee, the prediction was generated according to Newtonian physics.

And then there's this, from the bottom of the page:


Note: Gravity does NOT become repulsive. It is only the interplay between gravity and the physical laws of motion which creates this effect. Consider a comet on a highly elliptical orbit around the Sun. At its closest approach, it doesn't plunge into the Sun (unless it comes close enough to actually crash into it) but rather turns around and heads back away from the Sun. Did the Sun's gravity become repulsive? Of course not, it is just that the velocity the comet gained in falling towards the Sun is enough to carry it away again. The orbits of comets (and Cruithne and all other Solar System bodies) are regulated by this interplay between gravity and the laws of motion.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 




I stand by what I have said, and this has gotten far too petty.


This sort of orbit was initially predicted theoretically. Now, what theory do you think it was predicted using? The Electric Universe theory? I guarantee, the prediction was generated according to Newtonian physics.


But not explained by Newtonian physics. See the difference?

I'm not citing the electric universe theory, just pointing out that gravity often seems to act like electricity and magnetism, and many others have thought the same.


Science has been taking slow, groping steps toward a common explanation for all physical phenomena. James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79), father of the trend, stated that electricity and magnetism were nearly the same thing. Step by step interrelations have been discovered between electricity, magnetism, light, gravity. The general tendency is to reduce the universe to one of wave phenomena.
Little over a year ago Albert Einstein announced his field theory, asserting a definite relationship between electricity and gravity; asserting that they are interrelated to the extent that they are expressible by common equations.



Read more: www.time.com...

Which is the point I am trying to discuss.

And there is the Kaluza-Klein theory

staff.science.uva.nl...

And here is another article that coincides.

www.nature.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 



This sort of orbit was initially predicted theoretically. Now, what theory do you think it was predicted using? The Electric Universe theory? I guarantee, the prediction was generated according to Newtonian physics.


But not explained by Newtonian physics. See the difference?


How can something be predicted according to Newtonian physics yet not explained by Newtonian physics?



I'm not citing the electric universe theory, just pointing out that gravity often seems to act like electricity and magnetism, and many others have thought the same.


The two are similar, but they can hardly be compared in the way many of these theories suggest. For instance, here's something I posted in another thread earlier today:


Gravity only attracts because the universe is filled with regular matter. Introduce negative matter and, suddenly, you'd have repulsive gravity as well. However, there would still be a couple very significant differences. In the case of electromagnetism, like charges repel and opposite charges attract. In the case of gravity, like normal masses attract, like negative masses repel, and opposite masses chase each other around (as strange as that may sound - a negative mass will be attracted to a normal mass, while the normal mass will be repelled by the negative mass, resulting in the two accelerating off in a straight line).


The two are quite distinct.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MConnalley
 


Momentum keeping us entangled in a higher level web of energy, perhaps?

That is how I look at it.

There is a bit of a problem with Newton's 1st law of physics.

www.physicsclassroom.com...


An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.


The thing is, that there is no such thing as a body at rest, all objects are in motion. A rock maybe stuck in the ground, but is spinning with the planet at a very high speed, circling the sun at a higher speed, and moving through the galaxy at a very high speed.

If we equate "rest" with being in synchronized motion with the objects around it, then Newton's first law remains true, but some wider understanding of "rest" in opposition to motion needs to be recognized.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


That would be the basis of Relativity.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that doesn't explain why it rises.

I don't know what ways what theories tie electricity and gravity together, but they have many similar characteristics.

Gravity, electricity, and magnetism might be distinct in many ways, but just as it has been proven that electricity and magnetism are related, most likely a relationship with gravity will be discovered.

I think these near-Earth orbits are evidence of that.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Could yo offer a little more explanation?

Your point about repulsion, could it be that that aspect of magnetism be misunderstood? A result of other influences that have yet to be explored?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 


What I stated is still way different than what you claimed I said. I admit, I overstated with the forever comment, you got me on that one, but it still doesn't change that your claim about what I stated was wrong.

This is a stubborn attempt to distort what I am saying by grabbing one things I have posted that is wrong, and making it seem that everything I posted on the subject is wrong.

Your link is wiki, and it does not provide a link that backs up that claim, which means it is unsubstantiated. You have provided no more evidence that your claims are more accurate than mine, or any less biased.

You seemed mostly interested in dragging the discussion off track, trying to play gotcha. The odds of Earth capturing a body in a semi-permanent link is not the subject.

What you avoid discussing it that Newtonian physics does not explain this.

www.astro.uwo.ca...



This type of near-Earth orbit should open a great many possibilities as to how gravity actually works.


edit on 26-12-2011 by poet1b because: typo and add link


These objects, called Trojan asteroids, are understood extremely well, and the orbits (for earth's only known one, and others on the outer planets) all have been studied with no exceptions to the laws of celestial mechanics. Read about Trojan asteroids and understand Lagrange points. It takes modern mathematics to figure out the intricate dance an orbit can take around Earth, with the influence of the Moon and Sun, however it calculates as accurate as 1+1, and there is no mystery. If you get your data from spurious places on the net, you will get spurious results.
edit on 26-12-2011 by charlyv because: Clarity

edit on 26-12-2011 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


There is nothing spurious about my links, and the statements.

www.astro.uwo.ca...


Though relatively little is known about asteroid 3753 Cruithne, now that its most interesting aspects have been revealed, it will certainly become a focus of much more study. Perhaps Cruithne will be found to have more surprises yet.


If you got something to back up your claim, post it with some links.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


My response is to clprime, your data was copied in with the quote for reference, I agree with your analysis.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


Oh, sorry, I completely misunderstood.

I would really be interested if you have any additional links.

I would like to see some of the theories on why these orbits exist they way they have observed.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
 

I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that doesn't explain why it rises.


I'm actually running with that aspect, myself, at the moment. I've always been displeased with the fact that General Relativity provides no practical mechanism for the gravitational warping of spacetime. Everything is mathematical, and any physical theory based on math is bound to be superficial. So, I've been working on my own version of Relativity, trying to deal with that. It's been several years in progress, but I may finally be coming to some sort of end. Hopefully. If/when I do have a formal theory, you can bet the ATS community will be the first to know.



Gravity, electricity, and magnetism might be distinct in many ways, but just as it has been proven that electricity and magnetism are related, most likely a relationship with gravity will be discovered.


Snakes and worms are superficially similar, but that doesn't mean they're the same animal. I know this for a fact...I happen to be a snake-loving scoleciphobic.

Electricity and magnetism are not only related, they're actually the same thing. One observable consequence of Relativity is that electricity and magnetism are interchangeable according to different reference frames. Someone at rest may see an electric field, while someone moving may see a magnetic field.
We don't see anything of the sort with gravity.

However, I will give you this: I do believe that all of the fundamental forces do have a common carrier (even gravity, which I don't believe is a literal warping of spacetime...rather, I think it's quantized like everything else, even on macroscopic scales).
The only thing that I believe differentiates the forces are their sources: colour charge for the strong force, charge for the electromagnetic force, and mass for gravity.

Also, I agree with your focus on momentum. I believe momentum is probably the true fundamental unit of quantization, not energy.



Originally posted by poet1b
 

Your point about repulsion, could it be that that aspect of magnetism be misunderstood? A result of other influences that have yet to be explored?


It's always possible that any aspect of our universe is misunderstood, no matter how well we think we understand it. However, the theories we currently work with are well-tested and extremely powerful. That's where the burden lies on you to provide a better alternative. If you can't, then you (I should say, I'm saying "you" in a general way, not meaning you specifically) have no right to complain when we continue to trust established theories.



Could yo offer a little more explanation?


Sure. This idea of an object being at rest relative to, say, the Earth, but not at rest relative to the Sun, or relative to the CMB...it's the basis of Relativity. Take the following example:

Consider a single photon travelling through empty space. According to Maxwell's equations, in order for that photon to exist, it must be travelling at exactly 299,792,458 m/s. But, there's the problem: the photon is in empty space, so 299,792,458 m/s relative to what? Relative to the Earth? the Sun? Betelgeuse? This leads to the conclusion that it must be travelling at 299,792,458 m/s according to all of them.
This conclusion, then, is universal and must hold true in all reference frames: the speed of light must always be measured to be 299,792,458 m/s. The entire theory of Relativity (both Special and General) follows naturally from this. The constancy of the speed of light was not some arbitrary conclusion - it was a physical necessity, required for the very existence of light.

So, this idea of "rest" being relative, as you describe...it's the basis of Relativity.
edit on 27-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by poet1b
 
.
Gravity is relative to Mass. Think of a bowling ball being placed onto a mattress, the mass of the ball causes the mattress to deform under it. now try to imagine that happening in 3 dimensions, that is how mass distorts space/time.

It doesn't rip holes in it. the earth's gravity only goes out so far before the "gravity well" where you can put an object into orbit and it stays there, forever basically.

Because the earth has a moon, is in a solar system with a massive star at the center and other planets orbiting, there is a bit of tugging and pulling.

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.

there is evidence to support string theory
There is evidence to support quantum theory
There is no evidence to support an "electric universe" as of yet.


I'm going to pick at these standards a bit. The sentience of an object will determine what happens, regardless of its mass. And even in dumb as a pile of rocks state, mass does not hold the key, but the behavior of the quantum particles within the object-in-question are doing -- spintronics, it's new, but it's key in figuring out how electrons can behave like photons, to lose their object-ness. Having an observer is a factor. The weather is a factor. Something like moles in holes is a factor (physics terms, still learning the geek gangster slang). Then there is dark matter.

Then that bowling ball, how much does it weigh in zero gravity? What if it's a memory foam mattress instead of the spring-loaded kind? I have an air mattress; if a bowling ball approached that mattress at a certain velocity, would it bounce off or poke a hole?

Sort of like, which weighs more, a pound of iron or a pound of feathers?

Let's get to Lunar points. The Earth is quantum-locked to the Sun, and the Moon is quantum-locked to the Earth and the Sun. Tether-ball.

Astronomers need another moon, so they can name something new. Let's call it Sandalphon. And then of course, it's twin, set on the other side of the big moon, Metatron, aligned like Jupiter's shepherd asteroids. A meter-sized moon huh? Then they would debate about it being a "dwarf moon" and then declassify it as a pluto-grade moon. A moonlet, or a moonie. A moonie, hahaha.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Nice stuff guys, wish I had more time to post.

I have a theory I have expressed many times on these boards that I think does explain gravity, and fits into all observations I am aware of, but gravity is not a well, it is the result of the creation of large structures that are invisible to our senses, and momentum. What we see as light is the vibration of these large structures. The movement of Near-Earth orbits also suggests further that I am right.

I came up with my own theory in the 1980ties, somewhat similar to string theory, which was published in the nineties, but better in my opinion.

In my theory, there are no invisible forces, which are only an illusion of elasticity.


edit on 29-12-2011 by poet1b because: change or to of, and add a phrase.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join