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.

 

Was the Moon Once Powered by a Dynamo Core? MIT Research Says "Yes"

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 

The Moon isn't being pulled. If anything it's more like it's being pushed. Tidal forces are "stealing" energy from Earth's rotation, slowing it down. That energy is being converted to orbital energy for the Moon, "raising" its orbit.

The radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing at the rate of about 3.8 cm/year (and our days are lengthening by about 0.0018 seconds/century). So, in 100 years the Moon will be about 12 feet farther from Earth than it is now. In 1000 years it will be 125 feet farther. 125 feet is about 0.000010% of the current radius. It will be a while before anyone notices.



edit on 1/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Is there a mission to quantify the mascons and measure the density of the Moon.

Or is there enough info from seismic instruments to construct a computer model.

Is there already a computer model and if so where can i find it.

I'm asking you because i believe you are an astrophysicist or a real life Rocket Scientist, your definitely way better than google.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 

Yes. The most detailed gravitational mapping ever conducted is now underway.
www.newscientist.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you.



Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So as the moon is being pushed further away..is the same force pushing going to be constant and at the same rate every single year? Is there a threshold that the push is going to reach and eventually not have an impact on the moons course? It is crazy to think that the suns gravitational force can keep the earth but the earth has so much push on the moon that it is moving further away from us and the sun? Or am I thinking wrong here?

Lightmeup04



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 

The rate of change is so gradual that yes, for all intents and purposes it is the same. It is gradually, very gradually declining. But eventually, over many millions (or billions) of years, the Moon will be far enough away so that the tidal effects would not be strong enough to further increase its orbital radius.

You are looking at it incorrectly. It is not really a matter of gravity as such. It is a matter of tidal forces, sort of indirectly related to gravity. These forces depend more on the distance of one body from another than the actual gravitational pull. Since the Sun is at such a vast distance from Earth, it's tidal influence is much less than that of the Earth on the Moon. The Earth is too far from the Sun for the effect to occur.

It is, BTW, the result of the same effect which has caused the Moon's rotation to match its orbital period, causing the Moon to show only one face to Earth. The phenomenon is known as tidal locking.

edit on 1/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if they were dumb questions. I read something else providing info and was understandable. Crazy I read that the same face of Venus is visible from earth at each close approach. Maybe some kind of tidal locking going on with earth. Very interesting to say the least.

Lightmeup04



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 
Well I like to think it as my "job" in my spare time to dig out the truth wich is derailed or hidden by disinfo agents. And I'll give you a source wich shows that moonrocks are at least 1 milliard years older than the oldest rocks on earth.
This site is in finnish, but with google translator you should be able to cope with it.
New try link for you
Have fun!


edit on 31-1-2012 by WeekendWarrior because: trying to fix that link



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 


Not Found

The requested URL /astronomy/planetology/TerrPlanets/kuu/index.htm was not found on this server.

Please try again.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 
By the way Im using search engine all the time and I keep on finding precious information! But on many threads I see the same pattern..same people attacking the threads and quickly convincing the people to believe its BS!
Now I wonder why, because in numerous cases it is not BS. But some here has a status that whatever they say, it must be the absolute truth, no questions asked..and the following brown nose army helps their agenda.

So, Im not going to do the work for you by searching fo you, I know the info is there for those who wish to find it despite the fact that very early in the threads in one man's opinion its BS.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Sorry, I dont know why its not working, I just were on that page.. I will try to fix it!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Does it work now?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 


Those Moonrocks could be remnants of objects that have struck the moon.

They don't necessarily have to be OF the Moon because they're ON the Moon.

Cosmic..
edit on 31-1-2012 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 

I deleted "/index.htm" and got to the page.

I see what you are talking about.


selenologiset forces are not enough to crash marks the destruction of the extent for example, on Earth, so the investigation is evidence of about 4.5 billion years old formations always contemporary phenomena. Solar system evolution can be monitored by studying the surface structures of lunar impact crater and the traces. Formations are responsible for their own planet almost disappeared from the geological forces and processes.



Yes Moon rocks are older than rocks which have been found on Earth (the oldest on Earth now being 4.28 billion years old). The article explains that. Rocks on the Moon are not subject to the weathering and tectonic "recycling" that occurs on Earth. That is the same thing that Jastrow was talking about when he called the Moon the "Rosetta Stone of the Planets".

This does not mean the Moon is older than Earth, it means that the Moon preserves rocks better than the Earth does.

edit on 1/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Gee if we had a moon base like someone wants we would know the answers.

Just saying.

And moon dust dated older than the moon the moon has been hit for millions of years by solar system debris.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 
They could be, but then again, I think they would choose a sure spot to take the sample, they are not stupid.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


And moon dust dated older than the moon the moon has been hit for millions of years by solar system debris.

Moon dust dated older than the Moon?
Source please.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
If estimating age of moon and earth, wouldnt it has to be a known factor? I mean certainly it has been taken in account while making these estimations.
by the way, star for you to give effort to go through a foreing language page




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 

I was asking for a source that moon dust has been dated earlier than 4.5 billion years. I have not seen such a report.

Finnish must be a difficult language, that translation is terrible!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
I spoke of rocks not dust? And yes, finnish should be in top 3 the most difficult languages.

even translations from english sucks, but is understandable.




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join